Arnwolf666
Adventurer
I’m saying the use of it is optional. Conventions and stores don’t have to use it just because monte cook creates a new consent form to be used. What he does at his place of business is his businesss.
So I've always approached my game with the same thought in mind. If anyone at the table doesn't buy in the game is going to fail. Now I could just always put the onus on the player to leave when they don't buy in, but I don't see a lot of value in that. Sometimes it will be necessary for the player to leave, but it's too heavy handed of an approach to most cases. I think a lighter touch and being a more approachable and adaptable DM will lead to more fun at my table in the long term, probably short term too.
I’m saying the use of it is optional. Conventions and stores don’t have to use it just because monte cook creates a new consent form to be used. What he does at his place of business is his businesss.
I really want to understand.
Some people do give surveys.Why don’t they just call it a survey to match a group with people similar playstyles.
So it seems that you would need to have some version of the consent form, that would be included in the description...
Traditional printed convention materials make this untenable, but I don't see why this couldn't be supported with on-line systems, which most conventions I've been to use now...
It really isn't different from food-preference/allergy surveys for conventions, airlines, and the like. They focus on the majority of dietary restrictions. It won't cover everything, but it certainly goes along way toward being accommodating to the vast majority of attendees.
This is something that as a referee I would welcome. But trying to apply the guidelines of the PDF under discussion as a referee at a convention game is just untenable.
Exactly. EXACTLY.
(Those who are critics not of the premise of gaming consent but of the specific approach or formulation of the published doc, well, the rest of this post is not about you.)
(a) That right there is YOUR first problem, hater. It ain't YOUR game alone. Every person at that table has an equal stake in the experience.
You agreed to game with other people - so yeah, that means YOU have to do some of that work.
That means that if YOU, hater...
don't like that someone has a problem with the content, YOU can also leave.
Oh, wait, that's not fair?
YOU are the disruptive presence. YOU are the problem at THEIR game.
And this is really my favoritest favorite: MY ENJOYMENT OF MY ELF GAME IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN YOUR HUMAN FEELINGS. I mean, that is ultimately what this boils down to. Every single hater out there has placed their desired play over the emotional well-being of other people - HUMANS - sitting next to them. There's no debating it, no excusing it, no reframing it or explaining it away. You, hater, have decided that nothing is as important as you being able to say/act/verbally fantasize however you want IN AN ELF GAME. You have also decided that only YOU get to decide what is valid, fair, or acceptable in this shared experience, and reject the notion that anyone else's experience or dissenting opinions matter as much as yours. Indeed, the world revolves around your little fantasy.
So no, hater, the problem is that YOU are a complete tool.
You are why we can't have nice things. You are the worst part of about gaming, the stain, the stereotype we have to fight against, the part that needs to go away, and as quickly as possible. You are not welcome in an hobby or industry devoted to social interaction, because you insist on rejecting the core premise and contract of the social engagement that drives it. You, hater, should just play single-person video games at home alone. You, hater, should disappear. Because, and let's be 100% clear, YOU ARE NOT A GOOD OR REASONABLE PERSON, AND NO ONE BENEFITS FROM GAMING WITH YOU.