Consent in Gaming - Free Guidebook

[Bedrockgames]

Two things- "some campaigns are going to need spiders(?)" Okay, then.

And the bolded part is really the crux of the issue; who is deciding what is reasonable? I mean, "the table?"

Yes, the table in most cases is what I have in mind here

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Bedrockgames]

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.

I read the PDF. And the people who wrote it, as much as I respect them and their design work, are not psychiatrists either (as far as I know). But I will say this. I base my opinion on personal experience in my family with issues like mental illness. I am not speaking from a place of ignorance on this. I think there are lots of good reasons to question whether this list is healthy for us.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Gradine]

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

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

Yup, that is definitely a real thing a real gamer would do at a D&D table, and totally not an illogical and asinine slippery slope argument (rolls eyes)

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

You added an extra "un" on the first "reasonable", I went ahead and fixed that for you.

Seriously, in most other contexts this would be pretty bog standard, boilerplate trauma informed communication. But try to introduce it to games and suddenly it's the end of the damn free world.

In all honesty, it's the "bu bu but veto!" arguments that are the dead giveaway. I have a lot of words I'd use to describe someone who'd put the enjoyment of four people's make believe game over one person's, who they ostensibly like enough to game with, real trauma. And all of them would get me thread banned.

 

[Nagol]

<snip>

It's a free supplement offering suggestions on "consent in gaming" that most people would have barely noticed had it not been for knee-jerk reactionaries. The pushback is disproportionate to what the free supplement actually says.

It always is.

 

[Celebrim]

Yup, that is definitely a real thing a real gamer would do at a D&D table, and totally not an illogical and asinine slippery slope argument (rolls eyes)

Do you honestly think I'm joking giving my background? Guess what, occult references actually don't appear in any games I play, and it would be a deal breaker. It's not a hypothetical.

And do you really think I'd don't have the same opinion of the arguments being made by the other side?

According to your side, this shouldn't be up for debate. You shouldn't be allowed to say that the request is unreasonable. I know people who play D&D put don't feel comfortable with pagan gods in the campaign. Now you are mocking them. I don't actually play any games with occult references. Now you are mocking me. So much for your inclusivity. You can't even abide by your own rules. When there requests don't fit into your framework of what is reasonable, now all the sudden this is something that we have time to debate.

Let's be real. This is the morality you have on display: "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." This is your inclusivity. In your language inclusivity means people you don't like should "disappear".

 

[MNblockhead]

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.

Ouch. Okay, I can accept that I am not welcome to referee a game. Their con their rules. But is this really how we want to approach it. If we are not careful, well intentioned efforts to make gaming at Cons more inclusive and considerate can lead to a backlash, driving away referees and even players. Yes, there are a minority of bad actors who we should be fine with driving away. But the X card, used under the guidelines promulgated by the Monte Cook PDF, is just not practical for many games I run. Even as a player, I would find it awkward to have to use it.

For most games it is just better to have this figured out up front, before a player registers for a game.

There was one game I participated in where the X card was used that I thought made a lot of sense in that it worked well with the mechanics and nature of the game. This was Dialect, a high-concept game where you play a an isolated group, building a language, which is destined to die (the language, no necessarily the group, but often the group). It is the only TTRPG experience that I can say has been genuinely moving and impactful in a way games like D&D rare are. The nature of game play in Dialect have impressed me on how consistently they can creating moving experience.

The nature of Dialect makes it very easy for a player to change a discussion, suggestion, or word to avoid something another player is not comfortable with. I actually think that the X card works very well as a mechanic for this game. Similarly, I think it could work well for a game like InSPECTREs.

But to make it work in a game like D&D can be much more difficult.

If I'm going to run a game involving infiltrating a Yuan-ti city, and a player has a phobia involving snakes, not only would I find it very difficult to change the adventure on the fly, I wouldn't want to. I prepared and decided to run the game because I as a DM enjoy the adventure. Much better to say in the description of the game that it it involves snakes, human sacrifice, claustrophobic underground spaces, natural hazards including deadly dessert heat, and underwater challenges with a risk of PC drowning, and graphic descriptions of those things.

I could still incorporate an X card for people who find it too intense, but without any discussion, it will be difficult for me to know exactly what the problem is within the agreed upon scope of the game.

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.

I can get on board with this.

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.

This is really the challenge with Con games. No matter how well-run or safe one table is, you are surrounded by many other tables with different game systems and table rules. It is difficult enough to deal with exceptionally loud groups, much less policing content at other tables that are polluting your table's safe space.

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

Agreed. Con game-registration systems would seem a good place to start.

 

[billd91]

Do you honestly think I'm joking giving my background? Guess what, occult references actually don't appear in any games I play, and it would be a deal breaker. It's not a hypothetical.

You know, if you were to put that on something like, I dunno, a form or questionnaire about your problem issues, I bet GMs might design around your issue. If only something like that existed or could be encouraged to be a common practice...

 

[Umbran]

One of the problems I intend to go into in this is it really isn't reasonable to ask people to disclose all their personal affairs, especially in the situation where formalizing a social contract is most needed. You're asking me a question about things I haven't talked in great openness with my own parents.

It was a yes-or-no question. I did not ask about any personal affairs. No details. I did not ask when, or where, or with whom, or what the person's particular trauma was, or what their relationship to you was.

I asked for no information about personal affairs, and you get up in arms about asking for all personal affairs? That... doesn't make a lot of sense.

It is also so far from my question as to be a strawman, I'm afraid - I was asking the question somewhat rhetorically, to establish a solidly severe case that we could all agree we'd want to avoid - or make it clear that some folks do not feel they should try to avoid it. I am not asking you as a player, I am asking you as a person who claims to have better ideas as to how to handle such matters - whether you have had to handle such matters is relevant.

Funny it's never come up in 30 years of gaming.

So... it has never come up. But, somehow, you know how it should be handled?

I can accept that it has never come up in discussion at your table. There's a massive stigma about mental health in this country. The majority of people who have such issues do not talk about them, for fear of being judged. So, unless you specifically make it clear that you are open and non-judgemental about it to players, then they are unlikely to bring it up.

But, if it has never been discussed... how do you know it has never happened? Lack of evidence isn't evidence of lack. "I'm going to go out for a smoke, (or to the bathroom, or I need to take this call, or whatever)" can easily be cover for, "I need to get away from this table."

You probably have a strong emotional reaction to that suggestion. You probably reject the notion, and may well be mad at me for even suggesting it. You may be about to rail at me for the presumption. Please, hold that thought for the next section, as it is terribly important.

The 'how' is almost always where all the real acrimony is.

Ah. No. The acrimony comes from emotional investment, which is generally established before details of how are discussed. That's how the human brain works - your limbic system responds faster than the parts of the brain that process logic. This is why much of the acrimony happens despite any evidence presented, and compromise rarely happens. This is why the acrimony happens any time anything in broad sets of topics come up. Because it really isn't about the evidence or logical details. It is about having an emotional stake in the ground, and the feelings around being told you should move it.

That's ridiculous, illogical, and absurd.

Were you of the opinion that we were on the planet Vulcan? Humans are not nearly as logical as they claim.

In fact, this entire thread is about helping people avoid major negative emotional responses! If we were all that logical, we'd not need to consider the issue.

This is all about the 'how' and peoples discomfort with the proposed how.

You may feel your posts are about that. But that is not an accurate generalization about the thread.

Upthread there was a guy claiming that folks who react badly to content should, "just deal with it". That was not about the proposed how - it was about the need to do it at all, about how those who needed the consideration were weak, lazy, attention-seeking, or otherwise undeserving.

So, no, it isn't all about the details. You may want it to be, but the evidence does not support that it is so. I hope you can grasp that before trying to move forwards. I expect you will continue to be frustrated until you see this.

I submit to you that overall, it is more about discomfort with being told that, in the past, each of us was doing a bad job of it - that feeling you may have had when I suggested that people had been harmed at your table without you even knowing - and how that reflects badly upon us and implies that we should take more effort that we really aren't interested in performing. Most social change arguments take this form - it isn't about the details, it is either about helping people we have an emotional dislike for, and/or about the implication that we were bad for not doing this sooner.