TRPG General Chat

4:16 PM

@Carcer Yeah, what you said is how I understand that.

rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/148911/… is this really a stackable question here? I feel like there's no definitive answer that we can give that isn't backed up by anything ither than anecdotes

Rubiksmoose

@G.Moylan It looks stackable to me! Backing up with experience is an excellent form of support here.

Xirema

@Rubiksmoose /agree

G. Moylan

ok I just wanted to be sure before I spent a bunch of time on an answer

Rubiksmoose

@G.Moylan Yeah I think you are safe unless OP starts coming back with edits revealing other issues with the question. Right now it seems focused if not a bit anemic on detail. It looks like there is enough there that closure is not a imminent threat at least.

@G.Moylan Do make sure if you are answer that you do support your answer somehow of course. Experience solving a similar situation, as you suggested seems like a good route here.

KorvinStarmast

4:23 PM

@G.Moylan I think it is a sub set of the toxic player problem, with a few particular wrinkles that table experience can answer.

G. Moylan

I think that's a fair evaluation. I'll write something up!

Xirema

Gotta say though, regardless of the stackability of the question, I suspect we may not be able to help the OP. =(

I'm sure the question will get some high-quality answers.

Well, okay, more specifically: I'm not sure we'll be able to help the OP, if we're specifically avoiding the advice "you'll have to kick the player out".

Rubiksmoose

@Xirema Yeah I really am kind of drawing a blank here. Like, how is this person, even if you get beyond the gods thing, going to fare at the table?

Will they deny other fictional fantasy elements? How will they deal with demons and devils and evil paladins?

Not saying that it would be an issue, but it could be.

nitsua60

@GcL No definitive list. For me, the most important thing isn't even the self-restraint that a rule like "no swearing" tends to encourage, it's the norm we maintain of "if somebody asks you to refrain, do so."

Carcer

it doesn't matter what language you're being offensive in!

Xirema

4:34 PM

@Rubiksmoose I mean, if you're starting from the position that acknowledging the existence of alternate gods purely within a fictional setting is forboden, then I have no faith that you'll be willing to accept a wide array of other "heretical" topics/content.

G. Moylan

@Xirema that's kindof how I'm looking at this. Dead/undead and demons and devils seem like they'd be a HUGE hangup here

not to mention resurrection

or heck even the casting of spells

David Coffron

@nitsua60 Yeah. I've used language (that I didn't even fathom could be offensive at the time) that people asked me to stop using. It's just good practice to adhere to such requests when reasonable. (i.e. in all aspects of life, but definitely here too :D)

Rubiksmoose

@Xirema exactly.

I'm a bit frustrated. None of the answers have been supported thus far. And all of them show a lack of experience dealing with this kind of religious person in this context. Or at the very least have given no thought to the broader implications.

G. Moylan

@Rubiksmoose yeah this is a tough one to answer adequately, I feel. There's clearly the potential for many issues here but I don't think restructuring the game world should be the first go-to

Rubiksmoose

@G.Moylan it is, in fact, even explicitly not preferred by OP.

Carcer

4:44 PM

well

the OP doesn't want to rewrite their world, but they also don't want to exclude the player - the only remaining reasonable option is to somehow convince the problem player to play along

answers along the lines of "you're just gonna have to not play with them" are in violation of OP's constraints just as much as "change the world to match" answers

Rubiksmoose

@Carcer right, yeah they have really eliminated most, if not all, of the solutions.

Sir Cinnamon

Which is at it's core, debating someone about religion. Probably worse for a friendship than excluding them from D&D

Carcer

isn't it a good job we've got the HNQ exclusion period now, huh?

think what a quagmire it'd be if it had hit HNQ instantly. Which it would've done.

Xirema

@Carcer Which is the essence of my concern. "Change the world to fit their whims" is bad advice, even in situations with far lower stakes. But if the OP doesn't want to entertain kicking them out, then the only possibly good answer is saying "Okay, I had a player like this before, here's what I did to help them feel comfortable playing the game".

So how many people are there that can honestly provide that answer?

Because I suspect it is a relatively low quantity.

Carcer

it's not going to be a lot, no

Rubiksmoose

4:51 PM

@Xirema I think the number will be low specifically because I think this type of person is considerably less likely to show up as a D&D player.

Sir Cinnamon

I would recommend asking on interpersonal

maybe even VTC

David Coffron

I've played monotheistic characters before in pantheistic settings (where the character considered everyone else heretical). It was a lot of fun, and my group totally enjoyed the banter (although I was still cooperative, bc greater good and all). Not sure if that experience would help though

Carcer

I feel like I have read an account or two of people having to deal with players like this, somewhere, but have no personal experience; it strikes me as relatively unlikely that anyone who has such strong feelings about that issues is going to play D&D

@DavidCoffron No, not helpful in this case I don't think (though I am amused by the concept)

Rubiksmoose

@SirCinnamon No, this is very much based in RPG knowledge. This is our wheelhouse. They can ask there as well, but I'd not recommend moving it at all.

@SirCinnamon Under what grounds?

Carcer

I've flagged it for mod intervention since it's almost certainly going to need some answer policing and probably wants protecting from low rep users before it hits HNQ

Sir Cinnamon

4:53 PM

@Rubiksmoose If "Change the World" and "Don't play with them" arent acceptable answers, I dont think there is anything left in the RPG space to talk about

Rubiksmoose

@SirCinnamon You can always challenge the frame of the question.

Carcer

RPG has overlap with IPS when the issue is specifically about the dynamics of tabletop groups

that's just something we accept, really.

I'm sure it's probably been discussed on meta at some point

Rubiksmoose

But "there is no possible answer" is no a reason to close the question. It is not a close reason at all actually. We are fine with questions that have no way to be answered.

Xirema

@SirCinnamon Well, like I said: there's one kind of answer that would nail their concerns. It's just a matter of hoping there's a user who either is a regular on the site, or catches the question through HNQ or Google that has the necessary expertise.

David Coffron

@Rubiksmoose Especially considering, even though there are many experts here, someone may come in with another perspective who does have a solution none of us could think of.

Rubiksmoose

4:55 PM

^

Xirema

So I don't think there's "no answer" to the question, there's just "an exceedingly few number of people who could reliably provide that answer".

Sir Cinnamon

Isnt that exactly why designer intent questions are "off topic"?

Carcer

I also find myself very curious about how old the querent and their friends are

G. Moylan

yeah I just wrote up a nice long answer and then sat there looking at it thinking that, depsite all teh advice I can give, I don't have explicit experience with the exact conditions they've described

Carcer

knowing the age of them and whether this is some kind of school friendship circle thing or they are actual adults changes the dynamics involved a bit

David Coffron

4:57 PM

@Xirema Definitely a rare occurrence I'd imagine. Most people of the ilk regarded in the question that I've met either avoid D&D altogether or play in settings specifically in line with their religious views. Anecdotal sure, but that's my experience

Xirema

@SirCinnamon Well, Designer Intent questions are off topic because Designers are fickle and often change their minds. What they say one day tends to not match what they say a few months later, meaning any answer that relies on what they say (which is how we derive 'intent') is inherently unreliable.

David Coffron

@SirCinnamon I think they are off-topic because there is not (or at least rarely) an aspect of the question where RPG-expertise is required, since it oftens boils down to "have you seen a designer statement" or "can you google up a designer statement"

Sir Cinnamon

Fair enough

Carcer

yeah, there's no good way to answer designer intent questions that aren't just "here's a quote from the designer"

Sir Cinnamon

Personally I think greater success will be found on IPS, but leaving it open here does no harm

Xirema

4:59 PM

If D&D had some kind of supplemental book, i.e. "Adjudicating the Rules, 5th Edition", where the Designers spent 200+ pages explaining and justifying each of their design decisions, I imagine those kinds of questions might be more on topic.

Rubiksmoose

@SirCinnamon Regardless of the reason exact reason, we ruled that that whole class of questions was more trouble than the value it brought to the sight. Importantly though, that logic does not extend to other types of questions by default.

Carcer

@Xirema designer-intent offtopicness is not limited to D&D questions, although that has been the subject of contention on meta IIRC

Xirema

@Carcer Just using an example: it's pretty rare for RPG writers to issue supplemental books whose sole purpose is explaining and justifying their decisions.

Carcer

there are plenty of RPG rulebooks which do include a reasonable amount of discussion explaining their own design decisions/core design principles

don't ask me to name any off the top of my head, I swear I've seen some

Xirema

@Carcer I mean, I'm not saying they don't exist.... =P

David Coffron

5:02 PM

I'm trying to think about how I've solved similar problems in the past, and it always boils down to discussing what kind of game the whole group wants to play. Perhaps the group would be okay if the only deity in the setting is the one the player desires to be sole numen.

Carcer

D&D and derivatives are notable for being particularly opaque when it comes to designer intent and it's not unfair to say that the designer-inet rule exists mostly because of D&D questions

2

Rubiksmoose

Random thought: There are probably more people that have played D&D with a religious person and had issues than the entire population of people that have played games like Roll for Shoes or any of the other tiny games we host answers to here on the site. [citation needed]

Carcer

which is an issue when people have designer intent questions about other systems which are way more open about why they are the way they are and there's a large body of material both within the works and outside them to explain a lot of it

but such is the sacrifice we make - I believe the outcome of the meta was basically that we know it's primarily D&D which is driving the problem but we can't specifically single out D&D for this

Transcript for