D&D 5E In defense of my post....

[Bird Of Play]

Oh god, no thanks. Not again. I think the first million identical closed threads were enough.

Oh lol, whoops!
Aha, I guess every now and then a new user comes by and wants to discuss that stuff all over again. My bad!

Anyway I think @ourmaninboston actually seems to share similar views to mine when it comes to the subject. I'd just repeat stuff he said in the last pages of this thread. Redundant.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Faolyn:

1.) I hired a writer and co-wrote the narrative with him. I didn't ask why the character he originally proposed wasn't a near-naked man. it's a good story. I have no objections to someone writing a mini-adventure that includes a near-naked man as an antagonist, should they so choose.

Why would a near naked person of either sex not have something to do with Cthulhu? Why is bringing human sexuality into an adventure threatening or somehow unacceptable? Why do you feel it's something I'm not allowed to bring into the conversation?

Saying I have been "trying to sell a hot naked woman" makes it sound somehow deceptive.

On the contrary, I have been quite openly giving away a sculpt of a hot near-naked woman. The original painter's work spoke to me, and it's beautiful. He agreed to our making a sculpt from it that ties in with the adventure. I'm not sure why you feel I need to apologize for that.

I won't.

2.) "I think culture is what makes a group evil." pretty clearly states my idea that there is a differentiation. The drow are canon, the equivalent of classical literature. According to that canon, they were created by an evil entity, and they, as a group, have built a culture of ritualistic sacrifice. That is evil. There are variations among them, obviously. Some drow are, by nature, good; most, by nurture, are not.

However, they are also a fictitious group of people. I feel like you're trying to draw me into some kind of real-world argument, so you can claim I'm marginalizing others, then you can lay down an "Ah-HAH!" and feel like you've scored a real zinger on me. I'm afraid that's a pretty steep hill for you to climb, as I'm an extremely vocal and active supporter of equal rights for everyone - every race, class, sexuality and age. I'm about as progressive as it's possible to be. I have donated, written articles, and incessantly stand up for marginalized people in my social media, and have actively campaigned on behalf of politicians who promote environmentalism and egalitarianism.

3.) "Safety tools" is a pretty broad generalization. I was speaking of mandatory surveys telling everyone at my table what they're not allowed to discuss. I think pre-emptively silencing people at my table is awkward, unnecessary, restrictive, actively HAMPERS social progress and is, frankly, unhealthy. My players have complete agency; they can and do speak up at any time they wish.

You realize though it is not about you and your table. Have safety tools are for those you need them, not those you do not.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

4.) Obviously I pissed off a lot of people

Indeed. It may make you think again before restarting, because maybe you could have alienated more potential customers than possible to reach profitability. However, most people who expressed in this thread their intention not to back on the basis of your posts also stated they weren't interested by it on its own merit. I think people generally tend to react more favorably to product they intend to own in the first place. A lot of people objectly don't support sweat shop working conditions, very few decide to pass on an item produced in countries were employment laws are not up to Western standards, for example. So while you indeed pissed off a lot of people, the buying decision would still mostly, except for a number of advocates, be driven by the question whether the product is appealing to them. And the criticism about the multi-target of your kickstarter is a valid one: minis, adventures... It's not clear what the buyer buys primarily and what are the "ribbons".

Safety tools are not censorship, even by the broadest possible use of the term.

Unfortunately, some of the descriptions that are made of them by their proponents are expressed as censorship. While the "consent list" you gave obviously isn't (if one has forest fire on his red list and the GM intends to have a "fight the arsonists" adventure, he can obviously advise the player to sit out of this one instead if it's a core topic the group would like to play in), but some descriptions of the X-card (not the one you linked to), for example, present it as litteral censorship, as in "this scene is faded to black, no question asked" (including identifying the problematic topic to avoid it appearing next time). So, depending on whom you're talking and their experience on the definition and wording of the safety tools, their concern shouldn't be discarded (by saying it's "woefully misplaced") but addressed. Often, the presentation of them is what founded the reject: either because it was judgmental (as in "this is the only way to play and if you don't use them you're an insensitive <self-censored>") or because it failed to express the concept correctly, especially with regard to play within a close group of friends. Or the situation when even expressing the concern is difficult (when one has is parents dying from cancer, he might not be comfortable with a cancer-like demon infestation in the game, but not really keen to speak about it). Adressing those concerns in my experience make the idea of safety tools much more acceptable.

Ishhhh.... Not the kind of thing that would do. No one tells me what to do or how to run things at my table but it is a simple question of mutual respect to not go where people are nor feeling OK with.

This isn't the point of safety tools, though, and you're right that it would be bad to tell you how to run things. The idea is that yes it's tacky, but when you play with people you don't know, there might be a risk they are uncomfortable because of things you find innocuous. "Speaking before" is a safety tool, same as adressing the themes of the game during session 0, but it might fail to address something, and some people might be more comfortable with ticking things on a list rather than saying that, say, they have a phobia of giant bugs. Even saying the word could be uncomfortable to them, so just ticking it on a list is easier. And it doesn't dictate what happens at your table. To take another example on the list linked upthread, if someone has a "freezing to death" on their "red line", it's an opportunity to tell them that joining your "Rime of the Frostmaiden" campaign is not for them. If it's a campaign set in Calimport, the risk is far fewer, but knowing it, for you as a GM, will help you take that into account and not include someone freezed in the villain's refrigerator.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

I don't know - I've spoken to WOTC directly, and they have not indicated any problem with our content or presenations.

I don’t believe you, the cover of your adventure is in clear violation of their trade dress.

 

[Stefano Rinaldelli]

OK, I'm out of touch with modern gaming. What are safety tools?

Something absolutely needless if you play with your long term friends. Something not so absolutely needless if you play with strangers and you have some common sense. Something absolutely useful if you are socially inept that wants to play with strangers.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Content warnings, fair enough.

I think the whole POINT of roleplaying is catharsis though; reliving trauma among trusted confidantes is the way one heals. It's a means of achieving closure.

These days RPG are often not played amongst close trusted friends, but strangers across the world via a VTT or similar.

 

[Morrus]

Something absolutely needless if you play with your long term friends.

That is a safety tool. Safety tools are about having the conversation and making sure everybody is in the same place. Long-term friends do that organically over a period of time, but they do it, albeit in an informal manner.

 

[Stefano Rinaldelli]

To me, dealing with sensitive topics through catharsis is more effective that suppressing them.

WOtC clearly states 12+ in his books, keep in mind that this is based on a statistic degree of mental development.

 

[Stefano Rinaldelli]

That is a safety tool. Safety tools are about having the conversation and making sure everybody is in the same place. Long-term friends do that organically over a period of time, but they do it, albeit in an informal manner.

They share a reasonably common language, mental disposition, ideas and experiences. No conversation needed.

 

[Morrus]

They share a reasonably common language, mental disposition, ideas and experiences. No conversation needed.

Exactly. They get to know each other organically and know what each others' preferences and boundaries are. Which is what safety tools replicate when one doesn't have the luxury of gaming with old friends.

I mean, does anybody really have an issue with a potential game group having a conversation and saying "OK, what do we all want out of this game? Anything we should know?"