Like I said. I am for having the conversation. There is nothing wrong with it. But it should also be understood that you can't pin everything down, context changes, and the variables are far too great to "frame" as you put it. Whether the person gets offended can change based on the setting, the person saying it, the time of day, the type of day they had coming into the game, etc. Literally, there are countless reasons.
Your phrasing in response to those questions is everything. It is an understanding of how context can change the situation, yet a vague response as to what the DM should do about it. They should try to frame "questions that need to be asked" in regards to each point of contention a player may have. So it is the table or DM's job to sit there and pepper this person with a hundred context questionnaire regarding the thing they are uncomfortable with? That sounds - silly.
But my experience is similar to yours - gaming with friends. Yet, even when I have been the new guy, I've been able to understand the table's boundaries in one session. Most people are probably equal or better at this than me. It's not a super power. And since context changes those boundaries, it is more prudent to know and understand the people you play with than develop some sort of social contract.
I've been gaming with friends for a long time - we don't have the problems expressed in this thread.
But I remember gaming with acquaintances and still occasionally game with strangers at the occasional Gen Con etc. So still see what I'm talking about.
So it seems we are somewhat in agreement, but we differ on one very big thing. You (and please correct me if I'm wrong) think that players can tell from the game, context, "reading the room" etc. that they can suss out what actions are ok and therefore no hard rules are necessary.
I'm saying that most people are very bad at that and harder lines are necessary. And it's not even difficult, want to introduce PvP - ask the group, if they're ok - cool. It can even come up in game. Turn to the DM and the group "hey, I know we have a no PvP rule, but I think it's appropriate can I go with it?"
This is why I brought up Adam Koebel. He's probably the most public current example of someone who thought he did exactly that (read the context, knew the players, read the room) and didn't run his actions by his group. He miscalculated so badly that he lost his career and has essentially been blackballed by the gaming industry (to the point where the #2 at kickstarter lost his job).
A brief synopsis (I'll put it in spoiler text for those that don't want to read it):
Adam Koebel is the creator of Dungeon World, a well received Indy roleplaying game.
Until last year he was:
1. The DM in residence at Roll20 - running several live streams including their official 5e stream;
2. He had several other live streams and projects;
3. He had several videos on DMing and how to DM sensitive topics, like assault etc. All were very well received.
One of his streams was called Far Verona, where he DMed several other Youtube/twitch personalities in far future RP game titles Far Verona. The series was long running and was 90 episodes in. It had over 250,000 on demand views.
Then last march, Adam decided it would be funny to spring a sexual assault scenario on one of his players. The player was a woman playing a male robot. Adam sprung a scenario where a robot mechanic sticks a wire in the robot, while he is helpless, causing the robot to "robot orgasm."
He clearly thought he knew his players and audience well enough that this would be perceived as a hilarious set piece...
As a result of this:
All of Adam's Far Verona players quit and the stream was cancelled;
He lost his job as DM in residence at Roll20 and all of those streams were cancelled;
Every other stream he was associated with.. cut ties with him or was cancelled.
And just this year, Luke Crane the, now former, #2 at kickstarter tried to kickstart a project which used adam as a creator/consultant but underplayed/hid Adam's involvement. When the other creators on the project found out - they went nuclear. The kickstarter project was cancelled AND Luke Crane is now no longer #2 at kickstarter.
All this over just over 1 minute of livestream.
Thinking you can read the context, read the room, suss out what the other players like/find acceptable is dangerous without explicit consent/ rules.
Edit: Here's an ENworld thread on the subject with a video explaing the incident.
A while back I had a campaign where an evil/insane NPC female was infatuated with one of the male PCs. Went as far as things like sending him a box with a note "my heart belongs to you" with a (fresh) human heart inside and so on. The player reacted well to this, and similar things would occur now and then as a sub-plot.
I thought it would make an interesting story line for the NPC to drug the PC, and if it worked kidnap the PC and try to get impregnated by him using a combination of drugs/spells. I really thought he'd have fun with it, but it crosses a whole lot of boundaries so I sent him an email offline and asked his thoughts on the topic. He said he would not be okay with it, I apologized and we moved on.
My point is that I thought I knew the guy well enough that he'd be okay with it but I checked off-line anyway. As it turned out, I was mistaken and the story line was never implemented.
I don't expect any PC except a Paladin to behave like a Paladin. And these days I'm not even sure what that means since they no longer have alignment restrictions. I've got no problem with rouges, rakes, or libertines as player characters.
The PCs need to make characters that are appropriate to the campaign. Most of my D&D campaigns are very black and white Good versus Evil affairs. So yes, I expect them to go along with the plot in the end. Otherwise what's the point of even showing up to the game?
Poison? Generally speaking, no. Knock out gas? Sure. Lethal poison on blades? No. As for dishonorable tactics, well, sure. A Rogue is gonna rogue. I did have a player ask me if it'd be evil to use Charm Person on merchants to get a better deal on goods. Yeah. But that might be because I take any magic that influences the mind a bit more seriously than a lot of players. As far as I'm concerned it's the equivalent of slipping a roofie in someone's drink. But if this was a merchant with a habit of cheating people? Charm away.
Sure. But keep in mind that might mean the plot goes nowhere. If the PC has no interest in helping people the player is at the wrong game. Let's go play Cyberpunk instead guys.
I've been gaming with friends for a long time - we don't have the problems expressed in this thread.
But I remember gaming with acquaintances and still occasionally game with strangers at the occasional Gen Con etc. So still see what I'm talking about.
This. Friends certainly have a better sense about what works for each other so set rules may be less necessary or even redundant. Everyone is already comfortable and able to tell each other if things are going too far. Nonetheless, I'd likely want to employ some basic set table rules just in case someone new were to be invited and we could then point them to the rules that help us ensure good times for all. It's really more about making others comfortable right out of the gate so they can relax and have fun.
In our current campaign, we have a player pool of 15. Some are friends, some don't know each other. As one of the DMs, I know most of them, but not all. Basically a different group of 5 to 8 are playing each week. Having a few basic set rules in our Discord server makes sure we don't stray too far from what is going to make it fun for all. We even have the X-card but no one has used it so for after 16 sessions or so.
No I think you miss the point. Preventing your players from acting is pretty close to railroading them. And yes the player may not know what they did is wrong, Do you think everyone in jail knew they were wrong? PVP, I'd let the other players do whatever they wanted to the player no DM intervention. If that player murdered a player and got caught or reported In a civilized setting They'd have a price on thier head. If it was a perfectly planned assasination and they got away with it. No consequences till they start trying to sell the players gear, or open thier mouth and brag. If they killed a healer then they might not find another willing to adventure for a long time. I've had a few players that wanted to do things that simply derailed the game, like randomly murdering NPC's , PC's or other bad behavior. I'd say about half of those players get mad and walk away from the game when the consequences caught up with them. The other half don't always become the players I want but they generally fall in line once they know murder hobos's don't tend to live any longer in my game than they do in the real world.
D&D is a group activity. If even 1 person isn't okay with something, it's forbidden. Life is too short to play games with people that go into areas I find objectionable so I draw a hard line on no evil (and, yes, I decide where the line is). I've had experiences with games where another player took way too much joy in the blood they killed and flat out murder. Never again.
As far as punishing the player's PC (the title is incorrect), that seems really passive aggressive to me. Why "teach the player a lesson" and hope they understand what the boundaries are when you can just tell them the boundaries right up front?
If saying that I don't allow acts I or other players are comfortable with is railroading then hop on board because that train left the station a long time ago and I'm never looking back. Disagree? That's fine. I won't be the DM for you, I won't play in a game that allows depiction of behavior by PCs (or even NPCs if it's too graphic/explicit I suppose) that I find reprehensible.
I understand the concern, and maybe silly is not the best word. But it is the only word I can use to describe the vast array of context, which trumps everything.
I can say I am never going to read a book with child murder, but then read Night by Wiesel and suddenly have the child being hung as the most touching part of the story. The story set the context for it to be okay. And since, in an RPG, the story evolves over time, hard set rules need to be flexible.
I am not in disagreement. If the table says, no child violence, then it should try to be adhered to. But people still need to see the varying degrees of what it means. I mean, the DM can't pull out a rules contract a hundred pages long to narrow down the definition of child violence. Here are some examples:
Is it okay for a character to have a backstory that lost a child to a terrible incident?
Is it okay to set up an Indiana Jones style scene where the party rescues children having to work in a mine?
Is it okay to have an NPC backstory of child abuse? Child neglect? Too tough of scolding?
Is it okay for the big old blacksmith to smack his apprentice on the ear, knowing everything else he does is to help the kid?
Is it okay to have a ship sink off the coast - it might have had some younger people on board?
Is it okay for a planet to be destroyed? (It most certainly has children.)
Is it okay to show a gang of young 10 year old street urchins that are ruffians and often have fist-a-cuffs with one another?
Are the Lost Boys from Peter Pan okay? Is it okay to have one of Captain Hook's pirates damage (cut) one during a fight?
All these style questions could be asked for almost anything.
This is what I mean. The context will always change, and therefore the rule is silly. This doubles as true when one understands the story (if you are not railroading) can lead to areas unplanned. The context dictates whether that will trigger a person, not the act. And there is almost no way of knowing which context will.
Style is something that should be decided in session zero. It's glaringly obvious that if you are playing a Lost Boys campaign, there won't be a strict "no violence against children" rule. For other campaigns, you can qualify rules however you like : e.g. no "on camera" violence against children - that takes care of many of your other examples. Your "hundred pages long" rules contract is a straw man - no one is proposing that. Just because there might be a gray area doesn't mean you can't set some simple rules that fit in a short bulleted list. And for anything that might come up during play that wasn't already covered, you can employ the X-card so players can feel empowered to move the action along.
Style is something that should be decided in session zero. It's glaringly obvious that if you are playing a Lost Boys campaign, there won't be a strict "no violence against children" rule. For other campaigns, you can qualify rules however you like : e.g. no "on camera" violence against children - that takes care of many of your other examples. Your "hundred pages long" rules contract is a straw man - no one is proposing that. Just because there might be a gray area doesn't mean you can't set some simple rules that fit in a short bulleted list. And for anything that might come up during play that wasn't already covered, you can employ the X-card so players can feel empowered to move the action along.
I am not sure what people are not understanding about my stance:
Going over the rules in session zero is fine. In fact, it is good
Everyone needs to be aware that context might change these rules
Therefore, everyone needs to understand and be cognizant of the room
The Dunning-Kruger effect is something people say when a person or group of person's ability goes against their argument. There is absolutely no proof that the majority of people are unaware of a friend's emotion when they sit across the table from them. In fact, the evidence points the opposite way most of the time, and does so even for strangers.
The end claim is context rules everything. Should you have a conversation about no violence against children if someone is sensitive to that subject? Yes. But should a DM have play role of therapist? No. Sometimes, like Oofta's heart example will happen. A person playing a fictional game where giant axes chop into skulls, fireballs burn enemies alive, and demons and devils grant powers and try to eat souls might push a limit for someone. That limit should be clear, but if they are that sensitive to it, maybe choose a different game. There are plenty out there that can be just as fun.
And by no means do not equate this to all campaigns need to have child violence or torture or whatever. They do not. One could just as easily decide to run a Feywild campaign that has almost no real violence and it would be just as fun. But if that is the decision, then make sure everyone is okay with it. Because some people might want to hear that their axe lopped off a head every now and then. That is why context is king.
And for the record, a no violence against children contract is not a strawman, it is hyperbole. And hyperbole has a purpose - to hold a glaring neon signs to the potential problem or fallacy of another's argument. To have a conversation for a few minutes with a player about no child violence in a campaign doesn't even come close to expressing the contextual labyrinth that it may or may not be. This is true for almost all hard fast boundaries a group sets.
I think the real world relationships at the table matter way more than fidelity to the fiction. If I'm considering doing something in character that I think might lead to real world fallout I'll do quick aside. I'll even do it for particularly brash decisions "Mind if I get stupid?"
Learning that it's OK to break out of the "character frame" and check in on the "actual human beings at the table frame" is a good skill to model. Especially for newer players.
If you've ever DM'd for new players, you've probably run into some poor gaming etiquette. I'm talking about stealing from the party, murdering allied NPCs, and other general acts of murder-hoboism. The common wisdom is to impose logical consequences: the NPCs become hostile; bounty hunters come after you; you get geased and have to pay your debts to society via questing. These are all workable ideas, but I'm not sure they're always appropriate.
If you have an out-of-game problem, you need an out-of-game solution.
Having NPCs react is an in-game solution. Instead, simply talk to the player. Simply tell him his actions are inappropriate and reduce fun for the rest of the group. If he persists, drop him from the party.
Having NPCs react is just implicit approval that his actions were reasonable. But while the character's action might well be, the player's actions are not.
And you have no obligation humoring players who disregard the greater good for their personal gratification.
