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.)
Yep, this is called grounding and can be a very useful tool when you can't communicate your current internal state, either effectively or at all.
I'm a white dude, straight, non-religious with no definable mental health issues. I would flat out feel scared to hand this out at a table I administered. As someone who was respsonsible at one point for the hiring and upkeep of 400+ people operating a call center, the behavior surveys we asked didn't want anything close to this amount of data. If I handed a form like this to four random people and said I was using it in an attempt to be inclusive and try to make sure I don't stomp on peoples toes and make them feel uncomfortable?
I don't think people would fill it out, and they'd think I'm a giant piece of shit for asking all sorts of potentially intimate questions and brand me as an *******. I honestly think they'd be right to do so too.
There are fake clauses here that seem designed on protecting the DM in case shit hits the fan, and not the player. That's how I read this form. This form for me would do the exact opposite of what I wanted for the other people at the table. It would force them to out themselves in dozens of ways and make them feel vulnerable.
Being inclusive is different for everyone and the tools people need to use are different. Again, as a white dude, my personal experience on it sometimes gets misconstrued as fake because of the reality with rampant gatekeeping, "am I the the token diversity player", etc. I have to tailor the things I do to show that I'm being authentic but at the same time showing that I'm not exerting too much energy because even though I am personally passionate about the concepts of "wokeness" and recognizing privledge as it relates to being inclusive? That is very easily read as "He's just doing it because he's white".
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.
This really hits the nail on the head for me. Having open dialogue is important. Being willing to open yourself up and create an inclusive environment is important, but at the same time it's about being willing to listen as opposed to asking. Opening a campaign with "These are my hard limits off the table that I will not do or wade into. Do any of you have any hard stops? Are there things that you are not comfy with but are willing to entertain for the sake of a story?" instead of a 3 page form.
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.
So let's be clear you're arguing against ... no one? Because no one said cards were a universal panacea. I think they're better to have on hand if you really want to be "ready for everything and anything" in lieu of doing the Exhaustive Contest Examination cut and paste job, because if you're intent is to cover that much inventory you've entered impossible territory. These forms arguably lead to "smoother play" with less social emotional bumps, but I don't think the best way to do that is to start with a clunker of a form.
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.
OP claims prior version were inadequate because they weren't comprehensive enough. Let's look at the broader scape of human interaction, teachers and therapists and caregivers don't go this deep into anyone's boundaries. When they do so, and are professionally trained to do so, it is done much more succinctly (often the inventoried subject isn't even aware of the process). Maximalism just isn't the answer to anything, and I find your apserison of disingenuity on my part a bit insulting, as I believe I show up here authentically as opposed to freely admitting my liberal usage of histrionics. Why do I do authenticity as opposed to full on Yurei aggro, because I respect the broader audience, and I don't need 100+ questionaire to read the room.
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.
And the more you include, the more likely you are to, using a dramatic term, "pull focus." I still say this form is likely more difficult in terms of required thought and time to fill out than a character sheet, at which point the utility of the tool has to fall under question. Maybe there should be a play aid rule of thumb, if the tool is more of a grind than RAW combat, don't use it.
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.
So in the end, you lean into button pushing and card playing than the forms, because urgent moments actually arent' anticipated. On the prevention phase, even folks who do work more hands on with these issues recognize the forms as almost needless administrative documentation. They're conducive to cataloguing problems but it's an entirely different practitioner, or director, or coaching or DMing or player skillset to actually build accomodation and those accomodations can be often reached without pseudo-clinical inventory.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
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).
I will absolutely give it to you that this form definitely needs to be better introduced if it is to be used in practice. I did go into this with the mindset that it was a partially developed tool rather than a finished product.
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.
Davyd already brought up how useful formalization of consent tools can be, because they not only help people recognize some things are legitimate issues, but it also explicitly gives people permission to take steps to make themselves feel safe. An organic, off the cuff guideline of "well just let us know if there's something that bothers you" will oftentimes not cut it for people with social anxiety, who tend to suppress themselves for social unity. A fully formalized procedure, on the other hand, makes it feel safe for some people to take that step. And as Davyd already pointed out, that is always worth doing, even if it inconveniences the game. Safety of gamers takes priority over convenience of the game.
Also when you say this form is "nothing more than pretense responsibility theater" it really sounds like you're saying the creator is just pretending to be responsible rather than honestly trying. Do you really think they are purposefully lying about their intentions or are you just being hyperbolic?
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'm not sure you're understanding what I mean when I say "bad faith" arguments or usage. You can't have bad faith consequences from short sightedness because "bad faith" means intentionally making bad arguments that you know are bad, just to antagonize someone. If you make an argument that you truly believe, but that are bad because you're short sighted, then it wasn't bad faith, just poorly argued.
And no ... I honestly didn't really realize that people would use consent proceedings in order to exclude others. It seems like a ridiculous thought to me, if someone were just going to be exclusionary why would they to to the lengths of using consent procedures to do it? I mean, I believe you, I guess? Humanity is always surprising me with the depths to which it will sink.
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!
And no ... I honestly didn't really realize that people would use consent proceedings in order to exclude others. It seems like a ridiculous thought to me, if someone were just going to be exclusionary why would they to to the lengths of using consent procedures to do it? I mean, I believe you, I guess? Humanity is always surprising me with the depths to which it will sink.
Every single walk of life does this.
Court rooms ask bias questions to exclude jurors. Prospective employers provide behavior analysis questionaires to see if people are going to be a good fit.
This isn't even a different take on it or a different spin, it's just being introduced in such a way that people won't be familiar with it but at the end, it's still the same thing.
If I were to ask you - right now, on the spot - what your triggers, boundaries, and limitations where for a game of D&D, what would you say to me?
Don't write it out, you don't need to. I don't need to know your answer and neither does anybody else here. But think for a moment on how you'd answer that question. Because how almost anyone I've ever met would answer it, when given an open-ended prompt with absolutely zero guidance or coaching like that, would be a blank, uncomprehending stare of confusion and a variation of "could you explain the question?"
Trust me. My first-blush response to the consent forms when I first encountered them was smug, scornful dismissal - "this is a bunch of crap, just talk with players properly, why bother with this bureaucratic nonsense?" Then I thought about it some more, experimented with the sheet, read a few things, and even discussed the consent form itself with my friends. We've all since come down on the side that the sheets are a really good idea, and that filling them out even with a group of people you know well isn't a waste of time. Even if you all share answers and are on the same page? Simply doing the exercise can get you in a state of mind to be more mindful of the problem, and it can be an educational exercise even if none of the 'Red' marks ever come up.
The consent forms are a means of explaining the question. They act as guiderails, examples, and directed interviews all in one. They are not necessarily exhaustive, they do not necessarily need to be exhaustive, but they do need to be significant enough to get people's minds working in the right direction. This particular form is an attempt by a particular user to produce something he finds more useful than the more well-known sheets, and wished to share. He's already acknowledged the security concerns you brought up and pledged to correct them. Is it good for every table? Nah. I'll freely admit, I haven't examined the offering in-depth in part because of the significant size of the document. But there are table situations I can easily imagine where even simply using a large document like this as a group activity, stepping through the different bullets as a group and seeing what's what without attempting to invasively probe any specific player's brain, might be a useful tool.
And no ... I honestly didn't really realize that people would use consent proceedings in order to exclude others. It seems like a ridiculous thought to me, if someone were just going to be exclusionary why would they to to the lengths of using consent procedures to do it? I mean, I believe you, I guess? Humanity is always surprising me with the depths to which it will sink.
Every single walk of life does this.
Court rooms ask bias questions to exclude jurors. Prospective employers provide behavior analysis questionaires to see if people are going to be a good fit.
This isn't even a different take on it or a different spin, it's just being introduced in such a way that people won't be familiar with it but at the end, it's still the same thing.
This is not exactly what I thought MidnightPlat meant. I thought they meant that people would intentionally use consent forms to pick on minority gamers, which seems like an unnecessarily elaborate way to do so if all you want to do is be bigoted.
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!
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).
I will absolutely give it to you that this form definitely needs to be better introduced if it is to be used in practice. I did go into this with the mindset that it was a partially developed tool rather than a finished product.
I mean you are aware this reads a cut and paste collation of existing consent forms, and to me triggers concenrs this was more an exercise in "mastering" something than endeavoring to address existing tools and techniques to provide help.
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.
Davyd already brought up how useful formalization of consent tools can be, because they not only help people recognize some things are legitimate issues, but it also explicitly gives people permission to take steps to make themselves feel safe. An organic, off the cuff guideline of "well just let us know if there's something that bothers you" will oftentimes not cut it for people with social anxiety, who tend to suppress themselves for social unity. A fully formalized procedure, on the other hand, makes it feel safe for some people to take that step. And as Davyd already pointed out, that is always worth doing, even if it inconveniences the game. Safety of gamers takes priority over convenience of the game.
I mean I get it but I just think you and Davyd lean far too technocratically in this way, and really underestimate the value of talking or presenting the matter in something other than a format resembling a standardized test. Go back to set and setting and what it means and where it comes from and maybe endeavor to understand how forms may disrupt it.
Also when you say this form is "nothing more than pretense responsibility theater" it really sounds like you're saying the creator is just pretending to be responsible rather than honestly trying. Do you really think they are purposefully lying about their intentions or are you just being hyperbolic?
Do show me in the rhetoric presenting this tool where "care" is exhibited. The framing of this product was entirely "sell". Prior iterations of consent forms were inadequate, this one is better because it's EXHAUSTIVE. The need for the level of exhaustion is never really articulated. The sale pitch and product excited you, and you bought in.
As far as pretense responsibility theater, earnestness can easily be eaten up by ambition, the drive to do "more" and "better" getting confused with the right thing to do and what altruism actually is. So energy expended, product pitched, some consumers of said product believe they're taken care of ... whereas there's a whole other half of this thread from you and Davyd that finds this more problematic than helpful. But honestly I don't think you have the capacity to appreciate that context because of early buy in and need to defend your product affinity.
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'm not sure you're understanding what I mean when I say "bad faith" arguments or usage. You can't have bad faith consequences from short sightedness because "bad faith" means intentionally making bad arguments that you know are bad, just to antagonize someone. If you make an argument that you truly believe, but that are bad because you're short sighted, then it wasn't bad faith, just poorly argued.
And no ... I honestly didn't really realize that people would use consent proceedings in order to exclude others. It seems like a ridiculous thought to me, if someone were just going to be exclusionary why would they to to the lengths of using consent procedures to do it? I mean, I believe you, I guess? Humanity is always surprising me with the depths to which it will sink.
This is because you fail to truly troubleshoot the tool. And troubleshoot your logic. I can see how you're at a loss for how a tool could be used for exclusionary purposes, because it seems you have a technocratic leaning that believes mechanisms and tools are necessary for inclusion. It's enthusiasm for a tool that many are pointing out to be problematic on grounds your repeatedly admit being unable to recognize ... so who's being short sighted and arguing poorly?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
It's responses like this that hammer it home for me.
A person I know went to have a procedure done medically, and one of the questions was "Do you have sucidial thoughts". Guy answered yeah, because he was like everyone does at some point. By putting that answer down, he got rejected by the medical team until he had a thorough psychoanalysis done to ensure that after the procedure he wasn't going to kill himself.
Sure, this is ancedotal as a single experience but it shows the power that exhaustive questionaires have.
As someone who is not only a DM that has been using safety tools for several years, but whose partner works in a field that actively uses safety tools at a professional level (called 'safeguarding' in her sector), I wanna provide some insights that might clarify things for a few people:
Formality engenders usage: what this means is that people are psychologically more included to make use of a formally configured system than an informally configured one. The average person is more likely to call in a written IOU note than a verbal "I owe you a favour". People are more likely use a service that is explicitly detailed than implicitly. Basically, the more ambiguity you remove from a process, the more readily people engage with it. This extends to safety tools; the more formally you establish the, the more readily and comfortably the players will use them.
Performance can be as importance as praxis: otherwise know as signalling, this is the principle that it can be just as important to communicate that you are creating an inclusive or safe space as it is to actually provide one. If prospective players don't know there are safety tools in place, they may assume there aren't. It's not like asking "Does your table have safety tools?" is a question that is met with universal approval after all. It's the DMs responsibility to signal "I have taken measures to make my game as safe as possible"
Formality mitigates ambiguity: it is all too easy to think "Sure, I've been DM'ing years and never had a problem. I know my players would tell me if something is wrong" for that to be proven grossly incorrect. Or to assume your mental check list of things to ask is 'good enough'. By providing a formalised format, you open up to the possibility of scrutiny, critique, and feedback before any gaps in your safety tools are encountered.
Safety is subtextual: something I've noticed people saying is "this list isn't comprehensive" or "you're missing X from the list" or even "by listing A, B, and C, but not D, you're saying D doesn't matter". The thing is, none of these points are failures of a safety toolkit because introducing a safety toolkit to your players subtextually communicates an important message: "I take the safety of my players seriously and want to make sure you have fun". This is the 'opinion invite effect'; if you ask someone a finite list of questions for their opinions and they have an opinion not covered by the questions, they are much more included to volunteer that opinion. You are communicating, without saying "I am here to listen to you when it comes to your safety". So it doesn't matter that the survey isn't perfectly comprehensive; it sends the message that if there's something missing, you'll listen.
'Preventing harm causes more harm' fallacy: you might know this by another false-factlet; "seatbelts cost more lives than they save". The idea that using safety tools can put people at more risk of harm than if you didn't use them at all isn't true and to be honest, is a fallacy that occurs in a lot of modes of thinking and topics. For starters, the idea a DM would use it as a way of gathering information on player to harm them with. If you're in a situation where you look at your DM and think "This person would use a safety tools survey to harm me", well your problem isn't the safety tools. Those kinds of red flags should be an immediate cause to leave the table. But this is entertaining that a bad actor DM would go to the effort of using a safety tool checklist to do harm when that's the most round-the-houses approach and there are much easier ways to be malicious and cruel. The only time I've ever seen harm to a player at the hands of a DM who used safety tools is when they disregarded said tools
Hopefully this is some useful information on safety tools and safeguarding. I've been fortunate to learn a lot from my partner and their work. One of the benefits of having a live-in doctor of psychology and qualified counsellor!
This is because you fail to truly troubleshoot the tool. And troubleshoot your logic. I can see how you're at a loss for how a tool could be used for exclusionary purposes, because it seems you have a technocratic leaning that believes mechanisms and tools are necessary for inclusion. It's enthusiasm for a tool that many are pointing out to be problematic on grounds your repeatedly admit being unable to recognize ... so who's being short sighted and arguing poorly?
Settle down a touch, Midnight. Ophidimancer's not trying to hammer you, he's simply engaging in discourse.
I can understand your concern with this, specific, consent form. Again - I didn't examine it in-depth personally myself as I was leery of the link, and by the time I was less leery it was disabled. People have a bad reaction to the form and are speaking of it being invasive and feeling intimidating and interrogative. Okay. Fair cop. If that's one's feeling on it, don't use it. Don't promote it, and don't allow others to use it at tables you're a part of.
I will remind you, though, that Ophi and I both are part of groups who have, historically, been told we don't exist in terms of 'social consent' and similar constructs. My own gender issues are not necessarily widely known, but I've also made little secret of them here on the forums. For most of my life the correct "social consent" response to gender issues like mine has been silence - I don't bring them up, I bottle up my response when someone says something that upsets me, and I otherwise pretend to be a right and proper well-raised cisgender normie who doesn't rock the boat and disrupt gaming sessions with my "unnecessary" issues no matter who says what where, because my issues are mine to deal with and have no bearing on game time. That has been said to my face, openly, here on the forums - "why should your gender identity matter to me and any game we're theoretically playing together? Why should I have to care about it or acknowledge it unless you bring it up, and if you do, why do you need to bring it up?"
Consent forms, veto cards, and other formalized, 'technocratic' systems are one of the crowbars folks like Ophidimancer and I use to tear that crap down and tell people in no uncertain terms that that shit's not okay anymore. Ignoring, poo-pooing, undercutting, or dismissing people's issues and trying to force everybody to live in the same Pleasantville box will no longer be tolerated. Technocratic buttons are a way to introduce people who have no frame of reference for consideration of these issues to the idea. They are, in effect, teaching aids for the vast majority of the American populace and quite possibly the world populace as a whole for whom this whole argument is an utterly foreign concept.
You don't like this particular one. Fair. Nobody's going to sass you for not using it. Some people will like it, and would like to be able to use it without castigation. Even if their version of "using it" is as a basis for creating their own, more slimmed-down document.
I am all for session zero and understanding social boundaries, but I laugh anytime people say that these forms are "inclusive". They are in fact very specifically designed to exclude people. Generally speaking you would only include people in your games that have answered similarly. Everyone else is thereby excluded as they don't match the table's playstyle or expectations. I am not saying that is a bad thing. Games are more enjoyable if everyone has similar expectations, but don't pat yourself on the back and say you are being "inclusive" when you hand out these forms to strangers.
I am all for session zero and understanding social boundaries, but I laugh anytime people say that these forms are "inclusive". They are in fact very specifically designed to exclude people. Generally speaking you would only include people in your games that have answered similarly. Everyone else is thereby excluded as they don't match the table's playstyle or expectations. I am not saying that is a bad thing. Games are more enjoyable if everyone has similar expectations, but don't pat yourself on the back and say you are being "inclusive" when you hand out these forms to strangers.
Inclusive in this context doesn't mean "including in the activity", it means "including people in your modes of thinking about how your actions could affect them". So this does mean that yes, excluding someone from a game can be inclusive
I am all for session zero and understanding social boundaries, but I laugh anytime people say that these forms are "inclusive". They are in fact very specifically designed to exclude people. Generally speaking you would only include people in your games that have answered similarly. Everyone else is thereby excluded as they don't match the table's playstyle or expectations. I am not saying that is a bad thing. Games are more enjoyable if everyone has similar expectations, but don't pat yourself on the back and say you are being "inclusive" when you hand out these forms to strangers.
Right, but that's the nature of anything in general?
Devils Advocate time.
There are hundreds of thousands of posts on these forums that say the same things. No D&D is better than bad D&D, run your tables how you want, RAI is better than RAW, etc. These can be interpreted as being exclusionary. I've said to multiple people, some in this thread that I would never play at your tables with just the rules you set.
At the same time, there are tables where sexual assault in game is not only allowed, but sometimes encouraged. I find this to be abhorrent while some others might find it to be good in theme gameplay. I want to know up front if that shit is allowed before I even attempt to join a game, and a form like this would help. Maybe the DM is not capable of having the nuanced conversation with words but can provide this as an alternative? For that person, this is a wonderful tool. To Davyds point, having physical tangible things in place for some people work wonderfully, but at the same time they can and do exclude others. It's done by design. If someone isn't comfortable having that level of discourse for the game you're trying to set up, they're not the player you're trying to court.
When it comes to ANYTHING, there is exclusion. We all have friend groups who we have let in the bubble and let our guard down. We also all know people who are less receptive to our personal tastes. We still deal and talk with them, but maybe we don't share as much. Maybe we don't go to a social gathering. Maybe we don't invite them to the yearly get together or whatever it is.
To Yureis point, because of their history, maybe they don't want to play with certain types of people because of their history. That's their right as a human being. This form for them is a way of trying to make sure they don't get aligned with someone who is going to offend them, and on the same token that Yurei won't offend them when something they find offensive happens and they respond. In that context, I don't think Yurei would give a flying **** that they were defending themselves in that context but why even get to that point when there is a way to avoid conflict?
Fact is, this form WILL work for some. It will NOT work for me. That's fine. If someone came to my table with something like this? I'd sure as hell use it and be thankful that the person was willing to disclose all of this to provide themselves a safe space.
As with everything in D&D, it really boils down to that same fateful line in the PHB for 5th. Run your tables how you want. Be appreciative of the people there, be excellent to each other and figure out what works in the context of your table.
I am all for session zero and understanding social boundaries, but I laugh anytime people say that these forms are "inclusive". They are in fact very specifically designed to exclude people. Generally speaking you would only include people in your games that have answered similarly. Everyone else is thereby excluded as they don't match the table's playstyle or expectations. I am not saying that is a bad thing. Games are more enjoyable if everyone has similar expectations, but don't pat yourself on the back and say you are being "inclusive" when you hand out these forms to strangers.
Sorry Golaryn, but that is not even remotely the case, nor the intended use case for these forms.
If I were starting a new group and I wanted to make sure I was doing right by them, I wouldn't start by saying "Fill this out" and then summarily dismissing anyone whose answers didn't line up with mine. A consent checklist check-up would not happen at all until I had a group of people I was reasonably sure wanted to play together. let me take an unusual step here and provide my own checklist, as a point of discussion. I'll leave it spoilered, but I want people to understand how to use these things. It's important.
My own (generic) consent list:
So. That's my list. What does it mean?
In general, it means I'm fairly open-ended and can tolerate a wide range of potentially sensitive topics in my games. As a DM, I'm comfortable portraying just about everything on this list, including my own yellows. The yellows are there primarily on the player side, and to me they signal a need for discussion with the DM. My yellows are things I can tolerate if they're taken seriously and treated with the gravitas they deserve, rather than played for cheap thrills or gratuitous fantasy fulfillment, which is something I'd explain to the DM when the requested follow-up happened. Save for harm to animals. I have a squishy spot in my gut that gets agitated and upset when animals who cannot understand what's happening are abused and subjected to horrific mistreatment. Which is not to say I can't tolerate it in a game should the DM give it the gravitas it deserves...but I know that spot is there and would like the DM to know to maybe tread a little carefully, if they could.
What this does not mean is "anybody who isn't as open-ended as I am doesn't get to play with me" or "anybody who answered Green to anything I flagged as Yellow is somebody I don't want to know". I imagine most folks would answer 'Red' to harm to children, and there's a lot of people that'd look at me very strangely for being Green on 'Harm to Children' but yellow on 'Harm to Animals'. That is because "Green" is not "I endorse this", it's "I can tolerate this happening in front of me in a game, from a mental health perspective." I have no issue with children being caught up in tragedies, and frankly I wouldn't have an issue with animals being caught up in tragedies either, but that doesn't mean my character would not be distraught and seek to redress the tragedy however she was able. It merely means I do not believe myself likely to suffer emotional injuries from its mere existence in my game.
I do not exclude people who answer Red to my Greens, and I do not exclude people who answer Green to my Yellows. That's not the purpose of the form. The purpose of the form is giving people a way to say "these are things I cannot allow in games I'm a part of, sorry" without any need for judgment or extended discussions of things it may well be difficult and stressful to discuss. Some folks, as an example, may be so distressed at the thought of Harm to Children that they cannot even handle talking about it, let alone playing through it. The consent form lets them make that known without the need to sit down and explain themselves. if I, as a DM, see a Red response, the most I'd ever subject a player to is "do you mind if we talk about this?" if I believe there's valid reason for discussion. If I get a flat "No", then that's the end of it.
Yes, sometimes that might mean a player finds themselves incompatible with a given table. I'd argue that's working as intended. It's better for that player to figure that out ahead of time, before getting super invested in a game, than to figure it out five or ten sessions in. Session Zero is generally the better place for that, sure, but this form should honestly be part of Session Zero. That's where it belongs, and it's a big part of what Session Zero is all about. It's a useful tool to have a focused, productive discussion of tone and boundaries, and given how often the Session Zeroes I've been in have wandered thoroughly off topic and into general hanging-out chatter sessions, having the focused tool can be a big boon.
Someone using the form to fish for reasons to exclude people is being a bad actor, and also an *******. The existence of ******** does not invalidate the tool.
I am all for session zero and understanding social boundaries, but I laugh anytime people say that these forms are "inclusive". They are in fact very specifically designed to exclude people. Generally speaking you would only include people in your games that have answered similarly. Everyone else is thereby excluded as they don't match the table's playstyle or expectations. I am not saying that is a bad thing. Games are more enjoyable if everyone has similar expectations, but don't pat yourself on the back and say you are being "inclusive" when you hand out these forms to strangers.
Inclusive in this context doesn't mean "including in the activity", it means "including people in your modes of thinking about how your actions could affect them". So this does mean that yes, excluding someone from a game can be inclusive
The context of this form and it's use as a tool for D&D is that it is to sort though people to find those you are willing to add to your group. It isn't designed to do anything more than that. Again, that is not a bad thing. But weeding people out based on compatibility is by definition, exclusion. I exclude people all the time, mostly racists, homophobes, transphobes and the like, but I call it what it is, being exclusive in those I choose to be around.
Someone using the form to fish for reasons to exclude people is being a bad actor, and also an *******. The existence of ******** does not invalidate the tool.
I am going to focus on this right here, because this is the heart of my point. It isn't bad acting to look at a form like this and see that maybe a person doesn't quite fit with a group of people and then not include them.
I am all for session zero and understanding social boundaries, but I laugh anytime people say that these forms are "inclusive". They are in fact very specifically designed to exclude people. Generally speaking you would only include people in your games that have answered similarly. Everyone else is thereby excluded as they don't match the table's playstyle or expectations. I am not saying that is a bad thing. Games are more enjoyable if everyone has similar expectations, but don't pat yourself on the back and say you are being "inclusive" when you hand out these forms to strangers.
Inclusive in this context doesn't mean "including in the activity", it means "including people in your modes of thinking about how your actions could affect them". So this does mean that yes, excluding someone from a game can be inclusive
The context of this form and it's use as a tool for D&D is that it is to sort though people to find those you are willing to add to your group. It isn't designed to do anything more than that. Again, that is not a bad thing. But weeding people out based on compatibility is by definition, exclusion. I exclude people all the time, mostly racists, homophobes, transphobes and the like, but I call it what it is, being exclusive in those I choose to be around.
That's a bit harsh, no offense. It's designed to weed out subjects that might cause players to be too uncomfortable to enjoy the game or even remain part of the group. While that could potentially be used to exclude others, it's a big leap to even expect that as an outcome; assuming it's set up to do exactly that has no plausible foundation. Even assuming I was creating a campaign that has subject X as a focus and one potential player said that subject is a no-go for them, that doesn't mean my only or even most likely course of action is to exclude that player. I can scrap the campaign and start from scratch, I can try to salvage most of my work and redesign the problematic aspects, or I can talk with the player to see if there's a way to work with or around this problem. The product of this form is not some required profile players have to meet in order to be allowed at my table; the product of the form is a framework for a campaign everyone in the group can enjoy.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
So for some reason my intial effort to reply so some of Davyd's posts are being markes spam, so i'll try to reproduce the response piecemeal, starting with this:
Not quite sure why this was marked spam before I hit send so trying it again:
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.)
Yep, this is called grounding and can be a very useful tool when you can't communicate your current internal state, either effectively or at all.
Do expand on that and how it would work in a whole game scene (grounding player does X and table response). I'm curious as that sounds very different from the grounding practices I'm familiar with through a number of meditation practices and techniques I've used to literal disarm an agitated subject to achieve non violent conflict resolution. Very different contexts, at least on the surface (I'll leave my metaphysics out) but in both these cases it is language that guides the agitated body to a recognition of safety. It sounds like you're saying the process is accomplished via gesture, but I can't read too much into a one liner so would like to hear it unpacked.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Grounding at is simplest level is using external entities in order to calm disruptive thoughts. It can be using a held object such as a fidget spinner to focus on, counting objects of a certain colour, or listing certain types of sounds.
In the context of the safety tool, the presence of a red/X card can be a grounding tool due being a physical object that can redirect harmful thoughts towards a solution mechanism.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorYep, this is called grounding and can be a very useful tool when you can't communicate your current internal state, either effectively or at all.
D&D Beyond moderator across forums, Discord, Twitch and YouTube. Always happy to help and willing to answer questions (or at least try). (he/him/his)
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat On - Mod Hat Off
Site Rules & Guidelines - Homebrew Rules - Looking for Players and Groups Rules
Here's my two cents on it.
I'm a white dude, straight, non-religious with no definable mental health issues. I would flat out feel scared to hand this out at a table I administered. As someone who was respsonsible at one point for the hiring and upkeep of 400+ people operating a call center, the behavior surveys we asked didn't want anything close to this amount of data. If I handed a form like this to four random people and said I was using it in an attempt to be inclusive and try to make sure I don't stomp on peoples toes and make them feel uncomfortable?
I don't think people would fill it out, and they'd think I'm a giant piece of shit for asking all sorts of potentially intimate questions and brand me as an *******. I honestly think they'd be right to do so too.
There are fake clauses here that seem designed on protecting the DM in case shit hits the fan, and not the player. That's how I read this form. This form for me would do the exact opposite of what I wanted for the other people at the table. It would force them to out themselves in dozens of ways and make them feel vulnerable.
Being inclusive is different for everyone and the tools people need to use are different. Again, as a white dude, my personal experience on it sometimes gets misconstrued as fake because of the reality with rampant gatekeeping, "am I the the token diversity player", etc. I have to tailor the things I do to show that I'm being authentic but at the same time showing that I'm not exerting too much energy because even though I am personally passionate about the concepts of "wokeness" and recognizing privledge as it relates to being inclusive? That is very easily read as "He's just doing it because he's white".
This really hits the nail on the head for me. Having open dialogue is important. Being willing to open yourself up and create an inclusive environment is important, but at the same time it's about being willing to listen as opposed to asking. Opening a campaign with "These are my hard limits off the table that I will not do or wade into. Do any of you have any hard stops? Are there things that you are not comfy with but are willing to entertain for the sake of a story?" instead of a 3 page form.
So let's be clear you're arguing against ... no one? Because no one said cards were a universal panacea. I think they're better to have on hand if you really want to be "ready for everything and anything" in lieu of doing the Exhaustive Contest Examination cut and paste job, because if you're intent is to cover that much inventory you've entered impossible territory. These forms arguably lead to "smoother play" with less social emotional bumps, but I don't think the best way to do that is to start with a clunker of a form.
OP claims prior version were inadequate because they weren't comprehensive enough. Let's look at the broader scape of human interaction, teachers and therapists and caregivers don't go this deep into anyone's boundaries. When they do so, and are professionally trained to do so, it is done much more succinctly (often the inventoried subject isn't even aware of the process). Maximalism just isn't the answer to anything, and I find your apserison of disingenuity on my part a bit insulting, as I believe I show up here authentically as opposed to freely admitting my liberal usage of histrionics. Why do I do authenticity as opposed to full on Yurei aggro, because I respect the broader audience, and I don't need 100+ questionaire to read the room.
And the more you include, the more likely you are to, using a dramatic term, "pull focus." I still say this form is likely more difficult in terms of required thought and time to fill out than a character sheet, at which point the utility of the tool has to fall under question. Maybe there should be a play aid rule of thumb, if the tool is more of a grind than RAW combat, don't use it.
So in the end, you lean into button pushing and card playing than the forms, because urgent moments actually arent' anticipated. On the prevention phase, even folks who do work more hands on with these issues recognize the forms as almost needless administrative documentation. They're conducive to cataloguing problems but it's an entirely different practitioner, or director, or coaching or DMing or player skillset to actually build accomodation and those accomodations can be often reached without pseudo-clinical inventory.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I will absolutely give it to you that this form definitely needs to be better introduced if it is to be used in practice. I did go into this with the mindset that it was a partially developed tool rather than a finished product.
Davyd already brought up how useful formalization of consent tools can be, because they not only help people recognize some things are legitimate issues, but it also explicitly gives people permission to take steps to make themselves feel safe. An organic, off the cuff guideline of "well just let us know if there's something that bothers you" will oftentimes not cut it for people with social anxiety, who tend to suppress themselves for social unity. A fully formalized procedure, on the other hand, makes it feel safe for some people to take that step. And as Davyd already pointed out, that is always worth doing, even if it inconveniences the game. Safety of gamers takes priority over convenience of the game.
Also when you say this form is "nothing more than pretense responsibility theater" it really sounds like you're saying the creator is just pretending to be responsible rather than honestly trying. Do you really think they are purposefully lying about their intentions or are you just being hyperbolic?
I'm not sure you're understanding what I mean when I say "bad faith" arguments or usage. You can't have bad faith consequences from short sightedness because "bad faith" means intentionally making bad arguments that you know are bad, just to antagonize someone. If you make an argument that you truly believe, but that are bad because you're short sighted, then it wasn't bad faith, just poorly argued.
And no ... I honestly didn't really realize that people would use consent proceedings in order to exclude others. It seems like a ridiculous thought to me, if someone were just going to be exclusionary why would they to to the lengths of using consent procedures to do it? I mean, I believe you, I guess? Humanity is always surprising me with the depths to which it will sink.
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!
Every single walk of life does this.
Court rooms ask bias questions to exclude jurors. Prospective employers provide behavior analysis questionaires to see if people are going to be a good fit.
This isn't even a different take on it or a different spin, it's just being introduced in such a way that people won't be familiar with it but at the end, it's still the same thing.
Midnight?
If I were to ask you - right now, on the spot - what your triggers, boundaries, and limitations where for a game of D&D, what would you say to me?
Don't write it out, you don't need to. I don't need to know your answer and neither does anybody else here. But think for a moment on how you'd answer that question. Because how almost anyone I've ever met would answer it, when given an open-ended prompt with absolutely zero guidance or coaching like that, would be a blank, uncomprehending stare of confusion and a variation of "could you explain the question?"
Trust me. My first-blush response to the consent forms when I first encountered them was smug, scornful dismissal - "this is a bunch of crap, just talk with players properly, why bother with this bureaucratic nonsense?" Then I thought about it some more, experimented with the sheet, read a few things, and even discussed the consent form itself with my friends. We've all since come down on the side that the sheets are a really good idea, and that filling them out even with a group of people you know well isn't a waste of time. Even if you all share answers and are on the same page? Simply doing the exercise can get you in a state of mind to be more mindful of the problem, and it can be an educational exercise even if none of the 'Red' marks ever come up.
The consent forms are a means of explaining the question. They act as guiderails, examples, and directed interviews all in one. They are not necessarily exhaustive, they do not necessarily need to be exhaustive, but they do need to be significant enough to get people's minds working in the right direction. This particular form is an attempt by a particular user to produce something he finds more useful than the more well-known sheets, and wished to share. He's already acknowledged the security concerns you brought up and pledged to correct them. Is it good for every table? Nah. I'll freely admit, I haven't examined the offering in-depth in part because of the significant size of the document. But there are table situations I can easily imagine where even simply using a large document like this as a group activity, stepping through the different bullets as a group and seeing what's what without attempting to invasively probe any specific player's brain, might be a useful tool.
Please do not contact or message me.
This is not exactly what I thought MidnightPlat meant. I thought they meant that people would intentionally use consent forms to pick on minority gamers, which seems like an unnecessarily elaborate way to do so if all you want to do is be bigoted.
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!
I mean you are aware this reads a cut and paste collation of existing consent forms, and to me triggers concenrs this was more an exercise in "mastering" something than endeavoring to address existing tools and techniques to provide help.
I mean I get it but I just think you and Davyd lean far too technocratically in this way, and really underestimate the value of talking or presenting the matter in something other than a format resembling a standardized test. Go back to set and setting and what it means and where it comes from and maybe endeavor to understand how forms may disrupt it.
Do show me in the rhetoric presenting this tool where "care" is exhibited. The framing of this product was entirely "sell". Prior iterations of consent forms were inadequate, this one is better because it's EXHAUSTIVE. The need for the level of exhaustion is never really articulated. The sale pitch and product excited you, and you bought in.
As far as pretense responsibility theater, earnestness can easily be eaten up by ambition, the drive to do "more" and "better" getting confused with the right thing to do and what altruism actually is. So energy expended, product pitched, some consumers of said product believe they're taken care of ... whereas there's a whole other half of this thread from you and Davyd that finds this more problematic than helpful. But honestly I don't think you have the capacity to appreciate that context because of early buy in and need to defend your product affinity.
This is because you fail to truly troubleshoot the tool. And troubleshoot your logic. I can see how you're at a loss for how a tool could be used for exclusionary purposes, because it seems you have a technocratic leaning that believes mechanisms and tools are necessary for inclusion. It's enthusiasm for a tool that many are pointing out to be problematic on grounds your repeatedly admit being unable to recognize ... so who's being short sighted and arguing poorly?
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
It's responses like this that hammer it home for me.
A person I know went to have a procedure done medically, and one of the questions was "Do you have sucidial thoughts". Guy answered yeah, because he was like everyone does at some point. By putting that answer down, he got rejected by the medical team until he had a thorough psychoanalysis done to ensure that after the procedure he wasn't going to kill himself.
Sure, this is ancedotal as a single experience but it shows the power that exhaustive questionaires have.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorAs someone who is not only a DM that has been using safety tools for several years, but whose partner works in a field that actively uses safety tools at a professional level (called 'safeguarding' in her sector), I wanna provide some insights that might clarify things for a few people:
Hopefully this is some useful information on safety tools and safeguarding. I've been fortunate to learn a lot from my partner and their work. One of the benefits of having a live-in doctor of psychology and qualified counsellor!
D&D Beyond moderator across forums, Discord, Twitch and YouTube. Always happy to help and willing to answer questions (or at least try). (he/him/his)
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat On - Mod Hat Off
Site Rules & Guidelines - Homebrew Rules - Looking for Players and Groups Rules
Settle down a touch, Midnight. Ophidimancer's not trying to hammer you, he's simply engaging in discourse.
I can understand your concern with this, specific, consent form. Again - I didn't examine it in-depth personally myself as I was leery of the link, and by the time I was less leery it was disabled. People have a bad reaction to the form and are speaking of it being invasive and feeling intimidating and interrogative. Okay. Fair cop. If that's one's feeling on it, don't use it. Don't promote it, and don't allow others to use it at tables you're a part of.
I will remind you, though, that Ophi and I both are part of groups who have, historically, been told we don't exist in terms of 'social consent' and similar constructs. My own gender issues are not necessarily widely known, but I've also made little secret of them here on the forums. For most of my life the correct "social consent" response to gender issues like mine has been silence - I don't bring them up, I bottle up my response when someone says something that upsets me, and I otherwise pretend to be a right and proper well-raised cisgender normie who doesn't rock the boat and disrupt gaming sessions with my "unnecessary" issues no matter who says what where, because my issues are mine to deal with and have no bearing on game time. That has been said to my face, openly, here on the forums - "why should your gender identity matter to me and any game we're theoretically playing together? Why should I have to care about it or acknowledge it unless you bring it up, and if you do, why do you need to bring it up?"
Consent forms, veto cards, and other formalized, 'technocratic' systems are one of the crowbars folks like Ophidimancer and I use to tear that crap down and tell people in no uncertain terms that that shit's not okay anymore. Ignoring, poo-pooing, undercutting, or dismissing people's issues and trying to force everybody to live in the same Pleasantville box will no longer be tolerated. Technocratic buttons are a way to introduce people who have no frame of reference for consideration of these issues to the idea. They are, in effect, teaching aids for the vast majority of the American populace and quite possibly the world populace as a whole for whom this whole argument is an utterly foreign concept.
You don't like this particular one. Fair. Nobody's going to sass you for not using it. Some people will like it, and would like to be able to use it without castigation. Even if their version of "using it" is as a basis for creating their own, more slimmed-down document.
Please do not contact or message me.
I am all for session zero and understanding social boundaries, but I laugh anytime people say that these forms are "inclusive". They are in fact very specifically designed to exclude people. Generally speaking you would only include people in your games that have answered similarly. Everyone else is thereby excluded as they don't match the table's playstyle or expectations. I am not saying that is a bad thing. Games are more enjoyable if everyone has similar expectations, but don't pat yourself on the back and say you are being "inclusive" when you hand out these forms to strangers.
She/Her College Student Player and Dungeon Master
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorInclusive in this context doesn't mean "including in the activity", it means "including people in your modes of thinking about how your actions could affect them". So this does mean that yes, excluding someone from a game can be inclusive
D&D Beyond moderator across forums, Discord, Twitch and YouTube. Always happy to help and willing to answer questions (or at least try). (he/him/his)
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat On - Mod Hat Off
Site Rules & Guidelines - Homebrew Rules - Looking for Players and Groups Rules
Right, but that's the nature of anything in general?
Devils Advocate time.
There are hundreds of thousands of posts on these forums that say the same things. No D&D is better than bad D&D, run your tables how you want, RAI is better than RAW, etc. These can be interpreted as being exclusionary. I've said to multiple people, some in this thread that I would never play at your tables with just the rules you set.
At the same time, there are tables where sexual assault in game is not only allowed, but sometimes encouraged. I find this to be abhorrent while some others might find it to be good in theme gameplay. I want to know up front if that shit is allowed before I even attempt to join a game, and a form like this would help. Maybe the DM is not capable of having the nuanced conversation with words but can provide this as an alternative? For that person, this is a wonderful tool. To Davyds point, having physical tangible things in place for some people work wonderfully, but at the same time they can and do exclude others. It's done by design. If someone isn't comfortable having that level of discourse for the game you're trying to set up, they're not the player you're trying to court.
When it comes to ANYTHING, there is exclusion. We all have friend groups who we have let in the bubble and let our guard down. We also all know people who are less receptive to our personal tastes. We still deal and talk with them, but maybe we don't share as much. Maybe we don't go to a social gathering. Maybe we don't invite them to the yearly get together or whatever it is.
To Yureis point, because of their history, maybe they don't want to play with certain types of people because of their history. That's their right as a human being. This form for them is a way of trying to make sure they don't get aligned with someone who is going to offend them, and on the same token that Yurei won't offend them when something they find offensive happens and they respond. In that context, I don't think Yurei would give a flying **** that they were defending themselves in that context but why even get to that point when there is a way to avoid conflict?
Fact is, this form WILL work for some. It will NOT work for me. That's fine. If someone came to my table with something like this? I'd sure as hell use it and be thankful that the person was willing to disclose all of this to provide themselves a safe space.
As with everything in D&D, it really boils down to that same fateful line in the PHB for 5th. Run your tables how you want. Be appreciative of the people there, be excellent to each other and figure out what works in the context of your table.
Sorry Golaryn, but that is not even remotely the case, nor the intended use case for these forms.
If I were starting a new group and I wanted to make sure I was doing right by them, I wouldn't start by saying "Fill this out" and then summarily dismissing anyone whose answers didn't line up with mine. A consent checklist check-up would not happen at all until I had a group of people I was reasonably sure wanted to play together. let me take an unusual step here and provide my own checklist, as a point of discussion. I'll leave it spoilered, but I want people to understand how to use these things. It's important.
My own (generic) consent list:
So. That's my list. What does it mean?
In general, it means I'm fairly open-ended and can tolerate a wide range of potentially sensitive topics in my games. As a DM, I'm comfortable portraying just about everything on this list, including my own yellows. The yellows are there primarily on the player side, and to me they signal a need for discussion with the DM. My yellows are things I can tolerate if they're taken seriously and treated with the gravitas they deserve, rather than played for cheap thrills or gratuitous fantasy fulfillment, which is something I'd explain to the DM when the requested follow-up happened. Save for harm to animals. I have a squishy spot in my gut that gets agitated and upset when animals who cannot understand what's happening are abused and subjected to horrific mistreatment. Which is not to say I can't tolerate it in a game should the DM give it the gravitas it deserves...but I know that spot is there and would like the DM to know to maybe tread a little carefully, if they could.
What this does not mean is "anybody who isn't as open-ended as I am doesn't get to play with me" or "anybody who answered Green to anything I flagged as Yellow is somebody I don't want to know". I imagine most folks would answer 'Red' to harm to children, and there's a lot of people that'd look at me very strangely for being Green on 'Harm to Children' but yellow on 'Harm to Animals'. That is because "Green" is not "I endorse this", it's "I can tolerate this happening in front of me in a game, from a mental health perspective." I have no issue with children being caught up in tragedies, and frankly I wouldn't have an issue with animals being caught up in tragedies either, but that doesn't mean my character would not be distraught and seek to redress the tragedy however she was able. It merely means I do not believe myself likely to suffer emotional injuries from its mere existence in my game.
I do not exclude people who answer Red to my Greens, and I do not exclude people who answer Green to my Yellows. That's not the purpose of the form. The purpose of the form is giving people a way to say "these are things I cannot allow in games I'm a part of, sorry" without any need for judgment or extended discussions of things it may well be difficult and stressful to discuss. Some folks, as an example, may be so distressed at the thought of Harm to Children that they cannot even handle talking about it, let alone playing through it. The consent form lets them make that known without the need to sit down and explain themselves. if I, as a DM, see a Red response, the most I'd ever subject a player to is "do you mind if we talk about this?" if I believe there's valid reason for discussion. If I get a flat "No", then that's the end of it.
Yes, sometimes that might mean a player finds themselves incompatible with a given table. I'd argue that's working as intended. It's better for that player to figure that out ahead of time, before getting super invested in a game, than to figure it out five or ten sessions in. Session Zero is generally the better place for that, sure, but this form should honestly be part of Session Zero. That's where it belongs, and it's a big part of what Session Zero is all about. It's a useful tool to have a focused, productive discussion of tone and boundaries, and given how often the Session Zeroes I've been in have wandered thoroughly off topic and into general hanging-out chatter sessions, having the focused tool can be a big boon.
Someone using the form to fish for reasons to exclude people is being a bad actor, and also an *******. The existence of ******** does not invalidate the tool.
Please do not contact or message me.
The context of this form and it's use as a tool for D&D is that it is to sort though people to find those you are willing to add to your group. It isn't designed to do anything more than that. Again, that is not a bad thing. But weeding people out based on compatibility is by definition, exclusion. I exclude people all the time, mostly racists, homophobes, transphobes and the like, but I call it what it is, being exclusive in those I choose to be around.
She/Her College Student Player and Dungeon Master
I am going to focus on this right here, because this is the heart of my point. It isn't bad acting to look at a form like this and see that maybe a person doesn't quite fit with a group of people and then not include them.
She/Her College Student Player and Dungeon Master
That's a bit harsh, no offense. It's designed to weed out subjects that might cause players to be too uncomfortable to enjoy the game or even remain part of the group. While that could potentially be used to exclude others, it's a big leap to even expect that as an outcome; assuming it's set up to do exactly that has no plausible foundation. Even assuming I was creating a campaign that has subject X as a focus and one potential player said that subject is a no-go for them, that doesn't mean my only or even most likely course of action is to exclude that player. I can scrap the campaign and start from scratch, I can try to salvage most of my work and redesign the problematic aspects, or I can talk with the player to see if there's a way to work with or around this problem. The product of this form is not some required profile players have to meet in order to be allowed at my table; the product of the form is a framework for a campaign everyone in the group can enjoy.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
So for some reason my intial effort to reply so some of Davyd's posts are being markes spam, so i'll try to reproduce the response piecemeal, starting with this:
Not quite sure why this was marked spam before I hit send so trying it again:
Do expand on that and how it would work in a whole game scene (grounding player does X and table response). I'm curious as that sounds very different from the grounding practices I'm familiar with through a number of meditation practices and techniques I've used to literal disarm an agitated subject to achieve non violent conflict resolution. Very different contexts, at least on the surface (I'll leave my metaphysics out) but in both these cases it is language that guides the agitated body to a recognition of safety. It sounds like you're saying the process is accomplished via gesture, but I can't read too much into a one liner so would like to hear it unpacked.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorGrounding at is simplest level is using external entities in order to calm disruptive thoughts. It can be using a held object such as a fidget spinner to focus on, counting objects of a certain colour, or listing certain types of sounds.
In the context of the safety tool, the presence of a red/X card can be a grounding tool due being a physical object that can redirect harmful thoughts towards a solution mechanism.
D&D Beyond moderator across forums, Discord, Twitch and YouTube. Always happy to help and willing to answer questions (or at least try). (he/him/his)
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat On - Mod Hat Off
Site Rules & Guidelines - Homebrew Rules - Looking for Players and Groups Rules