Going into the actual content, I'd say the "exhaustiveness" sort of cherry picks what gets granular interrogation (violence/sex-kink/morbidity) vs. a global categorization. For example there's I don't know how many degrees of talking to detailing sex but you got the one liner for "substance abuse/addiction issues." That covers everything from tavern carousing to overdosing on synthetic opioids obtained through sex work or other criminalized behavior. The exhaustiveness is a false claim and plenty of DMs, and even explicit rules sets going back to 80s made distinctions between alcohol, marijuana and related herbal psychoactives, stimulants, opioids, psychedelics etc. This sort of came up on a thread on mechanics for alcohol. Some games may narratively handwave a carousing good time at the bar turning into a drunken brawl a la Legend of Vox Machina ep 1, others may prefer a literally more sober game. And that's just booze. There's also tonal notes, do we ask separate lines for the tolerance of stoner humor and another one for looking at the same substance via a lens of culturally complex history. I guess there's a lot more "what are we talking about when we talk about [thematic element]" that push against the presented schema, and again, this form is close to literal work to perform and if thoughtfully addressed would likely take more time than a session 0.
I'm all for constructively discussing consent and boundaries in games, I do it all the time, and believe I am doing so here. I just, in addition, question the rush to enthusiastic embrace of questionably secure gaming aid with even further questionably useful overall game utility.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I don't like Google forms in general, but no "survey" form from anyone is really safe if you are really trying to keep a lid on PII. But that's a tech discussion.
The form is thorough. So thorough that it is almost scary. I could see the middle school kid asking their parent if they should sign it, and the parent thinking "There are DnD games that DO this often enough to need a form?" It set me off in the wrong way. I would hate to be given this form as my first introduction to a role playing game of any type. My take it needs some simplication on the categories, using the MPAA, ESRB or PEGI style ratings about the game in general and not dive into the detai. However, I certainly can see others that would appreciate the specificity.
The other thing is that, it reads like a contract idemnity clause. But it isn't; it doesn't protect anyone, and no one should have the illusion it does.
The form is thorough. So thorough that it is almost scary.
I'm just going to say it: it looks horrible. I assume it's well intended, but I'm not touching it with the proverbial 10-ft pole. I'm all for establishing what's problematic and what isn't for a given group but new players, if presented with this document, are likely to run for the hills. And I wouldn't blame them one bit. It's difficult enough to persuade people to give D&D a try in the first place, I'm not adding the impression playing a tabletop roleplaying game might scar you for life to my session zeroes (I thought we left that behind in the '80s, with Chick tracts and Mazes and Monsters). Use it as a personal checklist so you're aware of what some people might find hard to accept, by all means, but I really wouldn't spring this form on anyone.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I agree with the form size comments - from someone who works in a highly regulated industry with checklists that keep track of checklists....imo....this tool is just too comprehensive to the point its ineffective. Aside from keeping all these items in mind when you're prepping, you're effectively obligating the entire table to it.
If you're actually going to use this...a lot of the words need defined like hypnosis and mind control (is that everything from friends to control monster to suggestion?) and paralysis (who knows what someone thinks when they see that word.
Get rid of yellow , the idea of 'advanced warning' is entirely too vague and people at the table are not going to remember. Its an entire additional layer of complication.
IMO to be an effective tool, this needs a lot of work.
can't seem to edit my last response...i'd also knock the list down from 100 items to 20 (max)...probably more like 12. Stuff like 'burning' just needs to go. Is that fire burns, acid burns, lightning burns? no dragons? what happens if a player tries to push a bad guy into a campfire or swings a torch as an improvised weapon ? Are you really going to tell a table of full of players (and lets be real, this isn't a form for close friends, its for acquaintances/strangers) that wizards can't use fire spells?
This is just one example of the can of worms the form opens.
I agree with the form size comments - from someone who works in a highly regulated industry with checklists that keep track of checklists....imo....this tool is just too comprehensive to the point its ineffective. Aside from keeping all these items in mind when you're prepping, you're effectively obligating the entire table to it.
That is in fact much of the point, yes.
Midnight mentioned "Red Card" earlier. I will be honest - I hate "Red Card". All the table flag systems out there do two things. They allow an injury to be done in the first place, and they completely tank a game when they come up. As an example, let's say Alice is running a game for Bob, Charlene, and Dalton. She startes describing the adventuring party's exploration of an old abandoned half-ruined keep, scattering a few signs here and there of a spectral presence. Dalton holds up his card and says "Is this ghosts? I can't handle ghosts. I just can't. They freak me all the way out, if this is ghosts I have to leave. I'm sorry."
What has happened here? Dalton has already been injured. He's in a state of heightened stress, he's having a near brush with his trigger, and also he's having to spike the entire game to avoid his trigger and he knows it. Dalton's not stupid, he can tell what's what. And in Alice's case? The whole adventure she'd written about seeking to soothe the ancient ghost of an insane fallen knight is spiked. She can't use it, and now she has nothing. If she's an excellent DM, she can bullshit her way through the rest of the session, rewrite her outline on the fly, and figure out something less cool she's able to vomit up on command. If she's a regular DM? "Yeah, it was supposed to be ghosts. Sorry, Dalton. And sorry Bob and Char, we're gonna have to adjourn for the night while I figure something else out. I'll have something else figured out by next week. See you guys then?"
Now Dalton has to eat the guilt and shame of letting his issues scupper a fun night of D&D and flush the DM's work, Bob and Char have to go home hours early and with no cool D&D to play, and Alice has to throw away an entire adventure outline and start from scratch. All of them are being as understanding and compassionate about the whole thing as they can, and all of them are also upset and frustrated despite trying to be decent people about it. All because somebody decided 'consent checklists' were bullshit and decided to use cards instead.
Don't get me wrong, cards have their place. But they do not, cannot, and never will substitute for having a frank conversation with the table ahead of time, especially if someone has an acute vulnerability they know they can't stomach other people poking. Cards allow people to try and get a better grip on unforseen situations; consent checklists are there to let the DM know where they can steer and prepare a game ahead of time and help get a grip on tone and content. Do not ever make the mistake of thinking the one is a substitute for the other.
Also, because I saw it mentioned in here earlier though it seems to've conveniently disappeared? Someone flagging "gender" on a consent checklist does not mean "nobody can mention gender or any gendered term again, ever." That is ridiculous, alarmist, and a disingenuous attempt to dismiss real issues with overwrought hysteria. Trust me, I am the crown princess of overwrought hysteria, I know where it's useful and where someone's using it to be an ass.
If "someone" (like, say...me) were to flag "Gender" at a table - which I damn well might if I were playing with total strangers? It wouldn't be "don't talk about gender plz". It would be a case of me flagging it to bring it up and tell people "I have heard enough shitty tranny jokes, godawful attack helicopter memes, and mean-spirited 'I identify as a woman for tax breaks' cracks to last three lifetimes. They're not funny, they piss me off, and I don't want them in my happy-funtime-with-potential-new-friends time. An occasional quip if the situation legitimately allows for it is fine, I'm not a Grinch. But if the table makes a habit of tearing down non-cis folk, I'm going to make a habit of picking up my stuff and going home. And by 'habit' I mean I'm going to do it once and y'all won't see me at this table again."
Does that clear things up on the "why would anyone flag gender of all things?" front?
\ Midnight mentioned "Red Card" earlier. I will be honest - I hate "Red Card". All the table flag systems out there do two things. They allow an injury to be done in the first place, and they completely tank a game when they come up.
Don't get me wrong, cards have their place. But they do not, cannot, and never will substitute for having a frank conversation with the table ahead of time, especially if someone has an acute vulnerability they know they can't stomach other people poking. Cards allow people to try and get a better grip on unforseen situations; consent checklists are there to let the DM know where they can steer and prepare a game ahead of time and help get a grip on tone and content. Do not ever make the mistake of thinking the one is a substitute for the other.
So rather than draw a broad brush on what I wrote about cards, let's look at what I actually wrote and the context before you do your habitual thing when invoking what someone else actually addressed with more nuance than your habitual rhetoric is often capable of.
I brought up cards because this form brings up the utilitarian limits of taking "exhaustive" inventory prior to actually playing the game. As mentioned a number of times in this thread, the pretense of "exhaustion" fails here in that you have deep granular dives into sex/violence/moribidity and you don't have that with my example of "addiction"(and my quibble just limited it to substances, ignoring the whole suite of addictive behaviors not related to substance abuse ... and I write that as someone playing in a PBP game with you where my character does have a sort of cinematic John Belushi relationship with substance abuse as opposed to real life Belushi portrayal, and I don't recall doing paperwork for that game) and while, whatever erased quip that set you off on your riff, aside the nuanced criteria of "gender" is also given similar disservice to the nuances of that content area besides your below quoted investment in protecting yourself from harm in that regard. Cards are of course an imperfect safety tool; but in a "anything can happen" pseudo simulationist game where the DM can't get their act together enough to know which potentially problematic themes they're going to likely* touch upon and have that advisory/disclosure conversation with or without paperwork, the cards are a better tool than a deep think form on people's boundaries to be collected and compiled by the DM (very very few DMs are qualified for the responsibility in taking that much inventory on another human being, and those with the qualifications know better than to approach, I mean hell, most actual intensive psychiatric inventories don't employ these methodologies, nor do deep work acting methods). So rather than "do not ever think binary", in conversations like these one should really recognize you're talking about something best dealt with holistically and Yurei "x sucks, I champion y" rhetoric does more harm to the conversation than facilitates understanding.
Also, because I saw it mentioned in here earlier though it seems to've conveniently disappeared? Someone flagging "gender" on a consent checklist does not mean "nobody can mention gender or any gendered term again, ever." That is ridiculous, alarmist, and a disingenuous attempt to dismiss real issues with overwrought hysteria. Trust me, I am the crown princess of overwrought hysteria, I know where it's useful and where someone's using it to be an ass.
If "someone" (like, say...me) were to flag "Gender" at a table - which I damn well might if I were playing with total strangers? It wouldn't be "don't talk about gender plz". It would be a case of me flagging it to bring it up and tell people "I have heard enough shitty tranny jokes, godawful attack helicopter memes, and mean-spirited 'I identify as a woman for tax breaks' cracks to last three lifetimes. They're not funny, they piss me off, and I don't want them in my happy-funtime-with-potential-new-friends time. An occasional quip if the situation legitimately allows for it is fine, I'm not a Grinch. But if the table makes a habit of tearing down non-cis folk, I'm going to make a habit of picking up my stuff and going home. And by 'habit' I mean I'm going to do it once and y'all won't see me at this table again."
Does that clear things up on the "why would anyone flag gender of all things?" front?
So I don't think anyone invested in consent in gaming needs it cleared up, and I question whether the poster whose comment triggered this diatribe but whose post is apparently under some form of erasure is really educated on the matter through this rhetorical tact, but let's also appreciate the fact that people's understanding of the definition of gender isn't universal and "what do you mean by term x?" is actually a fair question if the dynamic being proposed in this thread used a conversation as a vehicle as opposed to the actually proposed game aid paperwork conveyance. I mean it's no surprise that the initial rush to embrace this contribution came from posters who tend to be very outspoken on consent and harm reduction in gaming ... almost to the point where I wonder if they were simply responding to validate the shiboleth of "consent" as opposed to providing feedback based on any time spent evaluating it. So to be a truly useful device, this aid would have to do similar deep dives into gender themes and representation on a granular level as it does with violence/sex/morbidity (the overall format of the exhaustion makes me wonder if this is simply a compilation of existing inventories with little design regard) ... presuming "exhaustive" inventories are actually useful (I'm leaning to taking a form this extensive and lumping it with what I call "tristam shandying" a game, where so much preamble work before folks sit down and actual play there's basically a Zeno's paradox at play).
Bluntly compiled as is, I'm beginning to recognize this form, and particularly that question, could also be used oppressively. I can see a transphobic or otherwise "fragile" group using a form like this to cancel gender expression outside of heteronormative binaries. So yeah, Yurei I think "what does the form mean by gender" actually may be a very fair question that doesn't require an assault. People don't learn when via a rhetorical beat down and thusly an opportunity to actually expand understanding is lost in favor of catering to performance for a "side."
I really don't understand the sentiment that a tool like this is scary, on the face of it. Are people interpreting it as "these are common things you might see in a D&D game?" Because that seems to be a strange way to look at it. It's very thoroughness is saying, "you might not see any of these things at all, but just in case I want to know if there's anything that might be hurtful to you."
Anyone who's ever had an issue make them uncomfortable out of nowhere and, crucially, had their issue been greeted with ignorance, is going to look at this list and think, "yeah I hadn't thought of these, but my own issues seemed strange and niche to everyone else, too" and then appreciate that the creator made an effort to find issues that people may have, even if they aren't something they are personally bothered with.
I guess it might be hard to understand if one has never had personal issues come up in game and been looked at weird because of it. It must be nice to never have experienced that, be thankful for that privilege if you're in that position.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Hey yall, OP here! Thank you so much for all your feedback and stated concerns, I appreciate y'all taking the time to share your thoughts. I created this form to cover as wide a range of RPGs as possible, not just DND, many of which can have scenarios a lot darker than what is standardly run in DND. This form also isn't intended to be the only conversation a table has about consent! I was picturing it more as a "Fill this out, take it to your table, and then chat with your GM to establish what "moderate" body horror means, or what kind of scenarios you're going to encounter in their world". We have no idea what kind of games people are running and rather than leave out the things people MIGHT never encounter, I figured it best to be as broad as possible. If this form DOESN'T fit your needs, thats okay!! I'm certainly not going to force you to use it. Every single individual at a table has different boundaries and I wanted to include as many possible things as I could to minimize the gaps in communication between a GM and their players. Some people are running courtly dramas, yeah!! But some other people are running gritty eldritch horror, and they deserve a form that can fit their needs just as much as the people running courtly high fantasy.
Thank you also to everyone who pointed out that a google form was not the best way to present this. I didn't consider how that kind of thing could be used maliciously and chose that format because it was the easiest option available to me. I have no intention of viewing responses or stealing anyone's data, but I understand that you can't just take me at my word. I will release a fillable PDF version of the form here probably later today and delete the google form link once it is available.
Bluntly compiled as is, I'm beginning to recognize this form could also be used oppressively. I can see a transphobic or otherwise "fragile" group using a form like this to cancel gender expression outside of heteronormative binaries.
You know I had hoped this wouldn't come up, but just as I was thinking it, it did.
Can we please assume that tools like this are going to be used in good faith? Because if we start assuming bad faith usage, all discussion goes out the window. Not to mention the fact that calling efforts to speak up about someone's personal traumas a bad faith argument is traumatic to that person. Silencing someone when they are talking about their own pain is the worst lack of compassion and basically outright cruelty. Specifically in the context of session zeroes, consent, and no-go areas.
Edit: But also, bad faith usage of these tools is probably visible to a DM who is paying attention and speaks to a deeper problem than just the consent form. Things which will need to be addressed separately, of course.
Edit2: Also, I think I was misreading your post just a little bit and took a stance that doesn't make 100% sense, but now I've confused myself and don't know how to correct it.
I agree with the form size comments - from someone who works in a highly regulated industry with checklists that keep track of checklists....imo....this tool is just too comprehensive to the point its ineffective. Aside from keeping all these items in mind when you're prepping, you're effectively obligating the entire table to it.
That is in fact much of the point, yes.
Midnight mentioned "Red Card" earlier. I will be honest - I hate "Red Card". All the table flag systems out there do two things. They allow an injury to be done in the first place, and they completely tank a game when they come up.
Yup, formalized after the fact vetoes suck. Nonetheless, it should always be possible to raise objections of someone is getting really uncomfortable with something. A list such as this one attempts to prevent mishap, which is great (and presentation problems with this form aside, something to this effect should always be part of a session zero with new/unfamiliar players), but it's always possible something slips through the cracks. Ideally that's something that can then be discussed reasonably, rather than someone simply unilaterally vetoing an entire subject.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
can't seem to edit my last response...i'd also knock the list down from 100 items to 20 (max)...probably more like 12. Stuff like 'burning' just needs to go. Is that fire burns, acid burns, lightning burns? no dragons? what happens if a player tries to push a bad guy into a campfire or swings a torch as an improvised weapon ? Are you really going to tell a table of full of players (and lets be real, this isn't a form for close friends, its for acquaintances/strangers) that wizards can't use fire spells?
This is just one example of the can of worms the form opens.
I'm really appreciative of your comments from a regulatory check-list (and I'm presuming) compliance perspective. I'm wondering whether you're familiar with the more popular versions of this form that the OP's work is trying to build on with an "exhaustive" approach. Most consent forms are much smaller in scope, with encouragement to be modified and curated for a specific table's game.
I'm a stalwart for Monte Cook Games Consent in Gaming (which is considered one of the standards in this area of gaming) and I'd be curious if you're available to provide any contrasts between it and the OP's offering. I think the linked product (free, btw) went through an editorial process likely including the logic you identify, but I would certainly be interested in your evaluation of that form in light of your take on the OP's form (an evaluation I absolutely agree with but would like to see your insight applied to what's more recognized as a "industry standard" of sorts).
On the note of red/X cards and the comments on their ineffectiveness. It's important to note that for consent to be meaningful and valid, it needs to be possible withdraw it as well as give it. It can be completely reasonable for the table to all consent to a certain theme or topic, only for one player to find they actually are not comfortable and feel overwhelmed by it. The theme may not even be a trigger for them normally, but the arrangement of circumstances in the moment makes it too much.
A veto card system allows them to withdraw consent rather than being forced to sit there and go "Well, I agreed to this, I guess I must endure". Now, you may ask "Why have a card system? Why not just expect people to speak up?" Well the answer is formalisation; once you formalising something as a system/option, it's easier for people to use it. It's one thing to say "If you're uncomfortable, speak up", but it's another to place the tools in front of the players as a reminder that they are always empowered to put their safety first.
And for the whole "It disrupts the flow of the game and the DMs hard work". So what? Like, seriously, why is that even entertained as a reason for someone who is in distress or discomfort not to speak up? People can pause their games for bio-breaks, snacks, kids, or power cuts, pausing for someone's safety shouldn't ever be an ask. And if the situation isn't one where the game can proceed without the DM needing to re-write things? Well it happens, it's not like there isn't a DM tradition of having to wing it when your players take an unexpected right turn and you're caught unaware. This is no different.
On the note of red/X cards and the comments on their ineffectiveness. It's important to note that for consent to be meaningful and valid, it needs to be possible withdraw it as well as give it. It can be completely reasonable for the table to all consent to a certain theme or topic, only for one player to find they actually are not comfortable and feel overwhelmed by it. The theme may not even be a trigger for them normally, but the arrangement of circumstances in the moment makes it too much.
A veto card system allows them to withdraw consent rather than being forced to sit there and go "Well, I agreed to this, I guess I must endure". Now, you may ask "Why have a card system? Why not just expect people to speak up?" Well the answer is formalisation; once you formalising something as a system/option, it's easier for people to use it. It's one thing to say "If you're uncomfortable, speak up", but it's another to place the tools in front of the players as a reminder that they are always empowered to put their safety first.
And for the whole "It disrupts the flow of the game and the DMs hard work". So what? Like, seriously, why is that even entertained as a reason for someone who is in distress or discomfort not to speak up? People can pause their games for bio-breaks, snacks, kids, or power cuts, pausing for someone's safety shouldn't ever be an ask. And if the situation isn't one where the game can proceed without the DM needing to re-write things? Well it happens, it's not like there isn't a DM tradition of having to wing it when your players take an unexpected right turn and you're caught unaware. This is no different.
I believe Yurei's main point towards Red Card systems is that they shouldn't be used as the only tool in the box to prevent discomfort (hence her point that red card systems and consent forms are not substitutes for one another); if you don't have a session zero and don't try to pre-emptively identify problematic subjects, something getting vetoed ten sessions in is an annoyance that could in all likelihood have been prevented entirely.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I'm a stalwart for Monte Cook Games Consent in Gaming (which is considered one of the standards in this area of gaming) and I'd be curious if you're available to provide any contrasts between it and the OP's offering. I think the linked product (free, btw) went through an editorial process likely including the logic you identify, but I would certainly be interested in your evaluation of that form in light of your take on the OP's form (an evaluation I absolutely agree with but would like to see your insight applied to what's more recognized as a "industry standard" of sorts).
Familiar? Yes, have I used it or do I agree with it? No. I do like the general movie rating concept, but even that is hugely subjective. I do agree that there should be a general consensus on what's acceptable at the table....but a 100 item checklist isn't going to do it any better AT ALL than a 10 item checklist. I'm also a very firm believer in the idea that if someone says 'lets not get into those details', the table should respect it. That, IMO, is what people need to agree to up front - not a checklist.
Besides that, I don't think you can even have an 'exhaustive' or 'comprehensive' list as that means you're trying to capture every single issue that bother people. And there's a lot of different people out there with different issues. This is a game where combat, fighting, and dying are core mechanics of the game. Why 'physical abuse' should be on that list and 'murder', 'stabbing in the back', 'stabbing in the face', or any of the 1,000 other things a party regularly does in a D&D game aren't in the list, to me, just fundamentally makes no sense. On that "physical abuse" item...is it really okay to for a player to say "i'm going to kill this person and here's how I'm going to do it", but not "i'm going to tie him up on punch him in the face"? I call 'whatever'.
as an even further aside, the one issue that I've actually come across more than any other when it comes to family-friendly games is one that isn't even on most lists.
To me the issue is with having a list at all. It’s simply not possible to create a checklist that could cover every possible scenario that might upset (for lack of a better word) someone. Isn’t it more effective and simpler to just sit at session 0 and say “is there anything we as a group should steer away from?” Just let it be free-form. And of course, keep the door open in case something comes up that a person hadn’t initially thought of, but when it happens they realize it’s a problem. It seems simpler and more friendly. A 100-question sheet, which still doesn’t cover everything, just seems like homework.
I really don't understand the sentiment that a tool like this is scary, on the face of it. Are people interpreting it as "these are common things you might see in a D&D game?" Because that seems to be a strange way to look at it. It's very thoroughness is saying, "you might not see any of these things at all, but just in case I want to know if there's anything that might be hurtful to you."
I'm going to pretend your not understanding is a request for help and not rhetorical dismissal because your enthusiasm in this space is challenged. Let me help your imagination and comprehension on the sentiment that confuses you. It seems you're defaulting a presumption that everyone engaging the form has a similar experience level as you, as well as an awareness that games can proverbially "go there" by design (where the form's utility is questionable, like if I'm running Delta Green's Imaginary landscape, a lot of the elements are actually essential to the campaign's construction and so the form becomes more of a screener than game development tool) or by accident (where these forms really have their strengths to prevent insensitive ad-libbing).
In my case, if I distributed the form to one of my groups (3 adults, 3 13 years old and younger, only 1 player with any significant playing experience outside of my games) the form would be challenging. Parents would be "wtf are my kids getting into Midnightplat?" and the adults also would start to think this is a game of a thousand cuts making pregaming a site of worry rather than warming up for a good time. Let's remember that these forms derive of consensual sex practices developed within kink communities, though draws upon the consent codes written up in hand books at higher ed facilities. I'd say the former gets it right, while the latter turns the practice of getting ready to have fun(not trying to limit the expression of sexuality into simply "fun" but trying to keep it in line with a game that is after all mostly childs play) into a technocratic exercise. There's a big difference between conversationally developing consensual understanding through a conversation of "do we like ... ok so we don't like ... would this be fun for you?" as opposed to "here's my inventory of boundaries, please process into our play generation accordingly." One method endeavors optimistically toward the poentials of game enjoyment, maximum fun. The other begins at a state of presuming the possibility of injury, and that's not vulnerability (which is arguably key to good gaming of the RP intenstive sort) but fragility. I mean do you all even Brene Brown yo? TTRPG is the perfect site for brave vulnerability and establishment of respect, utopian ideal even, but "exhaustive" accounting of the possibilities of social emotional Murphy's Law is bureaucratically dispiriting.
Let's not forget most other Consent Forms are packaged with a DMs guide on the hows and whys to use it. This form is simply "Consent is cool right? But we need to drill down deeper right? Ta-da check out my exhaustive consent form." Really, the overbearing of "exhaustive" aside a more responsible delivery of such a game aid would be linking to the various touchstones on consent in gaming that are out there (in support of their own less intensive forms).
Anyone who's ever had an issue make them uncomfortable out of nowhere and, crucially, had their issue been greeted with ignorance, is going to look at this list and think, "yeah I hadn't thought of these, but my own issues seemed strange and niche to everyone else, too" and then appreciate that the creator made an effort to find issues that people may have, even if they aren't something they are personally bothered with.
I guess it might be hard to understand if one has never had personal issues come up in game and been looked at weird because of it. It must be nice to never have experienced that, be thankful for that privilege if you're in that position.
No, it's not that at all. Set and setting (look up what Morpheus meant by that) matters, including the paperwork, and if you fail to recognize how consent forms of the exhaustive format provided in the OP can dispirit a game I'd say your insight into how feelings may work are more limited than your articulating. Comfort and protection from harm, overall care is of course essential to intensive role playing (see what I'm doing there?) but there are in fact more organic ways of entertaining these needs within what is in fact a social game than self proclaimed exhaustive paperwork. And I will sit that form aside actual trauma reporting forms used in clinical practices and show you the utility of less in actual practice. That fact, to me, indicates the exhaustive accounting is nothing more than pretense responsibility theater.
Bluntly compiled as is, I'm beginning to recognize this form could also be used oppressively. I can see a transphobic or otherwise "fragile" group using a form like this to cancel gender expression outside of heteronormative binaries.
You know I had hoped this wouldn't come up, but just as I was thinking it, it did.
Can we please assume that tools like this are going to be used in good faith? Because if we start assuming bad faith usage, all discussion goes out the window. Not to mention the fact that calling efforts to speak up about someone's personal traumas a bad faith argument is traumatic to that person. Silencing someone when they are talking about their own pain is the worst lack of compassion and basically outright cruelty. Specifically in the context of session zeroes, consent, and no-go areas.
Acknowledging your edits which seem to indicate you're confused. Your objection is weirdly binary. One can recognize good faith intention, I believe I've done nothing but recognize the good intention behind this thread, and also identify the possibility of bad faith consequences from short sightedness. Claiming the nuanced possibility of bad faith usage (not assuming some universalized bad faith usage) throws all discussion out of the window just seems to be you closing off discussion because your enthusiasm is being challenged on nuanced considerations. To be a regular contributor on D&D Beyond and not recognize consent to be exclusionary is a likely practice at some tables is an ostrich perspective. While I outlined above the utopian capacity of TTRPG for acceptance and comfort, I'm well aware that there are many games that are played on much uglier terms and forms like these do help sort people into their respective games for better or worse.
On the note of red/X cards and the comments on their ineffectiveness. It's important to note that for consent to be meaningful and valid, it needs to be possible withdraw it as well as give it. It can be completely reasonable for the table to all consent to a certain theme or topic, only for one player to find they actually are not comfortable and feel overwhelmed by it. The theme may not even be a trigger for them normally, but the arrangement of circumstances in the moment makes it too much.
A veto card system allows them to withdraw consent rather than being forced to sit there and go "Well, I agreed to this, I guess I must endure". Now, you may ask "Why have a card system? Why not just expect people to speak up?" Well the answer is formalisation; once you formalising something as a system/option, it's easier for people to use it. It's one thing to say "If you're uncomfortable, speak up", but it's another to place the tools in front of the players as a reminder that they are always empowered to put their safety first.
And for the whole "It disrupts the flow of the game and the DMs hard work". So what? Like, seriously, why is that even entertained as a reason for someone who is in distress or discomfort not to speak up? People can pause their games for bio-breaks, snacks, kids, or power cuts, pausing for someone's safety shouldn't ever be an ask. And if the situation isn't one where the game can proceed without the DM needing to re-write things? Well it happens, it's not like there isn't a DM tradition of having to wing it when your players take an unexpected right turn and you're caught unaware. This is no different.
I appreciate your elaborating on the fact that cards and forms are not binary choices but tool options within a continuum of practices. Good gaming, in my view at least, tries to create fun for all where no one gets hurt, sort of like good living. One can not anticipate everything no matter how thorough one administrates things and so having a sort of "whistle blow" accommodation is a practical need.
Still, I don't think I'm 100% on board with the utility of playing card mechanism vs "speaking up." I understand the attraction of what you call formalization, but at the same time I don't know how many "buttons" should be included in what is primarily, in my view a social activity. It's sort of a chekhov's gun thing that's also reflected in interface design psychology. If you give someone a button, they're going to press it. Cards in unintentional ways "game-ifys" the players emotional experience turning consent into a sort of mini-game. Forms in their imposition a way clinically force a player to engage in reflection they may rather not do and especially on an exhaustive form are in many ways unnecessary.
Consent to play with each others imagination is important. I believe these mechanisms are well intended and do avail myself of them when I see the need myself. But I don't universalize their use, nor do I think they're anything but imperfect mechanisms that I think in some ways stumble where more social methods of consent are more successful. The OPs form in its present form for a number of reasons is more imperfect than most else.
At the end of the day this is trying to achieve, or rather INSTITUTE a clinical understanding instead of FOSTERING a social understanding, it's kinda got it backwards.
Now, you may ask "Why have a card system? Why not just expect people to speak up?" Well the answer is formalisation; once you formalising something as a system/option, it's easier for people to use it. It's one thing to say "If you're uncomfortable, speak up", but it's another to place the tools in front of the players as a reminder that they are always empowered to put their safety first.
Other note, in some cases, when someone is experiencing or close to experiencing a panic attack or something similar, they have difficulty conveying their thoughts and concerns with clarity --- they may even completely clam up. Visual cues like red cards and such provide an outlet. (In other contexts, you might see this with "thumbs down" hand signals and such.)
A.) I am not deeply familiar with commonly used Red Card systems; I know the basic shape of them but not specifics or intricacies thereof, and thus I will not presume to speak to their overall efficacy. I'm utterly certain they're a great boon to a great many people and an extremely useful tool for some groups/players/DMs. What I will not buy is that they're a universal tool, or the only tool. As Pangurjan said, Red Card and Consent Form are different things that identify/deal with different issues. They cannot substitute for each other, and that includes consent forms/discussions substituting for Red Cards.
B.) The idea that consent forms are 'invasive', or that someone needs medical psychiatric training to be able to make use of them, strikes me as deeply disingenuous. This particular consent form, from this user? Perhaps - but I presume they created the form in the first place because they perceived a need. The more things you take off a list, the broader and more simplified such a thing gets, the less useful it becomes. There is very likely a sweet spot between overly dense forms and overly scant ones, but that sweet spot will be a region, not a single point. Some players prefer a more in-depth listing, to help their own thought processes and memories as much as anything else. Not everybody can instantly bring up every single trigger they've got on a dime with a simple "what bugs you?" prompt. That's why these checklists exist in the first place - it's vastly easier and often more reliable to have a list of "does this bug you? Y/N" options than a single fill-in-the-answer box. Having a write-in section in consent forms/questionaires is absolutely important, but you cannot rely on them. Especially if working with players who've never stepped into this sort of space before.
C.) To the idea of 'social' methods and mechanisms - ideally yes, one could simply talk everything out. If that was the case we wouldn't have developed these more formalized structures in the first place. People are really heckin' bad at talking about mental health and mental injuries. Our society (speaking to the United States primarily here, for clarity) simply isn't built for it. We don't have good language, we don't have good protocols, and half the population is indoctrinated from birth in the idea that showing any form of emotional pain, damage, or weakness invalidates them as men and makes them Lesser than what they should be. Only in the last decade or so has society started making any real strides towards correcting this, and actually fixing it will take decades more. In the interim? People aren't necessarily good enough at 'social consent' to rely on it to protect themselves. Some people may take comfort in having a more formal system - a button they can push to say "this is stressing me". Might that result in the occasional false positive or gameification of the idea? Sure.
Counterpoint: games are how we learn. If we can't use games to start working to develop a more beneficial state of being and awareness around these issues, what can we use?
Honestly, this is something I'd advise a DM to regularly check with their players anyway. After every other session or so, or whenever there's been meaningful progress, just ask whether everyone's still cool with everything that's been going on. Red Card system or not, players may be unwilling to act or speak up in front of the whole group. Sending an e-mail or telling the group to let you know before next session makes it easier to come forward. Additionally, this can help when there's a problem that isn't related to harmful content too - if my players are bored or feel their character's not getting the attention or opportunity to shine they deserve, I'd prefer they don't sit on that either.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Going into the actual content, I'd say the "exhaustiveness" sort of cherry picks what gets granular interrogation (violence/sex-kink/morbidity) vs. a global categorization. For example there's I don't know how many degrees of talking to detailing sex but you got the one liner for "substance abuse/addiction issues." That covers everything from tavern carousing to overdosing on synthetic opioids obtained through sex work or other criminalized behavior. The exhaustiveness is a false claim and plenty of DMs, and even explicit rules sets going back to 80s made distinctions between alcohol, marijuana and related herbal psychoactives, stimulants, opioids, psychedelics etc. This sort of came up on a thread on mechanics for alcohol. Some games may narratively handwave a carousing good time at the bar turning into a drunken brawl a la Legend of Vox Machina ep 1, others may prefer a literally more sober game. And that's just booze. There's also tonal notes, do we ask separate lines for the tolerance of stoner humor and another one for looking at the same substance via a lens of culturally complex history. I guess there's a lot more "what are we talking about when we talk about [thematic element]" that push against the presented schema, and again, this form is close to literal work to perform and if thoughtfully addressed would likely take more time than a session 0.
I'm all for constructively discussing consent and boundaries in games, I do it all the time, and believe I am doing so here. I just, in addition, question the rush to enthusiastic embrace of questionably secure gaming aid with even further questionably useful overall game utility.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I don't like Google forms in general, but no "survey" form from anyone is really safe if you are really trying to keep a lid on PII. But that's a tech discussion.
The form is thorough. So thorough that it is almost scary. I could see the middle school kid asking their parent if they should sign it, and the parent thinking "There are DnD games that DO this often enough to need a form?" It set me off in the wrong way. I would hate to be given this form as my first introduction to a role playing game of any type. My take it needs some simplication on the categories, using the MPAA, ESRB or PEGI style ratings about the game in general and not dive into the detai. However, I certainly can see others that would appreciate the specificity.
The other thing is that, it reads like a contract idemnity clause. But it isn't; it doesn't protect anyone, and no one should have the illusion it does.
I'm just going to say it: it looks horrible. I assume it's well intended, but I'm not touching it with the proverbial 10-ft pole. I'm all for establishing what's problematic and what isn't for a given group but new players, if presented with this document, are likely to run for the hills. And I wouldn't blame them one bit. It's difficult enough to persuade people to give D&D a try in the first place, I'm not adding the impression playing a tabletop roleplaying game might scar you for life to my session zeroes (I thought we left that behind in the '80s, with Chick tracts and Mazes and Monsters). Use it as a personal checklist so you're aware of what some people might find hard to accept, by all means, but I really wouldn't spring this form on anyone.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I agree with the form size comments - from someone who works in a highly regulated industry with checklists that keep track of checklists....imo....this tool is just too comprehensive to the point its ineffective. Aside from keeping all these items in mind when you're prepping, you're effectively obligating the entire table to it.
Guide to the Five Factions (PWYW)
Deck of Decks
can't seem to edit my last response...i'd also knock the list down from 100 items to 20 (max)...probably more like 12. Stuff like 'burning' just needs to go. Is that fire burns, acid burns, lightning burns? no dragons? what happens if a player tries to push a bad guy into a campfire or swings a torch as an improvised weapon ? Are you really going to tell a table of full of players (and lets be real, this isn't a form for close friends, its for acquaintances/strangers) that wizards can't use fire spells?
This is just one example of the can of worms the form opens.
Guide to the Five Factions (PWYW)
Deck of Decks
That is in fact much of the point, yes.
Midnight mentioned "Red Card" earlier. I will be honest - I hate "Red Card". All the table flag systems out there do two things. They allow an injury to be done in the first place, and they completely tank a game when they come up. As an example, let's say Alice is running a game for Bob, Charlene, and Dalton. She startes describing the adventuring party's exploration of an old abandoned half-ruined keep, scattering a few signs here and there of a spectral presence. Dalton holds up his card and says "Is this ghosts? I can't handle ghosts. I just can't. They freak me all the way out, if this is ghosts I have to leave. I'm sorry."
What has happened here? Dalton has already been injured. He's in a state of heightened stress, he's having a near brush with his trigger, and also he's having to spike the entire game to avoid his trigger and he knows it. Dalton's not stupid, he can tell what's what. And in Alice's case? The whole adventure she'd written about seeking to soothe the ancient ghost of an insane fallen knight is spiked. She can't use it, and now she has nothing. If she's an excellent DM, she can bullshit her way through the rest of the session, rewrite her outline on the fly, and figure out something less cool she's able to vomit up on command. If she's a regular DM? "Yeah, it was supposed to be ghosts. Sorry, Dalton. And sorry Bob and Char, we're gonna have to adjourn for the night while I figure something else out. I'll have something else figured out by next week. See you guys then?"
Now Dalton has to eat the guilt and shame of letting his issues scupper a fun night of D&D and flush the DM's work, Bob and Char have to go home hours early and with no cool D&D to play, and Alice has to throw away an entire adventure outline and start from scratch. All of them are being as understanding and compassionate about the whole thing as they can, and all of them are also upset and frustrated despite trying to be decent people about it. All because somebody decided 'consent checklists' were bullshit and decided to use cards instead.
Don't get me wrong, cards have their place. But they do not, cannot, and never will substitute for having a frank conversation with the table ahead of time, especially if someone has an acute vulnerability they know they can't stomach other people poking. Cards allow people to try and get a better grip on unforseen situations; consent checklists are there to let the DM know where they can steer and prepare a game ahead of time and help get a grip on tone and content. Do not ever make the mistake of thinking the one is a substitute for the other.
Also, because I saw it mentioned in here earlier though it seems to've conveniently disappeared? Someone flagging "gender" on a consent checklist does not mean "nobody can mention gender or any gendered term again, ever." That is ridiculous, alarmist, and a disingenuous attempt to dismiss real issues with overwrought hysteria. Trust me, I am the crown princess of overwrought hysteria, I know where it's useful and where someone's using it to be an ass.
If "someone" (like, say...me) were to flag "Gender" at a table - which I damn well might if I were playing with total strangers? It wouldn't be "don't talk about gender plz". It would be a case of me flagging it to bring it up and tell people "I have heard enough shitty tranny jokes, godawful attack helicopter memes, and mean-spirited 'I identify as a woman for tax breaks' cracks to last three lifetimes. They're not funny, they piss me off, and I don't want them in my happy-funtime-with-potential-new-friends time. An occasional quip if the situation legitimately allows for it is fine, I'm not a Grinch. But if the table makes a habit of tearing down non-cis folk, I'm going to make a habit of picking up my stuff and going home. And by 'habit' I mean I'm going to do it once and y'all won't see me at this table again."
Does that clear things up on the "why would anyone flag gender of all things?" front?
Please do not contact or message me.
So rather than draw a broad brush on what I wrote about cards, let's look at what I actually wrote and the context before you do your habitual thing when invoking what someone else actually addressed with more nuance than your habitual rhetoric is often capable of.
I brought up cards because this form brings up the utilitarian limits of taking "exhaustive" inventory prior to actually playing the game. As mentioned a number of times in this thread, the pretense of "exhaustion" fails here in that you have deep granular dives into sex/violence/moribidity and you don't have that with my example of "addiction"(and my quibble just limited it to substances, ignoring the whole suite of addictive behaviors not related to substance abuse ... and I write that as someone playing in a PBP game with you where my character does have a sort of cinematic John Belushi relationship with substance abuse as opposed to real life Belushi portrayal, and I don't recall doing paperwork for that game) and while, whatever erased quip that set you off on your riff, aside the nuanced criteria of "gender" is also given similar disservice to the nuances of that content area besides your below quoted investment in protecting yourself from harm in that regard. Cards are of course an imperfect safety tool; but in a "anything can happen" pseudo simulationist game where the DM can't get their act together enough to know which potentially problematic themes they're going to likely* touch upon and have that advisory/disclosure conversation with or without paperwork, the cards are a better tool than a deep think form on people's boundaries to be collected and compiled by the DM (very very few DMs are qualified for the responsibility in taking that much inventory on another human being, and those with the qualifications know better than to approach, I mean hell, most actual intensive psychiatric inventories don't employ these methodologies, nor do deep work acting methods). So rather than "do not ever think binary", in conversations like these one should really recognize you're talking about something best dealt with holistically and Yurei "x sucks, I champion y" rhetoric does more harm to the conversation than facilitates understanding.
So I don't think anyone invested in consent in gaming needs it cleared up, and I question whether the poster whose comment triggered this diatribe but whose post is apparently under some form of erasure is really educated on the matter through this rhetorical tact, but let's also appreciate the fact that people's understanding of the definition of gender isn't universal and "what do you mean by term x?" is actually a fair question if the dynamic being proposed in this thread used a conversation as a vehicle as opposed to the actually proposed game aid paperwork conveyance. I mean it's no surprise that the initial rush to embrace this contribution came from posters who tend to be very outspoken on consent and harm reduction in gaming ... almost to the point where I wonder if they were simply responding to validate the shiboleth of "consent" as opposed to providing feedback based on any time spent evaluating it. So to be a truly useful device, this aid would have to do similar deep dives into gender themes and representation on a granular level as it does with violence/sex/morbidity (the overall format of the exhaustion makes me wonder if this is simply a compilation of existing inventories with little design regard) ... presuming "exhaustive" inventories are actually useful (I'm leaning to taking a form this extensive and lumping it with what I call "tristam shandying" a game, where so much preamble work before folks sit down and actual play there's basically a Zeno's paradox at play).
Bluntly compiled as is, I'm beginning to recognize this form, and particularly that question, could also be used oppressively. I can see a transphobic or otherwise "fragile" group using a form like this to cancel gender expression outside of heteronormative binaries. So yeah, Yurei I think "what does the form mean by gender" actually may be a very fair question that doesn't require an assault. People don't learn when via a rhetorical beat down and thusly an opportunity to actually expand understanding is lost in favor of catering to performance for a "side."
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I really don't understand the sentiment that a tool like this is scary, on the face of it. Are people interpreting it as "these are common things you might see in a D&D game?" Because that seems to be a strange way to look at it. It's very thoroughness is saying, "you might not see any of these things at all, but just in case I want to know if there's anything that might be hurtful to you."
Anyone who's ever had an issue make them uncomfortable out of nowhere and, crucially, had their issue been greeted with ignorance, is going to look at this list and think, "yeah I hadn't thought of these, but my own issues seemed strange and niche to everyone else, too" and then appreciate that the creator made an effort to find issues that people may have, even if they aren't something they are personally bothered with.
I guess it might be hard to understand if one has never had personal issues come up in game and been looked at weird because of it. It must be nice to never have experienced that, be thankful for that privilege if you're in that position.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Hey yall, OP here! Thank you so much for all your feedback and stated concerns, I appreciate y'all taking the time to share your thoughts. I created this form to cover as wide a range of RPGs as possible, not just DND, many of which can have scenarios a lot darker than what is standardly run in DND. This form also isn't intended to be the only conversation a table has about consent! I was picturing it more as a "Fill this out, take it to your table, and then chat with your GM to establish what "moderate" body horror means, or what kind of scenarios you're going to encounter in their world". We have no idea what kind of games people are running and rather than leave out the things people MIGHT never encounter, I figured it best to be as broad as possible. If this form DOESN'T fit your needs, thats okay!! I'm certainly not going to force you to use it. Every single individual at a table has different boundaries and I wanted to include as many possible things as I could to minimize the gaps in communication between a GM and their players. Some people are running courtly dramas, yeah!! But some other people are running gritty eldritch horror, and they deserve a form that can fit their needs just as much as the people running courtly high fantasy.
Thank you also to everyone who pointed out that a google form was not the best way to present this. I didn't consider how that kind of thing could be used maliciously and chose that format because it was the easiest option available to me. I have no intention of viewing responses or stealing anyone's data, but I understand that you can't just take me at my word. I will release a fillable PDF version of the form here probably later today and delete the google form link once it is available.
Thank you once again for all the feedback!
You know I had hoped this wouldn't come up, but just as I was thinking it, it did.
Can we please assume that tools like this are going to be used in good faith? Because if we start assuming bad faith usage, all discussion goes out the window. Not to mention the fact that calling efforts to speak up about someone's personal traumas a bad faith argument is traumatic to that person. Silencing someone when they are talking about their own pain is the worst lack of compassion and basically outright cruelty. Specifically in the context of session zeroes, consent, and no-go areas.
Edit: But also, bad faith usage of these tools is probably visible to a DM who is paying attention and speaks to a deeper problem than just the consent form. Things which will need to be addressed separately, of course.
Edit2: Also, I think I was misreading your post just a little bit and took a stance that doesn't make 100% sense, but now I've confused myself and don't know how to correct it.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Yup, formalized after the fact vetoes suck. Nonetheless, it should always be possible to raise objections of someone is getting really uncomfortable with something. A list such as this one attempts to prevent mishap, which is great (and presentation problems with this form aside, something to this effect should always be part of a session zero with new/unfamiliar players), but it's always possible something slips through the cracks. Ideally that's something that can then be discussed reasonably, rather than someone simply unilaterally vetoing an entire subject.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I'm really appreciative of your comments from a regulatory check-list (and I'm presuming) compliance perspective. I'm wondering whether you're familiar with the more popular versions of this form that the OP's work is trying to build on with an "exhaustive" approach. Most consent forms are much smaller in scope, with encouragement to be modified and curated for a specific table's game.
I'm a stalwart for Monte Cook Games Consent in Gaming (which is considered one of the standards in this area of gaming) and I'd be curious if you're available to provide any contrasts between it and the OP's offering. I think the linked product (free, btw) went through an editorial process likely including the logic you identify, but I would certainly be interested in your evaluation of that form in light of your take on the OP's form (an evaluation I absolutely agree with but would like to see your insight applied to what's more recognized as a "industry standard" of sorts).
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
On the note of red/X cards and the comments on their ineffectiveness. It's important to note that for consent to be meaningful and valid, it needs to be possible withdraw it as well as give it. It can be completely reasonable for the table to all consent to a certain theme or topic, only for one player to find they actually are not comfortable and feel overwhelmed by it. The theme may not even be a trigger for them normally, but the arrangement of circumstances in the moment makes it too much.
A veto card system allows them to withdraw consent rather than being forced to sit there and go "Well, I agreed to this, I guess I must endure". Now, you may ask "Why have a card system? Why not just expect people to speak up?" Well the answer is formalisation; once you formalising something as a system/option, it's easier for people to use it. It's one thing to say "If you're uncomfortable, speak up", but it's another to place the tools in front of the players as a reminder that they are always empowered to put their safety first.
And for the whole "It disrupts the flow of the game and the DMs hard work". So what? Like, seriously, why is that even entertained as a reason for someone who is in distress or discomfort not to speak up? People can pause their games for bio-breaks, snacks, kids, or power cuts, pausing for someone's safety shouldn't ever be an ask. And if the situation isn't one where the game can proceed without the DM needing to re-write things? Well it happens, it's not like there isn't a DM tradition of having to wing it when your players take an unexpected right turn and you're caught unaware. This is no different.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
I believe Yurei's main point towards Red Card systems is that they shouldn't be used as the only tool in the box to prevent discomfort (hence her point that red card systems and consent forms are not substitutes for one another); if you don't have a session zero and don't try to pre-emptively identify problematic subjects, something getting vetoed ten sessions in is an annoyance that could in all likelihood have been prevented entirely.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Familiar? Yes, have I used it or do I agree with it? No. I do like the general movie rating concept, but even that is hugely subjective. I do agree that there should be a general consensus on what's acceptable at the table....but a 100 item checklist isn't going to do it any better AT ALL than a 10 item checklist. I'm also a very firm believer in the idea that if someone says 'lets not get into those details', the table should respect it. That, IMO, is what people need to agree to up front - not a checklist.
Besides that, I don't think you can even have an 'exhaustive' or 'comprehensive' list as that means you're trying to capture every single issue that bother people. And there's a lot of different people out there with different issues. This is a game where combat, fighting, and dying are core mechanics of the game. Why 'physical abuse' should be on that list and 'murder', 'stabbing in the back', 'stabbing in the face', or any of the 1,000 other things a party regularly does in a D&D game aren't in the list, to me, just fundamentally makes no sense. On that "physical abuse" item...is it really okay to for a player to say "i'm going to kill this person and here's how I'm going to do it", but not "i'm going to tie him up on punch him in the face"? I call 'whatever'.
as an even further aside, the one issue that I've actually come across more than any other when it comes to family-friendly games is one that isn't even on most lists.
Excessive profanity.
Guide to the Five Factions (PWYW)
Deck of Decks
To me the issue is with having a list at all. It’s simply not possible to create a checklist that could cover every possible scenario that might upset (for lack of a better word) someone. Isn’t it more effective and simpler to just sit at session 0 and say “is there anything we as a group should steer away from?” Just let it be free-form. And of course, keep the door open in case something comes up that a person hadn’t initially thought of, but when it happens they realize it’s a problem. It seems simpler and more friendly. A 100-question sheet, which still doesn’t cover everything, just seems like homework.
I'm going to pretend your not understanding is a request for help and not rhetorical dismissal because your enthusiasm in this space is challenged. Let me help your imagination and comprehension on the sentiment that confuses you. It seems you're defaulting a presumption that everyone engaging the form has a similar experience level as you, as well as an awareness that games can proverbially "go there" by design (where the form's utility is questionable, like if I'm running Delta Green's Imaginary landscape, a lot of the elements are actually essential to the campaign's construction and so the form becomes more of a screener than game development tool) or by accident (where these forms really have their strengths to prevent insensitive ad-libbing).
In my case, if I distributed the form to one of my groups (3 adults, 3 13 years old and younger, only 1 player with any significant playing experience outside of my games) the form would be challenging. Parents would be "wtf are my kids getting into Midnightplat?" and the adults also would start to think this is a game of a thousand cuts making pregaming a site of worry rather than warming up for a good time. Let's remember that these forms derive of consensual sex practices developed within kink communities, though draws upon the consent codes written up in hand books at higher ed facilities. I'd say the former gets it right, while the latter turns the practice of getting ready to have fun(not trying to limit the expression of sexuality into simply "fun" but trying to keep it in line with a game that is after all mostly childs play) into a technocratic exercise. There's a big difference between conversationally developing consensual understanding through a conversation of "do we like ... ok so we don't like ... would this be fun for you?" as opposed to "here's my inventory of boundaries, please process into our play generation accordingly." One method endeavors optimistically toward the poentials of game enjoyment, maximum fun. The other begins at a state of presuming the possibility of injury, and that's not vulnerability (which is arguably key to good gaming of the RP intenstive sort) but fragility. I mean do you all even Brene Brown yo? TTRPG is the perfect site for brave vulnerability and establishment of respect, utopian ideal even, but "exhaustive" accounting of the possibilities of social emotional Murphy's Law is bureaucratically dispiriting.
Let's not forget most other Consent Forms are packaged with a DMs guide on the hows and whys to use it. This form is simply "Consent is cool right? But we need to drill down deeper right? Ta-da check out my exhaustive consent form." Really, the overbearing of "exhaustive" aside a more responsible delivery of such a game aid would be linking to the various touchstones on consent in gaming that are out there (in support of their own less intensive forms).
No, it's not that at all. Set and setting (look up what Morpheus meant by that) matters, including the paperwork, and if you fail to recognize how consent forms of the exhaustive format provided in the OP can dispirit a game I'd say your insight into how feelings may work are more limited than your articulating. Comfort and protection from harm, overall care is of course essential to intensive role playing (see what I'm doing there?) but there are in fact more organic ways of entertaining these needs within what is in fact a social game than self proclaimed exhaustive paperwork. And I will sit that form aside actual trauma reporting forms used in clinical practices and show you the utility of less in actual practice. That fact, to me, indicates the exhaustive accounting is nothing more than pretense responsibility theater.
Acknowledging your edits which seem to indicate you're confused. Your objection is weirdly binary. One can recognize good faith intention, I believe I've done nothing but recognize the good intention behind this thread, and also identify the possibility of bad faith consequences from short sightedness. Claiming the nuanced possibility of bad faith usage (not assuming some universalized bad faith usage) throws all discussion out of the window just seems to be you closing off discussion because your enthusiasm is being challenged on nuanced considerations. To be a regular contributor on D&D Beyond and not recognize consent to be exclusionary is a likely practice at some tables is an ostrich perspective. While I outlined above the utopian capacity of TTRPG for acceptance and comfort, I'm well aware that there are many games that are played on much uglier terms and forms like these do help sort people into their respective games for better or worse.
I appreciate your elaborating on the fact that cards and forms are not binary choices but tool options within a continuum of practices. Good gaming, in my view at least, tries to create fun for all where no one gets hurt, sort of like good living. One can not anticipate everything no matter how thorough one administrates things and so having a sort of "whistle blow" accommodation is a practical need.
Still, I don't think I'm 100% on board with the utility of playing card mechanism vs "speaking up." I understand the attraction of what you call formalization, but at the same time I don't know how many "buttons" should be included in what is primarily, in my view a social activity. It's sort of a chekhov's gun thing that's also reflected in interface design psychology. If you give someone a button, they're going to press it. Cards in unintentional ways "game-ifys" the players emotional experience turning consent into a sort of mini-game. Forms in their imposition a way clinically force a player to engage in reflection they may rather not do and especially on an exhaustive form are in many ways unnecessary.
Consent to play with each others imagination is important. I believe these mechanisms are well intended and do avail myself of them when I see the need myself. But I don't universalize their use, nor do I think they're anything but imperfect mechanisms that I think in some ways stumble where more social methods of consent are more successful. The OPs form in its present form for a number of reasons is more imperfect than most else.
At the end of the day this is trying to achieve, or rather INSTITUTE a clinical understanding instead of FOSTERING a social understanding, it's kinda got it backwards.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Other note, in some cases, when someone is experiencing or close to experiencing a panic attack or something similar, they have difficulty conveying their thoughts and concerns with clarity --- they may even completely clam up. Visual cues like red cards and such provide an outlet. (In other contexts, you might see this with "thumbs down" hand signals and such.)
To clarify:
A.) I am not deeply familiar with commonly used Red Card systems; I know the basic shape of them but not specifics or intricacies thereof, and thus I will not presume to speak to their overall efficacy. I'm utterly certain they're a great boon to a great many people and an extremely useful tool for some groups/players/DMs. What I will not buy is that they're a universal tool, or the only tool. As Pangurjan said, Red Card and Consent Form are different things that identify/deal with different issues. They cannot substitute for each other, and that includes consent forms/discussions substituting for Red Cards.
B.) The idea that consent forms are 'invasive', or that someone needs medical psychiatric training to be able to make use of them, strikes me as deeply disingenuous. This particular consent form, from this user? Perhaps - but I presume they created the form in the first place because they perceived a need. The more things you take off a list, the broader and more simplified such a thing gets, the less useful it becomes. There is very likely a sweet spot between overly dense forms and overly scant ones, but that sweet spot will be a region, not a single point. Some players prefer a more in-depth listing, to help their own thought processes and memories as much as anything else. Not everybody can instantly bring up every single trigger they've got on a dime with a simple "what bugs you?" prompt. That's why these checklists exist in the first place - it's vastly easier and often more reliable to have a list of "does this bug you? Y/N" options than a single fill-in-the-answer box. Having a write-in section in consent forms/questionaires is absolutely important, but you cannot rely on them. Especially if working with players who've never stepped into this sort of space before.
C.) To the idea of 'social' methods and mechanisms - ideally yes, one could simply talk everything out. If that was the case we wouldn't have developed these more formalized structures in the first place. People are really heckin' bad at talking about mental health and mental injuries. Our society (speaking to the United States primarily here, for clarity) simply isn't built for it. We don't have good language, we don't have good protocols, and half the population is indoctrinated from birth in the idea that showing any form of emotional pain, damage, or weakness invalidates them as men and makes them Lesser than what they should be. Only in the last decade or so has society started making any real strides towards correcting this, and actually fixing it will take decades more. In the interim? People aren't necessarily good enough at 'social consent' to rely on it to protect themselves. Some people may take comfort in having a more formal system - a button they can push to say "this is stressing me". Might that result in the occasional false positive or gameification of the idea? Sure.
Counterpoint: games are how we learn. If we can't use games to start working to develop a more beneficial state of being and awareness around these issues, what can we use?
Please do not contact or message me.
Honestly, this is something I'd advise a DM to regularly check with their players anyway. After every other session or so, or whenever there's been meaningful progress, just ask whether everyone's still cool with everything that's been going on. Red Card system or not, players may be unwilling to act or speak up in front of the whole group. Sending an e-mail or telling the group to let you know before next session makes it easier to come forward. Additionally, this can help when there's a problem that isn't related to harmful content too - if my players are bored or feel their character's not getting the attention or opportunity to shine they deserve, I'd prefer they don't sit on that either.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].