« Jonathan Walton's Anathema | Main | More Kids, More Roleplaying »
September 19, 2006
How Much XP For a Blow Job?
I think that people just have to realize when they're playing with a married couple that, no matter how hard they try, the nature of their relationship is going to intrude on the game in any number of ways.
I recently wrote this in an email, in response to a fellow player in a game (that my husband gms) who brought up an issue he was having with said game. Now, as it turns out, the issue that he had was pretty reasonable, and I (think I) responded pretty reasonably, and everything turned out (as far as I know) fine; but, it, of course, raised the spectre of 'you get special treatment because you're the gm's girlfriend' in my mind, so here we are.
I've been gaming officially for sixteen years (I say officially, because my brother and I used to play pseudo-D&D with a geeky babysitter long before then (ask my mom - she's still mad about the pot lid we used as a shield and somehow lost in the backyard)). For, I'd say ten of those years, I've been the gm's girlfriend off and on, and now I'm often the gm's wife (er, in the sense that he's often the gm, not that I'm sometimes not his wife). In that time I've had several accusations along those lines aimed at me, and seen countless similar examples in online forums and the like (the apotheosis of these being the supposed 'queen bee' phenomenon).
Telling someone (or implying it, or complaining about it to a third party) that she gets special treatment from the gm because they're romantically involved is as adolescent as it is sexist.
It's adolescent behavior because you are blaming someone else for your feelings of hurt, anger, whatever. Own up to those feelings and have a real, honest conversation with the people you think are involved. That's how adults do it.
It's sexist because it is a charge most often levelled at women (or girl) gamers, and is predicated on the idea that women (or girls) are unable to play at a level equal to men and thus must resort to 'cheating' to succeed. It's also a way to protest what is sometimes (I've no idea how often, but probably fairly) a female incursion into a previously all-male space.
In my sixteen years of experience, I have played in games with women gms and their boyfriend players, and have never heard of anyone complaining of favoritism or unfair advantage being taken. Ditto games with men gms and their boyfriend players. Hell, I have been the gm's girlfriend, and been accused of being 'gm's favorite', even though the gm had a very real, male, favorite at the time (by which I mean everyone openly acknowledged and accepted this behavior).
When you use the gm's girlfriend excuse, what you're saying to me is that you don't think I can play the game effectively, you think that I'm a slut, and that I'm willing to trade on my relationship just to make myself look good. In the context of a roleplaying game. You're probably also jealous of the attention I'm getting from the gm outside of the game.
Now, with all of that said: if you're in a romantic relationship outside of the game, of course that's going to affect things that happen in the game. The same is true of any social relationship, whether you're best friends or jealous rivals. In a good game, hopefully this is acknowledged and accomodated in your social contract somehow, perhaps by agreeing to minimize those effects, or maybe you'll even use the game to comment on or play with your relationships. Completely ignoring or failing to anticipate them, though, is pretty boneheaded.
Finally, do you really believe anyone would trade real life sexual favors for in-game advancement? Really?
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8342026ca53ef00e5501e03f68833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference How Much XP For a Blow Job?:
Comments
Sing it, sister!
Posted by: Ginger Stampley at Sep 19, 2006 3:23:13 PM
"Finally, do you really believe anyone would trade real life sexual favors for in-game advancement? Really?"
Yes, I do, because I know GMs and players who have made that trade.
Posted by: Nick Wedig at Sep 19, 2006 4:57:12 PM
Nick:
Perhaps I should have said 'Apart from really freaky-weird people'?
Seriously, that really happened? You have to tell the story, now, because it's just too incredible and horrible.
Posted by: peaseblossom at Sep 19, 2006 5:11:56 PM
I get a lot of this. My general response lately has been "if you worked as hard as I do in X game, you'd be the GM's girlfriend too." But you're right, it's crap, especially in the cases where I'M NOT EVEN IN A ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIP WITH SAID GM. What, you think the GM's giving me special stuff because he likes my pretty hair? That's his problem, talk to him about it, cuz I'm not shaving my head!
Posted by: LizT at Sep 19, 2006 6:13:49 PM
You're probably also jealous of the attention I'm getting from the gm outside of the game.
BINGO!
Though I will admit to being turned by a pretty face now and again (much like I was recently turned by that high-level cleric with the shiny cross), it has happened a lot less of late, since I am now 40. So many of the gaming groups I have been in over the years have had love triangles, quadrangles, tetrangles, and such that the idea that you trade anything for sex is almost ludicrous. It isn't that you ask for things and get them, it is that they feel you are given things without asking. The two of you share a joke or a private moment even near gametime and you are both plotting against them. Sexually frustrated young boys (and older boys with no social skills) commonly express jealousy and competetive courting I would normally only expect from thirteen year-old girls. Not to toot my own horn, but I once ran a game where all of the players except one expressed a desire to sleep with me. three women and two men. I never once thought that any of them thought it would improve their character, they just thought I was attractive, or so they said. That group tore itself apart as players coupled or didn't. It wasn't the only time I have seen it, just the only time I was in the center. Most long-term LARP groups experience this. It is never about getting stuff, that is just the surface bitch. The thing that is easy to complain about. Underneath all of this is the jealousy that never stops.
Posted by: Ross Winn at Sep 19, 2006 7:20:54 PM
"Finally, do you really believe anyone would trade real life sexual favors for in-game advancement? Really?"
I play in the Camarilla Club. Happens every day.
Posted by: John Wick at Sep 19, 2006 10:12:08 PM
Pease,
I'm glad you brought this up, it's something I've been thinking about off and on for a while. I think that what I find so crazy about this sort of thing is that it's the female who tends to be blamed. It's her fault because she's the 'girlfriend'.
I mean, it's been my experience that female players do tend to get some preferential treatment in mostly-male games, but it's not that they're asking for it. It's more likely an outgrowth of our crazy cultural mores about male-female interaction.
Which is what makes it so crazy that blame is leveled as it is. People don't want to accuse the GM of playing favorites (which is probably a social power issue), but they don't approve of what's going on so they blame the girl? That's... that's crazy.
So, like Liz said above: take it up with the GM if he's playing favorites based on gender. It's just so odd the way our culture, or at least the gaming sub-culture, tends to provide women with preferential treatment, and then blame those women for it. Bah.
Thomas
Posted by: Thomas Robertson at Sep 19, 2006 10:16:40 PM
True story.
GM gets a girlfriend.
Proclaims at the next session, to everyone, "I have a girlfriend!"
And then gives everyone at the table some healthy dollops of XP.
Y'know, so long as it goes like that, the politics at the table and away from it can play however they wanna.
Posted by: Fred Hicks at Sep 20, 2006 2:09:48 AM
Now, word on the "approaching/blaming only the female is sexist" bit.
For the "no matter how hard they try, the nature of their relationship is going to intrude on the game in any number of ways" bit, though, the impact of this on the game varies tremendously. I've gamed with many couples who are great, sane folks, and while they may play a bit wilder with each other or ignore each other more than the rest of the group, it's not noticeable in the grand scheme of the game. I've gamed with socially inept couples who ignore stuff that does impact everyone's fun, and then suddenly snap and get all ugly at each other. I've gamed with crazy drama-couples that deny any responsibility for sending the game spiralling downwards.
In my experience, how a gamer does as part of a couple is close to how they'd do all by themselves. And as there are bad gamers, there are bad couples of gamers.
Posted by: Madeline F at Sep 20, 2006 3:14:14 AM
Pease,
I've seen sex get traded for in game abilities in a pretty blatant fashion -- mostly in LARPs played by late-teens/early 20 somethings. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen.
More common, otoh, are the more dubious and human areas in which sex, prestige, reward, and social standing all start to get mixed together. I've seen lots and lots of cases where a GM playing an NPC turned the crank of a player whose PC turned the GM's crank, and the emotional-sexual spillover from the table resulted in sexual or romantic contact between the people. From there the NPC, say, hooks up with the PC because they're fucking (IC/OOC/Whatever) -- if the NPC is a powerful player in the game, then suddenly the PC has a big leg up.
Then there is the situation where people get turned on by certain things, and so folks in game try to get those things so that they can be in a position to turn another person on. So, say, you've a hot goth girl who loves Tremere Princes in your VLARP. Any bets on how many guys are going to be powerplaying each other to get to that position where they can play the character that turns her crank?
Now, when that's where it is, blaming the girl is fucking stupid and no doubt about it. But, lets say that the girl does like the attention -- and lets further say that she starts activly playing game politics to get guys she likes already into positions where her character will be able to romantically involve with them so that they can be IC hot as well as OOC hot for each other.
None of this, btw, is hypothetical. I've watched it happen, and seen the morass of sexual confusion, IC/OCC flowover, and vanity politics go out of control on every level. This is far, far more common in LARP than TT -- but it happens in TT too.
Blaming the girl simply because she is recieving the attention is sexist, and no doubt of it. It implies that the game is a boys club and the girl the unwelcome outsider whose sexual escapades have messed up the game that would otherwise be working perfectly. But its equally wrong to assume that there aren't situations in which the females are just as culpuble as the males. That'd be sexist too.
However, it is interesting to see how women will get blamed on both sides of the GM equation. If a girl joins a group and the GM favors her, it is her fault for being a sex-temptress. If a girl GM favors a male player that she is attracted to, she's a queen bee and a pathetic whore trying to get the player to screw her. In either case the male is the chaste monk being pursued by the evil demon woman.
Luckily, the most golden advice of all is found right in the middle there: "Own up to those feelings and have a real, honest conversation with the people you think are involved. That's how adults do it."
Posted by: Brand Robins at Sep 20, 2006 6:49:04 AM
Whoa, okay, apparently my world view is a little skewed to the pollyanna. So, there are people out there trading on sex for rp gain. So, okay. I think we can all agree that it's still ridiculously unfair to only blame the woman. After all, it does take two to transact.
Posted by: peaseblossom at Sep 20, 2006 8:49:16 AM
I've seen this kind of thing happen:
You bring your really good non-romantic friend to your D&D group for the first time. They're a new gamer, and playing a cleric. Your character gets injured at the same time as another player's character. Odds are that your friend's cleric is going to heal *your* character first.
Posted by: Stuart Robertson at Sep 20, 2006 8:54:53 AM
PJ,
Oh yea, no doubt. You've got to blame everyone. After all, life only gets that fucked up when there are multiple dysfunctions running around.
Okay, now to go away from the screwed up sex thing and towards the other (much less commented upon) aspect: playing with couples.
In my face to face groups most of the folks I play with are married, and in most of those couples (all save 1) both partners are RPers. Thus we constantly are playing where someone's husband/wife is the GM. The only time this has ever been an issue is in the often noted "spouse is harder on spousal player" syndrome. Also known as "reverse favoritism."
I know that I've been guilty of this in the past. I'm not more likely to give Mo a break in game, I'm less likely. (You should have heard some of the unfortunate things I said to her durring one Bitches game. It was not my high point as a GM or a husband, I tell you.) Most of the folks I play with have often admitted to a bit of this themselves.
If there is an advantage to being spousal in our group, its that you're better at communicating with the GM. After all if Mo is running a game, who is she going to know better, and thus be able to target with the exact kind of story goodness desired, than me? But that isn't unique to being spousal, longer term friends will have the same advantage, and so it doesn't seem anything that difficult.
Posted by: Brand Robins at Sep 20, 2006 10:53:23 AM
Sexual play and IC/OOC spillover is probably the most rampant in online play, from what I've seen. I know very few people who play online who'll get their characters involved with characters of people they are not attracted to, and vice versa, once characters get involved, usually the players do as well. Even if it's IC, it's still intimate, and most people don't want to share intimate activities with someone who's a stranger/just-friend/unattractive to them.
When I play with Lisa (my wife, whom I fittingly met through playing together online), we have to specifically set up our characters to not be attractive to each other or they will end up together, and no other character/player can seriously compete. That's because we have powerful chemistry between us that shines through in the little sensual ways we play our characters. And you know what? I really enjoy that about playing with her.
So yes, OOC feelings/chemistry/attitudes/etc. influence the characters and games. That's really a no-brainer for me. The problem in a group setting then is not to let that take away from people's enjoyment of playing together. And that's really a maturity, experience, and common sense thing.
- Christian
Posted by: xenopulse at Sep 20, 2006 1:00:44 PM
Brand:
I agree, both with the reverse favoritism and the communication issues. I'd also add time to that list; as in, as a couple, you probably have a lot more time in common (driving to work, eating dinner, in bed, whatever) to talk about the game if you're so inclined, and sometimes that makes a big difference in how you both understand the game as compared to everyone else.
Posted by: peaseblossom at Sep 20, 2006 3:26:50 PM
Hmm. Lots to comment on:
Now, word on the "approaching/blaming only the female is sexist" bit.
Madeline commented on gaming with couples who "play a bit wilder with each other or ignore each other more than the rest of the group," and yeah, I've been that... also those that "suddenly snap and get all ugly at each other," and oh yeah, I've been that too. I've done the same as Brand -- reverse favoritism with my then-spouse (and no, the ex- part has NOTHING to do with our gaming, though the reverse is certainly true. :)
The great irony? Now that we're divorced we get along (and play in the game gaming groups) so much better. I can just chalk it up (whether she's GMing or I am) as 'that thing she does' and let it go, as I would with the quirks of any of my friends/gamers, instead of taking it personally.
Why I took it personally in the old days, I have no idea, but it does change the way things work, and how the two of you interact.
-------------
SECOND SUBJECT
-------------
Now, with that said, I *have* (and do) deal with gaming couples where the husband does agree to stuff for the wife that, if it were another GM or another player, would not happen. It has nothing to do with Sex, but it does entirely have to do with Gender. I don't like it BECAUSE OF THE ADVERSE AFFECTS ON BOTH MY INVOLVED FRIENDS, as well as the game, but I understand why I see it happen.
And it's entirely because the player is a woman.
Hate me yet?
I mean... okay, is it sexist of me to say that menopause affects women?
No. Simple statement of fact. Menopause, cancer, a stroke -- stuff happens to you, male or female, and it affects you. Menopause affects women.
So let me lay one on you.
The (male) GM's mate is playing, and she BURSTS INTO TEARS because she isn't able to [fictional example] convince the GM that their "Hide" skill should give them a synergy bonus to damage on their backstab 'just this one time' -- and it is openly acknowledged (long before, during, and after) that the extremity of the reaction is due to menopause -- and the GM folds on the issue, because he wants to make the crying stop...
Well. Yeah.
Is it off topic to this discussion? Maybe. Maybe not. The way I see it, part of this discussion is about "couples and how they interact and how that affects the gaming group," and this issue directly addresses that in a very real way.
If this particular issue isn't relevant to you and yours right now?
Wait.
Posted by: Doyce at Sep 20, 2006 4:58:00 PM
Doyce: You clearly have a problem player on your hands. This does not make generalizing her case to every GM's girlfriend/wife anything but sexist.
I still heard that shit when I'd been a GM for almost 10 years. Nobody thought my ex was getting favors because he was dining at the Y, or because he was buying me jewelry either.
Also, geez, I'm glad I seem to have missed all the games where actual favors were traded. The harrassment in the Bad Old Days (tm) was bad enough.
Posted by: Ginger Stampley at Sep 20, 2006 8:46:37 PM
Blaming the girl simply because she is recieving the attention is sexist, and no doubt of it.
I am singling this out because it is an especially clear example of the use of the word 'sexism' in this thread. If you blame a girl for something because she is receiving the attention, this is NOT sexist. Why not? Because her being a girl is not part of the reason for blaming her. If, on the other hand, you blame a girl becasue she is a girl receiving attention, then, yes, that is sexist. The difference between these two seems clear to me, and I don't understand how they get mixed up.
Telling someone (or implying it, or complaining about it to a third party) that she gets special treatment from the gm because they're romantically involved is as adolescent as it is sexist.
Now, suppose for a moment that in a given situation it is true. Surely it happens? Good. Now, can it be adolescent and sexist to tell someone the truth? Hardly.
So he could this behaviour be sexist and adolescent in general?
I have no experience with the phenomenon, and if you tell me that in the vast majority of the cases where this happens, the motives are in fact adolescent and sexist, I will just have to believe you. But I for the life of me can't see why it would always be adolescent and sexist.
Posted by: Victor Gijsbers at Sep 21, 2006 3:05:14 AM
Victor,
If you are actually analyzing the situation and come to the conclusion that the girl is at fault, or is part of the problem, that isn't sexist.
If, otoh, your first instinct is to blame the girl without bothering to understand the actual dynamics of the situation, that is.
I've seen the later happen a lot. A lot lot.
Posted by: Brand Robins at Sep 21, 2006 7:51:53 AM
Then we are in agreement. What I see a lot is people using terms like 'sexist' indiscriminatingly, thus weaking their meaning and moral authority, which is dangerous - so that is why I thought it worthwhile to remark on it.
Posted by: Victor Gijsbers at Sep 21, 2006 11:10:36 AM
Ginger,
I flat out disagree that saying "menopause will affect, in some socially adverse way, some of the female players in your game" is sexist, anymore than it is to say "prostate cancer and the resultant treatment will affect, in some socially adverse way, some of the male players in your game."
Sexism is commonly considered to be discrimination and/or hatred against people based on their sex.
This isn't about discrimination or hatred -- this is about (fore)seeing that these sorts of things happen, are happening, or probably will happen in a given group of inevitably aging adults, and entering that situation with eyes and heart open.
Posted by: Doyce at Sep 21, 2006 11:36:18 AM
Doyce:
I think it is sexist to assume that every woman will have the same experience with menopause. Further, I think it's extremely sexist to see any and all emotional expression from a woman as intrinsically linked to her reproductive biology (see also: all women are crazy once a month).
Victor:
I disagree. As I said before, it takes two to transact. Even if the gm is favoring his girlfriend in the game, shouldn't you talk to both of them? To make it solely the responsibility or fault of the woman is sexist.
Further, as I indicated, this is often not a response to an actual grievance, but instead a ploy by male gamers to punish a female gamer for a.) breaking into their all-male space and b.) attracting the attention of the gm.
Posted by: peaseblossom at Sep 21, 2006 12:11:24 PM
Sexism is also about power relationships accross gender, and in this vein, one way of shutting someone down is by jumping to gender-based assertions - the "dating the GM" thing or the "PMS" thing or the "menopause" thing - without going through and figuring out what the real problem is there. It shows a lack of respect. (And there are ways to talk about if these gender-based issues actually tangle themselves into things, but you need to be truly careful to make sure you're not just shutting someone down.)
Posted by: DevP at Sep 21, 2006 12:44:54 PM
Ginger,
I'd have to agree with your statement. It's not relevant, because I didn't say that:
"Menopause will affect, in some socially adverse way [note: non-specific language], *some* [note: not all] of the female players in your game."
Second:
"Further, I think it's extremely sexist to see any and all emotional expression from a woman as intrinsically linked to her reproductive biology."
You are, I think, really ascribing a lot of extra 'stuff' to the words I'm using. I'm not ascribing 'any and all'... -anything- or -any- kind of behavior to anyone.
When the player tells me "by the way, I'm going through menopause, and sometimes that means I'm going act... [pauses, seaching for the words] fucking... CRAZY... sometimes... so... I thought you should know, and be prepared," I do not think I am being sexist in taking her advice.
When I get essentially the same speech from three different players? Forgive me for identifying a pattern.
I identify a pattern when the two most-lethargic, junk-food-eatingest players I know both have strokes in the same 10-month period.
Posted by: Doyce at Sep 21, 2006 1:17:29 PM
Dev, you make a fine point. I'd perfer not to be painted with that particular brush.
[Female player] (fake example) misses a save in a d20 game and begins crying.
1. [Player] has no previous history at crying over the die-result in an RPG.
2. [GM] lets the failed roll slide, to cheer [player] up, and acknowledges doing so.
3. Both [GM] and [player] TELL US that the reason is perimenopause.
Now... repeat that theme with every player of that gender, in that age bracket, that I know.
These are not "problem players" -- they *are* player's with a problem they have to deal with, and who ask for help from their friends and family (of which I am, functionally, both) in dealing with it.
I'm not -- I don't even know how to quantify what I seem to be accused of here -- I'm not blithely pigeonholing every emotional outburst as "Oh, it's a ... one of those ... y'know ... 'women things'... menstrual-pause or whatever," because I'm not a bloody cave man.
My friends tell me what's going on. They tell me what's happening. They ask for some help with that and some understanding when folks like their husbands understandably bend over backwards to smooth things over. I'm not making anything up, or jumping to conclusions. That's what happens.
I do my own reading on the subject and see that the core cause of what they're going through is a physical event that affects all women, universally, as part of the natural aging process, though OF COURSE, as Ginger notes, differently for each person, and I draw what I continue to feel is a logical conclusion: "Menopause will affect, in some socially adverse way, some of the female players in your game."
I fail utterly to see how that's sexist.
This has also turned into a threadjack of the most egregious sort, so I'm just going to crawl back into the apparently misogynistic hole I crawled out of.
Posted by: Doyce at Sep 21, 2006 2:14:09 PM
To make a feeble attempt to pull the discussion back to PB's original post:
I think that people just have to realize when they're playing with a married couple that, no matter how hard they try, the nature of their relationship is going to intrude on the game in any number of ways.
I would like to humbly submit that, while personal relations between that couple (including the fact that they talk about the game more than other players, have social interactions the rest of the players don't, and yeahalsohave sex) are normal things that the other players should basically acknowledge and deal with, as PB says, there are other issues that come up that were NOT mentioned, and which also affect the game table, at least in part because those two people are a couple.
Posted by: Doyce at Sep 21, 2006 2:29:28 PM
peaseblossom:
I disagree. As I said before, it takes two to transact. Even if the gm is favoring his girlfriend in the game, shouldn't you talk to both of them? To make it solely the responsibility or fault of the woman is sexist.
Could you please point to the part of my post that you believe to be in disagreement with what you say here? Because I don't see where what I've written implies that it's not sexist to blame only the woman, when a man and a woman are both at fault.
Posted by: Victor Gijsbers at Sep 21, 2006 6:07:02 PM
Doyce, I think you may have stopped talking to me and started responding to other people in this thread some time ago.
Not specifically addressed to Doyce:
The part that makes this discussion sexist is that we, by which I actually don't mean me, don't anticipate the problem of the GM's boyfriend/husband. When the problem is "girlfriends" and "wives" and their behavior, to the exclusion of the behavior of both male GMs and the male SOs of female GMs, it makes it sexist. (Also, I'd be really interested to hear about the experience of lesbian and gay male couples in this regard, on general principle.)
I've seen plenty of finagling for favors of various kinds by the (male) GM's BFF, his roommate, and other close pals. I've seen plenty of men throw tantrums at gaming sessions, including one that left a knife vibrating in a table. I've seen men argue until they're red in the face and stomp out because they didn't like a GM call. So my anecdotal experience is that it's not about women, it's about bratty players.
If there's a bad dynamic, it's not solely about "wives" and "girlfriends" at the table doing something wrong. And IME, part of the dynamic that's bad and can contribute to that problem is the sexist expectations and sexist way that male players define and describe the misbehavior of female players.
It's a bad stereotype and women gamers get annoyed when it comes up. Sorry if rehashing arguments that weren't new when I was a wee gamer lass in the days of second ed annoys me.
Posted by: Ginger Stampley at Sep 22, 2006 4:14:34 PM
Also, totally unrelated to previous comments, but generally wondering about the stereotype: I wonder sometimes how much the kind of player frustration about bad calls from novice female players that generally drives this stereotype is really about the way whatever game is being played fails to meet the play-style needs of the player?
Posted by: Ginger Stampley at Sep 22, 2006 4:16:16 PM
Jumping in a little late, but I thought I'd offer my own experience on the subject. I've been the exception to a lot of the anecdotes that have been offered on the thread. The only time I've been directly accused of favoring my wife was by a female player. There was a bit of implication that other players felt the same, but the only person who directly said anything was one of the other women in the group.
(As an amusing aside, she experienced the same frustration with other players in the game favoring my wife over her.)
The same player also seemed to imply on another occasion that I was on the receiving end of favoritism when my wife GMed. Though that was a little indirect.
It was particularly frustrating because I've often made a point of trying not to appear to favor my wife. The fact that I wouldn't give her XP for sleeping with the GM has been an ongoing joke between my wife and I.
Part of the theory we came up with was that players familiar with the GM can sometimes "hack the GM." Every GM has biases in characters he prefers and ways of solving problems. Being familiar with that can get you a lot farther than other players in solving a problem, getting camera time, etc.
Posted by: Bolthy at Sep 29, 2006 12:05:36 PM
I just surfed in to this post from the Feminist SF Carnival, and...wow! I think I'm gonna need to bookmark your blog. I found myself nodding my head in agreement again and again as I read this post, and many of the comments.
For people who still aren't sure that they believe there's a difference in the way players react to the girlfriend-of-the-male-DM and the boy-friend-of-the-female-DM, in terms of accusations of favoritism, let me throw another possible combination out there - sister-of-the-male-DM. I've been that person, as well as the girlfriend person, and I've been the DM whose brother played, and whose boyfriend played. Accusations of favoritism have come up in only two of those instances - guess which?
Posted by: Revena at Oct 2, 2006 3:25:29 AM
