Consent in Gaming - Free Guidebook

[MGibster]

The purpose of the consent form is that it invites a player to bring these subjects and situations to your attention, so that you will have advance notice ahead of time and making it easier for you to accommodate them (if possible) or to suggest the player join another session if not.

I get that. And I'm telling you that when I run games at conventions or game stores I write the scenarios well in advanced, I don't know who will be playing when I arrive, and they are very often strangers. So advanced notice in these cases might be 10 minutes. It is unreasonable for anyone to expect me to make major changes on short notice.

As opposed to it cropping up in the middle of your session, making the player miserable, and then you having to adjust for the fact that one of your PCs has left the game.

It is the responsibility of the player to bring this up before the game starts.

 

[Lychee of the Exch.]

RPGs aren’t sex nor BDSM, and it’s unhealthy to pretend they are, so I don’t have any use for this supplement.

I’ve played for 30+ years and I’ve never had any need for such cumbersome procedures around my games as detailed throughout this supplement.

Furthermore, I’m not inclined to play with the kind of emotionally-stunted, ideologically-driven, naïve or gullible people who would require (or demand) such procedures around the gaming table.

 

[DEFCON 1]

RPGs aren’t sex nor BDSM, and it’s unhealthy to pretend they are, so I don’t have any use for this supplement.

I’ve played for 30+ years and I’ve never had any need for such cumbersome procedures around my games as detailed throughout this supplement.

Furthermore, I’m not inclined to play with the kind of emotionally-stunted, ideologically-driven, naïve or gullible people who would require (or demand) such procedures around the gaming table.

Well, you know what they say... when you look around the table and can't find any emotionally-stunted, ideologically-driven, naïve or gullible people, then the emotionally-stunted, ideologically-driven, naïve or gullible person is probably...

 

[macd21]

I get that. And I'm telling you that when I run games at conventions or game stores I write the scenarios well in advanced, I don't know who will be playing when I arrive, and they are very often strangers. So advanced notice in these cases might be 10 minutes. It is unreasonable for anyone to expect me to make major changes on short notice.

Sure. In which case the consent form is useful because it lets you know that the player isn’t going to be happy with an element of your game, and you can let them know before play starts.

It is the responsibility of the player to bring this up before the game starts.

The consent form is an invitation to the player to do just that. And yes, such an invitation is necessary, because your players aren’t going to assume you’re going to be open to a discussion of their problems prior to the game starting.

 

[S'mon]

Except, you are rejecting the thing at the base of the thread, are you not? You reject the consent form idea?

If so, the analogy is: 12 people come to play. They find out only after the game starts that it is Game of Thrones, because you didn't ask them first. When faced with the brutality of the story without warning, a player has an issue.

If you accept that you should ask the players first, to make sure everyone is good with it before you begin, then the whole idea of the consent form should not really be an issue - it is merely a form of communication between GM and player.

Makes more sense to tell the players "This is like GoT".

I had this happen to me - I ran an online campaign with GoT tropes, one player, an older gay man, was unfamiliar with GoT. At one point when I riffed on a scene from the show (where Daenerys tries to hire the Second Sons, and their leader disrespects Missandei) he seemed to think I was getting off on the horribleness of the villainous NPC, rather than showing how horrible the NPC was. So we discussed it and I toned things down.

 

[jasper]

hMM EVIL Jasper looks at the list. Looks at the hardcovers, the season adventures, and the CCC modules. Evil Jasper wonders how many of those published works violate the check list on page 13.
Well we are okay on the Relationship. The rest the dm will have problems running depending on the red line.

 

[S'mon]

It is a metaphor, commonly used in legal theory* to note the fact that liberties have limits.

It's not really a metaphor as such. He meant your liberty does not include doing serious harm to others, of which a punch to the face is a reasonable example. He didn't mean it is a metaphor for an annoyance, say, or for unforseen harm. We have the 'thin skull' rule whereby if you commit a crime you are liable for unforeseen consequences. But you're not liable for accidentally scaring someone while wearing a clown costume.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Except, you are rejecting the thing at the base of the thread, are you not? You reject the consent form idea?

If so, the analogy is: 12 people come to play. They find out only after the game starts that it is Game of Thrones, because you didn't ask them first. When faced with the brutality of the story without warning, a player has an issue.

If you accept that you should ask the players first, to make sure everyone is good with it before you begin, then the whole idea of the consent form should not really be an issue - it is merely a form of communication between GM and player.

But do we all need to buy into the consent form for this. I mean some things on that checklist are standard points people cover before a campaign begins. And people hash that stuff out. But the list also includes thirst, heatstroke, rats, and other details most people are assume to be on the table in any game. If 12 people come to the table and don't want to be blindsided by sexual violence, that is one thing. But if 12 people are coming to the table and can't handle thirst, there is a much bigger issue going on. If someone does have a specific issue, that is something that needs to be talked about. It might be something a group can accommodate. It might not be. Some requests are reasonable. Some are not. Some requests are reasonable but not suitable for some groups. The problem I have with the checklist and the PDF is there is no allowance for debate, the checklist has way too many things and is obviously very open to abuse and it frames a content issue as a consent issue (which I don't think it is, and I think using the term 'consent' in that way undermines its much more important use elsewhere in society). It is also just not how most people naturally interact at the gaming table. It feels like a checklist you fill out at the doctor's office. Not how people address things in their living room before a D&D campaign. Again, if it works for others, I am fine with it. But there are good reasons people are raising for not wanting to use it and for not wanting to have to buy into the argument made in the PDF.

 

[macd21]

But do we all need to buy into the consent form for this. I mean some things on that checklist are standard points people cover before a campaign begins. And people hash that stuff out. But the list also includes thirst, heatstroke, rats, and other details most people are assume to be on the table in any game. If 12 people come to the table and don't want to be blindsided by sexual violence, that is one thing. But if 12 people are coming to the table and can't handle thirst, there is a much bigger issue going on. If someone does have a specific issue, that is something that needs to be talked about. It might be something a group can accommodate. It might not be. Some requests are reasonable. Some are not. Some requests are reasonable but not suitable for some groups. The problem I have with the checklist and the PDF is there is no allowance for debate, the checklist has way too many things and is obviously very open to abuse and it frames a content issue as a consent issue (which I don't think it is, and I think using the term 'consent' in that way undermines its much more important use elsewhere in society). It is also just not how most people naturally interact at the gaming table. It feels like a checklist you fill out at the doctor's office. Not how people address things in their living room before a D&D campaign. Again, if it works for others, I am fine with it. But there are good reasons people are raising for not wanting to use it and for not wanting to have to buy into the argument made in the PDF.

The fact that things like thirst, rats or heatstroke as assumed parts of any game is one of the reasons the list is useful, because for some players that kind of thing is traumatic, yet most GMs wouldn’t think twice about including them in their games.

As for allowance for debate - their shouldn’t be one. If one of your players has a rat phobia, you don’t debate it with him, you just don’t include rats in your game. Half the reason people don’t confide in others about these fears is because they’re worried they’ll be belittled or otherwise harangued over it. Someone telling you ‘I have a phobia about X’ I’d not an invitation to argue about it with them.

 

[Umbran]

Furthermore, I’m not inclined to play with the kind of emotionally-stunted, ideologically-driven, naïve or gullible people who would require (or demand) such procedures around the gaming table.

Apparently, you aren't too terribly inclined to discuss it without insulting people, so, you won't be posting in this thread any longer.

That's #2. Who wants to be #3? Or maybe, someone wants to escalate up to a full on board tempban? We can do that for you, too, folks.[/red]