Quote from: S'mon;1131664Yeah, this is exactly how I felt - and I don't think my problems are even that bad compared to people with real psychological problems like genuine PTSD. The form may work great for the SJW types who want to display their mental issues as a bloody rag of virtue; IMO it's positively harmful for people with real problems.

That's a really good point, these things require trust and good faith on both sides to be useful, I can think of various gms I've known who I wouldn't trust with this kind of information because they would use it against the player.

Quote from: Altheus;1131671That's a really good point, these things require trust and good faith on both sides to be useful, I can think of various gms I've known who I wouldn't trust with this kind of information because they would use it against the player.

I trust my friend who asked us for a checklist of no-nos; I still found it quite painful putting the list together (& I feel a bit silly talking about it here, makes me sound like a real snowflake) . I remember her reaction was mostly "Of course I wouldn't include that!" - which shows how just relying on community common standards works better anyway.

I would never play in a game with a "consent form". I don't have time, energy or interest to game with the snowflake freakshow brigade. Show up, play the game, handle your own shit or leave.

That worked for the ACTUAL VIETNAM VETS who played D&D in the 70s and 80s.

Quote from: S'mon;1131682I trust my friend who asked us for a checklist of no-nos; I still found it quite painful putting the list together (& I feel a bit silly talking about it here, makes me sound like a real snowflake) . I remember her reaction was mostly "Of course I wouldn't include that!" - which shows how just relying on community common standards works better anyway.

I feel like there's a big conceptual divide between the common criticism "The SJWs are hand-wringing over nothing and players should just toughen up" and this take that "Real psychological problems are super serious and a checklist isn't the best way to address them".

My feeling is that this is a game we do for fucking fun. As a GM, I shouldn't have to know the best approach for psychological health. If the players aren't comfortable with the checklist, then I wouldn't use them. Conversely, though, if players liked the idea of a checklist, then I might go ahead and use it.

To me, a checklist feels like an excessively formal approach to generating community standards. But I'm on board with the general principle of "Find out what would make the game not fun for the players, and avoid having that stuff in the game."

Quote from: jhkim;1131690I feel like there's a big conceptual divide between the common criticism "The SJWs are hand-wringing over nothing and players should just toughen up" and this take that "Real psychological problems are super serious and a checklist isn't the best way to address them".

I don't think they're contradictory points. Nor is the "creepy stranger GM" issue of checklist giving GM power over the checklist provider.

I dunno, I just think how to do this stuff was already worked out with cinema film classification, extended to TV & videogames, nowadays refined with those lists of particular possibly-objectionable stuff ("sustained threat"). Gamers already had a working model they could refer to. No reason to replace it with a dysfunctional model.

Part of it is the game designer's drive to systematize all of the ambiguous parts of the game, the same way you see people trying to make elaborate social systems to handle dialogue. I've always felt confident in just being able to feel out the temperature of the room, but people want a bullet proof ironclad way to approach it that takes away the need for personally having to get involved.

Quote from: Brad;1131428Sign up to play Judge Dredd, don't want the cops roughing up anyone...that's like saying you want to play Superman, but Lex Luthor isn't allowed to blow up any bridges.

Fox's Spiderman animated had a series of rules that had to be followed. Can not Punch anyone, Cannot jump through windows, cannot disturb pigeons when landing on rooftops. and more. That was during the propr iteration of political correctness. Remember kids. Dont be mean to the Morally Challenged.

Quote from: Omega;1131707Fox's Spiderman animated had a series of rules that had to be followed. Can not Punch anyone, Cannot jump through windows, cannot disturb pigeons when landing on rooftops. and more. That was during the propr iteration of political correctness. Remember kids. Dont be mean to the Morally Challenged.

Sounds like GI Joe...not actually allowed to shoot anyone, or He-Man...have a sword? Sorry, you can only punch.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1131653I might want to have the conversation, some of it in the group at session 0, some of it 1:1 with the players (if they want to do that, and only if they want to do that).  I do not want to start that conversation with a form.  ...

Quote from: jeff37923;1131668And this touches on the fine point for me, which was brought up in the Facebook conversation. Advocates of Monte Cook's Consent Form tend to present it like a security blanket that will help to protect the user from the depredations of that perennial SJW 'gamer' menace, the Abusive GM. ...

Quote from: insubordinate polyhedral;1131670... It's a culture of safety vs. a culture of risk taking. ...

You all make salient points. I don't think the list has any specifics on it to identify any particular player nor any specific experience. It's very generic. You don't fill out your name, it's meant to be anonymous. So, the Edgelord would be guessing which person they were trying to abuse... :-D

I also agree that trying to hedge real psychological issues is likely prone to disaster. I despise the idea of the X-Card and it's ilk. I'm confident by the time the wounded party could react you would have already ruined their day. The X-Card would hardly help.

I wish Shanna Germain was here to debate the finer points. I'm curious what the inventors think about all your points on the matter. Of course, she might not be willing to brave the lion's den with so much hostility to herself and her company. :-O

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1131698I've always felt confident in just being able to feel out the temperature of the room, but people want a bullet proof ironclad way to approach it that takes away the need for personally having to get involved.

Exactly! And its not going to work.

1) 40 year old "Player A" shits their My Little Pony undies whenever someone says the word "spiders."

2) GM WimpyPants never includes anything remote arachnid in their campaign.

3) Forgetful "Player B" playing a wizard accidentally forgets "Player A"'s crippling mental illness and casts Summon Giant Spiders.

4) "Player A" demands reparations and the banning of "Player B" because they absolutely filled out their Consent Form correctly!

5) Spinachcat lobs a molotov through the window, making the world a better place.

Quote from: trechriron;1131725You all make salient points. I don't think the list has any specifics on it to identify any particular player nor any specific experience. It's very generic. You don't fill out your name, it's meant to be anonymous. So, the Edgelord would be guessing which person they were trying to abuse... :-D

If the Player who filled out the form is sitting across the table from the GM and hands him the completed form (which is likely in a convention or game day scenario), I think that even you would be able to figure out who it was.

Quote from: trechriron;1131633I have a friend who I thought was also a Walking Dead fan, who upon me asking these questions about a game (many moons ago), mentioned he cannot deal with any violence regarding children. I was surprised. I asked "I thought you liked the Walking Dead? Last weekend they shot a child." He replied "Yep. And I stopped watching the show."

Isn't the very first zombie encountered by the main character in the first episode a child zombie? I can't recall, it was years ago I saw it, and I'm not sure I watched more than that episode.

Otherwise... I dunno, most people seem to manage to navigate this without explicit conversations. You start off more-or-less G/PG-rated, then by the banter at the game table you feel out what people will go for and where they'll draw the line.

Normal community standards is generally enough. Most people choose not to watch gore films, most movies do not include children suffering horribly, and so on. And so if these things happen in-game, it's off-screen.

Everyone, every single poster, to therpgsite is more than capable of causing a massive crash in the crystal shop that is social media.

The cinema grading system is an easy shorthand. Everyone in the USA knows G, PG, PG-13, R, NC-17 etc. When I run horror, I put "Mature Players Only" in the description because sometimes the 14 year old who shows up is more mature about a horror RPG than the 40 year olds.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1131741Normal community standards is generally enough. Most people choose not to watch gore films, most movies do not include children suffering horribly, and so on. And so if these things happen in-game, it's off-screen.

This is why conventions have GMs write out descriptions of their game for the con booklet. If a 2pm entry is a game called "Zombie Ultra-Violence" and the GM promises "Resident Evil meets Reanimator meets John Wick!", everyone can judge what that experience might be like versus "X-men vs. My Little Pony".

And for everyone's sake, the more the GM describes their game accurately, the less likely anyone will be caught off guard.
 

Quote from: jeff37923;1131732If the Player who filled out the form is sitting across the table from the GM and hands him the completed form (which is likely in a convention or game day scenario), I think that even you would be able to figure out who it was.

Con games usually have 4 hour slots. Can you imagine how much wasted time from players filling out forms, the GM having to read the forms, then the GM having to "modify" the game to account for WTF nonsense the imbeciles babbled on the forms?

I run a turbo-table. Time is so precious in a 4 hour slot and you need to get a beginning/middle/end because there is no "next time" to play, thus there isn't 15-30 minutes to lose.

Thanks for the copy pasta, Mistwell. I don't bother with most social media links, like Facebook.

I see that everyone is still getting along. Do mind to not stain the carpeting.

As for consent forms... eh, how are you going to hold someone to that?

I do use survey forms, just to get a read on new players. It is there to avoid a cold read after genre, maturity rating, and game pitch are thrown out there. Some people are hard to figure out. And often enthusiastic joiners do not self-examine whether they like or can withstand what they signed up for -- so you gotta nudge them hard to be honest in a private way. Surveys do that for me. Helps clear out the air and start the conversation going to weed out problems before they start.

And it works for more than just broad maturity ratings and genre. People can be oddly specific about what they cannot abide, yet need to chew on it before they can articulate it. Some can enjoy foul-mouthed, tech readout merc squad wetworks all day, but get into the powerlessness vs. the absurdly fantastic, or delve into the morally insidious & creepy, and they tap out. You have to start the private dialogue somewhere.

All this surveying works with the assumption that not all players are required to play every type of game the social circle has. That's another lesson in maturity -- sorta like appreciating not all friends wanna go to the same movie or concert -- and that it is perfectly OK to pursue your own fun. :cool: Sometimes your merc wetworks RPG & gunz blazin' action movie night looks like tired 'ish to others, and it is perfectly OK to bow out so that you can carry on with your fun.