Hi everyone! I have heard all your concerns and read through your posts and I have a couple things to respond to.
1) My pronouns are they/them exclusively. No need to apologize if you've misgendered me, I don't take it personally but going forward please use They/Them. Gender is for the rest of you freaks and I want no part of it.
2)This form is not intended to be the only consent tool a table uses. If it's the only one you need, that's great! If you want to add other consent tools on top of it, that's great too! I'm glad you know what works and doesn't work at your table. But arguing that this form is bad because you like other tools better is an opinion based argument that I cannot bring myself to care about and not the intended purpose of this thread. I'm glad you know what works for you. If all you're going to do is complain that you don't like consent forms then maybe an entire forum thread about consent forms isn't the place for you.
3) I made this form with a specific purpose: to give people a jumping off point to discuss consent at the table. The ONLY reason I have called it comprehensive is because it contains almost every aspect of a game that I personally can think of. I understand that perhaps that's not the way people have taken it to mean and I apologize for the confusion that may have caused. You know what else I have included on the form? Spaces for people to add things that I have forgotten. Spaces for people to expand on their answers. Your DM is not a mind reader. Your fellow players are not mind readers. The people you are running content for are not mind readers. Consent is not a one and done thing, it is about discussion. That's what this form was created to help facilitate.
4)The reason I have included so many items on this form is simple: people are forgetful. Maybe you've memorized the list of things that trigger you and have a backup written down on a computer to share with anyone who asks at a moments notice. Great! But I have memory issues. I forget things about myself quite often if I don't regularly have reason to remember them. I have included so many examples not just to help people pick off the list, but to remind people of what isn't on the list. For example, I don't have a problem with spiders, personally. But every time I see spiders on a list it reminds me that I have issues with silverfish (the bug), because in my mind they look similar. I don't have issues with neck and throat injuries, personally, but you know what makes me cringe? Teeth injuries. It's impossible for a form to be perfect. This one certainly isn't, and I don't care that it isn't. It's good enough for what I made it for, and I'm certain that people will be able to use it in a way that works for them, and that's what matters to me.
5) You have not lived the full width and breadth of human experience. Neither have I. I would quite happily mark green to most of the things on this list. But my experiences are not universal, and neither are yours. Someone (I'm not going to look back through and find it) commented that "Physical Abuse" is a silly thing to have on a consent form for an RPG that very obviously has violence as one of it's core elements. But just because someone might have fun battling a horde of enemies doesn't mean they're going to have fun interacting with a story line that includes someone who beats their spouse and children. This form exists to help people talk about and set those boundaries. I don't care if you don't need it. Someone else might, and that's reason enough to include it.
6) If the players at your table are using consent tools to exclude or trigger other people at the table, that is not a problem with the tool I have created, it is a problem with the people using it. Talk to the people at your table like adults and remove yourself or others from that table if necessary. You are the only one who can advocate for yourself and your safety, especially in group settings like RPGs. I'm just going to put the tool in your hands, babes. I'm not going to walk into your play set up and scold people for being transphobic pieces of garbage. That's your job.
7) If you're running for a table full of children, it's your responsibility to find kid-friendly materials. I play DnD with adults. I DM for adults exclusively. When I make content, or homebrew a setting, or plot out a storyline, it's with adults in mind. Obviously you're not going to fill a campaign for children with graphic eldritch horror and explicit sex. Find a consent form for children, then. That's your responsibility.
8) I think an often overlooked aspect of consent forms is that not only does it allow people to say no, it allows them to say yes. This form lets other people know what to not discuss with you or what to give you warnings about, yeah. But it also lets you know what other people are okay with! It lets your DM know the kind of things they CAN bring to the table. It lets your players know the things that ARE okay to talk about or add to their backstory or involve in roleplay. Telling people what you can interact with is just as important as telling people what you can't.
9) Nobody is forcing you to use the form. Nobody is telling you that the form is the only thing you have to use. If you have a problem with some aspect of it, then ignore it. Don't put your name on it, check multiple boxes per row, I don't care. I'm not your DM, I'm not one of your players, and you can use this form however your table sees fit. Go forth. Use critical thinking. I'm not going to curate your experience for you <3
So still being filtered by spam in my response to Davyd's safety notes, so I'll just short hand his list and include response in this one because a lot of these counterpoints are as alive and in circulation in mental health practices as his claims:
1.) Formality engenders usage
One may cite presumable clinical authority if you feel that lends you credence; but PsyD's are a diverse lot and it's a field with a more diverse range of systems to buy into, with varying theories on flaws and needs within the system itself. As someone who has worked with my fair share of PsyD's many also recognize the counter argument to your proferred truism "formality engenders usage". That is "formality engenders suspicions and discourages usage." I mean put the texts away besides the one we're looking at here on this screen, you're seeing suspicions played out right in this thread. That disarming stuff I wrote about in my question to your last post? I used to do that stuff in contexts within communities where formalities of "the paperwork" level were deeply mistrusted, and it was much easier to come to an understanding of someone through the establishment of rapport and dialogue, not filling out boxes on a report designed by expertise claiming to be exhaustive. Documentation does help "managerially" and some folks do feel enabled by bureaucratic processes, but often forms are put in place to say a forms put in place, sort of meetings for meetings, where there are in fact better ways. There are many models being tested here in the U.S. and the UK that base themselves in a community model of mental health where a lot of the trappings of formalism (literal forms) are largely abandoned in favor of straight talk dialogic practices, especially in higher than TTRPG stakes turf like violence and radicalization prevention.
2.) re: signaling: performance can be as important as praxis
I taught in classrooms where safe space signaling was gaining a lot of formalized traction after informal practice. Signaling can be done in much better ways than administrative measures. By the book is sometimes construed as admirable but it's also construed as pedantic and authoritarian. Anyone working or having an over the shoulder view of work in clinical spaces should see that tension play out on the regular.
3.) safety is subtextual (I guess the forms message?)
Yeah, nah. Honestly, I'm ambivalent between what you're stating and this counterpoint, and I'm not a big fan of both sides-ism, but when you're packaging a listicle with the authority by association you're claiming, there's a need to expose the broader range of experiences not compatible with your assertion. Your claim that toolkits (at least the paperwork kind) invite an expanded conversation doesn't reflect my experience with formalized reflection prompts (outside of some folks with certain educational experiences, but that leads to your defense being a bit classist and I don't want to get into that sort of ideological unpacking). As a teacher who was often required to distribute reflective forms, the quality of reflection was always inadequate in changing or adapting my pedagogy to young minds in comparison to making myself available interpersonally and having the difficult conversation of "So, I would like to learn more about what you're feeling here? I know, it's probably weird sounding with all you got going on but let's take some time." And what I was given by the student and what I learned about myself in those conversations were probably the most mentally exhilarating experiences of my young adulthood. The teachers' lounge and seminar rooms semi annually had rancorous sessions over the more data driven administration of the forms vs. "the real work" many teachers believed they were doing (and were told they were doing by their students). So let's be clear that saying something on paper and engaging through correspondence is not at all the same thing as exhibiting availability and openness, and I'd argue is a poor substitute. Let's also remember the institutions of forms as a whole were as a management tool, a literal reductionist approach, there's no need for that at most tables.
4. Preventing Harm causes more harm fallacy
Let's be clear, as the OP even admitted, the very means of presenting this particular tool was unsafe, unintentionally. Your presumption is that the form is a safe tool period, and you seem to believe intent means success. If you want to invalidate the emotional or sensitive response of other posters you can, but any tool can be abused, especially one that demands a beyond clinical level of access to the subject sensitivities. My overall take is you believe your uncritical comfort with the tool means its safe, whereas folks with nuanced objection to expansion of existing tools to exhaustive ends might be assessed a lot more cautiously.
coda: Davyd is drawing upon his experience and the experience and expertise of their partner
While I appreciate your delivery of your partner's insight into gaming, let's not pretend that that experience is in any way an overriding authority on this board, and acknowledge that there are many people on this board with many experiences in either the immediate experience or bearing witness in matters of emotional well being and mental health. There is systemic thinking which can be helpful, and there is strong current of anti systemic thinking in our world globally which is also not altogether wrong. For me the best negotiation of such polarities require greater recognition and reconciliation.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
This honestly reads as a somewhat insubstantial dismissal of my points, but I respect your right to disagree. I will point out one thing that you misconstrued; my partners expertise isn't in gaming and I never said or implied such. They interact with vulnerable populations with specific safeguarding needs and as such have expertise in such areas. These areas overlap significantly with safety tools as they pertain to TTRPGs.
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.
So I'm pretty sure my most recent posts highlight an ability to be open and vulnerable when talking about fear and wonder. For me it's not a problem, and I consider myself far from an exceptional person.
You're also restructuring the endeavor to something more along the lines of "what works" in my ideal.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
This honestly reads as a somewhat insubstantial dismissal of my points, but I respect your right to disagree. I will point out one thing that you misconstrued; my partners expertise isn't in gaming and I never said or implied such. They interact with vulnerable populations with specific safeguarding needs and as such have expertise in such areas. These areas overlap significantly with safety tools as they pertain to TTRPGs.
I know your spouse is a PsyD, that's why I talked about my own experience working with PsyD's and with and without them in varying degrees of vulnerable communities and identities..... I mean it's right there in the first sentence of my writing.
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.
That's ... interesting. It's a very deep stretch from my understanding, practice and experience of grounding myself and others, but I see the logic. Though I see disconnect between what you describe as a grounding object vs the operation of a red or x card. Grounding, I guess having a card in hand?, is to get calm thoughts and allow oneself to engage the world around them. The red card is a mechanism that calls a stop to something being performed in the game. The former conducts the mind into participating in the space of the world. The latter puts a stop to something occuring in the world for the protection of that mind. They seem very different procedures to share the name.
This honestly reads as a somewhat insubstantial dismissal of my points, but I respect your right to disagree. I will point out one thing that you misconstrued; my partners expertise isn't in gaming and I never said or implied such. They interact with vulnerable populations with specific safeguarding needs and as such have expertise in such areas. These areas overlap significantly with safety tools as they pertain to TTRPGs.
I know your spouse is a PsyD, that's why I talked about my own experience working with PsyD's..... I mean it's right there in the first sentence of my writing.
My partner is a doctor of psychology, qualified counselor and therapist in three countries, lecturer, and director of a social enterprise that helps vulnerable populations. They're not just a "PsyD". I bring them into the discussion because they don't just have experience, but expertise, qualification, comprehensive knowledge, and multiple publications in fields that are incredibly relevant to the discussion of social interactions and safety in D&D.
I emphasise these points not as some brag, but to drive home the point that my talking points aren't coming from anecdotes, but actual research and academic knowledge.
Again, you're more than entitled to disagree, I just would implore you to not minimise the substance of how I support my statements.
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.
That's ... interesting. It's a very deep stretch from my understanding, practice and experience of grounding myself and others, but I see the logic. Though I see disconnect between what you describe as a grounding object vs the operation of a red or x card. Grounding, I guess having a card in hand?, is to get calm thoughts and allow oneself to engage the world around them. The red card is a mechanism that calls a stop to something being performed in the game. The former conducts the mind into participating in the space of the world. The latter puts a stop to something occuring in the world for the protection of that mind. They seem very different procedures to share the name.
The physical presence of the card can draw focus during a heightened mental state. It's not about using the cards, it's about the impact on their physical presence
This honestly reads as a somewhat insubstantial dismissal of my points, but I respect your right to disagree. I will point out one thing that you misconstrued; my partners expertise isn't in gaming and I never said or implied such. They interact with vulnerable populations with specific safeguarding needs and as such have expertise in such areas. These areas overlap significantly with safety tools as they pertain to TTRPGs.
I know your spouse is a PsyD, that's why I talked about my own experience working with PsyD's..... I mean it's right there in the first sentence of my writing.
My partner is a doctor of psychology, qualified counselor and therapist in three countries, lecturer, and director of a social enterprise that helps vulnerable populations. They're not just a "PsyD". I bring them into the discussion because they don't just have experience, but expertise, qualification, comprehensive knowledge, and multiple publications in fields that are incredibly relevant to the discussion of social interactions and safety in D&D.
I emphasise these points not as some brag, but to drive home the point that my talking points aren't coming from anecdotes, but actual research and academic knowledge.
Again, you're more than entitled to disagree, I just would implore you to not minimise the substance of how I support my statements.
Did you not see my mention of working relationships, not marital relationships with PsyDs? I understand and appreciate that you feel your marriage gives you access to an authoritative perspective. But again I'm coming from a perspective not just from psychologically informed pedagody, but also community development and violence prevention work, in conjunctions with many practitioners with equally and likely more impressive credentials than you allude. There are significant differences of opinion and findings on what are the best practices in this space. It seems like you're commanding respect of your vicarious experience while minimizing the experience of those with working experience in this area and working with the authority you're trying to cite (and authority which at least in my experience, the best practitioners recognize their fallibility).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Hey y'all! I've whipped up a pretty chunky RPG Consent Form for use in DND and other ttrpg's because none of the other ones I could find floating around on the internet were comprehensive enough for my tastes. Thought I would share in case anyone else is having the same problem I was :]
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.
That's ... interesting. It's a very deep stretch from my understanding, practice and experience of grounding myself and others, but I see the logic. Though I see disconnect between what you describe as a grounding object vs the operation of a red or x card. Grounding, I guess having a card in hand?, is to get calm thoughts and allow oneself to engage the world around them. The red card is a mechanism that calls a stop to something being performed in the game. The former conducts the mind into participating in the space of the world. The latter puts a stop to something occuring in the world for the protection of that mind. They seem very different procedures to share the name.
The physical presence of the card can draw focus during a heightened mental state. It's not about using the cards, it's about the impact on their physical presence
I know you've left the thread but the reason I'm going on here is because your citation of association of psychological expertise and then trying to articulate red cards as grounding objects is, in my view and perspective on mental health practitioner ethics, bordering on irresponsible if not actually crossing that line.
As a practice, the red card need not be a card, it can be a safe word or hand signal, what have you. Your claims of grounding object, what grounding objects do, and use of Red/X protocols in.a game are quite literally at cross purposes.
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.
That's ... interesting. It's a very deep stretch from my understanding, practice and experience of grounding myself and others, but I see the logic. Though I see disconnect between what you describe as a grounding object vs the operation of a red or x card. Grounding, I guess having a card in hand?, is to get calm thoughts and allow oneself to engage the world around them. The red card is a mechanism that calls a stop to something being performed in the game. The former conducts the mind into participating in the space of the world. The latter puts a stop to something occuring in the world for the protection of that mind. They seem very different procedures to share the name.
The physical presence of the card can draw focus during a heightened mental state. It's not about using the cards, it's about the impact on their physical presence
I know you've left the thread but the reason I'm going on here is because your citation of association of psychological expertise and then trying to articulate red cards as grounding objects is, in my view and perspective on mental health practitioner ethics, bordering on irresponsible if not actually crossing that line.
As a practice, the red card need not be a card, it can be a safe word or hand signal, what have you. Your claims of grounding object, what grounding objects do, and use of Red/X protocols in.a game are quite literally at cross purposes.
I'll check back in just for this as it's a valid point.
I was speaking to physical Red/X cards, not the safety tool in the abstract. Any physical object can be a grounding object, just as long as it serves to pull the user out of a state of mental distress through external focusing.
A non-physical Red/X card cannot serve as a grounding object because, as you have pointed out, it's not a physical object with which to ground oneself.
If you google grounding, there lots of excellent resources on how it works and how to apply it, as it's a robust and useful tool.
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.
That's ... interesting. It's a very deep stretch from my understanding, practice and experience of grounding myself and others, but I see the logic. Though I see disconnect between what you describe as a grounding object vs the operation of a red or x card. Grounding, I guess having a card in hand?, is to get calm thoughts and allow oneself to engage the world around them. The red card is a mechanism that calls a stop to something being performed in the game. The former conducts the mind into participating in the space of the world. The latter puts a stop to something occuring in the world for the protection of that mind. They seem very different procedures to share the name.
The physical presence of the card can draw focus during a heightened mental state. It's not about using the cards, it's about the impact on their physical presence
I know you've left the thread but the reason I'm going on here is because your citation of association of psychological expertise and then trying to articulate red cards as grounding objects is, in my view and perspective on mental health practitioner ethics, bordering on irresponsible if not actually crossing that line.
As a practice, the red card need not be a card, it can be a safe word or hand signal, what have you. Your claims of grounding object, what grounding objects do, and use of Red/X protocols in.a game are quite literally at cross purposes.
I'll check back in just for this as it's a valid point.
I was speaking to physical Red/X cards, not the safety tool in the abstract.
A non-physical Red/X card cannot serve as a grounding object because, as you have pointed out, it's not a physical object with which to ground oneself.
I hope that clarifies things?
It sort of does, but it's a little loose for a safety item with mixed use, do you recognize that objection? I mean otherwise, you got your security in hand, which you'll have to "give up" to play against a triggering effect? I know tools, I know mechanical tools, I know mental tools, and I know both physical and mental safety tools, and outside the leatherman odd job, multi use tools get problematic, especially when one use gets abandoned in the practice of the other use. As such I segregate a safety device for grounding far away from any safety tool I may need to proactively deploy. I'd also never take a leatherman to my head but my sense of humor is my over utilized coping mechanism.
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.
I just went through my copy of Monte Cook's Consent in Gaming to look for the stated purpose of the consent checklist and it said nothing about using it to filter out players for fit with the group. Instead it was about using it to tailor the campaign to fit the group, so no I disagree with you about what the stated purpose of the tool is.
Also there is a specific line that says, " The opted-out consent topics should never be introduced into the game, ever. It doesn’t matter if it’s in-character or out-of-character. In other words, don’t use the consent checklist to find out what things people are uncomfortable with and then deliberately choose to hurt them with those things. That’s bullying, harassment, and an abuse of trust, and that sort of cruelty shouldn’t be part of a game session that’s supposed to be fun for everyone."
So it does address the possibility that someone mentioned about using these tools wrongly.
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!
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.
I just went through my copy of Monte Cook's Consent in Gaming to look for the stated purpose of the consent checklist and it said nothing about using it to filter out players for fit with the group. Instead it was about using it to tailor the campaign to fit the group, so no I disagree with you about what the stated purpose of the tool is.
Also there is a specific line that says, " The opted-out consent topics should never be introduced into the game, ever. It doesn’t matter if it’s in-character or out-of-character. In other words, don’t use the consent checklist to find out what things people are uncomfortable with and then deliberately choose to hurt them with those things. That’s bullying, harassment, and an abuse of trust, and that sort of cruelty shouldn’t be part of a game session that’s supposed to be fun for everyone."
So it does address the possibility that someone mentioned about using these tools wrongly.
Sorry, I was going way down a rabbit hole with davyd admittedly probably way too far, and let see if I can clarify some of my evening night cap and morning coffee thoughts on abuse/misuse or sub-obtimal or wobbly use of the form.
Ophid, you're right the doc is well intended; but my larger point, and it may not be fair to lay it at the feet of the tool and not the people, but I could see this being used to accomodate exclusive games. I don't remember how deeply MCG's version of the form goes, but from the let's call it "long form" I could see a game being put together where there are hard positions on things like "Christ is the one and true Lord and I reject all false gods including fantasy pagan pantheons" "I am uncomfortable with non-cis-binary gender expression" and "in accordance with some recent state laws imposed on public schools I wish to extend that logic to this game and I don't want to be troubled by the legacy of my society's history of racial injustice" (that last one obviously would require a line to be filled out). So basically "safe play" for many players may be basically white washed 1950s America but in Gondor. And I don't know what to think about that; but I can say it bothers me. Moreso that such a game could be instituted because of one players comfort zone. So I look at the values community where I see myself more aligned (basically the diametric opposite of 1950s white washed American idealism) and wonder whether we should be setting these limits under these traffic lights or something more nuanced, and maybe I'm too much leaning on "reasonable person" and "necessary and proper" libertarian legislation, to riff on the traffic light analogy. I guess I can default to the typical response when "culture wars" on this board pop up, just let them play their way, no harm done. But is it? Not arguing for a TTRPG secret police, frankly on these lines the community is sorted like the rest of the world's populations, it just gives me pause when I consider the consequences of limits. Growth can happen in TTRPG, it's pretty cool when it does, and I don't know if administrative processes facilitate or frustrate it. When the SAFETY BEACON is on, I have my suspicions.
Again, going back to the original communities developing consent based safety practices (before institutions made their endeavors to codify them), the initial work was stemmed in a mutual curiosity and a desire to know but not hurt. It was and is in, imho, best practices a much softer conversation than a structured report. I think there are just gentler and more substantially productive approaches than administrative tooling around, or bloating already heady tools. Folks who work in mental health practices liberated from academic pedigree (though as well credentialed) and administrative oversight really do minimize the paperwork when engaging a subject to find out how they're doing, both the clinical and lay practitioner. I would say fostering actual mindfulness practices as a player or DM would hurdle over any paper or digital based comfort form. It's also good for you outside of the game.
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.
You make it seem like a mean spirited thing to take one specific part of existing tools and try to add to it. So give feedback, but why cast aspersions on the entire endeavor?
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.
I agree with you that the ability to read the room and organically address topics in a personal way is a powerful tool and isn't something that is possible to do with a pre-programmed checklist, but you know ... why not both? These things are not mutually exclusive of each other. Some people respond better to one than the other, and sometimes people just haven't developed those kinds of deep and meaty interpersonal skills. These tools are here to help.
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.
So ... you think that Darby was excited to improve something and thus was just making this checklist for the funz rather than trying to help people? I suppose that's better than you saying they were just pretending to try and help people for clout? I mean, that is what you said before. Honestly why all this suspicion? I get it if you think the tool has flaws, again give feedback, but why all this casting of aspersions? Now you're saying that I'm defending the checklist, which I haven't for the record; you can go back and read what I've written in this thread and see that I'm basically defending the use of consent tools in general. And why are you saying I'm defending Darby's tool? For hype? You're treading close to ad hominem.
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?
Well my only comment on the tool itself was "Yes, this IS pretty comprehensive! Thank you!" so yes, I haven't done the troubleshooting, although I did read the whole thing. I really haven't claimed to be troubleshooting the tool. But even so, the misuse of the tool to bully people is not inherently a problem with the tool itself and so is somewhat tangential to discussion.
... and it may not be fair to lay it at the feet of the tool and not the people, but I could see this being used to accomodate exclusive games.
Feels a bit weird to again come to the defense of a tool I'm definitely not going to use (at least not as presented or without adding a ton of context), but D&D as a whole and roleplaying in general can be used to accommodate some pretty disturbing stuff. That's usually the flip side of the coin whenever something is created for positive purposes: it's not hard to twist it around and abuse it to hell and back. Be wary of abuse, sure, but blame those who would misuse the tool and not the tool itself.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
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.
You make it seem like a mean spirited thing to take one specific part of existing tools and try to add to it. So give feedback, but why cast aspersions on the entire endeavor?
I questioned the initial data integrity, which was acknowledged. I questioned the overall utility and my exposure to the OP's articulation of their project leaves me with a trust deficit toward the thoroughness and rigor of the endeavor. I can say "I don't like this (and here's where that feelings based)," right? So overall I thought the "extant lists didn't do it for me" I found a little callous (and thinking on invasiveness and overall utility of "comprehensive"), couple that with the security flaw of Google Forms ... it's sloppy so the almost immediate appreciation of the contribution I found very problematic, so said so.
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.
I agree with you that the ability to read the room and organically address topics in a personal way is a powerful tool and isn't something that is possible to do with a pre-programmed checklist, but you know ... why not both? These things are not mutually exclusive of each other. Some people respond better to one than the other, and sometimes people just haven't developed those kinds of deep and meaty interpersonal skills. These tools are here to help.
You see an ease of "both and", as someone who has dealt with multiple communications styles I am well aware of balance acts. In my experience, on consent criteria, the form tends to result in a "problem solving scenario" as opposed to an open conversation to facilitate good and safe play. I mean, at best, I can buy these as a sort of "cheat sheet" but I think there's a greater holistic benefit to the player/person if the talk work is work through, if that makes sense.
I was one of those "wtf" old school players who didn't understand consent in gaming until I recognized my original adolescent gaming proclivities were likely something I'd find frustrating as an adult. And I've heard the anecdotes and seen the videos to see how badly a game can go in boundaries aren't communicated. By I can't help but thinking the forms may foster a more insular play style than one where more interpersonal facility is developed ....
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.
So ... you think that Darby was excited to improve something and thus was just making this checklist for the funz rather than trying to help people? I suppose that's better than you saying they were just pretending to try and help people for clout? I mean, that is what you said before. Honestly why all this suspicion? I get it if you think the tool has flaws, again give feedback, but why all this casting of aspersions? Now you're saying that I'm defending the checklist, which I haven't for the record; you can go back and read what I've written in this thread and see that I'm basically defending the use of consent tools in general. And why are you saying I'm defending Darby's tool? For hype? You're treading close to ad hominem.
It came across as more a sell than authentic practice in sensitivity. Not everyone is adept in written communication, I can grant that. I also work in a lot of spaces where help needs to be offered with a more considerable degree of care and tact than your typical D&D Beyond post up of a resource innovation.
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?
Well my only comment on the tool itself was "Yes, this IS pretty comprehensive! Thank you!" so yes, I haven't done the troubleshooting, although I did read the whole thing. I really haven't claimed to be troubleshooting the tool. But even so, the misuse of the tool to bully people is not inherently a problem with the tool itself and so is somewhat tangential to discussion.
I think you've misread my misgiving about ramifications of the tool and the license it may grant to exclusionary practices.
Hi everyone! I have heard all your concerns and read through your posts and I have a couple things to respond to.
1) My pronouns are they/them exclusively. No need to apologize if you've misgendered me, I don't take it personally but going forward please use They/Them. Gender is for the rest of you freaks and I want no part of it.
2)This form is not intended to be the only consent tool a table uses. If it's the only one you need, that's great! If you want to add other consent tools on top of it, that's great too! I'm glad you know what works and doesn't work at your table. But arguing that this form is bad because you like other tools better is an opinion based argument that I cannot bring myself to care about and not the intended purpose of this thread. I'm glad you know what works for you. If all you're going to do is complain that you don't like consent forms then maybe an entire forum thread about consent forms isn't the place for you.
3) I made this form with a specific purpose: to give people a jumping off point to discuss consent at the table. The ONLY reason I have called it comprehensive is because it contains almost every aspect of a game that I personally can think of. I understand that perhaps that's not the way people have taken it to mean and I apologize for the confusion that may have caused. You know what else I have included on the form? Spaces for people to add things that I have forgotten. Spaces for people to expand on their answers. Your DM is not a mind reader. Your fellow players are not mind readers. The people you are running content for are not mind readers. Consent is not a one and done thing, it is about discussion. That's what this form was created to help facilitate.
4)The reason I have included so many items on this form is simple: people are forgetful. Maybe you've memorized the list of things that trigger you and have a backup written down on a computer to share with anyone who asks at a moments notice. Great! But I have memory issues. I forget things about myself quite often if I don't regularly have reason to remember them. I have included so many examples not just to help people pick off the list, but to remind people of what isn't on the list. For example, I don't have a problem with spiders, personally. But every time I see spiders on a list it reminds me that I have issues with silverfish (the bug), because in my mind they look similar. I don't have issues with neck and throat injuries, personally, but you know what makes me cringe? Teeth injuries. It's impossible for a form to be perfect. This one certainly isn't, and I don't care that it isn't. It's good enough for what I made it for, and I'm certain that people will be able to use it in a way that works for them, and that's what matters to me.
5) You have not lived the full width and breadth of human experience. Neither have I. I would quite happily mark green to most of the things on this list. But my experiences are not universal, and neither are yours. Someone (I'm not going to look back through and find it) commented that "Physical Abuse" is a silly thing to have on a consent form for an RPG that very obviously has violence as one of it's core elements. But just because someone might have fun battling a horde of enemies doesn't mean they're going to have fun interacting with a story line that includes someone who beats their spouse and children. This form exists to help people talk about and set those boundaries. I don't care if you don't need it. Someone else might, and that's reason enough to include it.
6) If the players at your table are using consent tools to exclude or trigger other people at the table, that is not a problem with the tool I have created, it is a problem with the people using it. Talk to the people at your table like adults and remove yourself or others from that table if necessary. You are the only one who can advocate for yourself and your safety, especially in group settings like RPGs. I'm just going to put the tool in your hands, babes. I'm not going to walk into your play set up and scold people for being transphobic pieces of garbage. That's your job.
7) If you're running for a table full of children, it's your responsibility to find kid-friendly materials. I play DnD with adults. I DM for adults exclusively. When I make content, or homebrew a setting, or plot out a storyline, it's with adults in mind. Obviously you're not going to fill a campaign for children with graphic eldritch horror and explicit sex. Find a consent form for children, then. That's your responsibility.
8) I think an often overlooked aspect of consent forms is that not only does it allow people to say no, it allows them to say yes. This form lets other people know what to not discuss with you or what to give you warnings about, yeah. But it also lets you know what other people are okay with! It lets your DM know the kind of things they CAN bring to the table. It lets your players know the things that ARE okay to talk about or add to their backstory or involve in roleplay. Telling people what you can interact with is just as important as telling people what you can't.
9) Nobody is forcing you to use the form. Nobody is telling you that the form is the only thing you have to use. If you have a problem with some aspect of it, then ignore it. Don't put your name on it, check multiple boxes per row, I don't care. I'm not your DM, I'm not one of your players, and you can use this form however your table sees fit. Go forth. Use critical thinking. I'm not going to curate your experience for you <3
So still being filtered by spam in my response to Davyd's safety notes, so I'll just short hand his list and include response in this one because a lot of these counterpoints are as alive and in circulation in mental health practices as his claims:
1.) Formality engenders usage
One may cite presumable clinical authority if you feel that lends you credence; but PsyD's are a diverse lot and it's a field with a more diverse range of systems to buy into, with varying theories on flaws and needs within the system itself. As someone who has worked with my fair share of PsyD's many also recognize the counter argument to your proferred truism "formality engenders usage". That is "formality engenders suspicions and discourages usage." I mean put the texts away besides the one we're looking at here on this screen, you're seeing suspicions played out right in this thread. That disarming stuff I wrote about in my question to your last post? I used to do that stuff in contexts within communities where formalities of "the paperwork" level were deeply mistrusted, and it was much easier to come to an understanding of someone through the establishment of rapport and dialogue, not filling out boxes on a report designed by expertise claiming to be exhaustive. Documentation does help "managerially" and some folks do feel enabled by bureaucratic processes, but often forms are put in place to say a forms put in place, sort of meetings for meetings, where there are in fact better ways. There are many models being tested here in the U.S. and the UK that base themselves in a community model of mental health where a lot of the trappings of formalism (literal forms) are largely abandoned in favor of straight talk dialogic practices, especially in higher than TTRPG stakes turf like violence and radicalization prevention.
2.) re: signaling: performance can be as important as praxis
I taught in classrooms where safe space signaling was gaining a lot of formalized traction after informal practice. Signaling can be done in much better ways than administrative measures. By the book is sometimes construed as admirable but it's also construed as pedantic and authoritarian. Anyone working or having an over the shoulder view of work in clinical spaces should see that tension play out on the regular.
3.) safety is subtextual (I guess the forms message?)
Yeah, nah. Honestly, I'm ambivalent between what you're stating and this counterpoint, and I'm not a big fan of both sides-ism, but when you're packaging a listicle with the authority by association you're claiming, there's a need to expose the broader range of experiences not compatible with your assertion. Your claim that toolkits (at least the paperwork kind) invite an expanded conversation doesn't reflect my experience with formalized reflection prompts (outside of some folks with certain educational experiences, but that leads to your defense being a bit classist and I don't want to get into that sort of ideological unpacking). As a teacher who was often required to distribute reflective forms, the quality of reflection was always inadequate in changing or adapting my pedagogy to young minds in comparison to making myself available interpersonally and having the difficult conversation of "So, I would like to learn more about what you're feeling here? I know, it's probably weird sounding with all you got going on but let's take some time." And what I was given by the student and what I learned about myself in those conversations were probably the most mentally exhilarating experiences of my young adulthood. The teachers' lounge and seminar rooms semi annually had rancorous sessions over the more data driven administration of the forms vs. "the real work" many teachers believed they were doing (and were told they were doing by their students). So let's be clear that saying something on paper and engaging through correspondence is not at all the same thing as exhibiting availability and openness, and I'd argue is a poor substitute. Let's also remember the institutions of forms as a whole were as a management tool, a literal reductionist approach, there's no need for that at most tables.
4. Preventing Harm causes more harm fallacy
Let's be clear, as the OP even admitted, the very means of presenting this particular tool was unsafe, unintentionally. Your presumption is that the form is a safe tool period, and you seem to believe intent means success. If you want to invalidate the emotional or sensitive response of other posters you can, but any tool can be abused, especially one that demands a beyond clinical level of access to the subject sensitivities. My overall take is you believe your uncritical comfort with the tool means its safe, whereas folks with nuanced objection to expansion of existing tools to exhaustive ends might be assessed a lot more cautiously.
coda: Davyd is drawing upon his experience and the experience and expertise of their partner
While I appreciate your delivery of your partner's insight into gaming, let's not pretend that that experience is in any way an overriding authority on this board, and acknowledge that there are many people on this board with many experiences in either the immediate experience or bearing witness in matters of emotional well being and mental health. There is systemic thinking which can be helpful, and there is strong current of anti systemic thinking in our world globally which is also not altogether wrong. For me the best negotiation of such polarities require greater recognition and reconciliation.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorThis honestly reads as a somewhat insubstantial dismissal of my points, but I respect your right to disagree. I will point out one thing that you misconstrued; my partners expertise isn't in gaming and I never said or implied such. They interact with vulnerable populations with specific safeguarding needs and as such have expertise in such areas. These areas overlap significantly with safety tools as they pertain to TTRPGs.
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
So I'm pretty sure my most recent posts highlight an ability to be open and vulnerable when talking about fear and wonder. For me it's not a problem, and I consider myself far from an exceptional person.
You're also restructuring the endeavor to something more along the lines of "what works" in my ideal.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I know your spouse is a PsyD, that's why I talked about my own experience working with PsyD's and with and without them in varying degrees of vulnerable communities and identities..... I mean it's right there in the first sentence of my writing.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
That's ... interesting. It's a very deep stretch from my understanding, practice and experience of grounding myself and others, but I see the logic. Though I see disconnect between what you describe as a grounding object vs the operation of a red or x card. Grounding, I guess having a card in hand?, is to get calm thoughts and allow oneself to engage the world around them. The red card is a mechanism that calls a stop to something being performed in the game. The former conducts the mind into participating in the space of the world. The latter puts a stop to something occuring in the world for the protection of that mind. They seem very different procedures to share the name.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorMy partner is a doctor of psychology, qualified counselor and therapist in three countries, lecturer, and director of a social enterprise that helps vulnerable populations. They're not just a "PsyD". I bring them into the discussion because they don't just have experience, but expertise, qualification, comprehensive knowledge, and multiple publications in fields that are incredibly relevant to the discussion of social interactions and safety in D&D.
I emphasise these points not as some brag, but to drive home the point that my talking points aren't coming from anecdotes, but actual research and academic knowledge.
Again, you're more than entitled to disagree, I just would implore you to not minimise the substance of how I support my statements.
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
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorThe physical presence of the card can draw focus during a heightened mental state. It's not about using the cards, it's about the impact on their physical presence
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
Did you not see my mention of working relationships, not marital relationships with PsyDs? I understand and appreciate that you feel your marriage gives you access to an authoritative perspective. But again I'm coming from a perspective not just from psychologically informed pedagody, but also community development and violence prevention work, in conjunctions with many practitioners with equally and likely more impressive credentials than you allude. There are significant differences of opinion and findings on what are the best practices in this space. It seems like you're commanding respect of your vicarious experience while minimizing the experience of those with working experience in this area and working with the authority you're trying to cite (and authority which at least in my experience, the best practitioners recognize their fallibility).
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorImma check out of this discussion as I have exhausted what I can add to the discussion without repeating myself.
Have fun and be awesome to each other.
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
it don't do nothing now you might need to fix it.
I know you've left the thread but the reason I'm going on here is because your citation of association of psychological expertise and then trying to articulate red cards as grounding objects is, in my view and perspective on mental health practitioner ethics, bordering on irresponsible if not actually crossing that line.
As a practice, the red card need not be a card, it can be a safe word or hand signal, what have you. Your claims of grounding object, what grounding objects do, and use of Red/X protocols in.a game are quite literally at cross purposes.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorI'll check back in just for this as it's a valid point.
I was speaking to physical Red/X cards, not the safety tool in the abstract. Any physical object can be a grounding object, just as long as it serves to pull the user out of a state of mental distress through external focusing.
A non-physical Red/X card cannot serve as a grounding object because, as you have pointed out, it's not a physical object with which to ground oneself.
If you google grounding, there lots of excellent resources on how it works and how to apply it, as it's a robust and useful tool.
I hope that clarifies things?
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
It sort of does, but it's a little loose for a safety item with mixed use, do you recognize that objection? I mean otherwise, you got your security in hand, which you'll have to "give up" to play against a triggering effect? I know tools, I know mechanical tools, I know mental tools, and I know both physical and mental safety tools, and outside the leatherman odd job, multi use tools get problematic, especially when one use gets abandoned in the practice of the other use. As such I segregate a safety device for grounding far away from any safety tool I may need to proactively deploy. I'd also never take a leatherman to my head but my sense of humor is my over utilized coping mechanism.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I just went through my copy of Monte Cook's Consent in Gaming to look for the stated purpose of the consent checklist and it said nothing about using it to filter out players for fit with the group. Instead it was about using it to tailor the campaign to fit the group, so no I disagree with you about what the stated purpose of the tool is.
Also there is a specific line that says, " The opted-out consent topics should never be introduced into the game, ever. It doesn’t matter if it’s in-character or out-of-character. In other words, don’t use the consent checklist to find out what things people are uncomfortable with and then deliberately choose to hurt them with those things. That’s bullying, harassment, and an abuse of trust, and that sort of cruelty shouldn’t be part of a game session that’s supposed to be fun for everyone."
So it does address the possibility that someone mentioned about using these tools wrongly.
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've fixed it to the best of my ability! thank you for letting me know it wasn't working
Sorry, I was going way down a rabbit hole with davyd admittedly probably way too far, and let see if I can clarify some of my evening night cap and morning coffee thoughts on abuse/misuse or sub-obtimal or wobbly use of the form.
Ophid, you're right the doc is well intended; but my larger point, and it may not be fair to lay it at the feet of the tool and not the people, but I could see this being used to accomodate exclusive games. I don't remember how deeply MCG's version of the form goes, but from the let's call it "long form" I could see a game being put together where there are hard positions on things like "Christ is the one and true Lord and I reject all false gods including fantasy pagan pantheons" "I am uncomfortable with non-cis-binary gender expression" and "in accordance with some recent state laws imposed on public schools I wish to extend that logic to this game and I don't want to be troubled by the legacy of my society's history of racial injustice" (that last one obviously would require a line to be filled out). So basically "safe play" for many players may be basically white washed 1950s America but in Gondor. And I don't know what to think about that; but I can say it bothers me. Moreso that such a game could be instituted because of one players comfort zone. So I look at the values community where I see myself more aligned (basically the diametric opposite of 1950s white washed American idealism) and wonder whether we should be setting these limits under these traffic lights or something more nuanced, and maybe I'm too much leaning on "reasonable person" and "necessary and proper" libertarian legislation, to riff on the traffic light analogy. I guess I can default to the typical response when "culture wars" on this board pop up, just let them play their way, no harm done. But is it? Not arguing for a TTRPG secret police, frankly on these lines the community is sorted like the rest of the world's populations, it just gives me pause when I consider the consequences of limits. Growth can happen in TTRPG, it's pretty cool when it does, and I don't know if administrative processes facilitate or frustrate it. When the SAFETY BEACON is on, I have my suspicions.
Again, going back to the original communities developing consent based safety practices (before institutions made their endeavors to codify them), the initial work was stemmed in a mutual curiosity and a desire to know but not hurt. It was and is in, imho, best practices a much softer conversation than a structured report. I think there are just gentler and more substantially productive approaches than administrative tooling around, or bloating already heady tools. Folks who work in mental health practices liberated from academic pedigree (though as well credentialed) and administrative oversight really do minimize the paperwork when engaging a subject to find out how they're doing, both the clinical and lay practitioner. I would say fostering actual mindfulness practices as a player or DM would hurdle over any paper or digital based comfort form. It's also good for you outside of the game.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
You make it seem like a mean spirited thing to take one specific part of existing tools and try to add to it. So give feedback, but why cast aspersions on the entire endeavor?
I agree with you that the ability to read the room and organically address topics in a personal way is a powerful tool and isn't something that is possible to do with a pre-programmed checklist, but you know ... why not both? These things are not mutually exclusive of each other. Some people respond better to one than the other, and sometimes people just haven't developed those kinds of deep and meaty interpersonal skills. These tools are here to help.
So ... you think that Darby was excited to improve something and thus was just making this checklist for the funz rather than trying to help people? I suppose that's better than you saying they were just pretending to try and help people for clout? I mean, that is what you said before. Honestly why all this suspicion? I get it if you think the tool has flaws, again give feedback, but why all this casting of aspersions? Now you're saying that I'm defending the checklist, which I haven't for the record; you can go back and read what I've written in this thread and see that I'm basically defending the use of consent tools in general. And why are you saying I'm defending Darby's tool? For hype? You're treading close to ad hominem.
Well my only comment on the tool itself was "Yes, this IS pretty comprehensive! Thank you!" so yes, I haven't done the troubleshooting, although I did read the whole thing. I really haven't claimed to be troubleshooting the tool. But even so, the misuse of the tool to bully people is not inherently a problem with the tool itself and so is somewhat tangential to discussion.
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!
Feels a bit weird to again come to the defense of a tool I'm definitely not going to use (at least not as presented or without adding a ton of context), but D&D as a whole and roleplaying in general can be used to accommodate some pretty disturbing stuff. That's usually the flip side of the coin whenever something is created for positive purposes: it's not hard to twist it around and abuse it to hell and back. Be wary of abuse, sure, but blame those who would misuse the tool and not the tool itself.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I questioned the initial data integrity, which was acknowledged. I questioned the overall utility and my exposure to the OP's articulation of their project leaves me with a trust deficit toward the thoroughness and rigor of the endeavor. I can say "I don't like this (and here's where that feelings based)," right? So overall I thought the "extant lists didn't do it for me" I found a little callous (and thinking on invasiveness and overall utility of "comprehensive"), couple that with the security flaw of Google Forms ... it's sloppy so the almost immediate appreciation of the contribution I found very problematic, so said so.
You see an ease of "both and", as someone who has dealt with multiple communications styles I am well aware of balance acts. In my experience, on consent criteria, the form tends to result in a "problem solving scenario" as opposed to an open conversation to facilitate good and safe play. I mean, at best, I can buy these as a sort of "cheat sheet" but I think there's a greater holistic benefit to the player/person if the talk work is work through, if that makes sense.
I was one of those "wtf" old school players who didn't understand consent in gaming until I recognized my original adolescent gaming proclivities were likely something I'd find frustrating as an adult. And I've heard the anecdotes and seen the videos to see how badly a game can go in boundaries aren't communicated. By I can't help but thinking the forms may foster a more insular play style than one where more interpersonal facility is developed ....
It came across as more a sell than authentic practice in sensitivity. Not everyone is adept in written communication, I can grant that. I also work in a lot of spaces where help needs to be offered with a more considerable degree of care and tact than your typical D&D Beyond post up of a resource innovation.
I think you've misread my misgiving about ramifications of the tool and the license it may grant to exclusionary practices.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.