This is an automated archive made by the Lemmit Bot.

The original was posted on /r/twoxchromosomes by /u/Srianen on 2023-07-30 12:37:15.

I spend a lot of time in TTRPG subreddits and communities because I am an avid player and have been for many years. Something I have seen a LOT is the excuse of supposed “historical accuracy” and “it’s all pretend” for sexism. I feel this behavior hinders women who are curious about getting into TTRPGs and it’s frustrating.

Today, someone made a post in a community I go to regularly, talking about how they DMed a game where the players must ‘win’ a young woman. The plot is as follows, and this is a direct quote:

A god hosted a party and competition of chariots races, jousting tournaments and more to see who is most worthy of marrying his great great great granddaughter and become king of the realm. My player and a legendary Elvish knight tied by the end and had to duel it out atop the sacred peak known as the Court of Feathers. My player narrowly won and has ascended his throne.

This really bothered me. It is the second post in just this week where someone made a whole plot about winning a woman who is essentially the property of her family in order to gain status. These posts are generally heavily applauded by the community.

I tried to explain why this behavior is a problem and also makes women not want to be a part of TTRPGs, and why the community is so heavily skewed toward men to begin with. I tried to explain why it was sexist.

My comment:

I’m sitting here trying to figure out how I’d even handle this kind of campaign if I was playing a straight woman or a gay man.

No offense but I’m just not understanding the concept of focusing the whole campaign on basically… winning a young girl as property to get a title…

So this guy responds as below. Whole community is supporting him and I’m just at a point where I can’t tell if I am being understood or not and if there is a better way to explain it, or if it’s just not even worth it. Because I feel like letting posts like this guy made just lie as they are, is only going to further discourage women to join. Just looking for advice at this point.

Agreeably, some people have brought up the fair criticism of how it is rather gross to have “winning a woman’s hand in marriage by means of competition” be a plot point in a game. So, allow me to clarify:Firstly, I do not condone forced marriage (obviously), and this arch was only a minor portion at the end of our overall campaign. I often put ethical questions in my world because they fascinate me and want to see how my players would handle them.In this case that ethical question was: "What do you do when you come into a foreign culture that enforces arranged marraige and a literal god beyond your ability to overcome supports the idea."The players even tried their best to get her out of the situation, and tried to support the competitor who participated to ensure she would not have to marry anyone if he won.I use history as a basis for world-building, and that includes the morally lesser sides of ye olde kingdoms. It provides an interesting contrast between past and present, which sparks the contemplation I enjoy. Obviously, that doesn’t work for every table, but luckily, it works for mine.

No players were harmed during the playing of this campaign. In fact we had great fun.

  • note, I feel he is being a bit dishonest because he said prior that the player did win her/ascend the throne, but now he’s saying they saved her. So…

Anyway, this was the last bit I had to say to him, but it’s basically just been downvoted to hell and I just don’t know what I am missing. I just need some help/better educated people on the subject to help me figure out how to explain things. Or tell me to give up, lol.

The problem with what you’re saying is I could easily change a few words and your point is basically the same:

Agreeably, some people have brought up the fair criticism of how it is rather gross to have “enslaving dark-skinned people” be a plot point in a game. So, allow me to clarify:Firstly, I do not condone enslaving dark-skinned people (obviously), and this arch was only a minor portion at the end of our overall campaign. I often put ethical questions in my world because they fascinate me and want to see how my players would handle them.In this case that ethical question was: "What do you do when you come into a foreign culture that enforces enslaving dark-skinned people and a literal god beyond your ability to overcome supports the idea."The players even tried their best to get enslaved dark-skinned person out of the situation, and tried to support the buyer who participated to ensure she would not have to be enslaved if he won.I use history as a basis for world-building, and that includes the morally lesser sides of ye olde kingdoms like enslaving dark-skinned people. It provides an interesting contrast between past and present, which sparks the contemplation I enjoy. Obviously, that doesn’t work for every table, but luckily, it works for mine. No players were harmed during the playing of this campaign. In fact we had great fun.

Notice the problem here?

You could also just replace all those words with ‘rape’, because that’s basically what enforced marriage is. Having a bunch of dudes fighting to save the poor female from her destiny of rape is… akin to a ‘white savior’. Maybe I’d feel differently if she was able to have a cool scene where she stood up and fought for herself, but in the end she’s still just the female victim/vagina for sale that the men decide what’s best for.

Also you had said that he did in fact ascend the throne so the assumption would be that the player did ‘win’ her and marry her… so your story doesn’t quite add up.