I actually don't think there's a major difference between the two. How would I want to be treated? Well, I'd want to have my concerns and preferences listened to and respected, even if they're not shared by the other person. You can get there by either route.
I mean sure, but the Golden Rule can be used to excuse a lot of really bad behavior. Stuff like "I don't mind be called [slur], so I should be able to call other people [slur]." It can, as I mentioned lead to people's motivations and honesty being questioned. "It wouldn't bother me, so you shouldn't be so sensitive." Stuff like that.
I feel like that's a fundamental and possibly willful misunderstanding/misapplication of the Golden Rule--on the part of people who would say that, not on yours. It's focusing too much on the narrow specifics and not enough on the actual underlying principle.
That might be called The Iron Pyrite* Rule.
Goodness, you must have a gentle DM. I consider myself pretty soft, but I smack the PCs around at least every other session or so.
One of the groups I've played with the longest, around 37 years now, is the one that makes me want safety tools the most. Due to familiarity people assume they know what other people like and don't like, what their lines and veils are. Assuming that you know the people at your table that well can lead to a lot of problems. Much better to actually have the conversation.
That is my point, we have been having the conversation for 30+ years. What is interesting is those lines and veils change over time too. It is not a conversation you can have once and then forget about. Mostly notably for me, my perspective on some of these changed after I had children.
I think most of our perspectives change a bit over the years. Personally, I find it's far easier to cope with difficult issues today than it was twenty years ago but that's just me. So I like to have these conversations before horror games just to make sure we're all on the same page as to what's acceptable in the game. I don't feel it necessary to have the conversation for anything other than horror games though. But again, that's just me.
"How dark do you want to play Dark Sun?" would be another.
"How dark does the last war and/or resulting post-war mess get" & "how dark do the prtomegacorps otherwise known as dragonmark houses get?" for a couple more.
I think this is true of every setting: I mean Greyhawk is sold as the grim D&D setting and Planescape has literal Hell in it. Even Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance have some uncomfortable elements in them.
Honestly it just wouldn't occur to me. I don't even ask my questions before running Curse of Strahd because I don't consider D&D to be a horror game even when playing in Ravenloft. It's got horror elements so this isn't a particular hill I'm interested in defending to the death or anything. But I run games like Ravenloft or Deadlands, both of which have horror elements, quite a bit differently from how I run Call of Cthulhu or Vampire.
"VGR" ?
Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft, it's basically also a guidebook on how to handle horror adventures and the degrees of horror a DM might want to subject their party to.
Yes. VGR is the notation used in the book when referring to itself. In the genre guides there are lists of appropriate monsters. When a monster appears in Van Richten’s the source is listed as VGR.
