Consent in Gaming - Free Guidebook

[MGibster]

A conscious choice to exclude a potential player because their consent issue runs afoul of your game - regardless of stripe - is not inclusive.

I humbly submit for your consideration that not all games are meant for all players. We all agree that it's acceptable to bow out of a game when someone dislikes or are uncomfortable with the content. It's also okay for others to say they do like the content and would prefer to continue having it in the game.

 

[Bawylie]

I humbly submit for your consideration that not all games are meant for all players. We all agree that it's acceptable to bow out of a game when someone dislikes or are uncomfortable with the content. It's also okay for others to say they do like the content and would prefer to continue having it in the game.

I not-so-humbly agree. If it’s not 100% mutual and 100% voluntary, then it is not consent.

Seems the purpose of the doc is to move from implied consent (which sometimes has some honest misunderstandings) to explicitly stated consent (that has less room for ambiguity). Which is fine. Everyone gets an honest “No thanks.”

 

[Gradine]

Where were you all when the world was collectively losing their minds over "trigger warnings"? Cuz that's what y'all are talking about now and... yeah they're pretty alright.

 

[Lanefan]

I humbly submit for your consideration that not all games are meant for all players. We all agree that it's acceptable to bow out of a game when someone dislikes or are uncomfortable with the content. It's also okay for others to say they do like the content and would prefer to continue having it in the game.

This actually raises a good point: if this form is intended for use pre-game or pre-campaign, then a handy-for-the-DM add-on to the [paraphrased] "what content don't you want" section might be a "what content do you want/would you prefer" piece, and also an outright "what rating level (G,PG13,NC17,XXX) rating level are you comfortable with" question. This way, if one player answers "XXX-rated but no deserts" and another answers "I want a G-rated desert-themed game" the DM can iron this out before dropping the puck and hopefully before deciding who to invite in!

Personally, I'm probably a long way toward 'anything goes'. As a DM this is made clear up front; and as a player I'm far more likely to leave a game due to boredom than due to content.

 

[Hussar]

And people shouldn't necessarily expect that they can hold a full veto over the game, beyond simply walking away from the game,. But, in this thread, you can find people arguing that if someone was made to walk away from the game, because the group couldn't accommodate them, that that was a monstrous act. Maybe in some imaginary cases it was, but not for the majority that actually come up.

Been reading the thread from the beginning and I think this tidbit gets to the heart of things.

What is more important to you? The game or the people at the table playing that game? Because that's what it boils down to. "Oh, I can't change my game" means that the game is more important than that person. That doesn't make you a monster, but, it does show where your priorities are. If changing your game provokes that much of a reaction, then, sure, that player probably shouldn't sit at that table since that table obviously isn't interested in respecting that person's boundaries.

Again, this isn't a bad thing. We're playing a game. I should not feel like I have to deal with someone else's baggage in my free time. I'm not a psychiatrist. I'm not a mental health care worker. I'm sympathetic, sure, but, by the same token, I shouldn't feel like I have to deal with someone's issues in my free time.

OTOH, if you approach the hobby from the perspective that the people at the table are more important than the game, then, well, it would make perfect sense to change the game to accommodate someone's issues.

So, that's where it really boils down to. What's more important to you. And, obviously, that can change over time and situation as well. A con game with strangers is a different situation than a home game that's been running for extended periods of time. This is something everyone has to think about for themselves.

 

[Bawylie]

Where were you all when the world was collectively losing their minds over "trigger warnings"? Cuz that's what y'all are talking about now and... yeah they're pretty alright.

I’ll tell you - I was “losing my mind” over perceived infantilization. Because we weren’t having the same conversation over trigger warnings. Some folks wanted reasonable advance notice for stuff (a completely reasonable expectation).

And some were using the term for secondary gain. At work, I had a grown adult male claim to be triggered over a dispute in the amount of a reimbursement for a replacement rental vehicle. He shouted at me “you are triggering me,” repeatedly. That’s not honest brokering. That was a grown man trying to leverage the language of PTSD to avoid paying $30. That’s the most egregious, but not the only, personal example I have. Every day I hear something like “your employee was offensive. I’m offended!” And they’re not offensive, they just disagree and won’t be caving-in on issues because someone claims offense.

IOW, I’m 100% on board with reasonable accommodations for special needs and concerns. AND I’m 100% over bad actors capitalizing on the real issues of others for personal gain.

So that’s where I was. And am. There are bad actors and bad faith and people who use the truly vulnerable as shields. That’s infuriating.

 

[Hussar]

They can pull an X card, my X card is booting them from the game.

And, as a perfect, textbook example of what I just talked about, we have this.

Here is a 100% clear example of a DM for whom the game is more important than the players at the table. Again, totally fair. It's his game, he can run it however he likes. But, the point of this PDF is when you have DM's like this, for whom the game is more important than the players, the players can use something like their X card or their list to quickly realize that this game is not for them.

Everyone's happy. The player doesn't have to deal with stuff coming up at the table, and the DM doesn't have to compromise. Done.

 

[Gradine]

Bad actors are going to be bad actors using whatever tools they have at their disposal. It's no reason to withhold useful tools that people need to make their way through the world

 

[Hussar]

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).

Umm, a few years ago nearly 20000 people died in the country I live in to "severe weather". ((Granted it was a tsunami from an earthquake, but, similar issue) Several million were directly affected. I have students who have lost family or know people who lost family to the tsunami and I live in an area that was totally unaffected, directly, by it.

The notion that "severe weather" can't be something that triggers people is a bit dismissive.

And, see, that's the point of the list. Just because you think it's "ridiculous" means that it would be extremely difficult for a player to come to you and talk to you about it for fear of being ridiculed. You don't get to decide what triggers other people. That's why they add in the caveat that you don't discuss it. It gets brought up and that's the end of the conversation, not the beginning.

Because, for people with trauma, "it's ridiculous" is far, far too often the response they have to face from everyone around them.

 

[Bawylie]

Bad actors are going to be bad actors using whatever tools they have at their disposal. It's no reason to withhold useful tools that people need to make their way through the world

Oh I absolutely agree. And I tried to make that part clear.