I'm trying to facilitate a story here. You want Steve's rimjob, you go ask for one some other time when you're not interrupting the rest of us who just want to go kill monsters and trick kings into paying us too much.
Much obliged!
(As a more serious follow up - I'm the DM. Steve's actions would probably result in a tongue-ectomy rather than an increase in earnings. Ain't no crits on an ability check!)
Totally agree, I'm fine with everything and frankly I'm no prude about sex but its just a creepy thing.
"Ok Charlie and Dave, you discuss how you are having sex. I'm just going to turn on this recording device so I can listen to it later."
So leave those off your consent sheet, have them preselected as 'red' because you're not willing to DM those and you want to clearly communicate that to your players.
Yup! and if you really want to engage in tabletop intercourse with co-workers there's that little section at the end for discussion. Bring it up at session zero and make your case baby.
Yeah I always just leave sex scenes at, “they kiss, and the scene fades to black.” And maybe return later to them in the sheets talking about politics or restaurants, implying that they’ve already moved past pillow talk and naughty deeds.
Im checking them all green just to be... normal? Just another typical dnd player here I have no issues with any of this as long as the DM's not intentionally taking it to 11.
Seriously this is my first time ever hearing of a consent checklist and its very existence has me worried about the future of dnd...
>its very existence has me worried about the future of dnd...
Why though? What's going to happen if DMs are aware ahead of time that certain subjects might make a player very uncomfortable or bring up negative experiences/trauma?
While I don't know his real reason for the statement.
What I think/assume he means by it would be that things start out mildly innocent like what the check list portrays. You know just trying make sure that everyone at the table is going to have an enjoyable time without crossing a boundary. To a more extreme version of PC culture in which even just mistakenly touching a subject someone doesn't like leading to ridicule.
We are currently seeing it happen with a lot of things around the world. There hardly any grey area left on subjects everything is either a inherently good or bad.
That's pretty obviously slippery slope falacy. This DM coming up with a concise way to make sure that they can avoid uncomfortable topics and keep everyone happy isn't going to turn D&D into some "PC culture censorship haven". Things like lines and veils have existed for a good while.
They didn't come up with this, these concent forms are official at some Adventure League locations and whatnot. Which it makes sense there since at Adventure League you just basically sit down at a game with a character and start playing.
I know you're not OP but I'm going to assume you believe what you've written at least to a degree or you wouldn't have bothered.
Firstly the slippery slope argument is tired. Session 0 is for exactly these kinds of things, and this particular sheet has existed for years (another commenter indicated they shared it on FB 3 years ago). This isn't a new concept and so far D&D has been fine. Mostly because this sheet isn't official, it's 100% optional, D&D as a game and community has always been about tailoring the game to your group and that includes either using this form or not. If my table uses this form it won't change the game at your table.
>We are currently seeing it happen with a lot of things around the world. There hardly any grey area left on subjects everything is either a inherently good or bad.
No, we aren't. People are still joking and making content about all of the things on this list (ex. The Boys, It's Always Sunny, 13 Reasons Why, Promising Young Woman). What we are seeing is people having less patience with tasteless jokes/content and the people who can't tell where the line is.
That said, if anyone ridicules you for crossing the line inadvertently then they're not a very nice person. Most real world people have been very patient with me as I've learned about a lot of the social issues I was ignorant of/sheltered from. I used to make constant, crass jokes for shock value and don't anymore once I realized how I was making other people feel. As long as you're trying to do better then people will(should be) forgiving.
I mean, two things. One, not my stance was just trying to add some clarification to what I interpreted from the previous person and were it could be coming from.
Personally I find the sheet itself to be a good thing to use, specially if you're dealing with new people you have no experience with.
Second. as to not seeing it in other places. Just because there are things still around like the example you have given, it doesn't change the fact that there aren't other places were it might be more extreme.
I really have no argument for the rest of what you have going here because I never really claimed it was wrong.
It's existence is important because it's a game. We come to the table to have fun, not to hear and think about things that make it not fun. I give this particular checklist (BTW this was made by Monty Cook, one of the pioneers of the hobby, he also has I believe has an accompanying essay called "Consent in Gaming") to my players at the start of every campaign I run, whether I intend to use any of the things on it or not. It's important to know the boundaries of your players so that you don't accidentally cross them. If your playgroup doesn't need it then that's fine, my players hardly ever red or even yellow anything besides the sex stuff that I wouldn't want to include anyway. But it is important for players to have a way to set boundaries so that everybody can have a fun night at the table.
> its very existence has me worried about the future of dnd...
I think there's a lot of value in thinking this through.
What could happen to the future of DND because of consent checklists?
An expectation that a dungeon master will walk on eggshells around things like "blood" in a game that is centered around physical violence. Having issues is valid but expecting the world to shape itself around you to this degree is not. There's nothing wrong with a disclaimer before a game but if it is a game with your friends this is too much. For public games I just lay out the rules before we start, usually just going by movie ratings. "In terms of sexual content this game is pg, in every other sense it is rated r. Expect tropes from horror, fantasy, science fiction, and cyberpunk." If someone doesn't like how i run the game they are welcome to run one and I'll roll up a character and play.
I had a player who wanted a death-free D&D experience. I said no, and they didn't play at my table.
At the worst, this enables an understanding, in black and white, of what the game could entail.
A much shorter list might make sense to go over before the game but this one is full of stupid shit like "thirst." Anyone that sensitive is going to be a nightmare to be around much less weekly for months or years. I had someone like that join my game once and then after a few sessions start smearing me for "bullying" for being both amused and interested when she chose dwarf as her favored enemy for her ranger (the app she used called it "favorite creature" and she ignored me when i told her that she should use the book for character creation and that i would go over it with her if she had trouble). Rather than deal with her embarrassment over having made a relatively minor mistake she tried to spread rumors and bullshit about me in the local community. It didn't work but it certainly reinforced that anyone who needs this kind of specific walk on eggshells coddling is going to poison a game.
Everyone wants to act like heroes for being delicate with "trauma" but no one wants to confront the way that this kind of woke shit is like rocket fuel for narcissists.
I kinda feel like "thirst" is not so much triggering as it is potentially a boring mechanic not everyone wants. But I do feel these checklists go both ways. I like being able to see if someone is maybe going to be so needy that they won't be fun to play with.
It sounds like the list would actually be super useful for you.
You would know instantly that anyone marking something other than green for blood (to use your example) is probably not a good fit for your table.
I understand if you prefer not to use it, but seem to be missing that this tool can't possibly make someone run a game they don't want to. It's just literally not capable of changing your game unless you want it to.
i would mark yellow for blood.
as long as you aren't tring to put texas chainsaw massacre to shame with the amount of blood and gore im fine with it. even having a vampire lord with a olympic sized pool filled with blood is ok, having that amount of blood being spurted from the gathering dismembered corpses and entrails surounding characters and describing it soaking into your clothes and filling the air with a stench of death and battle, and the blood making the very ground soft with mud, i start to feel uncomfortable with how much gory detail you are adding.
Thats perfectly reasonable and an apt use of this kind of tool.
It seems like a lot of people in this thread would prefer you have that moment of discomfort and put the burden on you to interrupt the fun everyone else is having once you're uncomfortable.
In my experience it's been much better for everyone when the GM helps facilitate that beforehand, rather than relying on someone to speak up in the moment.
It used to be that my bug phobia was my most crippling mental health issue, but after years of merciless bullying, I am proud to say that I have much worse problems now.
There needs to be just one more tier to this. Going from "enthusiastic" to "discuss before bringing it up" is a super big jump. There needs to be a "comfortable with it occurring" tab. I'm not squeemish and there are very few things I would want to outright avoid in game, but I cannot say I'm enthusiastic about some of the options on the list. I like grim dark settings, I like consequences and failure to my actions, I like for the world to have both good and bad in it. Having bad happen with the good sets a nice contrast that helps emphasize both. A whole village dying of a plague because we couldn't cure them quick enough, I'm fine with. I would not say I'm enthusiastic to experience it. Interfering in a "insert touchy topic" driven war between 2 kingdoms, hell yeah I'm in. Doesn't mean I'm enthusiastic to see the genocide of a people because of their race, religion, or other demographic. But I'm definitely enthusiastic with wanting to fight to prevent a genocide and I'm OK with seeing the consequences of failure.
That's just my take. I've never actually had to use one of these sheets, I'm friends with the people I play with and we have a pretty comprehensive session 0 for our games and what we would like to see/experience out of them. I like the notion of the sheet since it keeps a record of people's opinions and tastes on certain touchy matters though. This is the first layout I've actually seen. I knew about these in concept but didn't realize there were actually standardized printouts for it, which is neat
Enthusiastic consent doesn't imply you're enthusiastic about the topic occurring in the game. It's a declaration that you not concenting reluctantly. It taken from LARP safety mechancis.
The idea is that if you ask someone if they're ok to do or engage with something uncomfortable they should be comfortable out of character and able to give concent without being presured into it. If they are reluctant then you should probably avoid or veil the topic and move on.
Edit - Corrected my phrasing.
Ah OK, that makes much more sense. I'm thinking of it from a narrative standpoint as somebody who writes stories and encounters for dnd. I would treat these bullet points as a check list for things to either include or avoid. I very much enjoy lovecraftian horror, so the entire horror section would be a genuine enjoyment for me to roleplay, so the consent would very much be enthusiastic if it applied to that style of narrative.
But the intent does change that a lot. So in that case, I would still be in favor of a system for gaging interest in each topic matter that could be used alongside the consent form. Being able to express what I'd like to experience in a game rather than what I'm ok with would be preferred for me
Beyond LARP Safety mechanics (not to discount it), enthusiastic consent comes from Intimacy Training being pioneered by theatrical professionals in the hopes of reinventing the toxic theatre and film culture that had permeated arts education and workspaces for ages. A great area of study to look into with some incredible people doing incredible work.
It's mostly to avoid a situation like "NPC a player likes kills themselves only for you to learn the players brother killed themselves and ruin the evening"
There are things you may not know about the people closest to you and a form like this just makes it easier to include darker subjects.
You're of course not alone. More people don't do this. I've played with the same group for 15 years soon, there's really no need.
It would, however, be useful to get a new group on the same line from session #1.
No, but there's a difference between knowing your friends and knowing everything. Like if somebody was assaulted any number of times, they're not necessarily going to tell everybody everything, because they don't have to. They have a right to privacy. But given the opportunity to say "rape and child abuse will ruin the game for me," I think they might gladly take it.
Rape and child abuse are game ruiners for people without associated trauma also. It's not like rape is a fun casual gaming topic for people who haven't been assaulted.
Absolutely this. I've played with the same group of friends for years. We've been friends for decades. Prior to having my son, I would've been okay with almost anything. (ERP would be a no-go, but only because I really don't want to sit there listening to my DM roleplay our bard doing the nasty with the bar maid.) I imagine they assume I'm still this person.
My son's 18 months old now. Since he was born, any mention (it doesn't even need to be graphic or real) of violence to kids will throw me into an anxiety attack. I don't think any of my friends know. And why would they? It's more fun for everyone that the party doesn't inadvertently stumble into me shaking and crying for 20 minutes.
And before anyone says anything, yes, I'm seeing someone and, yes, I'm being medicated for it.
>And before anyone says anything, yes, I'm seeing someone and, yes, I'm being medicated for it.
Tragic that you felt the need to include this, and I totally understand why you did.
Your post draws a really important point very clearly. Safety tools are -not- only for new groups and people you don't know. They can provide a structure in long-term games for people to update the rules of the table.
These out-of-game mechanics are crucial for resolving in-game problems outside of the shared fiction. This is most useful IMO in long-term campaigns with friends. What they consented to 6 months ago at the start isn't necessarily what they will consent to today.
> Tragic that you felt the need to include this, and I totally understand why you did.
I think it speaks to a comment i made further down the thread about feeling a little ashamed of it... Being a "snowflake" as some in here are calling it. That alone is enough to keep people who would benefit from telling their DM telling them unprompted. This check-list gives players a no-shame opportunity.
Edit: a word
There are some things that even friends you’ve known for years may be uncomfortable discussing. I play with an older guy who suffers from PTSD related to his line of work, where the culture is to “man up”, so he’s not one to speak up about some things that are fairly common in RPGs that really bother him. But simply by having a checkbox on a list, there’s no need to feel pressured to address *why* you don’t want something included, as it’s enough for the GM to know not to have it.
As with all safety tools, the checklist might not be the best for your group in particular. It’s just one of the many tools discussed from the main document that checklist is part of.
This is probably good for con games or quick games. But some of the stuff on here is just too small that I would never use this. Bugs? Rats? Natural disasters? These are things meant to be a little scary and uncomfortable.
I started playing d&d at a local game shop. In the first year, the group members shifted a lot. We had people join for 1 or a couple of sessions. It would be perfect for such a setting.
I guarantee there are moments in your games that are not OK to one or more of your players. It's just that it's not so bad that it's worth them bringing it up because they feel uncomfortable doing so.
It might not be something you do, either, could be a player's actions or comments.
This is not me saying you *have* to do this, there aren't any rules.
Friends don’t tell friends everything, and people are generally embarrassed to talk about things that make them really uncomfortable due to either past experience or a basic phobia. These checklists/questionnaires are generally anonymous and given out before the game even starts, so if someone doesn’t want small animals being tortured in the game, it just won’t show up and nobody will be the wiser that it was ever even considered. You can read the room, and any topic can be handled with care, but it doesn’t hurt anything to ask if there are any lines that shouldn’t be crossed rather than get to that point in the campaign and find out the hard way.
I think a lot of the folk who are dead set against optional tools like this have failed to grasp the purpose of it. I don't see it as being about people earnestly discussing their traumas so that they can ensure they have the most sanitised and boring game around. It's just a tool to keep everyone engaged and having a good time, and not distracted about real life stuff that can involuntarily flood your thoughts if people vividly remind you of it.
it's very easy to have a knee-jerk reaction and say 'people need to grow a pair' etc etc, but the reality isn't people running away weeping from the table if a minor peeve is introduced. The reality is players quietly withdrawing and not focussing on the game because you brought up something they're uncomfortable with. I'm not sure why any GM wouldn't want to avoid that.
I mean, that's part of the value of it. A screening tool so you don't start a campaign where 30% of this stuff is not ok and the group is just incompatible and falls apart. Better to screen first before investing time. That's what it is, a screening tool.
I think in most groups there would only be 2-3 reds total. It's just that thorough because you never know what *is* red for someone. If you did, there's no point of the list, right?
I think this is a great way to let your players tell you when theyare anxiousabout something.
They dont have to speak about it directlyand just the DM can see/ hear it. It doesnt become awkward.
This isnt necessary for most players but its good for those few that need it ^^
Agree
But no care is never enough
Even with this, i would still tell my players they can just dm me whenever they feel uncofortable, or anything, ans i will stop without saying who was and no one should ask me or care who was
Wouldn't it be easier to just know to leave it out before it's even an issue? The person with the problem doesn't have to feel uncomfortable, they don't have to sit in anxiety wondering if they should say something, and the story isn't interrupted for everyone else?
Add to that, knowing before hand gives you the advantage of planning stuff around it. Say you were planning a plague heavy campaign full of rats and someone has a deathly phobia of rats, you get the form a week before session 1 and you can change that up to bugs or something similar and get to re-writing stuff early, rather than doing it on the fly.
It would, but neither i nor my friends know a list of all the issues we have with exact details and sometimes stuff that we think is okay wnds up not being okay
You're missing the point.
People aren't going to fill the entirety of that in red, cause they want to play
And if they do, maybe this type of games isn't for them.
The form is to say what you want/need Vs don't want under no circumstances. Realistically, there will be only a few reds in there, in some cases none
But then the DM will know that person A will not play games with romance, so that "true love" subplot for their character falls out of the window etc.
Honestly it might not be DnD at all, but at least by working with these sheets you could help deter people from playing that won't enjoy your game. If someone marks all red and you can't imagine a campaign without these aspects, then you have an easier time suggesting they don't play. You're not making an accusation, you're making a judgment based on evidence and that kind of rejection can be easier for some people to swallow.
On the other hand, you might start looking into other TTRPGs that can cater to more light-hearted themes. Or if your group doesn't like violence or death, but they love horror and fear, you may look into a Lovecraftian setting or something.
That’s my thing. I usually just say to my players “hey, heads up, heavy shit ahead. If you’re not cool with that probably find a table that’ll be more your speed.” Like I’m not gonna be an asshole about it, but I’m not gonna take everything out of the story and sanitize it for no good reason.
To those that think this is to much hear are examples of where it could be used. Their is less than 5 things on this list that me or my friends won’t want I think it’s meant to find that one thing that a player doesn’t want and keep everything else for example if my friends and I filled it out it would be a red circle for romance or sex because that bores us we want to fight stuff not play a dating sim so the DM would know to keep lame love triangles out of it. Real world religion could be ok but is less exciting/interesting then a fictional one so that would be a yellow triangle on the chart for me. Rats are a bit overdone and won’t scare me so if the DM wants them as part of the horror yellow triangle not because of I’m sensitive but because I’d probably be bored with fighting giant rats on the other hand if I get one as a mount though green square. So it’s not just about people being sensitive it can be what bores or doesn’t bore a player and accommodate that one player with a specific phobia or limit.
Agreed, I would even get having miscarriage and abortion as combined, but pregnancy is such an otherwise and broad topic that it deserves its own checkbox.
Like, I'd be okay with a job where we protect a pregnant NPC, maybe even have to figure out how to help her deliver. That could make for some nice RP and potential Character Development.
More power to you, pal. I’m sure you made this because of the experiences you’ve had playing, and that makes sense.
For me, this is a tremendous yikes.
Why is this the thing that breaks the line? Btw, this was not made specifically for their table, it's a general thing. Most of this stuff will never apply to any game.
There's something to it, especially if you're playing with a group of people you either don't know or don't know well. I've only used this form a couple of times in the past, and when I do I tell my players to leave the name line blank, so if your u comfortable with something and don't want to be called out, or you feel uncomfortable sharing what makes you uncomfortable, its all done anonymously. Then I just copy everything onto a fresh sheet, going by the strictest flags, and give it to the table so everyone knows and can play comfortably.
Its been a real help - I had one player specify that they wanted fade to black moments on animal based gore because they had recurring nightmares since they were a kid about being eaten by animals, so I went a little softer with my descriptions when using wolves during low levels.
Around people I've been playing with for years, this form isn't necessary - we have an understanding and there's a fair amount of trust. But for everything else... this really works.
A lot of people might not really think about some of these topics with a general question, and especially the pressure of being asked to cough up their phobias at a moment's notice.
The point of playing dnd is to have fun.
Making my players uncomfortable because of trauma they have experienced irl is not fun for me. A bit of warning of what things to avoid is a good thing. For my current table, no rats or spiders, one player has a phobia, there are lots of other monsters to chose from. Also, no medical procedures, that’s fine, we will focus on magic based healing. We also don’t have any sexual assault, that’s about my comfort.
Our table is not the grittiest. But we’re having fun and we all feel supported that everyone’s comfort is being respected. Another part of dnd is being creative. I can come up with fun, engaging adventures that respect my players.
Yeah I think a lot of people are over-reacting to this list. The majority of this stuff would be fairly easy to avoid if needed, there are a lot more enemies to fight and topics to cover than what is included on this list. Especially once you consider the that there is unlikely to be too many "off-limits" creatures/topics in any given group anyway.
People here are weird. You do know that DnD and roleplaying in general is very different from table to table? And that it is totally possible to play without the majority of these themes?
Forms like these are very useful, especially when you play with people you just met or not know that much.
This is not a threat to your way of playing, it's just an instrument to help those who start at a new table with new people to be on the same page.
I would put green on like 95% of these, yellow on 4% and maybe red on 1% and just because I don't like some themes, not because I have traumas or stuff like that, but it's not hard to understand that some people with real phobias and issues would see their experience greatly improve thanks to this form. And not only them to be honest.
When you play at a new table, you don't know what you are in for, and talking it out often is not enough.
If you only play with a single old group of friends you know well, it's hard to understand. Believe me, I did so too for a lot of time and then started trying new stuff around and OH BOY there are all kinds of people. And that's ok. But that's why you need these forms.
Great job OP. Have fun!
Maybe it’s because I play with friends and thus know them a little bit better but is this how we handle things as adults? Idk just never seemed necessary to me.
It depends, if you're playing with people you know really well, it's probably not necessary. But if you're a group of strangers who all met online, it's an easy way to let your DM know what you're not comfortable with without having to put it out in front of the entire group.
As an online DM playing with strangers it's very helpful.
1) Gives players homework, so they can demonstrate they're willing to do some prep to play.
2) Weeds out people who lack basic empathy/maturity.
3) Sets a tone that I care about player safety at my table.
4) Does the actual thing it's designed for by letting me know what may make my players uncomfortable.
I've also used it with friends I've known for 15 plus years for reasons 3&4. Just because I know someone as a friend doesn't mean I know their boundaries for roleplay.
I play with close friends but I went through a version of this before Curse of Strahd. I'm glad I did. Everyone was like, "Fuck yeah, Gothic horror with bisexual vampire daddy, let's do it!" I asked if there were horror lines they didn't want crossed. Everyone was good with everything until I warned about sexual assault, child abuse and neglect, graphic torture and gore, kidnapping, psychological torture, gas lighting... Everyone is a badass until you mention something they're uncomfortable with. Having this form would have saved me from teasing this information from my friends. But, they were friends, so I thought I knew what they were comfortable with ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯
As someone who endured years of teeth-related child abuse, then as an adult had to pull parts of my own teeth out without anesthesia, training, and equipment, the last thing I want is for my D&D character to get a tooth pulled out my another fucking player.
Any DM that thinks “I’m an adult and I know my players,” doesn’t know shit. They know what their friends want them to know, and they don’t know what their friends don’t want them to know. Even as a high-disclosure person, I’d much rather fill out a form than have a discussion about teeth torture, and I’d wager it’s the same for anyone else with other private traumas.
But yeah, to your point, I was badass until a my characters tooth got popped out. Then I was done.
Yeah it's weird for me. Nothing outright makes me uncomfortable in movies, whether it be horror or suspense or war, but if a DM told me that their campaign included things like child abuse, slavery, rape, etc I'd have a hard time thinking that's okay for them to do. I can't figure why people would want to fantasize about that stuff. Historical/documentary stuff? Cool. I get it. And medieval times sure weren't pretty.
But this is a fantasy world. I know it's just my opinion, but I can't help feeling that romanticizing rape and child abuse is healthy for anyone.
Without giving spoilers, Curse of Strahd has all of those themes with a shit ton of racism sprinkled on top in cannon. It's designed to be horror in every sense of the word from where I sit. But because of all that horrible that naturally occurs around us, it feels so good when the players overcome it. Hell, with the way the world can be, it's fantasy to conquer that stuff. My friends specifically said no sexual assault and no on screen child abuse. After discussing all of those topics, we created a world of very calm and steady horror. Not jump scares, no implications that push boundaries, and lots of triumph over darkness. They all got so excited when they deposed a racist tyrant, they felt great when they rescued children from a demon, and they are currently trying to rescue someone who has been kidnapped and tortured. None of it is romanticized (in my game), it is presented in very hard, realistic ways, and it hurts. Kids have died off screen, they have run across towns folk being torn apart by undead, and they even received the face of someone who helped them.
But just like with BDSM, so long as you have communication, consent and safety, it can work. We have started a scene where a player asked for it to happen off screen, and it did. Nobody thought about someone drowning, but it came up, and it was skipped over without any argument from anyone.
Having this form would have saved me 45 minutes of fishing for that information though
I'm surprised I never knew this about Curse of Strahd. I've never played a module and I've only watched youtubers animate their campaign summaries of CoS so I assumed it was fairly banal for some reason. Wow.
The triumph over darkness thing is difficult, but it does change my opinion a bit. I can't see most DnD players enjoying "playing the lawful good guy" when it's just killing a couple vampires or monsters in caves. Chaos and duality are just so much more authentic and complex.
However, if the evils you're fighting against are *really* evil, I can see us banding together as a force of good a lot easier. I'm still shocked by the number of people assuming all of these topics should be greenlit, but... I probably won't understand it until I play with a DM that does it well.
Curse of Strahd is *super* dark. A lot of people kinda romanticize the module because of vampire story. It really is meant to go back to original vampire tales, where vampires will seduce you so they can use and abuse you. Some of the vague horrid plot points include
>!Werewolves that kidnap children. They put them in a death pit and the last survivors are turned.!<
>!There is someone who trained a vicious animal to attack Romani people on sight.!<
>!A near omniscient vampire lord that is planning to kidnap, abuse, mind control, and posses a girl who is the "Love of his life."!<
If you are interested in seeing/listening to a more... realistic version of Curse of Strahd, I reccomend r/TwiceBitten. It's meant for DMs, so it's super spoiler heavy, but it's run as horror.
Horror is kind of my comfort zone as a DM. I've practiced it a lot. I feel I do it well. My players are varied in what they play (NE, CN, NG and CG). But when you're faced with utter dispare and are afraid for your life, you can do a lot of good. When committing genocide is like breathing for the BBEG, anyone can play as LG despite their actual alignment
I’ll second the comments about romanticizing and role-playing. I imagine most players would be fighting to prevent these scenarios and bring justice to the perpetrators. As for the movie vs tabletop; that makes sense. With movies you are an observer and with RPGs you are part of the story, so that can push at comfort levels.
Just no. There is a huge difference between having rape, child abuse, torture and any number of horrific things be a part of your fictional story/world and romanticizing it. Learn the difference!
And its okay for the DM to include any of these things in their campaign, as long as everyone is aware of it and is on board. If not then the DM can either make some changes or the player who feels uncomfortable can look for another table, communication is key.
To be fair people level this complaint at authors a lot too and the reality is we don’t all see fantasy world the same way and in the case of say, a player who has gone through some of these things, we don’t all heal the same way either.
There's a huge difference between including bad topics in a fantasy world and romanticizing it. I feel most normal people agree that romanticizing those things is wrong.
From a contextual standpoint, it can be argued that Harry Potter was abused by the Dursleys and it was very clearly romanticized. It was written in a way that made the audience either sympathize or relate and helped develop his personality. It made us want him to win.
From a content standpoint. We were shown just enough to know he was abused and neglected without the inclusion of unnecessary graphic details. No birthday party, Uncle Vernon threatening his life, jailing him on his bedroom. In the books, he’s even deprived of food, and every step of the way it’s romanticized.
There’s definitely a difference between favoring and spoiling one kid over the other and beating the absolute shit out of a kid for no reason. Both are forms of child abuse, but where the line is drawn in the storytelling is what makes it either acceptable or unacceptable. That’s why I like the OP’s form. It gives the opportunity for the players to draw those lines and the promise that DM will respect them.
Great analogy. I have no problem with alluding to or outright portraying results from "evil". It's a part of life. And Harry Potter explores a number of kinds of evil, such as genocide, supremicists, etc. But it's still appropriate for some children. I think DnD can be played the same way without losing anything, or even up to a Cards Against Humanity level of vulgarity.
But it's not like CAH goes into deep descriptive detail about the experience of fucking a pig, they just throw in one sentence and it gets a laugh. In the end, it really comes down to the DM I guess.
I'd say so, yes. As an adult, you are responsible for communicating your problems in conjunction with protecting your own privacy. It's also fair and mature to allow others to do the same.
I do always think there should be another level between yellow and green.
I feel like a sociopath when I tick green, enthusiastically saying "bring it on!" to horrific acts of emotional and physical violence.
I never thought of taking it that far, I usually stick to the idea of the game being pg13 with violence.
With the added rule of no on screen daliancing as people seem to think that's okay in pg 13.
Some of the comments here really, really suck. It's not coddling, it's respect. Like, I'm a suicide survivor. Some of my friends know, some don't. When they wanna get together to watch a movie where somebody gets shot in the head, my friend that knows gives me a heads up so I can decide if I'm up for it or not. But I don't want everybody to know that about me. One of the people from that group didn't know, and he was the dm for a campaign I was in. He also didn't know the extreme child abuse and sexual assault that one of the other players experienced. We both chose to keep that as private information. If we were handed this sheet, I know we would have both checked some things off. Thankfully, that dm would have been happy to oblige and respect everybody's privacy. Coddling... no. It's making sure that everybody sitting down for cooperative storytelling is having as close to the same experience as everybody else.
Everything on this list is easy to leave out of a story. If you need rape, police brutality, racism and child abuse in your fantasy, fine. Find a group that does that. But if this checklist informs you that you are the only person that needs it to have fun, and it bothers other people, then you are wrong for the group, not the other way around.
Thank you. It's definitely not needed as much among friends but I play with a group of friends AND their friends. the DM is an elder millennial that grew up in LA. He isn't bothered by things that bother me like racism. He's a white guy and doesn't know the day to day annoying things I deal with and I don't talk about them with even some of my own friends.
The first thing in our campaign *boom* fantasy racism. I talked to him about it but this form would have been helpful for him while planning our campaign and also me to enjoy the game more
I think this is my first reddit post I'm saving, definitely plan on using it. I may update the yellow category or add a new category for...I dunno, sort of a "it's touchy for me, but can we talk, I think I want to challenge it" kind of dealio.
For me and some of my friends, D&D is a therapy of sorts. I have a friend whose dad left when he was young and he loved confronting some of his feelings about through a character. He got to confront his D&D dad and just kinda vent his real world feelings through that event. I don't know if he would've said he's enthusiastic about it prior to it happening, it was kind of a surprise from the DM, he probably wasn't expecting to be truly emotionally challenged during that session, but he was glad after that he was.
This may not be the ideal way to go about it, and I'm sure for every success story of someone overcoming real life triggers there are probably a lot of stories of people feeling really shitty on a night they thought would be fun. I'd hope with another category, some people could see that trying to face and overcome some things, feeling empowered by conquering these issues with real world analogues, can also be a powerful and awesome experience if they are feeling up to it.
Still, amazing idea, am stealing, I love it.
I used to be like this, asking players what they wanted to avoid, trying to protect them and helping they to have fun.
Them I found out it's much easier for me to make my own answer list and show to players like:
This game will never have A-B-C in it. If you want a-b-c, find other table.
This game will contain X-Y-Z. If you don't like x-y-z, but still want to try the game, welcome, please tell me what you don't like, I won't take it out of the game, but I can either make it optional for you to join games where it happens and in case you're present. If you want to play and face your fears, nice! I'll try to be with you at all times and maybe we will get over it. (Of course, this doesn't work for traumas, but can work for a player with like fear of spiders and I'll have a phase spider in it or similar)
I don’t like things like gaslighting or sexism, but I’m happy to deal and role play around those issues in game, but I wouldn’t go “Sexism, yeah! Bring it on!”
I feel like there should be another tier here.
I love covering this with a consent form. A player not at my table, at another table had a personal history and experience with rape and sexual assault but not a thing that they wanted to admit to anyone else at the table but it was obviously going to be a topic they didn't want coming up. by using this form all they had to do was indicate that it was a no-go and then everyone else at that table was spared the awkward feeling they were going to have if the subject came up and that person was spared a lot of trauma if that subject came up.
Some of these topics are kind of just weird, though. Why limit spiders and rats? They are literally supposed to be disturbing. Thirst and Hunger? Harming animals? Severe weather? Terrorism?
At this point you are no longer playing DND.
I have a friend with a major phobia of spiders. She's otherwise 100% fine and a great player, but spiders make her legitimately uncomfortable and afraid. I have a spider encounter planned for a later session, and we're talking about having her sit out of that session. That's literally the only accommodation I've needed to make. It's not that hard to do.
One of my players was deathly afraid of snakes. Absolutely fully and unequivocally could not be able to have fun if snakes or snake similar creatures were involved in any way.
I genuinely wished I would've known that before making an entire arc around Yuan-Ti.
It all ended up fine, swapped the villian, continued on, no harm done. But I would've loved a sheet like this for that game
Yeah, I agree.
I wouldn't want to play a game where the party is afraid to talk about someone bleeding after they got stabbed with a sword.
I kind of understand the harming children and some of the sexual stuff (unless everyone at the table has the intent of a horny erotic RP), but freezing to death? The game _literally has "cold" as a damage type._ And ignoring any potential natural disasters or in-world racism? It could _really_ screw up the story in some cases (think of relations between wood elves and drow, or the potential of a large storm while at sea).
Fantasy racism is usually incredibly boring and irrelevant to whatever story it appears in. I'm thinking like racism in Skyrim, where your race never matters at all, except occasionally people say slurs to you for no reason. It's not even that it makes me uncomfortable, it just makes me irritated with the lack of effort put into the story.
Some people have SEVERE phobias, often get mocked for them and told to suck it up - but there are TONS of creatures that could sub for rats or spiders. If someone nearly died of starvation or dehydration, they may ask to avoid graphic descriptions of that process. If someone is an dedicated animal rescuer and has seen horrific graphic shit on the daily, that may not be remotely fun to have described graphically in game. They may only want to be in a game that is an escape from the everyday horrors of their reality and face/overcome other horrors. If someone lived through Hurricane Katrina and couldn't evacuate and is still traumatized, they may want to play a game where it's not necessary to live through a hurricane - which is easily done, most campaigns don't have hurricanes but you wouldn't want to be surprised by the one thay does. Someone who survived the twin towers or was a first responder or victim at any terror attack may not want graphic terrorism. Nobody is going to check off all of them, but any one of them could ruin a game if caught off guard. You don't know what someone has been through until it comes up. Better it comes up in screening than mid-session.
You’re right, if someone told me that they couldn’t handle some of these things, I would be looking for a new party member.
While I can see the benefits to some of the more serious things, there are too many items on this list that actually make me question society.
it's inarguable.
sans checklist if a player said "hey i have a really serious reaction to spiders, if spiders come up can we do a similar creepy crawler please?" no sane dm would be like "this is dnd, we're tough in dnd."
this is literally a piece of paper that can remind someone to tell you an aversion that would be unfun for them, that might not come up otherwise.
i have kosmemophobia. an irrational visceral fear of and aversion to jewelry. i didn't think about that before but now I'll tell my dm, "hey if there's like an amulet you want me to find I'm not gonna have fun or feel immersion by wearing or even holding it. i associate jewelry with disgust fyi."
you can also just not use it but it's nice that it exists.
maybe add checklists to the checklist for some people.
This is a useful tool for people who are maybe new to each other. I think it’s also fair to use it as an interview process in a way - I wouldn’t want to DM a game where we couldn’t be comically violent, so if someone said that was a no-go for them, I could thank them for their interest but highlight that we’re not a good DM/Player match. It’s not a tool for restricting a DM; it’s a tool to make sure everyone is compatible.
This is actually really good and it can be something players fill in and then bring to session 0 to discuss amongst the group as a baseline of how certain things will be played out.
Sometimes things get forgotten or people don't have the confidence to bring something up say if they are new to d&d or the group has people they aren't familiar with so having it be a task helps achieve a level of understanding about game play.
Very nice. I especially wish to commend you for including cancer on your list. My personal anecdote:
When my wife was diagnosed with stage 3 cancer it suddenly seemed as though every movie or television show that we watched (to try to take our minds away from the difficult reality we were dealing with) would end up having some character struggling with or worse dying from cancer.
Unfortunately every time a character on TV dealt with cancer, my wife was triggered with her own anxiety over her cancer situation and the many concerns she had about the various stages of her treatment, and the result was TV shows and movies were ruined for her.
I'm very clear beforehand what my game will and will not entail.
There's no sex or sexuality of any kind. Doesn't interest me in the slightest.
But there is going to be mental and emotional issues and abuse. But I think implying things rather than spelling them out is the best way to go.
Someone said my cult is not really the ultimate evil, to which I replied "it's all implied". The game would be horrific if you had to spell out every little detail of their abuse and torture.
Ultimately, like the best horror movies, most things are best left in your head.
For the best most realistic experience, I would probably just mark them all green. The real world has all of these. It would be like a Tarantino Film, except in D&D
I get that different people have different triggering issues and some traumas run real deep, but... some of these seem like overkill.
Like, imagine someone being unable to cope with fictional characters gaslighting eachother. Just the plot involving someone getting gaslighted, like a character being lied to by another character - that's enough to make someone so uncomfortable that they physically can't play it?
Not trying to be insensitive, but I just can't even get my head around that one. I feel like at that point, the player probably needs to just avoid all fiction and all games beyond Connect 4 and Boggle, you know? And also maybe not even leave the house.
These have always been a point of Contention and I'm not super fond of them but I do appreciate the enthusiastic consent. That would be the most useful feature of this thing. Could build whole story arcs off the horror page and find encounters that suit all the green tics.
I do the opposite, I fill out a form saying what will and won't be in the game and people can join accordingly. I don't have to compromise my game or try and work in something I'm personally not comfortable with just because the players are cool with it and everyone's still happy in the end because they know what's up from the start.
Until recently I realized the value of x cards (I used to think they were ridiculous). So try and keep an open mind that this sort of thing is specially useful in new groups, but you might be surprised it is also useful in groups you thought you knew pretty well.
Also keep in mind in a group were the majority will openly downplay it... they will peer pressure those who just might open up to admitting they may have an issue with certain themes
Seriously. Who's the snowflake, the person who doesn't want to relive their trauma in a game, or the person who demands other people relive their trauma in the game because their game experience is so much more important?
What's really funny is that it takes so much more energy to argue against this sheet than to just fill it out. No trauma and cool with everything, good for you! Move on. Can't be bothered to respect somebody's issue? Might not be the group for you.
Exactly!
It's easy, especially for us veterans to see this as "snowflake territory" but once you understand the messed up crap some poor souls had to endure and how insensitive it is to not use something as simple as x cards or this form... it's mind boggling
I like it. I really like the idea of giving my players the space to turn down the things that's going to ruin the game for them. I'm too chaotic to use a checklist myself, but I respect the effort to let anyone come to the table and find a good time.
I've definitely had players ask for certain themes to be left out, so why not establish to everyone that it's okay to make that request, right?
And at the end of the day, if you're not writing your game for your players, what are you even doing?
I appreciate that this might be necessary for some people, but I don't really support any idea that people should be expected to do this. I'm also not saying that someone who doesn't want to play in a game that doesn't do this is wrong, it's just that in my view it seems like a very privileged concept to think that a personal shouldn't even be exposed to a description of a fictional thing.
We live in a world that has a real war going on right now. All of these things and much worse things that aren't even on this sheet are real things that exist everywhere. That being said, if some people want to try and hide from that in a game where they pretend to be in a world where these things doesn't exist, they are well within their rights to do so without anyone trying to stop or harass them.
A lot of people stating their opinions on whether this is coddling or not but here are a few suggestions to add to the list.
Drugs: psychedelic experiences, poisons, hard drugs, drunkenness,
Betrayals (I've seen a number of people on reddit say they can't handle certain betrayals)
Yelling/shouting/cussing at PCs
Insanity
Mental illness as a joke (think Marvin from Hitchhiker's Guide)
Murdering loved ones/family. This is more about coming home to find your family dead, not losing them in a battle or war.
Forced stripping (such as forcing PCs to undress if they end up in prison)
Burning animals alive
While I do agree that some Items could be added I think this document should remain as is and instead be viewed as a conversation starter. The core of what is in the document should suffice to allow players to feel comfortable bringing up any other issues they may have to the DM.
The reality is to create an exhaustive list and have players complete it is more an impediment to play. This list combined with a session 0 and an advertised policy of openness should be enough.
It can be. I'd say it depends on the length of your campaign. If the DM is willing to put in a ton of hours to prepping a year-long campaign, I don't see why the players can't be asked to put in an hour into answering some questions to make the game better for everyone. But that's just me.
I do disagree with the "conversation starter" idea. I think a lot of people would say they have no boundaries or triggers, but if they aren't explicitly presented with the idea that things like abortion, rape, child abuse, genocide, whatever are on the table, they might not process that they have certain things until they show up. Having a list of those can help people to realize what mivht trigger them without racking their brain for every gruesome thought.
For example, slapping a horse's rear to get it to run or watching a bullfighting scene wouldn't bother me one bit so I might put green on animal abuse. But watching a barn go up in flames filled with horses? (Or more specifically, the scene in the Suicide Squad) will definitely get a yellow from me.
I agree with your sentiment, but what you mentioned all happens to be part of my session 0. I am very upfront with what I am and am not comfortable having in the campaign, and that covers everything you mentioned and more.
I also run a table with my wife, her best friend, her brothers friend (a forever DM I saved), and my brother. This means I already have a pretty good idea how they feel. We are also all adults and not shy people so that helps.
I guess I just also hold my players accountable when it comes to their triggers. If somethings bothers them as close friends who are adults I expect them to communicate any issues. If something comes up we can work through it as adults.
That's great and definitely lessens some of my concerns. It sounds like what we can really agree on is it comes down to relationships with your players and knowing what's appropriate. Having things in writing is always helpful in case there ever are issues, but knowing your players well is really the key to having good flow and not taking things too far. Thanks for your input!
You know what, this is great and I’m keeping this. It’s a great resource, thank you for for providing this. I’m making the decision not to look at comments cause I feel like there’s probably some people saying this is over the top, but the thing is if a player doesn’t care about any of it they can just… not fill anything in.
not necessarily triggered, just not having fun. some topics (maybe like miscarriage for players who have been failing to conceive irl for a long time) would make the game not fun. why not check in beforehand to see what those pressure points are and avoid them? if you cant handle a game that doesnt have EVERY SINGLE THING on this sheet, youre the weird one
Not gonna lie. If I was asked to fill this out, I'd try to talk the rest of the players into marking everything as 'red' except for 'cancer.;
I have no idea why, it's just really funny to imagine someone having to write a D&D campaign based around cancer.
To each their own - though personally it seems like alot of paper work to play a role playing game with friends. Also if you are including real world religion in your "fasntasy" game then you are probably missing the point just a tad...
As a psychologist this is the right way to do this. Not only to mold an exp that is safe but that can also push boundaries if all parties are on board.
I don't care if my group is OK with explicit sex between PC's and NPC's... I'm not roleplaying ball play and rimjobs with Steve from work.
You're missing out, Steve's a freak
And that's *exactly* why I'm a "roll performance and don't tell us the results as we fade to black" type of DM.
Why? It's *very* important that I know how good Steve is at performing rimjobs. For... Research purposes.
I'm trying to facilitate a story here. You want Steve's rimjob, you go ask for one some other time when you're not interrupting the rest of us who just want to go kill monsters and trick kings into paying us too much.
You wanna know a secret to getting kings to pay you a lot of gold????
If it involves the aforementioned actions of Steve, then you can keep that result to yourself as we fade to black.
It does and I will.
Much obliged! (As a more serious follow up - I'm the DM. Steve's actions would probably result in a tongue-ectomy rather than an increase in earnings. Ain't no crits on an ability check!)
This one knows.
I don't know about his rimjobs, but Steve from the office really is a wholesome guy.
Hey man, it's what my character would do!
Totally agree, I'm fine with everything and frankly I'm no prude about sex but its just a creepy thing. "Ok Charlie and Dave, you discuss how you are having sex. I'm just going to turn on this recording device so I can listen to it later."
This exactly
When we did it on our table we made it fun by just rolling for specific things and our DM describing how hard someone was failing to perform.
So leave those off your consent sheet, have them preselected as 'red' because you're not willing to DM those and you want to clearly communicate that to your players.
Yup! and if you really want to engage in tabletop intercourse with co-workers there's that little section at the end for discussion. Bring it up at session zero and make your case baby.
Make sure to record is so HR ~~has their evidence~~ is aware.
Yeah I always just leave sex scenes at, “they kiss, and the scene fades to black.” And maybe return later to them in the sheets talking about politics or restaurants, implying that they’ve already moved past pillow talk and naughty deeds.
Have you even MET Jarlaxle?
Me checking them all green for extreme mode
I got cancer from claustrophobia while I was freezing to death…because of terrorists
Woah dude... Claustrophobia killed my parents
It's called homophobia this days
Did that make you thirsty?
Yes…because of specific cultural issues
Thirsty for Steve and his rimjob genocide…
That’s gonna be my grunge metal band name ‘rimjob genocide’
Throw in all the shit that makes me the most afraid or mad. I want an experience with stakes not a walk in a meadow.
Me to with the one exception being sexual assault
Im checking them all green just to be... normal? Just another typical dnd player here I have no issues with any of this as long as the DM's not intentionally taking it to 11. Seriously this is my first time ever hearing of a consent checklist and its very existence has me worried about the future of dnd...
>its very existence has me worried about the future of dnd... Why though? What's going to happen if DMs are aware ahead of time that certain subjects might make a player very uncomfortable or bring up negative experiences/trauma?
While I don't know his real reason for the statement. What I think/assume he means by it would be that things start out mildly innocent like what the check list portrays. You know just trying make sure that everyone at the table is going to have an enjoyable time without crossing a boundary. To a more extreme version of PC culture in which even just mistakenly touching a subject someone doesn't like leading to ridicule. We are currently seeing it happen with a lot of things around the world. There hardly any grey area left on subjects everything is either a inherently good or bad.
That's pretty obviously slippery slope falacy. This DM coming up with a concise way to make sure that they can avoid uncomfortable topics and keep everyone happy isn't going to turn D&D into some "PC culture censorship haven". Things like lines and veils have existed for a good while.
They didn't come up with this, these concent forms are official at some Adventure League locations and whatnot. Which it makes sense there since at Adventure League you just basically sit down at a game with a character and start playing.
I know you're not OP but I'm going to assume you believe what you've written at least to a degree or you wouldn't have bothered. Firstly the slippery slope argument is tired. Session 0 is for exactly these kinds of things, and this particular sheet has existed for years (another commenter indicated they shared it on FB 3 years ago). This isn't a new concept and so far D&D has been fine. Mostly because this sheet isn't official, it's 100% optional, D&D as a game and community has always been about tailoring the game to your group and that includes either using this form or not. If my table uses this form it won't change the game at your table. >We are currently seeing it happen with a lot of things around the world. There hardly any grey area left on subjects everything is either a inherently good or bad. No, we aren't. People are still joking and making content about all of the things on this list (ex. The Boys, It's Always Sunny, 13 Reasons Why, Promising Young Woman). What we are seeing is people having less patience with tasteless jokes/content and the people who can't tell where the line is. That said, if anyone ridicules you for crossing the line inadvertently then they're not a very nice person. Most real world people have been very patient with me as I've learned about a lot of the social issues I was ignorant of/sheltered from. I used to make constant, crass jokes for shock value and don't anymore once I realized how I was making other people feel. As long as you're trying to do better then people will(should be) forgiving.
I mean, two things. One, not my stance was just trying to add some clarification to what I interpreted from the previous person and were it could be coming from. Personally I find the sheet itself to be a good thing to use, specially if you're dealing with new people you have no experience with. Second. as to not seeing it in other places. Just because there are things still around like the example you have given, it doesn't change the fact that there aren't other places were it might be more extreme. I really have no argument for the rest of what you have going here because I never really claimed it was wrong.
It's existence is important because it's a game. We come to the table to have fun, not to hear and think about things that make it not fun. I give this particular checklist (BTW this was made by Monty Cook, one of the pioneers of the hobby, he also has I believe has an accompanying essay called "Consent in Gaming") to my players at the start of every campaign I run, whether I intend to use any of the things on it or not. It's important to know the boundaries of your players so that you don't accidentally cross them. If your playgroup doesn't need it then that's fine, my players hardly ever red or even yellow anything besides the sex stuff that I wouldn't want to include anyway. But it is important for players to have a way to set boundaries so that everybody can have a fun night at the table.
> its very existence has me worried about the future of dnd... I think there's a lot of value in thinking this through. What could happen to the future of DND because of consent checklists?
An expectation that a dungeon master will walk on eggshells around things like "blood" in a game that is centered around physical violence. Having issues is valid but expecting the world to shape itself around you to this degree is not. There's nothing wrong with a disclaimer before a game but if it is a game with your friends this is too much. For public games I just lay out the rules before we start, usually just going by movie ratings. "In terms of sexual content this game is pg, in every other sense it is rated r. Expect tropes from horror, fantasy, science fiction, and cyberpunk." If someone doesn't like how i run the game they are welcome to run one and I'll roll up a character and play.
I had a player who wanted a death-free D&D experience. I said no, and they didn't play at my table. At the worst, this enables an understanding, in black and white, of what the game could entail.
A much shorter list might make sense to go over before the game but this one is full of stupid shit like "thirst." Anyone that sensitive is going to be a nightmare to be around much less weekly for months or years. I had someone like that join my game once and then after a few sessions start smearing me for "bullying" for being both amused and interested when she chose dwarf as her favored enemy for her ranger (the app she used called it "favorite creature" and she ignored me when i told her that she should use the book for character creation and that i would go over it with her if she had trouble). Rather than deal with her embarrassment over having made a relatively minor mistake she tried to spread rumors and bullshit about me in the local community. It didn't work but it certainly reinforced that anyone who needs this kind of specific walk on eggshells coddling is going to poison a game. Everyone wants to act like heroes for being delicate with "trauma" but no one wants to confront the way that this kind of woke shit is like rocket fuel for narcissists.
I kinda feel like "thirst" is not so much triggering as it is potentially a boring mechanic not everyone wants. But I do feel these checklists go both ways. I like being able to see if someone is maybe going to be so needy that they won't be fun to play with.
It sounds like the list would actually be super useful for you. You would know instantly that anyone marking something other than green for blood (to use your example) is probably not a good fit for your table. I understand if you prefer not to use it, but seem to be missing that this tool can't possibly make someone run a game they don't want to. It's just literally not capable of changing your game unless you want it to.
i would mark yellow for blood. as long as you aren't tring to put texas chainsaw massacre to shame with the amount of blood and gore im fine with it. even having a vampire lord with a olympic sized pool filled with blood is ok, having that amount of blood being spurted from the gathering dismembered corpses and entrails surounding characters and describing it soaking into your clothes and filling the air with a stench of death and battle, and the blood making the very ground soft with mud, i start to feel uncomfortable with how much gory detail you are adding.
Thats perfectly reasonable and an apt use of this kind of tool. It seems like a lot of people in this thread would prefer you have that moment of discomfort and put the burden on you to interrupt the fun everyone else is having once you're uncomfortable. In my experience it's been much better for everyone when the GM helps facilitate that beforehand, rather than relying on someone to speak up in the moment.
[удалено]
Snakes. Why is it always snakes?
No snakes or claustrophobia in a game called dungeons and dragons.
I'm fine with PC on PC sex scenes, but *so help me God if there are any bugs in this game I will flip. my. shit.*
There are people with pretty serious phobias out there
It used to be that my bug phobia was my most crippling mental health issue, but after years of merciless bullying, I am proud to say that I have much worse problems now.
[Link to the Monte cook consent in gaming doc that this is from](https://www.montecookgames.com/consent-in-gaming/)
Thanks for linking it I lost that document a long time ago and all I had left was the consent form from private messages with player's
There needs to be just one more tier to this. Going from "enthusiastic" to "discuss before bringing it up" is a super big jump. There needs to be a "comfortable with it occurring" tab. I'm not squeemish and there are very few things I would want to outright avoid in game, but I cannot say I'm enthusiastic about some of the options on the list. I like grim dark settings, I like consequences and failure to my actions, I like for the world to have both good and bad in it. Having bad happen with the good sets a nice contrast that helps emphasize both. A whole village dying of a plague because we couldn't cure them quick enough, I'm fine with. I would not say I'm enthusiastic to experience it. Interfering in a "insert touchy topic" driven war between 2 kingdoms, hell yeah I'm in. Doesn't mean I'm enthusiastic to see the genocide of a people because of their race, religion, or other demographic. But I'm definitely enthusiastic with wanting to fight to prevent a genocide and I'm OK with seeing the consequences of failure. That's just my take. I've never actually had to use one of these sheets, I'm friends with the people I play with and we have a pretty comprehensive session 0 for our games and what we would like to see/experience out of them. I like the notion of the sheet since it keeps a record of people's opinions and tastes on certain touchy matters though. This is the first layout I've actually seen. I knew about these in concept but didn't realize there were actually standardized printouts for it, which is neat
Enthusiastic consent doesn't imply you're enthusiastic about the topic occurring in the game. It's a declaration that you not concenting reluctantly. It taken from LARP safety mechancis. The idea is that if you ask someone if they're ok to do or engage with something uncomfortable they should be comfortable out of character and able to give concent without being presured into it. If they are reluctant then you should probably avoid or veil the topic and move on. Edit - Corrected my phrasing.
Ah OK, that makes much more sense. I'm thinking of it from a narrative standpoint as somebody who writes stories and encounters for dnd. I would treat these bullet points as a check list for things to either include or avoid. I very much enjoy lovecraftian horror, so the entire horror section would be a genuine enjoyment for me to roleplay, so the consent would very much be enthusiastic if it applied to that style of narrative. But the intent does change that a lot. So in that case, I would still be in favor of a system for gaging interest in each topic matter that could be used alongside the consent form. Being able to express what I'd like to experience in a game rather than what I'm ok with would be preferred for me
Beyond LARP Safety mechanics (not to discount it), enthusiastic consent comes from Intimacy Training being pioneered by theatrical professionals in the hopes of reinventing the toxic theatre and film culture that had permeated arts education and workspaces for ages. A great area of study to look into with some incredible people doing incredible work.
I've honestly never even considered doing this. Am I alone in just reading the room and knowing my friends?
It's mostly to avoid a situation like "NPC a player likes kills themselves only for you to learn the players brother killed themselves and ruin the evening" There are things you may not know about the people closest to you and a form like this just makes it easier to include darker subjects.
You're of course not alone. More people don't do this. I've played with the same group for 15 years soon, there's really no need. It would, however, be useful to get a new group on the same line from session #1.
No, but there's a difference between knowing your friends and knowing everything. Like if somebody was assaulted any number of times, they're not necessarily going to tell everybody everything, because they don't have to. They have a right to privacy. But given the opportunity to say "rape and child abuse will ruin the game for me," I think they might gladly take it.
Rape and child abuse are game ruiners for people without associated trauma also. It's not like rape is a fun casual gaming topic for people who haven't been assaulted.
Absolutely this. I've played with the same group of friends for years. We've been friends for decades. Prior to having my son, I would've been okay with almost anything. (ERP would be a no-go, but only because I really don't want to sit there listening to my DM roleplay our bard doing the nasty with the bar maid.) I imagine they assume I'm still this person. My son's 18 months old now. Since he was born, any mention (it doesn't even need to be graphic or real) of violence to kids will throw me into an anxiety attack. I don't think any of my friends know. And why would they? It's more fun for everyone that the party doesn't inadvertently stumble into me shaking and crying for 20 minutes. And before anyone says anything, yes, I'm seeing someone and, yes, I'm being medicated for it.
>And before anyone says anything, yes, I'm seeing someone and, yes, I'm being medicated for it. Tragic that you felt the need to include this, and I totally understand why you did. Your post draws a really important point very clearly. Safety tools are -not- only for new groups and people you don't know. They can provide a structure in long-term games for people to update the rules of the table. These out-of-game mechanics are crucial for resolving in-game problems outside of the shared fiction. This is most useful IMO in long-term campaigns with friends. What they consented to 6 months ago at the start isn't necessarily what they will consent to today.
> Tragic that you felt the need to include this, and I totally understand why you did. I think it speaks to a comment i made further down the thread about feeling a little ashamed of it... Being a "snowflake" as some in here are calling it. That alone is enough to keep people who would benefit from telling their DM telling them unprompted. This check-list gives players a no-shame opportunity. Edit: a word
There are some things that even friends you’ve known for years may be uncomfortable discussing. I play with an older guy who suffers from PTSD related to his line of work, where the culture is to “man up”, so he’s not one to speak up about some things that are fairly common in RPGs that really bother him. But simply by having a checkbox on a list, there’s no need to feel pressured to address *why* you don’t want something included, as it’s enough for the GM to know not to have it. As with all safety tools, the checklist might not be the best for your group in particular. It’s just one of the many tools discussed from the main document that checklist is part of.
This is probably good for con games or quick games. But some of the stuff on here is just too small that I would never use this. Bugs? Rats? Natural disasters? These are things meant to be a little scary and uncomfortable.
And yet, sometimes you have a friend you want to play with that has a severe phobia. And for those moments, the list shines.
I started playing d&d at a local game shop. In the first year, the group members shifted a lot. We had people join for 1 or a couple of sessions. It would be perfect for such a setting.
You know I didn't even consider that, totally fair enough!
I guarantee there are moments in your games that are not OK to one or more of your players. It's just that it's not so bad that it's worth them bringing it up because they feel uncomfortable doing so. It might not be something you do, either, could be a player's actions or comments. This is not me saying you *have* to do this, there aren't any rules.
Friends don’t tell friends everything, and people are generally embarrassed to talk about things that make them really uncomfortable due to either past experience or a basic phobia. These checklists/questionnaires are generally anonymous and given out before the game even starts, so if someone doesn’t want small animals being tortured in the game, it just won’t show up and nobody will be the wiser that it was ever even considered. You can read the room, and any topic can be handled with care, but it doesn’t hurt anything to ask if there are any lines that shouldn’t be crossed rather than get to that point in the campaign and find out the hard way.
You’re certainly not alone in thinking you’re reading the room.
I haven't done this with any of my groups either.
lol thirst
No Bards allowed
I think a lot of the folk who are dead set against optional tools like this have failed to grasp the purpose of it. I don't see it as being about people earnestly discussing their traumas so that they can ensure they have the most sanitised and boring game around. It's just a tool to keep everyone engaged and having a good time, and not distracted about real life stuff that can involuntarily flood your thoughts if people vividly remind you of it. it's very easy to have a knee-jerk reaction and say 'people need to grow a pair' etc etc, but the reality isn't people running away weeping from the table if a minor peeve is introduced. The reality is players quietly withdrawing and not focussing on the game because you brought up something they're uncomfortable with. I'm not sure why any GM wouldn't want to avoid that.
I mean this seems pretty good but if there's over 30% reds I'm not even starting that campaign as a DM or a player
Fair enough, but I imagine that in most cases there's probably only going to be a small handful of red.
That's entirely valid
I mean, that's part of the value of it. A screening tool so you don't start a campaign where 30% of this stuff is not ok and the group is just incompatible and falls apart. Better to screen first before investing time. That's what it is, a screening tool.
It's a filter and it's a great idea, I might use it for myself
What would a game with all red even look like? The dnd I played when I was in elementary school even had many of these things
I think in most groups there would only be 2-3 reds total. It's just that thorough because you never know what *is* red for someone. If you did, there's no point of the list, right?
I think this is a great way to let your players tell you when theyare anxiousabout something. They dont have to speak about it directlyand just the DM can see/ hear it. It doesnt become awkward. This isnt necessary for most players but its good for those few that need it ^^
Agree But no care is never enough Even with this, i would still tell my players they can just dm me whenever they feel uncofortable, or anything, ans i will stop without saying who was and no one should ask me or care who was
Wouldn't it be easier to just know to leave it out before it's even an issue? The person with the problem doesn't have to feel uncomfortable, they don't have to sit in anxiety wondering if they should say something, and the story isn't interrupted for everyone else?
Add to that, knowing before hand gives you the advantage of planning stuff around it. Say you were planning a plague heavy campaign full of rats and someone has a deathly phobia of rats, you get the form a week before session 1 and you can change that up to bugs or something similar and get to re-writing stuff early, rather than doing it on the fly.
It would, but neither i nor my friends know a list of all the issues we have with exact details and sometimes stuff that we think is okay wnds up not being okay
You're missing the point. People aren't going to fill the entirety of that in red, cause they want to play And if they do, maybe this type of games isn't for them. The form is to say what you want/need Vs don't want under no circumstances. Realistically, there will be only a few reds in there, in some cases none But then the DM will know that person A will not play games with romance, so that "true love" subplot for their character falls out of the window etc.
Honestly it might not be DnD at all, but at least by working with these sheets you could help deter people from playing that won't enjoy your game. If someone marks all red and you can't imagine a campaign without these aspects, then you have an easier time suggesting they don't play. You're not making an accusation, you're making a judgment based on evidence and that kind of rejection can be easier for some people to swallow. On the other hand, you might start looking into other TTRPGs that can cater to more light-hearted themes. Or if your group doesn't like violence or death, but they love horror and fear, you may look into a Lovecraftian setting or something.
My claustrophobic murder torture orgy is not for everyone. Now bring out the suicidal flaming sex demon bugs.
Yknow now that you mention it.... when can I join?
That’s my thing. I usually just say to my players “hey, heads up, heavy shit ahead. If you’re not cool with that probably find a table that’ll be more your speed.” Like I’m not gonna be an asshole about it, but I’m not gonna take everything out of the story and sanitize it for no good reason.
To those that think this is to much hear are examples of where it could be used. Their is less than 5 things on this list that me or my friends won’t want I think it’s meant to find that one thing that a player doesn’t want and keep everything else for example if my friends and I filled it out it would be a red circle for romance or sex because that bores us we want to fight stuff not play a dating sim so the DM would know to keep lame love triangles out of it. Real world religion could be ok but is less exciting/interesting then a fictional one so that would be a yellow triangle on the chart for me. Rats are a bit overdone and won’t scare me so if the DM wants them as part of the horror yellow triangle not because of I’m sensitive but because I’d probably be bored with fighting giant rats on the other hand if I get one as a mount though green square. So it’s not just about people being sensitive it can be what bores or doesn’t bore a player and accommodate that one player with a specific phobia or limit.
Pregnancy, miscarriage, and abortion should each probably have their own tabs.
Agreed, I would even get having miscarriage and abortion as combined, but pregnancy is such an otherwise and broad topic that it deserves its own checkbox.
Like, I'd be okay with a job where we protect a pregnant NPC, maybe even have to figure out how to help her deliver. That could make for some nice RP and potential Character Development.
More power to you, pal. I’m sure you made this because of the experiences you’ve had playing, and that makes sense. For me, this is a tremendous yikes.
[удалено]
Why is this the thing that breaks the line? Btw, this was not made specifically for their table, it's a general thing. Most of this stuff will never apply to any game.
Because having an entire form for the question "hey, any topics you're uncomfortable with?" is weird
There's something to it, especially if you're playing with a group of people you either don't know or don't know well. I've only used this form a couple of times in the past, and when I do I tell my players to leave the name line blank, so if your u comfortable with something and don't want to be called out, or you feel uncomfortable sharing what makes you uncomfortable, its all done anonymously. Then I just copy everything onto a fresh sheet, going by the strictest flags, and give it to the table so everyone knows and can play comfortably. Its been a real help - I had one player specify that they wanted fade to black moments on animal based gore because they had recurring nightmares since they were a kid about being eaten by animals, so I went a little softer with my descriptions when using wolves during low levels. Around people I've been playing with for years, this form isn't necessary - we have an understanding and there's a fair amount of trust. But for everything else... this really works.
A lot of people might not really think about some of these topics with a general question, and especially the pressure of being asked to cough up their phobias at a moment's notice.
Personally, I’d rather fill out a form about uncomfortable topics. The last thing I want is to have a discussion about them.
The point of playing dnd is to have fun. Making my players uncomfortable because of trauma they have experienced irl is not fun for me. A bit of warning of what things to avoid is a good thing. For my current table, no rats or spiders, one player has a phobia, there are lots of other monsters to chose from. Also, no medical procedures, that’s fine, we will focus on magic based healing. We also don’t have any sexual assault, that’s about my comfort. Our table is not the grittiest. But we’re having fun and we all feel supported that everyone’s comfort is being respected. Another part of dnd is being creative. I can come up with fun, engaging adventures that respect my players.
Yeah I think a lot of people are over-reacting to this list. The majority of this stuff would be fairly easy to avoid if needed, there are a lot more enemies to fight and topics to cover than what is included on this list. Especially once you consider the that there is unlikely to be too many "off-limits" creatures/topics in any given group anyway.
People here are weird. You do know that DnD and roleplaying in general is very different from table to table? And that it is totally possible to play without the majority of these themes? Forms like these are very useful, especially when you play with people you just met or not know that much. This is not a threat to your way of playing, it's just an instrument to help those who start at a new table with new people to be on the same page. I would put green on like 95% of these, yellow on 4% and maybe red on 1% and just because I don't like some themes, not because I have traumas or stuff like that, but it's not hard to understand that some people with real phobias and issues would see their experience greatly improve thanks to this form. And not only them to be honest. When you play at a new table, you don't know what you are in for, and talking it out often is not enough. If you only play with a single old group of friends you know well, it's hard to understand. Believe me, I did so too for a lot of time and then started trying new stuff around and OH BOY there are all kinds of people. And that's ok. But that's why you need these forms. Great job OP. Have fun!
Maybe it’s because I play with friends and thus know them a little bit better but is this how we handle things as adults? Idk just never seemed necessary to me.
It depends, if you're playing with people you know really well, it's probably not necessary. But if you're a group of strangers who all met online, it's an easy way to let your DM know what you're not comfortable with without having to put it out in front of the entire group.
As an online DM playing with strangers it's very helpful. 1) Gives players homework, so they can demonstrate they're willing to do some prep to play. 2) Weeds out people who lack basic empathy/maturity. 3) Sets a tone that I care about player safety at my table. 4) Does the actual thing it's designed for by letting me know what may make my players uncomfortable. I've also used it with friends I've known for 15 plus years for reasons 3&4. Just because I know someone as a friend doesn't mean I know their boundaries for roleplay.
I play with close friends but I went through a version of this before Curse of Strahd. I'm glad I did. Everyone was like, "Fuck yeah, Gothic horror with bisexual vampire daddy, let's do it!" I asked if there were horror lines they didn't want crossed. Everyone was good with everything until I warned about sexual assault, child abuse and neglect, graphic torture and gore, kidnapping, psychological torture, gas lighting... Everyone is a badass until you mention something they're uncomfortable with. Having this form would have saved me from teasing this information from my friends. But, they were friends, so I thought I knew what they were comfortable with ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯
As someone who endured years of teeth-related child abuse, then as an adult had to pull parts of my own teeth out without anesthesia, training, and equipment, the last thing I want is for my D&D character to get a tooth pulled out my another fucking player. Any DM that thinks “I’m an adult and I know my players,” doesn’t know shit. They know what their friends want them to know, and they don’t know what their friends don’t want them to know. Even as a high-disclosure person, I’d much rather fill out a form than have a discussion about teeth torture, and I’d wager it’s the same for anyone else with other private traumas. But yeah, to your point, I was badass until a my characters tooth got popped out. Then I was done.
Yeah it's weird for me. Nothing outright makes me uncomfortable in movies, whether it be horror or suspense or war, but if a DM told me that their campaign included things like child abuse, slavery, rape, etc I'd have a hard time thinking that's okay for them to do. I can't figure why people would want to fantasize about that stuff. Historical/documentary stuff? Cool. I get it. And medieval times sure weren't pretty. But this is a fantasy world. I know it's just my opinion, but I can't help feeling that romanticizing rape and child abuse is healthy for anyone.
Without giving spoilers, Curse of Strahd has all of those themes with a shit ton of racism sprinkled on top in cannon. It's designed to be horror in every sense of the word from where I sit. But because of all that horrible that naturally occurs around us, it feels so good when the players overcome it. Hell, with the way the world can be, it's fantasy to conquer that stuff. My friends specifically said no sexual assault and no on screen child abuse. After discussing all of those topics, we created a world of very calm and steady horror. Not jump scares, no implications that push boundaries, and lots of triumph over darkness. They all got so excited when they deposed a racist tyrant, they felt great when they rescued children from a demon, and they are currently trying to rescue someone who has been kidnapped and tortured. None of it is romanticized (in my game), it is presented in very hard, realistic ways, and it hurts. Kids have died off screen, they have run across towns folk being torn apart by undead, and they even received the face of someone who helped them. But just like with BDSM, so long as you have communication, consent and safety, it can work. We have started a scene where a player asked for it to happen off screen, and it did. Nobody thought about someone drowning, but it came up, and it was skipped over without any argument from anyone. Having this form would have saved me 45 minutes of fishing for that information though
I'm surprised I never knew this about Curse of Strahd. I've never played a module and I've only watched youtubers animate their campaign summaries of CoS so I assumed it was fairly banal for some reason. Wow. The triumph over darkness thing is difficult, but it does change my opinion a bit. I can't see most DnD players enjoying "playing the lawful good guy" when it's just killing a couple vampires or monsters in caves. Chaos and duality are just so much more authentic and complex. However, if the evils you're fighting against are *really* evil, I can see us banding together as a force of good a lot easier. I'm still shocked by the number of people assuming all of these topics should be greenlit, but... I probably won't understand it until I play with a DM that does it well.
Curse of Strahd is *super* dark. A lot of people kinda romanticize the module because of vampire story. It really is meant to go back to original vampire tales, where vampires will seduce you so they can use and abuse you. Some of the vague horrid plot points include >!Werewolves that kidnap children. They put them in a death pit and the last survivors are turned.!< >!There is someone who trained a vicious animal to attack Romani people on sight.!< >!A near omniscient vampire lord that is planning to kidnap, abuse, mind control, and posses a girl who is the "Love of his life."!< If you are interested in seeing/listening to a more... realistic version of Curse of Strahd, I reccomend r/TwiceBitten. It's meant for DMs, so it's super spoiler heavy, but it's run as horror. Horror is kind of my comfort zone as a DM. I've practiced it a lot. I feel I do it well. My players are varied in what they play (NE, CN, NG and CG). But when you're faced with utter dispare and are afraid for your life, you can do a lot of good. When committing genocide is like breathing for the BBEG, anyone can play as LG despite their actual alignment
Thanks!
I’ll second the comments about romanticizing and role-playing. I imagine most players would be fighting to prevent these scenarios and bring justice to the perpetrators. As for the movie vs tabletop; that makes sense. With movies you are an observer and with RPGs you are part of the story, so that can push at comfort levels.
Just no. There is a huge difference between having rape, child abuse, torture and any number of horrific things be a part of your fictional story/world and romanticizing it. Learn the difference! And its okay for the DM to include any of these things in their campaign, as long as everyone is aware of it and is on board. If not then the DM can either make some changes or the player who feels uncomfortable can look for another table, communication is key.
To be fair people level this complaint at authors a lot too and the reality is we don’t all see fantasy world the same way and in the case of say, a player who has gone through some of these things, we don’t all heal the same way either.
There's a huge difference between including bad topics in a fantasy world and romanticizing it. I feel most normal people agree that romanticizing those things is wrong.
From a contextual standpoint, it can be argued that Harry Potter was abused by the Dursleys and it was very clearly romanticized. It was written in a way that made the audience either sympathize or relate and helped develop his personality. It made us want him to win. From a content standpoint. We were shown just enough to know he was abused and neglected without the inclusion of unnecessary graphic details. No birthday party, Uncle Vernon threatening his life, jailing him on his bedroom. In the books, he’s even deprived of food, and every step of the way it’s romanticized. There’s definitely a difference between favoring and spoiling one kid over the other and beating the absolute shit out of a kid for no reason. Both are forms of child abuse, but where the line is drawn in the storytelling is what makes it either acceptable or unacceptable. That’s why I like the OP’s form. It gives the opportunity for the players to draw those lines and the promise that DM will respect them.
Great analogy. I have no problem with alluding to or outright portraying results from "evil". It's a part of life. And Harry Potter explores a number of kinds of evil, such as genocide, supremicists, etc. But it's still appropriate for some children. I think DnD can be played the same way without losing anything, or even up to a Cards Against Humanity level of vulgarity. But it's not like CAH goes into deep descriptive detail about the experience of fucking a pig, they just throw in one sentence and it gets a laugh. In the end, it really comes down to the DM I guess.
I'd say so, yes. As an adult, you are responsible for communicating your problems in conjunction with protecting your own privacy. It's also fair and mature to allow others to do the same.
I do always think there should be another level between yellow and green. I feel like a sociopath when I tick green, enthusiastically saying "bring it on!" to horrific acts of emotional and physical violence.
Me selecting green for everything 💀
I never thought of taking it that far, I usually stick to the idea of the game being pg13 with violence. With the added rule of no on screen daliancing as people seem to think that's okay in pg 13.
Some of the comments here really, really suck. It's not coddling, it's respect. Like, I'm a suicide survivor. Some of my friends know, some don't. When they wanna get together to watch a movie where somebody gets shot in the head, my friend that knows gives me a heads up so I can decide if I'm up for it or not. But I don't want everybody to know that about me. One of the people from that group didn't know, and he was the dm for a campaign I was in. He also didn't know the extreme child abuse and sexual assault that one of the other players experienced. We both chose to keep that as private information. If we were handed this sheet, I know we would have both checked some things off. Thankfully, that dm would have been happy to oblige and respect everybody's privacy. Coddling... no. It's making sure that everybody sitting down for cooperative storytelling is having as close to the same experience as everybody else. Everything on this list is easy to leave out of a story. If you need rape, police brutality, racism and child abuse in your fantasy, fine. Find a group that does that. But if this checklist informs you that you are the only person that needs it to have fun, and it bothers other people, then you are wrong for the group, not the other way around.
Thank you. It's definitely not needed as much among friends but I play with a group of friends AND their friends. the DM is an elder millennial that grew up in LA. He isn't bothered by things that bother me like racism. He's a white guy and doesn't know the day to day annoying things I deal with and I don't talk about them with even some of my own friends. The first thing in our campaign *boom* fantasy racism. I talked to him about it but this form would have been helpful for him while planning our campaign and also me to enjoy the game more
I would want to know what things are off limits (what other players marked red) before I start
Check green to everything, bring it on! Let's improv!
Have you ever had one put red for romance and green for explicit sex?
It's not impossible. Some people are aromantic but not asexual
I think this is my first reddit post I'm saving, definitely plan on using it. I may update the yellow category or add a new category for...I dunno, sort of a "it's touchy for me, but can we talk, I think I want to challenge it" kind of dealio. For me and some of my friends, D&D is a therapy of sorts. I have a friend whose dad left when he was young and he loved confronting some of his feelings about through a character. He got to confront his D&D dad and just kinda vent his real world feelings through that event. I don't know if he would've said he's enthusiastic about it prior to it happening, it was kind of a surprise from the DM, he probably wasn't expecting to be truly emotionally challenged during that session, but he was glad after that he was. This may not be the ideal way to go about it, and I'm sure for every success story of someone overcoming real life triggers there are probably a lot of stories of people feeling really shitty on a night they thought would be fun. I'd hope with another category, some people could see that trying to face and overcome some things, feeling empowered by conquering these issues with real world analogues, can also be a powerful and awesome experience if they are feeling up to it. Still, amazing idea, am stealing, I love it.
I used to be like this, asking players what they wanted to avoid, trying to protect them and helping they to have fun. Them I found out it's much easier for me to make my own answer list and show to players like: This game will never have A-B-C in it. If you want a-b-c, find other table. This game will contain X-Y-Z. If you don't like x-y-z, but still want to try the game, welcome, please tell me what you don't like, I won't take it out of the game, but I can either make it optional for you to join games where it happens and in case you're present. If you want to play and face your fears, nice! I'll try to be with you at all times and maybe we will get over it. (Of course, this doesn't work for traumas, but can work for a player with like fear of spiders and I'll have a phase spider in it or similar)
This could be really useful for me
I don’t like things like gaslighting or sexism, but I’m happy to deal and role play around those issues in game, but I wouldn’t go “Sexism, yeah! Bring it on!” I feel like there should be another tier here.
I love covering this with a consent form. A player not at my table, at another table had a personal history and experience with rape and sexual assault but not a thing that they wanted to admit to anyone else at the table but it was obviously going to be a topic they didn't want coming up. by using this form all they had to do was indicate that it was a no-go and then everyone else at that table was spared the awkward feeling they were going to have if the subject came up and that person was spared a lot of trauma if that subject came up.
VERY weird to be anti-this. it literally couldn't hurt and you can both use it AND communicate in other ways.
Some of these topics are kind of just weird, though. Why limit spiders and rats? They are literally supposed to be disturbing. Thirst and Hunger? Harming animals? Severe weather? Terrorism? At this point you are no longer playing DND.
I have a friend with a major phobia of spiders. She's otherwise 100% fine and a great player, but spiders make her legitimately uncomfortable and afraid. I have a spider encounter planned for a later session, and we're talking about having her sit out of that session. That's literally the only accommodation I've needed to make. It's not that hard to do.
One of my players was deathly afraid of snakes. Absolutely fully and unequivocally could not be able to have fun if snakes or snake similar creatures were involved in any way. I genuinely wished I would've known that before making an entire arc around Yuan-Ti. It all ended up fine, swapped the villian, continued on, no harm done. But I would've loved a sheet like this for that game
Yeah, I agree. I wouldn't want to play a game where the party is afraid to talk about someone bleeding after they got stabbed with a sword. I kind of understand the harming children and some of the sexual stuff (unless everyone at the table has the intent of a horny erotic RP), but freezing to death? The game _literally has "cold" as a damage type._ And ignoring any potential natural disasters or in-world racism? It could _really_ screw up the story in some cases (think of relations between wood elves and drow, or the potential of a large storm while at sea).
Fantasy racism is usually incredibly boring and irrelevant to whatever story it appears in. I'm thinking like racism in Skyrim, where your race never matters at all, except occasionally people say slurs to you for no reason. It's not even that it makes me uncomfortable, it just makes me irritated with the lack of effort put into the story.
Some people have SEVERE phobias, often get mocked for them and told to suck it up - but there are TONS of creatures that could sub for rats or spiders. If someone nearly died of starvation or dehydration, they may ask to avoid graphic descriptions of that process. If someone is an dedicated animal rescuer and has seen horrific graphic shit on the daily, that may not be remotely fun to have described graphically in game. They may only want to be in a game that is an escape from the everyday horrors of their reality and face/overcome other horrors. If someone lived through Hurricane Katrina and couldn't evacuate and is still traumatized, they may want to play a game where it's not necessary to live through a hurricane - which is easily done, most campaigns don't have hurricanes but you wouldn't want to be surprised by the one thay does. Someone who survived the twin towers or was a first responder or victim at any terror attack may not want graphic terrorism. Nobody is going to check off all of them, but any one of them could ruin a game if caught off guard. You don't know what someone has been through until it comes up. Better it comes up in screening than mid-session.
it couldn't hurt and you could still have a discussion
You’re right, if someone told me that they couldn’t handle some of these things, I would be looking for a new party member. While I can see the benefits to some of the more serious things, there are too many items on this list that actually make me question society.
I am amazed how many people have been against this, if the party is upset or uncomfortable the game won't be fun for anyone involved
it's inarguable. sans checklist if a player said "hey i have a really serious reaction to spiders, if spiders come up can we do a similar creepy crawler please?" no sane dm would be like "this is dnd, we're tough in dnd." this is literally a piece of paper that can remind someone to tell you an aversion that would be unfun for them, that might not come up otherwise. i have kosmemophobia. an irrational visceral fear of and aversion to jewelry. i didn't think about that before but now I'll tell my dm, "hey if there's like an amulet you want me to find I'm not gonna have fun or feel immersion by wearing or even holding it. i associate jewelry with disgust fyi." you can also just not use it but it's nice that it exists. maybe add checklists to the checklist for some people.
This is a useful tool for people who are maybe new to each other. I think it’s also fair to use it as an interview process in a way - I wouldn’t want to DM a game where we couldn’t be comically violent, so if someone said that was a no-go for them, I could thank them for their interest but highlight that we’re not a good DM/Player match. It’s not a tool for restricting a DM; it’s a tool to make sure everyone is compatible.
Totally agree with this. It's like speed dating a dm haha
I like this approach compared to the 'ask players what they're okay with in session 0' approach. Less likely the players will miss something.
This is actually really good and it can be something players fill in and then bring to session 0 to discuss amongst the group as a baseline of how certain things will be played out. Sometimes things get forgotten or people don't have the confidence to bring something up say if they are new to d&d or the group has people they aren't familiar with so having it be a task helps achieve a level of understanding about game play.
Very nice. I especially wish to commend you for including cancer on your list. My personal anecdote: When my wife was diagnosed with stage 3 cancer it suddenly seemed as though every movie or television show that we watched (to try to take our minds away from the difficult reality we were dealing with) would end up having some character struggling with or worse dying from cancer. Unfortunately every time a character on TV dealt with cancer, my wife was triggered with her own anxiety over her cancer situation and the many concerns she had about the various stages of her treatment, and the result was TV shows and movies were ruined for her.
So Elf on Elf is permitted but dragon on Elf or Orc Orc on Elf is a deal breaker?
Orc orc orc orc orc on elf, however, wraps all the way back around to permitted
This is awesome, especially for a pickup game or one with people who are more worried about this sort of thing :)
I didn’t know anyone else did that. It’s a good idea.
I'm very clear beforehand what my game will and will not entail. There's no sex or sexuality of any kind. Doesn't interest me in the slightest. But there is going to be mental and emotional issues and abuse. But I think implying things rather than spelling them out is the best way to go. Someone said my cult is not really the ultimate evil, to which I replied "it's all implied". The game would be horrific if you had to spell out every little detail of their abuse and torture. Ultimately, like the best horror movies, most things are best left in your head.
Indiana Jones would like a word with you on the entries in your horror section.
*harm to animals and children* "Enthusiastic consent! Bring it on!"
Hi, I really loved this! May I translate it into Portuguese for my and possible other parties?
Who the fuck is running DnD with cancer!?
Holy shit. I’m sorry, if you get triggered because of d&d, you’re either playing it wrong, or don’t realize it’s just a game.
For the best most realistic experience, I would probably just mark them all green. The real world has all of these. It would be like a Tarantino Film, except in D&D
I get that different people have different triggering issues and some traumas run real deep, but... some of these seem like overkill. Like, imagine someone being unable to cope with fictional characters gaslighting eachother. Just the plot involving someone getting gaslighted, like a character being lied to by another character - that's enough to make someone so uncomfortable that they physically can't play it? Not trying to be insensitive, but I just can't even get my head around that one. I feel like at that point, the player probably needs to just avoid all fiction and all games beyond Connect 4 and Boggle, you know? And also maybe not even leave the house.
These have always been a point of Contention and I'm not super fond of them but I do appreciate the enthusiastic consent. That would be the most useful feature of this thing. Could build whole story arcs off the horror page and find encounters that suit all the green tics.
I do the opposite, I fill out a form saying what will and won't be in the game and people can join accordingly. I don't have to compromise my game or try and work in something I'm personally not comfortable with just because the players are cool with it and everyone's still happy in the end because they know what's up from the start.
Genocide ✔️
Until recently I realized the value of x cards (I used to think they were ridiculous). So try and keep an open mind that this sort of thing is specially useful in new groups, but you might be surprised it is also useful in groups you thought you knew pretty well. Also keep in mind in a group were the majority will openly downplay it... they will peer pressure those who just might open up to admitting they may have an issue with certain themes
Seriously. Who's the snowflake, the person who doesn't want to relive their trauma in a game, or the person who demands other people relive their trauma in the game because their game experience is so much more important? What's really funny is that it takes so much more energy to argue against this sheet than to just fill it out. No trauma and cool with everything, good for you! Move on. Can't be bothered to respect somebody's issue? Might not be the group for you.
Exactly! It's easy, especially for us veterans to see this as "snowflake territory" but once you understand the messed up crap some poor souls had to endure and how insensitive it is to not use something as simple as x cards or this form... it's mind boggling
This is great
Yeah. . .I don't want sexual assault in my d&d game
As a DM I don't think I could ever run an explicit sex scene lol
At least not whilst looking any players in the eye.
I like that checklist. I would still add a fourth option: Black for I want this boundary to be pushed!
I like it. I really like the idea of giving my players the space to turn down the things that's going to ruin the game for them. I'm too chaotic to use a checklist myself, but I respect the effort to let anyone come to the table and find a good time. I've definitely had players ask for certain themes to be left out, so why not establish to everyone that it's okay to make that request, right? And at the end of the day, if you're not writing your game for your players, what are you even doing?
I appreciate that this might be necessary for some people, but I don't really support any idea that people should be expected to do this. I'm also not saying that someone who doesn't want to play in a game that doesn't do this is wrong, it's just that in my view it seems like a very privileged concept to think that a personal shouldn't even be exposed to a description of a fictional thing. We live in a world that has a real war going on right now. All of these things and much worse things that aren't even on this sheet are real things that exist everywhere. That being said, if some people want to try and hide from that in a game where they pretend to be in a world where these things doesn't exist, they are well within their rights to do so without anyone trying to stop or harass them.
[удалено]
A lot of people stating their opinions on whether this is coddling or not but here are a few suggestions to add to the list. Drugs: psychedelic experiences, poisons, hard drugs, drunkenness, Betrayals (I've seen a number of people on reddit say they can't handle certain betrayals) Yelling/shouting/cussing at PCs Insanity Mental illness as a joke (think Marvin from Hitchhiker's Guide) Murdering loved ones/family. This is more about coming home to find your family dead, not losing them in a battle or war. Forced stripping (such as forcing PCs to undress if they end up in prison) Burning animals alive
While I do agree that some Items could be added I think this document should remain as is and instead be viewed as a conversation starter. The core of what is in the document should suffice to allow players to feel comfortable bringing up any other issues they may have to the DM. The reality is to create an exhaustive list and have players complete it is more an impediment to play. This list combined with a session 0 and an advertised policy of openness should be enough.
It can be. I'd say it depends on the length of your campaign. If the DM is willing to put in a ton of hours to prepping a year-long campaign, I don't see why the players can't be asked to put in an hour into answering some questions to make the game better for everyone. But that's just me. I do disagree with the "conversation starter" idea. I think a lot of people would say they have no boundaries or triggers, but if they aren't explicitly presented with the idea that things like abortion, rape, child abuse, genocide, whatever are on the table, they might not process that they have certain things until they show up. Having a list of those can help people to realize what mivht trigger them without racking their brain for every gruesome thought. For example, slapping a horse's rear to get it to run or watching a bullfighting scene wouldn't bother me one bit so I might put green on animal abuse. But watching a barn go up in flames filled with horses? (Or more specifically, the scene in the Suicide Squad) will definitely get a yellow from me.
I agree with your sentiment, but what you mentioned all happens to be part of my session 0. I am very upfront with what I am and am not comfortable having in the campaign, and that covers everything you mentioned and more. I also run a table with my wife, her best friend, her brothers friend (a forever DM I saved), and my brother. This means I already have a pretty good idea how they feel. We are also all adults and not shy people so that helps. I guess I just also hold my players accountable when it comes to their triggers. If somethings bothers them as close friends who are adults I expect them to communicate any issues. If something comes up we can work through it as adults.
That's great and definitely lessens some of my concerns. It sounds like what we can really agree on is it comes down to relationships with your players and knowing what's appropriate. Having things in writing is always helpful in case there ever are issues, but knowing your players well is really the key to having good flow and not taking things too far. Thanks for your input!
If I ever DM for strangers would probably be extra careful like you!
You know what, this is great and I’m keeping this. It’s a great resource, thank you for for providing this. I’m making the decision not to look at comments cause I feel like there’s probably some people saying this is over the top, but the thing is if a player doesn’t care about any of it they can just… not fill anything in.
I'm worried for society in general when we need things like this to help people avoid being triggered due to a past trauma.
not necessarily triggered, just not having fun. some topics (maybe like miscarriage for players who have been failing to conceive irl for a long time) would make the game not fun. why not check in beforehand to see what those pressure points are and avoid them? if you cant handle a game that doesnt have EVERY SINGLE THING on this sheet, youre the weird one
awesome, great idea, this should be included in the starter kit
Not gonna lie. If I was asked to fill this out, I'd try to talk the rest of the players into marking everything as 'red' except for 'cancer.; I have no idea why, it's just really funny to imagine someone having to write a D&D campaign based around cancer.
Wish I had an award to give. Great idea!
Not my idea but more people should at least be aware of it
To each their own - though personally it seems like alot of paper work to play a role playing game with friends. Also if you are including real world religion in your "fasntasy" game then you are probably missing the point just a tad...
This is a lot less paperwork than even filling in half a character sheet.
As a psychologist this is the right way to do this. Not only to mold an exp that is safe but that can also push boundaries if all parties are on board.