Consent in Gaming - Free Guidebook

[Bawylie]

I understand there’s some significant objections surrounding a perceived “veto-power” over the content of a game. It’s a valid objection. Plainly, though, some people don’t want to play outside their preferred zone of comfort and they shouldn’t have to.

Since this consent pdf is about communication, i think we should consider a reciprocal approach. Communicate your content ahead of time. (I’m assuming a public game here, not a home game. Presumably you work out your home game’s stuff with people you know and trust and love).

In a public game with a wide audience, you may run into someone who has one of these consent forms and presents it to you. Why not have your own form? Why not put a yellow triangle up that says something like:

“This is a free company game. Participation is strictly voluntary. Game content may be mature, disturbing, violent, dark, and wild. Play at your own discretion.”

I mean. It’s essentially good for a player to advertise ahead of time “I would not like to play in games that feature X.” And it would likewise be good for a table or GM who plans to run some disturbing content to signal that outright, too.

That way, everyone will be able to freely associate with whom they please and play the games they wish to play without running afoul of some of these issues they’d rather avoid altogether.

I’m sure there are many GMs and players who will want to accommodate the consent PDFs and who will tailor their game content accordingly. And I’m sure there are many GMs and players who would prefer a game that isn’t too concerned with those boundaries. Win-win.

 

[Bedrockgames]

It may not be the same, but inflicting a psychological episode of some sort on someone is real harm even if it falls well short of hacking off their limbs and breaking their bones. It's different, less deadly, but still difficult to be on the receiving end of.

It is no where near hacking off their limbs or breaking their bones. Which is my point. I am not saying it isn't unpleasant for some people to encounter certain things. But equating violence in an RPG for example, with real violence is just a bad way of thinking about the world. Again, the terms here, consent, harm safety tools all seem to be seriously blurring these lines.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I understand there’s some significant objections surrounding a perceived “veto-power” over the content of a game. It’s a valid objection. Plainly, though, some people don’t want to play outside their preferred zone of comfort and they shouldn’t have to.

And they don't have to. People can find another group. They can explain to a group they are joining what their limitations are and if that group can accommodate them great. They always have the ability to walk away, or tell people they can't handle something. I guess one of my issues here is I feel like we are starting to treat this as group therapy rather than just a casual game. I am not going to be mean or cruel to anyone who comes over to play in a campaign. But I am not your therapist either.

 

[Bawylie]

... yeah... and then I went on to suggest a way to facilitate finding the right groups. I’m not just bringing up problems - I’m offering paths forward.

 

[Bedrockgames]

... yeah... and then I went on to suggest a way to facilitate finding the right groups. I’m not just bringing up problems - I’m offering paths forward.

Sorry have to admit, I didn't make it past the first paragraph before replying.

 

[Gradine]

It is no where near hacking off their limbs or breaking their bones. Which is my point. I am not saying it isn't unpleasant for some people to encounter certain things. But equating violence in an RPG for example, with real violence is just a bad way of thinking about the world. Again, the terms here, consent, harm safety tools all seem to be seriously blurring these lines.

This is the kind of thing that I have to point to when I say I don't think some of you really understand trauma all that well. Unpleasant is such a gross understatement of what actually happens when someone has their trauma re-triggered that it really does demonstrate a lack of understanding of what is actually at stake for some people who might actually need this tool.

Don't use the tool if you don't like it, but stop being so dismissive of what the actual need is here

 

[Bedrockgames]

This is the kind of thing that I have to point to when I say I don't think some of you really understand trauma all that well. Unpleasant is such a gross understatement of what actually happens when someone has their trauma re-triggered that it really does demonstrate a lack of understanding of what is actually at stake for some people who might actually need this tool.

Don't use the tool if you don't like it, but stop being so dismissive of what the actual need is here

And I don't think you understand physical trauma. I get that PTSD can prompt actual physical reactions. I had horrifying physical reactions to mine. I completely understand what it is. But I also know it is different from having my arm chopped off. And I am not dismissing it. But I am saying it is also a spectrum, and it shouldn't be equated with real physical violence.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Bedrockgames]

So, this is a variant of the "Suck it up, buttercup," argument that many of us find ... dismissive.

Look, this might work great .... for you! But that's kind of the problem, innit? Setting yourself up as arbiter as to what constitutes real harm, and what doesn't? I mean, this is some 1950s stuff. Or even earlier (shell shock can't be real! man up!).

There are a lot of things that don't affect me, personally, because I've had a pretty good and lucky life so far. Because of that, it is incumbent on me to listen to other people because ... I am not the same as them. I have to respect what they say.

Finally, as has been repeatedly pointed out, this is just a tool for tables to use. You don't have to. But I think some of the pushback you're getting is because, instead of offering constructive dialogue or other solutions, you instead talk about ideologies, and other things that indicate that the real issue isn't really the guidebook.

I am saying the way the debate is framed is blurring lines that actually matter. I am saying distinctions between real world harm and imaginary content in a game that sets someone off, is very important. And people talk about them as if they are the same thing. And while I am definitely not telling people just to suck it up. I do think we people are losing a lot of perspective on this issue and succumbing to moral panic around it.

 

[Gradine]

I am saying the way the debate is framed is blurring lines that actually matter. I am saying distinctions between real world harm and imaginary content in a game that sets someone off, is very important. And people talk about them as if they are the same thing. And while I am definitely not telling people just to suck it up. I do think we people are losing a lot of perspective on this issue and succumbing to moral panic around it.

This isn't a moral panic this is people's actual FRACKING LIVES, and if you took more a single moment to step OUTSIDE OF YOURSELF and LISTEN to other people you'd actually learn something for once.


I need to take a step back from this, this BS is setting me off.