Harassment At PaizoCon 2017

Status
Not open for further replies.
In our post-Harvey Weinstein world, more and more people in the various entertainment industries are coming forward with allegations of abuse and harassment, both sexual and psychological. The tabletop gaming industry isn't isolated from this wave of revelation as incidents surface, and will likely continue to surface about professionals, and fans, within the gaming communities.


Stories of harassment within tabletop gaming, at conventions and stores, and even in local gaming groups are nothing new. That is probably the saddest fact of this whole thing: that despite stories being brought to light, not only does harassment continue to happen but the existence of it continues to be denied by some. This denial is one of the factors that allows abuse and harassment to continue within tabletop RPGs.

Allegations of improper behavior at the 2017 PaizoCon by Frog God Games CEO Bill Webb were brought to life by Pathfinder content creator Robert Brookes. Brookes was attending PaizoCon and has written for Paizo and Legendary Games, among others. In an incident involving alcohol, Webb allegedly sexually harassed another guest at the convention and when a staffer attempted to intervene and injury occurred with the staffer.

In a thread about harassment and abuse on gaming forum RPGNet, Frog God Games partner Matt Finch, creator of the Swords & Wizardry retroclone, confirmed that the incident with Webb occurred, and revealed some details about an internal investigation that the partners of Frog God Games conducted into the incident:

"I am Matt Finch, the partner of Frog God Games appointed by the partners to investigate a sexual harassment complaint filed against Mr. Webb at PaizoCon 2017. Mr. Webb was not consulted by the partners on this decision. Due to recent accusations made on Twitter by a third party, I will outline the aspects of the situation to the extent that they do not compromise the confidentiality of the person who filed the report, I will describe the nature of our internal investigation, and will also address the recently-raised tweets by Robert Brookes on his twitter feed. This report will not necessarily be updated; it stands for itself at the time of posting, based on the knowledge I currently have.

"First, it is correct that a complaint was filed with Paizo at PaizoCon against Bill. I was made aware of this by phone on the day it happened (I was not present at the convention). Frog God is aware of the identity of the person who made the complaint, because they spoke to three of our partners at the convention after the event. We have not been invited to share that person’s identity, and although we are not under legal obligation to protect that confidentiality we have elected to respect that person’s desire not to have the event brought into the spotlight.

"Gathering information in a situation like this is necessarily limited due to Paizo’s own confidentiality obligations. To assemble information, I spoke to the three partners who had talked with the person who filed the complaint, and obtained their accounts of what they were told. Secondhand accounts are not perfect, and I had to weigh that against the fact that an attorney making direct contact with someone who has filed such a report can be seen as a threat or intimidation, and weighing those two issues, I chose to rely on a comparison of the conversations between the individual and our partners, plus Paizo’s own resolution of the matter at the time, plus a necessarily-cautious review of Bill’s account. There has been contact between the person who filed the complaint and Frog God partners since the event, and I will provide a screenshot of one such communication with the name redacted. I believe the screenshot provides a great deal of clarification.

"Reducing the event to a level that will maintain confidentiality, my understanding based on my investigation was that Bill Webb took an action and engaged in speech that could be construed as a sexual advance or as gender-dismissive.

"In consequence of this finding, I and another senior partner of the company had a meeting with Mr. Webb about expectations, standards of behavior, and future protocol. We addressed that one’s lack of bad intentions does not excuse problematic behavior.

"Some people have asked that Mr. Webb acknowledge and apologize for the situation. Bill does deeply regret his actions, and understands that they were inappropriate and upsetting. I have told Mr. Webb not to contact the person directly, for the same reason that I have not done so myself: the potential for that contact to appear intimidating or threatening. However, at whatever time the person lets us know that a direct apology from Mr. Webb would be welcomed, that apology will be immediately forthcoming. Mr. Webb is also under instruction not to discuss this matter in public, in case peripheral details were to be inadvertently disclosed that might allow the identification of the person by another party. This is also the reason we chose to have me, as the investigating partner, write the public report, given that a report has become necessary in response to a recent description of the event on Twitter."


We reached out to Webb for comment upon this incident, and we were directed to the RPGNet post by Finch. This is the company's official statement on what happened at PaizoCon. Whether or not there will be further repercussions within Frog God Games due to this incident and Webb's actions remain to be seen.

Paizo CEO Lisa Stevens has released an official statement on the incident on the Paizo forums. When EN World reached out to Paizo for official comment, we were directed to this statement:

"My name is Lisa Stevens and I am the CEO and owner of Paizo Inc. Events of the past few weeks have compelled me to make this statement.

"My company will never condone any sexual harassment or assault against any of our employees, male or female. We will never condone any sexual harassment or assault against any of our customers on paizo.com or at sanctioned organized play activities. Whenever I hear any allegations of sexual harassment or assault related to Paizo’s activities, I always immediately drop whatever I'm doing and I make getting to the bottom of these issues my top priority. We have banned people from paizo.com. We have banned people from participating in our organized play activities. We have stopped doing business with individuals. And we will continue to do so.
"As a woman and a survivor of sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape, I know what it is like to be on the receiving end of these attacks. I know what it is like to feel the shame, the terror, how it changes your life forever. And because of this, I will never stand for my company to condone this behavior.

"Paizo’s employees are encouraged to come forward with any allegations of sexual harassment or assault and let a manager know as soon as possible. If criminal activities have taken place, they are encouraged to report it to the police and take legal action against the perpetrator. We have asked our employees to not engage in explosive and angry dialogue on paizo.com. We want our website to be a place where our customers feel safe and among friends. If there is problem on paizo.com, then our community team will handle it and, where appropriate, ban the perpetrator.

"In closing, you have my word that I have zero tolerance for sexual harassment and assault, and the same is true of Paizo. Please be aware that we treat these issues with tremendous sensitivity, and only disclose the specifics and resolutions of any such incidents on a need-to-know basis, even within Paizo or with our legal counsel. We do not and will not discuss these matters publicly. Every instance that I am aware of has been thoroughly investigated, and appropriate actions have been taken or are in the process of being taken. You have my word on this."


Unrelated to the PaizoCon incident, Brookes also revealed an incident of harassment within the Pathfinder Society organized play program. When a volunteer staffer reported this incident, their supervisor informed them that an NDA they had signed to be part of the program would not allow her to discuss this incident. Paizo has not officially commented on this incident or commented on whether or not there is an investigation into it.

If tabletop role-playing games are truly going to be an inclusive, we have to be better about not just reporting incidents of abuse and harassment but being dedicated to creating spaces that are safe and free of harassment of our fellow gamers. We also need to shine a spotlight onto the incidents of harassment that occur, it is the responsibility of journalists, bloggers and gamers to do this and let people know that their actions will come to light and that they will be held responsible. It is also important to not just talk about those parts of the gaming communities that we don't agree with, but to also bring to light the improper actions of those companies and communities with whom we do agree, because unless every act of harassment is revealed there will be no change within our communities.

Remember that EN World is an inclusive community.
[FONT=&quot]Save[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Save[/FONT]
 

log in or register to remove this ad

The continued focus on "we don't know the details" by some posters in this thread is emblematic of the ongoing problem in our community and society in general. It says, very starkly, that these sorts of things don't happen to "good girls" -- there must have been some mitigating circumstance: she was nice to him, she was drinking, she had a revealing outfit, she was playing hard to get. It is maddening, upsetting and sickening all at once. I would ask anyone who starts to write something along the lines of, "I'm not sure what to think since I don't know the whole story," to stop and instead BELIEVE THEM. Believe that they were harassed, that they felt threatened and unsafe, that they made it clear they wanted their victimizer to stop, that they wanted to get away but couldn't, that they did nothing wrong and this wasn't there fault. Anything else and you are feeding this monster, letting it live and grow.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Easy. You don't stat that stuff out. If you must have a child molesting demon (and I really don't think you must, but bear with me) there is absolutely zero reason to give it mechanical weight. "These monstrous pedophiles get terrible powers" and then leave it for the DM. Their mechanics and stats work - should they be used at all - in whatever way the DM deems appropriate for their home game. As opposed to a suite of specific spells custom-designed for raping kids.

Paizo has already stated that they feel they should not have done so in their product, and of course I do not speak for them in any way. But my feeling on the slippery slope of your telling me that I am not allowed to stat something out goes something like this.

The existence of kids is never a good excuse to censor adult material intended for adults. The existence of people who really don't like a thing or who may even be harmed by a thing is never a good excuse to ban that thing for everyone. My consumption of imaginary entertainment material, regardless of the content it imagines - whether it is extreme grimdark horror, pornography, etc - is my own choice. Not anyone else's. Not the government's and not yours.

Yes, it is absolutely reasonable to say that people who don't or can't consent should not have to come into contact with such material. It's completely inappropriate for public or organized play and there should be clear warning labels involved so that only people who choose that flavor of entertainment ever have to see or hear about it past that warning label. But to say that no one is allowed to even think about a thing is very slippery slope indeed. I'm leery of it.

Yes, stats for horrible, monstrously evil villains are a useful thing and I can think of many uses for the stat blocks that really don't involve anything remotely like what you are thinking. They are building blocks for a horrific back story that could be revealed to the players bit by bit, with the mere existence of such spells being part of the horror and part of what makes the evil cult so effectively and memorably evil. Could they possibly be used somewhere by creepy or wannabe edgelord people who actually like the idea of doing these things in their game? Well sure, and that's a huge PR nightmare for the company that produced it. Maybe don't add to that nightmare by deciding that you get to put limits on other people's stories, though.

I have used such stats in some of my home campaigns, though I always discuss it ahead of time with my players and make sure everyone consents and is okay with encountering those themes. Also that they have the in-game choice of not engaging for whatever reason. These kinds of stats are very effective at inducing horror when their existence is revealed slowly over the course of the game. The players learn what has been going on and how the evil cultists work their will and gain their abilities. It is a very powerful story development mechanism. And it's not for everyone. Dropping this stuff on a player or a spectator who did not give full and informed consent prior to the game is horrible, especially if you do not know if they are an abuse survivor and/or really triggered by the material. Warning labels are completely appropriate and so is getting consent ahead of time. But censorship to the point of saying no one gets to tell horribly evil horror stories in their own home with other consenting adults? I cannot agree with that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Paizo has already stated that they feel they should not have done so in their product, and of course I do not speak for them in any way. But my feeling on the slippery slope of your telling me that I am not allowed to stat something out goes something like this.
...
But censorship to the point of saying no one gets to tell horribly evil horror stories in their own home with other consenting adults? I cannot agree with that.
I don't think that's a response to the actual post I made, and I'm wondering if you're confusing me with someone else?

What people do at their home games as consenting individuals - which includes dealing with 'edgy' and/or grimdark and/or simply mature material - is their own business. That's what I meant by "leaving it up to the DM."

I am questioning the judgment of including such mechanical support in a mainstream published work, and it looks like Paizo themselves concur.
 

Why did this article not report on Matthew Finch's response to the report of a staffer being injured?

Literally, the article here reports on what Brookes says regarding an injury:

when a staffer attempted to intervene and injury occurred with the staffer.

But then it truncates Matt Finch's statement, omitting several paragraphs, including the following:

A series of tweets brought to our attention have mentioned that an altercation occurred at the time of the incident, and that a Paizo employee was injured. From talking to the individual who made the complaint we have not been made aware of any altercation beyond the behavior of Mr. Webb addressed in the complaint. And to date we have not received any information from Paizo or any other party regarding an employee being injured or how such an injury occurred.

Given how thoroughly it quotes the rest of his statement, including linking to where it appears, this seems like a rather dubious omission.
 

If you are at an event, a drunk man is following you around being rude &c., you know that this person has a history of drinking in public, and his family is also at the event...
DO NOT worry about "embarrassing the wife / kids". They already know that he drinks too much. They already know he is a rude lout when drunk.
He's been like this at home too, probably for longer than he's been doing it in public.
The family haven't been able to control that behavior - any of it - with the tools at their disposal; they need reinforcements (and a shoulder to lean on).

That's all the criticism (not "blame") I will offer of the handling of the OP incident.
The target acted from a proper and righteous consideration, and I detect no ill will or insincerity in her decision as she described it. But her conclusion inhibits the needful steps to shut down this particular predatory individual. Many targets thinking along the same lines means serial predators keep slipping off the hook and can repeat later.
 

your telling me that I am not allowed to stat something out goes something like this.
You are launching into War Mode for no good reason; the underlined word should read 'appropriate' not 'allowed'.

As a DM you should be well aware that narration and description are valuable tools that can be more effective to create a mood than a stat block. I've found that watching Hayes Production Code -era (1960s and earlier) movies helps with at-table story-telling. They had to imply or suggest things that modern movies would place front and center on-camera.
Black-and white Dracula was much scarier than the modern remakes, because the audience has to use its own imagination to fill in where the camera stops. Story-telling in D&D works the same way.
 

Paizo has already stated that they feel they should not have done so in their product, and of course I do not speak for them in any way. But my feeling on the slippery slope of your telling me that I am not allowed to stat something out goes something like this.

<snip>

But censorship to the point of saying no one gets to tell horribly evil horror stories in their own home with other consenting adults? I cannot agree with that.

I am not saying that you, as an individual cannot or should not stat those things up if you want. You do you and your group.

I am saying that I do not think it is appropriate for Paizo, as a company, to provide (and publish) stats that boil down to "+2 charisma every time you molest a child" in a book they publish.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

I am not saying that you, as an individual cannot or should not stat those things up if you want. You do you and your group.

I am saying that I do not think it is appropriate for Paizo, as a company, to provide (and publish) stats that boil down to "+2 charisma every time you molest a child" in a book they publish.

I don't think molestation was actually detailed. Killing a cute bunny in front of a kid would also count. This said, I agree that out of respect for community sensibilities, keeping such material well separated from the main body of the game is a good idea.
 

I don't think molestation was actually detailed. Killing a cute bunny in front of a kid would also count. This said, I agree that out of respect for community sensibilities, keeping such material well separated from the main body of the game is a good idea.

Unnatural Lust

School enchantment (compulsion) [emotion, mind-affecting]; Level bard 1, sorcerer/wizard 2, witch 2

Casting Time 1 standard action

Components V, S

Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)

Target one creature

Duration 1 round

Saving Throw Will negates; Spell Resistance yes

Your target is filled with lust and desire for a single creature or object as designated by you at the time of casting. That creature or object must be within the spell's range and perceivable by the target of the spell. The target is filled with the compulsion to rush to the subject of its lust and passionately kiss or caress that subject on its next turn, taking no other actions. If the target would not normally have lustful feelings toward the designated creature or object, it receives a +4 bonus on its saving throw.

The other spells are less immediately obvious, but more pervasive in how they directly replicat the methods used by RL abusers. Only now, it's made magically better, and yet somehow that's okay?

Also, no, killing a cute bunny doesn't count:

...Promise him you will return and then release him with that haunting thought.

Because child abuse=+2 charisma is such an important mechanic.


So just consider this. Is it one of your players casting unnatural lust, sexually abusing a child and then 'magically covering it up, or you as the DM casting the spells, describing what happens to an audience who...what, are just getting this as backstory?. I mean, the only reason to include the mechanics is so they can be used, so are you making the saving throws, or your players?

Or, you know, it was a terrible idea and even more terribly implemented, that at the point they've hit multiple incidents of terrible events, this is the one thing Paizo's admitted fault on and said mea culpa for.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

As fascinating as the child molesting demon discussion is, this thread may not be the best place for it. Perhaps move it to its own thread?
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Remove ads

Top