Fighters Jumping on Dragons

[Mask_De_H]

This thread is resulting most informative... an opinion on this thread is enough to discern which people I'd never want as GM.

This feels like it should be a corollary to the reason why we will never make a Den fantasy heartbreaker: you can't find five Denners you would want to work with or five Denners you'd want to game with.

[DSMatticus]

No, no you didn't get it.

When watching movies, tv shows, and playing games in which people jump on top of large monsters to stab them do you translate to be rape every time you see it? Was Shadow of the Colossus one big uncomfortable rape simulator for you?

Here is you not getting it.

Kaelik said, "I'm sure you think colossus climbing is super cool, just like Vincent Baker thinks RPG scenes in rape are super cool. But just like you probably don't want anything to do with Vincent Baker's rape fetish, I don't want anything to do with your stupid fucking colossus climbing." It was stupid (but I guess topical, given a recent silva post) to use rape, but the focal point of the analogy has nothing to do with rape or any properties of rape or the severity of rape. It is entirely about how someone might not want X in their game despite someone else thinking X is totally awesome. And because Vincent Baker exists, you can plug in rape for X. In that context, your "Shadow of the Colossus = rape simulator" joke makes no fucking sense. Because the point of the analogy was to not to equate those two things in any fucking way.

There's an ongoing joke in South Park where Cartman basically insists people are fucking him whenever he doesn't get his way. It's not that I don't get you. I do. It's just that it's a joke and it is very funny to see someone not only type that shit up but also try to defend it.

Here is you not getting it again.

The joke when Cartman's mother tells him no and he accuses her of fucking him is that the severity of the accusation (which he makes at length, completely straight-facedly) is completely ouf of line with what's actually happening. But again, Kaelik did not conflate the severity of anything with the severity rape, and the Cartman reference makes no fucking sense.

The entire time you have been cracking jokes and taking jabs at Kaelik for equating colossus climbing with rape. Given Kaelik didn't actually do that, it means no, you didn't fucking get it. And at this point, I'm pretty sure you know you fucked up, and are too fucking embarrassed to admit it, so you're just quoting the one or two places where you said something vague enough that it didn't make you look like a dumbass and hoping that works out for you.

[Omegonthesane]

This thread is resulting most informative... an opinion on this thread is enough to discern which people I'd never want as GM.

Well I already don't want Kaelik as MC after he went out of his way to cockblock Baali resurrection in After Sundown, and Lago is still defending the position in which he would prevent a VAH who had an explicit class feature of "Stunting (ex): The VAH can do things with her body that would not be plausible without this class feature. The MC should be unusually lenient in judging whether her stunts, e.g. jumping onto a flying dragon and holding on for dear life, are workable." from using that class feature properly.

Lago - is it incomprehensible to you that the game could just write "Being 6th 4th level or higher having a PC class instead of an NPC class at all is, by definition, superhuman and adequate justification for 'superhuman activities' as surely as 'being descended from Zeus' or 'being a frost giant'"? After all, you have rejected out of hand the idea that people should just houserule something similar for D&D even though D&D characters cross into superhuman exceedingly quickly.

And at risk of Slowpoke memes, you're not in a good position to condemn discussions and examples of what real people in the real world can do and how that could be simulated with in-game stats when your objection to "I jump on the dragon!" is entirely founded on what is plausible to you.

[MGuy]

This type of outright dismissal is a characteristic only found in the absolute worst, most tyrannical GMs. While there ought to be rules to protect players from GMS like you, it is also a shame that you're declaring for team douche.

Then you are calling literally every GM in universe the same level of absolute worst tyrannical except Vincent Baker. Because aside from him, absolutely zero GMs allow you to go out into an alley and wait for a woman to walk through, and then rape her over and over. And aside from ShitWorld (and FATAL?), no games have rules for your raping people.

I mean look, I get that you think your jumping on a dragon is super fucking cool and totally sweet, and definitely awesome just like Vincent Baker thinks all the same things about RPG rape scenes. But spoiler alert, I find your stupid forced dragon riding fetish to be shitty, extremely unfun, disempowering for other people at the table, and just generally an uncomfortable addition to the game that makes me want to get the fuck out of the room as fast as possible.

So when I play in games, I don't want that happening, and when I design games I want them to be designed to make that happen as little as possible.

You can have whatever weird shitty preferences you want, but for you to be literally incapable of seeing that other people don't share your preferences, even when you are being told that explicitly, is very fucking weird.

In the quoted portion from dead's post dead was talking about dismissing riding an unwilling target, something one would expect to come up "alot" by his words. kaelik then claimed, very specifically, that that sentiment was exactly as tyrannical as not covering rape in the rules. So to be clear, this is what I started with. Now you're claiming that kaelik didn't make a statement likening a simple maneuver like the one being discussed to rape? Whatever excuse you wanna 'ok' for him pulling that gem out of his ass is whatever but he was very clear that the existence of such a maneuver made him feel disempowered and uncomfortable [which was how he made the leap from rape]. So let's be clear that yes, he was very much drawing parallels between rape and 'X'.

Anyways when I said:

When watching movies, tv shows, and playing games in which people jump on top of large monsters to stab them do you translate to be rape every time you see it? Was Shadow of the Colossus one big uncomfortable rape simulator for you?

I was legitimately asking if that same feeling of disempowerment, discomfort, blah blah also made him want to "get the fuck out of the room as fast as possible".

So no DSM, I don't feel like I made a mistake. Maybe the Cartman thing was a bit off but I wouldn't say by much.

[RelentlessImp]

So let's be clear that yes, he was very much drawing parallels between rape and 'X'

That's... that's what an analogy is, you fucking dumbass. There is a vast gulf of difference between "likening to" and "saying it's the same". That's what analogies are fucking for.

[MGuy]

So let's be clear that yes, he was very much drawing parallels between rape and 'X'

That's... that's what an analogy is, you fucking dumbass. There is a vast gulf of difference between "likening to" and "saying it's the same". That's what analogies are fucking for.

I was responding to DSM not you imp. If you read 'his' post you would understand why I brought that up.

[RelentlessImp]

No, you complete twat, I don't see why you bring it up when the post is about you confusing "analogy" with "saying it's the same" - you even quoted your fucking self on where the entire concept of an analogy flew over your fucking head when you asked if Shadows of the Colossus was a rape simulator to Kaelik.

Good fucking god, get it through your fucking skull, and maybe brush up on your English skills while you're at it.

[MGuy]

No, you complete twat, I don't see why you bring it up when the post is about you confusing "analogy" with "saying it's the same" - you even quoted your fucking self on where the entire concept of an analogy flew over your fucking head when you asked if Shadows of the Colossus was a rape simulator to Kaelik.

Good fucking god, get it through your fucking skull, and maybe brush up on your English skills while you're at it.

DSM claimed that kaeliks statement had nothing to do with actual properties of rape. kaelik's specified how he drew those parallels to rape in the statement I quoted. So the reason why I brought it up was to say 'yes he did'. Because kaelik likened the maneuver to the dis-empowering and 'weird' notion of introducing rape into the game, that the addition of such a thing would make him want to leave due to discomfort. I then asked him about whether or not he felt like when he saw it in media. I'm not seeing what part you're missing but I'm not gonna drag this out for another fucking page.

[PhoneLobster]

That's... that's what an analogy is, you fucking dumbass. There is a vast gulf of difference between "likening to"...

You REALLY refuse to grasp that it is the actual "likening to" that is being objected to.

As in when someone says "That guy jumped on a dragon!... THIS GAME IS LIKE RAPE!". That is basically what is being objected to. It is sufficiently objectionable and stupid that taking the very small grammatical step to change it to "That guy jumped on a dragon!... THIS GAME IS RAPE!" doesn't especially change the fact that the version of the statement where it is an analogy, is still fucking monumentally stupid.

Mind you, I still hold with the perfectly sane and much more topical point that the statement "That guy jumped on a dragon!... THIS GAME IS RUINED I MUST LEAVE THE ROOM IN DISCOMFORT QUICK SMART!" is itself... batshit insane regardless of specific analogies and language minutia surrounding it, and that no one ever in the fucking history of tabletop games has ever actually fucking said that.

They sure as hell haven't said that in the countless games I've ran, played in and observed where players have attempted exactly that (really very popular) action and occasionally even had some actual GM/rules support and a success on the attempt.

And if I even told a story claiming a player had flipped the table and walked over it spouting rape analogies and insisting on their deep discomfort with the event no other gamer I know would even fucking believe me.

[RelentlessImp]

You REALLY refuse to grasp that it is the actual "likening to" that is being objected to.

That is not what MGuy is doing. He's saying that "someone compared something to rape therefore they are saying it is rape" and that is what I am objecting to, because that actually is willfully misconstruing what is happening in the situation.

Now, whether Kaelik is dumb or not for making the comparison is another argument entirely. Specifically I am calling out MGuy's stupidity in making the shit-tastic mistake of saying "comparing things to rape means it is rape to you".

[Stubbazubba]

It was stupid (but I guess topical, given a recent silva post) to use rape, but the focal point of the analogy has nothing to do with rape or any properties of rape or the severity of rape. It is entirely about how someone might not want X in their game despite someone else thinking X is totally awesome.

You're giving Kaelik way too much credit. He is now trying to contain what he said to just be "look, some people like a thing and others don't," but that is not what he said. Kaelik said he reacts to it like a normal person reacts to rape, and that is stupid.

Here's what he said:

But spoiler alert, I find your stupid forced dragon riding fetish to be shitty, extremely unfun, disempowering for other people at the table, and just generally an uncomfortable addition to the game that makes me want to get the fuck out of the room as fast as possible.

That is not how people react to a setting that's not their favorite, or playing a game of heroes instead of murderhobos, or any number of other things where the justification "eh, I just prefer something else" works. That is how a normal person reacts to rape in a game, which is why the comparison to A*World was apt. But this reaction is stupidly disproportionate, while the reaction to rape is not.

People are uncomfortable about rape in their games because that is a real thing that can or has happened to people they are/know in the real world in a way that death by magic or medieval weaponry cannot. It is disturbing even in the abstract. The reaction "this makes me uncomfortable at the game table, I want to get far away from a game that features this" is perfectly justified.

Kaelik's opinion that allowing martials to jump on dragons breaks his WSoD doesn't come from anything like that, it comes from what we have to assume is neckbeard-level grognardia where Fighters Can't Have Nice Things even if there are no rules saying they can't or even if there are rules saying they can. His claim is that if this is happening at the table at all, he is so uncomfortable that he immediately leaves. And his only justification for this is "mah preferences." And he's entitled to his preferences, and he's entitled to leave whatever game he feels so uncomfortable at. But we are also entitled to call his preferences stupid if it means Shadow of the Colossus induces him into a neckbeard-fueled rage and forces him out of the room whenever it is played, as he says in the quote he will do.

If I say "I find Eberron an uncomfortable addition to the game and will flee any room in which it is being played as fast as possible," that is my right, but it is also stupid. That is a disproportionate reaction. No functioning adult should abruptly get up and run out of a room because someone in an elf game tip-toed over a WSoD line. Kaelik did not just say that some people apparently like X and others don't as you're trying to make it, he didn't even say that he would refuse to play a game wherein non-magical characters having any non-zero chance of clinging to a dragon (which would be reasonable for a strong preference), he told us that he would feel uncomfortable and get as far away as possible, like a normal non-Kaelik person reacting to rape.

I don't know why you believe he didn't say he would treat it like rape, because he told you how he would react to this very thing, and it's not a proportional reaction to what really should not be a controversial element. It's the response that rape gets. That's why he made the comparison in the first place.

[PhoneLobster]

willfully misconstruing what is happening in the situation

No, it really seems the one intent on misconstruing here is you. The discussion between Kaelik and MGuy is really very, very clear.

You just seem to have some sort of seriously weird obsession with defending rape analogies broadly on principle regardless of fairly obviously objectionable/stupid context.

To be very clear for you, your strange need to defend rape analogies on principle and somehow as a separate thing to the entire discussion at hand somehow managed to take this thread, with it's Kaelik rape analogies and then somehow you made yourself the creepiest guy in the thread.

Seriously, whatever it is about your apparently deep personal love affair with rape analogies, I don't think any of us want to know.

[RelentlessImp]

Congratulations, PL. I thought MGuy had the biggest non-sequitur strawmanning cock around, but you've proven yourself to be better endowed than him in that area.

[Stubbazubba]

That is not what MGuy is doing. He's saying that "someone compared something to rape therefore they are saying it is rape" and that is what I am objecting to, because that actually is willfully misconstruing what is happening in the situation.

No, what is happening in the situation is Kaelik says, "People don't like rape in games, I don't like dragon-climbing in games, I treat dragon-climbing like rape." If not for that bolded part, you would be right. But he said the bolded part. MGuy is not saying that it is rape, he's saying that Kaelik treats it like rape, because that is specifically what he said.

[RelentlessImp]

You know what? If that's what he means, fine. It's not what he looks like it's what it means, but fine. There does seem to be a fetishistic element to the people screaming for dragon-climbing, though, and I don't want people's fetishes in my games either.

I'd have the same reaction to it if people were slavering dragon-climbing fanatics, too. If I ever suspect an element of a game I'm playing with friends is getting someone off at the table I would be immensely creeped out.

[PhoneLobster]

You know what? If that's what he means, fine. It's not what he looks like it's what it means, but fine. There does seem to be a fetishistic element to the people screaming for dragon-climbing, though, and I don't want people's fetishes in my games either.

So to be clear, you now acknowledge he said the exact stupid thing he did say, pretend it didn't look like what it totally fucking obviously was, then agreed with it.

And while you only implicitly did so (not counting your explicit urine fetish analogy, way to go on the creepy there BTW), now YOU are using the stupid rape analogy and claiming you would flee in disgust if someone in a game about fighting big monsters... jumped onto a big monster.

You would totally do that. Because I mean THAT isn't a monumentally stupid claim. You know. What with how people actually do that in games all the time and that response never fucking happens.

[Stubbazubba]

There does seem to be a fetishistic element to the people screaming for dragon-climbing, though, and I don't want people's fetishes in my games either.

Have you read this thread? This whole thing started because Lago said "If a VAH ever attempted to jump and cling to a dragon in a freeform game where no rules covered doing so, I would shoot the player in the hand for playing that character always say no because I hate VAHs." That is the absolutist position. Anyone else is just arguing for anything less than "autofail because DM hates your character concept." Whether that's "basic tenets of fair play indicate that there is some responsibility on the part of the DM to resist said prejudice," or "just write a neutrally-applicable rule," (the obvious answer), those are not fetishes.

[momothefiddler]

"You don't masturbate by sticking your fingers up your nose, idiot."

...maybe you don't.

[ishy]

This whole thing started because Lago said "If a VAH ever attempted to jump and cling to a dragon in a freeform game where no rules covered doing so, I would shoot the player in the hand for playing that character always say no because I hate VAHs."

I know you think you're being cute. But could you stop using quotation marks when you're strawmanning people? In fact, could you stop using straw man arguments altogether?

[Kaelik]

Well I already don't want Kaelik as MC after he went out of his way to cockblock Baali resurrection in After Sundown,

WTF are you even talking about?

No, what is happening in the situation is Kaelik says, "People don't like rape in games, I don't like dragon-climbing in games, I treat dragon-climbing like rape." If not for that bolded part, you would be right. But he said the bolded part. MGuy is not saying that it is rape, he's saying that Kaelik treats it like rape, because that is specifically what he said.

Four points:
1) I second the motion for not using quotation marks for your strawmanning.
2) I actually didn't compare dragon climbing to rape at all. I compared dragon climbing in a game to rape of a character in game. That is kind of a huge fuck off difference, because while rape is always terrible, rape of a character in a game can be okay, as long as people know in advance that that is the kind of story they are going to tell, and all agree that they want to play that game. Now, I personally don't want to play in that game. I suspect most people in general don't want to play in that game. But if some people do want to play in that game they do not become literal monsters for wanting that, unlike actual rape. So it is an important distinction that rape scenes occurring in your game is actually totally a matter of preferences, because rape scenes in your game is not rape.
3) As for this repeated "Kaelik treats dragon climbing like rape" shit, obviously first, look at 2, and Second: I said it makes me uncomfortable and I want to leave the room. It does make me uncomfortable, and I do want to leave the room. Notice that wanting to leave the room does not mean I literally get up and run out of the room, and I, as I strongly implied, would actually be more anxious to leave if there was a rape scene in the RPG. You know what, as I type this, most of the point is subsumed in 2. So moving on.
4) "BUT SHADOW OF COLOSSUS" Okay dumb shit, Shadow of Colossus is a single author fiction piece with a single protagonist, not a cooperative storytelling game. Forced Dragon Riding is disempowering to other people at the table, Shadow of the Colossus can't be, since no one else is at the table. But you know what else I accept from single author fiction? Rape scenes. Like sure, I'm uncomfortable with the scene at the end of the Beserk anime/third movie, who isn't. You are supposed to be uncomfortable. But it is single author fiction, and the thing where all the characters you like are completely disempowered is the intent. So yes, when a dumb shitty action movie has a dumb shitty forced dragon riding scene, I almost certainly hate it, or don't like it as much as you do, but I am capable of seeing that some things that I wouldn't want in my cooperative storytelling game could in fact belong in single author fiction.

For fucks sake, I also don't want consensual sex in my cooperative storytelling. And have had this conflict with Koumei on multiple occasions. Obviously it does not follow that I don't want consensual sex to ever be present in any media.

[PhoneLobster]

Well.

Kaelik's having another meltdown.

Again.

[deaddmwalking]

Forced Dragon Riding is disempowering to other people at the table,

This is the one part that doesn't make any sense. If my character chooses to attempt to jump on the back of a flying dragon (or a roc, or a griffon) this in no way implies that I have reduced the scope of action for other characters. Not only could they also jump on the back of the flying dragon, they could do any other action that they otherwise might do.

The only way you get anyone disempowered is to say 'you can't do that'.

Jumping is a thing you can do. Landing on an object or creature is something you can do. Potentially holding on or balancing is something you can do. As you add more exceptional circumstances (of which fantasy games are rife with) you come with additional mitigating factors that may change it from 'improbable' to 'likely to succeed'. In order to do that, you have to determine what factors contribute to the success of the action.

Whether you're personally uncomfortable with it or not as a basis for rejecting it is a strange position to take - as long as the game is about fighting and defeating giant monsters, riding the giant creature is supported by fiction, movies, and adventures. For many creatures (including humans) attacking a creature clinging to their back negates many natural weapons they might otherwise use. For example, in The Princess Bride, the Man in Black jumps onto Fezzik's back to avoid his dangerous punches. Fezzik is reduced to slamming into boulders to dislodge his opponent.

I don't yet understand whether you're rejecting the entire concept of grabbing a hold of an unwilling creature larger than yourself (which has been demonstrated as something that happens in real life with weasels, but numerous additional examples are available) or specifically just 'dragons'. If it is limited to 'dragons', your primary justification seems to be that dragons are 'smarter and stronger than you'. If that is not true, is dragon riding suddenly okay?

There are really only one question here: how do you draw the line between possible and impossible?

Please note that I'm not implying that any character has 'dragon riding' written on their character sheet, nor am I implying that any character is 'misusing' an ability to generate 'dragon riding' as an ability - instead, I am saying 'has thumbs' is sufficient to justify attempting to hold on to a dragon just as much as it is a justification for opening a door - or more precisely, that a combination of jumping, balancing, holding, grappling and/or riding is likely to contribute to success in these situations and with greater abilities one could use the abilities on increasingly difficult opponents.

On the subject of rape - using it as an analogy in this context is inappropriate. It quite obviously detracts from your central point and instead encourages focus on the analogy itself. Even if it didn't have other baggage, it's an extraordinarily bad analogy - worse even then fleas riding humans. Rape is something that can happen in D&D games within the scope of the rules. Rendering someone helpless is supported by the rules. The reasons to avoid playing with someone who includes rape in their games is entirely about subject matter/consent and not at all about use of the rules. In a game about killing giant monsters, tactics is inherently implied to be part of the game. I know for a fact that you consider the tactical elements of game play to be important - monsters should use their abilities based on their relative intelligence, and PCs should do the same. If there is a positional advantage to be gained from being on a creature, not taking advantage of it is damaging to the WSoD. Again and still, we're largely talking in the abstract without a specific rule set. Examples from existing rules are used primarily to indicate that this is a thing that people commonly want - if it wasn't, it wouldn't have been included in Tome.

[MGuy]

Well.

Kaelik's having another meltdown.

Again.

I don't know that it's a meltdown. He's trying to be clear that he feels that seeing a character jumping onto the back of a dragon is similar to a character getting raped. I am not sure why he feels that the distinction changes anything I said but he certainly feels like it makes a damn difference (it doesn't). He also suggests that he feels similarly about it in media. So at least honestly doubling down on feeling just as uncomfortable watching a play through of Shadow of the Colossus as watching a rape scene in an anime. At least he answered the question.

[Josh_Kablack]

How much fun is it when a character, ready to try
an amazing and heroic deed, is told, “You can't do that because it's
against the rules.”
Players should be allowed to try whatever they want - especially if
what they want will add to the spirit of adventure and excitement.
Just remember

I'm having such a hard time believing that anyone here is calling Gygax out as too soft, that I sincerely hope Kaelik and Lago can reclaim their accounts from the Trollnards who have sussed their passwords.

[Red_Rob]

I think you can make the case that jumping on top of a dragon (or other big creature) should be a lot easier than putting said dragon in a full-nelson, however.

Landing on top of it might be easier, but how easy it to stay on a giant dragon with not much in the way of handhold. There isn't a specific DC for "stay on a bucking bronco" but whatever you would make up for that should be higher than 20, and the DC to stay on a dragon you can't reach around or grip in any meaningful way, with 30 times the strength of a bronco, and intelligence, and possibly the ability to snake his neck around and attack or breath fire, and the ability to literally fly up or down at 6-8 times the speed of bronco...

I mean can you make a DC 93 ride check? No. Oh well then you can't ride a dragon who doesn't want you to.

Wow. I always thought the talk around here about DM's hating on martials was speculative, but I guess not. DC93 ride check to grab onto a Dragon and stab it while it flies around?

Let's look at some actually sane rules for high level VAH's doing this shit:

Grab On
Sometimes, you want to attach yourself to a larger creature, getting inside their reach and then repeatedly stabbing them or simply weighing them down. As an attack action you may attempt to grab on to an opponent.
Grabbing on to an opponent provokes an attack of opportunity and requires a check with the same bonuses as a melee attack. The DC to grab on to an opponent is their Touch AC plus their BAB. If you have 5 ranks of Climb or Ride, you get a +2 synergy bonus on this maneuver for each skill.
Holding on: Once you've attached yourself to your opponent, you go wherever they go. Move in to their space, and move where they do automatically (this movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity or count against your movement in any way). You may attack with any light or one handed weapon, and your opponent is denied his Dexterity bonus against you.
Being Held on to: If another creature has grabbed on to your character, their weight counts against your carrying capacity. If you're overloaded, you may be unable to move or even collapse until you shake your opponent off. You can attempt to attack a creature holding on to you, but your strength modifier is halved for such attacks and your attacks are at -4. You may attempt to shake your opponent off as an attack action by making a check with a bonus equal to your melee attack or Escape Artist and a DC of 10 + the greatest of your opponent's BAB, Climb Ranks, or Ride Ranks.
Edge Options: If you have the edge on an opponent when you grab them, they may not attack you at all once you have grabbed on to them. Further, grabbing on to an opponent does not provoke an attack of opportunity.

Wow, that looks almost like a high level Fighter with no special abilities could hang onto and attack a Dragon with a reasonable chance of success! I guess you've decided not to play or run Tome in case someone uses these rules and you have to leave the room?