It is on Facebook, but it sure as Hell is fun to exercise my Free Speech there. (https://www.facebook.com/groups/348830782174755/?multi_permalinks=1265988870458937&comment_id=1266226017101889¬if_id=1590497200671127¬if_t=feedback_reaction_generic)
Private group and I don't have Facebook. tl;dr/copy paste/screenshot?
Someone posted the Monte Cook 'Consent in Gaming" book as a recommendation to the Out of Print RPGs group. "If you're looking to run something for a new group and you're not sure how they'll handle certain topics, I've found that the form/questionnaire in this free supplement from Monte Cook Games has been pretty useful. Particularly if you're planning on running some things that could be quite a bit more edgy. (In Nomine, various World of Darkness games, etc.)"
Unlike Mistwell's attempted dismissal of the subject matter, there was quite a bit of spirited argument against such consent forms in gaming which was a delight to see. Unfortunately, the Group admin has deleted the entire thread and admonished everyone that we need to respect all Players regardless of how disruptive their antics may be.
Quote from: jeff37923;1131335Unlike Mistwell's attempted dismissal of the subject matter, there was quite a bit of spirited argument against such consent forms in gaming which was a delight to see. Unfortunately, the Group admin has deleted the entire thread and admonished everyone that we need to respect all Players regardless of how disruptive their antics may be.
So much for free speech...
And thus the (slow) rise of free speech platforms like BitChute, Gab and Minds.
Farcebook, InstaCrap, CensorTube and Shitter need to die in a fire.
That Monte Cook book is pretty good. I don't really see the problem with the consent rules. You can just not use it if nobody in your group is interested, but if someone is, then it's there. Just like other optional rules in games.
It's probably the only thing I would use vs. crap-tastic ideas like the X-card. I like the consent form. It's thorough. It can even be used a simple conversation starter at session 0.
However, like in all things, it's optional. Use it or something like it if you want. Or don't.
Quote from: trechriron;1131389However, like in all things, it's optional. Use it or something like it if you want. Or don't.
A form like that would definitely deter me from playing a game. One of my current GMs asked us for our triggers pre-game, which from a stranger would have been a big no-no, but she's a good friend so I PM'd her some stuff.
I think content warnings based on the well known cinema ratings are by far the best approach, and if someone like me has a particular neurosis that wouldn't be covered (eg claustrophobic drowning in my case) that's up to us to deal with, not the GM.
Quote from: S'mon;1131405A form like that would definitely deter me from playing a game. One of my current GMs asked us for our triggers pre-game, which from a stranger would have been a big no-no, but she's a good friend so I PM'd her some stuff.
I think content warnings based on the well known cinema ratings are by far the best approach, and if someone like me has a particular neurosis that wouldn't be covered (eg claustrophobic drowning in my case) that's up to us to deal with, not the GM.
I've found it a useful tool, especially when playing with a couple of underage players in the group. It did lead to the situation while preparing for Judge Dredd when a player asked me "What if we ticked police brutality" and I responded "Play another game, in this one you
are police brutailty".
People massively overuse the word trigger, it is a psychological term a much greater meaning than "Thing upsets me".
Quote from: Altheus;1131427It did lead to the situation while preparing for Judge Dredd when a player asked me "What if we ticked police brutality" and I responded "Play another game, in this one you are police brutailty".
Sign up to play Judge Dredd, don't want the cops roughing up anyone...that's like saying you want to play Superman, but Lex Luthor isn't allowed to blow up any bridges.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1131352And thus the (slow) rise of free speech platforms like BitChute, Gab and Minds.
Farcebook, InstaCrap, CensorTube and Shitter need to die in a fire.
I'm convinced that social media like Facebook and their ilk are a negative influence on culture. But I also think it's wishful thinking that alternatives like Gab are making even a tiny difference in their popularity.
Regarding the Monte Cook "Consent in Gaming" form,
Quote from: Altheus;1131427People massively overuse the word trigger, it is a psychological term a much greater meaning than "Thing upsets me".
I'll believe that - I'm skeptical of a lot of psychology including triggers. As a gamer, though, I don't have to care about such psychological distinctions. I just want to know "This would make the game not fun for me." If so, that's reason enough to avoid it or lose the player.
Quote from: jhkim;1131448I'll believe that - I'm skeptical of a lot of psychology including triggers. As a gamer, though, I don't have to care about such psychological distinctions. I just want to know "This would make the game not fun for me." If so, that's reason enough to avoid it or lose the player.
Don't let your "progressive" friends hear that you're willing to exclude the oppressed.
Quote from: S'mon;1131405A form like that would definitely deter me from playing a game.
"I do not consent to my character having low stats or dying. This would trigger me. Blackleaf, no!"
Quote from: jeff37923;1131335Unlike Mistwell's attempted dismissal of the subject matter,
Jeff, eat a big huge bag of fuck off.
I did not dismiss anything. I posted what was there, word for word, in quotes. I made no comment at all about it, and there wasn't much to see there beyond what I posted when I arrived to that thread.
Someone asked what it was so I posted it because your dickheaded self just posted a link to a private group with no explanation.
I'm tired of it Jeff. You have a fucking problem with me, let's work it out already. But this constant whiny bullshit from you over the smallest little thing like you're a fucking snowflake who cannot take the merest possibility that someone doesn't agree with him 100% of the time has gotten old. Particularly when I post something TO HELP YOU OUT and you give me this bullshit.
Quote from: Mistwell;1131549Jeff, eat a big huge bag of fuck off.
Yeah, this is you being pissed off that I called you out on your bullshit. Again.
Quote from: Mistwell;1131549I did not dismiss anything. I posted what was there, word for word, in quotes. I made no comment at all about it, and there wasn't much to see there beyond what I posted when I arrived to that thread.
Someone asked what it was so I posted it because your dickheaded self just posted a link to a private group with no explanation.
But what you posted was only the original post from the thread, which was about Monte Cook's Consent Crap. Old news. Why would I link to that? We have already hashed it out here when it first appeared. What I was linking to was the entire conversation surrounding that item, the conversation which was a Hell of lot more interesting and enlightening than some old fucking news that the entire site is already aware of. Why? Because outside of here there was the same conversation about the usefulness of the item, but with a majority that was not members of this site agreeing that it was of limited usefulness.
That whole Goddamn conversation which you chose to ignore and instead concentrate on and post the OP, which we already know about.
But of course, that isn't dismissing the conversation in your eyes. How can something be dismissed when it can simply be omitted.
Quote from: Mistwell;1131549I'm tired of it Jeff. You have a fucking problem with me, let's work it out already. But this constant whiny bullshit from you over the smallest little thing like you're a fucking snowflake who cannot take the merest possibility that someone doesn't agree with him 100% of the time has gotten old. Particularly when I post something TO HELP YOU OUT and you give me this bullshit.
Trying to
help me out?! Your disingenuous fuckery wasn't meant to help! You can take your faux victim status and shove it up your cap & gown selling ass right along with your delusions of White Knighthood.
Quote from: MistwellI did not dismiss anything. I posted what was there, word for word, in quotes. I made no comment at all about it, and there wasn't much to see there beyond what I posted when I arrived to that thread.
Someone asked what it was so I posted it because your dickheaded self just posted a link to a private group with no explanation.
Quote from: jeff37923;1131566But what you posted was only the original post from the thread, which was about Monte Cook's Consent Crap. Old news. Why would I link to that? We have already hashed it out here when it first appeared. What I was linking to was the entire conversation surrounding that item, the conversation which was a Hell of lot more interesting and enlightening than some old fucking news that the entire site is already aware of. Why? Because outside of here there was the same conversation about the usefulness of the item, but with a majority that was not members of this site agreeing that it was of limited usefulness. That whole Goddamn conversation which you chose to ignore and instead concentrate on and post the OP, which we already know about.
But of course, that isn't dismissing the conversation in your eyes. How can something be dismissed when it can simply be omitted.
Jeff, most of us couldn't read either the OP or the conversation, because it was in a private Facebook group. So it wasn't old news to us, because we had no idea what was in there. Mistwell, thanks for the info.
I have joined the Facebook group now, but the thread has now been deleted.
You mentioned that there was spirited argument, but not the content of those arguments. Were there new points raised in that argument that haven't been hashed out here in previous discussion?
Quote from: jeff37923;1131566Yeah, this is you being pissed off that I called you out on your bullshit. Again.
But what you posted was only the original post from the thread
Yes, exactly, you fucking idiot. I posted the post from the original post.
Because that's what was there when I got there. And as you gave no clue what you found of interest there, that was the best anyone could do to help people out here to know at least vaguely what you were posting about.
QuoteOld news. Why would I link to that?
How the fuck would I, or anyone here, know why you linked to that post SINCE YOU GAVE NO COMMENT HERE AS TO WHY YOU LINKED TO IT. That's what was there when I got there. If you saw something fascinating, it had already been deleted. So I posted what was there. Not to dismiss anything - that's what you fucking linked to, yah jackass!
QuoteWhat I was linking to was the entire conversation surrounding that item, the conversation which was a Hell of lot more interesting and enlightening than some old fucking news that the entire site is already aware of.
Whatever "conversation" you are referring to was not there when I copied what I copied.
By your own admission you were deleted, so why are you being such a whiney little shit that I posted what I saw when I went there, which was all there was to see?
None of which would have happened IF YOU HAD POSTED WHAT YOU FOUND INTERESTING HERE, instead of blindly linking to a PRIVATE GROUP like the Internet is some new thing to you.
QuoteThat whole Goddamn conversation which you chose to ignore and instead concentrate on and post the OP, which we already know about.
How can I choose to ignore what I don't see and which doesn't exist?
I can only conclude for this that you are just too dumb to use the Internet. Which is a fucking low bar you failed to cross.
Quote from: Mistwell;1131608Yes, exactly, you fucking idiot. I posted the post from the original post. Because that's what was there when I got there. And as you gave no clue what you found of interest there, that was the best anyone could do to help people out here to know at least vaguely what you were posting about.
How the fuck would I, or anyone here, know why you linked to that post SINCE YOU GAVE NO COMMENT HERE AS TO WHY YOU LINKED TO IT. That's what was there when I got there. If you saw something fascinating, it had already been deleted. So I posted what was there. Not to dismiss anything - that's what you fucking linked to, yah jackass!
Whatever "conversation" you are referring to was not there when I copied what I copied.
By your own admission you were deleted, so why are you being such a whiney little shit that I posted what I saw when I went there, which was all there was to see?
None of which would have happened IF YOU HAD POSTED WHAT YOU FOUND INTERESTING HERE, instead of blindly linking to a PRIVATE GROUP like the Internet is some new thing to you.
How can I choose to ignore what I don't see and which doesn't exist?
I can only conclude for this that you are just too dumb to use the Internet. Which is a fucking low bar you failed to cross.
I woke up to piss around noon (I work nights) and the conversation was still there when I glanced at it on my phone, so I can only conclude that you are lying and throwing up this smokescreen about how I am victimizing you to hide your duplicity.
I can only think that you are too dumb to fabricate a believable untruth. I suggest you stay out of politics.
And I concede this to you, you are a bigger asshole than I can ever hope to be.
Quote from: jeff37923;1131611I woke up to piss around noon (I work nights) and the conversation was still there when I glanced at it on my phone, so I can only conclude that you are lying and throwing up this smokescreen about how I am victimizing you to hide your duplicity.
I can only think that you are too dumb to fabricate a believable untruth. I suggest you stay out of politics.
Now I am a liar because all I saw was the OP?
I did see some replies to a "Jeff" by the way, but not actual comments from a "Jeff", so they made no sense. Either 1) you had blocked me in the past (entirely possible because you're that kind of coward) or 2) your posts had already been deleted by the admin (which you admit had been done). It's one or the other buddy.
I'll know next time to screenshot anything you do on FB that could become an issue here I guess in the future. Because you're that level of an idiot.
And again, if you had bothered to post the actual stuff you found interesting HERE in the first place instead of linking people to a private group, none of this could have happened. Something you still have not acknowledged or taken any responsibility for. So I guess add "egotistical and narcassistic" to the list that includes "idiot" as fair descriptions of your actions in this thread.
Quote from: jeff37923;1131613And I concede this to you, you are a bigger asshole than I can ever hope to be.
I have faith in you, jeff37923! You can win this! You're putting in excellent effort, and I think that goes a long way.
:D
Quote from: S'mon;1131405A form like that would definitely deter me from playing a game. ...
Why? I want to know, as the GM, if I bring something into the game that's going to squick you out. I want to avoid it OR I may want to ask you find another game. Instead of having you be disgusted with me. I don't need your impending lecture or drama when that thing that is an absolute line for you is crossed.
I have a friend who I thought was also a Walking Dead fan, who upon me asking these questions about a game (many moons ago), mentioned he cannot deal with any violence regarding children. I was surprised. I asked "I thought you liked the Walking Dead? Last weekend they shot a child." He replied "Yep. And I stopped watching the show." Huh. I could have totally stepped right in a pile of OH SHIT on that one.
I don't care HOW you do it, but every game should start with a session 0 conversation about the shit you're wanna have or not have in your world of make-believe. Personally, I like knowing where the boundaries are at so I can try to avoid it. YMMV of course.
Yeah, I've stepped in it a few times running games. It wasn't anything catastrophic on my part but it lost me a player or two still.
For instance, I once ran a game where one of the players turned out to have a phobia of bugs. Well, this was a dungeon with giant spiders, carrion crawlers, the works. He ended up not being able to sleep that night. I'm not sure how this could have come up in a normal conversation outside of broaching it in these "what are your problems" topics -- but I suspect even in those cases a lot of people wouldn't be comfortable just coming out and saying their intimate secrets even if you were proactively pursuing it.
Quote from: jeff37923;1131566your cap & gown selling ass
Wait a second, is 'Mistwell' the guy that tried to sell that ridiculous story about the cap & gown manufactorium? I don't remember a lot of stuff that's typed on this site, or who typed it, but that bit of internet performance art really stood out :)
Quote from: trechriron;1131633Why? I want to know, as the GM, if I bring something into the game that's going to squick you out.
Telling you all my deep dark neuroses gives you a lot of power over me. It's also often quite upsetting listing them since it makes me think about the reasons why I have them.
Related point, I think content breaks down into stuff it's the player's responsibility to handle ("drowning") and stuff it's the GM's responsibility to notify ("extreme sexual violence"). I think it's extremely important not to conflate these.
Quote from: trechriron;1131633Why? I want to know, as the GM, if I bring something into the game that's going to squick you out. I want to avoid it OR I may want to ask you find another game. Instead of having you be disgusted with me. I don't need your impending lecture or drama when that thing that is an absolute line for you is crossed.
I have a friend who I thought was also a Walking Dead fan, who upon me asking these questions about a game (many moons ago), mentioned he cannot deal with any violence regarding children. I was surprised. I asked "I thought you liked the Walking Dead? Last weekend they shot a child." He replied "Yep. And I stopped watching the show." Huh. I could have totally stepped right in a pile of OH SHIT on that one.
I don't care HOW you do it, but every game should start with a session 0 conversation about the shit you're wanna have or not have in your world of make-believe. Personally, I like knowing where the boundaries are at so I can try to avoid it. YMMV of course.
I might want to have the conversation, some of it in the group at session 0, some of it 1:1 with the players (if they want to do that, and only if they want to do that). I do
not want to start that conversation with a form. That is so typically Monte Cook "off" it isn't even funny. It's ham-handed, with the feel of bureaucracy. it's like you have to fill out the hospital form before you can play the
game. Why stop there? Let's go ahead and ask if you've ever been committed for psychiatric care? List your meds! Have you been taking them regularly? Sleeping well? And all of this is being handled by people that likely are not trained in medical care or even can spell HIPAA.
I'll go further than what Smon said, though he may very well agree with this: The responsibility for knowing your limitations goes beyond managing your issues. It includes avoiding situations where they might arise--to the extent that you don't want to handle it at the time. That may mean that some people just shouldn't join a convention game that is billed as "mature"--period--in the same way that a wise bipolar person even on their meds has some self-imposed limitations in what they do. Stick to games where you can have the 1:1 conversation with people you trust. If you enjoy the conventions, stick to "safer" for you games.
Finally, the deeper the issue, the less likely that someone is going to want to talk about it--even in the more friendly manner that I've outlined above. I'll freely admit that people being deliberately burned alive really bugs me to the point that I don't like seeing it in a game. That's because I've completely recognized that trait for what it is in me, to the point that I don't mind listing it here to strangers. The only reason I wouldn't put it on the form is because I think the form is stupid. Fact is, people being burned alive is something that happened. If I'm in a game, I'm prepared to handle it if it arises, even though I won't like it. I can quietly wall off myself from the game for a scene and then go on when the scene is over. Heck, I might even roleplay the character having the same reaction. Because my issue bothers me, but it is manageable.
However, I've got players in my groups with things that bug them a hell of a lot more than that--and I can tell you that they don't casually mention them in conversation. They might fill out the form, but they would
not include the things that really bug them. And they probably wouldn't fill out the form, because halfway through it they'd get physically ill thinking about whether to list the thing, and that would make them emotional and possibly angry at "the moron GM" (or something approximating that thought) that gave them the form to fill out. Congratulations, way to get the game off to a great start. You've made some of your players angry with you before the game starts and driven off some others that have written you off as a person. The form is the exact opposite of "friendly" to people with real issues. The only people it is "friendly" to are people with issues like mine that they enjoy having a lot of drama about because it gives them a thrill. I sure as hell don't want them in my game.
Wait, maybe I should use the form. I'll have a line at the top that you can check that says the form is stupid and none of my business. Anyone that checks that gets in. Anyone that fills it out is excluded automatically. Hmm.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1131653However, I've got players in my groups with things that bug them a hell of a lot more than that--and I can tell you that they don't casually mention them in conversation. They might fill out the form, but they would not include the things that really bug them. And they probably wouldn't fill out the form, because halfway through it they'd get physically ill thinking about whether to list the thing, and that would make them emotional and possibly angry at "the moron GM" (or something approximating that thought) that gave them the form to fill out. Congratulations, way to get the game off to a great start.
Yeah, this is exactly how I felt - and I don't think my problems are even that bad compared to people with real psychological problems like genuine PTSD. The form may work great for the SJW types who want to display their mental issues as a bloody rag of virtue; IMO it's positively harmful for people with real problems.
Quote from: S'mon;1131640Telling you all my deep dark neuroses gives you a lot of power over me. It's also often quite upsetting listing them since it makes me think about the reasons why I have them.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1131653However, I've got players in my groups with things that bug them a hell of a lot more than that--and I can tell you that they don't casually mention them in conversation. They might fill out the form, but they would not include the things that really bug them. And they probably wouldn't fill out the form, because halfway through it they'd get physically ill thinking about whether to list the thing, and that would make them emotional and possibly angry at "the moron GM" (or something approximating that thought) that gave them the form to fill out. Congratulations, way to get the game off to a great start. You've made some of your players angry with you before the game starts and driven off some others that have written you off as a person. The form is the exact opposite of "friendly" to people with real issues. The only people it is "friendly" to are people with issues like mine that they enjoy having a lot of drama about because it gives them a thrill. I sure as hell don't want them in my game.
Quote from: S'mon;1131664Yeah, this is exactly how I felt - and I don't think my problems are even that bad compared to people with real psychological problems like genuine PTSD. The form may work great for the SJW types who want to display their mental issues as a bloody rag of virtue; IMO it's positively harmful for people with real problems.
And this touches on the fine point for me, which was brought up in the Facebook conversation. Advocates of Monte Cook's Consent Form tend to present it like a security blanket that will help to protect the user from the depredations of that perennial SJW 'gamer' menace, the Abusive GM. The problem is that without a Session Zero where the Player can gauge the personality of the GM, because people can usually twig to when they are conversing with a creepy gamer, the Consent Form gives a false sense of security and protection that nothing bad or triggering will happen during the game. The problem with that is if you are dealing with an Abusive GM, the Player has just given that sociopath a checklist of psychological buttons to push in order to get a reaction during the game. It is an Edgelord's wet dream.
Quote from: trechriron;1131633Why? I want to know, as the GM, if I bring something into the game that's going to squick you out. I want to avoid it OR I may want to ask you find another game. Instead of having you be disgusted with me. I don't need your impending lecture or drama when that thing that is an absolute line for you is crossed.
I have a friend who I thought was also a Walking Dead fan, who upon me asking these questions about a game (many moons ago), mentioned he cannot deal with any violence regarding children. I was surprised. I asked "I thought you liked the Walking Dead? Last weekend they shot a child." He replied "Yep. And I stopped watching the show." Huh. I could have totally stepped right in a pile of OH SHIT on that one.
I don't care HOW you do it, but every game should start with a session 0 conversation about the shit you're wanna have or not have in your world of make-believe. Personally, I like knowing where the boundaries are at so I can try to avoid it. YMMV of course.
Life is a constant dance around the possibility of stepping in a big pile of OH SHIT, because humans are complex and it is impossible to predict how the fractal complexities are going to play out. It's fundamentally the wrong approach to work to prevent discomfort from ever occurring, because it's unachievable and stifles conversation and interaction the whole way down. The better approach is to treat interaction as a negotiation, and to arm people with the skills and confidence to advocate for themselves, instill a default sense of principle of charity, and then deal with the problems if and when they arise. *
It's a culture of safety vs. a culture of risk taking. Actual potential harm from spoken interactions with a group of sympathetic peers is bounded in severity, but the loss of agency and potential from trying to prevent said harm from ever occurring is higher impact and higher likelihood. And it's infantilizing to deny people the opportunity to try and see and to speak for themselves if their lines are crossed.
Also, use of this kind of tool telegraphs a kind of absolutist ideological stance that is unwelcoming to and uninterested in this kind of argument.
(* I also think that discomfort tends to be net a good thing, because it means I've hit some boundary and something is being challenged. I need the option to nope out if it's too much at the time, which only I can decide; at the same time, my experience has been that learning/growth and discomfort went hand in hand. And there's stuff I might have shied away from facing if presented as "oh my god trigger this trigger that" that I'm glad that I faced.)
Edited to add:
Quote from: S'mon;1131664Yeah, this is exactly how I felt - and I don't think my problems are even that bad compared to people with real psychological problems like genuine PTSD. The form may work great for the SJW types who want to display their mental issues as a bloody rag of virtue; IMO it's positively harmful for people with real problems.
This is exactly right.
Quote from: S'mon;1131664Yeah, this is exactly how I felt - and I don't think my problems are even that bad compared to people with real psychological problems like genuine PTSD. The form may work great for the SJW types who want to display their mental issues as a bloody rag of virtue; IMO it's positively harmful for people with real problems.
That's a really good point, these things require trust and good faith on both sides to be useful, I can think of various gms I've known who I wouldn't trust with this kind of information because they would use it against the player.
Quote from: Altheus;1131671That's a really good point, these things require trust and good faith on both sides to be useful, I can think of various gms I've known who I wouldn't trust with this kind of information because they would use it against the player.
I trust my friend who asked us for a checklist of no-nos; I still found it quite painful putting the list together (& I feel a bit silly talking about it here, makes me sound like a real snowflake) :D. I remember her reaction was mostly "Of course I wouldn't include
that!" - which shows how just relying on community common standards works better anyway.
I would never play in a game with a "consent form". I don't have time, energy or interest to game with the snowflake freakshow brigade. Show up, play the game, handle your own shit or leave.
That worked for the ACTUAL VIETNAM VETS who played D&D in the 70s and 80s.
Quote from: S'mon;1131682I trust my friend who asked us for a checklist of no-nos; I still found it quite painful putting the list together (& I feel a bit silly talking about it here, makes me sound like a real snowflake) :D. I remember her reaction was mostly "Of course I wouldn't include that!" - which shows how just relying on community common standards works better anyway.
I feel like there's a big conceptual divide between the common criticism "The SJWs are hand-wringing over nothing and players should just toughen up" and this take that "Real psychological problems are super serious and a checklist isn't the best way to address them".
My feeling is that this is a game we do for fucking fun. As a GM, I shouldn't have to know the best approach for psychological health. If the players aren't comfortable with the checklist, then I wouldn't use them. Conversely, though, if players liked the idea of a checklist, then I might go ahead and use it.
To me, a checklist feels like an excessively formal approach to generating community standards. But I'm on board with the general principle of "Find out what would make the game not fun for the players, and avoid having that stuff in the game."
Quote from: jhkim;1131690I feel like there's a big conceptual divide between the common criticism "The SJWs are hand-wringing over nothing and players should just toughen up" and this take that "Real psychological problems are super serious and a checklist isn't the best way to address them".
I don't think they're contradictory points. Nor is the "creepy stranger GM" issue of checklist giving GM power over the checklist provider.
I dunno, I just think how to do this stuff was already worked out with cinema film classification, extended to TV & videogames, nowadays refined with those lists of particular possibly-objectionable stuff ("sustained threat"). Gamers already had a working model they could refer to. No reason to replace it with a dysfunctional model.
Part of it is the game designer's drive to systematize all of the ambiguous parts of the game, the same way you see people trying to make elaborate social systems to handle dialogue. I've always felt confident in just being able to feel out the temperature of the room, but people want a bullet proof ironclad way to approach it that takes away the need for personally having to get involved.
Quote from: Brad;1131428Sign up to play Judge Dredd, don't want the cops roughing up anyone...that's like saying you want to play Superman, but Lex Luthor isn't allowed to blow up any bridges.
Fox's Spiderman animated had a series of rules that had to be followed. Can not Punch anyone, Cannot jump through windows, cannot disturb pigeons when landing on rooftops. and more. That was during the propr iteration of political correctness. Remember kids. Dont be mean to the Morally Challenged.
Quote from: Omega;1131707Fox's Spiderman animated had a series of rules that had to be followed. Can not Punch anyone, Cannot jump through windows, cannot disturb pigeons when landing on rooftops. and more. That was during the propr iteration of political correctness. Remember kids. Dont be mean to the Morally Challenged.
Sounds like GI Joe...not actually allowed to shoot anyone, or He-Man...have a sword? Sorry, you can only punch.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1131653I might want to have the conversation, some of it in the group at session 0, some of it 1:1 with the players (if they want to do that, and only if they want to do that). I do not want to start that conversation with a form. ...
Quote from: jeff37923;1131668And this touches on the fine point for me, which was brought up in the Facebook conversation. Advocates of Monte Cook's Consent Form tend to present it like a security blanket that will help to protect the user from the depredations of that perennial SJW 'gamer' menace, the Abusive GM. ...
Quote from: insubordinate polyhedral;1131670... It's a culture of safety vs. a culture of risk taking. ...
You all make salient points. I don't think the list has any specifics on it to identify any particular player nor any specific experience. It's very generic. You don't fill out your name, it's meant to be anonymous. So, the Edgelord would be guessing which person they were trying to abuse... :-D
I also agree that trying to hedge real psychological issues is likely prone to disaster. I despise the idea of the X-Card and it's ilk. I'm confident by the time the wounded party could react you would have already ruined their day. The X-Card would hardly help.
I wish Shanna Germain was here to debate the finer points. I'm curious what the inventors think about all your points on the matter. Of course, she might not be willing to brave the lion's den with so much hostility to herself and her company. :-O
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1131698I've always felt confident in just being able to feel out the temperature of the room, but people want a bullet proof ironclad way to approach it that takes away the need for personally having to get involved.
Exactly! And its not going to work.
1) 40 year old "Player A" shits their My Little Pony undies whenever someone says the word "spiders."
2) GM WimpyPants never includes anything remote arachnid in their campaign.
3) Forgetful "Player B" playing a wizard accidentally forgets "Player A"'s crippling mental illness and casts Summon Giant Spiders.
4) "Player A" demands reparations and the banning of "Player B" because they absolutely filled out their Consent Form correctly!
5) Spinachcat lobs a molotov through the window, making the world a better place.
Quote from: trechriron;1131725You all make salient points. I don't think the list has any specifics on it to identify any particular player nor any specific experience. It's very generic. You don't fill out your name, it's meant to be anonymous. So, the Edgelord would be guessing which person they were trying to abuse... :-D
If the Player who filled out the form is sitting across the table from the GM and hands him the completed form (which is likely in a convention or game day scenario), I think that even you would be able to figure out who it was. :D
Quote from: trechriron;1131633I have a friend who I thought was also a Walking Dead fan, who upon me asking these questions about a game (many moons ago), mentioned he cannot deal with any violence regarding children. I was surprised. I asked "I thought you liked the Walking Dead? Last weekend they shot a child." He replied "Yep. And I stopped watching the show."
Isn't the
very first zombie encountered by the main character in the first episode a child zombie? I can't recall, it was years ago I saw it, and I'm not sure I watched more than that episode.
Otherwise... I dunno, most people seem to manage to navigate this without explicit conversations. You start off more-or-less G/PG-rated, then by the banter at the game table you feel out what people will go for and where they'll draw the line.
Normal community standards is generally enough. Most people choose not to watch gore films, most movies do not include children suffering horribly, and so on. And so if these things happen in-game, it's off-screen.
Everyone, every single poster, to therpgsite is more than capable of causing a massive crash in the crystal shop that is social media.
The cinema grading system is an easy shorthand. Everyone in the USA knows G, PG, PG-13, R, NC-17 etc. When I run horror, I put "Mature Players Only" in the description because sometimes the 14 year old who shows up is more mature about a horror RPG than the 40 year olds.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1131741Normal community standards is generally enough. Most people choose not to watch gore films, most movies do not include children suffering horribly, and so on. And so if these things happen in-game, it's off-screen.
This is why conventions have GMs write out descriptions of their game for the con booklet. If a 2pm entry is a game called "Zombie Ultra-Violence" and the GM promises "Resident Evil meets Reanimator meets John Wick!", everyone can judge what that experience might be like versus "X-men vs. My Little Pony".
And for everyone's sake, the more the GM describes their game accurately, the less likely anyone will be caught off guard.
Quote from: jeff37923;1131732If the Player who filled out the form is sitting across the table from the GM and hands him the completed form (which is likely in a convention or game day scenario), I think that even you would be able to figure out who it was. :D
Con games usually have 4 hour slots. Can you imagine how much wasted time from players filling out forms, the GM having to read the forms, then the GM having to "modify" the game to account for WTF nonsense the imbeciles babbled on the forms?
I run a turbo-table. Time is so precious in a 4 hour slot and you need to get a beginning/middle/end because there is no "next time" to play, thus there isn't 15-30 minutes to lose.
Thanks for the copy pasta, Mistwell. :) I don't bother with most social media links, like Facebook.
I see that everyone is still getting along. :p Do mind to not stain the carpeting.
As for consent forms... eh, how are you going to hold someone to that? :o
I do use survey forms, just to get a read on new players. It is there to avoid a cold read after genre, maturity rating, and game pitch are thrown out there. Some people are hard to figure out. And often enthusiastic joiners do not self-examine whether they like or can withstand what they signed up for -- so you gotta nudge them hard to be honest in a private way. Surveys do that for me. Helps clear out the air and start the conversation going to weed out problems before they start.
And it works for more than just broad maturity ratings and genre. People can be oddly specific about what they cannot abide, yet need to chew on it before they can articulate it. Some can enjoy foul-mouthed, tech readout merc squad wetworks all day, but get into the powerlessness vs. the absurdly fantastic, or delve into the morally insidious & creepy, and they tap out. You have to start the private dialogue somewhere.
All this surveying works with the assumption that not all players are required to play every type of game the social circle has. That's another lesson in maturity -- sorta like appreciating not all friends wanna go to the same movie or concert -- and that it is perfectly OK to pursue your own fun. :cool: Sometimes your merc wetworks RPG & gunz blazin' action movie night looks like tired 'ish to others, and it is perfectly OK to bow out so that you can carry on with your fun. :)
Quote from: Brad;1131712Sounds like GI Joe...not actually allowed to shoot anyone, or He-Man...have a sword? Sorry, you can only punch.
Actually in He-Man they clashed swords quite a bit. They just never cut anyone. And not sure as its been a few decades, but probably
didnt punch anyone. That is how moral guardians have been over the decades. You can swing a sword but cant punch someone. You can punch someone but cant swing a sword, etc ad stupidium.
My take with what can or cannot be allowed at the table requires both sides to debate and discuss in good faith what both sides want allowed at the table.
If player XYX is afraid of Spiders and refuses to say anything about it and joins a campaign where that creatures shows up in many encounters and is uncomfortable and unhappy. The fault is on them. One does not have to reveal they are afraid of Spiders at the same time why are they joining a campaign where Spiders are likely to be common. Once the campaign starts I change nothing unless it something problematic or was told may vother a player at the table.
As a DM if Player Xyz has said many times he has arachnophobia either ask that they find another table or don't put in Spiders as a monster encounter or keep it to a minimum. If players all mention a dislike for torture scenes putting a descriptive in length encounter of one is you just being a insensitive ignorant jerk imo.
Both sides need to come to an understanding and both sides are responsible to do so.
Quote from: jeff37923;1131732If the Player who filled out the form is sitting across the table from the GM and hands him the completed form (which is likely in a convention or game day scenario), I think that even you would be able to figure out who it was. :D
I love you too!! :-D
Seriously, we could just shuffle them into a manila folder. I could get a set of stickers so you can't ID handwriting. Double-blind 3rd party regulated procedure with full privacy measures? Online form to be filled out using a privacy service to both obfuscate and randomize?!?!?! :D
But I get your point, and frankly, it's a good one. I just have conversations with people. I showed the form to my current group to get a feel for it, and one player liked it and two hated it. Of the haters, one was left-leaning, the other right-leaning (by my assessment, not by any admission to such). So, this is not a political issue but a practical one. Personally, I think people should be honest with one another. If there really is a hard line for you on any issue, you should discuss with the GM upfront.
Quote from: trechriron;1131825I love you too!! :-D
You do understand that I am engaged.... :D
Quote from: trechriron;1131825But I get your point, and frankly, it's a good one. I just have conversations with people. I showed the form to my current group to get a feel for it, and one player liked it and two hated it. Of the haters, one was left-leaning, the other right-leaning (by my assessment, not by any admission to such). So, this is not a political issue but a practical one. Personally, I think people should be honest with one another. If there really is a hard line for you on any issue, you should discuss with the GM upfront.
Yeah, I'd prefer a Session Zero discussion (even if it was short) to handing my Players a form to fill out. The former is more personal and welcoming while the later is more impersonal and off-putting.
Quote from: Mistwell;1131313Someone posted the Monte Cook 'Consent in Gaming" book as a recommendation to the Out of Print RPGs group. "If you're looking to run something for a new group and you're not sure how they'll handle certain topics, I've found that the form/questionnaire in this free supplement from Monte Cook Games has been pretty useful. Particularly if you're planning on running some things that could be quite a bit more edgy. (In Nomine, various World of Darkness games, etc.)"
A consent form for gaming? Fuck that. Just because people say "infantilize everyone" doesn't mean we SHOULD.
Talk to your players like they're adults and lay it out at the beginning: "Life on Earth and thus human experience is full of sex, drugs, violence, swearing, idolatry, and countless ideas and actions that we dislike and disagree with. Genocides happen. The earth hosts but a single race and yet it is still riddled with racism, sexism, xenophobia, etc. In a fantasy world humans will try to fuck mermaids. Is there a word for people that dislike that?" And on and on.
Being a DM is a bit like being a standup comedian: you have to be able to explore all topics and the people in the audience have to understand that need for freedom, have to understand the CONTEXT, and have to give you the benefit of the doubt. Until they pull an Adam Koebel.
If someone has the emotional/cognitive strength of a seven year old they can go play Animal Crossing instead.
Quote from: yancy;1131635Wait a second, is 'Mistwell' the guy that tried to sell that ridiculous story about the cap & gown manufactorium? I don't remember a lot of stuff that's typed on this site, or who typed it, but that bit of internet performance art really stood out :)
What on earth are you talking about?
I don't have a clue about that quote either, I don't know anything about a 'cap and gown manufactorium' and I'm pretty sure 'manufactorium' isn't even a word.
Did you mess up and quote somebody else by mistake, and somehow get my screen name in there, or do I need to be concerned about the security of my account?
Quote from: yancy;1132523I'm pretty sure 'manufactorium' isn't even a word.
Unless you live in the 41st century (I've seen it pop up in Warhammer 40k a bit).
Quote from: yancy;1132523I don't have a clue about that quote either, I don't know anything about a 'cap and gown manufactorium' and I'm pretty sure 'manufactorium' isn't even a word.
Did you mess up and quote somebody else by mistake, and somehow get my screen name in there, or do I need to be concerned about the security of my account?
No I checked, that's a quote of your post. What an odd turn of events. You can click page back to see it.
My company does make caps and gowns, among other things, so that's what Jeff was referring to. But I don't know what story you (or someone with your handle) is referring to? And I've never called it "manufactorium" but I like it and might in the future!
Tipping over the social media apple cart" can be quite a task, but it's all about shaking things up and staying innovative. If you're looking for ways to revamp your social media strategy and bring in some fresh ideas, you might want to explore a resource like SMM World (https://www.smm-world.com/). They offer some helpful insights and tools to navigate the ever-changing landscape of social media.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on May 26, 2020, 08:57:33 PM
I don't really see the problem with the consent rules.
I don't pander to the insane. It wastes my time. So it is a problem to do so.
Quote from: SherlynRichards on October 02, 2023, 04:06:29 AM
"Tipping over the social media apple cart" can be quite a task, but it's all about shaking things up and staying innovative
Holy necromancy, Batman!
Quote from: BatmanA thread dead for two years, walking the streets of Gotham again. And with his first post too, Robin!
Quote from: Venka on October 02, 2023, 10:26:30 AM
Quote from: SherlynRichards on October 02, 2023, 04:06:29 AM
"Tipping over the social media apple cart" can be quite a task, but it's all about shaking things up and staying innovative
Holy necromancy, Batman!
Quote from: BatmanA thread dead for two years, walking the streets of Gotham again. And with his first post too, Robin!
It's a bot. I've noticed this on other sites. It necroes a thread with some tangentially-related, milquetoast reply, then a day or two later updates the comment with a link to some service or product.
Quote from: Effete on October 03, 2023, 12:30:01 AM
Quote from: Venka on October 02, 2023, 10:26:30 AM
Quote from: SherlynRichards on October 02, 2023, 04:06:29 AM
"Tipping over the social media apple cart" can be quite a task, but it's all about shaking things up and staying innovative
Holy necromancy, Batman!
Quote from: BatmanA thread dead for two years, walking the streets of Gotham again. And with his first post too, Robin!
It's a bot. I've noticed this on other sites. It necroes a thread with some tangentially-related, milquetoast reply, then a day or two later updates the comment with a link to some service or product.
Oh, what wonders has AI brought us!
Quote from: Effete on October 03, 2023, 12:30:01 AM
It's a bot. I've noticed this on other sites. It necroes a thread with some tangentially-related, milquetoast reply, then a day or two later updates the comment with a link to some service or product.
Gods, I thought it was just a noob. But you're right, it's totally some scambot.
Quote from: Venka on October 03, 2023, 01:24:01 PM
Gods, I thought it was just a noob. But you're right, it's totally some scambot.
Yep. The board needs a good bot screening mechanism at sign up