I think you're equivocating two different concepts of "safety." At the very least, you're overstating what the existence of this kind of thing implies.

This is a stellar way to put it, tbh. Much nicer and more concise than how I could've said it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure the people who are sharing this PDF mean well, but the BDSM terminology adds another layer of "yikes, that's unnecessary" to this whole thing.

No one is being forced to do anything, and "fragile" seems like a deliberate attempt to imply that someone should feel ashamed for feeling a particular way. Is that is what's intended?

Some people do need to realize there are other people outside themselves who matter. On both sides of this problem

But honestly, I have very little patience for people trying to justify being a complete apple pie just because it's easier than caring about other people who don't provide immediate benefit to them.

No, I'm describing exactly what they're saying and doing. Well, aside from the ones that aren't implying anything because they're saying it outright. They are absolutely saying that roleplaying is an inherently unsafe process. They are saying it can be psychologically damaging. You know, literally the same thing they said in the 80s when they were claiming that it made people kill themselves and each other.

The simple fact is that the parts of this and other, similar, discussions that are saying "just talk with your group about what is and isn't okay with you to come up in play" are perfectly fine. They're also common practice and have been since the 70s. The rest of it is needless nonsense. The only tool you need is the ability to use your words and say what you mean. If you're not mature enough to say "I don't like this, can we skip it?" or "I don't like this, I'm leaving," then you're probably not mature enough for role-playing games at all.

In reply to engine (msg # 13):

I don't think fragility is something to be ashamed of at all, provided you're not the type of person to try and weaponize it. We all have our baggage, and it's not asking a lot to expect respectful conduct from your fellow gamers. That's where basic situational awareness, empathy, and communication skills come into things, like someone else said, and if you don't have that to begin with then I don't think a PDF that reads like a kink manual can help you.

From the sound of the discussion, it really isn't intended for table top gaming at all.   But rather seems to be targeted toward the kind of Second Life/50 Shades atmosphere that has nothing to do with table top gaming.

Should I have to get some sort of consent from my players?  No, I think that it's implied when you sit down at the table, and you're always free to leave if you're uncomfortable.

Honestly, this kind of thing ought to be done in games, and I’d go even broader. It’s good to have an understanding of the kind of game a GM might run. For instance, if death is a real consequence in a game, that needs to be clearly stated up front.

I know this isn’t the same as consent, but clear expectations are so important in a game.

The only context I can see this being even remotely useful is for something like a one-shot game at a Con, where you're playing alongside total strangers.  But even then, I think if I was running such a game and one of my players showed up with something like this, I'd be -very- weirded out by exactly the thinly veiled BDSM magical realm overtones mentioned above.

No, you're interpreting it in an unfavorable light.


Those are two different statements, neither of which those in favor of gaining consent is talking about.


I dont' see how. That was about people willingly engaging in things that others thought was harmful for them, and wanting to prevent them from engaging in it. This is about people wanting to engage in something that is known to contain elements they don't care for, but doesn't always have to.


I get that you feel that way, but what I don't get is why you care how other people do things. How does it affect you if someone wants to or tries to be more cautious than you are about how they approach things? Now, how you feel about this doesn't really affect me, but I'm honestly curious about your reaction.


My point is that "fragility" seems like a rather loaded word. It's not something someone would tend to use to refer to themselves, rather it's something someone would call someone else, and not neutrally.


Ah, okay. "There is no cause so right that one cannot find a fool following it," goes one of Niven's Laws. I find this also extends to cover people who take things to antagonistic extremes, which seems to be who you're against. Yes, we all dislike extremists. But just because someone is an extremist doesn't mean that the "side" they're on is an extreme one or all that all of the methods that side uses are unreasonable.

I care about it not because other people are doing it, but because they seem to be advocating that it's a really great thing that should become the default common practice, that everyone (including me) should do it and people (including me) should be shamed and shunned as unworthy insensitive jerks if they don't.  That sentiment hasn't really been made explicit in this particular discussion thread, but I've seen it made very clear where I've seen it discussed in other venues, particularly in a few Facebook discussion groups I'm a part of.

Another useful law of the interwebs: "Most threads go from zero to 'get off my lawn' in about 15 posts."

Informative posts are helpful.  Posts that encapsulate 'well, I think differently so you are wrong' are less so.

And I self-identify with that statement — which has the side effect of making me undoubtably, inherently, and unassailably correct.

I'm disappointed by the theme of "weaponizing fragility".

Full disclosure, I haven't read the article. Fake or genuine information given, it's still data entry, and hardly worth the expenditure for something as this.

When you say weaponizing fragility (in so many words), do you mean the weapon is censorship "don't talk about that! It makes me feel uncomfortable. It's not up for discussion!" or do you mean "I went through horrible trauma in real life, I'm going to use my character to act this out in the game, whether you like it or not" or something else entirely? Can you please describe, in objective terms, what you mean you mean by weaponizing fragility?
This message was last edited by the user at 17:13, Tue 17 Sept 2019.

Thank you for clarifying your view.

I'm sure you'd agree that it's okay for one to advocate for something one believes is a good thing, and even advocate that that everyone should do it.

Shunning and shaming are, I feel, the actions of the more extreme followers of a given approach. This is often be someone who has been directly and painfully (even if unintentionally) affected by people who take the opposite approach, and in their case lashing out is only human. But it leaves them as unable to tolerate questioning or skepticism, even from people who ostensibly agree with them; those reactions, they feel in their pain, must be purged. This is usually done in a way that helps the extremist feel avenged, even if the person they went after was not the one who originally affected them.

Extremists tend to be the loudest members of a group, too. That's unfortunate, but it's important not to consider a cause or an approach less worthy of consideration because non-moderates are getting the press. Otherwise, one risk being too easily manipulated.

So, I urge you to set aside the reactions toward you of the extremists. It should be possible to hate them, yet not their "side," which almost certainly consists of a much larger number of moderates. Moderates will not attempt to shame or shun you, and are potentially even worth talking to.

I do not care what people do in their home games. I do care they are actively trying to mandate that these so-called "safety tools" MUST be used at all con/store games and that anyone that resists their pushing of BDSM kink techniques into our gaming spaces are dangerous and unsafe. And whether you've seen it or not, that is what is being said, and whether you read it in this particular product or not, that is the end game of the people who wrote it. I am not giving it an unfavorable reading. I'm responding to the things they say and do, in this, and elsewhere.

Make no mistake, there is a real group of people within the hobby actively trying to say that because you might encounter sexual themes, or violence, or spiders (yes, literally, a recurring example is that someone might describe a freaking spider during a game session and cause "real harm" to one of their players in the process), the hobby is itself inherently dangerous, and we need these things to try to make it marginally safer, like seat belts and air bags in cars. That's not my analogy, by the way. That's literally what they are saying when they advocate for this. The fact that the people calling RPGs dangerous and psychologically damaging are doing it from inside the hobby now doesn't make the argument fundamentally different.

Yes, I will concede that a certain percentage of the more vocal people talking this way are wacky rpg.net people that don't really play RPGs so much as talk about them constantly on forums and complain that they don't make real money writing crappy indie story games that sell two hundred copies each, but writing them off as unimportant is not going stop them from pushing their "someone might be scared of spiders, so we need kink stuff in all RPG spaces" hard enough to actually get it mandated at some of the cons and stores. Pointing out that this is ridiculous and we absolutely do not need kink stuff in our RPG spaces might.

You're sort of making their case for them, as I see it. Having a certain thing in your game makes you uncomfortable, so you'd like them not to do it. Wouldn't it be nice if there were a way just to ask them not to present it to you unless you consented?

But so what if they do "mandate this"? Just check the "Yep, spiders" box or whatever for your game, and be done with it. Wouldn't you rather warn people off from your game who wouldn't enjoy being in your game?

And just so I'm clear, as you saying that "asking for consent" is "kink stuff"?

Oh no, a subculture with the mostly richly varied lexicon on consent has words that were used in this pdf about consenting to triggering stimuli in a game which is supposed to be fun for everyone

Clearly the freaks are going to make the pearl clutchers shut our game stores down!

Have you read the pdf in question?

The very premise of "Consent in Gaming" is that if you say "no I don't wanna" the rest of the group should immediately shift gears and cater to you, or as it's presented to GMs, if a Player says "no!" then you need to immediately shift the story to cater to their fragility.


But of course Sean and Shanna aren't coming to your house, putting a gun to your head, and demanding you "fly right" or they'll take your rpging away from you.  We can always just ignore this pdf.

Except when it's pushed in the public spaces for the "safety of the hobby".  At which point if you want to run a game at a con you have abide by its policies.


It's deliberately said to imply that they are fragile and must be softly cushioned lest the hard surfaces of the world break them.

If this is shameful*, that is something for the viewer to determine for themselves.  I can assure you, the fragile brigand do not see it as shameful, else they would take steps to cloak their shame and work to fix themselves.



* And I don't believe being fragile is shameful.  Remaining† and cultivating fragility for clout is.

† As in doing nothing to become stronger or taking steps to pad your surroundings, but rather demanding strangers pad themselves for your benefit.





I wouldn't go that far.  But any Player pushing this nonsense at my table will be told where the door is.  Now, if they legitimately have problems, and request in advance that specific topics not be included in the game, and I feel that these concessions can be implemented and aren't an onus on me and the game I wish to run, that's a different story.

I can respect that certain topics can be verboten.  What I won't except is that you don't respect me enough to have this convo in advance and expect concessions made on the fly at the table.  And I damn sure won't put up with 'trigger word' nonsense at a con.  If you are too fragile to handle the hard bumps of the world, stay at home, or only game with friends who know what surfaces to cushion.





I do like to outline the game's premise and major themes in advance, and personally hate bait and switch games... so yeah, I do have a consent buy in to my games.  But that's all in the pre-game stages when it's all being hammered out, characters are being made etc.

This isn't the sort of nonsense I'll put with mid-game too many times.





You can't just steal my identity like that!  And why are you still on my lawn!  ;)





Yes.


Yes.


It's enforced speech and conduct outside the standard rules of polite society, generally.

As in "because I am fragile, you cannot/must do/say these things because I demand it and may pitch a fit otherwise".





Exactly.  There are also groups advocating for these sort of rules to made implicit and enforced at cons.





The problem is that the extremists are in charge of that side.  They are the vocal thought leaders and cults of personality online.  This makes any capitulation to these sorts of things dangerous.





Very well said.


From my perspective it has absolutely nothing to do with the 'kink stuff'* and everything to do with enforced behavior beyond the bounds of common courteous society, right into thought policing and social credit.


* In fact, for quite a bit the last few years, the #metoo movement in gaming has really shut-down 'the kink stuff' hard in all the public gaming circles I've seen.

evileeyore - you have mentioned that you'd prefer people talk about any possibly difficult topics before the campaign gets started/is finalized, which is what this sheet would be for.  And while you, as the GM, can accommodate what you can for your players, the sheet goes both ways.

You can choose to eliminate say, spiders or swarms of beetles if the player says they're uncomfortable with them and you know you can swap in an substitute, but say, "The whole campaign/one-shot is based on them kidnapping this baby.  I can switch it to a younger kid, maybe, but otherwise that's the game I've prepared."

It's very much a two-way street and the general purpose of the sheet is to make a fun activity consistently fun for everyone.  If you come to the game for fun and the GM or players are digging into topics that you've previously made clear make you seriously uncomfortable, then the game is far less fun.

Having the sheet can help jog your memory about things that might not always come up but, boy howdy, are they not great when they do.  It can be a good reference when designing future encounters.  Conversely, if you've made it known to your players that certain elements will be part of the game, then they have the foreknowledge to protect themselves by skipping that session or bowing out of the campaign entirely.

Any player that makes sweeping demands and refuses all discussion (even to find a way to accommodate them) is not helping the process of making a good and fun game at all.  It's railroading from the other side of the table, and it's something that's been done completely outside of uncomfortable topics for as long as there's been roleplaying games (the dictatorial player).

The point of the sheet is clear communication for a mutually fun game experience.  If your group has good communication already, you might not feel a sheet necessary.  For newer groups or con games, you might like to use it so that people know what they're getting themselves into and no one has to leave the game due to a lack of foreknowledge.

The sheet is not only unnecessary, but a detriment.  It does not teach good communication and comes preloaded with the rest of the nonsense from the book.

I didn't used to take this sort of problem very seriously. Not because I'm an insensitive guy (I hope) but because I'd never really encountered anything like it.

Then I read an account by an adult woman RPGer who described a DM who ran a game for her and her male friends when they were all in their teens (the DM was a couple years older). One of this guy's frequent themes was how her character would get raped, in many different scenes, over the course of weeks of play. She wanted to play with her friends and they (for whatever reasons) weren't speaking up for her. So she endured it.

I don't see anything wrong with trying to make our spaces less stressful for gamers who might have problems with certain aspects of our stories and the way we frame them. Or with being empathetic toward those gamers.

Maybe this pamphlet isn't the right way to go about it or maybe some of us aren't comfortable with its recommendations. But it doesn't hurt a GM to take these issues into account and make sure we keep aware of problems and don't blame the person who speaks up.

Well, this is a thing. The topic is fascinating enough to rope me in, so after jumping through a few hoops, I got my hands on a copy of this PDF so I could read it for myself. I suspect this thread will continue for some time - it hits a few buttons.

I will simply expose my takeaway. Like with all information, you are not required to agree or disagree with me, although you undoubtedly will if you read this. My expression will be through the lens of conviction, integrity and willpower - the cornerstones of the self.

In short, this is me. You are you. The only one who decides what you agree with and what you do not is you, and the only one who decides what information is useful to you and what is not is you.

But I will present that conclusion as if I am right. Because I am. I do recommend this PDF as a read, however, simply for the information within it and the emotions it will unquestionably inspire.

The central argument of the book comes from a presumption of the writer's morals as though they were ethics, an internal code of right and wrong presented as an external code of right and wrong. The moment they wrote down their morals, they curiously also became ethics, because that is often how this ends up working. As with all ethics, you may compare it to your own moral code, and decide what is useful to you and what is not.

Perhaps the ethics presented do not match your morals. Very well - this book is indeed of no use to you. Discard it if you wish, but know it exists in case you encounter it, because you are not alone in the world and you share it with others who will not agree with your conclusions.

I might keep it as a reference, but to each their own.

Perhaps the ethics presented make you uncomfortable - the question you must ask yourself is, "Why?" That is not for you to answer here. You must figure that out yourself, although I will offer possibilities.

Perhaps you have broken these rules yourself, pressuring another, and you feel new guilt, or maybe even renewed guilt.
Perhaps you see weakness in this ethical code, and it inspires contempt.
Maybe you see an insistence, a challenge that you reach for higher morals, and you are not comfortable with the idea that your morals are insufficient, and could be better.

Or it is none of these, and something else. That is for you to figure out.

Maybe the ethics match your morals, and you are relieved to have found someone else in the world who understands something you have wanted to express for a long time, but have lacked the mastery of written or verbal language to have done so. This work is of use to you, and is a worthy addition to your collection. I strongly recommend it to you.

If you choose to not use the knowledge in the PDF after reading it, that is your choice. If another player is uncomfortable with your game, and you simply will not change the course of your game for them, that is your choice. If there are consequences that occur, such as a player leaving your game or angrily having a breakdown, then those are your consequences to bear for your choices.

You are under no obligation to accept anything within the PDF. You do, however, live in a world with consequences. You often choose the price that is paid - change a course which may bother another (a cost to you and maybe others), or do not (the cost is directed to one person) - but someone will pay one way or another.

The only question is who feels they can afford it, who does not, and what costs are acceptable to the one holding the cards.

RPGs are social. You rarely hear people recall fondly the guy they played Monopoly with twenty years ago, but you will see people talk about the D&D or V:tM games they played back in the day together. You will impact someone else's life beyond the game, and things that happen in the game do not always stay in the game.

This work acknowledges that. It removes blinders, and is uncomfortable on purpose. It stings you, challenges you to notice things you would rather not, dares you to elevate your morals.

Accept its challenge to any degree you wish, or decline with anything from a polite refusal to an erected middle finger. Any choice is fine and, in the end, yours. But know that others will take a different road than you, and not necessarily for your reasons.

That is all. I do not know if this helped, but hopefully someone will get something of value from it, neutral though I try to be. Personally, I accept its challenge, because it is useful to me to do so and I revel in such things - you do not have to.

Well... I don’t have anything to add to this topic, but...

I am very surprised at the depth of conversation that has followed the OP. It’s an interesting topic: explicit vs implied consent. I’m glad you are all discussing it in mostly friendly terms.

There are some very good points on both sides that I hadn’t considered and will account for in my gaming, so thank you for that.

That's one of the really nice things about RPoL. People here are just generally more civil than a lot of other places.

As for me, if I'm gaming with a new live group, I will ask if there's any topics anyone is particularly sensitive about and leave it at that. For forum games, I figure things move slow enough that if we encounter a problem, it can be addressed before it gets too bad.

The only real value I can see in a checklist would be in a "THIS GAME WILL COVER THESE TOPICS" thing for a con one-shot, or as a "oh, hey, yeah, don't like that" list for those things you might forget freak you out.

For instance, my partner has a fairly strong reaction to fire and burning in games, but if you asked her about things that bother her, I doubt she'd think of it. It just doesn't come up super often, since not too many people are overly descriptive about fireball spells, but the horror game I ran with the spirit trapped in the boiler, well, that made her cry. Which, horror game, so she'd consented to getting freaked out, but if it had come up in a "standard" game, it probably wouldn't have gone over as well.

I have not. My apologies for not being more forthcoming about that. I assume you'll take this to mean that my thoughts are utterly invalid, but I hope you won't.


That may be how some people see it, though I doubt that's the majority. The point, as I see it, of having either a visible checklist or some other upfront discussion of the content of a game and someone's likes and dislikes is so that one of two things can happen:
The GM modifies the game. I get the impression that you see this is a very terrible thing, but not all GMs are going to see it that way in every case. Unless the GM had made a really fantastic spider-themed adventure, with a spider-shaped dungeon and lots of spider-themed NPCs, it's not going to be much skin off their nose to say "Okay, I won't use spiders." The word "cater" gets tossed around a lot as if catering to one's player's is some sort of weakness, but some GMs regularly do this and even want to do this.
But okay, if someone doesn't want to modify their game, the other thing happens, which is that the GM and the player part ways before the game starts. This seems like an unequivocal good to me, because I wouldn't want (and I don't think most GMs want) players who aren't going to enjoy their game, or are even just constantly worried that they won't. Which doesn't require any kind of value judgment on anyone; not every game is for every player.


But, again, so what? We already have to do that on this site, by indicating whether games will have adult themes.

And say you're "forced" to do this. To my way of thinking, it's not going to work to force everyone to make a game that any given person will enjoy, so it's still going to happen that some people will enjoy some games and some won't. All anyone would have to do is mark up a form pertaining to their game and put in in front of their table or otherwise make it available. Prospective players look at the form and it helps them decide whether or not they'd like to play and everyone gets matched with players who are more likely to enjoy their game.

I guess you don't see it that way. Could you describe what you imagine happening?


Well, for one thing, I've rarely, if ever, heard anyone refer to themselves as "fragile." Because you clearly don't like this concept it's strongly implied that you're using the term as an insult.

You also seem fixated on the extreme end of this issue, when there's a lot more to it. I don't want to play in a game with romance in it. Romance doesn't panic me, it's just not something I think will be entertaining. I wouldn't willingly sit down at a game that seemed like or specifically stated it would include it and I'd be annoyed if someone brought in to a game that I'd been led to believe wouldn't include it. I'd be civil about it, but I'd probably excuse myself.

Consent isn't just about avoiding "No, stop, don't!" it's also aboud allowing people to say "Nah, I'd rather not" and not waste their time.


And if anyone is really doing that, they're extremists. You're not going to have a moderate conversation with them about this, and if you insist on trying then you're in large part to blame for the reaction you get.

I question whether any significant number of people is doing this thing you think they shouldn't be doing. This sounds a lot like any other panicked othering, where the minority (and possibly non-existant) boogey-man becomes the whole group in someone's eyes. And I know you don't like it when people do that to you.


The whole point is about requesting in advance!

I shudder to think what hoops someone might have to jump through to "legitimize" their problems in your eyes.


From your use of the term "nonsense," I take it that neither you nor any of your loved ones have been subjected to an experience so bad that mere mention of it will cause them to panic. I hope you appreciate your good fortune.

The problem is that such people probably do stay at home, or at least out of a hobby that they could enjoy and which could easily accommodate them if there were a little more communication and understanding. Is it really your intent to decide on hard invisible lines that will force people to decide not to take a risk.

And what exactly are you concerned about? Is there a word you think someone isn't going to like that you're unlikely to allude to upfront and that, if you "catered" to them and stopped using it, would seriously inconvenience your game?


Best to be clear about it up front then, huh?


How so? The standard rules are generally not to start saying or keep saying things that we know those present find unpleasant. Doing so or continuing to do so is the sort of thing small, thoughtless children do, and you're not one of those.


See, the use of quotes makes me think that you think that people are literally saying this, whereas no one really is. You simply insist on interpreting what's being proposed here in the harshests, most impolite and inconvenient light possible. Why not stick with reality instead of trying to cast it in a harsh light?


That's a myth. Moderates don't like the extremists on their side either, and would much rather that the other side not engage with them, because it just makes their side seem worse.