The key word being molesting. Maybe if she did it compulsively (you know, being a sexual predator and all) and the team dealt with having a sex offender on the team, it'd be perfectly fine. As it was, it was just stupid and horrible RP.

I fail to see how playing another gender or orientation presumes one is more likely to be, "looking for a completely different type of thrill." My other primary PC, who I don't mention much because I have been too busy with games to build up backstory and downtime, happens to be a street sam/drone rigger who is on his own time gay. It's not like he was slapping (for example) Crit's PC on the ass, or drooling all over him just because he happens to be a high-Charisma and pretty handsome elf. Especially not in the middle of the damn mission. But that is also because his sexuality isn't one of the dominant characteristic of his persona (*cough* Talon *cough*). I know it's odd in cases with Player/ PC gender or orientation differences exist, but it happens sometimes.

So where do you draw the line between "tasteful" RP/Char Development vs. getting one's rocks off because they can? I mean I've had some sadistic GM's out there do things with characters to *force* them to have a little "interlude" with another PC, or wanted a backstory that had depth to it involving relationships, sex, etc.

Last thing I want to be characterized as is a gamer who is just out to get my "rocks off" especially being a chick. Just like I don't want to be pigeon-holed into the stereotype "girl gamer" because I like to play characters who are involved with RP that *isn't* just hack n' slash. Yeah, I like to "talk" I also like picking up an SMG or heavy pistol and tearing through a bunch of Banded's helmets too

This is ever so slightly too far. Original Topic.

Some things walk a line and are very group dependant. For example, a pistol adept based on Ryo Saeba from City Hunter who uses skirt-flipping for divination and centering will work better in some groups than in others.

The question one must ask is simple. Do the sexual aspects steal focus from the rest of the game?

Well, of course. The relationship goes both ways. if the player doesn't want to listen, then by all means they can get lost. But considering the context, how many times do you think that's happened after a GM or the rest of the group said, "Hey, uh... You sure about this?" You know, doing their jobs. Seriously, what kind of a GM just allows a disruptive presence into the heart of the game, or players to put up with it within the group?

All I'm saying is that maybe it's not always the players who suck. Maybe it's the rest of the group who, seeing a trainwreck in progress or imminent, does nothing. If the player refuses to listen though, then fuck 'em. But that applies well beyond this specific topic. That goes as well for the casual RPer, too. It's easier online because you can just ignore them, or let them find a game that is amenable to their playing style. Tabletop, I wouldn't know. But what annoys the hell out of me are people who just skip to the "bitching to DS" step, especially people who never once actually played with the player/PC, because that happens all the time. All... fuck it. n/m.

hyzmarca: Have you considered suggesting that if they altered some SR-centric setting features they could probably sell it to Harlequin? Or has anything like that ever, you know, happened? Anywhere. To anyone. These discussions would be a far deal more useful if they weren't full of exaggerations and caricatures of characters and players who don't exist.

Sometimes the social structure of a gaming group is such that this is very, very difficult. This is especially true for a group that has been gaming together for a very long time or a group in an area where there are few people around to replace the player or the problem contributes something important outside the game itself (like the place to meet and there aren't other good options).

Not every group was put together as a gaming group from the start. It may also be that the "problem" player is an alternate GM who does a great job at GMing. All of these things could be true.

Tinker has caught the correct.

Everyone seems to be saying "sexual orientation shouldn't rear it's ugly head during game play". Granted, we've all dealt with the immature gamer who plays across gender homosexual and is stupidly promiscuous all the time without rhyme or reason.

Still, though, I think you can make a case for a character being ridiculously promiscuous and not necessarily have it be stupid. I mean, for goodness sakes, the PCs are doing very dangerous work that could easily lead to them being killed or mangled. Of course some shadowrunners are going to go off the hedonistic deep end. When you could easily die tomorrow I'm sure a lot of people would hit the whores and ale hard to try and die of an alcohol overdose and cheat fate in that way.

Just think of how stressful that lifestyle is. Some people, IRL, when they are under a lot of stress, become promiscuous. Some self-mutilate. Some become alcoholics. How hard would it be to believe that someone whose lifestyle consists largely of flight-or-fight stress would take some form of self destructive behavior to the extreme.

Did you ever figure out what you were going to post regarding the original topic? You said you were in the middle of composing something.

Sounds like some players (and GM's) that I know wet dream.

But yes, there is a line of "in good taste" vs. "getting one's rocks off" that gets crossed and causes issue when no one else in the group (online or tabletop) wants to watch or listen to your shadowpr0n.

Sadly, far too many people don't know where that line is... until they've crossed it and gone so far people want to scratch their eyes out. Heh.

I've absolutely seen that also. In my opinion it makes a game very difficult to run because the player tends to not like it whenever things go wrong or that character gets messed up in some way or killed. For me, my games tend to revolve around humor, stupid cliches (like Sho Kosugi, or the loincloth powers), and tactical challenges. If someone dosen't want to die following a blunder, well, that creates a conflict.

Well, I personally haven't experienced that extreme, although I've experienced less extreme things in the same vein. I can certainly see that happening in a gaming situation.

Not exactly, since a lot of game play is "downtime" stuff. It's just that, mayeb it's me since I have a habit of playing characters who are more than usually professional through training, habit, or experience born from the lack thereof kicking them in the ass "back in the day." At this point it's mostly relegated to backstory and fiction, but only because I have been busy with other things to ask anyone, and no one has offered. Especially since RPing out certain interpersonal issues with *gasp* another person would take forever.

Lem0w3d!

Yeah, I agree. Nothing messes up a game more than someone being too attached to their character. A *game*, by the nature of being a game, includes the possibility of failure. If there is never a reasonably threatening possibility of failure which the players must apply themselves to overcome or minimize then it's no longer a game.

Well I kinda did at one time. Seems that a number of the points I was going to bring up, including cross-gender playing, have already been addressed rather thuroughly

As to the whole sexual thing in RPGs, that is a very fine line. If handled well by both the GM and player(s) in question, it can be good for character development. only as long as it does not take centre stage away from a session. For most, if not all my characters, the mission at hand comes first. Their personal life is background. While it affects their outlook and behavior, it is not the sole driving force behind all their actions.

The key is balance. Balance between having a well thought out and colourful character that also is able to contribute to the team's success, be it combat, legwork, technical social, or magical.

Well, gotta go for now, my chime in later.

I don't mind attachment to character. Hell, I prefer games in which people are attached to characters (as opposed to either hard simulationist games or slashfests), and I prefer games that are a bit freeform, in which the GM may occasionally mess with roll results if he feels the game, the story, and any plans he may have for theme or narrative or anything else may be better served by it. But the crucial difference is between players being attached to their characters, which is usually a very good thing, and players using their characters as wish fulfilment fantasies through which they vicariously and temporarily conquer their insecurities, inadequacies, and personal failings.

When that happens, you're fucked. It has nothing to do with balance.

See, but the problem is that as soon as you deviate from a strict and consistient application of the rules in the same way each way then you create an environment where there's room for endless complaining if peoples' PCs die. Once you've fudged once or spared someone once you never have a particular reason not to do it again. Combine this with people being attached to their characters and then having someone die just becomes a sticky business.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "attached"; perhaps we're thinking of the word in different ways.

Like, when I read "attached", I imagine someone who has thought of a lot of details about their character and basically dosen't want anything really bad to happen to that character because it would either make the character unplayable or mess up their concept of that character. Like, I remember someone who was really POed when his character SURGED because having a tail or whatever messed with the character concept. There's attachment, right there, but it makes the GM's job harder when there's situations where the rules say that something bad should happen to someone.

On the other hand, if someone thinks of a pretty detailed background for a character but absolutely dosen't care if the character dies, I don't consider that "attachment", since there's no element of trying to hold on to anything. This is how I characterize myself because I believe that for a fiction character death is just as much a part of the story as life.

There's a lot of humor, strategy, and character interaction to be had by a game. But I think that you really have to distance yourself and not care per se about the *character*, but rather approach it all with a "simulationist" mentality. I can role play thinking, "OK, my character's background and personality is this, so how will he react to this", but I can't role play properly if I think, "NOOO, my character's in a bad situation he's unable to negotiate out of, STRESS STRESS". I think that you're only free to really represent a character when ultimately you're willing to sacrifice that character at the snap of a finger because it means you can follow your character concept to any conclusion at any time.

Not really. Mary Sues are characters who are perfect in every way and liked by everyone. They also tend to be similar to their creators in many ways. They are basically the author inserting himself/herself into the story as a protagonist who relegates everyone else to a secondary role. There are other types of self-insertion characters - all-powerful godboys, brooding angsters, and so on, but they all are basically avatars of the author.


From reading about your character, I don't think he sounds like a Mary Sue. You were pretty open to changes to the character, and didn't have a problem trying something else when you realized that a previous idea had problems. But if you are worried, simply ask yourself some questions about how you would play this character. If some other character took issue with your character's philosopy, would you take it personally? If the focus of the story shifted to one of the other characters for awhile, would you be impatient to get the focus back on your own character? Would you sulk every time that a plan of yours failed, a social skill didn't work, or a spell failed? If the answers are mostly negative to those questions, then I don't think you have to worry about being a Mary Sue.

So, like a Knights of the Dinner Table character?

From: http://www.xanga.com/RPGpundit/454604506/item.html

And if the wiles don't work.. we resort to b00bies.

The "puzzle" game definitely sounds like my kind of campaign. Pretty much the way I like to write my adventure scenarios. Lots of subtle clues to pick up on which can be a help "down the road".

(ohh, that's what that abbreviation on the matchbook meant...!)

I laughed when I read this post because in my experience I have *never* had any player, regardless of gender, ever pick up on any sort of clues or anything like that. Years ago I learned that clues don't work; I must spell everything out. Stuff that seems like it can be puzzled out in the mind of the GM just dosen't seem to work with people who aren't the GM.