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

[Warpiglet-7]

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.

You have to know your audience. I know my group norms. We’re adults wirh high pressure jobs. None of us are going to freak out if our characters die or something.

Conversely…
Based on the tenor of this thread I am now more in favor of explicit discussion than before. The players can protect themselves and opt out and the DM can decide if the player preferences or limitations are a fit.

Some years ago I was assaulted and robbed in the city I worked. I did not play D&D for some months afterward as I recovered. I avoided some stuff on TV as well. I take that as my responsibility to decide to engage in the activity or not. Thankfully I was able to get back to my hobby.

But I know what D&D often includes. These
Discussions seem perhaps more relevant for newer players that are not so informed. I suspect some of us who are baffled by this because we have been steeped in the game so long.

As the sales data of 5e shows, there are tons of uninitiated players coming into the game.

I am ready to be stoned for this…

But I would not be against a general rating system to be established similar to movie ratings. There could be a blurb in the dmg and players.”

Each module could have a rating system with relevant themes listed. The dm lets players see it and decide. I might take my teen to some rated R movies and not others based on what themes are listed under the rating.

I can say if I know cruelty to animals or gratuitous torture is a significant player in a movie I would not buy a ticket but I guess I need to know it is there to make an informed decision.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I basically agree with you; I think RPG safety tools are not necessarily just there to protect people from potential trauma triggers though. I mean, they might do that in some cases, but I don’t think that’s the best way to think about their intent. Rather, I think it’s more beneficial to think of them as tools to help keep the game fun for everyone.

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

My issue here is the ‘ought’ 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 point of these tools is simply to enhance play, they may clash with style

Using the Mind Flayer example here - is having one’s D&D character turned into a Mind Flayer potentially going to set off traumatic flashbacks for someone? Maybe, but in most cases probably not. On the other hand, I think it’s far more likely just to ruin the fun for some players.

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

A huge part of the appeal of D&D is creative self-expression through creating and roleplaying a character. For some folks, having that character forcibly and permanently transformed into a purple squid-faced monster just isn’t going to make for an enjoyable way to spend their free time. So, it’s a good idea to check in with the players. Let them know, “hey, transformation is a major theme of this adventure, and there’s a real risk of your characters being permanently transformed against their will. If that doesn’t sound enjoyable to you all, let me know so I can pick a different adventure to run that will be more fun for everyone.”

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

 

[Bedrockgames]

. So, it’s a good idea to check in with the players. Let them know, “hey, transformation is a major theme of this adventure, and there’s a real risk of your characters being permanently transformed against their will. If that doesn’t sound enjoyable to you all, let me know so I can pick a different adventure to run that will be more fun for everyone.”

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

 

[Micah Sweet]

I have a lot of sympathy for people who have trauma/phobias that I don’t share and don’t really understand.

Maybe I would be a better person if I could learn to extend that same sympathy and understanding to people who get triggered by something as benign (and unenforceable) as this notice.

The books are full of declarative rules, and yet somehow this one is cause for outrage?

“We are here to confiscate your AR-15…and to make sure you are not requiring players in your make-believe elf game to undergo non consensual body transformations. Also we need to inspect your mattress tags.”

I will never understand this continuing use of the diminutive term "elf-game". It is only ever used to put down someone's argument. There are more mature ways to refute someone. How is that not offensive?

 

[bedir than]

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

My issue here is the ‘ought’ 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 point of these tools is simply to enhance play, they may clash with 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





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

Would you suggest that invoking rape is good for rape survivors, it is not triggering their trauma for your personal joy actually a good thing?

As you continue to suggest this is not an issue safety you gloss over masses of trauma that you want to force upon your friends so that you can laugh and/smile at their terror

 

[Micah Sweet]

You have to know your audience. I know my group norms. We’re adults wirh high pressure jobs. None of us are going to freak out if our characters die or something.

Conversely…
Based on the tenor of this thread I am now more in favor of explicit discussion than before. The players can protect themselves and opt out and the DM can decide if the player preferences or limitations are a fit.

Some years ago I was assaulted and robbed in the city I worked. I did not play D&D for some months afterward as I recovered. I avoided some stuff on TV as well. I take that as my responsibility to decide to engage in the activity or not. Thankfully I was able to get back to my hobby.

But I know what D&D often includes. These
Discussions seem perhaps more relevant for newer players that are not so informed. I suspect some of us who are baffled by this because we have been steeped in the game so long.

As the sales data of 5e shows, there are tons of uninitiated players coming into the game.

I am ready to be stoned for this…

But I would not be against a general rating system to be established similar to movie ratings. There could be a blurb in the dmg and players.”

Each module could have a rating system with relevant themes listed. The dm lets players see it and decide. I might take my teen to some rated R movies and not others based on what themes are listed under the rating.

I can say if I know cruelty to animals or gratuitous torture is a significant player in a movie I would not buy a ticket but I guess I need to know it is there to make an informed decision.

A rating system, however well-intentioned, would lead directly to almost everything published being G, PG or  maybe PG-13. A lot of potential material would simply never see the light of day.

 

[Hussar]

It’s funny. If you run a game on Startplaying.com, you have to tag it. Strong language, adult themes, all ages. Etc.

Of course you should. You’re playing with strangers who are paying you to run a game. Why on earth would you not do that?

This is no different.

The idea that you would rather exclude your friends than simply adjust a campaign is frankly jaw droppingly horrifying. Holy crap. “Look I don’t like x. I really really don’t. Would it be okay if we didn’t do x?” Should ALWAYS be acceptable.

Putting pretend elf games in front of real people is bad. Given the choice I’d rather have the people who are willing to step up and say what they don’t want in a game in the hobby than people who think their fan fix fantasy world is more important.

If I had to chose one or the other, I know who I’d prefer leave the hobby.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Would you suggest that invoking rape is good for rape survivors, it is not triggering their trauma for your personal joy actually a good thing?

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

As you continue to suggest this is not an issue safety you gloss over masses of trauma that you want to force upon your friends so that you can laugh and/smile at their terror

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

 

[Bill Zebub]

I will never understand this continuing use of the diminutive term "elf-game". It is only ever used to put down someone's argument. There are more mature ways to refute someone. How is that not offensive?

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.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Would you suggest that invoking rape is good for rape survivors, it is not triggering their trauma for your personal joy actually a good thing?

As you continue to suggest this is not an issue safety you gloss over masses of trauma that you want to force upon your friends so that you can laugh and/smile at their terror

Is it beneficial to the discussion to imply that anyone who has a difference of opinion with you on this issue is a monster? Because that's what this looks like to me.