Consent in Gaming - Free Guidebook

[MGibster]

This is an excerpt from a draft of a Vampire 5E I haven't completed where I address critics who believe the game treats its players as children.

Before getting to the meat of the review I’d like to address a topic that has proven very divisive among some reviewers: the “disclaimer”. It should come to no surprise that vampires aren’t very nice people. After all, their very existence is predicated on the predation of human beings. Vampires are monsters and this is true of the player characters as well. The authors’ make no bones about Vampire 5E dealing with such unpleasant issues as violence, racism, sexism, and sexual assault among other topics. But we are reminded that while it is okay to deal with these issues in a game consideration must be made for all participants. What one player might shrug off with indifference may affect another player profoundly and it is important to respect the need for boundaries.

Some scoff at this disclaimer claiming it treats its readers as children. After all, players who sit down to play a vampire should know there will be unpleasant things in the game. We’re talking about creatures that sink their fangs into their victims and suck their blood! That’s just horrifyingly gross, right? There are also some grumblings the disclaimer was only included to appease the “Social Justice Warriors” though I’m not quite sure how this would appease them. Surly if they find the contents of the game offensive these so-called SJWs aren’t going to change their mind because of a disclaimer.

I dislike thinking of this as a disclaimer because it implies the authors’ are trying to abrogate any responsibility they have for their work. This isn’t an apology for the contents of the book but rather some suggestions on how to make sure the game is fun for everyone involved. Far from insulting the maturity their player base, the authors’ are treating their audience as rational people with the maturity to not only discuss sensitive issues but also show consideration for one another by leaving subjects out of the game the participants are uncomfortable with. This is good advice for anyone who wants to run any horror game.
That said, there are things in Vampire that some people will find offensive and the game isn’t for everyone. There is a power that allows vampires to change their sex and some people find the way it is written to be transphobic, clan Brujah has no compunction about embracing racist members of the alt-right movement, and there is a hunting method directly analogous to sexual assault with accompanying in-character text of a vampire who uses this method contemplating whether or not this makes her a serial rapist. Caveat emptor.

 

[Morrus]

Well, I clearly don't run a Safe Space, because like I said upthread, if I see a player cheating, then I judge they're a cheater and view them negatively. If I see a player indulging in twisted sexual fantasies at my table, then I likely judge them as someone I don't want there. I may even 'hassle' them by telling them to leave.

It’s hard not to face-palm when you see people falling foul of Popper’s Parodox in 2019. Especially on a site which has paraphrased it in its rules for over decade.

 

[Zardnaar]

What's poppers paradox?

 

[Nagol]

What's poppers paradox?

It's also known as the Paradox of Tolerance. If a tolerant person is intolerant of intolerance then he isn't tolerant, is he?

It doesn't really apply in this case.

 

[Celebrim]

What's poppers paradox?

Popper argues that with respect to those that wish to silence debate...

"In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies ; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force ; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument ; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."

In other words, Popper argues that to protect the right of people to speak freely from those that would silence debate, we may have to take steps to silence those that are silencing debate.

 

[Zardnaar]

Popper argues that with respect to those that wish to silence debate...

"In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies ; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force ; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument ; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."

In other words, Popper argues that to protect the right of people to speak freely from those that would silence debate, we may have to take steps to silence those that are silencing debate.

Ah got it.

My version is a lot simpler. Boot disruptive players. They're free to do whatever they like just do it somewhere else.

 

[Celebrim]

My version is a lot simpler. Boot disruptive players. They're free to do whatever they like just do it somewhere else.

Probably more practical. Popper isn't really making an argument about what would make for a good community or a good social experience. He's just saying that, for example, if someone started trying to shut down the free exchange of ideas by trying to drown out other speakers with a microphone or throwing things, society would not be hypocritical in silencing those people by force.

 

[Arnwolf666]

Difficult topic. I play different in my house with close friends with no women then I do in a public store where ladies are present. I think something like this may be helpful for people at conventions where people are sensitive and have their feelings hurt easily or feel uncomfortable about certain topics. It boils down to know who you are playing with.

I'm pretty bored with modern politics and try not to bring "real world" politics into a game. But many people at a game store would not like how I portray some (not all) of my homebrew settings. Mainly because I try to keep gender and ethnic roles and ideas very similar to how they were in that time period. That can be difficult. And it is not even stating a particular belief of mine, just how a certain nobleman or guild leader viewed certain groups of people in that time. I would never do that in a game store because I don't know the audience or other players.

 

[Zardnaar]

Difficult topic. I play different in my house with close friends with no women then I do in a public store where ladies are present. I think something like this may be helpful for people at conventions where people are sensitive and have their feelings hurt easily or feel uncomfortable about certain topics. It boils down to know who you are playing with.

I'm pretty bored with modern politics and try not to bring "real world" politics into a game. But many people at a game store would not like how I portray some (not all) of my homebrew settings. Mainly because I try to keep gender and ethnic roles and ideas very similar to how they were in that time period. That can be difficult. And it is not even stating a particular belief of mine, just how a certain nobleman or guild leader viewed certain groups of people in that time. I would never do that in a game store because I don't know the audience or other players.

Same I don't run my gameworld as a modern liberal democracy.

I had a market last week that had slaves for sale including pleasure slaves.

It was in the campaign setting I bought.

At session 0 I did cover a few things though, racism, sexism, being a muppet, stealing off other players.

 

[Arnwolf666]

Same I don't run my gameworld as a modern liberal democracy.

I had a market last week that had slaves for sale including pleasure slaves.

It was in the campaign setting I bought.

At session 0 I did cover a few things though, racism, sexism, being a muppet, stealing off other players.

Al-Qadim a setting I loved had slavery in it as just part of the culture. It doesn't make it right. It was just culturally acceptable in that setting.