That's the difference between reading studies and having practical experience with the thing being discussed.  Playing an RPG as an RPG is entirely safe (barring some individual so messed up that it is dangerous to do anything with them, of course--which is not on the RPG). 

"Playing an RPG" as a therapy session is not playing an RPG.  It's running a therapy session when you don't know what the hell you are doing.  Now admittedly, there is not much special about RPGs in that respect, inherently.  "Playing baseball" as a therapy session would be almost as stupid, other than there is more room for the stupidity to cause harm in an RPG because of how imagination plays into it.  But one could certainly screw up almost any social activity that way if one tried hard enough.

Let me try it a third way.  Would you agree that a GM is usually a person with some degree of imagination and the ability to manipulate a situation to produce imaginative outcomes in others?  If so, would you also agree that a strong manipulator that sets out to fuck with people with issues can sometimes cause harm?  If so, you are most the way to my point which could also be expressed as:  "Running an RPG as therapy is the GM setting out to fuck with people that have issues."  Designing a game to encourage others to do this makes the designer an asshole.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 01, 2021, 01:54:56 PM
That's the difference between reading studies and having practical experience with the thing being discussed.  Playing an RPG as an RPG is entirely safe (barring some individual so messed up that it is dangerous to do anything with them, of course--which is not on the RPG). 

"Playing an RPG" as a therapy session is not playing an RPG.  It's running a therapy session when you don't know what the hell you are doing.  Now admittedly, there is not much special about RPGs in that respect, inherently.  "Playing baseball" as a therapy session would be almost as stupid, other than there is more room for the stupidity to cause harm in an RPG because of how imagination plays into it.  But one could certainly screw up almost any social activity that way if one tried hard enough.

Let me try it a third way.  Would you agree that a GM is usually a person with some degree of imagination and the ability to manipulate a situation to produce imaginative outcomes in others?  If so, would you also agree that a strong manipulator that sets out to fuck with people with issues can sometimes cause harm?  If so, you are most the way to my point which could also be expressed as:  "Running an RPG as therapy is the GM setting out to fuck with people that have issues."  Designing a game to encourage others to do this makes the designer an asshole.

Well put, clearer than water. And yet somehow you'll be misscounstrued as saying just the opposite.

Quote from: jhkim on April 01, 2021, 12:06:02 PM
This seems like previous views I've had to struggle with - especially from the 1980s. As it was explained to me, playing an RPG might *seem* safe - but actually it was playing with fire. Some RPGs were run and played safely - but if I wasn't careful, the DM could slip in some serious psychological stuff into my game, and I could go too far, become addicted and spiral into a warped and unhealthy fantasy world. This is ​the view dramatized in the novel and movie "Mazes and Monsters".

Another reason to hate Tom Hanks.

And don't forget Blackleaf.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 01, 2021, 01:54:56 PM
That's the difference between reading studies and having practical experience with the thing being discussed.  Playing an RPG as an RPG is entirely safe (barring some individual so messed up that it is dangerous to do anything with them, of course--which is not on the RPG). 

"Playing an RPG" as a therapy session is not playing an RPG.  It's running a therapy session when you don't know what the hell you are doing.  Now admittedly, there is not much special about RPGs in that respect, inherently.  "Playing baseball" as a therapy session would be almost as stupid, other than there is more room for the stupidity to cause harm in an RPG because of how imagination plays into it.  But one could certainly screw up almost any social activity that way if one tried hard enough.

The problem here is that for psychology, "therapy session" can include just about anything. My girlfriend is a child therapist and often spends times playing board games with her patients as a way to connect to them. There is massage therapy - but does that mean that if I give my girlfriend a massage, that I'm engaging in an unlicensed therapy session? If a friend of mine is feeling down and I talk with him about his feelings and give him advice, am I engaging in therapy?

For RPGs, the question is - suppose I suspect that my DM is engaging in therapy without telling the players. What would be the signs that he is doing so? How is it different than a regular game in concrete terms?

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 01, 2021, 01:54:56 PM
Let me try it a third way.  Would you agree that a GM is usually a person with some degree of imagination and the ability to manipulate a situation to produce imaginative outcomes in others?  If so, would you also agree that a strong manipulator that sets out to fuck with people with issues can sometimes cause harm?  If so, you are most the way to my point which could also be expressed as:  "Running an RPG as therapy is the GM setting out to fuck with people that have issues."  Designing a game to encourage others to do this makes the designer an asshole.

Anyone can cause harm, regardless of whether they are a GM or a baseball teammate or anyone else. Life can cause harm, without anyone attempting anything. I'm not convinced that GMs are more dangerous than anyone else. If my son plays in a game with an asshole GM, he can quit the game. He isn't in extra danger because he's playing an RPG compared to doing anything else in life.

Quote from: jhkim on April 01, 2021, 03:37:44 PM
For RPGs, the question is - suppose I suspect that my DM is engaging in therapy without telling the players. What would be the signs that he is doing so? How is it different than a regular game in concrete terms?

Not everything a therapist does in a session is therapy.  I'm talking clinical practices here.  A concrete example is the clinical "desensitizing" technique.  Very useful in certain cases, if used carefully and monitored.  Sometimes the only way to help someone.  A GM deciding to help you get over your fear of spiders by flooding you with spider foes, tossing real spiders on you, using extraordinary visually imagery, etc. is an example of the wrong-headed approach.  You need a hell of a lot more than "safe words" or "X-cards" or anything else like that to monitor that situation.  And even if the target is well-adjusted enough and/or the phobia is mild enough to deal with it (probably by walking away or telling the GM to piss off), it's still a jerk move on the GM's part.  If the person is not well-adjusted enough or the phobia is strong enough, guess what?  That GM just set back the effort to cope with the problem, potentially a lot.

As far as RPGs are concerned, I would generalize this point beyond even the question of psychology and harm to the thought that the GM running a game for a group should do so with the primary intention of having an enjoyable social event.  It's true that the various participants might learn some history or literature or something about myth or get a little more comfortable with basic math or any number of a host of things that can, and do, emerge naturally out of an RPG session.  In the same vein, it's true that someone with a mild psychological issue might find confronting that thing in the game slightly helpful.  If it emerges naturally as a secondary or tertiary benefit, it does.  When the GM starts trying to force it, they've gone too far.  At best, it is a bait and switch.   It can go downhill from that state really fast.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 01, 2021, 04:19:53 PM

Quote from: jhkim on April 01, 2021, 03:37:44 PM
For RPGs, the question is - suppose I suspect that my DM is engaging in therapy without telling the players. What would be the signs that he is doing so? How is it different than a regular game in concrete terms?

Not everything a therapist does in a session is therapy.  I'm talking clinical practices here.  A concrete example is the clinical "desensitizing" technique.  Very useful in certain cases, if used carefully and monitored.  Sometimes the only way to help someone.  A GM deciding to help you get over your fear of spiders by flooding you with spider foes, tossing real spiders on you, using extraordinary visually imagery, etc. is an example of the wrong-headed approach.  You need a hell of a lot more than "safe words" or "X-cards" or anything else like that to monitor that situation.  And even if the target is well-adjusted enough and/or the phobia is mild enough to deal with it (probably by walking away or telling the GM to piss off), it's still a jerk move on the GM's part.  If the person is not well-adjusted enough or the phobia is strong enough, guess what?  That GM just set back the effort to cope with the problem, potentially a lot.

But this is exactly the logic that is used to claim that safety tools such as the X-card are necessary for games. As a GM, I could easily have a campaign arc that is all about evil spiders even if I didn't intend to use desensitization. And according to your argument, if I did so, I'd be psychologically harming my player who has a phobia of spiders. It's because of this supposed danger that RPGs are argued to need safety tools.

In practice, I don't think this is the danger you're making it out to be. If the player is uncomfortable with it, they can tell the GM they're uncomfortable with it - even if there are no safety tools. If the GM is a jerk and insists on keeping the spiders, the player can quit.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 01, 2021, 04:19:53 PM
As far as RPGs are concerned, I would generalize this point beyond even the question of psychology and harm to the thought that the GM running a game for a group should do so with the primary intention of having an enjoyable social event.  It's true that the various participants might learn some history or literature or something about myth or get a little more comfortable with basic math or any number of a host of things that can, and do, emerge naturally out of an RPG session.  In the same vein, it's true that someone with a mild psychological issue might find confronting that thing in the game slightly helpful.  If it emerges naturally as a secondary or tertiary benefit, it does.  When the GM starts trying to force it, they've gone too far.  At best, it is a bait and switch.   It can go downhill from that state really fast.

In practice, I don't worry about kids playing RPGs - because I don't think the game itself is dangerous. If the GM runs a game with the wrong intent, they'll end up with a game that isn't fun and that the players will quit. They won't end up being harmed because the GM.

If the GM *intent* makes the game dangerous, then any game has the potential to be dangerous unless you really trust the GM. But in practice, I don't worry about my son or other kids playing RPGs with each other. It's no more dangerous than any other social activity.

You still seem to be missing the nuances in my point.

As for the safety card, I'll repeat myself from other threads:  If the issues are minor enough, the safety card is unnecessary;  otherwise, the safety card is insufficient.

On the question of intent, yes, a GM can of course do something harmful by accident.  People do it all the time--it's called life and all of us not being perfect.  A certain amount of that is expected and people have to learn to cope with it. People with psychological issues by definition are a little behind the curve there.  Surely you can see that deliberately, systematically doing the same kind of harmful things is a difference in both degree and kind?

At the risk of my words getting twisted, I'll use an exact example from my campaigns:  I've got 3 or 4 players that are, in fact, a little weirded out by big spiders in the game.  None of them have a phobia about it, but it is something that pushes their buttons a little, kind of like the spider scenes in "The Hobbit."  All of them will look at a spider web and a normal spider in admiration, but they don't want a spider to run across their face at night.  They'd reread the "The Hobbit" and enjoy it, but they wouldn't read those spider scenes in an abandoned house covered in cobwebs, alone, at night.  That is well within the boundaries of normal.

I do occasionally use big spiders in my game.  Now, I'm always paying attention to player reactions when running, but anytime I'm pushing up to the edge of what I know they like (and not just things that weird them out), I turn that attention up a notch.  That's part of the excitement of the game. Some players want you to dance up to the edge.  This is where intent starts to matter a lot.  My intent is to give them a great game experience, not desensitize them to being weirded out by big spiders.   Because that is my intent, and I'm paying attention, I will edge in more slowly and back off much sooner.  You can't do that with desensitizing, since the whole point is to get past the edge, but not too far, and stay there briefly.  With me, since I'm edging in, my normal players without issues don't need a card.  If it is approaching the edge, they say, "That's a little too much," or "I don't want to deal with this today."  They are still going to deal with the imaginary spiders in the game, but we lower the rating from R to PG-13 or even lower.  If in some unhappy circumstance I happened to stumble into an issue where the player was too stressed to speak up, they'd either leave the room or sit there in shock or react very strongly.  Either way, I'd notice that. I'm not a trained therapist, but you don't need to be to realize that you need to stop whatever you are doing and deal with the problem.  You only need to be trained if you plan to sit there in the group and suddenly have a group session--not that a trained therapist would, because that is not a controlled environment.

Much Younger Steve, that was a killer GM and didn't know any of this stuff, played around with fire.  But intent still matters.  Because when I leaped over the edge to provide a vivid experience, it sometimes led to sub-optimal game experience for the players.  Just one more instance of what "a group of teenagers engaged in a social activity" can be.  Since my players were reasonable people and knew I was trying, ineptly, to give them a good experience, someone would catch me after the game and tell me it was too much.  Or if it was bad enough, they'd put a halt right then and there and we'd talk it out.  You know, like normal people.  Talk about what works to meet the goal, and if it doesn't work, what to try instead.  The exact opposite of what the X-Card does.

Now contrast that to a game deliberately designed to get the GM to play amateur therapist all the time, telling him it was a good idea, showing him how to aggressively push button, and thinking that an X-Card is the only safety net needed.  That's the difference between, "Here's a procedure to light the pilot light and then the gas fireplace safely," versus, "Take this torch and run through the gas refinery while the tankers are loading, what could go wrong?" Chances are, you'll manage not to do any harm because the people at the refinery probably have enough procedures in place to deal with that kind of stupid intent coupled with relatively low-grade means.  The same way that normal people in a game can tell you to stop it when you do something with equally stupid intent in the game.   And sometimes God watches out for fools. It might "work" because other people adjust to you being an idiot, not because it was a good idea.   However, you only have to get unlucky once to do real damage.

Finally, I want to mention in passing that another reason that SJW's keep pushing this kind of nonsense, is revealing of another aspect of their characters:  They are nearly always a nasty combination of mentally lazy and desperate not to admit that fact to themselves or anyone else.  The X-Card is an excuse (one of many) to avoid the work of getting better at social interactions.   Not to face up to all those life lessons that I and my teenage pals worked through like most normal people do, with lesser improvements as life goes on.  I hate comparing them to "children" because most children are much nicer than SJW's, but developmentally they have the social skills that would make your average 4-year old blush.

Quote from: jhkim on April 01, 2021, 05:07:00 PM
If the GM *intent* makes the game dangerous, then any game has the potential to be dangerous unless you really trust the GM. But in practice, I don't worry about my son or other kids playing RPGs with each other. It's no more dangerous than any other social activity.

Replying separately to this part because it is related but looking at the issue from a different angle.

Would you want your kids to play in a Little League where the coaches kept telling the players to run around the bases holding the bat and kneecap anyone that tried to stop them?  Not in the rules you say?  Great, what if it is a different Little League game where that is in the rules?  Still want them to play?  Same with an RPG.  Why would you want your kids (or anyone else) to play in game that had rules designed to mentally kneecap the players?

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 02, 2021, 08:10:27 AM

Quote from: jhkim on April 01, 2021, 05:07:00 PM
If the GM *intent* makes the game dangerous, then any game has the potential to be dangerous unless you really trust the GM. But in practice, I don't worry about my son or other kids playing RPGs with each other. It's no more dangerous than any other social activity.

Replying separately to this part because it is related but looking at the issue from a different angle.

Would you want your kids to play in a Little League where the coaches kept telling the players to run around the bases holding the bat and kneecap anyone that tried to stop them?  Not in the rules you say?  Great, what if it is a different Little League game where that is in the rules?  Still want them to play?  Same with an RPG.  Why would you want your kids (or anyone else) to play in game that had rules designed to mentally kneecap the players?

This is based on the presumption that *fictional* monsters in a tabletop RPG are the equivalent of baseball bats to kneecaps. I can't picture that. Is there any actually published game that you think is the equivalent of this "hit each other with baseball bats"?!?

As far as I have seen, there is no RPG published that would make me afraid for harm to my kid. There are some with inappropriate material, but I think that's a different question.

Quote from: jhkim on April 02, 2021, 08:37:09 PMAs far as I have seen, there is no RPG published that would make me afraid for harm to my kid. There are some with inappropriate material, but I think that's a different question.

I've seen a few now in the last year alone that I think you should at least be cautious around, and a few that you should be concerned around. These are the ones that push some agenda though. Sometimes subtly, more often very not subtly.

I think ANY RPG touting itself as "Therapy" is dangerous on way too many levels. Moreso if it also has some agenda its pushing at the same time. That is not therapy. Its brainwashing. But even just touting itself as "therapy" alone is dangerous. Most notably because odds are this is some persons idea of what "therapy" means rather than something written by a trained professional. Odds are its based on various misconceptions that have built up over the decades.

As for Fat Self Care... I really do not know what this is supposed to be other than reading like an outrage marketing ploy on the surface. Which at this point is practically SOP for marketing now.

Quote from: Chris24601 on March 19, 2021, 01:28:51 PM
And because my friend knows how the Woke game is played; they wanted to know just how the Cherokee author thinks its okay to appropriate Lakota and First Nations cultural elements as his own, comparing it to a Spaniard claiming French wine and German sauerkraut as part of their heritage because they live on the same continent.

The developer is so aware of this issue...

Quote[27-Jan-21 08:49 PM] connorhalo#2266
So, there's a Skill in the game called Ceremony. It's currently written in a very generic way that we wanted to make sure non-Natives can use. There's an option for Native players to adapt things like Ceremony to their tribes traditions and modify the effects. But "Magic" starts getting into areas where to define it one way is to start excluding certain tribes and their beliefs from the game. We're working hard on making sure that the game is structured enough to feel like you can ground it, but open enough that Natives can still feel free to adjust it to their liking. Short answer: No magic in the D&D sense. Longer answer: It depends on the Story Guides and the beliefs of the players.

...that they're deliberately not defining certain parts of the setting in order to avoid alienating anyone.

Quote from: Chris24601 on March 19, 2021, 01:28:51 PM
And the fact that this setting will almost certainly gloss over the slavery (including what in modern times would be sex slavery), human sacrifice, endemic tribal warfare and the glaring cultural divides between tribes is why my friend pretty much loathes projects like this... Native Americans are not seen as actual people by the Woke, they're magic fairies who would live in a perfect kumbaiya utopia if not for Western civilization showing up.

Of all the concerns about the game this is the most valid.

Quote from: BronzeDragon on March 23, 2021, 08:55:20 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on March 19, 2021, 01:28:51 PMAs my Blackfoot friend stated; some other tribes weren't even considered people; they were vermin.

Here in Brazil, the Portuguese and French encountered two main tribes along the coastline, the Tupi and the Tapuia. They were engaged in a bloody, interminable war.

Except, Tapuia isn't what they called themselves. Tupi means "People" and Tapuia is Tupi for "Not People".

Since the Tupi-Portuguese alliance beat the Tapuia-French alliance, and the Tupi proceeded to exterminate the Tapuia, we'll never know who they really were.

I knew colonial tribal names were the result of tribes being asked what they called other tribes, but I hadn't realized how ironically on point it was.

Quote from: DocJones on March 28, 2021, 09:58:56 AM
Many of the gaming forums seem to have threads (tangency is notable) where members list their mental and physical afflictions as a source of pride or rather  competition.

This really is the heart of the issue. Because if your 'disability' is the foundation of your culture and status you're not going to change and will prevent others from doing so.

Quote from: jhkim on April 01, 2021, 03:37:44 PM

The problem here is that for psychology, "therapy session" can include just about anything.

Wow, so taking a hot steaming odious crap can be a "therapy session"?

No.

A game is meant to be fun, that is its purpose. A 'therapy session" is designed to provide psychological therapy, which may or may not be fun. Ask your girlfriend if she plays games with her child patients in order to have fun or in order to generate entertaining shared experiences which will allow her to gain insight into her patient and thus improve the chances that some therapeutic benefit will come out of the session.

(And yes, I've seen your schtick long enough to know that you want to try and argumentatively demonstrate through obfuscative "logic" that taking a hot steaming odious crap can indeed be psychologically therapeutic. So let's just skip that.)

Quote from: Omega on April 03, 2021, 12:06:29 AM

Quote from: jhkim on April 02, 2021, 08:37:09 PMAs far as I have seen, there is no RPG published that would make me afraid for harm to my kid. There are some with inappropriate material, but I think that's a different question.

I've seen a few now in the last year alone that I think you should at least be cautious around, and a few that you should be concerned around. These are the ones that push some agenda though. Sometimes subtly, more often very not subtly.

I think ANY RPG touting itself as "Therapy" is dangerous on way too many levels.

Can you cite which specific RPGs you're talking about here?

Quote from: Pat on April 01, 2021, 03:02:41 PM

Quote from: jhkim on April 01, 2021, 12:06:02 PM
This seems like previous views I've had to struggle with - especially from the 1980s. As it was explained to me, playing an RPG might *seem* safe - but actually it was playing with fire. Some RPGs were run and played safely - but if I wasn't careful, the DM could slip in some serious psychological stuff into my game, and I could go too far, become addicted and spiral into a warped and unhealthy fantasy world. This is ​the view dramatized in the novel and movie "Mazes and Monsters".

Another reason to hate Tom Hanks.

And don't forget Blackleaf.

NO! NOT BLACKLEAF!

I'm not especially impressed by most modern legitimate psychology.

But holy fuck is it hugely dangerous to start telling people that playing an RPG is the same as getting professional therapeutic help!

edited to add: in fact, pretty much any therapy that has "you're fine just the way you are" or "anything that's wrong with you is not your responsibility" is worse than useless, it's harmful.