Consent in Gaming - Free Guidebook

[Arnwolf666]

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.

 

[monsmord]

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.

Exactly. EXACTLY. The game and everyone in it benefits from being adaptable, and to being respectful and supportive to every member of the group. Imagine a gaming group where everyone actually knew going in that they could constructively hash out any problems and keep gaming, and not be belittled, humiliated, or harassed when reporting a problem. A group where everyone trusted everyone else to make the game great for everyone. Imagine going to a con and signing up for a game with strangers, and having some confidence that you could game in peace, or at least work out surprise issues and keep going without anyone losing dignity or the opportunity to hang with people who share your love of gaming. Sounds pretty freakin' sweet.

The two big premises of most haters on this doc are (a) they're telling me how to game, and (b) if a player doesn't like my game, they can leave.

(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.)

One - this doc isn't telling anyone how to game. It only says everyone around a table needs to be on the same page about it, and here's one proposed method to ensure it. This is a no-brainer. It's not a new idea. It's not provocative. It's not prescriptive. This is common freaking sense, people. You already do it every day in other aspects of life. If you have a job, you agree to do this to earn a paycheck. If you go to school, you do it to stay there. If you're in a romantic relationship and aren't doing this, good luck staying there. Come on.

But two - and my fave - is the MY GAME part. And I love breaking this into two pieces.

(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. It doesn't matter if you're the GM and sunk weeks of your time on your campaign. It doesn't matter if you've been playing that character for seventeen years. 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? THAT'S THE BLEEDING POINT. It's not fair to anyone. Work it out. But if you can't work it out because you're not willing to respect someone's emotional distress at the imagery introduced to this shared experience, YOU are the disruptive presence. YOU are the problem at THEIR game.

(b) 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.

 

[BookBarbarian]

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.

Why are you saying this?

No one has argued that Conventions and Stores have to use it.

Also Monte Cook is not the author.

 

[Umbran]

I really want to understand.

Then, let us make this simple.

A game publisher published a guide. It is not a law. The First Amendment only applies to laws or government action that restrict your speech. It doesn't apply to the guide. The First Amendment simply has no place in this discussion.

So, there's this guide. You can use it, or not. I daresay you will not find anyone who has said you must use this guide. Some have said words to the effect that a GM needs to be considerate of players - that would be better put as "really ought to be considerate". There is no need in a legal sense, and nobodyhere has said otherwise.

You keep asserting things as if there is some "loss of liberty" here. There's just a product you can choose to use, or not. There are folks who think it is really good to be considerate of players. But that's it.

Can you understand that?

 

[MNblockhead]

I like the form for starting a new campaign at say a game store or when putting out a call for members of a new group (Roll20, Meetup, whatever), but I'm still having an issue with how this can work at a convention. You are not going to have everyone fill out this form at the table when they show up. It is too late by then. It also doesn't make sense to distribute it before the convention. Besides the logistical challenges, the way it works in the conventions in which I've taken part is that the referee submits a game with a description that the convention organizers review and approve.

So it seems that you would need to have some version of the consent form, that would be included in the description. Others have suggested a film-rating like system, but that wouldn't work. Even a G-rated film may have something that would trigger someone with a phobia. With a film, the triggered person can walk out, turn of the TV, etc.

What would be more helpful is some way to have a menu of the most common phobias/triggers that a referee can check off when registering a game. This would allow players, when signing up for games, to filter and search by things that they need to or just want to avoid. Just like you can filter and search on game system, age limits, and time slots. You can also search for themes to either avoid them or even to find them because you want to play a game of bind-torture-kill rape spiders.

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.

Some referees may abuse this by just selecting everything, but if you are sensitive to certain themes you'd probably want to avoid that kind of referee anyway. I believe most referees would be fine with this.

Yes, you'll still have outliers. There will still be cases where unforeseen issues have to be addressed. But a system like I describe would take care of the vast majority of issues.

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.

 

[Arnwolf666]

Why don’t they just call it a survey to match a group with people similar playstyles.

 

[Xenonnonex]

Why don’t they just call it a survey to match a group with people similar playstyles.

Some people do give surveys.

 

[Xenonnonex]

To me conventions are in dangerous need of a guidebook like this. You get all sorts in conventions.

 

[monsmord]

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.

Yeah, the practical use of this specific doc would be untenable for most cons at this point, but if they accommodate differently abled gamers, allergies, etc., it seems reasonable to accommodate game content issues as well.

I think you're right that a good option is one where the game description int the sign-up process would have some sort of rating and/or content system. No system can tackle every possible scenario or trigger, but something more granular than G/PG/R should be pretty do-able.

I also think that in a con structure it may fall to in-game tools like the X-Card. Maybe cons should start requiring that GMs running there must use something, and the game descriptor in the catalog specify what tool will be employed. If a GM is unwilling to adopt a system the con requires, the GM doesn't need to be there.

I'd like to say it would be nice if, instead, a con made usage optional but required every game descriptor say what will be used, or if nothing would be used, a disclaimer like, "No X-cards or similar will be used in this game: play at your own risk." Players reasonably concerned they'll run into a problem need not sign up for that game, and the GM and similar-minded players can enjoy things their way. So, some games promise to adapt, others ask you not to sign up unless you're willing to walk away, and you know which you're getting.

But that brings up the issue of the shared and often crammed and cramped spaces we game in. I sign up for a game where we're using X-Cards and the doc and all, but at the table next to me it's wide open and triggering. Spaces would need to be separated for content, whether in different rooms or by time of day. Hrm.

No easy answers here, but there are answers. Larger cons can accommodate safe spaces and institute methods for getting people on the same pages, and hopefully smaller cons can keep such development in mind. Maybe there's an opportunity here to develop online tools (say, for cons), and industry standard labels that give consumers and players a fair idea of what and what not to expect.

Pretty sure we can crack this nut. Gamers tend toward the creative and intelligent ends of the spectrum.

 

[Celebrim]

Exactly. EXACTLY.

Well, now we are really getting ourselves worked up.

(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.)

I consider myself primarily a critic of the approach and formulation of the document, and so it is nice to know that your rant isn't primarily about me. But then I look at your words and they seem to be unrelated to the text, much less the specific parts of the text that cause people discomfort, and I really wonder who you could possibly be aiming the words at. If the text was what you seem to imagine that it is, and was only that, you wouldn't get any push back. If it only said what you said, if it was only "common sense", and was only laying out the procedures and approaches that have served us to keep peace and order and inclusivity at our gaming tables for three decades, it wouldn't be controversial.

The fact that it is doesn't seem to be prompting you to try to parse the text of the document.

(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.

Again, slurs about being "haters" aside, this is not an all a controversial statement. Your all caps aren't calling out anything anyone really disagrees with. In fact, this statement is core to why people are made uncomfortable by the document.

You agreed to game with other people - so yeah, that means YOU have to do some of that work.

If only you and I and the document were in such perfect agreement. If only every felt that the words of the document clearly outlined that everyone present had to do some of that work, I doubt this would have passed by with more than a glance and a nod.

That means that if YOU, hater...

Honestly your use of that word says more about you than your imagined opponents.

don't like that someone has a problem with the content, YOU can also leave.

Yes we can. And happily to. And I've done it before.

Oh, wait, that's not fair?

Yes it is fair. It's perfect fair. That is in fact "the bleeding point". It would be great if everything could be worked out, but sometimes it just can't, and so you graciously excuse yourself from further play and you wish the people that invited you to play the best. Even if they are practicing Satanists and when they find out you are a Christian they start making jokes about human sacrifice, and the game they are playing is way to murder hobo for you and involves way too much demon worship for your taste. You wish them well, and you go about your life.

YOU are the disruptive presence. YOU are the problem at THEIR game.

Yes, exactly. There was no way my Paladin was going to fit into their party of murderhobos, and there was no way I was going to play the sort of character that they would have felt comfortable with.

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.

That's a nice little rant, but welcome to reality. If a director is putting on a play, and there is one person who is disrupting the entire performance and no compromise can be reached, they are dismissed from the company. If a business is trying to produce a product, and there is one person who is disrupting the entire business and after repeated attempts to get them to desist, then they are dismissed from the business. If you are at a wedding or a funeral, and one person is making an arse of themselves, then they are removed so that the bride and the groom and the guests can engage in joy or grief or whatever emotion they are supposed to be feeling at the time.

The pamphlet is all about what you are ranting about - that one persons enjoyment of their elf game and their feelings about it trumps everyone else's at the table. There are humans sitting next to them, but their feelings come first. And if the book wasn't about that, it wouldn't make people so uncomfortable. If it said, the table needs to try to come to some compromise or accommodation because everyone at the table has a stake and has feelings, then people wouldn't get wierded out.

Turn your rant around, because you are aiming it at the wrong place. In fact, the ironic thing here is that you seem to be spittle flinging the very same worries and accusations some that really dislike the premise of the document have.

So no, hater, the problem is that YOU are a complete tool.

Yet you are the one ranting here.

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.

I mean, I think the rant speaks for itself. Here is the proponents of inclusivity on full display.

Any way, a few pages back as peoples rants got further and further from the actual text of the document and further and further away from what made "the haters" as you label them actually uncomfortable, I realized there was no good arguing this. The only way I could possibly make myself understood was to just write my own pamphlet. I don't know if I'll get it finished, because it is a heck of a lot of work, but if I ever do get it finished, I'll see if I can't figure out a good way to share it. That way people can hurl their venom at my take on things and I don't have to waste my breath trying to get people to think with their heads and not their hearts. And yes, it is bad to think with only your head as well, but thinking with only your heart and not your head is why that road labeled "Good Intentions" tends to lead to bad places.