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

[DEFCON 1]

Probably won’t work is a valid excuse.

Who gets to make that decision that it "probably won't work"? And why are they using their own opinions on the matter to not have a potential safety tool in place? Why are they so special?

 

[DarkCrisis]

Pretty much when a new player sits down I tell them "Dont be RL racist or sexist. Don't be a jackass or weird. If there is an issue let me know and Ill fix it." Seems to work just fine.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

In my experience making use of bespoke terminology when you and the folks you are using it with aren't already "in" on it comes off as overly clinical/dehumanizing and/or artificial and distracting (ie, jargon). Obviously I can't speak to anyone else's personal experience, but I prefer casual conversation where this topic is concerned.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The two bolded bits conflict when one's means of unwinding and relaxing in a game is to act like an irresponsible kid, rather than like the responsible adult one is expected to be the rest of the time.

If acting like an irresponsible kid means you cannot respect your fellow players, I think those fellow players have every right to call you out for your BS and show you the door.

Cutting loose and relaxing does not mean you get a free pass to be a butthole to your fellow players. Even "an irresponsible kid" understands that you don't piss on a friend's leg and tell them that it's raining. Any "irresponsible kid" who did behave that way would very quickly find themselves without friends.

Nope.

If I've got an issue with something it's on me to proactively tell you about it, not on you to have to pry it out of me.

It's incumbent on both parties. If you, as DM, intend to push the envelope and put in stuff that is extremely easy to foresee as being upsetting--e.g. racism, sexualized violence, the death of children, mass executions, torture, parasitically-reproducing arthropods, etc.--then you sure as hell better give folks a bit of forewarning or it's on you for dropping a bomb and expecting everyone to smile. Conversely, if someone has intense thalassophobia (fear of the ocean, usually the deep ocean and what things dwell there), since that's a rather uncommon fear, or PTSD from a fire they survived as a child (as I noted above), yeah, there's some responsibility on their part to speak up. But in many cases these things are deeply troubling and personal, and difficult to talk about, because even thinking about them in the abstract summons powerful emotions and leaves the person feeling vulnerable.

This is just another example of a pattern of behavior I see from a lot of older-school fans that I really, really don't care for. Laying claim to nigh-absolute (or even truly absolute, ins ome cases) power, but rejecting the actual responsibility that that claim to power entails. If you're going to be master and commander of your table, if you're going to claim that you're the one calling all the shots and everyone is gonna have to dance to your tune, you'd sure as hell better take the responsibilities that come with that. One of those responsibilities is considering the impact your choices have on others.

No adjudication without consideration.

 

[Burnside]

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.


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


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."

See, these are what I would consider RPG horror stories - in this case, horror stories which might have been prevented or mitigated by safety tools. Not saying they would have totally solved everything, but it seems like they probably would have helped in at least some of these situations.

What I’m confused by is the idea that there are “horror stories” CAUSED by safety tools. Like a DM used lines and veils and it was a DISASTER that RUINED the game. I don’t think there actually are any horror stories like that, which is what baffles me about this thread.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

In my experience making use of bespoke terminology when you and the folks you are using it with aren't already "in" on it comes off as overly clinical/dehumanizing and/or artificial and distracting (ie, jargon). Obviously I can't speak to anyone else's personal experience, but I prefer casual conversation where this topic is concerned.

Okay. So you don't mean clinical when you say "clinical." You mean unfamiliar. Unfamiliar terms will always be unfamiliar to you unless you take time to interact with and think about them.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

See, these are what I would consider RPG horror stories - in this case, horror stories which might have been prevented or mitigated by safety tools. Not saying they would have totally solved everything, but it seems like they probably would have helped in at least some of these situations.

What I’m confused by is the idea that there are “horror stories” CAUSED by safety tools. Like a DM used lines and veils and it was a DISASTER that RUINED the game. I don’t think there actually are any horror stories like that, which is what baffles me about this thread.

Oh, completely agreed. Particularly because the only "example" Zardnaar could summon in this direction...was a player beating everyone else over the head with something, rather than (as these tools are explicitly designed for, and explicitly tell people about in every source I've ever seen) using them as a conversation-starter or as a way to make difficult and highly emotionally-charged communication easier.

Safety tools are tools. You should use what works for you and ignore what doesn't. As noted, I don't personally see much value in consent forms--I prefer conversation. Session 0 is one example of ensuring that the group has a conversation and comes to an understanding. Recently saw "C.A.T.S.", which is (more or less) a spelled-out form of what many folks in this thread have intuitively built up over time as part of their Session 0: Concept (what will the game be about?), Aims (what do the participants--GM and player--want from the game?), Tone (what mood/atmosphere should the game have?), Subject Matter (preferred or taboo topics). C.A.T.S. is a GREAT thing to have for new DMs, who don't have the experience to realize that all of these are really important things to cover before a given game begins, and don't have a 20+ year relationship with their gaming group so everything is already known in advance.

Which, again, is one of the real problems I have with a lot of conversations with significantly older gamers. Not all of them, naturally, but in many cases, there's this presumption that the only people anyone ever games with are ones they've known for multiple decades. People whose preferences you've gleaned from hundreds or thousands of hours of interaction, so there's no need to ever ask a bunch of these questions, because you already know. Well guess what! Most people DON'T have multi-decade-old gaming groups. Most people DON'T have extensive experience running a wide variety of games for numerous different people. Most people DON'T already have literal decades of practice predicting how things will work out and adjusting in advance.

Meaning, for most people, it's really really useful to furnish them with tools and advice that help bridge the gap. It's incredibly helpful to distill those decades of experience into functional guidance, which each individual person can then learn how to use or not use as they see fit.

In other words...TTRPGing and DMing are techniques as much as they are artistic expressions, and in being techniques, they can be refined, and that refinement can be communicated to future generations so that they don't NEED to spend 20+ years practicing before they "git gud," as the kids say.

 

[Burnside]

In my experience making use of bespoke terminology when you and the folks you are using it with aren't already "in" on it comes off as overly clinical/dehumanizing and/or artificial and distracting (ie, jargon). Obviously I can't speak to anyone else's personal experience, but I prefer casual conversation where this topic is concerned.

I actually buy this which is why tbh I do try to avoid the jargon - it does rub me the wrong way. But you can cover the important topics and concerns, in writing or in conversation, without using the jargon.

 

[Steampunkette]

What does that choice have to do with the government?

Politics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Politics is not "The Government"

If we've reached the point where everything is political, how do we in fact define politics?

Politics is society, it's expectations, and it's interactions through the body politic, the people who make it up.

A chair is not political unless it's used to make a political statement. But a chair used to make a political statement becomes political.

Someone using an ideological position to make a decision for a group is making a political decision and a political statement.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Pretty much when a new player sits down I tell them "Dont be RL racist or sexist. Don't be a jackass or weird. If there is an issue let me know and Ill fix it." Seems to work just fine.

You wouldn't then be okay with that person replying with 'but I'm going to tell you that I'm going to be racist and sexist and audibly groan in a very distinct way whenever my character takes damage up front and you're going to have to accept that or leave', right?

And then sometimes people will say 'please don't be in game racist or try to trick me into having my character eat children' and that should also work just find, yes?