Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="LordOfTheWaffleHouse" data-source="post: 9529862" data-attributes="member: 7044860">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 &quot;I didn't consent&quot; argument I have ever seen at any table was just a bad attempt to misconstrue &quot;whining about a bad roll and having to be subject to the consequences of that roll&quot; to &quot;violating consent&quot;.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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="LordOfTheWaffleHouse, post: 9529862, member: 7044860"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification