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

[FrogReaver]

Change "friends" to "anyone's" and you have the oldest philosophical exercise known to man.

Please stop this personal attack.

 

[Remathilis]

Please stop this personal attack.

I didn't address anyone specific in that post. If you are seeing yourself in that statement, that's on you.

 

[Belen]

My friends know that I'm afraid of rabbits. They wouldn't invite me to a game of Bunnies and Burrows.

If you buy a copy of "City of the Spider Queen" and reach out to a friend you know is arachnophobic to join in you're kind of a jerk.

If you don't know and reach out and learn and then don't play that game with them, cool.

Whether "They remove themself" or you rescind the offer or you choose to run a different adventure because you want to spend time with them. There is no wrong path outside of being like "This is what we're playing and you HAVE TO PLAY because the rest of us want to play and otherwise you're being a bad friend!"

Reasonable.

We both agree here.

I can even see the argument for establishing boundaries for con, store, and league style games. It’s fair and I would describe the session and style upfront and I would make small changes if needed. I could not make large changes unless I had prepped alternate scenarios in advance.

However, if I have prepped a campaign for months and one person does not like it or invalidates a lot of work, then I am not going to run something else. I never get to be a player and it makes no sense to run something that I am not invested in. It leads to burn out and negativity.

I do not need formalized tools to codify personal interactions. I tend to be direct and honest and ask others for feedback.

I am not saying other groups should not use them. Use them if they make you comfortable. There is no one true way.

 

[FrogReaver]

I didn't address anyone specific in that post. If you are seeing yourself in that statement, that's on you.

I’m sorry but referring to my statements in this thread as justifications to not care about anyone and keep doing what I’m doing is a personal attack, whether you explicitly mention my name or not.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Attacking an argument on its face for its whataboutism it not a personal attack.

 

[FrogReaver]

Attacking an argument on its face for its whataboutism it not a personal attack.

Then do that next time instead of accusing me and others of trying to justify not caring about our friends.

 

[Scribe]

Then do that next time instead of accusing me and others of trying to justify not caring about our friends.

The irony being, my statement of not wanting to impact my friends plans, by exercising my own personal choice and taking responsibility for my own desires and feelings, has somehow lead to escalation of rhetoric and insinuation for pages.

So by me caring about my friends, and removing myself from the situation, I...dont care about my friends.

 

[FrogReaver]

The irony being, my statement of not wanting to impact my friends plans, by exercising my own personal choice and taking responsibility for my own desires and feelings, has somehow lead to escalation of rhetoric and insinuation for pages.

So by me caring about my friends, and removing myself from the situation, I...dont care about my friends.

I thought the take away was slightly different, that because they didn’t accommodate you every time they got together to game that they were not really your friends. Maybe not quite as much irony that way, but still is an unusual expectation for friendship to me.

 

[Zardnaar]

So, if I'm understanding these examples correctly (numbered in listed order)
1 (only 5e/OSR), 3 (some folks may not accept AD&D), and 5 (you will never run Fallout) are about system selection, and thus occur before any sort of gaming even begins. Thus, not applicable to what the thread is about, which is tools for assuaging/preventing conflicts in the preparatory and execution stages of gaming.

2 and 4 are time slot selection, which is not an issue of actually playing, but of whether play can happen in the first place. This isn't a matter of conflicting personalities or disagreements, it's a matter of whether it is even possible to game at all. So, again, has absolute bupkis to do with safety tools or compromise.

Once play has actually begun, so long as the people involved actually did communicate and express their interests properly etc., you have said "we can have a discussion"--meaning, you are amenable to finding a way to make things work, even if one or both sides ends up not getting the full and exact, specific details they originally set out for. Yes?

Because if so then that seems pretty clear to me that you do think a reasonable solution can be reached by reasonable players in actual-play situations, so long as the participants (DM and player alike) are in fact participating in good faith.

More applicable for new players really. I we're playing Darksun and they want to play ultimately they get the choice to play or not.

If we are talking about a new gane I probably wouldn't play DS if some didn't.

I did spend $300 on Midgard and did make a decision to run it but there was no disagreement so it was a moot point. But in that scenario then ultimately the player with potential problem would have to be opt in or out. It was a fantasy Egyptian game fairly popular.

Also wrote a players guide saying what was in it.

5E locked 5E along with OSR as OSR. There will be discussion over 2014 vs 24 or what flavor of OSR to play.

OSR started with 2 players now there's 6. One was willing to try it (5E game was full ots what she wanted to play) and was first in line when space opened up. She's now in both.

If consensus can't be reached its DM decision. For 5E that means pg13 with F bombs FR and for OSR probably C&C.


I'll want to try 2024 at some point. That will be a opt in or opt out type scenario. Just to try it out if anything. If I don't want to run it e stick with 2014 ultimately that's going to be opt in or out as well.

 

[Zardnaar]

There are thousands of different modules out there, and infinite amounts of DM created scenarios. How many players do you have lined up that you can sacrifice them for one specific module?

14