Quote from: Spinachcat;1091440Why didn't the players walk out?

If they didn't walk out, why do they have any right to complain?

Hey, this restaurant sucks. I ate everything yesterday, but just remembered I didn't get what I ordered!!

I don't know why either. Possibly because they paid to go to the con.

What gets me is that TPB thinks an X-CArd would have helped the situation. The only problem is by the rules of the X-card you can use it to show what you don't like about a particular scenario or session. Yet not say anything. So either way the likely outcome is to asked to leave the table. Or people playing at a table end up sitting on their asses waiting for the session to end because the person who used the card is in no way obliged to say anything. So either way the tool to help the person who might be uncomfortable about saying something in game while helping the person also ruins the fun for everyone else. Apparently it is ok because screw everyone else at the table the person using the X-card is all important.

3,2,1 cue the "you never used an X-card or do not know how to use it" bullshit from those who like and support the card. As even with the quite noticeable and obvious flaw it is a perfect tool. Or so they say because it is all about the narrative of the X-card being perfect.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1091440Why didn't the players walk out?

If they didn't walk out, why do they have any right to complain?

Hey, this restaurant sucks. I ate everything yesterday, but just remembered I didn't get what I ordered!!

That is a good question. Sitting and taking something then going on to bitch about on social media has become a real thing in society.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1091394Imagine if any of the players actually had been raped as children, and then the GM sprung this little gem on them, right out of the blue at the gaming table. Yes, it would be totally appropriate for that player to step off the gaming table, but there is no reason I can think of that any gaming convention should have a game available in the first place that reintroduces a traumatic early life event for anyone.

Imagine someone who was beat up as a child by his father or by bullies or, worse, they experienced PTSD from firearm-caused violence in the US. Are you willing to ban violence from convention games to avoid the risk of any potential gamer having to be confronted with an imaginary situation that makes his trauma resurface? I think you're not making any sense whatsoever.

We could argue whether explicit sexuality has any business in convention games, depending on the convention. But, again, if you're having such a deep-seated trauma, you have no business playing a convention game with perfect strangers without it being incumbent on YOU seeking a clarifying conversation with the GM to begin with. It is NOT incumbent on the GM to presume that any of his gamers might have such a deep-seating trauma. We're back on the subject of some people being so presumptous that they expect the world around them to walk on eggshells. No.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1091394This definitely qualifies as sexual harassment as well as intimidation since the GM can't possible know beforehand which of his or her players may have actually experienced such emotionally damaging events prior to sitting in at the gaming table.

Wow, the mental gymnastics that some people are willing to go to just to get leverage over their fellow man is quite astounding. And when an NPC shoots at a PC I strongly identify with, I presume it is a form of mental violence by the GM against me as well? This is some serious socialist dictatorship-tier re-interpretation.

Again my reply is: no. You're not getting any control over anyone reasonable with your paper-thin excuses and rationalizations.

The game was, AT WORST, a dumb and anti-social troll move by the GM and, AT BEST, a terrible misunderstanding due to a poor taste in plot. You're shooting yourself in the foot if you elevate it to more than that.

QuoteThis definitely qualifies as sexual harassment as well as intimidation since the GM can't possible know beforehand which of his or her players may have actually experienced such emotionally damaging events prior to sitting in at the gaming table.

Seriously? Really? Seriously? Sexual fucking harassment AND intimidation? Jesus, fuck me backwards. Following your logic then, EVERY GM might as well just offer games of My Little Pony because there is no earthly fucking way they can know if their games are going to sexually harass and intimidate, so better not take that risk, eh?

For fuck's sake. The GM was a prick, but he's not guilty of sexual harassment or intimidation. Get a fucking grip.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1091468And when an NPC shoots at a PC I strongly identify with, I presume it is a form of mental violence by the GM against me as well? This is some serious socialist dictatorship-tier re-interpretation.

Again my reply is: no. You're not getting any control over anyone reasonable with your paper-thin excuses and rationalizations.

The game was, AT WORST, a dumb and anti-social troll move by the GM and, AT BEST, a terrible misunderstanding due to a poor taste in plot. You're shooting yourself in the foot if you elevate it to more than that.

I agree that this is tastelessness rather than a crime. *However*, I don't think that it needs to be that extreme for the convention take action.

If a GM has poor taste in plot to the detriment of player enjoyment, then the convention is justified in banning them. The reductio ad absurdum is irrelevant. No one has a right not to be offended - but there also isn't a right to run games at UKGE.

Quote from: sureshot;1091455The only problem is by the rules of the X-card you can use it to show what you don't like about a particular scenario or session. Yet not say anything. So either way the likely outcome is to asked to leave the table. Or people playing at a table end up sitting on their asses waiting for the session to end because the person who used the card is in no way obliged to say anything. So either way the tool to help the person who might be uncomfortable about saying something in game while helping the person also ruins the fun for everyone else.

Bolding is mine above. It's a technically possible outcome that someone can use the X-card rules to ruin the fun for everyone else at the table by touching it repeatedly and not saying anything. But there are a lot of ways for a single player to ruin everyone else's fun. Just because it's possible doesn't mean it is the likely outcome.

Quote from: Shasarak;1091441I always thought that not walking out and then complaining about it afterwards was kind of an English thing to do.

Well, Yes.

The Mirror (I know ..) gives us "As the 40 most British traits are revealed, how many of them do you recognise in yourself?" including:

* Grumbling throughout a meal, but not telling staff so as not to cause a fuss
* Finding the American forwardness 'a bit much'
* Not asking for help so as not to 'put anyone out'

Im not an expert but I'd also add the more universal idea of normative social influence and, for example, the Asch conformity experiments (conducted at Swarthmore, USA). If the rest of the group are going along with the situation as if it's perfectly normal then it's harder to be the first to say that's something is wrong.

Quote from: jhkim;1091488I agree that this is tastelessness rather than a crime. *However*, I don't think that it needs to be that extreme for the convention take action.

Agreed. The convention runners are to be expected to protect the brand of their event whenever they see it threatened.

Quote from: jhkim;1091488Bolding is mine above. It's a technically possible outcome that someone can use the X-card rules to ruin the fun for everyone else at the table by touching it repeatedly and not saying anything. But there are a lot of ways for a single player to ruin everyone else's fun. Just because it's possible doesn't mean it is the likely outcome.

Again: giving a player such leverage over others without any scrutiny (because that would be victim shaming) is the problem I see here. The player using the x-card is above reproach, you got to suck it up without question. No. If you have a trauma you don't want to be confronted with, talk to the GM in advance. And if it's so crippling that you can't do even that, don't play with strangers at conventions. Get a regular group instead.

However, if a convention expects me, the GM, to suck it up and walk on eggshells to accommodate any professed or real phobia (by not confronting it with the imaginary(!!!) subject of the phobia), then I won't run games at that particular convention and that's that. There'll be more laissez-faire conventions... eventually.

I always abhorred the secret Land Mines of people's pet-peaves, triggers and emotional spring-traps. I also love people and would have to hurt anyone.

So, as in most things I support a reasonable middle-ground. Sure, it's not fair that people have to magically KNOW when trauma is hiding under the surface, but there are legitimate reasons why a traumatized person may not be so keen to share, ya know?

This is really easy to handle. Just be honest in your description of the game. Talk upfront about potential content. You don't have to give away the scenario, just highlight it with the same responsibility that the movie and video game publishers do. If anyone says they are not comfortable, you can warn them upfront. "I'm not going to change my game, but I am certain it might upset you. I really think you should avoid this game.".  OR you can edit the content so it doesn't hurt the person who was brave enough to be honest with you.

Accomodating people at a convention is an act of social grace. It's not only kind but also supportive of the convention itself. However, in some cases that be unkind to the GM (or yourself). You took the time to prepare a particular game, and were looking for like-minded players. There are usually tons of games to sign up for. There's no reason that one party-pooper needs to ruin your weekend. They can just as easily find another game.

EITHER choice is valid in my opinion.

Jkhm yes nothing will stop a jerk player or too easily offended player from abusing an X-Card. Except going by the rules of the X-Card as a DM and pkayer once in play their nothing much I can do. The rules of the card forbid any questioning or responsability from the player who may use it for nothing more than shits and giggles. Or worse knows whst to expect from the table beforehand for example killing orcs yet plays the card. I could reskin the creature yet sometimes depending on how important they are to the game  i can't.

I rather not boot the player from the table yet if I have to I will. It is a good yet fundamentally flawed tool that removes personally responsibility from a player. If a campaign is a spider hint and the player has a fear of spiders it is on the player and not the DM or the other players to be responsible imo.

As it stands I'm probably never going to use ut as is or with some minor changes.

I would never use the X-Card. It's an idea with its heart in the right place and it's execution all wrong.

The only way to prevent people from being butt-hurt is everyone being honest adults and talking before they play.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1091440Why didn't the players walk out?

If they didn't walk out, why do they have any right to complain?

Hey, this restaurant sucks. I ate everything yesterday, but just remembered I didn't get what I ordered!!

Because they payed for a ticket to sit at that table. As I noted a few times prior. That alone can make a person stick through something in the, usually futile, hope that things will get better. Or the, not unfounded, belief that they wont be able to get a refund. Happened to me at Gencon with a no-show GM. We waited. Waited. Waited a little more and finally packed and tried to get a refund. But were refused. I've still got that ticket somewhere in storage.

The other thing that can stall off leaving is... you allready booked that hour or two of time. So you now have an hour or two window where its sit here and hope it gets better... or... what? Depending on the time the vendor areas may be closed, eateries may be off site and do you really want to do this...

Alot of things can stall off leaving when something seems bad.

And as noted. Far as we know only apparently one player had any real issues.

Quote from: jhkimBolding is mine above. It's a technically possible outcome that someone can use the X-card rules to ruin the fun for everyone else at the table by touching it repeatedly and not saying anything. But there are a lot of ways for a single player to ruin everyone else's fun. Just because it's possible doesn't mean it is the likely outcome.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1091498Again: giving a player such leverage over others without any scrutiny (because that would be victim shaming) is the problem I see here. The player using the x-card is above reproach, you got to suck it up without question. No. If you have a trauma you don't want to be confronted with, talk to the GM in advance. And if it's so crippling that you can't do even that, don't play with strangers at conventions. Get a regular group instead.

However, if a convention expects me, the GM, to suck it up and walk on eggshells to accommodate any professed or real phobia (by not confronting it with the imaginary(!!!) subject of the phobia), then I won't run games at that particular convention and that's that. There'll be more laissez-faire conventions... eventually.

This runs counter to my experience. I've played and run in some very creepy horror games while using the X-card. It's not something I generally do, and I don't advocate that it be required - but I've played in over a dozen games that use it - plus run two games using it.

I don't experience that the game is walking on eggshells. Typically, I throw in the creepiest shit I think of, everyone has fun with that, and the card doesn't get used. I consider that the normal case.

That said, there have been cases where I've been concerned about content - both with and without the X-card. Mostly, this has had to do with younger players. There was a player in my last run of Bluebeard's Bride at a convention, who as we talked about material before the start of the game, said that she wasn't comfortable with sexual violence in play. Also, I didn't realize at the time, but I learned later that she was 17. I did tone down some of what I had in the game because of that, and I think that was a right decision. Also, I resolve to ask players if they are 18+ at the start of my game next time. But it's not like there's some magical line between 17 and 18 that completely changes people. Even if the player had been 18, I would have done the same thing. There's plenty of evil and creepy stuff for me to have in play without having sexual violence.

Quote from: Omega;1091520And as noted. Far as we know only apparently one player had any real issues.

I've seen complaints from two players:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1134606036663508997
https://twitter.com/GeekGirlBookWrm/status/1134503931932024832

Quote from: trechriron;1091508This is really easy to handle. Just be honest in your description of the game. Talk upfront about potential content. You don't have to give away the scenario, just highlight it with the same responsibility that the movie and video game publishers do. If anyone says they are not comfortable, you can warn them upfront. "I'm not going to change my game, but I am certain it might upset you. I really think you should avoid this game.".  OR you can edit the content so it doesn't hurt the person who was brave enough to be honest with you.

The douchebag that was banned for life at UKGE completely failed at this. Not only did he not talk upfront about potential traumatic content included in his games, only springing this on the players once the game began. He also deliberately omitted any mention of it during pregame registration which went against two separate convention policies, the "safe space" policy for gamers, as well as the convention policy which required the GM provide information about the nature of the game, describing this as horror was simply deceptive. I'll say it once more, even James Desborough acknowledged this failure, however went on to argue that dude shouldn't have been banned, even though he was in clear violation of two convention policies.

I know there are some folk here that enjoy "edgy" and "angst ridden" games. Do the majority of us a favor, and run your game in your hotel suite, or just stay home and run the game for your friends. I'm going to let you know right now, such games aren't going to be welcome in the gaming conventions I attend, especially if you being deceptive about your game content, and immoral or ammoral goals. Games are about recreation, and recreation is not about hurting or harming people, or testing your gamers morals, or their capacity to withstand pain or suffering, or anything else like that. If you think gaming is about that, I have some folks who would be very interested in testing your morals, proclivity for debasement, and unlawful conduct.

You fucktards that want to fantasize about your rape scenarios with strangers, stay the hell away from my gaming tables.

Quote from: trechriron;1091508I always abhorred the secret Land Mines of people's pet-peaves, triggers and emotional spring-traps. I also love people and would have to hurt anyone.

So, as in most things I support a reasonable middle-ground. Sure, it's not fair that people have to magically KNOW when trauma is hiding under the surface, but there are legitimate reasons why a traumatized person may not be so keen to share, ya know?

This is really easy to handle. Just be honest in your description of the game. Talk upfront about potential content. You don't have to give away the scenario, just highlight it with the same responsibility that the movie and video game publishers do. If anyone says they are not comfortable, you can warn them upfront. "I'm not going to change my game, but I am certain it might upset you. I really think you should avoid this game.".  OR you can edit the content so it doesn't hurt the person who was brave enough to be honest with you.

Accomodating people at a convention is an act of social grace. It's not only kind but also supportive of the convention itself. However, in some cases that be unkind to the GM (or yourself). You took the time to prepare a particular game, and were looking for like-minded players. There are usually tons of games to sign up for. There's no reason that one party-pooper needs to ruin your weekend. They can just as easily find another game.

EITHER choice is valid in my opinion.

This guy gets it.