Consent in Gaming - Free Guidebook

[macd21]

No. Civility demands that you listen compassionately and respond honestly.

Consent can’t be a demand. It’s a request or an offer. If it imposes, if it becomes involuntary, it is NOT consent.

So there is no veto power. There’s an honest discussion that reaches mutually agreed-on terms, or doesn’t. And if it doesn’t, then it’s on each party to decide how they wish to proceed or if they want to proceed at all.

If you are unwilling to accommodate me, I have no right to demand or force you to. If I am unwilling to accommodate you, you have no right to demand or force me to. We just go our separate ways (and no hard feelings on my part either way).

I think there may be a misunderstanding here. The document doesn’t force two people to game together. But it insists that if you do game together, you have each other’s consent on what can be included. All players have a veto, and don’t have to explain that veto.

If, after the discussion, you decide not to play, so be it.

 

[Scrivener of Doom]

If someone has arachnophobia it is their responsibility to inform the DM that spiders are a problem.

Indeed.

I've been playing with an arachnophobe since 1984. This was a genuine issue for him so we talked through how I would handle adventures with drow and spiders. Fortunately, he grew out of it... which meant impaling one of his characters with a chwidencha's leg three years ago provoked no response at all.

But I can understand how the one of the authors, who has a background in some "weird stuff", might think talking about consent is so important as clearly it's a big factor in dealing with the creeps some of her lifestyle choices attract. Personally, I don't need a guidebook about consent because I play with genuine friends but, when your gaming group is not made up of people you know, I can understand that others might want to be proactive about dealing with some of the "odd ones" that public and organised play in this hobby sometimes attracts.

 

[Wolfpack48]

I think there may be a misunderstanding here. The document doesn’t force two people to game together. But it insists that if you do game together, you have each other’s consent on what can be included. All players have a veto, and don’t have to explain that veto.

If, after the discussion, you decide not to play, so be it.

Maybe a better term than veto is “opt out” Veto implies the person with the issue is taking over the game. Opting out implies this scene is too much for me and I have to leave. We should respond empathetically when this happens and do what we can to assist. This could take any number of paths: leaving the game, adjusting the game. In all cases we do it with compassion.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I don’t think it should be. If you’re gaming with a stranger, I think you should extend them the same courtesy you would a friend.

For me if someone invited a new player and the rest said OK and this stranger suddenly changed the table dynamic to where we have to tiptoe around triggers is a lot different than if my buddy Tom suddenly said he was too afraid of spiders to have them in game. In the first I'm more thinking "great, new person here is messing up my game..." I hate and fear spiders but I love them in my games almost as much as rot grubs and stirges.

For me its just that respect is earned beyond a basic level and I'm for more likely to compromise with those I have a long term respect for. Again I'm not going to try and be a dick in any event. But that is the limit of my "table conduct rules", don't be too big of a dick. Granted if I game with some dicks, that are often into the whiskey, and a base level of dickery is always going to be present. I'm sure most if they didn't now us would wonder if we even liked each other at all with all the pot shots and slams that are thrown around. Not much is sacred.

Ultimately this is all academic as I have never encountered this kind of situation in 30+ years of gaming.

 

[Celebrim]

Ultimately this is all academic as I have never encountered this kind of situation in 30+ years of gaming.

A very important point oft overlooked in this discussion I think.

 

[ccs]

Hmm. 31+ pages of pointless wrangling over a document 90some % of the gaming world will never realize exists.....

 

[Wolfpack48]

A very important point oft overlooked in this discussion I think.

Not everyone has been playing for 30+ years. Not everyone believes they can’t learn anything new. Not everyone is you.

 

[Gradine]

Sometimes I worry that the real ideological divide on this and so many other similar issues is this:

• one side believes that people will utilize this tool in good faith in order to communicate the kinds of scenarios that would likely aggravate past trauma;
• the other side believes that people will utilize this tool in bad faith in order to manipulate and dominate a game so nobody gets to have any fun.

Whereas the reality is... yes. Maybe personal experience is coloring whether we see one or the other scenario is more or less likely. My own take is that the latter don't need a tool to accomplish what they set out to do (that is, ruin your game) whereas the former very often do. Maybe not this tool in specific, but other tools (session zero, Same Page Tool, etc.) that often work out to the same effect. I would say that this tool is a lot more nuanced than many of its critics seem to be willing to give it credit for, and at the same time not quite nuanced enough to be completely immune from said criticism.

There's another issue that came up as I was typing this that kind of bears a brief discussion, however:

Ultimately this is all academic as I have never encountered this kind of situation in 30+ years of gaming.

A very important point oft overlooked in this discussion I think.

This is exactly why I get frustrated to the point of breaking down and FAKE YELLING at people in CAPS LOCK (though to be honest, it's really difficult to maintain that level of emotional distress when you aren't allowed to curse). For a lot of people, particular those on the more critical side of efforts such as these, this kind of debate really is strictly academic or philosophical. For others of us, this is our lived experience, and we've had to deal with and try to learn what things work and don't work for a very long time. And it gets really, really, frustrating when those of us in the latter audience have our experiences dismissed by those in the former.

Consider that maybe, just maybe, if this conversation is purely academic for you, that you might actually have something to learn from people with actual practical experience in the subject.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

I don’t think it should be. If you’re gaming with a stranger, I think you should extend them the same courtesy you would a friend.

I extend a lot more courtesy to strangers than I do to my friends.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I haven't made a value judgment on the topic beyond my table is not the target audience for this. I have just commented on basic respect issues and not being a dick if you know its not cool.

I'm sure there is a percentage of tables this will work for, or maybe at Con games. And if so good for them.