A rpg evil session managed to disturb me

[False God]

I agree with more or less everything you said here. That is not the book that is being discussed.

For example, to use your flat earth example, here is how it would play out if you were following the rules presented in Consent in RPGs:

Someone in the group would mention the Earth being round.

One player would inform the group that they did not opt in to a game where the Earth is round, with no further explanation or discussion.

The person who brought up the round Earth would apologize to the person who didn't opt in.

The DM would scrub all references to a round Earth from the campaign, and all PCs would scrub all references to the rou d
Earth from their backstory.

Nobody is allowed to mention the Earth being round in that gaming group again, regardless of whether it is part of the game or merely table chatter.

You realize your argument would have no bite if you used the things people actually want kept out right? Rape? Abuse? Violence against minorities?

Yes, someone could come along and be silly and make a silly argument and take advantage of "consent rules". The reality is: they probably won't. So talking about silliness is just silliness itsself.

So, if you'd like to repeat your argument but replacing all instances of "round earth" with "rape", maybe we can have a discussion.

[Talakeal]

You realize your argument would have no bite if you used the things people actually want kept out right? Rape? Abuse? Violence against minorities?

Yes, someone could come along and be silly and make a silly argument and take advantage of "consent rules". The reality is: they probably won't. So talking about silliness is just silliness itsself.

So, if you'd like to repeat your argument but replacing all instances of "round earth" with "rape", maybe we can have a discussion.

I was just running with the flat Earth analogy because its relatively harmless and doesn't risk derailing the thread into forbidden areas.

If you would like, please replace flat Earth with playing a gay character, as that is something that I have absolutely gotten flack for in the past and something that I find being told I need to hide and apologize for to be absolutely reprehensible.

[Arbane]

If you would like, please replace flat Earth with playing a gay character, as that is something that I have absolutely gotten flack for in the past and something that I find being told I need to hide and apologize for to be absolutely reprehensible.

Then you would've found out early that you were going to be in Yet Another Terrible Game, and could hit the eject button EARLY for once?

Such a horror is not to be contemplated.

[zinycor]

I agree with more or less everything you said here. That is not the book that is being discussed.

For example, to use your flat earth example, here is how it would play out if you were following the rules presented in Consent in RPGs:

Someone in the group would mention the Earth being round.

One player would inform the group that they did not opt in to a game where the Earth is round, with no further explanation or discussion.

The person who brought up the round Earth would apologize to the person who didn't opt in.

The DM would scrub all references to a round Earth from the campaign, and all PCs would scrub all references to the rou d
Earth from their backstory.

Nobody is allowed to mention the Earth being round in that gaming group again, regardless of whether it is part of the game or merely table chatter.

Isn't that the perfect way to face such a situation? Am serious, What other way could possibly be better than what you have just described?

[Talakeal]

Then you would've found out early that you were going to be in Yet Another Terrible Game, and could hit the eject button EARLY for once?

Such a horror is not to be contemplated.

If it was the entire group, that would be true. Although I would still be obliged to apologize if I was following the book.

The thing is these rules allow one unreasoneable player to hold the entire group hostage for any or no reason.

[zinycor]

If it was the entire group, that would be true. Although I would still be obliged to apologize if I was following the book.

The thing is these rules allow one unreasoneable player to hold the entire group hostage for any or no reason.

Hold hostage? if the rest of the group want to play on a round earth they can just start a new game without the player who refuses to, can't they?

[Lord Athos]

Hold hostage? if the rest of the group want to play on a round earth they can just start a new game without the player who refuses to, can't they?

If you follow the book word for word, no. They have to apologise and accept. Whether that's the Intention or not, though, that's a different question.

[Koo Rehtorb]

My issue with the way that it's written is I don't think anyone has an inalienable right to instantly excise anything they don't like from a campaign. You have the right to politely request that something not be present, and you have the right to leave a game for any reason you want. But it's not a moral obligation on other people's part to always honour any request you make whatsoever. Your comfort doesn't always come first.

An example from a bunch of strangers I played with semi-recently. A woman requested that no one try to romance her character because it'd make her uncomfortable. That's a perfectly reasonable request. If she had requested that there be no romance present in the campaign at all from anyone then I don't think that would be a reasonable request and I'd probably stop playing with her. If someone actually used the x-card (I've never seen anyone actually do it and I've played with a lot of people) then I don't think I'd be comfortable playing with them any more because I suspect any future gaming would feel like walking on eggshells around them and that just seems oppressive.

[zinycor]

If you follow the book word for word, no. They have to apologise and accept. Whether that's the Intention or not, though, that's a different question.

That's true, good point. Still even with that in mind, I feel like the book is mostly right, and no person should have to justify or explain why they don't consent to a certain topic.

For example, if you are bothered by the presence of sexual violence in your game, you should not explain why, since you aren't (most likely) playing this game with a therapist as a way of therapy. You are playing a game.

[Themrys]

If you follow the book word for word, no. They have to apologise and accept. Whether that's the Intention or not, though, that's a different question.

There is a large and influential group of people who would use consent as a buzzword and way to shut down discussion of topics that have nothing at all to do with rape, abuse or cannibalism, and which are unlikely to actually trigger traumatic memories for anyone. (It's not flat earthers, though. I just used those as an example because it is a pretty non-controversial topic on the forums. For all I know, flat earthers are happy to discuss their beliefs.)

So I do give people who hate that text the benefit of the doubt - if it was written by the kind of people I think it might have been written by, it is well possible that the text feels preachy and oppressive and the criticism is perfectly reasonable.


Still, in any pen&paper rpg, it is an useful, even necessary skill to know when to go against what the rulebook says. Any group with common sense would apply the "no discussion, never mention it again" rule only to things where that either is reasonable (like baby torturing) or it isn't reasonable but it is well known that some perfectly nice people are irrational about it (like spiders), but would just opt out of playing with the guy who doesn't want a game with gay characters in it.


I don't think it worth the effort to make an account to read that pdf, simply because "discuss beforehand what people don't want in the game" is a pretty obvious advice and you can get it easily for free on any forum.
But for people who like to be told exactly how to do things, it might be a useful resource - as long as you don't cling to it as if it is the word of god, of course.

[False God]

I was just running with the flat Earth analogy because its relatively harmless and doesn't risk derailing the thread into forbidden areas.

If you would like, please replace flat Earth with playing a gay character, as that is something that I have absolutely gotten flack for in the past and something that I find being told I need to hide and apologize for to be absolutely reprehensible.

Look I haven't read this particular document but your second comment here doesn't sound like you're opposed to Consent Rules. It sounds like you're opposed to the specific wording of this document.

But if I'm reading wrong and your gaming approach is "everything goes, if you don't like it suck it up or GTFO", then well that sounds an awful lot like what I think these Consent Rules are showing up to combat. That's not how life works. That's not how your job works. That's not how the public park works. That's not how the social contract works. Gaming is no exception. I'm really not sure why anyone would think that gaming is somehow a special exception where everything is on the table and noone is safe.

[Talakeal]

Look I haven't read this particular document but your second comment here doesn't sound like you're opposed to Consent Rules. It sounds like you're opposed to the specific wording of this document.

That is correct.

I am, however, fundamentally opposed to censorship and in favor of dialogue and compromise, which are all things this particular implementation of consent rules stands firmly against.

[Red Fel]

Did I overreact? Usually I'm able to detach myself and always remember it's just a game but this time I got some disturbing mental images.

Other people have said it, but it bears repeating: No, you did not overreact.

I have played Evil campaigns. I have played regular campaigns where I or someone else played an Evil character. I have played campaigns where nobody played an Evil character. In any given situation, on any number of occasions - not many, but enough to note - someone, at some point, crossed a line.

And if we were all mature about it - which is the key thing, maturity - we simply asked to draw down the curtain. Fade to black. No need to go into detail.

Sometimes, somebody got called out right in the moment. ("Dude, what the crap?") Other times, it was a quiet post-game conversation. ("Didn't want to call you out in front of everyone, but...") Other times, it was just a look, and the realization that somebody crossed a line. But the effect was the same. "Let's just fade to black and move to the next scene, shall we?"

Whether it's an Evil campaign or not, somebody, at some point, may very well cross that line. It's not a function of the alignment, it's just a function of - and I love that metaphor upthread, I'm going to use it from now on - "taking the demon for a walk." We play games to escape and to occasionally vent our frustrations. Sometimes, somebody lets a little too much out.

We try to be mature about it, but there are lines, and it's not unreasonable to be uncomfortable - or even to leave - when they get crossed. It's a fair request to draw the curtain over the scene, and avoid any description or graphic detail. If that request isn't honored, for whatever reason, you aren't obligated to subject yourself to that kind of imagery. You can go take a breather. You can go for a walk. If it's particularly bad, you can keep walking, if you want.

Nothing wrong with that.

[False God]

That is correct.

I am, however, fundamentally opposed to censorship and in favor of dialogue and compromise, which are all things this particular implementation of consent rules stands firmly against.

That's because "dialog and compromise" tend to go along these lines:

Person A: I'm bothered by XYZ squick.
Person B: Why?
Person A: Because of trauma I've suffered.
Person B: Lets talk about your trauma.
Person A: I'd rather not, this isn't the place and I don't know you that well.
Person B: THEN YOUR DEMANDS ARE UNREASONABLE AND YOU SUCK!

Avoiding trauma and abuse isn't really a subject to "compromise" on. I mean, what is "a little rape"? Or "a little sexual assault"? And this isn't censorship. Because you don't have free speech at an RPG table.

Beyond that, many of the subjects these Consent Rules seek to avoid are ones that many DMs just don't include to begin with. Do we need rape in a game? Do we need homophobia? Is is realistic to include them? What "reality" are we simulating? Why do we need to replicate those elements of our reality? Many DMs have already come to the conclusion that many of these subjects aren't worth including anyway!

What benefit do we gain from triggering someone's phobia? Dredging up their abuse? Replicating their trauma in fantasy? What do these elements add that make them worthy of inclusion?

One of my players has a fear of spiders. So we don't fight spiders. *shrug* plenty of ants and wasps and other creepy-crawlies to fight. All she said was she has a phobia of spiders, and we went "oh ok, we'll avoid that then." She didn't need to explain herself. She didn't need to prove her phobia was legitimate or justified or reasonable. There was no need to have a "dialogue" or"compromise".

[Lemmy]

No matter how evil or disturbing a topic, no one should be able to unilatery ban it without discussion or argument.

Admittedly, some topics are pretty easy to deduce why someone wouldn't want it in their game... But even then, even the most vile topics shouldn't just be a matter of "I don't like it, therefore it's instantly banned, it can never happen again, no mentions of it may ever be made and whoever brought it up must apologize". Even if it's a serious topic. Specially if it's a serious topic.

As previously mentioned, what this book's approach does is shut down communication and promote censorship.

If you don't like something and would rather it not be present in your game, talk to your fellow players. No one can read your mind, nor should anyone have to guess what bothers you.

Also, be prepared to explain your point and reach a compromise, because no matter how strongly you feel about it, no one has the obligation to give in to your preferences with no debate. And you're certainly not so intelligent or enlightened that people should just shut up and acquiesce.

If it's a subject you're not comfortable discussing, it's your right not to discuss it... But it's also the other players' right to then say "Well... I'm not convinced". If they choose to concede without you even discussing the matter, it should out of kindness, not obligation.

Players should talk beforehand (and throughout the campaign) about their expectations, wishes and limitations for their gaming experience, then come to an agreement that makes everyone satisfied (even if said agreement is "it's better for you/me/them to leave the game"). This can't be achieved if someone just outright bans something without discussing it with the other players.

- - -

In short... If something bothers someone, the best course of action is discussing it with the rest of the group. If the group and the person who's bothered can't reach a compromise... Then they split up. Nothing wrong with that.

[zinycor]

That is correct.

I am, however, fundamentally opposed to censorship and in favor of dialogue and compromise, which are all things this particular implementation of consent rules stands firmly against.

Are you a therapist who runs roleplaying games as part of a therapy?

If not, then there is absolutely no reason for a player to explain their reasonings for wanting to ban certain experiences from happening at the table.

[Lemmy]

That's because "dialog and compromise" tend to go along these lines:

Person A: I'm bothered by XYZ squick.
Person B: Why?
Person A: Because of trauma I've suffered.
Person B: Lets talk about your trauma.
Person A: I'd rather not, this isn't the place and I don't know you that well.
Person B: THEN YOUR DEMANDS ARE UNREASONABLE AND YOU SUCK!

You and I have very different experiences, then... In over 20 years of gaming, every time something bothered someone that much it basically went like one of the following possibilities:

Possibility 1
Player A: I don't like [X], can we leave it out of the game.
GM / Other Players: Uh... Sure...

Possibility 2
Player A: I don't like [X], can we leave it out of the game.
GM / Other Players: Well... [X] is part of the setting/game/campaign. If it bothers you, it's probably better you don't play in this game.

Or... Most often, a sort of compromise is reached. Where [X] isn't completely removed, but toned down, usually by not happening "on-screen", not being given explicit descriptions and not being big part of the main "plot".

e.g.: The PCs occasionally find hints that imply [X] happened somewhere, but it isn't explicitly mentioned and doesn't happen to the PCs or near them.

If not, then there is absolutely no reason for a player to explain their reasonings for wanting to ban certain experiences from happening at the table.

The reason is the same as any other conversation: To let people understand what you think and why you think it, so that they can decide whether or not they agree with you...

That's not to say the person have to explain why [X] bothers them... They only have to give a reason why [X] should be bannes from the game. It's a subtle, but important discussion...

I wouldn't be convinced by an argument such as "[X] should be banned from the game"... But I might be convinced by "[X] bothers me, therefore it shouldn't be part of the game", since that already gives me a reason.

I'm not asking for an explanation for why [X] bothers them. It's irrelevant. What is relevant is whether [X] should or shouldn't be in the game, to what (if any) point it should be toned down and whether or not it's better if the player just skipped this game.

e.g.: If we're running a campaign focused on fighting Lolth and her cult in narrow underdark tunnels, and I'm a claustrophobic aracnophobe, it's probably easier and better for me to find a different game, than for the whole group have to play a completely different game from what they expected/wanted.
I don't have to "prove" my phobias or trauma or anything... But the group doesn't have to unconditionally change their game for my benefit either.

P1: "I don't like spiders."
GM: "Well... This is a Lolth-centric campaign. What do you guys think?"
Group: "We really want to play this module."
P1: "Oh, well... Maybe next game."
GM / Group: "Sure."

That's perfectly within the groups right. Nothing wrong with having different tastes and boundaries.

[Talakeal]

And this isn't censorship. Because you don't have free speech at an RPG table.

If you truly believe this then we are never going to see eye to eye on anything.

However, I am truly baffled by this position, and I have to ask:

A: If I don't have free speech in my own home amongst my friends, where the heck do I have free speech?
B: If I have some how lost my free speech, aren't I, by definition, being censored?

I can only assume this is some sort of semantic argument like "Only governments can censor!" or "Freedom of speech doesn't meant freedom of consequences", to which I will post the definition of censorship:

"Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient".Censorship can be conducted by a government, private institutions, and corporations."

Which this absolutely falls under.




That being said, I ask for a discussion beforehand so I can know not to introduce something into the campaign. Far too many times I have had a player come up to me AFTER a session and tell me that they were considering quitting my game because it touched on some subject matter that they were troubled by; when if they had told me upfront I wouldn't have included it.

And I am not talking about rape, torture, or the like. For example, one session involved a fairly typical fantasy world set after the defeat of the dark lord, where orcs and humans were living together, but some humans still feared and distrusted the orcs, and a group of human supremacists was hoping to convince the local lords to exile all the orcs from their lands by committing violent crimes and pinning it on the orcs. This was a scenario were racism was shown as a bad thing, and the racists were presented as the bad guys, and were defeated and punished for being bad guys, but I had a player come to me afterwards and tell me that they were not comfortable with racism and wanted to leave the game as a result.

As far as rape goes, about the most graphic I will ever get is off-hand mentions like listing rape as one of the crimes on a bounty's rap sheet, or having a half-elf NPC imply that their parentage wasn't consensual, or that the raiders killed all the men and carried away all the women or something like that, and if someone told me it bothered them I would remove it, no questions asked. On the other hand, if a player wanted to engage in rape, I wouldn't stop them, but I wouldn't certainly ask the other players if they wanted to leave the room first (and would allow them to flat out veto it if it involved them or an NPC they were close to).

Are you a therapist who runs roleplaying games as part of a therapy?

If not, then there is absolutely no reason for a player to explain their reasonings for wanting to ban certain experiences from happening at the table.

I would only ask for an explanation if I felt that they were asking in bad faith.

For example, I had a player who would brutally and graphically torture captured NPCs, but then when his character was captured (by the family member of one of his torture victims) and subjected to torture in turn, he suddenly told me that he was uncomfortable RPing a torture victimand wanting me to make his character immune to torture, but he had no problem RPing a torturer.

[Themrys]

If it's a subject you're not comfortable discussing, it's your right not to discuss it... But it's also the other players' right to then say "Well... I'm not convinced". If they choose to concede without you even discussing the matter, it should out of kindness, not obligation.

What, exactly, is the difference?

No rulebook is an actual law. {scrubbed}
Thing is, if you told someone you aren't going to accept "no sexual violence" without going into detail on why they don't want it ... you could totally do that, and no one could do anything against it.

{scrubbed} (I am happy to tell people exactly why I don't want it, and wouldn't even be completely opposed to have it as a topic in an all-female group of mature players, but you try and force a timid twentysomething girl to talk about why she doesn't want rape in a game she plays for fun, and I would judge you so hard you'd feel like I punched you in the face.)

If you would like to be considered especially kind for not asking to discuss someone's trauma, sorry, but nope. That's just basic human decency.


Accepting someone's spider phobia even though you wanted to play a drow might get you a cookie for kindness, but that's because spiders are perfectly darling, harmless animals. Most of them. In Northern Europe. A spider phobia is irrational. (I am, of course, assuming that you are not a giant spider who likes to ask humans to explain why on earth they don't want Acromantulas to be a thing in their game.)

[Lemmy]

What, exactly, is the difference?

No rulebook is an actual law. {scrubbed}
Thing is, if you told someone you aren't going to accept "no sexual violence" without going into detail on why they don't want it ... you could totally do that, and no one could do anything against it.

{scrubbed} (I am happy to tell people exactly why I don't want it, and wouldn't even be completely opposed to have it as a topic in an all-female group of mature players, but you try and force a timid twentysomething girl to talk about why she doesn't want rape in a game she plays for fun, and I would judge you so hard you'd feel like I punched you in the face.)

If you would like to be considered especially kind for not asking to discuss someone's trauma, sorry, but nope. That's just basic human decency.


Accepting someone's spider phobia even though you wanted to play a drow might get you a cookie for kindness, but that's because spiders are perfectly darling, harmless animals. Most of them. In Northern Europe. A spider phobia is irrational. (I am, of course, assuming that you are not a giant spider who likes to ask humans to explain why on earth they don't want Acromantulas to be a thing in their game.)

Like I said, I'm not asking why [X] bothers them... I'm asking why it shouldn't be in the game. And a simple "it bothers me" is a perfectly valid reason.

Using your drow example...

"You shouldn't play a drow" isn't enough to convince me... But "You shouldn't play a drow because it bothers me" might be, although I'd ask why, since in this particular example the reason is unclear. "Because I'm an aracnophobe" would probably be enough, although if I really want to play a drow for some reason, I might try to reach a compromise ("I want to play a drow for mechanical reasons... Would it bother you if I played one but toned down/ removed the spider-related aspects?").

If it's something more serious, like rape or any other serious crime, "it bothers me" would be enough of a reason. I surely wouldn't ask why it bothers them (maybe it's a trauma, maybe they just find it disturbing. Doesn't really matter). What I might ask is to what extent they think it should be censored... Must it be completely removed and never mentioned? Is it acceptable if it only happens to NPCs? May the GM sometimes imply it happened to someone?

There's a lot of ground between "it disturbs me so much I can't stand any mention of it" and "I'm completely fine with it happening to fictional characters".

I think this far better than just unilatery completely banning something without any reason given.

[False God]

If you truly believe this then we are never going to see eye to eye on anything.

I am absolutely okay with that.

On the other hand, if a player wanted to engage in rape, I wouldn't stop them,

Yes, I suspect we'll never see eye-to-eye.

And this ends my participation in this conversation with you.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Locked for review.