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

[Zardnaar]

Not one person has advocated that in this thread, and none of the tools discussed in this thread are made for that purpose. To use them this way would be explicitly abusing them and, in fact, turning them against the purpose for which they were conceived.

I'm also more than a little skeptical that all that many of them could even in principle be used to try to coerce someone to "overwrite or bury any feelings and-or problems" someone else might have, because the whole point is to ease communication and give a voice to those who struggle to speak because of fear, anxiety, or worries that one would breach the social contract (becoming a "party pooper" or a "wet blanket" etc., etc., etc.) merely for trying to not feel emotionally shredded.


Where do you see this in this thread?

Because these tools are (explicitly and specifically) designed to only help with "I don't want..." when that desire-against is because it would be traumatic or demoralizing or otherwise experience-ruining for the asker, while avoiding or ameliorating whatever the issue is would be of little to no consequence to anyone else.

Raising the specter of possible, theoretical bogeymen as a justification for actively disparaging tools designed to help people be comfortable in their own skin at the TTRPG table is not the best look. It's excruciatingly easy to dismiss valid, serious issues with "well maybe someone participating in bad faith could use this as a cudgel to beat people, so nobody should ever be allowed to use it or anything like it." That's not an acceptable argument. If you're going to raise a criticism like this, it needs something more concrete. Just as my example with my cousin who would probably never be able to enjoy a TTRPG game where there are people who burned to death in a fire, because of his childhood traumatic experience with one. (I always tried to be kind to him during the few family reunions where we met. He was a quiet and reclusive boy.) Him saying "I don't want to see horrible burn victims" would not, in ANY way, be some horrific violation of others' rights or preferences.

So. Where does this bogeyman hide? How likely are such issues? Will there actually be more issues with than without the use of some of these tools? Not all tools are valid or appropriate for all contexts, of course, and it's entirely valid to find some or even several to not be to your taste (as noted, I find "consent forms" stuffy and ineffectual). But to dismiss all of them with a mere "well it's possible for someone to abuse this, therefore it shouldn't be used" is unacceptable. Unless you're now suddenly okay with the argument that absolute DM authority shouldn't be used because it is possible for bad-faith DMs to abuse it?

Bad faith DMs absolutely do exist.

In a more realistic scenario thats not hypothetical I want to run 2024 5E. Ideally I want a starter set to go with it.

I'm also in the mood for the FR books I want them even if we stick with 2014 or even ditch 5E. That's my locked in 2024 purchases.

Eventually I'm going to want to use those products and I want to use them with the minimum of fuss and effort. That means running them as is more or less.

I'm not sure on the price of all of that but based on current prices it 5X $75 plus $40. $415 dollars. $250 USD approx. Might be more.

I don't really see any problems with my players but at tgat point asDM I'm saying here's what I'm doing. If you don't want to play thats fine but I'm not willing to change it.

Thats a realistic scenario in the bear future that will play out. The when is after those books are published and arrived here.

My players have already consented to GoT and BG3 type content (minus the sex stuff) and it's official WotC generic product so one would think it's safe.

That's where the "my house my rules" would be used.

 

[Remathilis]

Not one person has advocated that in this thread, and none of the tools discussed in this thread are made for that purpose. To use them this way would be explicitly abusing them and, in fact, turning them against the purpose for which they were conceived.

I'm also more than a little skeptical that all that many of them could even in principle be used to try to coerce someone to "overwrite or bury any feelings and-or problems" someone else might have, because the whole point is to ease communication and give a voice to those who struggle to speak because of fear, anxiety, or worries that one would breach the social contract (becoming a "party pooper" or a "wet blanket" etc., etc., etc.) merely for trying to not feel emotionally shredded.


Where do you see this in this thread?

Because these tools are (explicitly and specifically) designed to only help with "I don't want..." when that desire-against is because it would be traumatic or demoralizing or otherwise experience-ruining for the asker, while avoiding or ameliorating whatever the issue is would be of little to no consequence to anyone else.

Raising the specter of possible, theoretical bogeymen as a justification for actively disparaging tools designed to help people be comfortable in their own skin at the TTRPG table is not the best look. It's excruciatingly easy to dismiss valid, serious issues with "well maybe someone participating in bad faith could use this as a cudgel to beat people, so nobody should ever be allowed to use it or anything like it." That's not an acceptable argument. If you're going to raise a criticism like this, it needs something more concrete. Just as my example with my cousin who would probably never be able to enjoy a TTRPG game where there are people who burned to death in a fire, because of his childhood traumatic experience with one. (I always tried to be kind to him during the few family reunions where we met. He was a quiet and reclusive boy.) Him saying "I don't want to see horrible burn victims" would not, in ANY way, be some horrific violation of others' rights or preferences.

So. Where does this bogeyman hide? How likely are such issues? Will there actually be more issues with than without the use of some of these tools? Not all tools are valid or appropriate for all contexts, of course, and it's entirely valid to find some or even several to not be to your taste (as noted, I find "consent forms" stuffy and ineffectual). But to dismiss all of them with a mere "well it's possible for someone to abuse this, therefore it shouldn't be used" is unacceptable. Unless you're now suddenly okay with the argument that absolute DM authority shouldn't be used because it is possible for bad-faith DMs to abuse it?

Because people have been equating avoiding traumatic triggers with personal preferences. They are equating "I cannot envision spiders without having anxiety" to "I must play a wizard and no one else can."

A friend from work's brother fought in Afghanistan. He came home with PTSD surrounding loud explosions. Every year, my friend did a barbeque around the Fourth of July. They used to eat, drink beer, and light fireworks. Once his brother was diagnosed, what did he do? Tell his brother not to come because everyone enjoyed lighting off fireworks? No, they stopped lighting them off. It was more important that his brother be there and feel comfortable than it was to celebrate with fireworks. They opted for a quieter weekend and to have a bonfire instead.

The brother was not being selfish. He wasn't telling people to not launch fireworks because they annoyed him. He was responding to trauma. Was anyone annoyed there was no firework show anymore? IDK. It didn't appear to be a big deal. I doubt anyone didn't want him there so they could have watched fireworks instead.

But apparently, the least selfish thing the brother could have done was simply never go to his brothers barbeque so the people at the party could enjoy the fireworks.

I'm sure someone is going to reply that this isn't the same as D&D blah blah blah. I don't care. Trauma is trauma. Social activities with friends should be safe for everyone. If that remains controversial, that says more about you than me.

 

[jasper]

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?

I will go out to marvel movies with my friends but not all my friends. This one of the main times we socialize.
I will go out and get Chinese Food with my friends except James who hates Chinese. We will catch him at the next dining out. This one of the main times we socialize.
I will watch football with some my friends except the loud asbeep who only talks about his team. This one of the main times we socialize.
I will go to Shakespeare with two of my friends. This one of the main times we socialize.
I will not go out drinking and clubbing with my friends, as my tastes have changed. And those friends I now only see at Walmart now.
I will bend the knee of kindness and not associate with those who tastes I find not up to my standards.

 

[FrogReaver]

Because people have been equating avoiding traumatic triggers with personal preferences. They are equating "I cannot envision spiders without having anxiety" to "I must play a wizard and no one else can."

Not quite. We are saying the same principle applies to both situations.

A friend from work's brother fought in Afghanistan. He came home with PTSD surrounding loud explosions. Every year, my friend did a barbeque around the Fourth of July. They used to eat, drink beer, and light fireworks. Once his brother was diagnosed, what did he do? Tell his brother not to come because everyone enjoyed lighting off fireworks? No, they stopped lighting them off. It was more important that his brother be there and feel comfortable than it was to celebrate with fireworks. They opted for a quieter weekend and to have a bonfire instead.

If the brother had ptsd set off by fireworks he absolutely should have stayed away from a bbq with them. If the other brother wanted to accommodate his brother so he could come then he certainly should eliminate the fireworks.

No one is saying don’t do that. We are saying it shouldn’t be a mandatory expectation. That’s where you are getting pushback. It doesn’t mean someone is a bad person if they don’t accommodate all potential issues at all times.

The brother was not being selfish. He wasn't telling people to not launch fireworks because they annoyed him. He was responding to trauma. Was anyone annoyed there was no firework show anymore? IDK. It didn't appear to be a big deal. I doubt anyone didn't want him there so they could have watched fireworks instead.

Considering we don’t know what actions he took or anyone else’s perspective we cannot really say. I think it’s likely he wasn’t, but you’ve not provided the details required to validate that assertion.

But apparently, the least selfish thing the brother could have done was simply never go to his brothers barbeque so the people at the party could enjoy the fireworks.

I think that’s objectively less selfish (unless he thought they wanted to spend time with him more than fireworks - a distinct possibility but again not verified by your story).

I'm sure someone is going to reply that this isn't the same as D&D blah blah blah. I don't care. Trauma is trauma. Social activities with friends should be safe for everyone. If that remains controversial, that says more about you than me.

The only question is about how they become safe. You say always accommodate. We say sometimes do that but sometimes the person with the issue may sometimes needs to pass on a specific activity.

 

[jasper]

So we are back to "sorry, arachnophobic friend, but I'm running City of the Spider Queen, so don't let the door hit you on the way out."

No you need to end that with. "We see you at the game table in a few months. "

 

[Micah Sweet]

Because people have been equating avoiding traumatic triggers with personal preferences. They are equating "I cannot envision spiders without having anxiety" to "I must play a wizard and no one else can."

A friend from work's brother fought in Afghanistan. He came home with PTSD surrounding loud explosions. Every year, my friend did a barbeque around the Fourth of July. They used to eat, drink beer, and light fireworks. Once his brother was diagnosed, what did he do? Tell his brother not to come because everyone enjoyed lighting off fireworks? No, they stopped lighting them off. It was more important that his brother be there and feel comfortable than it was to celebrate with fireworks. They opted for a quieter weekend and to have a bonfire instead.

The brother was not being selfish. He wasn't telling people to not launch fireworks because they annoyed him. He was responding to trauma. Was anyone annoyed there was no firework show anymore? IDK. It didn't appear to be a big deal. I doubt anyone didn't want him there so they could have watched fireworks instead.

But apparently, the least selfish thing the brother could have done was simply never go to his brothers barbeque so the people at the party could enjoy the fireworks.

I'm sure someone is going to reply that this isn't the same as D&D blah blah blah. I don't care. Trauma is trauma. Social activities with friends should be safe for everyone. If that remains controversial, that says more about you than me.

I think the idea here is that either option, provided it works well enough for the group, should be acceptable (or at least conceivable) without it becoming a judgement of someone's morality. Your stance appears to be, "any option other than changing the activity to accommodate this person's needs makes you a bad person". This stops all discussion and demands complete agreement with your point of view, because anything else is unacceptable.

I'm not surprised you're getting pushback.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think part of the problem here is twofold.

1. Some people are either not understanding the difference between an actively traumatic game element, and one that someone simply dislikes, or assuming that people will claim the former for the latter (i.e. use the tools in bad faith). My own reaction to the latter is that I think someone who I wouldn't assume was arguing in good faith on this isn't someone I'd want in an ongoing game anyway (as its taking manipulation pretty darn far) so if you're not willing to do that, why are you playing with them? And if you do assume they're arguing in good faith, then at worst, you're arguing the value of avoiding trauma versus other people's enjoyment.

2. That said, there seems an assumption that just because you're friends with people and sympathize with them, you're ethically obligated to to wrap your decisions all around their trauma. You certainly don't want to shove it in their face (so its pretty reasonable to avoid selective elements in a campaign not focused around them if you're aware its going to cause people problems), but if everyone is really interested in playing a campaign that's wrapped around that subject, I don't think its unfair to suggest that the person with the associated trauma take a pass rather than simply avoid it it completely. You and the rest of your friends are not ethically obligated to spend all summer not going to the beach because you have a friend with PMLE.

The combination of these two positions among people in this thread is not making the exchanges benign.

 

[Scribe]

A friend from work's brother fought in Afghanistan. He came home with PTSD surrounding loud explosions. Every year, my friend did a barbeque around the Fourth of July. They used to eat, drink beer, and light fireworks. Once his brother was diagnosed, what did he do? Tell his brother not to come because everyone enjoyed lighting off fireworks? No, they stopped lighting them off. It was more important that his brother be there and feel comfortable than it was to celebrate with fireworks. They opted for a quieter weekend and to have a bonfire instead.

Because, the once a year gathering, is more important than a specific part of that gathering, especially in regards to.

1. Family.
2. Support for his brother's condition.

Which, is all well and good because its your friends BBQ, and he can set the rules.

Anyone who's married, and is going to tell me they wouldn't be accommodating for their wife (100%) or kids (lets be honest, less than 100%...) well, happy wife, happy life.

I have plenty of people in my extended family with mental health considerations, and yes that sometimes means they will skip out on a particular event because they know that its not something they can cope with, and everyone else gets on with enjoying the activity. Good luck trying to find an activity that fits 30+ at one of my family reunions and isnt going to set someone off.

You know what the people in my family with these issues hate most? Having people tie themselves in knots in an effort to be 'accommodating' thereby drawing even more attention to the issues which those people are desperate to be free from.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think part of the problem here is twofold.

1. Some people are either not understanding the difference between an actively traumatic game element, and one that someone simply dislikes, or assuming that people will claim the former for the latter (i.e. use the tools in bad faith). My own reaction to the latter is that I think someone who I wouldn't assume was arguing in good faith on this isn't someone I'd want in an ongoing game anyway (as its taking manipulation pretty darn far) so if you're not willing to do that, why are you playing with them? And if you do assume they're arguing in good faith, then at worst, you're arguing the value of avoiding trauma versus other people's enjoyment.

Can I take option 3? That while certainly different things, they are ultimately to be handled in essentially the same way.

2. That said, there seems an assumption that just because you're friends with people and sympathize with them, you're ethically obligated to to wrap your decisions all around their trauma. You certainly don't want to shove it in their face (so its pretty reasonable to avoid selective elements in a campaign not focused around them if you're aware its going to cause people problems), but if everyone is really interested in playing a campaign that's wrapped around that subject, I don't think its unfair to suggest that the person with the associated trauma take a pass rather than simply avoid it it completely. You and the rest of your friends are not ethically obligated to spend all summer not going to the beach because you have a friend with PMLE.

I think if you get people to agree to this part, especially the last, the contention is over.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Can I take option 3? That while certainly different things, they are ultimately to be handled in essentially the same way.

A lot of people by their phrasing, clearly don't.

I think if you get people to agree to this part, especially the last, the contention is over.

I don't think it is, for the reason I say above. I think there are people who need to back away from suggesting that safety tools are going to be a regular vector for misbehavior, or there's not a lot of room to move here.