Quote from: jhkim on September 11, 2023, 05:49:43 PM

Quote from: Exploderwizard on September 11, 2023, 07:16:55 AM
Even faling rocks get a saving throw. Only thing that does not is falling into lava. The universal rule across every edition.

:-)

The rules do not apply to gods. 

Oh hey this site was mentioned on one of the major twitter threads about this topic (LINK), claiming y'all were piling on someone and being big meanies (which probably was not people form this site and regardless was not mean but was rather some people expressing rational reasoned dissent for the most part).

Quote from: Mistwell on September 11, 2023, 09:21:18 PM
Oh hey this site was mentioned on one of the major twitter threads about this topic (LINK), claiming y'all were piling on someone and being big meanies (which probably was not people form this site and regardless was not mean but was rather some people expressing rational reasoned dissent for the most part).

Yeah, pundit made a video about it.

Oh, look I'm blocked without ever interacting with whoever this person is.

Edit: Have an archived version

https://archive.fo/dKSnO

Edit the second:

People should go to that thread to learn what "two minutes hate" really looks like, because I haven't seen anyone here hating on someone.

I thought I would post a rational reply, but IMMEDIATLEY deleted my posts. Because I realized there is no way to rationally talk to these people. They'll just say that I'm some "-ist", dogpile on my character as a human being, and say I'm a just a big meanie.

It's not worth it. Their deranged belief system has no influence on my game or the players. So why should I care?

I do find it hilarious because they're way of playing a RPG IMO is very juvenile and incredibly too safe. there is zero risk involved with the PCs.

ZERO.

IF there is no potential of risk to the PC, then what's the point? It's not heroic. Every PC is a Mary Sue reflection of themselves. Without the potential risk of some sort of negative outcome, it completely takes away from the hero's journey. It's not mature. It's just childish fairy tale nonsense. That's what we are dealing with: emotionally immature people. They cannot bear the thought of their precious pearl of a PC to be at risk for anything. Because their fragile egos are tied to their characters...and that is sad. I understand that sort of response from someone that was a pre-teen, because of emotional immaturity. but an adult? And then you have these narcissists dictate to the DM they MUST have consent from THEM to do harm to their PCs?

Holy fucking shit. In game one of my latest campaign, one of the PCs died. the girl playing the PC is 18 pretty much took it in stride. IT's because I pretty much warned them that the game world is harsh (were using Adv LL rules, which is a HUGE change from using Hackmaster 4E: no 20 HP kicker to PCs, no talents and skills to min/max a PC. It's striaght up Old School with LL rules. anyway i digress...)

but these snowflakes on Tiwtter/X? their fucking heads would explode.

Quote from: blackstone on September 12, 2023, 07:45:50 AM
I do find it hilarious because they're way of playing a RPG IMO is very juvenile and incredibly too safe. there is zero risk involved with the PCs.

ZERO.

Back in the day (late 70's) I had a couple of neighbor kids of around 6 and 7 years old.  Their parents paid me to run D&D for them once in a while. That's how I ran the game for them.  But, I was kind enough to tell them that in D&D as played by the rules their characters can and will die as a result of mistakes or just bad luck.  They understood and switched gears when they got older and played "for real".  Many "adult" players these days are not even up to the maturity level of those kids at age 6-7.  Shocking

I seriously doubt that that many people actually play that way (the type of play suggested by this Player Consent BS). Most people outside the Culture War conflict don't even think about this stuff. This is largely performative stunts in social media to show off how woke they are, cuz they're all in their tiny little woke circle jerk online. And they need to reaffirm their wokeness from time to time. Same way many people on the anti-woke side obsessively look for this kind of shit, to engage on wild speculation their true hidden agenda, on the basis of stuff gleaned from the idiotic woke circle jerk of twitter randos.

Quote from: VisionStorm on September 12, 2023, 09:32:25 AM
I seriously doubt that that many people actually play that way (the type of play suggested by this Player Consent BS). Most people outside the Culture War conflict don't even think about this stuff. This is largely performative stunts in social media to show off how woke they are, cuz they're all in their tiny little woke circle jerk online. And they need to reaffirm their wokeness from time to time. Same way many people on the anti-woke side obsessively look for this kind of shit, to engage on wild speculation their true hidden agenda, on the basis of stuff gleaned from the idiotic woke circle jerk of twitter randos.

I've played in over a dozen convention games that used the X-card, and also a handful of other games by one friend who used it in home games. It made essentially no difference in play. I never saw a player touch the card (i.e. refuse consent).

Based on this, I don't think there is such a huge difference in actual play.

I'm pretty sure that if I had called for player consent in any of my more typical games, it would make virtually no difference. Players were there because they enjoyed the game, and they consented to what was happening. Since I've been playing since I was in grade-school in the 1970s, I have seen some cases where the game blows up into arguments - where the GM pulls some bullshit or a player pulls some bullshit, but it's been extremely rare after grade school.

Overwhelmingly, all the players have fun and agree with what's happening in the game, as does the GM.

Quote from: Scooter on September 12, 2023, 08:33:37 AM

Quote from: blackstone on September 12, 2023, 07:45:50 AM
I do find it hilarious because they're way of playing a RPG IMO is very juvenile and incredibly too safe. there is zero risk involved with the PCs.

ZERO.

Back in the day (late 70's) I had a couple of neighbor kids of around 6 and 7 years old.  Their parents paid me to run D&D for them once in a while. That's how I ran the game for them.  But, I was kind enough to tell them that in D&D as played by the rules their characters can and will die as a result of mistakes or just bad luck.  They understood and switched gears when they got older and played "for real".  Many "adult" players these days are not even up to the maturity level of those kids at age 6-7.  Shocking

The imbeciles creating "Safety Tools" come from the BDSM scene, where it DOES make sense to have safety meausures to protect everybody. For some reason they seem to think these are needed in RPGs or more likely they are control freaks.

The idiots that swarm you on the twatter if you dare say those aren't needed fall into two or three categories:

Useful idiot ideologically possesed (terminally online)
Useful idiot (it's not a big deal, I have used them and no one abused it) [Normally it's a leftist/progressive who plays among other leftists/progressives and is VERY careful to navigate the minefield of microagressions]
Disingenuous twat (control freak)

You could also engage in BDSM WITHOUT safety meausures and have a wonderful experience, doesn't mean those aren't needed there. Likewise in RPGs you can use them and get lucky or get one or two control freaks/weirdoes that will ruin everybody's fun.

IMNSHO ANYONE who needs "Safety Tools" to play RPGs doesn't belong in anyone's table, should find psychological care and do not pester sane mortals until he/she/it can engage in elfgames like a normal person.

I'm not your therapist, the other players aren't either, and we don't need, want, care what mental issues you have, go search proffesional help

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 12, 2023, 02:08:57 PM

IMNSHO ANYONE who needs "Safety Tools" to play RPGs doesn't belong in anyone's table, should find psychological care and do not pester sane mortals until he/she/it can engage in elfgames like a normal person.

I'm not your therapist, the other players aren't either, and we don't need, want, care what mental issues you have, go search proffesional help

That's the crux of the matter.  If I play chess with one of these mentally ill people do I need to get consent before I take one of their pieces?  These aren't humans that should be running around unsupervised but, need round the clock mental health care.

Quote from: jhkim on September 12, 2023, 01:57:56 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on September 12, 2023, 09:32:25 AM
I seriously doubt that that many people actually play that way (the type of play suggested by this Player Consent BS). Most people outside the Culture War conflict don't even think about this stuff. This is largely performative stunts in social media to show off how woke they are, cuz they're all in their tiny little woke circle jerk online. And they need to reaffirm their wokeness from time to time. Same way many people on the anti-woke side obsessively look for this kind of shit, to engage on wild speculation their true hidden agenda, on the basis of stuff gleaned from the idiotic woke circle jerk of twitter randos.

I've played in over a dozen convention games that used the X-card, and also a handful of other games by one friend who used it in home games. It made essentially no difference in play. I never saw a player touch the card (i.e. refuse consent).

Based on this, I don't think there is such a huge difference in actual play.

I'm pretty sure that if I had called for player consent in any of my more typical games, it would make virtually no difference. Players were there because they enjoyed the game, and they consented to what was happening. Since I've been playing since I was in grade-school in the 1970s, I have seen some cases where the game blows up into arguments - where the GM pulls some bullshit or a player pulls some bullshit, but it's been extremely rare after grade school.

Overwhelmingly, all the players have fun and agree with what's happening in the game, as does the GM.

I think if a GM asked for my consent in the middle of the game I'd initially look confused then laugh.

I have an idea of a game that would kill two birds with one stone.  Entitled players think that the GM is there to support their characters' stories.  So they need consent.  Fine.  Make a game with the consent rules built in, not tacked on.  However, there's a twist.  If you demand consent to avoid something, then you get your way and immediately become the GM. You stay the GM until someone else asks for consent. 

I wouldn't inflict it on anyone normal, but it should produce a "Lord of the Flies" like result in a group of all snowflakes, which might keep them out of mischief for a few hours as they play the consent chicken game.   

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 12, 2023, 02:08:57 PM

Quote from: Scooter on September 12, 2023, 08:33:37 AM

Quote from: blackstone on September 12, 2023, 07:45:50 AM
I do find it hilarious because they're way of playing a RPG IMO is very juvenile and incredibly too safe. there is zero risk involved with the PCs.

ZERO.

Back in the day (late 70's) I had a couple of neighbor kids of around 6 and 7 years old.  Their parents paid me to run D&D for them once in a while. That's how I ran the game for them.  But, I was kind enough to tell them that in D&D as played by the rules their characters can and will die as a result of mistakes or just bad luck.  They understood and switched gears when they got older and played "for real".  Many "adult" players these days are not even up to the maturity level of those kids at age 6-7.  Shocking

The imbeciles creating "Safety Tools" come from the BDSM scene, where it DOES make sense to have safety meausures to protect everybody. For some reason they seem to think these are needed in RPGs or more likely they are control freaks.

They claim they come from that scene. As someone who is from it (as in I've run events, still staff one, and have taught classes) they are playing at the very shallow end and didn't adapt the tools well.

X card rules say you are to just skip ahead and continue playing. You are not allowed to require answers as to what happened. It's based on the safe word. Trust me, any serious player if you safe word until there is discussion and debrief so everyone knows what happened there is no more play. Full stop. If I safe word and you don't want to do that we are never playing again. Why? Because the one thing they get right is everyone has landmines you might hit (mental or physical) they didn't know about. So, if you do or just get too intense, it needs to be discussed.

Or, you might safe word because you got a nose bleed and let's fix that first.

Checklists are for negotiation, not consent. The number of newbies I've seen burned by "he did X, but I didn't agree to it" is numerous and checklists don't fix that. Checklists are more like a quiz on a dating site. I don't bother with experienced players I'm familiar with either directly or by reputation. There are better and, to be honest, more fun ways to negotiate. These days I'd use them if playing with a raw newbie and then mostly to know what they know and where they are. Having them ask "what is this" is valuable and finding and answering those things is part of your responsibility as a new player.

I'd say 80% of my opposition is because they are malformed versions of S&M tools being used for purposes and in ways they aren't even used for in that world.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on September 12, 2023, 04:42:00 PM
I have an idea of a game that would kill two birds with one stone.  Entitled players think that the GM is there to support their characters' stories.  So they need consent.  Fine.  Make a game with the consent rules built in, not tacked on.  However, there's a twist.  If you demand consent to avoid something, then you get your way and immediately become the GM. You stay the GM until someone else asks for consent. 

I wouldn't inflict it on anyone normal, but it should produce a "Lord of the Flies" like result in a group of all snowflakes, which might keep them out of mischief for a few hours as they play the consent chicken game.   

I can see a way for that to actually be fun, but the idiots after safety tools wouldn't play that way.

Ya know, one of the D&D characters I never got to play was a mindflayer. The entire shtick was he was kicked out of his colony for getting Nyan Cat stuck in the Elder Brain's head, so he became a bard who telepathically beamed music into people's brains. It's almost a shame that campaign got canned.

My point is that just rolling with the stupid is how you have fun with a game like D&D.

On safety tools:

I am a big fan of a Session Zero discussion where you give the campaign a general movie rating and use Lines and Veils to set content warnings. For example, I nix torture and usually insist sex be behind a veil because that's only titillating to horny teenagers. I require PC-PC romance to be cleared in metagame by all affected players before introducing it into the campaign, and players I've played with have had issues like eyeball-horror phobia or graphic description of gore.

If you do this, not only do you not need the bloody X-Card, you get a better campaign because everyone has a better idea what the feel of the campaign should be.

Also, I'm working on a Clarkson-era Top Gear RPG which is all about players hurling insults at each other or sabotaging each other's vehicles in petty ways. It has a safety tool called, "Technical Difficulties." If one player says something another player thinks is going too far, they say, "Excuse me, we're having technical difficulties" and the narration cuts to when the PCs are driving away, chiding the player who went to far for getting them in some manner of trouble.

My point is that safety tools are an active good and can actively improve a game...provided you haven't stuck your brainstem into a blender and insist on a vanilla implementation of the X-Card. The X-Card is a bad safety tool which was always a stand-in, but the outrage culture mind-meld has made it the defacto safety tool because they lack the wit to make a better one.

Let's assume the character knows they've been infected. I'd tell the player :

- Your immune system may kill the tadpole or it might not. It's up to you if you want to take that chance.
- You may be able to discover ways to kill or remove the tadpole if that's what you want to do.
- If you end up becoming a mind flayer, how you react to that is up to you.
- You might continue playing with sick mind flayer powers.
- You might try to find a way to reverse the transformation, if possible.
- You might decide to retire this character and start a new one.

Personally, I don't put permanent major alteration stuff like this in my games. Presumably, the character you want to play is the one you made; if I had a problem with that, I just wouldn't have allowed the character.