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

[Charlaquin]

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

It’s an accurate description of the content of the sidebar. If players can opt out of using the system, then their consent is literally required by the system.

EDIT: Actually, that’s not being fair enough to your point. Yes, I agree that if the sidebar hadn’t been titled “player consent required,” there wouldn’t have been any objections to it. Not because “player consent required” is actually an overbearing thing for the sidebar to be titled (as I said, it’s a literally accurate description of the sidebar’s content), but because there’s a contingent within the RPG community who has become hypervigilant against anything that sounds vaguely “woke,” and “consent” happens to be one of the words that sets their hackles up.

 

[Bedrockgames]

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.

Again you are projecting ideas onto what I said

 

[Bedrockgames]

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.

There have been several posters suggesting these tools are essential for helping avoid triggers for people with trauma. And one poster even suggested so was sadistic and skeptical of such tools. And what is more, the whole conversation about safety tools in the hobby very much centers on what techniques can help people manage trauma

But yes there is a distinction to be made between people saying that versus saying this tool is just there to make play more fun. I do get that

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Are they suffering by not playing in that game (an option I specifically mentioned and that you ignored)?

 

[Scribe]

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

Everyone knows why. The lines are already drawn, and it is what it is.

BTW: I defended the use of 'elf game' in the unpopular opinion thread. I have no angst from this thread.

 

[bedir than]

There have been several posters suggesting these tools are essential for helping avoid triggers for people with trauma. And one poster even suggested so was sadistic and skeptical of such tools. And what is more, the whole conversation about safety tools in the hobby very much centers on what techniques can help people manage trauma

But yes there is a distinction to be made between people saying that versus saying this tool is just there to make play more fun. I do get that

Safety tools do not replace therapy.

They do help you treat your friends like friends

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

I agree. Some people here seem to think it in fact  does make you a bad person. That's my issue.

 

[bedir than]

Are they suffering by not playing in that game (an option I specifically mentioned and that you ignored)?

Nope. If given the warning that certain things may or may not happen anyone can choose to leave the table. That's a valid response.
Having a conversation ahead of time means that people are informed.
Surprising them with trauma should be avoided,

 

[Bedrockgames]

Safety tools do not replace therapy.

They do help you treat your friends like friends

I think it is questionable his helpful they are is my point. Look I have experienced PTSD. I am not an expert but I do have personal experience with that and with mental illness (both my own and that of family) . I think these tools are less helpful than you believe, potentially harmful and gm give people a false sense of security and confidence. If things are bad enough that one can’t play an RPG without safety tools, I think that the table is not a good place for that to be managed.

 

[Bedrockgames]

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…

that isn’t what I am saying, which I think is clear. My point is not every group thinks it adds to fun to have the GM checking with but in on this stuff. Especially if the things he or she is checking on us pretty standard stuff (I would say body horror is pretty standard).