Content warning: this post is about sex in TTRPGs and how some behaviors closely mirror toxic real-world attitudes toward sex, coercion, and sexual assault. If you found this blog somehow, great, but please prioritize your own safety.
I recently wandered into a discussion on Reddit (so my first mistake) about sex in D&D. Some of the discussion helped refine my ability to talk about it, and I think introduced some folks to some TTRPG safety tools, which is great. But some… was less great. It turns out some tropes are real and have ardent defenders.
Let me start by saying that for me, personally, healthy, consensual sex in TTRPGs is a Veil—I’m ok with it happening in games but it’s a “fade to black” (or “pan to fireplace,” though it turns out that phrase confused some people who aren’t as familiar with post-Code cinema tropes) moment. Sexual assault and sexual violence are a Line. I don’t want them in my games, at my tables; I don’t want to tell or be part of those stories, as a general rule.
(That’s not to say other people couldn’t or shouldn’t tell those stories. With the right group, and expectations, and game system (D&D is not built for this) and with someone else, someone better equipped for this than me, at the helm, I could even imagine trying to be part of a game that explored those themes. But that’s a lot of conditions—and there are more besides—and a big part of it would be answering why this is a story we want to tell.)
Sex is also one of my key session zero topics, because I’ve found it to be a great way to introduce Lines and Veils. It lets me open the floor with a very concrete example. And by establishing that at a minimum, some of these are already in force in this game, I’ve found other people more willing to be the second person to offer some kind of boundary.
My original comment—with the dubious honor of the most interactions any comment of mine has gotten in 10+ years on Reddit—mostly served to underline the thing I replied to, which pointed out that sex is a great session zero topic, and add explicitly that the DM is a player and, as a DM, your comfort counts too. I used the terms Line and Veil (and the “pan to fireplace” thing, whoops).
It generated some reactions and discussion.
One thread just wanted to know what Line and Veil meant, and that’s super fair. Jargon is a Thing, with complex purposes and effects, and I used some of it without explaining. A few other commenters and I shared some info on safety tools, and I hope they help some folks!
A couple of people were confused about the fireplace. One person thought I meant a cooking pan on a fire and was trying to work out the metaphor. Ah, when you’re raised on old films…
Another thread spawned over the idea of “roll to seduce.”
Honestly, I thought this was one of those memes that’s mostly a joke. Oh, har har the bard rolls to seduce the dragon and puerile humor and/or death ensues. But apparently a number of people use this in earnest in their games.
It feels gross to me because it treats sex as something to win, a prize someone may be entitled to. D&D doesn’t have mechanics for this—nor do I want it to. What are you rolling? Deception? Hell no. Persuasion? Straight Charisma to be suave and cool? (If you argue it’s Intimidation then we’re done and I won’t be at the same table as you anymore.)
Consent is something that should be continuously and enthusiastically given. It’s not something you’re on the fence about and get talked into—at least not here, not in this story. Too many people, mostly women, have found themselves on the wrong end of of that in real life.
“Rolling to seduce” (thank you to u/TheJohnarch for helping me phrase this) is one-sided. This is now something that’s happening to an NPC (and, of course, the NPC is still being played by a real human, the DM) because a player decided to. Gross, no.
It is far too close to an all-too-common real world view that sex is owed for winning or doing well enough. That’s what setting a DC on a Charisma check feels like: if you just execute this pick-up artist strategy well, you’ll definitely get laid. It’s a dehumanizing view of how relationships work. It robs people—again, usually women—of their agency. It treats sex as a prize to be won, as something the PC is somehow entitled to.
Some folks objected to the idea of respecting the agency of NPCs. “They’re not real” was one (specious) claim. “They only exist for the PCs to use” was effectively another.
To borrow from Brennan Lee Mulligan, characters—including the characters played by the DM—are translucent. There’s a real person behind these NPCs, because if not, why have a DM at all? The DM shouldn’t be forced to fulfill, nor should other players have to witness, another player’s sexual wish fulfillment. There’s a time and a place and it’s not here. (Though honestly if your table is into erotic D&D with enthusiastic consent from everyone, more power to you).
This is different than other social interactions or encounters and I am ok with that inconsistency.
Because it also, and this nuance may be the source of some pushback, doesn’t necessarily preclude rolling to be flirty or seductive when there’s some other goal you’re after. “I want to try to flirt with the guard and see if she lets some info slip.” “‘Are you sure that’s the best price you can do?’ And I wink.” Those are rolls, you’re trying to accomplish something. (Unless that is a line for someone at the table.) What that looks like and how far it goes depends on the table. (Spoilers CR campaign 2) Fjord’s arc with Avantika, actually using sex to further another goal, is fine for some groups and too far for others. Personally I’d probably stop at flirting.
The absolute nadir of the discussion, to me, was “we want to know what the bard is doing so we go peek in the window.” If sex is a Veil at your table, as it is (at least) at mine, then that, to be absolutely clear, is a deliberate attempt to violate a boundary established by one or more of the players. If someone does that at my table, the session stops, and that person will have an uphill, possibly insurmountable, battle to convince me they should still be welcome.
This comment was, predictably, followed by “it was a joke.” Ah, yes, me the feminist killjoy striking down pure fun yet again. (This is a whole other post but “it was a joke” is the most dismissive bullshit and it never was.)
I was heartened by the fact that many more people seemed to be on the same page—or at least upvoted as if they were—than there were actively defending “roll to seduce.” And I think the thread brought some awareness about safety tools in general, so, I’ll call that a win.
I don’t want to dictate where your table’s Lines and Veils are, or Soft and Hard Limits, or however else you’re taking care of each other. If you want no sex at all, or detailed descriptions—as long as everyone is enthusiastically on board—go for it. But I do want to suggest that you not use mechanics that treat sex as a prize or an entitlement; that you consider whether tropes or jokes in use take a dehumanizing view of sex. And above all, that you talk about it, out of game.
James DM 