Consent in Gaming - Free Guidebook

[Celebrim]

Just as a general comment to the thread, over the last few years I've politely turned down inquiries by 3-4 persons to join my gaming group, for no other or better (or worse) reason than I already had 6 players and I really didn't feel like running it for more.

Now, if that doesn't make me a monster, then I feel logically it doesn't make me a monster if in addition to the general problem of very large groups have increasing problems of various sorts when you run them, this person who was inquiring about space in my role playing group also informed me that in addition to accommodating them in to the group and the play, I would also have to accommodate them by stopping (as a random example) including Dungeons in my Dungeons and Dragons because their extreme claustrophobia triggered panic attacks to just imagine confined spaces.

Again, this does not make me in any way unsympathetic to a person with a phobia, whether it was induced by trauma or not, but there is only so much me to go around and I have obligations and duties toward my existing players to ensure that they are getting enjoyment out of the game. I would probably just tell this person truthfully that we weren't looking to expand our player base at this time. But I don't feel weird in admitting that I would have no desire to run Dungeons and Dragons entirely without dungeons, and that I'd feel the person asking me to run Dungeons and Dragons without dungeons was asking perhaps something more than the usual amount of accommodation. I hope he finds a group that is right for him, but odds on the easiest way to find that group would be to become a DM and find players. Then you are giving rather than taking.

And as a further aside, I consider the extreme phobic examples going on here to be pretty rare and unusual cases that probably effect only a very small percentage of persons and as such are not relevant to most tables. I have a daughter with a phobia of dogs, but it doesn't in the slightest stop her from imagining her character delighting in imaginary dogs. The sensory triggers that overrule briefly her reason aren't in her imagination, and as such she can enjoy dogs as she wants to in a game in a way that she rarely can in the real world.

 

[billd91]

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?

I notice there isn't a line for sexual harassment, though there is one for sexual assault. That's probably an oversight, but I would say that sexual harassment would cover the event in that scene quite well.

 

[Wolfpack48]

One thing to note is that the article is directed primarily at the person who may have the sensitivity. The whole talk about the ability to walk away from something that makes them uncomfortable is empowering them to take ownership of their own boundaries, and not let outside pressure override that. They may not feel they have ‘the right’ to their boundaries, and they most certainly do. Peer pressure is a strong thing, and the document addresses that by making personal boundaries the most important element of the talk (or non-talk). Roleplaying groups have their share of domineering personalities, and one thing this doc does well is tell everyone they have a right to their own well-being.

 

[Celebrim]

@seankreynolds Your discussion however reasonable it may be neither matches the text you are quoting, nor does it match the interpretation that those defending the text in the thread have made.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[GrahamWills]

So, I support tools such as the document, and I think it does a pretty good job of what it's supposed to do. I'm encouraged that it was written by someone who has qualifications in the subject matter, and that it fits with my admittedly limited knowledge of how to handle people who have traumatic emotional issues. My church offers such services and I've had a little training, so I know that some things in the document are standard practice, such as "do not require or pressure people to explain". There have been a number of comments by people opposing the document that say they think this is a bad idea, and that the default of "no explanation" is a bad idea. To put it bluntly, this shows that you don't know what you are talking about. I would strongly advise anyone offering advice on this topic actually to read some basic counseling principles.

I do think that maybe one issue with disagreement we'e seeing is that people are not seeing the same situation. For one side the situation looks like this -- I'm using hyperbole here, in case that is not obvious --

"Frodo has been running the SPIDERS OF MIRKWOOD campaign for a decade when SAM joins the group. SAM brings out a consent form and has checked 'no spiders' because they find spiders icky and prefer not to think about them. The GM has to halt the session and re-write pages of plot, and next week they re-start the campaign re-branded as RATS OF MIRKWOOD. The group is annoyed because SAM's mild dislike of spiders causes them to have no fun in the new campaign, which soon falls apart"

for the other side they see:

"Frodo has been running the SPIDERS OF MIRKWOOD campaign for a decade when SAM joins the group. SAM brings out a consent form and has checked 'no incest' because they were a victim for 10 years as a child and is seeing a counselor every week to try and recover. But Frodo has a cool scene he wants to run so he ignores SAM's request. SAM breaks down when the scene occurs and has to be admitted to hospital they are so distressed. The group is happy that SAM will no longer play with them and take his problems to another group so they don't need to cope with them"

Now, I'm pretty damn sure that no-one on the board would behave like either of these groups. In the first case people who support consent forms would say, I believe, that the GM should ask SAM how much they dislike spiders and whether it's just the descriptions or if it's deeper. If it turns out that SAM really cannot cope at all, I think most of us would tell them "sorry, but this is an intrinsic feature of the game that we cannot change". A nice set of people (which I believe to be most of us) might suggest running a one-shot of something different that night and then find a different group for SAM.

In the second case I just straight up don't believe that people who oppose the consent forms would act like this. If SAM says "I'm sorry I just cannot talk about this" they would drop it immediately. Maybe the GM will modify the adventure, or they'll do a one-shot, or just decide to play a board game and re-work it next time, but they'll do something to protect SAM -- essentially doing what the consent document suggests even though they don't like it as a principal, because SAM's need is so strong.

--------------

So let's not demonize the other side. And let's not start using hyperbolic examples. Assume the other side will act in good faith.

 

[Gradine]

And as a further aside, I consider the extreme phobic examples going on here to be pretty rare and unusual cases that probably effect only a very small percentage of persons and as such are not relevant to most tables. I have a daughter with a phobia of dogs, but it doesn't in the slightest stop her from imagining her character delighting in imaginary dogs. The sensory triggers that overrule briefly her reason aren't in her imagination, and as such she can enjoy dogs as she wants to in a game in a way that she rarely can in the real world.

About 3.5% of US adults suffer from PTSD, and according to recent data a slight majority of adults report at least one traumatic event in their life. It's not that common for trauma to impact a game, but it's certainly not as rare as you might think. Most people with trauma I know tend to just suffer in silence rather than face confrontation, so a lot of times people don't even know they're being triggered. That's a really unhealthy response, something this document is trying to prevent.

 

[Celebrim]

One thing to note is that the article is directed primarily at the person who may have the sensitivity. The whole talk about the ability to walk away from something that makes them uncomfortable is empowering them to take ownership of their own boundaries, and not let outside pressure override that. They may not feel they have ‘the right’ to their boundaries, and they most certainly do. Peer pressure is a strong thing, and the document addresses that by making personal boundaries the most important element of the talk (or non-talk). Roleplaying groups have their share of domineering personalities, and one thing this doc does well is tell everyone they have a right to their own well-being.

There has been I think broad agreement that if a person feels uncomfortable they should walk away. Certainly I have argued that I was in control of my own boundaries and I expected the same of the players.

But now we are turning the argument on its head. Because we have been told we were racists, intolerant, alt-right borderline sociopaths for not accommodating any request and not treating all requests as reasonable, and that if anyone walked away from our table because we couldn't accommodate their phobia of spiders in our Drow game, that we were morally equivalent to people who drove away people because we couldn't refrain from making sexist, racist, or otherwise hateful comments.

I can find you quotes if you like, but since I prefer not to call specific individuals out, why don't you go back and read the thread.

 

[Gradine]

@seankreynolds Your discussion however reasonable it may be neither matches the text you are quoting, nor does it match the interpretation that those defending the text in the thread have made.

It matches EXACTLY the text he quoted and EXACTLY what many of us have been saying. What are you even on about at this point?

 

[Celebrim]

About 3.5% of US adults suffer from PTSD, and according to recent data a slight majority of adults report at least one traumatic event in their life. It's not that common for trauma to impact a game, but it's certainly not as rare as you might think. Most people with trauma I know tend to just suffer in silence rather than face confrontation, so a lot of times people don't even know they're being triggered. That's a really unhealthy response, something this document is trying to prevent.

I'm not going to debate mental health issues with you. I'm well aware of the figures. You aren't giving me any information I don't already have. PTSD is a spectrum. The persistent implication that people who disagree with you just don't know what trauma or PTSD is, or that they have no empathy or sympathy for people who have suffered trauma or PTSD, and if only they just understood it like you did, they'd agree with you, is just wrong.