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

[MGibster]

Ah, the wonderful "since you have trauma, keep it to yourself and never participate in society" response.

I've already written in this thread about how you can accommodate someone's needs in game. I can't imagine expecting everyone to cater to your trauma is a healthy way of dealing with that trauma.

 

[Remathilis]

The world doesn't revolve around that person's pain. The needs of that one person doesn't take priority over the needs and wants of everyone else. Someone who has suffered a trauma to the point where they have social anxiety problems needs to figure out the best way to tackle those problems. The best way might be stepping away from a game they know they'll have a problem with.

Probably in part because the word triggering has been overly used these past few years. It used to be when someone said something triggered them I knew it meant an anxiety attack. These days I'm not sure if they mean an anxiety attack or it's simply something they don't like.

Nope. I'm sure there's content I'd walk away from, but given that I'm dead inside, it'd probably have to be pretty serious.

I hope to God you never get PTSD. It's horrible. My friend's brother cannot do a lot of things you or I take for granted like watching Marvel movies in the theater. My grandpa had a heart attack watching the Tonight Show and he could never watch Johnny Carson without remembering the chest pain. (And he was a tough old man who was a POW in WW2).

I guess it's good you're "dead inside", but don't belittle other people's pain.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

What I actually just said in the post you quoted that it was a weak point because it didn't say anything about people participating in good faith...

Then I don't understand. How can someone, genuinely using these tools in good faith--which explicitly speak about mutual respect, about communication and cooperation and collaboration--do so in a way that is so profoundly disrespectful? Forcing everyone else to dance to your tune is incredibly disrespectful. Wanting to have a conversation about how to ensure every participant is having fun and not getting slammed with painful trauma is merely asking for others to respect you. How can that be a problem?

 

[MGibster]

I hope to God you never get PTSD. It's horrible. My friend's brother cannot do a lot of things you or I take for granted like watching Marvel movies in the theater. My grandpa had a heart attack watching the Tonight Show and he could never watch Johnny Carson without remembering the chest pain. (And he was a tough old man who was a POW in WW2).

We might be straying a little afar from this thread. I've had relatives who had PTSD, and I don't recall any of them suggesting the rest of us cater to their needs. Instead they went to therapy so they could figure out how to take care of their anxiety.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

As I've said before in this thread, rarely.

Okay. So why should the rebuttal be a particularly meaningful one? "You should accommodate others, because in the vast majority of cases, doing so is healthy and shows respect for the people you game with." I don't see how "but it can be abused!" is in any way a relevant rebuttal to this.

Possibly yes, but not necessarily.

Okay...how? Why? Just saying "possibly yes" does not an argument make.

Not sure what maximal DM latitude has to do with this. Are you suggesting the DM is intentional trying to cause anxiety attacks in their players? If so then that's far rarer than saftey tool abuses. If not then it really seems an irrelevant, tangential discussion that we've had 50x before and doesn't seem like it'll be any more productive this time or shed any light on this topic.

The point was that I have seen you, personally, make the argument in other threads that DMs having absolute power--them being the last word, the decider, etc., etc.--is extremely important, and the fact that some bad DMs might abuse that power is an unacceptable reason to attempt to curtail such behavior. That we should, always, give DMs maximal latitude even though that might, possibly, enable some abusive DMs, because the benefits gained by DMs being able to do whatever they like are massively more common, important, and useful than "protecting" players from bad DMs.

Why is it that safety tools potentially being abused or leading to bad results is a reason to reject such things, but DMs potentially abusing their absolute power is not a reason to reject such things?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

We might be straying a little afar from this thread. I've had relatives who had PTSD, and I don't recall any of them suggesting the rest of us cater to their needs. Instead they went to therapy so they could figure out how to take care of their anxiety.

You....seem to be under the mistaken belief that it is possible to "take care" of this. As though it is a condition that can be cured.

At best, it can be managed. Asking others to work with you to help you manage it is part of that management.

 

[FrogReaver]

Then I don't understand. How can someone, genuinely using these tools in good faith--which explicitly speak about mutual respect, about communication and cooperation and collaboration--do so in a way that is so profoundly disrespectful?

Suppose the person insisted that you were a terrible person if you didn't accommodate their issue in this one particular game. I'd say that's profoundly disrespectful.

Maybe your big list of adjectives was meant to exclude this possibility?

Forcing everyone else to dance to your tune is incredibly disrespectful.

I'd even add expecting them to is.

Wanting to have a conversation about how to ensure every participant is having fun and not getting slammed with painful trauma is merely asking for others to respect you. How can that be a problem?

As I said before, I don't think anyone has actually came out against having a chat about what will be in the game and keeping an open line of communication up in case something traumatic or even disliked comes up. The issue for me is squarely on the reasonableness and expectations of accommodations afterwards.

 

[FrogReaver]

Okay...how? Why? Just saying "possibly yes" does not an argument make.

Sigh, you asked a question and I answered it.

 

[Scribe]

Someone with a trauma like wartime PTSD will not be able to "step away from" that one activity. They will not get the choice to "choose to take the initiative to not engage with content that [they] dont [sic] want to engage with".

If there are fireworks at that friends-and-family-reunion BBQ, they don't get to participate anymore.

That's the problem here. You have straight-up said, "Well, because we like fireworks, we're going to use them, even though that guarantees you can't participate."

It's literally not what I said, and I am surprised you can misread to that degree.

 

[Umbran]

I'm specifically addressing Scribes take, but if the shoe fits...

I didn't address anyone specific in that post. If you are seeing yourself in that statement, that's on you.

Mod Note:

These are a way back in the thread, but perhaps they bear some attention...

The snide, passive-aggression may feel good, like you got in a real zinger against someone, but it makes you look like... a snide, passive aggressive person who likes to make individuals feel bad. So, you might want to ask yourself a few questions:

Do you figure folks actually want to listen to a snide, passive-aggressive person? Do you figure that the world's general impression of snide, passive-aggressive people is that they are wise, or have insight worth sharing? Is that zinger good for anyone other than you?

Having asked yourself those things, maybe ask yourself if you ever want to respond to people in that way again, whether it is worth what it is apt to lead to folks thinking about you, as a poster, and whether it is worth the moderator attention it attracts for making things personal...