Consent in Gaming - Free Guidebook

[Bedrockgames]

The fact that things like thirst, rats or heatstroke as assumed parts of any game is one of the reasons the list is useful, because for some players that kind of thing is traumatic, yet most GMs wouldn’t think twice about including them in their games.

As for allowance for debate - their shouldn’t be one. If one of your players has a rat phobia, you don’t debate it with him, you just don’t include rats in your game. Half the reason people don’t confide in others about these fears is because they’re worried they’ll be belittled or otherwise harangued over it. Someone telling you ‘I have a phobia about X’ I’d not an invitation to argue about it with them.

I don't know. These are things that you would expect in any game. If someone has a major issue with them, obviously it should be discussed, but I don't think that automatically means they should be given control over the content. Sometimes a group isn't just the right fit for a person. And there is the added issue that most GMs don't know anything about counseling, psychiatry, etc. It is a problem that goes beyond the gaming table. I don't know if bending to what they ask is the correct course of action, asking them more questions, or giving them some resistance is better for their mental health. When it comes to stuff like PTSD it gets even more complicated. You shouldn't be rude or mean. But having that kind of issue shouldn't automatically translate into you get to say what other people can and can't have in the game. That is why I said things need to be discussed and debated. I wouldn't try to debate someone that they don't have a phobia they say they have. But if their request doesn't seem reasonable, I think it is fair for me to debate the request, or for the group to have a debate over how best to handle it. The PDF and the checklist just offers one solution to a very complicated problem: people who don't want something in the game, for whatever reason, always get their way and there is no discussion. That seems incredibly unhealthy to me.

 

[Celebrim]

As for allowance for debate - their shouldn’t be one. If one of your players has a rat phobia, you don’t debate it with him, you just don’t include rats in your game. Half the reason people don’t confide in others about these fears is because they’re worried they’ll be belittled or otherwise harangued over it. Someone telling you ‘I have a phobia about X’ I’d not an invitation to argue about it with them.

The debate isn't over whether they are phobic of rats, nor am I in the slightest suggesting anyone be belittled or harangued over their fear of rats.

The debate is over whether he can be a part of the game and is undertaken by the rest of the players. And you know most of the time, that debate isn't even a debate at all and probably goes, "Sure buddy, join right in. Room at the table. We've needed a sixth player." either because we haven't even started play or because rats legitimately have nothing to do with the campaign and it's easy to not play with rats.

And then there was that time practically the whole campaign was about Sormkortek, whom if you are phobic of rats I can't even get into describing, but suffice to say what we are doing is all about rats. "And you know what buddy, we've invested years into this game, and right at the moment I can't even tell you where the party or what we or doing is because a detailed description of literally anything that is going on will probably be unhealthy for you. Much as we'd like you to join us, maybe you should wait until we wrap up this campaign and contact us again in a year or so." And while there is a certain bit of selfishness in a group not wanting to drop everything that they've invested in to accommodate the guy that has disclosed a phobia of rats, that's life. Sometimes you have to weigh the happiness of the six people already playing against the potential happiness of adding that seventh player, because that accommodation can't be done without cost. Is anyone happy about it. No, probably as soon as the buddy says, "There is this thing I should tell you... I'm afraid of rats.", everyone is going to have this crestfallen look, and there will be a lot of uncomfortable glances because no one wants to tell him.

Now if you can't possibly imagine not dropping a four year old campaign that you've invested hundreds of hours in to include that new person, well good for you. But perhaps you should really think about the cost of what you are asking for.

But beyond that, and probably more importantly than that, this isn't in any fashion like a group of people excluding someone because they are black, or gay, or a girl, or whatever. Playing a game that is all about rats (err, is there anyone in the thread seriously phobic of rats?) isn't inherently immoral. It's not like they are including content that is objectively problematic. It's only problematic because tragically a friend or acquaintance has an irrational fear. It's not a question like, "Well, or group objectifies female NPCs all the time, and we're fond of using demeaning terms for women at our table, and well adding a woman to our game would just cramp our style.", or whatever immoral BS that is going on out there in the wide world. Equating the two actually makes understanding either clearly worse. If that is the source of a problem of inclusivity, paper documents aren't going to fix what is wrong in the heart.

Sorry, we are playing an Arabian Nights campaign and it's pretty much all desert. Sorry, I'm very sad to hear that you have a terrifying fear of large bodies of water and drowning, but this is a piratical nautical themed campaign and it might not be for you. But, on the other hand, if you know our friend can't handle spiders, well we can all choose not to play a campaign against the Drow. Small sacrifice. Worth it to keep or friend at the table.

 

[Umbran]

Makes more sense to tell the players "This is like GoT".

And if the player hasn't seen or read Game of Thrones? Also, doing that is non-specific, even vague.

Let us say that the game is like GoT in general, but your material doesn't happen to have any incest. If someone is fine with the violence, and sex in general, "This is like GoT" makes them go away, even when they'd be fine with your game.

"This game is like Game of Thrones," means I have to guess. "This game has brutal graphic violence, rape, and incest," is much more clear, using only two more words.

 

[Bedrockgames]

And if the player hasn't seen or read Game of Thrones? Also, doing that is non-specific, even vague.

Let us say that the game is like GoT in general, but your material doesn't happen to have any incest. If someone is fine with the violence, and sex in general, "This is like GoT" makes them go away, even when they'd be fine with your game.

"This game is like Game of Thrones," means I have to guess. "This game has brutal graphic violence, rape, and incest," is much more clear, using only two more words.

That is why you have a conversation.

 

[Umbran]

But you're not liable for accidentally scaring someone while wearing a clown costume.

Legally, no, you aren't. Unless it would be bleedingly obvious that what you are about to do is apt to do harm, in which case what you are doing is some variation of reckless endangerment if you don't get permission...

But, the original statement isn't only about the law. It is applicable to ethics, and good old basic interpersonal relations. It is a multitasker!

So, how hard to you want to argue against the idea that we should take a few moments to be considerate? Because, ultimately, that is what this is about - one proposed method for taking time to avoid hurting folks when you don't have to.

 

[Umbran]

That is why you have a conversation.

Yep. And the form? One way to start that conversation.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yep. And the form? One way to start that conversation.

Except it closes off the ability to have a full discussion by saying there is no debate. And it includes very niche things. There are some items on that list most groups will naturally discuss before play (i.e. are you guys okay with romance?). But I see this as a very misguided tool. It effectively gives any person veto power over content, rather than doing it the normal way and talking about it to decide if the request is reasonable and if the group can accommodate it. Some campaigns are going to need spiders. Some groups are not going to want to change the content if 5 people love it and 1 person objects. People need to be able to have the ability to say "this campaign just might not be for you" sometimes. You are not entitled to play in every game and insist on the content of everyone's game.

 

[macd21]

I don't know. These are things that you would expect in any game. If someone has a major issue with them, obviously it should be discussed, but I don't think that automatically means they should be given control over the content. Sometimes a group isn't just the right fit for a person. And there is the added issue that most GMs don't know anything about counseling, psychiatry, etc. It is a problem that goes beyond the gaming table. I don't know if bending to what they ask is the correct course of action, asking them more questions, or giving them some resistance is better for their mental health. When it comes to stuff like PTSD it gets even more complicated. You shouldn't be rude or mean. But having that kind of issue shouldn't automatically translate into you get to say what other people can and can't have in the game. That is why I said things need to be discussed and debated. I wouldn't try to debate someone that they don't have a phobia they say they have. But if their request doesn't seem reasonable, I think it is fair for me to debate the request, or for the group to have a debate over how best to handle it. The PDF and the checklist just offers one solution to a very complicated problem: people who don't want something in the game, for whatever reason, always get their way and there is no discussion. That seems incredibly unhealthy to me.

See, Consent in Gaming is about answering the questions you have hear because, as you say, most GMs don’t know anything about counseling, psychiatry etc. And the thing to take away from it is this: you’re wrong about pretty much everything above.

And this is something people don’t like to hear, which is why there’s a lot of push back. Because yes, players should have vetos over what gets included in a game. If their request seems unreasonable, it is not fair to debate the request. People who don’t want something in their game shouldn’t have it in their game, nor should they have to explain themselves. Trying to force them to is unhealthy. Accepting that your friend has a problem, being considerate and trusting them is healthy.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Celebrim]

If their request seems unreasonable, it is not fair to debate the request.

Magic Spells. Pagan Gods. Occult References. Demonic Forces.

And if this is request is undebatable concerning a game, why not a gaming convention?

Update: It occurs to me that the tl;dr read for the whole thread could be, "One side is arguing that unreasonble requests should be treated as reasonable, and the other side thinks that's unreasonable."