D&D General A glimpse at WoTC's current view of Rule 0

[Vaalingrade]

Unless someone is physically stopping you from leaving their table, you're consent isn't being violated

Not how that works.

 

[Aldarc]

That's a hell of a leap in logic dude. I also disagree with safewords, that doesn't mean I want my players to feel unsafe or don't believe in consent. Similarly, here is a counterpoint: by coming to my table, where and after I've described what the campaign is going to have in terms of content, you choose to remain and play at my table, you've given consent. Honestly I find the entire concept to be a bit dumb when we're talking about consent in an RPG setting, as it always ends up comparing apples to oranges. Unless someone is physically stopping you from leaving their table, you're consent isn't being violated, and pretty much every "I didn't consent" argument I have ever seen at any table was just a bad attempt to misconstrue "whining about a bad roll and having to be subject to the consequences of that roll" to "violating consent".

That being said, most of this debate seems to be reliant on a difference without a distinction. Whether you call it a facilitator, DM, GM, or story teller, or anything else, most of the descriptions given regarding the role of the DM from about everyone here have such minor differences that there really is no difference at all. It's like seeing three different knights, one blue, one orange, one green, all lawful good wielding the same equipment, all arguing about which one is the most knightly of knights. The only difference is the color of your armor which amounts to diddly squat.

I'm not sure why you revived this thread to come swinging at me of a "hell of a leap in logic" and your feelings about consent in gaming being dumb in what was a simple a tongue-in-cheek joke about "dungeon masters" and BDSM* that was not even addressed to you.

* Congratulations! The subtext of the joke has now become text for your dear sweet little heart!

 

[LordOfTheWaffleHouse]

Not how that works.

Except that is how it works. The entire point of session 0 is to handle this very issue; outline the comfort zones of players and the DM, expectations of each player and the DM, and for the DM to explain the setting and answer questions regarding it. This can also be handled in the era of digital gaming with the title page. Take one of mine, here's the general description post in my discord and that was on my recruitment page when I was recruiting for a campaign that is about to have session 3 this Friday in a homebrewed Greyhawk. I've explained the tone of the setting and campaign to my players, and warned them in advance of exactly what they can expect.

When we held a session zero, the old players who've played with me before already knew what was up, and the new players accepted the content of my campaign in which I do not shy away from things like slavery, human sacrifice, and death, as the campaign involves a trio of death deities waging a 3 way war over being the top death deity and roping the mortal plane right into it as collateral. My players understand that we are all adults and that I fully expect them to be adults and handle themselves appropriately. All of them understand that I explicitly allow PvP and evil characters as well, and that if they underestimate an encounter they may end up dead and rerolling a new character. And all of them, by coming back after session 0, have consented to all of these things. Only if I start drastically changing things or doing something outside this scope does anything even remotely in that ball park come into play and that shouldn't ever happen. If any of them have an issue, they are free to leave my table, they are welcome to play in it but all have to accept and understand that YOU are entering MY world, which is MY design, not yours. If you dislike that, you start your own table, but you don't try to force things like what's suggested in the new PHB of "holding your hands up like an X".

So yes, that is exactly how it works. You are an adult, you are not a child. Even if you were a minor, assuming a teenager and not an 8 year old or something, you're still going to have to adhere to expectations and social norms. Those social norms, which can be summarized as "just don't be an naughty word or a weirdo" are more than enough and have been more than enough for more than 30 years of tabletop gaming. Stop pretending like something else has changed just because you have an issue.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Except that is how it works. The entire point of session 0 is to handle this very issue; outline the comfort zones of players and the DM, expectations of each player and the DM, and for the DM to explain the setting and answer questions regarding it.

Consent isn't irrevokable.

Things change and come up post- Session 0 that can change the situation drastically. Maybe something they discovers a new thing that bothers them. Maybe they said they were okay with blood and guts, but the lurid descriptions the DM is giving go too far. Maybe they were okay with something being in the game, but not done to them.

Buy-in in Session 0 does not obviate issues the come up afterward or even invalidate buyer's remorse thereafter.

 

[LordOfTheWaffleHouse]

Consent isn't irrevokable.

Things change and come up post- Session 0 that can change the situation drastically. Maybe something they discovers a new thing that bothers them. Maybe they said they were okay with blood and guts, but the lurid descriptions the DM is giving go too far. Maybe they were okay with something being in the game, but not done to them.

Buy-in in Session 0 does not obviate issues the come up afterward or even invalidate buyer's remorse thereafter.

Dude let me explain this frankly to you: your fundamental flaw is that you expect OTHER PEOPLE to change their game to suit you and your tastes. You CONSENTED to be there. No one will stop you from leaving if you end up not liking it, but they are not under any obligation to pay any heed to your opinion or change THEIR situation to suit yours, and any claim you have that it's violating your consent is nothing more or less than an asinine example of sheer malice. My younger sister is a rape survivor, so these frivolous misrepresentations of violating consent absolutely piss ME off because it degrades and cheapens the very real traumas that you are so flippantly comparing them to.

Now by your logic if you choose to carpool with 3 other people to the theater and see an R-Rated movie that has the warning of "Language, Violence, Nudity, and Disturbing Imagery", and you decide 40 minutes in that it's too violent for you, you expect those 3 people who you went with to stop watching the movie and take you home just because you don't like it anymore. You would argue that they are violating your consent when they won't leave the movie early to take you home, and you would blame the theater if they won't give you a refund. YOU are the one inconveniencing other people. YOU are the one forcing your particular beliefs onto them without consent, and YOU are actively misrepresenting it to somehow equate to "them violating your consent", and personally, I would absolutely never allow you near my table nor would I ever let you make that argument without me telling you, directly to your face, why and how it is flawed, malicious, and why, and since I actually have that experience, I'm NOT put back by your assertion that it makes me a racist, a rape apologist, or any of the other general tactics that you and yours like to bring to this argument. You. Are. Wrong. It is cut and dry, it is black and white. No one is violating your consent and it is absolutely a travesty that we have people in the hobby trying to make this, the single worst apples to oranges comparison, that you could make.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I'm not expecting anything. I'm just saying that's not how consent works.

You can't get consent then get salty when it is withdrawn.

 

[LordOfTheWaffleHouse]

I'm not expecting anything. I'm just saying that's not how consent works.

You can't get consent then get salty when it is withdrawn.

You can't call it violating consent when people don't entertain your insane demands.

 

[Autumnal]

Yes, you can. A whole bunch of laws do just that, and people get prosecuted under them. (This is how, for instance, clients of prostitutes can be s charged with raping them.) If this bothers you, you need to make it clear to players that will refuse to recognize any withdrawal of consent once they give it, so they know up front not to start playing with you.

 

[Vaalingrade]

You can't call it violating consent when people don't entertain your insane demands.

The insane demands of... respecting consent?

Or knowing what consent actually comprises?

What 'demands' are you seeing me make? Because I said your definition of consent being ironclad after Session Zero was not how consent works, then I explained how consent works. No demands, just spitting facts.

Just to be clear: consent is not carte blanche to do whatever you want within the letter of the initial discussion with zero recourse on the part of the other party.

And physical force isn't the only way people strongarm and coerce others into doing things they're not comfortable or okay with. Getting shouty and calling them insane for speaking up, for example.

 

[Morrus]

Dude let me explain this frankly to you: your fundamental flaw is that you expect OTHER PEOPLE to change their game to suit you and your tastes. You CONSENTED to be there. No one will stop you from leaving if you end up not liking it, but they are not under any obligation to pay any heed to your opinion or change THEIR situation to suit yours, and any claim you have that it's violating your consent is nothing more or less than an asinine example of sheer malice. My younger sister is a rape survivor, so these frivolous misrepresentations of violating consent absolutely piss ME off because it degrades and cheapens the very real traumas that you are so flippantly comparing them to.

Now by your logic if you choose to carpool with 3 other people to the theater and see an R-Rated movie that has the warning of "Language, Violence, Nudity, and Disturbing Imagery", and you decide 40 minutes in that it's too violent for you, you expect those 3 people who you went with to stop watching the movie and take you home just because you don't like it anymore. You would argue that they are violating your consent when they won't leave the movie early to take you home, and you would blame the theater if they won't give you a refund. YOU are the one inconveniencing other people. YOU are the one forcing your particular beliefs onto them without consent, and YOU are actively misrepresenting it to somehow equate to "them violating your consent", and personally, I would absolutely never allow you near my table nor would I ever let you make that argument without me telling you, directly to your face, why and how it is flawed, malicious, and why, and since I actually have that experience, I'm NOT put back by your assertion that it makes me a racist, a rape apologist, or any of the other general tactics that you and yours like to bring to this argument. You. Are. Wrong. It is cut and dry, it is black and white. No one is violating your consent and it is absolutely a travesty that we have people in the hobby trying to make this, the single worst apples to oranges comparison, that you could make.

Calm. The. Hell. Down.

(And don't try your usual 'challenge moderation' reaction with the word "Dude!" in the first sentence, because I will ask you to leave.)