# Consent in Gaming - Free Guidebook



## jgsugden (Sep 13, 2019)

Consent in Gaming - Monte Cook Games
					

Tackle Mature Content with Confidence! From fending off an attack by bloodthirsty pirates to delving into dank caverns, roleplaying games … Consent in Gaming




					www.montecookgames.com
				




Sean Reynolds and Shanna Germain have a free book on Monte Cook's site that is worth a look.  It is a worthwhile read, whether you're in the camp that thinks it is going overboard or the camp that thinks that tools like this are desperately needed.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 13, 2019)

Warning to potential replies. If you’re planning on posting some alt-right rant against inclusivity here, don’t. You’ll be shown the door.


----------



## Shardstone (Sep 13, 2019)

Nifty! I got into a big argument about this on Facebook. A lot of people don't have a good reason for not liking this I found; it seems effective and useful.


----------



## MNblockhead (Sep 13, 2019)

You have to give your contact info including e-mail to set up an account to download this, so I expect I'll be clicking on unsubscribe links in the footer of a mass e-mail from Monte Cook Games in the near future, but I do appreciate that they are making this available to the gaming community for free.

The 13 page booklet is about what I expected, general rules to raise awareness and encourage an etiquette of sensitivity at the gaming table. I feel it is much more appropriate for public games at conventions and game stores where most of the participants are strangers to one another. Even then, I find some of the exhortations will be difficult for many DM to implement and perhaps hard to accept by some players.

For example, "The default answer is 'no'."  In this section the authors state that consent should start with opting _in_ to things you want to try in the game. Yet, it immediately goes on to contradict itself by stating that "its inevitable that sometimes it also involves opting out of things you want to avoid." 

To me this is the crux of the problem. TTRPGs are very open ended and it is very difficult to scope out everything that may come up in the game. Saying that the default is "no" is rather pointless. Better to simply state that the before the gaming starts that it is a good idea to clearly explain the tone of the game and kinds of things that may be encountered and what is and is not acceptable for the session. But if something comes up that was not anticipated, which a player was not expecting and is upsetting, there should be ways to address this. I would have appreciated seeing more tips on how this can best be addressed.

Unfortunately, the answer to how to address this is that each player has a veto. "It doesn't matter why consent wasn't given".  "There may not be a reason why they're not consenting."  "It's not up for debate." "They can always change their mind about what they are or aren't consenting to."

While in most cases an empathetic DM and other players can and will try to be accommodating, strict adherence to rules like seem vulnerable to abuse. The only rule that I can't get 100% on board with is:

"Anyone is allowed to leave an uncomfortable situation at any time." 

Obviously nobody should be pressured to keep playing in an uncomfortable situation, but if a group is enjoying a game and are within the agreed-upon scope of content, maybe the one person who is not comfortable needs to step away from that scene or maybe it just isn't the game for them.

I do like the checklist at the end of the booklet which would be helpful for a new group to indicate any plot or story elements they may not be comfortable with. But unlike the suggestions in the rest of the booklet, this tool seems best used with a group of players at the start of a new campaign who will be playing together regularly. I can't see how this would be used with most convention games where the content is already preset.

I appreciate awareness and sensitivity training. But these black and white rules seem impractical. If I had to accept the rules posited in this book, I'm not sure how I would ever run a public game again.


----------



## Shardstone (Sep 13, 2019)

Someone also came up with the great idea of using this list in interest posts! Include this list with your game, checking off what it will or will not include, and that'll let potential players know if your game is for them.


----------



## DWChancellor (Sep 13, 2019)

I've been in odd uncomfortable situations at the table enough times to know I want to see someone else's perspective.  Looking forward to reading this.

Dunno how useful it will be but a good DM is always panning for gold!  I could swear there was an essay on this in one of Kobold Press' guide books too.


----------



## Retreater (Sep 13, 2019)

I'm in my 40s, and I've played a lot of stuff that could be deemed "mature" content. Now granted, that was mostly when I was a teenaged edge-lord, but I didn't give a lot of thought about comfort level. 
I have a transgender player at my table. I don't think about her as a different player. But while we were playing a dungeon that had that classic curse trap of gender swapping, I took pause. I didn't want to make it a joke. I came up with a different cosmetic change trap. 
But I never thought there would be something that would offend me. I'm pretty lax and have a bawdy sense of humor.
Then I played a con game revolving around investigating a cult that kidnapped pregnant women for the sole purpose of killing them and letting their fetuses die in womb. I was sitting next to my best friend, whose wife just had a miscarriage. It was awkward, insensitive (especially for the GM to continue after we asked him to stop), and it cast a dark tone over the rest of the con. 
So yeah, a year ago I might've laughed over the idea of this kind of book. Now, I can see its purpose.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 13, 2019)

Seems weird such a book gets written and then you hear the horror stories.

Common sense rarest element in the universe.

I've basically run a closed game for 25 years this year is the first I've started gaming with relative strangers so never really experienced the nasty gamers.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 13, 2019)

jgsugden said:


> Consent in Gaming - Monte Cook Games
> 
> 
> Tackle Mature Content with Confidence! From fending off an attack by bloodthirsty pirates to delving into dank caverns, roleplaying games … Consent in Gaming
> ...




I thought it had some good advice, some over-stated. First 4 pages good. But the quotes from 'Your Best Game Ever' not so much. Few RPG sessions are analogous to a BDSM session. And it ignored the nature of RPGs as a group activity - this is not a Dom/sub relationship. Each person has an obligation to the group to behave decently. This may mean not introducing unpleasant material. It may mean gracefully recusing yourself from a game the rest of the group are enjoying, if it's not for you. Social situations always require some degree of tact, sensitivity, and an attempt at mutual understanding.

Hopefully that won't get me red-texted as an 'Alt-Right Edgelord'.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 13, 2019)

I used to be a Caver, NSS subscription and bat decal on the back of my car and all.   One of the rules in a cave that is a very good rule is that if anyone in the party feels the need to leave the cave, then everyone leaves the cave.  It's a good rule because caves are super dangerous places and someone is feeling uncomfortable, it's just better to leave the cave than to risk the lives of everyone in the party.   And honestly, caves are serious business and this will happen to you at some point.   Everyone will get claustrophobia in a cave at some point.  Everyone will get in a situation where it's not good at some point, and you've got an injury, or an equipment failure, or your fighting hypothermia, or you are too fatigued to think straight, and now is the time to be done and everyone goes out together 'cause you don't split the party.  (Just like in the Dungeon.)

But I'm not sure that this is a useful perspective on a game. If a game is as dangerous as a cave, perhaps the game shouldn't be that dangerous. Or if you are acting like the game is as dangerous as a cave, why are you in it? Or if you are assessing a game to be as dangerous as a cave, is that even remotely rational?

Like I get people can get out of line. I get that there are jerks, and that what constitutes being a jerk and how much jerkiness one can tolerate can be very subjective. But I also get that there isn't a victim card that you get to play all the time and whoever plays it first or the hardest has the moral authority. Could be that is in itself a jerk move.

I mean sure, everyone that caves knows what it feels to be fatigued and suddenly the dark which you've dealt with for 200 hours, and the fact that you are three miles back in water up to your chin is something you aren't comfortable with any more. Been there, totally have my empathy with that and many similar situations. But if that happened to you on every trip, especially after you were told what you were getting into, probably we'd just stop asking you on the trip, and we wouldn't feel like jerks for doing it. 

And heck, cavers are an elitist bunch. Far more elitist than gamers have any right to be because cavers unlike gamers have really good reasons for their elitism and insularity. If in fact these games are comparable to caves and caving rules apply, maybe we ought to accept that there needs to be gatekeepers. I don't accept that there needs to be, precisely because I don't think of a game as being much like a cave.

It's hard for me to look at absolute guidelines about complex human social interaction and think that they are in any way workable. Surely anyone that has ran an RPG is aware how hard it is to write rules that cover all the situations that can come up? So why would anyone decide that the even more complex thing that is life is amendable to absolute rules? 

And honestly, I think I'd go from a lot of sympathy to not giving any in a hurry if someone pulled out a book like this and said, "But these are the rules. It's not up for debate."

That said, I do think that conventions need to do a better job of setting guidelines for how tables are ran, how tables are advertised, and how violations of those guidelines are handled. And I would think it a mature thing for there to be some sort of standards that conventions could agree to and adopt.  Unfortunately, from what I can tell of reviews of this product, no useful and practical advice is provided on how to do that.


----------



## MNblockhead (Sep 14, 2019)

In the example with your friend. If the entire adventure revolved around this cult, should the DM have changed it on the fly? I don't know the adventure in question or how that particular gruesome practice of the cultists may have played in the story. Perhaps the DM could have just changed it to they are capturing women. Perhaps your friend would have been fine with just that they were capturing pregnant women but not with having the rituals described in gory detail.  I think that an adventure like this should come with some warnings in the registration text. 

I truly believe that DMs and other players should be sensitive, empathetic, and accommodating. But can you draw a line? At some point, can the group simply say, sorry, but this is what we all game to enjoy. Sorry it bothers you, but nobody is forcing you to play. The issue I have with books like this is that it makes black and white rules that entirely support the person with the objection. 



Retreater said:


> I'm in my 40s, and I've played a lot of stuff that could be deemed "mature" content. Now granted, that was mostly when I was a teenaged edge-lord, but I didn't give a lot of thought about comfort level.
> I have a transgender player at my table. I don't think about her as a different player. But while we were playing a dungeon that had that classic curse trap of gender swapping, I took pause. I didn't want to make it a joke. I came up with a different cosmetic change trap.
> But I never thought there would be something that would offend me. I'm pretty lax and have a bawdy sense of humor.
> Then I played a con game revolving around investigating a cult that kidnapped pregnant women for the sole purpose of killing them and letting their fetuses die in womb. I was sitting next to my best friend, whose wife just had a miscarriage. It was awkward, insensitive (especially for the GM to continue after we asked him to stop), and it cast a dark tone over the rest of the con.
> So yeah, a year ago I might've laughed over the idea of this kind of book. Now, I can see its purpose.


----------



## Bawylie (Sep 14, 2019)

From time to time, when I don’t enjoy the type of activity I’m doing or the content I’m consuming, I stop doing that activity or consuming that content. 

I change the channel. I put the book down. I leave the movie theatre. I excuse myself from the party or the conversation or whatever. 

Consent and voluntaryism are vital. Therefore, as a person who is responsible for himself, I have agency and exercise it. When I am no longer willing to volunteer or to consent, then my involvement is over and it’s time for me to go. 

I sincerely hope some document like this (or, preferably, some conversation between consenting parties) serves to establish a working agreement that empowers the participants. And where that agreement is violated, by whomever and for whatever reason, I sincerely hope participants remember their agency, and excuse themselves.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 14, 2019)

MNblockhead said:


> In the example with your friend. If the entire adventure revolved around this cult, should the DM have changed it on the fly? I don't know the adventure in question or how that particular gruesome practice of the cultists may have played in the story. Perhaps the DM could have just changed it to they are capturing women. Perhaps your friend would have been fine with just that they were capturing pregnant women but not with having the rituals described in gory detail. I think that an adventure like this should come with some warnings in the registration text.
> 
> I truly believe that DMs and other players should be sensitive, empathetic, and accommodating. But can you draw a line? At some point, can the group simply say, sorry, but this is what we all game to enjoy. Sorry it bothers you, but nobody is forcing you to play. The issue I have with books like this is that it makes black and white rules that entirely support the person with the objection.



The key, I think, with this book perhaps but others is YES a group can choose to use a given content and a player could choose to not be involved *but* those decisions should be made well before play into that content. 

These choices cannot be made pre-conflict without communication and that us what these tools provide - a guideline for working out these things before they occur and to deal smoothly with them if we reach one unexpected in play.

As a GM, when I run games at FLGS I restrict my content to whatever would be ok for young teens to overhear. So, no, no fetus-womb cults or really any sexual content, likely no drug use either.

As a GM, running in my own home with players I know, different standards. Sometimes "what this game will feature" does mean I dont invite some people. 

But that is not restricted to sensitive content. I once told a player I would not include him in the next campaign (Srargate SG-1) because that setting featured "captured PC" content and he hated those. He joined us the next time we shifted.

The group list for when I ran VtM and DnD were different. 

I think n my experience any group with long legs has to get to know that different subsets playing fdifferent things is normal and manageable so that it's not " pressure to play" or "excluding" but more like a buffet - you pick what tog content you want to consume.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 14, 2019)

I don't think I've ever run a pregnant women baby sacrifice cult. 

 I would look at a DM wanting to run that a little bit sideways.


----------



## Bawylie (Sep 14, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> I don't think I've ever run a pregnant women baby sacrifice cult.
> 
> I would look at a DM wanting to run that a little bit sideways.



Skynet - The Terminator.


----------



## Retreater (Sep 14, 2019)

MNblockhead said:


> In the example with your friend. If the entire adventure revolved around this cult, should the DM have changed it on the fly? I don't know the adventure in question or how that particular gruesome practice of the cultists may have played in the story. Perhaps the DM could have just changed it to they are capturing women. Perhaps your friend would have been fine with just that they were capturing pregnant women but not with having the rituals described in gory detail.  I think that an adventure like this should come with some warnings in the registration text.
> 
> I truly believe that DMs and other players should be sensitive, empathetic, and accommodating. But can you draw a line? At some point, can the group simply say, sorry, but this is what we all game to enjoy. Sorry it bothers you, but nobody is forcing you to play. The issue I have with books like this is that it makes black and white rules that entirely support the person with the objection.



Yes. There was no warning of the content, and the event was listed as appropriate for 13+ and with a system and setting not known for this kind of stuff (Star Wars).  I mean, we could've just left the game and probably should have.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 14, 2019)

Bawylie said:


> Skynet - The Terminator.




Which has an R rating and the baby survives.

 There was a 3E Dungeon adventure with a pregnant women love child of Tharizdun vibe


----------



## Bawylie (Sep 14, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Which has an R rating and the baby survives.



Yeah, my point was there’s a way to do it that doesn’t have to catch side-eye. 

Ps - I’m not saying that anyone can or should look for ways to get around agreements or limits. I am saying that execution can and does matter.


----------



## Krug (Sep 14, 2019)

If you don't want to give your info over at Monte Cook Games you can download it from Drive Thru RPG.
Link: Consent in Gaming - Monte Cook Games | Numenera | The Strange | Cypher System | No Thank You, Evil! | Free Products | Invisible Sun | Your Best Game Ever | DriveThruRPG.com


----------



## Nagol (Sep 14, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> I don't think I've ever run a pregnant women baby sacrifice cult.
> 
> I would look at a DM wanting to run that a little bit sideways.




I did something like it once.  It was an Aftermath game loosely based on the comic adaptation of the War of the Worlds.  The players were sold the campaign idea of PCs working toward the overthrow of the aliens.

An early session had the PCs working for an alien overlord and being sent on a collection/retrieval mission to collect culinary delicacies.  I fully expected the PCs to see the targets and rebel.  I didn't expect them to dutifully complete the mission.  I casually asked what they were thinking in an after session debrief and found the players were afraid of the alien master, hesitant to start something without a plan, and hadn't found a good base for further operations yet.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 14, 2019)

This product has been setting fire all over the Internet it seems. I guess my thoughts can be summarized as such:

It strikes me odd why we need a product like this to begin with because this seems like a topic that would have been addressed without the need of a book to point it out, but I realize in my years of gaming, I may have not noticed situations that may have caused discomfort in others.

Some of the analogies make me question what kind of games people are playing because I guess mine have been super vanilla. I mean, it’s a game, we’re not actually torturing each other. 

At the very least, if this prompts the conversation about being more sensitive to others at the table and expand session zero ground rules, that’s a good thing, right?


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 14, 2019)

Nagol said:


> I did something like it once.  It was an Aftermath game loosely based on the comic adaptation of the War of the Worlds.  The players were sold the campaign idea of PCs working toward the overthrow of the aliens.
> 
> An early session had the PCs working for an alien overlord and being sent on a collection/retrieval mission to collect culinary delicacies.  I fully expected the PCs to see the targets and rebel.  I didn't expect them to dutifully complete the mission.  I casually asked what they were thinking in an after session debrief and found the players were afraid of the alien master, hesitant to start something without a plan, and hadn't found a good base for further operations yet.




Personally I deal with most bad stuff off camera. 

 The villains torture, kill murder maybe genocide but the PCs only really need to know it's happening they don't need me to describe it in any great detail.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 14, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Personally I deal with mist bad stuff off camera.
> 
> The villains torture, kill murder maybe genocide but the PCs only really need to know it's happening they don't need me to describe it in any great detail.




Oh, I quite agree! Most, maybe all my sessions in all the rpgs I run would be PG-13 with the possibility of mature themes occasionally.  I was upfront about the cargo and its purpose, but the PCs brought the women back to HQ anyway.  All the terrible stuff happened off camera later.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 14, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> This product has been setting fire all over the Internet it seems. I guess my thoughts can be summarized as such:
> 
> It strikes me odd why we need a product like this to begin with because this seems like a topic that would have been addressed without the need of a book to point it out, but I realize in my years of gaming, I may have not noticed situations that may have caused discomfort in others.
> 
> ...




In my decades of running, I've been approached maybe 2-3 times with requests that some facet of  personal life was overwhelming and it'd be best if the forthcoming adventures didn't touch on it even inadvertently.  Maybe twice people have confessed to neuroses and asked to avoid specific cosmetic situations.  Once or twice I've noticed one or more players getting particularly uncomfortable with a situation -- either presented by me or developed by other players and helped glide play away from the trouble.

I've left a couple of tables because I didn't want to participate in gore-porn or generating erotic fiction.

I can see some base value especially in situations where you are expecting to run people you don't know through situations designed to make people uncomfortable -- especially horror, sexuality, or both.  It becomes even more important when a GM decides to shock/surprise the players by not disclosing potentially problematic material upfront so as to not ruin the surprise.  Personally, I see little value in trying to surprise/shock players, but GMs keep doing it.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 14, 2019)

It's common sense for me, keep it pg13 in public or with people you don't know.

 R or R18 is more close friends and even then it's more language (swearing) and alcohol related. 

 Gore porn and pick your own erotica don't appeal.


----------



## ParanoydStyle (Sep 14, 2019)

I find it vaguely insulting that people thought that this was necessary? But I guess there must be a helluva lot of really, really bad DMs and players out there, generating all of these nightmare stories. So maybe it was necessary.

Then again my feelings overall on "the X Card and friends" are probably unpopular and definitely controversial. I don't want to get into it because I get WAY too anxious that people will misunderstand me and/or get mad at me whenever I say anything online about a sensitive topic. I used to be super opinionated--okay, I still AM super opinionated--but nowadays I try to keep my more controversial opinions to myself. It's just not worth the stress of worrying about (EVEN MORE) strangers on the internet not liking me. (If for some reason you're dying to know what I think, the super short version is that I think meta-mechanics like the X Card are infantilizing, but I think I've already talked to death the fact that I'm not really looking to _engage_ on this topic. I think it just comes down to that I think some things are common sense that might not be and/or I really want to give gamers the benefit of the doubt by assuming they'll behave like responsible, mature adults without special rules or resources telling them how to.)

There are some games where I feel like just by playing that game you have opted in to a lot of intense, potentially objectionable, potentially upsetting content. Specifically, I'm thinking of Delta Green and to a lesser degree Call of Cthulhu in general (I just personally find Delta Green to be the most intelligent, mature, serious/grown-up iteration of CoC on the market right now). Like if I am running Delta Green for you, you have at least flipped through the DG rulebook, and you know that I'm going to try my best within reason to mess you up, emotionally, through the events of the game and the experiences of your character, and again, within reason, I'm not going to hold back or pull any punches in my efforts to scare. If a player at the table legitimately has PTSD (like, ironically, I do) and could be triggered by something in the game, I expect them to do their part as an adult human to tell me, and then I'll do my part as an adult human to not include that thing in my game.

(Personally, for instance, once owned a tiny, sweet little dog that was murdered inches in front of me. I had to rush poor little ruined, already-dead-but-we-didn't-know-it-body to the vet, and then clean his blood up off of the kitchen floor because my ex, very understandably, could not deal. He was her dog for many years before he was our dog. It was definitely in the top three most F'd up experiences I've had in my life.

Since then I have definitely been a bit triggered by cruelty or violence against animals in fiction/games/television/movies, but I can deal with it as long as it's not both totally unexpected AND super graphic. That particular combination will cause me to switch off things I might previously have enjoyed before I have a panic attack or worse. Like, I was able to sit through and enjoy the entire movie _White God_, even though that movie is pretty explicitly about cruelty to animals and nothing else. But when I tried to rewatch the Takashi Miike film _Gozu_, the thing that happens in the first five minutes of the film Gozu happened, and I immediately turned it off and have not looked back.

I've even _made_ creative works since then in which dogs were murdered (once again this was within a Lovecraftian millieu) but when you're the creator of something it's much easier to maintain detachment because you are 100% in control of the self-upsetting stimuli you're working with.)

Fun terror, not actual terror, is the goal emotion I want to induce but the two are really, really closely linked for humans as a species. (If you think objectively about going on a roller coaster, it's actually pretty terrifying, not to mention risking your life (even if the odds of dying are infitessimally small) for no good reason, but roller coasters are super fun, at least I think so.)

All that said I really don't get the second post in this thread. Don't get me wrong, I agree, Nazis are bad. I just ran a nice little Kickstarter to fund a game to that very effect. The entire game is inseparable from the enormous dump it takes on the so-called alt right. But I don't see what this topic or MCG's product has to do with inclusivity per se?


----------



## Campbell (Sep 14, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> This product has been setting fire all over the Internet it seems. I guess my thoughts can be summarized as such:
> 
> It strikes me odd why we need a product like this to begin with because this seems like a topic that would have been addressed without the need of a book to point it out, but I realize in my years of gaming, I may have not noticed situations that may have caused discomfort in others.
> 
> ...




These sorts of techniques originally came from the indie roleplaying community. Many indie games like Dogs in the Vineyard, Monsterhearts, Sorcerer and My Life With Master intentionally explore some pretty emotionally charged situations. In that context emotional safety, consent and checking in with each other is pretty important. In the context of adventure gaming it is less likely to come up, but when it does its not like a bad thing to show empathy and value the people more than the game. 

As to walking away I think it is the case that not every game is for everyone, but at least in the moment of play being empathetic and understanding is the least we can do. I know this is not universal, but I only play games with people I like. Even if the game is not for them I still want to maintain our friendship. A little understanding goes a long way.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 14, 2019)

ParanoydStyle said:


> But I don't see what this topic or MCG's product has to do with inclusivity per se?




Well the pamphlet includes references to the gaming table being a Safe Space, especially in the quotes. Personally I don't find that sort of language at all appropriate - some tables may be set up as Safe Spaces by the GM & players, but by default they are no more a Safe Space than any other form of social interaction between friends, acquaintances or strangers. GMing in a pub, like many London RPGers, I aim to keep the norms appropriate to southern English pub culture - except I ask for no RL political conversation during the game, since players are going to have widely varying political views. Is a pub a Safe Space? That will depend on what your triggers are, if any.

Conversely I did run a different game (high fantasy BECM Karameikos/Mystara) with a specific request to keep it Family Friendly since my 8 year old was playing his first D&D campaign, and I felt pretty annoyed with the player who thought it appropriate to bring in highly adult themes like her PC brutally murdering another PC's parents in their bedroom (after they had adopted her PC), then her plotting to abduct and do horrible things to the husband of a third PC (whose player is her RL boyfriend). I definitely felt she had violated the table social contract (at the least), but I was stuck since I always prioritise letting PCs act, then following through with the natural consequences. If there had been an X-card, well, I very much doubt I would have reached for it in the moment. I guess the best solution would have been calling a time out & discussing it once her intentions became clear.
I think good faith is always necessary. In the case of this problem player, in a different game her behaviour might not have been inappropriate but I got the impression it was the 'happy shiny' nature of the high fantasy setting that attracted her to want to enact her dark fantasies there.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 14, 2019)

S'mon said:


> Well the pamphlet includes references to the gaming table being a Safe Space, especially in the quotes. Personally I don't find that sort of language at all appropriate - some tables may be set up as Safe Spaces by the GM & players, but by default they are no more a Safe Space than any other form of social interaction between friends, acquaintances or strangers. GMing in a pub, like many London RPGers, I aim to keep the norms appropriate to southern English pub culture - except I ask for no RL political conversation during the game, since players are going to have widely varying political views. Is a pub a Safe Space? That will depend on what your triggers are, if any.
> 
> Conversely I did run a different game (high fantasy BECM Karameikos/Mystara) with a specific request to keep it Family Friendly since my 8 year old was playing his first D&D campaign, and I felt pretty annoyed with the player who thought it appropriate to bring in highly adult themes like her PC brutally murdering another PC's parents in their bedroom (after they had adopted her PC), then her plotting to abduct and do horrible things to the husband of a third PC (whose player is her RL boyfriend). I definitely felt she had violated the table social contract (at the least), but I was stuck since I always prioritise letting PCs act, then following through with the natural consequences. If there had been an X-card, well, I very much doubt I would have reached for it in the moment. I guess the best solution would have been calling a time out & discussing it once her intentions became clear.
> I think good faith is always necessary. In the case of this problem player, in a different game her behaviour might not have been inappropriate but I got the impression it was the 'happy shiny' nature of the high fantasy setting that attracted her to want to enact her dark fantasies there.




Doesn't sound that bad but yeah 8 year old.
I wouldn't run for children outside of family ideally with either their parents in the game or same house.

Adding an 8 year old to an adult game I kind of expect things to go wrong.

I think I saw Aliens when I was 8 so go figure. My niece is 10 and she wants to play so I'll figure that out somehow.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 14, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Doesn't sound that bad but yeah 8 year old.




(a) I didn't go into detail there, but f on m rape & castration was involved in her plan.
(b) Didn't bother my 8 year old, but bothered me the social contract was being violated.


----------



## Campbell (Sep 14, 2019)

S'mon said:


> Well the pamphlet includes references to the gaming table being a Safe Space, especially in the quotes. Personally I don't find that sort of language at all appropriate - some tables may be set up as Safe Spaces by the GM & players, but by default they are no more a Safe Space than any other form of social interaction between friends, acquaintances or strangers. GMing in a pub, like many London RPGers, I aim to keep the norms appropriate to southern English pub culture - except I ask for no RL political conversation during the game, since players are going to have widely varying political views. Is a pub a Safe Space? That will depend on what your triggers are, if any.
> 
> Conversely I did run a different game (high fantasy BECM Karameikos/Mystara) with a specific request to keep it Family Friendly since my 8 year old was playing his first D&D campaign, and I felt pretty annoyed with the player who thought it appropriate to bring in highly adult themes like her PC brutally murdering another PC's parents in their bedroom (after they had adopted her PC), then her plotting to abduct and do horrible things to the husband of a third PC (whose player is her RL boyfriend). I definitely felt she had violated the table social contract (at the least), but I was stuck since I always prioritise letting PCs act, then following through with the natural consequences. If there had been an X-card, well, I very much doubt I would have reached for it in the moment. I guess the best solution would have been calling a time out & discussing it once her intentions became clear.
> 
> I think good faith is always necessary. In the case of this problem player, in a different game her behaviour might not have been inappropriate but I got the impression it was the 'happy shiny' nature of the high fantasy setting that attracted her to want to enact her dark fantasies there.




The X-Card in particular is not really a technique I favor. Mostly, if someone is uncomfortable with something I find it more helpful to check in and take a breather so we can actually resolve things. I get its purpose, especially for public games. I want to be open enough that we can actually hash things out in a home game.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 14, 2019)

S'mon said:


> (a) I didn't go into detail there, but f on m rape & castration was involved in her plan.
> (b) Didn't bother my 8 year old, but bothered me the social contract was being violated.




Fair enough but did you say hey guys my 8 year old is gonna play tone it down?

One thing I have noticed with gamers is assumptions, while some things need to be spelled out.

 I got in trouble with 1 DM who didn't want the messenger chat to be used for D&D just the campaign explicitly. 

 No one told me until later though.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 14, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Fair enough but did you say hey guys my 8 year old is gonna play tone it down?




I said it was a Family-Friendly game in my recruitment posts (April 2015). Players signed up. This stuff happened over a year into the game.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 14, 2019)

S'mon said:


> I said it was a Family-Friendly game in my recruitment posts. Players signed up. This stuff happened over a year into the game.




Fair enough, I would have a word with the players or boot them.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 14, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Fair enough, I would have a word with the players or boot them.




Basically the PC became an NPC, new PC was initially ok but started trending same way; eventually player left.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 14, 2019)

S'mon said:


> Basically the PC became an NPC, new PC was initially ok but started trending same way; eventually player left.




This is why most of the time D&D has been family and friends.
25 years in first campaign with gamestore type folk.

Last 17 years has been with my wife, I remember in the 90s try hard idiots listening to gangsta rap acting like gangstas in a group that was half female.
. They would be yelling at them to turn that crap off.

Dice box in face and punches thrown happened back then. Can't really do that now. The "gangstas" were 15/16 middle class white dudes listening to NWA imagining they were straight outta Compton. In New Zealand.

Got easier once my best friend dumped one of them. They were roll playing something I suppose.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 14, 2019)

S'mon said:


> I said it was a Family-Friendly game in my recruitment posts (April 2015). Players signed up. This stuff happened over a year into the game.




One thing I remember about this player was that her go-to response to objections was _"But I'm an innocent young girl! " _- she was a student, age around 20/21. I think she probably did get away with stuff because of her looks, age & gender.

Edit: Although, realising that her boyfriend was a big old cheater and had likely been cheating his dice rolls for years was arguably more traumatic for yours truly. Really terminated my desire to GM that campaign.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 14, 2019)

S'mon said:


> One thing I remember about this player was that her go-to response to objections was _"But I'm an innocent young girl! " _- she was a student, age around 20/21. I think she probably did get away with stuff because of her looks, age & gender.
> 
> Edit: Although, realising that her boyfriend was a big old cheater and had likely been cheating his dice rolls for years was arguably more traumatic for yours truly. Really terminated my desire to GM that campaign.




I would be fine with what she did just not with an 8 year old. 

 I wouldn't mix adults and kids game unless the adults were their parents and family.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 14, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> I wouldn't mix adults and kids game unless the adults were their parents and family.




Adults & kids is fine IME.
_Adolescents_ (including 20 year olds) and kids, OTOH...


----------



## Campbell (Sep 14, 2019)

S'mon said:


> Although, realising that her boyfriend was a big old cheater and had likely been cheating his dice rolls for years was arguably more traumatic for yours truly. Really terminated my desire to GM that campaign.




Yeah. Fudging dice rolls (cheating) on either side of the screen is one of my hard lines. If we do not want to accept the results then we should not be rolling.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 14, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Doesn't sound that bad but yeah 8 year old.
> I wouldn't run for children outside of family ideally with either their parents in the game or same house.
> 
> Adding an 8 year old to an adult game I kind of expect things to go wrong.
> ...






S'mon said:


> Adults & kids is fine IME.
> _Adolescents_ (including 20 year olds) and kids, OTOH...




I DMed a family (stepfather -- a good friend, mother, daughter and son) for a short while.  I stopped because the RL mother/children dynamic gave me the willies.  The mom was taking advantage of her RL position with the kids to exploit them in game.  It was nothing I could tap an X-card over even if it existed at the table, but I beat a hasty retreat and "got too busy" pdq.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 14, 2019)

Campbell said:


> The X-Card in particular is not really a technique I favor. Mostly, if someone is uncomfortable with something I find it more helpful to check in and take a breather so we can actually resolve things. I get its purpose, especially for public games. I want to be open enough that we can actually hash things out in a home game.




If it's something I want to tap a X over, it's not something I'm likely willing to talk to pretty much anyone about.  Certainly not fellow gamers at a social event.  Maybe one on one with particular friends when I'm feeling extraordinarily comfortable.


----------



## JediSoth (Sep 14, 2019)

Based on the negative reactions I've seen (which are out numbered by the positive), you'd think Monte Cook Games was the RPG Police and they're coming to shut your game down if you don't download and read this free PDF and then share it with your group and force them to abide by it.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 14, 2019)

JediSoth said:


> Based on the negative reactions I've seen (which are out numbered by the positive), you'd think Monte Cook Games was the RPG Police and they're coming to shut your game down if you don't download and read this free PDF and then share it with your group and force them to abide by it.




I think there's a not-totally-unreasonable apprehension that these sorts of expectations may become ingrained in the wider RPG community. I know I've seen players come in with mismatched expectations, eg the guy in 2008 who expected me to fudge to keep his 4 hit point Wiz-1 alive and was still complaining about it on the Internet years later (as indeed I am doing now!)


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 14, 2019)

JediSoth said:


> Based on the negative reactions I've seen (which are out numbered by the positive), you'd think Monte Cook Games was the RPG Police and they're coming to shut your game down if you don't download and read this free PDF and then share it with your group and force them to abide by it.




No, nothing like that, although now that you bring it up, it does raise for me a question I hadn't considered, and that is "Would they like to be the RPG Police if that was an actual possibility?" 

My negative reactions are grounded in:

a) This is a ridiculous way to view most normal gaming interaction. If in 30 years and a dozen different tables this advice doesn't resonate, despite having been in situations where I wasn't happy with the content or having had players come to me and reasonably explain why they weren't happy with the content, then perhaps it's not advice grounded in reality. 

b) For situations like conventions and the like where guidelines are needed, this theory grounded in the notion of a 'veto' doesn't provide helpful advice and indeed may actually be harmful to enabling gaming among strangers. Not to put too fine a point on it, but perhaps something like what people screening movies do with publishing ratings and a list of potential story elements would provide better guidance to strangers regarding how to have mutually enjoyable experiences and how to know how to proceed if those guidelines aren't adhered to. Maybe conventions should require people running tables to disclose what they plan to run, and share violations where their were complaints that content introduced by GMs or players didn't match the labels in a wider convention community. Comic book codes and family friendly codes aren't necessarily a bad thing. And you can always have your R rated and your X rated tables if you think supporting that freedom of content in a public space is worth the risks. 

And maybe we just should be dropping "consent" as a highly loaded term, because as soon as you start introducing "consent", I suspect you are going to start drawing in all the other language of sexual assault into situations that aren't sexual assault. And if they are actually sexual assault, you have a very different problem than "Hey, my dad just died, and I'm not ready to process a relationship with a fictional father." or "Hey, I'm an arachnophobe IRL, and your language while admirably evocative is a little too immersive right now.."

c) For situations that are actually threatening there really isn't a lot to say except you probably should exit that situation forthwith, and hopefully this doesn't require much explanation. Like, if you find yourself in a group that seems to object to you personally (or think of you personally as an object) for whatever reason, this isn't a situation that can be resolved by a pamphlet. 

d) Again this language of "consent" seems to be borrowed from spheres and ideas outside of gaming. I confess I'm a pretty naïve old man, but are we talking about gaming or are we talking about the S&M/bondage community in this thread? (I mean it occurs to me that this advice might actually make sense for situations where only two people were in the game.) Do we need consent language around the idea of board games? Movies? Books? Card games? Not sure really why my hobby is so different than normal human social interaction or conversation. Maybe people really are playing different games out there than I am, but a pamphlet like this just makes the hobby seem a bit skeevy to me. Is it really that skeevy and I'm just naïve and sheltered? I mean, if a GM handed this to me at the beginning of the game, I'd be like, "You know, sight unseen, just that you feel like something like this might actually come up, I don't think this table is for me." If I didn't know anything about the hobby, and one of my first experiences was this pamphlet, I think I'd be discouraging my children from being involved in so dangerous of an activity.

e) I had to google up "edgelord" to find out what that meant.

And I'm really trying to understand, "Is this just me?" But in researching that, the first thing I find is a video by a guy wearing a Red Army cap, who just as a first approximation probably is culturally and politically quite far from me, and yeah despite the vast differences in culture and beliefs and likely normal content at his table, he's got more or less the same take I do. And that makes me think, maybe it isn't just me, maybe it really is the authors of this pamphlet.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 14, 2019)

Actually, I think I can do the tl;dr version of this:

Did they really just take a college pamphlet about sexual assault, scratch out all the references to sex and replace them with references to RPG's, and call it a day, thereby equating morally, philosophically, and practically the act of a group of people sitting down to play an RPG, with the act of two people preparing to have a sexual encounter?


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 14, 2019)

tl;dr part 2

Did they really just take Shanna Germain's "As Kinky as you Wanna Be: Your Guide to Safe, Sane, and Smart BSDM", replace the concepts of bondage and so forth with table top roleplaying, and call it a day?

Because maybe, just maybe, this isn't the best framework for viewing or explaining social gaming to people.


----------



## dragoner (Sep 14, 2019)

The pamphlet is a good and positive thing, if helps just one person, then it is worth it. Three cheers for Monte Cook Games in publishing it.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 14, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> Actually, I think I can do the tl;dr version of this:
> 
> Did they really just take a college pamphlet about sexual assault, scratch out all the references to sex and replace them with references to RPG's, and call it a day, thereby equating morally, philosophically, and practically the act of a group of people sitting down to play an RPG, with the act of two people preparing to have a sexual encounter?




Well googling author Shanna Germain turned up works on consent in BDSM (edit - same as you found), so I am going to say Yes - it definitely seems to be applying BDSM community norms to tabletop RPG play.

Not all the advice is bad, but I think it certainly needs to be treated with caution. There may be circumstances where this approach is appropriate but they are pretty far from the typical D&D game I know.


----------



## Campbell (Sep 14, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> tl;dr part 2
> 
> Did they really just take Shanna Germain's "As Kinky as you Wanna Be: Your Guide to Safe, Sane, and Smart BSDM", replace the concepts of bondage and so forth with table top roleplaying, and call it a day?
> 
> Because maybe, just maybe, this isn't the best framework for viewing or explaining social gaming to people.




This feels an awful lot like shaming her for consensual sexual activity. Not cool in my book.

You have been around the roleplaying scene long enough to know most of this comes from the indie scene and has been part of the indie scene since it was a thing. Lines and veils are from Sorcerer. It's also not like emotional safety becoming a thing in mainstream games is an isolated incident. There is brief coverage in Pathfinder 2.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 14, 2019)

Campbell said:


> This feels an awful lot like shaming her for consensual sexual activity. Not cool in my book.




I really don't think it is. BDSM play clearly does need a different notion of consent from, say, a typical dinner party. Saying that isn't shaming anyone writing such advice - AFAICS they're doing a valuable thing.

Also _some _RPG play does go into similar territory, and in that case a similar approach is advisable. I remember back around 2001/2 a friend of mine stumbled into an online freeform email RPG where two participants (one of them also a friend of mine, hence the connection) were engaged in some pretty extreme text-BDSM style play. For him it was quite a traumatic experience, and really there should have been warnings up and informed consent.

Edit: Also the document actually does begin by indicating it's for use in potentially problematic sorts of play. But that seems to get lost as it goes on.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 14, 2019)

Campbell said:


> This feels an awful lot like shaming her for consensual sexual activity. Not cool in my book.




No, I don't really want to in an RPG forum get into the ethics of BSDM, and I would like to think that in an RPG forum we have no reason for doing that.  My thoughts on sexual activity are characteristically complex, and I don't feel the need to go into that, but I am certainly not trying to shame anyone.

What I am saying is that I don't think it is necessarily helpful to view tabletop RPing activity as being equivalent to sexual RP, whether BSDM or not, and I don't think necessarily helpful to view the hobby in that way or to encourage others to view it in that way. 

Now I recognize that there are table top RPGs that have wanted to heavily engage in and with sexual and erotic content, and perhaps for those tables there is some overlap between BSDM roleplay and what they are doing with their dice and character sheets. But I do not believe that is the norm for most traditional RPG groups. And I'm not so sheltered in my experience to not know that a lot of what the MU* community was doing in private was tinysex, but even then there is a huge gap between engaging in text based browser exchanges with a remote party and bondage play. 

And by golly, you've got me discussing the ethics of BSDM.



> You have been around the roleplaying scene long enough to know most of this comes from the indie scene and has been part of the indie scene since it was a thing. Lines and veils are from Sorcerer.




Don't get me started on Sorcerer. That's another discussion that I don't really want to get into.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 14, 2019)

Nagol said:


> I DMed a family (stepfather -- a good friend, mother, daughter and son) for a short while.  I stopped because the RL mother/children dynamic gave me the willies.  The mom was taking advantage of her RL position with the kids to exploit them in game.  It was nothing I could tap an X-card over even if it existed at the table, but I beat a hasty retreat and "got too busy" pdq.




I’d clamp down in that. In one game I was running with an inexperienced young girl and her parents, one or the other kept trying to tell her what to do. I stopped that by saying, “Hold on. This is her character. Tell her what she can do and make a case for it, but I’m totally letting her decide what option to do.”

I don’t really abide one player telling another what to do. Asking for advice, sure, but not outright directing, even if they’re her parents.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 14, 2019)

billd91 said:


> I’d clamp down in that. In one game I was running with an inexperienced young girl and her parents, one or the other kept trying to tell her what to do. I stopped that by saying, “Hold on. This is her character. Tell her what she can do and make a case for it, but I’m totally letting her decide what option to do.”
> 
> I don’t really abide one player telling another what to do. Asking for advice, sure, but not outright directing, even if they’re her parents.




I stop that in a heartbeat. The mom wasn't running the children's character: the mom was taking advantage of the characters inside the game through reliance on the fact she was the mom.  So treasure splits, PC agreements, even things like camp assignments and guard shifts always went her way.

ETA
I could tell the kids could feel it was unfair, but it was what mom said so they lived with it.  There was absolutely no way I was going to confront my friend's new wife over her power dynamic with her kids though.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 14, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> d) Again this language of "consent" seems to be borrowed from spheres and ideas outside of gaming. I confess I'm a pretty naïve old man, but are we talking about gaming or are we talking about the S&M/bondage community in this thread? (I mean it occurs to me that this advice might actually make sense for situations where only two people were in the game.) Do we need consent language around the idea of board games? Movies? Books? Card games? Not sure really why my hobby is so different than normal human social interaction or conversation. Maybe people really are playing different games out there than I am, but a pamphlet like this just makes the hobby seem a bit skeevy to me. Is it really that skeevy and I'm just naïve and sheltered? I mean, if a GM handed this to me at the beginning of the game, I'd be like, "You know, sight unseen, just that you feel like something like this might actually come up, I don't think this table is for me." If I didn't know anything about the hobby, and one of my first experiences was this pamphlet, I think I'd be discouraging my children from being involved in so dangerous of an activity.




I think the term is spot on the money. And no, you don't need it for other types of games or all forms of entertainment, but then, in most of those you aren't building a character you're role-playing, identifying with, inhabiting - a character who's serving as your avatar in the setting or potentially LARPing.

The term may come out of other spheres but RPGs have been overlapping that sphere ever since the first time a female player ever experienced her character being raped in a D&D game. This only got heightened with the publication of Vampire in the wake of the sexy Lestat series and the implied eroticism of bloodlust. 

Subject matter consent and problems with failing to heed the signals and concerns of fellow players have been with us for a long time, they just haven't been correctly labeled until fairly recently.


----------



## aramis erak (Sep 14, 2019)

ParanoydStyle said:


> Then again my feelings overall on "the X Card and friends" are probably unpopular and definitely controversial. I don't want to get into it because I get WAY too anxious that people will misunderstand me and/or get mad at me whenever I say anything online about a sensitive topic. I used to be super opinionated--okay, I still AM super opinionated--but nowadays I try to keep my more controversial opinions to myself.
> [snip]
> But I don't see what this topic or MCG's product has to do with inclusivity per se?





Campbell said:


> The X-Card in particular is not really a technique I favor. Mostly, if someone is uncomfortable with something I find it more helpful to check in and take a breather so we can actually resolve things. I get its purpose, especially for public games. I want to be open enough that we can actually hash things out in a home game.



Social change in society has made expressing dissent about a variety of topics a social hazard.
I find the X-card problematic on multiple levels.

Not the least of which is that I've known players who are narcissistic enough to use it to end scenes they are not the highlight of. (and yes, I've had players who have done similar.)
Since the X-card as commonly promulgated is a no-questions-asked, it makes further avoidance problematic, as the group has to guess
It encourages not dealing with your issues, just avoiding them. Fine for a one-shot, but if the player uses it more than once, they should just walk away, IMO.
If playing in a shared space, others in the space but not at the table don't have access to the card
If you're needing the X-Card for a non public game, how well do you really know and/or care about your players? If you need it in a public game, should it really be a public game.
I tell people who are new to my table that I prefer it kept PG-13 or under. Since all my current games are in the FLGS, and they expect PG-13.

If a player needs to take 5, and says that an issue has been triggered, fine.

As for inclusivity...

People who are uncomfortable generally don't want to continue. Consent tends to avoid unwelcome discomfort.

Some people seek out discomfort to gain catharsis, and in such cases, an X-card-like "I need a break" is good, so long as after the break either the scene continues, or an explanation for why not is given.




Campbell said:


> These sorts of techniques originally came from the indie roleplaying community. Many indie games like Dogs in the Vineyard, Monsterhearts, Sorcerer and My Life With Master intentionally explore some pretty emotionally charged situations. In that context emotional safety, consent and checking in with each other is pretty important.



Agreeing to play those implies consent to the subject matter.

Some, like Sorcerer or Dogs, don't sound as emotionally menacing as Monsterhearts, or MLWM. So that consent needs to be informed consent; the onus there is on the maker of the pitch. Still, the X-card




S'mon said:


> Well the pamphlet includes references to the gaming table being a Safe Space, especially in the quotes. Personally I don't find that sort of language at all appropriate - some tables may be set up as Safe Spaces by the GM & players, but by default they are no more a Safe Space than any other form of social interaction between friends, acquaintances or strangers.



Public space _should _be a relatively safe space. If you're playing something contentious in public space, you need to rethink. A's rights end where B's begin is a nicety... but the sad truth is that modern westgern democracies give sufficient rights that there's an overlap zone where what normally is one's rights is infringing upon others rights. Respecting and avoiding the overlap is polite.


Campbell said:


> Yeah. Fudging dice rolls (cheating) on either side of the screen is one of my hard lines. If we do not want to accept the results then we should not be rolling.



Agreed. QFT.


Nagol said:


> If it's something I want to tap a X over, it's not something I'm likely willing to talk to pretty much anyone about.  Certainly not fellow gamers at a social event.  Maybe one on one with particular friends when I'm feeling extraordinarily comfortable.



If you're needing the X card more than rarely, you probably shouldn't be playing either that genre and/or with that group. And if you need it at all, you need to communicate where it went too far, or it's going to happen again.
If I find I need an X-Card, I'm likely far better off just walking away. If I need it a second time, and for the same reason, it's definitely time to go, _and not look back_, because either I couldn't make it clear what bugged me, or they don't respect me enough to avoid it. I'll speak up when I am uncomfortable with the subject matter.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 14, 2019)

billd91 said:


> I think the term is spot on the money. And no, you don't need it for other types of games or all forms of entertainment, but then, in most of those you aren't building a character you're role-playing, identifying with, inhabiting - a character who's serving as your avatar in the setting or potentially LARPing.
> 
> The term may come out of other spheres but RPGs have been overlapping that sphere ever since the first time a female player ever experienced her character being raped in a D&D game. This only got heightened with the publication of Vampire in the wake of the sexy Lestat series and the implied eroticism of bloodlust.
> 
> Subject matter consent and problems with failing to heed the signals and concerns of fellow players have been with us for a long time, they just haven't been correctly labeled until fairly recently.




If you're running the kind of game where PCs are getting raped I think you should let the players know. I don't see that the consent form likely helps much - a player writes "no goldfish please" likely not thinking "oh I better write "no raping my PC". But an X card certainly seems a good idea there.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 14, 2019)

aramis erak said:


> Public space _should _be a relatively safe space.




Safe from what? A breach of the peace? Criminal activity? As far as I'm concerned, the pub management sets the rules on that (eg my pub says no swearing). I set some extra rules like no politics during game time, but it's to avoid disruption, not create a Safe Space.

I'm talking about how the pamphlet uses the term:

Page 10:
_Your game group needs to make you feel safe. This is a step beyond just being comfortable to play the game. This is a safe space free of hassle, harassment, negativity, judgment...
-Your Best Game Ever_

Well, I clearly don't run a Safe Space, because like I said upthread, if I see a player cheating, then I judge they're a cheater and view them negatively. If I see a player indulging in twisted sexual fantasies at my table, then I likely judge them as someone I don't want there. I may even 'hassle' them by telling them to leave.


----------



## MGibster (Sep 14, 2019)

I don't think it's easy to "opt in" all the time.  I ran a fantasy game and had the player characters run into a group of giant spiders.  Unbeknownst to me, one of the players suffered from arachnophobia and my descriptions of the eight legged freaks was enough to make her uncomfortable.  We paused the game to chat and I asked if she'd be comfortable continuing if I refrained from describing the spiders or their actions in detail and she agreed.  And from that point on I never used spiders in any game she participated in which was not a problem for me.  But it might have been a problem had I planned on using the Drow as my primary antagonist.  

I suppose all of that might have been avoided by using Cook's RPG Consent Checklist.  It does include spiders after all.  But I don't think I'll ever use the opt in method.  I simply ask my players if there's anything they don't want to see in a game.  For example, I won't ever role play sexual assault whether it's directed at an NPC or a PC.  But then I typically only ask these questions for a horror game.


----------



## dragoner (Sep 14, 2019)

S'mon said:


> Safe from what?




Racism and sexism, is generally what the signs on public buildings mean.


----------



## MGibster (Sep 15, 2019)

This is an excerpt from a draft of a Vampire 5E I haven't completed where I address critics who believe the game treats its players as children.  

     Before getting to the meat of the review I’d like to address a topic that has proven very divisive among some reviewers:  the “disclaimer”.  It should come to no surprise that vampires aren’t very nice people.  After all, their very existence is predicated on the predation of human beings.  Vampires are monsters and this is true of the player characters as well.  The authors’ make no bones about Vampire 5E dealing with such unpleasant issues as violence, racism, sexism, and sexual assault among other topics.  But we are reminded that while it is okay to deal with these issues in a game consideration must be made for all participants.  What one player might shrug off with indifference may affect another player profoundly and it is important to respect the need for boundaries. 

                Some scoff at this disclaimer claiming it treats its readers as children.  After all, players who sit down to play a vampire should know there will be unpleasant things in the game.  We’re talking about creatures that sink their fangs into their victims and suck their blood!  That’s just horrifyingly gross, right?  There are also some grumblings the disclaimer was only included to appease the “Social Justice Warriors” though I’m not quite sure how this would appease them.  Surly if they find the contents of the game offensive these so-called SJWs aren’t going to change their mind because of a disclaimer. 

                I dislike thinking of this as a disclaimer because it implies the authors’ are trying to abrogate any responsibility they have for their work.  This isn’t an apology for the contents of the book but rather some suggestions on how to make sure the game is fun for everyone involved.  Far from insulting the maturity their player base, the authors’ are treating their audience as rational people with the maturity to not only discuss sensitive issues but also show consideration for one another by leaving subjects out of the game the participants are uncomfortable with.  This is good advice for anyone who wants to run any horror game.  
                That said, there are things in Vampire that some people will find offensive and the game isn’t for everyone.  There is a power that allows vampires to change their sex and some people find the way it is written to be transphobic, clan Brujah has no compunction about embracing racist members of the alt-right movement, and there is a hunting method directly analogous to sexual assault with accompanying in-character text of a vampire who uses this method contemplating whether or not this makes her a serial rapist.  Caveat emptor.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 15, 2019)

S'mon said:


> Well, I clearly don't run a Safe Space, because like I said upthread, if I see a player cheating, then I judge they're a cheater and view them negatively. If I see a player indulging in twisted sexual fantasies at my table, then I likely judge them as someone I don't want there. I may even 'hassle' them by telling them to leave.




It’s hard not to face-palm when you see people falling foul of Popper’s Parodox in 2019. Especially on a site which has paraphrased it in its rules for over decade.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 15, 2019)

What's poppers paradox?


----------



## Nagol (Sep 15, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> What's poppers paradox?




It's also known as the Paradox of Tolerance.  If a tolerant person is intolerant of intolerance then he isn't tolerant, is he?

It doesn't really apply in this case.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 15, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> What's poppers paradox?




Popper argues that with respect to those that wish to silence debate...

"In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies ; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force ; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument ; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."

In other words, Popper argues that to protect the right of people to speak freely from those that would silence debate, we may have to take steps to silence those that are silencing debate.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 15, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> Popper argues that with respect to those that wish to silence debate...
> 
> "In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies ; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force ; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument ; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."
> 
> In other words, Popper argues that to protect the right of people to speak freely from those that would silence debate, we may have to take steps to silence those that are silencing debate.




Ah got it. 

My version is a lot simpler. Boot disruptive players. They're free to do whatever they like just do it somewhere else.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 15, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> My version is a lot simpler. Boot disruptive players. They're free to do whatever they like just do it somewhere else.




Probably more practical.  Popper isn't really making an argument about what would make for a good community or a good social experience.  He's just saying that, for example, if someone started trying to shut down the free exchange of ideas by trying to drown out other speakers with a microphone or throwing things, society would not be hypocritical in silencing those people by force.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 15, 2019)

Difficult topic.  I play different in my house with close friends with no women then I do in a public store where ladies are present.  I think something like this may be helpful for people at conventions where people are sensitive and have their feelings hurt easily or feel uncomfortable about certain topics.  It boils down to know who you are playing with.

I'm pretty bored with modern politics and try not to bring "real world" politics into a game.  But many people at a game store would not like how I portray some (not all) of my homebrew settings.  Mainly because I try to keep gender and ethnic roles and ideas very similar to how they were in that time period.  That can be difficult.  And it is not even stating a particular belief of mine,  just how a certain nobleman or guild leader viewed certain groups of people in that time.  I would never do that in a game store because I don't know the audience or other players.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 15, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> Difficult topic.  I play different in my house with close friends with no women then I do in a public store where ladies are present.  I think something like this may be helpful for people at conventions where people are sensitive and have their feelings hurt easily or feel uncomfortable about certain topics.  It boils down to know who you are playing with.
> 
> I'm pretty bored with modern politics and try not to bring "real world" politics into a game.  But many people at a game store would not like how I portray some (not all) of my homebrew settings.  Mainly because I try to keep gender and ethnic roles and ideas very similar to how they were in that time period.  That can be difficult.  And it is not even stating a particular belief of mine,  just how a certain nobleman or guild leader viewed certain groups of people in that time.  I would never do that in a game store because I don't know the audience or other players.




Same I don't run my gameworld as a modern liberal democracy. 

 I had a market last week that had slaves for sale including pleasure slaves. 

 It was in the campaign setting I bought. 

 At session 0 I did cover a few things though, racism, sexism, being a muppet, stealing off other players.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 15, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Same I don't run my gameworld as a modern liberal democracy.
> 
> I had a market last week that had slaves for sale including pleasure slaves.
> 
> ...




Al-Qadim a setting I loved had slavery in it as just part of the culture.  It doesn't make it right.  It was just culturally acceptable in that setting.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 15, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> Al-Qadim a setting I loved had slavery in it as just part of the culture.  It doesn't make it right.  It was just culturally acceptable in that setting.




 No mines about Game of Thrones level I suppose but without sexposition. 

 Brothels exist, slavery exists,  undead and dragons exist, bad things happen to good people.


----------



## pogre (Sep 15, 2019)

If I were running a Call of Cthulhu game at a Con or something similar this would be a decent resource. It's cool that it's free. There is certainly nothing wrong with being sensitive to these issues.

I play with friends and my sons in my home games and we don't delve into those kind of topics. At most, they occur off-screen.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 15, 2019)

Morrus said:


> It’s hard not to face-palm when you see people falling foul of Popper’s Parodox in 2019. Especially on a site which has paraphrased it in its rules for over decade.




That's quite the non-sequitur! The young woman acting out her dark fantasies at my table wasn't being intolerant of anyone - I was being 'intolerant' of her violating the table social contract. Likewise the young man  her boyfriend with his dice cheating - he was not showing intolerance, I was. Though probably not intolerant enough.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 15, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> Popper argues that with respect to those that wish to silence debate...
> 
> "In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies ; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force ; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument ; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."
> 
> In other words, Popper argues that to protect the right of people to speak freely from those that would silence debate, we may have to take steps to silence those that are silencing debate.




I like how the Intolerant use Popper's very reasonable approach as justification to silence any speech they don't like, by labelling it Intolerance.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 15, 2019)

dragoner said:


> Racism and sexism, is generally what the signs on public buildings mean.




You don't get Safe Space signs in English pubs. At least not yet!

Edit: OK my pub does have a sign:
_This is a Community Pub
Mind Your Language_


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 15, 2019)

S'mon said:


> I like how the Intolerant use Popper's very reasonable approach as justification to silence any speech they don't like, by labelling it Intolerance.



 I don’t mind them labeling it intolerant. I care when they don’t allow them to speak. Even intolerant people have a right to speak. I support hitler having the right to publicly call for the execution of Jews, as long as I  am safely give my rebuttal argument and be heard.


----------



## Wolfpack48 (Sep 15, 2019)

jgsugden said:


> Consent in Gaming - Monte Cook Games
> 
> 
> Tackle Mature Content with Confidence! From fending off an attack by bloodthirsty pirates to delving into dank caverns, roleplaying games … Consent in Gaming
> ...




It's also available on Drivethru:








						Consent in Gaming - Monte Cook Games | Numenera | The Strange | Cypher System | No Thank You, Evil! | Free Products | Invisible Sun | Your Best Game Ever | DriveThruRPG.com
					

Consent in Gaming - Tackle Mature Content with Confidence! From fending off an attack by bloodthirsty pirates to delving into dank caverns,




					www.drivethrurpg.com


----------



## dragoner (Sep 15, 2019)

S'mon said:


> You don't get Safe Space signs in English pubs. At least not yet!
> 
> Edit: OK my pub does have a sign:
> _This is a Community Pub
> Mind Your Language_




You English, and your verbosity, you would think you own the language. 

Truth is though, you do have sign in your pub.


----------



## MNblockhead (Sep 15, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> I don't think I've ever run a pregnant women baby sacrifice cult.
> 
> I would look at a DM wanting to run that a little bit sideways.




In a game with Illithids, Slaad, Succubi, dominate person spells, and official books detailing infernal and demonic cults, this isn't that far out for me. It depends on how it is run.  I mean, look at that official lore on how hags procreate. Look into the description on how orcs increase their numbers.

That said, I would never dive into these scenarios at a convention or open-to-the-public game at a FLGS.  I think games like this could be okay in such contexts, with proper warning in the game description, but even then, just because the group at your table may agree to it. Those on nearby tables may not appreciate overhearing it. 

But even if I keep things very PG rated, you have people who are afraid of snakes and insects. I had a friend in high school, who, although he was a big imposing guy, got really creeped out about bugs. Like, when when you'd get these large numbers of box elder bugs swarming in the fall near doors, he couldn't go in or out of that door. He would also leave the room if insect swarms came up in a game. I've also worked in a museum of natural history and have seen on multiple occasions people physically recoil and freak out when they came across a snake exhibit.

Phobias are so personal, that it is very difficult to anticipate everyone that might come up when you open a game to a group of strangers. Short of listing every every type of creature and environment challenge that can come up in an encounter in the description of the game, I really don't know how these kinds of consent rules would work.  

In a recent AL game there there was a flash flood challenge. At least a half hour was spend making saves and athletic checks to avoid drowning and saving party members who were drowning. What if one of the players almost drowned as a child and was afraid of water? What if someone had a loved one who drowned?  As a DM, I _WANT_ to be empathetic and help them enjoy the game. 

If the affected player just touches and X, I suppose I could suss out that the entire flood scene is an issue. But I would prefer someone to just say, I'm not comfortable with a flooding/drowning scene rather than playing a guess-what-I'm-uncomfortable-with game. I find some of these "solutions" to the issue to be more awkward than what they are trying to solve. 

But once I know what the issue is, sure, I can work around that. I can skip that scene. It may mean a shorter game and some of the other players may be disappointed, but I think most people would be sympathetic. 

But what is someone joins an AL game and the adventure is underwater themed. The entire adventure involves infiltrating a sahuagin lair and overcoming them and their shark minions.  Now, most of times I've showed up for AL games in my FLGS, I don't know what the adventure is going to be. So a person could easily join a came that will touch upon a phobia. In this specific sahuagin adventure, touching an X isn't going to help. Is the person afraid of water or sharks? Furthermore, let's say the person explains to the DM that they survived a shark attack and find describing attacks by sharks to be traumatic. Is that DM now supposed to scrap the adventure he or she prepared? 

It really sucks for that person to have to walk away from the game, but in this situation, the content is not inappropriate for a general audience, including young adults or even older children. Nobody is singling out the individual. There is no bullying. It is just an unfortunate coincidence that the adventure content conflicts with that personal phobia/past trauma. Hopefully there is another game being run at that time the person can join in on--I'd certainly speak to the other DMs and try to find a spot for this person. But I don't expect a DM to scrap that adventure and have a back-up ready to go.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 15, 2019)

MNblockhead said:


> What if someone had a loved one who drowned?  As a DM, I _WANT_ to be empathetic and help them enjoy the game.




Well I have this issue (some of my relatives drowned in a big ship disaster, the Zeebrugge sinking). I would tend to avoid 'Titanic' type scenarios. But I don't want to ruin the fun of others. If I found myself playing that and it got too much I'd recuse myself, not tell the GM to change the scenario.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 15, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> I don’t mind them labeling it intolerant. I care when they don’t allow them to speak. Even intolerant people have a right to speak. I support hitler having the right to publicly call for the execution of Jews, as long as I  am safely give my rebuttal argument and be heard.




Hmm. I'm ok with specific calls to violence being banned. Both "You should attack/kill those guys!" and "Won't someone rid me of this troublesome Malcolm X?" type rhetoric.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Sep 15, 2019)

Maybe I am off base here but looking at all this brings just one thought to mind.

If a person actually needs this book to tell them how to act then I do not want that person in my gaming group.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Sep 15, 2019)

S'mon said:


> Hmm. I'm ok with specific calls to violence being banned. Both "You should attack/kill those guys!" and "Won't someone rid me of this troublesome Malcolm X?" type rhetoric.




The problem being the inevitable slippery slope. Makes perfect sense to ban statements of blatant violence, but we are human beings, we inevitably carry it to some stupid extreme far beyond what the first ban ever considered or even imagined.

That being said I pretty much support banning/limiting/controlling/somethinging public statements directing violence.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 15, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> I support hitler having the right to publicly call for the execution of Jews,




Things like this are completely unacceptable. I don't care how deeply you feel about freeze peach, if you say something like that again I will ask you to leave. Read the room, and don't be so tone deaf in future.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 15, 2019)

MNblockhead said:


> It really sucks for that person to have to walk away from the game, but in this situation, the content is not inappropriate for a general audience, including young adults or even older children. Nobody is singling out the individual. There is no bullying. It is just an unfortunate coincidence that the adventure content conflicts with that personal phobia/past trauma. Hopefully there is another game being run at that time the person can join in on--I'd certainly speak to the other DMs and try to find a spot for this person. But I don't expect a DM to scrap that adventure and have a back-up ready to go.




More importantly, nothing about this is actually unsafe.

Equating, "I had a traumatic experience with water and now references to water make me afraid.", to a situation like "The DM is graphically describing my PC being raped and I get the feeling that this in some way titillates him or fetishizes me as a person." is entirely unhelpful, and treating the two situations as the same and imagining that because there might be a solution for #1 that there is some solution for #2 other than getting the heck out of that situation, is entirely unhelpful. And acting like the DM who prepared a scenario that involved water monsters and the risk of drowning is morally equivalent to the second situation, is entirely unhelpful. And really, why anyone would think that equating a table top RPG like D&D or Star Wars to a community that frequently fetishizes rape, degradation, humiliation, and other non-consensuality, and has elaborate rules around not having the pretend rape be actual rape and the pretend torture be actual torture and so you think that basically what we need to do is just import those guidelines to your average social gaming scene is beyond me.

Like I'm supposed to be thinking that the RPG scene is more 'rapey' than the BDSM scene or something? That we nerds do a worse job of representing women in edifying ways than say pornography or something? 

Once again, not at any table I've ever been familiar with. Any table I set down at and they want to know my "safe word" and gives me some sort of check list, I'm leaving right there. I don't scare very easy, but that would get my Spidey senses tingling in a hurry. If my daughter goes to a new RPG group, and she tells me that they asked for a "safe word", I'm going to be counseling her that probably isn't going to be a safe place. Normal human social interaction doesn't involve that sort of thing. And it's not like "I'm scared of spiders" isn't something that can come up in normal conversation - my wife has a freaking PhD in entomology, my living room has at times had more than your average number of hand sized tarantulas and Egyptian scorpions in it. We'll deal with those problems when they come up by the normal process of humans respecting each other as people, thanks very much.

I totally get that there is evil in the world. I totally get that there are predators out there. But for crying out loud, a guy that triggers someone with spiders, drowning, or googly eyed kittens isn't the problem, and some sort of framework is probably not the best way to handle that, least of all one that encourages you to see this as a victim/abuser situation.


----------



## MNblockhead (Sep 15, 2019)

JacktheRabbit said:


> Maybe I am off base here but looking at all this brings just one thought to mind.
> 
> If a person actually needs this book to tell them how to act then I do not want that person in my gaming group.




I think there is value in books that raise awareness of issues that can make people uncomfortable in gaming groups. I am also a big fan of etiquette guides and courses and have put my older son through an etiquette course. Well-intentioned people can still offend. It is helpful to define and promulgate some general rules of behavior. I just think booklets like this one are not only impractical, but really not possible to implement if read prescriptively. 

But it would be even worse if a misstep leads to immediate ostracism. Rules of etiquette are kinder than laws. They are meant to help create us function in polite society. Repeatedly running afoul of rules of etiquette will have social consequences, but good etiquette requires overlooking the occasional slip up. 

I don't think all rules are obvious. Especially since they can very from group to group, venue to venue. It is helpful to state them up front. For example, I have a strict no real-life politics discussion during my games. It is almost inevitable that even long-time members of my group will run afoul of this rule. I don't boot them, I just remind everyone of the rule. Some people can't accept that or just can't seem to suppress the urge to talk politics. They don't stay in the group. But you need to state the rule and give folks the benefit of a doubt on the occasional slip up.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 15, 2019)

MNblockhead said:


> I think there is value in books that raise awareness of issues that can make people uncomfortable in gaming groups. I am also a big fan of etiquette guides and courses and have put my older son through an etiquette course. Well-intentioned people can still offend. It is helpful to define and promulgate some general rules of behavior. I just think booklets like this one are not only impractical, but really not possible to implement if read prescriptively.
> 
> But it would be even worse if a misstep leads to immediate ostracism. Rules of etiquette are kinder than laws. They are meant to help create us function in polite society. Repeatedly running afoul of rules of etiquette will have social consequences, but good etiquette requires overlooking the occasional slip up.
> 
> I don't think all rules are obvious. Especially since they can very from group to group, venue to venue. It is helpful to state them up front. For example, I have a strict no real-life politics discussion during my games. It is almost inevitable that even long-time members of my group will run afoul of this rule. I don't boot them, I just remind everyone of the rule. Some people can't accept that or just can't seem to suppress the urge to talk politics. They don't stay in the group. But you need to state the rule and give folks the benefit of a doubt on the occasional slip up.




 The people who need this either won't read it or JacktheRabbit is right.

A single page print out should be sufficient if you want to right down the rules to cover any unspoken expectations.

Eg
1. No Gnomes
2. No Sexism
3. No violence (DM is an exception in regard to thrown dice boxes)
4. No CN asshattery
5. No stealing off other PCs
6. No PVP combat unless its forced (dominate person etc)
7. Reasonable standard of hygiene
8. No excessive swearing
9. Don't be a creep
10. No Paladins


----------



## MGibster (Sep 15, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> Equating, "I had a traumatic experience with water and now references to water make me afraid.", to a situation like "The DM is graphically describing my PC being raped and I get the feeling that this in some way titillates him or fetishizes me as a person." is entirely unhelpful, and treating the two situations as the same and imagining that because there might be a solution for #1 that there is some solution for #2 other than getting the heck out of that situation, is entirely unhelpful.




But isn't the opt in system is as presented in _Consent in Gaming_ equating those things? The RPG Consent List at the back of the booklet lists natural disasters (flooding?) in the Mental and Physical Health category sharing the space with sexual assault, genocide, and heatstroke. (Seriously, does anyone think heatstroke belongs on the same list as sexual assault, self harm, and torture?) From my point of view, it goes without saying that I'm not going to introduce sexual assault into a game without talking about it first. But not in a million years would I think I had to worry about heatstroke being a source of trauma in a game where we're routinely hacking off limbs and searing the meat off of bones with fireball spells.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 15, 2019)

MGibster said:


> But isn't the opt in system is as presented in _Consent in Gaming_ equating those things? The RPG Consent List at the back of the booklet lists natural disasters (flooding?) in the Mental and Physical Health category sharing the space with sexual assault, genocide, and heatstroke. (Seriously, does anyone think heatstroke belongs on the same list as sexual assault, self harm, and torture?) From my point of view, it goes without saying that I'm not going to introduce sexual assault into a game without talking about it first. But not in a million years would I think I had to worry about heatstroke being a source of trauma in a game where we're routinely hacking off limbs and searing the meat off of bones with fireball spells.




Pretty much that's one of my complaints in a nut shell. Some of these things are not like the other.

In game sexual assault, particularly backed up by the possibility that the person doing it may be 'getting their rocks off' is a totally different class of things than "things that might trigger a hypothetical person with serious emotional issues related to that thing". Like you, I think it goes without saying that rape isn't going to be a focus of play, and if it ever were to be a focus of play then I'd only start a story line like that by saying, "Hey, so I'm thinking of a game which involves some seriously wacked adult situations, like rape, and I'm planning to handle that as tastefully as a I can, but I recognize that this is serious topic of general distastefulness to pretty much everyone."

I am never going to think, "I can't introduce scenarios with intense heat because somewhat might have had heatstroke and that was intensely traumatic experience for them." And if someone were to actually say, "That heatstroke experience I had was so intensely traumatic that anything that reminds me of it tends to cause psychotic episodes for me.", I'd probably be like, "That sounds serious. I'm not qualified to provide that sort of therapy and emotional support. Role-playing is often used as part of a clinical therapy treatment, and if you are having such serious emotional issues telling fantasy from reality, I'm not sure I'm comfortable engaging in recreational role-play with you. However, if you are willing to tough it out and risk it, then I can say that I promise to give you a supportive and safe environment. I can't however promise that you won't undergo stress at times, and if you need to take a break, I'd totally understand. Your call."

But you know what, that would be a really unique and unusual circumstance I think. And really, most people I know who have had legitimately traumatic experiences don't have that problem with getting triggered easily in that way, and frankly I would not encourage anyone to expect that just because they have had traumatic experiences that being actually triggered is in any way normal, expected, or healthy. Stressed, sure. Feeling intense emotion, sure. But most adults have coping mechanisms to handle intense emotional experiences, and some fraction of my players are playing precisely to engender safe but intense emotional experiences of various sorts which would be rare and entirely unsafe in real life - which is pretty much the same reason many of us read novels or watch movies.

Intense sexual experiences are however generally off limits at tables I've played at. Or really, sexual experiences at all, precisely because - aside from often being distasteful - that tends to blur reality and fantasy in a way that makes a social situation not feel safe.

But again, we are in perfect agreement that 'sexual assault' ought not be remotely in the same category. It not only trivializes the issue, but I think would tend to creep out the majority of my female friends to see it treated like that.   It sure as heck wouldn't feel 'inclusive'.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 15, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> It not only trivializes the issue, but I think would tend to creep out the majority of my female friends to see it treated like that.   It sure as heck wouldn't feel 'inclusive'.




While most players of both sexes don't want that stuff in a D&D game, IME the ones who do have been disproportionately female, and the freaked-out disproportionately male.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 16, 2019)

S'mon said:


> While most players of both sexes don't want that stuff in a D&D game, IME the ones who do have been disproportionately female, and the freaked-out disproportionately male.




I've been very careful not to try to stereotype here who is being exploited and who is being abusive. I don't think that really matters, and that there are some hidden sexist concepts involved in making appeals to protect women in as much as they are playing on a stereotype of women as helpless and needing protection.  Assault disproportionately effects women because of the very real differences in average phenotype between men and women, but studies show that both genders equally report incidents of unwanted aggressive non-consensual sexual contact.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 16, 2019)

I going to link what I consider a powerful video by a person who in many ways could be considered near the opposite end of the political spectrum from me, and certainly is not as our host fears 'alt-right', because this is an area where I think that there ought to strong consensus across a broad political spectrum of gamers - even if we don't always agree in the details, the broad outline of the problem this represents, and the agreement that this perspective on the problem and its solution is harmful ought to be there.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 16, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> Pretty much that's one of my complaints in a nut shell. Some of these things are not like the other.
> 
> In game sexual assault, particularly backed up by the possibility that the person doing it may be 'getting their rocks off' is a totally different class of things than "things that might trigger a hypothetical person with serious emotional issues related to that thing". Like you, I think it goes without saying that rape isn't going to be a focus of play, and if it ever were to be a focus of play then I'd only start a story line like that by saying, "Hey, so I'm thinking of a game which involves some seriously wacked adult situations, like rape, and I'm planning to handle that as tastefully as a I can, but I recognize that this is serious topic of general distastefulness to pretty much everyone."
> 
> ...




I guess Dark Sun isn’t allowed anymore.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 16, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> I guess Dark Sun isn’t allowed anymore.




"If I hear _not allowed_ much oftener, I'm going to get angry." - Sam Gamgee, "The Scouring of the Shire", J.R.R. Tolkien's "The Lord of the Rings"


----------



## billd91 (Sep 16, 2019)

MGibster said:


> But isn't the opt in system is as presented in _Consent in Gaming_ equating those things? The RPG Consent List at the back of the booklet lists natural disasters (flooding?) in the Mental and Physical Health category sharing the space with sexual assault, genocide, and heatstroke. (Seriously, does anyone think heatstroke belongs on the same list as sexual assault, self harm, and torture?) From my point of view, it goes without saying that I'm not going to introduce sexual assault into a game without talking about it first. But not in a million years would I think I had to worry about heatstroke being a source of trauma in a game where we're routinely hacking off limbs and searing the meat off of bones with fireball spells.




If someone had survived the 2004 tsunami at Phuket, I might be disinclined to belittle their problems with flood scenarios. In fact, I might be inclined to not belittle anyone over the traumas they have experienced... including heat stroke, particularly since it could represent childhood friends or their own kids dying while trapped in cars.

I might even suggest that anyone who doesn’t understand how traumatic any single one of the listed issues could be should perhaps shut the hell up until they do a little research.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 16, 2019)

So if I was stabbed by a sword then it is not allowed at the game. Or if someone punched me repeatedly in the face there is no more punching allowed in the game. Because that was a traumatic experience. I had a loss of agency and was humiliated.


----------



## MGibster (Sep 16, 2019)

billd91 said:


> If someone had survived the 2004 tsunami at Phuket, I might be disinclined to belittle their problems with flood scenarios. In fact, I might be inclined to not belittle anyone over the traumas they have experienced... including heat stroke, particularly since it could represent childhood friends or their own kids dying while trapped in cars.




I haven't belittled the problems of others at all.  But what are the odds I'm going to sit down at a table and play some D&D with a survivor of the 2004 tsunami?  In 2015, only 315 Americans died from heat stroke so what are the odds I'm sitting at a table with someone who has been negatively affected by this on a personal level?  Not that it really matters as I can't really think of a single time heat stroke came up in any game I've played.  

I don't care for the opt in because I cannot present my players with a list of every conceivable thing I might bring into the game that might stir up traumatic memories.  It's better if they tell me at the beginning of the game if there's something they don't want to see, or, if that doesn't work out, to let me know during game play.  In my nearly thirty years of gaming I've only had it pop up twice and I've already told the spider story earlier in the thread.  



> I might even suggest that anyone who doesn’t understand how traumatic any single one of the listed issues could be should perhaps shut the hell up until they do a little research.




That was entirely uncalled for.  You have no idea whether or not I've experienced anything on that list.


----------



## MGibster (Sep 16, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> So if I was stabbed by a sword then it is not allowed at the game. Or if someone punched me repeatedly in the face there is no more punching allowed in the game. Because that was a traumatic experience. I had a loss of agency and was humiliated.




While I have my problems with the opt in system, I don't believe this is the conclusion anyone should come up with.  At it's core, the authors' are arguing that we should respect people when they say something is too much for them which is a good thing.  It's not really what's allowed or isn't allowed as a general rule.  It's about making sure everyone at a particular table is comfortable.


----------



## Campbell (Sep 16, 2019)

I do not find it all that helpful to address these tools in terms of need. You do not have to need something to find it helpful. I have personally found lines and veils, checking in, and taking a breather after particularly intense moments to be useful tools in the context of play that focused on emotionally charged content. Like anything else these tools can be used responsibly or irresponsibly. I mean if we are not gaming with people we have functional creative relationships with no techniques are going to help.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 16, 2019)

Maybe a solution is to have tables where some are G rated, some PG rated, other R rated. Kind of like the movies. GM’s can have consent forms ready a few days before a session starts. That way potential players can review the form before signing so they won’t have an immediate pressure to sign and get involved in the game on the spot.

It seems to be working for the film industry. I think that would definitely be a good thing for the industry as whole.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 16, 2019)

MGibster said:


> I haven't belittled the problems of others at all.  But what are the odds I'm going to sit down at a table and play some D&D with a survivor of the 2004 tsunami?  In 2015, only 315 Americans died from heat stroke so what are the odds I'm sitting at a table with someone who has been negatively affected by this on a personal level?  Not that it really matters as I can't really think of a single time heat stroke came up in any game I've played.
> 
> I don't care for the opt in because I cannot present my players with a list of every conceivable thing I might bring into the game that might stir up traumatic memories.  It's better if they tell me at the beginning of the game if there's something they don't want to see, or, if that doesn't work out, to let me know during game play.  In my nearly thirty years of gaming I've only had it pop up twice and I've already told the spider story earlier in the thread.
> 
> That was entirely uncalled for.  You have no idea whether or not I've experienced anything on that list.




How about being dismissive of, then? Here you are chiding me about what you may or may not have experienced while showing a total lack of imagination or empathy about how some of those issues may have been extremely traumatic for someone else. Flooding? Heatstroke, meh, not in a million years, right?


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 16, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> Maybe a solution is to have tables where some are G rated, some PG rated, other R rated. Kind of like the movies.




This is my preferred technique. You communicate a broad sense of how difficult the content is, and like the movies you have a few specific categories that might clue the curious into the broad categories of difficult content that they might encounter - adult language, adult situations, sexual situations, nudity, body horror, graphic violence, or whatever. Then, a person can be reasonably informed about what to expect from a table in a public situation, and when a problem occurs in a public situation they can either excuse themselves if they find they've misjudged their ability to deal with the subject, or complain that the table is not being run according to its advertised guidelines.

But in terms of specifics that might reasonably trigger a psychotic episode or anxiety attack in some one who actually has real emotional health issues, there is no way a public forum can possibly handle the full range of issues. A person whose child toddler died in an overheated car who was considering a game advertised to contain say "child endangerment" might possibly privately query the conventions organizers for more details about the scenario, but the notion that people can sign up to games while carrying a fistful of veto cards and this is supposed to be a functional, inclusive and respectful solution to the problem of social gaming in public is ridiculous.

But honestly, if you actually have deep emotional issues you are struggling with that can be triggered by sensory experiences that could come up in a role playing session, I reasonably suggest that perhaps public roleplaying forums are not for you. In private circles, some accommodation perhaps can be made, but you can't reasonably expect a public forum to accommodate eliminating every possible source of trauma. 

I have a wheat sensitivity that if not controlled can lead to severe body distress, but I don't blame people if I put wheat in my mouth. It's my responsibility to control that. And if I had one of the more severe sorts of Celiac's disease where mild exposure could lead to hospitalization or death, you could bet that I would forgo eating anything that I hadn't prepared myself. It would be inconvenient, but it would be ridiculous to have that level of sensitivity and try to hold public restaurants that handle wheat products accountable for my safety or be angry if I was exposed. That would amount to Narcissism on my part, and frankly reckless disregard of my own personal safety. My physiological weakness ought not serve as a right to demand pizza not be served in public spaces, nor does it place me in the position of being victimized if someone laboriously makes a pizza and serves it.

I'm not belittling any real trauma a person might have experienced. But just because people have experienced real trauma doesn't make the plan outlined in "Consent in Gaming" an actual solution to the problem.

These sorts of traumas aren't examples of people being bullied.  They aren't examples of creeps creeping on women.  They aren't examples of predators emotionally manipulating people.  They aren't examples of many other things that could potentially go wrong in a social situation.  To bundle them in with the rest of the problems, themselves distinct problems which require examining separately, is to just begin in entirely the wrong place.


----------



## MGibster (Sep 16, 2019)

billd91 said:


> How about being dismissive of, then? Here you are chiding me about what you may or may not have experienced while showing a total lack of imagination or empathy about how some of those issues may have been extremely traumatic for someone else. Flooding? Heatstroke, meh, not in a million years, right?




You're making this personal for some reason. I think it best we just go our separate ways for now.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 16, 2019)

billd91 said:


> How about being dismissive of, then? Here you are chiding me about what you may or may not have experienced while showing a total lack of imagination or empathy about how some of those issues may have been extremely traumatic for someone else. Flooding? Heatstroke, meh, not in a million years, right?




You don't have a monopoly on empathy and sympathy here. I address the reality of potential trauma from heat stroke in an earlier post. The potential reality of the trauma is not at all the most pertinent point. The argument from "I understand the reality of pain better than you seem to" is presumptuous, and frankly _shows your lack of empathy in and of itself_. 

Yes, yes, we get it. Someone could in fact be traumatized by descriptions of tsunami or heat stroke. By golly you are going to tell us how much empathy you have for those people.

But you aren't actually listening much right now are you? Right now you are in the midst of a display of anger complete with the slings and arrows of profanity, an emotion that is not particularly conducive to feelings of empathy. Could it just be possible that you are enjoying the pleasure of being outraged, and that other people in the thread have equal sympathy for those that have survived tsunami and heatstroke or lost loved ones to those hazards?


----------



## seankreynolds (Sep 16, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> Did they really just take a college pamphlet about sexual assault, scratch out all the references to sex and replace them with references to RPG's, and call it a day, thereby equating morally, philosophically, and practically the act of a group of people sitting down to play an RPG, with the act of two people preparing to have a sexual encounter?




Considering that all of my portions of the PDF (and I assume Shanna's, too) were written from scratch based on my own experiences and understanding of people dealing with consent issues, no, we didn't do what you're suggesting.



Celebrim said:


> Did they really just take Shanna Germain's "As Kinky as you Wanna Be: Your Guide to Safe, Sane, and Smart BSDM", replace the concepts of bondage and so forth with table top roleplaying, and call it a day?




Likewise, no.
Shanna and I are professional writers, please give us some credit for actually doing research about sensitive topics.




MGibster said:


> But isn't the opt in system is as presented in Consent in Gaming equating those things? The RPG Consent List at the back of the booklet lists natural disasters (flooding?) in the Mental and Physical Health category sharing the space with sexual assault, genocide, and heatstroke.
> (Seriously, does anyone think heatstroke belongs on the same list as sexual assault, self harm, and torture?)




One, just because they're on the same list doesn't mean we intended anything about their relative intensities. We're not making a valuation of any of these things, or rating or comparing them. The checklist literally is just a list of common topics that can be upsetting to some people. And it's not a complete list. (One person on Facebook asked, "Why is 'domestic violence' not on the checklist?") That's why there are blank lines, for adding things we didn't include.

Two, the intensity of any of these topics is completely personal.
• I have more than one friend who was raped. Among that group of people, their reactions to rape in a TV show, movie, or game aren't consistently the same from person to person.
• I have a friend who was nearby when a man was hit by a train, and the man died in front of him. My friend has panic attacks whenever he hears trains.
• I have friends who are veterans and have PTSD. A common trigger is explosions (including fireworks and gunfire on TV). Others get stressed when the temperature gets too hot (because it reminds them of being in the desert).
• I know someone who is very afraid of spiders. Even fake plastic spiders upset them.
• I'm afraid of heights. Even being on the edge of a fall in a videogame or in a movie makes me very nervous.
All of those things are valid. Nobody is trying to compare them, and nobody here is trying to say that X is worse than Y or that X is equal to Y. (And honestly, "someone else had it worse than me and therefore I shouldn't be upset about this" is a common aspect of PTSD from trauma, it sets people up to think that they're weak, which doesn't help them recover from their trauma).

Three, the intensity of any of these topics is variable based on other circumstances outside the game. It can vary from day to day, week to week, and situation to situation. A rape survivor might be especially sensitive if it is the anniversary of the attack, or if they saw someone earlier that day who reminds them of their assailant, or if the in-game event involves alcohol. My train-traumatized friend might be fine with the sound of one train but start to panic if there are multiple triggers on the same day, or if he wasn't expecting to hear a train. And so on.

So, with all of that in mind, no, we're not equating anything on the checklist, other than saying, "if this upsets you, that's valid and we should respect that."




MGibster said:


> From my point of view, it goes without saying that I'm not going to introduce sexual assault into a game without talking about it first. But not in a million years would I think I had to worry about heatstroke being a source of trauma in a game where we're routinely hacking off limbs and searing the meat off of bones with fireball spells.




It's good that you're not going to introduce sexual assault into a game without talking about it first. Unfortunately, based on the replies we've seen in other discussion threads on Facebook and Twitter, many people don't feel that way. ("They should man up" is a common response from people who don't want "censorship" in RPGs.)

The fact that you wouldn't think heatstroke could be a source of trauma is proof that you (generic you) don't really know what might be a trigger for someone. Likewise, someone on Twitter pointed out that hunger and thirst are common ways that abusive parents traumatize children; if you hadn't been abused like that, how would you know that it would be an issue?

Establishing no-go topics before you even start playing is a good way to avoid unexpectedly running into a trigger. I think we can agree that of these two options:
A) knowing to avoid topic X so it doesn't come up in-game, and
B) putting topic X in a game, then finding out (immediately or later) that it's really upsetting to someone, and then having to divert from that topic and make sure that the player is okay
… that option (A) is the better choice, yes?




Arnwolf666 said:


> Maybe a solution is to have tables where some are G rated, some PG rated, other R rated. Kind of like the movies. GM’s can have consent forms ready a few days before a session starts. That way potential players can review the form before signing so they won’t have an immediate pressure to sign and get involved in the game on the spot.




There's a line on the consent form that says, "If this game were a movie, its movie rating would be: G PG PG-13 R NC-17."


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 16, 2019)

seankreynolds said:


> Establishing no-go topics before you even start playing is a good way to avoid unexpectedly running into a trigger. I think we can agree that of these two options:
> A) knowing to avoid topic X so it doesn't come up in-game, and
> B) putting topic X in a game, then finding out (immediately or later) that it's really upsetting to someone, and then having to divert from that topic and make sure that the player is okay
> … that option (A) is the better choice, yes?




Personally I think your reply fails to address any real salient points regarding the applicability of this methodology to the very spheres where it would be most needed, but since you seem to have stood on this as your thesis, would it be sufficient to address this claim that "(A) is the better choice"?

Because I think I can prove from your own statements that A is not feasible or particularly sensitive to peoples feelings.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 16, 2019)

seankreynolds said:


> Considering that all of my portions of the PDF (and I assume Shanna's, too) were written from scratch based on my own experiences and understanding of people dealing with consent issues, no, we didn't do what you're suggesting.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




 I wouldn't put rape or sexual assault into a game except maybe in the background ie so and so was raped 20 years ago. No need to describe it. 

 The heat stroke thing is interesting as I'm running an Egyptian themed game. I did run a session 0 and said to expect desert, tombs, undead, poison, traps and rivers. 

  If anyone had an issue with any of that I would kind of expect them to not play. 

 I wouldn't be very tolerant if I had someone sign up and then complain. 

 If I'm running a themed game I'll communicate it up front, I have only ever done evil once for example. That was more for things like animate dead though.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 16, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> Maybe a solution is to have tables where some are G rated, some PG rated, other R rated. Kind of like the movies. GM’s can have consent forms ready a few days before a session starts. That way potential players can review the form before signing so they won’t have an immediate pressure to sign and get involved in the game on the spot.
> 
> It seems to be working for the film industry. I think that would definitely be a good thing for the industry as whole.




I think commercial RPG products ought to have an indicative age listing on the cover. I've been annoyed by everyone from Paizo putting out R-rated stuff alongside their PG-rated stuff, to Venger Satanis putting out X-rated stuff alongside his R-rated stuff, with no pre-purchase indication.

As a general rule I am not in favour of GM having players sign consent forms.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 16, 2019)

billd91 said:


> How about being dismissive of, then? Here you are chiding me about what you may or may not have experienced while showing a total lack of imagination or empathy about how some of those issues may have been extremely traumatic for someone else. Flooding? Heatstroke, meh, not in a million years, right?




I really don't think rarity of experience is relevant. I'm sure many Americans have direct or indirect experience of gun violence (a US friend of mine had her mentally ill brother gunned down by the police for standing in traffic waving a car aerial), but US films don't include a "warning - contains gun violence" announcement because it's obvious from the kind of film it is, and if the film is unusually violent then an age rating serves as a warning.

I expect a lot of us have some issues (like me with drowning/claustrophobia scenarios, due to the deaths of my cousins), the question is how best to approach this. It's a perfectly reasonable view IMO that the pamphlet's model is not a good one for widespread application.

Edit: But as I indicated, Convention games I think should include age ratings and warnings. And I think there are certain sorts of RPGs (which sorts are not a bad or illegitimate activity) where the approach of the pamphlet is likely a good one. My isssues with the pamphlet are more about the erratic tone, the indication that this approach may be seen as of general applicability, and the lack of emphasis that obligations are a two-way street, and if say I don't want to deal with a drowning-threat scenario, I may have a duty to politely recuse myself from a game the other players are enjoying.

Edit 2: One bit of advice to GMs - avoid "bait and switch"! People don't go into a romcom only to be presented with a slasher flick. Don't do that to your players.


----------



## macd21 (Sep 16, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> I wouldn't put rape or sexual assault into a game except maybe in the background ie so and so was raped 20 years ago. No need to describe it.
> 
> The heat stroke thing is interesting as I'm running an Egyptian themed game. I did run a session 0 and said to expect desert, tombs, undead, poison, traps and rivers.
> 
> ...




So your session 0 gave people a heads up about some of the stuff that would be in the game, giving players a heads up so they can drop out if they have a problem with any of it. But what about all the stuff you didn’t mention in your session 0? Sure, the war veteran who suffers PTSD flashbacks every time he thinks about deserts knows not to play. But you don’t know about the other traumas the rest of your players might have that you reference in your game, that have nothing to do with deserts, tombs, traps etc.

The consent form is just a way of giving you a heads up about these problems ahead of time. Why would any GM not want to know about these problems before they crop up at the table?


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 16, 2019)

macd21 said:


> So your session 0 gave people a heads up about some of the stuff that would be in the game, giving players a heads up so they can drop out if they have a problem with any of it. But what about all the stuff you didn’t mention in your session 0? Sure, the war veteran who suffers PTSD flashbacks every time he thinks about deserts knows not to play. But you don’t know about the other traumas the rest of your players might have that you reference in your game, that have nothing to do with deserts, tombs, traps etc.
> 
> The consent form is just a way of giving you a heads up about these problems ahead of time. Why would any GM not want to know about these problems before they crop up at the table?




 Consent form for D&D is just silly.

 I keep my games around pg 13 with the odd f bomb. 

 I would deal with the situation as it arises, I'm not going to hand out consent forms to cover every contingency.

If it's something that crops up that often and it's integral to the game it's either has to end or player has to leave.

 I've had players point blank tell me they're depressed or gay or whatever as a heads up, it makes no real difference as to how I run.


----------



## macd21 (Sep 16, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Consent form for D&D is just silly.
> 
> I keep my games around pg 13 with the odd f bomb.
> 
> ...




Hey, if you’re confident it’s not a problem at your table, that’s fine. But I’ve played games of DND that featured rape, graphic violence, brutal torture and physical humiliation of characters. None of which was highlighted ahead of time or thematically appropriate, it was just thrown in ‘for the lulz.’ And that was just DnD, don’t get me started on our WoD games! Thankfully (as far as I know) no one at the table was upset by these incidents (we were a bunch of sheltered teenage boys who thought we were oh-so-mature), but I now know players who would be.

Pathfinder has a demon of child abuse. Other games have monsters that rape, torture or otherwise abuse you in a horrific manner. There are plenty of GMs out there who don’t run ‘PG13 with the odd f-bomb’ games, and wouldn’t think twice about throwing any of these at their players. The consent form is to push them to stop and actually consider whether it’s a good idea.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 16, 2019)

macd21 said:


> Why would any GM not want to know about these problems before they crop up at the table?




IMO using the form & paphlet guidelines creates certain expectations, eg:

An RPG session is likely to be a traumatic experience
An RPG session has characteristics of a 'Safe Space' where the therapeutic needs of the participants are paramount

IMO a typical RPG session has more in common with a dinner party or other typical social gathering, than with an intense journey of personal exploration, a session of psychotherapy, or a BDSM session.

But if your RPG session does more resemble any of the latter, then forms of affirmative consent become more appropriate.


----------



## macd21 (Sep 16, 2019)

S'mon said:


> IMO using the form & paphlet guidelines creates certain expectations, eg:
> 
> An RPG session is likely to be a traumatic experience
> An RPG session has characteristics of a 'Safe Space' where the therapeutic needs of the participants are paramount
> ...




But that’s just it: players come to an RPG session expecting nothing more unusual than they would at a dinner party or other typical social gathering... only to have their characters drugged, bound, and raped in the back of a van.

Again: none of the incidents of rape or graphic violence in the DnD game I used to play in were typical for the table. The DM just thought they were funny. Other GMs think this kind of thing is ‘mature’ or ‘deep.’ If you’re confident nothing in your game is going to upset any of your players, fine. But you might be surprised what could set someone off. We tend not to divulge our worst traumas to people, even to our closest friends.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 16, 2019)

macd21 said:


> But that’s just it: players come to an RPG session expecting nothing more unusual than they would at a dinner party or other typical social gathering... only to have their characters drugged, bound, and raped in the back of a van.




While I don't think that a convention is an environment where it is wise to run a game involving loss of character agency and possibly implied rape, the set up you make here isn't actually what happened. The GM in question advertised a mature horror game that would explore sexual themes and even referenced a TV show that had a high level of prurience in it as the sort of standards one ought to be expect. So while maybe it's in bad taste to make light of sexual violence, and maybe there is poor judgment involved in taking away player agency in a public setting and having this be the set up to a game, it's not like any reasonable person going into this game should have expected content equivalent to a typical dinner party or social gathering. If you suspect that you'll find a game which has advertised itself as being in poor taste, distasteful, then perhaps you shouldn't sign up for that sort of game, or if you find yourself in it after having been so warned, perhaps you should just excuse yourself and say you didn't realize he was serious when he disclosed what the game would have been about. And all this happened on account of a scene the GM used a veil on.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 16, 2019)

macd21 said:


> Again: none of the incidents of rape or graphic violence in the DnD game I used to play in were typical for the table. The DM just thought they were funny.




The pamphlet seems to assume a GM acting in good faith who is worried about traumatising players. The GM you describe wouldn't use the consent form.

An alternative is a Convention mandating use of the form to control/prevent bad GMing. AFAICS a mandatory content-rating for the game (with otherwise an assumption of a PG-13/12 type content limit) is probably a better approach, but some unusual games may benefit from the pamphlet's approach.


----------



## macd21 (Sep 16, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> While I don't think that a convention is an environment where it is wise to run a game involving loss of character agency and possibly implied rape, the set up you make here isn't actually what happened. The GM in question advertised a mature horror game that would explore sexual themes and even referenced a TV show that had a high level of prurience in it as the sort of standards one ought to be expect. So while maybe it's in bad taste to make light of sexual violence, and maybe there is poor judgment involved in taking away player agency in a public setting and having this be the set up to a game, it's not like any reasonable person going into this game should have expected content equivalent to a typical dinner party or social gathering. If you suspect that you'll find a game which has advertised itself as being in poor taste, distasteful, then perhaps you shouldn't sign up for that sort of game, or if you find yourself in it after having been so warned, perhaps you should just excuse yourself and say you didn't realize he was serious when he disclosed what the game would have been about. And all this happened on account of a scene the GM used a veil on.




No, that isn’t what happened. That’s what the GM claimed happened after the fact, which turned out to be very much not the case. The players had no reasonable expectation that their teenage characters were going to be drugged and gang-raped. It was totally out of the blue, and totally inappropriate for the game they were playing.

And again, this happens in games in which there is no warning, no hint of this coming up. It comes up in regular games of DnD. And while you may feel confident that it won’t happen in a game you’re running, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen, ruining other player’s gaming experiences.


----------



## macd21 (Sep 16, 2019)

S'mon said:


> The pamphlet seems to assume a GM acting in good faith who is worried about traumatising players. The GM you describe wouldn't use the consent form.




GMs acting in good faith naughty word up all the time. And GMs acting in good faith may want to explore dark, mature and/or horror elements in their games, but be unaware of what might be upsetting to their players. I can’t see any reason why a GM being more aware about what upsets his players could possibly be a bad thing.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 16, 2019)

I think my consent form would be if you can’t handle Mel Brooks, Dave Chapelle and South Park please don’t play my game. Also if you don’t like dark mirror and game of thrones (last couple seasons excluded) then please don’t attend. Warning there may also be George Carlin references.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 16, 2019)

macd21 said:


> I can’t see any reason why a GM being more aware about what upsets his players could possibly be a bad thing.




I think people have been a bit reluctant to talk about this aspect clearly. It's not very easy to do so. I'll try briefly:

Raising the issue focuses attention on it. It makes players think "Will I be triggered?" "Will there be traumatic material?" It changes the play dynamic in a way that will IMO often be harmful, especially if the session is a typical light D&D type game. Instead of putting people at ease, they start the session tense and expectant of Nasty Stuff happening. It may actually deter nervous players from ever playing D&D in the first place.

OTOH if the GM _is_ actually planning to 'go dark', I think it's a different situation.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 16, 2019)

macd21 said:


> No, that isn’t what happened. That’s what the GM claimed happened after the fact, which turned out to be very much not the case. The players had no reasonable expectation that their teenage characters were going to be drugged and gang-raped. It was totally out of the blue, and totally inappropriate for the game they were playing.




Then, as there seems to be a disagreement over what the facts in that case are, I'll refrain from further comment until such time as I'm able to verify the facts for myself - which seems highly unlikely given my distance from the events. My perceptions of who is at fault here and to what degree depend variously on what actually happened. 



> And again, this happens in games in which there is no warning, no hint of this coming up. It comes up in regular games of DnD. And while you may feel confident that it won’t happen in a game you’re running, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen, ruining other player’s gaming experiences.




There are too many pronouns in those sentences for me to understand what you are saying. I don't know what "this" and "it" are in the context of this discussion.

But in the broader sense, the approach here seems like a case of those who have good intent would be better off without the guidelines, and those without good intent will either not use them or abuse them to their advantage. My problems have less to do with the stated goals than they do with the fact that I don't think they are practical advice for dealing with real world situations. If for example you are right about this scenario being obviously inappropriate for the genre of game they were playing, then disclosures wouldn't do anything to prevent the scenario while being themselves things that a convention ought to hesitate to ask participants to disclose. And if in fact the GM had made some sort of disclosure about the content, then the fact that this different prevent ruining the game shows how limited value such prior agreements really have. These are techniques designed to solve a particular problem that are being applied to very different situations than they were originally conceived and designed to handle.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 16, 2019)

macd21 said:


> I can’t see any reason why a GM being more aware about what upsets his players could possibly be a bad thing.




Can you not imagine how that could go wrong? Or do you not understand why these consent forms don't preface any and all interactions between friends or strangers?


----------



## macd21 (Sep 16, 2019)

S'mon said:


> I think people have been a bit reluctant to talk about this aspect clearly. It's not very easy to do so. I'll try briefly:
> 
> Raising the issue focuses attention on it. It makes players think "Will I be triggered?" "Will there be traumatic material?" It changes the play dynamic in a way that will IMO often be harmful, especially if the session is a typical light D&D type game. Instead of putting people at ease, they start the session tense and expectant of Nasty Stuff happening. It may actually deter nervous players from ever playing D&D in the first place.




Why would they expect Nasty Stuff to happen, if they’ve just told the GM what not to include in the game?

And I think a nervous player is s lot more likely to play DnD if he’s reassured that his personal trauma isn’t going to come up.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 16, 2019)

macd21 said:


> Why would they expect Nasty Stuff to happen, if they’ve just told the GM what not to include in the game?




Because they've just filled in a Consent Form that anything they didn't X  - or think to list - CAN be included.


----------



## macd21 (Sep 16, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> Can you not imagine how that could go wrong? Or do you not understand why these consent forms don't preface any and all interactions between friends or strangers?




No, I can’t see how it could go wrong. And most interactions between friends and strangers aren’t role playing games. It’s not generally applicable.


----------



## macd21 (Sep 16, 2019)

S'mon said:


> Because they've just filled in a Consent Form that anything they didn't X  - or think to list - CAN be included.




So? The alternative is that everything is included, including what they hate.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 16, 2019)

macd21 said:


> So? The alternative is that everything is included, including what they hate.




No, the alternative is behaving like a normal human being and acting appropriately to the social situation.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Sep 16, 2019)

S'mon said:


> No, the alternative is behaving like a normal human being and acting appropriately to the social situation.



Heh... well there's the problem.  You seem to think everybody is capable of doing that.


----------



## macd21 (Sep 16, 2019)

S'mon said:


> No, the alternative is behaving like a normal human being and acting appropriately to the social situation.




So you’re saying the trauma victim should man up? Not worry that the GM, through simple, understandable ignorance, will spring something on him?

This isn’t complicated, and it shouldn’t be controversial. A GM getting a heads up about this stuff is never a bad thing. Understanding that just because something doesn’t bother you, doesn’t mean others won’t find it horribly offensive or traumatic.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Sep 16, 2019)

Here is why I think documents such as this are a good and useful thing:

They are taking and illustrating things to such an extreme distance past what many people will think is necessary that when some people push back against the document...  comment that X, Y, and Z aren't necessary, you just need to do A, B, and C... invariably their points of A, B, and C tend to be further and more towards safety than they would have been had nothing ever been brought up.  And people don't even realize that their decisions and choices have progressed in the direction the document was pointing out.

This is how progressiveness works.

We as a society have a default "thing" that is set at a '5' (for example).  Something that is good, but maybe not great.  As a result, many people start discussing it and give us all examples of where they think we _should_ be as a society, say at a '10'.  Some people who perhaps never even thought about it say "Oh, yeah, we probably should be at a 10", and their feelings and actions are moved and changed to match.  But obviously there is then push-back by many people who say "'10'?  That's ridiculous!  We don't need a '10'!  That's going overboard!  I'm never going to go to a '10'!  We can do fine with just A, B, and C!"  And guess what?  Because the illustrated '10' was so far afield, the A, B, and C they were willing to do actually turns out to be a '6' or a '7'.  Further along than the '5' we started at.  And thus they have progressed past what the societal norm was and they didn't even realize it.

And then once most of the society follows along, that '6' or '7' is now the new default and becomes our average '5' again.  And thus the process starts over.

Basically I think that in this specific instance... even those of us here on the boards who might think this document is useless at a minimum and deliberately harmful at worst, is actually having their thoughts and opinions moved ever so slightly in the direction that the document points out anyway.  At the very minimum because they don't want to waste their time dealing with being be called out as "monsters" or some such nonsense and to avoid unnecessary PITA conversations.  Because at the end of the day... for the 95% of players for whom this document is not actually necessary because we all act with a modicum of societal common sense... it really isn't worth our time and energy to argue or fight back on it.  Thus we go along with it and we end up gliding in the direction we were asked to go in the first place.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 16, 2019)

The amount of pushback to giving folks tools to communicate is... kind of astounding, really.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 16, 2019)

Umbran said:


> The amount of pushback to giving folks tools to communicate is... kind of astounding, really.




Not really.  You always get pushback when offering new tools/ways especially if those tools/way will only benefit a small subgroup.  People feel you're telling everyone who doesn't/hasn't used the new thing that they're having BADWRONGFUN.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 16, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Nagol (Sep 16, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> ...you're new here, on the internet, right?
> 
> I feel like someone can say, "Hey, water is wet," and get 500 "Well, ACTUALLY ..." responses.
> 
> ...




Unless, of course, that's what they're really into.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 16, 2019)

macd21 said:


> So you’re saying the trauma victim should man up?




No, and if you say anything like that again we won't be continuing this conversation.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 16, 2019)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Here is why I think documents such as this are a good and useful thing:
> 
> They are taking and illustrating things to such an extreme distance past what many people will think is necessary that when some people push back against the document...  comment that X, Y, and Z aren't necessary, you just need to do A, B, and C... invariably their points of A, B, and C tend to be further and more towards safety than they would have been had nothing ever been brought up.  And people don't even realize that their decisions and choices have progressed in the direction the document was pointing out.




Humm. You may be right.  I've certainly tried hard here to see the POV that sees this document as useful, and tried to imagine situations where it might be, even while disagreeing with its widespread use. Which process probably does tend to push my own views 'up' from a 5 to a 6 or so, and may help normalise a 7 or 8, if not yet a 10.

Of course there is the contrary effect over on an anti-PC RPG site where Monte Cook gets called an 'RPG Maoist' by the board owner, and the discussion tends to push views down from a 5 towards a 4 or 3. So I think that process can work both ways.

The overall effect may tend to radicalisation, even while the great majority of commenters here are pretty reasonable, or at least try to be reasonable.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 16, 2019)

S'mon said:


> No, and if you say anything like that again we won't be continuing this conversation.




He wasn’t saying it. He was asking a question for clarification.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 16, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> He wasn’t saying it. He was asking a question for clarification.




Well, I answered. No.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 16, 2019)

You were very hostile about an honest question that really needed elaboration on the difference.


----------



## Wolfpack48 (Sep 16, 2019)

Nagol said:


> Not really.  You always get pushback when offering new tools/ways especially if those tools/way will only benefit a small subgroup.  People feel you're telling everyone who doesn't/hasn't used the new thing that they're having BADWRONGFUN.




I don’t think anyone here is demanding that everyone use the doc. It’s an optional tool to facilitate conversation. The fear over it seems to be connected to an idea that the document is now The Law and that everyone must obey. I don’t hear anyone saying that.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Sep 16, 2019)

S'mon said:


> Of course there is the contrary effect over on an anti-PC RPG site where Monte Cook gets called an 'RPG Maoist' by the board owner, and the discussion tends to push views down from a 5 towards a 4 or 3. So I think that process can work both ways.
> 
> The overall effect may tend to radicalisation, even while the great majority of commenters here are pretty reasonable, or at least try to be reasonable.



Oh sure... even when a societal norm is a '5', there are people who would find themselves at a '3' or '2' or '1'.  And more often than not, any discussion at a '10' level will be so antithetical to their feelings or beliefs that they will push back so greatly as to drop themselves further down.  But the numbers of those people who drop down I think tends to be just as small as the number of people for whom the '10' is not only the expected or necessary level of societal norm, but is actually kind of low.  I mean we have the identifiers Far Left and Far Right for a reason.

But for the most part I think those who would consider themselves a '1' or a '10' on a societal norm of '5' are people for whom just conversation or basic instruction or "just use common sense!" wouldn't really work for them anyway.  There is something more ingrained in their psyche at play that the basics of societal discourse won't actually have an affect.  Not that they're necessarily wrong for that... but it just just changes how they will interact with us and how we interact with them.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 16, 2019)

I think almost everyone agrees about the sexual content in public places and with strangers. I think it’s the other things like drowning, hypothermia and natural disasters not be allowed. And trying to guess if a players has a fear of spiders or something like that. Although this may be a good thing if it stops WotC for having all these cataclysms in their settings.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 16, 2019)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Oh sure... even when a societal norm is a '5', there are people who would find themselves at a '3' or '2' or '1'.  And more often than not, any discussion at a '10' level will be so antithetical to their feelings or beliefs that they will push back so greatly as to drop themselves further down.  But the numbers of those people who drop down I think tends to be just as small as the number of people for whom the '10' is not only the expected or necessary level of societal norm, but is actually kind of low.  I mean we have the identifiers Far Left and Far Right for a reason.




I was thinking how over there on the anti-PC site my initial response was "Well this pamphlet seems to make some good points... maybe overstated ....hmm, especially later on" (let's call that a 5), but many of the posters there are saying how appalling it is, a sign of SJW infiltrators taking over the hobby etc, which discussion then tends to push my own view down to a 4 or 3 as I consider if they have a point. Whereas here it's more the opposite, debate tending to push me up towards a 6 or 7, at least until someone comes along and starts casting personal aspersions at me, which provokes a more negative reaction.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 16, 2019)

DEFCON 1 said:


> But for the most part I think those who would consider themselves a '1' or a '10' on a societal norm of '5' are people for whom just conversation or basic instruction or "just use common sense!" wouldn't really work for them anyway.




That sounds like an RPG ...place... of a very different hue.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Sep 16, 2019)

S'mon said:


> I was thinking how over there on the anti-PC site my initial response was "Well this pamphlet seems to make some good points... maybe overstated ....hmm, especially later on" (let's call that a 5), but many of the posters there are saying how appalling it is, a sign of SJW infiltrators taking over the hobby etc, which discussion then tends to push my own view down to a 4 or 3 as I consider if they have a point. Whereas here it's more the opposite, debate tending to push me up towards a 6 or 7, at least until someone comes along and starts casting personal aspersions at me, which provokes a more negative reaction.



Well, I don't think any single question or incident can really necessary change anyone's personal overall outlook or mores at the drop of a hat.  It's going to end up being many ideas and many discussions and many reflections over the years that may or may not change our own personal feelings and opinions.  So any specific thing that makes us think one side has some good points and then the other side also has some good points basically ends up defaulting us to how our societal norm is at a '5' in the first place.  

But the fact that this document has actually made you take a few moments to actually think about what you believe in, and make you think about how other people might see things... that lovely term of 'empathy'... means that you are in good stead to continue analyzing your beliefs in the future.  And for the most part, I think we as people tend to actually move forward and past what we would consider the 'status quo' when there are enough people out there commenting that the status quo kinda sucks.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 16, 2019)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Well, I don't think any single question or incident can really necessary change anyone's personal overall outlook or mores at the drop of a hat.  It's going to end up being many ideas and many discussions and many reflections over the years that may or may not change our own personal feelings and opinions.  So any specific thing that makes us think one side has some good points and then the other side also has some good points basically ends up defaulting us to how our societal norm is at a '5' in the first place.
> 
> But the fact that this document has actually made you take a few moments to actually think about what you believe in, and make you think about how other people might see things... that lovely term of 'empathy'... means that you are in good stead to continue analyzing your beliefs in the future.  And for the most part, I think we as people tend to actually move forward and past what we would consider the 'status quo' when there are enough people out there commenting that the status quo kinda sucks.




Yeah, the status quo isn't always the best place to be.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 16, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Gradine (Sep 16, 2019)

Wow, this thread started slow and then exploded over the weekend, didn't it. I do have a few points to add though:


"Consent" is not synonymous with "S&M". It is, or at least _should be_, synonymous with "sex".
A lot of pushback seems to come from folks of the "I've played with the same group for 70 years" type, which, you know, I don't think this document is for you or tables like yours? You see this a lot whenever gaming horror stories come out; they seem completely inconcgruous to "gaming as I understand it" when "gaming as I understand it" mostly, if not exclusively, involves the same group or groups of good friends who have had many, many years of learning to understand one another. As if those experiences were universal and all-inclusive of gaming as whole.
The horror stories, meanwhile, far more often than not develop out of scenes of gaming with strangers, which I imagine is a foreign experience for a large portion of gamers. You mostly hear these out of conventions, or gaming store games, or otherwise less organic gaming groups (looking-for-group type situations); situations where laying out some very clear ground rules or at the very least giving out a content warning for content that might exacerbate someone's trauma would avoid a lot of heartache.
I think a tool such as this is a little overwrought for a con game (where specific content warnings are likely to be best practice; a simple "R" rating alone doesn't actually communicate much) or one-shot, but might be a great tool for folks who don't know each other that well at first but plan on making gaming as a group a long-term prospect. Again, those "looking-for-group" type situations seem to be the best fit for a product like this.
It's been pointed out A LOT, but there's a lot of hand-wringing and clutching over pearls over nothing regarding this or similar efforts like this (possibly the X-card excepting, but I'm not a huge fan of that one, albeit for different reasons than you usually hear). This is a *communication *tool. Nothing more or less. Nobody is breaking down anyone's door to tell them what they can or cannot do in their games. One of the best possible outcomes of a tool like this is that the players don't disclose any concerns over anything the DM was planning to include in their games in the first place. Another best possible outcome is one in which a player makes a concern about something the DM was planning to include, but this causes the DM to reconsider or avoid the subject. _Yet another _best possible outcome is similar to the last, but the DM and the player come to an understand that that particular game isn't for that player. And all of this, ideally, takes place before a single die is rolled or character sheet started. Each and every one of those outcomes is the tool working as designed. Nothing more and nothing less.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Sep 16, 2019)

Case in point... I'm in my late 40s, and as a result I grew up in the 80s during the boom of stand-up comedy.  And quite a number of comedians of the day would satirize the racist attitudes of their forebears by going extremely over the top with racist language-- inspiring us to hopefully come to the conclusion just how ridiculous those racist attitude are.  I was a teenage during the 80s and I certainly internalized all of that.  Our societal norm at the time was a '5', and these comedians were pushing '8s' and '9s'.  And it shaped my attitudes on race as I became an adult.

And I would say it worked.  Their efforts at mocking racism has helped turn their '8s' and '9s' into our new default of '5'.  They aren't the sole reason of course... but they were a part of the change.  But now guess what? We are now at the point where our younger folks are making the case that these now-older comedians who are still doing what they did before 30 years ago are _no longer helping_.  Because it is their belief that using racist language to satirize racism is still _being racist_.  It doesn't matter that they're trying to help make change... our younger folk are telling us that they are no longer willing to accept racism to combat racism.

And the thing is... this shouldn't be any big surprise!  That was the whole point into doing those routines in the first place-- to get society to change!  And now that it has, we shouldn't get all defensive that we are now looked upon by our children the way we looked at the older generations we were making fun of.  Yes, indeed... *we have become that which we mocked*.  And for a lot of people it can be hard to look in the mirror and accept that as true.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 16, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## monsmord (Sep 16, 2019)

Nagol said:


> You always get pushback when offering new tools/ways especially if those tools/way will only benefit a small subgroup.  People feel you're telling everyone who doesn't/hasn't used the new thing that they're having BADWRONGFUN.






Wolfpack48 said:


> I don’t think anyone here is demanding that everyone use the doc. It’s an optional tool to facilitate conversation. The fear over it seems to be connected to an idea that the document is now The Law and that everyone must obey. I don’t hear anyone saying that.




After reading through here and various far-worse dumpster fires across the Webz, I may have to agree with Nagol. While there's been some interesting discussion about the usefulness, universality, and propriety of the approach, most detracting comments seem more along the line of "how dare they." There are some very intensely negative, intensely personal reactions out there, as though deeply insulted this doc exists. Whether that insult is taken on how they approach gaming with their group, on the types of content they prefer, or on some principal of what they construe as "censorship," I can't tell. Maybe all. But all those claims of "SJW infiltration" and "censorship" point more to alt-right outrage and/or apologist shame, and not to a concern that they have another document to maintain or rule to abide.

Every game begins with consent: what genre, what system, what goals, what player interactions are and aren't allowed, etc. When gamers can't find common ground on their play, games fall apart. Adding content consent seems as natural, respectful, and productive to a mutually enjoyable gaming experience as any other type of consent. And like any system, rule, adventure, DM screen, or other game aid, if your group doesn't like it or need it, great. No need to get crazy mad about it. It's not censorship, it's agreement: whatever gaming your group all has fun doing, enjoy.

If I have any criticism about the doc, it's on a fundamental principal of asking that participants reveal very personal info. Some people find it easy to share what troubles, scares, or triggers them, others don't. What a person is bothered, triggered, or traumatized by X can be an intensely difficult thing to reveal, not the sort of thing they may be inclined to write on a paper and hand over to a GM, worse if that's a stranger at a con or a new face at the FLGS.

Then, the same is true of any during-game solution. By dropping an X-card when something happens, I'm signalling something to my fellow gamers, something that maybe I don't want them to know about me. Same with just walking away from the game.

This is a tough nut to crack, harder for strangers. Wish I had a better suggestion than this doc or combining it with some in-game tools. Until I do, I wouldn't mind encountering this doc at a con or at a new game at the local shop.



Gradine said:


> "Consent" is not synonymous with "S&M". It is, or at least _should be_, synonymous with "sex".




No, it has far broader applications than sex, even in purely legal terms (at least in the U.S. - for instance, as in police asking for "consent to search" a vehicle, property, etc.) The word "consent," though nowadays prevalent in various adult communities, is widely appropriate for many non-sexual and non-adult situations and relationships.


----------



## Gradine (Sep 16, 2019)

monsmord said:


> No, it has far broader applications than sex, even in purely legal terms (at least in the U.S. - for instance, as in police asking for "consent to search" a vehicle, property, etc.) The word "consent," though nowadays prevalent in various adult communities, is widely appropriate for many non-sexual and non-adult situations and relationships.




I suppose I should say that it is the other way around "ie, sex is synonymous with consent"; or at least that consent should be involved in all manner and variety of sexual activity, from the most vanilla to the kinds that require safe words.

But yeah, consent clearly has other applications; this product demonstrating one of them.


----------



## macd21 (Sep 16, 2019)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Well, I don't think any single question or incident can really necessary change anyone's personal overall outlook or mores at the drop of a hat.  It's going to end up being many ideas and many discussions and many reflections over the years that may or may not change our own personal feelings and opinions.  So any specific thing that makes us think one side has some good points and then the other side also has some good points basically ends up defaulting us to how our societal norm is at a '5' in the first place.
> 
> But the fact that this document has actually made you take a few moments to actually think about what you believe in, and make you think about how other people might see things... that lovely term of 'empathy'... means that you are in good stead to continue analyzing your beliefs in the future.  And for the most part, I think we as people tend to actually move forward and past what we would consider the 'status quo' when there are enough people out there commenting that the status quo kinda sucks.




All this. As much as anything else, this document is getting people to _talk_ about this stuff, and that talking gets people thinking. Even GMs who never use the consent form may put a little more thought into using difficult content in their games, and maybe talking to their players about it beforehand. People sharing their bad experiences may prompt others to be a bit more considerate. 

It’s a lot of little shifts in perspective that overall lead to a more welcoming community and more comfortable gaming experience overall.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Sep 16, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> Isn't this, like, all of history? I feel like breaking out into the Circle of Life.
> 
> One day, we all become our parents.* And our children will hate us for it. Until they become us. And so on, and so forth.
> 
> ...



Of course it is.  But as each generation grows up they forget about it.  And thus we are doomed to repeat that history ad nauseum.  

Which is why I just can't help but roll my eyes when the comedians I loved as a teen are now complaining about "political correctness".  Yes, Jerry Seinfeld, yes Chris Rock... the stuff you used to joke about isn't found funny anymore because society has changed and you haven't.  And if you can't understand or come to grips with that... perhaps you aren't as smart or intuitive as we all thought you were.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 16, 2019)

Gradine said:


> Wow, this thread started slow and then exploded over the weekend, didn't it. I do have a few points to add though:
> 
> 
> "Consent" is not synonymous with "S&M". It is, or at least _should be_, synonymous with "sex".




I think that's way too narrow.  Consent should be synonymous with "permission,".  You may get consent for sex.  You can also get consent for a platonic hug.  Or, for raiding someone else's refrigerator for snacks.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Sep 16, 2019)

But that being said... there are also plenty of things that "don't offend me" that offend the heck out of a lot of other people (starting mainly from the Millenial and Gen Z generations.)  But that's not because they are wrong to be offended... but merely because I still remember the stuff from my parents and grandparents generations that were much worse.  And thus to my mind the stuff being complained about seems "tame" by comparison.  But that doesn't mean the stuff doesn't actually suck and is wrong.  Cause it sure as heck does and is, I just don't see it in the same way. But that's my issue and problem, not theirs.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 16, 2019)

Gradine said:


> I think a tool such as this is a little overwrought for a con game (where specific content warnings are likely to be best practice; a simple "R" rating alone doesn't actually communicate much) or one-shot, but might be a great tool for folks who don't know each other that well at first but plan on making gaming as a group a long-term prospect. Again, those "looking-for-group" type situations seem to be the best fit for a product like this.




Yes, clearly it's primary design is for a game in which the GM is including content based on the responses from his or her players. In a convention game, the game is already designed. However, it's not completely useless. Obviously, there's the game's MPAA-style rating or suggested age. But even the other elements of the questionnaire could be useful. A GM could fill them out based on their own intended style and content and potential players can review the list for pick-up games and small con events managed by on-site signup lists. The GM could also fill out the form and use that as a reminder on what to include as disclaimers when writing their event marketing blurb at larger cons with more formal registration like Gen Con or GameholeCon.


----------



## Wolfpack48 (Sep 16, 2019)

billd91 said:


> Yes, clearly it's primary design is for a game in which the GM is including content based on the responses from his or her players. In a convention game, the game is already designed. However, it's not completely useless. Obviously, there's the game's MPAA-style rating or suggested age. But even the other elements of the questionnaire could be useful. A GM could fill them out based on their own intended style and content and potential players can review the list for pick-up games and small con events managed by on-site signup lists. The GM could also fill out the form and use that as a reminder on what to include as disclaimers when writing their event marketing blurb at larger cons with more formal registration like Gen Con or GameholeCon.




I actually wouldn’t mind a movie-like rating system at cons for a game with a general description of each category, and then a more detailed description for each game being held. More advance info is better for everyone.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 16, 2019)

I’m just worried what kind of people will be seeking out the position to enforce these rules. That’s alot of power. And then if this is just the beginning of policing these games for other thought crimes.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Sep 16, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> I’m just worried what kind of people will be seeking out the position to enforce these rules.



They already do.  They're called 'Dungeon Masters'.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 16, 2019)

DEFCON 1 said:


> They already do.  They're called 'Dungeon Masters'.




Apparently they are banning dungeon masters.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 16, 2019)

On the one hand, I feel like the past page or so has gotten down to defending this document on the grounds of such narrow utility, and has conceded it's lack of utility in such a swath of situations, and has even seemingly gotten to the level of trying to defend it with, "But it makes you think.", "But it's got such good intent." and "But you could always fix the problems in the rules by house ruling the document.", that I feel there are hardly any windmills left for me to tilt at.   

A great many of the comments defending the document are now entirely divorced from the what the document actually says, so that they are making this out to be some sort of session zero questionnaire or some sort of ratings disclosure document - things that I don't think would actually get a lot of pushback. It's really easy to wonder why there is pushback when you have replaced in your head what the thing is with some far more reasonable alternative

Suggesting that in some cases it might be good session zero questionnaire that said something like, "Are there any subjects which you might cause emotional distress, such as particular phobias you have which would tend to cause a fictional subject to cause real distress?" probably would get no pushback.

Suggesting that in a new group or in a group which might be considering changing its normal game type, some sort of disclosure to the group by the GM regarding the sort of subject matter he considered appropriate at the table and what he expected to raise and what he would object to if the player initiated it is also not unreasonable. "I tend to prefer the game to remain PG-13..." ect. is not a particularly controversial course of action.

But this document doesn't outline any of those things. Instead the solution imported into the social gaming environment is one that makes the following assuptions:

a) The activity involved is inherently and highly unsafe.
b) The basis of safety is a veto on the activity by all participants which can be raised at any time and for any reason.
c) An objection by one party has equal rate to the feelings of the rest of the group, an assumption that would make sense if and only if there were only two parties in the activity.
d) When a veto is raised, the other parties are inherently in the wrong because a veto is raised on the basis of safety, therefore any other considerations are invalid. Any attempt to discuss the subject is inherently rude. Any show of displeasure that the veto is raised is inherently rude.

In the document some of these assumptions are made explicitly, and others implicitly, but they are all there. These assumptions make a great deal of sense if the activity we are discussing is say cave exploration, which is a highly perilous activity. They make very little sense for typical table top role playing.

To make them make sense, requires at minimum defending proposition 'a' - the activity involved is inherently and highly unsafe - which some people seem to be actually trying to do.

Ironically, this IMO makes roleplaying seem less safe, welcoming and inclusive.

Even more ironically, if proposition 'a' is in fact true, then the hobby most certainly requires gatekeepers to filter who can be allowed to participate in the hobby, because hobbies that are unsafe are justified in be exclusive and practicing a certain amount of elitism. And if in fact people are advancing the idea that the hobby is unsafe, then people who are uncomfortable that this document seems to be part of a drive to justify gatekeeping in the hobby both in terms of play and publications, may not in fact be irrational. 

And that doesn't even get into the practical challenges of implementing this strategy and what that would actually look like if you tried it and how ugly and unpleasant it would probably get.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 16, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> And then if this is just the beginning of policing these games for other thought crimes.




It isn't about policing thought crimes.  It is about giving folks tools to be able to approach emotionally complex topics with people they don't know particularly well.  

If anything, this actually helps people be more free, by helping them make considerate choices about the individuals at hand, rather than having to broadly police in a general way.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 16, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> On the one hand, I feel like the past page or so has gotten down to defending this document on the grounds of such narrow utility, and has conceded it's lack of utility in such a swath of situations, and has even seemingly gotten to the level of trying to defend it with, "But it makes you think.", "But it's got such good intent." and "But you could always fix the problems in the rules by house ruling the document.", that I feel there are hardly any windmills left for me to tilt at.




I think you could have stopped it there, declared victory, and left.

That's what I intend to do now.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 16, 2019)

Umbran said:


> It isn't about policing thought crimes.  It is about giving folks tools to be able to approach emotionally complex topics with people they don't know particularly well.
> 
> If anything, this actually helps people be more free, by helping them make considerate choices about the individuals at hand, rather than having to broadly police in a general way.




That’s how those things start out. It is what kind of person wants the position of power to enforce it. How will they enforce. Will this become as convoluted as how we enforce laws and company policies.  Will this become a method of banning people with certain play styles. People that want power can be dangerous people.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 16, 2019)

Umbran said:


> If anything, this actually helps people be more free, by helping them make considerate choices about the individuals at hand, rather than having to broadly police in a general way.




I will never be less free and less considerate that an expert system filled with "If A then B, no negotiation." arrows and directives. Replacing people with a trivially simple expert system is not helping people make considerate choices, but rather is having situations broadly policed in a general way.

This system is not some nuanced document calling for a nuanced approach. It's a document that assumes the activity is highly unsafe. Again, I don't know a lot about the BDSM community, but I recognize these sort of guidelines from caving and cave rescue training - if one party member feels unsafe the whole party needs to immediately shift the first priority to removing the entire party from the cave system. It's not intended to be considerate. It's intended to keep people safe in a situation where things can go spectacularly wrong in a blink of an eye. 

Leaving aside the ethics of BDSM and the use of emotionally charged words like 'consent', if I tried to import into the gaming community an expert system designed to keep groups safe in dangerous cave systems, a set of rules that every grotto in some form is supposed to abide by, people might reasonably wonder why in the world I was trying to treat a recreational activity like some sort of highly dangerous activity. And people might reasonably wonder whether insisting on double checks of equipment and buddy checks and so forth might actually discourage people from entering the hobby (which many grottoes actually actively do). 

"If you need aid, shout BO BO BO as loudly as possible.... I mean, touch the X card, use the safe word..."


----------



## Umbran (Sep 16, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> But this document doesn't outline any of those things. Instead the solution imported into the social gaming environment is one that makes the following assuptions:
> 
> a) The activity involved is inherently and highly unsafe.




So, here's a story of something I accidentally did.

Years ago, at a convention, I was in a live-action game set in a circus, in which most of the characters were circus performers.  Trapeze artists, lion tamers, ringmaster, and everything, and everyone had pulled out the stops for costuming.  At the scheduled game start, the GMs told us they needed a few more minutes to set up the room, and asked if all us players could please go to the con suite to wait.  The con suite was right outside the game room, so the players all decided to make it into a "hey, the circus has come to town" parade.  We came merrily trouping out...

And a woman in the con suite, who was innocently making herself a sandwich, turned, looked at me, screamed, and dropped to the floor covering her head with her arms.  She was legitimately coulrophobic, and I was in the lead of the column in full Emmett Kelley inspired clown makeup.  I _freaked the ever-lovin' frak_ out of this poor woman.  My fellow clowns and I needed to skedaddle out of sight, and she lost the afternoon to pulling herself back into working order.

So, you know, claiming the safety of gaming... not so solid.

Within the context of the game, _where everyone had buy-in_ to being at a circus, there was no issue.  But take a thing out of that context where we all agree upon it being okay, and suddenly it can become very much unsafe, especially when it is a sudden surprise.

Safety isn't generally inherent to an activity - it often depends upon context and preparation.


----------



## Gradine (Sep 16, 2019)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Of course it is.  But as each generation grows up they forget about it.  And thus we are doomed to repeat that history ad nauseum.
> 
> Which is why I just can't help but roll my eyes when the comedians I loved as a teen are now complaining about "political correctness".  Yes, Jerry Seinfeld, yes Chris Rock... the stuff you used to joke about isn't found funny anymore because society has changed and you haven't.  And if you can't understand or come to grips with that... perhaps you aren't as smart or intuitive as we all thought you were.




It should be noted that is endemic of comedy as a whole; it's just hard for good comedy (and thus good comedians) to age well. And it really does impact the best of comedians; when _Chappelle _has basically become stale and outdated, you know that nobody's really safe.



Celebrim said:


> But this document doesn't outline any of those things. Instead the solution imported into the social gaming environment is one that makes the following assuptions:
> 
> a) The activity involved is inherently and highly unsafe.
> b) The basis of safety is a veto on the activity by all participants which can be raised at any time and for any reason.
> ...




a) It literally doesn't say that at all. I honestly think that's just you projecting. That gaming has the _potential _to be unsafe is (a) what it's really saying, (b) objectively true, and (c) shouldn't be controversial at all.
b) That's less the basis of safety and more of a last resort. The purpose of this tool and others like it is to have enough communication made before hand that a "veto" or "x-card" or whatever becomes all but unnecessary. I get why the "at any time and for any reason" might be an controversial position but from a trauma-informed perspective it is fundamentally and indisputably necessary.
c) Individual and community well-being is not a democracy. Every individual has the right to declare, set, and enforce their own boundaries. That said, sometimes the best solution is the game is not the best fit for the individual. That's an outcome that I think could be better articulated in the document (which comes from the standpoint that the DM and group are to wanting accommodate and be inclusive of all players within the group), but is a positive outcome nonetheless. That said, I find it hard to argue that "If you don't like it, you can leave" is particularly moral stance to take.
d) Now this point is just a willful misreading of the document. The document goes to great lengths to explain that nobody is in the "wrong", everyone makes mistakes from time to time, and everyone's personal traumas and triggers are, well, _personal. _Just because it doesn't bother you doesn't mean you're a bad person because you didn't raise an objection. And this: "Any attempt to discuss the subject is inherently rude. Any show of displeasure that the veto is raised is inherently rude." is either a level of intellectual dishonesty that is quite honestly beneath you, or such a sign of self-importance, ego and lack of empathy that honestly kind of concerns me. That's not what the document says at all. It says that a person isn't required to isn't required to explain why the thing that just made them uncomfortable makes them so uncomfortable. A person's reasons why are deeply personal, and if the situation in the game makes them uncomfortable, making them talk about the real life reasons why is only going to make them more uncomfortable. Demanding an explanation, badgering them to change their mind, insisting they just put up with it because everyone else is enjoying it? Yeah, those things are rude. Again, I'm not sure how that's controversial statement.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 16, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 16, 2019)

I don’t think society has changed as much as a very few minority is very vocal and good at throwing tantrums and screaming at people that do things they don’t like. I think that is evidence of chapelle recent success on Netflix. People kind of really want it. And now we are determining weather we are going to give people what they want or listen to a very vocal small group that will scream and protest when they don’t get what they want.


----------



## Wolfpack48 (Sep 16, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> But this document doesn't outline any of those things. Instead the solution imported into the social gaming environment is one that makes the following assuptions:
> 
> a) The activity involved is inherently and highly unsafe.
> b) The basis of safety is a veto on the activity by all participants which can be raised at any time and for any reason.
> ...




I would restate those a bit:

a) The activity involved is one where people of different backgrounds come together for fun, but some could have background experiences that could make them feel distress.
b) That we respect those who may experience distress with a scene or situation, and give them the freedom to express their distress
c) That the way to deal with such distress is not by popular vote, or by outnumbering the person with the issue. The many does not outweigh the few in the same way that when a person is hit by a car, the gathered crowd doesn't tell them to "walk it off" or "toughen up" or "call their own ambulance."
d) That, like a car accident, the person's health and well-being is more important than the displeasure of anyone else witnessing the accident or the inconvenience that such an accident may entail.


----------



## macd21 (Sep 16, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> On the one hand, I feel like the past page or so has gotten down to defending this document on the grounds of such narrow utility, and has conceded it's lack of utility in such a swath of situations, and has even seemingly gotten to the level of trying to defend it with, "But it makes you think.", "But it's got such good intent." and "But you could always fix the problems in the rules by house ruling the document.", that I feel there are hardly any windmills left for me to tilt at.




No. 'It makes you think,' 'it's got such good intent' and 'you can house rule the document' are not defences of the document, they are additional advantages of it, above and beyond its base utility.


----------



## Aldarc (Sep 16, 2019)

@Celebrim, you are huffing up an incredible storm for such an innocuous free supplemental document. You know what actual well-adjusted adults do about things like this? They say, "Huh. I don't need this, but I'm glad that it exists for those who would like it." and then they move on with their lives without making wall of text soapbox-preaching posts. FYI, this is not about BDSM. Unless you live under a rock, and I should not judge if you do, "consent" is a universal concept that exists and applied outside of BDSM circles so stop trying to make this about BDSM. There's no need for you to be a Rude Gus about all this. 



Umbran said:


> The amount of pushback to giving folks tools to communicate is... kind of astounding, really.



It's almost as if the pushback is a pretext for some other issue. 



Nagol said:


> Not really.  You always get pushback when offering new tools/ways especially if those tools/way will only benefit a small subgroup.  People feel you're telling everyone who doesn't/hasn't used the new thing that they're having BADWRONGFUN.



It's a free supplement offering suggestions on "consent in gaming" that most people would have barely noticed had it not been for knee-jerk reactionaries. The pushback is disproportionate to what the free supplement actually says.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 16, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> And now we are determining weather we are going to give people what they want or listen to a very vocal small group that will scream and protest when they don’t get what they want.




Yeah.  Um, do you realize that right now... you're the one protesting?


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 16, 2019)

We never needed consent before to just use words. I was raised that sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never harm me. And to learn to deal with people that use words I don’t like instead of crying about it.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Sep 16, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> I don’t think society has changed as much as a very few minority is very vocal and good at throwing tantrums and screaming at people that do things they don’t like.



I think that's because you're too close to it.  It's hard to see the forest for the trees.

Don't forget, something like the institution of gay marriage in the United States of America occurred nationwide in 2015.  The institution of interracial marriage in the United States of America occurred nationwide in 1967.  It took just over 50 years for the societal mores in the USA to go from finally accepting black and white people being allowed to marry through to gay men and women being allowed to marry.  Do you have any idea of what had to happen for that progress to have occurred?  It was more than just a few vocal minorities throwing tantrums.

Just saying that a few vocal minorities threw tantrums makes it sounds like the rest of society just had to roll their eyes and say "okay, fine!" just to keep them quiet.  It's never that easy for change to occur.  Sometimes it takes over 50 years.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 16, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> We never needed consent before to just use words. I was raised that sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never harm me. And to learn to deal with people that use words I don’t like instead of crying about it.




As I've gotten older and wiser, I've realized that phrase is completely backward.  It's words that are often more damaging than physical wounds.  Wounds heal, but some words can never be taken back once spoken.  No matter how many times the person apologizes.

You do understand there are people who have killed themselves over words, right?  And it doesn't make them crybabies or weak.  Imagine being a transgender kid and all you hear from your family is what an abomination you are, or how you're gonna burn in hell, and every day you go to school, you're bombarded with hurtful bullying and jokes, and people telling you that you're not a real person, or that you just act that way for attention?


----------



## Gradine (Sep 16, 2019)

The operative word in the phrase "concern troll" is "troll", as in, "do not feed the"


----------



## DM-Rocco (Sep 16, 2019)

Morrus said:


> Warning to potential replies. If you’re planning on posting some alt-right rant against inclusivity here, don’t. You’ll be shown the door.



I'm not alt-right, but your statement suggests that if you are not in favor of this in any way then you are somehow some racist, sexist pig and should go to hell.  So are you stating that you can comment only if you agree?  If so that is messed up.

On the surface, this seems like it would be about inclusion, but I disagree, so does that make me some evil bastard?

If you are playing with a group of friends, they should know you well enough to know what is and what is not acceptable.  I play with loud, crude, swearing bastards, and I play with more wholesome church-going friends, and I play with my preteen children and I know each player well enough to know what to include and what to exclude.  I don't need a document for this.

Regarding this in a convention, good in theory, until you realize that you have to pay for events months in advance and if a DM passed this around the table before gameplay began and he decided to eliminate 90% of the adventure because someone filled in many of the triggers, then you have a majority of the players who paid for a service to be disappointed and wanting their money back because the adventure which touted a trip to the Underdark and the Spider Queen was changed into rainbow, happy kitten unicorn dancing, you'll have many pissed off attendees.

The majority shouldn't have to bow to the minority.  The minority should have to find another playgroup.

The only place I see this being effective is on a message board where you fill it out to find other like-minded individuals to play with.  In this case, it would cease to be a "consent" form and become a 'request for gaming friends' form.

I play Role-playing games to get away from the real world and in particular politics.  This reeks of political overtones and the last thing I want is some Social Justice Warrior trying to place the rule of the minority and ruining my games.  That said, none of my friends would ever use this and if they use it at a convention, I'll not attend that convention.  I'm not paying my hard-earned money for someone to come in at the last minute and ruin my expected game...hopefully that wasn't "alt-right" for you, but if you felt it was, please do delete.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 16, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> As I've gotten older and wiser, I've realized that phrase is completely backward.  It's words that are often more damaging than physical wounds.  Wounds heal, but some words can never be taken back once spoken.  No matter how many times the person apologizes.
> 
> You do understand there are people who have killed themselves over words, right?  And it doesn't make them crybabies or weak.  Imagine being a transgender kid and all you hear from your family is what an abomination you are, or how you're gonna burn in hell, and every day you go to school, you're bombarded with hurtful bullying and jokes, and people telling you that you're not a real person, or that you just act that way for attention?




Yes and I think that’s why we have to really teach people to “deal with it” in my opinion. There are people not nice and the game isn’t even about dealing with those people, just fictional scenarios.  I hope these people don’t watch a movie or tv show without doing a lot of research. Or even the news for that matter.


----------



## Wolfpack48 (Sep 16, 2019)

DM-Rocco said:


> I'm not alt-right, but your statement suggests that if you are not in favor of this in any way then you are somehow some racist, sexist pig and should go to hell.  So are you stating that you can comment only if you agree?  If so that is messed up.
> 
> On the surface, this seems like it would be about inclusion, but I disagree, so does that make me some evil bastard?
> 
> ...




Ok, then.  Well...bye.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Sep 16, 2019)

DM-Rocco said:


> The majority shouldn't have to bow to the minority.  The minority should have to find another playgroup.



And thank you for trying to set back racial equality in the United States back 300 years.


----------



## Gradine (Sep 16, 2019)

Seriously, getting in long drawn out debates with people who are obviously trolling for the "lols" is what gets these threads shut down. Which is the whole point. Just... don't do it. It lowers the quality of the discussion. It's not worth it


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 16, 2019)

DEFCON 1 said:


> And thank you for trying to set back racial equality in the United States back 300 years.




I guess I will have to start using the words “small groups” instead of monitory now.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 16, 2019)

DM-Rocco said:


> I'm not alt-right, but your statement suggests that if you are not in favor of this in any way then you are somehow some racist, sexist pig and should go to hell.  So are you stating that you can comment only if you agree?  If so that is messed up.
> 
> On the surface, this seems like it would be about inclusion, but I disagree, so does that make me some evil bastard?




Well, this is one giant strawman.  However, if you're gonna rant about being more inclusive, then yeah, I guess that does kinda fit the bill.  Rant =/= disagreement or discussion.



> If you are playing with a group of friends, they should know you well enough to know what is and what is not acceptable.  I play with loud, crude, swearing bastards, and I play with more wholesome church-going friends, and I play with my preteen children and I know each player well enough to know what to include and what to exclude.  I don't need a document for this.
> 
> Regarding this in a convention, good in theory, until you realize that you have to pay for events months in advance and if a DM passed this around the table before gameplay began and he decided to eliminate 90% of the adventure because someone filled in many of the triggers, then you have a majority of the players who paid for a service to be disappointed and wanting their money back because the adventure which touted a trip to the Underdark and the Spider Queen was changed into rainbow, happy kitten unicorn dancing, you'll have many pissed off attendees.




This seems like wild hyperbole that has never actually happened, or will happen.



> The majority shouldn't have to bow to the minority.  The minority should have to find another playgroup.




Well, this certainly confirms my suspicions.  I don't think I've seen a statement more ignorant on to topic of equality ever.  For example, not only is it blatantly a bad idea (there would be states that would still outlaw interracial marriages if this is your standard), but it misses the point in how if someone is a minority, they might not be _able _to find another group.  You know, what the word "minority" means.



> I play Role-playing games to get away from the real world and in particular politics.  This reeks of political overtones and the *last thing I want is some Social Justice Warrior trying to place the rule of the minority and ruining my games*.  That said, none of my friends would ever use this and if they use it at a convention, I'll not attend that convention.  I'm not paying my hard-earned money for someone to come in at the last minute and ruin my expected game...hopefully that wasn't "alt-right" for you, but if you felt it was, please do delete.




Well, that double confirms my suspicions.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 16, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> Yes and I think that’s why we have to really teach people to “deal with it” in my opinion. There are people not nice and the game isn’t even about dealing with those people, just fictional scenarios.  I hope these people don’t watch a movie or tv show without doing a lot of research. Or even the news for that matter.




Telling someone to "just deal with" emotional abuse is like telling someone to just deal with keep getting beaten.  Worse, in fact, because emotional abuse is often more harmful than physical abuse.  

I never thought I'd see someone defend the use of emotional abuse, but here we are.


----------



## Wolfpack48 (Sep 16, 2019)

Gradine said:


> Seriously, getting in long drawn out debates with people who are obviously trolling for the "lols" is what gets these threads shut down. Which is the whole point. Just... don't do it. It lowers the quality of the discussion. It's not worth it




Yup, time to make use of that handy Ignore feature.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 16, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 16, 2019)

Gradine said:


> Seriously, getting in long drawn out debates with people who are obviously trolling for the "lols" is what gets these threads shut down. Which is the whole point. Just... don't do it. It lowers the quality of the discussion. It's not worth it




However, if they get banned, by their own logic they should just "deal with it" and we all can move on without expecting any complaint by them, right?


----------



## DM-Rocco (Sep 16, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> Well, this is one giant strawman.  However, if you're gonna rant about being more inclusive, then yeah, I guess that does kinda fit the bill.  Rant =/= disagreement or discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, so happy to confirm your suspicions.  So you just confirmed, mine then too.  So I should have to modify my playstyle to suit your needs.  I don't think so.  You are free to play with whomever you wish however you wish, but you are not free to tell me how to live my life or how to play my games.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Sep 16, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> I guess I will have to start using the words “small groups” instead of monitory now.



Okay!

Then thank you for trying to set the rights of the differently-abled back 100 years.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Sep 16, 2019)

I'm just going to unfollow this thread, but so sad that this is being taken seriously on any level.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 16, 2019)

DM-Rocco said:


> The majority shouldn't have to bow to the minority.  The minority should have to find another playgroup.




Try that again. There are things that can be set by a majority - sure. But there are things in which you cannot morally force a minority to bow to the will of the majority. Equal civil rights being one of the foremost issues. Inclusion into the community - in this case, the gaming community - is also one in which a minority cannot be forced to bow to the majority. The majority *must* make room in the hobby and if a tool like the consent pamphlet can facilitate this by helping people find suitable games to play, then it's good thing.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Sep 16, 2019)

DM-Rocco said:


> I'm just going to unfollow this thread, but so sad that this is being taken seriously on any level.



I know right?  I feel so bad trying to be empathetic to other people's experiences and potential issues.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 16, 2019)

You know, as a general observation, it never fails to surprise me that the people who are the ones saying that everyone else is too sensitive, or snowflakes, or easily offended are also the first ones to complain about how this document is unfair to _them_ and how offended _they _are it exists

Seems a bit of cognitive dissonance to me


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 16, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> You know, as a general observation, it never fails to surprise me that the people who are the ones saying that everyone else is too sensitive, or snowflakes, or easily offended are also the first ones to complain about how this document is unfair to _them_ and how offended _they _are it exists
> 
> Seems a bit of cognitive dissonance to me




Paradoxes are interesting


----------



## Umbran (Sep 16, 2019)

Folks,

The first thread-ban has been handed out.  Consider whether what you are about to say will make yours the second.


----------



## GrahamWills (Sep 16, 2019)

Well this has been instructive. Like Umbran, I am a bit surprised to see as many people being upset by this advice. Not so much that some people are upset -- that's a given -- but the degree of upsetness, and some of the authors of the upsetness have been surprising.

It's been a bit odd. People who are often quite rational suggesting that professional writers copy and paste from other documents; attempts to say that "consent" should be confined only to sexual situations. The believe that any statements intended to encourage safety are, by their mere existence, making roleplaying appear unsafe. 

I expect people to say "I don't need to do this because it's never been a problem for me" -- that's a common statement made to any suggestion that requires change. I expect people to say "I don't allow the pain of one person to take priority over the fun of others" because that's just lack of empathy that you can see everyday, and I also understand people saying "I don't see why we need this, isn't it just common sense" because, yes, it would be wonderful if that were true!

I direct plays and musicals. One of the things I say upfront is something on the lines of "The goal is for everyone to enjoy themselves. As a director, I will try to make sure that happens, but if something is causing this not to be fun for you, let me know. If I am using the wrong name for you, or the wrong pronoun, let me know. If you don't feel comfortable talking to me, talk to <X> or <Y>. As an example, I don't like to be called 'a brit' -- it's not a bad word, or wrong -- it just annoys me, so don't feel it has to be something big to ask for a change." 

I didn't used to add this to my usual speech, but it was reading and listening to messages very much like the document which we are discussing that made me realize I need to. If, as a GM or a director, I do not explicitly tell people -- using words, a checklist, or anything -- that they have my enthusiastic permission to make discomfort known, then they will very likely assume that the default position is, as several have stated on this thread: man up, or move on.

I believe I am a good GM and a good director, and so I believe that if someone says something is a problem, then I can fix things so that the fun of the group (or audience) is not compromised AND the pain it causes the person is avoided. It's not an either-or situation. I do not believe that if spiders are found to unexpectedly cause someone strong discomfort, that I cannot work around it. 

So, if I _can_ solve the problem without compromising fun for all, this seems a no-brainer -- why wouldn't I do it all the time? And if I can solve it all the time, why wouldn't I use a tool such as this document, a checklist, an X card or whatever so that I can realize the problem exists and fix it?

If you honestly do not believe that you have the skills to fix a consent problem, then the up-front checklist becomes an even more important tool for you, to avoid putting yourself in a bad position where you have to choose either to hurt someone, or make the game less fun. But I am optimistic that the people in this group are able to solve situations like this, so it makes it puzzling to me that they would want those situations to remain invisible to them.

I'm going to suggest that if you have an instinctive reaction against the document, maybe don't think of it as a way for someone else to police your game, but instead think of it as a way to make sure that your players know that you are a GM who welcomes the task of making everyone comfortable at your table and has the skills and the will to make that happen.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 16, 2019)

Any disagreement is considered hostile by some. That is one problem.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 16, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> We never needed consent before to just use words.




Honestly, we needed it, but we didn't bother to get it, and we hurt folks along the way.  Now, we have become more aware of the harm we can cause - it is our duty, then, to adjust our behavior.

The past was a time of greater ignorance.  Do not look to it longingly.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 16, 2019)

Umbran said:


> Honestly, we needed it, but we didn't bother to get it, and we hurt folks along the way.  Now, we have become more aware of the harm we can cause - it is our duty, then, to adjust our behavior.
> 
> The past was a time of greater ignorance.  Do not look to it longingly.



 That in my opinion is the end of liberty.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 16, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> That in my opinion is the end of liberty.




To quote an old adage - your right to swing your fist ends where the other guy's nose begins.  This has always been true, but you haven't really been held to it.  So, it will _feel like_ the end of liberty. But really, you were unjustly allowed to hit metaphorical noses willy-nilly in the past.

Someone's presented you with a method of knowing better where people's noses are.  Use it or not, your choice.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 16, 2019)

Umbran said:


> To quote an old adage - your right to swing your fist ends where the other guy's nose begins.  This has always been true, but you haven't really been held to it.  So, it will _feel like_ the end of liberty. But really, you were unjustly allowed to hit metaphorical noses willy-nilly in the past.
> 
> Someone's presented you with a method of knowing better where people's noses are.  Use it or not, your choice.



 I’m completely against violence. You are talking about the use of words.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 16, 2019)

GrahamWills said:


> Well this has been instructive. Like Umbran, I am a bit surprised to see as many people being upset by this advice. Not so much that some people are upset -- that's a given -- but the degree of upsetness, and some of the authors of the upsetness have been surprising.




Sadly, I'm not and wasn't surprised at all. Because it nearly *always* happens. There was a brouhaha on the Gary Con Facebook page about a seminar on diversity that had to be shutdown by one of the organizers. It comes up whenever people call out for better inclusion and anti-harassment policies at conventions. And it's almost always the same class of people complaining - I'll let you guess who.

There's always a backlash against the perceived social justice warriors despite claims that they've "never needed policies/pamphlets before and everyone's always welcome at their table". If that were true, they wouldn't need to complain. Yet they do. My best guess is, despite their claims of being welcoming, they realize the hobby really isn't and they're protecting their privileged place in it or at least protecting their privilege of not being challenged or questioned over it. And, frankly, it disgusts me.

I don't necessarily agree with all criticism aimed at the white, cisgendered, heterosexual men who have dominated the hobby (I still can't figure out why Tim Kask is on the same hit list as Frank Mentzer and Bill Webb). But I do agree that diversity and inclusion need to be fought for and the backlashes resisted.


----------



## Aldarc (Sep 16, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> That in my opinion is the end of liberty.



When people request that I stop treading on their toes while dancing freely unawares, instead of doing the polite thing by apologizing and being more mindful of where I step in the future, I instead engage in hyperbolic statements about "the end of liberty." However, I personally prefer more overly dramatic statements like "this spells the death of the freedom for all Western civilization" and then promptly storm out of the room. After all, if I am going to make an insipid statement about how being mindful about how what I say can negatively affect others and act responsibly with my words is tantamount to the end of liberty, then go big or go home. Am I right?


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 16, 2019)

I think instead of calling it a consent form







Aldarc said:


> When people request that I stop treading on their toes while dancing freely unawares, instead of doing the polite thing by apologizing and being more mindful of where I step in the future, I instead engage in hyperbolic statements about "the end of liberty." However, I personally prefer more overly dramatic statements like "this spells the death of the freedom for all Western civilization" and then promptly storm out of the room. After all, if I am going to make an insipid statement about how being mindful about how what I say can negatively affect others and act responsibly with my words is tantamount to the end of liberty, then go big or go home. Am I right?



 We should both be welcome to stay and have our voices heard.


----------



## Campbell (Sep 16, 2019)

I do not find it helpful to question the legitimacy of someone's emotional responses. We all have varying levels of emotional sensitivity. Regardless of why someone feels a given way those feelings are legitimate. It might be the case that people with vastly different levels of emotional sensitivity are not a good fit for gaming together, but that does not mean having a higher level of emotional sensitivity is like wrong or that their feelings are not legitimate.

When someone has an emotional response at the table we need to decide how to address it. I choose to respond with as much empathy as possible in that moment of play. Other people might make other choices.

Sometimes we find that we are not creatively compatible and need to go our separate way

We are all free to set our own boundaries in any social situation. No one is entitled to say or do whatever they want without a response from anyone else.

No one is saying everyone must use these tools. You are free to set your own boundaries. I am also entitled to set my own personal boundaries and choose to only play with people who respect my own personal boundaries. This is what liberty is all about - our right to choose for ourselves the sort of play experiences we want to engage in.

Your liberty is not impacted because someone communicates their personal boundaries to you. You have a choice of how to respond. They also have a choice of what to do if you choose not to respect their boundaries. This is both of us each exercising our liberty.


----------



## dragoner (Sep 16, 2019)

When I hear people start talking about liberty, thank god someone here is to save us from the bathroom bolsheviks -


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 16, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> I think instead of calling it a consent form
> We should both be welcome to stay and have our voices heard.




If your voice is to tell a player who happens to be gay to "just get over it and stop whining" when you and others are making repeated derogatory gay jokes and pejoratives, then no.  You aren't welcome.  Not at any table I know of anyway, nor at public tables (like at gaming stores and conventions).


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 16, 2019)

Really. I thought we were taking about using tsunamis and dehydration to kill players and dealing with players that have phobias to spiders and such. Well we have to stop the game because Fred is afraid of spiders. And bob had a friends die in a car accident. So no more car chases in our games. Oh and Cindy she’s  afraid of clowns so now we have to cancel the game that takes place in a circus.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 16, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> Really. I thought we were taking about using tsunamis and dehydration to kill players and dealing with players that have phobias to spiders and such. Well we have to stop the game because Fred is afraid of spiders. And bob had a friends die in a car accident. So no more car chases in our games. Oh and Cindy she’s  afraid of clowns so now we have to cancel the game that takes place in a circus.




I think we both (and everyone reading this thread) know that that's no longer the limited context of this discussion, and that's not "just" what you meant.  When you started saying things like catering to the few who throw fits, and that's how liberty ends, and how people should just get over hurtful words, etc etc, that you're not just talking about phobias and dehydration.  So I don't think anyone is buying this response of yours that that's all you were talking about.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 16, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> I think we both (and everyone reading this thread) know that that's no longer the limited context of this discussion, and that's not "just" what you meant.  When you started saying things like catering to the few who throw fits, and that's how liberty ends, and how people should just get over hurtful words, etc etc, that you're not just talking about phobias and dehydration.  So I don't think anyone is buying this response of yours that that's all you were talking about.




I think you really thought wrong. I could care less about someone’s sexual orientation or ethnic group. And you are putting words in my mouth. There are groups besides sexual orientation and ethnic groups.


----------



## GrahamWills (Sep 16, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> Really. I thought we were taking about using tsunamis and dehydration to kill players and dealing with players that have phobias to spiders and such. Well we have to stop the game because Fred is afraid of spiders. And bob had a friends die in a car accident. So no more car chases in our games. Oh and Cindy she’s  afraid of clowns so now we have to cancel the game that takes place in a circus.




So rather than this, you would prefer:

"Fred is terrified of spiders. So rather than me re-skinning them to be lizards, I'd prefer to have Fred suffer panic symptoms for the next few hours"

"Bob, I know you watched your friends die in a car crash, but I still think it would be fun for everyone else to replay that scene in your life, despite the fact that it may cause you to cry with pain"

"Cindy is terrified by clowns, but I think they're fun to use, so I wrote a game in a circus knowing that you all will have fun with it despite Cindy being unable to function during the session"

I'm being serious here. We're not talking about mild dislikes; we're talking about people who will be terrified and deeply hurt by these things. Do you honestly think it's a better plan for you to ignore that pain in the pursuit of fun than to accommodate them?


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 16, 2019)

No. I am saying they should leave the table and play somewhere else. If I am playing game of thrones and they want kingdom hearts then I’m not rewriting the game to suit them. They can leave. Wish them well. They are coming to a game that isn’t for them. When i run a my little pony game they are welcome to play.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 16, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> I’m just worried what kind of people will be seeking out the position to enforce these rules. That’s alot of power. And then if this is just the beginning of policing these games for other thought crimes.





Arnwolf666 said:


> That’s how those things start out. It is what kind of person wants the position of power to enforce it. How will they enforce. Will this become as convoluted as how we enforce laws and company policies.  Will this become a method of banning people with certain play styles. People that want power can be dangerous people.





Arnwolf666 said:


> I don’t think society has changed as much as a very few minority is very vocal and good at throwing tantrums and screaming at people that do things they don’t like. I think that is evidence of chapelle recent success on Netflix. People kind of really want it. And now we are determining weather we are going to give people what they want or listen to a very vocal small group that will scream and protest when they don’t get what they want.





Arnwolf666 said:


> We never needed consent before to just use words. I was raised that sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never harm me. And to learn to deal with people that use words I don’t like instead of crying about it.





Arnwolf666 said:


> Yes and I think that’s why we have to really teach people to “deal with it” in my opinion. There are people not nice and the game isn’t even about dealing with those people, just fictional scenarios.  I hope these people don’t watch a movie or tv show without doing a lot of research. Or even the news for that matter.





Arnwolf666 said:


> I guess I will have to start using the words “small groups” instead of monitory now.





Arnwolf666 said:


> That in my opinion is the end of liberty.





Arnwolf666 said:


> I’m completely against violence. You are talking about the use of words.





Arnwolf666 said:


> I think you really thought wrong. I could care less about someone’s sexual orientation or ethnic group. And you are putting words in my mouth. There are groups besides sexual orientation and ethnic groups.




Firstly, it's "I couldn't care less."  Unless you are admitting that you do care about someone's sexual orientation.  Secondly, I didn't put words in your mouth.  They are all above.  "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me" is about insulting people.  Not tsunamis or spiders, but attacking people with insults.  That's the context of that saying.  Then you double down by telling people to get over it.  So yeah, it sure seems that you're not just talking about dehydration or phobias.

Thirdly, I just used the gay example as an example, but the point stands for pretty much anything.  I.e., the point is that you seem to be taking the position that regardless of what you say, if anyone gets offended that's their problem and you should be welcome.  And I'm saying no, that's not the case.  You aren't automatically welcome, and if you defend the right to insult or otherwise hurt others, then I'd ask you to leave.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 16, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> Firstly, it's "I couldn't care less."  Unless you are admitting that you do care about someone's sexual orientation.  Secondly, I didn't put words in your mouth.  They are all above.  "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me" is about insulting people.  Not tsunamis or spiders, but attacking people with insults.  That's the context of that saying.  Then you double down by telling people to get over it.  So yeah, it sure seems that you're not just talking about dehydration or phobias.
> 
> Thirdly, I just used the gay example as an example, but the point stands for pretty much anything.  I.e., the point is that you seem to be taking the position that regardless of what you say, if anyone gets offended that's their problem and you should be welcome.  And I'm saying no, that's not the case.  You aren't automatically welcome, and if you defend the right to insult or otherwise hurt others, then I'd ask you to leave.




 No where did I mention sexual orientation or race.  Minority is not a reference to race or ethnic group. Just referring to any small group.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 16, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> No where did I mention sexual orientation or race.




Let me repeat, because you missed the point:

Thirdly, I just used the gay example as an example, but the point stands for pretty much anything. I.e., the point is that you seem to be taking the position that regardless of what you say, if anyone gets offended that's their problem and you should be welcome.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 16, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> Let me repeat, because you missed the point:
> 
> Thirdly, I just used the gay example as an example, but the point stands for pretty much anything. I.e., the point is that you seem to be taking the position that regardless of what you say, if anyone gets offended that's their problem and you should be welcome.



 Yes. If someone is offended they should play at a different table or with someone else. It is impossible to not offend everyone. Just like u r offending me right now. So u should change your position so that I am not offended.


----------



## Aldarc (Sep 16, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> No. I am saying they should leave the table and play somewhere else. *If I am playing game of thrones and they want kingdom hearts then I’m not rewriting the game to suit them.* They can leave. Wish them well. They are bringing a game that isn’t for them. When in run a my little pony game they are welcome to play.



This is a false equivalent comparison nor does it anywhere engage with or convey any actual cognizance of the issue of consent being discussed.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 16, 2019)

Aldarc said:


> This is a false equivalent comparison nor does it anywhere engage with or convey any actual cognizance of the issue of consent being discussed.



 They are words.  Consent is not needed. They can leave if they are uncomfortable.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 16, 2019)

I am saying that if u have a table where 12 people came to play game of thrones. And one person is terrified of game of thrones then that person should leave.


----------



## Aldarc (Sep 16, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> They are words.  Consent is not needed.



You keep saying that, but you aren't proving it. 



> They can leave if they are uncomfortable.



And you can change it if they are. Funny how that works.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 16, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> Yes. If someone is offended they should play at a different table or with someone else. It is impossible to not offend everyone. Just like u r offending me right now. So u should change your position so that I am not offended.




Then you should follow your own advice and just deal with it and not complain...

But more seriously, don't try to pull the "intolerant of intolerance" paradox that I see being used shortly.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 16, 2019)

Aldarc said:


> You keep saying that, but you aren't proving it.
> 
> And you can change it if they are. Funny how that works.



 First amendment.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 16, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> First amendment.




Why am I not surprised you have no idea what the First Amendment is or how it works.  It's always people who want to be insulting to others who are the first to claim they can because of the 1st amendment, when it doesn't work like that at all.


----------



## Aldarc (Sep 16, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> I am saying that if u have a table where 12 people came to play game of thrones. And one person is terrified of game of thrones then that person should leave.



Your false equivalent comparison remains false. 



Arnwolf666 said:


> First amendment.



...doesn't mean what you think it means.


----------



## monsmord (Sep 16, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> Firstly...I'd ask you to leave.




...is what I would do should that other account holder show up at my table.

As much as enjoy the rebuttal posts, I wish y'all weren't wasting your time on that trollbot. "People" like that are very much against improving as humans, and aren't to be swayed by things like rationality, empathy, humanism, etc.

And why I hope this free doc (or others like it, and other relevant tools) are adopted by every con. So that such bot-people will hear words like, "Stay home if you don't like it." And exercise their freedom to go away.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 16, 2019)

Aldarc said:


> Your false equivalent comparison remains false.
> 
> ...doesn't mean what you think it means.




That is horror to me and the road to totalitarianism.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 16, 2019)

monsmord said:


> ...is what I would do should that other account holder show up at my table.
> 
> As much as enjoy the rebuttal posts, I wish y'all weren't wasting your time on that trollbot. "People" like that are very much against improving as humans, and aren't to be swayed by things like rationality, empathy, humanism, etc.




Noted.  And I shall cease.  Time to go make dinner anyway.  Black bean and chicken enchiladas.  If anyone doesn't like enchiladas, they can leave


----------



## Campbell (Sep 16, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> Really. I thought we were taking about using tsunamis and dehydration to kill players and dealing with players that have phobias to spiders and such. Well we have to stop the game because Fred is afraid of spiders. And bob had a friends die in a car accident. So no more car chases in our games. Oh and Cindy she’s  afraid of clowns so now we have to cancel the game that takes place in a circus.




It might be the case that the boundaries someone sets are incompatible with the game we choose to play, but that does not make someone setting those boundaries like wrong. In this case we have a couple options. We can change the game to accommodate their boundaries, we can agree that this game might not be a good fit for them, or we can play some other game together. 

This can be a fairly tough choice to make at times. If we are playing a game that is focused on survival the threat of dehydration can be a really big deal. In my last Apocalypse World game there was a player who had some trauma around casual violence and ended up choosing not to play. She hopped back in when we played Masks. I missed having her there, but Apocalypse World is focused on the impact of casual violence.

I am not saying you are not allowed to have your own boundaries. Just that we should all strive to respect people's boundaries and err to the side of valuing the people over the game. When you determine it is not a good fit you should still respect people's boundaries and like who they are as people. In any event it is way better to know what affects people and come up with a solution as adults than for someone to remain silent about the stuff that affects them.


----------



## Aldarc (Sep 16, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> Noted.  And I shall cease.  Time to go make dinner anyway.  Black bean and chicken enchiladas.  If anyone doesn't like enchiladas, they can leave



Enchiladas are awesome.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 16, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> I’m completely against violence. You are talking about the use of words.




It is a metaphor, commonly used in legal theory* to note the fact that liberties have limits.  



* In June 1919 the Harvard Law Review published an article by legal philosopher Zechariah Chafee, Jr. titled “Freedom of Speech in War Time” and it contained a version of the expression spoken by an anonymous judge.  Chafee was one of the founders of modern interpretation of the 1st Amendment.


----------



## BookBarbarian (Sep 16, 2019)

I work in an industry were consent is important, but few would realize it as it's always phrased as "buy in."

If we don't buy in on said system/process/technology/solution it is bound to fail regardless of how good it is is a pretty well accepted truth in my day to day world.

So I've always approached my game with the same thought in mind. If anyone at the table doesn't buy in the game is going to fail. Now I could just always put the onus on the player to leave when they don't buy in, but I don't see a lot of value in that. Sometimes it will be necessary for the player to leave, but it's too heavy handed of an approach to most cases. EDIT: likewise it is sometimes appropriate to terminate someones employment, but it would be extremely costly to do so in the case of every disagreement./EDIT. I think a lighter touch and being a more approachable and adaptable DM will lead to more fun at my table in the long term, probably short term too.



JacktheRabbit said:


> Maybe I am off base here but looking at all this brings just one thought to mind.
> 
> If a person actually needs this book to tell them how to act then I do not want that person in my gaming group.




You are probably right.

But I can't help but think about the inconsiderate Jerk (probably not a strong enough word) I used to be and how glad I am that people were patient with me an helped me realize that if I cared more about other peoples happiness I would be happier too.

If this book helps someone make a change for the better then I'm happy it was made.



lowkey13 said:


> So, this is terrible, and horrible, but also kind of ... funny?
> 
> I know, I'm going to go to hell.




I'd be joining you in hell then.

Also I have only now just realized what an opportunity I have missed not throwing some clown villains at my party from time to time.

I suppose IT is about time I do


----------



## Umbran (Sep 16, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> I am saying that if u have a table where 12 people came to play game of thrones. And one person is terrified of game of thrones then that person should leave.




Except, you are rejecting the thing at the base of the thread, are you not? You reject the consent form idea?

If so, the analogy is: 12 people come to play.  They find out _only after the game starts_ that it is Game of Thrones, because you didn't ask them first.  When faced with the brutality of the story without warning, a player has an issue.

If you accept that you should ask the players first, to make sure everyone is good with it before you begin, then the whole idea of the consent form should not really be an issue - it is merely a form of communication between GM and player.


----------



## BookBarbarian (Sep 16, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> First amendment.




In case you didn't realize, no one from the federal or state government has come and tried to stop your exercise in speech, nor would they be able to based upon the book that is the topic of the thread.


----------



## Gradine (Sep 16, 2019)

The way I figure, there's about a 1:8 chance that a server farm in Moscow is getting some work done in this thread today


----------



## MGibster (Sep 17, 2019)

seankreynolds said:


> The fact that you wouldn't think heatstroke could be a source of trauma is proof that you (generic you) don't really know what might be a trigger for someone. Likewise, someone on Twitter pointed out that hunger and thirst are common ways that abusive parents traumatize children; if you hadn't been abused like that, how would you know that it would be an issue?




I think there's some confusion about what I typed as I never stated heatstroke couldn't be a source of trauma.  However, I maintain that it's very unlikely I need worry about it when running an RPG.  I do take issue with the idea that the default answer is "no" which is probably why I have a problem with the opt in system.  I don't believe it's reasonable belief that a GM should avoid using heatstroke, earthquakes, or spiders, or other possible sources of trauma without making sure players have specifically said it's okay.  

I much prefer an opt out system.  For horror games, I ask my players to please tell me what it is they don't want to see in a game.  I typically mention that one thing I don't care for is sexual violence played out either against PCs or NPCs.  For my current Vampire game one of the players specified that she didn't want to see a game where children were harmed.  So I changed one of the NPCs to a vampire who fed on children to one who fed on victims of domestic abuse and that was fine.  

I find that often times online discussions focus on the negative.  I appreciate _Consent in Gaming_, especially where you remind readers that we should respect a player when they say they're uncomfortable with a topic.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 17, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> First amendment.




I think you may be confused.

The First Amendment of your country’s Constitution prevents your government from creating laws which restrict your speech.

It doesn’t prevent Monte Cook Games from writing a book about consent in gaming. Neither does it prevent gamers from obtaining consent from each other. 

None of these people are the US Congress; and none of them are passing legislation. Your First Amendment is perfectly safe.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 17, 2019)

Morrus said:


> I think you may be confused.
> 
> The First Amendment of your country’s Constitution prevents your government from creating laws which restrict your speech.
> 
> ...




And it doesn’t prevent any of us from deciding to not use it. It’s not now a law that we must use this form.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 17, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> And it doesn’t prevent any of us from deciding to not use it. It’s not now a law that we must use this form.



Errr. Yes? Did somebody tell you it was? Is that why you’re (incorrectly) citing the US Constitution?


----------



## Xenonnonex (Sep 17, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> And it doesn’t prevent any of us from deciding to not use it. It’s not now a law that we must use this form.



Do you understand the difference between a guidebook and a law?


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 17, 2019)

Xenonnonex said:


> Do you understand the difference between a guidebook and a law?




I’m hoping it means that it is not mandatory


----------



## Xenonnonex (Sep 17, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> I’m hoping it means that it is not mandatory



To reach a reasonable conclusion actually understand what the First Amendment is. Actually understand what a guidebook is. Actually understand what a law is.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 17, 2019)

Xenonnonex said:


> To reach a reasonable conclusion actually understand what the First Amendment is. Actually understand what a guidebook is. Actually understand what a law is.




I don’t understand what u r saying or what point you are trying to make.


----------



## Xenonnonex (Sep 17, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> I don’t understand what u r saying or what point you are trying to make.



Really says it all does it not. Educate yourself.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 17, 2019)

Xenonnonex said:


> Really says it all does it not. Educate yourself.



Elaborate and communicate. Make yourself clear.


----------



## Wolfpack48 (Sep 17, 2019)

Xenonnonex said:


> Really says it all does it not. Educate yourself.




Ignoring and moving on.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 17, 2019)

Wolfpack48 said:


> Ignoring and moving on.



I really want to understand.


----------



## Aldarc (Sep 17, 2019)

Morrus said:


> Errr. Yes? Did somebody tell you it was? Is that why you’re (incorrectly) citing the US Constitution?



"Show us on the consent form where your First Amendment was violated."


----------



## Xenonnonex (Sep 17, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> I really want to understand.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 17, 2019)

I’m saying the use of it is optional. Conventions and stores don’t have to use it just because monte cook creates a new consent form to be used. What he does at his place of business is his businesss.


----------



## monsmord (Sep 17, 2019)

BookBarbarian said:


> So I've always approached my game with the same thought in mind. If anyone at the table doesn't buy in the game is going to fail. Now I could just always put the onus on the player to leave when they don't buy in, but I don't see a lot of value in that. Sometimes it will be necessary for the player to leave, but it's too heavy handed of an approach to most cases. I think a lighter touch and being a more approachable and adaptable DM will lead to more fun at my table in the long term, probably short term too.




Exactly. EXACTLY. The game and everyone in it benefits from being adaptable, and to being respectful and supportive to every member of the group. Imagine a gaming group where everyone actually knew going in that they could constructively hash out any problems and keep gaming, and not be belittled, humiliated, or harassed when reporting a problem. A group where everyone trusted everyone else to make the game great for everyone. Imagine going to a con and signing up for a game with strangers, and having some confidence that you could game in peace, or at least work out surprise issues and keep going without anyone losing dignity or the opportunity to hang with people who share your love of gaming. Sounds pretty freakin' sweet.

The two big premises of most haters on this doc are (a) they're telling me how to game, and (b) if a player doesn't like my game, they can leave. 

(Those who are critics not of the premise of gaming consent but of the specific approach or formulation of the published doc, well, the rest of this post is not about you.)

One - this doc isn't telling anyone how to game. It only says everyone around a table needs to be on the same page about it, and here's one proposed method to ensure it. This is a no-brainer. It's not a new idea. It's not provocative. It's not prescriptive. This is common freaking sense, people. You already do it every day in other aspects of life. If you have a job, you agree to do this to earn a paycheck. If you go to school, you do it to stay there. If you're in a romantic relationship and aren't doing this, good luck staying there. Come on.

But two - and my fave - is the MY GAME part. And I love breaking this into two pieces.

(a) That right there is YOUR first problem, hater. It ain't YOUR game alone. Every person at that table has an equal stake in the experience. It doesn't matter if you're the GM and sunk weeks of your time on your campaign. It doesn't matter if you've been playing that character for seventeen years. You agreed to game with other people - so yeah, that means YOU have to do some of that work. That means that if YOU, hater, don't like that someone has a problem with the content, YOU can also leave. Oh, wait, that's not fair? THAT'S THE BLEEDING POINT. It's not fair to anyone. Work it out. But if you can't work it out because you're not willing to respect someone's emotional distress at the imagery introduced to this shared experience, YOU are the disruptive presence. YOU are the problem at THEIR game.

(b) And this is really my favoritest favorite: MY ENJOYMENT OF MY ELF GAME IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN YOUR HUMAN FEELINGS. I mean, that is ultimately what this boils down to. Every single hater out there has placed their desired play over the emotional well-being of other people - HUMANS - sitting next to them. There's no debating it, no excusing it, no reframing it or explaining it away. You, hater, have decided that nothing is as important as you being able to say/act/verbally fantasize however you want IN AN ELF GAME. You have also decided that only YOU get to decide what is valid, fair, or acceptable in this shared experience, and reject the notion that anyone else's experience or dissenting opinions matter as much as yours. Indeed, the world revolves around your little fantasy.

So no, hater, the problem is that YOU are a complete tool. You are why we can't have nice things. You are the worst part of about gaming, the stain, the stereotype we have to fight against, the part that needs to go away, and as quickly as possible. You are not welcome in an hobby or industry devoted to social interaction, because you insist on rejecting the core premise and contract of the social engagement that drives it. You, hater, should just play single-person video games at home alone. You, hater, should disappear. Because, and let's be 100% clear, YOU ARE NOT A GOOD OR REASONABLE PERSON, AND NO ONE BENEFITS FROM GAMING WITH YOU.


----------



## BookBarbarian (Sep 17, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> I’m saying the use of it is optional. Conventions and stores don’t have to use it just because monte cook creates a new consent form to be used. What he does at his place of business is his businesss.




Why are you saying this?

No one has argued that Conventions and Stores have to use it.

Also Monte Cook is not the author.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 17, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> I really want to understand.




Then, let us make this simple.

A game publisher published a guide.  It is not a law.  The First Amendment only applies to laws or government action that restrict your speech.  It doesn't apply to the guide.  The First Amendment simply has no place in this discussion.

So, there's this guide.  You can use it, or not.  I daresay you will not find anyone who has said you _must_ use this guide.  Some have said words to the effect that a GM needs to be considerate of players - that would be better put as "really ought to be considerate".  There is no need in a legal sense, and nobodyhere has said otherwise.

You keep asserting things as if there is some "loss of liberty" here.  There's just a product you can choose to use, or not.  There are folks who think it is really good to be considerate of players.  But that's it.  

Can you understand that?


----------



## MNblockhead (Sep 17, 2019)

I like the form for starting a new campaign at say a game store or when putting out a call for members of a new group (Roll20, Meetup, whatever), but I'm still having an issue with how this can work at a convention. You are not going to have everyone fill out this form at the table when they show up. It is too late by then. It also doesn't make sense to distribute it before the convention. Besides the logistical challenges, the way it works in the conventions in which I've taken part is that the referee submits a game with a description that the convention organizers review and approve.

So it seems that you would need to have some version of the consent form, that would be included in the description. Others have suggested a film-rating like system, but that wouldn't work. Even a G-rated film may have something that would trigger someone with a phobia. With a film, the triggered person can walk out, turn of the TV, etc.

What would be more helpful is some way to have a menu of the most common phobias/triggers that a referee can check off when registering a game. This would allow players, when signing up for games, to filter and search by things that they need to or just want to avoid.  Just like you can filter and search on game system, age limits, and time slots. You can also search for themes to either avoid them or even to find them because you want to play a game of bind-torture-kill rape spiders.

Traditional printed convention materials make this untenable, but I don't see why this couldn't be supported with on-line systems, which most conventions I've been to use now. 

Some referees may abuse this by just selecting everything, but if you are sensitive to certain themes you'd probably want to avoid that kind of referee anyway. I believe most referees would be fine with this.

Yes, you'll still have outliers. There will still be cases where unforeseen issues have to be addressed. But a system like I describe would take care of the vast majority of issues.

It really isn't different from food-preference/allergy surveys for conventions, airlines, and the like. They focus on the majority of dietary restrictions. It won't cover everything, but it certainly goes along way toward being accommodating to the vast majority of attendees.

This is something that as a referee I would welcome. But trying to apply the guidelines of the PDF under discussion as a referee at a convention game is just untenable.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 17, 2019)

Why don’t they just call it a survey to match a group with people similar playstyles.


----------



## Xenonnonex (Sep 17, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> Why don’t they just call it a survey to match a group with people similar playstyles.



Some people do give surveys.


----------



## Xenonnonex (Sep 17, 2019)

To me conventions are in dangerous need of a guidebook like this. You get all sorts in conventions.


----------



## monsmord (Sep 17, 2019)

MNblockhead said:


> So it seems that you would need to have some version of the consent form, that would be included in the description...
> 
> Traditional printed convention materials make this untenable, but I don't see why this couldn't be supported with on-line systems, which most conventions I've been to use now...
> 
> ...




Yeah, the practical use of this specific doc would be untenable for most cons at this point, but if they accommodate differently abled gamers, allergies, etc., it seems reasonable to accommodate game content issues as well.

I think you're right that a good option is one where the game description int the sign-up process would have some sort of rating and/or content system. No system can tackle every possible scenario or trigger, but something more granular than G/PG/R should be pretty do-able.

I also think that in a con structure it may fall to in-game tools like the X-Card. Maybe cons should start requiring that GMs running there must use something, and the game descriptor in the catalog specify what tool will be employed. If a GM is unwilling to adopt a system the con requires, the GM doesn't need to be there.

I'd like to say it would be nice if, instead, a con made usage optional but required every game descriptor say what will be used, or if nothing would be used, a disclaimer like, "No X-cards or similar will be used in this game: play at your own risk." Players reasonably concerned they'll run into a problem need not sign up for that game, and the GM and similar-minded players can enjoy things their way. So, some games promise to adapt, others ask you not to sign up unless you're willing to walk away, and you know which you're getting.

But that brings up the issue of the shared and often crammed and cramped spaces we game in. I sign up for a game where we're using X-Cards and the doc and all, but at the table next to me it's wide open and triggering. Spaces would need to be separated for content, whether in different rooms or by time of day. Hrm.

No easy answers here, but there _are_ answers. Larger cons can accommodate safe spaces and institute methods for getting people on the same pages, and hopefully smaller cons can keep such development in mind. Maybe there's an opportunity here to develop online tools (say, for cons), and industry standard labels that give consumers and players a fair idea of what and what not to expect.

Pretty sure we can crack this nut. Gamers tend toward the creative and intelligent ends of the spectrum.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 17, 2019)

monsmord said:


> Exactly. EXACTLY.




Well, now we are really getting ourselves worked up.



> (Those who are critics not of the premise of gaming consent but of the specific approach or formulation of the published doc, well, the rest of this post is not about you.)




I consider myself primarily a critic of the approach and formulation of the document, and so it is nice to know that your rant isn't primarily about me.  But then I look at your words and they seem to be unrelated to the text, much less the specific parts of the text that cause people discomfort, and I really wonder who you could possibly be aiming the words at.  If the text was what you seem to imagine that it is, and was only that, you wouldn't get any push back.   If it only said what you said, if it was only "common sense", and was only laying out the procedures and approaches that have served us to keep peace and order and inclusivity at our gaming tables for three decades, it wouldn't be controversial.

The fact that it is doesn't seem to be prompting you to try to parse the text of the document.



> (a) That right there is YOUR first problem, hater. It ain't YOUR game alone. Every person at that table has an equal stake in the experience.




Again, slurs about being "haters" aside, this is not an all a controversial statement. Your all caps aren't calling out anything anyone really disagrees with. In fact, this statement is core to why people are made uncomfortable by the document.



> You agreed to game with other people - so yeah, that means YOU have to do some of that work.




If only you and I and the document were in such perfect agreement. If only every felt that the words of the document clearly outlined that everyone present had to do some of that work, I doubt this would have passed by with more than a glance and a nod.



> That means that if YOU, hater...




Honestly your use of that word says more about you than your imagined opponents.



> don't like that someone has a problem with the content, YOU can also leave.




Yes we can. And happily to. And I've done it before.



> Oh, wait, that's not fair?




Yes it is fair. It's perfect fair. That is in fact "the bleeding point". It would be great if everything could be worked out, but sometimes it just can't, and so you graciously excuse yourself from further play and you wish the people that invited you to play the best. Even if they are practicing Satanists and when they find out you are a Christian they start making jokes about human sacrifice, and the game they are playing is way to murder hobo for you and involves way too much demon worship for your taste. You wish them well, and you go about your life.



> YOU are the disruptive presence. YOU are the problem at THEIR game.




Yes, exactly. There was no way my Paladin was going to fit into their party of murderhobos, and there was no way I was going to play the sort of character that they would have felt comfortable with.



> And this is really my favoritest favorite: MY ENJOYMENT OF MY ELF GAME IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN YOUR HUMAN FEELINGS. I mean, that is ultimately what this boils down to. Every single hater out there has placed their desired play over the emotional well-being of other people - HUMANS - sitting next to them. There's no debating it, no excusing it, no reframing it or explaining it away. You, hater, have decided that nothing is as important as you being able to say/act/verbally fantasize however you want IN AN ELF GAME. You have also decided that only YOU get to decide what is valid, fair, or acceptable in this shared experience, and reject the notion that anyone else's experience or dissenting opinions matter as much as yours. Indeed, the world revolves around your little fantasy.




That's a nice little rant, but welcome to reality. If a director is putting on a play, and there is one person who is disrupting the entire performance and no compromise can be reached, they are dismissed from the company. If a business is trying to produce a product, and there is one person who is disrupting the entire business and after repeated attempts to get them to desist, then they are dismissed from the business. If you are at a wedding or a funeral, and one person is making an arse of themselves, then they are removed so that the bride and the groom and the guests can engage in joy or grief or whatever emotion they are supposed to be feeling at the time.

The pamphlet is all about what you are ranting about - that one persons enjoyment of their elf game and their feelings about it trumps everyone else's at the table. There are humans sitting next to them, but their feelings come first.  And if the book wasn't about that, it wouldn't make people so uncomfortable. If it said, the table needs to try to come to some compromise or accommodation because everyone at the table has a stake and has feelings, then people wouldn't get wierded out.

Turn your rant around, because you are aiming it at the wrong place. In fact, the ironic thing here is that you seem to be spittle flinging the very same worries and accusations some that really dislike the premise of the document have.



> So no, hater, the problem is that YOU are a complete tool.




Yet you are the one ranting here.



> You are why we can't have nice things. You are the worst part of about gaming, the stain, the stereotype we have to fight against, the part that needs to go away, and as quickly as possible. You are not welcome in an hobby or industry devoted to social interaction, because you insist on rejecting the core premise and contract of the social engagement that drives it. You, hater, should just play single-person video games at home alone. You, hater, should disappear. Because, and let's be 100% clear, YOU ARE NOT A GOOD OR REASONABLE PERSON, AND NO ONE BENEFITS FROM GAMING WITH YOU.




I mean, I think the rant speaks for itself. Here is the proponents of inclusivity on full display.

Any way, a few pages back as peoples rants got further and further from the actual text of the document and further and further away from what made "the haters" as you label them actually uncomfortable, I realized there was no good arguing this. The only way I could possibly make myself understood was to just write my own pamphlet. I don't know if I'll get it finished, because it is a heck of a lot of work, but if I ever do get it finished, I'll see if I can't figure out a good way to share it. That way people can hurl their venom at my take on things and I don't have to waste my breath trying to get people to think with their heads and not their hearts. And yes, it is bad to think with only your head as well, but thinking with only your heart and not your head is why that road labeled "Good Intentions" tends to lead to bad places.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 17, 2019)

Man, the enchiladas were good. Like, one of my best. Along with beer I had brewed?  Perfect combo.

Ok, now with a full belly and clear head, I think there is some middle ground here being lost. Primarily differentiating between private game tables you’ve had with friends (in which case I’m sure you’re already aware of any triggers or problem areas), tables where you invite others to play, and public tables (flgs and conventions). In the latter, I can see value in this survey. Going both ways. It lets me know of any potential issues players might have I can avoid as the DM, and tells me the player who wants narrate his relationship with a preteen kid needs to hike the frak off.

Let’s be real. Those of us who have gamed a while, we have met those really creepy gamers. If this tool helps identify them out of the gate, good.


----------



## Gradine (Sep 17, 2019)

@Celebrim 

Once again, you are reading things into this document that aren't being said. You're trying to extrapolate, but your extrapolations are colored by your own biases and preconceived notions. Here in "reality", it is your comments that are divorced from the actual text


----------



## Xenonnonex (Sep 17, 2019)

Gradine said:


> Once again, you are reading things into this document that aren't being said. You're trying to extrapolate, but your extrapolations are colored by your own biases and preconceived notions. Here in "reality", it is your comments that are divorced from the actual text



Out of interest who are you addressing this to?


----------



## Gradine (Sep 17, 2019)

Xenonnonex said:


> Out of interest who are you addressing this to?




Got ninja'd, but would've been shunted to a new page anyway, added an @ for clarity


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 17, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> Man, the enchiladas were good. Like, one of my best. Along with beer I had brewed?  Perfect combo.
> 
> Ok, now with a full belly and clear head, I think there is some middle ground here being lost. Primarily differentiating between private game tables you’ve had with friends (in which case I’m sure you’re already aware of any triggers or problem areas), tables where you invite others to play, and public tables (flgs and conventions). In the latter, I can see value in this survey. Going both ways. It lets me know of any potential issues players might have I can avoid as the DM, and tells me the player who wants narrate his relationship with a preteen kid needs to hike the frak off.
> 
> Let’s be real. Those of us who have gamed a while, we have met those really creepy gamers. If this tool helps identify them out of the gate, good.




I really need a few beers after this thread.


----------



## Xenonnonex (Sep 17, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> I really need a few beers after this thread.



Are you sure you are old enough for those?


----------



## Gradine (Sep 17, 2019)

Xenonnonex said:


> Are you sure you are old enough for those?




Depends, what's the drinking age in Russia?


----------



## Xenonnonex (Sep 17, 2019)

Gradine said:


> Depends, what's the drinking age in Russia?



In Soviet Russia everyone is born drunk. 
I jest. I kid.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 17, 2019)

Xenonnonex said:


> Are you sure you are old enough for those?




Well I been on this forum since 2004. So at least 15.  Or at least I wish I was


----------



## MGibster (Sep 17, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> Ok, now with a full belly and clear head, I think there is some middle ground here being lost. Primarily differentiating between private game tables you’ve had with friends (in which case I’m sure you’re already aware of any triggers or problem areas), tables where you invite others to play, and public tables (flgs and conventions). In the latter, I can see value in this survey. Going both ways. It lets me know of any potential issues players might have I can avoid as the DM, and tells me the player who wants narrate his relationship with a preteen kid needs to hike the frak off.




I find the RPG Consent Checklist to be of very limited use in a convention setting or at a game store.  I don't know how the rest of you run your games in a public space, but by the time I arrive it's too late to give a survey because my adventure was written long before that day.  If my adventure involves an NPC lying to the PCs to convince them that they didn't see what they thought they saw, I very well can't change the adventure on the fly because someone in the group marked that Gaslighting was unacceptable.  If I'm running an adventure with the premise that a hurricane just destroyed their homes and they've got to find shelter before they're out of the eye, well, I can't very well change things at that point.  (Maybe some of you are talented enough to make those changes on short notice but I'm not.)


----------



## Xenonnonex (Sep 17, 2019)

MGibster said:


> I find the RPG Consent Checklist to be of very limited use in a convention setting or at a game store.  I don't know how the rest of you run your games in a public space, but by the time I arrive it's too late to give a survey because my adventure was written long before that day.  If my adventure involves an NPC lying to the PCs to convince them that they didn't see what they thought they saw, I very well can't change the adventure on the fly because someone in the group marked that Gaslighting was unacceptable.  If I'm running an adventure with the premise that a hurricane just destroyed their homes and they've got to find shelter before they're out of the eye, well, I can't very well change things at that point.  (Maybe some of you are talented enough to make those changes on short notice but I'm not.)



Improvise. Adapt. Overcome.


----------



## MGibster (Sep 17, 2019)

Xenonnonex said:


> Improvise. Adapt. Overcome.




Expecting me to make significant changes to an adventure a few minutes before we're set to start is an unreasonable accommodation request.


----------



## Xenonnonex (Sep 17, 2019)

MGibster said:


> Expecting me to make significant changes to an adventure a few minutes before we're set to start is an unreasonable accommodation request.



How would you do so before? You have not played with these people before. You do so as you run the adventure. You gauge reactions. You ask. You talk as a group.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 17, 2019)

MGibster said:


> Expecting me to make significant changes to an adventure a few minutes before we're set to start is an unreasonable accommodation request.




Depends on how tightly scripted you've got it. My players go off on all sorts of tangents and the session usually isn't what I expect. I  feel I have plenty of chances to de-emphasize things that my players don't seem interested in (and, forewarned by said questionnaire, have problems with).


----------



## Xenonnonex (Sep 17, 2019)

MGibster said:


> Expecting me to make significant changes to an adventure a few minutes before we're set to start is an unreasonable accommodation request.



The best laid plans are undone by players.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 17, 2019)

MGibster said:


> I find the RPG Consent Checklist to be of very limited use in a convention setting or at a game store.  I don't know how the rest of you run your games in a public space, but by the time I arrive it's too late to give a survey because my adventure was written long before that day.  If my adventure involves an NPC lying to the PCs to convince them that they didn't see what they thought they saw, I very well can't change the adventure on the fly because someone in the group marked that Gaslighting was unacceptable.  If I'm running an adventure with the premise that a hurricane just destroyed their homes and they've got to find shelter before they're out of the eye, well, I can't very well change things at that point.  (Maybe some of you are talented enough to make those changes on short notice but I'm not.)




If your players aren't already picked or signed up before you get there, use the checklist to indicate what your game incorporates and how you expect to run it. Then your potential players will be appropriately informed so they can make the appropriate decisions on whether to sign up for your game or not.


----------



## MGibster (Sep 17, 2019)

Xenonnonex said:


> How would you do so before? You have not played with these people before. You do so as you run the adventure. You gauge reactions. You ask. You talk as a group.




According to _Consent in Gaming_, I should not use anything in the game the players haven't specifically told me it was okay to use because "the default answer is 'no.'" If I have to resort to gauging their reactions I've failed to acquire consent.


----------



## MGibster (Sep 17, 2019)

billd91 said:


> If your players aren't already picked or signed up before you get there, use the checklist to indicate what your game incorporates and how you expect to run it. Then your potential players will be appropriately informed so they can make the appropriate decisions on whether to sign up for your game or not.




I won't ever use the RPG Consent Checklist as I prefer an opt out system.  When I run a game I am not a therapist nor do I view D&D as a group therapy session.  It is not my responsibility to provide people with a safe space free from anything that might dredge up bad memories, open up old wounds, or trigger them.  It is the responsibility of those who have strong negative reactions to certain subjects or situations to bring it up to me.  If I can make an accommodation I certainly will but I should not be expected to make major changes on such short notice.  Someone can expect it but I rather than make major changes I will suggest the player join another session.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 17, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> The pamphlet is all about what you are ranting about




Maybe you should not be beating that drum about ranting quite so much. 



> ...that one persons enjoyment of their elf game and their feelings about it trumps everyone else's at the table. There are humans sitting next to them, but their feelings come first.




I have to ask - though, from what you write I am not sure you would know the answer - have you ever witnessed someone who has been diagnosed with PTSD by a mental health professional have a panic attack from being triggered*?  Or been in the room when the related night terrors wake them screaming?

Because, if you had seen that, I don't think you would question this - In fact, yes, there's times in your hobby entertainment when one person trumps the others.  Avoiding that trauma is worth a bit of the enjoyment of a handful of other people.  Similarly, helping some abuse survivors avoid the images of their abuse is worth a bit of edginess at some tables.

Among ethical, basically good people, this should not be a question.  If someone came to the game with a broken leg, folks would shift their chairs a little bit to make room for their cast.  If someone comes with an honest issue with some content, folks should be willing to do the metaphorical same, and shift the content a bit to avoid the problematic bits, and have folks concentrate on the rest for their fun.

If we all agree to that, then we are only left with quibbling over the particulars of how, which should not be worthy of the acrimony seen here.  Since we have the acrimony, it follows that the thread overall _is not just about those particulars_ - and you should probably stop holding folks to discussion as if it were if you want it to be constructive. 



*In the common parlance, the word "triggered" has been somewhat over-used and diluted.  It does not originally refer to "exposure to something mildly upsetting".  It is a serious event.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 17, 2019)

Xenonnonex said:


> In Soviet Russia everyone is born drunk.
> I jest. I kid.




Hey, we never consented to Russia jokes. My father died of laughter at a Yakov Smirnoff show.


----------



## Xenonnonex (Sep 17, 2019)

MGibster said:


> According to _Consent in Gaming_, I should not use anything in the game the players haven't specifically told me it was okay to use because "the default answer is 'no.'" If I have to resort to gauging their reactions I've failed to acquire consent.



If time is pressing that you have to start and run your game then reacting and talking as you play together is the way to go. Otherwise you talk as a group ahead of time. Common sense.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 17, 2019)

Gradine said:


> Depends, what's the drinking age in Russia?




I found this Russian beer here. Baltika 9 it's 8%. 5.7 standard drinks a can. Two or three of them does the trick.

 Kinda like mixing beer with vodka.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 17, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> Hey, we never consented to Russia jokes. My father died of laughter at a Yakov Smirnoff show.




[Yakov]In Soviet Russia, laughter dies of you.[/Yakov]

Tip your waitresses well, everyone. And try the veal. I'm here all week.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 17, 2019)

Xenonnonex said:


> If time is pressing that you have to start and run your game then reacting and talking as you play together is the way to go. Otherwise you talk as a group ahead of time. Common sense.




So we just give them a list of the scenarios, monsters, and dangers in advance and ask them if anything offends or frightens them.  That way we don’t accidentally expose them to something.


----------



## monsmord (Sep 17, 2019)

Umbran, I was minutes from posting...

Celebrim, there are no imagined opponents: there are haters right here, on other forums, on DTRPG, etc. There's already been a threadban of one such "YOU" here. They're posting, they're reading. I mean, it was deemed necessary by the site mods that there had to be a warning about such people and statements at the very top of this thread because such crap is so prevalent. No imagination required. Those YOUs are everywhere. Every time questions of inclusivity or mutual respect come up in gaming. EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.

You have a big bug about this doc for reasons you claim are subtext and assumptions, but thus far none of your arguments seem either accurate, fair, or on point, and contrary to the written text itself as has been pointed out several times. And as much as you have gone on and on and on and on about it, and feign a desire to debate about text only you seem capable of seeing but have already cemented your mind on, you really don't have any standing to criticize my (or any) ranting against people who, for reasons I thoroughly ranted about, want to fill forums with complaints about how such a doc is somehow suggesting something tyrannical, unfair, or whatever nonsense.

And the fact that you took such time to try to dissect my rant - and I am ashamed to admit this - even after I went out of my way to specifically NOT target your (apparent) criticisms of the doc methodology, shows only that your former posts are not really indicative of your core complaint. Your issue is not at all with the doc itself, not its methods. No, it's clear from your dedicated response - from your obviously too-close-to-home affront and your need to try to personally attack or discredit me, and, now that I see it, from your earlier posts (I missed the subtext, that's on me) - that your issue is with the message of inclusivity itself, and its proponents. You don't want it enforced at your table, you won't support a doc (or any tool) that offers a means to encourage it, and you won't stand for someone ranting against other folks who also don't want it at their tables, all while claiming the doc means the opposite of what it says, that up is down, that there are five lights. You're a YOU after all. To paraphrase, your post said a lot more about you than about anything else.

Your criticisms of my criticisms, indeed of the source doc, have no rational weight. You claim your position is all "mind," and proponents are all "heart," but you're clearly concerned with feelings, mostly your own. And yes, in fact, in reality - even your reality - directors _are_ fired from companies when their behavior impedes the company, whether that's a a community production of _Into the Woods_ or a multi-million dollar business. In reality, a GM _was_ kicked out of a con for not respecting player boundaries. You equate a drunken tool being ejected from wedding with someone suffering PTSD being told to leave an elf game? That's rational? Etc. This is all just rhetorical nonsense, deflection, etc. Empty.

Your concern is for the people whose games would have to be changed to accommodate someone with a phobia, trauma, trigger, or perhaps cultural, racial, sexual, or gender sensitivity, something. Your elf game is obviously your priority, not the people who would play it beside you _*unless they see it as you do*_. Your concern is that other players at a table shouldn't have to "deal" with a fellow player's "problem," because, you know, they're only one player, after all. You equate the hurtful experience of someone triggered by game content to the contentment of someone who wants to continue the triggers unimpeded. You insist on framing a "tyranny of the minority," how one player's feelings "trumps" everyone else's and how that's not fair. This is neither championed or presumed in that doc, nor in the wider discussion of inclusivity and mutual respect. Heck, leaving a game is an option in the doc. But you will make it your Hill. Cool. You can have that Hill. I mean, the rest of us are over here in this other place where yeah, sometimes, because someone is obviously distressed but still wants to be part of our group, we do indeed change things up because we value their presence, emotional health, and willingness to socialize and enjoy our hobby together more than we value whether a particular element is in the game narrative. You see an inconvenience; this doc sees an opportunity to build trust and connection. Have your Hill.

No, inclusivity doesn't mean putting up with jackassery. It also doesn't mean accepting intellectual dishonesty and strawmen as discourse or debate. It doesn't mean playing nice with people who complain that anyone with an "issue" undermines their (or their similarly-minded comrades') right to exclusivity or to say or have whatever they want, that the people with "issues" are the problem. If you don't like Popper's Paradox, take it up with him.

I don't know. Maybe I'm wrong. I'd like to be. Maybe you're an ally of inclusivity and tools to improve it. Maybe in an effort to be appear philosophical or "woke" you just present opinions and feelings too obtusely for mere mortals to see anything of actual empathy or substance. But when other posters call you out on your criticism and you won't or can't substantiate yourself, when you talk about people straying from the text (uh, my rant wasn't about the text, sooo....) but you can't quote text to support your own arguments, when, as you say, the only way to make yourself understood is to write your own doc, maybe the problem isn't everyone else. But I don't think I'm wrong, not after your exhaustive reply. It's irrelevant in either case.

What does one call a troll with a dictionary and mild talent for verbose rhetoric? Ah, yes: a troll. Wished I had wised up to that sooner. Feeling kinda fooled over here.

The rant stands. Add trolls and pretenders to the "YOU" category.


----------



## Xenonnonex (Sep 17, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> So we just give them a list of the scenarios, monsters, and dangers in advance and ask them if anything offends or frightens them.  That way we don’t accidentally expose them to something.



You talk to and with others. Like actual adults.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 17, 2019)

> *In the common parlance, the word "triggered" has been somewhat over-used and diluted.  It does not originally refer to "exposure to something mildly upsetting".  It is a serious event.




That coopting of a serious issue isn't my fault. The confusion is relevant to this discussion.



> I have to ask - though, from what you write I am not sure you would know the answer - have you ever witnessed someone who has been diagnosed with PTSD by a mental health professional have a panic attack from being triggered*?




One of the problems I intend to go into in this is it really isn't reasonable to ask people to disclose all their personal affairs, especially in the situation where formalizing a social contract is most needed.  You're asking me a question about things I haven't talked in great openness with my own parents.  It's none of your affair and I have no intention of pre-disclosing that sort of information to you or anyone else.  Funny it's never come up in 30 years of gaming.



> Or been in the room when the related night terrors wake them screaming?




That particular I haven't.



> If we all agree to that, then we are only left with quibbling over the particulars of how, which should not be worthy of the acrimony seen here.




The 'how' is almost always where all the real acrimony is. Political debates are rarely about the goals, but on the means of getting there. People don't disagree that society should be secure and prosperous. They disagree greatly of the particulars of attaining those goals, even to the point of violence. Capitalism versus communism isn't a debate about the ends, but about the means. Even in debates like global warming, the debate over the facts is really just proxy debate over the particulars of how to address the problem. It's the 'how' of that question that is the actual driving force of all the acrimony.



> Since we have the acrimony, it follows that the thread overall _is not just about those particulars_ - and you should probably stop holding folks to discussion as if it were if you want it to be constructive.




That's ridiculous, illogical, and absurd. This is all about the 'how' and peoples discomfort with the proposed how. This is not even remotely that one side wants to be inclusive of people with PTSD and the other side just doesn't. You should probably stop pretending that is the terms of the discussion if you want it to be constructive.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 17, 2019)

billd91 said:


> [Yakov]In Soviet Russia, laughter dies of you.[/Yakov]
> 
> Tip your waitresses well, everyone. And try the veal. I'm here all week.




That was the joke that killed my dad you bastard


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 17, 2019)

I read the document the other day and while I think it may be suitable for some people, I really can't see using the checklist or abiding by the ideas expressed in the text in my games.


----------



## Xenonnonex (Sep 17, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> I read the document the other day and while I think it may be suitable for some people, I really can't see using the checklist or abiding by the ideas expressed in the text in my games.



And that is perfectly okay. No one is mandating you have to use it.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Sep 17, 2019)

I cant wait to here how future conventions go over the next couple years. I think there will be some interesting people looking to be offended. And there isn’t a form big enough to cover everything that can possibly offend someone. 

Especially if the assumption that consent isn’t given until you tell them what will be in the adventure. There’s always going to be something you don’t think will offend someone that does offend them.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 17, 2019)

Finished reading it, kinda glanced at it the other day.

It kind of comes across as really stupid, i can kind of see where theyre going with it but the examples are fairly stupid. The X card thing is also really daft.

The consent form is kinda horribly slanted as well, you can write stuff in but DMs aren't comfortable with some things either and if you have 5-8 people filling out a consent form odds are something will clash with someone else stuff.

I did run down a few things in session 0, things to expect how I run my games, and asked for player input as I was bringing in 3 new players. I don't actually see their consent forms being good in a public setting either as its stupid to ask people about stuff that might be personal and its also impractical as its going to take time to read everything and cross reference everything and its a game for fun.

If a player pulled an X card on me as the DM more than once I would be inclined to kick that player out. As stated previously I run PG 13 sort of stuff with the occasional F bomb (I swear) but I tell new people that up front.

Sex is mostly fade to black, my wife is at the table I don't really want to deal with any of that full stop at the table in any great detail, nor to I want to try to RP something I'm not and I'm not pansexual so its awkward for me.

If you're the sterotypical socially awkward type around women or whatever you will be asked to leave, if its worse than that crossing the line into harassment you will be asked to leave/gamestore owner notified and physically thrown out if you refuse. My wife her sister and maybe my niece can be around.

  Its written in a fairly bleah way. However its central idea about communication is important in public games and pick up and play type situations and I have been adding a lot of expected in game conduct to my session 0s. Session 0s are also new for me.

The big thing for me is being disruptive whether that is by being a creep, smelling bad, antagonizing other players, stealing off them or just pissing everyone off. I've been getting ruthless there, CN asshattery is the quickest way to get me to boot you from a game.

I'm there to run a game, have some fun, I turn a blind eye to a lot of small stuff as long as no one is offended. Rather than a consent form if I'm playing with unknowns I'm going to put in more effort at writing down and reading out what is in the adventures/game and whats around in the world like slavery, or brothels, human sacrifice etc. Stuff like that is around but its not really going to be front and center that often if ever. Torture, sex (anything) that is all fade to black or somewhere in the back ground. 

I can't account for every corner case situation and if some of those corner case situations are that bad there are other DMs. If someone doesn't like heatstroke please don't sign up for an Egyptian themed game.


----------



## macd21 (Sep 17, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> So we just give them a list of the scenarios, monsters, and dangers in advance and ask them if anything offends or frightens them.  That way we don’t accidentally expose them to something.




Or you give them the consent form, and use it to inform the scenarios, monsters and dangers you throw at them.


----------



## macd21 (Sep 17, 2019)

MGibster said:


> I won't ever use the RPG Consent Checklist as I prefer an opt out system.  When I run a game I am not a therapist nor do I view D&D as a group therapy session.  It is not my responsibility to provide people with a safe space free from anything that might dredge up bad memories, open up old wounds, or trigger them.  It is the responsibility of those who have strong negative reactions to certain subjects or situations to bring it up to me.  If I can make an accommodation I certainly will but I should not be expected to make major changes on such short notice.  Someone can expect it but I rather than make major changes I will suggest the player join another session.




The purpose of the consent form is that it invites a player to bring these subjects and situations to your attention, so that you will have advance notice ahead of time and making it easier for you to accommodate them (if possible) or to suggest the player join another session if not. 

As opposed to it cropping up in the middle of your session, making the player miserable, and then you having to adjust for the fact that one of your PCs has left the game.


----------



## monsmord (Sep 17, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> One of the problems I intend to go into in this is it really isn't reasonable to ask people to disclose all their personal affairs, especially in the situation where formalizing a social contract is most needed.  You're asking me a question about things I haven't talked in great openness with my own parents.  It's none of your affair and I have no intention of pre-disclosing that sort of information to you or anyone else.




We're in complete agreement here. In fact, it's my only major criticism of the doc. I don't even know yet how to reconcile this concern with other in-game tools. I want to be inclusive, but not to humiliate someone by asking they reveal something they don't want public. I hope as a hobbyist community we can figure this out.



Celebrim said:


> Funny it's never come up in 30 years of gaming.




Because we're improving as a society, working toward being more aware of and considerate toward others' experiences and identities. Got a long way to go, but thirty years ago I knew people who wouldn't come out the closet, and put up with "gay jokes" at the table in silence. And mental illness and emotional distress were more stigmatized than now. The past is not a good indicator of whether we should be working toward inclusivity now.



Celebrim said:


> The 'how' is almost always where all the real acrimony is. Political debates are rarely about the goals, but on the means of getting there. People don't disagree that society should be secure and prosperous. They disagree greatly of the particulars of attaining those goals, even to the point of violence. Capitalism versus communism isn't a debate about the ends, but about the means. Even in debates like global warming, the debate over the facts is really just proxy debate over the particulars of how to address the problem. It's the 'how' of that question that is the actual driving force of all the acrimony.




This ("The 'how' is almost always where all the real acrimony is") is objectively, verifiably not the case as evidenced in any televised debate, most major continual news feeds, and hundreds of online forums (at least in the English-speaking West).

One long buried question has been "secure and prosperous" FOR WHOM. Historically in the West this has been whites, mostly straight white males, ideally Christian (and regionally, ideally Catholic or ideally Protestant), ideally wealthy. Whether the other demographics are indigenous peoples, immigrants, refugees, certain faiths, certain gender identities, certain medical conditions or needs, etc., there is a constantly an undercurrent questioning who should and should not benefit from political or economic systems. Business, laws, and court rulings are shaped by it. Voting districts. US Constitutional Amendments, even. Now that question is being brought to the fore, and the folks who always assumed it would be for mostly for them (or for them alone) are worried that it's not, or that it's going to "the wrong people." Only when they feel they won't have everything they want do the questions of means get beaten to death. And racists and bigots and such specifically prefer to exclude certain communities, and many of those folks are in control of those means of "security and prosperity," working actively against those things for much of the population. Yes, people vehemently, vocally, and publicly disagree what security and prosperity even are, let alone who gets them.

And no, Capitalism vs Communism is mostly about the ends, not the means: even if everyone somehow winds up with "enough," Capitalism rewards some people more than others. That's the whole point of Capitalism, that potential for "more" instead of "enough." The goals are entirely different: as originally presented, one leads to the others, is itself a "means." And no, the debate over climate change is often very much about whether it's happening at all, and if it is, whose fault and who should pay for the changes. If everyone believed it a credible, perceptible threat, or valued the billions who will be impacted, there'd be actual action, not repeals of safeguards and withdrawals from treaties and increases in fossil fuel production and use.

Claiming political debate is "rarely about the goals," and not about the social values, racism, religion, or any of the major personal and social influences on economic systems, law, or government structure demonstrates either an ignorance of real-world politics or a calculated attempt to divert the conversation, and in either case undermines credibility.

More importantly, that, and the equally specious statements about debates over climate change and economic systems are entirely irrelevant, red herrings. This discussion of this gaming doc is not a political debate - it's about the values and contracts of social gaming. That's it. Let's keep it there.

The questions of "whom" and "whether" are central to this discussion. The "how" depends on the others, and too many folks have already decried the "whether." Much of this thread has been about "whether," and that has almost nothing to do with the doc itself.



Celebrim said:


> That's ridiculous, illogical, and absurd. This is all about the 'how' and peoples discomfort with the proposed how. This is not even remotely that one side wants to be inclusive of people with PTSD and the other side just doesn't. You should probably stop pretending that is the terms of the discussion if you want it to be constructive.




You've moved goalposts, reworded, and sidestepped the point, and threw disparaging words around without explanation or justification.

The question isn't about "wanting" (and no one visible to me has claimed anyone wants someone with PTSD to not game with them, or suggested such a thing), it's about being entirely respectful of, trusting in the sincerity of, and willing to accommodate such a condition without hassle. One "side" clearly isn't so willing, as again evidenced by numerous posts here and elsewhere, where the posters say outright that a person who doesn't want to play their game as presented for whatever reason at all should leave. It doesn't get clearer than that.

If a group is willing to shift chairs to accommodate a player's broken leg, those same good, ethical people should be willing to change the game to accommodate that player's PTSD. If they aren't, they have decided that the player's emotional health and/or presence in the game is not as important as the content of their game. There's no other framing for it. But if you believe there is, state it. If you believe that this excluding choice/behaviour is justified, explain why. If you feel that choice wasn't acceptable, but believe this doc doesn't address a case like this, or does so weakly or wrongly, describe the specific problem, maybe even offer an alternative.

But it could be any heartfelt objection, not just PTSD. A player may not want to see slavery in the game. A player who wants a gender-non-conforming character. A player who doesn't want cartoonish portrayals of mental illness. Whatever. A group or GM unwilling to work with such a player is the problem, not the player. They have determined that their enjoyment of a particular game element is more valuable than the experience of making it enjoyable to everyone who's expressed interest in playing if not for [X].

Proponents of inclusivity argue that all reasonable means to accommodate that person should be acceptable to everyone at the table, and all work toward that. Now, it could be that this adventure, already underway, hinges on that element, and that a change to X undermines the entire narrative. Well, if there's really no other way to make this adventure work, maybe the answer is, "We can't do that for this adventure because, you know, that's like the whole point, but we'll be wrapping up soon, and the next one won't have X." Ideally this isn't the case, but maybe it has to be. And if that's the case, one would hope a reasonable player would appreciate the consideration, and be looking forward to that next session.

I've seen no argument from anyone on "either" side that someone deliberately being difficult, pushing buttons, or trying to exploit accommodation as a social "power play" is okay. This doc, the X-Card, the other tools and the principals of inclusivity don't support or condone crappy behavior or bad faith acting. No one likes that crap, and no one should put up with it.

I sincerely look forward to your own document on how to increase, encourage, and maintain inclusivity in gaming. Every idea towards it is worth consideration, and even if it's not universally useful (and really, what could be?), if it helps some games expand and be more open, unreserved kudos.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 17, 2019)

macd21 said:


> Or you give them the consent form, and use it to inform the scenarios, monsters and dangers you throw at them.




Creates more work as a DM especially with 5 or 6 people who might end up with conflicting triggers.

I've also got my own problems to deal with, I just want to run a game and can't really be expected to deal with everyone else problems. 

In the real world no one's going to use this, it's an internet meme anyway.


----------



## macd21 (Sep 17, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Creates more work as a DM especially with 5 or 6 people who might end up with conflicting triggers.




Let’s say you have 5-6 people at your table with triggers. You actually think having those triggers come out in the middle of a scenario is better than knowing about them beforehand?


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 17, 2019)

macd21 said:


> Let’s say you have 5-6 people at your table with triggers. You actually think having those triggers come out in the middle of a scenario is better than knowing about them beforehand?




 I would probably boot myself from the game. Such a group would probably be dysfunctional anyway.


----------



## macd21 (Sep 17, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> I would probably boot myself from the game. Such a group would probably be dysfunctional anyway.




Suit yourself. I think the problems would be trivial to overcome, and the failure wouldn’t lie with the players in such a situation.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 17, 2019)

macd21 said:


> Suit yourself. I think the problems would be trivial to overcome, and the failure wouldn’t lie with the players in such a situation.




As I said I've got my own problems. Took over a year off from DMing. The main criteria now is ease of DMing, no drama and ease if running the game for me. Only been playing for a month.

Anything atm much beyond turning up and prepping a bit goes into the to hard basket.

 And I would rather cut my own keg off and beat myself with it than hand out some form to strangers. 

 I'll talk to my wife or sister. Nothing would really trigger me that much in any realistic scenario.


----------



## MGibster (Sep 17, 2019)

macd21 said:


> The purpose of the consent form is that it invites a player to bring these subjects and situations to your attention, so that you will have advance notice ahead of time and making it easier for you to accommodate them (if possible) or to suggest the player join another session if not.




I get that.  And I'm telling you that when I run games at conventions or game stores I write the scenarios well in advanced, I don't know who will be playing when I arrive, and they are very often strangers.  So advanced notice in these cases might be 10 minutes.  It is unreasonable for anyone to expect me to make major changes on short notice.  



> As opposed to it cropping up in the middle of your session, making the player miserable, and then you having to adjust for the fact that one of your PCs has left the game.




It is the responsibility of the player to bring this up _before_ the game starts.


----------



## Lychee of the Exch. (Sep 17, 2019)

RPGs aren’t sex nor BDSM, and it’s unhealthy to pretend they are, so I don’t have any use for this supplement.

I’ve played for 30+ years and I’ve never had any need for such cumbersome procedures around my games as detailed throughout this supplement.

Furthermore, I’m not inclined to play with the kind of emotionally-stunted, ideologically-driven, naïve or gullible people who would require (or demand) such procedures around the gaming table.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Sep 17, 2019)

Lychee of the Exch. said:


> RPGs aren’t sex nor BDSM, and it’s unhealthy to pretend they are, so I don’t have any use for this supplement.
> 
> I’ve played for 30+ years and I’ve never had any need for such cumbersome procedures around my games as detailed throughout this supplement.
> 
> Furthermore, I’m not inclined to play with the kind of emotionally-stunted, ideologically-driven, naïve or gullible people who would require (or demand) such procedures around the gaming table.



Well, you know what they say... when you look around the table and can't find any emotionally-stunted, ideologically-driven, naïve or gullible people, then the emotionally-stunted, ideologically-driven, naïve or gullible person is probably...


----------



## macd21 (Sep 17, 2019)

MGibster said:


> I get that.  And I'm telling you that when I run games at conventions or game stores I write the scenarios well in advanced, I don't know who will be playing when I arrive, and they are very often strangers.  So advanced notice in these cases might be 10 minutes.  It is unreasonable for anyone to expect me to make major changes on short notice.




Sure. In which case the consent form is useful because it lets you know that the player isn’t going to be happy with an element of your game, and you can let them know before play starts.



> It is the responsibility of the player to bring this up _before_ the game starts.




The consent form is an invitation to the player to do just that. And yes, such an invitation is necessary, because your players aren’t going to assume you’re going to be open to a discussion of their problems prior to the game starting.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 17, 2019)

Umbran said:


> Except, you are rejecting the thing at the base of the thread, are you not? You reject the consent form idea?
> 
> If so, the analogy is: 12 people come to play.  They find out _only after the game starts_ that it is Game of Thrones, because you didn't ask them first.  When faced with the brutality of the story without warning, a player has an issue.
> 
> If you accept that you should ask the players first, to make sure everyone is good with it before you begin, then the whole idea of the consent form should not really be an issue - it is merely a form of communication between GM and player.




Makes more sense to tell the players "This is like GoT".

I had this happen to me - I ran an online campaign with GoT tropes, one player, an older gay man, was unfamiliar with GoT. At one point when I riffed on a scene from the show (where Daenerys tries to hire the Second Sons, and their leader disrespects Missandei) he seemed to think I was getting off on the horribleness of the villainous NPC, rather than showing how horrible the NPC was.  So we discussed it and I toned things down.


----------



## jasper (Sep 17, 2019)

hMM EVIL Jasper looks at the list. Looks at the hardcovers, the season adventures, and the CCC modules. Evil Jasper wonders how many of those published works violate the check list on page 13.
Well we are okay on the Relationship. The rest the dm will have problems running depending on the red line.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 17, 2019)

Umbran said:


> It is a metaphor, commonly used in legal theory* to note the fact that liberties have limits.




It's not really a metaphor as such. He meant your liberty does not include doing serious harm to others, of which a punch to the face is a reasonable example. He didn't mean it is a metaphor for an annoyance, say, or for unforseen harm. We have the 'thin skull' rule whereby if you commit a crime you are liable for unforeseen consequences. But you're not liable for accidentally scaring someone while wearing a clown costume.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 17, 2019)

Umbran said:


> Except, you are rejecting the thing at the base of the thread, are you not? You reject the consent form idea?
> 
> If so, the analogy is: 12 people come to play.  They find out _only after the game starts_ that it is Game of Thrones, because you didn't ask them first.  When faced with the brutality of the story without warning, a player has an issue.
> 
> If you accept that you should ask the players first, to make sure everyone is good with it before you begin, then the whole idea of the consent form should not really be an issue - it is merely a form of communication between GM and player.




But do we all need to buy into the consent form for this. I mean some things on that checklist are standard points people cover before a campaign begins. And people hash that stuff out. But the list also includes thirst, heatstroke, rats, and other details most people are assume to be on the table in any game. If 12 people come to the table and don't want to be blindsided by sexual violence, that is one thing. But if 12 people are coming to the table and can't handle thirst, there is a much bigger issue going on. If someone does have a specific issue, that is something that needs to be talked about. It might be something a group can accommodate. It might not be. Some requests are reasonable. Some are not. Some requests are reasonable but not suitable for some groups. The problem I have with the checklist and the PDF is there is no allowance for debate, the checklist has way too many things and is obviously very open to abuse and it frames a content issue as a consent issue (which I don't think it is, and I think using the term 'consent' in that way undermines its much more important use elsewhere in society). It is also just not how most people naturally interact at the gaming table. It feels like a checklist you fill out at the doctor's office. Not how people address things in their living room before a D&D campaign. Again, if it works for others, I am fine with it. But there are good reasons people are raising for not wanting to use it and for not wanting to have to buy into the argument made in the PDF.


----------



## macd21 (Sep 17, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> But do we all need to buy into the consent form for this. I mean some things on that checklist are standard points people cover before a campaign begins. And people hash that stuff out. But the list also includes thirst, heatstroke, rats, and other details most people are assume to be on the table in any game. If 12 people come to the table and don't want to be blindsided by sexual violence, that is one thing. But if 12 people are coming to the table and can't handle thirst, there is a much bigger issue going on. If someone does have a specific issue, that is something that needs to be talked about. It might be something a group can accommodate. It might not be. Some requests are reasonable. Some are not. Some requests are reasonable but not suitable for some groups. The problem I have with the checklist and the PDF is there is no allowance for debate, the checklist has way too many things and is obviously very open to abuse and it frames a content issue as a consent issue (which I don't think it is, and I think using the term 'consent' in that way undermines its much more important use elsewhere in society). It is also just not how most people naturally interact at the gaming table. It feels like a checklist you fill out at the doctor's office. Not how people address things in their living room before a D&D campaign. Again, if it works for others, I am fine with it. But there are good reasons people are raising for not wanting to use it and for not wanting to have to buy into the argument made in the PDF.




The fact that things like thirst, rats or heatstroke as assumed parts of any game is one of the reasons the list is useful, because for some players that kind of thing is traumatic, yet most GMs wouldn’t think twice about including them in their games.

As for allowance for debate - their shouldn’t be one. If one of your players has a rat phobia, you don’t debate it with him, you just don’t include rats in your game. Half the reason people don’t confide in others about these fears is because they’re worried they’ll be belittled or otherwise harangued over it. Someone telling you ‘I have a phobia about X’ I’d not an invitation to _argue_ about it with them.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 17, 2019)

Lychee of the Exch. said:


> Furthermore, I’m not inclined to play with the kind of emotionally-stunted, ideologically-driven, naïve or gullible people who would require (or demand) such procedures around the gaming table.





Apparently, you aren't too terribly inclined to discuss it without insulting people, so, you won't be posting in this thread any longer.

That's #2.  Who wants to be #3? Or maybe, someone wants to escalate up to a full on board tempban?  We can do that for you, too, folks.[/red]


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 17, 2019)

macd21 said:


> The fact that things like thirst, rats or heatstroke as assumed parts of any game is one of the reasons the list is useful, because for some players that kind of thing is traumatic, yet most GMs wouldn’t think twice about including them in their games.
> 
> As for allowance for debate - their shouldn’t be one. If one of your players has a rat phobia, you don’t debate it with him, you just don’t include rats in your game. Half the reason people don’t confide in others about these fears is because they’re worried they’ll be belittled or otherwise harangued over it. Someone telling you ‘I have a phobia about X’ I’d not an invitation to _argue_ about it with them.




I don't know. These are things that you would expect in any game. If someone has a major issue with them, obviously it should be discussed, but I don't think that automatically means they should be given control over the content. Sometimes a group isn't just the right fit for a person. And there is the added issue that most GMs don't know anything about counseling, psychiatry, etc. It is a problem that goes beyond the gaming table. I don't know if bending to what they ask is the correct course of action, asking them more questions, or giving them some resistance is better for their mental health. When it comes to stuff like PTSD it gets even more complicated. You shouldn't be rude or mean. But having that kind of issue shouldn't automatically translate into you get to say what other people can and can't have in the game. That is why I said things need to be discussed and debated. I wouldn't try to debate someone that they don't have a phobia they say they have. But if their request doesn't seem reasonable, I think it is fair for me to debate the request, or for the group to have a debate over how best to handle it. The PDF and the checklist just offers one solution to a very complicated problem: people who don't want something in the game, for whatever reason, always get their way and there is no discussion. That seems incredibly unhealthy to me.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 17, 2019)

macd21 said:


> As for allowance for debate - their shouldn’t be one. If one of your players has a rat phobia, you don’t debate it with him, you just don’t include rats in your game. Half the reason people don’t confide in others about these fears is because they’re worried they’ll be belittled or otherwise harangued over it. Someone telling you ‘I have a phobia about X’ I’d not an invitation to _argue_ about it with them.




The debate isn't over whether they are phobic of rats, nor am I in the slightest suggesting anyone be belittled or harangued over their fear of rats.

The debate is over whether he can be a part of the game and is undertaken by the rest of the players. And you know most of the time, that debate isn't even a debate at all and probably goes, "Sure buddy, join right in. Room at the table. We've needed a sixth player." either because we haven't even started play or because rats legitimately have nothing to do with the campaign and it's easy to not play with rats.

And then there was that time practically the whole campaign was about Sormkortek, whom if you are phobic of rats I can't even get into describing, but suffice to say what we are doing is all about rats. "And you know what buddy, we've invested years into this game, and right at the moment I can't even tell you where the party or what we or doing is because a detailed description of literally anything that is going on will probably be unhealthy for you. Much as we'd like you to join us, maybe you should wait until we wrap up this campaign and contact us again in a year or so." And while there is a certain bit of selfishness in a group not wanting to drop everything that they've invested in to accommodate the guy that has disclosed a phobia of rats, that's life. Sometimes you have to weigh the happiness of the six people already playing against the potential happiness of adding that seventh player, because that accommodation can't be done without cost. Is anyone happy about it. No, probably as soon as the buddy says, "There is this thing I should tell you... I'm afraid of rats.", everyone is going to have this crestfallen look, and there will be a lot of uncomfortable glances because no one wants to tell him.

Now if you can't possibly imagine not dropping a four year old campaign that you've invested hundreds of hours in to include that new person, well good for you. But perhaps you should really think about the cost of what you are asking for.

But beyond that, and probably more importantly than that, this isn't in any fashion like a group of people excluding someone because they are black, or gay, or a girl, or whatever. Playing a game that is all about rats (err, is there anyone in the thread seriously phobic of rats?) isn't inherently immoral. It's not like they are including content that is objectively problematic. It's only problematic because tragically a friend or acquaintance has an irrational fear. It's not a question like, "Well, or group objectifies female NPCs all the time, and we're fond of using demeaning terms for women at our table, and well adding a woman to our game would just cramp our style.", or whatever immoral BS that is going on out there in the wide world. Equating the two actually makes understanding either clearly worse.  If that is the source of a problem of inclusivity, paper documents aren't going to fix what is wrong in the heart.

Sorry, we are playing an Arabian Nights campaign and it's pretty much all desert.   Sorry, I'm very sad to hear that you have a terrifying fear of large bodies of water and drowning, but this is a piratical nautical themed campaign and it might not be for you.   But, on the other hand, if you know our friend can't handle spiders, well we can all choose not to play a campaign against the Drow.  Small sacrifice.  Worth it to keep or friend at  the table.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 17, 2019)

S'mon said:


> Makes more sense to tell the players "This is like GoT".




And if the player hasn't seen or read Game of Thrones?  Also, doing that is non-specific, even vague.  

Let us say that the game is like GoT in general, but your material doesn't happen to have any incest.  If someone is fine with the violence, and sex in general, "This is like GoT" makes them go away, even when they'd be fine with your game.  

"This game is like Game of Thrones," means I have to guess.  "This game has brutal graphic violence, rape, and incest," is much more clear, using only two more words.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 17, 2019)

Umbran said:


> And if the player hasn't seen or read Game of Thrones?  Also, doing that is non-specific, even vague.
> 
> Let us say that the game is like GoT in general, but your material doesn't happen to have any incest.  If someone is fine with the violence, and sex in general, "This is like GoT" makes them go away, even when they'd be fine with your game.
> 
> "This game is like Game of Thrones," means I have to guess.  "This game has brutal graphic violence, rape, and incest," is much more clear, using only two more words.




That is why you have a conversation.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 17, 2019)

S'mon said:


> But you're not liable for accidentally scaring someone while wearing a clown costume.




Legally, no, you aren't.  Unless it would be bleedingly obvious that what you are about to do is apt to do harm, in which case what you are doing is some variation of reckless endangerment if you don't get permission...

But, the original statement isn't only about the law.  It is applicable to ethics, and good old basic interpersonal relations.  It is a multitasker!  

So, how hard to you want to argue against the idea that we should take a few moments to be considerate?  Because, ultimately, that is what this is about - one proposed method for taking time to avoid hurting folks when you don't have to.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 17, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> That is why you have a conversation.




Yep.  And the form?  One way to start that conversation.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 17, 2019)

Umbran said:


> Yep.  And the form?  One way to start that conversation.




Except it closes off the ability to have a full discussion by saying there is no debate. And it includes very niche things. There are some items on that list most groups will naturally discuss before play (i.e. are you guys okay with romance?). But I see this as a very misguided tool. It effectively gives any person veto power over content, rather than doing it the normal way and talking about it to decide if the request is reasonable and if the group can accommodate it. Some campaigns are going to need spiders. Some groups are not going to want to change the content if 5 people love it and 1 person objects. People need to be able to have the ability to say "this campaign just might not be for you" sometimes. You are not entitled to play in every game and insist on the content of everyone's game.


----------



## macd21 (Sep 17, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> I don't know. These are things that you would expect in any game. If someone has a major issue with them, obviously it should be discussed, but I don't think that automatically means they should be given control over the content. Sometimes a group isn't just the right fit for a person. And there is the added issue that most GMs don't know anything about counseling, psychiatry, etc. It is a problem that goes beyond the gaming table. I don't know if bending to what they ask is the correct course of action, asking them more questions, or giving them some resistance is better for their mental health. When it comes to stuff like PTSD it gets even more complicated. You shouldn't be rude or mean. But having that kind of issue shouldn't automatically translate into you get to say what other people can and can't have in the game. That is why I said things need to be discussed and debated. I wouldn't try to debate someone that they don't have a phobia they say they have. But if their request doesn't seem reasonable, I think it is fair for me to debate the request, or for the group to have a debate over how best to handle it. The PDF and the checklist just offers one solution to a very complicated problem: people who don't want something in the game, for whatever reason, always get their way and there is no discussion. That seems incredibly unhealthy to me.




See, Consent in Gaming is about answering the questions you have hear because, as you say, most GMs don’t know anything about counseling, psychiatry etc. And the thing to take away from it is this: you’re wrong about pretty much everything above.

And this is something people don’t like to hear, which is why there’s a lot of push back. Because yes, players should have vetos over what gets included in a game. If their request seems unreasonable, it is not fair to debate the request. People who don’t want something in their game shouldn’t have it in their game, nor should they have to explain themselves. Trying to force them to is unhealthy. Accepting that your friend has a problem, being considerate and trusting them is healthy.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 17, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 17, 2019)

macd21 said:


> If their request seems unreasonable, it is not fair to debate the request.




Magic Spells.  Pagan Gods.  Occult References.  Demonic Forces.

And if this is request is undebatable concerning a game, why not a gaming convention?

Update: It occurs to me that the tl;dr read for the whole thread could be, "One side is arguing that unreasonble requests should be treated as reasonable, and the other side thinks that's unreasonable."


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 17, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> Two things- "some campaigns are going to need spiders(?)" Okay, then.
> 
> And the bolded part is really the crux of the issue; who is deciding what is reasonable? I mean, "the table?"




Yes, the table in most cases is what I have in mind here


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 17, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 17, 2019)

macd21 said:


> See, Consent in Gaming is about answering the questions you have hear because, as you say, most GMs don’t know anything about counseling, psychiatry etc. And the thing to take away from it is this: you’re wrong about pretty much everything above.




I read the PDF. And the people who wrote it, as much as I respect them and their design work, are not psychiatrists either (as far as I know). But I will say this. I base my opinion on personal experience in my family with issues like mental illness. I am not speaking from a place of ignorance on this. I think there are lots of good reasons to question whether this list is healthy for us.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 17, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Gradine (Sep 17, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> Magic Spells.  Pagan Gods.  Occult References.  Demonic Forces.
> 
> And if this is request is undebatable concerning a game, why not a gaming convention?




Yup, that is definitely a real thing a real gamer would do at a D&D table, and totally not an illogical and asinine slippery slope argument (rolls eyes)



> Update: It occurs to me that the tl;dr read for the whole thread could be, "One side is arguing that reasonble requests should be treated as reasonable, and the other side thinks that's unreasonable."




You added an extra "un" on the first "reasonable", I went ahead and fixed that for you.

Seriously, in most other contexts this would be pretty bog standard, boilerplate trauma informed communication. But try to introduce it to games and suddenly it's the end of the damn free world.

In all honesty, it's the "bu bu but veto!" arguments that are the dead giveaway. I have a lot of words I'd use to describe someone who'd put the enjoyment of four people's make believe game over one person's, who they ostensibly like enough to game with, real trauma. And all of them would get me thread banned.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 17, 2019)

Aldarc said:


> <snip>
> 
> It's a free supplement offering suggestions on "consent in gaming" that most people would have barely noticed had it not been for knee-jerk reactionaries. The pushback is disproportionate to what the free supplement actually says.




It always is.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 17, 2019)

Gradine said:


> Yup, that is definitely a real thing a real gamer would do at a D&D table, and totally not an illogical and asinine slippery slope argument (rolls eyes)




Do you honestly think I'm joking giving my background?   Guess what, occult references actually don't appear in any games I play, and it would be a deal breaker.   It's not a hypothetical.

And do you really think I'd don't have the same opinion of the arguments being made by the other side?  

According to your side, this shouldn't be up for debate.  You shouldn't be allowed to say that the request is unreasonable.  I know people who play D&D put don't feel comfortable with pagan gods in the campaign.  Now you are mocking them.   I don't actually play any games with occult references.  Now you are mocking me.  So much for your inclusivity.  You can't even abide by your own rules.   When there requests don't fit into your framework of what is reasonable, now all the sudden this is something that we have time to debate.

Let's be real.  This is the morality you have on display: "You, hater, should just play single-person video games at home alone. You, hater, should disappear. Because, and let's be 100% clear, YOU ARE NOT A GOOD OR REASONABLE PERSON, AND NO ONE BENEFITS FROM GAMING WITH YOU."  This is your inclusivity.   In your language inclusivity means people you don't like should "disappear".


----------



## MNblockhead (Sep 17, 2019)

monsmord said:


> I also think that in a con structure it may fall to in-game tools like the X-Card. Maybe cons should start requiring that GMs running there must use something, and the game descriptor in the catalog specify what tool will be employed. If a GM is unwilling to adopt a system the con requires, the GM doesn't need to be there.




Ouch.  Okay, I can accept that I am not welcome to referee a game. Their con their rules. But is this really how we want to approach it. If we are not careful, well intentioned efforts to make gaming at Cons more inclusive and considerate can lead to a backlash, driving away referees and even players. Yes, there are a minority of bad actors who we should be fine with driving away. But the X card, used under the guidelines promulgated by the Monte Cook PDF, is just not practical for many games I run. Even as a player, I would find it awkward to have to use it.

For most games it is just better to have this figured out up front, before a player registers for a game. 

There was one game I participated in where the X card was used that I thought made a lot of sense in that it worked well with the mechanics and nature of the game. This was Dialect, a high-concept game where you play a an isolated group, building a language, which is destined to die (the language, no necessarily the group, but often the group). It is the only TTRPG experience that I can say has been genuinely moving and impactful in a way games like D&D rare are. The nature of game play in Dialect have impressed me on how consistently they can creating moving experience. 

The nature of Dialect makes it very easy for a player to change a discussion, suggestion, or word to avoid something another player is not comfortable with. I actually think that the X card works very well as a mechanic for this game. Similarly, I think it could work well for a game like InSPECTREs. 

But to make it work in a game like D&D can be much more difficult. 

If I'm going to run a game involving infiltrating a Yuan-ti city, and a player has a phobia involving snakes, not only would I find it very difficult to change the adventure on the fly, I wouldn't want to. I prepared and decided to run the game because I as a DM enjoy the adventure. Much better to say in the description of the game that it it involves snakes, human sacrifice, claustrophobic underground spaces, natural hazards including deadly dessert heat, and underwater challenges with a risk of PC drowning, and graphic descriptions of those things. 

I could still incorporate an X card for people who find it too intense, but without any discussion, it will be difficult for me to know exactly what the problem is within the agreed upon scope of the game. 



> I'd like to say it would be nice if, instead, a con made usage optional but required every game descriptor say what will be used, or if nothing would be used, a disclaimer like, "No X-cards or similar will be used in this game: play at your own risk." Players reasonably concerned they'll run into a problem need not sign up for that game, and the GM and similar-minded players can enjoy things their way. So, some games promise to adapt, others ask you not to sign up unless you're willing to walk away, and you know which you're getting.




I can get on board with this. 




> But that brings up the issue of the shared and often crammed and cramped spaces we game in. I sign up for a game where we're using X-Cards and the doc and all, but at the table next to me it's wide open and triggering. Spaces would need to be separated for content, whether in different rooms or by time of day. Hrm.
> 
> No easy answers here, but there _are_ answers. Larger cons can accommodate safe spaces and institute methods for getting people on the same pages, and hopefully smaller cons can keep such development in mind. Maybe there's an opportunity here to develop online tools (say, for cons), and industry standard labels that give consumers and players a fair idea of what and what not to expect.




This is really the challenge with Con games. No matter how well-run or safe one table is, you are surrounded by many other tables with different game systems and table rules. It is difficult enough to deal with exceptionally loud groups, much less policing content at other tables that are polluting your table's safe space. 



> Pretty sure we can crack this nut. Gamers tend toward the creative and intelligent ends of the spectrum.




Agreed. Con game-registration systems would seem a good place to start.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 17, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> Do you honestly think I'm joking giving my background?   Guess what, occult references actually don't appear in any games I play, and it would be a deal breaker.   It's not a hypothetical.




You know, if you were to put that on something like, I dunno, a form or questionnaire about your problem issues, I bet GMs might design around your issue. If only something like that existed or could be encouraged to be a common practice...


----------



## Umbran (Sep 17, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> One of the problems I intend to go into in this is it really isn't reasonable to ask people to disclose all their personal affairs, especially in the situation where formalizing a social contract is most needed.  You're asking me a question about things I haven't talked in great openness with my own parents.




It was a yes-or-no question. I did not ask about any personal affairs.  No details.  I did not ask when, or where, or with whom, or what the person's particular trauma was, or what their relationship to you was.

I asked for no information about personal affairs, and you get up in arms about asking for all personal affairs?  That... doesn't make a lot of sense.   

It is also so far from my question as to be a strawman, I'm afraid - I was asking the question somewhat rhetorically, to establish a solidly severe case that we could all agree we'd want to avoid - or make it clear that some folks do not feel they should try to avoid it.  I am not asking you as a player, I am asking you as a person who claims to have better ideas as to how to handle such matters - whether you have had to handle such matters is relevant.



> Funny it's never come up in 30 years of gaming.




So... it has never come up.  But, somehow, you know how it should be handled?  

I can accept that it has never come up in discussion at your table. There's a massive stigma about mental health in this country.  The majority of people who have such issues do not talk about them, for fear of being judged.  So, unless you specifically make it clear that you are open and non-judgemental about it to players, then they are unlikely to bring it up.

But, if it has never been discussed... how do you know it has never happened?  Lack of evidence isn't evidence of lack.  "I'm going to go out for a smoke, (or to the bathroom, or I need to take this call, or whatever)" can easily be cover for, "I need to get away from this table." 

*You probably have a strong emotional reaction to that suggestion.  You probably reject the notion, and may well be mad at me for even suggesting it.  You may be about to rail at me for the presumption.  Please, hold that thought for the next section, as it is terribly important.*



> The 'how' is almost always where all the real acrimony is.




Ah.  No.  The acrimony comes from emotional investment, which is generally established before details of how are discussed.  That's how the human brain works - your limbic system responds faster than the parts of the brain that process logic.  This is why much of the acrimony happens _despite any evidence presented_, and compromise rarely happens.  This is why the acrimony happens any time anything in broad sets of topics come up. Because it really isn't about the evidence or logical details.  It is about having an emotional stake in the ground, and the feelings around being told you should move it.



> That's ridiculous, illogical, and absurd.




Were you of the opinion that we were on the planet Vulcan?  Humans are not nearly as logical as they claim.

In fact, this entire thread is about helping people avoid major negative _emotional_ responses!  If we were all that logical, we'd not need to consider the issue.  



> This is all about the 'how' and peoples discomfort with the proposed how.




You may feel your posts are about that.  But that is not an accurate generalization about the thread.

Upthread there was a guy claiming that folks who react badly to content should, "just deal with it".  That was not about the proposed how - it was about the need to do it at all, about how those who needed the consideration were weak, lazy, attention-seeking, or otherwise undeserving.  

So, no, it isn't all about the details.  You may want it to be, but the evidence does not support that it is so.  I hope you can grasp that before trying to move forwards.  I expect you will continue to be frustrated until you see this.

I submit to you that overall, it is more about discomfort with being told that, in the past, each of us was doing a bad job of it - _that feeling you may have had when I suggested that people had been harmed at your table without you even knowing_ - and how that reflects badly upon us and implies that we should take more effort that we really aren't interested in performing.  Most social change arguments take this form - it isn't about the details, it is either about helping people we have an emotional dislike for, and/or about the implication that we were bad for not doing this sooner.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 17, 2019)

MNblockhead said:


> This is really the challenge with Con games. No matter how well-run or safe one table is, you are surrounded by many other tables with different game systems and table rules. It is difficult enough to deal with exceptionally loud groups, much less policing content at other tables that are polluting your table's safe space.




Well, sure. Con games aren't for everyone and you figure that the most broadly fragile in the community are probably already self-selecting away from those gaming environments as a result. If you have a trigger, you have to accept that other people may, entirely innocently, trip them without knowing you have them. 

But that doesn't mean that, around the table in question that the person with the trigger chooses to play, you can't take steps to minimize the risk through sharing information on issues that squick you out.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 17, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> Do you honestly think I'm joking giving my background?   Guess what, occult references actually don't appear in any games I play, and it would be a deal breaker.   It's not a hypothetical.
> 
> And do you really think I'd don't have the same opinion of the arguments being made by the other side?
> 
> ...




When I GM, you need my consent to sit at the table when I run a game and I need your consent to run you as a player.  Now, you can get my consent only through a brief interview process already.  I've certainly withheld it in the past and will continue to provide revocable consent to players I wish at the table.  Sitting at the table can be revoked at my discretion for pretty much any reason.  Consent has been revoked for physical violence, verbal assault, inattention, distracting behaviour, and in-game actions outside the social construct to name a few.  I try to get player consent through a brief overview of the game expectations.  I have certainly lost consent to run some players over the decades when our expectations did not align and I have revoked consent to some players or even the whole table when I decided I had enough.  As a player, I have certainly revoked consent and walked out of many a game for a range of reasons.

This tool presented is just another option for deriving joint consent that focuses on some aspects that matter more to some people than other aspects.  Much like most tools, it is specialised and fits purpose better in specific circumstances.  It's cool if you don't like it.


----------



## ccs (Sep 17, 2019)

S'mon said:


> Makes more sense to tell the players "This is like GoT".




So the first 3/4 is going to be really good, the next 24% middling - ok, & the finale pure ***?


----------



## dragoner (Sep 17, 2019)

I have changed games on player requests, one, I had a desert adventure set up, Duneraiders by WH Keith of FASA fame, and one player having just got back from Iraq/Afghanistan, requested to not have it be in the desert, so I flipped it around and made it arctic, eg Iceraiders, it wasn't that difficult.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 17, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> Some of my best friends ....
> 
> So I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express!




You are twisting my words. That isn't what I said at all. I said I have experience with it in my family in a discussion where mental illness came up. That is a far cry from 'some of my best friends are black' in a discussion about racism. And I have personal experience with PTSD. You don't know anything about me. Do not assume you know who I am or what I have experienced. But at the end of the day, people still have a right to weigh in, judge and discuss these things whether they have experience with them or not. We need people to be able to give different points of view. And I feel like there isn't much room for that in these conversations. People are making these issues out to be much more simple, and black and white than they really are. And I don't think that checklist or the PDF is a healthy way to approach this stuff.


----------



## Gradine (Sep 17, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> Do you honestly think I'm joking giving my background?   Guess what, occult references actually don't appear in any games I play, and it would be a deal breaker.   It's not a hypothetical.
> 
> And do you really think I'd don't have the same opinion of the arguments being made by the other side?
> 
> According to your side, this shouldn't be up for debate.  You shouldn't be allowed to say that the request is unreasonable.  I know people who play D&D put don't feel comfortable with pagan gods in the campaign.  Now you are mocking them.   I don't actually play any games with occult references.  Now you are mocking me.  So much for your inclusivity.  You can't even abide by your own rules.   When there requests don't fit into your framework of what is reasonable, now all the sudden this is something that we have time to debate.




Oh boy, there's so much wrong here, it's hard to know where to start.

First off, of course there are plenty of people who play roleplaying games that prefer to avoid "pagan" religions or occult references, and of course they are free and welcome to play whatever games they want that suit them. Including you. 

Of course, that's not why you posted it in the first place. You pretty explicitly posted it as a slippery slope argument, a warning that you or someone like you would use this tool to crap over everyone else's fun. Which remains utter horse dung. That's not going to suddenly stay happening. And the reason why is the one thing you seem utterly unwilling to understand.

See, your preference to avoid those elements are just that, a preference, based on your personal belief. Those are completely reasonable. But what they are pretty obviously NOT (to everyone here but apparently you) are triggers based on personal trauma. Personal preferences can be discussed rationally. Triggered trauma can not. That's why it's not up for debate. Because that debate only worsens the person's trauma.

And see, the difference between someone having a personal quibble with an element of the game based on their own preferences and someone who is reliving trauma and the table is VERY VERY OBVIOUS to anybody with even an ounce of empathy. THAT is what this damn document is taking about. Your personal beliefs and preferences are not relevant to this conversation.

I'm not even going to touch that last paragraph; not only is every word of it false, but it's the kind of hyperbolic garbage a younger version of me would have thrown out and been immediately ashamed of.


----------



## MGibster (Sep 17, 2019)

Nagol said:


> This tool presented is just another option for deriving joint consent that focuses on some aspects that matter more to some people than other aspects.  Much like most tools, it is specialised and fits purpose better in specific circumstances.  It's cool if you don't like it.




The tool part is only the last page.  The pamphlet argues that one must get consent from all players before s story element can come up in a game.  It treats a role playing session as if it’s an inherently dangerous activity which is absurd.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 17, 2019)

MGibster said:


> The tool part is only the last page.  The pamphlet argues that one must get consent from all players before s story element can come up in a game.  It treats a role playing session as if it’s an inherently dangerous activity which is absurd.




That is one of the core problems with the PDF for me. It elevates roleplaying games to a level of power that people used to give it in the satanic panic. This is dangerous stuff, seems to be the mentality. I don't think most people walk into a game thinking that way. And I don't think the people who made the PDF understand how far outside the norm this kind of thinking is (except in certain places like areas of twitter and some gaming spaces online). But I am talking to lots of regular gamers about this PDF and almost universally the reaction is bafflement.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 17, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Gradine (Sep 17, 2019)

Trauma-Informed Approach and Trauma-Specific Interventions - MentalHealth.org

Here. If you do nothing else today, read this with an open mind and maybe learn a thing or two about your fellow human beings.


----------



## Wolfpack48 (Sep 17, 2019)

Why do I feel like the “but but veto!” complainers are seeing their throne being threatened?


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 17, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> I don't know anything about you.
> 
> And you don't know anything about other people's issues, do you? What, do YOU speak for everyone?
> 
> ...




It is getting pushback because some parts of the checklist are kind of out there. And the PDF has a lot of ideas people think are a little off. I think if you live in a certain bubble in the gaming community it seems normal. I think for most gamers, this a bridge too far. It isn't about a lack of empathy or compassion. People are happy to help those they know with problems. But this list effectively gives people a tool they can use to veto any gaming content they don't like, for pretty much any reason (and it gives them the moral high ground for doing so). It is a recipe for very dysfunctional social behavior in my opinion and it isn't the right way to handle serious problems like PTSD (or other mental illness).


----------



## Nagol (Sep 17, 2019)

MGibster said:


> The tool part is only the last page.  The pamphlet argues that one must get consent from all players before s story element can come up in a game.  It treats a role playing session as if it’s an inherently dangerous activity which is absurd.




I don't see I treating roleplaying as an inherently dangerous.  If a player doesn't consent to how the game is going -- for whatever reason -- you no longer have a player.  You can either get consent beforehand with forewarning or hope consent in granted in the moment.  It's up to you.  This applies to any element of the game: player composition (Alice won't play if Bob is on the game), narrative direction (Carol left because she got bored with all the dungeon crawls), themes (David stopped coming because he doesn't like all the Lovecraftian imagery that keeps coming up), or play style (Edith got bored and found a group that argues less and gets more done).  Forewarning minimises disruption during the session and minimises turnover between sessions.

Some forewarning is already commonly provided through longstanding tradition (this is the game engine we're going to use, here are the house rules detailing divergence and establishing a code of conduct / social contract, here's an elevator pitch for what the game will be about and the setting).  (As an aside the fastest way to have me withdraw consent from further play as a player is to present this stuff and then rapidly change the campaign away from advertised.  If I sign up to play X, I won't be happily surprised we're actually playing Y).


----------



## Wolfpack48 (Sep 17, 2019)

This was posted over on rpg.net as well. Good read.









						Laziness Does Not Exist
					

Psychological research is clear: when people procrastinate, there's usually a good reason




					humanparts.medium.com


----------



## BookBarbarian (Sep 17, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> I read the document the other day and while I think it may be suitable for some people, I really can't see using the checklist or abiding by the ideas expressed in the text in my games.




I actually feel the same way, but for that exact reason I like that it was written. I like that we are talking about it so I can say things like:

The default being No unless everyone buys in won't work for me because I can't anticipate all things triggering, but a short list of things most likely to come up is a helpful tool. Very helpful even.

Likewise I think the form is not as useful to me, but as a guideline for some topics I should address in Session 0, or privately with a new player when they join an ongoing game is again very useful.

Thinking about how I would "rate" my games on the MPAA scale is useful (I think i'm a firm Pg-13) and being reminded to be aware and sensitive when I see player discomfort is great.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 17, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> It is getting pushback because some parts of the checklist are kind of out there. And the PDF has a lot of ideas people think are a little off. I think if you live in a certain bubble in the gaming community it seems normal. I think for most gamers, this a bridge too far. It isn't about a lack of empathy or compassion. People are happy to help those they know with problems. But this list effectively gives people a tool they can use to veto any gaming content they don't like, for pretty much any reason (and it gives them the moral high ground for doing so). It is a recipe for very dysfunctional social behavior in my opinion and it isn't the right way to handle serious problems like PTSD (or other mental illness).




It gives a people a tool to determine if they want to participate or not.  No one save myself gets to veto whether I run a campaign.  They get to decide whether or not to participate in what I run.  If I'm asking for input into campaign structure or content, it's because I want to understand the players expectations and preference better.  If I solicit their input and decide to strike out in a different direction, it is only polite I tell them in advance for they can make informed decisions about how to invest their time and energy.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 17, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 17, 2019)

Nagol said:


> It give a people a tool to determine if they want to participate or not.  No one save myself gets to veto whether I run a campaign.  They get to decide whether or not to participate in what I run.  If I'm asking for input into campaign structure or content, it's because I want to understand the players expectations and preference better.  If I solicit their input and decide to strike out in a different direction, it is only polite I tell them in advance for they can make informed decisions about how to invest their time and energy.




It isn't just a tool. It has an ideology behind it as well. Like I said, it states very clearly in the PDF that there is no debate. And there are a lot of other similar assumptions in the PDF (for example assumptions that people have raised here about how gaming is inherently too dangerous and powers that you need this checklist). I don't have a problem with people using it if they think it is a valuable tool. I question whether it is a valuable tool. And I wouldn't use it in my game. But if people want to go through a checklist like that, fine by me. What bothers me is there is push for everyone to use it. And there is push back if you point out you think it is kind of silly.


----------



## Wolfpack48 (Sep 17, 2019)

MGibster said:


> The tool part is only the last page.  The pamphlet argues that one must get consent from all players before s story element can come up in a game.  It treats a role playing session as if it’s an inherently dangerous activity which is absurd.




You’re misinterpreting this. It’s advocating a conversation about topics that could be sensitive to your players and the best way to handle them. As opposed to running your game like a despot.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 17, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> So you really think the big concern is that there are people out there just plotting to veto your games, and are just waiting to grab the moral highground on you.
> 
> Yeah, no.
> 
> ...




I think a tool like this invites bad behavior and I think you are seeing a lot that bad behavior play out in conversations online. I don't think there is a big problem with people plotting to veto my games. But I do think using this checklist in every game would invite all kinds of issues. And I don't think it is the panacea its supporters believe it be. I also don't think it is intuitive, natural or reasonable to most gamers.


----------



## Gradine (Sep 17, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> It is getting pushback because some parts of the checklist are kind of out there. And the PDF has a lot of ideas people think are a little off. I think if you live in a certain bubble in the gaming community it seems normal. I think for most gamers, this a bridge too far. It isn't about a lack of empathy or compassion. People are happy to help those they know with problems. But this list effectively gives people a tool they can use to veto any gaming content they don't like, for pretty much any reason (and it gives them the moral high ground for doing so). It is a recipe for very dysfunctional social behavior in my opinion and it isn't the right way to handle serious problems like PTSD (or other mental illness).




It is _exactly _the right way to handle serious issues like PTSD. It is literally textbook trauma-informed approach. And these veto arguments have got to stop. The difference between someone reliving serious trauma and someone being a dickhead just because they can is patently obvious to basically everybody and anybody. This "But a bad actor might do [X}... so we need to get rid of it!" argument is the exact same argument as "But some people use RPGs to re-enact sexual violence on others, so let's get rid of RPGs!" and it is equally as nonsensical. There will be abusive people who will use every advantage they have to screw over others just because. You may see that as giving them more ammunition; I see it as giving them another length of rope. The earlier you can weed these jerks out, the better.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 17, 2019)

Gradine said:


> It is _exactly _the right way to handle serious issues like PTSD. It is literally textbook trauma-informed approach. And these veto arguments have got to stop. The difference between someone reliving serious trauma and someone being a dickhead just because they can is patently obvious to basically everybody and anybody. This "But a bad actor might do [X}... so we need to get rid of it!" argument is the exact same argument as "But some people use RPGs to re-enact sexual violence on others, so let's get rid of RPGs!" and it is equally as nonsensical. There will be abusive people who will use every advantage they have to screw over others just because. You may see that as giving them more ammunition; I see it as giving them another length of rope. The earlier you can weed these jerks out, the better.




I will say this once and drop it. I had PTSD. One thing that can happen when you have PTSD is you can force people around you to conform to your reality if you are given too much control over terms of discussion and behavior. For example taking the family television set hostage and not allowing people to watch things you find troubling, rather than leaving the room if you need to when something troubling is going to be on. I don't think this list is at all healthy for people who have PTSD or people who don't and are trying to run a game. Gaming groups are part of the world. When you have PTSD you have to learn to deal with the world. It is unreasonable to expect every movie that is playing, every conversation you overhear on the bus, and every campaign to adjust to your concerns. I think we are losing sight of that in this discussion and people are using the existence of PTSD to win a debate online.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 17, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 17, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> This .... this isn't really about the free guidebook, is it?




It is about the book and the conversation in the gaming community that has centered around. And that conversation is about a pretty big ideological divide growing inside the gaming community.


----------



## BookBarbarian (Sep 17, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> What bothers me is there is push for everyone to use it..



Is there though?

If there is I missed it.


----------



## Gradine (Sep 17, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> I will say this once and drop it. I had PTSD. One thing that can happen when you have PTSD is you can force people around you to conform to your reality if you are given too much control over terms of discussion and behavior. For example taking the family television set hostage and not allowing people to watch things you find troubling, rather than leaving the room if you need to when something troubling is going to be on. I don't think this list is at all healthy for people who have PTSD or people who don't and are trying to run a game.




I have PTSD as well. I think this document _is _healthy for people who have PTSD, as do the people whose job and expertise it is to _treat _people with PTSD and other forms of trauma.

That doesn't mean that this approach is right for you; it very well could not be. Everyone's trauma is different. But this is very much mental health industry best practice at use. It's not going to be the best thing for everyone, but it'll do a lot of good for a lot of people.


----------



## Gradine (Sep 17, 2019)

BookBarbarian said:


> Is there though?
> 
> If there is I missed it.




I mean, I'm sure in some corners there are. Depends on the prevailing _*ideology *_of the locale, I suppose.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 17, 2019)

BookBarbarian said:


> Is there though?
> 
> If there is I missed it.




There has been a lot of that online. There has also been this line in the sand where if you disagree with the PDF, you are a monster.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 17, 2019)

Gradine said:


> I mean, I'm sure in some corners there are. Depends on the prevailing _*ideology *_of the locale, I suppose.




To me the PDF seems very north western Seattle.


----------



## Gradine (Sep 17, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> There has been a lot of that online. There has also been this line in the sand where if you disagree with the PDF, you are a monster.




[citation needed]



Bedrockgames said:


> To me the PDF seems very north western Seattle.




I meant internet locale, but this very much does prove my point anyway.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 17, 2019)

Gradine said:


> I have PTSD as well. I think this document _is _healthy for people who have PTSD, as do the people whose job and expertise it is to _treat _people with PTSD and other forms of trauma.
> 
> That doesn't mean that this approach is right for you; it very well could not be. Everyone's trauma is different. But this is very much mental health industry best practice at use. It's not going to be the best thing for everyone, but it'll do a lot of good for a lot of people.




I don't think this is a place for debate about mental health. But I will just say I have heard lots of different things from mental health professionals on this and I am not at all sure you are correct on this. And I definitely think the reaction by mental health professionals to this document would be a lot more divided than you are suggesting.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 17, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 17, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> Mmmm.
> 
> Perhaps I am an optimist, but I did not realize that there was an ideological divide between fostering an inclusive environment and .... not?




You are putting words in my mouth. You know that isn't what I am saying.


----------



## Wolfpack48 (Sep 17, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> There has been a lot of that online. There has also been this line in the sand where if you disagree with the PDF, you are a monster.




Anyone engaging in a reasonable conversation about it is not a monster. I’m actually glad we’re having the debate.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 17, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Gradine (Sep 17, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> I don't think this is a place for debate about mental health. But I will just say I have heard lots of different things from mental health professionals on this and I am not at all sure you are correct on this. And I definitely think the reaction by mental health professionals to this document would be a lot more divided than you are suggesting.




Oh, I have no doubt. That there are professionals who disagree with what is considered best practice is a given in basically any field. It does not change the fact that the document _is _informed by what _is _considered best practice, and thus it _is _far more likely to do good than ill. That's not to say that it won't cause any ill, because again, everyone's experiences with trauma and mental health are different. But as an approach that is needed (and the constant stream of horror stories that have never really stopped indicate there is a need), it is the best informed it possibly could be. This, at least, is objective fact.


----------



## Wolfpack48 (Sep 17, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> I don't think this is a place for debate about mental health. But I will just say I have heard lots of different things from mental health professionals on this and I am not at all sure you are correct on this. And I definitely think the reaction by mental health professionals to this document would be a lot more divided than you are suggesting.




Actually the act of roleplaying is a very mental activity. I’m not saying we need to be psychologists, but using healthy psychological techniques in a hobby focused on shared storytelling and imagination seems like the exactly right place to have these conversations.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 17, 2019)

Wolfpack48 said:


> You’re misinterpreting this. It’s advocating a conversation about topics that could be sensitive to your players and the best way to handle them. As opposed to running your game like a despot.




I run my most of my campaigns as a despot.  Which means it is even more important I get and maintain player consent!


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 17, 2019)

Gradine said:


> Oh, I have no doubt. That there are professionals who disagree with what is considered best practice is a given in basically any field. It does not change the fact that the document _is _informed by what _is _considered best practice, and thus it _is _far more likely to do good than ill. That's not to say that it won't cause any ill, because again, everyone's experiences with trauma and mental health are different. But as an approach that is needed (and the constant stream of horror stories that have never really stopped indicate there is a need), it is the best informed it possibly could be. This, at least, is objective fact.




Again, I don't think you are right here. I don't think this is going to be helpful in most cases. Walking around with checklists and a 'no room for discussion' attitude for recreational activities like gaming....I don't see that alleviating PTSD. I see it probably making it worse, and pulling others into the issue.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 17, 2019)

Wolfpack48 said:


> Actually the act of roleplaying is a very mental activity. I’m not saying we need to be psychologists, but using healthy psychological techniques in a hobby focused on shared storytelling and imagination seems like the exactly right place to have these conversations.




That is the same kind of thinking that informed the satanic panic. Should we really be this worried about the power of make believe and imagination? We are all free to stand up, leave the room and not play. This isn't a live action session. This is not BDSM. This is not therapeutic roleplaying. This is a past time and a social activity.


----------



## Wolfpack48 (Sep 17, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> Again, I don't think you are right here. I don't think this is going to be helpful in most cases. Walking around with checklists and a 'no room for discussion' attitude for recreational activities like gaming....I don't see that alleviating PTSD. I see it probably making it worse, and pulling others into the issue.




If you just use it as a checklist and no conversation of course it won’t be useful. If you use it as a tool for discussion (as it’s intended) it could be. The document isn’t straitjacketing you into using it nor are you required to use it.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 17, 2019)

Wolfpack48 said:


> If you just use it as a checklist and no conversation of course it won’t be useful. If you use it as a tool for discussion (and it’s intended) it could be. The document isn’t straitjacketing you into using it nor are you required to use it.




Read the PDF. I don't think it is as about opening conversation as you think. Obviously some things need to be clarified when people write them on the checklist. But a real conversation has to leave room for disagreement and this DPF does not leave room for that.


----------



## macd21 (Sep 17, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> Mmmm.
> 
> Perhaps I am an optimist, but I did not realize that there was an ideological divide between fostering an inclusive environment and .... not?




Unfortunately there very much is. There are those for whom increased inclusivity and understanding in gaming is seen as abhorrent. Hence screaming about ‘SJWs’ every time someone does something like this.


----------



## Gradine (Sep 17, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> Again, I don't think you are right here. I don't think this is going to be helpful in most cases. Walking around with checklists and a 'no room for discussion' attitude for recreational activities like gaming....I don't see that alleviating PTSD. I see it probably making it worse, and pulling others into the issue.




There's a world of a difference between "hey let's not argue with Sam he's going through some things right now" and "no room for discussion." I'd like to meet the trained mental health professional who thinks untrained amateurs arguing with a traumatized individual about their triggers mid-episode is a great thing for that individual.


----------



## Wolfpack48 (Sep 17, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> That is the same kind of thinking that informed the satanic panic. Should we really be this worried about the power of make believe and imagination? We are all free to stand up, leave the room and not play. This isn't a live action session. This is not BDSM. This is not therapeutic roleplaying. This is a past time and a social activity.




Lol, now that’s reactionary. Equating a conversation about sensitive topics at session zero or signing up for a PG13 game at a con with the Satanic panic?  I think we’ve grown a bit since then and can have reasoned conversations about mental health as adults.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 17, 2019)

Gradine said:


> There's a world of a difference between "hey let's not argue with Sam he's going through some things right now" and "no room for discussion." I'd like to meet the trained mental health professional who thinks untrained amateurs arguing with a traumatized individual about their triggers mid-episode is a great thing for that individual.




Honestly it just feels like you are weaponizing people with mental health issues here. I am definitely not advocating arguing with someone who is going through tough things. I am saying a universal block on discussion is a bad idea.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 17, 2019)

Wolfpack48 said:


> Laziness Does Not Exist
> 
> 
> Psychological research is clear: when people procrastinate, there's usually a good reason
> ...




But the problem is we are not having a reasonable discussion about. This feels more like a moral panic than a reasonable discussion (which is why I invoked the satanic panic).


----------



## Gradine (Sep 17, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> Honestly it just feels like you are weaponizing people with mental health issues here. I am definitely not advocating arguing with someone who is going through tough things. I am saying a universal block on discussion is a bad idea.




It's not a universal block on discussion. It's respecting that individuals get to set their own boundaries and then respecting those boundaries.



Bedrockgames said:


> But the problem is we are not having a reasonable discussion about. This feels more like a moral panic than a reasonable discussion (which is why I invoked the satanic panic).




The only people here making hyperbolic panicked arguments are those who oppose the document


----------



## Wolfpack48 (Sep 17, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> Read the PDF. I don't think it is as about opening conversation as you think. Obviously some things need to be clarified when people write them on the checklist. But a real conversation has to leave room for disagreement and this DPF does not leave room for that.




As someone said in another thread on this topic: “Houserule that sh*t.”


----------



## BookBarbarian (Sep 17, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> But the problem is we are not having a reasonable discussion about. This feels more like a moral panic than a reasonable discussion (which is why I invoked the satanic panic).




I like to feel I'm having a reasonable discussion about it. But I might be wrong.


----------



## Wolfpack48 (Sep 17, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> But the problem is we are not having a reasonable discussion about. This feels more like a moral panic than a reasonable discussion (which is why I invoked the satanic panic).




So far it’s been pretty reasonable to me anyway!


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 17, 2019)

BookBarbarian said:


> I like to feel I'm having a reasonable discussion about it. But I might be wrong.




I am not accusing you of being unreasonable (my memory isn't so great, so I'd have to review your last several responses to really weigh in there ). I just think the overall discussion going on in the gaming community about this is very shrill and...well panicked. There is an urgency and a moral pressure of "we must do something and we must do it now", that feels to me very much like the other moral panics I have seen. Like I said before, if people find use in the checklist, that is fine. I am not for shutting them down or crapping on the writers. I am just getting very irritated by the demands I am seeing for others to use the list, for those who don't like the list to be driven from the hobby, etc. I think we can have a reasonable disagreement about this. Personally I think it is a bad idea, and I won't be using it. I think people who choose to use it, should be able to do so without me yelling at them.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 17, 2019)

Umbran said:


> And if the player hasn't seen or read Game of Thrones?




Yeah, and that was exactly what I then talked about in the post you quoted. My older gay friend/player wasn't familiar with the show, or its content. And he was upset by an event based on one in the show (Missandei being harassed by the leader of the Second Sons).

But I don't think the check list approach would have worked in my example either. There is no entry for "no crotch sniffing" on the check list - and why would my friend ever have thought to write that in?


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 17, 2019)

Gradine said:


> It's not a universal block on discussion. It's respecting that individuals get to set their own boundaries and then respecting those boundaries.




But it does so by saying there is no room for debate. You are just reframing 'there is no room for debate' as 'respecting that individuals get to set their own boundaries'. Sometimes you have to have a conversation about something. And if you can't have a conversation this player and that group might not be a good fit.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 17, 2019)

Gradine said:


> The only people here making hyperbolic panicked arguments are those who oppose the document




We are just going to have to agree to disagree there


----------



## Arilyn (Sep 17, 2019)

Wolfpack48 said:


> Actually the act of roleplaying is a very mental activity. I’m not saying we need to be psychologists, but using healthy psychological techniques in a hobby focused on shared storytelling and imagination seems like the exactly right place to have these conversations.




Yes, role playing games can be a good activity for helping people mentally and socially on many levels. Having a tool to further refine the benefits is a good idea. 

If the guide has some weakness or problems, which I'm sure it does, it can act as a starting point. If it is used, it will no doubt be tweaked and improved. 

Role playing games have been threading their way into all kinds of locations, like classrooms, and all kind of genres and tones from Lamentations of the Flame Princess to the gentle Japanese RPGs, where the biggest problem facing characters is rescuing a stuck puppy. There's going to continue to be a wide variety of people coming to tables with vastly differing expectations and experiences, and this diversity will continue to grow. This is awesome, but there will be growing pains, and considering the hooror stories that occurred when the hobby was small, yes a guide is a welcome addition.


----------



## Gradine (Sep 17, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> But it does so by saying there is no room for debate. You are just reframing 'there is no room for debate' as 'respecting that individuals get to set their own boundaries'. Sometimes you have to have a conversation about something. And if you can't have a conversation this player and that group might not be a good fit.




I'm not reframing anything, I'm merely providing the context you've missed by glossing over all the text after "there is no room for debate". The _reason _there's no room for debate is because otherwise you would be disrespecting other people's clearly stated boundaries by insisting on a debate.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 17, 2019)

Umbran said:


> So, how hard to you want to argue against the idea that we should take a few moments to be considerate?




I don't like arguing against words put in my mouth at all! Not a fan of straw manning and ad hominem.


----------



## monsmord (Sep 17, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> And while there is a certain bit of selfishness in a group not wanting to drop everything that they've invested in to accommodate the guy that has disclosed a phobia of rats, that's life. Sometimes you have to weigh the happiness of the six people already playing against the potential happiness of adding that seventh player, because that accommodation can't be done without cost. Is anyone happy about it. No, probably as soon as the buddy says, "There is this thing I should tell you... I'm afraid of rats.", everyone is going to have this crestfallen look, and there will be a lot of uncomfortable glances because no one wants to tell him.
> 
> Now if you can't possibly imagine not dropping a four year old campaign that you've invested hundreds of hours in to include that new person, well good for you. But perhaps you should really think about the cost of what you are asking for.
> 
> ...




This goes to the bone of the problem that the doc, and similar tools, is trying to address.

The scenario as described feels spot on to me, like this is the way a lot of games would go. The crestfallen looks, etc. And the point of inclusivity is that we can do better and should try harder to do better, because the priorities described there are upside-down.

I even get it. I mean, if I'm one of those players and my character's a were-rat I've gotten to 19th level and it's my favorite character of all time - and now it has to be a were-squid, or we have to roll up new characters and start a new campaign? I mean yeah, hellz yeah, I'd be super disappointed. Probably pretty irked, honestly. I'd see if the new player would be willing to wait a session or two so we can wrap things up or have one last big battle or such. But if that's not reasonably possible, if somehow we can't even agree to start a new game when this phobic person is available and play the old campaign when they aren't, why would I send them packing? I'm choosing a loved character over increasing my gaming group and the promise of never having to fight giant rats ever again? I mean, how is this even a choice? What kind of person chooses their character over the emotional welfare of this apparently keen human sitting across from them? Why would anyone think that's okay? Why would anyone thinking six people making that choice makes it okay?

In this scenario, the phobia of rats is being treated as qualitatively different from a person's race, gender identity, or sexual preference; these other attributes are considered reasonable things that define the boundaries and sensitivities of the new player (based on presumptions, not by querying the player), while the phobia is not. An additional point used is that complaints of misogynist content should be treated one way, while not wanting rats in a game because of real emotional distress can be dismissed if inconvenient. (And while I laud the notion that racist, misogynist, or most -ist content is inherently problematic and should be discouraged, if a group in someone's dining room is all down with it and enjoys it, well, that's not really what we're discussing here. We're discussing dissent and request for change for deep emotional reasons, not whether complete accord can be achieved on chain mail bikinis.)

The existing players here have decided that their happiness of this specific gaming experience is derived primarily from the specific game content, not the social aspect. Their happiness will be shattered should that content need to be substantially changed, or worse, exchanged for a new one. Their priority is the game, not the people who'd play it. That's not social. It might border on sociopathy: more value placed on an imaginary world than on real people? Yikes.

I mean, one can try to make this about numbers - 6 players want rats, one can't play if rats are there, 6 wins - but the core decision is that make-believe trumps humans. And that's just plain weird. And I'd argue it's plain bad. Wrong. Antisocial.

The unwillingness to accommodate the phobic on the grounds that players have "too much invested" in an long-standing elf game. The framing of current gaming goals and contentment of a few unempathetic souls as qualitatively more valuable and reasonable than including a willing gamer in the social experience and/or in ensuring that one person doesn't suffer avoidable real-world emotional distress. The fundamental premise is deeply troubling.

The "cost" of changing a campaign. Really. The "cost."

Celebrim, you try to turn around my "get out of my yard" rant as somehow the hypocritical face of my "side." But it ain't. You're arguing groups are reasonable in turning people away asking for accommodation for things they can't help (though probably would very much like to), excepting things you've predetermined as somehow "morally" okay to consider, like a physical disability, their race, etc. My rant is against people who _choose_ to be unempathetic, who choose to value their elf game over the human who'd sit next to them. Apples and oranges, not pot and kettle. Inclusivity doesn't mean jerks are welcome. It doesn't mean disruptive players are welcome. It doesn't mean every point of view is welcome, especially when that point of view is that a player's phobias are grounds for dismissal. It means that people who are trying in good faith to enjoy a social game despite some very real and possibly deeply personal issue should be given the opportunity to do so, even if that means your make-believe character or make-believe world has to make-believe some room for them.


Anyone can explore an imaginary world, be an imagined character, any time they want - in their head, in their home, on a bus. They can play a solo RPG, whether P&P or video. They can write a story, a script, and have complete control over events and rules. But that's not what we do. We gather. So having decided it's better to share this experience with people, why is it troubling to folks when someone requests [X] be avoided? Why is that so threatening as a concept? How is an imaginary game so sancrosanct?

I've been mulling this since the thread started, and can't find it. Every answer I come up is basically a flavor of the social aspect for such folks being a means to an end, like for validation, attention, control, etc., and that the game is a proxy for their egos. I dunno. Choosing a game over a human - it's just not social.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 17, 2019)

Gradine said:


> I'm not reframing anything, I'm merely providing the context you've missed by glossing over all the text after "there is no room for debate". The _reason _there's no room for debate is because otherwise you would be disrespecting other people's clearly stated boundaries by insisting on a debate.




Which is just rationalizing not having conversations period. Again, I am not saying don't be tactful or kind. I am just saying a blanket, this is never something that can be debated, is a very bad foundational principle.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 17, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> That is why you have a conversation.




Yes! In my GoT example we sorted it out by talking, by establishing there was a problem, and what to do about it. That's what needs to happen. And in case anyone wants to straw man this, I am not calling for embarrassing/intimate discussion of one's hang-ups, phobias & dislikes. The conversation should be brief, polite, mutually respectful, and goal-oriented.


----------



## BookBarbarian (Sep 17, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> I am not accusing you of being unreasonable (my memory isn't so great, so I'd have to review your last several responses to really weigh in there ). I just think the overall discussion going on in the gaming community about this is very shrill and...well panicked.



I don't know about "shrill" in fact I don't think I've ever used that word before. But if there is panic you can always remind folks:









Bedrockgames said:


> There is an urgency and a moral pressure of "we must do something and we must do it now", that feels to me very much like the other moral panics I have seen.



I guess I just don't see that.



Bedrockgames said:


> I am just getting very irritated by the demands I am seeing for others to use the list



Or this.



Bedrockgames said:


> for those who don't like the list to be driven from the hobby, etc.



Or this.



Bedrockgames said:


> I think we can have a reasonable disagreement about this. Personally I think it is a bad idea, and I won't be using it.



perfectly reasonable



Bedrockgames said:


> I think people who choose to use it, should be able to do so without me yelling at them.



On this we agree.


----------



## Gradine (Sep 17, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> Which is just rationalizing not having conversations period. Again, I am not saying don't be tactful or kind. I am just saying a blanket, this is never something that can be debated, is a very bad foundational principle.




There is a difference between conversation and debate. People are free to talk as much or as little as they want about their trauma and triggers. _Debate _implies pushing back against the person's boundaries, which is disrespectful and should not happen.


----------



## monsmord (Sep 17, 2019)

Wolfpack48 said:


> So far it’s been pretty reasonable to me anyway! ☺




I would say that my vehement rant could contribute to a sense of high tension while adding little real content to the actual discussion. I apologize for the emotionality. (I'll refrain from editing it as it has already been responded to, and because it's only fair to leave the evidence if I'm called out on it.)


----------



## macd21 (Sep 17, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> I am not accusing you of being unreasonable (my memory isn't so great, so I'd have to review your last several responses to really weigh in there ). I just think the overall discussion going on in the gaming community about this is very shrill and...well panicked. There is an urgency and a moral pressure of "we must do something and we must do it now", that feels to me very much like the other moral panics I have seen. Like I said before, if people find use in the checklist, that is fine. I am not for shutting them down or crapping on the writers. I am just getting very irritated by the demands I am seeing for others to use the list, for those who don't like the list to be driven from the hobby, etc. I think we can have a reasonable disagreement about this. Personally I think it is a bad idea, and I won't be using it. I think people who choose to use it, should be able to do so without me yelling at them.




The only shrill panic is coming from those opposed to the document, who are decrying ‘SJWs’ ruining their game and attacking people with problems.

The people actually supporting the document? Just saying ‘hey, not a bad idea!’ And then reacting with horrified bafflement as people on the other side throw a hissy fit.


----------



## BookBarbarian (Sep 17, 2019)

monsmord said:


> I would say that my vehement rant could contribute to a sense of high tension while adding little real content to the actual discussion. I apologize for the emotionality. (I'll refrain from editing it as it has already been responded to, and because it's only fair to leave the evidence if I'm called out on it.)




I will admit to glossing over your walls of text instead of reading them thoroughly


----------



## S'mon (Sep 17, 2019)

monsmord said:


> What kind of person chooses their character over the emotional welfare of this apparently keen human sitting across from them?




What kind of person prioritises their own fun over the fun of five or six other people? This is not "emotional welfare". This is D&D.  If you have a rat phobia, you don't play in the rat-based campaign, and you don't tell the rest of the group not to play it, either. If they choose to wrap it up and do something different that you can play in, that's great. But you absolutely should not be trying to guilt them into doing so.


----------



## Wolfpack48 (Sep 17, 2019)

monsmord said:


> This goes to the bone of the problem that the doc, and similar tools, is trying to address.
> 
> The scenario as described feels spot on to me, like this is the way a lot of games would go. The crestfallen looks, etc. And the point of inclusivity is that we can do better and should try harder to do better, because the priorities described there are upside-down.
> 
> ...




Well said. I guess the question really is: is the game and its players simply a tool to your “group novel” your “artistic masterpiece” your beloved character? Or do you actually place value on the people who sit around the table with you?  I hate to say it, but my guess is that some role players actually do prefer the game world over the real one, and those messy problems that come with it.


----------



## monsmord (Sep 17, 2019)

Wolfpack48 said:


> I guess the question really is: is the game and its players simply a tool to your “group novel” your “artistic masterpiece? your beloved character” Or do you actually place any value on the people who sit around the table with you?  I hate to say it, but my guess is that some role players actually do prefer the game world over the real one, and those messy problems that come with it.




Yup.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 17, 2019)

macd21 said:


> The only shrill panic is coming from those opposed to the document, who are decrying ‘SJWs’ ruining their game and attacking people with problems.
> 
> The people actually supporting the document? Just saying ‘hey, not a bad idea!’ And then reacting with horrified bafflement as people on the other side throw a hissy fit.




If all people were doing was saying "hey not a bad idea" I wouldn't object.


----------



## MGibster (Sep 17, 2019)

This may be difficult for some of you to believe, but you can disagree with the Consent in Gaming pamphlet and still care about the emotional well-being of your players.  Those are not mutually exclusive items.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 17, 2019)

MGibster said:


> This may be difficult for some of you to believe, but you can disagree with the Consent in Gaming pamphlet and still care about the emotional well-being of your players.  Those are not mutually exclusive items.




Exactly.


----------



## Gradine (Sep 17, 2019)

S'mon said:


> What kind of person prioritises their own fun over the fun of five or six other people? This is not "emotional wefare". This is D&D.  If you have a rat phobia, you don't play in the rat-based campaign, and you don't tell the rest of the group not to play it, either. If they choose to wrap it up and do something different that you can play in, that's great. But you absolutely should not be trying to guilt them into doing so.




I mean, everyone has different social situations and gaming scenes. I live in a pretty small community; I play with my friends or not at all, and my friends are all in the same boat. There is no "other game" to play. So you can bet we're pretty conscious of the types of things we do and do not want to experience while gaming.

If you and your players feel so strongly about playing your rat campaign that you'd willingly leave out the player who just can't handle rats, that's certainly a choice. And maybe that's an easier choice if you're playing with strangers more than with friends. Me, though, either way I'd say "maybe we'll get to that campaign another time guys, let's figure out something we'd all enjoy". But, you know, that's just me. Look at that bleeding heart, they actually care about _people _


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 17, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## S'mon (Sep 17, 2019)

ccs said:


> So the first 3/4 is going to be really good, the next 24% middling - ok, & the finale pure ***?




Heh. The game I ran was back in 2013 - so only the good stuff!


----------



## Gradine (Sep 17, 2019)

MGibster said:


> This may be difficult for some of you to believe, but you can disagree with the Consent in Gaming pamphlet and still care about the emotional well-being of your players.  Those are not mutually exclusive items.




This would be easier to buy if so much of the disagreement wasn't centered around a dismissal of trauma in general and trauma-informed approaches in specific. I don't disagree that they are not mutually exclusive; just that a lot of the disagreement seems to be coming from that place of dismissiveness.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 17, 2019)

Gradine said:


> If you and your players feel so strongly about playing your rat campaign that you'd willingly leave out the player who just can't handle rats, that's certainly a choice.




I have a friend, Judith. She works at the weekends. She gets left out of my Sunday game.
So I run a Wednesday game too. Now she can play. That's what I do.
If Judith were trying to guilt me into not running on Sundays, so that she never missed a game, she wouldn't be a very good friend.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 17, 2019)

MGibster said:


> This may be difficult for some of you to believe, but you can disagree with the Consent in Gaming pamphlet and still care about the emotional well-being of your players.  Those are not mutually exclusive items.




So... pick a different tool or just keep using the ones you've already adopted then.

_ETA_
I'm almost certainly not going to adopt the consent tool as presented.  I can see where it might provide value to some games and situations.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 17, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> You are putting words in my mouth. You know that isn't what I am saying.




Unfortunately, no he doesn't. There is this ideal that if you disagree, it must because you are some sort of -ist. The idea that both sides might hold similar values, but instead disagree over the means, is not something he's going to be willing to entertain. Hence the resemblance to the Satanic Panic, right down to the attempting to get me to recover repressed memories and the like.


----------



## Gradine (Sep 17, 2019)

S'mon said:


> I have a friend, Judith. She works at the weekends. She gets left out of my Sunday game.
> So I run a Wednesday game too. Now she can play. That's what I do.
> If Judith were trying to guilt me into not running on Sundays, so that she never missed a game, she wouldn't be a very good friend.




True. But that's a very different beast altogether from Judith asking you not to include car crashes in your sessions because she was the only survivor of a crash with her friends as a teenager and she still feels immense trauma and survivor's guilt over it. Because The Consent Handbook is very much about that kind of scenario and not at all about the one you just described.


----------



## seankreynolds (Sep 17, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> I read the PDF. And the people who wrote it, as much as I respect them and their design work, are not psychiatrists either (as far as I know). But I will say this. I base my opinion on personal experience in my family with issues like mental illness. I am not speaking from a place of ignorance on this. I think there are lots of good reasons to question whether this list is healthy for us.




FYI, Shanna has a degree in psychology, and part of her training involved grief and trauma support.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 17, 2019)

seankreynolds said:


> FYI, Shanna has a degree in psychology, and part of her training involved grief and trauma support.




Thanks for that. That is information I didn't know about her.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 17, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> And have you ever considered that given your dislike of, and invocation of, the Satanic Panic, you might be playing more of a Patricia Pulling role than Gary Gygax?




I always ask myself if I am being the bad actor or the bad guy in a situation. And sometimes I am and have to cop to it. In this situation though, I don't think I am doing anything wrong. I criticizing a PDF, and the ideas that the PDF espouses. I don't object to people thinking I am wrong about those ideas (if someone things this checklist is helpful and thinks I am misguided, I am fine with that). What I object to is some of the stuff I've experienced in online discussions surrounding this (being called a sociopath because I'd rather not use such a checklist, for example, or being told people like me need to be driven from the hobby or boycotted out).


----------



## S'mon (Sep 17, 2019)

Gradine said:


> True. But that's a very different beast altogether from Judith asking you not to include car crashes in your sessions because she was the only survivor of a crash with her friends as a teenager and she still feels immense trauma and survivor's guilt over it. Because The Consent Handbook is very much about that kind of scenario and not at all about the one you just described.




OK  then, so I have a claustrophobia/drowning phobia, as I mentioned upthread, connected to the deaths of my cousins in the Herald of Free Enterprise sinking. If my friends want to run a game that includes that sort of material, then I may not be able to play. It would be wrong of me to try to stop my friends from playing, or to resent them playing something without me.

Edit: But if I tell them my phobia and they freely & happily decide to play something else so that I can play too, that's great.  The important thing is that they not feel pressured to do so.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 17, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> the ideas that the PDF espouses.




A lot of what's in the PDF is pretty reasonable, and even what's not so reasonable is much less unreasonable than some of the stuff being posted in the later part of this thread.


----------



## Wolfpack48 (Sep 17, 2019)

S'mon said:


> OK  then, so I have a claustrophobia/drowning phobia, as I mentioned upthread, connected to the deaths of my cousins in the Herald of Free Enterprise sinking. If my friends want to run a game that includes that sort of material, then I may not be able to play. It would be wrong of me to try to stop my friends from playing, or to resent them playing something without me.
> 
> Edit: But if I tell them my phobia and they freely & happily decide to play something else so that I can play too, that's great.  The important thing is that they not feel pressured to do so.




Again it’s just a conversation. Your Referee may be willing to change something or you may be willing to opt out. All it’s saying is have a talk about it and decide.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 17, 2019)

S'mon said:


> A lot of what's in the PDF is pretty reasonable, and even what's not so reasonable is much less unreasonable than some of the stuff being posted in the later part of this thread.




Like I said before, I don't take issue with the writers writing it, or with the writers themselves. I just disagree with the checklist and with a lot of the content in the PDF (but, I don't think the writers did anything wrong in writing it). I have basically a few points of criticism of the document itself: the default of no, the treating it as a consent issue rather than a issue of appropriate content, a lot of the items on the checklist, and the no debate thing). There may be other minor points, but those were the ones that leapt out at me when I read it. That said. I think all the writers did was make a tool. Most of my disagreement has been more with people advocating that this tool be used by everyone, or saying anyone who disagrees with the tool is a monster.


----------



## Gradine (Sep 17, 2019)

S'mon said:


> OK  then, so I have a claustrophobia/drowning phobia, as I mentioned upthread, connected to the deaths of my cousins in the Herald of Free Enterprise sinking. If my friends want to run a game that includes that sort of material, then I may not be able to play. It would be wrong of me to try to stop my friends from playing, or to resent them playing something without me.




Sure. Of course, I think it would be equally wrong of them to purposefully exclude you, knowing your past trauma (because this has been covered before using some kind of tool to allow you to communicate your inability to play in those types of scenarios. Right?) Especially if they tell you to either suck it up or leave. But if the DM's got an idea, and knows you're going to miss an upcoming season, then that becomes the perfect time for them to roll with it.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 17, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> Like I said before, I don't take issue with the writers writing it, or with the writers themselves. I just disagree with the checklist and with a lot of the content in the PDF (but, I don't think the writers did anything wrong in writing it). I have basically a few points of criticism of the document itself: the default of no, the treating it as a consent issue rather than a issue of appropriate content, a lot of the items on the checklist, and the no debate thing). There may be other minor points, but those were the ones that leapt out at me when I read it. That said. I think all the writers did was make a tool. Most of my disagreement has been more with people advocating that this tool be used by everyone, or saying anyone who disagrees with the tool is a monster.




Yes, I think we're pretty much in agreement.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 17, 2019)

Gradine said:


> Sure. Of course, I think it would be equally wrong of them to purposefully exclude you, knowing your past trauma (because this has been covered before using some kind of tool to allow you to communicate your inability to play in those types of scenarios. Right?) Especially if they tell you to either suck it up or leave. But if the DM's got an idea, and knows you're going to miss an upcoming season, then that becomes the perfect time for them to roll with it.




Yes, I think we're in agreement(!)


----------



## Wolfpack48 (Sep 17, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> What I object to is some of the stuff I've experienced in online discussions surrounding this (being called a sociopath because I'd rather not use such a checklist, for example, or being told people like me need to be driven from the hobby or boycotted out).




I don’t think anyone here is doing that. I hope not. It sounds like you have your own way of conversation with your players and that’s all good. You do seem to be looking out for them and that’s the important thing.


----------



## Gradine (Sep 17, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> Most of my disagreement has been more with people advocating that this tool be used by everyone, or saying anyone who disagrees with the tool is a monster.




It's been asked before, but can you please either provide actual examples of this or stop beating this particular drum? Not that I don't believe it's not happening, I'm sure that it is. But you keep framing this as the norm despite it not really happening at all, at least in this thread.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 17, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> This .... this isn't really about the free guidebook, is it?




It pretty much never really is.


----------



## Gradine (Sep 17, 2019)

S'mon said:


> Yes, I think we're in agreement(!)




Great! Although I'm concerned on the disconnect; this document is just one of many tools that exist to facilitate exactly this scenario we both agree is ideal (or at least perfectly acceptable).


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 17, 2019)

Wolfpack48 said:


> I don’t think anyone here is doing that. I hope not. It sounds like you have your own way of conversation with your players and that’s all good. You do seem to be looking out for them and that’s the important thing.




Yes, for me this stemmed from a thread where someone suggested players taking the checklist to every campaign and having the Dungeon master go over it. My response was something like "If it works for you that is fine, but I think for me, if someone showed up with this checklist and insisted on its use, I'd probably tell them this might not be the game group for them." There was more to the thread. I gave my reasons for why I didn't believe the checklist was a good thing, and where I thought some of the ideas were flawed (basically most of the same points I've made in this thread for the most part). And what I found striking was the extreme hostility. I am not getting that from you or other posters here. I am getting some of the thing where you say one thing and people rephrase it to be something much worse (but not nearly at the level I saw in that thread, where me saying I didn't like the checklist was met with 'oh so you don't believe in consent then').


----------



## jasper (Sep 17, 2019)

Hmm Page 2 last paragraph add sentence to the effect "If your GM/group may not respect your wishes, you should look for a more accepting group." 
Hmm page 4 first full paragraph add sentence to the effect " If you decide not to play this particular game, you still can be friends."
Okay would adding these suggestions to the handout help those who are having major problems with it?


----------



## Arilyn (Sep 17, 2019)

S'mon said:


> OK  then, so I have a claustrophobia/drowning phobia, as I mentioned upthread, connected to the deaths of my cousins in the Herald of Free Enterprise sinking. If my friends want to run a game that includes that sort of material, then I may not be able to play. It would be wrong of me to try to stop my friends from playing, or to resent them playing something without me.




True, most players won't make these demands, and bow out. Friends or even reasonably polite players will then say, "No, don't do that. We'd rather have you at the table and scrap our nautical theme.  There's a ton of other cool ideas out there that we can all enjoy." Then said player will try and tell group not to change their plans just for them, and table will say, it's fine, we don't mind, etc. 

I'm hoping this is a more common example then person swooping in, making demands... 

The guide is just a way to sort stuff out ahead of time, isn't it? And it's probably not going to be super common that there be no rats or deserts. It's not going to bring games crashing down cause there's too many things on the no-go list.


----------



## Gradine (Sep 17, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> Yes, for me this stemmed from a thread where someone suggested players taking the checklist to every campaign and having the Dungeon master go over it. My response was something like "If it works for you that is fine, but I think for me, if someone showed up with this checklist and insisted on its use, I'd probably tell them this might not be the game group for them." There was more to the thread. I gave my reasons for why I didn't believe the checklist was a good thing, and where I thought some of the ideas were flawed (basically most of the same points I've made in this thread for the most part). And what I found striking was the extreme hostility. I am not getting that from you or other posters here. I am getting some of the thing where you say one thing and people rephrase it to be something much worse (but not nearly at the level I saw in that thread, where me saying I didn't like the checklist was met with 'oh so you don't believe in consent then').




Yeah, that bites. It is a heated issue for some people, myself included. But I still doubt this is really anything close to the universal reaction to what you have to say. Maybe if the pushback was more hostile and... let's say politically slanted than your own objections, I could see it (and we certainly had our fair share of that earlier in the thread). You might also be getting more blowback yourself due to your place in the industry, which is also kind of bummer. But mostly it's been people advocating for it being a useful tool, or those advocating for it not to be. It's actually been shockingly tame, from what I've seen in the past. One or two exceptions otherwise, I guess.


----------



## monsmord (Sep 17, 2019)

Wolfpack48 said:


> I don’t think anyone here is doing that. I hope not.




I said this a few posts ago:

"Their priority is the game, not the people who'd play it. That's not social. It might border on sociopathy: more value placed on an imaginary world than on real people? Yikes."

Some folks might have run with that as being called sociopaths. It's not what was said, and no one was called a sociopath, but everyone has things they take to heart and interpret and expand. Including me.


----------



## seankreynolds (Sep 17, 2019)

S'mon said:


> OK  then, so I have a claustrophobia/drowning phobia, as I mentioned upthread, connected to the deaths of my cousins in the Herald of Free Enterprise sinking. If my friends want to run a game that includes that sort of material, then I may not be able to play. It would be wrong of me to try to stop my friends from playing, or to resent them playing something without me.




"*Anyone is allowed to leave an uncomfortable situation at any time.* Each person’s feelings of comfort and safety are more important than participating in the game. If a problematic situation comes up and someone doesn’t feel like continuing the game, it’s all right if they step out. It doesn’t matter the circumstances of how it’s in the game—perhaps someone made a joke comment, or an aspect of this issue slipped into the scenario accidentally, or it’s being introduced despite that person not consenting to it. The person who is feeling uncomfortable doesn’t have to confront the group about it (especially if that would make them feel more uncomfortable), they can just leave the table. …  If they don’t feel comfortable with talking to anyone about it or don’t think the situation will change, it’s fine to not play in that game for a while, or permanently." —Consent in Gaming, pages 4–5

For some reason, there are people who think that the Consent PDF is arguing that one person with a fear of spiders gets to cancel an entire campaign about fighting drow. If the GM has plans to run a spidery drow campaign, and four of the five players are all-in for that, and the arachnophobe player doesn't want to play that, there's nothing wrong with _the arachnophobe not attending those games_. There will always be more games to play in the future.

In other words, saying, "I think this adventure/next few sessions/campaign we're planning is probably something you/I should skip" is perfectly acceptable. Just like it's okay if one player decides they want to skip board game night for a while because the group wants to play Pandemic instead of Catan. Just like it's okay if one person decides to skip movie night because they don't like rom-coms and the group is having a Valentine's Day rom-com marathon. Or for your vegetarian friend to skip going out to eat after the game this week because everyone else wants to try the new barbecue place. Or whatever.

The Consent PDF is a safety tool to help you identify and prevent potential issues before they pop up in the game and cause someone trauma.
Sometimes you prevent that issue by saying _"no romantic or sexual content in the game"_
Sometimes you prevent it by saying _"we can have flirting and romance, but we fade to black for any physical intimacy or sex."_
And sometimes you prevent it by saying, _"the next couple of sessions have a lot to do with a particular brothel and how the nearby town's misogynist mayor is claiming ownership of the unborn child of his favorite prostitute at the brothel*; Chris, I know sexual stuff in the game bothers you, so maybe your character should go elsewhere for a couple of weeks and we'll have you rejoin us when we're done with this part of the storyline."_
* Hey, it's a Firefly reference!

Likewise, sometimes you prevent trauma by saying _"no spiders in the game."_
Sometimes you prevent it by saying _"spiders in the game are okay, but let's not have creepy descriptions of their chittering mandibles, dead eyes, and bristling hairs."_ (Which, mind you, is *literally* one of the example situations in the Consent PDF.)
And sometimes you prevent it by saying _"I bought this really cool drow-focused adventure that I'm really excited about running, it'll take us a few sessions to get through it; Chris, I know you don't like spiders, maybe you could take a break from the campaign so you don't have to deal with this in the game? Maybe I could run you through a short solo campaign on the side."_

It's about accommodating the needs of the people at your table. And sometimes the best way to do that is for someone to skip a session or two.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 17, 2019)

Just as a general comment to the thread, over the last few years I've politely turned down inquiries by 3-4 persons to join my gaming group, for no other or better (or worse) reason than I already had 6 players and I really didn't feel like running it for more.

Now, if that doesn't make me a monster, then I feel logically it doesn't make me a monster if in addition to the general problem of very large groups have increasing problems of various sorts when you run them, this person who was inquiring about space in my role playing group also informed me that in addition to accommodating them in to the group and the play, I would also have to accommodate them by stopping (as a random example) including Dungeons in my Dungeons and Dragons because their extreme claustrophobia triggered panic attacks to just imagine confined spaces. 

Again, this does not make me in any way unsympathetic to a person with a phobia, whether it was induced by trauma or not, but there is only so much me to go around and I have obligations and duties toward my existing players to ensure that they are getting enjoyment out of the game. I would probably just tell this person truthfully that we weren't looking to expand our player base at this time. But I don't feel weird in admitting that I would have no desire to run Dungeons and Dragons entirely without dungeons, and that I'd feel the person asking me to run Dungeons and Dragons without dungeons was asking perhaps something more than the usual amount of accommodation. I hope he finds a group that is right for him, but odds on the easiest way to find that group would be to become a DM and find players. Then you are giving rather than taking.

And as a further aside, I consider the extreme phobic examples going on here to be pretty rare and unusual cases that probably effect only a very small percentage of persons and as such are not relevant to most tables. I have a daughter with a phobia of dogs, but it doesn't in the slightest stop her from imagining her character delighting in imaginary dogs. The sensory triggers that overrule briefly her reason aren't in her imagination, and as such she can enjoy dogs as she wants to in a game in a way that she rarely can in the real world.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 17, 2019)

S'mon said:


> But I don't think the check list approach would have worked in my example either. There is no entry for "no crotch sniffing" on the check list - and why would my friend ever have thought to write that in?




I notice there isn't a line for sexual harassment, though there is one for sexual assault. That's probably an oversight, but I would say that sexual harassment would cover the event in that scene quite well.


----------



## Wolfpack48 (Sep 17, 2019)

One thing to note is that the article is directed primarily at the person who may have the sensitivity. The whole talk about the ability to walk away from something that makes them uncomfortable is empowering them to take ownership of their own boundaries, and not let outside pressure override that. They may not feel they have ‘the right’ to their boundaries, and they most certainly do. Peer pressure is a strong thing, and the document addresses that by making personal boundaries the most important element of the talk (or non-talk). Roleplaying groups have their share of domineering personalities, and one thing this doc does well is tell everyone they have a right to their own well-being.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 17, 2019)

@seankreynolds Your discussion however reasonable it may be neither matches the text you are quoting, nor does it match the interpretation that those defending the text in the thread have made.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 17, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## GrahamWills (Sep 17, 2019)

So, I support tools such as the document, and I think it does a pretty good job of what it's supposed to do. I'm encouraged that it was written by someone who has qualifications in the subject matter, and that it fits with my admittedly limited knowledge of how to handle people who have traumatic emotional issues. My church offers such services and I've had a little training, so I know that some things in the document are standard practice, such as "do not require or pressure people to explain". There have been a number of comments by people opposing the document that say they think this is a bad idea, and that the default of "no explanation" is a bad idea. To put it bluntly, this shows that you don't know what you are talking about. I would strongly advise anyone offering advice on this topic actually to read some basic counseling principles. 

I do think that maybe one issue with disagreement we'e seeing is that people are not seeing the same situation. For one side the situation looks like this -- I'm using hyperbole here, in case that is not obvious -- 

"Frodo has been running the SPIDERS OF MIRKWOOD campaign for a decade when SAM joins the group. SAM brings out a consent form and has checked 'no spiders' because they find spiders icky and prefer not to think about them. The GM has to halt the session and re-write pages of plot, and next week they re-start the campaign re-branded as RATS OF MIRKWOOD. The group is annoyed because SAM's mild dislike of spiders causes them to have no fun in the new campaign, which soon falls apart"

for the other side they see:

"Frodo has been running the SPIDERS OF MIRKWOOD campaign for a decade when SAM joins the group. SAM brings out a consent form and has checked 'no incest' because they were a victim for 10 years as a child and is seeing a counselor every week to try and recover. But Frodo has a cool scene he wants to run so he ignores SAM's request. SAM breaks down when the scene occurs and has to be admitted to hospital they are so distressed. The group is happy that SAM will no longer play with them and take his problems to another group so they don't need to cope with them"

Now, I'm pretty damn sure that no-one on the board would behave like either of these groups. In the first case people who support consent forms would say, I believe, that the GM should ask SAM how much they dislike spiders and whether it's just the descriptions or if it's deeper. If it turns out that SAM really cannot cope at all, I think most of us would tell them "sorry, but this is an intrinsic feature of the game that we cannot change". A  nice set of people (which I believe to be most of us) might suggest running a one-shot of something different that night and then find a different group for SAM.

In the second case I just straight up don't believe that people who oppose the consent forms would act like this. If SAM says "I'm sorry I just cannot talk about this" they would drop it immediately. Maybe the GM will modify the adventure, or they'll do a one-shot, or just decide to play a board game and re-work it next time, but they'll do something to protect SAM -- essentially doing what the consent document suggests even though they don't like it as a principal, because SAM's need is so strong.

--------------

So let's not demonize the other side. And let's not start using hyperbolic examples. Assume the other side will act in good faith.


----------



## Gradine (Sep 17, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> And as a further aside, I consider the extreme phobic examples going on here to be pretty rare and unusual cases that probably effect only a very small percentage of persons and as such are not relevant to most tables. I have a daughter with a phobia of dogs, but it doesn't in the slightest stop her from imagining her character delighting in imaginary dogs. The sensory triggers that overrule briefly her reason aren't in her imagination, and as such she can enjoy dogs as she wants to in a game in a way that she rarely can in the real world.




About 3.5% of US adults suffer from PTSD, and according to recent data a slight _majority_ of adults report at least one traumatic event in their life. It's not that common for trauma to impact a game, but it's certainly not as rare as you might think. Most people with trauma I know tend to just suffer in silence rather than face confrontation, so a lot of times people don't even know they're being triggered. That's a really unhealthy response, something this document is trying to prevent.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 17, 2019)

Wolfpack48 said:


> One thing to note is that the article is directed primarily at the person who may have the sensitivity. The whole talk about the ability to walk away from something that makes them uncomfortable is empowering them to take ownership of their own boundaries, and not let outside pressure override that. They may not feel they have ‘the right’ to their boundaries, and they most certainly do. Peer pressure is a strong thing, and the document addresses that by making personal boundaries the most important element of the talk (or non-talk). Roleplaying groups have their share of domineering personalities, and one thing this doc does well is tell everyone they have a right to their own well-being.




There has been I think broad agreement that if a person feels uncomfortable they should walk away. Certainly I have argued that I was in control of my own boundaries and I expected the same of the players.

But now we are turning the argument on its head. Because we have been told we were racists, intolerant, alt-right borderline sociopaths for not accommodating any request and not treating all requests as reasonable, and that if anyone walked away from our table because we couldn't accommodate their phobia of spiders in our Drow game, that we were morally equivalent to people who drove away people because we couldn't refrain from making sexist, racist, or otherwise hateful comments.

I can find you quotes if you like, but since I prefer not to call specific individuals out, why don't you go back and read the thread.


----------



## Gradine (Sep 17, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> @seankreynolds Your discussion however reasonable it may be neither matches the text you are quoting, nor does it match the interpretation that those defending the text in the thread have made.




It matches EXACTLY the text he quoted and EXACTLY what many of us have been saying. What are you even on about at this point?


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 17, 2019)

Gradine said:


> About 3.5% of US adults suffer from PTSD, and according to recent data a slight _majority_ of adults report at least one traumatic event in their life. It's not that common for trauma to impact a game, but it's certainly not as rare as you might think. Most people with trauma I know tend to just suffer in silence rather than face confrontation, so a lot of times people don't even know they're being triggered. That's a really unhealthy response, something this document is trying to prevent.




I'm not going to debate mental health issues with you. I'm well aware of the figures. You aren't giving me any information I don't already have. PTSD is a spectrum. The persistent implication that people who disagree with you just don't know what trauma or PTSD is, or that they have no empathy or sympathy for people who have suffered trauma or PTSD, and if only they just understood it like you did, they'd agree with you, is just wrong.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 17, 2019)

Gradine said:


> It matches EXACTLY the text he quoted and EXACTLY what many of us have been saying. What are you even on about at this point?




The text he quoted is about peoples right to walk away.

The discussion he made is about the tables right to tell people to walk away.

Just a bit different, don't you think?


----------



## S'mon (Sep 17, 2019)

seankreynolds said:


> "*Anyone is allowed to leave an uncomfortable situation at any time.* Each person’s feelings of comfort and safety are more important than participating in the game. If a problematic situation comes up and someone doesn’t feel like continuing the game, it’s all right if they step out. It doesn’t matter the circumstances of how it’s in the game—perhaps someone made a joke comment, or an aspect of this issue slipped into the scenario accidentally, or it’s being introduced despite that person not consenting to it. The person who is feeling uncomfortable doesn’t have to confront the group about it (especially if that would make them feel more uncomfortable), they can just leave the table. …  If they don’t feel comfortable with talking to anyone about it or don’t think the situation will change, it’s fine to not play in that game for a while, or permanently." —Consent in Gaming, pages 4–5
> 
> For some reason, there are people who think that the Consent PDF is arguing that one person with a fear of spiders gets to cancel an entire campaign about fighting drow. If the GM has plans to run a spidery drow campaign, and four of the five players are all-in for that, and the arachnophobe player doesn't want to play that, there's nothing wrong with _the arachnophobe not attending those games_. There will always be more games to play in the future.
> 
> ...




Yes, I agree with everything you say here. I read the PDF expecting you to talk more about group dynamics, mutual respect and gracefully bowing out of a game without ill feeling on either side. For the first 4 pages or so it seemed to be heading that way, but I think the way the final text came out there is a bit of an imbalance. Spock "The Needs of the Many Outway the Needs of the One" vs Kirk "The Needs of the One Outweigh the Needs of the Many" - the text leans a bit too much towards the Kirk side, I felt.  

This isn't me calling you guys Maoists Out to Destroy the Hobby or something. I thought there was quite a lot of good generally applicable advice in it, and almost all of it was of some applicability to some games (though I felt the quotes from Your Best Game Ever might have better been omitted). I just felt the balance was a bit skewed overall, more attention could have been paid to inter-group relations, and some points could have been clearer to avoid the risk of misuse.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 17, 2019)

billd91 said:


> I notice there isn't a line for sexual harassment, though there is one for sexual assault. That's probably an oversight, but I would say that sexual harassment would cover the event in that scene quite well.




Yeah but my friend with his '60s/'70s British sensibilities would probably think "sexual harassment" meant Sid James emitting a dirty laugh at Barbara Windsor, not Dan & Dave stuff. It was an 'out of context' issue.


----------



## Gradine (Sep 17, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> I'm not going to debate mental health issues with you. I'm well aware of the figures. You aren't giving me any information I don't already have. PTSD is a spectrum. The persistent implication that people who disagree with you just don't know what trauma or PTSD is, or that they have no empathy or sympathy for people who have suffered trauma or PTSD, and if only they just understood it like you did, they'd agree with you, is just wrong.




I mean, if they understood it like I did they probably would agree with me, but that's beside the point. The problem that Im having is that some of the critics in this thread (and I'm coming you among them) have consistently demonstrated they have either not read the document at all or have made no attempt at understanding it outside their own personal biases about the type of people this sort of thing is usually made for. You have, deliberately or not, consistently misinterpreted the document and the people here who are defending it. I would stop acting as if folks didn't understand trauma or empathy as soon as they show themselves capable of demonstrating that they do. While some of the arguments against the document are rational (and some even fair) you and others in this thread have only attempted to consistently derail the conversation by proving you DON'T actually understand the difference between trauma and personal preferences.


----------



## Wolfpack48 (Sep 17, 2019)

S'mon said:


> Yes, I agree with everything you say here. I read the PDF expecting you to talk more about group dynamics, mutual respect and gracefully bowing out of a game without ill feeling on either side. For the first 4 pages or so it seemed to be heading that way, but I think the way the final text came out there is a bit of an imbalance. Spock "The Needs of the Many Outway the Needs of the One" vs Kirk "The Needs of the One Outweigh the Needs of the Many" - the text leans a bit too much towards the Kirk side, I felt.
> 
> This isn't me calling you guys Maoists Out to Destroy the Hobby or something. I thought there was quite a lot of good generally applicable advice in it, and almost all of it was of some applicability to some games (though I felt the quotes from Your Best Game Ever might have better been omitted). I just felt the balance was a bit skewed overall, more attention could have been paid to inter-group relations, and some points could have been clearer to avoid the risk of misuse.



I think the reason it might feel skewed toward the one is that it’s talking to the individual with the issue, who may feel outnumbered or pressured. It’s saying to THEM take care of yourself first.  Some people are reacting to the doc by thinking that that person gets to tell them what to do. It’s not. It’s only telling the majority to respect the individual.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 17, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> I hope he finds a group that is right for him, but odds on the easiest way to find that group would be to become a DM and find players. Then you are giving rather than taking.




Heh, I'm someone with fairly mild claustrophobia, and yes GMing it is a lot easier than playing it! I ran Stonehell Dungeon for a good long time, though it did eventually get oddly wearying/exhausting especially as the PCs went deeper. But I didn't enjoy playing Out of the Abyss _at all_ - I was pretty foolish to sign up for that, I guess it was because a much-loved friend was running it and I didn't want to let her down. Of course that was a mistake, I didn't add much to the game and I was relieved when it ended after a few sessions. Hopefully I didn't contribute to the campaign's failure.

I could probably have done with some advice like "Is this game right for you? Will you be a burden on the group?"


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 17, 2019)

GrahamWills said:


> I do think that maybe one issue with disagreement we'e seeing is that people are not seeing the same situation. For one side the situation looks like this -- I'm using hyperbole here, in case that is not obvious --
> 
> "Frodo has been running the SPIDERS OF MIRKWOOD campaign for a decade when SAM joins the group. SAM brings out a consent form and has checked 'no spiders' because they find spiders icky and prefer not to think about them. The GM has to halt the session and re-write pages of plot, and next week they re-start the campaign re-branded as RATS OF MIRKWOOD. The group is annoyed because SAM's mild dislike of spiders causes them to have no fun in the new campaign, which soon falls apart"
> 
> ...




This post almost returns us back to some of the complaints that I was making at the beginning, which was I didn't at all like how it seemed like very different situations and problems were being equated by providing for all of them the same sort of resolution methodology, and lumping them all together in the same discussion. So yes, I think you are quite right that the models people were making in their head of how this would play out were very different, but then, given that they'd been treated as largely or entirely the same by the text, that's hardly surprising.

Again, I strongly suspect that over basic values, almost everyone - and maybe even indeed everyone - is in good agreement. For example, I'd be outraged if someone introduced incest into a group for its shock value over an objection to avoid the subject. That player would probably not be gaming with us again.

But there are of course other mental models here, other scenarios, other issues, and there is a feeling that only one approach is being advocated for - even demanded - despite the vast variety of issues involved.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 17, 2019)

Wolfpack48 said:


> One thing to note is that the article is directed primarily at the person who may have the sensitivity.




Yes. I felt it should have split more with say half directed at the person with the sensitivity, half directed to the rest of the group.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 17, 2019)

Wolfpack48 said:


> Some people are reacting to the doc by thinking that that person gets to tell them what to do. It’s not. It’s only telling the majority to respect the individual.




Some people have been defending the document by saying that the person gets to tell the group what to do, and that they would be monstrous not to accommodate the individual.  So apparently the confusion here doesn't just extend to the detractors.


----------



## Wolfpack48 (Sep 17, 2019)

S'mon said:


> Yes. I felt it should have split more with say half directed at the person with the sensitivity, half directed to the rest of the group.




That might be a good way to format for version 1.1!


----------



## S'mon (Sep 17, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> @seankreynolds Your discussion however reasonable it may be neither matches the text you are quoting, nor does it match the interpretation that those defending the text in the thread have made.




That's brusquer than I'd put it, but yes I think the text would have benefitted from more discussion of the decision to change a game, or have a player not play, being* a group decision* to be reached through mutually respectful discussion. Because some people here and elsewhere have the impression you (SKR & SG) were saying that the decision to participate is something the individual has a moral right to impose on the group. Some then vehemently disagree with that position, others support it.

(anti-strawman edit: Hopefully I didn't need to say this, but of course no group ever has the right to force a player to participate, and that's not what I meant.)


----------



## S'mon (Sep 17, 2019)

GrahamWills said:


> I would strongly advise anyone offering advice on this topic actually to read some basic counseling principles.




I'm not against* being aware of counselling principles. But most GMs are not counsellors, most RPG sessions are not counselling sessions, and indeed I don't think people with problems (which includes me & many of us here I'm sure) should approach the typical RPG table or most social situations as analogous to a counselling session in any way.

Of course there are exceptions; some therapists use role-play in counselling, some RPG sessions do involve deep emotional stuff well beyond typical social interaction.

*I am in fact in favour of being aware of counselling principles. I need to use some basic counselling principles in my job when I do academic Personal Tutoring.  But as a GM at an RPG table I am not acting in a counsellor role. I play D&D to get away from that sort of responsibility!


----------



## billd91 (Sep 17, 2019)

S'mon said:


> OK  then, so I have a claustrophobia/drowning phobia, as I mentioned upthread, connected to the deaths of my cousins in the Herald of Free Enterprise sinking. If my friends want to run a game that includes that sort of material, then I may not be able to play. It would be wrong of me to try to stop my friends from playing, or to resent them playing something without me.
> 
> Edit: But if I tell them my phobia and they freely & happily decide to play something else so that I can play too, that's great.  The important thing is that they not feel pressured to do so.




I might also expect that the actual sinking might be downplayed in favor of the aftermath (being a castaway and so on). Paizo does this with a couple of adventure paths. Even the movie *Das Boot* shunts a traumatic depth charging, very traumatic from the point of view of correspondent Lt. Werner who dives into his berth and probably passes out in terror, to black.


----------



## Gradine (Sep 17, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> Some people have been defending the document by saying that the person gets to tell the group what to do, and that they would be monstrous not to accommodate the individual.  So apparently the confusion here doesn't just extend to the detractors.




This is the problem I'm having. Nobody is saying this. The document isn't saying this. It is literally all about respecting people's boundaries. You don't get to argue with someone about their boundaries. That's what the text says. Maybe there's room for more nuance in the text about what to do if the group decides whatever element of their game that's causing the problem is more important than respecting those boundaries. I happen to think that's a pretty crappy thing to do, but then my own biases come from a place of "game with your close friends or don't game at all" so maybe I'm the weird one. But literally nobody has said "and you MUST abide by their wishes or be cast into the fiery pits of badness and despair."

I mean, _I'll_ probably think less of you, but why would anybody give a crap about that?


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 17, 2019)

Gradine said:


> This is the problem I'm having. Nobody is saying this.




There are absolutely people saying this. Like a lot of us have said, this particular aspect of the discussion isn't something that is as much an issue with the PDF, as with people in the community involved in the discussion. I've seen calls for the Checklist to be part of every game, I've seen people say anyone who doesn't agree with the checklist should be shoved out of the hobby, and I have absolutely seen people say if someone checks off something on the checklist you must abide by it or your a monster (rather than allow for some groups to say "you might want to find a group suitable to your taste").


----------



## Wolfpack48 (Sep 17, 2019)

I’m laughing because I just realized this whole thing is an intersection of our beloved game worlds with the real one, and...it feels _good_.  So often we’ve had this escapism...rap, for lack of a better word, that we gamers can’t deal with real life. And it feels good to be talking about this.

The one thing not mentioned in the doc, which might be for a later release is whether roleplaying could actually help people overcome or come to terms with phobias. To learn to deal with and tolerate the tough things in real life. Why not, as long as folks are consenting?

I know all those who hate this psychology stuff are screaming right now!


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 17, 2019)

Gradine said:


> I mean, if they understood it like I did they probably would agree with me, but that's beside the point.




I think this is part of why the debate and discussion are so hard to have. Sometimes we have the same facts, see the same arguments and reach very different conclusions. I don't think, even if you took me step by step through every process of your understanding, you and I would reach the same conclusion about this checklist. We both probably have very different foundational ideas and experiences, and our personalities are different. Those would probably lead us to different conclusions.


----------



## Wolfpack48 (Sep 17, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> There are absolutely people saying this. Like a lot of us have said, this particular aspect of the discussion isn't something that is as much an issue with the PDF, as with people in the community involved in the discussion. I've seen calls for the Checklist to be part of every game, I've seen people say anyone who doesn't agree with the checklist should be shoved out of the hobby, and I have absolutely seen people say if someone checks off something on the checklist you must abide by it or your a monster (rather than allow for some groups to say "you might want to find a group suitable to your taste").




I’m not saying it. There’s 1 at least!


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 17, 2019)

Wolfpack48 said:


> I’m laughing because I just realized this whole thing is an intersection of our beloved game worlds with the real one, and...it feels _good_.  So often we’ve had this escapism...rap, for lack of a better word, that we gamers can’t deal with real life. And it feels good to be talking about this.
> 
> The one thing not mentioned in the doc, which might be for a later release is whether roleplaying could actually help people overcome or come to terms phobias. To learn to deal with and tolerate the tough things in real life. Why not, as long as folks are consenting?
> 
> I know all those who hate this psychology stuff are screaming right now!




One of my problems with how I am seeing this discussion framed in places is it seems a blurring of the real world and the imaginary. Confusing real world  harm with imaginary harm.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 17, 2019)

Arilyn said:


> True, most players won't make these demands, and bow out. Friends or even reasonably polite players will then say, "No, don't do that. We'd rather have you at the table and scrap our nautical theme.  There's a ton of other cool ideas out there that we can all enjoy." Then said player will try and tell group not to change their plans just for them, and table will say, it's fine, we don't mind, etc.
> 
> I'm hoping this is a more common example then person swooping in, making demands...
> 
> *The guide is just a way to sort stuff out ahead of time, isn't it?* And it's probably not going to be super common that there be no rats or deserts. It's not going to bring games crashing down cause there's too many things on the no-go list.




Well, no, it isn't. I wish it was. If it had have been, I would have liked it better. But the guide borrowed a lot of ideas from discussions about consent in a sexual relationship, which might be perfectly fine discussions of consent in a sexual relationship, but which are problematic in the context of a most social role-play.

For example, in a sexual relationship, we would like it if consent could be withdrawn at any point and for any reason, and when it was we'd like that to be prioritized over pretty much anything else in order to avoid rape. In a sexual act, it makes perfect sense for everyone to have a full veto over continuing the process.

But the problem is that this doesn't always provide a good model for mutuality in a social role-playing group. Consent in a group is usually about consensus, and has some give and take, and usually involves discussions - all the thing that you imagine in your head when you imagine how this ought to play out. But that doesn't seem to be the actual statement of the text, which as I said was borrowed from ideas about sexual consent. 

While run time objections to content that comes up are of course reasonable (and I'd argue normal and maybe preferable in most cases to airing everything out ahead of time), it's not necessarily reasonable to expect that if something comes up during play that we just stop everything right away with no discussion, no explanation, and no negotiation about how to proceed in order to get the game going.  Maybe some objections actually are like that, but most of them just don't involve activities that are nearly as unsafe or traumatic or potentially dangerous as all of that, and when people start hearing people talking about social RPGs as if they are usually that unsafe, traumatic and potentially dangerous they really start wondering what people are trying to communicate and if that really is how we want to publicly represent our hobby. 

And people shouldn't necessarily expect that they can hold a full veto over the game, beyond simply walking away from the game,. But, in this thread, you can find people arguing that if someone was made to walk away from the game, because the group couldn't accommodate them, that that was a monstrous act. Maybe in some imaginary cases it was, but not for the majority that actually come up.

And other people suggested that while a full veto over some things might be reasonable, suggesting that a full veto could be used about anything - which while reasonable for two people in a sexual act - not only wasn't reasonable for social gaming, but would be likely to encourage dysfunctional play in practice and increase acrimony rather than harmony and consensus. 

So in short, no, most certainly the guide is not about just sorting things out ahead of time.


----------



## Gradine (Sep 17, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> One of my problems with how I am seeing this discussion framed in places is it seems a blurring of the real world and the imaginary. Confusing real world  harm with imaginary harm.




I would like to hope that nobody is talking about imaginary harm here.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 17, 2019)

Gradine said:


> I would like to hope that nobody is talking about imaginary harm here.




What I am saying is there is a difference between experience harm in the real world and experiencing harm in a movie or game. That is why I think using language like safety tools or consent is part of the problem with the conversation. We are using loaded terms that help blur those lines


----------



## Wolfpack48 (Sep 17, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> One of my problems with how I am seeing this discussion framed in places is it seems a blurring of the real world and the imaginary. Confusing real world  harm with imaginary harm.




That’s just it. For some, the harm is all too real.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 17, 2019)

Wolfpack48 said:


> That’s just it. For some, the harm is all too real.




Do you realize who you are talking to when you throw that out there?


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 17, 2019)

Wolfpack48 said:


> That’s just it. For some, the harm is all too real.




I get that people are having a real psychological reaction to it. And there is a huge spectrum of reaction there. Some people are having major reactions like flashbacks, some are just upset or disgusted. We shouldn't be treating that huge spectrum of reaction as all the same. And we should keep things in perspective as well. 

But still isn't real harm. Having an episode of graphic violence in an RPG is not the same as real violence. I am saying these kinds of words blur that.


----------



## Wolfpack48 (Sep 17, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> Do you realize who you are talking to when you throw that out there?




Of course I do. There are plenty of gamers who wouldn’t think twice about dismissing a persons distress as  “fake trauma” or something they should just “shake off” because it’s “imaginary.”. Do YOU realize how dismissive you sound?


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 17, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> Again, I strongly suspect that over basic values, almost everyone - and maybe even indeed everyone - is in good agreement. For example, I'd be outraged if someone introduced incest into a group for its shock value over an objection to avoid the subject. That player would probably not be gaming with us again.
> 
> But there are of course other mental models here, other scenarios, other issues, and there is a feeling that only one approach is being advocated for - even demanded - despite the vast variety of issues involved.




This. And for some of us using something like that checklist just seems kind of ridiculous. I just can't imagine gaming that way. At all.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 17, 2019)

Wolfpack48 said:


> Of course I do. There are plenty of gamers who wouldn’t think twice about dismissing a persons distress as  “fake trauma” or something they should just “shake off” because it’s “imaginary.”. Do YOU realize how dismissive you sound?





Like anything else it isn't black and white. I don't think anyone wants to dismiss a person in real distress. At the same time, sometimes people are overreacting, or being immature. Sometimes people just want attention. Some people may have legitimate issues with these things but effectively take a group hostage by constantly appealing to sympathy for their trauma. We need to retain our ability judge the reasonableness of any request.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 17, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> But still isn't real harm. Having an episode of graphic violence in an RPG is not the same as real violence. I am saying these kinds of words blur that.




It may not be the same, but inflicting a psychological episode of some sort on someone is real harm even if it falls well short of hacking off their limbs and breaking their bones. It's different, less deadly, but still difficult to be on the receiving end of.


----------



## Wolfpack48 (Sep 17, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> I get that people are having a real psychological reaction to it. And there is a huge spectrum of reaction there. Some people are having major reactions like flashbacks, some are just upset or disgusted. We shouldn't be treating that huge spectrum of reaction as all the same. And we should keep things in perspective as well.
> 
> But still isn't real harm. Having an episode of graphic violence in an RPG is not the same as real violence. I am saying these kinds of words blur that.




I’m talking about real psychological trauma not in-game taking HP damage. Psychological trauma is every bit as real as a broken arm. The only connection is that an imaginary occurrence could trigger a real world trauma. There can be a connection, and to pretend there isn’t is being dismissive.


----------



## Bawylie (Sep 17, 2019)

I understand there’s some significant objections surrounding a perceived “veto-power” over the content of a game. It’s a valid objection. Plainly, though, some people don’t want to play outside their preferred zone of comfort and they shouldn’t have to. 

Since this consent pdf is about communication, i think we should consider a reciprocal approach. Communicate your content ahead of time. (I’m assuming a public game here, not a home game. Presumably you work out your home game’s stuff with people you know and trust and love). 

In a public game with a wide audience, you may run into someone who has one of these consent forms and presents it to you. Why not have your own form? Why not put a yellow triangle up that says something like:

“This is a free company game. Participation is strictly voluntary. Game content may be mature, disturbing, violent, dark, and wild. Play at your own discretion.”

I mean. It’s essentially good for a player to advertise ahead of time “I would not like to play in games that feature X.”  And it would likewise be good for a table or GM who plans to run some disturbing content to signal that outright, too.  

That way, everyone will be able to freely associate with whom they please and play the games they wish to play without running afoul of some of these issues they’d rather avoid altogether. 

I’m sure there are many GMs and players who will want to accommodate the consent PDFs and who will tailor their game content accordingly. And I’m sure there are many GMs and players who would prefer a game that isn’t too concerned with those boundaries. Win-win.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 17, 2019)

billd91 said:


> It may not be the same, but inflicting a psychological episode of some sort on someone is real harm even if it falls well short of hacking off their limbs and breaking their bones. It's different, less deadly, but still difficult to be on the receiving end of.




It is no where near hacking off their limbs or breaking their bones. Which is my point. I am not saying it isn't unpleasant for some people to encounter certain things. But equating violence in an RPG for example, with real violence is just a bad way of thinking about the world. Again, the terms here, consent, harm safety tools all seem to be seriously blurring these lines.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 17, 2019)

Bawylie said:


> I understand there’s some significant objections surrounding a perceived “veto-power” over the content of a game. It’s a valid objection. Plainly, though, some people don’t want to play outside their preferred zone of comfort and they shouldn’t have to.




And they don't have to. People can find another group. They can explain to a group they are joining what their limitations are and if that group can accommodate them great. They always have the ability to walk away, or tell people they can't handle something. I guess one of my issues here is I feel like we are starting to treat this as group therapy rather than just a casual game. I am not going to be mean or cruel to anyone who comes over to play in a campaign. But I am not your therapist either.


----------



## Bawylie (Sep 17, 2019)

... yeah... and then I went on to suggest a way to facilitate finding the right groups. I’m not just bringing up problems - I’m offering paths forward.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 17, 2019)

Bawylie said:


> ... yeah... and then I went on to suggest a way to facilitate finding the right groups. I’m not just bringing up problems - I’m offering paths forward.




Sorry have to admit, I didn't make it past the first paragraph before replying.


----------



## Gradine (Sep 17, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> It is no where near hacking off their limbs or breaking their bones. Which is my point. I am not saying it isn't _unpleasant _for some people to encounter certain things. But equating violence in an RPG for example, with real violence is just a bad way of thinking about the world. Again, the terms here, consent, harm safety tools all seem to be seriously blurring these lines.




This is the kind of thing that I have to point to when I say I don't think some of you really understand trauma all that well. _Unpleasant _is such a gross understatement of what actually happens when someone has their trauma re-triggered that it really does demonstrate a lack of understanding of what is actually at stake for some people who might actually need this tool.

Don't use the tool if you don't like it, but stop being so _dismissive _of what the actual need is here


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 17, 2019)

Gradine said:


> This is the kind of thing that I have to point to when I say I don't think some of you really understand trauma all that well. _Unpleasant _is such a gross understatement of what actually happens when someone has their trauma re-triggered that it really does demonstrate a lack of understanding of what is actually at stake for some people who might actually need this tool.
> 
> Don't use the tool if you don't like it, but stop being so _dismissive _of what the actual need is here




And I don't think you understand physical trauma. I get that PTSD can prompt actual physical reactions. I had horrifying physical reactions to mine. I completely understand what it is. But I also know it is different from having my arm chopped off. And I am not dismissing it. But I am saying it is also a spectrum, and it shouldn't be equated with real physical violence.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 17, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 17, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> So, this is a variant of the "Suck it up, buttercup," argument that many of us find ... dismissive.
> 
> Look, this might work great .... for you! But that's kind of the problem, innit? Setting yourself up as arbiter as to what constitutes real harm, and what doesn't? I mean, this is some 1950s stuff. Or even earlier (shell shock can't be real! man up!).
> 
> ...




I am saying the way the debate is framed is blurring lines that actually matter. I am saying distinctions between real world harm and imaginary content in a game that sets someone off, is very important. And people talk about them as if they are the same thing. And while I am definitely not telling people just to suck it up. I do think we people are losing a lot of perspective on this issue and succumbing to moral panic around it.


----------



## Gradine (Sep 17, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> I am saying the way the debate is framed is blurring lines that actually matter. I am saying distinctions between real world harm and imaginary content in a game that sets someone off, is very important. And people talk about them as if they are the same thing. And while I am definitely not telling people just to suck it up. I do think we people are losing a lot of perspective on this issue and succumbing to moral panic around it.




This isn't a moral panic this is people's actual FRACKING LIVES, and if you took more a single moment to step OUTSIDE OF YOURSELF and LISTEN to other people you'd actually learn something for once.


I need to take a step back from this, this BS is setting me off.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 17, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> Look, this might work great .... for you! But that's kind of the problem, innit? Setting yourself up as arbiter as to what constitutes real harm, and what doesn't? I mean, this is some 1950s stuff. Or even earlier (shell shock can't be real! man up!).




We are having a debate about a potential tool and I think it is fair for me to give my opinion. Like I said before, if you want to use it fine. But I don't want to, and I have reasons for not wanting to use it I think other people might want to pay attention to. Again, I don't like talking about personal stuff like this, but I have had PTSD and I've dealt with mental illness in my family. While tools like this might seem like a good idea. I would argue they do have a down side. And that downside is they can be used as a weapon by people who exploit their own mental illness or trauma, in order to control the terms of conversation in a group. This is something I've seen first hand with mental illness, where their reality slowly becomes the reality of those around them. I think you always need to reserve the ability debate the merits of someone saying they have a problem with X being present. Maybe I am not doing a good job of conveying my opinion here. I don't know. But I can instantly see all the problems that might arise from a checklist like this, just from my own experiences with this stuff. So I don't think it is reactionary or dismissive. It comes from a place of understanding it isn't always a good idea to bend into these things.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 17, 2019)

Gradine said:


> This isn't a moral panic this is people's actual FRACKING LIVES, and if you took more a single moment to step OUTSIDE OF YOURSELF and LISTEN to other people you'd actually learn something for once.




I am listening to other people. I just don't always agree with what other people are saying.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 17, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Gradine (Sep 17, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> used as a weapon by people who exploit their own mental illness or trauma,




This is probably the most offensive thing I've read in this thread. The idea that we should avoid any helpful tool for people struggling with a real illness because they can exploit it.... It's honestly making my blood boil. I get that you've had bad experiences in the past, and I'm never going to argue that mental health is ever an excuse for bad behavior, but you don't get to pass that judgment on to everybody else going through those same struggles. I've already covered the "but bad actors!" slippery slope nonsense, but to attach it specifically to mental illness is truly beyond the pale.


----------



## Gradine (Sep 17, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> I am listening to other people. I just don't always agree with what other people are saying.




I suppose you get to disagree with the truth all you want, but it doesn't make you any less ignorant


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 17, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> So, this is a variant of the "Suck it up, buttercup," argument that many of us find ... dismissive.
> 
> Look, this might work great .... for you! But that's kind of the problem, innit? Setting yourself up as arbiter as to what constitutes real harm, and what doesn't? I mean, this is some 1950s stuff. Or even earlier (shell shock can't be real! man up!).
> 
> ...




At some part you have to tell them to suck it up buttercup.

They can pull an X card, my X card is booting them from the game.

Say I want to run princes of the apocalypse. Fire and water are fairly integral to the campaign. I'm not going to rewrite that adventure to remove it. In a public situation I would tell them it's an elemental themed game before session 0.  If they sign up and then object after being told in advance I would be more likely to boot them as a disruptive player.

I also have started running at the FLGS, this is my first time running in public it's always been at my house or some else's house.

I did do a session 0 wrote out a players guide and included in general terms what to expect. It was an Egyptian themed game. Expectations


Desert
Insects
Anthromorphic races
Poison
Traps
Tombs
Undead
River

I also provided reading material but it's clear half the players paid little attention to it. One player didn't even read about his players home region.

I also told them the in game cultural values are not modern liberal democracy band used the example of slaves. The place was also a theocracy and the local city was ruled by a living god Queen.

For homebrew some parts are very grim, you can get the death penalty for reasonably trivial things. Having sex with the Kings sister for example (happened in medieval France).

One group I had as villains were basically the Spanish Inquisition who had been corrupted by devil's.

Other parts women can't ascend to the throne or it's difficult if they do. (think Cersei Lannister).

FR is reasonably safe but I usually do make it clear that social values might be more in line with medieval or Roman values than our ones.

Not all parts of the world are like that of course and the PCs tend to start in those areas but if the Knights of Vanya come marching bad things happen (they're the villains).

 So yeah your characters can get persecute d for political views, religion, sexuality. Groups doing it are villains and in public games I tell people upfront.


----------



## Wolfpack48 (Sep 17, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> At some part you have to tell them to suck it up buttercup.
> 
> They can pull an X card, my X card is booting them from the game.
> 
> ...




Ok then. Bye.


----------



## Bawylie (Sep 17, 2019)

Gradine said:


> I suppose you get to disagree with the truth all you want, but it doesn't make you any less ignorant



Do you expect this sort of thing to persuade or convert anyone? 

Taking you in good faith, that you want this issue to be treated seriously, why would you make it harder to agree with your position?


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 17, 2019)

Wolfpack48 said:


> Ok then. Bye.




 If you communicate something to people upfront and they complain later.....


----------



## monsmord (Sep 17, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> There has been I think broad agreement that if a person feels uncomfortable they should walk away. Certainly I have argued that I was in control of my own boundaries and I expected the same of the players.
> 
> But now we are turning the argument on its head. Because we have been told we were racists, intolerant, alt-right borderline sociopaths for not accommodating any request and not treating all requests as reasonable, and that if anyone walked away from our table because we couldn't accommodate their phobia of spiders in our Drow game, that we were morally equivalent to people who drove away people because we couldn't refrain from making sexist, racist, or otherwise hateful comments.




Nope. There is not broad agreement that a person who feels uncomfortable should walk away. If that's your choice as someone bringing a consent issue to a group, cool. You manage your boundaries your way. But others would really like to stay, and are asking for help to do that. Your position is that "no" is a perfectly acceptable answer, for reasons. I argue that it isn't, for reasons. (I suspect that each of us harbours conditional "maybes," rather than binary responses.) This doc as presented, I think, leans toward my position, as it wants very much for people to get together and play, and proposes ways to do so, but it also clearly states that leaving is an option, and also leaves room for compromise.

No one I've seen has claimed racism. Intolerance? Kinda depends on whether the default answer is "not at my table," and why, but yeah, there's been that, as recently as a dozen posts ago. Alt-right? That was banned, though some arguments have still used talking points or tools. Moral equivalencies are your own.

No one has advocated treating all requests as reasonable.



Celebrim said:


> Some people have been defending the document by saying that the person gets to tell the group what to do, and that they would be monstrous not to accommodate the individual.  So apparently the confusion here doesn't just extend to the detractors.




Nope. I haven't seen one person "defending the doc" saying one person gets to direct a group. Certainly not me. Certainly not the doc. And "monstrous" is your word.

A conscious choice to exclude a potential player because their consent issue runs afoul of your game - regardless of stripe - is not inclusive. An unwillingness to consider alternatives is not inclusive. A mutually arrived-at decision that the game won't be a good fit is aces. Is it unreasonable for a person to ask you to drop your game in favor of one that suits them? Not necessarily, but quite possibly, maybe probably. To insist on it? I'd say definitely (other mileage may vary). But to decide for yourself, in your head, that there is more value in your game as it exists at that moment than in that person being there to play it with you, I just don't have a positive way to spin it. That isn't strictly about social gaming "fun" anymore.

But the doc isn't just about potential players, it's about existing ones. When someone in your (anyone's) group develops, learns, or reveals an intense phobia, trauma, etc. over a game element being introduced (or planned for next time) and drops an X-card, are you going to tell your long-time group member to leave? Will you expect them to bow out on their own because it would inconvenience friends? If you're willing to change your game for someone you know, but not someone you barely know or don't know, then your sticking point really isn't consent issues or practices raised in this doc. And if you really expect a long-time member to leave because the rest of the group would really like to fight spiders, it's clear which is valued more, and no guidebook can address that.

Comparing a child's phobia but willingness to pretend to an adult's trauma or PTSD shows how great the gulf in understanding and lack of empathy are.

And someone walking away from your table for your benefit is not the same as someone being told they're not welcome due to an inconvenient personal problem.

This is all being approached as a zero-sum game, nuke from orbit stuff. Their fun or my fun. It doesn't need to be. The claims that this doc gives a single player the ability to kill or direct a game, or group, just aren't supported. And no one is advocating that. The doc doesn't advocate that, or any one approach at all, but only tries to ensure that everyone at the table is willing and able to handle a player who needs this [X] thing not happen. The take that this must end games, end fun, that this is tyrannical, is just so off the mark it boggles the mind. And that some insist that the fairest and most considerate and respectful thing for their own "fun" is for the person traumatized to bow out, is just as mind-blowing.

The counter-inclusive argument (not the criticism of this doc's approaches or application) seems grounded in (and these are my words here), "I have a right to my fun the way I want to have it, and anyone who wants to change that is the problem. I'm the real victim here." There's a kernel of truth in there that we can all here probably get behind. We want our game. But that's not what's at stake, and framing it that way is one of the things impeding inclusivity. If a person's fun in the game is derived entirely or almost entirely from the in-game content, such that changes to that content are anathema, there is a different discussion worth having elsewhere, and is hardly a defense against respecting an X-card.

No single approach or tool will meet every situation or sit well with every gamer. We can have more than one. At-home groups of friends will have a different social contract than strangers at a con, and different needs. Not everyone in the X-card rainbow will have the same requests or need the same help. Still, we can make this happen. But to just expect people with content issues to "sit this one out" instead of figuring out how to broaden our own games is the opposite of inclusivity, and to defend that choice as "but it's not fair to me, I really like [X]" or "but their trauma isn't real harm" or "they can play some other game?" The problem isn't in the doc, but in the community.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 17, 2019)

Gradine said:


> I need to take a step back from this, this BS is setting me off.





Gradine said:


> This is probably the most offensive thing I've read in this thread. The idea that we should avoid any helpful tool for people struggling with a real illness because they can exploit it.... It's honestly making my blood boil. I get that you've had bad experiences in the past, and I'm never going to argue that mental health is ever an excuse for bad behavior, but you don't get to pass that judgment on to everybody else going through those same struggles. I've already covered the "but bad actors!" slippery slope nonsense, but to attach it specifically to mental illness is truly beyond the pale.




I am not saying everyone will use it that way. I am saying the potential for misuse is there and I think given how we talk about this issue in the gaming community, it is much more likely to be exploited that way. And I am saying you always need to preserve the ability to push back against peoples concepts and ideas. 



lowkey13 said:


> Dude. C'mon. Don't go there.
> 
> And I will say again, this is a free guide. It's a good thing for the community.
> 
> If you don't have anything positive to contribute, then you should ask yourself what you are really up to. Because I'm seeing a lot of FUD, but I'm not seeing you put forth any proposals to help tables deal with these issues.




If people find use it in great. All I was saying here is I don't want to use it, and this is my reason why. I don't have an issue with them making the guide. But I do think we are allowed to express criticisms of it.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 17, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 17, 2019)

Gradine said:


> I suppose you get to disagree with the truth all you want, but it doesn't make you any less ignorant




You don't have a monopoly on the truth through. We are talking about different perspectives here. And I am absolutely going to read what people have to say. That doesn't mean I have to agree with them (even if they express their views in a compelling way).


----------



## Bawylie (Sep 17, 2019)

monsmord said:


> Nope. There is not broad agreement that a person who feels uncomfortable should walk away. If that's your choice as someone bringing a consent issue to a group, cool. You manage your boundaries your way. But others would really like to stay, and are asking for help to do that. Your position is that "no" is a perfectly acceptable answer, for reasons. I argue that it isn't, for reasons. (I suspect that each of us harbours conditional "maybes," rather than binary responses.) This doc as presented, I think, leans toward my position, as it wants very much for people to get together and play, and proposes ways to do so, but it also clearly states that leaving is an option, and also leaves room for compromise.
> 
> No one I've seen has claimed racism. Intolerance? Kinda depends on whether the default answer is "not at my table," and why, but yeah, there's been that, as recently as a dozen posts ago. Alt-right? That was banned, though some arguments have still used talking points or tools. Moral equivalencies are your own.
> 
> ...



Has anyone said “I’m the real victim here”? Just as nobody has said “one person directs the group” nobody is really saying they’re the “real” victim. 

Nobody “against the doc” is anti-inclusive. And nobody for the doc is demanding full editorial control over content.  The conversation, for this whole thing to succeed, has to treat the grievances, problems, and fears of all parties as fundamentally legit concerns (even if some are phrased in a spiky way, like calling folks haters or whatever). 

I agree though, that some in the community do have a problem and that the doc addresses it. Ham-handedly, perhaps. I believe the proper response isn’t to drop the doc in the trash though, but to take it as an opening “offer” and make a counter-proposal. Communicate more. The doc is a good start, not a final edict. And if we all proceed like that, I think we go a long way toward addressing the problem within the community.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 17, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> And I don't think you understand physical trauma. I get that PTSD can prompt actual physical reactions. I had horrifying physical reactions to mine. I completely understand what it is. But I also know it is different from having my arm chopped off. And I am not dismissing it. But I am saying it is also a spectrum, and it shouldn't be equated with real physical violence.




Well 'real physical violence' is a gradient too - it can be stuff like that young punk who took a swing at me on the high street one time as I walked home from work - after I blocked his blow with my arm, he and his mate cycled off in panic. I felt quite chuffed at my successful act of self defence. That was a _lot_ less traumatic than 5 year old S'mon being called a 'twerp' by his own mother!


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 17, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> So given that there can be issues with public play (which I think we are familiar with), and issues with broaching sensitive subjects in a tactful and respectful manner, and given that we would be looking for a solution for tables that did not currently have one (in other words, something that could be disseminated and used by multiple people, sort of like guidelines or a checklist) ...
> 
> How would you suggest approaching the issue, other than "Not this."




I don't know that this is as big a problem as people think, or one that we really need to solve especially. I think most game groups are just fine. Or if they have issues, they can work them out in conversation. 

That said, I think people need to find groups that fit their sensibilities. It is about navigating what groups is going to be comfortable for you. And people have to be willing to walk away if they are uncomfortable. Generally talking things through a bit at the start of a campaign is a good idea. But ultimately I think if you have a trigger, you need to be the one to bring that up. I don't think it is the groups' responsibility to solve that for you. I think they should be compassionate and not make you feel weird about it. But they are not under an obligation to adjust the game for you. We all have our issues. I do think when it comes to public play things are different. But I don't go conventions or play in public games, so I can't comment on the best way to handle that. And obviously if you are talking about gamers who are still kids things are different. I am just not going to deal with an itemized checklist as a GM. If you want to have a conversation with me, or deal with it in email that is fine. But this form is so formal, and I think would also prompt people to put down lines where they otherwise wouldn't (just like  I sometimes check off "dizzy" on those symptoms forms at the doctor's office even though I am not especially dizzy). So I personally just wouldn't use it.


----------



## Wolfpack48 (Sep 17, 2019)

It sounds like the crux of the misunderstanding is the conflation of a person with distress having ownership over their boundaries  with somehow being able direct/veto the larger game.  Can someone point me to the place in the document where it says a person experiencing distress can take over the game?


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 17, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Bawylie (Sep 17, 2019)

Wolfpack48 said:


> It sounds like the crux of the misunderstanding is the conflation of a person with distress having ownership over their boundaries  with somehow being able direct/veto the larger game.  Can someone point me to the place in the document where it says a person experiencing distress can take over the game?



Nobody can. 

Does that mean it can’t be a serious concern? An unintended consequence? That it shouldn’t be something we address head-on? I think it deserves more than “Well, it doesn’t SAY that, so...” 

There’s no monster under my daughter’s bed, either. There can’t be! But we’re gonna at least look, right?


----------



## Wolfpack48 (Sep 17, 2019)

Bawylie said:


> Nobody can.
> 
> Does that mean it can’t be a serious concern? An unintended consequence? That it shouldn’t be something we address head-on? I think it deserves more than “Well, it doesn’t SAY that, so...”
> 
> There’s no monster under my daughter’s bed, either. There can’t be! But we’re gonna at least look, right?




I suppose, but I think what the doc is saying is let’s respect that person’s distress at face value rather than second guess them or get defensive about our own pet campaigns. Are we really _that_ worried about Munchausen Syndrome?  Would that not be an extreme edge case that would eventually come out anyway?  The argument feels like a red herring to me.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 17, 2019)

If someone tells me about XYZ I believe them I'm not going to argue about it.

 If XYZ is completely incompatible with what you want to do or you have multiple people with conflicting XYZs your gonna have to draw a line in the Sand somewhere. 

 If you're running Out of the Abyss be upfront about demons and Underdark. And in a public setting that's pick up and play it may not be possible to prep something else.


----------



## Gradine (Sep 17, 2019)

Bawylie said:


> Do you expect this sort of thing to persuade or convert anyone?
> 
> Taking you in good faith, that you want this issue to be treated seriously, why would you make it harder to agree with your position?




Because I got super heated and there's a lot of stuff going on in my life outside of this and I got set off. It happens. I'm not proud.

For what it's worth, I do apologize for the flippancy. I _don't _apologize for calling out dismissiveness over what is (not what I _perceive_ but what actually _is_) a hugely important issue, not just for me but for a lot of people (some of whom I know and care about). It sucks hearing that kind of nonsense day in and day out; being told you're overreacting; being told that you're just trying to manipulate others; when all you're trying to do is get through your day without having to be reminded of or forced to relive the worst experiences of your life. It _really _sucks to hear that **** coming from people you otherwise respect; who otherwise present as entirely reasonable and rational people. Like, you kind of expect it from certain people, but there are others from whom it hits like a sack of bricks. Because they _are _otherwise reasonable and rational and... 

It just makes you feel like maybe you _are _the crazy one. It's just... it's just ****ty. And I _know _better. It doesn't make it suck any less.

And I just want more people to _know, _or to just _understand _what it feels like; but sometimes it feels like the only people who do are the people who've been through it too. And that's not something I would wish on _anyone_. And even _some of us _perpetuate that same garbage. Because some of us have heard it so many times we've started to believe it. And we haven't had anybody to help us understand _ourselves _better. I just want... people to _listen. _And _*believe*_. And so I _try _and I _try _and I _try _and I just.... never get through.

I can only bash my head against the same brick wall so many times before something breaks, you know?


----------



## Bawylie (Sep 17, 2019)

Wolfpack48 said:


> I suppose, but I think what the doc is saying is let’s respect that person’s distress at face value rather than second guess them or get defensive about our own pet campaigns. Are we really that worried about Munchausen Syndrome?  Would that not be an extreme edge case that would eventually come out anyway?  The argument feels like a red herring to me.



Sure. I’m just saying if we’re gonna ask others to take a person’s distress at face value, that we should treat others’ distress about it sincerely. Live the behavior you want adopted.


----------



## Wolfpack48 (Sep 17, 2019)

I suppose the elephant in the room is that many roleplayers have experienced trauma of one kind or another. I think it’s a major reason people roleplay, because it’s a safe and creative hobby that involves socializing without the pressure of the real world. Most everyone I have gamed with has had something terrible in their lives. Acknowledging and respecting that can only be a good thing.


----------



## Wolfpack48 (Sep 17, 2019)

Gradine said:


> Because I got super heated and there's a lot of stuff going on in my life outside of this and I got set off. It happens. I'm not proud.
> 
> For what it's worth, I do apologize for the flippancy. I _don't _apologize for calling out dismissiveness over what is (not what I _perceive_ but what actually _is_) a hugely important issue, not just for me but for a lot of people (some of whom I know and care about). It sucks hearing that kind of nonsense day in and day out; being told you're overreacting; being told that you're just trying to manipulate others; when all you're trying to do is get through your day without having to be reminded of or forced to relive the worst experiences of your life. It _really _sucks to hear that **** coming from people you otherwise respect; who otherwise present as entirely reasonable and rational people. Like, you kind of expect it from certain people, but there are others from whom it hits like a sack of bricks. Because they _are _otherwise reasonable and rational and...
> 
> ...




People are (slowly) starting to get it. Hang in there!


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 17, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> So, again, you don't have to use it. I won't be using it, but that's just because I know my tables right now.
> 
> But you can't project your wants and needs on to everyone else, or assume that this is some kind of overblown issue. It can be hard for people to speak up and raise an issue, and this can be a good way to get difficult conversations started.
> 
> For the life of me, I don't understand why anyone would be against that.




It just ridiculous to have a check list of things you would consent to in an RPG (especially when the list includes things like thirst and severe weather). It is like a parody from sketch comedy. Maybe some people will find it a useful conversation starter. I don’t think it is something that would be good if it became the norm in the hobby. I do think if people find use in it, that is fine. But I do have concerns about where this is going. And I do think it is perfectly okay to express those concern (people don’t have to agree with me and are free to make their own choices about it).


----------



## Bawylie (Sep 17, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> It just ridiculous to have a check list of things you would consent to in an RPG (especially when the list includes things like thirst and severe weather). It is like a parody from sketch comedy. Maybe some people will find it a useful conversation starter. I don’t think it is something that would be good if it became the norm in the hobby. I do think if people find use in it, that is fine. But I do have concerns about where this is going. And I do think it is perfectly okay to express those concern (people don’t have to agree with me and are free to make their own choices about it).



Yeah some bits of the checklist are a little out there. But the basic idea is that a player at a public game approaches you and says “hey this stuff bugs me, is any of it in your game?” And then you can go, “sorry yeah there is” or “nah you’re good.”

Basic idea is sound. Good, honest, up-front, open communication is better than most alternatives.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 17, 2019)

Bawylie said:


> Yeah some bits of the checklist are a little out there. But the basic idea is that a player at a public game approaches you and says “hey this stuff bugs me, is any of it in your game?” And then you can go, “sorry yeah there is” or “nah you’re good.”
> 
> Basic idea is sound. Good, honest, up-front, open communication is better than most alternatives.




This you can't please everyone all of the time, please most of the people most of the time.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 17, 2019)

Bawylie said:


> Yeah some bits of the checklist are a little out there. But the basic idea is that a player at a public game approaches you and says “hey this stuff bugs me, is any of it in your game?” And then you can go, “sorry yeah there is” or “nah you’re good.”
> 
> Basic idea is sound. Good, honest, up-front, open communication is better than most alternatives.




Maybe. I don't know. Like I said. People can do what they want and if the checklist is part of that, or if someone presenting a list of problems at a public game is how they want to go about it, that is fine. I just have a very hard time reading this and seeing how it is being discussed in some quarters, and not think we are getting into very flaky territory at best.


----------



## Elton Robb (Sep 17, 2019)

This is available for Free on Drivethru.  I saw it there, and I almost picked it up.


----------



## MGibster (Sep 17, 2019)

monsmord said:


> A conscious choice to exclude a potential player because their consent issue runs afoul of your game - regardless of stripe - is not inclusive.




I humbly submit for your consideration that not all games are meant for all players.  We all agree that it's acceptable to bow out of a game when someone dislikes or are uncomfortable with the content.  It's also okay for others to say they do like the content and would prefer to continue having it in the game.


----------



## Bawylie (Sep 17, 2019)

MGibster said:


> I humbly submit for your consideration that not all games are meant for all players.  We all agree that it's acceptable to bow out of a game when someone dislikes or are uncomfortable with the content.  It's also okay for others to say they do like the content and would prefer to continue having it in the game.



I not-so-humbly agree. If it’s not 100% mutual and 100% voluntary, then it is not consent. 

Seems the purpose of the doc is to move from implied consent (which sometimes has some honest misunderstandings) to explicitly stated consent (that has less room for ambiguity). Which is fine. Everyone gets an honest “No thanks.”


----------



## Gradine (Sep 18, 2019)

Where were you all when the world was collectively losing their minds over "trigger warnings"? Cuz that's what y'all are talking about now and... yeah they're pretty alright.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 18, 2019)

MGibster said:


> I humbly submit for your consideration that not all games are meant for all players.  We all agree that it's acceptable to bow out of a game when someone dislikes or are uncomfortable with the content.  It's also okay for others to say they do like the content and would prefer to continue having it in the game.



This actually raises a good point: if this form is intended for use pre-game or pre-campaign, then a handy-for-the-DM add-on to the [paraphrased] "what content don't you want" section might be a "what content do you want/would you prefer" piece, and also an outright "what rating level (G,PG13,NC17,XXX) rating level are you comfortable with" question.  This way, if one player answers "XXX-rated but no deserts" and another answers "I want a G-rated desert-themed game" the DM can iron this out before dropping the puck and hopefully before deciding who to invite in!

Personally, I'm probably a long way toward 'anything goes'.  As a DM this is made clear up front; and as a player I'm far more likely to leave a game due to boredom than due to content.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 18, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> And people shouldn't necessarily expect that they can hold a full veto over the game, beyond simply walking away from the game,. But, in this thread, you can find people arguing that if someone was made to walk away from the game, because the group couldn't accommodate them, that that was a monstrous act. Maybe in some imaginary cases it was, but not for the majority that actually come up.




Been reading the thread from the beginning and I think this tidbit gets to the heart of things.

What is more important to you?  The game or the people at the table playing that game?  Because that's what it boils down to.  "Oh, I can't change my game" means that the game is more important than that person.  That doesn't make you a monster, but, it does show where your priorities are.  If changing your game provokes that much of a reaction, then, sure, that player probably shouldn't sit at that table since that table obviously isn't interested in respecting that person's boundaries.

Again, this isn't a bad thing.  We're playing a game.  I should not feel like I have to deal with someone else's baggage in my free time.  I'm not a psychiatrist.  I'm not a mental health care worker.  I'm sympathetic, sure, but, by the same token, I shouldn't feel like I have to deal with someone's issues in my free time.

OTOH, if you approach the hobby from the perspective that the people at the table are more important than the game, then, well, it would make perfect sense to change the game to accommodate someone's issues.  

So, that's where it really boils down to.  What's more important to you.  And, obviously, that can change over time and situation as well.  A con game with strangers is a different situation than a home game that's been running for extended periods of time.  This is something everyone has to think about for themselves.


----------



## Bawylie (Sep 18, 2019)

Gradine said:


> Where were you all when the world was collectively losing their minds over "trigger warnings"? Cuz that's what y'all are talking about now and... yeah they're pretty alright.



I’ll tell you - I was “losing my mind” over perceived infantilization. Because we weren’t having the same conversation over trigger warnings. Some folks wanted reasonable advance notice for stuff (a completely reasonable expectation). 

And some were using the term for secondary gain. At work, I had a grown adult male claim to be triggered over a dispute in the amount of a reimbursement for a replacement rental vehicle. He shouted at me “you are triggering me,” repeatedly. That’s not honest brokering. That was a grown man trying to leverage the language of PTSD to avoid paying $30. That’s the most egregious, but not the only, personal example I have. Every day I hear something like “your employee was offensive. I’m offended!” And they’re not offensive, they just disagree and won’t be caving-in on issues because someone claims offense. 

IOW, I’m 100% on board with reasonable accommodations for special needs and concerns. AND I’m 100% over bad actors capitalizing on the real issues of others for personal gain. 

So that’s where I was. And am. There are bad actors and bad faith and people who use the truly vulnerable as shields. That’s infuriating.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 18, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> They can pull an X card, my X card is booting them from the game.




And, as a perfect, textbook example of what I just talked about, we have this.

Here is a 100% clear example of a DM for whom the game is more important than the players at the table.  Again, totally fair.  It's his game, he can run it however he likes.  But, the point of this PDF is when you have DM's like this, for whom the game is more important than the players, the players can use something like their X card or their list to quickly realize that this game is not for them.

Everyone's happy.  The player doesn't have to deal with stuff coming up at the table, and the DM doesn't have to compromise.  Done.


----------



## Gradine (Sep 18, 2019)

Bad actors are going to be bad actors using whatever tools they have at their disposal. It's no reason to withhold useful tools that people need to make their way through the world


----------



## Hussar (Sep 18, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> It just ridiculous to have a check list of things you would consent to in an RPG (especially when the list includes things like thirst and severe weather).



Umm, a few years ago nearly 20000 people died in the country I live in to "severe weather".  ((Granted it was a tsunami from an earthquake, but, similar issue)  Several million were directly affected.  I have students who have lost family or know people who lost family to the tsunami and I live in an area that was totally unaffected, directly, by it.

The notion that "severe weather" can't be something that triggers people is a bit dismissive.

And, see, that's the point of the list.  Just because you think it's "ridiculous" means that it would be extremely difficult for a player to come to you and talk to you about it for fear of being ridiculed.  You don't get to decide what triggers other people.  That's why they add in the caveat that you don't discuss it.  It gets brought up and that's the end of the conversation, not the beginning.  

Because, for people with trauma, "it's ridiculous" is far, far too often the response they have to face from everyone around them.


----------



## Bawylie (Sep 18, 2019)

Gradine said:


> Bad actors are going to be bad actors using whatever tools they have at their disposal. It's no reason to withhold useful tools that people need to make their way through the world



Oh I absolutely agree. And I tried to make that part clear.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 18, 2019)

Hussar said:


> And, as a perfect, textbook example of what I just talked about, we have this.
> 
> Here is a 100% clear example of a DM for whom the game is more important than the players at the table.  Again, totally fair.  It's his game, he can run it however he likes.  But, the point of this PDF is when you have DM's like this, for whom the game is more important than the players, the players can use something like their X card or their list to quickly realize that this game is not for them.
> 
> Everyone's happy.  The player doesn't have to deal with stuff coming up at the table, and the DM doesn't have to compromise.  Done.





Surplus of players, shortage of DMs. I've discovered over the years its not worth trying to accommodate everyone some players you just can't reach. Sometimes its just incompatible playstyles.

I booted 3 players not so long ago, tried speaking to them but they just played CN stupid and pissed the other 3 off. They got spoken to, kept doing it got booted. 2 of them (a couple)  went to another game and ended up getting booted from that. They tried Pathfinder as well and once again got booted. Last I heard they approached the gamestore owner about wanting to run GURPs or something but no one wanted to play with them.

There is something going on there, they have issues but multiple people have tried to help but they just don't fit in anywhere. I warned them (twice even) but when they think fireballing their own party and deliberately set of traps as playing a CN kender type Gnome is fun and don't change ever. Their default approach to combat was also run away or stay as far back as possible and throw stuff at disadvantage.

Harmony of the group, social cohesion and no disruptive players are my main goals in running a group. I don't really care if players have issues whatever they may be but they got told upfront, warned twice and then got the boot.

They can play an X card all they like, they can insist on no debate if they want, my X card trumps theirs. The right to have fun playing D&D trumps a player right to be a moron. Gamestore owner has a list of players wanting games, he does veto anything obvious he picks up so he is already filtering out problem players using his own X card and then the individual DMs can filter the players again, he'll back the DMs call pretty much every time.

Every group has female players, one has a female DM and several female players. So he is creating a safe space for everyone else.


----------



## Campbell (Sep 18, 2019)

Regardless of the tools utilized what I ultimately want is a GM is to create an environment where people feel safe to express when something is bothering them. If someone is unhappy with the way things are going for any reason I want them to be able to tell the rest of us without fear of reprisal. I want this for emotional issues, but I want it for creative issues as well. I want everyone at the table to feel like they can speak up and everyone else will care. I also expect that everyone also values everyone else as people more than they value the game and will work with each other so the game can be as good as possible for everyone at the table.

Regardless of the tools used if that is not the case we have no business gaming together.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 18, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Umm, a few years ago nearly 20000 people died in the country I live in to "severe weather".  ((Granted it was a tsunami from an earthquake, but, similar issue)  Several million were directly affected.  I have students who have lost family or know people who lost family to the tsunami and I live in an area that was totally unaffected, directly, by it.
> 
> The notion that "severe weather" can't be something that triggers people is a bit dismissive.
> 
> ...




Okay but does it not become unreasonable at a certain point to expect very common features of stories like severe weather to be announced from the get go, or taken off the table? I understand someone can have this problem. I don't know that including it on a checklist like this is a good solution to that problem. And I definitely don't think it is normal for us to approach gaming in this way, at all.


----------



## Campbell (Sep 18, 2019)

My opinion is that if someone is a bad actor regardless of how your group handles things they either need to learn to value the other people at the table or be asked to leave. They cannot be controlled through authoritarian measures. They will find a way to express their self centered desires regardless of the environment.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 18, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Surplus of players, shortage of DMs. I've discovered over the years its not worth trying to accommodate everyone some players you just can't reach. Sometimes its just incompatible playstyles.




And that is 100%, absolutely, perfectly fair.  There is absolutely nothing compellning you to play or run a game for anyone.  You can decide who you want to play with and you don't need to justify anything.  It's your free time.  Absolutely.

Now, because you prioritize your game over the people (shortage of players), someone who maybe has some trauma triggers probably shouldn't play at your table.  Their issues are not your priority.  And, again, there's zero judgement there.  You are 100% justified here.  These are their issues and you are under no compulsion at all to have to deal with their issues.

But, the point here is that a list like in the PDF reveals that up front and everyone gets to walk away with no harm, no foul.  No one can complain later that you weren't clear up front and you can't complain that the player wasn't up front either.  

I see it as a win/win either way.



Bedrockgames said:


> Okay but does it not become unreasonable at a certain point to expect very common features of stories like severe weather to be announced from the get go, or taken off the table? I understand someone can have this problem. I don't know that including it on a checklist like this is a good solution to that problem. And I definitely don't think it is normal for us to approach gaming in this way, at all.




Is it normal?  Probably not.  Not too many people would be triggered by severe weather after all.  It's probably a very small number.  But, having something like this list means that if that rare case does come up, it's clearly brought up and everyone then gets to make the informed choice - you can either change your game to accommodate the player or not, as the case may be, and the player can choose to sit at the table or not based on your choice.  

Isn't having clear communication, without being told, perhaps indirectly by reading it on a message board maybe, that my personal issues are "ridiculous", a better solution?  Wouldn't you rather that your players were up front with you rather than being made to feel ashamed of their issues and then having them blow up during or after a session?

What's the alternative here?


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 18, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Isn't having clear communication, without being told, perhaps indirectly by reading it on a message board maybe, that my personal issues are "ridiculous", a better solution?  Wouldn't you rather that your players were up front with you rather than being made to feel ashamed of their issues and then having them blow up during or after a session?
> 
> What's the alternative here?




I am not saying a persons personal issues are ridiculous, I am saying filling out a consent form with all these different items on it for an RPG is ridiculous. If someone has a serious enough problem with severe weather, that mentioning it in the game could set them off, I would want them to bring it up with me, or try to sort the problem out before they join the group. If you are in a bad mental state, you can't control what comes your way in the world. If severe weather sets you off, you might see it in movies, you might read it in books, you might see art of severe weather or catch a news cast of severe weather. I don't know why we are treating an RPG table as any different from other places in the real world. You wouldn't demand a consent form for a film, a comedy show or a play. 

The alternative is for people to communicate about things in conversation and figure out what accommodations can be made if there is a serious enough problem. But I don't think 'there is going to be a serious problem' should be the default assumption.


----------



## MGibster (Sep 18, 2019)

Wolfpack48 said:


> I suppose the elephant in the room is that many roleplayers have experienced trauma of one kind or another. I think it’s a major reason people roleplay, because it’s a safe and creative hobby that involves socializing without the pressure of the real world. Most everyone I have gamed with has had something terrible in their lives. Acknowledging and respecting that can only be a good thing.




I just call that life.  Take any random group of people and you'll find that many of them have suffered a traumatic experience of one kind or another.  I don't believe those of us who enjoy role playing games are more likely to have suffered trauma than anyone else.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 18, 2019)

Hussar said:


> And that is 100%, absolutely, perfectly fair.  There is absolutely nothing compellning you to play or run a game for anyone.  You can decide who you want to play with and you don't need to justify anything.  It's your free time.  Absolutely.
> 
> Now, because you prioritize your game over the people (shortage of players), someone who maybe has some trauma triggers probably shouldn't play at your table.  Their issues are not your priority.  And, again, there's zero judgement there.  You are 100% justified here.  These are their issues and you are under no compulsion at all to have to deal with their issues.
> 
> ...




Previously I wouldn't need a checklist I've only played with friends.

A month ago I started a somewhat public game with 3 new players and laid down the law, but those players picked the world and theme before session 0 on messenger. Session 0 I had a printed players guide and covered most disruptive situations.

To get to that point.
1. They have been vetted by the gamestore owner then myself/close friends.

2. We communicated on messenger where they got to pick the world and theme from a list of what I was comfortable running. Greyhawk, FR, Midgard pick one. Vikings, Egypt, Vampires, Faerie pick one.

3. Session 0 printed players guide and basic information on the campaign provided and what to expect.

4. Verbal list of acceptable behaviour. Swearing is fine along with mother in law jokes level of political correctness. No racism, sexism, bullying, chaotic stupid etc.


----------



## Campbell (Sep 18, 2019)

MGibster said:


> I just call that life.  Take any random group of people and you'll find that many of them have suffered a traumatic experience of one kind or another.  I don't believe those of us who enjoy role playing games are more likely to have suffered trauma than anyone else.




This I definitely agree with. The idea that we are somehow special or different from the general population is something I really do not agree with.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 18, 2019)

Hussar said:


> What is more important to you?  The game or the people at the table playing that game?  Because that's what it boils down to.  "Oh, I can't change my game" means that the game is more important than that person.




I think that this is indeed the heart of it, and we are still having this conversation even though SKR indicated this wasn't his intention.

But you know what, it's still a ridiculous statement.  Because I'm not choosing the game versus a person however much you want to keep pounding on that.  I'm choosing gaming with this group of people over gaming with that person, often because I was gaming with those people first, and often because that person has become a problem that is detracting from everyone else's fun.   It could be any number of reasons.  We could just get tired of his cheating. We could get tired of his profanity.  We could get tired of his abusive tirades on other players.  We could get tired of him trying to play other people's characters for them. We could get tired of his antagonistic play habits where he is always working against party goals.  We could get tired of the fact that he's always on the phone and not paying attention, or never shows up.  And yes, we could get tired of the fact that he is always insisting everyone else accommodate his style of play and his preferences.   Whatever the reason, we don't have to play 'that guy' anymore.   We may still like that guy.  We may even still be friends with that guy.  We may see that guy at work and say, "Hey, how's it going."  But for whatever reason, the whole RPing with 'that guy' thing isn't working out.

This never has actually happened to me BTW. I've never had to boot any of my players, although it has happened to people I know and they often had really good reasons for booting 'that guy'.

(Incidentally, 'that guy' could be female, but I figured if I used female pronouns about people would think I was negatively stereotyping. Again, in point of fact, every 'that guy' I've heard of has been male, though I believe in equality - I'm sure there are female players that are 'that guy' as well.)

No one here is saying that if it came down to the game or letting 'that guy' burn in a fire, we'd keep rolling the dice. We're just saying we really don't have to play with people we don't want to play with, and often we have good reasons for it. And we really don't particularly like being told that we are 'choosing a game over a person', or being accused of being racist or sexist or whateverist because we don't want to play with 'that guy'. For one thing, we suspect that while you are making those sort of accusations, you are totally and completely hypocrites, and if you were playing with 'that guy' you'd not want to play with him either.



> OTOH, if you approach the hobby from the perspective that the people at the table are more important than the game, then, well, it would make perfect sense to change the game to accommodate someone's issues.




And again, this is dishonest. Because this has never been an argument between people who would make accommodations and those that wouldn't. This has never been an argument between people who don't have friends with problems or who push all the feelings of their friends aside, and a bunch of really generous thoughtful people who graciously accommodate everything. Plenty of people who don't like the document have and often are right now making accommodations to the preferences and needs of other people in their group.

The real argument, the real heart of it, is over whether request for accommodation is reasonable (or even possible), and if not reasonable, whether you are under some pressure to act like it is reasonable.

I mean seriously, we have people here saying, "Of course if you are at a convention and someone asks for an accommodation you can just toss out all your plans and wing something." Not hardly. And if you think you can, remind me not sign up at your tables, because I don't want to waste my time.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 18, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> And we really don't particularly like being told that we are 'choosing a game over a person', or being accused of being racist or sexist or whateverist because we don't want to play with 'that guy'. For one thing, we suspect that while you are making those sort of accusations, you are totally and completely hypocrites, and if you were playing with 'that guy' you'd not want to play with him either.




Bwuh?  Where did I accuse you of anything @Celebrim?  You keep painting with this very broad brush, but, I REPEATEDLY stated that it was perfectly fine for you not to game with whoever you don't want to game with.

I'd appreciate it if you'd leave the comments of hypocrisy at the door if you're going to reply to me.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 18, 2019)

However, that being said, I'm rather curious why you lump in all sorts of bad behavior like this:



Celebrim said:


> We could just get tired of his cheating. We could get tired of his profanity. We could get tired of his abusive tirades on other players. We could get tired of him trying to play other people's characters for them. We could get tired of his antagonistic play habits where he is always working against party goals. We could get tired of the fact that he's always on the phone and not paying attention, or never shows up. And yes, we could get tired of the fact that he is always insisting everyone else accommodate his style of play and his preferences




with someone suffering from trauma who is asking you to remove an element from your game that triggers said trauma.

It almost looks like you are equating bad behavior with people who are suffering from mental health issues.

Now, I KNOW that's not what you mean, but, considering you went on for several sentences, it really does look like it.  So, perhaps, just perhaps, you might want to step back a tiny bit.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 18, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Now, I KNOW that's not what you mean, but, considering you went on for several sentences, it really does look like it.  So, perhaps, just perhaps, you might want to step back a tiny bit.




But if you know that isn't what he means, why would he need to back it up?


----------



## monsmord (Sep 18, 2019)

MGibster said:


> I humbly submit for your consideration that not all games are meant for all players.  We all agree that it's acceptable to bow out of a game when someone dislikes or are uncomfortable with the content.  It's also okay for others to say they do like the content and would prefer to continue having it in the game.




I agree, and not (quelle surprise).

But I've said my peace, like waaay said it, and have nothing new or more productive to add to the discussion. I don't find much in the way of opinions on consent issues being swayed here (including mine), and there's no doubt that even where folks agree there's a need for some sort of guidelines, there's not much (and won't be) grand agreement with this particular doc's usefulness for the many games and gamers out there. I hope we can agree that such a doc is worth considering, if for its premise alone, and that much of the advice is worth keeping whether or not one adopts forms or X-cards. It would be nice if most people agreed that ensuring emotionally safe games is a boon, not a burden. I also hope that as hobby enthusiasts we can be working toward growing the base by being open and accepting of folks with differing boundaries, as social hobby enthusiasts we can all learn to be better at the social part, and that as humans we can develop a greater empathy and compassion for those marginalized, at least when the nature of that marginalization is as terrifying, painful, and isolating as PTSD, trauma, et al.


----------



## evileeyore (Sep 18, 2019)

Hussar said:


> However, that being said, I'm rather curious why you lump in all sorts of bad behavior like this:
> 
> with someone suffering from trauma who is asking you to remove an element from your game that triggers said trauma.



If they're being disruptive, they're being disruptive.  And I don't much care about the why, either way they know where the door is.


----------



## Wolfpack48 (Sep 18, 2019)

Ok then.  Goodbye.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 18, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Been reading the thread from the beginning and I think this tidbit gets to the heart of things.
> What is more important to you?  The game or the people at the table playing that game?




I don't agree with this language. It implies people don't care about people. Say I had told my friend Jelly, about to GM Out of the Abyss, about my claustrophobia, and she had said something like "I don't think you'll enjoy this game, but we can still play other stuff together"

That wouldn't mean she didn't care about me!

Obviously I care more about the welfare of the people at the game table with me, including strangers I've just met, than I care about the game. It's not an either/or.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 18, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Bwuh?  Where did I accuse you of anything @Celebrim?  You keep painting with this very broad brush, but, I REPEATEDLY stated that it was perfectly fine for you not to game with whoever you don't want to game with.




"It's fine for you to not care about people" doesn't come across very well!


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 18, 2019)

I've only read the last few pages of the thread, but I have to wonder why someone so easily traumatized by violence would play a violent game like D&D.  I have a fear of heights and I guarantee you that you won't see me scaling a cliff. It seems to me that people would avoid things that are likely to trigger their traumas.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 18, 2019)

S'mon said:


> "It's fine for you to not care about people" doesn't come across very well!




Well, considering something like this:



evileeyore said:


> If they're being disruptive, they're being disruptive.  And I don't much care about the why, either way they know where the door is.




I'd say that I'm not too terribly far off.  @evileeyore is being pretty clear here that he/she does not care why the player is having issues, just that the player can take those issues, pack up and leave.  End of discussion.

Characterizing it as caring more about the game than the people isn't all that unfair, methinks.  If you're unwilling to compromise your game when you learn that one of your players really isn't going to enjoy whatever element you refuse to compromise about, then you are prioritizing your game ahead of that  person's feelings.  Which, is absolutely your right to do.  But, let's not pretend that it's something that it's not.  

You are reading in value judgements that I am not making.  In fact I've repeatedly stated that I have zero issue with someone doing this.  You are under NO compulsion to game with anyone.  Absolutely none.  If removing that element will ruin the game for you, then, sure, don't game together.  Cool.  

The problem I see is that the narrative that's being put forth is the "problem player" is trying to destroy the game.  OTOH, most of the time it might be something as simple as just not running that particular adventure or even that particular scene.  All having the list does is open up the conversation without having to have the conversation in the middle of the game where it gets that much harder to resolve.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 18, 2019)

Note:  Prioritizing X over Y does not mean that Y is not important.  Just that X is more.  

Frankly I don't see what the issue is.  I remember years ago playing in a game where another player and I wound up playing out a romance between our two characters.  Now, it was 100% PG.  The other player did absolutely nothing wrong.  But, it was making me VERY uncomfortable.  Why it was making me uncomfortable is no one's business at all.

Having an X card or something like that, I could have just tapped out and we move on.  The game wouldn't be ruined, and a good time would still be had by all.  

To me, that's how something like an X card would be used most of the time.  All the Whaddaboutitis and pointing to malicious use just highlights other table issues.  It's a symptom of a larger problem at your table, not the problem itself.


----------



## Campbell (Sep 18, 2019)

S'mon said:


> I don't agree with this language. It implies people don't care about people. Say I had told my friend Jelly, about to GM Out of the Abyss, about my claustrophobia, and she had said something like "I don't think you'll enjoy this game, but we can still play other stuff together"
> 
> That wouldn't mean she didn't care about me!
> 
> Obviously I care more about the welfare of the people at the game table with me, including strangers I've just met, than I care about the game. It's not an either/or.




I do not think that people who use more informal techniques care about people less. I think everyone should do what is best for their game. I personally do not understand why more people being aware of and practicing more formal techniques is like a problem though. I am personally not really sold on a curated checklist that happens before play. I prefer a more ongoing discussion of lines and veils starting from the first session because I would rather not set things in stone like that or create the idea that discussing these things is like a special occasion. That's also why I do not really do a Session Zero.

While I think there are definitely people who do not want people to speak up and take more of a like it or leave it approach I do not think everyone who prefers more informal approaches is like that. There's a reason why most of these sorts of tools originated in indie games. In most indie games there is a more distributed nature to both content introduction and over what content is acceptable. Both are largely up to the group as whole. If almost all content that matters is coming from the GM it becomes relatively easy to speak with them privately about something that is making you uncomfortable. However if the game is more about the individual and intersecting stories of the player characters having ways to address the whole group become much more important. It also frees up the GM from having to be group parent - something I am not a fan of.

Right now there is a bit of culture clash going on because more and more traditional games seem to be moving towards more group oriented models when it comes to content introduction and acceptance. I totally get preferring more traditional authority models. No one should be saying you have to change. I am definitely not saying it. However, I do not see what is so wrong about providing tools for different approaches to those who want them.


----------



## Wolfpack48 (Sep 18, 2019)

Hussar said:


> However, that being said, I'm rather curious why you lump in all sorts of bad behavior like this:
> 
> with someone suffering from trauma who is asking you to remove an element from your game that triggers said trauma.
> 
> ...




I think he's being very clear that that's exactly what he means.


----------



## Wolfpack48 (Sep 18, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Well, considering something like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




And for me, a response like evileeyore's results in an immediate autoignore. Celebrim may not be far behind, because my troll-o-meter is starting to ring pretty damn loudly.


----------



## Wolfpack48 (Sep 18, 2019)

S'mon said:


> "It's fine for you to not care about people" doesn't come across very well!




Frankly, both evileyore and Celebrim's characterization of people with mental issues as 'problem players' sound exactly like 'they don't care about people.' After all, that person is the same as someone who "cheats, tells other people how to play their character, or holds abusive tirades." They fall into the "source of disruption" bucket. Let's call a spade, a spade shall we?


----------



## Hussar (Sep 18, 2019)

See, @Wolfpack48, I disagree.  I completely do not judge anyone for not wanting to play with someone else.  We are playing a game.  If I don't want to play with you, I shouldn't have to justify it and no one has the right to tell me that I should play with you when I don't want to, regardless of my reasons for not wanting to play with you.

If you or anyone else doesn't want to play with someone, THAT'S OK.  That's 100% okay.  We're playing a game.  I am not responsible for helping anyone, nor am I required to.  Particularly in my free time.  I just want to play a game and I am not interested in dealing with someone else's drama is 100% fine.  

If someone comes up with that list and says, "Hey, can we not have X" and the DM turns to them and says, "I'm sorry, but, no", no one has done anything wrong.  Nor should anyone be judged for saying no.  That is absolutely their right to say no.  Consent works both ways.  You don't get to bludgeon people  over the head with it, nor guilt them into accepting your requirements.  By the same token, if someone says, "Hey can we not have X?" and the DM agrees, and then does a bait and switch and does it anyway, THEN we have a jerk DM.  

But, no one is a jerk for not wanting to deal with someone else's issues.


----------



## macd21 (Sep 18, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> Okay but does it not become unreasonable at a certain point to expect very common features of stories like severe weather to be announced from the get go, or taken off the table?




No, it does not become unreasonable for it to be taken off the table if a player has a problem with it. I don’t understand why this is so hard to grasp. It seems blatantly obvious to me: if one of your players has a problem with something, you don’t include it in your game.

If you came to my table and told me you have a problem with depictions of rape, I wouldn’t include rape in my game. If you said you had a  problem with severe weather, I wouldn’t include severe weather. If you said you had a problem with the colour purple, I wouldn’t include purple. I wouldn’t think of asking you to explain why you had a problem with it, and I certainly wouldn’t debate it with you.

I would consider the above to be basic decency on my part. The idea that I would try to pressure a player into accepting these things strikes me as arrogant, inconsiderate, even cruel.



> I understand someone can have this problem. I don't know that including it on a checklist like this is a good solution to that problem. And I definitely don't think it is normal for us to approach gaming in this way, at all.




No, it’s not normal for us to approach gaming this way. That’s the point! People tend to approach gaming with the assumption that everyone else at the table will be fine with the same elements as them. And even people who try to be considerate or to avoid darker topics probably wouldn’t think twice about including a ‘dying of heat in a desert’ challenge in the next session, right up until someone bursts into tears, or is suddenly enraged, or ups and leaves the table (‘oh Steve served in Iraq, yeah, sorry, I probably should have mentioned that...’).


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 18, 2019)

macd21 said:


> No, it does not become unreasonable for it to be taken off the table if a player has a problem with it. I don’t understand why this is so hard to grasp. It seems blatantly obvious to me: if one of your players has a problem with something, you don’t include it in your game.
> 
> If you came to my table and told me you have a problem with depictions of rape, I wouldn’t include rape in my game. If you said you had a  problem with severe weather, I wouldn’t include severe weather. If you said you had a problem with the colour purple, I wouldn’t include purple. I wouldn’t think of asking you to explain why you had a problem with it, and I certainly wouldn’t debate it with you.
> 
> ...




Again, there are reasonable requests and there are less reasonable requests. It is obviously going to be situational and depend on the context. Rape is something I don't include or allow in my games. Like I said, some things on those lists are going to be issues most people would want off the table or would want a discussion about. Those are reasonable concerns. But there are a  lot of unreasonable concerns on the checklist and I don't think a group has to bend its style or the content of its game because one person desires something (whatever the reason).  Something like severe weather, is going to be on the table. If that sets someone off, I'd explain it is going to come up and they probably shouldn't play in the game if they find it upsetting. I use weather tables and overland travel matters a lot in my campaigns. I can't see running a game with severe weather not being part of it at times. I understand a person might have a good reason for being upset about that kind of weather. I won't make fun of them. I will just honestly tell them the game is likely to have it. But this level of acquiescence to every single potential concern just strikes me as madness. We shouldn't be allowing that to control the content of every gaming group. The person is perfectly free to find another group. There is nothing wrong with people wanting something in their game and keeping it in their game. 

This is exactly the kind of problem I was pointing to with a list like this. I am not troubled by it if groups are voluntarily using it. But if the PDF and the list is used to force game groups to abide by every player's concerns, then it starts impacting what people can actually do. You have to give people the room to say "this game might not be for you". That isn't the end of the world. You can still be friends with that person.


----------



## MGibster (Sep 18, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Characterizing it as caring more about the game than the people isn't all that unfair, methinks.  If you're unwilling to compromise your game when you learn that one of your players really isn't going to enjoy whatever element you refuse to compromise about, then you are prioritizing your game ahead of that  person's feelings.  Which, is absolutely your right to do.  But, let's not pretend that it's something that it's not.




How about we characterize it another way?  You care more about what one player wants than you do about what the other five or six players want.  You're prioritizing the needs of one person over the needs of everyone else involved in the game.  Does that sounds about right?


----------



## MGibster (Sep 18, 2019)

This is so situational that it's difficult to make blanket statements.  I've certainly compromised with players in the past over something they found difficult to deal with.  In that case it was easy to tone down the descriptions of giant spiders and then avoid using them for the rest of the campaign.  But if I had made spider themed villains the protagonist for the campaign it's going to be much more difficult to accommodate the request.  

I still maintain that I'm not a therapist, I don't engage in group therapy, and it is not my responsibility to provide anyone at the table with a safe space.  If someone knows a particular subject causes them distress it is their responsibility to bring it up.  It isn't my responsibility to make sure they never see something which causes them discomfort.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 18, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> You have to give people the room to say "this game might not be for you"



And absolutely NO ONE is questioning that.  Nor is the pdf questioning that.  Bringing a list to the game is not an attempt to force anyone to do anything.  

You talk about rape.  Well, here's a f'rinstance.  I ran an SF game a few years back where in that setting you had luddite colonies that refused higher technology.  I designed a scenario (based on an excellent short story that I had read) where a high tech individual posed as an angel and impregnated numerous women.  The babies were genetically modified so that the big genetic changes that came with  transhumanism wouldn't express until several generations down the line.  The only real immediate effect was a slightly healthier baby who was predisposed to having lots of children.  

The idea was, several generations down the line, the genes would suddenly express across the planet and everyone would be uplifted in the same generation.

Now, here's the rub.  All these women were essentially raped.  The technology of the "angel" was such that he could more or less do mind control against those with no protection.  The PC's come into the situation AFTER he has impregnated numerous women.  And the PC's are sworn to protect the Luddite colonies from exactly this sort of thing. And so the scenario begins.

Thinking about it now, I had a group that I knew very well and were all groovy with what I had brought to the table.  But, I could easily see any number of things I just did triggering all sorts of issues with people.  Could totally see it.  Now, since the scenario is largely self contained, should a player not feel comfortable enough to come to me and ask me to change things?  Is it a bad person or disruptive player for saying, "Yeah, I like the game but, just not this one scenario.  Do we have to do it?"

I certainly don't think so.  And if I was running that same scenario for strangers, a list like that pdf would tell me beforehand that maybe this idea can go back on the shelf and I'll do something else today.  

But, that's me.  For others, I get that they don't want to do that.  And that's TOTALLY FAIR.  There's nothing wrong with not wanting to dump a pile of work for that one person.  It's your free time and your fun time.  It's YOURS.  And that's groovy.

But, the idea that someone bringing this list to a game means that some DM's (which have expressly stated that they would in this thread) will eject them from the game shows that yeah, more conversation is probably a good thing.  Make sure everyone's on the same page.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 18, 2019)

MGibster said:


> How about we characterize it another way?  You care more about what one player wants than you do about what the other five or six players want.  You're prioritizing the needs of one person over the needs of everyone else involved in the game.  Does that sounds about right?




Yup.  Totally fair.  I care more about the feelings of my friends than about my game.  Totally cop to that.  And, frankly, my five or six players would probably agree with me.  We have ALWAYS prioritized the needs of one person over the needs of everyone else involved in the game.

When on player doesn't want to do something, we shrug and move on to something else.

But, that's us.  That's how we play.  It does not mean in any way, shape or form that you should do the same thing.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 18, 2019)

Hussar said:


> And absolutely NO ONE is questioning that.  Nor is the pdf questioning that.  Bringing a list to the game is not an attempt to force anyone to do anything.




First I understand what the PDF says. Two, I was responding to a poster who was questioning that and basically said if a player has an issue with an item I have to cater to them. I have seen a lot of people saying this sort of thing over the past several days, and they are using the existence of things like PTSD to force people to acquiesce to anything checked off on the list.


----------



## Wolfpack48 (Sep 18, 2019)

MGibster said:


> How about we characterize it another way?  You care more about what one player wants than you do about what the other five or six players want.  You're prioritizing the needs of one person over the needs of everyone else involved in the game.  Does that sounds about right?




Yup. Because one person's real world problem is more important than six players' imaginary fun.  Or, I don't give a rat's ass about your real world problem, we have a game to play - hit the road.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 18, 2019)

Wolfpack48 said:


> Yup. Because one person's real world problem is more important than six players' imaginary fun.




This is the point where the checklist becomes unreasonable. Because you are saying people must do what one player says. The problem is, you are not there. You don’t know anything about this group. You don’t know what the dynamics are and if this is an established group that has regularly featured spiders, rats and hurricanes in their game, and this is a new player suddenly expecting the whole group to accommodate them. You don’t know if the player with the issue has been in the group for a long time and is friends with everyone. Like another poster said, we are not saying we’d never compromise. But we are saying it is very situational. We are saying we don’t have to. And we are saying the checklist isn’t equipped to handle those kinds of nuances. When you say items on the list must be removed from play if they are checked off, then you are straight jacketing groups and trying to control what they do for their own entertainment. What is next are you going to tell people they must not see a movie if one of their friends has a problem with it? People can sit out a movie or game. They can find other people to play with


----------



## jasper (Sep 18, 2019)

Wolfpack48 said:


> It sounds like the crux of the misunderstanding is the conflation of a person with distress having ownership over their boundaries  with somehow being able direct/veto the larger game.  Can someone point me to the place in the document where it says a person experiencing distress can take over the game?



Hmm some heavy hints at page 3
*The default answer is “no. and 
It doesn’t matter why consent wasn’t given
If I running Season 3 which has demons as the main theme, and wolfpak 48 drops into the open game and tells me NO. And wouldn't give me a reason.  That ONE WAY the doc could be read.

*


----------



## jasper (Sep 18, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Yup.  Totally fair.  I care more about the feelings of my friends than about my game.  Totally cop to that.  ...
> 
> ...



Dude, some us don't play with just friends. We play with friends of friends, people who we only know from the hobby, and even some Alabama Football fans. Hey once I played with a fan of that EVIL GAME CALLED SOCCER. 
I care about my friends Hussar, Simon, and Wolfpack. I not give a beep about Wolfpacf best bud Bedrockgames or his feelings.  Also while I do care about your feelings Hussar, if me Simon and Wolfpack decide to go get Chinese and this is fifth time you voted down this month. We going to go get Chinese and we see you at the pub at 9 PM. 
You are coming across as the group must cater to (and this bad way to say it but) player with problems.


----------



## Wolfpack48 (Sep 18, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> This is the point where the checklist becomes unreasonable. Because you are saying people must do what one player says. The problem is, you are not there. You don’t know anything about this group. You don’t know what the dynamics are and if this is an established group that has regularly featured spiders, rats and hurricanes in their game, and this is a new player suddenly expecting the whole group to accommodate them. You don’t know if the player with the issue has been in the group for a long time and is friends with everyone. Like another poster said, we are not saying we’d never compromise. But we are saying it is very situational. We are saying we don’t have to. And we are saying the checklist isn’t equipped to handle those kinds of nuances. When you say items on the list must be removed from play if they are checked off, then you are straight jacketing groups and trying to control what they do for their own entertainment. What is next are you going to tell people they must not see a movie if one of their friends has a problem with it? People can sit out a movie or game. They can find other people to play with




Not unreasonable if the result is a conversation where the parties work things out and come to the decision mutually. You keep reverting back to the individual controlling the game. All they control is their own boundaries so that a conversation can result and a decision be made.


----------



## Wolfpack48 (Sep 18, 2019)

jasper said:


> Hmm some heavy hints at page 3
> *The default answer is “no. and
> It doesn’t matter why consent wasn’t given
> If I running Season 3 which has demons as the main theme, and wolfpak 48 drops into the open game and tells me NO. And wouldn't give me a reason.  That ONE WAY the doc could be read.*




The default is no for their own boundaries, not the ultimate direction of the game. The default is no and no one can make that individual play through the issue or ask them to “toughen up”. It’s not a call to control the game, but to have a conversation. Agree it could be more clearly expressed in the doc.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 18, 2019)

Wolfpack48 said:


> Not unreasonable if the result is a conversation where the parties work things out and come to the decision mutually.




The point is they don't have to do anything you want them to do. They don't have to have a conversation. They can simply say No, we are going to have that in the game. It doesn't have to be mutual either. If someone new shows up and asks me not to include something, I don't have to get their permission to tell them the game isn[t for them. The group gets to decide who joins and what changes are made. My issue here is people are trying to control how private groups conduct themselves around issues of content and who they take in as players. Barring groups that are still in school, we are adults here and adults can figure this stuff out on their own without there being some kind of code, rule or formula to it. Something that I find distasteful about where a lot of this conversation is leading is it seems like we are all back in nursery school. I can't tell you what the situation is going to be like if someone comes in and asks me to do something for the game. It is always going to be situational. I don't know how polite or confrontational someone is going to be. I don't know how well I am going to know them. I don't know if their reasons are going to add up or if they are just going to be jerks trying to start debates over their pet issues. There are all kinds of factors that are going to impact how I respond and how my group responds. This isn't something you can decide before the situation arises. And the result might not be a mutual agreement. They could keep insisting we allow them to play and that we change the content. If someone pesters me like that, I don't have to give into them.


----------



## Wolfpack48 (Sep 18, 2019)

Hussar said:


> See, @Wolfpack48, I disagree.  I completely do not judge anyone for not wanting to play with someone else.  We are playing a game.  If I don't want to play with you, I shouldn't have to justify it and no one has the right to tell me that I should play with you when I don't want to, regardless of my reasons for not wanting to play with you.
> 
> If you or anyone else doesn't want to play with someone, THAT'S OK.  That's 100% okay.  We're playing a game.  I am not responsible for helping anyone, nor am I required to.  Particularly in my free time.  I just want to play a game and I am not interested in dealing with someone else's drama is 100% fine.
> 
> ...




I’m thinking if it a bit more finely than that. Person X comes to the game and asks nicely if we could avoid spiders in the game because they have the phobia. Both those responses above would be pretty hostile to a nicely worded request. No conversation, just “You’re disrupting our game. There’s the door. Get lost.”  THAT is also the sign of a jerk referee whose throne is being threatened. I can smell it a mile away.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 18, 2019)

Wolfpack48 said:


> You keep reverting back to the individual controlling the game. All they control is their own boundaries so that a conversation can result and a decision be made.




Because people have been suggesting that. Perhaps you and I are miscommunicating. Because a couple of posts back, it looked like you were saying exactly that. I don't want to argue you with you over something if we are just not getting  out messages across to one another. If we've misunderstood one another's positions then hopefully we can clarify. 

On the topic of boundaries. Yes everyone gets to set their own boundaries. But I do think everything is situational. And there are going to be times when you might need to question someones' stated concern and its validity. It really depends on how the conversation goes. If someone starts getting very confrontational, it isn't unreasonable to express any doubts you have about what they are saying more honestly. At a certain point if you maintain a "you cannot question their boundaries, there is no debate' stance, you end up with the opposite of the problem you are trying to solve (where instead of people feeling mistreated by the group, you are giving one person power to mistreat the group). I think I just don't agree with a lot of the fundamental assumptions going on in this conversation.


----------



## Wolfpack48 (Sep 18, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> Because people have been suggesting that. Perhaps you and I are miscommunicating. Because a couple of posts back, it looked like you were saying exactly that. I don't want to argue you with you over something if we are just not getting  out messages across to one another. If we've misunderstood one another's positions then hopefully we can clarify.
> 
> On the topic of boundaries. Yes everyone gets to set their own boundaries. But I do think everything is situational. And there are going to be times when you might need to question someones' stated concern and its validity. It really depends on how the conversation goes. If someone starts getting very confrontational, it isn't unreasonable to express any doubts you have about what they are saying more honestly. At a certain point if you maintain a "you cannot question their boundaries, there is no debate' stance, you end up with the opposite of the problem you are trying to solve (where instead of people feeling mistreated by the group, you are giving one person power to mistreat the group). I think I just don't agree with a lot of the fundamental assumptions going on in this conversation.




I’m in agreement about this. As long as a conversation is held in good faith by both parties, all is good. A tone of “you will bend to my authority” from either side is counterproductive and dickish.


----------



## macd21 (Sep 18, 2019)

MGibster said:


> How about we characterize it another way?  You care more about what one player wants than you do about what the other five or six players want.  You're prioritizing the needs of one person over the needs of everyone else involved in the game.  Does that sounds about right?




No, it doesn’t. That would only be the case if one player had the right to veto something. Everyone involved in the game has the right to say they don’t want something in the game, and no one (including the GM) has the right to insist on something being included over the objections of another.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 18, 2019)

macd21 said:


> No, it doesn’t. That would only be the case if one player had the right to veto something. Everyone involved in the game has the right to say they don’t want something in the game, and no one (including the GM) has the right to insist on something being included over the objections of another.




In this post you are giving one player the power to veto


----------



## macd21 (Sep 18, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> In this post you are giving one player the power to veto




No, you are giving _every_ player the power to veto.


----------



## Aldarc (Sep 18, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> It just ridiculous to have a check list of things you would consent to in an RPG (especially when the list includes things like thirst and severe weather).



Why? People have discussed horror stories of people who had a bad time at a convention game because it included rape and a number of trigger issues. Hussar provides an example of severe weather having effected his context. I would never include suicide when I know that one of my players lost someone close to them to suicide. One of my friends that I played D&D with in the States still gets triggered from malaria, because he got it as a kid while in Tanzania. This same person also coincidentally compulsively carries around a water bottle because they are afraid of severe thirst, a compulsion that manifested as a result of their experiences with malaria. They still enjoy D&D even though I would likely avoid these triggers if I was the GM because you know, I'm not a complete dick about other people.



> Maybe some people will find it a useful conversation starter. I don’t think it is something that would be good if it became the norm in the hobby. I do think if people find use in it, that is fine.



Then why do you devote so many words and energy debating its mere existence? It's a free resource. It's a supplement. It provides an additional tool at the disposal for the GM to handle such conversations. It's optional. It's produced by an indie publisher and not mandated from on high. Again, I think that the pushback you are making on this product seems grossly disproportionate to what the associated documents actually say and do.



> But I do have concerns about where this is going. And I do think it is perfectly okay to express those concern (people don’t have to agree with me and are free to make their own choices about it).



Most of those concerns, however, seem ungrounded and unreasonable though, or at least with some bad faith, especially when you compare the checklist items to sketch comedy or a parody. So what is more unreasonable? A free supplement with this checklist available for those who would want it or the people who are up in arms about the checklist existing and proclaiming that it somehow will coerce groups into being unable to play how they want? I know where I would cast my vote.



Bedrockgames said:


> I am not saying a persons personal issues are ridiculous, I am saying filling out a consent form with all these different items on it for an RPG is ridiculous. If someone has a serious enough problem with severe weather, that mentioning it in the game could set them off, I would want them to bring it up with me, or try to sort the problem out before they join the group. If you are in a bad mental state, you can't control what comes your way in the world. If severe weather sets you off, you might see it in movies, you might read it in books, you might see art of severe weather or catch a news cast of severe weather. I don't know why we are treating an RPG table as any different from other places in the real world.



The fact that you are focusing on "severe weather" or "thirst" seems a bit silly to me, as if the usefulness of the checklist is somehow disproven by the existence of "severe weather" on the list. And it seems that arguing too much about this line of thinking is a bit of a red herring.

IME, not everyone will be comfortable speaking about these things in the manner that you want or would prefer. They may not want to talk to you directly about it because it may feel likey they are having to justify and relive their trauma for you. Some people, however, will be comforted by the existence of the consent form. This is even discussed in the Consent in Gaming document if you read it. As you say earlier, it gets the conversation started or even bypasses the need for the conversation. The checklist is _A tool_ among many that the GM can use to talk about consent, the game contents, and player triggers. Stop treating this checklist as "the end of liberty," as per an earlier poster, and take it for what it is: an optional tool at your disposal. The Badwrongfun Police are not going to come knocking down your door if your group chooses not to use it.



> You wouldn't demand a consent form for a film, a comedy show or a play.



The thing is though that reviews and summaries exist for the media that you listed. There are places you can go online to check whether your triggers are present in these media because they are generally closed systems. Given that a TTRPG is more open-ended and has a different form of operation from these other forms of entertainment, it's fairly clear that this is a false equivalent comparison.



Bedrockgames said:


> Again, there are reasonable requests and there are less reasonable requests. It is obviously going to be situational and depend on the context.



But that is part of the issue. You aren't the person best equipped to tell someone that their trigger is somehow less reasonable than others. And to be clear: I'm not either.



> Something like severe weather, is going to be on the table. If that sets someone off, I'd explain it is going to come up and they probably shouldn't play in the game if they find it upsetting. I use weather tables and overland travel matters a lot in my campaigns. I can't see running a game with severe weather not being part of it at times. I understand a person might have a good reason for being upset about that kind of weather. I won't make fun of them. I will just honestly tell them the game is likely to have it.



Please notice that the Consent Form actually has multiple comfort levels that the player can select, including in yellow: "Okay if veiled or offstage; might be okay onstage but requires discussion ahead of time; uncertain." Oh, the horror.



> But this level of acquiescence to every single potential concern just strikes me as madness. We shouldn't be allowing that to control the content of every gaming group. The person is perfectly free to find another group. There is nothing wrong with people wanting something in their game and keeping it in their game.



The real madness is when certain individuals get into a self-induced uproar about the existence of an optional (free) consent form for an RPG supplement, which they likely would not use anyway, having what is likely a rare corner case trigger and rant-up-a-storm about how it represents the potential coercion of the individual against the gaming group. Now THAT is madness. Do you know of any such individuals?



> This is exactly the kind of problem I was pointing to with a list like this. I am not troubled by it if groups are voluntarily using it. *But if the PDF and the list is used to force game groups to abide by every player's concerns, then it starts impacting what people can actually do.* You have to give people the room to say "this game might not be for you". That isn't the end of the world. You can still be friends with that person.



This is just unsubstantiated fearmongering based on slippery slope argumentation. Can you reasonably explain how the existence of the list could do such a thing? And how is this different from a player having these concerns without the existence of the checklist?



Bedrockgames said:


> This is the point where the checklist becomes unreasonable. Because you are saying people must do what one player says.
> ...
> And we are saying the checklist isn’t equipped to handle those kinds of nuances. When you say items on the list must be removed from play if they are checked off, then you are straight jacketing groups and trying to control what they do for their own entertainment.



Dear Captain Hyperbole, the Consent Form is a means for the person to say that they have potential problems with the topics selected at various levels of (dis)comfort. That's all. When people select that they have a hardline problem with, for example, severe weather, then what you choose to do with that information is up to you. But if I used this consent form and saw that "severe weather" was a hardline problem for a potential player, then regardless of what I thought about it as a problem, I would probably at least attempt to exercise some self-awareness, sensitivity to others, and caution with my games before claiming that the player was trying to coerce the group.

I think that one of your problems is that you are casting this debate as "the group vs. the individual" in a manner that suggests that the individual is not part of the group. Your framing seems to want to preclude them at the outset. That they are a newcomer or an outsider that has come to ruin the fun of the good ole boys and their gaming group. That framing seems disingenuous, tribalist, and also essentially casting guilt at the newcomer at the outset.



> What is next are you going to tell people they must not see a movie if one of their friends has a problem with it? People can sit out a movie or game. They can find other people to play with



More slippery slope ad absurdum arguments from you? 



Maxperson said:


> I've only read the last few pages of the thread, but I have to wonder why someone so easily traumatized by violence would play a violent game like D&D.  I have a fear of heights and I guarantee you that you won't see me scaling a cliff. It seems to me that people would avoid things that are likely to trigger their traumas.



Because violence takes many different forms, and that does not mean that everyone wants to experience at the game table every form of violence. And you do not always know what a GM will choose to include in the game or what other players will do as part of their actions in the game.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 18, 2019)

Aldarc. Just a heads up, I don’t respond to wall of text posts like that. If you have one point you want to prioritize me responding to, happy to field it. But it would take way too much time for me to address all those points


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 18, 2019)

macd21 said:


> No, you are giving _every_ player the power to veto.




Which means a single player can veto what everyone else wants.


----------



## Wolfpack48 (Sep 18, 2019)

macd21 said:


> No, you are giving _every_ player the power to veto.




The best way it plays out is a conversation with everyone at the table and an arrival at something everyone can enjoy. 

Other paths it can take are that person(s) sit out the game or find another group.

I don’t think it means one person can hold everyone else hostage until their demands are met.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 18, 2019)

Wolfpack48 said:


> I don’t think it means one person can hold everyone else hostage until their demands are met.




This is the primary objection people have to how some people are advocating for the PDF.


----------



## Wolfpack48 (Sep 18, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> This is the primary objection people have to how some people are advocating for the PDF.




I would agree it’s a bad interpretation and/or something the doc could make clearer.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 18, 2019)

Wolfpack48 said:


> I’m thinking if it a bit more finely than that. Person X comes to the game and asks nicely if we could avoid spiders in the game because they have the phobia. Both those responses above would be pretty hostile to a nicely worded request. No conversation, just “You’re disrupting our game. There’s the door. Get lost.”  THAT is also the sign of a jerk referee whose throne is being threatened. I can smell it a mile away.




I actually agree with all of that even if I would have worded it different. But this is essentially just my position restated in a complimentary way.

If person X comes to a game and says, "I'm sorry, but this game can't contain spiders.", as much as he might not want to divulge why, civility requires he have some sort of conversation about it to explain to the group why his request is reasonable. That explanation need only be what you've imagined here, "because I have a phobia." At this point we have a polite request with a valid reason, and now the GM should either grant the request, or if for some reason he can't grant the request, must apologize and try to politely explain why he can't grant the request. This is just basic human civility. It's common sense.

When someone writes a document that tries to overrule basic human civility and common sense, it gets my spidey senses tingling. It suggests an agenda, or it suggests misapplying rules that might make sense in one situation to a very different situation.

Going further into the imagined scenario, doing my duty as a compassionate person requires me to now put myself in the shoes of both the player making the request and the GM, and imagine the situation from their perspective. Or if I'm actually the GM, my duty as a compassionate person requires me putting myself into the shoes of the player making the request and _every single other player at the table_.

So imagining this scenario, we now have a player that has politely and yet courageously made a request to a group of near strangers. He's probably feeling a certain amount of stress and fear. He doesn't know how I'm going to react to this request. Maybe he's been mocked in the past. Maybe he's afraid that now I know his weakness I'm going to try to use it against him. These are all valid fears. As a GM, I'm going to want to accommodate this request and answer it graciously. Even if the request involves a certain amount of sacrifice on my part, I'm going to want to fulfill it. And in most cases I almost certainly will.

However, again putting myself into the shoes of the GM, the GM has a responsibility to the other players at the table. He's the GM. It's really not fair of him to pass this responsibility off on to the other players. Whether "yes" or "no" he really needs to be the one that bears that burden. Getting buy in on that answer from the other players is also his responsibility. I may well know that there is a player at the table that thinks the request is ridiculous, for whatever reason, and even if they are keeping their mouth politely shut they may want me to say "no". And I have to respect that player as a person just as I respect the one making the request. Additionally, the GM must - if even if only from a practical perspective - enjoy running the game. And there is a point that I can imagine where the sacrifice being asked is just too great, and I must reluctantly and politely refuse to accommodate the request no matter how reasonably it was made.

That intersection of being asked to remove spiders because of a phobia, and NOT being able to accommodate that request on a reasonable basis is likely a vanishingly small edge case. Not only must the player have a phobia, something that really effects only a fraction of the population, but the phobia must be on long tail of the spectrum such that it is is the sort which can be triggered by very weak sensory cues and yet still produce a powerful physiological and emotional response. And this request will have to intersect the vanishingly small percentage of campaigns where the icon, imagery, symbolism, and literal spider is tightly woven into the fabric of the campaign, such as removing spiders from the campaign would effectively mean ending the campaign. I have never run such a campaign, but I know from my preferences in campaigns and my very sincere abiding and deep affection for our eight legged friends, that I am very much the sort of person who might run such a campaign. It sounds really cool. And if I'm running that campaign then I'm going to be very very sad if it turns out one of my friends - or even an enthusiastic stranger - can't be a part of it because of a phobia of spiders.

This is what I think is the common sense, civil, compassionate view of this situation. This is the model I think everyone should have in their head. And therefore, to be quite frank, I'm hostile to any attempt to overturn or replace that model because I think any such attempt will necessarily result in a less civil and compassionate world. And you may reasonably be confused at this point and ask, "How?"

Well, all of the following strike me as possibilities:

a) People will be induced to think that they can make requests without giving explanations.
b) People will be induced to think that they can make demands rather than requests.
c) People will be induced to think that every request they make, even one that is unreasonable, is a reasonable one.
d) People will be induced to think that anyone that denies a request is doing so because they are a jerky unsympathetic uncompassionate person.
e) People will be discouraged from engaging in open and honest and yes difficult conversations.
f) People will be discouraged from being honest and/or welcoming, because they fear that in doing so they are opening themselves up to social censure.

Why do I think none of that is ridiculous fears on my part, and exaggerated concerns?

Because we can see examples of all of that happening in this thread already, particularly from those that think the document is a really great thing.


----------



## macd21 (Sep 18, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> Which means a single player can veto what everyone else wants.




Yes. Every player at the table gets a veto.

If a group of friends are going out for dinner, and one of them says ‘I’m allergic to seafood,’ the group doesn’t then insist on going to a seafood restaurant. If one friend hates horror movies, insisting you all go to a horror movie is a dick move. If one player has a phobia of spiders, insisting on spiders in your game is a dick move.


----------



## Wolfpack48 (Sep 18, 2019)

macd21 said:


> Yes. Every player at the table gets a veto.
> 
> If a group of friends are going out for dinner, and one of them says ‘I’m allergic to seafood,’ the group doesn’t then insist on going to a seafood restaurant. If one friend hates horror movies, insisting you all go to a horror movie is a dick move. If one player has a phobia of spiders, insisting on spiders in your game is a dick move.




That said, the person with the phobia should also be reasonable. If the campaign was long planned, maybe they could join another group for awhile or play on a different night. Again, the important thing is not to be authoritarian about it from either side. It’s a discussion and a mutual decision.


----------



## Aldarc (Sep 18, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> Aldarc. Just a heads up, I don’t respond to wall of text posts like that. If you have one point you want to prioritize me responding to, happy to field it. But it would take way too much time for me to address all those points



I'm not a fan of responding to wall-of-text posts either, so I can respect that. I said my piece in regards to your hyperbolic, slippery slope points regarding this consent form. You don't have to respond at all, but I hope that you at least take into consideration what I said and how unreasonable some of your argumentation comes across. Again, your level pushback seems a bit too disproportionately knee-jerk reactionary to what the Consent in Gaming supplement says and represents. So I would advise you to tone your rhetoric down because your line of argumentation is not necessarily coming across as the voice of reason as you might otherwise expect.



Bedrockgames said:


> Which means a single player can veto what everyone else wants.



You seem to be presuming that what everyone else wants is reasonable in the name of fun and that the vetoing player is being unreasonable or a spoil sport with their objections.


----------



## Wolfpack48 (Sep 18, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> I actually agree with all of that even if I would have worded it different. But this is essentially just my position restated in a complimentary way.
> 
> If person X comes to a game and says, "I'm sorry, but this game can't contain spiders.", as much as he might not want to divulge why, civility requires he have some sort of conversation about it to explain to the group why his request is reasonable. That explanation need only be what you've imagined here, "because I have a phobia." At this point we have a polite request with a valid reason, and now the GM should either grant the request, or if for some reason he can't grant the request, must apologize and try to politely explain why he can't grant the request. This is just basic human civility. It's common sense.
> 
> ...




I think if you put yourself into a persons shoes who may feel intimidated by telling a larger group about their phobia, and their fear of being dismissed or ridiculed or even pressured, you’ll understand why the author is empowering them to take a stand on what their boundaries are. The author is addressing a person who not only has a phobia but may fear telling people about it. The admonition for the group is to be understanding _even then.  It’s about being understanding even with only limited information. _

All that can still result in a kind conversation and a mutual decision. It also doesn’t mean either side needs to be authoritarian or hold the rest of the group hostage. The doc is there to extend our understanding of how phobias work and empower those who have them to respect their own boundaries.


----------



## macd21 (Sep 18, 2019)

Wolfpack48 said:


> That said, the person with the phobia should also be reasonable. If the campaign was long planned, maybe they could join another group for awhile or play on a different night. Again, the important thing is not to be authoritarian about it from either side. It’s a discussion and a mutual decision.




Sure, but the entire point of the document is to sort this out ahead of time, rather than springing it on your players mid-game.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 18, 2019)

macd21 said:


> Yes. Every player at the table gets a veto.
> 
> If a group of friends are going out for dinner, and one of them says ‘I’m allergic to seafood,’ the group doesn’t then insist on going to a seafood restaurant. If one friend hates horror movies, insisting you all go to a horror movie is a dick move. If one player has a phobia of spiders, insisting on spiders in your game is a dick move.




Yes, but the problem with analogies is that they are valid only if they actually correspond to the situation. As such, they don't really help you resolve a complex topic, because analogies quickly get complex themselves, you end up arguing over the analogy, you end up arguing over the fitness of the analogy, and you'd be better off getting rid of the analogy and just thinking about the thing itself.

Yes, if a group of friends is going out for dinner, and trying to decide where to go, if one of them is allergic to seafood then civility and compassion requires you to consider options other than seafood. This is actually a real concern I have to endure daily. I wish that I was as easy to accommodate as someone that was only allergic to seafood. I have a problem with my insides rotting out if I eat too much wheat. If you don't have a wheat allergy you probably have never considered just how central to all of Western culture the sharing of wheat actually is. "Breaking bread together" is both the figurative description of fellowship, and also the practical reality of it from ordering pizza to birthday cakes. I am almost daily excluded from the rituals of fellowship with other people by the simple fact that I cannot share their food.

So let's alter your analogy slightly. A group of friends is going out to dinner, and after a discussion they've all agreed to go to the seafood restaurant. As they are headed to the seafood restaurant, they chance upon an acquaintance of one of the party who asks if they can come along. This is itself a bold request, and I think you are instinctively aware that it's a little bit impolite to try to insert yourself into a social gathering you weren't originally a part of. But, in this case, the party is willing to accommodate the new person, the friend looks awkwardly at his other friends thinking that they might be a little offended or put out by this imposition, but instead they say, "Come along. The more the merrier." 

It's at this point that it comes out that they are going to a seafood restaurant and that the acquaintance is allergic to seafood. Now put yourself in the shoes of everyone there. Is it always the case that the group should decide on a new restaurant? Think about the practical realities of this situation. Think about how difficult it can be to come up with a restaurant that accommodates everyone's preferences to begin with. Think about those long conversations about "Where do you want to eat?" Think about that this is a seafood restaurant, and that they likely had to call ahead and get a table, and that this is probably something of a special occasion. And perhaps it's Friday night and switching plans right now might mean not getting into a good restaurant or having a long wait. This accommodation is actually potentially an extraordinary one, and it might be laudable if made but it's not necessarily condemnable if not made.

And again, this is something I have to deal with the reality of all the time. In my case the equivalent for the longest time was, "We're going to get pizza, want to come along?" You don't know how much easier the GF fad has made it for us people that have medical issues with wheat (although in my case, probably not with gluten itself).


----------



## jasper (Sep 18, 2019)

macd21 said:


> Yes. Every player at the table gets a veto.
> 
> If a group of friends are going out for dinner, and one of them says ‘I’m allergic to seafood,’ the group doesn’t then insist on going to a seafood restaurant. If one friend hates horror movies, insisting you all go to a horror movie is a dick move. If one player has a phobia of spiders, insisting on spiders in your game is a dick move.



And on the seventh dining out night we told Macd21, yes we know. You can have soda, coleslaw. No. Okay fine. WE are going out to get seafood, the steak place is next door. We meet back at the car at 9.


----------



## macd21 (Sep 18, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> I actually agree with all of that even if I would have worded it different. But this is essentially just my position restated in a complimentary way.
> 
> If person X comes to a game and says, "I'm sorry, but this game can't contain spiders.", as much as he might not want to divulge why, civility requires he have some sort of conversation about it to explain to the group why his request is reasonable. That explanation need only be what you've imagined here, "because I have a phobia." At this point we have a polite request with a valid reason, and now the GM should either grant the request, or if for some reason he can't grant the request, must apologize and try to politely explain why he can't grant the request. This is just basic human civility. It's common sense.
> 
> ...




If a player comes to you and says ‘I’m sorry, the game can’t have spiders,’ civility demands that you respect the player’s boundaries and remove spiders from your game.


----------



## jasper (Sep 18, 2019)

macd21 said:


> If a player comes to you and says ‘I’m sorry, the game can’t have spiders,’ civility demands that you respect the player’s boundaries and remove spiders from your game.



hahahahahaha um. Maybe.  If a few spiders, no problem. If Q1 Demon queen of spiders, the player finds something else do in that session.


----------



## macd21 (Sep 18, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> Yes, but the problem with analogies is that they are valid only if they actually correspond to the situation. As such, they don't really help you resolve a complex topic, because analogies quickly get complex themselves, you end up arguing over the analogy, you end up arguing over the fitness of the analogy, and you'd be better off getting rid of the analogy and just thinking about the thing itself.
> 
> Yes, if a group of friends is going out for dinner, and trying to decide where to go, if one of them is allergic to seafood then civility and compassion requires you to consider options other than seafood. This is actually a real concern I have to endure daily. I wish that I was as easy to accommodate as someone that was only allergic to seafood. I have a problem with my insides rotting out if I eat too much wheat. If you don't have a wheat allergy you probably have never considered just how central to all of Western culture the sharing of wheat actually is. "Breaking bread together" is both the figurative description of fellowship, and also the practical reality of it from ordering pizza to birthday cakes. I am almost daily excluded from the rituals of fellowship with other people by the simple fact that I cannot share their food.
> 
> ...




If you’ve invited the friend to join you, then yeah, you change restaurants. Are you seriously suggesting you’d demand he go along with you to the seafood restaurant?


----------



## macd21 (Sep 18, 2019)

jasper said:


> hahahahahaha um. Maybe.  If a few spiders, no problem. If Q1 Demon queen of spiders, the player finds something else do in that session.




Sure. Again: the point is you _don’t spring it on the player mid-game._


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 18, 2019)

macd21 said:


> If a player comes to you and says ‘I’m sorry, the game can’t have spiders,’ civility demands that you respect the player’s boundaries and remove spiders from your game.




No it doesn't, and I just took great pains to explain why I don't think it does in all cases.

Civility would demand that if you wish to contradict me, you give a reasonable rebuttal to the arguments I've already presented.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 18, 2019)

macd21 said:


> If you’ve invited the friend to join you, then yeah, you change restaurants. Are you seriously suggesting you’d demand he go along with you to the seafood restaurant?




I have certainly said nothing that suggests I'm in favor of anyone being forced to do anything. In the case of the unfortunate friend who is invited to go to a seafood restaurant, if he is allergic to seafood, it may be incumbent on him to politely decline citing his seafood allergy as the reason. Of course, the potential host will probably express disappointment, and be forced to make some sort of apology with respect to the fact that they had already planned an evening at a seafood restaurant, and will make some sort of suggestion that they be invited along the next time they are going out to somewhere other than the seafood restaurant, and this is an uncomfortable situation for everyone.

But the point is that the person is neither forced to eat seafood, nor is the group forced to change their already well made plans.  No one is forced to do anything.


----------



## Wolfpack48 (Sep 18, 2019)

macd21 said:


> If a player comes to you and says ‘I’m sorry, the game can’t have spiders,’ civility demands that you respect the player’s boundaries and remove spiders from your game.




I actually don’t agree with this. It’s a conversation about whether to change things, do a different game, or sit that game out. The player doesn’t get to demand spiders be removed, but they do get to have a respectful discussion and decision about it. The  GM can be accommodating or not depending on the situation as long as it is respectfully discussed.


----------



## macd21 (Sep 18, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> No it doesn't, and I just took great pains to explain why I don't think it does in all cases.
> 
> Civility would demand that if you wish to contradict me, you give a reasonable rebuttal to the arguments I've already presented.




I just did. As does the Consent in Gaming document. A player should never have to explain why the don’t want ‘X’ in their game. All your arguments boil down to ‘I demand you tell me why I shouldn’t include ‘X’ in my game,’ which is a naughty word thing to insist on.

Either accept that your player doesn’t want X in the game and move on, or you explain that it won’t be possible and suggest they not play.


----------



## Retreater (Sep 18, 2019)

My fiancée and I got into a real argument talking about this issue (and thread) last night. It's a pretty divisive issue.


----------



## MGibster (Sep 18, 2019)

macd21 said:


> No, you are giving _every_ player the power to veto.




So, yes.  One person can veto something over the objections of all the other players.


----------



## macd21 (Sep 18, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> I have certainly said nothing that suggests I'm in favor of anyone being forced to do anything. In the case of the unfortunate friend who is invited to go to a seafood restaurant, if he is allergic to seafood, it may be incumbent on him to politely decline citing his seafood allergy as the reason. Of course, the potential host will probably express disappointment, and be forced to make some sort of apology with respect to the fact that they had already planned an evening at a seafood restaurant, and will make some sort of suggestion that they be invited along the next time they are going out to somewhere other than the seafood restaurant, and this is an uncomfortable situation for everyone.
> 
> But the point is that the person is neither forced to eat seafood, nor is the group forced to change their already well made plans.  No one is forced to do anything.




Nor does the consent document force anyone to change ‘already made plans.’ It’s a tool for establishing what you will or won’t include at the table. And that once established, you don’t include things that you agreed to exclude from the game.

If a new player wants to join, but it turns out their deathly phobic to something that features heavily in the game, then you explain that to them and they can opt out. The document doesn’t insist you change that, it just means that you establish he’s phobic before you start playing with him.


----------



## macd21 (Sep 18, 2019)

MGibster said:


> So, yes.  One person can veto something over the objections of all the other players.




Of course. Everyone at the table should have that power.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 18, 2019)

Reading the last few pages of this, it is not at all clear that anyone is getting anything out of this other than aggravation.  It looks like ideological lines are drawn, and will not move further.  

That means it is probably time for this thread to close.  Expect that to happen in the near future.


----------



## Aldarc (Sep 18, 2019)

I think that it quite telling that a number of the analogies and discussions about the "individual" in question seems to have preclude them from "the group" at the outset. They were not part of the group from the beginning. They weren't part of the prior discussion. They are being treated as alien to the natural wishes of the group. That they are being represented as the outsider who imposes on the group.


----------



## macd21 (Sep 18, 2019)

Aldarc said:


> I think that it quite telling that a number of the analogies and discussions about the "individual" in question seems to have preclude them from "the group" at the outset. They were not part of the group from the beginning. They weren't part of the prior discussion. They are being treated as alien to the natural wishes of the group. That they are being represented as the outsider who imposes on the group.




Good point. And that’s what I find bizarre about all this. If one of my friends asks me not to include something in one of my games, I won’t include it. I’m not going to debate it with him, I’m not going to ask why. I want my friend to have fun at the table too.


----------



## Wolfpack48 (Sep 18, 2019)

MGibster said:


> So, yes.  One person can veto something over the objections of all the other players.




Macd is saying this but I don’t believe the doc does. The doc says the person has a right to their boundaries  can stand up for them, and have a respectful conversation with the GM  about whether or not the issue can be accommodated.


----------



## Wolfpack48 (Sep 18, 2019)

macd21 said:


> Good point. And that’s what I find bizarre about all this. If one of my friends asks me not to include something in one of my games, I won’t include it. I’m not going to debate it with him, I’m not going to ask why. I want my friend to have fun at the table too.




That’s assuming you are all friends. A con or a friend of a friend is a different situation and should be taken into account as well. Still no need to explain your phobia, but still everyone should be respectful of that request even if might not be able to be accommodated.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Sep 18, 2019)

macd21 said:


> Good point. And that’s what I find bizarre about all this. If one of my friends asks me not to include something in one of my games, I won’t include it. I’m not going to debate it with him, I’m not going to ask why. I want my friend to have fun at the table too.




I think the dynamic is totally different depending on gaming with friends or random people.  Most are far more likely to accommodate those they know.  Especially if the request is going to mean removing elements that most enjoy in the game.


----------



## seankreynolds (Sep 18, 2019)

Edit: Never mind, I caught up to this point and Umbran had already said what I wanted to say.


----------



## Wolfpack48 (Sep 18, 2019)

seankreynolds said:


> Edit: Never mind, I caught up to this point and Umbran had already said what I wanted to say.




I’m not trying to convince, only clarify, both for myself and others. It’s a good conversation, actually, even with a bit of frustration.  It’s also why I appreciate the doc, because it’s a good subject to discuss.


----------



## Campbell (Sep 18, 2019)

As I see this what's really at stake are what a given player who joins a group is allowed to expect or even if they are allowed to have any meaningful expectations at all. Personally I expect any group of people that I am involved in a social activity with to take my desires and feelings into account to a certain extent. That might mean I am not a good fit for some groups. I do not expect anyone to change the way they do things, but if I do not feel valued and respected I will seek out a situation where I do. In return I will value and respect everyone else at the table.

There are a million things that might make someone a bad fit for any group. This sort of thing is just one of them. At the end of the day no one is entitled to anything, but we all get to determine our own personal boundaries.


----------



## Wolfpack48 (Sep 18, 2019)

Campbell said:


> As I see this what's really at stake are what a given player who joins a group is allowed to expect or even if they are allowed to have any meaningful expectations at all. Personally I expect any group of people that I am involved in a social activity with to take my desires and feelings into account to a certain extent. That might mean I am not a good fit for some groups. I do not expect anyone to change the way they do things, but if I do not feel valued and respected I will seek out a situation where I do. In return I will value and respect everyone else at the table.
> 
> There are a million things that might make someone a bad fit for any group. This sort of thing is just one of them. At the end of the day no one is entitled to anything, but we all get to determine our own personal boundaries.




Well said. If there’s one thing I would want to take away from this thread, it’s that no one is entitled to control a group, but everyone is entitled to their own boundaries. This whole discussion is about respecting people’s boundaries, and working together to find a path that makes gaming enjoyable for as many people as possible.


----------



## MGibster (Sep 18, 2019)

macd21 said:


> Sure. Again: the point is you _don’t spring it on the player mid-game._




If someone has arachnophobia it is their responsibility to inform the DM that spiders are a problem.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 18, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> I've only read the last few pages of the thread, but I have to wonder why someone so easily traumatized by violence would play a violent game like D&D.  I have a fear of heights and I guarantee you that you won't see me scaling a cliff. It seems to me that people would avoid things that are likely to trigger their traumas.




Do you play certain platformers on a game system like the Assassin's Creed games or some of the Spider-Man games? There are some situations where the graphics do immerse you in a view that's vertiginous, to say the least - some very high cathedrals, towers, ship masts in Assassin's Creed, the Empire State Building in at least one Spider-Man.  Would you play them and just not engage in those particular challenges if they bothered you? Or would you skip those games altogether? 

Being afraid of heights and avoiding games that include views that could trigger it is a more reasonable comparison than being afraid of heights and scaling a cliff.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 18, 2019)

Wolfpack48 said:


> Frankly, both evileyore and Celebrim's characterization of people with mental issues as 'problem players' sound exactly like 'they don't care about people.' After all, that person is the same as someone who "cheats, tells other people how to play their character, or holds abusive tirades." They fall into the "source of disruption" bucket. Let's call a spade, a spade shall we?




I agree in this case. I do agree, however, that Hussar's characterization of playing a game that will leave a player behind as somehow uncaring is a bit broad. Granted, I think there was more nuance in the rest of his post on that topic, but it's going to depend from group to group. If members of the gaming group are OK with not participating in a game they don't like and will come back when the group shifts to the next game, then it's all good. When my friends want to play Vampire, I'm OK with having my Thursday nights free for a while because I don't like the game. It doesn't affect our friendship or our other gaming opportunities and it won't affect my coming back when the urge to play Vampire has been sated and we pick up D&D, Shadowrun, or Mutants and Masterminds again.


----------



## MGibster (Sep 18, 2019)

Fair enough.  We’re going in circles.  I think it’s a good policy to make sure everyone at the table is comfortable.  I think it’s reasonable to make accommodations in some situations whereas in others it would be unreasonable.  I also believe the responsibility of stating what shouldn’t appear in the game rests with those who know they have issues with some things.  And I guess that’s it.


----------



## Bawylie (Sep 18, 2019)

macd21 said:


> If a player comes to you and says ‘I’m sorry, the game can’t have spiders,’ civility demands that you respect the player’s boundaries and remove spiders from your game.



No. Civility demands that you listen compassionately and respond honestly.

Consent can’t be a demand. It’s a request or an offer. If it imposes, if it becomes involuntary, it is NOT consent. 

So there is no veto power. There’s an honest discussion that reaches mutually agreed-on terms, or doesn’t. And if it doesn’t, then it’s on each party to decide how they wish to proceed or if they want to proceed at all. 

If you are unwilling to accommodate me, I have no right to demand or force you to. If I am unwilling to accommodate you, you have no right to demand or force me to. We just go our separate ways (and no hard feelings on my part either way).


----------



## macd21 (Sep 18, 2019)

Flexor the Mighty! said:


> I think the dynamic is totally different depending on gaming with friends or random people.  Most are far more likely to accommodate those they know.




I don’t think it should be. If you’re gaming with a stranger, I think you should extend them the same courtesy you would a friend.


----------



## BookBarbarian (Sep 18, 2019)

So I was thinking on how I could approach these topics at my table as I find the form doesn't quite work for me.

I think I will come up with a questionnaire. Not something to hand to my players, but something I can go over with them one on one with questions like "Are there any topics you would consider distasteful or problematic to explore in the game?" "Any phobias you would prefer not to explore?" etc.

I wouldn't expect a player to open up to me just based on this discussion, but it would frame up further conversations down the road when we encounter problems.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 18, 2019)

Retreater said:


> My fiancée and I got into a real argument talking about this issue (and thread) last night. It's a pretty divisive issue.




If I ever get finished writing out my pamphlet on formal social contracts, one note of caution that I intend to put in, is the very act of formalizing social contracts can get you into arguments that otherwise would have never actually come up.


----------



## macd21 (Sep 18, 2019)

Bawylie said:


> No. Civility demands that you listen compassionately and respond honestly.
> 
> Consent can’t be a demand. It’s a request or an offer. If it imposes, if it becomes involuntary, it is NOT consent.
> 
> ...




I think there may be a misunderstanding here. The document doesn’t force two people to game together. But it insists that if you do game together, you have each other’s consent on what can be included. All players have a veto, and don’t have to explain that veto.

If, after the discussion, you decide not to play, so be it.


----------



## Scrivener of Doom (Sep 18, 2019)

MGibster said:


> If someone has arachnophobia it is their responsibility to inform the DM that spiders are a problem.




Indeed.

I've been playing with an arachnophobe since 1984. This was a genuine issue for him so we talked through how I would handle adventures with drow and spiders. Fortunately, he grew out of it... which meant impaling one of his characters with a chwidencha's leg three years ago provoked no response at all.

But I can understand how the one of the authors, who has a background in some "weird stuff", might think talking about consent is so important as clearly it's a big factor in dealing with the creeps some of her lifestyle choices attract. Personally, I don't need a guidebook about consent because I play with genuine friends but, when your gaming group is not made up of people you know, I can understand that others might want to be proactive about dealing with some of the "odd ones" that public and organised play in this hobby sometimes attracts.


----------



## Wolfpack48 (Sep 18, 2019)

macd21 said:


> I think there may be a misunderstanding here. The document doesn’t force two people to game together. But it insists that if you do game together, you have each other’s consent on what can be included. All players have a veto, and don’t have to explain that veto.
> 
> If, after the discussion, you decide not to play, so be it.




Maybe a better term than veto is “opt out”  Veto implies the person with the issue is taking over the game. Opting out implies this scene is too much for me and I have to leave. We should respond empathetically when this happens and do what we can to assist. This could take any number of paths: leaving the game, adjusting the game. In all cases we do it with compassion.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Sep 18, 2019)

macd21 said:


> I don’t think it should be. If you’re gaming with a stranger, I think you should extend them the same courtesy you would a friend.




For me if someone invited a new player and the rest said OK and this stranger suddenly changed the table dynamic to where we have to tiptoe around triggers is a lot different than if my buddy Tom suddenly said he was too afraid of spiders to have them in game.  In the first I'm more thinking "great, new person here is messing up my game..."  I hate and fear spiders but I love them in my games almost as much as rot grubs and stirges.  

For me its just that respect is earned beyond a basic level and I'm for more likely to compromise with those I have a long term respect for.  Again I'm not going to try and be a dick in any event.  But that is the limit of my "table conduct rules", don't be too big of a dick.  Granted if I game with some dicks, that are often into the whiskey, and a base level of dickery is always going to be present. I'm sure most if they didn't now us would wonder if we even liked each other at all with all the pot shots and slams that are thrown around.  Not much is sacred. 

Ultimately this is all academic as I have never encountered this kind of situation in 30+ years of gaming.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 18, 2019)

Flexor the Mighty! said:


> Ultimately this is all academic as I have never encountered this kind of situation in 30+ years of gaming.




A very important point oft overlooked in this discussion I think.


----------



## ccs (Sep 18, 2019)

Hmm.  31+ pages of pointless wrangling over a document 90some % of the gaming world will never realize exists.....


----------



## Wolfpack48 (Sep 18, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> A very important point oft overlooked in this discussion I think.




Not everyone has been playing for 30+ years. Not everyone believes they can’t learn anything new. Not everyone is you.


----------



## Gradine (Sep 18, 2019)

Sometimes I worry that the real ideological divide on this and so many other similar issues is this:

one side believes that people will utilize this tool in good faith in order to communicate the kinds of scenarios that would likely aggravate past trauma;
the other side believes that people will utilize this tool in _bad _faith in order to manipulate and dominate a game so nobody gets to have any fun.
Whereas the reality is... yes. Maybe personal experience is coloring whether we see one or the other scenario is more or less likely. My own take is that the latter don't need a tool to accomplish what they set out to do (that is, ruin your game) whereas the former very often do. Maybe not this tool in specific, but other tools (session zero, Same Page Tool, etc.) that often work out to the same effect. I would say that this tool is a lot more nuanced than many of its critics seem to be willing to give it credit for, and at the same time not quite nuanced enough to be completely immune from said criticism.

There's another issue that came up as I was typing this that kind of bears a brief discussion, however:



Flexor the Mighty! said:


> Ultimately this is all academic as I have never encountered this kind of situation in 30+ years of gaming.






Celebrim said:


> A very important point oft overlooked in this discussion I think.




This is exactly why I get frustrated to the point of breaking down and FAKE YELLING at people in CAPS LOCK (though to be honest, it's really difficult to maintain that level of emotional distress when you aren't allowed to curse). For a lot of people, particular those on the more _critical _side of efforts such as these, this kind of debate really is strictly academic or philosophical. For _others of us_, this is our lived experience, and we've had to deal with and try to learn what things work and don't work for a very long time. And it gets really, really, frustrating when those of us in the latter audience have our experiences dismissed by those in the former.

Consider that maybe, just maybe, if this conversation is purely academic for you, that you might actually have something to learn from people with actual practical experience in the subject.


----------



## Michael Silverbane (Sep 18, 2019)

macd21 said:


> I don’t think it should be. If you’re gaming with a stranger, I think you should extend them the same courtesy you would a friend.




I extend a _lot_ more courtesy to strangers than I do to my friends.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Sep 18, 2019)

I haven't made a value judgment on the topic beyond my table is not the target audience for this. I have just commented on basic respect issues and not being a dick if you know its not cool. 

I'm sure there is a percentage of tables this will work for, or maybe at Con games.  And if so good for them.


----------



## Scrivener of Doom (Sep 18, 2019)

Michael Silverbane said:


> I extend a _lot_ more courtesy to strangers than I do to my friends.




I'm Australian. If I extended the same courtesy to my friends as I extend to strangers they would be worried that we weren't friends anymore.


----------



## Bawylie (Sep 18, 2019)

Gradine said:


> Sometimes I worry that the real ideological divide on this and so many other similar issues is this:
> 
> one side believes that people will utilize this tool in good faith in order to communicate the kinds of scenarios that would likely aggravate past trauma;
> the other side believes that people will utilize this tool in _bad _faith in order to manipulate and dominate a game so nobody gets to have any fun.
> ...



Everyone is frustrated when their opinions or perspectives are dismissed. 

I think it’s better to treat everyone’s concerns as though they do matter. I understand that your lived experiences make something like this document a relief. And I see that at the beginning of this thread, even potential objections were pre-cast as “alt-right” and “anti-inclusive.” This means those for whom this issue is academic are already anticipating being clubbed with the “alt-right” cudgel. It does not surprise me that people have a wary eye. That cudgel swings too wide sometimes. 

I dont know. I just think it’s better to assume everyone’s concerns are good faith concerns (even when those concerns are about bad faith actors). It’s no good for anyone to take the position “that point doesn’t matter to me so therefore it doesn’t matter at all.” You hate when it’s done to you. So don’t do it to others. (Not YOU-you, but the y’all-you). 

Anecdotally, I have had a content problem once in recent history. It was an honest misunderstanding in which one player wondered whether the NPC mob was lascivious (and they wanted to avoid that sort of situation) and the DM misinterpreted the question as an offer to increase the tension in the scene, because of the way the player asked the question. It was absolutely a simple miscommunication. And some clarity ahead of time might have avoided distressing the player. 

So I get it. It happens. And for some people, explicit consent is preferable to implied consent for just that reason. It’s a valid concern.


----------



## Gradine (Sep 18, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> I've only read the last few pages of the thread, but I have to wonder why someone so easily traumatized by violence would play a violent game like D&D.  I have a fear of heights and I guarantee you that you won't see me scaling a cliff. It seems to me that people would avoid things that are likely to trigger their traumas.




I did want to respond to this post in particular, because I think it's illustrative of an issue with one of the main critiques of the "veto" idea.

First off, though, to respond to this post specifically, not all RPGs are D&D, and in fact not all RPGs include violence. If you'd looked at document itself, you'd see that it's even very specifically associated with the Cypher System, a system that, in my admittedly limited awareness, isn't nearly as focused on violence and combat as D&D. Granted, the document is ultimately setting-neutral, but this comment is a bit off-based regardless.

But there's a bit of an overreaction in general to this thread that gets to the idea of "spoiling people's fun" in that there's a lot of things that are fun and not every RPG or session or campaign needs to contain every element of every RPG in order to be fun. Let's go to an example that has been passed around this thread a bit: spiders.

When I was a small child, I lived in an area that housed massive wolf spiders. One day, there was a particularly large one in my room. Typically, we scoop the creatures up in a glass and put them outside. My drunk uncle decided to instead step on it. This, naturally, caused a multitude of young spiders to spring forth into my room, and quite a few immediately began climbing me. I still have pretty severe arachnophobia. Still, by this point I've learned to be okay with _fictional _spiders. 

A much younger version of me, however, probably wouldn't have been able to handle spiders in an RPG session. So, lets say teenage me is new to your table and I explain that I can't deal with spiders. But you've been using spiders a lot. You and your players have fun dealing with spiders. You either have to turn me away, or else accommodate me by spoiling everyone's fun, right?

But... how _essential _are the spiders to your fun, really? Is the game irrevocably ruined? Is it simply not possible that the game could be anywhere near as, let alone equally, fun without spiders in it? Really?

I mean, maybe you're running a drow heavy campaign and this is a bridge too far, and I get that. But again, not all games are D&D and not all D&D campaigns feature drow prominently, if at all. So, other than a case where spiders are completely relevant to the plot of the campaign, is this really so untenable of an ask?

Do you see why maybe there's a disconnect in what one person or another might consider reasonable or unreasonable?


----------



## Wolfpack48 (Sep 18, 2019)

Gradine said:


> My own take is that the latter don't need a tool to accomplish what they set out to do (that is, ruin your game) whereas the former very often do.




Well said. For all the hand wringing over whether such a tool for discussion will be used to ruin games, my take is that people who set out to ruin games don’t need a frikken tool to do it.


----------

