D&D General Ravenloft, horror, & safety tools...

[Faolyn]

No, I am saying there are two groups of people A) people with real mental health issues and B) people who are following a social script for other reasons. My point is Jackholes will inevitably dismiss group A more if group B is given permission to flourish (this is by the way exactly what happened to people who have celiac disease at restaurants which is why I brought up that example: people who had mild issues or just thought gluten made them fuzzy, but clearly didn't have a real medical condition, made such a production of it all the time, real celiacs get dismissed. That is just the natural result of allowing that kind of performative behavior to go unchecked. I am not saying it is right. But it is a logical outcome that you can see a mile away if you've lived long enough

And in this case, the best thing to do would not dismiss anyone who claims to have celiac disease. If they have it, then you are helping them not get ill by providing a gluten-free option. If they don't have it, then at least they're still buying your product.

What you're doing is basically saying to make anyone who claims to have celiac disease eat wheat, and if they suffer, oh well--it's not your fault, it's the fault of all those "fake celiacs" over there.

Only with gaming, it's even dumber because you don't have to buy potentially expensive gluten-free products. You just have to not include a particular thing in your game.

 

[Disgruntled Hobbit]

Like I said the issue is how ubiquitous they are becoming in the hobby and that they are being treated as an assumed good thing. I am saying this doesn't look so healthy to me. And I think a lot of the people who feel like safety tools are helping them, may actually be doing themselves more harm in the long run. I am sorry I am 43. To me safety tools seem a little ridiculous. I have to be honest

This is selection bias at work
It's not ubiquitous. It just seems like that because the people who need to safety tools discuss them and the ones who don't need them don't discuss them

And because it's a new concept that people are still learning and haven't automatically incorporated into their games yet and more advice is needed

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

how the heck?.... "paralysis/physical restraint" is not the same as bondage and your giving a lot of credit to the idea that bob can talk about it to my face or that I know him well enough to delve for answers. Using @Disgruntled Hobbit 's example bob can say "I was almost paralyzed but it worked out " & still don't know to avoid the wagon chase I described down there. Writing words on a sheet of paper is a lot less stressful & on the spot than trying to say them while someone is looking you in the eye & that's part of the reason so many of those checklists in communities that give weight to these things often prompt the person filling them out to write things

I said ask for clarification. If something about what they put confuses you, ask for clarification. If they can't provide it in a face-to-face conversation, ask them to write down specific circumstances when it would be okay and when it wouldn't be. You're being intentionally obtuse here. If you can't think of any way to ask them in a way that would feel safe for them, there's nothing I can do for you.

(Also, I did a bit of assuming that most people who are triggered with physical restraint would be because of bondage in real life. It could also be because of night-terrors, or them being paralyzed, but my assumption seems a bit more likely than either of the other examples I can think of.)

 

[Faolyn]

That tells me nothing. What the heck am I supposed to say to alice when she expects to cast web & hold person with her wizard in a couple levels?

"Hey Bob, when you say you're uncomfortable with being restrained, does that include fantasy instances such as the hold person or web spells, or just with things like ropes? And does it include anyone being restrained, or just your character? Because Alice is playing a wizard and she might want to use those spells on the bad guys you're going to be fighting."

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I am sorry. But I can't engage someone who pulls this routine

I will keep this in mind before I try to engage in a good-faith discussion with you in the future. Obviously my "routine" of dismantling arguments isn't for you.

 

[tetrasodium]

"Hey Bob, when you say you're uncomfortable with being restrained, does that include fantasy instances such as the hold person or web spells, or just with things like ropes? And does it include anyone being restrained, or just your character? Because Alice is playing a wizard and she might want to use those spells on the bad guys you're going to be fighting."

Oh bob will be thrilled if I say that across the table one day because your literally arguing that it's unreasonable for me to expect bob to take some share of the responsibility by filling out a details box on a form that only has a checkbox.

I said ask for clarification. If something about what they put confuses you, ask for clarification. If they can't provide it in a face-to-face conversation, ask them to write down specific circumstances when it would be okay and when it wouldn't be. You're being intentionally obtuse here. If you can't think of any way to ask them in a way that would feel safe for them, there's nothing I can do for you.

(Also, I did a bit of assuming that most people who are triggered with physical restraint would be because of bondage in real life. It could also be because of night-terrors, or them being paralyzed, but my assumption seems a bit more likely than either of the other examples I can think of.)

I have other players, I'm am not bob's therapist, & I've also never met a DM who gets paid for being a GM. Bob needs to share some responsibility & the form needs to include a place for him to do that or the form is a bad tool.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I will keep this in mind before I try to engage in a good-faith discussion with you in the future. Obviously my "routine" of dismantling arguments isn't for you.

The routine is one where people declare subjective arguments objective truth and demand people agree with those arguments. It is just not how real conversation works.

 

[Disgruntled Hobbit]

I have other players, I'm am not bob's therapist, & I've also never met a DM who gets paid for being a GM. Bob needs to share some responsibility & the form needs to include a place for him to do that or the form is a bad tool.

The form is meant to START the conversation, not replace it

It's there to make sure you know what to ask rather than missing something because you don't consider it a potential trigger

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I have other players, I'm am not bob's therapist, & I've also never met a DM who gets paid for being a GM.

"I'm not going to have human decency unless I get paid for it!!!" is a very "strange" rebuttal, to say the least.

Bob needs to share some responsibility & the form needs to include a place for him to do that or the form is a bad tool.

They are sharing the responsibility. They're doing that when they fill out the form. They're doing it when they agree to purposefully avoid other people's triggers. You're the ringleader. It's on you to ask for clarification if you don't understand. It's not on the form to fix everything. Again, the form is the tool, not the solution.

 

[Bedrockgames]

This is selection bias at work
It's not ubiquitous. It just seems like that because the people who need to safety tools discuss them and the ones who don't need them don't discuss them

And because it's a new concept that people are still learning and haven't automatically incorporated into their games yet and more advice is needed

I could argue your conclusion is selection bias as well (you are assuming all the people who are expressing these things all legitimately need safety tools, and that might not be the case). I think there is a lot of room for debate here. And I think it would be foolish for us to deny when we sense things are getting a little out of control on this front.