Consent in Gaming - Free Guidebook

[Bedrockgames]

I don’t think it means one person can hold everyone else hostage until their demands are met.

This is the primary objection people have to how some people are advocating for the PDF.

 

[Wolfpack48]

This is the primary objection people have to how some people are advocating for the PDF.

I would agree it’s a bad interpretation and/or something the doc could make clearer.

 

[Celebrim]

I’m thinking if it a bit more finely than that. Person X comes to the game and asks nicely if we could avoid spiders in the game because they have the phobia. Both those responses above would be pretty hostile to a nicely worded request. No conversation, just “You’re disrupting our game. There’s the door. Get lost.” THAT is also the sign of a jerk referee whose throne is being threatened. I can smell it a mile away.

I actually agree with all of that even if I would have worded it different. But this is essentially just my position restated in a complimentary way.

If person X comes to a game and says, "I'm sorry, but this game can't contain spiders.", as much as he might not want to divulge why, civility requires he have some sort of conversation about it to explain to the group why his request is reasonable. That explanation need only be what you've imagined here, "because I have a phobia." At this point we have a polite request with a valid reason, and now the GM should either grant the request, or if for some reason he can't grant the request, must apologize and try to politely explain why he can't grant the request. This is just basic human civility. It's common sense.

When someone writes a document that tries to overrule basic human civility and common sense, it gets my spidey senses tingling. It suggests an agenda, or it suggests misapplying rules that might make sense in one situation to a very different situation.

Going further into the imagined scenario, doing my duty as a compassionate person requires me to now put myself in the shoes of both the player making the request and the GM, and imagine the situation from their perspective. Or if I'm actually the GM, my duty as a compassionate person requires me putting myself into the shoes of the player making the request and every single other player at the table.

So imagining this scenario, we now have a player that has politely and yet courageously made a request to a group of near strangers. He's probably feeling a certain amount of stress and fear. He doesn't know how I'm going to react to this request. Maybe he's been mocked in the past. Maybe he's afraid that now I know his weakness I'm going to try to use it against him. These are all valid fears. As a GM, I'm going to want to accommodate this request and answer it graciously. Even if the request involves a certain amount of sacrifice on my part, I'm going to want to fulfill it. And in most cases I almost certainly will.

However, again putting myself into the shoes of the GM, the GM has a responsibility to the other players at the table. He's the GM. It's really not fair of him to pass this responsibility off on to the other players. Whether "yes" or "no" he really needs to be the one that bears that burden. Getting buy in on that answer from the other players is also his responsibility. I may well know that there is a player at the table that thinks the request is ridiculous, for whatever reason, and even if they are keeping their mouth politely shut they may want me to say "no". And I have to respect that player as a person just as I respect the one making the request. Additionally, the GM must - if even if only from a practical perspective - enjoy running the game. And there is a point that I can imagine where the sacrifice being asked is just too great, and I must reluctantly and politely refuse to accommodate the request no matter how reasonably it was made.

That intersection of being asked to remove spiders because of a phobia, and NOT being able to accommodate that request on a reasonable basis is likely a vanishingly small edge case. Not only must the player have a phobia, something that really effects only a fraction of the population, but the phobia must be on long tail of the spectrum such that it is is the sort which can be triggered by very weak sensory cues and yet still produce a powerful physiological and emotional response. And this request will have to intersect the vanishingly small percentage of campaigns where the icon, imagery, symbolism, and literal spider is tightly woven into the fabric of the campaign, such as removing spiders from the campaign would effectively mean ending the campaign. I have never run such a campaign, but I know from my preferences in campaigns and my very sincere abiding and deep affection for our eight legged friends, that I am very much the sort of person who might run such a campaign. It sounds really cool. And if I'm running that campaign then I'm going to be very very sad if it turns out one of my friends - or even an enthusiastic stranger - can't be a part of it because of a phobia of spiders.

This is what I think is the common sense, civil, compassionate view of this situation. This is the model I think everyone should have in their head. And therefore, to be quite frank, I'm hostile to any attempt to overturn or replace that model because I think any such attempt will necessarily result in a less civil and compassionate world. And you may reasonably be confused at this point and ask, "How?"

Well, all of the following strike me as possibilities:

a) People will be induced to think that they can make requests without giving explanations.
b) People will be induced to think that they can make demands rather than requests.
c) People will be induced to think that every request they make, even one that is unreasonable, is a reasonable one.
d) People will be induced to think that anyone that denies a request is doing so because they are a jerky unsympathetic uncompassionate person.
e) People will be discouraged from engaging in open and honest and yes difficult conversations.
f) People will be discouraged from being honest and/or welcoming, because they fear that in doing so they are opening themselves up to social censure.

Why do I think none of that is ridiculous fears on my part, and exaggerated concerns?

Because we can see examples of all of that happening in this thread already, particularly from those that think the document is a really great thing.

 

[macd21]

Which means a single player can veto what everyone else wants.

Yes. Every player at the table gets a veto.

If a group of friends are going out for dinner, and one of them says ‘I’m allergic to seafood,’ the group doesn’t then insist on going to a seafood restaurant. If one friend hates horror movies, insisting you all go to a horror movie is a dick move. If one player has a phobia of spiders, insisting on spiders in your game is a dick move.

 

[Wolfpack48]

Yes. Every player at the table gets a veto.

If a group of friends are going out for dinner, and one of them says ‘I’m allergic to seafood,’ the group doesn’t then insist on going to a seafood restaurant. If one friend hates horror movies, insisting you all go to a horror movie is a dick move. If one player has a phobia of spiders, insisting on spiders in your game is a dick move.

That said, the person with the phobia should also be reasonable. If the campaign was long planned, maybe they could join another group for awhile or play on a different night. Again, the important thing is not to be authoritarian about it from either side. It’s a discussion and a mutual decision.

 

[Aldarc]

Aldarc. Just a heads up, I don’t respond to wall of text posts like that. If you have one point you want to prioritize me responding to, happy to field it. But it would take way too much time for me to address all those points

I'm not a fan of responding to wall-of-text posts either, so I can respect that. I said my piece in regards to your hyperbolic, slippery slope points regarding this consent form. You don't have to respond at all, but I hope that you at least take into consideration what I said and how unreasonable some of your argumentation comes across. Again, your level pushback seems a bit too disproportionately knee-jerk reactionary to what the Consent in Gaming supplement says and represents. So I would advise you to tone your rhetoric down because your line of argumentation is not necessarily coming across as the voice of reason as you might otherwise expect.

Which means a single player can veto what everyone else wants.

You seem to be presuming that what everyone else wants is reasonable in the name of fun and that the vetoing player is being unreasonable or a spoil sport with their objections.

 

[Wolfpack48]

I actually agree with all of that even if I would have worded it different. But this is essentially just my position restated in a complimentary way.

If person X comes to a game and says, "I'm sorry, but this game can't contain spiders.", as much as he might not want to divulge why, civility requires he have some sort of conversation about it to explain to the group why his request is reasonable. That explanation need only be what you've imagined here, "because I have a phobia." At this point we have a polite request with a valid reason, and now the GM should either grant the request, or if for some reason he can't grant the request, must apologize and try to politely explain why he can't grant the request. This is just basic human civility. It's common sense.

When someone writes a document that tries to overrule basic human civility and common sense, it gets my spidey senses tingling. It suggests an agenda, or it suggests misapplying rules that might make sense in one situation to a very different situation.

Going further into the imagined scenario, doing my duty as a compassionate person requires me to now put myself in the shoes of both the player making the request and the GM, and imagine the situation from their perspective. Or if I'm actually the GM, my duty as a compassionate person requires me putting myself into the shoes of the player making the request and every single other player at the table.

So imagining this scenario, we now have a player that has politely and yet courageously made a request to a group of near strangers. He's probably feeling a certain amount of stress and fear. He doesn't know how I'm going to react to this request. Maybe he's been mocked in the past. Maybe he's afraid that now I know his weakness I'm going to try to use it against him. These are all valid fears. As a GM, I'm going to want to accommodate this request and answer it graciously. Even if the request involves a certain amount of sacrifice on my part, I'm going to want to fulfill it. And in most cases I almost certainly will.

However, again putting myself into the shoes of the GM, the GM has a responsibility to the other players at the table. He's the GM. It's really not fair of him to pass this responsibility off on to the other players. Whether "yes" or "no" he really needs to be the one that bears that burden. Getting buy in on that answer from the other players is also his responsibility. I may well know that there is a player at the table that thinks the request is ridiculous, for whatever reason, and even if they are keeping their mouth politely shut they may want me to say "no". And I have to respect that player as a person just as I respect the one making the request. Additionally, the GM must - if even if only from a practical perspective - enjoy running the game. And there is a point that I can imagine where the sacrifice being asked is just too great, and I must reluctantly and politely refuse to accommodate the request no matter how reasonably it was made.

That intersection of being asked to remove spiders because of a phobia, and NOT being able to accommodate that request on a reasonable basis is likely a vanishingly small edge case. Not only must the player have a phobia, something that really effects only a fraction of the population, but the phobia must be on long tail of the spectrum such that it is is the sort which can be triggered by very weak sensory cues and yet still produce a powerful physiological and emotional response. And this request will have to intersect the vanishingly small percentage of campaigns where the icon, imagery, symbolism, and literal spider is tightly woven into the fabric of the campaign, such as removing spiders from the campaign would effectively mean ending the campaign. I have never run such a campaign, but I know from my preferences in campaigns and my very sincere abiding and deep affection for our eight legged friends, that I am very much the sort of person who might run such a campaign. It sounds really cool. And if I'm running that campaign then I'm going to be very very sad if it turns out one of my friends - or even an enthusiastic stranger - can't be a part of it because of a phobia of spiders.

This is what I think is the common sense, civil, compassionate view of this situation. This is the model I think everyone should have in their head. And therefore, to be quite frank, I'm hostile to any attempt to overturn or replace that model because I think any such attempt will necessarily result in a less civil and compassionate world. And you may reasonably be confused at this point and ask, "How?"

Well, all of the following strike me as possibilities:

a) People will be induced to think that they can make requests without giving explanations.
b) People will be induced to think that they can make demands rather than requests.
c) People will be induced to think that every request they make, even one that is unreasonable, is a reasonable one.
d) People will be induced to think that anyone that denies a request is doing so because they are a jerky unsympathetic uncompassionate person.
e) People will be discouraged from engaging in open and honest and yes difficult conversations.
f) People will be discouraged from being honest and/or welcoming, because they fear that in doing so they are opening themselves up to social censure.

Why do I think none of that is ridiculous fears on my part, and exaggerated concerns?

Because we can see examples of all of that happening in this thread already, particularly from those that think the document is a really great thing.

I think if you put yourself into a persons shoes who may feel intimidated by telling a larger group about their phobia, and their fear of being dismissed or ridiculed or even pressured, you’ll understand why the author is empowering them to take a stand on what their boundaries are. The author is addressing a person who not only has a phobia but may fear telling people about it. The admonition for the group is to be understanding even then. It’s about being understanding even with only limited information.

All that can still result in a kind conversation and a mutual decision. It also doesn’t mean either side needs to be authoritarian or hold the rest of the group hostage. The doc is there to extend our understanding of how phobias work and empower those who have them to respect their own boundaries.

 

[macd21]

That said, the person with the phobia should also be reasonable. If the campaign was long planned, maybe they could join another group for awhile or play on a different night. Again, the important thing is not to be authoritarian about it from either side. It’s a discussion and a mutual decision.

Sure, but the entire point of the document is to sort this out ahead of time, rather than springing it on your players mid-game.

 

[Celebrim]

Yes. Every player at the table gets a veto.

If a group of friends are going out for dinner, and one of them says ‘I’m allergic to seafood,’ the group doesn’t then insist on going to a seafood restaurant. If one friend hates horror movies, insisting you all go to a horror movie is a dick move. If one player has a phobia of spiders, insisting on spiders in your game is a dick move.

Yes, but the problem with analogies is that they are valid only if they actually correspond to the situation. As such, they don't really help you resolve a complex topic, because analogies quickly get complex themselves, you end up arguing over the analogy, you end up arguing over the fitness of the analogy, and you'd be better off getting rid of the analogy and just thinking about the thing itself.

Yes, if a group of friends is going out for dinner, and trying to decide where to go, if one of them is allergic to seafood then civility and compassion requires you to consider options other than seafood. This is actually a real concern I have to endure daily. I wish that I was as easy to accommodate as someone that was only allergic to seafood. I have a problem with my insides rotting out if I eat too much wheat. If you don't have a wheat allergy you probably have never considered just how central to all of Western culture the sharing of wheat actually is. "Breaking bread together" is both the figurative description of fellowship, and also the practical reality of it from ordering pizza to birthday cakes. I am almost daily excluded from the rituals of fellowship with other people by the simple fact that I cannot share their food.

So let's alter your analogy slightly. A group of friends is going out to dinner, and after a discussion they've all agreed to go to the seafood restaurant. As they are headed to the seafood restaurant, they chance upon an acquaintance of one of the party who asks if they can come along. This is itself a bold request, and I think you are instinctively aware that it's a little bit impolite to try to insert yourself into a social gathering you weren't originally a part of. But, in this case, the party is willing to accommodate the new person, the friend looks awkwardly at his other friends thinking that they might be a little offended or put out by this imposition, but instead they say, "Come along. The more the merrier."

It's at this point that it comes out that they are going to a seafood restaurant and that the acquaintance is allergic to seafood. Now put yourself in the shoes of everyone there. Is it always the case that the group should decide on a new restaurant? Think about the practical realities of this situation. Think about how difficult it can be to come up with a restaurant that accommodates everyone's preferences to begin with. Think about those long conversations about "Where do you want to eat?" Think about that this is a seafood restaurant, and that they likely had to call ahead and get a table, and that this is probably something of a special occasion. And perhaps it's Friday night and switching plans right now might mean not getting into a good restaurant or having a long wait. This accommodation is actually potentially an extraordinary one, and it might be laudable if made but it's not necessarily condemnable if not made.

And again, this is something I have to deal with the reality of all the time. In my case the equivalent for the longest time was, "We're going to get pizza, want to come along?" You don't know how much easier the GF fad has made it for us people that have medical issues with wheat (although in my case, probably not with gluten itself).

 

[jasper]

Yes. Every player at the table gets a veto.

If a group of friends are going out for dinner, and one of them says ‘I’m allergic to seafood,’ the group doesn’t then insist on going to a seafood restaurant. If one friend hates horror movies, insisting you all go to a horror movie is a dick move. If one player has a phobia of spiders, insisting on spiders in your game is a dick move.

And on the seventh dining out night we told Macd21, yes we know. You can have soda, coleslaw. No. Okay fine. WE are going out to get seafood, the steak place is next door. We meet back at the car at 9.