log in or register to remove this ad

 

Consent in Gaming - Free Guidebook

Status
Not open for further replies.

Wolfpack48

Explorer
See, @Wolfpack48, I disagree. I completely do not judge anyone for not wanting to play with someone else. We are playing a game. If I don't want to play with you, I shouldn't have to justify it and no one has the right to tell me that I should play with you when I don't want to, regardless of my reasons for not wanting to play with you.

If you or anyone else doesn't want to play with someone, THAT'S OK. That's 100% okay. We're playing a game. I am not responsible for helping anyone, nor am I required to. Particularly in my free time. I just want to play a game and I am not interested in dealing with someone else's drama is 100% fine.

If someone comes up with that list and says, "Hey, can we not have X" and the DM turns to them and says, "I'm sorry, but, no", no one has done anything wrong. Nor should anyone be judged for saying no. That is absolutely their right to say no. Consent works both ways. You don't get to bludgeon people over the head with it, nor guilt them into accepting your requirements. By the same token, if someone says, "Hey can we not have X?" and the DM agrees, and then does a bait and switch and does it anyway, THEN we have a jerk DM.

But, no one is a jerk for not wanting to deal with someone else's issues.

I’m thinking if it a bit more finely than that. Person X comes to the game and asks nicely if we could avoid spiders in the game because they have the phobia. Both those responses above would be pretty hostile to a nicely worded request. No conversation, just “You’re disrupting our game. There’s the door. Get lost.” THAT is also the sign of a jerk referee whose throne is being threatened. I can smell it a mile away.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

You keep reverting back to the individual controlling the game. All they control is their own boundaries so that a conversation can result and a decision be made.

Because people have been suggesting that. Perhaps you and I are miscommunicating. Because a couple of posts back, it looked like you were saying exactly that. I don't want to argue you with you over something if we are just not getting out messages across to one another. If we've misunderstood one another's positions then hopefully we can clarify.

On the topic of boundaries. Yes everyone gets to set their own boundaries. But I do think everything is situational. And there are going to be times when you might need to question someones' stated concern and its validity. It really depends on how the conversation goes. If someone starts getting very confrontational, it isn't unreasonable to express any doubts you have about what they are saying more honestly. At a certain point if you maintain a "you cannot question their boundaries, there is no debate' stance, you end up with the opposite of the problem you are trying to solve (where instead of people feeling mistreated by the group, you are giving one person power to mistreat the group). I think I just don't agree with a lot of the fundamental assumptions going on in this conversation.
 

Wolfpack48

Explorer
Because people have been suggesting that. Perhaps you and I are miscommunicating. Because a couple of posts back, it looked like you were saying exactly that. I don't want to argue you with you over something if we are just not getting out messages across to one another. If we've misunderstood one another's positions then hopefully we can clarify.

On the topic of boundaries. Yes everyone gets to set their own boundaries. But I do think everything is situational. And there are going to be times when you might need to question someones' stated concern and its validity. It really depends on how the conversation goes. If someone starts getting very confrontational, it isn't unreasonable to express any doubts you have about what they are saying more honestly. At a certain point if you maintain a "you cannot question their boundaries, there is no debate' stance, you end up with the opposite of the problem you are trying to solve (where instead of people feeling mistreated by the group, you are giving one person power to mistreat the group). I think I just don't agree with a lot of the fundamental assumptions going on in this conversation.

I’m in agreement about this. As long as a conversation is held in good faith by both parties, all is good. A tone of “you will bend to my authority” from either side is counterproductive and dickish.
 

macd21

Adventurer
How about we characterize it another way? You care more about what one player wants than you do about what the other five or six players want. You're prioritizing the needs of one person over the needs of everyone else involved in the game. Does that sounds about right?

No, it doesn’t. That would only be the case if one player had the right to veto something. Everyone involved in the game has the right to say they don’t want something in the game, and no one (including the GM) has the right to insist on something being included over the objections of another.
 

No, it doesn’t. That would only be the case if one player had the right to veto something. Everyone involved in the game has the right to say they don’t want something in the game, and no one (including the GM) has the right to insist on something being included over the objections of another.

In this post you are giving one player the power to veto
 


Aldarc

Legend
It just ridiculous to have a check list of things you would consent to in an RPG (especially when the list includes things like thirst and severe weather).
Why? People have discussed horror stories of people who had a bad time at a convention game because it included rape and a number of trigger issues. Hussar provides an example of severe weather having effected his context. I would never include suicide when I know that one of my players lost someone close to them to suicide. One of my friends that I played D&D with in the States still gets triggered from malaria, because he got it as a kid while in Tanzania. This same person also coincidentally compulsively carries around a water bottle because they are afraid of severe thirst, a compulsion that manifested as a result of their experiences with malaria. They still enjoy D&D even though I would likely avoid these triggers if I was the GM because you know, I'm not a complete dick about other people.

Maybe some people will find it a useful conversation starter. I don’t think it is something that would be good if it became the norm in the hobby. I do think if people find use in it, that is fine.
Then why do you devote so many words and energy debating its mere existence? It's a free resource. It's a supplement. It provides an additional tool at the disposal for the GM to handle such conversations. It's optional. It's produced by an indie publisher and not mandated from on high. Again, I think that the pushback you are making on this product seems grossly disproportionate to what the associated documents actually say and do.

But I do have concerns about where this is going. And I do think it is perfectly okay to express those concern (people don’t have to agree with me and are free to make their own choices about it).
Most of those concerns, however, seem ungrounded and unreasonable though, or at least with some bad faith, especially when you compare the checklist items to sketch comedy or a parody. So what is more unreasonable? A free supplement with this checklist available for those who would want it or the people who are up in arms about the checklist existing and proclaiming that it somehow will coerce groups into being unable to play how they want? I know where I would cast my vote.

I am not saying a persons personal issues are ridiculous, I am saying filling out a consent form with all these different items on it for an RPG is ridiculous. If someone has a serious enough problem with severe weather, that mentioning it in the game could set them off, I would want them to bring it up with me, or try to sort the problem out before they join the group. If you are in a bad mental state, you can't control what comes your way in the world. If severe weather sets you off, you might see it in movies, you might read it in books, you might see art of severe weather or catch a news cast of severe weather. I don't know why we are treating an RPG table as any different from other places in the real world.
The fact that you are focusing on "severe weather" or "thirst" seems a bit silly to me, as if the usefulness of the checklist is somehow disproven by the existence of "severe weather" on the list. And it seems that arguing too much about this line of thinking is a bit of a red herring.

IME, not everyone will be comfortable speaking about these things in the manner that you want or would prefer. They may not want to talk to you directly about it because it may feel likey they are having to justify and relive their trauma for you. Some people, however, will be comforted by the existence of the consent form. This is even discussed in the Consent in Gaming document if you read it. As you say earlier, it gets the conversation started or even bypasses the need for the conversation. The checklist is A tool among many that the GM can use to talk about consent, the game contents, and player triggers. Stop treating this checklist as "the end of liberty," as per an earlier poster, and take it for what it is: an optional tool at your disposal. The Badwrongfun Police are not going to come knocking down your door if your group chooses not to use it.

You wouldn't demand a consent form for a film, a comedy show or a play.
The thing is though that reviews and summaries exist for the media that you listed. There are places you can go online to check whether your triggers are present in these media because they are generally closed systems. Given that a TTRPG is more open-ended and has a different form of operation from these other forms of entertainment, it's fairly clear that this is a false equivalent comparison.

Again, there are reasonable requests and there are less reasonable requests. It is obviously going to be situational and depend on the context.
But that is part of the issue. You aren't the person best equipped to tell someone that their trigger is somehow less reasonable than others. And to be clear: I'm not either.

Something like severe weather, is going to be on the table. If that sets someone off, I'd explain it is going to come up and they probably shouldn't play in the game if they find it upsetting. I use weather tables and overland travel matters a lot in my campaigns. I can't see running a game with severe weather not being part of it at times. I understand a person might have a good reason for being upset about that kind of weather. I won't make fun of them. I will just honestly tell them the game is likely to have it.
Please notice that the Consent Form actually has multiple comfort levels that the player can select, including in yellow: "Okay if veiled or offstage; might be okay onstage but requires discussion ahead of time; uncertain." Oh, the horror.

But this level of acquiescence to every single potential concern just strikes me as madness. We shouldn't be allowing that to control the content of every gaming group. The person is perfectly free to find another group. There is nothing wrong with people wanting something in their game and keeping it in their game.
The real madness is when certain individuals get into a self-induced uproar about the existence of an optional (free) consent form for an RPG supplement, which they likely would not use anyway, having what is likely a rare corner case trigger and rant-up-a-storm about how it represents the potential coercion of the individual against the gaming group. Now THAT is madness. Do you know of any such individuals?

This is exactly the kind of problem I was pointing to with a list like this. I am not troubled by it if groups are voluntarily using it. But if the PDF and the list is used to force game groups to abide by every player's concerns, then it starts impacting what people can actually do. You have to give people the room to say "this game might not be for you". That isn't the end of the world. You can still be friends with that person.
This is just unsubstantiated fearmongering based on slippery slope argumentation. Can you reasonably explain how the existence of the list could do such a thing? And how is this different from a player having these concerns without the existence of the checklist?

This is the point where the checklist becomes unreasonable. Because you are saying people must do what one player says.
...
And we are saying the checklist isn’t equipped to handle those kinds of nuances. When you say items on the list must be removed from play if they are checked off, then you are straight jacketing groups and trying to control what they do for their own entertainment.
Dear Captain Hyperbole, the Consent Form is a means for the person to say that they have potential problems with the topics selected at various levels of (dis)comfort. That's all. When people select that they have a hardline problem with, for example, severe weather, then what you choose to do with that information is up to you. But if I used this consent form and saw that "severe weather" was a hardline problem for a potential player, then regardless of what I thought about it as a problem, I would probably at least attempt to exercise some self-awareness, sensitivity to others, and caution with my games before claiming that the player was trying to coerce the group.

I think that one of your problems is that you are casting this debate as "the group vs. the individual" in a manner that suggests that the individual is not part of the group. Your framing seems to want to preclude them at the outset. That they are a newcomer or an outsider that has come to ruin the fun of the good ole boys and their gaming group. That framing seems disingenuous, tribalist, and also essentially casting guilt at the newcomer at the outset.

What is next are you going to tell people they must not see a movie if one of their friends has a problem with it? People can sit out a movie or game. They can find other people to play with
More slippery slope ad absurdum arguments from you?

I've only read the last few pages of the thread, but I have to wonder why someone so easily traumatized by violence would play a violent game like D&D. I have a fear of heights and I guarantee you that you won't see me scaling a cliff. It seems to me that people would avoid things that are likely to trigger their traumas.
Because violence takes many different forms, and that does not mean that everyone wants to experience at the game table every form of violence. And you do not always know what a GM will choose to include in the game or what other players will do as part of their actions in the game.
 

Aldarc. Just a heads up, I don’t respond to wall of text posts like that. If you have one point you want to prioritize me responding to, happy to field it. But it would take way too much time for me to address all those points
 
Last edited:


Wolfpack48

Explorer
No, you are giving every player the power to veto.

The best way it plays out is a conversation with everyone at the table and an arrival at something everyone can enjoy.

Other paths it can take are that person(s) sit out the game or find another group.

I don’t think it means one person can hold everyone else hostage until their demands are met.
 



Celebrim

Legend
I’m thinking if it a bit more finely than that. Person X comes to the game and asks nicely if we could avoid spiders in the game because they have the phobia. Both those responses above would be pretty hostile to a nicely worded request. No conversation, just “You’re disrupting our game. There’s the door. Get lost.” THAT is also the sign of a jerk referee whose throne is being threatened. I can smell it a mile away.

I actually agree with all of that even if I would have worded it different. But this is essentially just my position restated in a complimentary way.

If person X comes to a game and says, "I'm sorry, but this game can't contain spiders.", as much as he might not want to divulge why, civility requires he have some sort of conversation about it to explain to the group why his request is reasonable. That explanation need only be what you've imagined here, "because I have a phobia." At this point we have a polite request with a valid reason, and now the GM should either grant the request, or if for some reason he can't grant the request, must apologize and try to politely explain why he can't grant the request. This is just basic human civility. It's common sense.

When someone writes a document that tries to overrule basic human civility and common sense, it gets my spidey senses tingling. It suggests an agenda, or it suggests misapplying rules that might make sense in one situation to a very different situation.

Going further into the imagined scenario, doing my duty as a compassionate person requires me to now put myself in the shoes of both the player making the request and the GM, and imagine the situation from their perspective. Or if I'm actually the GM, my duty as a compassionate person requires me putting myself into the shoes of the player making the request and every single other player at the table.

So imagining this scenario, we now have a player that has politely and yet courageously made a request to a group of near strangers. He's probably feeling a certain amount of stress and fear. He doesn't know how I'm going to react to this request. Maybe he's been mocked in the past. Maybe he's afraid that now I know his weakness I'm going to try to use it against him. These are all valid fears. As a GM, I'm going to want to accommodate this request and answer it graciously. Even if the request involves a certain amount of sacrifice on my part, I'm going to want to fulfill it. And in most cases I almost certainly will.

However, again putting myself into the shoes of the GM, the GM has a responsibility to the other players at the table. He's the GM. It's really not fair of him to pass this responsibility off on to the other players. Whether "yes" or "no" he really needs to be the one that bears that burden. Getting buy in on that answer from the other players is also his responsibility. I may well know that there is a player at the table that thinks the request is ridiculous, for whatever reason, and even if they are keeping their mouth politely shut they may want me to say "no". And I have to respect that player as a person just as I respect the one making the request. Additionally, the GM must - if even if only from a practical perspective - enjoy running the game. And there is a point that I can imagine where the sacrifice being asked is just too great, and I must reluctantly and politely refuse to accommodate the request no matter how reasonably it was made.

That intersection of being asked to remove spiders because of a phobia, and NOT being able to accommodate that request on a reasonable basis is likely a vanishingly small edge case. Not only must the player have a phobia, something that really effects only a fraction of the population, but the phobia must be on long tail of the spectrum such that it is is the sort which can be triggered by very weak sensory cues and yet still produce a powerful physiological and emotional response. And this request will have to intersect the vanishingly small percentage of campaigns where the icon, imagery, symbolism, and literal spider is tightly woven into the fabric of the campaign, such as removing spiders from the campaign would effectively mean ending the campaign. I have never run such a campaign, but I know from my preferences in campaigns and my very sincere abiding and deep affection for our eight legged friends, that I am very much the sort of person who might run such a campaign. It sounds really cool. And if I'm running that campaign then I'm going to be very very sad if it turns out one of my friends - or even an enthusiastic stranger - can't be a part of it because of a phobia of spiders.

This is what I think is the common sense, civil, compassionate view of this situation. This is the model I think everyone should have in their head. And therefore, to be quite frank, I'm hostile to any attempt to overturn or replace that model because I think any such attempt will necessarily result in a less civil and compassionate world. And you may reasonably be confused at this point and ask, "How?"

Well, all of the following strike me as possibilities:

a) People will be induced to think that they can make requests without giving explanations.
b) People will be induced to think that they can make demands rather than requests.
c) People will be induced to think that every request they make, even one that is unreasonable, is a reasonable one.
d) People will be induced to think that anyone that denies a request is doing so because they are a jerky unsympathetic uncompassionate person.
e) People will be discouraged from engaging in open and honest and yes difficult conversations.
f) People will be discouraged from being honest and/or welcoming, because they fear that in doing so they are opening themselves up to social censure.

Why do I think none of that is ridiculous fears on my part, and exaggerated concerns?

Because we can see examples of all of that happening in this thread already, particularly from those that think the document is a really great thing.
 

macd21

Adventurer
Which means a single player can veto what everyone else wants.

Yes. Every player at the table gets a veto.

If a group of friends are going out for dinner, and one of them says ‘I’m allergic to seafood,’ the group doesn’t then insist on going to a seafood restaurant. If one friend hates horror movies, insisting you all go to a horror movie is a dick move. If one player has a phobia of spiders, insisting on spiders in your game is a dick move.
 

Wolfpack48

Explorer
Yes. Every player at the table gets a veto.

If a group of friends are going out for dinner, and one of them says ‘I’m allergic to seafood,’ the group doesn’t then insist on going to a seafood restaurant. If one friend hates horror movies, insisting you all go to a horror movie is a dick move. If one player has a phobia of spiders, insisting on spiders in your game is a dick move.

That said, the person with the phobia should also be reasonable. If the campaign was long planned, maybe they could join another group for awhile or play on a different night. Again, the important thing is not to be authoritarian about it from either side. It’s a discussion and a mutual decision.
 

Aldarc

Legend
Aldarc. Just a heads up, I don’t respond to wall of text posts like that. If you have one point you want to prioritize me responding to, happy to field it. But it would take way too much time for me to address all those points
I'm not a fan of responding to wall-of-text posts either, so I can respect that. I said my piece in regards to your hyperbolic, slippery slope points regarding this consent form. You don't have to respond at all, but I hope that you at least take into consideration what I said and how unreasonable some of your argumentation comes across. Again, your level pushback seems a bit too disproportionately knee-jerk reactionary to what the Consent in Gaming supplement says and represents. So I would advise you to tone your rhetoric down because your line of argumentation is not necessarily coming across as the voice of reason as you might otherwise expect.

Which means a single player can veto what everyone else wants.
You seem to be presuming that what everyone else wants is reasonable in the name of fun and that the vetoing player is being unreasonable or a spoil sport with their objections.
 

Wolfpack48

Explorer
I actually agree with all of that even if I would have worded it different. But this is essentially just my position restated in a complimentary way.

If person X comes to a game and says, "I'm sorry, but this game can't contain spiders.", as much as he might not want to divulge why, civility requires he have some sort of conversation about it to explain to the group why his request is reasonable. That explanation need only be what you've imagined here, "because I have a phobia." At this point we have a polite request with a valid reason, and now the GM should either grant the request, or if for some reason he can't grant the request, must apologize and try to politely explain why he can't grant the request. This is just basic human civility. It's common sense.

When someone writes a document that tries to overrule basic human civility and common sense, it gets my spidey senses tingling. It suggests an agenda, or it suggests misapplying rules that might make sense in one situation to a very different situation.

Going further into the imagined scenario, doing my duty as a compassionate person requires me to now put myself in the shoes of both the player making the request and the GM, and imagine the situation from their perspective. Or if I'm actually the GM, my duty as a compassionate person requires me putting myself into the shoes of the player making the request and every single other player at the table.

So imagining this scenario, we now have a player that has politely and yet courageously made a request to a group of near strangers. He's probably feeling a certain amount of stress and fear. He doesn't know how I'm going to react to this request. Maybe he's been mocked in the past. Maybe he's afraid that now I know his weakness I'm going to try to use it against him. These are all valid fears. As a GM, I'm going to want to accommodate this request and answer it graciously. Even if the request involves a certain amount of sacrifice on my part, I'm going to want to fulfill it. And in most cases I almost certainly will.

However, again putting myself into the shoes of the GM, the GM has a responsibility to the other players at the table. He's the GM. It's really not fair of him to pass this responsibility off on to the other players. Whether "yes" or "no" he really needs to be the one that bears that burden. Getting buy in on that answer from the other players is also his responsibility. I may well know that there is a player at the table that thinks the request is ridiculous, for whatever reason, and even if they are keeping their mouth politely shut they may want me to say "no". And I have to respect that player as a person just as I respect the one making the request. Additionally, the GM must - if even if only from a practical perspective - enjoy running the game. And there is a point that I can imagine where the sacrifice being asked is just too great, and I must reluctantly and politely refuse to accommodate the request no matter how reasonably it was made.

That intersection of being asked to remove spiders because of a phobia, and NOT being able to accommodate that request on a reasonable basis is likely a vanishingly small edge case. Not only must the player have a phobia, something that really effects only a fraction of the population, but the phobia must be on long tail of the spectrum such that it is is the sort which can be triggered by very weak sensory cues and yet still produce a powerful physiological and emotional response. And this request will have to intersect the vanishingly small percentage of campaigns where the icon, imagery, symbolism, and literal spider is tightly woven into the fabric of the campaign, such as removing spiders from the campaign would effectively mean ending the campaign. I have never run such a campaign, but I know from my preferences in campaigns and my very sincere abiding and deep affection for our eight legged friends, that I am very much the sort of person who might run such a campaign. It sounds really cool. And if I'm running that campaign then I'm going to be very very sad if it turns out one of my friends - or even an enthusiastic stranger - can't be a part of it because of a phobia of spiders.

This is what I think is the common sense, civil, compassionate view of this situation. This is the model I think everyone should have in their head. And therefore, to be quite frank, I'm hostile to any attempt to overturn or replace that model because I think any such attempt will necessarily result in a less civil and compassionate world. And you may reasonably be confused at this point and ask, "How?"

Well, all of the following strike me as possibilities:

a) People will be induced to think that they can make requests without giving explanations.
b) People will be induced to think that they can make demands rather than requests.
c) People will be induced to think that every request they make, even one that is unreasonable, is a reasonable one.
d) People will be induced to think that anyone that denies a request is doing so because they are a jerky unsympathetic uncompassionate person.
e) People will be discouraged from engaging in open and honest and yes difficult conversations.
f) People will be discouraged from being honest and/or welcoming, because they fear that in doing so they are opening themselves up to social censure.

Why do I think none of that is ridiculous fears on my part, and exaggerated concerns?

Because we can see examples of all of that happening in this thread already, particularly from those that think the document is a really great thing.

I think if you put yourself into a persons shoes who may feel intimidated by telling a larger group about their phobia, and their fear of being dismissed or ridiculed or even pressured, you’ll understand why the author is empowering them to take a stand on what their boundaries are. The author is addressing a person who not only has a phobia but may fear telling people about it. The admonition for the group is to be understanding even then. It’s about being understanding even with only limited information.

All that can still result in a kind conversation and a mutual decision. It also doesn’t mean either side needs to be authoritarian or hold the rest of the group hostage. The doc is there to extend our understanding of how phobias work and empower those who have them to respect their own boundaries.
 

macd21

Adventurer
That said, the person with the phobia should also be reasonable. If the campaign was long planned, maybe they could join another group for awhile or play on a different night. Again, the important thing is not to be authoritarian about it from either side. It’s a discussion and a mutual decision.

Sure, but the entire point of the document is to sort this out ahead of time, rather than springing it on your players mid-game.
 

Celebrim

Legend
Yes. Every player at the table gets a veto.

If a group of friends are going out for dinner, and one of them says ‘I’m allergic to seafood,’ the group doesn’t then insist on going to a seafood restaurant. If one friend hates horror movies, insisting you all go to a horror movie is a dick move. If one player has a phobia of spiders, insisting on spiders in your game is a dick move.

Yes, but the problem with analogies is that they are valid only if they actually correspond to the situation. As such, they don't really help you resolve a complex topic, because analogies quickly get complex themselves, you end up arguing over the analogy, you end up arguing over the fitness of the analogy, and you'd be better off getting rid of the analogy and just thinking about the thing itself.

Yes, if a group of friends is going out for dinner, and trying to decide where to go, if one of them is allergic to seafood then civility and compassion requires you to consider options other than seafood. This is actually a real concern I have to endure daily. I wish that I was as easy to accommodate as someone that was only allergic to seafood. I have a problem with my insides rotting out if I eat too much wheat. If you don't have a wheat allergy you probably have never considered just how central to all of Western culture the sharing of wheat actually is. "Breaking bread together" is both the figurative description of fellowship, and also the practical reality of it from ordering pizza to birthday cakes. I am almost daily excluded from the rituals of fellowship with other people by the simple fact that I cannot share their food.

So let's alter your analogy slightly. A group of friends is going out to dinner, and after a discussion they've all agreed to go to the seafood restaurant. As they are headed to the seafood restaurant, they chance upon an acquaintance of one of the party who asks if they can come along. This is itself a bold request, and I think you are instinctively aware that it's a little bit impolite to try to insert yourself into a social gathering you weren't originally a part of. But, in this case, the party is willing to accommodate the new person, the friend looks awkwardly at his other friends thinking that they might be a little offended or put out by this imposition, but instead they say, "Come along. The more the merrier."

It's at this point that it comes out that they are going to a seafood restaurant and that the acquaintance is allergic to seafood. Now put yourself in the shoes of everyone there. Is it always the case that the group should decide on a new restaurant? Think about the practical realities of this situation. Think about how difficult it can be to come up with a restaurant that accommodates everyone's preferences to begin with. Think about those long conversations about "Where do you want to eat?" Think about that this is a seafood restaurant, and that they likely had to call ahead and get a table, and that this is probably something of a special occasion. And perhaps it's Friday night and switching plans right now might mean not getting into a good restaurant or having a long wait. This accommodation is actually potentially an extraordinary one, and it might be laudable if made but it's not necessarily condemnable if not made.

And again, this is something I have to deal with the reality of all the time. In my case the equivalent for the longest time was, "We're going to get pizza, want to come along?" You don't know how much easier the GF fad has made it for us people that have medical issues with wheat (although in my case, probably not with gluten itself).
 

jasper

Rotten DM
Yes. Every player at the table gets a veto.

If a group of friends are going out for dinner, and one of them says ‘I’m allergic to seafood,’ the group doesn’t then insist on going to a seafood restaurant. If one friend hates horror movies, insisting you all go to a horror movie is a dick move. If one player has a phobia of spiders, insisting on spiders in your game is a dick move.
And on the seventh dining out night we told Macd21, yes we know. You can have soda, coleslaw. No. Okay fine. WE are going out to get seafood, the steak place is next door. We meet back at the car at 9.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Halloween Horror For 5E

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top