Consent in Gaming - Free Guidebook

[Celebrim]

It matches EXACTLY the text he quoted and EXACTLY what many of us have been saying. What are you even on about at this point?

The text he quoted is about peoples right to walk away.

The discussion he made is about the tables right to tell people to walk away.

Just a bit different, don't you think?

 

[S'mon]

"Anyone is allowed to leave an uncomfortable situation at any time. Each person’s feelings of comfort and safety are more important than participating in the game. If a problematic situation comes up and someone doesn’t feel like continuing the game, it’s all right if they step out. It doesn’t matter the circumstances of how it’s in the game—perhaps someone made a joke comment, or an aspect of this issue slipped into the scenario accidentally, or it’s being introduced despite that person not consenting to it. The person who is feeling uncomfortable doesn’t have to confront the group about it (especially if that would make them feel more uncomfortable), they can just leave the table. … If they don’t feel comfortable with talking to anyone about it or don’t think the situation will change, it’s fine to not play in that game for a while, or permanently." —Consent in Gaming, pages 4–5

For some reason, there are people who think that the Consent PDF is arguing that one person with a fear of spiders gets to cancel an entire campaign about fighting drow. If the GM has plans to run a spidery drow campaign, and four of the five players are all-in for that, and the arachnophobe player doesn't want to play that, there's nothing wrong with the arachnophobe not attending those games. There will always be more games to play in the future.

In other words, saying, "I think this adventure/next few sessions/campaign we're planning is probably something you/I should skip" is perfectly acceptable. Just like it's okay if one player decides they want to skip board game night for a while because the group wants to play Pandemic instead of Catan. Just like it's okay if one person decides to skip movie night because they don't like rom-coms and the group is having a Valentine's Day rom-com marathon. Or for your vegetarian friend to skip going out to eat after the game this week because everyone else wants to try the new barbecue place. Or whatever.

The Consent PDF is a safety tool to help you identify and prevent potential issues before they pop up in the game and cause someone trauma.
Sometimes you prevent that issue by saying "no romantic or sexual content in the game"
Sometimes you prevent it by saying "we can have flirting and romance, but we fade to black for any physical intimacy or sex."
And sometimes you prevent it by saying, "the next couple of sessions have a lot to do with a particular brothel and how the nearby town's misogynist mayor is claiming ownership of the unborn child of his favorite prostitute at the brothel*; Chris, I know sexual stuff in the game bothers you, so maybe your character should go elsewhere for a couple of weeks and we'll have you rejoin us when we're done with this part of the storyline."
* Hey, it's a Firefly reference!

Likewise, sometimes you prevent trauma by saying "no spiders in the game."
Sometimes you prevent it by saying "spiders in the game are okay, but let's not have creepy descriptions of their chittering mandibles, dead eyes, and bristling hairs." (Which, mind you, is literally one of the example situations in the Consent PDF.)
And sometimes you prevent it by saying "I bought this really cool drow-focused adventure that I'm really excited about running, it'll take us a few sessions to get through it; Chris, I know you don't like spiders, maybe you could take a break from the campaign so you don't have to deal with this in the game? Maybe I could run you through a short solo campaign on the side."

It's about accommodating the needs of the people at your table. And sometimes the best way to do that is for someone to skip a session or two.

Yes, I agree with everything you say here. I read the PDF expecting you to talk more about group dynamics, mutual respect and gracefully bowing out of a game without ill feeling on either side. For the first 4 pages or so it seemed to be heading that way, but I think the way the final text came out there is a bit of an imbalance. Spock "The Needs of the Many Outway the Needs of the One" vs Kirk "The Needs of the One Outweigh the Needs of the Many" - the text leans a bit too much towards the Kirk side, I felt.

This isn't me calling you guys Maoists Out to Destroy the Hobby or something. I thought there was quite a lot of good generally applicable advice in it, and almost all of it was of some applicability to some games (though I felt the quotes from Your Best Game Ever might have better been omitted). I just felt the balance was a bit skewed overall, more attention could have been paid to inter-group relations, and some points could have been clearer to avoid the risk of misuse.

 

[S'mon]

I notice there isn't a line for sexual harassment, though there is one for sexual assault. That's probably an oversight, but I would say that sexual harassment would cover the event in that scene quite well.

Yeah but my friend with his '60s/'70s British sensibilities would probably think "sexual harassment" meant Sid James emitting a dirty laugh at Barbara Windsor, not Dan & Dave stuff. It was an 'out of context' issue.

 

[Gradine]

I'm not going to debate mental health issues with you. I'm well aware of the figures. You aren't giving me any information I don't already have. PTSD is a spectrum. The persistent implication that people who disagree with you just don't know what trauma or PTSD is, or that they have no empathy or sympathy for people who have suffered trauma or PTSD, and if only they just understood it like you did, they'd agree with you, is just wrong.

I mean, if they understood it like I did they probably would agree with me, but that's beside the point. The problem that Im having is that some of the critics in this thread (and I'm coming you among them) have consistently demonstrated they have either not read the document at all or have made no attempt at understanding it outside their own personal biases about the type of people this sort of thing is usually made for. You have, deliberately or not, consistently misinterpreted the document and the people here who are defending it. I would stop acting as if folks didn't understand trauma or empathy as soon as they show themselves capable of demonstrating that they do. While some of the arguments against the document are rational (and some even fair) you and others in this thread have only attempted to consistently derail the conversation by proving you DON'T actually understand the difference between trauma and personal preferences.

 

[Wolfpack48]

Yes, I agree with everything you say here. I read the PDF expecting you to talk more about group dynamics, mutual respect and gracefully bowing out of a game without ill feeling on either side. For the first 4 pages or so it seemed to be heading that way, but I think the way the final text came out there is a bit of an imbalance. Spock "The Needs of the Many Outway the Needs of the One" vs Kirk "The Needs of the One Outweigh the Needs of the Many" - the text leans a bit too much towards the Kirk side, I felt.

This isn't me calling you guys Maoists Out to Destroy the Hobby or something. I thought there was quite a lot of good generally applicable advice in it, and almost all of it was of some applicability to some games (though I felt the quotes from Your Best Game Ever might have better been omitted). I just felt the balance was a bit skewed overall, more attention could have been paid to inter-group relations, and some points could have been clearer to avoid the risk of misuse.

I think the reason it might feel skewed toward the one is that it’s talking to the individual with the issue, who may feel outnumbered or pressured. It’s saying to THEM take care of yourself first. Some people are reacting to the doc by thinking that that person gets to tell them what to do. It’s not. It’s only telling the majority to respect the individual.

 

[S'mon]

I hope he finds a group that is right for him, but odds on the easiest way to find that group would be to become a DM and find players. Then you are giving rather than taking.

Heh, I'm someone with fairly mild claustrophobia, and yes GMing it is a lot easier than playing it! I ran Stonehell Dungeon for a good long time, though it did eventually get oddly wearying/exhausting especially as the PCs went deeper. But I didn't enjoy playing Out of the Abyss at all - I was pretty foolish to sign up for that, I guess it was because a much-loved friend was running it and I didn't want to let her down. Of course that was a mistake, I didn't add much to the game and I was relieved when it ended after a few sessions. Hopefully I didn't contribute to the campaign's failure.

I could probably have done with some advice like "Is this game right for you? Will you be a burden on the group?"

 

[Celebrim]

I do think that maybe one issue with disagreement we'e seeing is that people are not seeing the same situation. For one side the situation looks like this -- I'm using hyperbole here, in case that is not obvious --

"Frodo has been running the SPIDERS OF MIRKWOOD campaign for a decade when SAM joins the group. SAM brings out a consent form and has checked 'no spiders' because they find spiders icky and prefer not to think about them. The GM has to halt the session and re-write pages of plot, and next week they re-start the campaign re-branded as RATS OF MIRKWOOD. The group is annoyed because SAM's mild dislike of spiders causes them to have no fun in the new campaign, which soon falls apart"

for the other side they see:

"Frodo has been running the SPIDERS OF MIRKWOOD campaign for a decade when SAM joins the group. SAM brings out a consent form and has checked 'no incest' because they were a victim for 10 years as a child and is seeing a counselor every week to try and recover. But Frodo has a cool scene he wants to run so he ignores SAM's request. SAM breaks down when the scene occurs and has to be admitted to hospital they are so distressed. The group is happy that SAM will no longer play with them and take his problems to another group so they don't need to cope with them"

This post almost returns us back to some of the complaints that I was making at the beginning, which was I didn't at all like how it seemed like very different situations and problems were being equated by providing for all of them the same sort of resolution methodology, and lumping them all together in the same discussion. So yes, I think you are quite right that the models people were making in their head of how this would play out were very different, but then, given that they'd been treated as largely or entirely the same by the text, that's hardly surprising.

Again, I strongly suspect that over basic values, almost everyone - and maybe even indeed everyone - is in good agreement. For example, I'd be outraged if someone introduced incest into a group for its shock value over an objection to avoid the subject. That player would probably not be gaming with us again.

But there are of course other mental models here, other scenarios, other issues, and there is a feeling that only one approach is being advocated for - even demanded - despite the vast variety of issues involved.

 

[S'mon]

One thing to note is that the article is directed primarily at the person who may have the sensitivity.

Yes. I felt it should have split more with say half directed at the person with the sensitivity, half directed to the rest of the group.

 

[Celebrim]

Some people are reacting to the doc by thinking that that person gets to tell them what to do. It’s not. It’s only telling the majority to respect the individual.

Some people have been defending the document by saying that the person gets to tell the group what to do, and that they would be monstrous not to accommodate the individual. So apparently the confusion here doesn't just extend to the detractors.

 

[Wolfpack48]

Yes. I felt it should have split more with say half directed at the person with the sensitivity, half directed to the rest of the group.

That might be a good way to format for version 1.1!