D&D 5E Player consent required -spoilers for new adv book

[Micah Sweet]

If used by a non-player to diminish the player then I agree. (Think jock making fun of the nerd table, circa 1982.)

But when used by somebody who also plays (and loves) make-believe elf games, as a rhetorical attempt to put angry passions into context, I think it’s fine.

In other words, if the statement were targeted at parents, telling them how they must raise their children, then I might also have found it inappropriate. But it’s about, well, MBEG’s.

YMMV, of course, but I reject the criticism.

I stand by it. Use a more neutral term if you want the person you're talking to to take you seriously IMO.

 

[Charlaquin]

I agree that is the actual reason they exist. I gues my response though is if people think they serve to enhance play they should 1) Argue that point rather than invoking mental illness to give their position more weight and 2) not label them safety tools

Yeah, that seems reasonable to me.

My issue here is the ‘light’ with the tools. Perhaps they can help improve play for some groups. That is probably a style preference. We shouldn’t be saying all groups ought to use them. For lots of people, if the sun if these tools is simply to enhance play, they may clash with style

I think if your style clashes with checking in to make sure the players are actually interested in the subject matter of the game you want to run, then… frankly, it’s not a very good style…

This is true but importantly it won’t ruin the fun for all players. While I think it would be bad GMing to railroad that outcome, or have it triggered to easily, I think it could be an exciting consequence for not succeeding at the adventures (I like horror adventures with ticking time bombs and horrible consequences)

This is a taste and preference issue in play

Right, which is why you ask. Lots of players will be right onboard with that possibility (I know I would be!) while others won’t. Better to find out in advance than in the moment.

Again, I think group to group. Not everyone games for that reason. some game for the excitement and surprise. And not everyone wants to put that kind of game content a vote (especially if a single player can veto the whole venture).

So don’t put it to a vote. You can always just say “this is the game I’m going to be running. If that doesn’t sound like fun for you, you don’t have to play in it.” Also RE: surprise, you don’t have to spoil the specifics. “This game has a major transformation theme and there is a real possibility of PCs being irreversibly transformed against their will” is perfectly sufficient, you don’t have to spoil when, how, or into what.

I have been in plenty of groups where by the end of the evening or end of the adventure it is clear it isn’t a good fit for me. But it is a game, the stakes are very low. If a GM tries something and it doesn’t land for me or is the opposite experience from what I want, I just shrug and move on (if the issue is big enough, I find a new group).

I mean, yeah, it’s not a big deal for most people, but it might be for some. And even if it isn’t a big deal, still better to find out in advance and excuse yourself then, than to have your time wasted playing in a game you only find out later wasn’t going to be enjoyable for you.

I would rather play to find out than have the GM solicit my buy in beforehand.

Weird. I think most people would feel the opposite.

It is one thing to say “just to let you know, this game is very lethal and may have radical things happen to your character”.

I’d say that’s perfectly sufficient.

But another to go over what will actually happen or insert a consent button to things coming up in play (and again we aren’t talking about weird creepy things that would justifiably disturb people but things like polymorph, infection or magical transformation).

I’m sorry, but infection and magical transformation are absolutely things that can justifiably disturb someone.

We are not guaranteed the precise experience we want. I once played in a game I thought would be very open, but it was a railroaded pathway. Not anyone’s fault, that is what the Gm wanted to run and most if the players enjoyed it.

Sure, it happens sometimes. But I think if we can do very simple things to reduce the risk of that happening, it’s only common courtesy to do so.

I think it’s fine to talk about expectations but again the issue here is the ought and the way it is presented where one player objecting potentially ruins a fun game fir everyone

I don’t think one player objecting ought to ruin the fun for everyone. Not every game is for everyone. It’s good policy to try to set appropriate expectations for your games so potential players can more accurately determine if it’s going to be for them, and choose not to play if it isn’t.

 

[bedir than]

No, and I never suggested anything like that at all. And the italicized part completely mischaracterizes what I am saying.



Again, read what I actually wrote instead of trying to straw man my position or tacitly suggest I am some kind of sadist because I think the gaming table isn't a great place for managing trauma

I have read what you wrote that mocks and minimizes the concept that safety tools exist at all. You have suggested that these are only useful to determine pleasure at the table.

This demonstrates a desire to harm people for joy. You don't believe it's safety. You don't believe that it can be traumatic to relive trauma.

Those beliefs have real, harmful impacts on people who are supposedly friends, or worse strangers.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I don’t think GMs are physiologists. Obviously we should treat our friends at the table with compassion but dealing I don’t think it is fair for the gm or the group, not do I think it is healthy fot the person experiencing or the hobby in generally to go down the road you are prescribing. I have had trauma. It is a real thing and very serious, but not something you deal with at the game table in this manner. It is something to seek treatment for. And other people shouldn’t bear the strain of you having these kinds of traumatic triggers and having yo completely their every day behavior (just because you can’t handle bats or thunder, doesn’t mean they should no longer enjoy them). Also traumatic triggers are rarely as simple or concrete as we make them out to be in these conversations. I really think the hobby has started to fetishized pop psychology around this to an extremely unhealthy degree that is also disruptive to the game itself. It is also entirely okay to take a break from gaming if you are dealing with trauma. But we really need to step back and start critiquing some of the assumptions that have become default around in this stuff in done quarters of the hobby

No one who supports tools like this is talking about dealing with trauma in D&D games. That’s a strawman you’re tilting at.

It’s literally, “hey this part of the adventure involves involuntary transformations as a potential negative outcome. If you’re uncomfortable with that, the adventure doesn’t keep any game benefits away from for opting out of that element of the adventure. Just let me know if you’re okay with that or not.”

That isn’t a fracking therapy session ffs.

My point - if it wasn't clear earlier - is that D&Ds foundation is about murder in more or less innovative ways. You may call it adventure, "expeditions" or problem solving, as many colonialists, assassins and hitmen has done through the ages, it doesn't matter.

False. You play in a “delve into dungeons kill things take their stuff” way, that’s fine. Most players today don’t. Not all violence is murder, and if I kill my oppressor and take from him what he used against me, calling that theft is laughable.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah, that seems reasonable to me.

I think if your style clashes with checking in to make sure the players are actually interested in the subject matter of the game you want to run, then… frankly, it’s not a very good style…

Right, which is why you ask. Lots of players will be right onboard with that possibility (I know I would be!) while others won’t. Better to find out in advance than in the moment.

So don’t put it to a vote. You can always just say “this is the game I’m going to be running. If that doesn’t sound like fun for you, you don’t have to play in it. Also RE: surprise, you don’t have to spoil the specifics. “This game has a major transformation theme and there is a real possibility of PCs being irreversibly transformed against their will” is perfectly sufficient, you don’t have to spoil when, how, or into what.

I mean, yeah, it’s not a big deal for most people, but it might be for some. And even if it isn’t a big deal, still better to find out in advance and excuse yourself then, than to have your time wasted playing in a game you only find out later wasn’t going to be enjoyable for you.

Weird. I think most people would feel the opposite.

I’d say that’s perfectly sufficient.

I’m sorry, but infection and magical transformation are absolutely things that can justifiably disturb someone.

Sure, it happens sometimes. But I think if we can do very simple things to reduce the risk of that happening, it’s only common courtesy to do so.

I don’t think one player objecting ought to ruin the fun for everyone. Not every game is for everyone. It’s good policy to try to set appropriate expectations for your games so potential players can more accurately determine if it’s going to be for them, and choose not to play if it isn’t.

That all sounds reasonable, but there is a strong vibe here from some posters that, if anyone at the table has a real problem with something, it is irresponsible to the point of cruelty to take any action other than to change the game to accommodate that person, including inviting them not to play in that particular game. I don't think that's fair.

 

[Charlaquin]

Beyond the way it has been tied to the mental health issue or appropriating a term like consent, I think it’s the ‘required’ part and the way this advice is being universalized that runs a lot of people the wrong way. This might work for some tables. I can certainly see some people wanting to use it. Not everyone wants their table to operate this way. Gaming isn’t one size fits all

I think we may be overstating how authoritatively the sidebar in question is phrased…

“Before you use the character transformation rules presented in this section, check with each player to determine if they are open to their character experiencing physically transformative effects. A player will not miss game benefits if they choose not to use these rules for their character.”

That seems perfectly reasonable to me. It’s just, here’s an optional system. Ask the players before imposing use of the system on them. Give them the option to pass on it. What’s the big deal?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think we may be overstating how authoritatively the sidebar in question is phrased…

“Before you use the character transformation rules presented in this section, check with each player to determine if they are open to their character experiencing physically transformative effects. A player will not miss game benefits if they choose not to use these rules for their character.”

That seems perfectly reasonable to me. It’s just, here’s an optional system. Ask the players before imposing use of the system on them. Give them the option to pass on it. What’s the big deal?

Well, the title of the sidebar was "Player Consent Required". I doubt this thread would have happened at all were that not the case.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

This is a very general statement. What are "things done your character that you don't want"? There are people who don't want their character to take damage, let alone die. Or you talking about level drain, or lasting injury, or mind control? Some of these are pretty common, even assumed, in some games.

Body transformed. Lasting injury with no way to prevent it.
Level drain if there is no way to prevent it.
Your character being played by the DM with your own choice taken away.

I think it should be plenty clear that becomin injured and killed is normal for adventurers... but usually, there are rolls and choices involved.

That case: just being there and no saving throw might be too much. Probably not. But that might be.

 

[bedir than]

That all sounds reasonable, but there is a strong vibe here from some posters that, if anyone at the table has a real problem with something, it is irresponsible to the point of cruelty to take any action other than to change the game to accommodate that person, including inviting them not to play in that particular game. I don't think that's fair.

Is it fair to make one person suffer so that the others can have fun?

In this case the options are their character doesn't have the effect, or if their experiences are such to not have the party do it. Neither of those harm the game or table. Both are fair.

 

[Charlaquin]

That all sounds reasonable, but there is a strong vibe here from some posters that, if anyone at the table has a real problem with something, it is irresponsible to the point of cruelty to take any action other than to change the game to accommodate that person, including inviting them not to play in that particular game. I don't think that's fair.

I think it’s kind to be willing to make changes to your game to accommodate your players’ preferences. But I don’t think it makes anyone a bad person if they prefer to run the game they want to run and leave it up to the players to decide if it’s for them or not.