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

[FrogReaver]

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.

Is it not possible that colloquially 'take care of' = 'manage'?

 

[Umbran]

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.

Okay. So, one of my players has complex PTSD from childhood abuse.

If you think "catering to your trauma" is what I do when considering this player's needs, you are very, very wrong. You might be better served asking more questions about what it means to work with someone who has legitimate trauma, and pass rather fewer judgements.

 

[MGibster]

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

Sure. Like I posted earlier, the difficulty with these kinds of discussions is that every situation needed to be looked at individually. What's reasonable in one circumstance might not be reasonable in another. My default position is that I'm inclined to make an accommodation when a player asks for one. It doesn't even matter to me why they want something excluded from a game. It might be because they find something unpleasant even if it's not going to trigger an anxiety attack.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

The rebuttal is to the notion that one should always accommodate such things. Pointing out a case in which we shouldn't accommodate such things counters that specific assertion. I hope you get this part soon, because I'm running out of ways to say it.

 

[Zardnaar]

Here the broadcasting standards authority uses reasonable person in terms of complaints. And what time sonething screens.

So several overlapping things. Basically how well do you know the player and how important the problem is to a game.

Social. Basically group behaviour. Our group swears NZs very casual as well (not as bad as Australia in terms of swearing). Heard the one word we're not supposed to say last night. F bombs no big deal. This is just an example but if thats a deal breaker this game is not suitable. I can tone it down for myself best I can but I can't/won't police everyone else. It's to ingrained. If you're paying me to DM for kids I can do my best that's a bit different. Kids these days hear plenty of swearing (hell we did in the 80s).

General guidelines is intentionally making other players uncomfortable. Unintentionally is very Grey.

If it's integral to the adventure eg spiders and city of the Spider Queen it depends on the situation. New players joining existing group have very little agency in a situation like that. This is what we are playing or want to play.

If something happens in ongoing game to a player it really depends on the situation. If it's integral to the game (dungeons, dragons, underground) D&D may not be the game for them. I would look at something like Star Wars or Board games to include them.

An example of this was a guy I worked with. Got badly burnt. You could see him flinch if someone used a cigarette lighter. I can't really remove fire magic from the game as it impacts other players and it's to iconic. At the job he more or less had to deal with flames being around but others would directly do it when required. They couldn't not do it. I might be able to do a custom game for that player and anyone else who wants to play assuming it was an issue or different game.

Kinda overlaps with what the DM allows. In 5E I ban flyers and silvery barbs. In OSR your Kinda limited by the system you're playing (4-12ish races tolkein to AD&D ones generally) .

 

[FrogReaver]

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?

I'm not going to have the DM power discussion here, which is what doing this kind of comparison is ultimately going to lead to. If you can find another way to bring out your point then I'm game.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

Yes. That is 100% acting in bad faith.

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

Yes.

I'd even add expecting them to is.

Forcing, expecting, same difference in this context, because "forcing" is only in a social-contract sense...and is thus just a very strong expectation.

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.

They have. Repeatedly. I have, repeatedly, emphasized that reasonableness and respect are incredibly important here. This emphasis has been ignored, in favor of playing up the--actual quote here--"seafood pizza" defense, where one player is forcing everyone else to eat seafood pizza. As opposed to, y'know, a person saying "please don't cook pork, I'm Jewish and can't eat that."

The issue for me is squarely on the reasonableness and expectations of accommodations afterwards.

Hmmm. Let me see...

Just as D&D and other games use rules as a way to simplify processes and keep things fair and reasonable, D&D players may use consent/preparatory tools to help keep things fair and reasonable when it comes to thematics rather than mechanics. Just like rules, they can't be used blindly, and they absolutely should not ever be used as a cudgel.

Because if so then that seems pretty clear to me that you do think a reasonable solution can be reached by reasonable players in actual-play situations, so long as the participants (DM and player alike) are in fact participating in good faith.

Naturally, as with all things, there are limits of reasonability, and it is eminently possible for an instigator to go way too far, just as it is possible for an overthinker (or control freak, if you prefer) to go way too far in the opposite direction and shut the game down until they're perfectly happy.

People are asking for reasonable accommodation of serious issues when said accommodation costs little to nothing for those accommodating, especially when it's extremely difficult for the person in need of accommodation to actually ask, due to the MANY social pressures to suffer silently or withdraw completely.

How many more times must I (just one person in this thread talking about this stuff--others have also done so) mention "reasonableness" before it is sufficient to say that we have, in fact, actually recognized that reasonableness is important?

Because I've been doing this since since post #53. We're now on post #316+. I'm not sure how it would be possible to better fulfill the stated expectation.

 

[Scribe]

People need to be a bit slower on assuming that their assumptions are iron-clad.

People have experiences that their online communication and 'persona' may not reflect, and I would argue a forum about Elf Games likely isnt the place for dragging that out. Indeed I would argue that an Elf Game is not for dragging that out, but I'm not here to tell you all what to do at your own tables.

So just like content I wont engage with, I'm done with this one.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm not going to have the DM power discussion here, which is what doing this kind of comparison is ultimately going to lead to. If you can find another way to bring out your point then I'm game.

Okay. Others already brought it up in this very same thread, so I figured it was apropos to continue that, but...fine.

What is special about this particular "this can be abused, so we cannot allow it to happen" argument, when others, such as homebrewing or "rulings not rules" etc., which not only could be but are abused (consider the absolute mountain of trash from Dandwiki.com), but which are considered absolutely essential for good/real/true D&D play? Again, there are many things that, explicitly, get approval despite the "but this could be abused" rebuttal, with that rebuttal being rejected because the mere possibility of abuse is claimed to be irrelevant. Why is the possibility of abuse here a sufficient thing that I should accept it as a rebuttal now, when that rebuttal has been so thoroughly rejected previously when I have made it on other topics?

 

[FrogReaver]

Yes. That is 100% acting in bad faith.


Yes.

Okay fair.

Forcing, expecting, same difference in this context, because "forcing" is only in a social-contract sense...and is thus just a very strong expectation.

Glad to get to some common ground!

They have. Repeatedly. I have, repeatedly, emphasized that reasonableness and respect are incredibly important here.

Just to be clear you are saying that it's reasonable to not accommodate some traumas in some circumstances?

This emphasis has been ignored, in favor of playing up the--actual quote here--"seafood pizza" defense, where one player is forcing everyone else to eat seafood pizza. As opposed to, y'know, a person saying "please don't cook pork, I'm Jewish and can't eat that."

I'm a bit doubtful it has, but maybe. I think the answer to my previous question will be telling.

Hmmm. Let me see...

How many more times must I (just one person in this thread talking about this stuff--others have also done so) mention "reasonableness" before it is sufficient to say that we have, in fact, actually recognized that reasonableness is important?

I'm happy with once as long as it's clear we mean it in mostly the same way. That's not been clear yet, especially given all the pushback you give me on the notion that there are situations where it's acceptable for accommodation to not be made.

Because I've been doing this since since post #53. We're now on post #316+. I'm not sure how it would be possible to better fulfill the stated expectation.

Then all your pushback toward me and my statements seem odd. But maybe you can explain that better.