Chapter 4 up

The Kickstarter update with chapter 4 preveiw is up.

No link it is backer only

no coments from me yet. downloaded before clocking in at work and posting this on break

It definitely has one of the best GM advice sections I've ever read. Very new player friendly. I think it could bear with some more inclusive language, but it's overall a great section.

I'm curious if you have some examples where you don't feel it's inclusive enough?    At the least if you do make sure to post it in the comments of the KS post.  

Mostly I was hoping for an explicit statement about supporting gender equality, gender identity, and the like, as well as something like the Red Rule. That sort of thing.

I hadn't heard of red rules before but based off what I found about it the last sections of chapter 4 "The GM's Principles" and "Troubleshooting" seems to cover that.  

I think it is for the best that SCRPG stays away from such a hot button issues as they tend to become a quagmire where may people quickly become offended no matter what is done.

Besides, do you really think that the 4th Chapter is the best place to put such a statement?

No. It should be in Chapter 1, right as the game is being introduced and can’t be missed.

And, frankly, I personally don’t want to game with anyone who thinks that adding a statement of inclusion or references to player consent tools is in any way problematic or a quagmire. If adding those brings even one person to the table who wouldn’t have come (generally for fear of discrimination or harassment), they’re worthy inclusions.

PlatinumWarlock agree!!!

The game already mentions the X-card and player consent for their character's death, although I understand the argument that it should be in Chapter 1 instead of Chapter 4.  But I don't think you need to explicitly call out sex in Sentinels.  It's not as "mature" a game as the other games I've seen that call it out (Fate, Exalted, World of Darkness) and I'm not sure mentioning sex is appropriate for the intended audience here.

Completely agree, actually.

While I always support inclusion in gaming, I am not sure it is a game's job to call it out. Ensuring systems are in place to allow for inclusion in character generation is important and listing GM tools like X-cards make sense to help run the system fairly. I am not sure what additional wording is needed to ensure inclusivity? In reality, these books are designed to create systems for table gaming. It is up to everyone around the table to provide a welcoming atmosphere.

Yeah, there are system-less options for this info -- best example I can think of is this one: https://www.montecookgames.com/store/product/consent-in-gaming/. It's free, so there's no reason folks shouldn't check it out. 

There’s already a statement of opposition to gender, sexuality, and ability discrimination.

A red card rule really doesn’t belong; it’s very inclusion is a warning that the content is “adult” or “potentially traumatic”…
… and many a gamer will ruleslawyer the red card rule into a “close the scene, I don’t like it” tool. (And I have had players do just that… the ones who were the very reason I decided to try it in the first place.) In my experience, the red card is a false sense of security, as the player needing it needs it to protect against “that guy” but “that guy” is the guy most likely to use it, and “that guy” is often the type to do tit-for-tat when it’s used to stop their narration. It’s great on paper, but has limited use in a group that inherently has a level of respect. (Oh, and its inclusion actually made one of the “that guy” players push further and harder to trigger others. WHich is my we quit gaming with him.)

Oh all the people banned from FB RPG groups for being against this.
“I am going to have [violence/sex] in my game no matter what the players say”

sigh

Yeah, those are definitely not folks I’ll game with.

I admit I sometimes feel like the "red card rule" type stuff is a really clumsy substitute for putting effort into having an RPG group where you can freely discuss beforehand what things you are and aren't comfortable with, and being willing to discuss and hash out what everyone does and doesn't want to do in general.

Like my old RP group had a Mormon player who said up front he was uncomfortable with anything too out there in terms of sex and bad language and could we basically keep it to "PG-rated", and some other people who stated up front they weren't really into "grimdark" content, and other stuff like that.

We'd also discuss things like, which ideas for campaigns that the GM has are the ones the players find most interesting. What setup of roles would work best in what idea we eventually decide on and who wanted to lay claim to each role. We'd even have brief feedback moments at the end of each play session where we'd all say what we liked and didn't like about that session's play, so we could tweak as we went along.

And considering the Sentinel Comics setup not only already encourages that type of interactions, but with things like the initiative passoff and the Twist system, made it an integral part of the game, I feel like as aramis said it might set too harsh a tone for too little benefit. I more would just continue focusing on the overall sentiment that a Sentinel Comics game is meant to be a continuous collaboration where everyone is having fun.

I think I would save in-depth discussion of handling sensitive material for sourcebooks like the Dark Watch book where you're getting into settings that are more likely to actually contain that sensitive material.

Why does a red card/x-card/etc. rule automatically imply adult or traumatic content? There are a ton of situations–yes, even in a Silver Age-style supers game–that can be upsetting to certain people, especially those with phobias (being tied up/bound or in enclosed spaces come immediately to mind) or some form of PTSD. I ran a Dragon Age game a few years back wherein one of the players was very up-front that spiders were a no-go area for her. That’s just the sort of thing that a red card/x-card is meant for, especially had we not had that conversation.

I don’t know every inch of my players’ history; they don’t know every inch of mine. If there’s something in the game that bothers a player enough to want to ‘card’ out of it, that’s entirely reasonable to me. If it’s being misused, that’s the sort of corner case that very quickly makes itself known (as it appears you, yourself have seen), at which point it becomes addressing a Problem Player not a problematic safety valve mechanism.

I do about 2/3 of my gaming at conventions at this point, where having a “Session Zero” isn’t an option. While my event descriptions aim to be clear on what’s going on–“Vigilantes investigate the serial murder of a college professor”, “Inquisition agents travel to Weisshaupt Fortress to negotiate a treaty with the Grey Wardens”, “Gunslingers must escort Samuel Clemens safely to Denver aboard the Westbound Express”, etc.–there’s no possible way a GM can include every scenario that might arise during that scenario. That’s where tools like the x-card come into play most readily. If someone’s uncomfortable, they can flip their card we can call a 5 minute break, and we can revisit/revise/retheme.

No, red/x-cards aren’t a substitute for the establishment of a solid social contract and understanding between a continually-meeting campaign group. However, they’re a tool in the arsenal for when those aren’t available. And with more and more people joining the hobby–especially from groups who have been marginalized from tabletop gaming in decades past–more tools in the arsenal is a good thing. I’m all in favor of having those up-front, easily accessible, and easily understood.

I admit if I was going to RP with a bunch of strangers at a convention (which I also admit I probably wouldn't for a variety of reasons), I'd just want to play a pregen character in a pre-published adventure at a table that had up-front guidelines for acceptable roleplaying conduct posted, which would sidestep a whole lot of the issue.

It still feels like a "red card rule" is meant to be a lesser substitute for the far more effective tactic of just laying out a groundwork for acceptable content and behavior beforehand, whether that's negotiated by the group itself (in the case of my RP group) or simply pregenerated up front by the GM and then left up to players to decide whether they like the stated rules for a pickup group or not (what I'd expect from a public session).

Basically, it's not that I feel like such things like a red card rule are bad, I just worry about them being used as a crutch to avoid actual communication about such things.

Further, rather than just having a vague blurb in an already huge book, saving "how to handle sensitive content" for a sourcebook that actually has that "sensitive content" is going to give you more room to discuss it in detail and within the context of the material being presented in the book for use, thus IMHO making it far more effective.

I feel like that would help avert problems like the ones aramis stated by making it clear up front what to/will be avoided altogether, and how sensitive content that's still allowed will be handled during actual play.

I’ve experienced it more from players demanding to be allowed to do it.

But there are people for whom the idea that a tangible “no discussion shut-the-scene-down” as part of core rules is essentially offensive on the grounds of treating them like kidergardeners. (I’ll admit, I am in this group. )

There are people who find such offensive in core rules because it implies the standard setting is socially borderline enough to routinely need that safety net.

There are people for whom the idea that a scene can be shutdown without explanation problematic - and note the Red Card as promulgated over the last couple years is a No discussion, no explanation, no questions may be asked, immediate fade out. In part, because the red card as promulgated is disruptive to play, and in part because it does nothing to prevent later breaches, because it doesn’t require the offended one to say what has triggered. (I also fall in this group.)

And there are people who will find it offensive because it limits their ability to attempt to traumatize others.

There are many who will find it offensive for one or more of the above… but the only ones who really should be discouraged are that last group.

GTG has been particularly open about their pro-LGBTQ, pro-diversity (including racial) stance. They already have a strong statement. And reminders to be collaborative and communicate. And they’ve done a lot by having a range of sample characters who are persons of color, and several that are obviously LGBTQ, in various Sentinels products.

They are being the change and living the example, rather than clumsily beaning people over the head with proverbial brick bats. The red card rule is just such a brick bat.

And I find it delightful that Haka was included as both a man and a woman in the same collection…

As a GM for Pathfinder with evil monsters that do things I'm not gonna mention on this forum, I feel it's better to have a talk about what is and isn't acceptable rather than have a red card at the table.  Best way for me to not cross the line is for me to know where the line is after all.

But again, that sort of Session Zero isn’t always a possible thing, especially at convention games, which are often in a tight 2-4 hour window. In such a case, especially when you’re often gaming with people you’ve never met before, a Session Zero just isn’t in the cards.

And, even when it is, no one person is privy to every trauma, every issue, every potential trigger that could make someone uncomfortable, upset, or outright angry. Having a way to politely demonstrate such an issue is a good tool to have in the arsenal.

I’m all for having Session Zero-type talks, especially for ongoing campaigns. That should absolutely be a GM’s first and primary tool for discerning player comfort and no-go areas. But it shouldn’t be their only tool available. X-Cards, Lines/Veils, and other tools help fill in the gaps.

See one of my above posts. Wouldn’t it be easier and more expedient to just list beforehand what type of adventure you’re playing, what content it’s likely to contain, and general conduct rules expected of anyone who plays, then let people decide whether or not they’re OK with it all and want to join in?

I’d honestly find it kind of annoying playing a public campaign only to have it abruptly end due to a red card event and then well session’s over hope you had fun. Versus investing a little time laying down the rules beforehand so we can just get to play knowing what to not do already.

(But admittedly I’m the type of person who vastly prefers to try to anticipate and avert problems rather than need to clean them up after they happen.)

Yes, I see what you’re getting at. But, where does one seriously put that information where it’s easily accessible and visible?
A program guide? That might contain general guidelines for convention behavior, but not necessarily rules to govern individual table behavior. A website? Not easily accessible within a convention center (which has limited wifi and often acts as a Faraday cage, preventing cell signal). Posted in each individual room? Possible, but time consuming and unwieldy.
Program guides and room lists also have the difficulty of limited space. Many conventions–both in online and print programs–confine event descriptions to a character limit (usually 500, often less). That’s not enough time or space to have a Session Zero style breakdown. Yes, it can help–if I’m running a procedural investigation involving a serial killer, I can convey that information easily in a quick event description, but I won’t likely be able to get into the nuance of every potentially triggering event. Up-front discussions are a single tool. They should not be and are not the be-all, end-all tool. Lines and veils, red/x-cards, and other systems simply do things better in different contexts and situations; you don’t use a hammer when a screwdriver would work better. Using a number of tools–and having them available to everyone at the table–makes the game more accessible for everyone there.

I think there’s also some misinterpretation of what a “red-card” actually does in function here. If someone flips their card, there are a number of things that can be done from both the GM and the player perspective:
–It might be “I need to step away” or “I need a break from what’s going on”. That might be a matter of things being too stressful or some sort of anxiety-related trigger. Easily, after a quick break, that player might be ready to get back into the game.
–It might mean, “We need to revise how this scene is going.” Sometimes that’s as simple as reskinning a monster (giant spiders become goblins with nets and bola attacks) or changing a detail on an NPC. It might mean a simple “curtain close” on a given scene, and moving onto a different scene.
–It might mean “This game’s fundamental concept isn’t a mesh for what I’m able to handle”. That might mean a player steps away and finds another game, which is hardly the end of the world, if other players are comfortable and want to keep playing. That might mean some on-the-fly revision to make the game more palatable for everyone.
–Rarely, if ever, should it mean “This game needs to end. Now.” The only case I can think of this happening was one at the UK Games Expo, wherein the GM actively ignored a number of convention rules and subjected the entirety of the table to some graphic depictions of assault. In 25 years of gaming (and about 6 of using active consent tools at the table) I’ve never even seen this happen once.

A red-card doesn’t and shouldn’t mean, “I’m losing in this scene, so I’m going to end it,” nor should it mean, “Game over, no discussion. Go home.” If someone’s advocating either of those, I’d warrant that they’re missing the entire point of what those tools were meant to do.

And yes, preparedness helps eliminate problems. But foresight only takes you so far. When something is actively happening, there needs to be a reasonable method for response. That’s where consent tools like these come in.

On two 8.5x11 sheets on easels at the table.

One has the name of the RPG, an elevator pitch length description of the campaign’s idea, brief list of what types of characters will fit in best, and a list of possible content similar to the content/trigger tags you see on fanfic websites.

The second has a list of conduct rules the players are expected to follow.

Essentially, regards the first sheet, go to a site like An Archive Of Our Own, pick your favorite fandom (there’s actually a section for Sentinels itself FWIW), and look how the summaries for fanfics are laid out. That’s a pretty good base to start with how to handle such “content warnings”.

I don’t know. It just seems weird to read all these reasons why it’s difficult to handle this beforehand versus having to resort to a red card rule type thing, when, looking at the experiences of myself, Missingno, aramis, and so on, this is basically an issue with several pre-existing solutions, and it seems more effective to pick one of those rather than reinvent the wheel.

This one stood out to me in particular:

This really feels like something that should be handled beforehand, by again, telling potential players beforehand what the game’s fundamental concept is going to be so they can pre-select beforehand if it’s what they’re into. And this is something that’s already been pre-solved for how to do it in a way that’s compact and easily scannable, so I’d honestly just go ahead and crib from the fanfic sites’s conventions here.

What you're describing are decent tools and are perfectly fine to include.  However, having run literally hundreds of convention games to date--not exaggerating here; I do typically 50 sessions across the various cons I attend in a given year and have done so for over a decade--I haven't seen what you're describing as being particularly effective to the point of excluding in-session consent tools.  In such a setting, you typically get two kinds of players:  those who have actively signed up for your game (who might have read at least a scenario description or title in an event guide), and walk-ups (who may literally know nothing about the game you're running, short of what you tell them on the spot).  While in theory, providing a two-page overview for players can work, in practice it's clunky and time-consuming, and doesn't provide active, ongoing consent throughout the game.  

Regarding the example I provided, let me posit a hypothetical, regarding a scenario I wrote for the Dragon Age tabletop RPG, called "Unwelcome Guests".  The scenario description and main goal of the scenario involves Inquisition agents intercepting an alchemist before he can escape to his home nation.  However, the scenario is very much a locked-room 'haunted house' scenario, including references to suicide, murder and harm to children, and a number of other horror elements, and was based on one of the side-dungeons in Dragon Age Inquisition.  Dragon Age is an 'M' rated video game, and such elements are included in the video games themselves, so someone who's played those games may know what they're getting into.  However, a walk-up player or one with little to no Dragon Age experience (as is usually 70-80% of my players when running that system) may not have any idea what they're sitting down for.  However, telling the players up front, "This is a haunted house game" defeats much of the purpose of the scarnio--that's the challenge that the players and characters are meant to overcome in pursuit of their overarching goal of capturing the alchemist.

If a player flipped their x-card an hour into the scenario, because they were uncomfortable with the horror elements, I'd gladly have that conversation.  Maybe its a matter of reframing their understanding of the game, maybe it's a matter of them getting their bearings and taking a brief break.  And, maybe if that meant that the player walked away from the table, that's perfectly okay.  They're not under an obligation to do something they're not comfortable with, and the game can go on just as easily.  There's nothing wrong with that as an end point for our interactions.

I'm honestly a little baffled here as to the resistance to the idea of a red/x-card; what is, then, the expected response for someone who's uncomfortable with the content at the table?  It's not reasonable to just tell someone to suck it up and sit through a full game session of materially that's potentially traumatic for that player.  

I've outright said (I believe at least 3 times thusfar) that tools like good content labeling, Session Zero content discussions, and table conduct rules are all solid tools, each with their own strengths and limitations.  These strengths/weaknesses are exacerbated in a convention atmosphere, which is quite different from running a home game with people you know or will see on a regular basis.  However, the red/x-card fills a role that those sorts of tools don't:  the ability to say in real-time, in a polite and structured manner, "I'm not comfortable with what's going on; can we make a change?"  Why is having that tool open and accessible a step too far?

And really, this isn't a "new" concept.  Within the BDSM community, the idea of 'safewords'--notably the Green/Yellow/Red system--is commonplace to the point of being ubiquitous.  Many extreme sports and the like also have similar "outs"; if a climber gets 2/3 of the way up a difficult wall and starts getting a leg cramp, it's a relatively easy thing for them to call down and be able to safely release back to ground level.  No one expects them to finish climbing simply because "Well, you knew what you were in for when you started."  Nor should they be expected to do so.  Why should gaming be any different than these?  Consent is an ongoing dialogue as any given activity goes on (RAINN actually provides a really good understanding of this); expecting someone to game through something they're not comfortable with just isn't reasonable.

I guess my question here is simply "Why not?"  If it helps even one person, and costs us nothing more than an index card, why not at least offer it?

I don’t wish to sound mean, but… TBH, if people honestly think it’s just too hard to write up and/or read a whole two pages letting people know ahead of time what content a campaign will have and what the rules of conduct are–something that’s just basic Standard Operating Procedure for any ongoing RP group I’ve played in certainly–then I’m struggling to get why I’d want to roleplay with those people. People who can’t put minimal effort into passing along IMHO basic information probably aren’t going to put much effort into their roleplaying either.

(going off your own descriptions and my admittedly entirely-Twitch-stream-watching-based familiarity with Dragon Age)

“This game is based on Dragon Age, a franchise which can include potentially uncomfortable elements such as supernatural phenomena, demons, blood sacrifices, dark political issues, realistic war, non-Christian religion elements, murder, suicide, and other general horror tropes. Please be prepared for any or all of these to potentially come up while playing.”

The fact that even just saying something vaguely along the lines of “this will be a horror story” is something you balk at, again I hate to be mean, but I wouldn’t really want to be a player in one of your games then. Since while I’m someone who is fine with horror elements, I still want to know ahead of time that’s what will be (or at least potentially will be) involved. Not so much because I might red card, but just because I want to be in the right mindset both what to generally expect (being OK with something on a trigger-based level doesn’t mean you don’t still sometimes have to essentially be “in the mood” for it) and how to play my character.

We have no problem advertising movies as being horror even when they start out with the “everything seems fine in daylit suburbia…” trope, so I don’t see why that sort of mild genre-sorting spoiler wouldn’t be kosher in RPing as well.

And then why I say “so I know how to play my character” is because: My background in RPing thus far is playing with groups who like a more light-hearted and sometimes outright comedic approach to RPing, so that’s going to be my default mindset if you leave it up to me how to RP. So for me even something as simple as knowing I’d be playing a “serious toned” game of some type can help me be a good player to the GM by making sure I know what’s the correct tone to apply to my RPing approach this time.

Basically:

One, you do your best to weed out beforehand any content people might find uncomfortable.

In an ongoing group, that means a combination of brief discussions beforehand both on what types of content the players aren’t OK with in general, and then of what content the GM’s current campaign idea is likely to have in it.

In a convention or other pickup group, like I said, give a short blurb beforehand of what the likely content of the campaign is going to have come up, and a list of general conduct rules. (Stuff like “keep it at most PG-rated, no swearing, no overly sexual conduct, no pulling another player’s character into a social or plot commitment without their permission”, that sort of thing can also do a lot to set the tone and/or weed out content you yourself just don’t want to deal with.)

Two, if something you feel uncomfortable with crops up anyway, just go ahead and say “I’m not sure I’m OK with how this is going, can we just do this instead?” or whatever. And this goes for more than just trigger content, IMHO. Everything in an RPing game should be a collaboration, from whether you’re really OK with some of the party deciding to attack that dragon while you’re all Level 3, to if you’re really OK with the party rogue wanting to pickpocket the palace noble you’re trying to forge a diplomatic connection with.

If you feel you’re too afraid of people’s reactions to speak up about these sorts of things, that to me isn’t a sign that you need a prop to help, that’s a sign this is a bad matchup of a group you probably shouldn’t be RPing with at all in favor of finding people you feel are less threatening/a better match for you/etc.

Three, in ongoing groups, it can help to have post-session discussions for feedback in general, where you can then bring up things like, “I decided to go along with at the time since rerouting mid-scene seemed like more trouble to do than my level of concern about it, but in the future can we try to do [y] instead.”

Heck, it might even be a good idea in convention games too if the time window allows, as all feedback in general of what people did and didn’t like about the session might help you as a GM have a that much more informed idea of how to direct things next time you run that idea. You can know to accentuate the things people generally seem to like and try to de-emphasize or eliminate things people didn’t like.

To recap: Because you don’t need a prop to say that. You can just go ahead and say that. And if you don’t feel you can say that without catching flak from the other players, that’s a red flag (heh) that you shouldn’t be roleplaying at all with that particular group of people.

As I said earlier, I am concerned that the “red card rule” is just a crutch for GMs and players not learning healthy communication techniques and concepts, and when you tell me things like “I just can’t think of ways to warn about potential trigger content without ruining my plot” (even though this is something that other creative groups like especially fanfic writers have already solved as an issue), or it doesn’t occur to you that people can just go ahead and speak up about the current roleplay without needing a prop, that just makes me feel I was correct to be concerned that knowledge of healthy communication is currently somewhat lacking in the tabletop community.

That’s because from what I know of BDSM, scenarios practiced by enthusiasts can sometimes involve setups where potentially serious harm can be involved if you don’t stop what’s going on literally right now, in a situation where it’s also sometimes literally physically difficult to say more than a word or make a quick gesture. Ditto for things like extreme sports, where again, it has to be resolved right this second in a situation where people often literally aren’t free to do more than a quick response.

That is not the case for the typical non-sexual roleplaying situation, where typically it’s OK if you take a little time to speak up more expansively and have brief conversations on how to switch gears and proceed. (Only edge case I can think of is people who have bad flashbacks or panic attacks in response to triggers, but to be a little blunt, those people should not be roleplaying in random groups anyway versus in groups they can already trust to work around their issues.)

Because there are other, better ways to handle this that I would prefer the tabletop gaming community learn and make standard instead, especially since the in-depth communication between players those other, better ways fosters is beneficial for reasons beyond just trigger content.

Like for instance, to pick on one of the more ubiquitous RP community memes I see, I’m always deeply confused when I see things like “yeah my players dragged the plot off the rails because they didn’t want to do it” or “ugh my GM keeps giving us these super-boring plots and NPCs” or “I got this one dude playing a ninja in a medieval Europe flavored setting ugh”.

Since I’m like, why didn’t you just… like… discuss beforehand what the GM wants to do this time around and what the players are in the mood for, to make sure it all lines up? If players are given input right from the get-go into what kind of plot and/or characters they’re going to play, they’re going to be much less likely to chafe or rebel against that during the actual campaign. In turn, the GM will then get to reasonably tell the players they’re expected to behave themselves and work fairly with the GM if the players already gave input into and signed off on what’s being played.

So it’s not just trigger content stuff. Making an effort to normalize the concept of continual open communications and collaborations between the GM and players, and between the players themselves, makes RPing better all around, IMHO.

My own old RP group was an absolute blast to play with, and the only reason I left was because I developed real life issues that made roleplaying at all difficult, not because I wasn’t having fun. And that’s in part because we made a strong effort to communicate with each other about what we did and didn’t find fun.

(Avoiding the giant mass of nested quotes and dealing with things point by point...)

1) You might not 'like' the fact that people at a convention tend not to want to read that much before sitting down to a con scenario, but that's the reality of it.  And again, I do think it's a good idea to have that information available, but in practice it's not the band-aid you seem to think it is.

2) Personally, I don't have any issue including a disclaimer exactly as you've put it (and have done so in the past--hell, the scenario itself has a content warning similar to that on the very first page).  But, they're A tool; not a THE ONLY tool that we should be using.  And, at best, they're a passive measure of consent, not an active one.

But, for the sake of completion, I'll include the exact text from the adventure description:

Event Title:  Dragon Age:  Unwelcome Guests

Short Description:  Inquisition agents must ferret out a Venatori contact at an Orlesian hunting lodge.

Longer Description:  After the fall of Corypheus, the Inquisition must begin picking up the pieces of a world rent by war. Venatori sympathizers are rumored to continue smuggling red lyrium throughout The Orlesian Dales. The Inquisition agents have been dispatched to an abandoned lakeside manor north of Ghislain to intercept a Venatori-allied alchemist, before he can escape back to the Tevinter Imperium. However, the inhabitants of the manor do not rest easy, and will have their say before the night is out.

Event Type:  RPG

Game system:  Dragon Age rpg (Green Ronin)

Minimum Players:  3

Maximum Players:  7

Age Requirement: (Adults Only 18+)

Content Warning:

This scenario features elements of violence that may not be suitable for all players.  Major plot points include references to suicide and harm of children, and the adventure was heavily inspired by codex entries featured in the “Chateau d’Onterre” quest in Dragon Age: Inquisition.  While we believe these themes have been presented in a mature manner, your players may be particularly sensitive to these issues.  As with all roleplaying games, be sure that all parties are on board as your game begins and be sure to respond to your players with compassion and empathy.

3) So much of what you're saying here boils down to, "Well, why don't you just say no?"  or "an exculpatory "I told you what this was up front; you said you were fine with it then...", which is problematic to the point of victim-blaming (especially your point regarding "those people should not be playing in random groups anyway").  The whole point of the x-card/red-card/etc. systems is the establishment of a shorthand, so that there's a polite, clear way to let the group (and specifically the GM) know that something's not kosher.  It's a way to establish communication in the first place, because in many groups, in many conventions, in many areas, that communication doesn't exist (something you're right about in saying, "knowledge of healthy communication is currently somewhat lacking in the tabletop community").  The gaming world needs a way to safely express consent, because it hasn't had that sort of thing in the past; red/x-cards are one solid way to do so.

Just because extreme sports or BDSM involve physical harm (as opposed to mental or emotional) does not exclude them from being relevant, cogent examples of the use of safewords or other systemic consent measures.  Giving people a way to say 'No' or "Slow Down' matters just as much as the words themselves.  That's vocabulary that the gaming world hasn't had, and has needed for years.

4) So many of your counterpoints (and your summary argument at the end here) rely on 'ongoing groups' and 'continual campaigns' that I think you're really missing my point, Jeysie.  For literally decades, the tabletop community was unwilling to even fathom the idea that certain elements of a game might be problematic, derogatory, or detrimental to players' mental health.  It's really only the last few years that we've seen any sort of active discussion of what healthy, sane, consensual gaming looks like.  

Yes, in any sort of ongoing group, it's easy to have Session Zero before a campaign begins to lay out expectiations.  It's easy in an ongoing campaign to learn individual players' preferences and no-go areas.  It's easy to have post-game debriefings while at a home group.  

At a convention, those become *much* more difficult to have, both for time constraints and due to the lack of familiarity between players.  When you sit down to game with 6 strangers that you've known for all of 15 minutes, with a tight window to game in (and often a hard deadline as to when you have to end by), having an easily-digestible active-consent shorthand becomes a lot more important.  Again, I'm not saying that any of the above are bad tools, but they're not perfect, be-all/end-all tools.  Especially in the convention atmosphere, having an easily understood active consent system helps alleviate the inability to have a lenthy discussion of campaign expectations and triggering material.  It's meant to work in complement with other communication techniques, not replace them.  

5)  With that?  I'm done.  Past disagreements with you, Jeysie, have shown me that any sort of attempts towards active dialogue have not been taken in good faith, and any sort of attempt to persuade or convince on either of our parts is long gone.  Have a good Thanksgiving.  I'm out.

I'd like to add to the in the mood comment.  I'm personally okay with playing in game where my charater's family is horribly killed off, but I need to know that's going to be a possible thing beforehand.  Some of my characters don't work if thier family ties end up murdered and sometimes I just want to play a trope filled fantasy adventure, like save the princess from the dragon levels of trope.

Past disagreements with you, Warlock, have shown that you seem to approach discussions as if you feel you’re the person in the room most educated on the topic and therefore the expert teaching everyone else how to handle things, and so you struggle to know how to react when anyone else has their own education and experience that happens to disagree with you and sees possible room for improvement in some of your own ideas.

What you wrote to me as your blurb is more or less what I suggested would be a good thing to have, so I’m now honestly deeply confused why you’ve been sitting here arguing at me at length that it’s too difficult to do something you apparently already do.

On top of that what I stated regards laying out content warnings and rules is already Standard Operating Practice for many forum-based and IRC-based roleplaying games that rely more heavily on random participants dropping in, particularly freeform ones. I used to roleplay most heavily on an IRC server called DarkMyst specifically, and again, very common for the various RPs and their channels to have somewhere like a webpage that lays out those sorts of things.

Perhaps at conventions, but I’ve been roleplaying myself since 2005, and my group had no particular issues with having “healthy, sane, consensual gaming” despite only one of us at the time having pre-existing experience with roleplaying. On top of that, handling consent was also a big thing in many of the other RP groups on the server we played on, many of which had plenty of female and LGBT players (my own group was split about 50/50 gender-wise). It’s also been a big thing in many other roleplaying venues I’ve been on, particularly freeform ones. And judging from aramis and missingno’s commentary, this experience is known to many other people as well.

And that’s basically what prompted my initial confusion.

I come from being a woman with various mentally-related issues such as a history of being bullied/abused and not listened to when I asked for help with such things and the resulting anxiety and depression, who has also spent much of her time as both a roleplayer and an amateur writer, in venues where there are many women, LGBT folk, and other minorities, and so issues like trigger content, consent, safe spaces, and healthy communication in general have for a long while now been matters of discussion and in many matters have also had successful solutions already created for them. Including forming many spaces where people are allowed to freely discuss any issues at all that they might have with the content of a roleplaying session, without being judged harshly for it.

So then we get to this discussion, and… basically, we have people who view “hey so there’s a system where people are actually allowed to discuss issues!” as not only being a revolutionary, amazing concept, but so much so that it’s actually problematic and failing in diversity if it’s not included in an RP book. This despite the fact that the RP book in question already does a very good job of promoting continuous, open communication with players at all times… i.e. closer to how the people I’m used to RPing with already handle it.

It’s essentially coming from creating content in areas where handling matters of trigger content and other consent issues is an already long-established concern, into an area where people are just taking baby steps into the concept but then acting like those baby steps mean they’re “woke” and now get to lecture about how “woke” other people are.

Which makes it even more frustrating reading things like this:

Warlock, I suffer from PTSD, depression, anxiety, and panic attacks, and so all I am doing is laying out one of the best practices for dealing with those things–namely, trying to make sure that when dealing with potentially difficult content you have a strong support group available while doing it–from the perspective of being someone who’s had to learn how to deal with those things including from trained therapists.

So this kind of calls back to my opening thoughts, where you seem to struggle with knowing constructive ways to react when someone else in the room is also the one with knowledge on a topic.

Especially since, further, those experiences are a lot of what informs my own feelings on this topic.

If my choice is between a group that thinks a “red card rule” is revolutionary new-fangled shiny thing and necessary for allowing communication, and groups that consider open and continuous communication about anything as an already established and accepted standard, I’m going to feel a whole lot safer in that latter group.

Especially since the latter group already exists, from people who put in the effort to make that status of open communication exists versus explaining why they can’t do it.

And based on some of the commentary here from people like aramis and missingno, it seems I’m not the only person who feels that there are plenty of places where “just talk it out like grown and supportive adults” is an already established way to operate, and so using these baby step systems feels like a step backwards for me, at least, rather than something GTG is non-inclusive for not having.

Edit: Forgot to add earlier that: I find that for me at least panic attacks are immediate things that come on very quickly and almost without warning, so ironically in such an edge case a red card would be admittedly redundant since it would do nothing to ward off the reaction from happening and the reaction itself would be a sign something’s wrong.

Yet another reason why I prefer to weed out potentially bad content beforehand, since often by the time something happens that would be severe enough to provoke a panic response, it’s already too late.

I think this is a very good discussion to have, and everyone should voice your opinion on this topic. However, at this point, and I requesting that all comments directed at another user should be stopped. Please continue to add your opinion to this issue, so GtG can see and hear from you, but please refrain from directly commenting on something someone else said. Thank you.

I am sorry Pydro, I admit I get a little overdefensive sometimes in response to personal criticism. X3 I'll lay off from here on out.

Though honestly, setting aside all the essaying, my opinion on the matter is basically:

I feel GTG already does a great job of supporting inclusivity by just actually having on a regular basis characters of all genders, races, sexualities, etc. all over the place and treated as a normal, ubiquitous thing to be there. To explicity essay about it therefore in this specific instance feels almost like a tiny step backwards, going back to the step of treating the concept as new as opposed to already established and expected for the setting.

Likewise, I feel GTG already does a great job of promoting continual communication and collaboration in large part by specifically baking it into many of the actual mechanics. So therefore, to isolate a single aspect of communication out for an essay suffers a similar issue in this specific instance: Treating open communication as new and unusual as opposed to already baked into the system.

But I do feel it makes sense that when you introduce new content that is potentially sensitive, that then you should take some time to detail out good ways of handling it, because then an aspect actually is new and unusual and therefore needs to be singled out for attention.

In this case, the "core game" setting of Sentinels is very Silver Age-y flavored, even post-OblivAeon. But then you get into adding settings like Dark Watch which are a big change in tone, and so then you really want to get into covering how to handle that different change in tone.

Can I have a + button so I can + Jeysie's last post there?