Consent in Gaming - Free Guidebook

[Hussar]

And we really don't particularly like being told that we are 'choosing a game over a person', or being accused of being racist or sexist or whateverist because we don't want to play with 'that guy'. For one thing, we suspect that while you are making those sort of accusations, you are totally and completely hypocrites, and if you were playing with 'that guy' you'd not want to play with him either.

Bwuh? Where did I accuse you of anything @Celebrim? You keep painting with this very broad brush, but, I REPEATEDLY stated that it was perfectly fine for you not to game with whoever you don't want to game with.

I'd appreciate it if you'd leave the comments of hypocrisy at the door if you're going to reply to me.

 

[Hussar]

However, that being said, I'm rather curious why you lump in all sorts of bad behavior like this:

We could just get tired of his cheating. We could get tired of his profanity. We could get tired of his abusive tirades on other players. We could get tired of him trying to play other people's characters for them. We could get tired of his antagonistic play habits where he is always working against party goals. We could get tired of the fact that he's always on the phone and not paying attention, or never shows up. And yes, we could get tired of the fact that he is always insisting everyone else accommodate his style of play and his preferences

with someone suffering from trauma who is asking you to remove an element from your game that triggers said trauma.

It almost looks like you are equating bad behavior with people who are suffering from mental health issues.

Now, I KNOW that's not what you mean, but, considering you went on for several sentences, it really does look like it. So, perhaps, just perhaps, you might want to step back a tiny bit.

 

[Guest 85555]

Now, I KNOW that's not what you mean, but, considering you went on for several sentences, it really does look like it. So, perhaps, just perhaps, you might want to step back a tiny bit.

But if you know that isn't what he means, why would he need to back it up?

 

[monsmord]

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 agree, and not (quelle surprise).

But I've said my peace, like waaay said it, and have nothing new or more productive to add to the discussion. I don't find much in the way of opinions on consent issues being swayed here (including mine), and there's no doubt that even where folks agree there's a need for some sort of guidelines, there's not much (and won't be) grand agreement with this particular doc's usefulness for the many games and gamers out there. I hope we can agree that such a doc is worth considering, if for its premise alone, and that much of the advice is worth keeping whether or not one adopts forms or X-cards. It would be nice if most people agreed that ensuring emotionally safe games is a boon, not a burden. I also hope that as hobby enthusiasts we can be working toward growing the base by being open and accepting of folks with differing boundaries, as social hobby enthusiasts we can all learn to be better at the social part, and that as humans we can develop a greater empathy and compassion for those marginalized, at least when the nature of that marginalization is as terrifying, painful, and isolating as PTSD, trauma, et al.

 

[evileeyore]

However, that being said, I'm rather curious why you lump in all sorts of bad behavior like this:

with someone suffering from trauma who is asking you to remove an element from your game that triggers said trauma.

If they're being disruptive, they're being disruptive. And I don't much care about the why, either way they know where the door is.

 

[Wolfpack48]

Ok then. Goodbye.

 

[S'mon]

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?

I don't agree with this language. It implies people don't care about people. Say I had told my friend Jelly, about to GM Out of the Abyss, about my claustrophobia, and she had said something like "I don't think you'll enjoy this game, but we can still play other stuff together"

That wouldn't mean she didn't care about me!

Obviously I care more about the welfare of the people at the game table with me, including strangers I've just met, than I care about the game. It's not an either/or.

 

[S'mon]

Bwuh? Where did I accuse you of anything @Celebrim? You keep painting with this very broad brush, but, I REPEATEDLY stated that it was perfectly fine for you not to game with whoever you don't want to game with.

"It's fine for you to not care about people" doesn't come across very well!

 

[Maxperson]

I've only read the last few pages of the thread, but I have to wonder why someone so easily traumatized by violence would play a violent game like D&D. I have a fear of heights and I guarantee you that you won't see me scaling a cliff. It seems to me that people would avoid things that are likely to trigger their traumas.

 

[Hussar]

"It's fine for you to not care about people" doesn't come across very well!

Well, considering something like this:

If they're being disruptive, they're being disruptive. And I don't much care about the why, either way they know where the door is.

I'd say that I'm not too terribly far off. @evileeyore is being pretty clear here that he/she does not care why the player is having issues, just that the player can take those issues, pack up and leave. End of discussion.

Characterizing it as caring more about the game than the people isn't all that unfair, methinks. If you're unwilling to compromise your game when you learn that one of your players really isn't going to enjoy whatever element you refuse to compromise about, then you are prioritizing your game ahead of that person's feelings. Which, is absolutely your right to do. But, let's not pretend that it's something that it's not.

You are reading in value judgements that I am not making. In fact I've repeatedly stated that I have zero issue with someone doing this. You are under NO compulsion to game with anyone. Absolutely none. If removing that element will ruin the game for you, then, sure, don't game together. Cool.

The problem I see is that the narrative that's being put forth is the "problem player" is trying to destroy the game. OTOH, most of the time it might be something as simple as just not running that particular adventure or even that particular scene. All having the list does is open up the conversation without having to have the conversation in the middle of the game where it gets that much harder to resolve.