How do you make sure everyone at the table is comfortable and happy?
In my opinion the best way is to allow all players at the table have the right to veto anything for any reason without needing to explain themselves.
Being Considerate in TTRPGs
How do you make sure everyone at the table is comfortable and happy?
In my opinion the best way is to allow all players at the table have the right to veto anything for any reason without needing to explain themselves.
Damn. I wanted to rape Kamala Kahn and kill Miles Morales. Tough luck.
>How do you make sure everyone at the table is comfortable and happy?
Don't be a dickhead, show up on time and make sure people are on time, too.
That's pretty much it
is this one of those threads where /tg/ chimps out over stupid common sense things
Yes. We will also make bad faith arguments in favor of why evil is actually good, engagw in vaguely veiled /misc/speak and spew internet tough guy platitudes nonstop.
explain why my balls are sticky then
because of women and minorities' conspiracy to keep you down
Minority here. We do actually transfer extra stink to white balls for no reason other than spite
And you *still* smell like shit.
It backfired because all the brown sugar honeys love my musky huwite bawls
>How evil is actually good
What's evil and good again? We had a complete revaluation of morals in the last 50 years, so I'm really at a loss on what counts in a modern setting.
Try to not be an butthole to other people, that's pretty much it.
>you should rewind the game
No, you should kick that whiny c**t out and carry on exactly as you were with the game that the rest of the table was clearly fine and happy with, and the soppy homosexual who needs their fee-fees protected in a game of fricking pretend can go find a game that's more their speed, like snakes and fricking ladders.
Disingenuous bullshit. Talking things over before a game begins, outlining in broad terms anything that might be thought of as objectionable by some, and securing everyone's consent to proceed is entirely reasonable because that's foundational to the fricking premise of a collaborative experience. Allowing one prissy, self-centred, selfish poofter to screw up that experience for everyone halfway through because they're either so weak they let themselves be peer-pressured into a game they knew they wouldn't be comfortable with in the hopes of using emotional blackmail to force things to fit their actual preference later, or so indecisive and unselfaware they genuinely can't know in advance that violence of a certain kind or some other random-but-usally-commonplace thing will "trigger" them and expects everyone to just pivot on the spot to accommodate them? Those are not "common sense" or reasonable or fair, and if we lived in a just universe people who equate the two would have their heads beaten in with claw hammers.
If you do me the courtesy of telling me about your pitiable mental weakness and simpering lack of self-control well in advance, I might do you the courtesy of accommodating you when I plan the campaign, but once I've done all the fricking work to prep one and the other players are all invested in that work, the only "common sense" reaction to you demanding I change it all because waa waa ickle babby's fee-fees are ouchy is to tell you to frick right off.
so yeah it is one of those threads then
Common sense pamphlet were a thing even in the past but it's almost 10 years it has been injected with nonsense nuspeak about "rappresentation", "identity" and "fascism in play" so it's not surprised that people have instinctive knee jerk reaction when they entertain the notion, don't be a disingenuous piece of shit anon.
>been injected with nonsense nuspeak
Reminder that this is the most honest post in the entire thread. They don't object based on any sort of principle, they object because they recognize the word choice means the writer belongs to a different tribe.
>They don't object based on any sort of principle, they object because they recognize the word choice means the writer belongs to a different tribe.
No i object ALSO the principles behind those word choices: the concept of "rappresentation" in a closed circle game of fiction is moronic beyond comprehension, the concept of "identity" in a fricking game of pretend is equally moronic, the concept of "fascism in play" is asinine beyond saving grace. All of those concerns injected inside the "common sense practices" pamphlet are just performative bullshit not even worth of consideration beyond how annoying they are in wasting ink and paper. It's completely fair to point at that shit and saying "this is moronic and i don't want any of this useless, time wasting, annoying crap in my hobby".
Why would you dishonestly portray this as some petty tribal thing? The dipole who user that language are malicious authoritarians who SHOULD be opposed. Petty tyrants and collaborators are not bad just because they're in a different 'tribe'. I object to these people on purely principled grounds.
It's a /misc/ bait thread hiding in plain sight.
So basically, yeah.
That paragraph is pretty much common sense advice in case it's your first time GMing and you don't have any.
Nothing of the cringy safe space toolkits of the recent years, and probably useful in our time of endemic autism.
I genuinely don't see what you want us to rant against, there.
Don't have any *common sense, I mean.
There's a lost art to teaching people how to play TTRPGs and now after a decade of WotC's lazy bullshit, people now respond to advice like "talk to your players" and "don't overstep the bounds of someone else's comfort zone" as antagonistic advice.
At the same time, homosexuals believe that repackaging that age old advice and couching it in pseudo-clinical, faux-academic language is a revolution in safety and activism in the TTRPG community.
I'll agree it's a step up from the obnoxious drivel of x-cards, lines and veils, and whatever other nonsense I've seen so frequently in recent years. This still comes off as condescending, though. It doesn't need to be included in the game rules; for almost all tables, this kind of thing isn't even going to be a problem, and for the few it is a problem, a paragraph in the book about being considerate isn't going to make a difference. Even if the advice at face value isn't "bad," what it actually accomplishes is mildly annoying many people, and even if the views aren't shared by this RPG author, recalling the views of all the insufferable ones. It's likely created as a kind of middle ground "compromise," but it's unnecessary.
Basically this. I'm sick of books whose developers b***h on twitter/etc. about how much they had to cut to make room for the final printing, but then see dogshit about being nice or genderfluids or fascism bad eating up several pages. WW/OPP are the worst for this, as they talk about key things missing in books cut due to content, but have an entire page-long sidebar on how your werewolf can me mpreg.
Right, there is absolutely zero chance I ever pay money or even consider playing anything that has a multiple-paragraph section called "Fascism in Play" lmao
Good feedback, I'll confine my own "Fascism in play" section to a single paragraph
I’ll do you one better, two sentences:
If you want to be a fascist, have the stones to back it up. If you’ve got the stones, I won’t stop you.
When these people say "fascist" they mean anyone who doesn't 100% agree with them on every issue, it's their godless religion's word for heretic.
Ironic isn't it, today they call you fascist if you DONT think the government should be a huge powerful entity that interferes with society.
>pre-modern ideals
God forbid!
>It doesn't need to be included in the game rules
I can see why they might feel the need to include it. Not every player will have read every other system. Not everyone who plays will have a level-headed, mature approach to interacting with others. Even when I was playing games in my 20s, I had pointless childish drama erupt at different tables because some people genuinely never learned to control themselves and didn't just instinctively understand the delicate, unspoken social contract that goes into group activities and playing RPGs.
For a lot of people, these sorts of "be nice and talk out your problems" pages will be condescending and pointless. But they're not for people who don't need to be told it. They're for the socially maladjusted, immature morons who have either never been told that, or haven't committed that sort of to their everyday attitude.
>But they're not for people who don't need to be told it. They're for the socially maladjusted, immature morons who have either never been told that, or haven't committed that sort of to their everyday attitude.
The point being made, is if these social morons can't figure it out from interacting with other people, what the frick is a page on "Being Nice" going to do for them that their parents, teachers, peers, and other authority figures obviously couldn't?
It's not a perfect solution by any stretch, but if a maladjusted moron want to engage with a hobby that is inherently driven by interpersonal relationships and socializing, it's not a terrible idea to gently lay out some of those guidelines to at least put it in their heads. Obstinacy and belligerence get in the way at school and other social obligations because maladjusted morons don't like being told what to do in a situation they don't want to be in. Coating social lessons in a hobby they actually want to do isn't completely misguided, and I can think of a few people who gradually got less moronic from playing in our weekly games.
Did they get less moronic because of shit like x-cards and rules reminding them to be nice? I would suspect not. Meanwhile, you're annoying a substantial number of potential players in a misguided attempt (at best) to curb that behavior. I won't even touch games that have this crap in it, there are a ton of other, likely much better games that don't. It's a stupid decision to include it, especially when you're cutting stuff out of the book already, like
mentioned.
>Coating social lessons in a hobby they actually want to do isn't completely misguided, and I can think of a few people who gradually got less moronic from playing in our weekly games.
Sure, but I think that 99% of that comes from interacting with the other players, and not some preachy shit on a page. I know for myself, I was an incredibly selfish person and treaded the line of "That Guy" some 10-15 years ago when I started. But back then, I only had pages like pic related in books, and I still managed to get corrected though the desire to play and having some shred of empathy for other people.
As a former maladjusted dipshit, seeing these "Be Nice" pages back then would probably just have me saying the late 2000s equivalent of "cuck woke drivel" before moving on.
But yeah, my biggest issue is with things like World of Darkness, including giant sidebars on pronouns, genderfluidity, male pregnancy, and the like, when the same devs will respond on forums (old), twitter (now), and at one point, even in /tg/ generals, about how certain things had to be cut for publishing. These inclusions aren't meant to adjust people's behavior; it's pandering to a demographic they think they need to appeal to.
I'm skeptical of how much of it is some top-down corporate desire to pander, at least for sales. It's likely much closer to "virtue signaling." I suspect the authors either truly believe this is some sort of socially-effective activism, or at the very least, an indicator of tribal allegiance. People in coastal cities have immense amounts of social pressure on them to conform to stuff like this; pushback to even attempting to put something like this in the book can result in social ostracization and even eventual loss of employment.
>Anything less and you’ll be hamburger
What did he mean by this?
That if you don't play the game it's meant to be played, you're not going to have fun with the game.
I read it as more codifying it in the rulebook gives "permission" for the more timid people to kick the maladjusted moron making rape threats. Its less to convince anyone or teach anyone, and more to give something to point to and say "it says right here if you're a c**t I can ask you politely to leave, so p-please leave".
Something tells me that it being in the rulebook is extremely unlikely to make a difference. You don't need a rulebook's permission to ask someone to stop being a jerk. It seems at least as likely to be something a dickhead with designs of malicious compliance will use to disrupt a game in bad faith. But it says in the rules! I have a problem with this! Neither scenario is likely, it's still unnecessary, and even in the extremely rare case some feckless coward needs a rule like in the book to grow a spine, it's also going to be used in other groups by trolls.
It's a waste. Even playing devil's advocate in the most charitable interpretation, it's useless.
>Even playing devil's advocate in the most charitable interpretation
I mean that was basically what I was doing, honestly.
But the number of threads we get around here where the answer to the OPs problem is "talk to your fricking players" generally indicates that a good number of GMs are spineless cowards. You're right that for every spineless coward that uses the rulebook to give them a prosthetic spine there is probably some malicious butthole using it to disrupt a game, but the kind of person that writes these type of pages don't take into account bad actors in their viewpoints at the best of times.
>the kind of person that writes these type of pages don't take into account bad actors in their viewpoints at the best of times
Exactly, which is why I strongly recommend to anyone publishing a game to leave this stupid shit out. At least if your goal is to have people want to play your game. Even when it's at its "best" it's annoying to many, and almost entirely useless.
My game won't have this shit in it at all. You know... when I finally get around to finishing it... some day...
nowadays authors need to put caveats in their work just to make sure that badass nazi werewolves in your setting arent some sort of nazi dog whistle for liberal parents to get upset about.
Because way too often dogwhistles get through because their users expect you not to care or even defend it by mistake. People used to understand there's a middle ground or balanced approach to things before social media.
>But the number of threads we get around here where the answer to the OPs problem is "talk to your fricking players" generally indicates that a good number of GMs are spineless cowards.
Hey moron, most of those threads are made by nogames to push hypotheticals onto /tg/ to argue about. Therefore , nothing in them can be taken as an indicator of the state of the hobby in any way, shape, or form. This site is a troll pit, not a source of usable data.
What about the maladjusted morons who use things like X-cards? Such selfish behaviour has no place in this hobby.
Yeah. X-Cards are an inherently selfish implementation of common courtesy and social skills. Effectively elevating your comfort over even basic communication. Someone so fragile has no place playing games of pretend, since their fragility makes them unable to even express or explain what caused the issue in the first place.
OPs image is exactly what everyone who hates X-Cards expects: for the person with an issue to speak up and explain their issue. As others have said, these "safety tools" being brought up by someone are themselves a filter so you can make sure not to let them in your game. If someone is worth gaming with they'll tell you if they have an issue and communicate with you until you find a solution. Whether that's removing the content or they step outside for a bit or maybe the game just isn't for them. A healthy person will be able to have that conversation and someone so unhealthy they can't, needs to be removed from the game. Any game.
>The point being made, is if these social morons can't figure it out from interacting with other people, what the frick is a page on "Being Nice" going to do for them that their parents, teachers, peers, and other authority figures obviously couldn't?
Its in the rulebook for the game. Have to do it.
Checkmate autists.
You joke, but I worked for an autism charity and we ended up developing an incredibly robust code of conduct and complaints procedure more or less entirely because of a tiny number of maladjusted weirdos who operated on "nothing says I have to be nice/listen to others/behave and if you try to stop me I'll sue for discrimination because youre singling me out" basis and yes, they did try lawfare, multiple times. Almost everyone involved was lovely, at worst a bit oblivious and sometimes needing a gentle reminder to let other people speak, but they appreciated having really firm clear rules apply to everyone (especially if they'd had to deal with the psychos).
Almost definitely you took the wrong approach. Creating codes of conduct in writing is what opens you up to lawfare. Having things not be in writing and be the result of someone's silly interpretation after being asked to leave is much less likely to cause complications.
Not in our experience. We ended up doing it that way in the first place because of a costly independent review's recommendation, which only happened in the first place after a bad actor was asked to leave after some horrendous behaviour and kicked up a huge fuss about being let go. It was an ordeal, but it did mean we had a paper trail and evidence to show we tried to accommodate them while protecting other vulnerable people. It's funny in a way, there's a group of members from after all this stuff was implemented who are a bit puzzled why there's any need for this sort of thing, and an older group from before with some kind of PTSD who are absolutely certain it needs to be there.
Obviously anecdote not data, one solution won't work in all cases, blah blah blah, but I wouldn't have believed it needed doing either if I hadn't been there.
That's actually a fair point. After I made that comment I tried to imagine scenarios where what i said may have been off the mark. I guess I can imagine a situation where having a code of conduct that is pretty much explicitly created to generate documentation for removal of bad actors might be the better option. Sort of like how companies do it now when they have to terminate someone. I think in the original scenario I was imagining this being a thing where you had to kick out attendees to an event or something.
That is amusing, if a little sad, that something like a charity requires it to be set up that way.
That's precisely my point. Those socially maladjusted, immature morons are definitely not going to change their behavior because of something like this. Being told, much less in a game book, to be considerate and kind to others, is not going to fix that problem. That is a total fantasy, and a complete misunderstanding of why those people behave the way they do.
The people who need to read those pages the most are the least likely to read them.
Majority of TTRPG players neither read nor remember the rules in general.
>But they're not for people who don't need to be told it. They're for the socially maladjusted, immature morons who have either never been told that, or haven't committed that sort of to their everyday attitude.
This argument makes zero sense and you know it.
The kind of person who genuinely needs to be taught the very basics of polite social interaction are never in a MILLION YEARS going to learn them from half a page of text in a Marvel Superhero RPG book. At best their eyes will simply glaze over halfway through the first paragraph before they flip the page.
This shit serves zero genuine purpose, it is helpful to no one in actual real life. It's there for the sole purpose of allowing the devs (and a certain segment of readers) to pat themselves on the back for how virtuous and enlightened they are.
I would say that teens sometimes can make use of it, a slight remainder of "don't be edgy if it's making everyone else uncomfortable" is always good for younger readers. That and autistic people.
There are people on this board, in this thread right now who are bucking and flailing wildly at the concept of being told to just chill the frick out and talk to their players instead of being abrasive c**ts.
I don't think having a game telling you to be considerate will solve the hobby's problems, but I think there is a need for a universal acknowledgement that TTRPGs are social activities that are played with people and that everyone playing should be expected to be courteous and polite, to some extent. The "social contract" sounds like such a stupidly obvious concept when its laid out, but if it were really so universal, then the advice of "have you tried talking to them?" would not still be needed after over a century of war games, card games, board games, and RPGs.
I just don't agree, especially when it comes to autists.
For the people who can't comprehend social interaction, all this does is give them a rigid set of rules that they can use to beat other people over the head with. Especially when it allows shit like the "Full-veto power with no explanation require' shit to slip in.
You know what that tells someone who is actually giga autistic and can't figure out how engage socially? It tells them that they, by the rules of the game, are entitled to overrule anyone else for any reason any time they want without even needing to talk about it or give an explanation. If anything happens in the game that they don't like then they can simply insist that, no it didn't, and now everyone HAS to respect that because the book says so. It's exactly the kind of thing a malicious sociopath or self-centered autist will exploit to no end.
Then you're being too polite.
If someone is so autistic that using any of this comes up, why are they in your game? Why do you tolerate the kind of doormat people who would continue to allow that person into your game?
This idea that you have to tolerate people in your space you don't like is fricking insidious. Call it gatekeeping or whatever but there is no social binding that forces you to tolerate that kind of behaviour for any reason. It should be quite allowable to even be "rude" enough to tell them quite readily that they are a c**t and you don't game with c**ts.
Most rules and laws fall apart in the edge case of bad actors and the mentally deranged. That doesn't mean you throw them out the window. It means you deal with them as they come. Game rules in the book will always be superceded by your groups personal social rules. If Autist McChildrape is so far gone he can't handle that then he deserves not to play games with anyone.
If you're playing with that level of autism then you're probably a special education teacher and have more tools than just the X card at your disposal, like the one who invented the system, specifically for that because playing was a didactic exercise and published her work for people doing the same, or anyone who could find it useful.
>Especially when it allows shit like the "Full-veto power with no explanation require' shit to slip in.
That's some x-card shit, which is not being printed in every RPG, and which is not just a general acknowledgement of the bare minimum expectations players should have when playing an RPG.
You're extrapolating the most severe possible scenario and it still requires that you make up an imaginary game that says "the loudest autist can dictate the entire game however he pleases" which is the opposite of acknowledging social contract-type arrangements when playing.
>There are people on this board, in this thread right now who are bucking and flailing wildly at the concept of being told to just chill the frick out and talk to their players instead of being abrasive c**ts.
/tg/ isn't indicative of real life in any form of measure. Just anonymity alone makes hyperbolic the most truthful statement.
>I don't think having a game telling you to be considerate will solve the hobby's problems,
Common sense pamphlet always existed and are a given, afterall we are talking about a game, the only criticism i may have for op pic is that is uselessly verbose a makes a mountain out of a pebble.
>but I think there is a need for a universal acknowledgement that TTRPGs are social activities that are played with people and that everyone playing should be expected to be courteous and polite, to some extent. The "social contract" sounds like such a stupidly obvious concept when its laid out, but if it were really so universal, then the advice of "have you tried talking to them?" would not still be needed after over a century of war games, card games, board games, and RPGs.
Nah, maladjusted individuals who need to be told "look you have to regulate expectations" have other issue to solve on top of being communicative and no "instruction" will ever be beneficial to them in this regard.
There are people on this board, in this thread right now who are bucking and flailing wildly at the concept of being told to just chill the frick out and talk to their players instead of being abrasive c**ts.
Nobody is doing this, disingenuous homosexual. People are rightly annoyed about being condescended to and pointing out that it's useless.
I wonder sometimes if people as dishonest as you are the way you are because you're trying to be clever and "win" some kind of argument, or if your brain has actually warped your reading comprehension in such a way that it's reflexively projected this attitude onto the words of others and made you honestly believe it. Maybe you actually ARE that far gone.
Either way, it's a pretty good example of why nobody should take you seriously, and not just you personally, but all of the people acting and saying the same things.
Shit, I meant to reply to this anon. Not sure how that got fricked up.
>for almost all tables, this kind of thing isn't even going to be a problem
Most of the problems people post about RPGs are having this problem in some form or another. "Talk to each other about what you want and expect from the game before you play" may be condescending, but it's well deserved.
>a paragraph in the book about being considerate isn't going to make a difference
A large part of the RPG audience is socially moronic but largely well meaning. It's for the oblivious, not the buttholes.
>mildly annoying many people
I doubt more than a tiny handful are annoyed by it. You're just easily triggered.
>Most of the problems people post about RPGs are having this problem in some form or another.
A silly and nonsensical claim. Maybe on "that guy" threads, but you think most of the complaints on this board have to do with this? Delusion.
> may be condescending, but it's well deserved
Even more ridiculous. If you want someone to adopt an idea, the last thing you want to do is come off as condescending. This is actually a problem a lot of people have when communicating. I'm responding to you curtly here, partly because I know trying to convince you is a lost cause. This is not the goal of the sanctimonious authors of "allow me to establish a framework for allowing players to interrupt the game to protect their sensitive feelings because some of them might be so mentally ill they cannot handle a tabletop game" authors.
> It's for the oblivious, not the buttholes.
The oblivious aren't going to be affected by this stupid shit in the game book.
>I doubt more than a tiny handful are annoyed by it.
Almost everyone I know who plays games thinks this shit is stupid and annoying. And I've played with a lot of people. The only people who don't are people who see themselves as "activists" and cannot help but insert left-leaning politics into nearly everything they do and every conversation they have.
>You're just easily triggered.
Amusingly ironic considering the topic. If we're reducing the meaning of "triggered" to "I have a low tolerance for stupid shit after frequent exposure to it," I guess you got me.
I miss when people were stronger
There is a line, and that line is in different places for different groups. For some groups a bit of gore or risque jokes is a nothingburger or even par for the course. On the other hand, some groups are squeamish. And the paragraph is actually pretty tame, its actually what I see most people say in those insipid X-Card threads most ie. "just fricking voice your concerns if it comes up."
On the other hand, I do feel like there is a bit of a cultural shift towards less "mature" content. I was basically raised here, on Ganker. I've seen some awful shit. So when I see normies complaining about a bit of violence or god forbid a sad ending in a series, I'm generally bewildered. It just feels almost disingenuous, like they couldn't possibly actually be upset at something as tame as Edgerunner's ending or Attack on Titan or whatever, and yet they feign it because they think they should, or they're exaggerating their emotions for clout or something. I can't even imagine being genuinely upset at some things people get booty bothered over these days.
To some degree I would even say it's not that uncommon or even unhealthy to be a little disturbed or uncomfortable with certain ideas. I've been "upset" and felt emotions while reading, watching, and playing. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
I think framing the entire thing as something that should be avoided, to the point where play actually stops and people are taken out of the game, is seriously lame. And for everything beyond that, e.g. the guy making jokes about raping another PC and just being a weird and obnoxious creep, the existence of x-cards and whatever you want to call this shit isn't going to matter. He's going to get filtered before the group comprised of mixed company even get together for the first session, or he's going to be asked to leave after he gives everyone the creeps, and the stupid x-cards or whatever aren't going to come into it. I think the only thing they accomplish is acting as a filter in reverse: anyone who even considers using them or brings them up as anything other than something to be made fun of will instantly be disregarded and won't be at any table I'm a part of. So I guess they're useful for something.
>I do feel like there is a bit of a cultural shift towards less "mature" content.
>So when I see normies complaining about a bit of violence or god forbid a sad ending in a series,
Baldur's Gate 3 really highlighted the fact that most mass-market normies can't handle bad endings. The drama over a character--who was essentially damned from the get-go--not having a perfect housewife ending with you sent then over the edge. Yes, there were some cut content issues, but them's the breaks.
>yet they feign it because they think they should, or they're exaggerating their emotions for clout or somethin
I think if Game of Thrones final season wasn't a production disaster, they would be equally as upset at how they didn't get a good ending for YAS QUEEN SLAY or their boy-toy. Despite the entire time, the show and author flat out telling you that they weren't afraid to kill off beloved characters and don't go in expecting a fairy-tale ending.
Well, there are two things.
First is that those things you say are "muhchure" are things that are generally condemned in the real world, see? They are clearly bad and probably not what you want to happen to you or around you.
Secondly is that you're supposed to be engaged in the game. Some people don't care about it too deeply, while others basically play themselves in escapism. So they get to pretend to partially experience those things, imagining them happening.
Personally, I've somehow became even more squeamish because I start to get bothered by things with imaginary characters people write up to take seriously for the game. If you take it too seriously and pretend npcs are real people, it's unpleasant to say the least.
Bonus points are included for rightly realising the GM as the controller of the world and blaming him for it when shit hits the fan unexpectably.
I don't really get the complains about getting upset if you were supposed to get invested into campaign in the first place. Why do you imagine the whole worlds, customs, places, people and then act shocked that people take them at face value?
Original TTRPGs didn't have a problem with it because they weren't about that exactly, they were just dungeon crawlers with disposable adventurers, not roleplaying adventure proper with more life-like features naturally came the bad life-like features.
>things that are generally condemned in the real world
Which is why we explore them in fiction. You CAN seperate fiction from reality, right? I get that some people game for full escapism and they don't want bad things to happen in their games. That's fine. I expressly said different groups tolerate different things.
But that doesn't mean we, as a society, should be condemning fiction for exploring darker "mature" themes. The sanitation of media and the desire for escapism in all media is a trend that, personally, I dislike because I like exploring that side of things. And in a broader sense media let's people explore things in a safe environment. I'm not saying people need to explore warcrimes in fiction to know it's bad, but create a window into certain experiences or facets of those emotions that you didn't have before, deepening your understanding of many things.
Specifically when it comes to TTRPGs: you aren't your character and none of the characters are real. You can take the game seriously, but if you can't separate that, then this isn't a good medium for you. Secondly you have a voice, you can communicate with your GM if things delve into an area you have a problem with unexpectedly. Nobody is forcing you to listen to a GM narrate a torture scene if you don't like it. Again, everybody and every group has different lines that they don't want crossed. The only way to navigate the different realms of comfort is to fricking communicate like a human.
Same, it's like zoomers have a sort of performative fragility where they think being pussies makes them special.
When was this time you miss that had no social conventions, expectations, or taboos?
Maybe he was playing Vampire in the 90s. I hear some pretty crazy That GM stories from that era
do you catan?
Literally a decade ago people were capable of separating a game from reality.
Some guy at our table kept going into gory detail during combat and it almost sounded like a fetish to him. After telling him a few times to stop doing that, he didn't care, so we just told him he is not invited anymore, he got mad and sad and that was it.
Honestly that works fine. And I allow myself to boot everyone who ever uses that right.
Offending them once may be regarded as misfortune, doing it again would be gross negligence.
I don't see why this should be my problem.
If people are offended by anything I say they can leave.
Shit like this is why you never play with randos. Stick with your group of friends who understands your sick humor and aren't a bunch of liberal homosexuals.
>In my opinion the best way is to allow all players at the table have the right to veto anything for any reason without needing to explain themselves.
I think X-Card type systems like that are disruptive and awkward. It think it's better to establish a phrase for OOC discussion that gets used all the time; so that it actually gets used, and it's not awkward when someone brings up some content objection.
My players are mutinous bullies.
I don't play 5e or WoD, therefore I very rarely have to deal with such problem players in my group.
hard to have player problems when you're nogames
This is a great idea! We should apply it to all games, wargames, card games, chess, etc. Whenever an opponent does something you don't like, just mutter "Veto". It does mean most games will just end up with a bunch of morons sat in a circle taking turns to say "Veto" for hours at a time, but if that's what's makes them happy (because happiness is the ONLY aim in life, right?), go for it!
Can you veto other people's veto? Their veto might make me unhappy.
>I veto this scenario
>we both veto John, I want to see where this goes
Appropriate response to the kind of weak minded selfish moron who tries to 'veto' the stuff the GM worked on.
My friends are all normal so I don't have to worry about it.
Play with adults instead of emotionaly fragile children
remember when we didnt take stuff so seriously?
we all believe alistar crowley cause we are all hopped up on pain killers just like he was and now we have become afraid of our own imaginations.
rpgs are becoming too gay now.
probably why everyone pirates that shit instead of paying for it.
im ready for another off topic ban my moddies.
This seems fine, especially with the references to children playing it. A Marvel superhero game could well be someone's first RPG, there's no harm in spelling out the basics.
if anything, I wish the real comics were more considerate rather than relying on shock and fan outrage
I think the real purpose of safety tools in RPG's is to filter out people like the autists writing essays in here about how unnecessary and patronizing the tools are. Even if they are unnecessary your reaction to it is basically a giant flashing neon sign saying "DON'T PLAY WITH ME I WILL FREAK OUT OVER THINGS THAT DON'T 100% ALIGN WITH MY WORLDVIEW." I don't see the point of safety tools for non-pickup games, but anyone who has an extreme reaction to them one way or the other is probably to be avoided.
Why do you bother yourself with fabricated scenarios?
Y'all are projecting your own feelings onto me. I'm mostly referring to the one poster in this thread who clearly has a big chip on his shoulder regarding this stuff. The entire point of this godforsaken thread is bait to get people angry based on tribal dynamics.
>Y'all
bait.png
You're trying too hard. 2/10, made me reply at least.
I was born and raised in Southern Mississippi, you can't take y'all from me.
This is not my definition of a quality thread, but if you feel validated and/or engaged reading this stuff that's ok too. I never called anyone a stupid chud despite you putting that in quotes. I don't even like safety tools. The extreme response on Ganker to the advice "Be Considerate" is not something most RPG community members would find normal.
I don't disagree they are flawed, but some people claim to find them useful. Some DM's or players may be spineless/conflict-averse as mentioned further up the thread. Giving them explicit tools gives them license to speak up when they are uncomfortable. Specifically I think X-cards are not very good at all for the reason you mentioned, it does not remove the social stigma of speaking up when you are uncomfortable and may even increase it. But something like Lines and Veils, for a pickup or con game, makes sense because you don't know the other players and what they may be ready or not ready to handle. And if they say they aren't comfortable they are free to not play that game and the DM is free to change the material if they decide to.
>I was born and raised in Southern Mississippi, you can't take y'all from me
Hicklibs should fricking kill themselves. Immediately. You will never be a real New Yorker or Angeleno.
>something like Lines and Veils
I conceptually like them especially for horror, but I must assume that few people that advocate their use actually use them, or they're some sort of kink freak - because the method they advocate for people to use is a to give people a form to fill out to get their opinions on child molestation. Having this on the questionnaire implies that it was a distinct possibility you have to opt out of: which is really weird to people who aren't autistic or deeply involved in bondage and kink where safe words and bluntly asking about off-putting subjects are the norm.
Another interpretation of it could be that people genuinely just find it obnoxious and keep running into it frequently, and this thread serves as a venting point. You can see lots of people are annoyed about it, and it seems like quite a few people have coherent stated reasons for feeling that way.
Could it be that you're just politically inclined to believe these things, and are unable to accept that people might have legitimate reasons for not liking the concept other than they're "stupid chuds?" Because the way you've framed it a few times now seems to indicate that's who believe created the thread and the people who are bothered by it, when, to me, that doesn't really reflect the reality of this thread or with the many people I've met who feel that way.
I find a Google questionnaire for "how do you feel about child rape" to be very off-putting. I don't hate lines and veils per se, but the suggested method of presentation is viscerally weird. Like a lot of things is business, it's better handled in a quick voice call or in person meeting where you as the DM have narrowed things down to a few edge cases. So you don't have to start things off with "So guys, is child rape a 'yay' or 'nay'?"
Right, it's fricking weird. Nobody who needs to be told not to bring up child rape in a game is going to be dissuaded by some shit in a gaming book trying to formalize it. It's purely tribal signaling or naive stupidity from publishers/authors. It's also often just phrased very pompously, which is another reason why people seem to find it obnoxious. The only people defending it are, not surprisingly, people obsessed with identity politics.
Most of these things shouldn't come up in the implicit gameplay loop of most games. I do think there's an interesting case with respect to horror games; because horror needs off-putting imagery and scenarios. Horror games also need the kinds of things that aren't actually scary to most people, like zombies, but are fun to pretend to be scared by.
That's, however, a conversation that starts with "I want to run a horror scenario, is there anything that's fun to be scared by? Is there anything you genuinely dislike and don't want?"
It's funny, the only people I ever see doing the whole "DON'T PLA WITH ME OR I WILL FREAK OUT OVER THINGS THAT DON'T 100% ALIGN WITH MY WORLDVIEW" in real life are people on the other side of that. Most people who have a problem with it just find it groanworthy and stupid. Even the more annoyed responses to it are explaining in pretty reasonable terms why the idea is dumb, and it really has nothing to do with being unable to tolerate other views, but exactly the opposite. They don't want to pander to people who use safety in RPG bullshit to force their view on others.
In fact, the closest to a freakout in this thread is you. You're clearly upset, projecting, using straw me, being hyperbolic, and projecting. Just stop. Take a breather and relax.
X-Card systems do not work. Or else Adam Koebel wouldn't be persona non grata. Part of this is because nerds are overly sensitive homosexuals and backstabbers, the other part is that X-Card styled systems are fundamentally flawed.
Didn't he blame the safety tools "not being in place" as if he needed them around the rein himself in? Which is pretty much how I view people who insist on safety tools: degenerates who would do skeevy shit if they could get away with it and expect the same from everyone else.
>X-Cards are an inherently selfish implementation of common courtesy and social skills. Effectively elevating your comfort over even basic communication.
This is bang-on. Safety tools, especially the x-card, are a poor and ineffective replacement for inter-human communication and trust. Why would you play with someone you can't trust and communicate with, whether it's because they can't be trusted or because you can't communicate?.
He's a weasel, but iirc that game used an explicit X-Card.
>Everyone should be accomodated
>I don't want Krakoa nonsense since Jean turns people gay and Krakoa is just a /misc/ shitpost like pic related.
>STFU Bigot Incel Chud Yadda Yadda
Sure this is common sense but it barely works for Marvel Games, especially current Marvel Comic based stories. Also for those who don't know, that's Magneto saying how he's running Krakoa after reclaiming his "israeliness" by going back to his name as Max Eisenhardt.
Isn't that just the x-card?
a gm that doesnt set expectations before a game deserves exactly what they get.
I'm okay with the existence of safety tools because they can be useful for handling randos at conventions or online. What I very much do not appreciate is when a book outright tells me to use the included safety tools no matter how well I know my group.
>How do you make sure everyone at the table is comfortable and happy?
I don't.
We're all adults and friends. If they're not cool with something they're gonna say it. If I ain't cool with something, I'll say it too.
Only morons and losers are afraid of showing their disapproval
I used to think this, but I have a player in my current group who genuinely dislikes corpses and grieving families because she had to write letters to families after a helicopter crash. It came up in another game, when she expressed why she didn't like zombies.
Obviously, there was good communication in the group so things worked out; but it made me reconsider and start asking about what players don't want in a campaign when pitching it.
Anon, you just proved his point.
Your player was uncomfortable with a thing, she expressed that discomfort, and you adjusted the game to accommodate. That didn't require veto power or a card on a table or a questionnaire. Just a bit of normal human communication.
I would consider what I'm doing to be incorporating lines and veils into my campaign pitch; it did change my approach to GMing. I'm just not calling it that, or handing out autistic questionnaires like those morons who made that Consent in Gaming pamphlet think you should.
>I would consider what I'm doing to be incorporating lines and veils into my campaign pitch
Call it what you want, all you're doing is a simple "are you okay with this" in session zero or during the campaign pitch, something people have been doing since forever.
I'm not against what you're doing. Its especially good to do if you're GMing with people you don't know frequently. I'm just saying the codification of them as "safety tools" and not "common fricking decency" and "having some communication skills" is silly and performative.
I guess it basically comes down to a dislike of the sort of condescension in the wording and the infantilization implied by codifying safety tools as such. This sort of thing wasn't an issue not because people were never uncomfortable with things, but because it was expected that you would be able to communicate even without a card or questionnaire.
Why do people equal adding controversial topics to your sessions with being hardcore and not a snowflake?
This is almost perfect and I wish every single TTRPG book had this. It gatekeeps the worst of both autists. As obvious as the advice generally is, "Talk To Each Other You Fricking Babies" even shuts out the card-carrying morons.
There's some stuff in there I don't agree with -- rough language??? -- but this effectively creates a 'basic social skills ruleset' both for children and for autistic politically-charged culture warriors. I'll take this over some moron bringing a rape-whistle to the table anyday.
only freaks nerds dweebs played rpgs back then
only freaks nerds dweebs play rpgs now
they market to the people who are standard deviations from the norm.
the same people who played that shit back then are the same people who play this shit now.
its like when the tremere mages diablerized saulot.
you are pissed becuase the nufreaks are coopting the shit the old freaks grew up on.
buisness models are happy to oblige any open wallets.
old freakshit was slayer, computer games, and hyperviolent anime
nufreak shit is sophie, mobile games, and moee anime
You will use the safety tools or it's your fault an emotionally fragile and mentally ill homosexual was traumatized at someone else's table.
>Trying this hard to fit in
Polite society doesn't accept slurs anymore, if that's your biggest issue in life you must have really easy.
Who's trying, tourist?
Go and talk with actual society lmao.
>No U
Nice comeback.
If you don't onboard new players by making THIS the first thing they ever see then you ARE LITERALLY RAPING THEM.
I'd literally rape anyone who offered me one of these.
Is only used for strangers or people with social anxiety/autism.
All hail Darkbad! The greatest game since Mork Borg!
I had a friend GM totally rail our team with misery porn and showed us real pictures of burnt children as a result of our poor decisions. Begrudgingly we were placed in an unwinnable scenario and there was nothing on our characters' part that made this come to pass. Our quest giving NPC ally was the one who did the child cooking in the mid campaign finale, then the GM expected us to continue working for the person that murder innocent people for sport.
Gore is one thing, but using suffering real life kids for any immersion aid is deplorable. The slap in the face was telling our party it was our fault it happened even though there wasn't any alternative. In the end we were forced to work with the NPC without a choice, even after witnessing warcrimes in 4k HD.
The problem wasn't that there weren't safety tools, it's that you were playing with a psychopath. Why would you even do that?
There aren't enough tools or guidelines to protect you from that kind if special morons anon. If anything i find not credible that none of you did anything like pack your shit and leaving immediately at the first redflag so i'm assuming you made this story up
Shit that never happened
It literally did happen, and after a successful negotiation on our part to make a certain faction leave peacefully. The group of mixed combatants and their innocent families and children were nuked as they fled their protective valley. It was all done as a scene wipe after we succeeded at deescalating matters.
You'll never hear it but I recorded the whole session. Dude tried to delete his posts to cover his tracks but I still have evidence. Out of respect I'm not going to post it here.
You're either a weirdo or a doormat for sticking with that table. More likely, you're bullshitting.
Who said I stuck with the table? Game's concluded, unsatisfactory for all involved.
Respect? Why would you respect him not to out dumbfrickery? You outta own up to your decisions.
Why did you even record it if you do nothing to get back at him, moron?
The recordings aren't for getting back at people. I have a hard time remembering details and capturing our performance is fun to listen back on. Not any more. In all seriousness I can't stand to listen to it now that I know the final outcome. Other dark stuff happened that episode that I rather not relive.
You are such a fricking moron. There are any number of online games, but your dumb ass stuck with the one who's DM posted gore.
Frick you, you're making this up.
Are you trolling me? I don't play with the group anymore. They wanted us to continue after this, as if nothing had happened, then they disbanded the group because of multiple players complaining and fighting over what happened.
We're not trolling you. We're just disappointed you didn't stick it up to your DM somehow.
I mean if they try to character assassinate me for being the one to split up the group I will retaliate, but otherwise we've gone our separate ways with out followup. The real shame was that this was a really great RP group once and we had some year long campaigns under our belt that were rather much the best I've ever had. Then Kidburger Helper incident happened and it made me realize that I want off Mr. Pessimist's bleak ride.
Okay schizo.
Not that anon but what is your problem? They're just venting their frustrations about a troubling time they had in a RPG.
If he's worried about being blackmailed by people he played online D&D with and kept voice recordings of these sessions, that's schizo behavior. This entire scenario smells of bullshit, or everyone involved including him being a gigantic creep or weirdo.
>reading comprehension
Victim blaming isn't very cash money of you.
What victim?
the victim of circumstance
You are either moronic or trolling. Which is it?
You're a moron for not doing anything with it.
Do you even still play with that DM?
How young was your group if you didn't collectively sperg out at him for that?
Evolutionary pressure
I kill the players who are uncomfortable and fill their slots with the children of the survivors.
How do you play a Paladin without taking up too much of the spotlight?
Play D&D 3.5e.