Consent in Gaming - Free Guidebook

[Arnwolf666]

They already do. They're called 'Dungeon Masters'.

Apparently they are banning dungeon masters.

 

[Celebrim]

On the one hand, I feel like the past page or so has gotten down to defending this document on the grounds of such narrow utility, and has conceded it's lack of utility in such a swath of situations, and has even seemingly gotten to the level of trying to defend it with, "But it makes you think.", "But it's got such good intent." and "But you could always fix the problems in the rules by house ruling the document.", that I feel there are hardly any windmills left for me to tilt at.

A great many of the comments defending the document are now entirely divorced from the what the document actually says, so that they are making this out to be some sort of session zero questionnaire or some sort of ratings disclosure document - things that I don't think would actually get a lot of pushback. It's really easy to wonder why there is pushback when you have replaced in your head what the thing is with some far more reasonable alternative

Suggesting that in some cases it might be good session zero questionnaire that said something like, "Are there any subjects which you might cause emotional distress, such as particular phobias you have which would tend to cause a fictional subject to cause real distress?" probably would get no pushback.

Suggesting that in a new group or in a group which might be considering changing its normal game type, some sort of disclosure to the group by the GM regarding the sort of subject matter he considered appropriate at the table and what he expected to raise and what he would object to if the player initiated it is also not unreasonable. "I tend to prefer the game to remain PG-13..." ect. is not a particularly controversial course of action.

But this document doesn't outline any of those things. Instead the solution imported into the social gaming environment is one that makes the following assuptions:

a) The activity involved is inherently and highly unsafe.
b) The basis of safety is a veto on the activity by all participants which can be raised at any time and for any reason.
c) An objection by one party has equal rate to the feelings of the rest of the group, an assumption that would make sense if and only if there were only two parties in the activity.
d) When a veto is raised, the other parties are inherently in the wrong because a veto is raised on the basis of safety, therefore any other considerations are invalid. Any attempt to discuss the subject is inherently rude. Any show of displeasure that the veto is raised is inherently rude.

In the document some of these assumptions are made explicitly, and others implicitly, but they are all there. These assumptions make a great deal of sense if the activity we are discussing is say cave exploration, which is a highly perilous activity. They make very little sense for typical table top role playing.

To make them make sense, requires at minimum defending proposition 'a' - the activity involved is inherently and highly unsafe - which some people seem to be actually trying to do.

Ironically, this IMO makes roleplaying seem less safe, welcoming and inclusive.

Even more ironically, if proposition 'a' is in fact true, then the hobby most certainly requires gatekeepers to filter who can be allowed to participate in the hobby, because hobbies that are unsafe are justified in be exclusive and practicing a certain amount of elitism. And if in fact people are advancing the idea that the hobby is unsafe, then people who are uncomfortable that this document seems to be part of a drive to justify gatekeeping in the hobby both in terms of play and publications, may not in fact be irrational.

And that doesn't even get into the practical challenges of implementing this strategy and what that would actually look like if you tried it and how ugly and unpleasant it would probably get.

 

[Umbran]

And then if this is just the beginning of policing these games for other thought crimes.

It isn't about policing thought crimes. It is about giving folks tools to be able to approach emotionally complex topics with people they don't know particularly well.

If anything, this actually helps people be more free, by helping them make considerate choices about the individuals at hand, rather than having to broadly police in a general way.

 

[S'mon]

On the one hand, I feel like the past page or so has gotten down to defending this document on the grounds of such narrow utility, and has conceded it's lack of utility in such a swath of situations, and has even seemingly gotten to the level of trying to defend it with, "But it makes you think.", "But it's got such good intent." and "But you could always fix the problems in the rules by house ruling the document.", that I feel there are hardly any windmills left for me to tilt at.

I think you could have stopped it there, declared victory, and left.

That's what I intend to do now.

 

[Arnwolf666]

It isn't about policing thought crimes. It is about giving folks tools to be able to approach emotionally complex topics with people they don't know particularly well.

If anything, this actually helps people be more free, by helping them make considerate choices about the individuals at hand, rather than having to broadly police in a general way.

That’s how those things start out. It is what kind of person wants the position of power to enforce it. How will they enforce. Will this become as convoluted as how we enforce laws and company policies. Will this become a method of banning people with certain play styles. People that want power can be dangerous people.

 

[Celebrim]

If anything, this actually helps people be more free, by helping them make considerate choices about the individuals at hand, rather than having to broadly police in a general way.

I will never be less free and less considerate that an expert system filled with "If A then B, no negotiation." arrows and directives. Replacing people with a trivially simple expert system is not helping people make considerate choices, but rather is having situations broadly policed in a general way.

This system is not some nuanced document calling for a nuanced approach. It's a document that assumes the activity is highly unsafe. Again, I don't know a lot about the BDSM community, but I recognize these sort of guidelines from caving and cave rescue training - if one party member feels unsafe the whole party needs to immediately shift the first priority to removing the entire party from the cave system. It's not intended to be considerate. It's intended to keep people safe in a situation where things can go spectacularly wrong in a blink of an eye.

Leaving aside the ethics of BDSM and the use of emotionally charged words like 'consent', if I tried to import into the gaming community an expert system designed to keep groups safe in dangerous cave systems, a set of rules that every grotto in some form is supposed to abide by, people might reasonably wonder why in the world I was trying to treat a recreational activity like some sort of highly dangerous activity. And people might reasonably wonder whether insisting on double checks of equipment and buddy checks and so forth might actually discourage people from entering the hobby (which many grottoes actually actively do).

"If you need aid, shout BO BO BO as loudly as possible.... I mean, touch the X card, use the safe word..."

 

[Umbran]

But this document doesn't outline any of those things. Instead the solution imported into the social gaming environment is one that makes the following assuptions:

a) The activity involved is inherently and highly unsafe.

So, here's a story of something I accidentally did.

Years ago, at a convention, I was in a live-action game set in a circus, in which most of the characters were circus performers. Trapeze artists, lion tamers, ringmaster, and everything, and everyone had pulled out the stops for costuming. At the scheduled game start, the GMs told us they needed a few more minutes to set up the room, and asked if all us players could please go to the con suite to wait. The con suite was right outside the game room, so the players all decided to make it into a "hey, the circus has come to town" parade. We came merrily trouping out...

And a woman in the con suite, who was innocently making herself a sandwich, turned, looked at me, screamed, and dropped to the floor covering her head with her arms. She was legitimately coulrophobic, and I was in the lead of the column in full Emmett Kelley inspired clown makeup. I freaked the ever-lovin' frak out of this poor woman. My fellow clowns and I needed to skedaddle out of sight, and she lost the afternoon to pulling herself back into working order.

So, you know, claiming the safety of gaming... not so solid.

Within the context of the game, where everyone had buy-in to being at a circus, there was no issue. But take a thing out of that context where we all agree upon it being okay, and suddenly it can become very much unsafe, especially when it is a sudden surprise.

Safety isn't generally inherent to an activity - it often depends upon context and preparation.

 

[Gradine]

Of course it is. But as each generation grows up they forget about it. And thus we are doomed to repeat that history ad nauseum.

Which is why I just can't help but roll my eyes when the comedians I loved as a teen are now complaining about "political correctness". Yes, Jerry Seinfeld, yes Chris Rock... the stuff you used to joke about isn't found funny anymore because society has changed and you haven't. And if you can't understand or come to grips with that... perhaps you aren't as smart or intuitive as we all thought you were.

It should be noted that is endemic of comedy as a whole; it's just hard for good comedy (and thus good comedians) to age well. And it really does impact the best of comedians; when Chappelle has basically become stale and outdated, you know that nobody's really safe.

But this document doesn't outline any of those things. Instead the solution imported into the social gaming environment is one that makes the following assuptions:

a) The activity involved is inherently and highly unsafe.
b) The basis of safety is a veto on the activity by all participants which can be raised at any time and for any reason.
c) An objection by one party has equal rate to the feelings of the rest of the group, an assumption that would make sense if and only if there were only two parties in the activity.
d) When a veto is raised, the other parties are inherently in the wrong because a veto is raised on the basis of safety, therefore any other considerations are invalid. Any attempt to discuss the subject is inherently rude. Any show of displeasure that the veto is raised is inherently rude.

a) It literally doesn't say that at all. I honestly think that's just you projecting. That gaming has the potential to be unsafe is (a) what it's really saying, (b) objectively true, and (c) shouldn't be controversial at all.
b) That's less the basis of safety and more of a last resort. The purpose of this tool and others like it is to have enough communication made before hand that a "veto" or "x-card" or whatever becomes all but unnecessary. I get why the "at any time and for any reason" might be an controversial position but from a trauma-informed perspective it is fundamentally and indisputably necessary.
c) Individual and community well-being is not a democracy. Every individual has the right to declare, set, and enforce their own boundaries. That said, sometimes the best solution is the game is not the best fit for the individual. That's an outcome that I think could be better articulated in the document (which comes from the standpoint that the DM and group are to wanting accommodate and be inclusive of all players within the group), but is a positive outcome nonetheless. That said, I find it hard to argue that "If you don't like it, you can leave" is particularly moral stance to take.
d) Now this point is just a willful misreading of the document. The document goes to great lengths to explain that nobody is in the "wrong", everyone makes mistakes from time to time, and everyone's personal traumas and triggers are, well, personal. Just because it doesn't bother you doesn't mean you're a bad person because you didn't raise an objection. And this: "Any attempt to discuss the subject is inherently rude. Any show of displeasure that the veto is raised is inherently rude." is either a level of intellectual dishonesty that is quite honestly beneath you, or such a sign of self-importance, ego and lack of empathy that honestly kind of concerns me. That's not what the document says at all. It says that a person isn't required to isn't required to explain why the thing that just made them uncomfortable makes them so uncomfortable. A person's reasons why are deeply personal, and if the situation in the game makes them uncomfortable, making them talk about the real life reasons why is only going to make them more uncomfortable. Demanding an explanation, badgering them to change their mind, insisting they just put up with it because everyone else is enjoying it? Yeah, those things are rude. Again, I'm not sure how that's controversial statement.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Arnwolf666]

I don’t think society has changed as much as a very few minority is very vocal and good at throwing tantrums and screaming at people that do things they don’t like. I think that is evidence of chapelle recent success on Netflix. People kind of really want it. And now we are determining weather we are going to give people what they want or listen to a very vocal small group that will scream and protest when they don’t get what they want.