Consent in Gaming - Free Guidebook

[Aldarc]

Noted. And I shall cease. Time to go make dinner anyway. Black bean and chicken enchiladas. If anyone doesn't like enchiladas, they can leave

Enchiladas are awesome.

 

[Umbran]

I’m completely against violence. You are talking about the use of words.

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



* In June 1919 the Harvard Law Review published an article by legal philosopher Zechariah Chafee, Jr. titled “Freedom of Speech in War Time” and it contained a version of the expression spoken by an anonymous judge. Chafee was one of the founders of modern interpretation of the 1st Amendment.

 

[BookBarbarian]

I work in an industry were consent is important, but few would realize it as it's always phrased as "buy in."

If we don't buy in on said system/process/technology/solution it is bound to fail regardless of how good it is is a pretty well accepted truth in my day to day world.

So I've always approached my game with the same thought in mind. If anyone at the table doesn't buy in the game is going to fail. Now I could just always put the onus on the player to leave when they don't buy in, but I don't see a lot of value in that. Sometimes it will be necessary for the player to leave, but it's too heavy handed of an approach to most cases. EDIT: likewise it is sometimes appropriate to terminate someones employment, but it would be extremely costly to do so in the case of every disagreement./EDIT. I think a lighter touch and being a more approachable and adaptable DM will lead to more fun at my table in the long term, probably short term too.

Maybe I am off base here but looking at all this brings just one thought to mind.

If a person actually needs this book to tell them how to act then I do not want that person in my gaming group.

You are probably right.

But I can't help but think about the inconsiderate Jerk (probably not a strong enough word) I used to be and how glad I am that people were patient with me an helped me realize that if I cared more about other peoples happiness I would be happier too.

If this book helps someone make a change for the better then I'm happy it was made.

So, this is terrible, and horrible, but also kind of ... funny?

I know, I'm going to go to hell.

I'd be joining you in hell then.

Also I have only now just realized what an opportunity I have missed not throwing some clown villains at my party from time to time.

I suppose IT is about time I do

 

[Umbran]

I am saying that if u have a table where 12 people came to play game of thrones. And one person is terrified of game of thrones then that person should leave.

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.

 

[BookBarbarian]

First amendment.

In case you didn't realize, no one from the federal or state government has come and tried to stop your exercise in speech, nor would they be able to based upon the book that is the topic of the thread.

 

[Gradine]

The way I figure, there's about a 1:8 chance that a server farm in Moscow is getting some work done in this thread today

 

[MGibster]

The fact that you wouldn't think heatstroke could be a source of trauma is proof that you (generic you) don't really know what might be a trigger for someone. Likewise, someone on Twitter pointed out that hunger and thirst are common ways that abusive parents traumatize children; if you hadn't been abused like that, how would you know that it would be an issue?

I think there's some confusion about what I typed as I never stated heatstroke couldn't be a source of trauma. However, I maintain that it's very unlikely I need worry about it when running an RPG. I do take issue with the idea that the default answer is "no" which is probably why I have a problem with the opt in system. I don't believe it's reasonable belief that a GM should avoid using heatstroke, earthquakes, or spiders, or other possible sources of trauma without making sure players have specifically said it's okay.

I much prefer an opt out system. For horror games, I ask my players to please tell me what it is they don't want to see in a game. I typically mention that one thing I don't care for is sexual violence played out either against PCs or NPCs. For my current Vampire game one of the players specified that she didn't want to see a game where children were harmed. So I changed one of the NPCs to a vampire who fed on children to one who fed on victims of domestic abuse and that was fine.

I find that often times online discussions focus on the negative. I appreciate Consent in Gaming, especially where you remind readers that we should respect a player when they say they're uncomfortable with a topic.

 

[Morrus]

First amendment.

I think you may be confused.

The First Amendment of your country’s Constitution prevents your government from creating laws which restrict your speech.

It doesn’t prevent Monte Cook Games from writing a book about consent in gaming. Neither does it prevent gamers from obtaining consent from each other.

None of these people are the US Congress; and none of them are passing legislation. Your First Amendment is perfectly safe.

 

[Arnwolf666]

I think you may be confused.

The First Amendment of your country’s Constitution prevents your government from creating laws which restrict your speech.

It doesn’t prevent Monte Cook Games from writing a book about consent in gaming. Neither does it prevent gamers from obtaining consent from each other.

None of these people are the US Congress; and none of them are passing legislation. Your First Amendment is perfectly safe.

And it doesn’t prevent any of us from deciding to not use it. It’s not now a law that we must use this form.

 

[Morrus]

And it doesn’t prevent any of us from deciding to not use it. It’s not now a law that we must use this form.

Errr. Yes? Did somebody tell you it was? Is that why you’re (incorrectly) citing the US Constitution?