D&D General Of Consent, Session 0 and Hard Decisions.

[GrimCo]

Even face-to-face, on occasion you're going to run a game for people who are strangers or you don't know very well. I've had a regular group for more than a decade now, but players have occasionally come and gone and I haven't really known everyone who started. Presumably the other player who asked them to join us knew them and thought they'd be a good fit. But there are plenty of occasions where you might be running/playing games for strangers at conventions, game day at the FLGS, or some other occasion.

I agree. I met lots of new people trough gaming, including people i now consider my closest friends (one is my best man, 2 others are godfathers to my kids). In my 20+ years of gaming, not one of the groups was friend group first that started gaming together. It was gaming group that became friend group trough time spent together. Also, i ran games for work colleagues, my friend also sometimes runs games for people at work.

I don't see why the DMG wouldn't encourage you to meet new people and game with them. In the real world, all of us run into new people in a variety of social situations. I grew up with the negative stereotype of gamers being socially awkward but I always found that odd because socialization is a big part of the game. Okay, yeah, I've seen some social misfits that gamed, but I see a lot fewer of them these days than I did in 1994.

Couldn't agree more. Came for the game, stayed for the people is rather common in my experience. My brother met his wife trough D&D, my friend also met his wife trough D&D. Shared hobby is good way to meet new people and turn strangers into friends. Social aspect of gaming is one that needs to be more promoted.

 

[Zardnaar]

I agree. I met lots of new people trough gaming, including people i now consider my closest friends (one is my best man, 2 others are godfathers to my kids). In my 20+ years of gaming, not one of the groups was friend group first that started gaming together. It was gaming group that became friend group trough time spent together. Also, i ran games for work colleagues, my friend also sometimes runs games for people at work.

Couldn't agree more. Came for the game, stayed for the people is rather common in my experience. My brother met his wife trough D&D, my friend also met his wife trough D&D. Shared hobby is good way to meet new people and turn strangers into friends. Social aspect of gaming is one that needs to be more promoted.

Social aspect is getting very important. It's starting to begone through most important thing along with group dynamics.

Sone very recent developments last two weeks I'm starting to think hard about that. Youngest player is 13 nephews, nieces and cousin's are agec10-25 some of them have played.

So it's not just who I'm happy sit at the table with but am I happy to have the youngest players, family and friends socialize with.
Picked up another player tonight. I let them sit in and observe tonight's game. Last weeks new player big smile tonight. Bonus new player liked AD&D and red box.

Some of those older players gave kids who want to play or are playing. Wife's been having a great time as well.

The Ancient Greece 432 BC game also sidetracked off sometimes into discussions about 5 century BC Rome or whatever so it's fun.

 

[Remathilis]

My blanket answer would be, "I'd probably just avoid X if the player asks." I had one player with a severe case of arachnophobia, and it was really no trouble to exclude spiders from the fantasy game I ran. These situations can be complex and while it's helpful to have a blanket policy, I'd probably look at each situation individually.

1. Start with the assumption the accommodation request is genuine. Respect their privacy and don't require them to justify their request.

2. Can X be avoided without fundamentally altering the game? (Avoiding spiders in D&D is usually easy but avoiding magic is a bit more difficult.)

3. Would X place any burden on the other players?

I'm guessing the vast majority of these requests are easy to accommodate.

I think the issue that has been raised is the question of "one of the players has severe arachnophobia and DM planned to run an underdark/Drow/Lolth based campaign". The player isn't asking for an unreasonable request, but fulfilling that would ruin the DMs planned game. Whose preference should win out?

To hear all of y'all talking, the DM gets his way and the player gets to stepping.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I'd wonder why I was doing something that's just blanket offensive to Chinese people just off the cuff in general in the first place, TBH.

I mean I don't know aabout you but I just learned about the skeleton thing... and I at low levels use necromacers alot. I even ported Tomb Guardians (big 4 arm skeletons) from 4e to 5e and use them many times... if skeletons on a whole freak out the people of china, one coming into my game would require a ground floor rewrite...

Heck in my game I am about to start I have a PC necromancer, and a villian that kills towns folk by ripping there mind body and soul apart making skeleton or zombie, wraith or ghost, and shadow or spector from each 1 they kill... something tells me this is NOT a chinese friendly game even i that happens off screen and is just what the PCs have to face off against. (and I JUST now learned that in china ghosts and skeletons/bones being shown is a problem)

 

[Zardnaar]

I think the issue that has been raised is the question of "one of the players has severe arachnophobia and DM planned to run an underdark/Drow/Lolth based campaign". The player isn't asking for an unreasonable request, but fulfilling that would ruin the DMs planned game. Whose preference should win out?

To hear all of y'all talking, the DM gets his way and the player gets to stepping.

Reasonable requests can be accommodated.

It's a hyperbolic theoretical argument to get people angry.bif DM and player or group have incompatible styles (role vs roll) that player misses out if it's severe enough to drastically effect things.

IRL this has never actually happened to me. CoS is worse than say Darksun but I would check for either one and a new player ultimately has to make a choice if that appeals if they're joining existing campaign.

CoS and Darksun being about as mature as it gets in printed D&D games maybe one of those BoVD dungeon adventures.

It's really only on ENworld it's even an issue. Anywhere else online it's just incompatible goals. DM wants to run XYZ player wants ABC. It happens.

DM would be an a hole if they advertised a 5E game and changed it once people turned up or advertised D&D and pulled last minute switcheroo to something else.

 

[Zardnaar]

I mean I don't know aabout you but I just learned about the skeleton thing... and I at low levels use necromacers alot. I even ported Tomb Guardians (big 4 arm skeletons) from 4e to 5e and use them many times... if skeletons on a whole freak out the people of china, one coming into my game would require a ground floor rewrite...

Heck in my game I am about to start I have a PC necromancer, and a villian that kills towns folk by ripping there mind body and soul apart making skeleton or zombie, wraith or ghost, and shadow or spector from each 1 they kill... something tells me this is NOT a chinese friendly game even i that happens off screen and is just what the PCs have to face off against. (and I JUST now learned that in china ghosts and skeletons/bones being shown is a problem)

That extent you more or less have to say this game may not he for you. Up to you if you want to play.

Tweaking encounters sure rewriting the campaign/adventure no. That's not reasonable.

If DM and 5/6 want to play Princes of the Apocalypse (or whatever)player 6 misses out if it's a deal breaker.

If you do it other way round 5/6 are now the new player 6.

If the DMs a complete idiot abd doesn't listen to them whatsoever DM nay not have players or the group self destruction and you're part of that 90% who doesn't reach level 10 or average game 6 sessions or the 1-2 sessions game dies.

On group I was in exploded in spectacular fashion. I missed the session it happened game store owner wouldn't give me the details but gist of it was DM was sleeping with one of the players maybe 2 and one of them was dating another player in the group or it was mixed up between the 3 or 4 people involved. Not sure if the DM was with a 2nd player involved or her man was sleeping with DMs side piece.


Blew up really impressively apparently. Didn't get to finish LMoP anyway. Incompatible styles, social aspects etc.

 

[GrimCo]

I think the issue that has been raised is the question of "one of the players has severe arachnophobia and DM planned to run an underdark/Drow/Lolth based campaign". The player isn't asking for an unreasonable request, but fulfilling that would ruin the DMs planned game. Whose preference should win out?

To hear all of y'all talking, the DM gets his way and the player gets to stepping.

That one is easy as it requires minimal lore tweak on behalf of DM to accommodate player. Instead of having spider fetish, Lolth now has bat fetish, drow are all about bats, it fits thematically with Underdark and everyone is happy.

If DM knows in advance that one of the players has arachnophobia, they would probably skip drow themed campaign in the first place or would do above mentioned lore changes.

If they don't know, player should communicate it with DM before campaign starts, and talk it out with DM. FE:

DM: Hey peps, you interested in drow centered Underdark campaign?
P: Sorry, but i have severe arachnophobia. Can we do it without spiders?
DM - option 1: Sure, i'll make some changes so no spiders are present.
DM- option 2: Sure, no problem, we can do something else.
DM- option 3: Sorry, don't have anything else and spiders are kind of Lolth/Drow thing. Any suggestions how we can work this out?
DM option 4: Sorry, no can do, don't have anything else. Maybe you should skip this one.

 

[AnotherGuy]

True, Morrus but some tools want to use a form to avoid a conversation.

 

[cranberry]

One thing about having things in writing is that it's inflexible and essentially pigeonholes you in the mind of the GM.

Despite a persons game play preferences, I believe that most adults can be flexible, and be patient and/or tolerant of other play styles.

For example, I'm not a big RPer, but I can sit back and let others engage in that part of the game without a problem (unless they are spotlight hogs).

So, if I put on one of those sheets my preference for combat over RP, my form my get tossed in the trash, and I wouldn't be invite to the game.

So, if you don't use the "tool" properly, it can limit your available pool of candidates. Further if everyone at the table aligns with a certain type of player, it limits the variety of creativity. An echo chamber of sorts.

 

[MGibster]

I think the issue that has been raised is the question of "one of the players has severe arachnophobia and DM planned to run an underdark/Drow/Lolth based campaign". The player isn't asking for an unreasonable request, but fulfilling that would ruin the DMs planned game. Whose preference should win out?

The reason you have to look at each situation individually is because what's reasonable in one circumstance is unreasonable in another. In my fantasy campaign, spiders were just random monsters that could be replaced with a variety of other monsters making no real difference to the campaign. In the case of a campaign revolving around Drow/Loth,
asking to remove all references to spiders is an unreasonable request because to do so would fundamentally change the campaign.

But perhaps there are other accommodations to be made. Maybe the player would be okay with inclusions of spiders just so long as the DM didn't get too specific with spiderly descriptions. That might be enough to satisfy this player's particular problem with spiders.