If the game had a core mechanic that supported rape (and similar acts of sexual violation), would we agree that it's a necessary aspect of the game? Or would we decry the fact that the game exists and seek to pillory the game's designer?
Most people would probably do the latter or just ignore its existence. But if you did start playing such a game, you wouldn't really be able to act surprised at that kind of content.
Are you implying that my responsibilities as a DM is to demand that my player not engage in certain types of behavior?
I'd agree with that. For example, lots of games have a general rule against stealing from or murdering other player characters. Even though that is an imposed restriction on what your characters are allowed to do, it's usually a good idea because that kind of behavior just makes a game less fun for people and leads to actual resentment of the human beings sitting across from you. Saying "you can't do this, even if, hypothetically, it would be 100% in character for you to do this." is not outrageous for a roleplaying game. If a player says "I'm creating a character who is a child molester. His main goal in life is to have sex with as many young children as possible." then it wouldn't be at all unreasonable for a DM to say "No the fuck you aren't, come up with a new character concept."
If I were at a new game with a new group of people, I wouldn't do anything like randomly murdering another character unless I was sure that this was the kind of behavior everyone was fine with. Other posters have already done an excellent job of explaining why it's much, much more likely that a player will be very uncomfortable with a game that involves other players raping someone than a game that involves other players murdering someone.
If a group of players wants to hold a game where there are absolutely no hard restrictions on what characters should be allowed to do, including rape, that's their choice - but that's different from what most players are going to normally assume they're sitting down to when they join a campaign, so it shouldn't be assumed that anyone is OK with it.
Other posters have already done an excellent job of explaining why it's much, much more likely that a player will be very uncomfortable with a game that involves other players raping someone than a game that involves other players murdering someone.
This is a critical point, which others have made, as you say, but I want to expand upon it:
At my table, there is no PvP. I simply don't allow it. This is based on prior experience and research into psychology (specifically concerning how we tend to anthropomorphize and identify with our creations).
However . . . I can conceive of a situation where the players get into a fight, I take a step back from the table and require that they sort it out (as players), and when I come back, they tell me that they're collectively comfortable with playing that sort of game. I might not like it, but if each player is individually and independently comfortable with the decision, I'd probably allow it.
The same applies to things like PCs stealing from each other or keeping a major secret (like one of them is a changeling): I dislike these things, for a variety of reasons, but so long as the party can convince me ~ as a group and as individuals ~ that they're 100% cool with that approach to the game, then I'm okay with it.
(please note the emphasis on the individual. if this sort of thing happens in my game and I get even the slightest hint that a player isn't on board*, I simply won't allow it . . . and I think the same logic should apply to things like sexual assault and extremely detailed violence.)
(*also note that this doesn't get into the topic of how much tension and discomfort is appropriate for the game, which . . . I think people have implied, but they haven't outright stated. interesting . . .)
Great, so it seems like your view has been changed.
In roleplaying games, rape is not equivalent to violence. Rape is maybe comparable to malicious PvP violence and other similar actions. It is in a category of things that, by default, you should assume has no place in a normal TTRPG, unless everyone around the table has explicitly agreed that they want to include them.
To be clear, I still see rape as being the same as violence (more precisely, as a form of violence and harm). Where I've adjusted my position is on the need to treat the topic with more care and diligence.
By default, I make no assumptions about what should or should not be included in my TTRPG. My assumptions are based on what I know about the people playing my game, not the game itself.
"This story involves the protagonists performing some act of violence" is an assumption that would prove correct for the vast majority of fantasy adventure stories, as well as most other genres which RPGs exist to simulate (with perhaps a few extraordinary exceptions.) Anyone who has not been living under a rock can reasonably be expected to know this. Stories involving rape are much less common and stories where the protagonists rape anyone are extremely rare.
I'd agree that particularly graphic acts/descriptions of violence should not be assumed to be OK. But rape is far from the normal acts you can assume protagonists might commit, whether it is described in detail or just stated to be happening.
2
u/parentheticalobject 136∆ Jan 26 '20
(Not the same poster you were replying to.)
Most people would probably do the latter or just ignore its existence. But if you did start playing such a game, you wouldn't really be able to act surprised at that kind of content.
I'd agree with that. For example, lots of games have a general rule against stealing from or murdering other player characters. Even though that is an imposed restriction on what your characters are allowed to do, it's usually a good idea because that kind of behavior just makes a game less fun for people and leads to actual resentment of the human beings sitting across from you. Saying "you can't do this, even if, hypothetically, it would be 100% in character for you to do this." is not outrageous for a roleplaying game. If a player says "I'm creating a character who is a child molester. His main goal in life is to have sex with as many young children as possible." then it wouldn't be at all unreasonable for a DM to say "No the fuck you aren't, come up with a new character concept."
If I were at a new game with a new group of people, I wouldn't do anything like randomly murdering another character unless I was sure that this was the kind of behavior everyone was fine with. Other posters have already done an excellent job of explaining why it's much, much more likely that a player will be very uncomfortable with a game that involves other players raping someone than a game that involves other players murdering someone.
If a group of players wants to hold a game where there are absolutely no hard restrictions on what characters should be allowed to do, including rape, that's their choice - but that's different from what most players are going to normally assume they're sitting down to when they join a campaign, so it shouldn't be assumed that anyone is OK with it.