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

[Belen]

I've been doing a "session zero" since the 90s. I have always encouraged players to speak to me and sought feedback from them. I run PG-13 games with most "serious" themes off-screen. I disallow evil characters and use the "do not be a jerk" rule.

I also use a "no politics" rule. I do not want to discuss politics or social issues at the table. My experience is that people can no longer handle friendly discussion and/or debate. I see too many people that have gone down the social media algorithm route and that just breeds tribal BS hatred.

I, generally, would not run or play in a game with safety tools.

 

[Zardnaar]

I've been doing a "session zero" since the 90s. I have always encouraged players to speak to me and sought feedback from them. I run PG-13 games with most "serious" themes off-screen. I disallow evil characters and use the "do not be a jerk" rule.

I also use a "no politics" rule. I do not want to discuss politics or social issues at the table. My experience is that people can no longer handle friendly discussion and/or debate. I see too many people that have gone down the social media algorithm route and that just breeds tribal BS hatred.

I, generally, would not run or play in a game with safety tools.

No jerk rule is food.

I gave mentioned politics and religion outside the gane leave it to before or after the game.

I've filtered out most of that anyway and it's a stronghold locally so most people on the same page broadly anyway.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If enough unhappy players leave and you don't have a steady stream of replacements to fill empty seats, the happy DM sits at a table alone playing with himself.

I really don't get this obsession in the community with one side "beating" the other, or having an "absolute" authority, etc.

How do real people resolve disagreements and come to decisions IRL? If two spouses both want to go out to eat, it's not like one "wins" and the other loses because they choose something. They talk about it like adults, assuming a nominally healthy relationship, and come to a consensus. A group of friends hanging out together decide what to do while they're hanging out don't suddenly break down into a useless mess because they actually talk out the decision-making process.

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.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I, generally, would not run or play in a game with safety tools.

Session 0 is a safety tool.

 

[Steampunkette]

And making an ideological stance about -refusing- to play or run games with safety tools is a political position... sooo...

 

[Belen]

Session 0 is a safety tool.

Feel free to describe it that way. I see it more as a way to prep the game and finalize characters.

 

[Morrus]

Feel free to describe it that way. I see it more as a way to prep the game and finalize characters.

So your objection is to the stigma you associate with the term 'safety tool'? Because session zero is the OG safety tool.

Sure, keep doing session zero. We won't tell people you're using a dirty word safety tool.

 

[Belen]

And making an ideological stance about -refusing- to play or run games with safety tools is a political position... sooo...

Hence, my no politics rule. People have made the use of them into a litmus test.

Maybe they have issues with certain topics but I think it is more a problem with people.

I do not care what someone believes as long as they are respectful and decent to each other.

I find it problematic that this is immediately used as a label.

 

[Older Beholder]

Safety tools aren’t about making everyone eat seafood pizza cause that’s what you like.
They’re about making sure there is no seafood pizza if someone is allergic to seafood.

 

[Morrus]

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.

Nope. That's not it, Zardnaar.

Look, I get it. You see yourself as a hard-swearing Aussie MAN DAMMIT, and you have no truck with with peoples' feelings. Or grammar. It's nonsense, you don't care that you're one of the most ignored people on the forum, social interaction isn't your thing, I get it.

But your analogy sucks.

The correct analogy is you order pizza for everybody and somebody says they're allergic to nuts, so you order Extra Peanut Pizza, like a dickhead.

Maybe... just... be nice to people?