I mean I have only ever played with friends who I also Baird game, socialize and generally hang out with so forms like this are a bit redundant as we all have a very good feeling what triggers people have. But I can see how it would be really useful in a game with strangers.
Yeah if people gotta go through all that, then I'm not your DM and what used to be D&D probably isn't for those people. But hey things are different today. Oh how the game has changed <sigh>.
Yeah if people gotta go through all that, then I'm not your DM and what used to be D&D probably isn't for those people. But hey things are different today. Oh how the game has changed <sigh>.
It really depends on the group. Back in the day, D&D was primarily something you did with a group of people you already knew, and so would have at least a good starting point on where everyone's boundaries are. These days there's a lot more support for groups coming together who don't know each other, so it's good to at least hit a highlights run of what content people are and aren't comfortable with. Honestly, these days, if a group that's mostly made up of strangers didn't at least talk a bit about boundaries, that'd be a low-key flag for me.
It really depends on the group. Back in the day, D&D was primarily something you did with a group of people you already knew, and so would have at least a good starting point on where everyone's boundaries are. These days there's a lot more support for groups coming together who don't know each other, so it's good to at least hit a highlights run of what content people are and aren't comfortable with. Honestly, these days, if a group that's mostly made up of strangers didn't at least talk a bit about boundaries, that'd be a low-key flag for me.
There have always been groups of strangers coming together to play. At game stores. At conventions. Heck I once just invited a guy who worked at the local bookstore to join a game.
Where I live I have played in and play in more games than I can count. I have run and run much the same. For colleagues. For students. Never have I encountered requests for any discussion about boundaries. Never. I have used and use common sense when running games for young people is all.
If people expect some talk about boundaries then that's their prerogative. And I can perfectly empathize with someone who has experienced trauma making that request. It's a request I'd happily fulfil.
But stop acting like others are weird just because they don't do things you expect.
It really depends on the group. Back in the day, D&D was primarily something you did with a group of people you already knew, and so would have at least a good starting point on where everyone's boundaries are. These days there's a lot more support for groups coming together who don't know each other, so it's good to at least hit a highlights run of what content people are and aren't comfortable with. Honestly, these days, if a group that's mostly made up of strangers didn't at least talk a bit about boundaries, that'd be a low-key flag for me.
There have always been groups of strangers coming together to play. At game stores. At conventions. Heck I once just invited a guy who worked at the local bookstore to join a game.
Where I live I have played in and play in more games than I can count. I have run and run much the same. For colleagues. For students. Never have I encountered requests for any discussion about boundaries. Never. I have used and use common sense when running games for young people is all.
If people expect some talk about boundaries then that's their prerogative. And I can perfectly empathize with someone who has experienced trauma making that request. It's a request I'd happily fulfil.
But stop acting like others are weird just because they don't do things you expect.
The fact that it's not impossible to put together a decent pick up group without taking a few minutes to ask about boundaries does not actually disprove the idea that taking the time will result in a net gain for positive experiences in a group across the entire population. And I'm not saying others are weird simply because they don't do this, however if I'm starting to have other bad experiences with a group I don't actually know outside of the game, whether or not there was discussion of boundaries is going to affect how much leeway I give before I pull the cord.
The fact that it's not impossible to put together a decent pick up group without taking a few minutes to ask about boundaries does not actually disprove the idea that taking the time will result in a net gain for positive experiences in a group across the entire population. And I'm not saying others are weird simply because they don't do this, however if I'm starting to have other bad experiences with a group I don't actually know outside of the game, whether or not there was discussion of boundaries is going to affect how much leeway I give before I pull the cord.
No one said it was impossible. I even said it was perfectly understandable in certain circumstances. I just think it's not necessary unless such circumstances make it so.
It has never been a problem in any group in which I have played in in almost fourdecades of playing for none of these groups to have established such things before the campaign began.
In most circumstances common sense should suffice.
I work at a school where it would be deemed inappropriate for a teacher to provide students with a list of things they might find uncomfortable.
Yeah if people gotta go through all that, then I'm not your DM and what used to be D&D probably isn't for those people. But hey things are different today. Oh how the game has changed <sigh>.
The game hasn't changed, people have. We learned better about mental health. We learn better, we do better.
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!
The game hasn't changed, people have. We learned better about mental health. We learn better, we do better.
No matter how much we have learned about mental health many educational institutions would warn if not indeed dismiss a teacher who was tasked with running D&D for students if that teacher presented his or her students with a form naming a number of things on that consent form.
The world is complex. It isn't reducible to absolutes.
I run games for students.
I use common sense.
I wouldn't trust a teacher bringing up things like bestiality with his or her students to even be around students.
The game hasn't changed, people have. We learned better about mental health. We learn better, we do better.
No matter how much we have learned about mental health many educational institutions would warn if not indeed dismiss a teacher who was tasked with running D&D for students if that teacher presented his or her students with a form naming a number of things on that consent form.
The world is complex. It isn't reducible to absolutes.
I run games for students.
I use common sense.
I wouldn't trust a teacher bringing up things like bestiality with his or her students to even be around students.
Of course. As a teacher you and anyone involved in the game group are bound to a code of conduct which controls what staff and students can introduce into the school, in addition to the ethical obligations of someone in or adjacent to the teaching profession, and maybe additional codes depending on licensures and/or credentials. When this thread avalanched back when, I too thought the form was more an exercise in possibly futile/moot exhaustive cataloging than having true utility. If you haven't seen it, you may want to check out Monte Cook Game's Consent in Gaming and its form which to my understanding is more reflective of the "standard" in TTRPG safety tools. That's not an imperative to use it, as a teacher of any experience you likely have honed your emotional intelligence and understand interpersonal boundaries, but to see the tool the author of this thread's form thought they were improving via a level of granularity I'm pretty sure flies against the simplicity principles these tools tend to factor into their design.
All that said, and FWIW I've recently become been involved in more one shots, casual pick up games with store or community groups randoms, etc. I also live in a geography where it's stereotyped and satirized that social-emotional awareness is practice to a fault. Now I don't have a comprehensive inventory of every game in my area, but networked enough that I think I have a pretty good representative sample, and I've yet to see any of these tools formally deployed in a Session 0 or a pre-session brief etc. When I've met with game organizers in the venues I run and play in, I've asked about it and they also go for a more common sensical less formalized approach. A lot of it is handled in the advertisement of the event, giving the players a sense of what they'd be signing up for. Like a CoC game riffing on Big Lebowski would read like this, (I made this up yesterday as a joke but kinda want to actually write it up and run it now):
Investigators are hired to track down a Dude's rug allegedly stolen by a cult of nihilists. CW: missing digits, extensive marijuana and psychedelic use, Gulf War rhetoric, and Sam Eliot.
These events are advertised in community spaces which allow a lot of online q&a, so on the likelihood of someone under 30 having never heard of the Big Lebowski, we can talk about it. In a school, teachers know their students, especially the students that show up after school for the teacher's extracurricular. There's common sense in operation, and there's already an established trust.
In the end, I think these formal tools, while useful at some tables, more broadly serve a sort of meta value, in O.G. Dragon magazine there used to be occasional sort of op-ed or commentary about ethics or morality in gaming (I remember one particularly about the writer trying to explain his WWII game to a relative who participated in Market Garden), and those columns weren't likely formally discussed by the FLGS reading group or whatever, but they likely had a trickle down effect when people played and thought about boundaries, or what we used to call "being considerate." I think these tools do help inform discussions or considerations as to what "good gaming" is these days.
I do not get this consent or red card mindset. I have never been in a group where this would be needed or required and I have been playing since '93.
As a GM, I do set boundaries. The players cannot be evil. The players cannot make characters with backgrounds that would prevent them from working in a group. I call it the "do not be a jerk" rule. I usually run PG-13 style games unless it is for my kids and their friends.
If I recruit new players or form a new group of strangers, then I meet people separately to see if we will get along and if they would want to play in my style of game. I just could not use something like a consent form. If I had someone who wanted to use a red card or consent form, then it would be a red flag for me. I spend a lot of time developing campaign worlds and scenarios for players. I do deal with adult topics, but again, PG-13. I just would not have the bandwidth to deal with everyone's potential triggers.
The fact that it's not impossible to put together a decent pick up group without taking a few minutes to ask about boundaries does not actually disprove the idea that taking the time will result in a net gain for positive experiences in a group across the entire population. And I'm not saying others are weird simply because they don't do this, however if I'm starting to have other bad experiences with a group I don't actually know outside of the game, whether or not there was discussion of boundaries is going to affect how much leeway I give before I pull the cord.
No one said it was impossible. I even said it was perfectly understandable in certain circumstances. I just think it's not necessary unless such circumstances make it so.
It has never been a problem in any group in which I have played in in almost fourdecades of playing for none of these groups to have established such things before the campaign began.
In most circumstances common sense should suffice.
I work at a school where it would be deemed inappropriate for a teacher to provide students with a list of things they might find uncomfortable.
Sometimes things are more complicated.
The thing is, what is common sense to me may not be that to you. Different people live in different places and different environments, where different things are expected or not expected in the game. It is very hard to know what people are okay with and what they are not okay with without some form of Session Zero or Consent Form. This is doubly true if the game is Online or with strangers.
Do keep in mind that what the original poster linked is just a guideline, and that you can change it to better fit the recipients or just not use it at all.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
I may have misunderstood, but wouldn't it be suitable to have a group chat with those you are going to play with and have a mutual understanding on what is not suitable or could trigger someone such as a severer phobia or other rather than the use of google docs.
I may have misunderstood, but wouldn't it be suitable to have a group chat with those you are going to play with and have a mutual understanding on what is not suitable or could trigger someone such as a severer phobia or other rather than the use of google docs.
This was already covered. Some people aren't comfortable disclosing this in a group, some people are not comfortable speaking to their boundaries in person, some people cannot recall all that they might have triggers for, and many other reasons. This is not meant to be the only option, nor is it meant to replace the session 0.
I may have misunderstood, but wouldn't it be suitable to have a group chat with those you are going to play with and have a mutual understanding on what is not suitable or could trigger someone such as a severer phobia or other rather than the use of google docs.
Depends on how comfortable they are with things. My last campaign, I made a point of saying how I wanted everyone to be comfortable, and if they have any issues, regardless of how unlikely they think it will come up, to let me know. I then repeated the same sentiments on our Discord group, saying they can either bring it up in the group chat,.or if they'd rather discuss it in private, they can message me personally. I then gave a few examples of what I wouldn't want, and then half the group gave a request or two. Everyone was enthusiastic in agreeing and wanted it the same (except one request, but everyone agreed that it didn't need to be in the game so they wouldn't bring it into the game, even if they personally didn't have an issue with it).
You just have to do what works with the table. All I'll say about this form is that unless you're dealing with complete strangers, the table should feel comfortable enough just saying in an informal discussion. If there's a risk that isn't the case...then I'd say you have issues at your table that go beyond the scope of what a tickbox form can solve and you need to fix things, pronto.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I may have misunderstood, but wouldn't it be suitable to have a group chat with those you are going to play with and have a mutual understanding on what is not suitable or could trigger someone such as a severer phobia or other rather than the use of google docs.
The original Google Docs form was called out as a safety risk within hours of being posted; the original poster, a year and a half ago, took down the Google Doc link and converted their work into a form-fillable PDF instead. I don't know if that PDF is still there, but the Google Docs issue was addressed within a week.
The rest of your question was the focus of the previous six pages of discussion. MidnightPlat argued/championed the point that a lot of folks find this sort of form off-putting, distracting, or suspicious - essentially, it gets their guard up and makes them less likely to engage with the process as a whole. That also appears to be your position, that simply having an informal chat with people is better than using formalized tools.
Ophidimancer, myself, and a few others championed the use of tools for a few different reasons. Chief among them were the ideas that formalized tools - whether this one or one of the more widespread tools available elsewhere - helped focus the discussion and provide players with context and coaching for the question, and that the existence of the formalized tools demonstrate a commitment to safety and respect in the game space even if those tools are never officially used.
I can also say, with an extra year and a half under my belt and more games with it, that informal Sessions Zero with no guidance or external focus almost always devolve into general chatter/hangout sessions in which relatively little actual discussion of boundaries or safety happens. At least in my experience, a group will lightly touch on such things but is generally too excited to talk about the game they wanna play or the characters they're gonna make, or share some of their older-game War Stories, to really pay any such discussions much heed for more than a few minutes. This is not useless by any means, it's good for a new group of people freshly meeting to spend time shooting the shit and hanging out, getting to know each other, but for the sorts of players to whom safety tools are important? These unfocused, random BS-y Sessions Zero are not going to address their concerns, and it may make them feel unwelcome at a table/within a group where safety considerations are brushed off so cavalierly.
Clearly that is not the intent of such Sessions Zero. I can say that the Session Zero for my Sunday D&D game, which I applied for here on DDB and played with people I've never met before, was the textbook example of an informal chatty/hangout-y Session Zero. The DM put in a manful effort to get through typical Session Zero talking points and I did my best to help, but the players wanted to chat and BS and meet the new people, and about two-thirds of that session was mostly just swapping D&D memes and War Stories. I've been playing with that table for a year and a half now and made splendid friends doing it...but we also had a Revolving Door problem in the first few months of that game where players would come and then drop a few sessions later. One of the original group of players ended up leaving in a huff about half a dozen sessions in because we weren't the type of game he wanted to play - he was looking for a high-level combat romp where damage was dealt and baddies were dropped, and we ended up as a roleplaying-heavy character-conversations Funny Moments and Heartfelt Scenes group. Session Zero didn't catch that, in part because it was so BS-y (and in part, admittedly, because you never truly know what a given table's going to shake down as on the Talking Vs. Fighting axis until you start playing). And frankly I've had to check myself a number of times in the game because I stumbled into Yellow space without knowing I was there until I got there and had to try and find delicate ways of backing down. I've pulled that off, but it could've gone a lot worse than it did if I was less able to pull it off.
A lot - and I mean a lot a lot - of people do not know how to have an informal conversation about things like boundaries that remains focused and effective. Mental health concerns are not an everyday subject of conversation for a significant swath of the modern population. Tools like consent checklists are ways to ensure you have a focused, effective conversation on the topic if you want to make sure you're getting it right. I'm honestly a big fan of going over a consent checklist actively during Session Zero as a group and using it to sketch out communal boundaries for the game, which is not its intended use at all. Most users of consent checklists claim that the list should be kept as private as possible, only ever being used between a single player and the DM, to allow that player the maximum security possible in confessing their vulnerabilities - and that's also a valid use of the tool.
The beauty of tools is that there's always more than one way to use them. Wrenches don't just tighten nuts, they can bang something into shape too. You don't have to follow the proscribed formula. You can do whatever works for your table, and try to find new ways to use the existing tools to make your game a better, safer place - or you can try and invent new tools if the ones out there aren't to your liking.
If you're someone who feels icky about using formalized checklists and strongly prefers to have informal conversations? Go for it. But make sure that you're getting the work done either way. As I told Kotath a year and a half ago, a low-effort surface ask will get a low-effort surface answer. You may have to teach yourself how to have a focused and effective Informal Conversation with people. It's a skill I'm still trying to pick up, especially given the rocky waters a couple of my other games have hit in recent times. My main group - the long-time friend circle everybody says has no need for Sessions Zero anymore - has hit a really rough patch in a recent game that very much could have been avoided with franker discussion earlier in the game and a more focused and effective Session Zero. We're working through it, but it shouldn't have needed to get that bad before we did something about it.
You never know someone 'too well' to check in with them. If a checklist helps you do that, great. If you'd rather do it informally, also great.
LOL I can't believe this is real. This is why D&D is a disco party with friendly orcs and wheelchair ramps in lich lairs.
I legit have no idea what your game sessions must be like. Holding hands while playing make-believe story time? For decades this has been a combat focused game where you murder bad guys for money and fame with brawls and carousing in seedy taverns. Those baddies murder innocents, pillage, enslave, and other "problematic" things. If that's too scary for people then they should go play Farmville or something. Warping the game to cater to a few loud "sensitive" people who don't actually want to play the game is is driving people away in droves. WOTC catering to those tourists has ruined the game. It's like changing a PVP military shooter into a mystery diplomacy game.
Well, we're gonna see if the safe space crowd is gonna pony up enough $ to keep this insanity going. I won't be buying anything with hat-wearing smiling orcs. 3.5E is a better game anyways.
The idea D&D is a combat game is, of course, a complete myth. The very first session of D&D started with a puzzle and had heavy roleplay elements. Puzzles, social elements, and exploration have all been equally important to combat since the very, very beginning of the game. In fact, it was those elements that made D&D a success--war games had been around for a century or so at that point and were a dime a dozen. Arneson's idea to add social and exploration elements to Gygax's otherwise forgettable wargame is what made D&D the juggernaut it is today.
So, right off the bat, your post is based on an incorrect assumption of this game's history.
Next is the myth that D&D has always been some kind of hardcore grind. This, of course, is also a myth. The very first DMG specifically stated that DMs should go as hard or as easy as their party would like, and gave tips for making the game easier if that is what folks wanted to enjoy.
As for "sensitive" people? Been around since the beginning also--and they drove the success of this game. Despite being made by a racist and sexist, D&D was an early sanctuary for people who wanted to escape the bigotry of the real world. Even at the game's very start, this was a place for folks you would call "sensitive" to find themselves, to explore a side of them they might not otherwise get to explore. To live out the role they wished they could play in the real world. To that end, since the game started, people have been setting boundaries and discussing what folks would or would not find appropriate in the game. This thread is just a tool for facilitating conversations that have been occurring for fifty years.
Your post is nothing short of gatekeeping - and gatekeeping based on your incorrect assumptions of this game's history, formed on your clearly limited experiences.
Sincerely,
A DM who has no problem running fatal encounters, putting my players in morally questionable positions, dealing with difficult themes, and who does not run a session zero.
I mean I have only ever played with friends who I also Baird game, socialize and generally hang out with so forms like this are a bit redundant as we all have a very good feeling what triggers people have. But I can see how it would be really useful in a game with strangers.
Thank you for existing
This is fabulous! Thank you!
Jenni the Jester
Mad as a hatter. Web Developer / Designer / Innovator, UX/UI, Comic Illustrator, Dungeon Master, Photographer, Writer, Nerd/Geek, Foodie, in no particular order.
Instagram, Twitter, Deviantart, Facebook, Tumblr, Pinterest, and Linkedin: jennithejester
http://www.thejesterstoybox.com
Yeah if people gotta go through all that, then I'm not your DM and what used to be D&D probably isn't for those people. But hey things are different today. Oh how the game has changed <sigh>.
It really depends on the group. Back in the day, D&D was primarily something you did with a group of people you already knew, and so would have at least a good starting point on where everyone's boundaries are. These days there's a lot more support for groups coming together who don't know each other, so it's good to at least hit a highlights run of what content people are and aren't comfortable with. Honestly, these days, if a group that's mostly made up of strangers didn't at least talk a bit about boundaries, that'd be a low-key flag for me.
There have always been groups of strangers coming together to play. At game stores. At conventions. Heck I once just invited a guy who worked at the local bookstore to join a game.
Where I live I have played in and play in more games than I can count. I have run and run much the same. For colleagues. For students. Never have I encountered requests for any discussion about boundaries. Never. I have used and use common sense when running games for young people is all.
If people expect some talk about boundaries then that's their prerogative. And I can perfectly empathize with someone who has experienced trauma making that request. It's a request I'd happily fulfil.
But stop acting like others are weird just because they don't do things you expect.
The fact that it's not impossible to put together a decent pick up group without taking a few minutes to ask about boundaries does not actually disprove the idea that taking the time will result in a net gain for positive experiences in a group across the entire population. And I'm not saying others are weird simply because they don't do this, however if I'm starting to have other bad experiences with a group I don't actually know outside of the game, whether or not there was discussion of boundaries is going to affect how much leeway I give before I pull the cord.
No one said it was impossible. I even said it was perfectly understandable in certain circumstances. I just think it's not necessary unless such circumstances make it so.
It has never been a problem in any group in which I have played in in almost four decades of playing for none of these groups to have established such things before the campaign began.
In most circumstances common sense should suffice.
I work at a school where it would be deemed inappropriate for a teacher to provide students with a list of things they might find uncomfortable.
Sometimes things are more complicated.
The game hasn't changed, people have. We learned better about mental health. We learn better, we do better.
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!
No matter how much we have learned about mental health many educational institutions would warn if not indeed dismiss a teacher who was tasked with running D&D for students if that teacher presented his or her students with a form naming a number of things on that consent form.
The world is complex. It isn't reducible to absolutes.
I run games for students.
I use common sense.
I wouldn't trust a teacher bringing up things like bestiality with his or her students to even be around students.
Of course. As a teacher you and anyone involved in the game group are bound to a code of conduct which controls what staff and students can introduce into the school, in addition to the ethical obligations of someone in or adjacent to the teaching profession, and maybe additional codes depending on licensures and/or credentials. When this thread avalanched back when, I too thought the form was more an exercise in possibly futile/moot exhaustive cataloging than having true utility. If you haven't seen it, you may want to check out Monte Cook Game's Consent in Gaming and its form which to my understanding is more reflective of the "standard" in TTRPG safety tools. That's not an imperative to use it, as a teacher of any experience you likely have honed your emotional intelligence and understand interpersonal boundaries, but to see the tool the author of this thread's form thought they were improving via a level of granularity I'm pretty sure flies against the simplicity principles these tools tend to factor into their design.
All that said, and FWIW I've recently become been involved in more one shots, casual pick up games with store or community groups randoms, etc. I also live in a geography where it's stereotyped and satirized that social-emotional awareness is practice to a fault. Now I don't have a comprehensive inventory of every game in my area, but networked enough that I think I have a pretty good representative sample, and I've yet to see any of these tools formally deployed in a Session 0 or a pre-session brief etc. When I've met with game organizers in the venues I run and play in, I've asked about it and they also go for a more common sensical less formalized approach. A lot of it is handled in the advertisement of the event, giving the players a sense of what they'd be signing up for. Like a CoC game riffing on Big Lebowski would read like this, (I made this up yesterday as a joke but kinda want to actually write it up and run it now):
These events are advertised in community spaces which allow a lot of online q&a, so on the likelihood of someone under 30 having never heard of the Big Lebowski, we can talk about it. In a school, teachers know their students, especially the students that show up after school for the teacher's extracurricular. There's common sense in operation, and there's already an established trust.
In the end, I think these formal tools, while useful at some tables, more broadly serve a sort of meta value, in O.G. Dragon magazine there used to be occasional sort of op-ed or commentary about ethics or morality in gaming (I remember one particularly about the writer trying to explain his WWII game to a relative who participated in Market Garden), and those columns weren't likely formally discussed by the FLGS reading group or whatever, but they likely had a trickle down effect when people played and thought about boundaries, or what we used to call "being considerate." I think these tools do help inform discussions or considerations as to what "good gaming" is these days.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I do not get this consent or red card mindset. I have never been in a group where this would be needed or required and I have been playing since '93.
As a GM, I do set boundaries. The players cannot be evil. The players cannot make characters with backgrounds that would prevent them from working in a group. I call it the "do not be a jerk" rule. I usually run PG-13 style games unless it is for my kids and their friends.
If I recruit new players or form a new group of strangers, then I meet people separately to see if we will get along and if they would want to play in my style of game. I just could not use something like a consent form. If I had someone who wanted to use a red card or consent form, then it would be a red flag for me. I spend a lot of time developing campaign worlds and scenarios for players. I do deal with adult topics, but again, PG-13. I just would not have the bandwidth to deal with everyone's potential triggers.
The thing is, what is common sense to me may not be that to you. Different people live in different places and different environments, where different things are expected or not expected in the game. It is very hard to know what people are okay with and what they are not okay with without some form of Session Zero or Consent Form. This is doubly true if the game is Online or with strangers.
Do keep in mind that what the original poster linked is just a guideline, and that you can change it to better fit the recipients or just not use it at all.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.I may have misunderstood, but wouldn't it be suitable to have a group chat with those you are going to play with and have a mutual understanding on what is not suitable or could trigger someone such as a severer phobia or other rather than the use of google docs.
This was already covered. Some people aren't comfortable disclosing this in a group, some people are not comfortable speaking to their boundaries in person, some people cannot recall all that they might have triggers for, and many other reasons. This is not meant to be the only option, nor is it meant to replace the session 0.
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
Depends on how comfortable they are with things. My last campaign, I made a point of saying how I wanted everyone to be comfortable, and if they have any issues, regardless of how unlikely they think it will come up, to let me know. I then repeated the same sentiments on our Discord group, saying they can either bring it up in the group chat,.or if they'd rather discuss it in private, they can message me personally. I then gave a few examples of what I wouldn't want, and then half the group gave a request or two. Everyone was enthusiastic in agreeing and wanted it the same (except one request, but everyone agreed that it didn't need to be in the game so they wouldn't bring it into the game, even if they personally didn't have an issue with it).
You just have to do what works with the table. All I'll say about this form is that unless you're dealing with complete strangers, the table should feel comfortable enough just saying in an informal discussion. If there's a risk that isn't the case...then I'd say you have issues at your table that go beyond the scope of what a tickbox form can solve and you need to fix things, pronto.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
The original Google Docs form was called out as a safety risk within hours of being posted; the original poster, a year and a half ago, took down the Google Doc link and converted their work into a form-fillable PDF instead. I don't know if that PDF is still there, but the Google Docs issue was addressed within a week.
The rest of your question was the focus of the previous six pages of discussion. MidnightPlat argued/championed the point that a lot of folks find this sort of form off-putting, distracting, or suspicious - essentially, it gets their guard up and makes them less likely to engage with the process as a whole. That also appears to be your position, that simply having an informal chat with people is better than using formalized tools.
Ophidimancer, myself, and a few others championed the use of tools for a few different reasons. Chief among them were the ideas that formalized tools - whether this one or one of the more widespread tools available elsewhere - helped focus the discussion and provide players with context and coaching for the question, and that the existence of the formalized tools demonstrate a commitment to safety and respect in the game space even if those tools are never officially used.
I can also say, with an extra year and a half under my belt and more games with it, that informal Sessions Zero with no guidance or external focus almost always devolve into general chatter/hangout sessions in which relatively little actual discussion of boundaries or safety happens. At least in my experience, a group will lightly touch on such things but is generally too excited to talk about the game they wanna play or the characters they're gonna make, or share some of their older-game War Stories, to really pay any such discussions much heed for more than a few minutes. This is not useless by any means, it's good for a new group of people freshly meeting to spend time shooting the shit and hanging out, getting to know each other, but for the sorts of players to whom safety tools are important? These unfocused, random BS-y Sessions Zero are not going to address their concerns, and it may make them feel unwelcome at a table/within a group where safety considerations are brushed off so cavalierly.
Clearly that is not the intent of such Sessions Zero. I can say that the Session Zero for my Sunday D&D game, which I applied for here on DDB and played with people I've never met before, was the textbook example of an informal chatty/hangout-y Session Zero. The DM put in a manful effort to get through typical Session Zero talking points and I did my best to help, but the players wanted to chat and BS and meet the new people, and about two-thirds of that session was mostly just swapping D&D memes and War Stories. I've been playing with that table for a year and a half now and made splendid friends doing it...but we also had a Revolving Door problem in the first few months of that game where players would come and then drop a few sessions later. One of the original group of players ended up leaving in a huff about half a dozen sessions in because we weren't the type of game he wanted to play - he was looking for a high-level combat romp where damage was dealt and baddies were dropped, and we ended up as a roleplaying-heavy character-conversations Funny Moments and Heartfelt Scenes group. Session Zero didn't catch that, in part because it was so BS-y (and in part, admittedly, because you never truly know what a given table's going to shake down as on the Talking Vs. Fighting axis until you start playing). And frankly I've had to check myself a number of times in the game because I stumbled into Yellow space without knowing I was there until I got there and had to try and find delicate ways of backing down. I've pulled that off, but it could've gone a lot worse than it did if I was less able to pull it off.
A lot - and I mean a lot a lot - of people do not know how to have an informal conversation about things like boundaries that remains focused and effective. Mental health concerns are not an everyday subject of conversation for a significant swath of the modern population. Tools like consent checklists are ways to ensure you have a focused, effective conversation on the topic if you want to make sure you're getting it right. I'm honestly a big fan of going over a consent checklist actively during Session Zero as a group and using it to sketch out communal boundaries for the game, which is not its intended use at all. Most users of consent checklists claim that the list should be kept as private as possible, only ever being used between a single player and the DM, to allow that player the maximum security possible in confessing their vulnerabilities - and that's also a valid use of the tool.
The beauty of tools is that there's always more than one way to use them. Wrenches don't just tighten nuts, they can bang something into shape too. You don't have to follow the proscribed formula. You can do whatever works for your table, and try to find new ways to use the existing tools to make your game a better, safer place - or you can try and invent new tools if the ones out there aren't to your liking.
If you're someone who feels icky about using formalized checklists and strongly prefers to have informal conversations? Go for it. But make sure that you're getting the work done either way. As I told Kotath a year and a half ago, a low-effort surface ask will get a low-effort surface answer. You may have to teach yourself how to have a focused and effective Informal Conversation with people. It's a skill I'm still trying to pick up, especially given the rocky waters a couple of my other games have hit in recent times. My main group - the long-time friend circle everybody says has no need for Sessions Zero anymore - has hit a really rough patch in a recent game that very much could have been avoided with franker discussion earlier in the game and a more focused and effective Session Zero. We're working through it, but it shouldn't have needed to get that bad before we did something about it.
You never know someone 'too well' to check in with them. If a checklist helps you do that, great. If you'd rather do it informally, also great.
Just make sure you do it.
Please do not contact or message me.
The idea D&D is a combat game is, of course, a complete myth. The very first session of D&D started with a puzzle and had heavy roleplay elements. Puzzles, social elements, and exploration have all been equally important to combat since the very, very beginning of the game. In fact, it was those elements that made D&D a success--war games had been around for a century or so at that point and were a dime a dozen. Arneson's idea to add social and exploration elements to Gygax's otherwise forgettable wargame is what made D&D the juggernaut it is today.
So, right off the bat, your post is based on an incorrect assumption of this game's history.
Next is the myth that D&D has always been some kind of hardcore grind. This, of course, is also a myth. The very first DMG specifically stated that DMs should go as hard or as easy as their party would like, and gave tips for making the game easier if that is what folks wanted to enjoy.
As for "sensitive" people? Been around since the beginning also--and they drove the success of this game. Despite being made by a racist and sexist, D&D was an early sanctuary for people who wanted to escape the bigotry of the real world. Even at the game's very start, this was a place for folks you would call "sensitive" to find themselves, to explore a side of them they might not otherwise get to explore. To live out the role they wished they could play in the real world. To that end, since the game started, people have been setting boundaries and discussing what folks would or would not find appropriate in the game. This thread is just a tool for facilitating conversations that have been occurring for fifty years.
Your post is nothing short of gatekeeping - and gatekeeping based on your incorrect assumptions of this game's history, formed on your clearly limited experiences.
Sincerely,
A DM who has no problem running fatal encounters, putting my players in morally questionable positions, dealing with difficult themes, and who does not run a session zero.
Thank you I had no idea the point or idea of consent forms but I realize the importance now