Consent in Gaming - Free Guidebook

[Zardnaar]

And, as a perfect, textbook example of what I just talked about, we have this.

Here is a 100% clear example of a DM for whom the game is more important than the players at the table. Again, totally fair. It's his game, he can run it however he likes. But, the point of this PDF is when you have DM's like this, for whom the game is more important than the players, the players can use something like their X card or their list to quickly realize that this game is not for them.

Everyone's happy. The player doesn't have to deal with stuff coming up at the table, and the DM doesn't have to compromise. Done.

Surplus of players, shortage of DMs. I've discovered over the years its not worth trying to accommodate everyone some players you just can't reach. Sometimes its just incompatible playstyles.

I booted 3 players not so long ago, tried speaking to them but they just played CN stupid and pissed the other 3 off. They got spoken to, kept doing it got booted. 2 of them (a couple) went to another game and ended up getting booted from that. They tried Pathfinder as well and once again got booted. Last I heard they approached the gamestore owner about wanting to run GURPs or something but no one wanted to play with them.

There is something going on there, they have issues but multiple people have tried to help but they just don't fit in anywhere. I warned them (twice even) but when they think fireballing their own party and deliberately set of traps as playing a CN kender type Gnome is fun and don't change ever. Their default approach to combat was also run away or stay as far back as possible and throw stuff at disadvantage.

Harmony of the group, social cohesion and no disruptive players are my main goals in running a group. I don't really care if players have issues whatever they may be but they got told upfront, warned twice and then got the boot.

They can play an X card all they like, they can insist on no debate if they want, my X card trumps theirs. The right to have fun playing D&D trumps a player right to be a moron. Gamestore owner has a list of players wanting games, he does veto anything obvious he picks up so he is already filtering out problem players using his own X card and then the individual DMs can filter the players again, he'll back the DMs call pretty much every time.

Every group has female players, one has a female DM and several female players. So he is creating a safe space for everyone else.

 

[Campbell]

Regardless of the tools utilized what I ultimately want is a GM is to create an environment where people feel safe to express when something is bothering them. If someone is unhappy with the way things are going for any reason I want them to be able to tell the rest of us without fear of reprisal. I want this for emotional issues, but I want it for creative issues as well. I want everyone at the table to feel like they can speak up and everyone else will care. I also expect that everyone also values everyone else as people more than they value the game and will work with each other so the game can be as good as possible for everyone at the table.

Regardless of the tools used if that is not the case we have no business gaming together.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Umm, a few years ago nearly 20000 people died in the country I live in to "severe weather". ((Granted it was a tsunami from an earthquake, but, similar issue) Several million were directly affected. I have students who have lost family or know people who lost family to the tsunami and I live in an area that was totally unaffected, directly, by it.

The notion that "severe weather" can't be something that triggers people is a bit dismissive.

And, see, that's the point of the list. Just because you think it's "ridiculous" means that it would be extremely difficult for a player to come to you and talk to you about it for fear of being ridiculed. You don't get to decide what triggers other people. That's why they add in the caveat that you don't discuss it. It gets brought up and that's the end of the conversation, not the beginning.

Because, for people with trauma, "it's ridiculous" is far, far too often the response they have to face from everyone around them.

Okay but does it not become unreasonable at a certain point to expect very common features of stories like severe weather to be announced from the get go, or taken off the table? I understand someone can have this problem. I don't know that including it on a checklist like this is a good solution to that problem. And I definitely don't think it is normal for us to approach gaming in this way, at all.

 

[Campbell]

My opinion is that if someone is a bad actor regardless of how your group handles things they either need to learn to value the other people at the table or be asked to leave. They cannot be controlled through authoritarian measures. They will find a way to express their self centered desires regardless of the environment.

 

[Hussar]

Surplus of players, shortage of DMs. I've discovered over the years its not worth trying to accommodate everyone some players you just can't reach. Sometimes its just incompatible playstyles.

And that is 100%, absolutely, perfectly fair. There is absolutely nothing compellning you to play or run a game for anyone. You can decide who you want to play with and you don't need to justify anything. It's your free time. Absolutely.

Now, because you prioritize your game over the people (shortage of players), someone who maybe has some trauma triggers probably shouldn't play at your table. Their issues are not your priority. And, again, there's zero judgement there. You are 100% justified here. These are their issues and you are under no compulsion at all to have to deal with their issues.

But, the point here is that a list like in the PDF reveals that up front and everyone gets to walk away with no harm, no foul. No one can complain later that you weren't clear up front and you can't complain that the player wasn't up front either.

I see it as a win/win either way.

Okay but does it not become unreasonable at a certain point to expect very common features of stories like severe weather to be announced from the get go, or taken off the table? I understand someone can have this problem. I don't know that including it on a checklist like this is a good solution to that problem. And I definitely don't think it is normal for us to approach gaming in this way, at all.

Is it normal? Probably not. Not too many people would be triggered by severe weather after all. It's probably a very small number. But, having something like this list means that if that rare case does come up, it's clearly brought up and everyone then gets to make the informed choice - you can either change your game to accommodate the player or not, as the case may be, and the player can choose to sit at the table or not based on your choice.

Isn't having clear communication, without being told, perhaps indirectly by reading it on a message board maybe, that my personal issues are "ridiculous", a better solution? Wouldn't you rather that your players were up front with you rather than being made to feel ashamed of their issues and then having them blow up during or after a session?

What's the alternative here?

 

[Bedrockgames]

Isn't having clear communication, without being told, perhaps indirectly by reading it on a message board maybe, that my personal issues are "ridiculous", a better solution? Wouldn't you rather that your players were up front with you rather than being made to feel ashamed of their issues and then having them blow up during or after a session?

What's the alternative here?

I am not saying a persons personal issues are ridiculous, I am saying filling out a consent form with all these different items on it for an RPG is ridiculous. If someone has a serious enough problem with severe weather, that mentioning it in the game could set them off, I would want them to bring it up with me, or try to sort the problem out before they join the group. If you are in a bad mental state, you can't control what comes your way in the world. If severe weather sets you off, you might see it in movies, you might read it in books, you might see art of severe weather or catch a news cast of severe weather. I don't know why we are treating an RPG table as any different from other places in the real world. You wouldn't demand a consent form for a film, a comedy show or a play.

The alternative is for people to communicate about things in conversation and figure out what accommodations can be made if there is a serious enough problem. But I don't think 'there is going to be a serious problem' should be the default assumption.

 

[MGibster]

I suppose the elephant in the room is that many roleplayers have experienced trauma of one kind or another. I think it’s a major reason people roleplay, because it’s a safe and creative hobby that involves socializing without the pressure of the real world. Most everyone I have gamed with has had something terrible in their lives. Acknowledging and respecting that can only be a good thing.

I just call that life. Take any random group of people and you'll find that many of them have suffered a traumatic experience of one kind or another. I don't believe those of us who enjoy role playing games are more likely to have suffered trauma than anyone else.

 

[Zardnaar]

And that is 100%, absolutely, perfectly fair. There is absolutely nothing compellning you to play or run a game for anyone. You can decide who you want to play with and you don't need to justify anything. It's your free time. Absolutely.

Now, because you prioritize your game over the people (shortage of players), someone who maybe has some trauma triggers probably shouldn't play at your table. Their issues are not your priority. And, again, there's zero judgement there. You are 100% justified here. These are their issues and you are under no compulsion at all to have to deal with their issues.

But, the point here is that a list like in the PDF reveals that up front and everyone gets to walk away with no harm, no foul. No one can complain later that you weren't clear up front and you can't complain that the player wasn't up front either.

I see it as a win/win either way.



Is it normal? Probably not. Not too many people would be triggered by severe weather after all. It's probably a very small number. But, having something like this list means that if that rare case does come up, it's clearly brought up and everyone then gets to make the informed choice - you can either change your game to accommodate the player or not, as the case may be, and the player can choose to sit at the table or not based on your choice.

Isn't having clear communication, without being told, perhaps indirectly by reading it on a message board maybe, that my personal issues are "ridiculous", a better solution? Wouldn't you rather that your players were up front with you rather than being made to feel ashamed of their issues and then having them blow up during or after a session?

What's the alternative here?

Previously I wouldn't need a checklist I've only played with friends.

A month ago I started a somewhat public game with 3 new players and laid down the law, but those players picked the world and theme before session 0 on messenger. Session 0 I had a printed players guide and covered most disruptive situations.

To get to that point.
1. They have been vetted by the gamestore owner then myself/close friends.

2. We communicated on messenger where they got to pick the world and theme from a list of what I was comfortable running. Greyhawk, FR, Midgard pick one. Vikings, Egypt, Vampires, Faerie pick one.

3. Session 0 printed players guide and basic information on the campaign provided and what to expect.

4. Verbal list of acceptable behaviour. Swearing is fine along with mother in law jokes level of political correctness. No racism, sexism, bullying, chaotic stupid etc.

 

[Campbell]

I just call that life. Take any random group of people and you'll find that many of them have suffered a traumatic experience of one kind or another. I don't believe those of us who enjoy role playing games are more likely to have suffered trauma than anyone else.

This I definitely agree with. The idea that we are somehow special or different from the general population is something I really do not agree with.

 

[Celebrim]

What is more important to you? The game or the people at the table playing that game? Because that's what it boils down to. "Oh, I can't change my game" means that the game is more important than that person.

I think that this is indeed the heart of it, and we are still having this conversation even though SKR indicated this wasn't his intention.

But you know what, it's still a ridiculous statement. Because I'm not choosing the game versus a person however much you want to keep pounding on that. I'm choosing gaming with this group of people over gaming with that person, often because I was gaming with those people first, and often because that person has become a problem that is detracting from everyone else's fun. It could be any number of reasons. We could just get tired of his cheating. We could get tired of his profanity. We could get tired of his abusive tirades on other players. We could get tired of him trying to play other people's characters for them. We could get tired of his antagonistic play habits where he is always working against party goals. We could get tired of the fact that he's always on the phone and not paying attention, or never shows up. And yes, we could get tired of the fact that he is always insisting everyone else accommodate his style of play and his preferences. Whatever the reason, we don't have to play 'that guy' anymore. We may still like that guy. We may even still be friends with that guy. We may see that guy at work and say, "Hey, how's it going." But for whatever reason, the whole RPing with 'that guy' thing isn't working out.

This never has actually happened to me BTW. I've never had to boot any of my players, although it has happened to people I know and they often had really good reasons for booting 'that guy'.

(Incidentally, 'that guy' could be female, but I figured if I used female pronouns about people would think I was negatively stereotyping. Again, in point of fact, every 'that guy' I've heard of has been male, though I believe in equality - I'm sure there are female players that are 'that guy' as well.)

No one here is saying that if it came down to the game or letting 'that guy' burn in a fire, we'd keep rolling the dice. We're just saying we really don't have to play with people we don't want to play with, and often we have good reasons for it. And we really don't particularly like being told that we are 'choosing a game over a person', or being accused of being racist or sexist or whateverist because we don't want to play with 'that guy'. For one thing, we suspect that while you are making those sort of accusations, you are totally and completely hypocrites, and if you were playing with 'that guy' you'd not want to play with him either.

OTOH, if you approach the hobby from the perspective that the people at the table are more important than the game, then, well, it would make perfect sense to change the game to accommodate someone's issues.

And again, this is dishonest. Because this has never been an argument between people who would make accommodations and those that wouldn't. This has never been an argument between people who don't have friends with problems or who push all the feelings of their friends aside, and a bunch of really generous thoughtful people who graciously accommodate everything. Plenty of people who don't like the document have and often are right now making accommodations to the preferences and needs of other people in their group.

The real argument, the real heart of it, is over whether request for accommodation is reasonable (or even possible), and if not reasonable, whether you are under some pressure to act like it is reasonable.

I mean seriously, we have people here saying, "Of course if you are at a convention and someone asks for an accommodation you can just toss out all your plans and wing something." Not hardly. And if you think you can, remind me not sign up at your tables, because I don't want to waste my time.