Consent in Gaming - Free Guidebook

[Zardnaar]

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?

Consent form for D&D is just silly.

I keep my games around pg 13 with the odd f bomb.

I would deal with the situation as it arises, I'm not going to hand out consent forms to cover every contingency.

If it's something that crops up that often and it's integral to the game it's either has to end or player has to leave.

I've had players point blank tell me they're depressed or gay or whatever as a heads up, it makes no real difference as to how I run.

 

[macd21]

Consent form for D&D is just silly.

I keep my games around pg 13 with the odd f bomb.

I would deal with the situation as it arises, I'm not going to hand out consent forms to cover every contingency.

If it's something that crops up that often and it's integral to the game it's either has to end or player has to leave.

I've had players point blank tell me they're depressed or gay or whatever as a heads up, it makes no real difference as to how I run.

Hey, if you’re confident it’s not a problem at your table, that’s fine. But I’ve played games of DND that featured rape, graphic violence, brutal torture and physical humiliation of characters. None of which was highlighted ahead of time or thematically appropriate, it was just thrown in ‘for the lulz.’ And that was just DnD, don’t get me started on our WoD games! Thankfully (as far as I know) no one at the table was upset by these incidents (we were a bunch of sheltered teenage boys who thought we were oh-so-mature), but I now know players who would be.

Pathfinder has a demon of child abuse. Other games have monsters that rape, torture or otherwise abuse you in a horrific manner. There are plenty of GMs out there who don’t run ‘PG13 with the odd f-bomb’ games, and wouldn’t think twice about throwing any of these at their players. The consent form is to push them to stop and actually consider whether it’s a good idea.

 

[S'mon]

Why would any GM not want to know about these problems before they crop up at the table?

IMO using the form & paphlet guidelines creates certain expectations, eg:

An RPG session is likely to be a traumatic experience
An RPG session has characteristics of a 'Safe Space' where the therapeutic needs of the participants are paramount

IMO a typical RPG session has more in common with a dinner party or other typical social gathering, than with an intense journey of personal exploration, a session of psychotherapy, or a BDSM session.

But if your RPG session does more resemble any of the latter, then forms of affirmative consent become more appropriate.

 

[macd21]

IMO using the form & paphlet guidelines creates certain expectations, eg:

An RPG session is likely to be a traumatic experience
An RPG session has characteristics of a 'Safe Space' where the therapeutic needs of the participants are paramount

IMO a typical RPG session has more in common with a dinner party or other typical social gathering, than with an intense journey of personal exploration, a session of psychotherapy, or a BDSM session.

But if your RPG session does more resemble any of the latter, then forms of affirmative consent become more appropriate.

But that’s just it: players come to an RPG session expecting nothing more unusual than they would at a dinner party or other typical social gathering... only to have their characters drugged, bound, and raped in the back of a van.

Again: none of the incidents of rape or graphic violence in the DnD game I used to play in were typical for the table. The DM just thought they were funny. Other GMs think this kind of thing is ‘mature’ or ‘deep.’ If you’re confident nothing in your game is going to upset any of your players, fine. But you might be surprised what could set someone off. We tend not to divulge our worst traumas to people, even to our closest friends.

 

[Celebrim]

But that’s just it: players come to an RPG session expecting nothing more unusual than they would at a dinner party or other typical social gathering... only to have their characters drugged, bound, and raped in the back of a van.

While I don't think that a convention is an environment where it is wise to run a game involving loss of character agency and possibly implied rape, the set up you make here isn't actually what happened. The GM in question advertised a mature horror game that would explore sexual themes and even referenced a TV show that had a high level of prurience in it as the sort of standards one ought to be expect. So while maybe it's in bad taste to make light of sexual violence, and maybe there is poor judgment involved in taking away player agency in a public setting and having this be the set up to a game, it's not like any reasonable person going into this game should have expected content equivalent to a typical dinner party or social gathering. If you suspect that you'll find a game which has advertised itself as being in poor taste, distasteful, then perhaps you shouldn't sign up for that sort of game, or if you find yourself in it after having been so warned, perhaps you should just excuse yourself and say you didn't realize he was serious when he disclosed what the game would have been about. And all this happened on account of a scene the GM used a veil on.

 

[S'mon]

Again: none of the incidents of rape or graphic violence in the DnD game I used to play in were typical for the table. The DM just thought they were funny.

The pamphlet seems to assume a GM acting in good faith who is worried about traumatising players. The GM you describe wouldn't use the consent form.

An alternative is a Convention mandating use of the form to control/prevent bad GMing. AFAICS a mandatory content-rating for the game (with otherwise an assumption of a PG-13/12 type content limit) is probably a better approach, but some unusual games may benefit from the pamphlet's approach.

 

[macd21]

While I don't think that a convention is an environment where it is wise to run a game involving loss of character agency and possibly implied rape, the set up you make here isn't actually what happened. The GM in question advertised a mature horror game that would explore sexual themes and even referenced a TV show that had a high level of prurience in it as the sort of standards one ought to be expect. So while maybe it's in bad taste to make light of sexual violence, and maybe there is poor judgment involved in taking away player agency in a public setting and having this be the set up to a game, it's not like any reasonable person going into this game should have expected content equivalent to a typical dinner party or social gathering. If you suspect that you'll find a game which has advertised itself as being in poor taste, distasteful, then perhaps you shouldn't sign up for that sort of game, or if you find yourself in it after having been so warned, perhaps you should just excuse yourself and say you didn't realize he was serious when he disclosed what the game would have been about. And all this happened on account of a scene the GM used a veil on.

No, that isn’t what happened. That’s what the GM claimed happened after the fact, which turned out to be very much not the case. The players had no reasonable expectation that their teenage characters were going to be drugged and gang-raped. It was totally out of the blue, and totally inappropriate for the game they were playing.

And again, this happens in games in which there is no warning, no hint of this coming up. It comes up in regular games of DnD. And while you may feel confident that it won’t happen in a game you’re running, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen, ruining other player’s gaming experiences.

 

[macd21]

The pamphlet seems to assume a GM acting in good faith who is worried about traumatising players. The GM you describe wouldn't use the consent form.

GMs acting in good faith naughty word up all the time. And GMs acting in good faith may want to explore dark, mature and/or horror elements in their games, but be unaware of what might be upsetting to their players. I can’t see any reason why a GM being more aware about what upsets his players could possibly be a bad thing.

 

[Arnwolf666]

I think my consent form would be if you can’t handle Mel Brooks, Dave Chapelle and South Park please don’t play my game. Also if you don’t like dark mirror and game of thrones (last couple seasons excluded) then please don’t attend. Warning there may also be George Carlin references.

 

[S'mon]

I can’t see any reason why a GM being more aware about what upsets his players could possibly be a bad thing.

I think people have been a bit reluctant to talk about this aspect clearly. It's not very easy to do so. I'll try briefly:

Raising the issue focuses attention on it. It makes players think "Will I be triggered?" "Will there be traumatic material?" It changes the play dynamic in a way that will IMO often be harmful, especially if the session is a typical light D&D type game. Instead of putting people at ease, they start the session tense and expectant of Nasty Stuff happening. It may actually deter nervous players from ever playing D&D in the first place.

OTOH if the GM is actually planning to 'go dark', I think it's a different situation.