Actually going to agree with this one. To adress the other commenters pushing against this post. Yes, roleplay can trigger a trauma response especially if it is done without consent. And creating a backstory is far different than creating pieces of a backstory, having it passed around to the other players and having the potential of conflict because of rumors. A lot of people will find that fun (I’m thinking of using this in my next campaign), if you have had a terrible experience with this it won’t be.

On the other side of the coin, roleplay can be a wonderful way of facing traumas, but it has to be done right and with consent. Having clear communication between DM and players should be default and if allowing one player to not participate in that or have an altered participation (maybe leave out the one false), then so be it.

I also think it’s sort of fucked up to dogpile this post.

My strategy was to give the group some notoriety after they had done some stuff in the local region and have the local populous come up with really bad names and descriptions for them. Eventually they came up with their own name that fit them really well. They still have a few in jokes based on the names they were given. It felt fun and collaborative so I’ll probably keep that strategy.

Am I your boy?

You good. People complaining about business practices of a company who has become known for those exact business practices are wild. II personally just stopped buying from them because they’ve shown they no longer want me as a customer. I do feel like people like those in the article might do better to just stop buying from them. There are so many fucking great devs and games out there from indie to AAA, why would I continue to support a company who I feel is being unfair to their customer base.

Rhodes also seemed to be the only one physically affected. Like his muscles had atrophied. I also found that curious.