There's a lot of yelling back and forth about exclusion in this thread, and to that I have to say: So? Exclusion is necessary to cultivate a healthy environment. I'm not going to run content with fascists. I'm not going to run content with bigots. I'm not going to run content with people who make the rest of the table miserable by insisting that certain elements have to be included, whether that be something as minor as spiders or as major as racial slurs. Nobody is required to run content with you or for you. If I have a player at the table that is using consent tools in bad faith to hurt other people, then they're going to get a warning, and if they continue after that they're gone and I'm not going to pretend that I'm sorry about it. So yes, this form and the consent discussion that it facilitates pre-campaign is going to tell you what kind of people you are about to play an RPG with. And maybe one of them is going to out themselves as someone who hates gay people, or someone who hates immigrants, or someone who is an evangelical proselytizing christian, or someone who thinks it's okay to sexually assault another player's character. Those people are getting kicked out of my group and they will not be welcome back.
And if someone is using these tools to exclude you, or make you feel bad, or not listening and respecting the boundaries you've put forward? Pack it up and find another table. They're not the kind of people you want to play with anyway.
If you're throwing a fit because people won't play with you, maybe you should sit back and try to figure out why that is instead of blaming the tools that helped them see the kind of person you are.
There's a lot of yelling back and forth about exclusion in this thread, and to that I have to say: So? Exclusion is necessary to cultivate a healthy environment. I'm not going to run content with fascists. I'm not going to run content with bigots. I'm not going to run content with people who make the rest of the table miserable by insisting that certain elements have to be included, whether that be something as minor as spiders or as major as racial slurs. Nobody is required to run content with you or for you. If I have a player at the table that is using consent tools in bad faith to hurt other people, then they're going to get a warning, and if they continue after that they're gone and I'm not going to pretend that I'm sorry about it. So yes, this form and the consent discussion that it facilitates pre-campaign is going to tell you what kind of people you are about to play an RPG with. And maybe one of them is going to out themselves as someone who hates gay people, or someone who hates immigrants, or someone who is an evangelical proselytizing christian, or someone who thinks it's okay to sexually assault another player's character. Those people are getting kicked out of my group and they will not be welcome back.
And if someone is using these tools to exclude you, or make you feel bad, or not listening and respecting the boundaries you've put forward? Pack it up and find another table. They're not the kind of people you want to play with anyway.
If you're throwing a fit because people won't play with you, maybe you should sit back and try to figure out why that is instead of blaming the tools that helped them see the kind of person you are.
And this is the point I was making.
I never said that the tool was for bullying people with their triggers. I said it was a tool for finding people with similar boundaries. If you look at a stack of filled out forms and you see that the boundaries of the people involved don't really line up, then it is better to say so and move on rather than try to mash it all together and try to make it work. The more a like the table's boundaries are, the more enjoyable the game will be. Of course there will be few times where everything is a perfect match and compromises will have to be(and should be) made, but there is also a point where it is just better to just walk away.
There's a lot of yelling back and forth about exclusion in this thread, and to that I have to say: So? Exclusion is necessary to cultivate a healthy environment. I'm not going to run content with fascists. I'm not going to run content with bigots. I'm not going to run content with people who make the rest of the table miserable by insisting that certain elements have to be included, whether that be something as minor as spiders or as major as racial slurs. Nobody is required to run content with you or for you. If I have a player at the table that is using consent tools in bad faith to hurt other people, then they're going to get a warning, and if they continue after that they're gone and I'm not going to pretend that I'm sorry about it. So yes, this form and the consent discussion that it facilitates pre-campaign is going to tell you what kind of people you are about to play an RPG with. And maybe one of them is going to out themselves as someone who hates gay people, or someone who hates immigrants, or someone who is an evangelical proselytizing christian, or someone who thinks it's okay to sexually assault another player's character. Those people are getting kicked out of my group and they will not be welcome back.
And if someone is using these tools to exclude you, or make you feel bad, or not listening and respecting the boundaries you've put forward? Pack it up and find another table. They're not the kind of people you want to play with anyway.
If you're throwing a fit because people won't play with you, maybe you should sit back and try to figure out why that is instead of blaming the tools that helped them see the kind of person you are.
Theres a bunch of different arguments happening in this thread simultaneous, and none of them are exactly wrong.
You present a tool that people can use to make sure that they don't get out of their depth in a game. Some people see no need for it, some people see a great need for it, some people see it as destructive personally, some people don't know how it could be destructive. Some people would see it as being potentially table destructive, while others say they wouldn't join a table without it. All of these are valid views, depending on the table and its players.
Some people will use tools like this to exclude people, period. The INTENT will be to exclude people. Some people will say that exclusion is inherent bias, and others say that exclusion happens at every single table. All of these are valid views.
I think where the thread got way off base is now people have veered from the original point of the form in your view, which was to talk about how to present consent in gaming(at least in my view?) and tools to give people their own agency and control not only in that consent, but what happens when their lines are broached.
I do appreciate that you took the criticism of the form that I and others presented and changed it to a pdf so as to not potentially have loads of personal information at your disposal. That speaks volumes to your original intent.
There's a lot of yelling back and forth about exclusion in this thread, and to that I have to say: So? Exclusion is necessary to cultivate a healthy environment. I'm not going to run content with fascists. I'm not going to run content with bigots. I'm not going to run content with people who make the rest of the table miserable by insisting that certain elements have to be included, whether that be something as minor as spiders or as major as racial slurs. Nobody is required to run content with you or for you. If I have a player at the table that is using consent tools in bad faith to hurt other people, then they're going to get a warning, and if they continue after that they're gone and I'm not going to pretend that I'm sorry about it. So yes, this form and the consent discussion that it facilitates pre-campaign is going to tell you what kind of people you are about to play an RPG with. And maybe one of them is going to out themselves as someone who hates gay people, or someone who hates immigrants, or someone who is an evangelical proselytizing christian, or someone who thinks it's okay to sexually assault another player's character. Those people are getting kicked out of my group and they will not be welcome back.
And if someone is using these tools to exclude you, or make you feel bad, or not listening and respecting the boundaries you've put forward? Pack it up and find another table. They're not the kind of people you want to play with anyway.
If you're throwing a fit because people won't play with you, maybe you should sit back and try to figure out why that is instead of blaming the tools that helped them see the kind of person you are.
I think that's a hyperbolic and unproductively binary misreading of this thread. i don't think anyone is at loss of people to play with, at least in this thread. And no one is blaming the tool outright. No one's talking about a culture war taking place at a table where fascists or bigots are purged, nor one where, I dunno, are we still called snowflakes?, are sent packing. It's not that simplistic a binary. What I wonder is the broader gamer culture and broader cultural ramifications of systems that can assert the wrong sort of safety. That is, as mentioned, I can see "in the name of safety" a set of sheets being left to a proverbially middle of the road thinking DM, they do still exist, who's then faced with the prospect of designing "White Washed 1950s America 5e" for their group, who might have done otherwise if less bright line tools were put into play, so to speak. In a time where we see novels and graphic novels and difficult subjects being legislated or ordinanced away out of "sensitivities", someone like myself who is very much investested in empowering the vulnerable in game but moreso in real life, and is also very much aware of the needs for safety and security in such communities, I still pause.
I guess, going back to the origins or establishment of safety practices that TTRPG adopted, the protection and safety was also balanced with confrontation of difference, the real difficult conversations that original pre-TTRPG safety practices enabled. TTRPG, particularly D&D, is a literally wonderful resource or space for such conversations; and my worry (not a strident or "yelling" worry mind you, we still live in a world where people can raise mild feelings) is that tools that point to a default of risk aversion loses some of that potential. Safety at the expense of the proverbial "getting real." [Side thought, has anyone wondered what would've happened if they heyday of MTV's The Real World coincided with the present TTRPG moment?]
I admit my take might be a little idiosyncratic for the board segments accustomed to uncritical embrace of safety and security as "goods". Aside from the real life work in community work and violence prevention and all around "do gooding" that's taught me that the empathy the world needs most is often wrought into confrontation of difference, and learning how to move past (which isn't the necessary work of D&D but could be), a lot of my life has cultivated a bit of an artistic sensibility with an awareness that of course good work must serve community in some capacity, but that's balanced with a need for transgression. Reaching in and reaching out. Or stick in your comfort zone. No harm, I think?
I do appreciate that you took the criticism of the form that I and others presented and changed it to a pdf so as to not potentially have loads of personal information at your disposal. That speaks volumes to your original intent.
I want to concur with Spidey on the technical correction. I wouldn't go so far as to call it your tool so much as your expansion of existing tools (I have difficulty calling the form a tool but I'll keep at it) that have varying degrees of acceptance in the TTRPG community. So when presented with an increase of robustness to the magnitude of "exhaustion" ... well not to speak for everyone but to report my impressions
1.) I found the granularity of violence/sex/morbidity and the non granularity of almost everything else questionable (I believe you might have even acknowledge my addiction/substance critique). I know you've sort of addressed this, but as someone who appreciates procedural and set theory logics, I found the pseudo-exhaustion rubbing my expectations wrong.
2.) In my disappointment, I was also recognizing that the true scale of the endeavor had you done exhaustion "right" in my book would bring forth the question of whether exhaustive inventories were worth engaging. Sometimes when things are writ large or go macro, the scale causes reflection of the existing practices at the smaller scales and the overall utility is examined.
3.) In probing the "worth" related to utility I question the consequences of players being cut off from the growth engendered by confronting differences in the safety of game spaces. TTRPG has been celebrated as place to have those engagements in a non clinical way if trust is engendered, and I don't know if the protections of the consent form short circuit that opportunity.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I'm an old fart. This form and similar just turn me off. It saddens me that people considering spending a lot of time having fun playing a game can't simply talk to one another - or have a conversation with the DM (and vice versa). Feels like as much an attempt to limit liability as to ensure inclusion to me. I guess I want to game with like minded people who I can talk about game direction with - I'd not be part of anything that had this sort of documentation. But, you do you.
I can understand the intent though, especially now that people are playing D&D with people they have never met before, so you don't know their likes/dislikes as well as you did when it was you and your friends playing.
It's not about being unable to talk to each other. It's about using the tool as a focus for those discussions. Davyd spoke about how the tool can make it clearer to new players that the DM is taking safety seriously, and while there's arguments to be made about people rejecting/reacting badly to "fill this out and get back to me", the tool can also be used as a group thing. I.e. "We're all gonna go over this together as a group and make sure we're on the same page, step through it and make sure we're all in agreement on where to be. If, after that, anybody has anything they'd like to bring up in private, just let me know."
I know I, at least, would find such a thing less intrusive than a prospective DM asking probing questions about my hang-ups, fears, and inhibitions, and frankly even with my fortunate ability to tolerate most anything that realistically occurs in a good-faith D&D game I'm not sure I'd trust a game where the DM didn't bother to take any steps to check in with brand new players they just met on boundaries the way many are suggesting. "Just have a natural conversation" works if you're a trained mental health worker who knows how to 'have a natural conversation' on the subject that is of any use. if you don't have that training? A checklist sheet like this is a decent substitute for that training.
I've told people what's wrong with "Any hangups or triggers I should try to avoid?"
Not everybody has them memorized.
Not everybody - in fact, a relatively small percentage of people - can just bust out an itemized list of their Yellow/Red issues on command. Generally only people who've done this pretty thoroughly beforehand can do so. The average player, when asked that question, will just kinda shrug and go "I should be okay with most stuff, I guess?" If you ask a quick, simple, easy surface-level question, you're gonna get a quick, simple, easy surface-level response. Low-effort question equals low-effort answer. if you consider that to be enough for your table? A'ight. Hopefully it doesn't backfire on you later. Depending on the situation and the sort of game I'd be setting up, I'd often prefer a more thorough approach with random strangers on the Internet.
The alternative, though, is not an oral version of the same questionnaire. What is wrong with "Anything you are hoping for or particularly like to see in campaigns? Any hangups or triggers that I should try to avoid? No obligation to say anything for either, but the goal is a fun and fulfilling campaign and such answers can help"
There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, and I'm pretty sure no one has said there's anything wrong with it, but it doesn't always serve everyone. Different methodologies for different people. The aforementioned people with social anxiety who will suppress themselves out of need for social unity and conflict avoidance, for example, can feel put on the spot with such questions. That's why I say "why not both?" so that you can meet the needs of different gamers with different methods.
Just simple questions, with a simple explanation. No need for a full fan-ish purity test.
It's not a purity test, it's an indicator of people's personal land mines, so that they are not accidentally stepped upon.
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!
You know ... for a thread that was specifically started to critique a specific checklist tool, might it not be considered off topic to critique the use of checklist tools at large?
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!
You know ... for a thread that was specifically started to critique a specific checklist tool, might it not be considered off topic to critique the use of checklist tools at large?
I mean, pointing at other tools and how they function in contrast to this specific tool seem like a valid way of offering a critique?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
You know ... for a thread that was specifically started to critique a specific checklist tool, might it not be considered off topic to critique the use of checklist tools at large?
I mean, pointing at other tools and how they function in contrast to this specific tool seem like a valid way of offering a critique?
True, but the multiple comments saying not to use checklists at all and just rely on good old fashioned conversation seems to be counter productive in this thread, but that may just be me.
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!
You know ... for a thread that was specifically started to critique a specific checklist tool, might it not be considered off topic to critique the use of checklist tools at large?
I mean, pointing at other tools and how they function in contrast to this specific tool seem like a valid way of offering a critique?
True, but the multiple comments saying not to use checklists at all and just rely on good old fashioned conversation seems to be counter productive in this thread, but that may just be me.
Depends on your POV, I'd say. Are you expecting/hoping for just a critique of the actual checklist, or is the fact that it is a checklist in the first place a valid point for criticism too? I can certainly see the side of those who say having a formal tool (be it a checklist or not) addresses a potential issue in and of itself already, but that same formal approach can also be offputting to some. DMs have to make a judgment call about where this might land with their group, but the fact that this tool primarily aims at newly composed groups automatically implies making that judgment call in reference to people that DM doesn't know (yet). Could be worth feeling it out a bit and then suggesting a checklist such as this could be used by those who want to, rather than springing it on the group as a matter of course.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I'm an old fart. This form and similar just turn me off. It saddens me that people considering spending a lot of time having fun playing a game can't simply talk to one another - or have a conversation with the DM (and vice versa). Feels like as much an attempt to limit liability as to ensure inclusion to me. I guess I want to game with like minded people who I can talk about game direction with - I'd not be part of anything that had this sort of documentation. But, you do you.
If I ever consider being a GM for strangers, I would definitely use this form or something similar to weed out and exclude players that I will not have fun with. [REDACTED], I do not have time to waste to babysit youngsters nor teach adults twice my age how to behave civilly in modern society. [REDACTED], my team is short staffed and I do not want to leave them hanging, even if I am allowed and supposed to go home normally (and the fatter paychecks certainly does not hurt either, and if my team consists of just my friends that day, then it honestly does not even feel like work at all). I am so tired on my off days that I have not done grocery shopping for the past month and I can barely even cook, let alone spend time with friends. Whatever free time I have is invaluable, and if I for some dumbass reason choose to spend it with strangers rather than friends, my three cute widdle kitty pusses, or just by myself so I can catch some Zs, that stranger better be freaking worth it.
If the form turns you off, then that is great for me, but it is also great for you too! Although you might see it as a bad thing, it really is not. While there is a possibility that we can enjoy each other's company, there is also a chance that we might piss each other off. Think of it this way, even if you have a lot of free time and can afford to try out various tables, do you really want to take a risk sitting at my table, and potentially waste an afternoon with me, knowing that you will probably gel with another GM at another table better?
While it is probably true that 90% of the threads dealing with table issues probably would not exist if GMs and players simply talked to each other, if they had a checklist like this in the first place so they have an idea of what to talk about, then they would not be having those issues. Keep in mind many of these GMs and players are relatively new or even simply do not connect with the wider D&D community much to learn about current and best practices, so expecting them to know what to talk about, or let alone know what a session zero is, is not realistic.
I'm an old fart. This form and similar just turn me off. It saddens me that people considering spending a lot of time having fun playing a game can't simply talk to one another - or have a conversation with the DM (and vice versa). Feels like as much an attempt to limit liability as to ensure inclusion to me. I guess I want to game with like minded people who I can talk about game direction with - I'd not be part of anything that had this sort of documentation. But, you do you.
This is my take on this too. It is a good discussion to have verbally, pre-campaign start, possibly even in one-on-ones between players and DM during character creation. However, trying to formalize and document it, it comes across too much as something that could be misused rather than positively used. This is a game. OOC player personality files should not be a part of it. That kind of thing gets into medical and medical ethics territory and should be left to trained professionals in their official capacities.
Anything can be misused or be poorly implemented, and while I agree having a fillable form on Google might not be the best idea and it is good that people provided that feedback and critique, this amount of nitpicking and focus on that one singular aspect feels pretty irrelevant and besides the point, and detracts from the bigger picture. And in this case, privacy is trivial to deal with if that is the issue since you do not need to leave a digital or even paper trail if you do not want to. Just because D&D can make people feel like shit, cars can kill people, and the stock market can lose you money does not mean we should not play D&D, not drive cars, and not invest in the stock market. And based on the table problem threads I see on Beyond, I think people misusing D&D and making people feel like shit happens on a scale and magnitude far greater than whatever potential abuse could come from consent forms, so if anything, D&D itself as a hobby deserves more scrutiny. Like if people are going to talk about the pros and cons of a car, nitpicking on the color of the paint job or the scent of the airfreshner and using those as arguments against the car just feels petty.
If the unintended spread of sensitive info is a problem, people can fill in just the character name and oignore the real name portion if they are really that paranoid about it leaking. Unless I scream it off the top of my lungs on social media or something, who the hell is going to know one of my D&D character is called Edelgard von Hresvelg, let alone even care? And honestly, this is probably easier and best filled out physically rather than digitally, and the form could be lamenated and dry erased after each use, so there is no paper trail at all. And if the GM needs to review the consent form later for whatever reason, the GM can create a consent form for the entire group, so if anyone is yellow on anything, it will be yellow for the entire group, and if anyone is red on anything, then it will be red for the entire group, and since no name is attached, it will be even harder to trace . And individuals' consent forms do not have to be shared with other players, and nobody else has to know who made something on the group consent form red either.
And as Yurei and a few others have mentioned, the form does not even have to be filled out and can be used as a talking point or checklist, and people can verbally communicate consent. You do not always need a hammer to "hammer" a nail, and a hammer can do more than just hammering nails. And if some people want to fill out the form while others just want to communicate it verbally instead, that is fine too.
Notes: Please remain civil and on topic. Thank you
I would love to join tables using this form. Not everyone is able to speak about things that cause them distress. An open discussion session 0 about boundaries can feel like being put on the spot for some people. It seems to me like for these people, the session 0 would be a half-measure without this form. I consider myself someone with very few triggers, but reading through this form, I realize that there are actually several things that would upset me if they were included in a game. This is something I was not immediately aware of on a surface level about myself and therefore they would not be disclosed at a session 0. As Yurei1453 said, most people do not have a list of their triggers memorized. Who has the time for that? So who is at fault if it doesn’t come up in session 0 and then is a problem four sessions in? The GM for not probing deep enough? The player for not remembering? Who knows, but now everyone is either angry, hurt, or feelings defensive, and there is a problem that could have been avoided with 10 minutes on a form.
I also think this form is helpful as a player to help guide me when interacting with other players. It may not be immediately apparent that someone has a problem with behaviors that I find rather benign, but I sure do not wish to negatively impact someone’s play experience. With this form, or something similar to it, I have the opportunity to educate myself on the people I am playing with without applying any kind of invasive pressures, and that will allow me to foster a universally enjoyable play experience with players who may have needs and considerations that are wildly different from my own. It also allows the group to filter out players that would create a disappointing or frustrating play experience, which for some tables does include those who would not wish to play at a table that finds this useful. I do not see this as a bad thing.
I have found the contributions of most here to be thoughtful and well-meaning. I just wanted to offer my own perspective on this. Thank you, Darbydarbs, for making this form available for use. I think I will in the future.
This thread is for discussing the OP's original consent and safety form and, to a reasonable degree, safety tools in general. It is not the place for a treatise on ethics, the philosophy of compassion, stoicism and 'thick skinnedness' and other such diversions. Please stay on topic
I wouldn't even click on it, I don't care what it is.
Submitting that document accidentally gives the person all this information about someone, and that kind of data can be misused to the nth degree. Intent might be fine, but no one should be comfortable submitting anything close to that amount of data and the fact this thread is still open by itself is concerning to me. Moreso that the moderation team has reviewed it and given an official stance that it's ok for this to be linked here.
I think a thread/forum discussion about consent and what questions you ask would be a lovely topic, but I would tell anyone that clicking on that and giving away your data is not a good idea. More so to a single post account. A single post account with a google doc form reeks of malicious intent.
The document is not a fillibe PDF it is simply a non editable form that someone could print off/email to future players for there own game.
I wouldn't even click on it, I don't care what it is.
Submitting that document accidentally gives the person all this information about someone, and that kind of data can be misused to the nth degree. Intent might be fine, but no one should be comfortable submitting anything close to that amount of data and the fact this thread is still open by itself is concerning to me. Moreso that the moderation team has reviewed it and given an official stance that it's ok for this to be linked here.
I think a thread/forum discussion about consent and what questions you ask would be a lovely topic, but I would tell anyone that clicking on that and giving away your data is not a good idea. More so to a single post account. A single post account with a google doc form reeks of malicious intent.
The document is not a fillibe PDF it is simply a non editable form that someone could print off/email to future players for there own game.
The original post linked to a google form, the OP changed it to a fillable PDF
The main issue I observed is that most ppl forget that we are all different and we got different preferences and experiences that shape our individuality, what is good for one person can be bad for another. The tool is an option to prevent possible disputes that might arise mid game.
There is no a one size fit all and we all defend the point we believe in, some are more open and are willing to put some effort to understand others, while some simply dont have the time or are simply tired of trying and just wanna have a break or straight out don't wanna deal with the whole issue cuz is a hassle.
My point is we all love and enjoy dnd as a core but like different flavors of it or enjoy it for different reason and the tool is the middle ground that help mitigate differences to share a passion for the game we are all here to play and enjoy, who knows u might make a new friend that have a different opinion as u but is a great person and fun to play with.
Word for the OP, your tool is good and as u posted at some point its just a tool its up to each one to use it as they want.
Sry if it sounds redundant I am not very good at writing (expressing my though)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
There's a lot of yelling back and forth about exclusion in this thread, and to that I have to say: So? Exclusion is necessary to cultivate a healthy environment. I'm not going to run content with fascists. I'm not going to run content with bigots. I'm not going to run content with people who make the rest of the table miserable by insisting that certain elements have to be included, whether that be something as minor as spiders or as major as racial slurs. Nobody is required to run content with you or for you. If I have a player at the table that is using consent tools in bad faith to hurt other people, then they're going to get a warning, and if they continue after that they're gone and I'm not going to pretend that I'm sorry about it. So yes, this form and the consent discussion that it facilitates pre-campaign is going to tell you what kind of people you are about to play an RPG with. And maybe one of them is going to out themselves as someone who hates gay people, or someone who hates immigrants, or someone who is an evangelical proselytizing christian, or someone who thinks it's okay to sexually assault another player's character. Those people are getting kicked out of my group and they will not be welcome back.
And if someone is using these tools to exclude you, or make you feel bad, or not listening and respecting the boundaries you've put forward? Pack it up and find another table. They're not the kind of people you want to play with anyway.
If you're throwing a fit because people won't play with you, maybe you should sit back and try to figure out why that is instead of blaming the tools that helped them see the kind of person you are.
And this is the point I was making.
I never said that the tool was for bullying people with their triggers. I said it was a tool for finding people with similar boundaries. If you look at a stack of filled out forms and you see that the boundaries of the people involved don't really line up, then it is better to say so and move on rather than try to mash it all together and try to make it work. The more a like the table's boundaries are, the more enjoyable the game will be. Of course there will be few times where everything is a perfect match and compromises will have to be(and should be) made, but there is also a point where it is just better to just walk away.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Theres a bunch of different arguments happening in this thread simultaneous, and none of them are exactly wrong.
You present a tool that people can use to make sure that they don't get out of their depth in a game. Some people see no need for it, some people see a great need for it, some people see it as destructive personally, some people don't know how it could be destructive. Some people would see it as being potentially table destructive, while others say they wouldn't join a table without it. All of these are valid views, depending on the table and its players.
Some people will use tools like this to exclude people, period. The INTENT will be to exclude people. Some people will say that exclusion is inherent bias, and others say that exclusion happens at every single table. All of these are valid views.
I think where the thread got way off base is now people have veered from the original point of the form in your view, which was to talk about how to present consent in gaming(at least in my view?) and tools to give people their own agency and control not only in that consent, but what happens when their lines are broached.
I do appreciate that you took the criticism of the form that I and others presented and changed it to a pdf so as to not potentially have loads of personal information at your disposal. That speaks volumes to your original intent.
I think that's a hyperbolic and unproductively binary misreading of this thread. i don't think anyone is at loss of people to play with, at least in this thread. And no one is blaming the tool outright. No one's talking about a culture war taking place at a table where fascists or bigots are purged, nor one where, I dunno, are we still called snowflakes?, are sent packing. It's not that simplistic a binary. What I wonder is the broader gamer culture and broader cultural ramifications of systems that can assert the wrong sort of safety. That is, as mentioned, I can see "in the name of safety" a set of sheets being left to a proverbially middle of the road thinking DM, they do still exist, who's then faced with the prospect of designing "White Washed 1950s America 5e" for their group, who might have done otherwise if less bright line tools were put into play, so to speak. In a time where we see novels and graphic novels and difficult subjects being legislated or ordinanced away out of "sensitivities", someone like myself who is very much investested in empowering the vulnerable in game but moreso in real life, and is also very much aware of the needs for safety and security in such communities, I still pause.
I guess, going back to the origins or establishment of safety practices that TTRPG adopted, the protection and safety was also balanced with confrontation of difference, the real difficult conversations that original pre-TTRPG safety practices enabled. TTRPG, particularly D&D, is a literally wonderful resource or space for such conversations; and my worry (not a strident or "yelling" worry mind you, we still live in a world where people can raise mild feelings) is that tools that point to a default of risk aversion loses some of that potential. Safety at the expense of the proverbial "getting real." [Side thought, has anyone wondered what would've happened if they heyday of MTV's The Real World coincided with the present TTRPG moment?]
I admit my take might be a little idiosyncratic for the board segments accustomed to uncritical embrace of safety and security as "goods". Aside from the real life work in community work and violence prevention and all around "do gooding" that's taught me that the empathy the world needs most is often wrought into confrontation of difference, and learning how to move past (which isn't the necessary work of D&D but could be), a lot of my life has cultivated a bit of an artistic sensibility with an awareness that of course good work must serve community in some capacity, but that's balanced with a need for transgression. Reaching in and reaching out. Or stick in your comfort zone. No harm, I think?
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I want to concur with Spidey on the technical correction. I wouldn't go so far as to call it your tool so much as your expansion of existing tools (I have difficulty calling the form a tool but I'll keep at it) that have varying degrees of acceptance in the TTRPG community. So when presented with an increase of robustness to the magnitude of "exhaustion" ... well not to speak for everyone but to report my impressions
1.) I found the granularity of violence/sex/morbidity and the non granularity of almost everything else questionable (I believe you might have even acknowledge my addiction/substance critique). I know you've sort of addressed this, but as someone who appreciates procedural and set theory logics, I found the pseudo-exhaustion rubbing my expectations wrong.
2.) In my disappointment, I was also recognizing that the true scale of the endeavor had you done exhaustion "right" in my book would bring forth the question of whether exhaustive inventories were worth engaging. Sometimes when things are writ large or go macro, the scale causes reflection of the existing practices at the smaller scales and the overall utility is examined.
3.) In probing the "worth" related to utility I question the consequences of players being cut off from the growth engendered by confronting differences in the safety of game spaces. TTRPG has been celebrated as place to have those engagements in a non clinical way if trust is engendered, and I don't know if the protections of the consent form short circuit that opportunity.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I'm an old fart. This form and similar just turn me off. It saddens me that people considering spending a lot of time having fun playing a game can't simply talk to one another - or have a conversation with the DM (and vice versa). Feels like as much an attempt to limit liability as to ensure inclusion to me. I guess I want to game with like minded people who I can talk about game direction with - I'd not be part of anything that had this sort of documentation. But, you do you.
I can understand the intent though, especially now that people are playing D&D with people they have never met before, so you don't know their likes/dislikes as well as you did when it was you and your friends playing.
It's not about being unable to talk to each other. It's about using the tool as a focus for those discussions. Davyd spoke about how the tool can make it clearer to new players that the DM is taking safety seriously, and while there's arguments to be made about people rejecting/reacting badly to "fill this out and get back to me", the tool can also be used as a group thing. I.e. "We're all gonna go over this together as a group and make sure we're on the same page, step through it and make sure we're all in agreement on where to be. If, after that, anybody has anything they'd like to bring up in private, just let me know."
I know I, at least, would find such a thing less intrusive than a prospective DM asking probing questions about my hang-ups, fears, and inhibitions, and frankly even with my fortunate ability to tolerate most anything that realistically occurs in a good-faith D&D game I'm not sure I'd trust a game where the DM didn't bother to take any steps to check in with brand new players they just met on boundaries the way many are suggesting. "Just have a natural conversation" works if you're a trained mental health worker who knows how to 'have a natural conversation' on the subject that is of any use. if you don't have that training? A checklist sheet like this is a decent substitute for that training.
Please do not contact or message me.
I've told people what's wrong with "Any hangups or triggers I should try to avoid?"
Not everybody has them memorized.
Not everybody - in fact, a relatively small percentage of people - can just bust out an itemized list of their Yellow/Red issues on command. Generally only people who've done this pretty thoroughly beforehand can do so. The average player, when asked that question, will just kinda shrug and go "I should be okay with most stuff, I guess?" If you ask a quick, simple, easy surface-level question, you're gonna get a quick, simple, easy surface-level response. Low-effort question equals low-effort answer. if you consider that to be enough for your table? A'ight. Hopefully it doesn't backfire on you later. Depending on the situation and the sort of game I'd be setting up, I'd often prefer a more thorough approach with random strangers on the Internet.
Please do not contact or message me.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, and I'm pretty sure no one has said there's anything wrong with it, but it doesn't always serve everyone. Different methodologies for different people. The aforementioned people with social anxiety who will suppress themselves out of need for social unity and conflict avoidance, for example, can feel put on the spot with such questions. That's why I say "why not both?" so that you can meet the needs of different gamers with different methods.
It's not a purity test, it's an indicator of people's personal land mines, so that they are not accidentally stepped upon.
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!
You know ... for a thread that was specifically started to critique a specific checklist tool, might it not be considered off topic to critique the use of checklist tools at large?
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, pointing at other tools and how they function in contrast to this specific tool seem like a valid way of offering a critique?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
True, but the multiple comments saying not to use checklists at all and just rely on good old fashioned conversation seems to be counter productive in this thread, but that may just be me.
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!
Depends on your POV, I'd say. Are you expecting/hoping for just a critique of the actual checklist, or is the fact that it is a checklist in the first place a valid point for criticism too? I can certainly see the side of those who say having a formal tool (be it a checklist or not) addresses a potential issue in and of itself already, but that same formal approach can also be offputting to some. DMs have to make a judgment call about where this might land with their group, but the fact that this tool primarily aims at newly composed groups automatically implies making that judgment call in reference to people that DM doesn't know (yet). Could be worth feeling it out a bit and then suggesting a checklist such as this could be used by those who want to, rather than springing it on the group as a matter of course.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
If I ever consider being a GM for strangers, I would definitely use this form or something similar to weed out and exclude players that I will not have fun with. [REDACTED], I do not have time to waste to babysit youngsters nor teach adults twice my age how to behave civilly in modern society. [REDACTED], my team is short staffed and I do not want to leave them hanging, even if I am allowed and supposed to go home normally (and the fatter paychecks certainly does not hurt either, and if my team consists of just my friends that day, then it honestly does not even feel like work at all). I am so tired on my off days that I have not done grocery shopping for the past month and I can barely even cook, let alone spend time with friends. Whatever free time I have is invaluable, and if I for some dumbass reason choose to spend it with strangers rather than friends, my three cute widdle kitty pusses, or just by myself so I can catch some Zs, that stranger better be freaking worth it.
If the form turns you off, then that is great for me, but it is also great for you too! Although you might see it as a bad thing, it really is not. While there is a possibility that we can enjoy each other's company, there is also a chance that we might piss each other off. Think of it this way, even if you have a lot of free time and can afford to try out various tables, do you really want to take a risk sitting at my table, and potentially waste an afternoon with me, knowing that you will probably gel with another GM at another table better?
While it is probably true that 90% of the threads dealing with table issues probably would not exist if GMs and players simply talked to each other, if they had a checklist like this in the first place so they have an idea of what to talk about, then they would not be having those issues. Keep in mind many of these GMs and players are relatively new or even simply do not connect with the wider D&D community much to learn about current and best practices, so expecting them to know what to talk about, or let alone know what a session zero is, is not realistic.
Anything can be misused or be poorly implemented, and while I agree having a fillable form on Google might not be the best idea and it is good that people provided that feedback and critique, this amount of nitpicking and focus on that one singular aspect feels pretty irrelevant and besides the point, and detracts from the bigger picture. And in this case, privacy is trivial to deal with if that is the issue since you do not need to leave a digital or even paper trail if you do not want to. Just because D&D can make people feel like shit, cars can kill people, and the stock market can lose you money does not mean we should not play D&D, not drive cars, and not invest in the stock market. And based on the table problem threads I see on Beyond, I think people misusing D&D and making people feel like shit happens on a scale and magnitude far greater than whatever potential abuse could come from consent forms, so if anything, D&D itself as a hobby deserves more scrutiny. Like if people are going to talk about the pros and cons of a car, nitpicking on the color of the paint job or the scent of the airfreshner and using those as arguments against the car just feels petty.
If the unintended spread of sensitive info is a problem, people can fill in just the character name and oignore the real name portion if they are really that paranoid about it leaking. Unless I scream it off the top of my lungs on social media or something, who the hell is going to know one of my D&D character is called Edelgard von Hresvelg, let alone even care? And honestly, this is probably easier and best filled out physically rather than digitally, and the form could be lamenated and dry erased after each use, so there is no paper trail at all. And if the GM needs to review the consent form later for whatever reason, the GM can create a consent form for the entire group, so if anyone is yellow on anything, it will be yellow for the entire group, and if anyone is red on anything, then it will be red for the entire group, and since no name is attached, it will be even harder to trace . And individuals' consent forms do not have to be shared with other players, and nobody else has to know who made something on the group consent form red either.
And as Yurei and a few others have mentioned, the form does not even have to be filled out and can be used as a talking point or checklist, and people can verbally communicate consent. You do not always need a hammer to "hammer" a nail, and a hammer can do more than just hammering nails. And if some people want to fill out the form while others just want to communicate it verbally instead, that is fine too.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
I would love to join tables using this form. Not everyone is able to speak about things that cause them distress. An open discussion session 0 about boundaries can feel like being put on the spot for some people. It seems to me like for these people, the session 0 would be a half-measure without this form. I consider myself someone with very few triggers, but reading through this form, I realize that there are actually several things that would upset me if they were included in a game. This is something I was not immediately aware of on a surface level about myself and therefore they would not be disclosed at a session 0. As Yurei1453 said, most people do not have a list of their triggers memorized. Who has the time for that? So who is at fault if it doesn’t come up in session 0 and then is a problem four sessions in? The GM for not probing deep enough? The player for not remembering? Who knows, but now everyone is either angry, hurt, or feelings defensive, and there is a problem that could have been avoided with 10 minutes on a form.
I also think this form is helpful as a player to help guide me when interacting with other players. It may not be immediately apparent that someone has a problem with behaviors that I find rather benign, but I sure do not wish to negatively impact someone’s play experience. With this form, or something similar to it, I have the opportunity to educate myself on the people I am playing with without applying any kind of invasive pressures, and that will allow me to foster a universally enjoyable play experience with players who may have needs and considerations that are wildly different from my own. It also allows the group to filter out players that would create a disappointing or frustrating play experience, which for some tables does include those who would not wish to play at a table that finds this useful. I do not see this as a bad thing.
I have found the contributions of most here to be thoughtful and well-meaning. I just wanted to offer my own perspective on this. Thank you, Darbydarbs, for making this form available for use. I think I will in the future.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
This thread is for discussing the OP's original consent and safety form and, to a reasonable degree, safety tools in general. It is not the place for a treatise on ethics, the philosophy of compassion, stoicism and 'thick skinnedness' and other such diversions. Please stay on topic
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
The document is not a fillibe PDF it is simply a non editable form that someone could print off/email to future players for there own game.
The original post linked to a google form, the OP changed it to a fillable PDF
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
The main issue I observed is that most ppl forget that we are all different and we got different preferences and experiences that shape our individuality, what is good for one person can be bad for another. The tool is an option to prevent possible disputes that might arise mid game.
There is no a one size fit all and we all defend the point we believe in, some are more open and are willing to put some effort to understand others, while some simply dont have the time or are simply tired of trying and just wanna have a break or straight out don't wanna deal with the whole issue cuz is a hassle.
My point is we all love and enjoy dnd as a core but like different flavors of it or enjoy it for different reason and the tool is the middle ground that help mitigate differences to share a passion for the game we are all here to play and enjoy, who knows u might make a new friend that have a different opinion as u but is a great person and fun to play with.
Word for the OP, your tool is good and as u posted at some point its just a tool its up to each one to use it as they want.
Sry if it sounds redundant I am not very good at writing (expressing my though)