Consent in Gaming - Free Guidebook

[Wolfpack48]

But the problem is we are not having a reasonable discussion about. This feels more like a moral panic than a reasonable discussion (which is why I invoked the satanic panic).

So far it’s been pretty reasonable to me anyway!

 

[Bedrockgames]

I like to feel I'm having a reasonable discussion about it. But I might be wrong.

I am not accusing you of being unreasonable (my memory isn't so great, so I'd have to review your last several responses to really weigh in there ). I just think the overall discussion going on in the gaming community about this is very shrill and...well panicked. There is an urgency and a moral pressure of "we must do something and we must do it now", that feels to me very much like the other moral panics I have seen. Like I said before, if people find use in the checklist, that is fine. I am not for shutting them down or crapping on the writers. I am just getting very irritated by the demands I am seeing for others to use the list, for those who don't like the list to be driven from the hobby, etc. I think we can have a reasonable disagreement about this. Personally I think it is a bad idea, and I won't be using it. I think people who choose to use it, should be able to do so without me yelling at them.

 

[S'mon]

And if the player hasn't seen or read Game of Thrones?

Yeah, and that was exactly what I then talked about in the post you quoted. My older gay friend/player wasn't familiar with the show, or its content. And he was upset by an event based on one in the show (Missandei being harassed by the leader of the Second Sons).

But I don't think the check list approach would have worked in my example either. There is no entry for "no crotch sniffing" on the check list - and why would my friend ever have thought to write that in?

 

[Bedrockgames]

It's not a universal block on discussion. It's respecting that individuals get to set their own boundaries and then respecting those boundaries.

But it does so by saying there is no room for debate. You are just reframing 'there is no room for debate' as 'respecting that individuals get to set their own boundaries'. Sometimes you have to have a conversation about something. And if you can't have a conversation this player and that group might not be a good fit.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The only people here making hyperbolic panicked arguments are those who oppose the document

We are just going to have to agree to disagree there

 

[Arilyn]

Actually the act of roleplaying is a very mental activity. I’m not saying we need to be psychologists, but using healthy psychological techniques in a hobby focused on shared storytelling and imagination seems like the exactly right place to have these conversations.

Yes, role playing games can be a good activity for helping people mentally and socially on many levels. Having a tool to further refine the benefits is a good idea.

If the guide has some weakness or problems, which I'm sure it does, it can act as a starting point. If it is used, it will no doubt be tweaked and improved.

Role playing games have been threading their way into all kinds of locations, like classrooms, and all kind of genres and tones from Lamentations of the Flame Princess to the gentle Japanese RPGs, where the biggest problem facing characters is rescuing a stuck puppy. There's going to continue to be a wide variety of people coming to tables with vastly differing expectations and experiences, and this diversity will continue to grow. This is awesome, but there will be growing pains, and considering the hooror stories that occurred when the hobby was small, yes a guide is a welcome addition.

 

[Gradine]

But it does so by saying there is no room for debate. You are just reframing 'there is no room for debate' as 'respecting that individuals get to set their own boundaries'. Sometimes you have to have a conversation about something. And if you can't have a conversation this player and that group might not be a good fit.

I'm not reframing anything, I'm merely providing the context you've missed by glossing over all the text after "there is no room for debate". The reason there's no room for debate is because otherwise you would be disrespecting other people's clearly stated boundaries by insisting on a debate.

 

[S'mon]

So, how hard to you want to argue against the idea that we should take a few moments to be considerate?

I don't like arguing against words put in my mouth at all! Not a fan of straw manning and ad hominem.

 

[monsmord]

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, our 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.

This goes to the bone of the problem that the doc, and similar tools, is trying to address.

The scenario as described feels spot on to me, like this is the way a lot of games would go. The crestfallen looks, etc. And the point of inclusivity is that we can do better and should try harder to do better, because the priorities described there are upside-down.

I even get it. I mean, if I'm one of those players and my character's a were-rat I've gotten to 19th level and it's my favorite character of all time - and now it has to be a were-squid, or we have to roll up new characters and start a new campaign? I mean yeah, hellz yeah, I'd be super disappointed. Probably pretty irked, honestly. I'd see if the new player would be willing to wait a session or two so we can wrap things up or have one last big battle or such. But if that's not reasonably possible, if somehow we can't even agree to start a new game when this phobic person is available and play the old campaign when they aren't, why would I send them packing? I'm choosing a loved character over increasing my gaming group and the promise of never having to fight giant rats ever again? I mean, how is this even a choice? What kind of person chooses their character over the emotional welfare of this apparently keen human sitting across from them? Why would anyone think that's okay? Why would anyone thinking six people making that choice makes it okay?

In this scenario, the phobia of rats is being treated as qualitatively different from a person's race, gender identity, or sexual preference; these other attributes are considered reasonable things that define the boundaries and sensitivities of the new player (based on presumptions, not by querying the player), while the phobia is not. An additional point used is that complaints of misogynist content should be treated one way, while not wanting rats in a game because of real emotional distress can be dismissed if inconvenient. (And while I laud the notion that racist, misogynist, or most -ist content is inherently problematic and should be discouraged, if a group in someone's dining room is all down with it and enjoys it, well, that's not really what we're discussing here. We're discussing dissent and request for change for deep emotional reasons, not whether complete accord can be achieved on chain mail bikinis.)

The existing players here have decided that their happiness of this specific gaming experience is derived primarily from the specific game content, not the social aspect. Their happiness will be shattered should that content need to be substantially changed, or worse, exchanged for a new one. Their priority is the game, not the people who'd play it. That's not social. It might border on sociopathy: more value placed on an imaginary world than on real people? Yikes.

I mean, one can try to make this about numbers - 6 players want rats, one can't play if rats are there, 6 wins - but the core decision is that make-believe trumps humans. And that's just plain weird. And I'd argue it's plain bad. Wrong. Antisocial.

The unwillingness to accommodate the phobic on the grounds that players have "too much invested" in an long-standing elf game. The framing of current gaming goals and contentment of a few unempathetic souls as qualitatively more valuable and reasonable than including a willing gamer in the social experience and/or in ensuring that one person doesn't suffer avoidable real-world emotional distress. The fundamental premise is deeply troubling.

The "cost" of changing a campaign. Really. The "cost."

Celebrim, you try to turn around my "get out of my yard" rant as somehow the hypocritical face of my "side." But it ain't. You're arguing groups are reasonable in turning people away asking for accommodation for things they can't help (though probably would very much like to), excepting things you've predetermined as somehow "morally" okay to consider, like a physical disability, their race, etc. My rant is against people who choose to be unempathetic, who choose to value their elf game over the human who'd sit next to them. Apples and oranges, not pot and kettle. Inclusivity doesn't mean jerks are welcome. It doesn't mean disruptive players are welcome. It doesn't mean every point of view is welcome, especially when that point of view is that a player's phobias are grounds for dismissal. It means that people who are trying in good faith to enjoy a social game despite some very real and possibly deeply personal issue should be given the opportunity to do so, even if that means your make-believe character or make-believe world has to make-believe some room for them.


Anyone can explore an imaginary world, be an imagined character, any time they want - in their head, in their home, on a bus. They can play a solo RPG, whether P&P or video. They can write a story, a script, and have complete control over events and rules. But that's not what we do. We gather. So having decided it's better to share this experience with people, why is it troubling to folks when someone requests [X] be avoided? Why is that so threatening as a concept? How is an imaginary game so sancrosanct?

I've been mulling this since the thread started, and can't find it. Every answer I come up is basically a flavor of the social aspect for such folks being a means to an end, like for validation, attention, control, etc., and that the game is a proxy for their egos. I dunno. Choosing a game over a human - it's just not social.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'm not reframing anything, I'm merely providing the context you've missed by glossing over all the text after "there is no room for debate". The reason there's no room for debate is because otherwise you would be disrespecting other people's clearly stated boundaries by insisting on a debate.

Which is just rationalizing not having conversations period. Again, I am not saying don't be tactful or kind. I am just saying a blanket, this is never something that can be debated, is a very bad foundational principle.