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

[Micah Sweet]

Sorry, everyone has issues. And most people don’t feel able to talk about them unless they feel that they are in a safe and comfortable environment.

Thinking “it’s not up to me” is both having an issue, and being a jerk.

This mismatch of expectations on the issue is perhaps the biggest obstacle to overcoming it. Folks simply aren't on the same page here, and like seemingly everything else nowadays it can't be discussed apparently without emotions, tribalism and sometimes moral judgement getting involved.

Not speaking to anyone in particular here, just the larger concern.

Personally I don't use X-cards or consent forms (although a buddy of mine used a form in a game he ran for us once. It was fine), but I do have a session 0 discussion where we talk about the game themes and everyone has an opportunity to let us know what they want and what they don't want. This has worked well for me for long time friends and new players both, as far as I know anyway.

 

[FrogReaver]

Even if they don’t, they know the group is at least trying to create a safe environment. Being a jerk is not trying. Trying unsuccessfully is always going to happen sometimes, but “it may not work” is not a valid excuse not to try.

Probably won’t work is a valid excuse.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That's the problem with lists. Dont be a jerk don't roll play a jerk.

You've got your big obvious ones that are mostly theoretical.

There's a large Grey area of less obvious stuff that may or may not be aggravating.

Something "aggravating" may not have anything to do with being a jerk. The things I spoke of are quite concrete...and I even gave examples. But since those apparently weren't concrete enough, some examples I have been told by people I know, or have witnessed myself.

Coercive:

• A player pressuring my Friend A into having their characters begin a romantic relationship, and then pushing sexual behaviors at Friend A's character with the openly declared intent of getting that character pregnant.
• A player directly talking to "god" (meaning, our DM) in order to get said DM to completely change what kind of game they're running through bulldozing anything they have to say. This was in a Pokemon tabletop game, which was this DM's first and (AFAIK) only DMing session beacuse of how bad the problem player was. One of the worst, most egregious behaviors I've ever seen at a (virtual) table.
• A player secretly having one-on-one conversations with every other player except my friend B and the DM, causing friend B to be effectively ostracized from the group even though only the coercive player had an actual problem with them.

Abusive:

• Friend B (same as above) in a different game had to deal with a Problem Player who simply did not like bothering with diplomacy or discussion or any form of interaction with living creatures that wasn't (a) pure currency-exchange shopping or (b) killinating everything that moves. So any time a conversation would run longer than a minute or two, for any reason, they'd start declaring attacks and forcing the party into ever greater murderhoboism, even though no one else wanted that and repeatedly told them as such. Eventually the problem player was ejected from the group.
• Friend C (who has played in many, many games now) had a game where someone was RPing a character with strong beliefs about the superiority of, IIRC, elves. They singled out Friend C's character for particular invective, and would not stop being really cruel and insulting because "it's what my character would do." Even though it was ruining Friend C's fun.
• Friend C (same as above) had, as one of their first D&D games, a game where one of the players had the DM wrapped around their little finger, with strong suspicions that the two were down-low romantically involved. We're talking "custom race which gave only this player's first-level character A NINTH LEVEL SPELL" levels of egregious favoritism. Friend C was in a real bad emotional state at the time, and this game was meant to be an emotional release. This one was so bad, it actually managed to overcome my impostor syndrome and get me to run a game (as I have mentioned on this forum before).

Perhaps it's because I'm tired, but exploitative ones don't come to mind. I did, however, give the very specific example of an actual user on this very forum (I won't name names because I don't think that's appropriate) who proposed a clearly exploitative behavior. Nothing theoretical about that. It was something an actual person said on here. I could probably dig up a link if you really want it, but I'm 99.9% sure you were a participant in that conversation to begin with.

Seen some crazy stuff a lot of that was years ago or on the MtG side of things.

Okay. Not really sure how that's relevant here? Completely different game.

The bolded might be various annoying things but "abusive" is not one of them.

It sure as hell is and I'm not really sure how you can possibly defend this behavior. If you literally INSTANTLY declare "I attack" because you're bored, you're abusing the spirit of the game by refusing to actually participate in the game offered, and instead forcing everyone else to play your way. It is, in every meaningful way, exactly the "seafood pizza" problem Zardnaar bitched about earlier: one participant declaring that everyone will have the experience that one participant wants to have, regardless of their interests or preferences.

Now, if you are getting bored at the table with long conversations or too little fighting, that's a perfectly okay response to have, and there are perfectly acceptable non-abusive ways to address it. Talk to the DM, tell them you were hoping for a more action-oriented game and that all the talking/exploring/etc. is wearing thin. Let the other players know you'd appreciate it if they didn't dwell so long on stuff you aren't having fun with. Propose possible things the group can do that would still respect their preferences, while also respecting your preferences. And if a player IS getting bored, as long as that player is remaining respectful, the onus is 100% on the DM to figure out where the disconnect is and fix it.

The instant you start doing things like, "I attack the king!" because you just don't feel like doing any more talking? You've become a problem player. You have abused the trust of the group, and you have merited some form of censure, even if you were completely justified in feeling bored and wanting to see some action.

The phrase that pays here, and humorously more literally than usual, is "cool motive, still murder."

 

[SteveC]

Personally I don't use X-cards or consent forms (although a buddy of mine used a form in a game he ran for us once. It was fine), but I do have a session 0 discussion where we talk about the game themes and everyone has an opportunity to let us know what they want and what they don't want. This has worked well for me for long time friends and new players both, as far as I know anyway.

I do the same thing. I've been convinced that using X cards, especially with people who have difficulty speaking up for themselves (which is a surprisingly large number of people in the hobby), makes things worse. If you're upset by something but can't throw a card, everyone may think you're okay with something you're not. That's my job as the GM. And session 0 is where we talk about it.

I was thinking about Curse of Strahd in this context. When I ran it online, I talked about what kind of horror would be entailed. One of my closest friends didn't play in the game because of threats to children. He has a son who very nearly died at birth, and this is a no-go for him. I offered to make changes to the game, but he said that horror in gaming just wasn't his thing. And I was okay with him not playing because I knew that I would be intense in how I pushed the players in the game.

And we still joke about how much one of the players loved the Dream Pasteries years later. Some games aren't for some people but work brilliantly for others.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I just try to read the room and do the best I can. I do have a fondness for horror and suspense, so I sometimes draw up things meant to invoke fear or dread in my players, but I'll back off if I sense its getting truly uncomfortable for someone.

The three main reasons for using safety tools are (a) it's really not that easy to read everyone, that is, you might be good at reading most people, but some people are very good at hiding their responses, (b) you may not realize just how much you've affected someone, as touching a nerve can be very sudden and come from things that might seem fairly benign in general*, and (c) they can give you the confidence to move in particularly drastic or dramatic action, confident that doing so won't ruin the game for anyone, but rather will enhance it for all.

That's really the whole point: Preparation, so that you can move forward confidently, knowing that everyone at the table will be enthusiastic participants, rather than fearing what might befall them.

*Consider one of my cousins, call him Jeff. He survived nearly full-body burns as a young child, and had PTSD from it. Thankfully, you couldn't tell he'd been burned, his skin had almost miraculously recovered. Still, Jeff would be DEEPLY traumatized by something like having a beloved NPC slain "off screen" by a dragon's fiery breath, even though such a thing is quite a real risk in D&D-land. If the goal of killing that NPC is sudden, shocking dread, there's literally no way to not induce this kind of response in someone like Jeff, because the swift and sudden revelation is the whole point. You'd never know not to spring this on him because he didn't like talking about it for, I would think, very obvious reasons.

I rankle at the terminology for safety tools, though I'm sure I unconsciously use some form of them, though I could never see myself using consent forms.

Nothing wrong with not really caring for consent forms (they're a pretty stuffy and IMO inefficient way of going about things, I'll be honest!), but I'm curious why the terminology rankles you. As noted, the whole point is to help promote respect and mutual understanding, so that everyone can participate enthusiastically and chase after riskier experiences or events without worrying that it will cause harm to anyone.

 

[FrogReaver]

It sure as hell is and I'm not really sure how you can possibly defend this behavior. If you literally INSTANTLY declare "I attack" because you're bored, you're abusing the spirit of the game by refusing to actually participate in the game offered, and instead forcing everyone else to play your way.

No one else at the table has to back up the attacking PC. Guards come for your pc the rest of the group helps apprehend the attacking PC to show the would be victim they weren’t involved. Etc. No real derailment for the rest of the group Just a minor speed bump.

 

[jasper]

..

I have never had any trouble with this, largely because I have the GM Empathy feat. ....

Lame feat. I suggest the "Old Fart" feat which gives you advantage vs jerks at the table but the flaw of sleepy.zzzzzzzzzz

 

[Micah Sweet]

The three main reasons for using safety tools are (a) it's really not that easy to read everyone, that is, you might be good at reading most people, but some people are very good at hiding their responses, (b) you may not realize just how much you've affected someone, as touching a nerve can be very sudden and come from things that might seem fairly benign in general*, and (c) they can give you the confidence to move in particularly drastic or dramatic action, confident that doing so won't ruin the game for anyone, but rather will enhance it for all.

That's really the whole point: Preparation, so that you can move forward confidently, knowing that everyone at the table will be enthusiastic participants, rather than fearing what might befall them.

*Consider one of my cousins, call him Jeff. He survived nearly full-body burns as a young child, and had PTSD from it. Thankfully, you couldn't tell he'd been burned, his skin had almost miraculously recovered. Still, Jeff would be DEEPLY traumatized by something like having a beloved NPC slain "off screen" by a dragon's fiery breath, even though such a thing is quite a real risk in D&D-land. If the goal of killing that NPC is sudden, shocking dread, there's literally no way to not induce this kind of response in someone like Jeff, because the swift and sudden revelation is the whole point. You'd never know not to spring this on him because he didn't like talking about it for, I would think, very obvious reasons.


Nothing wrong with not really caring for consent forms (they're a pretty stuffy and IMO inefficient way of going about things, I'll be honest!), but I'm curious why the terminology rankles you. As noted, the whole point is to help promote respect and mutual understanding, so that everyone can participate enthusiastically and chase after riskier experiences or events without worrying that it will cause harm to anyone.

Some people prefer being casual with their friends and fellow hobbyists. Safety tool terminology is rather clinical, like discussing psychology in a classroom or other formal environment can be. I find it uncomfortable to refer to people using such terms; to me it implies they're less an individual and more a patient with an official recognized condition.

 

[FrogReaver]

The three main reasons for using safety tools are (a) it's really not that easy to read everyone, that is, you might be good at reading most people, but some people are very good at hiding their responses, (b) you may not realize just how much you've affected someone, as touching a nerve can be very sudden and come from things that might seem fairly benign in general*, and (c) they can give you the confidence to move in particularly drastic or dramatic action, confident that doing so won't ruin the game for anyone, but rather will enhance it for all.

That's really the whole point: Preparation, so that you can move forward confidently, knowing that everyone at the table will be enthusiastic participants, rather than fearing what might befall them.

*Consider one of my cousins, call him Jeff. He survived nearly full-body burns as a young child, and had PTSD from it. Thankfully, you couldn't tell he'd been burned, his skin had almost miraculously recovered. Still, Jeff would be DEEPLY traumatized by something like having a beloved NPC slain "off screen" by a dragon's fiery breath, even though such a thing is quite a real risk in D&D-land. If the goal of killing that NPC is sudden, shocking dread, there's literally no way to not induce this kind of response in someone like Jeff, because the swift and sudden revelation is the whole point. You'd never know not to spring this on him because he didn't like talking about it for, I would think, very obvious reasons.


Nothing wrong with not really caring for consent forms (they're a pretty stuffy and IMO inefficient way of going about things, I'll be honest!), but I'm curious why the terminology rankles you. As noted, the whole point is to help promote respect and mutual understanding, so that everyone can participate enthusiastically and chase after riskier experiences or events without worrying that it will cause harm to anyone.

The simple fact is, there’s no preventative measure that actually solves the problem. There’s some methods that may help some people. Some of those methods may exacerbate the problem for others. Which is kind of the theme for this thread.

Best thing we have boils down to imperfect human communication - which relies on far too many unstated assumption between people and major inefficiencies of trying to be 100% thorough.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It down to how you narrate, not what you narrate. You can certainly do it with CoS. In theory. It’s difficult, and I’m bad at it, having a natural inclination towards comedy.

For my part, I love inducing dread in my players--but I'm also aware that most forms of "dread" that TTRPGs try to invoke are pretty cheap. The dread equivalent of a "jump scare", hollow and transitory. That's why I go for dread that is much more creeping and personal. Deals with devils where the devil wants the deal completed, and so does the PC--so there's always the haunting worry that you've given a powerful evil being something they wanted. Powerful figures sponsoring your adventures for political aims you don't know and probably will never find out...but which might come back to bite you. Artifacts that are powerful and sinister but without any clear downsides (e.g. the "+5 sword found in a random early dungeon" that isn't actually bad, but has bad vibes), etc.

Dread is delicious when you carefully, conscientiously build it up over time. But you have to actually tailor it to that specific player, that specific character. Cheap dread is like popcorn, tasty but empty and fleeting. True dread is like a fancy five-course meal, it takes time and effort to build but is far, far more satisfying.

No one else at the table has to back up the attacking PC. Guards come for your pc the rest of the group helps apprehend the attacking PC to show the would be victim they weren’t involved. Etc.

Okay. And when this happens over and over and over and over because this player doesn't give a naughty word that people don't want to play murderhobos?

How is that not abusing the social contract? How is that not being incredibly disrespectful to your fellow gamers?

Some people prefer being casual with their friends and fellow hobbyists. Safety tool terminology is rather clinical, like discussing psychology in a classroom or other formal environment can be. I find it uncomfortable to refer to people using such terms; to me it implies they're less an individual and more a patient with an official recognized condition.

Okay. I....don't really understand that. Like...at all. Especially because the vast majority of these terms are not clinical in the least. "X-card" is not clinical. "Lines" and "veils" are not clinical. "Picks, squicks, and icks" are not clinical. What terms are you thinking of that are "clinical"? Because whatever they are, I'm not familiar with them.

The simple fact is, there’s no preventative measure that actually solves the problem. There’s some methods that may help some people. Some of those methods may exacerbate the problem for others. Which is kind of the theme for this thread.

Best thing we have boils down to imperfect human communication - which relies on far too many unstated assumption between people and major inefficiencies of trying to be 100% thorough.

"No solution perfectly solves the problem, therefore we should not use any solutions" is a well-known logical fallacy. You have committed an error of reasoning by asserting that, just because no solution is perfect, we should not ever bother trying to find solutions that are better than what we currently have. This assertion is false in most contexts, and definitely false for the vast majority of TTRPG-related contexts.