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

[payn]

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.

I am all for compromise when its applicable, but I'm not sure why a person who wants particular interests at their table needs somebody who doesnt share them? I thought that was sort of the point of making direct internet advertisements? I say this as someone who does a fair bit of both public and private gaming which have very different application practices.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

In that scenario its incompatible desires. No one's an AH.

In my players pool I have some who will play anything some who will only play 5E or OSR. Others can only make one times slot.

The ones who will play anything, can make both time slots and are keen on board games or whatever will have advantages over those who can't/won't.

My next game might be AD&D (run alongside 5E) and not everyone might be keen on AD&D. Might be Star Wars I do get sick of D&D.

One timeslot is 5E, ones OSR. I'll try and get everyone in at least 1 game I can't gurantee both.

I can't compromise on time slots. That one shoukd he obvious. Family/work>games.

I'm looking at a third game either an occasional one or alternating bi weekly or something. That's a tonight and Sunday problem.

At some point it's here's when I'm available and what I'm running. You're invited up to you if you want to play. Once they get past that (eg I don't want to play whatever) we can have a discussion over what's in said game.

I'm not running Fallout RPG even if every player asks.

So, if I'm understanding these examples correctly (numbered in listed order)
1 (only 5e/OSR), 3 (some folks may not accept AD&D), and 5 (you will never run Fallout) are about system selection, and thus occur before any sort of gaming even begins. Thus, not applicable to what the thread is about, which is tools for assuaging/preventing conflicts in the preparatory and execution stages of gaming.

2 and 4 are time slot selection, which is not an issue of actually playing, but of whether play can happen in the first place. This isn't a matter of conflicting personalities or disagreements, it's a matter of whether it is even possible to game at all. So, again, has absolute bupkis to do with safety tools or compromise.

Once play has actually begun, so long as the people involved actually did communicate and express their interests properly etc., you have said "we can have a discussion"--meaning, you are amenable to finding a way to make things work, even if one or both sides ends up not getting the full and exact, specific details they originally set out for. Yes?

Because if so then that seems pretty clear to me that you do think a reasonable solution can be reached by reasonable players in actual-play situations, so long as the participants (DM and player alike) are in fact participating in good faith.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I am all for compromise when its applicable, but I'm not sure why a person who wants particular interests at their table needs somebody who doesnt share them? I thought that was sort of the point of making direct internet advertisements? I say this as someone who does a fair bit of both public and private gaming which have very different application practices.

It depends on exactly what the "doesn't share them" is, but I actually VERY VERY much value it when I have players at the table who are more willing to be the first to speak up, the first to do something, etc. "Instigator" is the term I've used with my own group. I know it might carry a slight negative connotation I don't mean it as such; it's just the people who are willing to push the action forward. I tend to be an overthinker, a "Team Dad" type, wanting to do the right thing for the right reason at the right time. It's actually VERY helpful to me as a gamer to have someone who's much more willing to throw down, to take their lumps for a poor choice, to push the envelope. Naturally, as with all things, there are limits of reasonability, and it is eminently possible for an instigator to go way too far, just as it is possible for an overthinker (or control freak, if you prefer) to go way too far in the opposite direction and shut the game down until they're perfectly happy.

My life, my experiences, indeed my self, are all made better by proximity to those who are unlike me. And I like to believe that there are at least a few people unlike me whom I have helped become better as well.

 

[payn]

It depends on exactly what the "doesn't share them" is, but I actually VERY VERY much value it when I have players at the table who are more willing to be the first to speak up, the first to do something, etc. "Instigator" is the term I've used with my own group. I know it might carry a slight negative connotation I don't mean it as such; it's just the people who are willing to push the action forward. I tend to be an overthinker, a "Team Dad" type, wanting to do the right thing for the right reason at the right time. It's actually VERY helpful to me as a gamer to have someone who's much more willing to throw down, to take their lumps for a poor choice, to push the envelope. Naturally, as with all things, there are limits of reasonability, and it is eminently possible for an instigator to go way too far, just as it is possible for an overthinker (or control freak, if you prefer) to go way too far in the opposite direction and shut the game down until they're perfectly happy.

My life, my experiences, indeed my self, are all made better by proximity to those who are unlike me. And I like to believe that there are at least a few people unlike me whom I have helped become better as well.

I call that instigator type player, proactive. There are, of course, personality types that are not going to get screened by an application. A player that acts to move the action forward isnt the same as a player that wants to take control of all the action. That usually presents itself during play which needs to be managed. This is largely why I dont start campaign play with folks I dont know. I usually start with one shots or give invites from public play.

I think that the above is a bit different than asking for folks that prioritize roleplay and not accepting somebody who indicates they are combat over role play. That isnt just inviting somebody disparate from your own personality, its inviting somebody saying they want the opposite of what you are trying to build. They may have honest intentions of joining the game and not being disruptive, but its not adding to the goal of the game.

 

[bedir than]

In that scenario its incompatible desires. No one's an AH.

In my players pool I have some who will play anything some who will only play 5E or OSR. Others can only make one times slot.

The ones who will play anything, can make both time slots and are keen on board games or whatever will have advantages over those who can't/won't.

My next game might be AD&D (run alongside 5E) and not everyone might be keen on AD&D. Might be Star Wars I do get sick of D&D.

One timeslot is 5E, ones OSR. I'll try and get everyone in at least 1 game I can't gurantee both.

I can't compromise on time slots. That one shoukd he obvious. Family/work>games.

I'm looking at a third game either an occasional one or alternating bi weekly or something. That's a tonight and Sunday problem.

At some point it's here's when I'm available and what I'm running. You're invited up to you if you want to play. Once they get past that (eg I don't want to play whatever) we can have a discussion over what's in said game.

I'm not running Fallout RPG even if every player asks.

Again, we aren't talking about scheduling or rules.

Say someone discovers that they've accepted racism in their past, but no longer wants a game with slavery
Maybe they've been to therapy and recognize abusive behaviors at your table and don't want those
Or they are transitioning

Why wouldn't you accommodate your friends' reasonable request for you to stop the traumas you force on them? That's what safety tools are about.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Again, we aren't talking about scheduling or rules.

Say someone discovers that they've accepted racism in their past, but no longer wants a game with slavery
Maybe they've been to therapy and recognize abusive behaviors at your table and don't want those
Or they are transitioning

Why wouldn't you accommodate your friends' reasonable request for you to stop the traumas you force on them? That's what safety tools are about.

No one's forcing trauma on anyone in this situation. If one member of a group has a problem with something the rest of the group doesn't, why is the only moral solution that everyone else bends for that person?

 

[bedir than]

No one's forcing trauma on anyone in this situation. If one member of a group has a problem with something the rest of the group doesn't, why is the only moral solution that everyone else bends for that person.

Yes, absolutely you should "bend" the knee of kindness towards your friends.
That's what friendship is.

 

[Scribe]

Yes, absolutely you should "bend" the knee of kindness towards your friends.
That's what friendship is.

If 1 person doesnt want X, and the rest of the table is fine or actively wants X, then the answer is for the 1 person to say 'thanks, but this isnt the game for me.' like a mature individual.

 

[MarkB]

If 1 person doesnt want X, and the rest of the table is fine or actively wants X, then the answer is for the 1 person to say 'thanks, but this isnt the game for me.' like a mature individual.

Even if that one person is traumatised by X, and the others are merely okay with it? Even if they're your friend and this is one of the main times you socialise with them?

 

[Scribe]

Even if that one person is traumatised by X, and the others are merely okay with it? Even if they're your friend and this is one of the main times you socialise with them?

Its a game.

Someone was describing on this site a (I think) Delta Green scenario, which involved heavily, child abuse.

I would nope out of that game the second it was brought up.

Doesnt mean I hate my friends, or that we cannot socialize elsewhere, or in the next game, and it doesnt mean they should all bow to my feelings.