D&D General Of Consent, Session 0 and Hard Decisions.

[TiQuinn]

You're I'm a group. You order pizza. Seafood pizza player vetoed all the pizza options that aren't a variety of seafood pizza because that's what they like.

Ir if a variety is ordered they get a seafood pizza and eat everyone else's pizza leaving their pizza at the end for themselves.

Yes I've seen this happen not theoret.

Okay, so that’s just someone who’s being a jerk, but it really doesn’t have any relevance to what you’re talking about. And to your point, a consent form is just a way of indicating what a game is going to be about, though I’ve never heard of a player giving one to a DM before and I’m not really sure how that would work: the player doesn’t control the content of the game.

Now if the “consent form” as you call it is a list of things that they’d rather not deal with in a game for whatever reason, I understand that. Not every DM does a session zero, not every DM communicates what kind of content is going to be in their game, and to be fair, sometimes it’s difficult to cover all the bases.

I had a game with someone who has severe arachnophobia and was visibly squeamish about fighting giant spiders. You always think it’s not gonna come up, and you think it’s something that will just blow over and they can cope, but no. This was really bothering them and they weren’t angry, they were deeply embarrassed and upset that they were being a downer for the group. They felt bad. I felt bad. I switched tactics quickly and had the spiders chased away by the “real” monster that the party had to face - a quick pivot. Everything simmered down and we got on with the game. So in retrospect, a player coming to me and saying “Hey, just so you know, I’ve got a really bad fear of spiders and just wanted to let you know in case it’s a part of your game you have planned” would actually have been a great thing. But they didn’t think of it. I didn’t think of it. Don’t dismiss the idea of players coming pre-armed with a list of things that are red flags for them.

 

[Zardnaar]

"I hate consent forms and I think they're bad and used only by (American) people who are too sensitive and selfish! Also they shift the perceived power dynamic into the hands of players and -I- have all the power since it's -my- game."

"So instead of working with my players about the kind of material that will appear in my games; I'll just tell everyone what I want in my games, what I don't tolerate from players, and subtly encourage violence at and under the table if you act in a manner I don't like."

"Also I'll have private discussions about you with my friends and if they don't like you I'll be kicking you out of the game."

... yeah. Yeah. That's one way to have the consent talk. Doesn't make you come across as a shining beacon or anything... But I think you know that with your "LE Tyrant DM" note.

I've kicked a grand total of 4 players in 10 years.

1 was out right toxic. The other 3 were your stereotypical malk fish CN chaos types. They got kicked from two other groups and couldn't find games.

I'll also kick fascists, tankies and American red hat types. They specifically get mentioned session 0.

 

[Zardnaar]

Okay, so that’s just someone who’s being a jerk, but it really doesn’t have any relevance to what you’re talking about. And to your point, a consent form is just a way of indicating what a game is going to be about, though I’ve never heard of a player giving one to a DM before and I’m not really sure how that would work: the player doesn’t control the content of the game.

Now if the “consent form” as you call it is a list of things that they’d rather not deal with in a game for whatever reason, I understand that. Not every DM does a session zero, not every DM communicates what kind of content is going to be in their game, and to be fair, sometimes it’s difficult to cover all the bases.

I had a game with someone who has severe arachnophobia and was visibly squeamish about fighting giant spiders. You always think it’s not gonna come up, and you think it’s something that will just blow over and they can cope, but no. This was really bothering them and they weren’t angry, they were deeply embarrassed and upset that they were being a downer for the group. They felt bad. I felt bad. I switched tactics quickly and had the spiders chased away by the “real” monster that the party had to face - a quick pivot. Everything simmered down and we got on with the game. So in retrospect, a player coming to me and saying “Hey, just so you know, I’ve got a really bad fear of spiders and just wanted to let you know in case it’s a part of your game you have planned” would actually have been a great thing. But they didn’t think of it. I didn’t think of it. Don’t dismiss the idea of players coming pre-armed with a list of things that are red flags for them.

That would be if there's anything specific let me know. If it's minor I can accommodate it if it's theoretically a biggie eg endead in CoS you forever less would have to say this campaign may not be for you.

 

[Umbran]

They're fine in that scenario. If people want to use the.

Yeah, but the OP reads like a critique of the entire concept, but presents an inaccurate depiction of that concept.

They're mostly a theoretical online thing only in America.

So? There was a time when D&D itself was only in America, too.

Next player I meet who even knows what they are irl will be a first.

Again, so? Why is this important to you?

 

[Burnside]

I have a generic code of conduct form that I use for one-shots, and a more specific one that I incorporate into a session zero document for ongoing campaigns.

I've never see a PLAYER submit a "consent form" to a DM, but I find it very common for DMs to provide codes of conduct or safety tools, etc to players. The idea that "nobody has ever heard of this" is weird to me; they've been around for years. I think I first saw one in 2017 or 2018 but I'm sure they pre-date that.

Of course they can't cover every possible thing that might bother a person, but do you really think they can't cover the most COMMON things?

My docs have a bit about players and DM are expected to behave which runs like this:

DM and all players will:
Act as team members to foster a positive play environment where the DM and players will all have a fun experience. This includes treating everybody with kindness and patience and not engaging in rude, bullying, sexist, racist, homophobic, or transphobic behavior.
Players and DM will respect one another, listen to one another, support one another, and try to preserve the cohesion of the adventuring party.
Respect the boundaries of fellow players and DM, and will peacefully and without rancor withdraw from the group if they cannot or would prefer not to respect a boundary.
Be comfortable with PG-13 content (mostly cursing).
Create characters who, while not necessarily saints, are on board with the key dynamics of being willing & able to work as part of a group, and being willing and able to go on adventures and ultimately behave in a more-or-less heroic manner most of the time.

...and then there's a bit in a separate section about hard & soft content limits:

Hard and Soft Content Limits
I view D&D as a fun escape, an opportunity to share a collective story, and a cathartic release. We all have some subjects we’d rather not deal with when playing a game. In terms of sensitive subjects or themes, a soft limit is a threshold that one should think twice about crossing, as it is likely to create genuine anxiety, fear, and discomfort.
A hard limit is a threshold that should never be crossed.
Some examples for me personally. Hard limits for me are sexual assault, sexual violence, and homophobia. These are things I don’t want to encounter as a player, and I choose not to include them as a DM in my games. So you won’t see those things in this campaign.
An example of a soft limit for me is torture. I will not roleplay a torture scene, put a player character in the position of being tortured, or have torture occur “on stage” in the adventure. However, for example, if I am running the Curse of Strahd adventure, when exploring Castle Ravenloft, adventurers might discover a torture chamber in the dungeon below the caste that implies that torture has taken place there in the past, and that the current evil owner of the castle is probably capable of inflicting torture on prisoners.Torture might be part of a character or location’s backstory, it just isn’t something I enjoy playing out in real time.
You might have your own hard or soft content limits. If you wish, you can share them with the group or with me privately, and I will make sure to plan the campaign accordingly.
If something happens during the game that bothers you, please flag it and I’ll adjust, even if it’s something you’d forgotten to mention earlier (like if you forgot to mention you’re arachnophobic and now giant spiders have turned up, for example).

One of the reasons I like doing this in a form that everyone signs is that it often saves a lot of time and makes individual conversations with individual players unnecessary. It covers the common sense basics and then you only need to spend extra time if there's anything BEYOND what's on the form that needs to be addressed.

It also can save a lot of time if a problem DOES come up at the table, like bullying, for example. I as the DM can readily say, "Look, you've already said before we began that you wouldn't do this. It's right here." Of course that very, very rarely actually happens, but it can be quite useful when it does to have laid this stuff out in writing beforehand. ESPECIALLY if you're running loads of games and many of the players don't know each other.

I also have to say it's hard to have a good faith conversation about this if you're gonna open with the idea that only "drama queens" "seafood pizza players" and "Americans" would do this. It makes it hard to believe you genuinely are interested in anybody's perspective but your own.

 

[TiQuinn]

That would be if there's anything specific let me know. If it's minor I can accommodate it if it's theoretically a biggie eg endead in CoS you forever less would have to say this campaign may not be for you.

That’s fine but do you see how you are making a lot of generalizations in your initial post that may not resonate with people?

 

[Zardnaar]

I have a generic code of conduct form that I use for one-shots, and a more specific one that I incorporate into a session zero document for ongoing campaigns.

I've never see a PLAYER submit a "consent form" to a DM, but I find it very common for DMs to provide codes of conduct or safety tools, etc to players. The idea that "nobody has ever heard of this" is weird to me; they've been around for years. I think I first saw one in 2017 or 2018 but I'm sure they pre-date that.

Of course they can't cover every possible thing that might bother a person, but do you really think they can't cover the most COMMON things?

My docs have a bit about players and DM are expected to behave which runs like this:



...and then there's a bit in a separate section about hard & soft content limits:



One of the reasons I like doing this in a form that everyone signs is that it often saves a lot of time and makes individual conversations with individual players unnecessary. It covers the common sense basics and then you only need to spend extra time if there's anything BEYOND what's on the form that needs to be addressed.

It also can save a lot of time if a problem DOES come up at the table, like bullying, for example. I as the DM can readily say, "Look, you've already said before we began that you wouldn't do this. It's right here." Of course that very, very rarely actually happens, but it can be quite useful when it does to have laid this stuff out in writing beforehand. ESPECIALLY if you're running loads of games and many of the players don't know each other.

I also have to say it's hard to have a good faith conversation about this if you're gonna open with the idea that only "drama queens" "seafood pizza players" and "Americans" would do this. It makes it hard to believe you genuinely are interested in anybody's perspective but your own.

I have written out ye older rules but mostly just cover things verbally in session 0.

American comment was because a lot if things happening in America just doesn't happen here IRL or is so rare you only hear about it.

A downside here is the "she'll be right culrure". If you have a problem no one says anything until someone explodes. And that's when you get the ragers or fists throw. More introverted kinda as we lack some things relatively.

Seen some crazy stuff over the years. If someone turns up tripping balls send them home for the session. And last time someone coukdnt keep their hands to themselves was an American going around doing nipple cripples idk what they call it.

 

[payn]

What is a seafood pizza player?

 

[Charlaquin]

Seafood pizza type players

You used that term in your opening post too, but I’ve never heard it before. What does this mean?

 

[Zardnaar]

What is a seafood pizza player?

Basically players who weaponize their preferences to try and force others to only do what they want.
Say you have 6 options. They veto 5 of them. And keep doing it. It's rare but I've seem it.