Search results

No, nor should you. The fact that the player has a problem with it should be enough. If the player wants to tell you why, he can, but you should have zero expectation that he would. You aren’t entitled to that information - it’s up to him.

If necessary, you can discuss it later. The point is to end whatever is making you uncomfortable without bringing the game to an immediate halt.

All of which I would happily sacrifice to avoid shoving eggs down the throat of someone with an egg allergy - or hell, someone who just hates eggs. Yes, an aspect of the story may be lost. Some of the ‘vigor is suppressed.’ That’s because someone at the table had a problem with that aspect of...

I hate using pdfs for actually getting to know a new system or setting, but find them a great reference tool at the table. I like games that give you a free pdf with purchase of a physical copy (best of both worlds), but I would never buy a pdf without an actual book - that’s a game that’ll...

A 3rd party seller is someone who sells something via an online trader (usually Amazon), but is not actually Amazon. So you (the consumer - the 1st party) go to Amazon (2nd party) to buy a Widget-3000. Amazon links you to 4 sellers of Widget-3000s. Each of those is a 3rd party seller. Amazon is...

It’s really not. Deadlands reframes the Confederacy as being mostly nice guys who weren’t really racist (that was just a few mean landowners). And while it doesn’t deny slavery happened, it massively reduces its importance to and impact on Confederate institutions, economy, and society. In...

I’m not sure where you’re getting that from, because that’s exactly what the CSA is like in Deadlands, particularly as described in the Back East supplement. The CSA basically wins the war by giving up on slavery and embracing equality. In the post-war CSA, racism is a thing of the past. The...

Your alternate WW2 scenario is not equivalent. The equivalent WW2 scenario would be one in which the Holocaust never happened because the Nazis weren’t really that bad after all, Hitler was really nice when you get down to it, loved dogs and children etc. Jews proved their worth by valiantly...

But this is exactly the problem: ‘what the Flag stood for’ was slavery, but confederate apologists spent decades lying about that fact, to convince people it was about states rights and southern pride. Which is why you get a bunch of black guys proudly flying it, and why you get a whitewashed...

Sure, a game can feature the CSA without promoting it. The problem being that Deadlands did promote the Confederacy (though thankfully not the values it stood for). Had the CSA been portrayed as a horrific regime on-par with Nazi Germany, it would have been far less problematic.

A kill-bot isn’t an acceptable character, it’s just not as bad as a heal-bot. The cleric was also bad design in that it was an essential class. You could get away with not having a kill-bot in your party, but playing old-DnD without a cleric turned it into a struggle, even a chore.

Because attacking is, quite simply, seen as more fun, more proactive and more consequential. And rightly so. Sure, there are some players who like being the healer, but they’re a lot less common than the players who like killing things. As for bad designs, both would be bad, but the...

It doesn’t.

I think there may be a misunderstanding here. The document doesn’t force two people to game together. But it insists that if you do game together, you have each other’s consent on what can be included. All players have a veto, and don’t have to explain that veto. If, after the discussion, you...

I don’t think it should be. If you’re gaming with a stranger, I think you should extend them the same courtesy you would a friend.

Good point. And that’s what I find bizarre about all this. If one of my friends asks me not to include something in one of my games, I won’t include it. I’m not going to debate it with him, I’m not going to ask why. I want my friend to have fun at the table too.

Of course. Everyone at the table should have that power.

Nor does the consent document force anyone to change ‘already made plans.’ It’s a tool for establishing what you will or won’t include at the table. And that once established, you don’t include things that you agreed to exclude from the game. If a new player wants to join, but it turns out...

I just did. As does the Consent in Gaming document. A player should never have to explain why the don’t want ‘X’ in their game. All your arguments boil down to ‘I demand you tell me why I shouldn’t include ‘X’ in my game,’ which is a naughty word thing to insist on. Either accept that your player...

Sure. Again: the point is you don’t spring it on the player mid-game.