Quote from: Thor's Nads on September 27, 2023, 12:26:56 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on September 27, 2023, 12:23:25 AM
This isn't even about risk vs safety, but a bunch of try hards hyperventilating about hypothetical SJWs ruining TTRPGs in general cuz WotC published ONE module that included a bullshit "Player Consent" disclaimer

Because we've seen this before. It starts with one little harmless thing, then it blossoms into a full blown outbreak of insanity, and doesn't stop until an entire industry or beloved franchise is destroyed. Look at what has happened to comics for example. Star Wars, MSheU, etc.

You're not really addressing what I'm saying. You're just clinging to one tiny thing I said at the start in prelude to the actual point of my post. But have fun raging about hypothetical scenarios that are out of context with what this actual module was about.

And I'm well aware about what happened in other industries. And it already happened in TTRPGs well before it did in any of the rest. Even the stupid player consent stuff has happened before. Even Pundit said in his own video that he didn't wanna make a video about this precisely because it's been covered before. This shit ain't something new. You're not visionary warning us about some impending disaster. You're just raging to rage out of habit because you love to rage

Quote from: blackstone on September 26, 2023, 06:57:23 PM
The dice introduce chance/fate/risk. What's the point then of playing an RPG without risk involved?

Now this does exclude certain things that maybe excluded from the game due to certain people and/or age groups, and that is agree upon before the game. No graphic depictions of rape or murder? If the group agrees upon this, fine.

But to force the DM to say he cannot polymorph, turn to stone, kill, etc. to a PC? Well...you're not playing an RPG then.

You're Mary-Sue story-telling.

You're characterizing consent mechanics as meaning nothing bad happens - but in my experience, consent mechanics have mostly come out of horror games where tons of horrible stuff happens to the PCs, but the game wants to establish that things don't go too far.

Most of what I play is traditional RPGs - but I also have played a lot of indie and small-press story games, and various larps. For example, I've played about two dozen games at conventions that used the X-card, and larps that use the equivalent. These are often for horror games, but sometimes for some other games as well. And in my experience, it has made no difference in the outcome. PCs have died, and/or had terrible things happen to them, and the players have never touched the X-card and refused consent.

I don't advocate for consent mechanics, and don't use them in my own games, but having one doesn't mean that nothing bad happens. It means that there is a possible limit to what can happen, if it gets unfun for the players.

Your post implies that everything should be negotiated at the start, like in a session zero -- but as I said, that sounds legalistic and combative to me, like a player needs to be fought against and held to a contract.

I don't entirely understand what all of the debate and discussion is about. The GM has the final say in what happens, period. If he wants to turn his party into a flock of green flamingoes and have them devoured by a motorcycle-riding shark, he needs only speak and it is done. Of course, players should also be made aware of the sort of setting they're going to experience.

Quote from: jhkim on September 27, 2023, 03:01:30 AM

Quote from: blackstone on September 26, 2023, 06:57:23 PM
The dice introduce chance/fate/risk. What's the point then of playing an RPG without risk involved?

Now this does exclude certain things that maybe excluded from the game due to certain people and/or age groups, and that is agree upon before the game. No graphic depictions of rape or murder? If the group agrees upon this, fine.

But to force the DM to say he cannot polymorph, turn to stone, kill, etc. to a PC? Well...you're not playing an RPG then.

You're Mary-Sue story-telling.

You're characterizing consent mechanics as meaning nothing bad happens - but in my experience, consent mechanics have mostly come out of horror games where tons of horrible stuff happens to the PCs, but the game wants to establish that things don't go too far.

Most of what I play is traditional RPGs - but I also have played a lot of indie and small-press story games, and various larps. For example, I've played about two dozen games at conventions that used the X-card, and larps that use the equivalent. These are often for horror games, but sometimes for some other games as well. And in my experience, it has made no difference in the outcome. PCs have died, and/or had terrible things happen to them, and the players have never touched the X-card and refused consent.

I don't advocate for consent mechanics, and don't use them in my own games, but having one doesn't mean that nothing bad happens. It means that there is a possible limit to what can happen, if it gets unfun for the players.

Your post implies that everything should be negotiated at the start, like in a session zero -- but as I said, that sounds legalistic and combative to me, like a player needs to be fought against and held to a contract.

The idea of consent: I think when it comes to certain adult themes in a group of PLAYERS of mixed ages and backgrounds, you absolutely want agreement with everyone. You want to avoid a situation where someone may become uncomfortable.

But to say to the DM that no detrimental harm, not even the potential of it, may come to the CHARACTERS is anathema to me.

see the difference here? The difference is the PLAYERS vs the CHARACTERS.

The problem is that many players get too emotionally invested in their characters to the point that they project themselves into their characters.

So, when something bad happens to a character, they take it personally as if it happened to them and get way to emotionally invested in the character.

Therein lies the problem: somewhere along the line, the idea that the character you're playing is YOU somehow got incorporated into the RPG zeitgeist.

They're not. You are not the character. sure, you give that PC life by the actions he or she takes within the game world, but they are not you.

You have to divorce your own personal emotions, feelings, and motivations from the character you play. Otherwise it becomes way too intense...and then you throw the X-card.

Good players don't need such crutches. Good players understand the difference. When something bad happens to their character, they can go with it. Heck, it may introduce some interesting role-playing opportunities.

Quote from: SmallMountaineer on September 27, 2023, 06:30:07 AM
I don't entirely understand what all of the debate and discussion is about. The GM has the final say in what happens, period. If he wants to turn his party into a flock of green flamingoes and have them devoured by a motorcycle-riding shark, he needs only speak and it is done. Of course, players should also be made aware of the sort of setting they're going to experience.

And such a GM would be a piece of shit wasting their players time, and so is anyone bloviating about the GM's presumed authoritae at anyone else pointing that out. There is justified GM authority, and then there's people beating their chest like lunatics about some basic game convention that exist only in the name expediting gameplay, and taking it to absurd extremes like it's some sacred absolute that exists for its own sake instead of for a practical purpose.

The GM's word is not final for the sake of being final. It's final for a specific purpose, and if he abuses that purpose he needs to be called out for the piece of shit that he is--right in the middle of play, grinding his precious game session to a screeching halt. There's also no practical way that players can be made aware that the GM is like this before it actually happens, because GMs who behave this way aren't gonna be upfront about it, or even aware that they're shit GMs. This is the sort of thing that you only learn about when it happens.

Quote from: VisionStorm on September 27, 2023, 07:40:40 AM


The GM's word is not final for the sake of being final. It's final for a specific purpose, and if he abuses that purpose he needs to be called out for the piece of shit that he is--right in the middle of play, grinding his precious game session to a screeching halt. There's also no practical way that players can be made aware that the GM is like this before it actually happens, because GMs who behave this way aren't gonna be upfront about it, or even aware that they're shit GMs. This is the sort of thing that you only learn about when it happens.

You're ranting about nothing because such GMs take themselves out of the ecosystem quickly. 

Quote from: Scooter on September 27, 2023, 08:20:51 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on September 27, 2023, 07:40:40 AM


The GM's word is not final for the sake of being final. It's final for a specific purpose, and if he abuses that purpose he needs to be called out for the piece of shit that he is--right in the middle of play, grinding his precious game session to a screeching halt. There's also no practical way that players can be made aware that the GM is like this before it actually happens, because GMs who behave this way aren't gonna be upfront about it, or even aware that they're shit GMs. This is the sort of thing that you only learn about when it happens.

You're ranting about nothing because such GMs take themselves out of the ecosystem quickly.

Then why the fuck are you defending them (which is the only reason I'm even making these points rather than bringing them up in a vacuum for the heck of it)?

And not just that, but saying that 1) the GM's authoritae is final, and 2) "Of course, players should also be made aware of the sort of setting they're going to experience" (direct quote from the post I was responding to). Literally means that 3) you agree with the bullshit Player Consent Disclaimer that kicked of this entire discussion and everyone's been raging about. Because that is precisely what making players aware that's what you have in store for them is: Asking for their consent before hand, before you take them down your stupid adventure scenario.

So congrats! You just agreed with the moronic thing you were supposedly ranting against this entire discussion.

And THAT'S the sort of pretzel logic you go down to once you engage in this moronic insistence about the presume sacred authority of the GM, without taking into account the ACTUAL+FULL context that sprang this entire discussion.

So in closing...

Quote from: Scooter on September 27, 2023, 08:20:51 AMYou're ranting about nothing

Right back at you.

@ Vidionstorm

Imo it's just pretending their online persona is their real life version and both tend to be separate.

If many acted like this to players in real life the players ( unless desperate or very forgiving ) would be walking away from the table.

Again no one is suing the players gave to be coddled like children if one is going to do something thst runs the risk of being disturbing at the table such as graphic descriptions of gore and torture an simple heads up to the player is not too much to ask.

" suck it up buttercup" or similar BS statements might make the player leave or want to punch the DM in the face. Note I am not encouraging such behaviour or participated in such. I have been at ground zero where DMs push the player too far and the player lashes out. Ignoring any and all attempts by the other players like myself to diffuse the situation. Many here think they are immune because they can hide " I'm the DM" if your an asshole getting off in provoking a reaction from the players don't be surprised if it gets out of hand.

I had to break up three such altercations since I started gaming. One I took my time because again the DM was acting like many here. Refused to listen to any advice. I even told him if he continued to behave next session and player xyz was going to fight him I would do nothing . He laughed in my face and I only intervened after  the fifth or sixth punch.

Play stupid games win stupid prizes.

DM: "You fail to stop the ritual. The cultists are able to complete the spell and the world falls into chaos. Everyone, roll a save vs Spell at -3 for your characters. Those who fail are polymorphed into mind flayers."

If the players fully know well beforehand that such a thing can happen to their characters, the outcome is left to the dice to decide, which takes both players and DM out of the situation in determining the outcome...

How is that abusive?

It isn't.

The only way the DM is MAYBE abusive is if he does not let the players know at the beginning of play such things can occur.

But the funny thing is for most experienced players these situations that my occur are a given in a game world. Characters die, or get turned to stone, or get polymorphed into things. The potential is there.

So to even have to explain to some players that "hey your character could die/get turned to stone/polymorphed" is pretty sad really.

Quote from: Abraxus on September 27, 2023, 09:03:53 AM
@ Vidionstorm

Imo it's just pretending their online persona is their real life version and both tend to be separate.

Pretty much. Acting tough, like being a stupid hard ass in an elfgame makes them badass. And jumping the gun without knowing the full details of WTF they're arguing about.

Quote from: blackstone on September 27, 2023, 10:00:59 AMThe only way the DM is MAYBE abusive is if he does not let the players know at the beginning of play such things can occur.

Which is precisely how this particular module is designed, and as far as I could tell from the snippets that came up in the earlier thread before Pundit posted the video on this one, you don't even get a save. PCs are investigating some mystery in a town and it isn't till the end that they find out that there are mind flayers involved and that being turned into mind flayers if the cultists succeed is in the cards (and not just them, but EVERYONE in a miles wide region they'd have to port out of to avoid the morph). And the way that the module tries to get around the players walking into that potential trap scenario is...

*drumroll*

To use the Player Consent Disclaimer to let them know before hand.

So we're back to square one. You agree with the Player Consent Disclaimer you're claiming to be against.

At this point I think it has to be deliberate Trolling. No one is that obtuse or dense on purpose. Arguing with a person for the sake of it even when they agree with their position.

Quote from: VisionStorm on September 27, 2023, 10:39:59 AM

Quote from: Abraxus on September 27, 2023, 09:03:53 AM
@ Vidionstorm

Imo it's just pretending their online persona is their real life version and both tend to be separate.

Pretty much. Acting tough, like being a stupid hard ass in an elfgame makes them badass. And jumping the gun without knowing the full details of WTF they're arguing about.

Quote from: blackstone on September 27, 2023, 10:00:59 AMThe only way the DM is MAYBE abusive is if he does not let the players know at the beginning of play such things can occur.

Which is precisely how this particular module is designed, and as far as I could tell from the snippets that came up in the earlier thread before Pundit posted the video on this one, you don't even get a save. PCs are investigating some mystery in a town and it isn't till the end that they find out that there are mind flayers involved and that being turned into mind flayers if the cultists succeed is in the cards (and not just them, but EVERYONE in a miles wide region they'd have to port out of to avoid the morph). And the way that the module tries to get around the players walking into that potential trap scenario is...

*drumroll*

To use the Player Consent Disclaimer to let them know before hand.

So we're back to square one. You agree with the Player Consent Disclaimer you're claiming to be against.

Ok, I think we're in agreement here, but we're getting lost in the semantics.

When you say consent, I equate it with permission. I think mutual agreement might be more appropriate.

If I tell you before the campaign starts, "bad shit can happen to your PCs like death, polymorph, etc." A DM isn't asking for permission, he's making them aware of the situation.

A DM doesn't need to ask for permission. He presents the game world, acts as an interface with the game world, and most importantly is rules arbiter. The dice do everything else.

If that's is the adventure as written and the DM wants to run it as is, then yes, the characters if they fail will suffer the consequences. As long as the players are aware that "bad shit can happen", it's a moot point.

Also, a DM might want to introduce a saving throw. It's just a module. Tweak it to however you want.

Quote from: VisionStorm on September 27, 2023, 10:39:59 AM

Quote from: blackstone on September 27, 2023, 10:00:59 AMThe only way the DM is MAYBE abusive is if he does not let the players know at the beginning of play such things can occur.

Which is precisely how this particular module is designed, and as far as I could tell from the snippets that came up in the earlier thread before Pundit posted the video on this one, you don't even get a save. PCs are investigating some mystery in a town and it isn't till the end that they find out that there are mind flayers involved and that being turned into mind flayers if the cultists succeed is in the cards (and not just them, but EVERYONE in a miles wide region they'd have to port out of to avoid the morph).

Just to comment -- I have no opinions on the module either way, since I haven't read it. As a rule, I don't make judgements about books without reading them. Snippets and second-hand chat about a module often fail to give an accurate assessment.

I disliked the original Lost Mine of Phandelver, which makes me uninterested in a sequel.

---

Quote from: blackstone on September 27, 2023, 01:33:48 PM
If I tell you before the campaign starts, "bad shit can happen to your PCs like death, polymorph, etc." A DM isn't asking for permission, he's making them aware of the situation.

A DM doesn't need to ask for permission. He presents the game world, acts as an interface with the game world, and most importantly is rules arbiter. The dice do everything else.

If that's is the adventure as written and the DM wants to run it as is, then yes, the characters if they fail will suffer the consequences. As long as the players are aware that "bad shit can happen", it's a moot point.

Also, a DM might want to introduce a saving throw. It's just a module. Tweak it to however you want.

Saying "bad shit can happen" is nearly meaningless without understanding the type of bad shit and its likelihood/frequency.

If I say "bad shit can happen" in a space opera game, does that mean that my PC could have his hand cut off and learn that his enemy is his father? Or does that mean that my PC could find out that Cthulhu is rising and will devastate the Earth Federation?

I should have said I was paraphrasing for the most part.

The degree of "bad shit" happening and how much is up to the DM to disclose.

Quote from: blackstone on September 27, 2023, 02:47:36 PM
I should have said I was paraphrasing for the most part.

The degree of "bad shit" happening and how much is up to the DM to disclose.

There's something to be said regarding "ignorance is bliss" where players don't have to know about every instance of bad shit happening.

Real example: you have a tire pressure monitor for your car and it sets off a caution light. You fill up the tire but put off going to the shop to get it looked at.  You *know* bad shit is coming but you don't take the initiative to deal with it until the leak is so bad you run flat.  Compare that to someone who doesn't have that system but also never checks the pressure routinely and then they run flat.

Who is worse off? The guy who knew but did nothing or the guy who it came out of the blue for?

The consent crowd would claim that the out of the blue case is worse. But the end result is the same unless you actually get your tire looked at before it runs flat.

Likewise in the elfgame - players (or their characters) who knew bad shit is coming because the GM warned them at season zero  and do nothing to protect themselves end up the same as those for whom the GM didn't say anything at session zero.

You're still polymorphed/petrified/dead/the opposite sex/melted/captured/tortured/whatever.