Consent in Gaming - Free Guidebook

[billd91]

I haven't belittled the problems of others at all. But what are the odds I'm going to sit down at a table and play some D&D with a survivor of the 2004 tsunami? In 2015, only 315 Americans died from heat stroke so what are the odds I'm sitting at a table with someone who has been negatively affected by this on a personal level? Not that it really matters as I can't really think of a single time heat stroke came up in any game I've played.

I don't care for the opt in because I cannot present my players with a list of every conceivable thing I might bring into the game that might stir up traumatic memories. It's better if they tell me at the beginning of the game if there's something they don't want to see, or, if that doesn't work out, to let me know during game play. In my nearly thirty years of gaming I've only had it pop up twice and I've already told the spider story earlier in the thread.

That was entirely uncalled for. You have no idea whether or not I've experienced anything on that list.

How about being dismissive of, then? Here you are chiding me about what you may or may not have experienced while showing a total lack of imagination or empathy about how some of those issues may have been extremely traumatic for someone else. Flooding? Heatstroke, meh, not in a million years, right?

 

[Celebrim]

Maybe a solution is to have tables where some are G rated, some PG rated, other R rated. Kind of like the movies.

This is my preferred technique. You communicate a broad sense of how difficult the content is, and like the movies you have a few specific categories that might clue the curious into the broad categories of difficult content that they might encounter - adult language, adult situations, sexual situations, nudity, body horror, graphic violence, or whatever. Then, a person can be reasonably informed about what to expect from a table in a public situation, and when a problem occurs in a public situation they can either excuse themselves if they find they've misjudged their ability to deal with the subject, or complain that the table is not being run according to its advertised guidelines.

But in terms of specifics that might reasonably trigger a psychotic episode or anxiety attack in some one who actually has real emotional health issues, there is no way a public forum can possibly handle the full range of issues. A person whose child toddler died in an overheated car who was considering a game advertised to contain say "child endangerment" might possibly privately query the conventions organizers for more details about the scenario, but the notion that people can sign up to games while carrying a fistful of veto cards and this is supposed to be a functional, inclusive and respectful solution to the problem of social gaming in public is ridiculous.

But honestly, if you actually have deep emotional issues you are struggling with that can be triggered by sensory experiences that could come up in a role playing session, I reasonably suggest that perhaps public roleplaying forums are not for you. In private circles, some accommodation perhaps can be made, but you can't reasonably expect a public forum to accommodate eliminating every possible source of trauma.

I have a wheat sensitivity that if not controlled can lead to severe body distress, but I don't blame people if I put wheat in my mouth. It's my responsibility to control that. And if I had one of the more severe sorts of Celiac's disease where mild exposure could lead to hospitalization or death, you could bet that I would forgo eating anything that I hadn't prepared myself. It would be inconvenient, but it would be ridiculous to have that level of sensitivity and try to hold public restaurants that handle wheat products accountable for my safety or be angry if I was exposed. That would amount to Narcissism on my part, and frankly reckless disregard of my own personal safety. My physiological weakness ought not serve as a right to demand pizza not be served in public spaces, nor does it place me in the position of being victimized if someone laboriously makes a pizza and serves it.

I'm not belittling any real trauma a person might have experienced. But just because people have experienced real trauma doesn't make the plan outlined in "Consent in Gaming" an actual solution to the problem.

These sorts of traumas aren't examples of people being bullied. They aren't examples of creeps creeping on women. They aren't examples of predators emotionally manipulating people. They aren't examples of many other things that could potentially go wrong in a social situation. To bundle them in with the rest of the problems, themselves distinct problems which require examining separately, is to just begin in entirely the wrong place.

 

[MGibster]

How about being dismissive of, then? Here you are chiding me about what you may or may not have experienced while showing a total lack of imagination or empathy about how some of those issues may have been extremely traumatic for someone else. Flooding? Heatstroke, meh, not in a million years, right?

You're making this personal for some reason. I think it best we just go our separate ways for now.

 

[Celebrim]

How about being dismissive of, then? Here you are chiding me about what you may or may not have experienced while showing a total lack of imagination or empathy about how some of those issues may have been extremely traumatic for someone else. Flooding? Heatstroke, meh, not in a million years, right?

You don't have a monopoly on empathy and sympathy here. I address the reality of potential trauma from heat stroke in an earlier post. The potential reality of the trauma is not at all the most pertinent point. The argument from "I understand the reality of pain better than you seem to" is presumptuous, and frankly shows your lack of empathy in and of itself.

Yes, yes, we get it. Someone could in fact be traumatized by descriptions of tsunami or heat stroke. By golly you are going to tell us how much empathy you have for those people.

But you aren't actually listening much right now are you? Right now you are in the midst of a display of anger complete with the slings and arrows of profanity, an emotion that is not particularly conducive to feelings of empathy. Could it just be possible that you are enjoying the pleasure of being outraged, and that other people in the thread have equal sympathy for those that have survived tsunami and heatstroke or lost loved ones to those hazards?

 

[seankreynolds]

Did they really just take a college pamphlet about sexual assault, scratch out all the references to sex and replace them with references to RPG's, and call it a day, thereby equating morally, philosophically, and practically the act of a group of people sitting down to play an RPG, with the act of two people preparing to have a sexual encounter?

Considering that all of my portions of the PDF (and I assume Shanna's, too) were written from scratch based on my own experiences and understanding of people dealing with consent issues, no, we didn't do what you're suggesting.

Did they really just take Shanna Germain's "As Kinky as you Wanna Be: Your Guide to Safe, Sane, and Smart BSDM", replace the concepts of bondage and so forth with table top roleplaying, and call it a day?

Likewise, no.
Shanna and I are professional writers, please give us some credit for actually doing research about sensitive topics.

But isn't the opt in system is as presented in Consent in Gaming equating those things? The RPG Consent List at the back of the booklet lists natural disasters (flooding?) in the Mental and Physical Health category sharing the space with sexual assault, genocide, and heatstroke.
(Seriously, does anyone think heatstroke belongs on the same list as sexual assault, self harm, and torture?)

One, just because they're on the same list doesn't mean we intended anything about their relative intensities. We're not making a valuation of any of these things, or rating or comparing them. The checklist literally is just a list of common topics that can be upsetting to some people. And it's not a complete list. (One person on Facebook asked, "Why is 'domestic violence' not on the checklist?") That's why there are blank lines, for adding things we didn't include.

Two, the intensity of any of these topics is completely personal.
• I have more than one friend who was raped. Among that group of people, their reactions to rape in a TV show, movie, or game aren't consistently the same from person to person.
• I have a friend who was nearby when a man was hit by a train, and the man died in front of him. My friend has panic attacks whenever he hears trains.
• I have friends who are veterans and have PTSD. A common trigger is explosions (including fireworks and gunfire on TV). Others get stressed when the temperature gets too hot (because it reminds them of being in the desert).
• I know someone who is very afraid of spiders. Even fake plastic spiders upset them.
• I'm afraid of heights. Even being on the edge of a fall in a videogame or in a movie makes me very nervous.
All of those things are valid. Nobody is trying to compare them, and nobody here is trying to say that X is worse than Y or that X is equal to Y. (And honestly, "someone else had it worse than me and therefore I shouldn't be upset about this" is a common aspect of PTSD from trauma, it sets people up to think that they're weak, which doesn't help them recover from their trauma).

Three, the intensity of any of these topics is variable based on other circumstances outside the game. It can vary from day to day, week to week, and situation to situation. A rape survivor might be especially sensitive if it is the anniversary of the attack, or if they saw someone earlier that day who reminds them of their assailant, or if the in-game event involves alcohol. My train-traumatized friend might be fine with the sound of one train but start to panic if there are multiple triggers on the same day, or if he wasn't expecting to hear a train. And so on.

So, with all of that in mind, no, we're not equating anything on the checklist, other than saying, "if this upsets you, that's valid and we should respect that."

From my point of view, it goes without saying that I'm not going to introduce sexual assault into a game without talking about it first. But not in a million years would I think I had to worry about heatstroke being a source of trauma in a game where we're routinely hacking off limbs and searing the meat off of bones with fireball spells.

It's good that you're not going to introduce sexual assault into a game without talking about it first. Unfortunately, based on the replies we've seen in other discussion threads on Facebook and Twitter, many people don't feel that way. ("They should man up" is a common response from people who don't want "censorship" in RPGs.)

The fact that you wouldn't think heatstroke could be a source of trauma is proof that you (generic you) don't really know what might be a trigger for someone. Likewise, someone on Twitter pointed out that hunger and thirst are common ways that abusive parents traumatize children; if you hadn't been abused like that, how would you know that it would be an issue?

Establishing no-go topics before you even start playing is a good way to avoid unexpectedly running into a trigger. I think we can agree that of these two options:
A) knowing to avoid topic X so it doesn't come up in-game, and
B) putting topic X in a game, then finding out (immediately or later) that it's really upsetting to someone, and then having to divert from that topic and make sure that the player is okay
… that option (A) is the better choice, yes?

Maybe a solution is to have tables where some are G rated, some PG rated, other R rated. Kind of like the movies. GM’s can have consent forms ready a few days before a session starts. That way potential players can review the form before signing so they won’t have an immediate pressure to sign and get involved in the game on the spot.

There's a line on the consent form that says, "If this game were a movie, its movie rating would be: G PG PG-13 R NC-17."

 

[Celebrim]

Establishing no-go topics before you even start playing is a good way to avoid unexpectedly running into a trigger. I think we can agree that of these two options:
A) knowing to avoid topic X so it doesn't come up in-game, and
B) putting topic X in a game, then finding out (immediately or later) that it's really upsetting to someone, and then having to divert from that topic and make sure that the player is okay
… that option (A) is the better choice, yes?

Personally I think your reply fails to address any real salient points regarding the applicability of this methodology to the very spheres where it would be most needed, but since you seem to have stood on this as your thesis, would it be sufficient to address this claim that "(A) is the better choice"?

Because I think I can prove from your own statements that A is not feasible or particularly sensitive to peoples feelings.

 

[Zardnaar]

Considering that all of my portions of the PDF (and I assume Shanna's, too) were written from scratch based on my own experiences and understanding of people dealing with consent issues, no, we didn't do what you're suggesting.



Likewise, no.
Shanna and I are professional writers, please give us some credit for actually doing research about sensitive topics.




One, just because they're on the same list doesn't mean we intended anything about their relative intensities. We're not making a valuation of any of these things, or rating or comparing them. The checklist literally is just a list of common topics that can be upsetting to some people. And it's not a complete list. (One person on Facebook asked, "Why is 'domestic violence' not on the checklist?") That's why there are blank lines, for adding things we didn't include.

Two, the intensity of any of these topics is completely personal.
• I have more than one friend who was raped. Among that group of people, their reactions to rape in a TV show, movie, or game aren't consistently the same from person to person.
• I have a friend who was nearby when a man was hit by a train, and the man died in front of him. My friend has panic attacks whenever he hears trains.
• I have friends who are veterans and have PTSD. A common trigger is explosions (including fireworks and gunfire on TV). Others get stressed when the temperature gets too hot (because it reminds them of being in the desert).
• I know someone who is very afraid of spiders. Even fake plastic spiders upset them.
• I'm afraid of heights. Even being on the edge of a fall in a videogame or in a movie makes me very nervous.
All of those things are valid. Nobody is trying to compare them, and nobody here is trying to say that X is worse than Y or that X is equal to Y. (And honestly, "someone else had it worse than me and therefore I shouldn't be upset about this" is a common aspect of PTSD from trauma, it sets people up to think that they're weak, which doesn't help them recover from their trauma).

Three, the intensity of any of these topics is variable based on other circumstances outside the game. It can vary from day to day, week to week, and situation to situation. A rape survivor might be especially sensitive if it is the anniversary of the attack, or if they saw someone earlier that day who reminds them of their assailant, or if the in-game event involves alcohol. My train-traumatized friend might be fine with the sound of one train but start to panic if there are multiple triggers on the same day, or if he wasn't expecting to hear a train. And so on.

So, with all of that in mind, no, we're not equating anything on the checklist, other than saying, "if this upsets you, that's valid and we should respect that."




It's good that you're not going to introduce sexual assault into a game without talking about it first. Unfortunately, based on the replies we've seen in other discussion threads on Facebook and Twitter, many people don't feel that way. ("They should man up" is a common response from people who don't want "censorship" in RPGs.)

The fact that you wouldn't think heatstroke could be a source of trauma is proof that you (generic you) don't really know what might be a trigger for someone. Likewise, someone on Twitter pointed out that hunger and thirst are common ways that abusive parents traumatize children; if you hadn't been abused like that, how would you know that it would be an issue?

Establishing no-go topics before you even start playing is a good way to avoid unexpectedly running into a trigger. I think we can agree that of these two options:
A) knowing to avoid topic X so it doesn't come up in-game, and
B) putting topic X in a game, then finding out (immediately or later) that it's really upsetting to someone, and then having to divert from that topic and make sure that the player is okay
… that option (A) is the better choice, yes?




There's a line on the consent form that says, "If this game were a movie, its movie rating would be: G PG PG-13 R NC-17."

I wouldn't put rape or sexual assault into a game except maybe in the background ie so and so was raped 20 years ago. No need to describe it.

The heat stroke thing is interesting as I'm running an Egyptian themed game. I did run a session 0 and said to expect desert, tombs, undead, poison, traps and rivers.

If anyone had an issue with any of that I would kind of expect them to not play.

I wouldn't be very tolerant if I had someone sign up and then complain.

If I'm running a themed game I'll communicate it up front, I have only ever done evil once for example. That was more for things like animate dead though.

 

[S'mon]

Maybe a solution is to have tables where some are G rated, some PG rated, other R rated. Kind of like the movies. GM’s can have consent forms ready a few days before a session starts. That way potential players can review the form before signing so they won’t have an immediate pressure to sign and get involved in the game on the spot.

It seems to be working for the film industry. I think that would definitely be a good thing for the industry as whole.

I think commercial RPG products ought to have an indicative age listing on the cover. I've been annoyed by everyone from Paizo putting out R-rated stuff alongside their PG-rated stuff, to Venger Satanis putting out X-rated stuff alongside his R-rated stuff, with no pre-purchase indication.

As a general rule I am not in favour of GM having players sign consent forms.

 

[S'mon]

How about being dismissive of, then? Here you are chiding me about what you may or may not have experienced while showing a total lack of imagination or empathy about how some of those issues may have been extremely traumatic for someone else. Flooding? Heatstroke, meh, not in a million years, right?

I really don't think rarity of experience is relevant. I'm sure many Americans have direct or indirect experience of gun violence (a US friend of mine had her mentally ill brother gunned down by the police for standing in traffic waving a car aerial), but US films don't include a "warning - contains gun violence" announcement because it's obvious from the kind of film it is, and if the film is unusually violent then an age rating serves as a warning.

I expect a lot of us have some issues (like me with drowning/claustrophobia scenarios, due to the deaths of my cousins), the question is how best to approach this. It's a perfectly reasonable view IMO that the pamphlet's model is not a good one for widespread application.

Edit: But as I indicated, Convention games I think should include age ratings and warnings. And I think there are certain sorts of RPGs (which sorts are not a bad or illegitimate activity) where the approach of the pamphlet is likely a good one. My isssues with the pamphlet are more about the erratic tone, the indication that this approach may be seen as of general applicability, and the lack of emphasis that obligations are a two-way street, and if say I don't want to deal with a drowning-threat scenario, I may have a duty to politely recuse myself from a game the other players are enjoying.

Edit 2: One bit of advice to GMs - avoid "bait and switch"! People don't go into a romcom only to be presented with a slasher flick. Don't do that to your players.

 

[macd21]

I wouldn't put rape or sexual assault into a game except maybe in the background ie so and so was raped 20 years ago. No need to describe it.

The heat stroke thing is interesting as I'm running an Egyptian themed game. I did run a session 0 and said to expect desert, tombs, undead, poison, traps and rivers.

If anyone had an issue with any of that I would kind of expect them to not play.

I wouldn't be very tolerant if I had someone sign up and then complain.

If I'm running a themed game I'll communicate it up front, I have only ever done evil once for example. That was more for things like animate dead though.

So your session 0 gave people a heads up about some of the stuff that would be in the game, giving players a heads up so they can drop out if they have a problem with any of it. But what about all the stuff you didn’t mention in your session 0? Sure, the war veteran who suffers PTSD flashbacks every time he thinks about deserts knows not to play. But you don’t know about the other traumas the rest of your players might have that you reference in your game, that have nothing to do with deserts, tombs, traps etc.

The consent form is just a way of giving you a heads up about these problems ahead of time. Why would any GM not want to know about these problems before they crop up at the table?