V_V
 member, 854 posts
 Remember me as V, just V
 My journey is near an end
Wed 18 Sep 2019
at 20:21
Re: Consent in Gaming
I guess the article is more required reading than I had surmised.

Still, as someone with PTSD, OCD, Misophonia, Trichotillimania and Tourettes, I can tell you it's hurtful to have my position undermined solely because a select number of people cried wolf or misattributed their source of limitations. I find it reductive.

It doesn't bother me that people feel this way. I'd prefer honesty to convenient lies. It does make me feel unwelcome because I do try to adapt, compromise, and endure, and still feel attacked when I voice my reservations after it reaches my limit.

I wouldn't want to tell someone they can't say or do something, but this is the consequence of the hard line approach. There's a certain predisposition before a conversation even starts.

I don't know what the pdf says, but from the reactions to it, it seems perhaps the sub-optimal way, at the very least, of addressing limitations to my ability to enjoy a game.
engine
 member, 732 posts
 There's a brain alright
 but it's made out of meat
Wed 18 Sep 2019
at 21:03
Re: Consent in Gaming
V_V:
Still, as someone with PTSD, OCD, Misophonia, Trichotillimania and Tourettes

If you don't mind me asking, what would you want to know about the content of a game so you could be sure not to join it (so as not to have to depart mid-game when that content arose)?
swordchucks
 member, 1568 posts
Wed 18 Sep 2019
at 21:30
Re: Consent in Gaming
Gaffer:
One of this guy's frequent themes was how her character would get raped

I'm going to go back to my original feeling on this.  People that would need to read a booklet on consent in gaming to know this isn't okay won't read it.  They just won't.  You're not going to convince a person that thinks having a player's character get raped every session that it isn't okay with a booklet.

The people that would actually read a book on something like this are already probably sensitive enough to possible issues that they don't need to read more about it.

In either case, the checklist is a poor idea.  As a GM self-check to identify major themes they need to warn about, it's not a terrible tool (but obviously a GM isn't going to be checking red/yellow/green).  Even worse, a checklist is static data.  People sometimes don't realize that something is really going to bother them until it's in their face.  People sometimes change their opinions on things, too.

If you're concerned about making the gaming table a positive experience for everyone, don't use a checklist.  Talk to them.  Ask them outright if there are topics they'd rather steer clear of.  Check in with them occasionally to make sure everything is fine.  Make sure you have an established (and known) way for players to alert you to something that is bothering them.
engine
 member, 733 posts
 There's a brain alright
 but it's made out of meat
Wed 18 Sep 2019
at 21:41
Re: Consent in Gaming
swordchucks:
In either case, the checklist is a poor idea.  As a GM self-check to identify major themes they need to warn about, it's not a terrible tool (but obviously a GM isn't going to be checking red/yellow/green).

I must be missing something, because that's not obvious to me.

swordchucks:
Even worse, a checklist is static data.  People sometimes don't realize that something is really going to bother them until it's in their face.  People sometimes change their opinions on things, too.

That doesn't mean the checklist is a bad idea, just that it can't solve or catch everything. I'd be surprised if anyone was saying that it would.

Nothing, not even conversation, is likely to help if a person themselves doesn't know in advance what will bother them.

swordchucks:
If you're concerned about making the gaming table a positive experience for everyone, don't use a checklist.  Talk to them.  Ask them outright if there are topics they'd rather steer clear of.  Check in with them occasionally to make sure everything is fine.  Make sure you have an established (and known) way for players to alert you to something that is bothering them.

Why not do all of those things? A checklist for, say, busy folks at a convention (players busy trying to find a game that meets their needs, GM busy talking to someone else, or not even at the table yet), talking for when someone thinks, based on the checklist, the game might be right for the player, but isn't sure, checking in once the game is underway.

An established way to let people know something is bothering them would be great. But for goodness sake whatever you do don't come up with a reasonable blanket solution that you then suggest see wide usage among the hobby, because that's really going to tick some people off.
gladiusdei
 member, 821 posts
Wed 18 Sep 2019
at 22:27
Re: Consent in Gaming
I think part of the contention on this subject is the matter of responsibility.  There seems to be a tendency for some to blame the 'offender,' and say that it is others' responsibility to keep from offending people.

In reality, it should be an open two way street as has been said by some people here.  Both Gm and players should be free to speak about things and say things may bother them.  But they should also not hold others responsible if something offends them unintentionally.

Using some of the examples given, if a story that ends with a player falling into a pit of spiders freaks a player out, but the GM had no prior knowledge this could occur, then both should be mature enough to say something, to apologize and work to make it fun for everyone.

That's the whole point of roleplaying games, and playing anything in a group.  For everyone to enjoy it.  But nowadays many people have a tendency to only think of themselves, and not think outside themselves.  Both in terms of being offended, and possibly offending others.  We should be able to judge intent, not result, and try to work together.

I personally can't see any situation I would ever use a checklist like this, but I do attempt to check with players about things that may bother them when I play on forums like rpol, since I don't know my players.  And the goal of that is as much to avoid offending as it is to make a fun story for everyone involved.

This message was last edited by the user at 22:28, Wed 18 Sept.

V_V
 member, 855 posts
 Remember me as V, just V
 My journey is near an end
Wed 18 Sep 2019
at 23:05
Re: Consent in Gaming
In reply to engine (msg # 37):

It's really more in person. For me it's more of sounds, tone and descriptions about hair. ;P and for me it's tolerable. People often ask "Are you alright, V" before I have the need to ask. My plucking, ticing and movement are far greater a tell than me voice. I am vocal though.

For my good friend Anne though, she had two miscarriages. Then we played Bastion of Broken Souls. From thereafter, she refrained from playing games where children, even unborn children were targeted for harm. It ruled out fair bit of what she would be willing to play, but this was fine.

My issue was more with the categorization of fragility and equating a game being uncomfortable to "the world" "breaking" you. Then the mentioned of triggers as nonsense. It felt a an attack that missed the intended target.

In reply to swordchucks (msg # 38):

Ah! Okay! Now I have the missing the piece. THAT'S why it was being compared to kink stuff (it's not just BDSM by the way, that's just general kink stuff). It's posing questions that provoke a mental state. Th very question of "Will this game include decapitated heads used as footballs? No" still puts the question onto something otherwise unnecessary. If I'm to understand this, it's something better left assumed the negative, and brought up if it's the positive. Is this along the lines of the pdf, a list of loaded questions?
evileeyore
 member, 222 posts
 GURPS GM and Player
Thu 19 Sep 2019
at 01:15
Re: Consent in Gaming
Gaffer:
Maybe this pamphlet isn't the right way to go about it or maybe some of us aren't comfortable with its recommendations.

I'm not "comfortable" with the authoritarian principles on the side that is presenting these 'recommendations'.

People are already being banned from conventions because their politics "hurt other people's feelings".  If this invades gaming cons (and it is) then the authoritarians will be in charge of what you and aren't allowed to game about.




Redsun Rising:
Perhaps the ethics presented make you uncomfortable - the question you must ask yourself is, "Why?"

I take umbrage with constraints to and enforced requirements on my behavior and speech outside the normal constraints and requirements of civilized society.

quote:
You do, however, live in a world with consequences.

And this is the rub.  The authoritarian side that hounds your workplace, your personal life, and has caused deaths, all because your politics, your 'purity' to the cause, or some other arbitrary measurement is lacking.

Those are the tools on the side that front these sorts of "recommendations".

quote:
This work acknowledges that. It removes blinders, and is uncomfortable on purpose. It stings you, challenges you to notice things you would rather not, dares you to elevate your morals.

We clearly read different pdfs.  The one I read did none of that.  It trend over tired ground that adults who understand how to communicate long ago learned to walk.

quote:
That is all. I do not know if this helped, but hopefully someone will get something of value from it, neutral though I try to be.

"Neutral"?  Hah.  Also this isn't as binary as you're presenting it.




engine:
I have not. My apologies for not being more forthcoming about that.

About what I figured based on your response.

</quote>That may be how some people see it, though I doubt that's the majority. The point, as I see it, of having either a visible checklist...
quote:
If it were just a 'checklist' it would be two* pages tops.  And I say that with the implied notion that the one page checklist wouldn't be increasing in size, but there'd be a page describing how best to use and enforce the checklist.

This pdf is steeped in the language of intersectionality and in the notion that increasing your fragility is what is best.


* Okay, it would be two pages if they didn't format so stupidly and if it were written by someone who could cut to the point and not bloviate uselessly.  As it is "Using the Consent Checklist" takes up 3 pages and then there is the checklist page.

<quote>...or some other upfront discussion of the content of a game and someone's likes and dislikes...

Pretty sure I mentioned that that is the best way to handle a group, and adults already know how to do this.

quote:
The GM modifies the game. I get the impression that you see this is a very terrible thing, but not all GMs are going to see it that way in every case.

If I'm so Player starved I can't handle losing one person, then sure.  I'll except some limitations on what is allowable.  I absolutely will not cater to demands though.  Phrase it as a request and accept that you won't get everything you want, and we're good.

The problem (that you're missing since you've not read the manuscript) the demanded behavior of the 'X Card'.  By which I mean, if a Player plays their 'X Card', you have to change the scene to comply with that Players demands.

This doesn't fly at my table.

quote:
The word "cater" gets tossed around a lot as if catering to one's player's is some sort of weakness, but some GMs regularly do this and even want to do this.

I'll 'cater' to requests* but I will never cater to demands.


* It depends on the request.  And yes, to some degrees who is requesting.  Some animals are more equal than others.

quote:
But okay, if someone doesn't want to modify their game, the other thing happens, which is that the GM and the player part ways before the game starts. This seems like an unequivocal good to me, because I wouldn't want (and I don't think most GMs want) players who aren't going to enjoy their game, or are even just constantly worried that they won't. Which doesn't require any kind of value judgment on anyone; not every game is for every player.

Agreed.

quote:
But, again, so what? We already have to do that on this site, by indicating whether games will have adult themes.

Ah, no.  That's explicitly different.  If I label my game as adult, all manner of happenstance, outside of what is very narrowly banned (by RPoL), could occur.  This doesn't mean it will.  Infact... it it's "adult' probably won't.

I'm not likely to use the adult rating to screen for adult themes, but to weed out non-adults, and in case a Player goes over the bounds of 'non-adult' themes so I don't have get ban-hammery or edit the Player's posts.

In fact, every Adult game I've been in here has been run that way.

quote:
And say you're "forced" to do this.

"X Card", read the manuscript.

And if it becomes part and parcel with con/FLGS rules, it's either "cater or don't run/play at cons/FLGS".

quote:
Because you clearly don't like this concept it's strongly implied that you're using the term as an insult.

It's a descriptor that describes "that which is easily broken".  It fits people, things, events, etc.  It's also pretty neutral.

quote:
You also seem fixated on the extreme end of this issue...<quote>
Read The Manuscript.

<quote>And if anyone is really doing that, they're extremists. You're not going to have a moderate conversation with them about this, and if you insist on trying then you're in large part to blame for the reaction you get.

They already are.  For reference see the UK and gendered speech laws as an application of this premise in practice.

quote:
And I know you don't like it when people do that to you.

/raisedeyebrow.gif

That's the third time you've ascribed motive and/or thoughts outside of what I've written.  Is that the sort of person you normally are?

quote:
The whole point is about requesting in advance!

X Card.  Read the Manuscript.

quote:
I shudder to think what hoops someone might have to jump through to "legitimize" their problems in your eyes.

Mention it in advance.  If it really does come up at the table, solder through it and bring it up after (or in a break) and have a discussion.

Anyone throwing an 'X Card' isn't someone willing to come halfway or be adult about their problems.

quote:
From your use of the term "nonsense," I take it that neither you nor any of your loved ones have been subjected to an experience so bad that mere mention of it will cause them to panic. I hope you appreciate your good fortune.

I got over it.

However, I will concede that 'nonsense' is perhaps strong outside the confines of my colloquial group, where in it is used to describe the sort of behavior in which the triggered freak out, start screaming, flailing, flipping tables, and tantruming because they heard a singular utterance of a word.

Yes, these people do exist.  If you've never encountered one, you have been blessed.

And V_V, if you took shrapnel over this, you do not sound like the type I'd be describing with my use of "trigger word nonsense", I apologize.

quote:
Is it really your intent to decide on hard invisible lines that will force people to decide not to take a risk.

If you cannot handle risk, do not take the risk.  Do not demand others sacrifice of themselves to shield you from it or temper themselves for you.  If you have friends that will do so for you, great, cherish them, kindle that friendship.  But to demand it of strangers?  Really?

quote:
And what exactly are you concerned about? Is there a word you think someone isn't going to like that you're unlikely to allude to upfront and that, if you "catered" to them and stopped using it, would seriously inconvenience your game?

A 'word'?  No.

But if I'm running a horror game and there is a scene where the specter of victims who were burned alive continuously replays itself to graphic and horrible detail...  just to call out an example from this very thread.

quote:
Best to be clear about it up front then, huh?

I'm unclear what part of "and this is why adults have an adult conversation before the game" is somehow eluding you.

quote:
How so? The standard rules are generally not to start saying or keep saying things that we know those present find unpleasant.

No... those aren't the standards of civilized society.  They're close enough though so I'll also overlook the subtle barb in the sentences I truncated...

It's one thing to maneuver oneself in a manner to present a pleasing demeanor, it's another thing entirely to have that demeanor and maneuvering be demanded.

And yes, one can, right now, be unfailingly polite and civil in a social public discourse and be hailed the hero by the masses and still be absolutely cutting and vile to the target of your remarks.  That is how our civilized, polite society operates.

quote:
See, the use of quotes makes me think that you think that people are literally saying this, whereas no one really is.

Admittedly, they didn't say "because I demand it and may pitch a fit otherwise", however, when those words that they demanded be or not be uttered were not or were uttered they did engage in throwing of fits, screaming, and temper tantrums.

Yes, they do exist.  I can point you to a selection of youtube videos if you require proof.

quote:
You simply insist on interpreting what's being proposed here in the harshests, most impolite and inconvenient light possible. Why not stick with reality instead of trying to cast it in a harsh light?

1 - I am sticking with reality.  I can predict how this will be implemented at cons/FLGS.  I can do so because I can point to how similar things are being implemented in countries laws and in message board forums, on Twitter, on Facebook, etc...

2 - I do often argue from the stance of Devil's Advocate.  And sure, I'm ramping some of this up to the extreme, but let's look at those extremists, the ones on the cutting edge of how this will be implemented...

quote:
That's a myth. Moderates don't like the extremists on their side either, and would much rather that the other side not engage with them, because it just makes their side seem worse.

Tell that to Alec Holowka.  Where were these moderates to temper the extremists?  That side is nothing but purity trials and extremism.

quote:
That doesn't mean the checklist is a bad idea, just that it can't solve or catch everything. I'd be surprised if anyone was saying that it would.

Sure.  If a checklist would help you navigate the pitfalls of your friendships and the hidden waters of their weak points, use it.

It's the rest of the manuscript that's pretty intolerable.

quote:
But for goodness sake whatever you do don't come up with a reasonable blanket solution that you then suggest see wide usage among the hobby, because that's really going to tick some people off.

I know I'm probably harping at this point... but RTFM mate.

And then check into the extra links at the end right before the checklist.

'O Card'?  /awhellnaw.jpg
engine
 member, 735 posts
 There's a brain alright
 but it's made out of meat
Thu 19 Sep 2019
at 16:38
Re: Consent in Gaming
evileeyore:
People are already being banned from conventions because their politics "hurt other people's feelings".

Does your use of quotes imply an actual quote, or is that your interpretation of some other phrasing? I can believe that there are some conventions that ban mere displays of opinion, since it's possible to be pretty vile about that, but what I've seen that has been a major improvement is banning actual behavior between one participant and another. That, in a commercial endeavor, is fair and valid. Lots of stuff that's technically authoritarian is perfectly acceptable for private individuals to engage in, just not governments.

evileeyore:
Redsun Rising:
Perhaps the ethics presented make you uncomfortable - the question you must ask yourself is, "Why?"

I take umbrage with constraints to and enforced requirements on my behavior and speech outside the normal constraints and requirements of civilized society.

You don't have to like it, but organizations are generally allowed to restrict behavior and enforce those restrictions, within the bounds of their activities.

evileeyore:
quote:
You do, however, live in a world with consequences.

And this is the rub.  The authoritarian side that hounds your workplace, your personal life, and has caused deaths, all because your politics, your 'purity' to the cause, or some other arbitrary measurement is lacking.

Yep, that's bad. But that's not really what this is about.

evileeyore:
Those are the tools on the side that front these sorts of "recommendations".

Maybe, though authoritarianism is definitely not restricted to one side.

evileeyore:
</quote>That may be how some people see it, though I doubt that's the majority. The point, as I see it, of having either a visible checklist...
quote:
If it were just a 'checklist' it would be two* pages tops.  And I say that with the implied notion that the one page checklist wouldn't be increasing in size, but there'd be a page describing how best to use and enforce the checklist.

Agreed.

evileeyore:
This pdf is steeped in the language of intersectionality and in the notion that increasing your fragility is what is best.

Your tendency to put your uncharitable interpretation in place of the actual words and intent of those words, makes me tend not to believe this.

evileeyore:
<quote>...or some other upfront discussion of the content of a game and someone's likes and dislikes...

Pretty sure I mentioned that that is the best way to handle a group, and adults already know how to do this.

Yes, though the "best" way can always be augmented by other ways.

evileeyore:
The problem (that you're missing since you've not read the manuscript) the demanded behavior of the 'X Card'.  By which I mean, if a Player plays their 'X Card', you have to change the scene to comply with that Players demands.

Surely how "demanded" that is depends on the person in question. As far as I can tell (and no, I haven't read the pdf, but I've looked into the concept elsewhere) the X Card is simply a highly specific hand-raise. Instead of a player raising a plain ol' hand which the GM might take their time getting around to (say if it were raised during a key scene or something) this indicates a particular priority, without the player having to get noisy or otherwise noticeably objectionable, which seems to be part of your issue with people having issue.

evileeyore:
quote:
But, again, so what? We already have to do that on this site, by indicating whether games will have adult themes.

Ah, no.  That's explicitly different.  If I label my game as adult, all manner of happenstance, outside of what is very narrowly banned (by RPoL), could occur.  This doesn't mean it will.  Infact... it it's "adult' probably won't.

I'm not likely to use the adult rating to screen for adult themes, but to weed out non-adults, and in case a Player goes over the bounds of 'non-adult' themes so I don't have get ban-hammery or edit the Player's posts.

In fact, every Adult game I've been in here has been run that way.

I don't think I follow you. If you label your game "adult" then "adult" things can happen and if they do no one can say they shouldn't (though they could always express displeasure). If you don't ever have those things happen, then no problem. That would, to me, be like checking every box on the consent checklist, just to make sure that the people who sit down are as ready for anything as possible, even if that's just being used as some measure of "adultness."

quote:
And if it becomes part and parcel with con/FLGS rules, it's either "cater or don't run/play at cons/FLGS".

Okay. If you don't like it don't play. People who have rational concerns about being mistreated in those environments already do that. That's generally regarded as unfortunate, which is why there have been efforts to find ways to allay those concerns.

evileeyore:
quote:
Because you clearly don't like this concept it's strongly implied that you're using the term as an insult.

It's a descriptor that describes "that which is easily broken".  It fits people, things, events, etc.  It's also pretty neutral.

It hard to believe that you haven't chosen it as a pejorative. What do you think would happen if you used another term, such as whatever term "fragile" people use to describe themselves? If your point isn't a fragile one, it should still hold as much water as it does now.

evileeyore:
quote:
And I know you don't like it when people do that to you.

/raisedeyebrow.gif

That's the third time you've ascribed motive and/or thoughts outside of what I've written.  Is that the sort of person you normally are?

What sort of person is that?

But I'll take the point I think you're trying to make. Usually, I try to stay focused on asking honest questions (i.e. questions I don't assume I already know the answer to). So, I'll try to rephrase:

I said "This sounds a lot like any other panicked othering, where the minority (and possibly non-existant) boogey-man becomes the whole group in someone's eyes." What I'm saying is that your reaction to the ideas surrounding consent in game resemble what those groups did in the 80s and 90s about roleplaying game: panicked about awful things that weren't actually there, or were the extreme minority. You have indicated that you are bothered by that time in gaming history. Therefore, I am surprised that you'd adopt what seems like a similar posture. Of course, you don't feel that your fears are unreasonable, but neither did those parents.

evileeyore:
quote:
I shudder to think what hoops someone might have to jump through to "legitimize" their problems in your eyes.

Mention it in advance.  If it really does come up at the table, solder through it and bring it up after (or in a break) and have a discussion.

The issue with expecting people to soldier on is that we often don't know what they're going through. The concept of consent is a general acknowledgement of this fact.
What I've read of the X card indicates that it can be taken to signal a break, and that it's meant as the start of a discussion. So, no problem.

evileeyore:
Anyone throwing an 'X Card' isn't someone willing to come halfway or be adult about their problems.

That's not a logical conclusion. That's probably true of some of them, but you can't know if that's true of all of them, or even many of them.

evileeyore:
quote:
From your use of the term "nonsense," I take it that neither you nor any of your loved ones have been subjected to an experience so bad that mere mention of it will cause them to panic. I hope you appreciate your good fortune.

I got over it.

Is it your position that everyone can do the same thing? Is it your position that anyone who doesn't do it is merely unwilling, not unable?

evileeyore:
However, I will concede that 'nonsense' is perhaps strong outside the confines of my colloquial group, where in it is used to describe the sort of behavior in which the triggered freak out, start screaming, flailing, flipping tables, and tantruming because they heard a singular utterance of a word.

Yes, these people do exist.  If you've never encountered one, you have been blessed.

I will acknowledge that I am "blessed," and that such people do exist. I will not concede that they exist in such number as to be a significant concern to most people. If you find otherwise, then I will try not to ask you to "get over it."

evileeyore:
And V_V, if you took shrapnel over this, you do not sound like the type I'd be describing with my use of "trigger word nonsense", I apologize.

That's nice of you, and I mean that. But I believe you'll find that most individuals will not actually sound like that type. Your issue appears to be with a large, ubiquitious group you think exists, but which very probably does not.

evileeyore:
quote:
Is it really your intent to decide on hard invisible lines that will force people to decide not to take a risk.

If you cannot handle risk, do not take the risk.  Do not demand others sacrifice of themselves to shield you from it or temper themselves for you.  If you have friends that will do so for you, great, cherish them, kindle that friendship.  But to demand it of strangers?  Really?

And lots of people agree with you, and know that even polite requests are going to be interpreted as demands and met with this hard line of yours and, guess what, do not (or not longer) take the risk of going to conventions or game stores. They've effectively been driven out. However, there are steps that could be taken to include them, to lessen the risks. Do you feel that doing so would be a reasonable thing to work on?

And I daresay that some of those people are trying to "get over" whatever they're currently not willing to risk. Plenty of people go to therapy or take medication or just try over and over to get to where things that bothered them no longer do. Some of them probably even succeed. Neither you nor I can correctly make general statements about any who don't, even even about those who don't have (or don't see) the options they can be pursuing.

evileeyore:
quote:
And what exactly are you concerned about? Is there a word you think someone isn't going to like that you're unlikely to allude to upfront and that, if you "catered" to them and stopped using it, would seriously inconvenience your game?

A 'word'?  No.

But if I'm running a horror game and there is a scene where the specter of victims who were burned alive continuously replays itself to graphic and horrible detail...  just to call out an example from this very thread.

Okay, say you're doing that. Say it makes someone uncomfortable. I won't gin up reasons why that might be, it just does. Say they're a reasonable person, because most people are, and they don't want to embarrass themselves, cause a scene, or just walk away, but they would really like it if the "graphic detail" were reined in a little. Say they bring this up in a manner acceptable to you.

What change would you be open to? Probably not changing the nature of the spectre, because it's mid-game and that's key to the mystery or whatever. But what about easing up on the description? After it's been done once, maybe it needn't be repeated every time, in the same detail.

evileeyore:
quote:
Best to be clear about it up front then, huh?

I'm unclear what part of "and this is why adults have an adult conversation before the game" is somehow eluding you.

No part of it. I'm all for that, though it's only part of how a group can arrive at an experience everyone present enjoys. As someone else pointed out, someone might not know upfront that something they thought they were fine with actually does bother them, or there was a misunderstanding or something.

evileeyore:
It's one thing to maneuver oneself in a manner to present a pleasing demeanor, it's another thing entirely to have that demeanor and maneuvering be demanded.

And it's another thing to force people to leave a private event if they are not interested in conforming to the particular demeanor or "maneuvering" that the owners of the event would prefer. Some would see that as equivalent to "demanding," but it's not, because there are two very reasonable choices and because no one is entitled to participate in a private event.

evileeyore:
And yes, one can, right now, be unfailingly polite and civil in a social public discourse and be hailed the hero by the masses and still be absolutely cutting and vile to the target of your remarks.  That is how our civilized, polite society operates.

Yes. I may be missing the point you're making here.

evileeyore:
quote:
See, the use of quotes makes me think that you think that people are literally saying this, whereas no one really is.

Admittedly, they didn't say "because I demand it and may pitch a fit otherwise", however, when those words that they demanded be or not be uttered were not or were uttered they did engage in throwing of fits, screaming, and temper tantrums.

Thank you for the clarification. Who are "they" though? One person? A few people? There don't appear to be many people who are in the habit of reacting to things this way.

evileeyore:
Yes, they do exist.  I can point you to a selection of youtube videos if you require proof.

Yes, they exist, but that fact can only logically drive a limited number of conclusions. There probably are people who play RPGs in a way that reasonable parents would be worried about causing harm to their children, but even if that's true that doesn't justify fear of the entire hobby.

evileeyore:
1 - I am sticking with reality.  I can predict how this will be implemented at cons/FLGS.  I can do so because I can point to how similar things are being implemented in countries laws and in message board forums, on Twitter, on Facebook, etc...

You can predict how some people will implement it at some cons/FLGSs. The reality is that not everyone will implement it in a way that you could reasonably take issue with.

evileeyore:
2 - I do often argue from the stance of Devil's Advocate.  And sure, I'm ramping some of this up to the extreme, but let's look at those extremists, the ones on the cutting edge of how this will be implemented...

Okay. That still won't lead me to conclude that the ideas in question are problematic, just that some of the people are.

evileeyore:
quote:
That's a myth. Moderates don't like the extremists on their side either, and would much rather that the other side not engage with them, because it just makes their side seem worse.

Tell that to Alec Holowka.  Where were these moderates to temper the extremists?  That side is nothing but purity trials and extremism.

That's part of the myth. Just because the moderates don't control the extremists doesn't mean they don't exist. Heck, part of the reason extremists do exist is because they know how hard it is to motivate moderates to get bent out of shape. But to be motivated by extremists, instead of the ideas themselves, is as likely to open one to manipulation as to be motivated by those opposing the extremists.

evileeyore:
quote:
That doesn't mean the checklist is a bad idea, just that it can't solve or catch everything. I'd be surprised if anyone was saying that it would.

Sure.  If a checklist would help you navigate the pitfalls of your friendships and the hidden waters of their weak points, use it.

Is "weak" a neutral word too?

You frame some of this in terms of cons and game stores, but this part you frame in terms of friends. If someone needed some stated set of standards to have a good time with their friends, I would find that somewhat unusual, but a set of standards at a public event where one can expect to game with strangers if one wants to game at all doesn't strike me as unusual.
bigbadron
 moderator, 15793 posts
 He's big, he's bad,
 but mostly he's Ron.
Thu 19 Sep 2019
at 16:56
Re: Consent in Gaming
Actually the "X" card means, "Stop the game, I don't like where it's going."  It can be used during the game, not before it.

The document also says (yes, I have read it) that nobody (not even the GM) has any right to question somebody that objects to any content (or try to change their minds), and that the GM must not continue with that content if anybody objects.

So six players enjoying the game.  One hits the X card, and the whole scene has to be changed.
gladiusdei
 member, 825 posts
Thu 19 Sep 2019
at 17:03
Re: Consent in Gaming
which goes to what I said.  It's now the rest of the groups responsibility for offending one player.  It doesn't feel fair.  It's putting one person's personal mindset ahead of the group.  And if each player is only concerned about their own personal feelings, then the group isn't really going to work out well.
swordchucks
 member, 1569 posts
Thu 19 Sep 2019
at 17:09
Re: Consent in Gaming
bigbadron:
One hits the X card, and the whole scene has to be changed.

As a general principle, I'm fine with this.  What the document misses (intentionally so) is that this should be rare for a particular player.  If it isn't rare for a player, then they shouldn't be playing with that group.  There's something fundamentally wrong with the social dynamic there and it's doing no one any good.

There are themes and things that bother me and I intentionally avoid games that look like they'll contain that kind of content.  That's healthy and good.  GMs should be self-aware of the kinds of content they're going to be using and telegraph problematic stuff.  Players should be proactive and ask questions about content if there's an aspect of a genre they really don't like.  I just don't think it requires a big survey where 90% of the lines have nothing to do with the current game.  Both groups should be reasonable about accommodating issues.

One of the problems here is that the X-card is not supposed to have any accommodation or questioning to it.  It's all or nothing.  For certain types of content, that's fine (the guard is hitting on your character and it is making you uncomfortable), but with others less so (a D&D party is attacked by spiders and someone is arachnophobic - does the DM just have to skip the fight?).
Mad Mick
 member, 964 posts
 GURPS beyond measure,
 outlander
Thu 19 Sep 2019
at 17:15
Re: Consent in Gaming
In reply to bigbadron (msg # 44):

This raises a lot of red flags with me. Surely it would be better for the player to excuse themselves from playing the game further?

A different situation, but I was teaching a class once, and one of the texts was Neil Gaimanís Death: The High Cost of Living, and the central character references suicide. One of my students got to this part in the book and said she couldnít continue, that this was too personal for her, so I assigned her an alternate text. It would have been far more difficult if she had insisted that everyone read another book instead. I would have had to throw out my lecture notes and writing prompts and create something new, which perhaps someone else would have objected to.

I realize that this is harder to do if the player has no other options for games, but in a con, on RPOL, or in a city with an active community, it seems like a player could just find a game more aligned with their preferences.
gladiusdei
 member, 827 posts
Thu 19 Sep 2019
at 17:21
Re: Consent in Gaming
so they should think of the entire group's enjoyment, not just their own, like I said.
Hunter
 member, 1530 posts
 Captain Oblivious!
 Lurker
Thu 19 Sep 2019
at 17:34
Re: Consent in Gaming
In reply to bigbadron (msg # 44):

Except your regular group shouldn't ever have this situation, as I (for one) would expect that you're familiar enough with each other to have an idea of what might be a red flag in the first place.
gladiusdei
 member, 829 posts
Thu 19 Sep 2019
at 17:40
Re: Consent in Gaming
Rpol is the only forum I've played in that would come up against a situation similar to this, since I don't really know my players aside from games I've played in the past on this site.

But I do know many play in stores and cons with people they may not know well at all.

But then, I think everyone should take everyone's enjoyment into account, and not put their own personal comfort ahead of everyone else.  Like others have said, if you're really bothered by something, say something, or leave, but don't expect an entire group to conform to you without any conversation.  That's just selfish.
engine
 member, 736 posts
 There's a brain alright
 but it's made out of meat
Thu 19 Sep 2019
at 17:55
Re: Consent in Gaming
If the intent is clearly to cause problems in games, then that is obviously a problem. If that's not clearly the intent, then regardless of how it's presented or interpreted, there's probably a way to apply and react to the concept without problems arising.

If someone is demanding that a request not be questioned, I can see how that would rub people the wrong way, but I can also see the risk to leeway on that point, because as has been amply demonstrated in this discussion it's very easy for people to want to dismiss and belittle those who are take issue with something, and to judge that changing the game would cause more problems than modifying it, without even considering modifying it.

Most people don't like to rock the boat or ruin others' fun, so I hope there isn't an assumption that there are people going around hoping to throw wrenches in others' games. I don't think that would be reasonable. For someone to raise any objection in a public space, among strangers is, for many people (particularly many gamers), going to come after a long period of trying to bear with it and then building up the courage to say something. Some of those periods will end with the player making it through, others with them withdrawing, others with them acting out for no (apparent) reason, others with them walking away suddenly. As a GM and a player, I'd find all of those outcomes (except the first of course) as disruptive as being asked to change something I'm doing.

Some of them might result in a GM or player realizing that something is wrong, but not what, and not being sure what to do, even if they'd be willing to. And some, hopefully many, of those GMs would be more than happy to alter things to accommodate someone at their table while still accommodating everyone else. I won't say that being creative and adaptable is the job of a GM and that anyone who can't do that shouldn't be GMing, but I'd be on pretty solid footing if I did.

I can imagine worst cases just fine, but I've already seen worst cases where players were not encouraged to speak up. So, I'm pretty open to techniques that would encourage it.
gladiusdei
 member, 830 posts
Thu 19 Sep 2019
at 18:08
Re: Consent in Gaming
I think, like everything, it goes both ways.  I think there ARE people who enjoy disrupting groups.  It puts the attention on them.  I'm not saying it is common, but it does exist.  Just like DMs who want to play out graphic rape scenes on players.  It isn't common, but it does happen.

So all involved need to enter the situation with both possibilities in mind.  Be open to suggestions, discussion, disagreements, but also not try to force your own comfort on others.

The pendulum can swing too far in either direction, and it takes cooperation to try to keep that from happening.
engine
 member, 737 posts
 There's a brain alright
 but it's made out of meat
Thu 19 Sep 2019
at 18:10
Re: Consent in Gaming
gladiusdei:
The pendulum can swing too far in either direction, and it takes cooperation to try to keep that from happening.

Sounds like a very moderate view, and I agree.
bigbadron
 moderator, 15794 posts
 He's big, he's bad,
 but mostly he's Ron.
Thu 19 Sep 2019
at 18:18
Re: Consent in Gaming
In reply to Hunter (msg # 49):

Oh, I agree.  I only chimed in here to clarify that the document was actually saying what people were saying it was saying, and was not being exaggerated or misinterpreted.
V_V
 member, 856 posts
 Remember me as V, just V
 My journey is near an end
Thu 19 Sep 2019
at 19:01
Re: Consent in Gaming
Redsun Rising:
I know I'm probably harping at this point... but RTFM mate.


Touche! So I'll withdraw from the debate after this post. "RTFM" is my favorite go to in gaming when someone complains about something, and someone else says "uh uh". I should have removed myself from the personal attachment, but couldn't help myself.

Redsun Rising:
And V_V, if you took shrapnel over this, you do not sound like the type I'd be describing with my use of "trigger word nonsense", I apologize.


I appreciate the distinction, and apology. I very much fall into the crossfire of this when I've gamed; which to be honest, hasn't been a few years.

The part where you said people flipped over a table at a word; yes, that clarified things well. If that's literally what happened, and I confess I have seen that myself, then that person certainly shouldn't be imposing a safe environment, since they are probably equipped for a very low threshold of stress. This why I wanted objective description; which you've now done and I can concede it is a different critter than what I thought.

Totalitarian regimes start with a single inch of trespass, and will not cease their restriction until the resulting landscape is tailored to their strengths, and inaccessible to their perceived weaknesses.

The colors are starting to blend, and I feel like the image of what you're portraying is coming into focus.

The X card, ah. Well then, I think I've read and written what I wanted to from this thread.

This message was last edited by the user at 19:14, Thu 19 Sept.

evileeyore
 member, 228 posts
 GURPS GM and Player
Fri 20 Sep 2019
at 00:56
Re: Consent in Gaming
engine:
evileeyore:
People are already being banned from conventions because their politics "hurt other people's feelings".

Does your use of quotes imply an actual quote, or is that your interpretation of some other phrasing?

Actual quote goes something like (I'm paraphrasing) "People will be afraid because [person] is a conservative and supporter of the 2nd amendment and their 'safe space' will be breached".

And no, this wasn't a public document I read, it was the letter sent in by one of the con's potential attenders (someone with mild social clout).  Note, the con used to say "No, you don't run the con"... but with the recent(ish, this was roughly 5 years ago) wave of cancel culture, the con organizers worried they'd be pilloried on Facebook, Twitter, etc.  So they caved into one lone voice in the darkness.

quote:
You don't have to like it, but organizations are generally allowed to restrict behavior and enforce those restrictions, within the bounds of their activities.

Yes.  And .. I'm allowed to voice my concern with where this is going.  RTM and you'll see where it's going.

quote:
Yep, that's bad. But that's not really what this is about.

RTM.  That's exactly what this is about.

quote:
Your tendency to put your uncharitable interpretation in place of the actual words and intent of those words, makes me tend not to believe this.

Read the manuscript.

quote:
Okay. If you don't like it don't play.

So, let me see where you're coming from:  "It's bad when people feel they are being excluded so we should make the space more inclusive except for the people who are already there".

Did I capture your intent?

quote:
People who have rational concerns about being mistreated in those environments already do that.

"Mistreated."  That sounds awfully deliberate.  Do you believe their 'mistreatment' will be deliberate?

quote:
That's generally regarded as unfortunate...

It is unfortunate.  Consent in Gaming is not the way to go about it.


quote:
It hard to believe that you haven't chosen it as a pejorative.

/throws X Card


Of course, I'm not being serious.  Let's see if you are.

quote:
What sort of person is that?

The kind of uncharitable individual who ascribes thoughts and motivations to others outside of what they have shown.

quote:
You have indicated that you are bothered by that time in gaming history.

I have?  I'm not.  It happened when I was just a little too young and a little too out of touch (deep in the rural mountains) for it to have impacted me at all.

I did experience gaming following the Moral Panic.  And I've rolled my eyes at teh Moral Panic in Video Gaming, the repeated moral panics.  And I started to roll my eyes at the new progressive Moral Panic in gaming... and then I saw that it wasn't going away, it was entrenching, and slowly eroding some of the foundations of the society since this time it was coming from within.

I mean, if the 80's christian moral panic of "that devil worship game" had come from within the Gygax House, gaming would not have survived to be anything like it is today.

quote:
The issue with expecting people to soldier on is that we often don't know what they're going through.

I don't care.  We all have our trauma.  I don't settle mine on anyone else's shoulders, do not try to put yours on mine.

quote:
The concept of consent is a general acknowledgement of this fact.

Great... now Read The Manuscript.  This has nothing to do with the "general concept of consent".

quote:
Is it your position that everyone can do the same thing?

Everyone can try.  Not everyone does.  And certainly not everyone succeeds*.  This book is aimed right at those that don't want to try, that want to wallow in their fragility.

(Yes, this time it was a pejoritve.)


*  I mean can we even ever be said to have successfully overcome our traumas?  How much distance, how much time since your last 'attack/episode/feelings' before you can say "I'm over it, I put it behind me, I'm am no longer weighed down by this"?

quote:
Your issue appears to be with a large, ubiquitious group you think exists, but which very probably does not.

I never said they're ubiquitous.  They do seem have a person or two in most public online spaces I'm in (and hordes in places like Twitter... but that's the whole frikken planet's population practically).

quote:
However, there are steps that could be taken to include them, to lessen the risks. Do you feel that doing so would be a reasonable thing to work on?

The manuscript is not reasonable.

quote:
Okay, say you're doing that. Say it makes someone uncomfortable. I won't gin up reasons why that might be, it just does. Say they're a reasonable person, because most people are, and they don't want to embarrass themselves, cause a scene, or just walk away, but they would really like it if the "graphic detail" were reined in a little. Say they bring this up in a manner acceptable to you.

So they brought it up before game, immediately after, or at the first possible moment of down time.  So it was someone like V_V, who solders on best he can till he can say "Ha man, can you not do X?"

If it were someone who actually broke out in tears?  That's a bit of a "okay, let's take a break and find out what's wrong".  And yes, it ends game.  It ruins the mood, and it is rarely recoverable from.

But it is understandable.

It's also not an "X Card' as this manuscript presents it.

quote:
What change would you be open to?

No lie, depends on who they are.  Someone people I am not going to care about and I will suggest they find another group.  Some people I will move heaven and earth to accommodate.

quote:
And it's another thing to force people to leave a private event if they are not interested in conforming to the particular demeanor or "maneuvering" that the owners of the event would prefer.

So... wait, is it okay when it's what your asking for?

I'm not exactly sure of your direction here...  if someone is breaking the rules, then boot them.  And yes, I'm rallying the flag against seeing Consent in Gaming becoming the enforced rules at the public spaces I wish to attend, because I don't want to be shown the door or feel I need to leave.

And note, I'm fine with a con saying "Use the Opt In Consent forms, we'll put your Opt In Consent forms up so everyone will know what games are safe for them" because I would just check everything.  Be prepared for anything because I'm not going to rule it out.

quote:
Yes. I may be missing the point you're making here.

The point is you can be completely vile and polit, civilized society might still love you for it, depending who you are and who your target is.  So appealing to "but we already have rules of behavior in society" is a mug's game.

quote:
Thank you for the clarification. Who are "they" though? One person? A few people? There don't appear to be many people who are in the habit of reacting to things this way.

So you've been ignoring Portland, cancel culture, and the terrible modern progressivism then?

quote:
You can predict how some people will implement it at some cons/FLGSs. The reality is that not everyone will implement it in a way that you could reasonably take issue with.

Gendered Speech Laws in the UK.  I already take issue with the way the modern progressive movement has implemented its authoritarian nature.  This isn't a slippery slope, this is us climbing back up out of the hole before it gets filled in.

quote:
But to be motivated by extremists, instead of the ideas themselves...

Consent in Gaming is an idea.  I am motivated against it.  Read it.  Then if you wish to continue arguing for it, at least you'll be arguing from a place a awareness of what you are arguing for.

quote:
Is "weak" a neutral word too?

Do you not understand what 'weak point' means?  Use a dictionary.

quote:
If someone needed some stated set of standards to have a good time with their friends...

Weird.  I have a set of standards that my friends measure up to.  And rules and ethics of our behavior and what is and isn't allowable.  Most of it goes unsaid.

quote:
... a set of standards at a public event where one can expect to game with strangers if one wants to game at all doesn't strike me as unusual.

I already have a set of standards I apply to public spaces.  In fact, 'we' already do have sets of standards 'we' apply to public spaces.

I'm just objecting to a new set that you don't even understand, but strangely feel compelled to argue in favor of.




bigbadron:
The document also says (yes, I have read it) that nobody (not even the GM) has any right to question somebody that objects to any content (or try to change their minds), and that the GM must not continue with that content if anybody objects.

Not just the GM.  If a Player is having their Character take actions and the card hits the table, the action has to be changed, and the thrower doesn't even have to explain what was problematic.  You have to read their mind if they are too sensitive to explain, on their own initiative, because you aren't allowed to ask.

/honkifclownworld.gif





swordchucks:
bigbadron:
One hits the X card, and the whole scene has to be changed.

As a general principle, I'm fine with this.

I'm clearly not.  Not only because the manuscript deliberately fails to point out your point below, but because the entire tone of the work is "gaming is dangerous, run at the first sign of anything, and everything* has to be opt in in advance".


* Yes, everything.  In other words if you're running a noir detective game and want the PCs to come across an abandoned child who needs help, and you didn't specify in the Opt In Checklist that 'child abandonment' might be a topic... well... sucks to be your game.

quote:
What the document misses (intentionally so) is that this should be rare for a particular player.  If it isn't rare for a player, then they shouldn't be playing with that group.  There's something fundamentally wrong with the social dynamic there and it's doing no one any good.

The document misses a lot.  I wouldn't even want to see it used for a BSDM group, unless the group is known hotbed of deadly play and extremely emotionally abusive people.

And that's how the document is painting rpgs. (Yet another one of my problems with this manuscript.)




Hunter:
Except your regular group shouldn't ever have this situation, as I (for one) would expect that you're familiar enough with each other to have an idea of what might be a red flag in the first place.

I have no fear of this ever impacting my group.  My concern is to stamp this out before it becomes the de facto rules for public spaces where I also enjoy running or playing in games.

Like at cons.  My FLGS.  Here.

And before someone poo-poos the idea that it could become the enforced rules in a message board game, realize that there are discussions at other gaming forums right now talking about making Consent in Gaming style rules as part of their pbp forum rules.

This message was last edited by the user at 00:59, Fri 20 Sept.

praguepride
 member, 1508 posts
 "Hugs for the Hugs God!"
 - Warhammer Fluffy-K
Sun 22 Sep 2019
at 08:02
Re: Consent in Gaming
Hooo boy.

So I frequently read stuff in "rpg horror stories" on reddit/4chan etc. so let me first and foremost say that players leave games all the time for being made to feel uncomfortable. It is not nearly as uncommon as you would like to believe for GMs/other players to foist sexual assault or uncomfortable fetishes into a game and not every player/GM is equipped with the social tools to handle that.

I myself have experienced a good buddy as a player who has crossed the line through comments he has made. Luckily I and everyone else at the table know him, have a long history with him, and understand that he sometimes makes wildly inappropriate and kinda creepy comments as part of his weird sense of humor, not with any of the maliciousness or threat that said comments would imply HOWEVER we are about to bring a new player to the table and I am somewhat concerned that my buddy might cross the line and now we have someone at the table who doesn't get that benefit of context with him.

Yes, the obvious answer is to speak up but we're reaching a point where more and more gaming is done with strangers. Between adventure league/pathfinder society/organized play, you have pick up games like on places like here or various virtual tabletops or discord channels. You have a lot of new groups of people meeting for the first time and when that happens you can have issues like the above.

Now a lot has been said about things like "People who care are doing a good job while people who don't won't listen" however let me offer a different perspective on that:

1) People might care but also might not be aware of all the things to take into account. From pronoun usage to "what constitutes as rape" there are plenty of good people, guys and gals, who are truly decent people but might not have the broadest exposure/education. Something like this is a good little checklist/skim read to make sure they're covering all their bases.

2) Victims might not realize that such behavior isn't normal. A lot of horror stories I've heard involve newbies who don't understand that sexual harassment/assault isn't normal for the community. Victims very often stay silent and don't speak up because they don't even realize that what they're experiencing isn't normal, that they can pursue their love of RPGs without having their characters be assaulted/harassed.

3) Professionals. Be it organized play leagues or convention GMs or what not but people who want to be professional or at least semi-professional rely on things like this as a safety net so that if an issue comes up they can point out all the ways they've covered their butts.  If you're running a convention game or organized league you have almost no control over the players that sit down and doing stuff like this makes it really easy to let you focus on the game and not trying to read the minds of the players at your table. ESPECIALLY if it is adult themed. Your goal is to provide fun (and possibly sell some product) and the last thing you want to do is to end up triggering a player/customer's PTSD over something.


tl;dr:
Ultimately games have rules and I find it interesting where people draw the lines on things. Sure if you're worried about a psychological trigger you can choose not to play but the flipside is if you're offended by people asking you to respect their triggers then you can choose not to play as well. Why is it that the victim is forced to leave the table in these arguments? If you don't like pronoun clarifications or X cards then why don't you leave the table? That argument cuts both ways.
bigbadron
 moderator, 15795 posts
 He's big, he's bad,
 but mostly he's Ron.
Sun 22 Sep 2019
at 08:13
Re: Consent in Gaming
quote:
If you don't like pronoun clarifications or X cards then why don't you leave the table?
Because I'm usually the GM, and if the GM leaves the table, then there is no game.
horus
 member, 889 posts
 Wayfarer of the
 Western Wastes
Sun 22 Sep 2019
at 08:30
Consent in Gaming
DaCuseFrog:
I checked it out and want to add a disclaimer.  If you are not currently signed up for an account with them, they expect full name, address and phone number to download this "free" PDF.  It sounds like a wonderful guide, though, and I'd love to read it.


If you are already a user of DriveThruRPG.com, you can get this through them for free.

I'm not impressed, at least not favorably.  I will try my best to express this with civility and a calm demeanor.

The very existence of this document tars all of us with a broad brush because of the intemperate actions of a very few. At best it is unnecessary.  At worst it is a disingenuous attack on our hobby.  It can be replaced very easily with:

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

I know how to adult. I give respect to folks until they prove to me they deserve otherwise, and I know how to write and speak the Queen's English.  I see this document as a solution to a problem that does not exist at any of my gaming tables, and as a very pessimistic view of the gaming hobby in general.

This message was last edited by the user at 09:39, Sun 22 Sept.

evileeyore
 member, 233 posts
 GURPS GM and Player
Sun 22 Sep 2019
at 22:30
Re: Consent in Gaming
praguepride:
Sure if you're worried about a psychological trigger you can choose not to play but the flipside is if you're offended by people asking you to respect their triggers then you can choose not to play as well.

I don't follow this line of logic.  Why would I chose not to play because I'm ignoring someone's trigger warnings?

quote:
Why is it that the victim is forced to leave the table in these arguments?

"The victim".  Man that's a loaded statement.  What exactly are they a victim of?  Dealing with the real world?

quote:
If you don't like pronoun clarifications...

No one in this thread (as far as I'm aware) has argued that someone's pronouns are a problem.

quote:
...X cards then why don't you leave the table?

If they are enforced?  I will.  And like bbr, since I run games, the game goes with me.  You'll notice there is a decidedly skewed ration of Players to GMs, drive off the GMs and you drive off the games.