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

[FrogReaver]

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?

You seem to still be mistaken about the purpose of the rebuttal. It was to disprove the 'always accommodate' notion by providing an example of a time we shouldn't accommodate. No more, no less.

Now for how that relates to the above. I don't prescribe any particular playstyle for everyone. (I do defend mine when it is bashed, but that's beside the point here). Saying sometimes playing X way can be abused would be a rebuttal if i was to say one should always play X way, but I don't, so I have no idea what the same principle applied to playstyle would rebut anything i've said regarding playstyles.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

Sure.

Social. Basically group behaviour.

Sure. Though some of what you mention here is more a matter of tastefulness, rather than respecting a person's desire to not be traumatized.

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

I can agree that there are some mitigating factors, but I don't think it's nearly as grey as you might like.

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.

Oh, certainly if it's a brand-new player, they should probably just wait out that adventure. But remember, we're talking safety tools here, which are things best used prior to the beginning of play. Things are always going to be way, way, way more complicated when you're bringing in a new player into an established group, and such examples are not really a meaningful reason for rejecting safety tools.

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.

While that's fair, the only one of those that really seems even remotely plausible is "underground," as dragons aren't real (and thus rather hard to develop a particular trauma toward) and dungeons, while real, are pretty rarely actually used for anything these days. Further, there are plenty of ways to play D&D that don't involve going "underground" any further than basements. Urban adventures, forest adventures, ocean adventures, mountain-climbing, Spelljammer stuff, Plane of Air, all sorts of stuff.

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.

This would be a difficult thing, I agree--but the use of safety tools at the start of the game would be one of the major things to help prevent an issue and determine that no, there will not be any way to start a game with this player. As you say, it might be the case that this just wouldn't work for them. If their response to fire is THIS bad, they certainly do need to seek therapy for their situation, as there are things they can do that will help them live a more comfortable everyday life, so that (again, to reference my cousin who had a related but distinct experience) the issue would be people burning to death, not literally ANY form of fire being present EVER.

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) .

I don't see the link here.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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

I cannot answer the question, because it is incomplete.

What do you mean by "not accommodate some traumas in some circumstances"?
Because this statement has gotten--in this very thread--instantly parleyed into "okay, so if you don't like it, you'd better learn to like it or accept getting eternally excluded." Like with the war PTSD/BBQ-with-fireworks thing above.

Sometimes, it may not be possible to START a game with someone because their traumas are in too severe or fragile a state. Safety tools are one of the best ways to determine that in advance. Safety tools are, in fact, designed for that purpose, among others.

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

I mean, I can quote the posts where this stuff came up before if you like. Folks acting like these things get rampantly abused when it is actually exceedingly rare.

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.

Let me give you a similar thing: Should you always support and believe someone who claims they've been abused, unless and until you have good and clear reason to believe that they have lied or deceived about it?

Because the logic and reasoning is literally identical. The only compassionate, just response to someone telling you, "This is a deep and painful trauma for me and I can't actually have fun if it comes up" is to listen and work with them. They may prove, after that request, to be acting in bad faith. If--and only if--that happens, then the compassionate, just response is to condemn their bad behavior and expect remorse and appropriate restitution. Abusive behavior should never be tolerated--period, no matter who engages in it. It is especially odious to abuse tools like this, since that harms those who are already dealing with serious issues and makes it harder for future issues to

Or, as I've repeatedly said: The only situations where it's acceptable to not make some kind of accommodation is when someone is acting in bad faith.

If someone is acting in good faith, actually working with you and trying to find a real consensus solution, you should accommodate them--because part of acting in good faith, part of being reasonable, is that you recognize that some request you make are a bridge too far, but some rejections are also a bridge too far in the other direction. That does not mean that all possible ways to accommodate them have to be taken (not least because it's, generally, not physically possible to do all possible ways simultaneously!)--but it does mean that both sides should be coming to the table with understanding, reasonableness, respect, and compassion for one another. In some cases, where there are truly extreme problems, sure, it may simply be impossible--but the rarity of those situations is proportional to their extremity, no? E.g. the guy Zardnaar mentioned whose PTSD is set off by even the smallest flame needs a significant amount of mental health help; the issue there isn't the accommodation, but rather that they have a severe untreated health problem.

If I may, allow another analogous situation. Family reunion for Christmastime. Yearly event. Extremely important for keeping up family bonds, as the family is otherwise quite dispersed and may not have any other contact outside of this event. One aspect of the gathering is a traditional burning of an effigy for some reason or another, doused in gasoline, set on fire, everyone watches it burn. One member of the family gets into a really, really nasty car crash, and now associates the smell of burning gasoline with that trauma. Which is the appropriate response: "Well, I guess you just can't attend the reunion, sorry." Or, "Alright. We don't have to use gasoline to burn it. Probably isn't that good for the environment anyway. We'll figure out some other way." Because that's the kind of accommodations being asked for here. Not "You will never be allowed to do anything that involves fire or the idea of fire or even the suggestion of fire." It's, "I love my family. I don't want to miss our reunion. But I can't handle the smell of burning gasoline anymore. I want to make this work, without that one part."

People having some kind of issue is common, even universal. People having deep, horrible trauma is not.

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

Because I kept saying reasonableness, and yet that wasn't enough. The only possible conclusion to draw is that, if I had before you pushed back said that reasonableness was a requirement, then your point is that even some reasonable requests must be refused. That's not acceptable.

 

[FrogReaver]

I cannot answer the question, because it is incomplete.

What do you mean by "not accommodate some traumas in some circumstances"?
Accidentally posted. Please wait to reply until I edit

I don't understand what you don't understand about the question. Seems rather straightforward to me.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It absolutely, positively does not.


That is an extremely crappy attitude and I will not hide my disdain for it.


You've just committed the error again: "accommodate all potential issues." No. No one is asking for that. 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.

YOU are the one turning this into something monstrous. Stop.


Then why not take him at his word? You took him at his word for all the stuff before this. Why is this not the same way?


See above.


Okay. Have you not noticed the numerous, extensive times where we've mentioned that safety tools are about fostering conversations that can be incredibly difficult for people to have? That they're about showing respect to others? That they're about helping people work together, and require people to be reasonable participants in good faith?

Because it really seems like you're going out of your way to either pretend nobody ever mentioned that, or acting like every single person in this thread who has done so is lying about it, or somehow thinking that crappy, abusive uses of this stuff is somehow a HORRIBLE PLAGUE UPON BOTH YOUR HOUSES when actually such abuses are extremely rare.


I'm genuinely really confused by these two statements. On the one hand, you have a clear "who cares, you'd better buckle up and get over your wussy nonsense if you want to do anything in any group ever." On the other, apparently one's spouse and children deserve a guarantee of accommodation...? This is a truly bizarre contrast.


Ah, so obviously the best thing to do is throw a big middle finger at them and never, ever care about their issues nor ever try to lift a finger to make their lives easier. They'd better suffer in silence for the family!

I'm hearing a lot of extremes here, where if it's not all the way in one direction then it must clearly be all the way in the other direction. That's just not how it is, IMO.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't see how there can be any argument that at least SOME accommodation is always the correct thing to do--so long as the people participating are participating in good faith.

And if anyone is actually acting in bad faith, do you really think that the absolute avoidance of safety tools makes any difference whatsoever? They're already acting in bad faith--the tools don't inspire that, and it will express itself some other way.

Which would be why I made the reference to the absolute-power DMing earlier. Somehow, safety tools are unacceptable because there is the slimmest possibility that someone might abuse them. But genuinely maximal DM latitude, where one person has all the power and zero responsibility short of outright player revolt? Nobody would EVER abuse that, apparently--or if they would, such cases are somehow not a valid response.

Pick one or the other. Either DMs abusing their immense power actually was a problem all along, or players abusing safety tools as a cudgel to beat people with really isn't as big a deal as you're making it out to be. You cannot have it both ways.

Has anyone here actually said that safety tools are unacceptable? I think you might be reading into things.

 

[Zardnaar]

Sure.


Sure. Though some of what you mention here is more a matter of tastefulness, rather than respecting a person's desire to not be traumatized.


I can agree that there are some mitigating factors, but I don't think it's nearly as grey as you might like.


Oh, certainly if it's a brand-new player, they should probably just wait out that adventure. But remember, we're talking safety tools here, which are things best used prior to the beginning of play. Things are always going to be way, way, way more complicated when you're bringing in a new player into an established group, and such examples are not really a meaningful reason for rejecting safety tools.


While that's fair, the only one of those that really seems even remotely plausible is "underground," as dragons aren't real (and thus rather hard to develop a particular trauma toward) and dungeons, while real, are pretty rarely actually used for anything these days. Further, there are plenty of ways to play D&D that don't involve going "underground" any further than basements. Urban adventures, forest adventures, ocean adventures, mountain-climbing, Spelljammer stuff, Plane of Air, all sorts of stuff.


This would be a difficult thing, I agree--but the use of safety tools at the start of the game would be one of the major things to help prevent an issue and determine that no, there will not be any way to start a game with this player. As you say, it might be the case that this just wouldn't work for them. If their response to fire is THIS bad, they certainly do need to seek therapy for their situation, as there are things they can do that will help them live a more comfortable everyday life, so that (again, to reference my cousin who had a related but distinct experience) the issue would be people burning to death, not literally ANY form of fire being present EVER.


I don't see the link here.

Some traumas are above my pay grade. All the major ones are already covered.

That woukd leave hypothetical ones eg arachnophobia. I know people in my group don't like spiders D&D ones are fine though.

Burnt guy I worked with happy to go deal with the methylated spirits he did the hard part. He wasn't a D&D player but hypothetically yeah might not be for hm if fake D&D flames are an issue.

Fireballs generally 5-10d6 I don't generally narrate the burning parts.

I'm not a therapist, parent or babysitter. Babysitter part came up couple of weeks ago (yes your kid can play if you are).

I have done the underground part. Lights out under a mountain in water. Not exactly fun.

 

[FrogReaver]

Has anyone here actually said that safety tools are unacceptable? I think you might be reading into things.

It seems it depends on what is meant by saftey tools. For my group - the survey or card type things wouldn't be acceptable. I'd either be laughed out of the group or everyone would get really silent and awkward. Though the adhoc session 0 stuff where everyone can voice concerns pre campaign is still there. But if some other group finds them helpful, then i'm also not against them using them.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Has anyone here actually said that safety tools are unacceptable? I think you might be reading into things.

Certainly. I replied to someone earlier in the thread who explicitly said that they would refuse to participate in any game that used any safety tools, at all, for any reason. I can dig it up if you like.

It seems it depends on what is meant by saftey tools. For my group - the survey or card type things wouldn't be acceptable. I'd either be laughed out of the group or everyone would get really silent and awkward. Though the adhoc session 0 stuff where everyone can voice concerns pre campaign is still there. But if some other group finds them helpful, then i'm also not against them using them.

I genuinely don't understand why they would laugh you out of the group or get really silent and awkward. Is it just that you don't have anyone in your group who has ever suffered trauma, and thus they don't understand how incredibly difficult it can be to speak up even a bit? Because let me tell you, even being able to speak the words at all is one of the hardest things you'll ever do.

 

[Zardnaar]

Certainly. I replied to someone earlier in the thread who explicitly said that they would refuse to participate in any game that used any safety tools, at all, for any reason. I can dig it up if you like.


I genuinely don't understand why they would laugh you out of the group or get really silent and awkward. Is it just that you don't have anyone in your group who has ever suffered trauma, and thus they don't understand how incredibly difficult it can be to speak up even a bit? Because let me tell you, even being able to speak the words at all is one of the hardest things you'll ever do.

Here it's more private chat. None of then even know what they are so it's a moot point.

Everyone in the groups has watched GoT or played BG3 or Assassins Creed.

Directly asked if anything in those games is a problem (minus BG3 sexy party time and Ramsey Bolton).

One of the games is based heavily on AC:Odyssey. They're all R18 basically I do PG13 with F bombs running Dungeon and starter adventures.

Those games and shows pretty much cover everything that would come up in my games. They're also a lot more visual.