D&D General [+] Ravenloft, horror, & safety tools...

[overgeeked]

Cool. Agree to disagree.

Humans don’t work the way you want them to. Your disagreement with that fact is irrelevant. This has been a pointless loop. Tschüss.

 

[Umbran]

This could easily be tweaked into using had signals: thumbs up, thumbs down, thumbs sideways. Or a so-so hand jiggle for uncertainty and to prompt the DM to inquire more or continue but check in again often.

This is already pretty common in some live-action RPG circles. When folks are trying for full-on acting, it can be hard to tell if someone is having an issue, or only roleplaying they are having a bad issue. A quick exchange of hand-signs can act as a check-in without breaking the scene unnecessarily.

 

[billd91]

I would review the module, find any bits that stand out, as done below.

Strip out the spoilers, but leave the categories (child abuse, mental illness, misogyny) and see where we stood on those as a group. Go over the safety tools. General rating. Lines and veils. X-card. Some of the above can be veiled without changing much. Others, if lined, will require reworking sections of the module or cutting them entirely.

I think if it's a question of rating a campaign to give players a tool for judging their own compatibility with it, just the categories aren't always going to be enough. Some context may be necessary. I'll use Masks of Nyarlathotep as an example.

Racism, Colonialism, Specific cultural issues - Masks is a globe-spanning campaign set in the 1920s with a significant nod to historical immersion, some of the action is set in European colonial locations complete with attitudes and segregation that can affect the outcome of play. PCs are not required to endorse or uphold these attitudes, but they will encounter them in campaign locations.

Without some context, the categories may drive people away if they make the wrong assumptions about how they are involved in the campaign. It's like a better movie rating system offering some elaboration on what Adult Situations, Nudity, and Violence mean in the context of the movie.

 

[J.Quondam]

I wouldn’t mind-read. I would assume it was a need. I’d then expect them to be consistent with it.

Out of curiosity...
After asking the player for clarification, if you determine that what you're calling "inconsistency" is exactly the "need" they're expressing, what do you do about it?

1. Do you allow them to play and accommodate the request, despite your opinion on the matter?
2. Do you not allow them to play, explaining that the game's not a good fit for them?
3. Do you allow them to play, but go ahead do what you feel is "consistent" despite their request?

I think #3 is the only wrong course of action. I don't think any decent human being (or competent GM who simply wants a smoothly running table!) would let the player play while also ignoring their request and risking whatever conflict might arise from that.

As long as the GM / group doesn't choose go the route of that obviously bad outcome, I think the "safety tools" (whichever implementation you use) were basically successful.

 

[overgeeked]

I think if it's a question of rating a campaign to give players a tool for judging their own compatibility with it, just the categories aren't always going to be enough. Some context may be necessary. I'll use Masks of Nyarlathotep as an example.

Racism, Colonialism, Specific cultural issues - Masks is a globe-spanning campaign set in the 1920s with a significant nod to historical immersion, some of the action is set in European colonial locations complete with attitudes and segregation that can affect the outcome of play. PCs are not required to endorse or uphold these attitudes, but they will encounter them in campaign locations.

Without some context, the categories may drive people away if they make the wrong assumptions about how they are involved in the campaign. It's like a better movie rating system offering some elaboration on what Adult Situations, Nudity, and Violence mean in the context of the movie.

Right. Exactly like I said in the rest of the post you quoted but cut out. Not spoiling things but also having enough resolution or detail in the categories to properly figure out if what's actually in the game is going to be a problem for any of the players. Without that resolution/granularity/whatever the tools basically won't work.

 

[Umbran]

Without that resolution/granularity/whatever the tools basically won't work.

It is perhaps more accurate to say that they won't work... for telling you if a specific pre-written adventure will work out well.

If, however, you use these tools before you choose the adventure, it is a different story. If a player says they have issues with racism and colonialism, then you look at Masks of Nyarlathotep, realize it has a lot of that, and you just don't use it with that group. Done. Super simple.

Tools with poor resolution work fine if you have the freedom to choose or design adventure content to give topics wide berth.

 

[TheSword]

Out of curiosity...
After asking the player for clarification, if you determine that what you're calling "inconsistency" is exactly the "need" they're expressing, what do you do about it?

1. Do you allow them to play and accommodate the request, despite your opinion on the matter?
2. Do you not allow them to play, explaining that the game's not a good fit for them?
3. Do you allow them to play, but go ahead do what you feel is "consistent" despite their request?

I think #3 is the only wrong course of action. I don't think any decent human being (or competent GM who simply wants a smoothly running table!) would let the player play while also ignoring their request and risking whatever conflict might arise from that.

As long as the GM / group doesn't choose go the route of that obviously bad outcome, I think the "safety tools" (whichever implementation you use) were basically successful.

The inconsistency would be if they drew a line under it for themselves but expected to be able to do it other people.

I wouldn’t force anything on anyone though. I would say sorry I don’t appreciate that approach and would not play with them.

 

[overgeeked]

It is perhaps more accurate to say that they won't work... for telling you if a specific pre-written adventure will work out well.

If, however, you use these tools before you choose the adventure, it is a different story. If a player says they have issues with racism and colonialism, then you look at Masks of Nyarlathotep, realize it has a lot of that, and you just don't use it with that group. Done. Super simple.

Tools with poor resolution work fine if you have the freedom to choose or design adventure content to give topics wide berth.

Sorry. I thought that was a given as that's exactly the context of this part of the conversation.

 

[Faolyn]

The inconsistency would be if they drew a line under it for themselves but expected to be able to do it other people.

I wouldn’t force anything on anyone though. I would say sorry I don’t appreciate that approach and would not play with them.

But again, some things only bother you if they affect you directly.

For instance, I'm aroace in real life. While my character may be also be ace, or be any of the Four Standard RPG Sexualities (gay, straight, bi, bard), I... honestly have really no idea how to flirt and it makes me quite uncomfortable to be flirted with, whether by a PC or NPC (or in real life). I kind of go blue screen when it happens. So "don't flirt with my character" is pretty much a line with me. On the off-chance I want my character to be in a relationship or have a one-night stand, I don't do it in first-person language and rely on Charisma checks, which provides me with sufficient mental distance from the action.

Now, that's not a game rule kind of thing; there's no Flirt action or Enamored condition. But if there were, then my line would be "don't use those on me." But in this case, it's not something that bothers me when it happens to other people.

 

[J.Quondam]

The inconsistency would be if they drew a line under it for themselves but expected to be able to do it other people.

I wouldn’t force anything on anyone though. I would say sorry I don’t appreciate that approach and would not play with them.

Sounds good. You've identified a fundamental incompatibility between that player's line and a "line" of your own.
The safety tool appears to have worked.