Consent in Gaming - Free Guidebook

[Hussar]

You have to give people the room to say "this game might not be for you"

And absolutely NO ONE is questioning that. Nor is the pdf questioning that. Bringing a list to the game is not an attempt to force anyone to do anything.

You talk about rape. Well, here's a f'rinstance. I ran an SF game a few years back where in that setting you had luddite colonies that refused higher technology. I designed a scenario (based on an excellent short story that I had read) where a high tech individual posed as an angel and impregnated numerous women. The babies were genetically modified so that the big genetic changes that came with transhumanism wouldn't express until several generations down the line. The only real immediate effect was a slightly healthier baby who was predisposed to having lots of children.

The idea was, several generations down the line, the genes would suddenly express across the planet and everyone would be uplifted in the same generation.

Now, here's the rub. All these women were essentially raped. The technology of the "angel" was such that he could more or less do mind control against those with no protection. The PC's come into the situation AFTER he has impregnated numerous women. And the PC's are sworn to protect the Luddite colonies from exactly this sort of thing. And so the scenario begins.

Thinking about it now, I had a group that I knew very well and were all groovy with what I had brought to the table. But, I could easily see any number of things I just did triggering all sorts of issues with people. Could totally see it. Now, since the scenario is largely self contained, should a player not feel comfortable enough to come to me and ask me to change things? Is it a bad person or disruptive player for saying, "Yeah, I like the game but, just not this one scenario. Do we have to do it?"

I certainly don't think so. And if I was running that same scenario for strangers, a list like that pdf would tell me beforehand that maybe this idea can go back on the shelf and I'll do something else today.

But, that's me. For others, I get that they don't want to do that. And that's TOTALLY FAIR. There's nothing wrong with not wanting to dump a pile of work for that one person. It's your free time and your fun time. It's YOURS. And that's groovy.

But, the idea that someone bringing this list to a game means that some DM's (which have expressly stated that they would in this thread) will eject them from the game shows that yeah, more conversation is probably a good thing. Make sure everyone's on the same page.

 

[Hussar]

How about we characterize it another way? You care more about what one player wants than you do about what the other five or six players want. You're prioritizing the needs of one person over the needs of everyone else involved in the game. Does that sounds about right?

Yup. Totally fair. I care more about the feelings of my friends than about my game. Totally cop to that. And, frankly, my five or six players would probably agree with me. We have ALWAYS prioritized the needs of one person over the needs of everyone else involved in the game.

When on player doesn't want to do something, we shrug and move on to something else.

But, that's us. That's how we play. It does not mean in any way, shape or form that you should do the same thing.

 

[Bedrockgames]

And absolutely NO ONE is questioning that. Nor is the pdf questioning that. Bringing a list to the game is not an attempt to force anyone to do anything.

First I understand what the PDF says. Two, I was responding to a poster who was questioning that and basically said if a player has an issue with an item I have to cater to them. I have seen a lot of people saying this sort of thing over the past several days, and they are using the existence of things like PTSD to force people to acquiesce to anything checked off on the list.

 

[Wolfpack48]

How about we characterize it another way? You care more about what one player wants than you do about what the other five or six players want. You're prioritizing the needs of one person over the needs of everyone else involved in the game. Does that sounds about right?

Yup. Because one person's real world problem is more important than six players' imaginary fun. Or, I don't give a rat's ass about your real world problem, we have a game to play - hit the road.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yup. Because one person's real world problem is more important than six players' imaginary fun.

This is the point where the checklist becomes unreasonable. Because you are saying people must do what one player says. The problem is, you are not there. You don’t know anything about this group. You don’t know what the dynamics are and if this is an established group that has regularly featured spiders, rats and hurricanes in their game, and this is a new player suddenly expecting the whole group to accommodate them. You don’t know if the player with the issue has been in the group for a long time and is friends with everyone. Like another poster said, we are not saying we’d never compromise. But we are saying it is very situational. We are saying we don’t have to. And we are saying the checklist isn’t equipped to handle those kinds of nuances. When you say items on the list must be removed from play if they are checked off, then you are straight jacketing groups and trying to control what they do for their own entertainment. What is next are you going to tell people they must not see a movie if one of their friends has a problem with it? People can sit out a movie or game. They can find other people to play with

 

[jasper]

It sounds like the crux of the misunderstanding is the conflation of a person with distress having ownership over their boundaries with somehow being able direct/veto the larger game. Can someone point me to the place in the document where it says a person experiencing distress can take over the game?

Hmm some heavy hints at page 3
The default answer is “no. and
It doesn’t matter why consent wasn’t given
If I running Season 3 which has demons as the main theme, and wolfpak 48 drops into the open game and tells me NO. And wouldn't give me a reason. That ONE WAY the doc could be read.

 

[jasper]

Yup. Totally fair. I care more about the feelings of my friends than about my game. Totally cop to that. ...

...

Dude, some us don't play with just friends. We play with friends of friends, people who we only know from the hobby, and even some Alabama Football fans. Hey once I played with a fan of that EVIL GAME CALLED SOCCER.
I care about my friends Hussar, Simon, and Wolfpack. I not give a beep about Wolfpacf best bud Bedrockgames or his feelings. Also while I do care about your feelings Hussar, if me Simon and Wolfpack decide to go get Chinese and this is fifth time you voted down this month. We going to go get Chinese and we see you at the pub at 9 PM.
You are coming across as the group must cater to (and this bad way to say it but) player with problems.

 

[Wolfpack48]

This is the point where the checklist becomes unreasonable. Because you are saying people must do what one player says. The problem is, you are not there. You don’t know anything about this group. You don’t know what the dynamics are and if this is an established group that has regularly featured spiders, rats and hurricanes in their game, and this is a new player suddenly expecting the whole group to accommodate them. You don’t know if the player with the issue has been in the group for a long time and is friends with everyone. Like another poster said, we are not saying we’d never compromise. But we are saying it is very situational. We are saying we don’t have to. And we are saying the checklist isn’t equipped to handle those kinds of nuances. When you say items on the list must be removed from play if they are checked off, then you are straight jacketing groups and trying to control what they do for their own entertainment. What is next are you going to tell people they must not see a movie if one of their friends has a problem with it? People can sit out a movie or game. They can find other people to play with

Not unreasonable if the result is a conversation where the parties work things out and come to the decision mutually. You keep reverting back to the individual controlling the game. All they control is their own boundaries so that a conversation can result and a decision be made.

 

[Wolfpack48]

Hmm some heavy hints at page 3
The default answer is “no. and
It doesn’t matter why consent wasn’t given
If I running Season 3 which has demons as the main theme, and wolfpak 48 drops into the open game and tells me NO. And wouldn't give me a reason. That ONE WAY the doc could be read.

The default is no for their own boundaries, not the ultimate direction of the game. The default is no and no one can make that individual play through the issue or ask them to “toughen up”. It’s not a call to control the game, but to have a conversation. Agree it could be more clearly expressed in the doc.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Not unreasonable if the result is a conversation where the parties work things out and come to the decision mutually.

The point is they don't have to do anything you want them to do. They don't have to have a conversation. They can simply say No, we are going to have that in the game. It doesn't have to be mutual either. If someone new shows up and asks me not to include something, I don't have to get their permission to tell them the game isn[t for them. The group gets to decide who joins and what changes are made. My issue here is people are trying to control how private groups conduct themselves around issues of content and who they take in as players. Barring groups that are still in school, we are adults here and adults can figure this stuff out on their own without there being some kind of code, rule or formula to it. Something that I find distasteful about where a lot of this conversation is leading is it seems like we are all back in nursery school. I can't tell you what the situation is going to be like if someone comes in and asks me to do something for the game. It is always going to be situational. I don't know how polite or confrontational someone is going to be. I don't know how well I am going to know them. I don't know if their reasons are going to add up or if they are just going to be jerks trying to start debates over their pet issues. There are all kinds of factors that are going to impact how I respond and how my group responds. This isn't something you can decide before the situation arises. And the result might not be a mutual agreement. They could keep insisting we allow them to play and that we change the content. If someone pesters me like that, I don't have to give into them.