Consent in Gaming

[wyrdhamster]

In new free e-book - Consent in Gaming - Monte Cook Games is pointing on discussing sensitive and mature topics on RPG sessions. I'm opening this forum topic for discussion on this subjects.

One of example tools showed in CiG is Consent Checklist ( see below ). What do you think about it? What are your tricks for make players more comfortable at the table?

[PenDragon]

Well this thread has gone entirely off the rails of civility. Rule 1 violations abound. For everyone's sake I'm closing this down.

[Accelerator]

So what country do you live in? Betcha a nickel it’s heavily impacted by institutionalized racism.

Since you're so clever, why don't you guess?

[AnubisXy]

I'll be honest, I don't think "fantasy races" is particularly problematic. While some fantasy races are inspired by real world cultures or ethnicities quite a few others are just basically fantastical and there's no society in the real world that particularly resembles that fantasy group. At this point regardless of Tolkeen's intentions when he made dwarves, dwarves exist as their own thing separate from Tolkeen, and when someone logs onto World of Warcraft and makes a dwarf, they're not thinking, "These guys are stand ins for Jews."

I also don't really see what the issue is of someone taking the idea of "fantasy races" and transposing that onto the real world.

"In Dungeons and Dragons, elves, dwarves, orcs and goblins are all their own race. And for humans, regardless that human's culture, where they were born, the color of their skin or other external characteristics are all part of the human race. So I'm going to bring that idea to the real world and argue that on Earth, just like in D&D, all humans are members of the same 'human race' regardless of their culture, where they were born, the color of their skin or anything else!"

I mean if someone tried making that argument to me, I'd probably give them a thumbs-up and say, "Good job, you've generally got the right idea."

[Heavy Arms]

Y'know, just because something's natural, doesn't mean it's good (and vice-versa).

And just because you're used to doing something a certain way, doesn't mean it's a good habit to keep.

And just because a change is hard, doesn't mean it's not worth making.

And a common thread between the talk about the consent form, and the whole racism tangent bit:

People are generally understanding of other people coming from a place of ignorance (I don't mean this in a personal negative sense, they were never taught, it's outside their personal lived experiences, etc.). It's what you do once you know. Do you defend how things were, and why, or do you think about how to change in the light of new information?

[NotEmpathic]

Which is likewise a warning flag about you.

.

Kinda strange that you think acting like a mature adult is a warning sign...

Quite the opposite of Nyrufa, i never encountered "race" as a descriptor for a person until, i would say i was around 14 and was being taught about the 2nd World War. Up until that point, the only context i'd seen it in was elfs, dwarfs, orcs ect.

[TheCountAlucard]

Y'know, just because something's natural, doesn't mean it's good (and vice-versa).

And just because you're used to doing something a certain way, doesn't mean it's a good habit to keep.

And just because a change is hard, doesn't mean it's not worth making.

[Nyrufa]

Yes and no. Races in the modern English sense are usually large groupings of ethnicities by only those most easily noticeable traits (first and foremost skin tone). To use a very connotationally risky analogy, it’s like the difference between “little white dog” and “Maltese.”

At any rate, my personal mentality has locked in the word as a way to refer to any species that has evolved to the point of being recognized as a sapient life form. I would not consider sharks to be a race. Mermaids, however, would fit the category, if we ever found out they were real. And after 3 decades of viewing it in this manner, I think my brain is pretty much wired to continuously use it as such. As I've said before, using the word "race" in casual conversation has become so common place that it feels completely natural, and treating it like some kind of taboo feels silly.

[Sith_Happens]

Literally everybody else on the planet that I can think of has used the word "race" when referring to the various ethnic groups.

Yes and no. Races in the modern English sense are usually large groupings of ethnicities by only those most easily noticeable traits (first and foremost skin tone). To use a very connotationally risky analogy, it’s like the difference between “little white dog” and “Maltese.”

[Charlaquin]

Except that we're not, if we go by the system that has divided up the animal kingdom. Like I said, scientists divide animals into different breeds for a number of reasons that can be applied to various ethnic groups. Mostly being physical appearance, but we can also take one's natural aptitude into account. For example, people who historically descend from cold environments may have a higher tolerance to low temperature than somebody who's ancestors descend from the scorching desert.

How many species, or "races" of tiny birds can you think of? Sparrows, finches, robins, swallows, just to name a few?

The only difference in this scenario is that the various types of humans that exist throughout the world have the capacity to argue against the idea. When it comes to literally any other species in the animal kingdom, we apply the term without so much as a second thought.

Ok, I know some of the terminology can be unclear to people without a background in biology, but there is a Difference between species, subspecies, and breed. The different kinds of small bird you mentioned? Those are species (well, and many of them are different genus too, but let’s not get into that for now). Species is defined by sexual compatibility. If two animals can breed and produce viable offspring, they are the same species (generally; there are some corner cases, but that’s the basic concept.) There is only one species of humans - Homo sapiens.

Within some species, there are certain subspecies. For example, wolves can breed with domestic dogs and produce viable offspring, so they are both considered to be members of the same species, canus lupus. However, the genetic and morphological differences between wild wolves and domestic dogs are significant enough that they are considered separate subspecies of the same species - dogs are canus lupus familiaris, and there are a few other subspecies of canus lupus. In prehistory, there have been other subspecies of human, such as homo neandertalis (which we know could - and did - breed with Homo sapiens and produce viable offspring, as evidenced by the fact that a significant portion of the modern human population does have homo neandertalis genetic markers.) But at this point, they have all gone extinct, save Homo sapiens sapiens, AKA anatomically modern humans.

Breeds are a separate thing, and refer to smaller variations of appearance and temperament within a species that are - as the name suggests - bred for, via selective breeding. Selective breeding is ethically dubious with animals, let alone humans. When the concept is applied to humans, it is called eugenics, and it is horribly, horribly racist. There is also less genetic variation between different human ethnicities than there is between different breeds of dog.

[Nyrufa]

And yet you proceeded further...

That was before I read Charlaquin's post. I went back and edited the bottom after seeing it.

[Angwe]

Except that we're not, if we go by the system that has divided up the animal kingdom. Like I said, scientists divide animals into different breeds for a number of reasons that can be applied to various ethnic groups. Mostly being physical appearance, but we can also take one's natural aptitude into account. For example, people who historically descend from cold environments may have a higher tolerance to low temperature than somebody who's ancestors descend from the scorching desert.

How many species, or "races" of tiny birds can you think of? Sparrows, finches, robins, swallows, just to name a few?

The only difference in this scenario is that the various types of humans that exist throughout the world have the capacity to argue against the idea. When it comes to literally any other species in the animal kingdom, we apply the term without so much as a second thought.

Yes, this can quickly spiral out of control. Best not to proceed further.

And yet you proceeded further...

Applying this to humans is an idea that has been advanced by one W. E. B. Dubois. He called it Racialism. Otherwise known as a synonym for racism. Also debunked. By science. These physical difference between ethnic groups are simply not big enough to find in your genes or anywhere else. It's like categorizing the different colors of the labrador breed different breeds or races.

Now, seriously, why don't you go and read up on the subject. It's not difficult to do. Start with wikipedia.

And man... Sparrows, finches, robins and swallows are different species of bird. Not races. 'Tiny bird' is not a species. Races are within one species. The word has meaning.

[Nyrufa]

Because we are one species. And it would be racist. I mean, it's in the name? How could this possibly escape you?

Except that we're not, if we go by the system that has divided up the animal kingdom. Like I said, scientists divide animals into different breeds for a number of reasons that can be applied to various ethnic groups. Mostly being physical appearance, but we can also take one's natural aptitude into account. For example, people who historically descend from cold environments may have a higher tolerance to low temperature than somebody who's ancestors descend from the scorching desert.

How many species, or "races" of tiny birds can you think of? Sparrows, finches, shrikes, robins, swallows, just to name a few?

The only difference in this scenario is that the various types of humans that exist throughout the world have the capacity to argue against the idea. When it comes to literally any other species in the animal kingdom, we apply the term without so much as a second thought.

This line of discussion is going to dark places quickly, so I’m going to tap out before we get any further down the eugenics rabbit hole.

Yes, this can quickly spiral out of control. Best not to proceed further.

[Charlaquin]

It's not my social circles, it's pretty much the whole country.

Clearly not, because I also live in America and I’m quite familiar with it.

Like I said, this is the very first time I'm ever hearing an argument to the contrary. Literally everybody else on the planet that I can think of has used the word "race" when referring to the various ethnic groups.

Right. In other words, your social circles.

And I find it rather strange that scientists like LostLight find the notion of "race" applying to humans is absurd, when zoologists divide animals up into different breeds and species based on different characteristics. Such as size, shape, coloration, geographical location, natural aptitude, est.

Why should humans get any kind of preferential treatment? Just because they're sapient enough to argue against the idea?

This line of discussion is going to dark places quickly, so I’m going to tap out before we get any further down the eugenics rabbit hole.

[Charlaquin]

I'm not american.

The internet is not american.

The world is not America.

Keep that in mind.

So what country do you live in? Betcha a nickel it’s heavily impacted by institutionalized racism.