Consent in Gaming - Free Guidebook

[Wolfpack48]

What I object to is some of the stuff I've experienced in online discussions surrounding this (being called a sociopath because I'd rather not use such a checklist, for example, or being told people like me need to be driven from the hobby or boycotted out).

I don’t think anyone here is doing that. I hope not. It sounds like you have your own way of conversation with your players and that’s all good. You do seem to be looking out for them and that’s the important thing.

 

[Gradine]

Most of my disagreement has been more with people advocating that this tool be used by everyone, or saying anyone who disagrees with the tool is a monster.

It's been asked before, but can you please either provide actual examples of this or stop beating this particular drum? Not that I don't believe it's not happening, I'm sure that it is. But you keep framing this as the norm despite it not really happening at all, at least in this thread.

 

[billd91]

This .... this isn't really about the free guidebook, is it?

It pretty much never really is.

 

[Gradine]

Yes, I think we're in agreement(!)

Great! Although I'm concerned on the disconnect; this document is just one of many tools that exist to facilitate exactly this scenario we both agree is ideal (or at least perfectly acceptable).

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don’t think anyone here is doing that. I hope not. It sounds like you have your own way of conversation with your players and that’s all good. You do seem to be looking out for them and that’s the important thing.

Yes, for me this stemmed from a thread where someone suggested players taking the checklist to every campaign and having the Dungeon master go over it. My response was something like "If it works for you that is fine, but I think for me, if someone showed up with this checklist and insisted on its use, I'd probably tell them this might not be the game group for them." There was more to the thread. I gave my reasons for why I didn't believe the checklist was a good thing, and where I thought some of the ideas were flawed (basically most of the same points I've made in this thread for the most part). And what I found striking was the extreme hostility. I am not getting that from you or other posters here. I am getting some of the thing where you say one thing and people rephrase it to be something much worse (but not nearly at the level I saw in that thread, where me saying I didn't like the checklist was met with 'oh so you don't believe in consent then').

 

[jasper]

Hmm Page 2 last paragraph add sentence to the effect "If your GM/group may not respect your wishes, you should look for a more accepting group."
Hmm page 4 first full paragraph add sentence to the effect " If you decide not to play this particular game, you still can be friends."
Okay would adding these suggestions to the handout help those who are having major problems with it?

 

[Arilyn]

OK then, so I have a claustrophobia/drowning phobia, as I mentioned upthread, connected to the deaths of my cousins in the Herald of Free Enterprise sinking. If my friends want to run a game that includes that sort of material, then I may not be able to play. It would be wrong of me to try to stop my friends from playing, or to resent them playing something without me.

True, most players won't make these demands, and bow out. Friends or even reasonably polite players will then say, "No, don't do that. We'd rather have you at the table and scrap our nautical theme. There's a ton of other cool ideas out there that we can all enjoy." Then said player will try and tell group not to change their plans just for them, and table will say, it's fine, we don't mind, etc.

I'm hoping this is a more common example then person swooping in, making demands...

The guide is just a way to sort stuff out ahead of time, isn't it? And it's probably not going to be super common that there be no rats or deserts. It's not going to bring games crashing down cause there's too many things on the no-go list.

 

[Gradine]

Yes, for me this stemmed from a thread where someone suggested players taking the checklist to every campaign and having the Dungeon master go over it. My response was something like "If it works for you that is fine, but I think for me, if someone showed up with this checklist and insisted on its use, I'd probably tell them this might not be the game group for them." There was more to the thread. I gave my reasons for why I didn't believe the checklist was a good thing, and where I thought some of the ideas were flawed (basically most of the same points I've made in this thread for the most part). And what I found striking was the extreme hostility. I am not getting that from you or other posters here. I am getting some of the thing where you say one thing and people rephrase it to be something much worse (but not nearly at the level I saw in that thread, where me saying I didn't like the checklist was met with 'oh so you don't believe in consent then').

Yeah, that bites. It is a heated issue for some people, myself included. But I still doubt this is really anything close to the universal reaction to what you have to say. Maybe if the pushback was more hostile and... let's say politically slanted than your own objections, I could see it (and we certainly had our fair share of that earlier in the thread). You might also be getting more blowback yourself due to your place in the industry, which is also kind of bummer. But mostly it's been people advocating for it being a useful tool, or those advocating for it not to be. It's actually been shockingly tame, from what I've seen in the past. One or two exceptions otherwise, I guess.

 

[monsmord]

I don’t think anyone here is doing that. I hope not.

I said this a few posts ago:

"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."

Some folks might have run with that as being called sociopaths. It's not what was said, and no one was called a sociopath, but everyone has things they take to heart and interpret and expand. Including me.

 

[seankreynolds]

OK then, so I have a claustrophobia/drowning phobia, as I mentioned upthread, connected to the deaths of my cousins in the Herald of Free Enterprise sinking. If my friends want to run a game that includes that sort of material, then I may not be able to play. It would be wrong of me to try to stop my friends from playing, or to resent them playing something without me.

"Anyone is allowed to leave an uncomfortable situation at any time. Each person’s feelings of comfort and safety are more important than participating in the game. If a problematic situation comes up and someone doesn’t feel like continuing the game, it’s all right if they step out. It doesn’t matter the circumstances of how it’s in the game—perhaps someone made a joke comment, or an aspect of this issue slipped into the scenario accidentally, or it’s being introduced despite that person not consenting to it. The person who is feeling uncomfortable doesn’t have to confront the group about it (especially if that would make them feel more uncomfortable), they can just leave the table. … If they don’t feel comfortable with talking to anyone about it or don’t think the situation will change, it’s fine to not play in that game for a while, or permanently." —Consent in Gaming, pages 4–5

For some reason, there are people who think that the Consent PDF is arguing that one person with a fear of spiders gets to cancel an entire campaign about fighting drow. If the GM has plans to run a spidery drow campaign, and four of the five players are all-in for that, and the arachnophobe player doesn't want to play that, there's nothing wrong with the arachnophobe not attending those games. There will always be more games to play in the future.

In other words, saying, "I think this adventure/next few sessions/campaign we're planning is probably something you/I should skip" is perfectly acceptable. Just like it's okay if one player decides they want to skip board game night for a while because the group wants to play Pandemic instead of Catan. Just like it's okay if one person decides to skip movie night because they don't like rom-coms and the group is having a Valentine's Day rom-com marathon. Or for your vegetarian friend to skip going out to eat after the game this week because everyone else wants to try the new barbecue place. Or whatever.

The Consent PDF is a safety tool to help you identify and prevent potential issues before they pop up in the game and cause someone trauma.
Sometimes you prevent that issue by saying "no romantic or sexual content in the game"
Sometimes you prevent it by saying "we can have flirting and romance, but we fade to black for any physical intimacy or sex."
And sometimes you prevent it by saying, "the next couple of sessions have a lot to do with a particular brothel and how the nearby town's misogynist mayor is claiming ownership of the unborn child of his favorite prostitute at the brothel*; Chris, I know sexual stuff in the game bothers you, so maybe your character should go elsewhere for a couple of weeks and we'll have you rejoin us when we're done with this part of the storyline."
* Hey, it's a Firefly reference!

Likewise, sometimes you prevent trauma by saying "no spiders in the game."
Sometimes you prevent it by saying "spiders in the game are okay, but let's not have creepy descriptions of their chittering mandibles, dead eyes, and bristling hairs." (Which, mind you, is literally one of the example situations in the Consent PDF.)
And sometimes you prevent it by saying "I bought this really cool drow-focused adventure that I'm really excited about running, it'll take us a few sessions to get through it; Chris, I know you don't like spiders, maybe you could take a break from the campaign so you don't have to deal with this in the game? Maybe I could run you through a short solo campaign on the side."

It's about accommodating the needs of the people at your table. And sometimes the best way to do that is for someone to skip a session or two.