this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2025
539 points (98.7% liked)

RPGMemes

13897 readers
1461 users here now

Humor, jokes, memes about TTRPGs

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 36 points 9 hours ago (3 children)

I'm still kind of disappointed and irritated about an old D&D group. The guy ran a game that was literally patriarchy.

There was a king who died. He had a daughter, who was ruling competently presently. But he also had an infant son. Now a civil war is brewing because some people want the son on the throne, because that's the male heir.

And he just played it straight and seemed to expect us to be like "Oh, obviously the son has a legitimate claim to the throne. and also absolute monarchy is unremarkable". To his credit he did let us decide which faction to support, but it was kind of exhausting getting a constant stream of "no, absolute male hereditary rule is good and normal".

It was a pretty fleshed out setting in terms of details and subfactions, but the core of it was just so very basic and unexamined. No one else seemed to give a shit, though. I did not gel with that group.

Meanwhile, some time before that I'd had a blast running a game. The players came upon an anarchist collective that had overthrown the old despot, but now there are counter-revolutionaries lurking that want to return the now undead tyrant to the throne. Also the neighboring state is rattling their sabers because they ideologically do not approve of a state without a king.

So I guess the lesson is games are better when you vibe with the group?

[–] VibeCoder@hexbear.net 2 points 1 hour ago

I’ve had a similar “DM’s unexamined biases” experience with treating certain races as inherently deserving of slaughter. Like, my first campaign ever was run with a goblin sorcerer who I got really close with. “There’s a war where one side is all goblins” is not a clear cut plot hook to get us to join the opposition by itself.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

To his credit he did let us decide which faction to support, but it was kind of exhausting getting a constant stream of “no, absolute male hereditary rule is good and normal”.

I think there's a very traditionalist patriarchal angle you can play on a game like this that boils down to the consequences of a shifting social dynamic resulting in upheaval you don't want/can't afford. An Elizabethan/Victorian Era might result in other women thinking they also shouldn't be second-class citizens relative to their husbands, fathers, brothers, and sons. Consequently, you get a First Wave Feminist movement, complete with street protests, labor strikes, vandalism, and the occasional act of violence aimed at a leading patriarchal figure. Alternatively, you end up with a reactionary fascist movement, as traditionalists launch capital strikes, threaten secession, or author fascist military coups. Maybe you get both.

Sometimes sticking with the old bad system is preferable (for your elite group of insiders) because you value social stability over progress. Especially true if the threat of a domestic insurgency is paired with some broader economic strife or external crisis.

I think its easy to believe "oh well, everyone is just awful and that's why nothing changes". But a cleverly written story can put you in the real position of making hard choices. You might find yourself playing the John Adams, explaining to your outspoken feminist wife Abigail why women aren't being enfranchised in the new national constitution, because we've already had a Shays' Rebellion, a Whiskey Rebellion, a Fries's Rebellion, and a nascent State of Muskogee to deal with, and you can't afford to splinter public opinion any more than the current compromise constitution already has.

Or you might find power in progress and decide normalizing political power between the genders yields an untapped surplus of loyalty and economic cohesion.

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 1 points 40 minutes ago

I think that's a lot of interesting stuff you could explore, but the odds of doing that when the GM is running on unexamined defaults are slim.

[–] mossy_@lemmy.world 20 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

I mean props to the DM for saying the current queen is ruling properly. They could've just been like "oh this queen just thinks she can rule as well as a man. she's actually hot headed and you note that public executions rise during a certain time of the the month"

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 3 points 5 hours ago

As someone that plays a lot of Crusader Kings I'd do this plotline specifically to give players the choice

Yeah, obviously the laws of the kingdom say the male child is the legitimate ruler, but if the nobles have a problem with it they can raise their little rebellion...

It's a free justification for taking their lands after we win the civil war.