Consent in Gaming - Free Guidebook

[S'mon]

That is why you have a conversation.

Yes! In my GoT example we sorted it out by talking, by establishing there was a problem, and what to do about it. That's what needs to happen. And in case anyone wants to straw man this, I am not calling for embarrassing/intimate discussion of one's hang-ups, phobias & dislikes. The conversation should be brief, polite, mutually respectful, and goal-oriented.

 

[BookBarbarian]

I am not accusing you of being unreasonable (my memory isn't so great, so I'd have to review your last several responses to really weigh in there ). I just think the overall discussion going on in the gaming community about this is very shrill and...well panicked.

I don't know about "shrill" in fact I don't think I've ever used that word before. But if there is panic you can always remind folks:

There is an urgency and a moral pressure of "we must do something and we must do it now", that feels to me very much like the other moral panics I have seen.

I guess I just don't see that.

I am just getting very irritated by the demands I am seeing for others to use the list

Or this.

for those who don't like the list to be driven from the hobby, etc.

Or this.

I think we can have a reasonable disagreement about this. Personally I think it is a bad idea, and I won't be using it.

perfectly reasonable

I think people who choose to use it, should be able to do so without me yelling at them.

On this we agree.

 

[Gradine]

Which is just rationalizing not having conversations period. Again, I am not saying don't be tactful or kind. I am just saying a blanket, this is never something that can be debated, is a very bad foundational principle.

There is a difference between conversation and debate. People are free to talk as much or as little as they want about their trauma and triggers. Debate implies pushing back against the person's boundaries, which is disrespectful and should not happen.

 

[monsmord]

So far it’s been pretty reasonable to me anyway! ☺

I would say that my vehement rant could contribute to a sense of high tension while adding little real content to the actual discussion. I apologize for the emotionality. (I'll refrain from editing it as it has already been responded to, and because it's only fair to leave the evidence if I'm called out on it.)

 

[macd21]

I am not accusing you of being unreasonable (my memory isn't so great, so I'd have to review your last several responses to really weigh in there ). I just think the overall discussion going on in the gaming community about this is very shrill and...well panicked. There is an urgency and a moral pressure of "we must do something and we must do it now", that feels to me very much like the other moral panics I have seen. Like I said before, if people find use in the checklist, that is fine. I am not for shutting them down or crapping on the writers. I am just getting very irritated by the demands I am seeing for others to use the list, for those who don't like the list to be driven from the hobby, etc. I think we can have a reasonable disagreement about this. Personally I think it is a bad idea, and I won't be using it. I think people who choose to use it, should be able to do so without me yelling at them.

The only shrill panic is coming from those opposed to the document, who are decrying ‘SJWs’ ruining their game and attacking people with problems.

The people actually supporting the document? Just saying ‘hey, not a bad idea!’ And then reacting with horrified bafflement as people on the other side throw a hissy fit.

 

[BookBarbarian]

I would say that my vehement rant could contribute to a sense of high tension while adding little real content to the actual discussion. I apologize for the emotionality. (I'll refrain from editing it as it has already been responded to, and because it's only fair to leave the evidence if I'm called out on it.)

I will admit _{to glossing over your walls of text instead of reading them thoroughly}

 

[S'mon]

What kind of person chooses their character over the emotional welfare of this apparently keen human sitting across from them?

What kind of person prioritises their own fun over the fun of five or six other people? This is not "emotional welfare". This is D&D. If you have a rat phobia, you don't play in the rat-based campaign, and you don't tell the rest of the group not to play it, either. If they choose to wrap it up and do something different that you can play in, that's great. But you absolutely should not be trying to guilt them into doing so.

 

[Wolfpack48]

This goes to the bone of the problem that the doc, and similar tools, is trying to address.

The scenario as described feels spot on to me, like this is the way a lot of games would go. The crestfallen looks, etc. And the point of inclusivity is that we can do better and should try harder to do better, because the priorities described there are upside-down.

I even get it. I mean, if I'm one of those players and my character's a were-rat I've gotten to 19th level and it's my favorite character of all time - and now it has to be a were-squid, or we have to roll up new characters and start a new campaign? I mean yeah, hellz yeah, I'd be super disappointed. Probably pretty irked, honestly. I'd see if the new player would be willing to wait a session or two so we can wrap things up or have one last big battle or such. But if that's not reasonably possible, if somehow we can't even agree to start a new game when this phobic person is available and play the old campaign when they aren't, why would I send them packing? I'm choosing a loved character over increasing my gaming group and the promise of never having to fight giant rats ever again? I mean, how is this even a choice? What kind of person chooses their character over the emotional welfare of this apparently keen human sitting across from them? Why would anyone think that's okay? Why would anyone thinking six people making that choice makes it okay?

In this scenario, the phobia of rats is being treated as qualitatively different from a person's race, gender identity, or sexual preference; these other attributes are considered reasonable things that define the boundaries and sensitivities of the new player (based on presumptions, not by querying the player), while the phobia is not. An additional point used is that complaints of misogynist content should be treated one way, while not wanting rats in a game because of real emotional distress can be dismissed if inconvenient. (And while I laud the notion that racist, misogynist, or most -ist content is inherently problematic and should be discouraged, if a group in someone's dining room is all down with it and enjoys it, well, that's not really what we're discussing here. We're discussing dissent and request for change for deep emotional reasons, not whether complete accord can be achieved on chain mail bikinis.)

The existing players here have decided that their happiness of this specific gaming experience is derived primarily from the specific game content, not the social aspect. Their happiness will be shattered should that content need to be substantially changed, or worse, exchanged for a new one. Their priority is the game, not the people who'd play it. That's not social. It might border on sociopathy: more value placed on an imaginary world than on real people? Yikes.

I mean, one can try to make this about numbers - 6 players want rats, one can't play if rats are there, 6 wins - but the core decision is that make-believe trumps humans. And that's just plain weird. And I'd argue it's plain bad. Wrong. Antisocial.

The unwillingness to accommodate the phobic on the grounds that players have "too much invested" in an long-standing elf game. The framing of current gaming goals and contentment of a few unempathetic souls as qualitatively more valuable and reasonable than including a willing gamer in the social experience and/or in ensuring that one person doesn't suffer avoidable real-world emotional distress. The fundamental premise is deeply troubling.

The "cost" of changing a campaign. Really. The "cost."

Celebrim, you try to turn around my "get out of my yard" rant as somehow the hypocritical face of my "side." But it ain't. You're arguing groups are reasonable in turning people away asking for accommodation for things they can't help (though probably would very much like to), excepting things you've predetermined as somehow "morally" okay to consider, like a physical disability, their race, etc. My rant is against people who choose to be unempathetic, who choose to value their elf game over the human who'd sit next to them. Apples and oranges, not pot and kettle. Inclusivity doesn't mean jerks are welcome. It doesn't mean disruptive players are welcome. It doesn't mean every point of view is welcome, especially when that point of view is that a player's phobias are grounds for dismissal. It means that people who are trying in good faith to enjoy a social game despite some very real and possibly deeply personal issue should be given the opportunity to do so, even if that means your make-believe character or make-believe world has to make-believe some room for them.


Anyone can explore an imaginary world, be an imagined character, any time they want - in their head, in their home, on a bus. They can play a solo RPG, whether P&P or video. They can write a story, a script, and have complete control over events and rules. But that's not what we do. We gather. So having decided it's better to share this experience with people, why is it troubling to folks when someone requests [X] be avoided? Why is that so threatening as a concept? How is an imaginary game so sancrosanct?

I've been mulling this since the thread started, and can't find it. Every answer I come up is basically a flavor of the social aspect for such folks being a means to an end, like for validation, attention, control, etc., and that the game is a proxy for their egos. I dunno. Choosing a game over a human - it's just not social.

Well said. I guess the question really is: is the game and its players simply a tool to your “group novel” your “artistic masterpiece” your beloved character? Or do you actually place value on the people who sit around the table with you? I hate to say it, but my guess is that some role players actually do prefer the game world over the real one, and those messy problems that come with it.

 

[monsmord]

I guess the question really is: is the game and its players simply a tool to your “group novel” your “artistic masterpiece? your beloved character” Or do you actually place any value on the people who sit around the table with you? I hate to say it, but my guess is that some role players actually do prefer the game world over the real one, and those messy problems that come with it.

Yup.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The only shrill panic is coming from those opposed to the document, who are decrying ‘SJWs’ ruining their game and attacking people with problems.

The people actually supporting the document? Just saying ‘hey, not a bad idea!’ And then reacting with horrified bafflement as people on the other side throw a hissy fit.

If all people were doing was saying "hey not a bad idea" I wouldn't object.