D&D General [+] Ravenloft, horror, & safety tools...

[Gradine]

The reference to the Golden Rule is a big red flag, actually. Those of us don't work in Equity, Inclusion, Trauma-Informed anything really, even something as seemingly benign as TTRPGs, have come to understand the shortcomings of the Golden Rule. It looks good on paper; it seems to teach people about mutual respect. Unfortunately, what it really teaches you to do is universalize your specific experiences and needs. You begin to think that if you are okay with being treated a certain way, then everybody should be okay with that. And when people aren't, it can lead to accusations of insincerity and ulterior motives.

We tend to use instead the "Platinum Rule" which states "Treat people the way they want to be treated." Now, on its face this sounds like recipe for abuse, but the Platinum Rule is meant to be reciprocal; a mutual level of respect that understands that people have different needs, wants, and triggers, and that everyone deserves to be treated with respect, however they define that for themselves. Of course, this is a lot more difficult than simply using your own experiences as your primary metric for interacting with others, and it's easy to make mistakes out of ignorance, but it does a far better job of capturing and respecting the vast diversity of human experience.

In other words, in the real world, what's good for the goose is rarely what's going to be good for the gander.

 

[Umbran]

I think Overgeeked is saying something doesn’t need to be stopped against other players, or NPCs just because can’t be used on him. That doesn’t work for me. The line is the line. Once drawn you shouldn’t hedge it.

I think Overgeeked is saying there's no technical need for symmetry here. The game isn't going to break. The GM has enough other tools at their disposal, and all that. It is not hard to run a game where PCs have those spells, and the GM just never uses them.

That you don't like doing so is fair, and a valid choice for your campaign.

 

[Umbran]

In other words, in the real world, what's good for the goose is rarely what's going to be good for the gander.

It may be relevant to note that the original of this is, "What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander." It is "what can be applied to one can be applied to the other." It is not about making either bird's life better - they are getting eaten, after all.

 

[overgeeked]

I think that’s hit the nail on the head. The inconsistency may be the way they feel but I would expect them to accept that they would need to make allowances for the sake of consistency even if they don’t ‘feel’ it should be a problem. If they couldn’t then they wouldn’t work with me as a player. Off the table as a DM means off the table as a player.

I think Overgeeked is saying something doesn’t need to be stopped against other players, or NPCs just because can’t be used on him. That doesn’t work for me. The line is the line. Once drawn you shouldn’t hedge it.

If you're not going to respond to me, stop talking about me. Thanks.

 

[TheSword]

If you're not going to respond to me, stop talking about me. Thanks.

Sorry I was answering two points in the same post.

We’re kinda going round in circles. I think we understand each other’s points. We just disagree.

 

[Gradine]

It may be relevant to note that the original of this is, "What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander." It is "what can be applied to one can be applied to the other." It is not about making either bird's life better - they are getting eaten, after all.

Humans excel at misusing idioms and sayings until their original intent is rendered either meaningless or even reversed. See also: bad apple, one, and what it does to the bunch

 

[DemoMonkey]

I wonder how much disagreement is caused by a fundamental disconnect between the starting states of "We want to play with these pre-selected people, therefore the table elements should be specifically accommodated to them." and "We want to play a game with these table elements, and therefore potential players need to accommodate themselves to that."

 

[Remathilis]

I think that’s hit the nail on the head. The inconsistency may be the way they feel but I would expect them to accept that they would need to make allowances for the sake of consistency even if they don’t ‘feel’ it should be a problem. If they couldn’t then they wouldn’t work with me as a player. Off the table as a DM means off the table as a player.

I think Overgeeked is saying something doesn’t need to be stopped against other players, or NPCs just because can’t be used on him. That doesn’t work for me. The line is the line. Once drawn you shouldn’t hedge it.

Consider a different example.

I'm kinda squeemish about gory dismemberment. Not panic inducing, but unpleasant. So, if we're playing a Jack the Ripper style module, I would probably veil over descriptions of body of the victims. (They are graphic killings if you've ever read on them) with just enough info to protray the nature of the killings. However, if my PC as attacked by our Ripper killer, I would Hard Line them desecrating my PC in a comparable manner. I don't care if it was out of character for the killer to do so, you chop me up like that and I'm DONE. That said, I'm not against if I'm attacked being reduced to 0 hp and left dying/dead. Just the gory mutilation of my corpse.

I wager most lines and veils work on similar level; some things can be alluded to, some outright said, and some not even hinted at and there doesn't have to be all-or-nothing but a general situational element. There isn't always a "one size fits all" solution.

 

[TheSword]

The reference to the Golden Rule is a big red flag, actually. Those of us don't work in Equity, Inclusion, Trauma-Informed anything really, even something as seemingly benign as TTRPGs, have come to understand the shortcomings of the Golden Rule. It looks good on paper; it seems to teach people about mutual respect. Unfortunately, what it really teaches you to do is universalize your specific experiences and needs. You begin to think that if you are okay with being treated a certain way, then everybody should be okay with that. And when people aren't, it can lead to accusations of insincerity and ulterior motives.

We tend to use instead the "Platinum Rule" which states "Treat people the way they want to be treated." Now, on its face this sounds like recipe for abuse, but the Platinum Rule is meant to be reciprocal; a mutual level of respect that understands that people have different needs, wants, and triggers, and that everyone deserves to be treated with respect, however they define that for themselves. Of course, this is a lot more difficult than simply using your own experiences as your primary metric for interacting with others, and it's easy to make mistakes out of ignorance, but it does a far better job of capturing and respecting the vast diversity of human experience.

In other words, in the real world, what's good for the goose is rarely what's going to be good for the gander.

I appreciate that the golden rule isn’t enough. It is a starting point though. It sets a benchmark that many people don’t even meet trying to break a double standard that all too often arises in life. It has limits though. Let me add to it...“Don’t judge a person until you’ve worked a mile in their shoes.” I agree just because you can tolerate off jokes at work, doesn’t mean I should have to as well. I also understand that fairness and equality are not the same thing. Everybody getting the same amount of time to sit an exam is equal. However if I’m dyslexic it probably isn’t fair.

The platinum rule is fine for some things. But isn’t universal either. It works for managing personal relations at work, or appropriate behavior when dating. It totally breaks down though when what a person wants isn’t reasonable. When it requires greater resources than are available, or requires someone else missing out in an unreasonable way.

When deciding how to manage competing interests around a table... Likes and dislikes. Then I try to be fair. I may like puzzles but John doesn’t so we compromise and have puzzles but only so often and John gets what he likes to balance it out. Wants require consideration and should be accomadated when possible - that’s good DMing - but it isn’t the same as needing something. Not liking having to sit at our combat because of paralyzation would normally be a want. It doesn’t cause them harm. It just isn’t what they’d prefer to be doing.

If it is a need then it is fundamentally different. A victim of trauma needs to have their well-being protected. That has to trump all other wants. Well-being first, fun second. Or if that doesn’t work, no gaming is better.

 

[Disgruntled Hobbit]

There are players who don't want their character to die. According to your logic, that means there's no death in a game.

Does there NEED to be death in the game?
Nobody ever dies in Pokemon and that game and cartoon is filled with battles and is super popular.

Why can't failure in combat have a different penalty than death? The PCs and their opponents could easily be defeated and knocked unconscious rather than killed.