Consent in Gaming - Free Guidebook

[Wolfpack48]

Why do I feel like the “but but veto!” complainers are seeing their throne being threatened?

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don't know anything about you.

And you don't know anything about other people's issues, do you? What, do YOU speak for everyone?

So for the many people who have trouble thinking about, and discussing, these issues, a "cheat sheet" (or checklist, or guide) is a helpful thing. Especially for public play.

And the insane amount of pushback really says a lot, doesn't it? None of it good.

It is getting pushback because some parts of the checklist are kind of out there. And the PDF has a lot of ideas people think are a little off. I think if you live in a certain bubble in the gaming community it seems normal. I think for most gamers, this a bridge too far. It isn't about a lack of empathy or compassion. People are happy to help those they know with problems. But this list effectively gives people a tool they can use to veto any gaming content they don't like, for pretty much any reason (and it gives them the moral high ground for doing so). It is a recipe for very dysfunctional social behavior in my opinion and it isn't the right way to handle serious problems like PTSD (or other mental illness).

 

[Nagol]

The tool part is only the last page. The pamphlet argues that one must get consent from all players before s story element can come up in a game. It treats a role playing session as if it’s an inherently dangerous activity which is absurd.

I don't see I treating roleplaying as an inherently dangerous. If a player doesn't consent to how the game is going -- for whatever reason -- you no longer have a player. You can either get consent beforehand with forewarning or hope consent in granted in the moment. It's up to you. This applies to any element of the game: player composition (Alice won't play if Bob is on the game), narrative direction (Carol left because she got bored with all the dungeon crawls), themes (David stopped coming because he doesn't like all the Lovecraftian imagery that keeps coming up), or play style (Edith got bored and found a group that argues less and gets more done). Forewarning minimises disruption during the session and minimises turnover between sessions.

Some forewarning is already commonly provided through longstanding tradition (this is the game engine we're going to use, here are the house rules detailing divergence and establishing a code of conduct / social contract, here's an elevator pitch for what the game will be about and the setting). (As an aside the fastest way to have me withdraw consent from further play as a player is to present this stuff and then rapidly change the campaign away from advertised. If I sign up to play X, I won't be happily surprised we're actually playing Y).

 

[Wolfpack48]

This was posted over on rpg.net as well. Good read.

Laziness Does Not Exist

Psychological research is clear: when people procrastinate, there's usually a good reason

humanparts.medium.com

 

[BookBarbarian]

I read the document the other day and while I think it may be suitable for some people, I really can't see using the checklist or abiding by the ideas expressed in the text in my games.

I actually feel the same way, but for that exact reason I like that it was written. I like that we are talking about it so I can say things like:

The default being No unless everyone buys in won't work for me because I can't anticipate all things triggering, but a short list of things most likely to come up is a helpful tool. Very helpful even.

Likewise I think the form is not as useful to me, but as a guideline for some topics I should address in Session 0, or privately with a new player when they join an ongoing game is again very useful.

Thinking about how I would "rate" my games on the MPAA scale is useful (I think i'm a firm Pg-13) and being reminded to be aware and sensitive when I see player discomfort is great.

 

[Nagol]

It is getting pushback because some parts of the checklist are kind of out there. And the PDF has a lot of ideas people think are a little off. I think if you live in a certain bubble in the gaming community it seems normal. I think for most gamers, this a bridge too far. It isn't about a lack of empathy or compassion. People are happy to help those they know with problems. But this list effectively gives people a tool they can use to veto any gaming content they don't like, for pretty much any reason (and it gives them the moral high ground for doing so). It is a recipe for very dysfunctional social behavior in my opinion and it isn't the right way to handle serious problems like PTSD (or other mental illness).

It gives a people a tool to determine if they want to participate or not. No one save myself gets to veto whether I run a campaign. They get to decide whether or not to participate in what I run. If I'm asking for input into campaign structure or content, it's because I want to understand the players expectations and preference better. If I solicit their input and decide to strike out in a different direction, it is only polite I tell them in advance for they can make informed decisions about how to invest their time and energy.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Bedrockgames]

It give a people a tool to determine if they want to participate or not. No one save myself gets to veto whether I run a campaign. They get to decide whether or not to participate in what I run. If I'm asking for input into campaign structure or content, it's because I want to understand the players expectations and preference better. If I solicit their input and decide to strike out in a different direction, it is only polite I tell them in advance for they can make informed decisions about how to invest their time and energy.

It isn't just a tool. It has an ideology behind it as well. Like I said, it states very clearly in the PDF that there is no debate. And there are a lot of other similar assumptions in the PDF (for example assumptions that people have raised here about how gaming is inherently too dangerous and powers that you need this checklist). I don't have a problem with people using it if they think it is a valuable tool. I question whether it is a valuable tool. And I wouldn't use it in my game. But if people want to go through a checklist like that, fine by me. What bothers me is there is push for everyone to use it. And there is push back if you point out you think it is kind of silly.

 

[Wolfpack48]

The tool part is only the last page. The pamphlet argues that one must get consent from all players before s story element can come up in a game. It treats a role playing session as if it’s an inherently dangerous activity which is absurd.

You’re misinterpreting this. It’s advocating a conversation about topics that could be sensitive to your players and the best way to handle them. As opposed to running your game like a despot.

 

[Bedrockgames]

So you really think the big concern is that there are people out there just plotting to veto your games, and are just waiting to grab the moral highground on you.

Yeah, no.

No one is forcing you to use this guide, or any other tool. As I said at the beginning, the real shame is that the people that are likely most in need of something like this are the ones most likely to not ever use it (and complain that people might consider using it).

We don't know our own blindspots, and we often don't know what is, and isn't, acceptable; some tables can easily handle that through a frank and open session 0 (and ongoing conversation), others can't. Some tables might view this as a helpful conversation starter, others as a checklist.

I'd rather have people having this conversation, and fostering inclusivity, than have people ... veto those necessary conversations.

I think a tool like this invites bad behavior and I think you are seeing a lot that bad behavior play out in conversations online. I don't think there is a big problem with people plotting to veto my games. But I do think using this checklist in every game would invite all kinds of issues. And I don't think it is the panacea its supporters believe it be. I also don't think it is intuitive, natural or reasonable to most gamers.