Why D&D?

[Voros]

Yeah, but that was being developed for a group of players coming from an entirely different gaming culture of "trust the GM to make up whatever". That culture doesn't really exist any more, players nowadays have been trained to expect relatively transparent rules and systems that they can understand and work with, GM's have been trained to provide that. Many books give bad GM'ing advice, but newbies aren't going to realise that for a while.

Sure there's people like you explaining that isn't necessarily true, but unless they know how to find your advice, they're not going to be able to learn from it.

From what I read (in Playing the World) the Referee position in wargames was created because of so much inter-player arguing over rules in wargames and even when introduced a lot of games still broke down into bickering over rules.

 

[Arminius]

I have to disagree there. How many people playing fighters can boast the strength or prowess of a fighter? How many can cast spells? Pick Locks?
We role play to be different, we are always playing outside our capacity. Social interactions should be no different.

I’m pretty happy with just the escapism of experiencing a different setting while indulging in a bit of power fantasy. Like John Carter (and notwithstanding some of the movie portrayal), my in-world avatar doesn’t have to be all that interesting to have a good time.

 

[TJS]

I've always felt like the solution to a character being smarter than the person playing them with puzzles was to have a list of clues about the puzzle in question and the higher they roll on an Int check or whatever, the more clues you give them.

That way it doesn't solve the puzzle itself, the player still has to, but there is an advantage to a character with a high stat in the appropriate place.

Yes. That can work. Something like this could also work in social interactions as well. In this it would be the sense motive/read intentions skill that would be key to allowing the players to get the extra information to help their characters be effective in social interaction.

I've thought about approaching it this way before..

Part of the benefit would be the player actually gets to feel like their character is socially skilled rather than merely told they are by the mechanics.

 

[Faylar]

Unlike combat due to character/creature being what they are. A referee can tailor how they roleplay to the interest and ability of their players. Just as I tailored what I did to accommodate the kid who stammer. This is why a human referee not the mechanics of the game being used is the most critical aspect of a successful roleplaying campaign.

This is no different then a referee not using the full scope of their ability to play the combat mechanics when the NPC character has an experience, intelligence or personality disadvantage that hamper their ability to fight as effectively as the rules allow.

The referee tailors how the game is run in accordance to the interest and ability of their players. Along coaching on anything that is esstential which may include roleplaying as one's character.

I'm not sure I am following you here.
I see it as any other aspect because, like any other aspect, you will have different player ability.
In all honesty, after fighting in the SCA and early life sword training, I would put money on myself over anyone else I play with in a sword simulation. I also know that I can roleplay out social encounters but I myself could never persuade a flea to jump from a drowning dog. So in this case I would think about what my super charismatic Mad Martiganesque scoundrel would do and declare I am doing that while letting the dice decide things as necessary.
just because my Bard can come up with songs on the fly does not mean that I can or should either.

So my point is that if we shoehorn people into playing to their ability for social roles, we should do the same for all other roles at the table... or not at all. We role play things we are not, in order to get a glimpse at what it would like to be them. That's my philosophy anyway. I've been playing long enough to see people's wives and even children join us at tables. I don't hold people to a roleplaying ability yardstick, I just encourage participation and watch them grow into their character and the game.

 

[Faylar]

I’m pretty happy with just the escapism of experiencing a different setting while indulging in a bit of power fantasy. Like John Carter (and notwithstanding some of the movie portrayal), my in-world avatar doesn’t have to be all that interesting to have a good time.

I'm not saying that you need to be heroic, but if you are running a campaign where you need to tromp through the wilderness, fight monsters and generally survive things that would otherwise kill you... you are still role playing beyond your own ability. there are obviously degrees to this all, but still, the point of roleplaying is to play out a fantasy, so why should we lock that fantasy to our own reality and ability?

 

[dbm]

Reaction and morale checks.

Negative reaction, fails morale? Cowed, seething, spiteful.
Neutral reaction, fails morale? Resentful, compliance with the letter of the demands and not one jot more.
Positive reaction, fails morale? A potential ally emerges.

Negative reaction, passes morale? Congratulations, you have a new enemy!
Neutral reaction, passes morale? Disinterested, shows you the door but won't hinder you further.
Positive reaction, passes morale? Willing to negotiate, demands a significant price in exchange.

What else you got?

That’s certainly better than what has been suggested so far

 

[EmperorNorton]

Yes. That can work. Something like this could also work in social interactions as well. In this it would be the sense motive/read intentions skill that would be key to allowing the players to get the extra information to help their characters be effective in social interaction.

I've thought about approaching it this way before..

Part of the benefit would be the player actually gets to feel like their character is socially skilled rather than merely told they are by the mechanics.

Yeah it can be used for social interaction pretty well too. You can have it be like telling them things like "oh, you find that the Princess is important to him", "he doesn't care about money", etc.

Basically you can use the social skills to tell the player the things that the person they are talking to cares about, so they can tell what buttons to press.

 

[Tyberious Funk]

I'm reminded of a conversation between Sir Laurence Olivier and Dustin Hoffman on the set of The Boys From Brazil.

Marathon Man

 

[OHT]

Marathon Man

I knew it was "Is it safe?". Got me films mucking fuddled.

 

[Arminius]

I'm not saying that you need to be heroic, but if you are running a campaign where you need to tromp through the wilderness, fight monsters and generally survive things that would otherwise kill you... you are still role playing beyond your own ability. there are obviously degrees to this all, but still, the point of roleplaying is to play out a fantasy, so why should we lock that fantasy to our own reality and ability?

I didn't say we should; but you said "Social interactions should be no different [from fighting, casting spells, etc.]," and I disagree. Sometimes I might like them to be handled more mechanically, sometimes not. IME the latter is much more visceral and "present" (in the VR sense).

Yeah it can be used for social interaction pretty well too. You can have it be like telling them things like "oh, you find that the Princess is important to him", "he doesn't care about money", etc.

Basically you can use the social skills to tell the player the things that the person they are talking to cares about, so they can tell what buttons to press.

Yes, I wanted to recall some illuminating posts by Lunamancer at theRPGsite or here, where he discussed the skill of persuasion. He emphasized the importance of finding out what the other person wants, as opposed to making someone want something they do not.

I think these approaches have their limitations, though. They don't necessarily solve the problem of seduction, or physical intimidation. They also don't help with PvP interactions unless the scenario is one where players really want to hide their goals and motives.

 

[TJS]

In traditional games, such as D&D, I'm quite happy to say that players just can't use their skills on each other. It prevents annoying behaviour. "I intimidate him". Nup. You describe what you're doing and they get to decide if it works. I don't see any reason to particularly limit it to social skills either. Picking party members' pockets? Nup. Only if they agree to it.

I certainly wouldn't use it for every type of game, but it makes passive aggressive skill use and generally dumb annoying shit difficult.

 

[under_score]

In traditional games, such as D&D, I'm quite happy to say that players just can't use their skills on each other. It prevents annoying behaviour. "I intimidate him". Nup. You describe what you're doing and they get to decide if it works. I don't see any reason to particularly limit it to social skills either. Picking party members' pockets? Nup. Only if they agree to it.

I certainly wouldn't use it for every type of game, but it makes passive aggressive skill use and generally dumb annoying shit difficult.

I've remarked before that my first couple experiences with 5e were terrible and put me off the game for a few years. One of those experiences was exactly that. Rolling intimidate against fellow PCs to control their characters. Very obnoxious.

 

[Dumarest]

Rolling intimidate against fellow PCs to control their characters.

Somebody tell me that's not really a rule...

 

[Gabriel]

Well, if you have a dysfunctional group of fucktards, RPGs are going to be unpleasant no matter what.

My second ever D&D game consisted of the other PCs taking my new character out back of the inn, and using the combat system to beat my character to near death, mutilate him, and leave him to die. Does that mean that all combat systems should be removed from RPGs? No, of course not. It means I was playing with a bunch of teenage pricks.

 

[Fenris-77]

Somebody tell me that's not really a rule...

It's not. 5E doesn't have any built in PvP elements.

 

[under_score]

I would not say those early games I played in were in any way representative of how 5e or any other D&D should be played.

 

[Faylar]

Well, if you have a dysfunctional group of fucktards, RPGs are going to be unpleasant no matter what.

My second ever D&D game consisted of the other PCs taking my new character out back of the inn, and using the combat system to beat my character to near death, mutilate him, and leave him to die. Does that mean that all combat systems should be removed from RPGs? No, of course not. It means I was playing with a bunch of teenage pricks.

Preach it. lol

Seriously, writing out every opportunity for abuse in a system seems impossible.
Instead, I prefer to write people out who make the game suck.

 

[TristramEvans]

Yeah, but that was being developed for a group of players coming from an entirely different gaming culture of "trust the GM to make up whatever". That culture doesn't really exist any more, players nowadays have been trained to expect relatively transparent rules and systems that they can understand and work with, GM's have been trained to provide that.

Ah that is why I much prefer indoctrinating my own players rather than recruiting people who already roleplay.

 

[Faylar]

My first foray into Werewolf the Apocalypse consisted of me making a Ahroun at normal character creation levels and joining a group with 3 others who had been playing the game for 2 to 3 years with the same characters.

I played according to advice and also according to the writeups of the Ahroun Auspice (Warriors)
one of the players, a Rhagabash (trickster) manipulated me into a fight and kicked my ass. It wasn't even a challenge, he was basically akin to a level 20 and I was a starting character. The player, then mocked me for not being strong enough and also mocked me in game for it too.
I told the group that I had had enough and that i they wanted to treat newcomers like this, they should find another player. They talked me into staying a few more sessions and it did tone down, but the group wasn't all that cohesive. most just pursued their own ambitions and power gamed after each other. I ended up leaving with a bad tase in my mouth for Whitewolf in general as It was insisted that that is how to properly play. even the local VTM crowd were unsurprised and said it was hazing.
just seemed like a dick move to abuse and take advantage of newcomers to me. Wasn't until years later I realized all WW did not require that type of play and they were all just being dicks for the sake of being dicks.

 

[TristramEvans]

Well, if you have a dysfunctional group of fucktards, RPGs are going to be unpleasant no matter what.

My second ever D&D game consisted of the other PCs taking my new character out back of the inn, and using the combat system to beat my character to near death, mutilate him, and leave him to die. Does that mean that all combat systems should be removed from RPGs? No, of course not. It means I was playing with a bunch of teenage pricks.

The most dysfunctional game I ever played in, likewise in my teens, I decided to play a female elven bard. It was about half an hour into the first game and the other players decided they wanted to rape my character. I turned to the GM and was like "Really?" but the Gm was into it, so I got up and left. But I had to go to the bathroom first, and I just went ahead and peed all over the floor beside the toilet.

 

[David Johansen]

Yeah, I remember the first time I played in a group of strangers when I moved away from home. My male character was held down and gang raped. For some odd reason I didn't stick with that group.

 

[TJS]

To me it's not always completely dysfunctional players. I agree that dysfunctional play can't really be resolved by rulings - although you can somewhat shield the rest of the group from being disrupted by one dysfunctional player by taking away their toys - at least long enough to identify the problem and remove them.

But even good players can sometimes engage in competitive behaviour with their fellow players at times - it's not always entirely dysfunctional - but if it involves who has the highest skill it bores me enough that I don't let it happen.

 

[David Johansen]

Somebody tell me that's not really a rule...

Sure, it's fine if the players are agreeable to playing that way. The maddest my wife ever got was the time I had a minor mind control item influence her character's actions. It was a gag, the ring they'd taken from the evil sorceress they'd killed made you look sexy and one of the other PCs had put it on and I was hinting at what it did but man, was she mad at me for taking over her character for even the brief moment when I said she was looking at the guy with the ring on in a way she never had before. Oh well, anyhow, the evil sorceress was 113 years old and looked it but with the ring on she looked like she was in her late twenties.

 

[Dumarest]

Sure, it's fine if the players are agreeable to playing that way. The maddest my wife ever got was the time I had a minor mind control item influence her character's actions. It was a gag, the ring they'd taken from the evil sorceress they'd killed made you look sexy and one of the other PCs had put it on and I was hinting at what it did but man, was she mad at me for taking over her character for even the brief moment when I said she was looking at the guy with the ring on in a way she never had before. Oh well, anyhow, the evil sorceress was 113 years old and looked it but with the ring on she looked like she was in her late twenties.

Ring of Beer Goggles?

 

[Fenris-77]

There's nothing wring with PvP when everyone's on board, and in a safe space with consent there's really nothing that's off the table, including depictions of rape. That said, the safe space necessary for that kind of game can be hard to come by, to put it mildly. Even without the sex, PvP is, in my experience, more often bad than good. It seems like a lot of players don't have the maturity (or something) to able to separate themselves from their character. Even when they've agreed to safe space, and an X card, and all the usual jazz, when push comes to shove they turn into a pimply 15 year old living out a power fantasy. It can make adult role playing tough (I don't mean adult as in adult films, but rather grown up).

 

[Faylar]

Hmm... Player Agency
This is dangerous territory. It is something that is purely opinion and something that should be decided on by everyone at the table prior to session 0.
Stuff like illusions and charms are there to deliberately mess with people's minds and unless you outright ban them from games, it would be hard to have them not affect characters too.
Having skills used in PvP, or even PvP actions... I would say hell no, not at my table... but others will strongly disagree. If you look at any multiuplayer computer game with a PvP and PvE playstyle, you will see two totally different schools of thought. I think its true of RPGs too.
We've had this debate here, before if I recall. and it got pretty heated.

 

[Faylar]

There's nothing wring with PvP when everyone's on board, and in a safe space with consent there's really nothing that's off the table, including depictions of rape. That said, the safe space necessary for that kind of game can be hard to come by, to put it mildly. Even without the sex, PvP is, in my experience, more often bad than good. It seems like a lot of players don't have the maturity (or something) to able to separate themselves from their character. Even when they've agreed to safe space, and an X card, and all the usual jazz, when push comes to shove they turn into a pimply 15 year old living out a power fantasy. It can make adult role playing tough (I don't mean adult as in adult films, but rather grown up).

I think the main issue is that people use PvP as a safe way to air personal grievances that they may not have otherwise aired.

My bad experience with this was in High School. We were playing Shadowrun and I had an Elven Magic-Adept. She was pretty cool imo, and I enjoyed the character a lot. She was a long surviving character in the campaign, and as such, being a magician, she got hella powerful.
One day, the normal GM was sick, so we allowed another player to fill in for him. That player used the time to boost their character, go on a powertrip and introduce new toys that are not otherwise in the game (recoiless rifles) He then encouraged violence against my character which another mage obliged with. they ended up mob minding a large group of npcs to capture me, ti me to a truck and rape me. I was given no chance to defend myself and it was all narrated by the GM.
Despite the original GM making it all not happen as of the next session, I was not able to fully play that character again and to this day, the interim GM will still bring it up saying, "come one man, that was funny, and it did happen!"

Its fucking ridiculous that people think shit like this is okay and still do it at tables as an adult.
Its also why I am firmly no hostile action against other players or player character's loved ones.

 

[Brock Savage]

I've remarked before that my first couple experiences with 5e were terrible and put me off the game for a few years. One of those experiences was exactly that. Rolling intimidate against fellow PCs to control their characters. Very obnoxious.

Very obnoxious indeed. I have noticed an annoying trend among garbage-tier GMs where they treat social skills as if they were spells.

Call me a carebear GM but I don't care for PvP in my RPGs. I encourage character backgrounds establishing themselves as friends, allies, partners, relatives, frenemies, etc. and am pretty clear in my elevator pitch that PvP is strongly discouraged. I have played in many "anything goes" games and all too often I have seen PvP used as an excuse for players with stronger, more aggressive personalities to bully others. Fortunately my group is a good bunch and I find it hard to believe any of them would enjoy intra-party conflict. All that being said, I would probably reconsider PvP if it was handled with OOC sportsmanship and respect.

That being said I LOVE competitive gaming. I have plenty of excellent board games, video games, and miniature wargames to scratch that PvP itch. Edit: I think the difference here is that everyone is a willing participant.

 

[Fenris-77]

Its fucking ridiculous that people think shit like this is okay and still do it at tables as an adult.
Its also why I am firmly no hostile action against other players or player character's loved ones.

This right here. Unless I'm really sure about the group, this above is the baseline expectation. It prevents so much silly shit.

 

[Gabriel]

Despite the original GM making it all not happen as of the next session, I was not able to fully play that character again and to this day, the interim GM will still bring it up saying, "come one man, that was funny, and it did happen!"

I am so sorry for your experience. I'm literally shaking with rage at this.

Some people just need a good ass beating, and obviously never got it.

 

[Faylar]

Very obnoxious indeed. I have noticed a annoying trend among garbage-tier GMs where they treat social skills as if they were spells.

Call me a carebear GM but I don't care for PvP in my RPGs. I encourage character backgrounds establishing themselves as friends, allies, partners, relatives, frenemies, etc. and am pretty clear in my elevator pitch that PvP is strongly discouraged. I have played in many "anything goes" games and all too often I have seen PvP used as an excuse for players with stronger, more aggressive personalities to bully others. Fortunately my group is a good bunch and I find it hard to believe any of them would enjoy intra-party conflict. All that being said, I would probably reconsider PvP if it was handled with OOC sportsmanship and respect.

That being said I LOVE competitive gaming. I have plenty of excellent board games, video games, and miniature wargames to scratch that PvP itch.

I do like the idea of pairing spells with skills, however. I was working on a way to weave the Charm skill into the charm spell as a means to offset it at one time. But yeah, skills are not spells. You cant hypnotise someone to do something they are steadfast against, so you cant charm someone the same way.
If you have an NPC with a genuine bond to a leader, they will not be persuaded with a skill alone to change colors... no matter how good the role is.

 

[Fenris-77]

People always seem to forget that without motivation and/or leverage involved, NPCs don't have any real reason to change their minds about anything, just like real people. Charm alone can convinced someone to do something that doesn't cost them anything, but as soon as there's a cost or any significant risk involved you need something to change their mind. So yeah, not spells. The spell approach to skills is also lazy bloody role playing in my opinion.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

When it comes to social skills I think PvP is something of a red herring. Exactly the same issues arise if PvP is only allowed with physical actions like combat or picking pockets. (Setting the party watch takes on a certain edge when your colleagues are allowed to shiv you in the night).

PvP allowed or focused (the two are actually quite different beasts) games are very much their own thing and require handling in a somewhat different way.

If people are interested I'll try and put together a thread on how to run games with PvP successfully tomorrow. From the comments here at least I think I may be one of the GMs on here with more experience in this area.

Note that I'm talking about good PvP games. The appalling stuff about people having their characters raped isn't what I'm talking about and all sounds totally dysfunctional. Anyone pulling that crap in my game would not only find themselves out the game but would almost certainly get hit with a club ban as well.

 

[TJS]

I think some of the examples are extreme. Most of the cases where players have attempted to use skills on each other over the years have been minor and only mildly dysfunctional: a player wants to roll deception to lie to the party about something utterly trivial, a player wants to pick another party members pockets for spare change because they think it is an endearing character quirk, a player wants to impress on everyone else how great they are at stealth by sneaking around the other party members just for the hell of it.

None of these things are game breakers, they're just fucking boring and annoying.

 

[Brock Savage]

If people are interested I'll try and put together a thread on how to run games with PvP successfully tomorrow. From the comments here at least I think I may be one of the GMs on here with more experience in this area.

Count me interested. I've never seen it handled in a satisfactory manner although I concede that it is absolutely possible with a bro-tier group of players.

None of these things are game breakers, they're just fucking boring and annoying.

That's pretty much my experience with PvP conflict. Nothing terrible like some of the examples cited but unsatisfactory, annoying, and uninteresting.

 

[Fenris-77]

I really like PvP when the characters have actual goals and motivations that bring them into conflict. Not at the level of arguing, but at the level of wanting mutually incompatible things.

 

[T. Foster]

I like friendly rivalry and competition between PCs, over who gets the most treasure and best magic items, who gains levels fastest, who has the biggest retinue of followers, and eventually who has the biggest castle and freehold and army. I like it when characters of different races and alignments, or clerics of different deities, bicker and bust each other’s balls and try to one up each other. I’m even okay if this sort of dick-sizing escalates into an occasional non-lethal duel - basically the interpersonal dynamic of the first couple Avengers movies.

But I draw the line at actual non-friendly PvP - players trying to actually dominate, harm, or kill each other’s characters except in very rare circumstances where both players have agreed - likely a case where both players had multiple active characters and the feud only affected a particular subset but both players would still be on good terms with other characters.

I played in enough games as a kid where bad feelings between players carried over in and out of game, and even as an adult where players clearly didn’t like each other, and I don’t want anything in the game that contributes to or exacerbates that because it’s not fun for anybody. I expect a lot of emotional maturity from the people I play with, and I’d way rather not play with someone than have to deal with their drama.

 

[robertsconley]

Sure there's people like you explaining that isn't necessarily true, but unless they know how to find your advice, they're not going to be able to learn from it.

Compared to the reach that Wizards, Paizo, or a Matt Colville I am a drop in a large pond. But even a drop makes a ripple.

And it is enough for me because the point isn't to exceed what a WoTC or Paizo does. The point is to exceed what I do. I am putting out or saying more useful things now compared to a few years ago. This is feasible because of the efficiency of the internet and digital technology. It allows me to do what I can, when I can within the time and resources I have for a hobby.

Or it could a result of the fact I am 50% deaf and don' t notice the loud din that Wizard and Paizo are making. ;-)

Yeah, but that was being developed for a group of players coming from an entirely different gaming culture of "trust the GM to make up whatever". That culture doesn't really exist any more, players nowadays have been trained to expect relatively transparent rules and systems that they can understand and work with, GM's have been trained to provide that. Many books give bad GM'ing advice, but newbies aren't going to realise that for a while.

It not easy but not hard either.

For example my insistence on first person roleplaying. I don't lecture the players about it. I just do it. I look them in the eyes and say "So how can I help you there, I have a fine selection of swords." It not 100% but the odds are high they will just respond right back in first person. Most of the time it clearly themselves speaking and I just roll with it. The player continues to insist on speaking in third person like they are playing a boardgame. I don't break "character" and just respond in first person. Maybe ask "So would like that the hilt of that there short sword wrapped in goat hide, or Corinthian leather? The goat hide is easier on the hand, but the leather allows for a better grip." At some point they begin to respond in first person.

The real problem is this, the fact that I am in my 50s, and have decades of refereeing experience. Tabletop refereeing reward actual play experience over smarts. The only way to counter the issue you brought up is to keep tackling them building up a body of experience that give you the technique to bring a novice group around to how you run things. So I just don't stick to my home group, I play sessions at conventions, run game store campaign where the players change from week to week. Figure what little thing I can do to help folks enjoy my campaigns a little bit better the next time around.

So far I am still working out how to effectively communicate my experiences in a way that useful to the rest of the hobby. It still a work in progress.

 

[robertsconley]

I'm not sure I am following you here.
I see it as any other aspect because, like any other aspect, you will have different player ability.

That true.

In all honesty, after fighting in the SCA and early life sword training, I would put money on myself over anyone else I play with in a sword simulation. I also know that I can roleplay out social encounters but I myself could never persuade a flea to jump from a drowning dog.

If you played a 16 Charisma in one of my campaign, and I saw that you had a decent plan but your execution would never persuade a flea to jump from a drowning dog. I would roleplay it as if you succeed. Of course in actual play it is a bit more nuanced but that general gist.

Broadly speaking, I don't view that any different then the situation with the guy who stammered. Everybody in life is different in how they can handle social, intellectual, and physical activities. However I find that most players can make a coherent plan involving all three. So if your character has the skill or stats to back your play, and you can make a plan that makes sense, but the execution is off, well I am going to give the same odds as the players who has mad acting skills.

I am not saying any of this is particularly easy but not particularly hard. Do it enough times and you will get a feel for where the line is between make sure the player is having a good time despite not having some real life skill or ability versus just making it too easy.

I don't hold people to a roleplaying ability yardstick, I just encourage participation and watch them grow into their character and the game.

That my goal as well, the difference being I want the this group to feel like they have visited my setting and had some interesting adventures. A pen & paper virtual reality in a sense. Not managing a board or war game night as the host referee. The rules of the games are a tool that I use to make this happen. Used when it helpful like playing out a combat encounter, to be put away or minimized when they are not like during a roleplaying encounter.

 

[CRKrueger]

I think the main issue is that people use PvP as a safe way to air personal grievances that they may not have otherwise aired.

My bad experience with this was in High School. We were playing Shadowrun and I had an Elven Magic-Adept. She was pretty cool imo, and I enjoyed the character a lot. She was a long surviving character in the campaign, and as such, being a magician, she got hella powerful.
One day, the normal GM was sick, so we allowed another player to fill in for him. That player used the time to boost their character, go on a powertrip and introduce new toys that are not otherwise in the game (recoiless rifles) He then encouraged violence against my character which another mage obliged with. they ended up mob minding a large group of npcs to capture me, ti me to a truck and rape me. I was given no chance to defend myself and it was all narrated by the GM.
Despite the original GM making it all not happen as of the next session, I was not able to fully play that character again and to this day, the interim GM will still bring it up saying, "come one man, that was funny, and it did happen!"

Its fucking ridiculous that people think shit like this is okay and still do it at tables as an adult.
Its also why I am firmly no hostile action against other players or player character's loved ones.

The interim GM will still bring it up...? You still play with that asshole?