Below is a link to Consent in Gaming.  It's a free, 13 page PDF.  Great resource for working with players to create a gaming environment that everyone is comfortable with, so fun can be maximized.

https://www.montecookgames.com/consent-in-gaming/

It also contains additional resources for exploring this topic, as well as a checklist group members can fill out so that triggering topics can be identified before the game even starts.

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.

Or just give them fake information, that works fine.


It's 12 pages of useless nonsense.  The pictures are excellent though, Mirco Paganessi is a great artist.

I'd imagine it works all right for face to face play, if it's like the PbtA set on the subject. Both oblivious gamer cruelty and accidental overshare due to the temptation towards brinkmanship with trauma in an imaginative environment are genuine issues in gaming. No-one particularly wants to end up playing a therapy or torture session rather than a game, after all.

Problems with that sort of thing arise when it comes to online or other stranger gaming, however: you're asking people who may have any sort of trauma to say something to a random that implies the trauma is there, and may push them to elaborate on it. For instance, if someone was in a bad train crash and one of the dead people on the rails was a birthday clown, causing their PTSD to tie "clown" to an adrenaline surge that creates a panic attack and feeling ill for days if there's no survival-level danger to run from, then they might feel they have to mention the crash (and feel awful) so that the GM doesn't think they're just afraid of IT, or that something awful was done to them as a child by a birthday clown.

Even in PM/by note, that's handing a random your deepest darkest vulnerabilities; the temptation for those worst affected/most in need of hard lines there is to just...not. All that lines and veils stuff is honestly worse than the gamble of going in blind - effectively "one of these many baskets may have snakes in it" versus "I gave the GM a basket with a snake in it". Then there's stuff like horror gaming, where the GM is expected to work with phobias, and without detail might place that snake basket too close without realising how dangerous it is.

My solution for respecting people with psychic allergies is clear Content Guidelines - not only do they make enforcement a lot easier, but if someone has trauma that's likely to get hit they can see when and how that might happen, then make an informed decision as to whether to engage with the game or hand me specific detail to avoid when it looks likely to come up and/or they know me better. No set times, no pulling aside, no one person gambles whilst the others skip in. The worst thing you can do for someone who's had their brain chemistry smashed out of whack for whatever reason is to make them feel self conscious and/or singled out for being hurt.

IMNSHO, the question of consent is blown way out of proportion. Also, has been done quite a few times before in decades past. And in a much more eloquent way, too. Dead horse, meet stick.

Anyone who really needs this PDF is suffering from a serious communication deficit.

If you distrust the GM or other players, don't play with them. Speak up when bothered. State your desires - the others around the table aren't telepaths. Apologize if you're being a fruit/fruitette. The stuff you were supposed to learn in kindergarten.

And the RPG consent checklist is... hmm. I don't even know. It looks like something the "Dare you enter my magical realm"¹ GM thought up. I think if I brought this to any of my RL games people would accuse me of trying to introduce odd sexual fetishes. (Then again, genocidal terrorist thirst demons with cancer, hmm.) Or perhaps it's intended the other way round, as a primer for sandboxes - but what if all my players want to explore homosexual claustrophobic pregnancy with eyeballs?

On second glance, the whole piece seems more at home in the FAQ section on some BDSM site. Aftercare, fetish keywords, safewords, scene framing...

The art is great. 10/10.

I don't know. Perhaps I'm just getting old and insensitive to how fragile the young'uns have become.²

---

1 https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Magical_realm
2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukisoucFIk4 and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unkIVvjZc9Y

The problem with that and most stuff of this nature is simple.  The people that actually need them would never use them while the people that would use them are probably already doing all the right things to not need them.

It's very important for GMs and players to understand that not everyone brings the same experiences to the table and that some things are going to provoke reactions from people  that you can't necessarily predict.  Try to be aware of the common issues, try to give fair warning when you expect something might be problematic, solicit feedback from others periodically, and be willing to accept feedback that's negative.  If you do that, you're already not part of the problem.

I'm seeing a lot of response on social media to this pdf and as someone who immediately downloaded it yesterday I just thought "hey why not weigh in?"

I'm finding a lot of people are questioning the necessity of the product (including one guy suggesting that a real roleplayer would use the game to roleplay out their trauma and heal from it) and I'm wondering if these people have had people in their group who have triggers before? The pdf is fairly fluffy and pointless I'll admit (but see the price tag) however some people do actually need this spelled out for them. The DM is absolutely someone who can say "if you've got a problem with my story you can leave" but the players aren't unreasonable for leaving and they're not the apple in this situation.

I happened to have my RL D&D game yesterday and in the preamble before getting back into the game I talked with my players about it and pointed out that a lot of the earlier things on the checklist of triggers are core parts of D&D's aesthetic (spiders, worms, demons, blood, rats) and that you SHOULD be having a conversation with a player because if you just play the game as normal a beholder, gibbering mouther (an encounter which did actually make a lot of players uncomfortable) or the beetle swarm at the beginning of the Forgotten Forge may well surprise you with a negative reaction from the players.

In the case of the gibbering mouther that ended up with asking the players if they would be okay continuing. Five seconds of effort to not be a complete apple.

This is especially important for me because there are lines which I'd rather not cross when I'm gaming (though in my case it's going to be because I don't want to start arguing real world politics with gamers about 'historical accuracy' in fantasy games). Let's just say there's a reason I prefer Eberron to Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk.

The idea itself of obtaining consent seems to cause such a strong negative reaction in some people that I begin to wonder if "obtaining consent" should be the first consent anyone should try to obtain.

I have no problem with guidelines or checklists or the like. I don't feel like I'm usually in a situation where I need to do more than post a basic description or list of preferences, and be open for questions, but I can well imagine some situations where more guidelines would be desirable.

Yup, basically.


Less "youngins these days" and more "a small group of people that have been taught to embrace their fragility, seek out more ways in which they can be fragile, and try to force everyone else to cater to their fragility".

Plenty of young people these days are turning against "progressivism" as they see it as a force designed to hold back and cripple rather than expand and uplift.





/sharplyindrawnbreath.ASMR

I can see using rp as a way to work through or around trauma, but not outside of a controlled environment with a trained sane professional.

It is literally exactly this. It was written by a BDSM porn writer. There's a reason a lot of this stuff keeps getting tied back to "safe words" and why the title is "Consent in Gaming." It's 100% about magical realms. They are literally attempting to push their BDSM kink space into the gaming space.

Meanwhile, they do this by constantly wanting to refer to this stuff as "Safety tools." Explicitly saying that gaming in intrinsically unsafe. Which is a stupid idea on the face of it, even before you bring up that we already had this fight a few decades ago where we were trying to prove to people that it IS safe. I remember the Satanic Panic. It sounds goofy looking back if you don't know how bad it got, but I saw the book burnings. People getting hauled off and grilled by the cops about their Satanic D&D rituals. The people who thought that our hobby was literally evil didn't go away. We shouldn't be giving them ammo.

I think you're equivocating two different concepts of "safety." At the very least, you're overstating what the existence of this kind of thing implies.

This is a stellar way to put it, tbh. Much nicer and more concise than how I could've said it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure the people who are sharing this PDF mean well, but the BDSM terminology adds another layer of "yikes, that's unnecessary" to this whole thing.

No one is being forced to do anything, and "fragile" seems like a deliberate attempt to imply that someone should feel ashamed for feeling a particular way. Is that is what's intended?

Some people do need to realize there are other people outside themselves who matter. On both sides of this problem

But honestly, I have very little patience for people trying to justify being a complete apple pie just because it's easier than caring about other people who don't provide immediate benefit to them.

No, I'm describing exactly what they're saying and doing. Well, aside from the ones that aren't implying anything because they're saying it outright. They are absolutely saying that roleplaying is an inherently unsafe process. They are saying it can be psychologically damaging. You know, literally the same thing they said in the 80s when they were claiming that it made people kill themselves and each other.

The simple fact is that the parts of this and other, similar, discussions that are saying "just talk with your group about what is and isn't okay with you to come up in play" are perfectly fine. They're also common practice and have been since the 70s. The rest of it is needless nonsense. The only tool you need is the ability to use your words and say what you mean. If you're not mature enough to say "I don't like this, can we skip it?" or "I don't like this, I'm leaving," then you're probably not mature enough for role-playing games at all.

In reply to engine (msg # 13):

I don't think fragility is something to be ashamed of at all, provided you're not the type of person to try and weaponize it. We all have our baggage, and it's not asking a lot to expect respectful conduct from your fellow gamers. That's where basic situational awareness, empathy, and communication skills come into things, like someone else said, and if you don't have that to begin with then I don't think a PDF that reads like a kink manual can help you.

From the sound of the discussion, it really isn't intended for table top gaming at all.   But rather seems to be targeted toward the kind of Second Life/50 Shades atmosphere that has nothing to do with table top gaming.

Should I have to get some sort of consent from my players?  No, I think that it's implied when you sit down at the table, and you're always free to leave if you're uncomfortable.

Honestly, this kind of thing ought to be done in games, and I’d go even broader. It’s good to have an understanding of the kind of game a GM might run. For instance, if death is a real consequence in a game, that needs to be clearly stated up front.

I know this isn’t the same as consent, but clear expectations are so important in a game.

The only context I can see this being even remotely useful is for something like a one-shot game at a Con, where you're playing alongside total strangers.  But even then, I think if I was running such a game and one of my players showed up with something like this, I'd be -very- weirded out by exactly the thinly veiled BDSM magical realm overtones mentioned above.

No, you're interpreting it in an unfavorable light.


Those are two different statements, neither of which those in favor of gaining consent is talking about.


I dont' see how. That was about people willingly engaging in things that others thought was harmful for them, and wanting to prevent them from engaging in it. This is about people wanting to engage in something that is known to contain elements they don't care for, but doesn't always have to.


I get that you feel that way, but what I don't get is why you care how other people do things. How does it affect you if someone wants to or tries to be more cautious than you are about how they approach things? Now, how you feel about this doesn't really affect me, but I'm honestly curious about your reaction.


My point is that "fragility" seems like a rather loaded word. It's not something someone would tend to use to refer to themselves, rather it's something someone would call someone else, and not neutrally.


Ah, okay. "There is no cause so right that one cannot find a fool following it," goes one of Niven's Laws. I find this also extends to cover people who take things to antagonistic extremes, which seems to be who you're against. Yes, we all dislike extremists. But just because someone is an extremist doesn't mean that the "side" they're on is an extreme one or all that all of the methods that side uses are unreasonable.

I care about it not because other people are doing it, but because they seem to be advocating that it's a really great thing that should become the default common practice, that everyone (including me) should do it and people (including me) should be shamed and shunned as unworthy insensitive jerks if they don't.  That sentiment hasn't really been made explicit in this particular discussion thread, but I've seen it made very clear where I've seen it discussed in other venues, particularly in a few Facebook discussion groups I'm a part of.

Another useful law of the interwebs: "Most threads go from zero to 'get off my lawn' in about 15 posts."

Informative posts are helpful.  Posts that encapsulate 'well, I think differently so you are wrong' are less so.

And I self-identify with that statement — which has the side effect of making me undoubtably, inherently, and unassailably correct.

I'm disappointed by the theme of "weaponizing fragility".

Full disclosure, I haven't read the article. Fake or genuine information given, it's still data entry, and hardly worth the expenditure for something as this.

When you say weaponizing fragility (in so many words), do you mean the weapon is censorship "don't talk about that! It makes me feel uncomfortable. It's not up for discussion!" or do you mean "I went through horrible trauma in real life, I'm going to use my character to act this out in the game, whether you like it or not" or something else entirely? Can you please describe, in objective terms, what you mean you mean by weaponizing fragility?
This message was last edited by the user at 17:13, Tue 17 Sept 2019.

Thank you for clarifying your view.

I'm sure you'd agree that it's okay for one to advocate for something one believes is a good thing, and even advocate that that everyone should do it.

Shunning and shaming are, I feel, the actions of the more extreme followers of a given approach. This is often be someone who has been directly and painfully (even if unintentionally) affected by people who take the opposite approach, and in their case lashing out is only human. But it leaves them as unable to tolerate questioning or skepticism, even from people who ostensibly agree with them; those reactions, they feel in their pain, must be purged. This is usually done in a way that helps the extremist feel avenged, even if the person they went after was not the one who originally affected them.

Extremists tend to be the loudest members of a group, too. That's unfortunate, but it's important not to consider a cause or an approach less worthy of consideration because non-moderates are getting the press. Otherwise, one risk being too easily manipulated.

So, I urge you to set aside the reactions toward you of the extremists. It should be possible to hate them, yet not their "side," which almost certainly consists of a much larger number of moderates. Moderates will not attempt to shame or shun you, and are potentially even worth talking to.

I do not care what people do in their home games. I do care they are actively trying to mandate that these so-called "safety tools" MUST be used at all con/store games and that anyone that resists their pushing of BDSM kink techniques into our gaming spaces are dangerous and unsafe. And whether you've seen it or not, that is what is being said, and whether you read it in this particular product or not, that is the end game of the people who wrote it. I am not giving it an unfavorable reading. I'm responding to the things they say and do, in this, and elsewhere.

Make no mistake, there is a real group of people within the hobby actively trying to say that because you might encounter sexual themes, or violence, or spiders (yes, literally, a recurring example is that someone might describe a freaking spider during a game session and cause "real harm" to one of their players in the process), the hobby is itself inherently dangerous, and we need these things to try to make it marginally safer, like seat belts and air bags in cars. That's not my analogy, by the way. That's literally what they are saying when they advocate for this. The fact that the people calling RPGs dangerous and psychologically damaging are doing it from inside the hobby now doesn't make the argument fundamentally different.

Yes, I will concede that a certain percentage of the more vocal people talking this way are wacky rpg.net people that don't really play RPGs so much as talk about them constantly on forums and complain that they don't make real money writing crappy indie story games that sell two hundred copies each, but writing them off as unimportant is not going stop them from pushing their "someone might be scared of spiders, so we need kink stuff in all RPG spaces" hard enough to actually get it mandated at some of the cons and stores. Pointing out that this is ridiculous and we absolutely do not need kink stuff in our RPG spaces might.

You're sort of making their case for them, as I see it. Having a certain thing in your game makes you uncomfortable, so you'd like them not to do it. Wouldn't it be nice if there were a way just to ask them not to present it to you unless you consented?

But so what if they do "mandate this"? Just check the "Yep, spiders" box or whatever for your game, and be done with it. Wouldn't you rather warn people off from your game who wouldn't enjoy being in your game?

And just so I'm clear, as you saying that "asking for consent" is "kink stuff"?

Oh no, a subculture with the mostly richly varied lexicon on consent has words that were used in this pdf about consenting to triggering stimuli in a game which is supposed to be fun for everyone

Clearly the freaks are going to make the pearl clutchers shut our game stores down!

Have you read the pdf in question?

The very premise of "Consent in Gaming" is that if you say "no I don't wanna" the rest of the group should immediately shift gears and cater to you, or as it's presented to GMs, if a Player says "no!" then you need to immediately shift the story to cater to their fragility.


But of course Sean and Shanna aren't coming to your house, putting a gun to your head, and demanding you "fly right" or they'll take your rpging away from you.  We can always just ignore this pdf.

Except when it's pushed in the public spaces for the "safety of the hobby".  At which point if you want to run a game at a con you have abide by its policies.


It's deliberately said to imply that they are fragile and must be softly cushioned lest the hard surfaces of the world break them.

If this is shameful*, that is something for the viewer to determine for themselves.  I can assure you, the fragile brigand do not see it as shameful, else they would take steps to cloak their shame and work to fix themselves.



* And I don't believe being fragile is shameful.  Remaining† and cultivating fragility for clout is.

† As in doing nothing to become stronger or taking steps to pad your surroundings, but rather demanding strangers pad themselves for your benefit.





I wouldn't go that far.  But any Player pushing this nonsense at my table will be told where the door is.  Now, if they legitimately have problems, and request in advance that specific topics not be included in the game, and I feel that these concessions can be implemented and aren't an onus on me and the game I wish to run, that's a different story.

I can respect that certain topics can be verboten.  What I won't except is that you don't respect me enough to have this convo in advance and expect concessions made on the fly at the table.  And I damn sure won't put up with 'trigger word' nonsense at a con.  If you are too fragile to handle the hard bumps of the world, stay at home, or only game with friends who know what surfaces to cushion.





I do like to outline the game's premise and major themes in advance, and personally hate bait and switch games... so yeah, I do have a consent buy in to my games.  But that's all in the pre-game stages when it's all being hammered out, characters are being made etc.

This isn't the sort of nonsense I'll put with mid-game too many times.





You can't just steal my identity like that!  And why are you still on my lawn!  ;)





Yes.


Yes.


It's enforced speech and conduct outside the standard rules of polite society, generally.

As in "because I am fragile, you cannot/must do/say these things because I demand it and may pitch a fit otherwise".





Exactly.  There are also groups advocating for these sort of rules to made implicit and enforced at cons.





The problem is that the extremists are in charge of that side.  They are the vocal thought leaders and cults of personality online.  This makes any capitulation to these sorts of things dangerous.





Very well said.


From my perspective it has absolutely nothing to do with the 'kink stuff'* and everything to do with enforced behavior beyond the bounds of common courteous society, right into thought policing and social credit.


* In fact, for quite a bit the last few years, the #metoo movement in gaming has really shut-down 'the kink stuff' hard in all the public gaming circles I've seen.

evileeyore - you have mentioned that you'd prefer people talk about any possibly difficult topics before the campaign gets started/is finalized, which is what this sheet would be for.  And while you, as the GM, can accommodate what you can for your players, the sheet goes both ways.

You can choose to eliminate say, spiders or swarms of beetles if the player says they're uncomfortable with them and you know you can swap in an substitute, but say, "The whole campaign/one-shot is based on them kidnapping this baby.  I can switch it to a younger kid, maybe, but otherwise that's the game I've prepared."

It's very much a two-way street and the general purpose of the sheet is to make a fun activity consistently fun for everyone.  If you come to the game for fun and the GM or players are digging into topics that you've previously made clear make you seriously uncomfortable, then the game is far less fun.

Having the sheet can help jog your memory about things that might not always come up but, boy howdy, are they not great when they do.  It can be a good reference when designing future encounters.  Conversely, if you've made it known to your players that certain elements will be part of the game, then they have the foreknowledge to protect themselves by skipping that session or bowing out of the campaign entirely.

Any player that makes sweeping demands and refuses all discussion (even to find a way to accommodate them) is not helping the process of making a good and fun game at all.  It's railroading from the other side of the table, and it's something that's been done completely outside of uncomfortable topics for as long as there's been roleplaying games (the dictatorial player).

The point of the sheet is clear communication for a mutually fun game experience.  If your group has good communication already, you might not feel a sheet necessary.  For newer groups or con games, you might like to use it so that people know what they're getting themselves into and no one has to leave the game due to a lack of foreknowledge.

The sheet is not only unnecessary, but a detriment.  It does not teach good communication and comes preloaded with the rest of the nonsense from the book.

I didn't used to take this sort of problem very seriously. Not because I'm an insensitive guy (I hope) but because I'd never really encountered anything like it.

Then I read an account by an adult woman RPGer who described a DM who ran a game for her and her male friends when they were all in their teens (the DM was a couple years older). One of this guy's frequent themes was how her character would get raped, in many different scenes, over the course of weeks of play. She wanted to play with her friends and they (for whatever reasons) weren't speaking up for her. So she endured it.

I don't see anything wrong with trying to make our spaces less stressful for gamers who might have problems with certain aspects of our stories and the way we frame them. Or with being empathetic toward those gamers.

Maybe this pamphlet isn't the right way to go about it or maybe some of us aren't comfortable with its recommendations. But it doesn't hurt a GM to take these issues into account and make sure we keep aware of problems and don't blame the person who speaks up.

Well, this is a thing. The topic is fascinating enough to rope me in, so after jumping through a few hoops, I got my hands on a copy of this PDF so I could read it for myself. I suspect this thread will continue for some time - it hits a few buttons.

I will simply expose my takeaway. Like with all information, you are not required to agree or disagree with me, although you undoubtedly will if you read this. My expression will be through the lens of conviction, integrity and willpower - the cornerstones of the self.

In short, this is me. You are you. The only one who decides what you agree with and what you do not is you, and the only one who decides what information is useful to you and what is not is you.

But I will present that conclusion as if I am right. Because I am. I do recommend this PDF as a read, however, simply for the information within it and the emotions it will unquestionably inspire.

The central argument of the book comes from a presumption of the writer's morals as though they were ethics, an internal code of right and wrong presented as an external code of right and wrong. The moment they wrote down their morals, they curiously also became ethics, because that is often how this ends up working. As with all ethics, you may compare it to your own moral code, and decide what is useful to you and what is not.

Perhaps the ethics presented do not match your morals. Very well - this book is indeed of no use to you. Discard it if you wish, but know it exists in case you encounter it, because you are not alone in the world and you share it with others who will not agree with your conclusions.

I might keep it as a reference, but to each their own.

Perhaps the ethics presented make you uncomfortable - the question you must ask yourself is, "Why?" That is not for you to answer here. You must figure that out yourself, although I will offer possibilities.

Perhaps you have broken these rules yourself, pressuring another, and you feel new guilt, or maybe even renewed guilt.
Perhaps you see weakness in this ethical code, and it inspires contempt.
Maybe you see an insistence, a challenge that you reach for higher morals, and you are not comfortable with the idea that your morals are insufficient, and could be better.

Or it is none of these, and something else. That is for you to figure out.

Maybe the ethics match your morals, and you are relieved to have found someone else in the world who understands something you have wanted to express for a long time, but have lacked the mastery of written or verbal language to have done so. This work is of use to you, and is a worthy addition to your collection. I strongly recommend it to you.

If you choose to not use the knowledge in the PDF after reading it, that is your choice. If another player is uncomfortable with your game, and you simply will not change the course of your game for them, that is your choice. If there are consequences that occur, such as a player leaving your game or angrily having a breakdown, then those are your consequences to bear for your choices.

You are under no obligation to accept anything within the PDF. You do, however, live in a world with consequences. You often choose the price that is paid - change a course which may bother another (a cost to you and maybe others), or do not (the cost is directed to one person) - but someone will pay one way or another.

The only question is who feels they can afford it, who does not, and what costs are acceptable to the one holding the cards.

RPGs are social. You rarely hear people recall fondly the guy they played Monopoly with twenty years ago, but you will see people talk about the D&D or V:tM games they played back in the day together. You will impact someone else's life beyond the game, and things that happen in the game do not always stay in the game.

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.

Accept its challenge to any degree you wish, or decline with anything from a polite refusal to an erected middle finger. Any choice is fine and, in the end, yours. But know that others will take a different road than you, and not necessarily for your reasons.

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. Personally, I accept its challenge, because it is useful to me to do so and I revel in such things - you do not have to.

Well... I don’t have anything to add to this topic, but...

I am very surprised at the depth of conversation that has followed the OP. It’s an interesting topic: explicit vs implied consent. I’m glad you are all discussing it in mostly friendly terms.

There are some very good points on both sides that I hadn’t considered and will account for in my gaming, so thank you for that.

That's one of the really nice things about RPoL. People here are just generally more civil than a lot of other places.

As for me, if I'm gaming with a new live group, I will ask if there's any topics anyone is particularly sensitive about and leave it at that. For forum games, I figure things move slow enough that if we encounter a problem, it can be addressed before it gets too bad.

The only real value I can see in a checklist would be in a "THIS GAME WILL COVER THESE TOPICS" thing for a con one-shot, or as a "oh, hey, yeah, don't like that" list for those things you might forget freak you out.

For instance, my partner has a fairly strong reaction to fire and burning in games, but if you asked her about things that bother her, I doubt she'd think of it. It just doesn't come up super often, since not too many people are overly descriptive about fireball spells, but the horror game I ran with the spirit trapped in the boiler, well, that made her cry. Which, horror game, so she'd consented to getting freaked out, but if it had come up in a "standard" game, it probably wouldn't have gone over as well.

I have not. My apologies for not being more forthcoming about that. I assume you'll take this to mean that my thoughts are utterly invalid, but I hope you won't.


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 or some other upfront discussion of the content of a game and someone's likes and dislikes is so that one of two things can happen:
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. Unless the GM had made a really fantastic spider-themed adventure, with a spider-shaped dungeon and lots of spider-themed NPCs, it's not going to be much skin off their nose to say "Okay, I won't use spiders." 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.
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.


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

And say you're "forced" to do this. To my way of thinking, it's not going to work to force everyone to make a game that any given person will enjoy, so it's still going to happen that some people will enjoy some games and some won't. All anyone would have to do is mark up a form pertaining to their game and put in in front of their table or otherwise make it available. Prospective players look at the form and it helps them decide whether or not they'd like to play and everyone gets matched with players who are more likely to enjoy their game.

I guess you don't see it that way. Could you describe what you imagine happening?


Well, for one thing, I've rarely, if ever, heard anyone refer to themselves as "fragile." Because you clearly don't like this concept it's strongly implied that you're using the term as an insult.

You also seem fixated on the extreme end of this issue, when there's a lot more to it. I don't want to play in a game with romance in it. Romance doesn't panic me, it's just not something I think will be entertaining. I wouldn't willingly sit down at a game that seemed like or specifically stated it would include it and I'd be annoyed if someone brought in to a game that I'd been led to believe wouldn't include it. I'd be civil about it, but I'd probably excuse myself.

Consent isn't just about avoiding "No, stop, don't!" it's also aboud allowing people to say "Nah, I'd rather not" and not waste their time.


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.

I question whether any significant number of people is doing this thing you think they shouldn't be doing. 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. And I know you don't like it when people do that to you.


The whole point is about requesting in advance!

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


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.

The problem is that such people probably do stay at home, or at least out of a hobby that they could enjoy and which could easily accommodate them if there were a little more communication and understanding. Is it really your intent to decide on hard invisible lines that will force people to decide not to take a risk.

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?


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


How so? The standard rules are generally not to start saying or keep saying things that we know those present find unpleasant. Doing so or continuing to do so is the sort of thing small, thoughtless children do, and you're not one of those.


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


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.

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.

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)?

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.

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


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.


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.

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 2019.

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?

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.





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


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".


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.


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





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


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.


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.


Agreed.


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.


"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".


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


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


/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?


X Card.  Read the Manuscript.


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.


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.


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?


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.


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


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.


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.


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...


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


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.


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

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.


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.


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


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


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


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.


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."


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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?


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."


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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.

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.

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.

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?).

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 Gaiman’s 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 couldn’t 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.

so they should think of the entire group's enjoyment, not just their own, like I said.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Sounds like a very moderate view, and I agree.

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.

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.



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 2019.

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.


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


RTM.  That's exactly what this is about.


Read the manuscript.


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?


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


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



/throws X Card


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


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


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.


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.


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


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"?


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).


The manuscript is not reasonable.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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


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.


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.





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






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.


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.)





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 2019.

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.

Because I'm usually the GM, and if the GM leaves the table, then there is no game.

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 2019.

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


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


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


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.