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

[Zardnaar]

As @Zardnaar mentions, this level of openness is not socially acceptable in some cultures (add British to NZ). You need to provide socially acceptable channels for people to communicate through, not expect them to voice something out loud in a way they have been taught is not socially acceptable.

It's a common complaint in NZ social media from immigrants. NZ inherited that stiff upper lip from the UK and mixed it with rugby, colonial isolation, Maori warrior culture and sown here the "southern man" stereotype (south was settled by the Scots).

What we didn't inherit was the British pub culture which makes it hard to socialize. Country is to small and most of it doesn't have much nightlife scene.

If you do go to a pub it's generally with close friends and family. One of my players does get invites to events like that. It would be kinda weird of a stranger wanted to join the table. Superficial conversation waiting in line is fine.

Applies to dating as well. NZ males not the most romantic in terms of flowers and chocolate. Sometimes you have to tell women from overseas you have to basically tell a male you're interested. We're really bad at noticing signals.

Hell for introverts. Alot of things are also unsaid. The stereotype is if you haven't got a social group by high-school or university you're kinda bomed espicially if you don't have hobbies.

What's not generally said your way in is via those hobbies or work. You have to DIY (do it yourself). If you don't drink booze or play rugby it's even harder.

 

[Zardnaar]

Yeah, I'm not talking about your specific table, SteveC. And no, I don't know you. I'm also not making assumptions about you beyond your explicit statements.

I'm talking about the whole "We can't allow politics to interfere with being friends just because we disagree!" thought terminating cliche that gets flung around SO OFTEN. And yet here you are, saying that you wouldn't let someone into your life, much less your game, with that kind of political ideology. Now don't get me wrong, here: I agree that you shouldn't have someone like that at your table. They're going to make a lot of people uncomfortable and make your gaming space exclusive rather than inclusive.

You've decided to have an inclusive table, which I laud you for. But that decision is a political one. And not always a popular one, depending on the particular table. cough cough Lanasa cough

Politics aren't banned at my table but no one talks about it anyway.

Most people are more or less on the same page anyway or only slight deviations.

Thankfully it's a bit different here as well at least irl vs online.

 

[Zardnaar]

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."

Stuff like that would get dealt with fairly fast. I don't have any horror stories like that.

Session 0 don't be a jerk or role play a jerk. Your right to have fun ends at the expense of someone else.

"That's why my character would do" is often younger players. New ones don't realize they're doing it (on the minor side of things).

Examples I've used.

Me elf don't like dwarf. That's fine.

Drow killed my family I have sworn a vow of enmity against lolths chosen Sheverash guide me. Fine.

As above but there's a drow PC who gets targeted. Not fine dont do it.

So inexperienced player might decide to pick pocket another player and DM is inexperienced and doesn't fo anything.

But bet your bottom dollar the person bring stolen from doesn't like it. I've seen a Tiefling get smited because she was stealing from another player. Tried playing the tiefling stereotype card/you don't know that. Group fell apart not much longer after that.

 

[Umbran]

If you think I'd accept someone like that in my life, let alone game with them, I'll just point out that you don't know me at all.

But I think this is a great example of what I want to avoid when gaming. Thanks for that. And if you're making any assumptions about me, I expect they're laughably wrong.

Sorry to the mods, I will 100% not make any further comments on this line of discussion and feel free to delete both posts.

Mod Note:
We don't need to delete anything here, but there is a point to be made that everyone should be aware of, as it relates to our inclusivity policy.

It is this - if your political differences with your players are such that you can dismiss them and play, you should count yourself very lucky. There is "politics" around, say, marginal tax rates and whether main street should have parking meters, that we can agree to disagree. And then there is "politics" around whether some people should have a right to exist.

The latter may make a great example of what you want to avoid at your table, but you cannot really expect someone to "shut up and play" when this kind of political difference becomes known.

As for discussion here, telling folks who may be subject to such political differences that you just don't want to hear about it does not make them feel like you care about their safety. And, that's where we abut the inclusivity rules.

So, everyone, please take care in how you discuss such matters.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Depends, too, on the character I'm playing. Sometimes I'll be bored as hell as a player but as I'm playing a patient character, nothing happens. But if I'm playing a character who also easliy gets bored then that character will do something about it; maybe not as egregiously unwise as punching the king in the face, but a pocket might get picked or a staredown with a courtier might ensue or something else will happen that shakes things up a bit.

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.

All of those take the disagreement out of character and just lead to table arguments and hard feelings, which is IMO unacceptable and defeats the purpose of hanging out chuckin' dice with friends. Separate self from character, and deal with it in-character.

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.

Only to a point. It's inevitable that there's going to be times when a few players are keen on something while the others are just waiting for it to get done. No DM can possibly keep everyone fuly engaged 100% of the time, session in and session out; and there's nothing wrong with that and thus no blame to be laid.

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.

Were that the SOP we'd spend many of our games doing little else but censuring each other. Our adventuring parties often resemble a glorious herd of cats, sometimes working together and other times going off in x directions at once, where 'x' is the number of characters in play. Add to that the variance in any given player's boredom threshold from week to week, depending what else might be going on in life that others may or ma not know about, and it gets mighty unpredictable...which itself makes the whole thing less boring.

Attacking the king would be suicidal, but that's far from the only way for a bored player (or bored character) to spice things up.

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

Except, to follow the analogy, in this case it's allowed.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

I have it right in the game intro that, with a very few exceptions as noted (sexualized violence being one), anything goes.

And thus far in my current campaign the players have at different times (infrequently) brought in-character racism, child-killing, and torture to the table; along with slavery (as in, the PCs were the slave-sellers), mass murder, and the occasional execution. And that's just what the PCs do to the outside world; there's a whole other list of what they've done to each other over the years.

Anything goes, and as DM there's many a time I don't have to add very much; though parasitically-reproducing creatures have shown up a few times.

 

[MarkB]

I have it right in the game intro that, with a very few exceptions as noted (sexualized violence being one), anything goes.

And thus far in my current campaign the players have at different times (infrequently) brought in-character racism, child-killing, and torture to the table; along with slavery (as in, the PCs were the slave-sellers), mass murder, and the occasional execution. And that's just what the PCs do to the outside world; there's a whole other list of what they've done to each other over the years.

Anything goes, and as DM there's many a time I don't have to add very much; though parasitically-reproducing creatures have shown up a few times.

And would you bring a new player into that campaign without first checking that they're okay with such subjects? If you wouldn't, you're using safety tools.

 

[Zardnaar]

I have it right in the game intro that, with a very few exceptions as noted (sexualized violence being one), anything goes.

And thus far in my current campaign the players have at different times (infrequently) brought in-character racism, child-killing, and torture to the table; along with slavery (as in, the PCs were the slave-sellers), mass murder, and the occasional execution. And that's just what the PCs do to the outside world; there's a whole other list of what they've done to each other over the years.

Anything goes, and as DM there's many a time I don't have to add very much; though parasitically-reproducing creatures have shown up a few times.

Most of that's basically banned.

Slavery might exist but it's the villains doing it.

I don't include genocide as such but it might be there indirectly eg you're exploring the ruins of Carthage.

That's more a Darksun thing as well with the events there.

Villains doing something bad you can solve that in a variety of ways. Players doing that at the table is different matter.

So it's not what you're including but how a lot of the time. You can't keep everybody happy all of the time and some campaigns eg CoS are not suitable for everyone.

 

[Lanefan]

And would you bring a new player into that campaign without first checking that they're okay with such subjects? If you wouldn't, you're using safety tools.

I very likely wouldn't bring a new player into any game unless I already knew them from elsewhere and thus a) already had a reasonable idea as to what made said person tick and b) more or less knew that said person would or could be a good fit with ourusual style of game and play.

 

[Zardnaar]

I very likely wouldn't bring a new player into any game unless I already knew them from elsewhere and thus a) already had a reasonable idea as to what made said person tick and b) more or less knew that said person would or could be a good fit with ourusual style of game and play.

Kinda what I'm doing just being blunt about it. The people who gell the best will be the new primary group moving forward.

Basically I'm looking for people I can take to coffee with family members or are safe around the younger members.