Hi all,
Putting this in it's own thread so as not to get off-topic. I have two main queries I would like some feedback on:
- Where is the line when it comes to indirect or unintentional harassment of other players?
- Who's responsibility is it to enforce the non-harrassmemt aspect of the campaign?
For some context, assume a campaign has a non-harrassmemt clause or rule in affect.
The GM describes a fantasy race as having a reputation as being rich and controlling things behind the scenes.
One of the players says something to the effect of "Oh, you mean like x real-life race."
If you were a player in this campaign, what would your expectations be as far as the response to the above, and who should make that response?
Thanks.
|
Where is the line when it comes to indirect or unintentional harassment of other players?
For home games this is going to vary wildly. I have been in groups that would be considered extremely offensive by most people. Those tend to grow weary on me, but some people live to push others buttons and no topic is off limits.
Talking something more public, like PFS, I imagine the GM should step in and have a discussion with the offender and offended. If possible or necessary, take it off the table to discuss a boundary and stop the harassment. Though I think everyone and anyone at the table should speak up and discuss these things as they happen but understand thats difficult among acquaintances. I believe if things are really out of hand they have local VCs that should step up and help out if it gets to that point.
Who's responsibility is it to enforce the non-harrassmemt aspect of the campaign?
If such a thing were agreed upon by the table, then I would say everyone at the table should try and enforce it. If you dont speak up folks might not know they crossed the line. Outside of that, the
harasser is just being a problematic player.
If you were a player in this campaign, what would your expectations be as far as the response to the above, and who should make that response?
This is difficult for me to answer as I like using real world politics as a contrast for my game settings. This wouldnt offend anyone at my table and wouldnt be something we would have a problem with. Perhaps the example is too vague.
|
Where is the line when it comes to indirect or unintentional harassment of other players?
That's...tricky. It depends a lot on the interpersonal dynamics of the group. People who have been friends for over a decade have a very different dynamic from strangers who just met, and can often 'play a bit rougher' socially speaking, since everyone knows the boundaries of the others.
So...it really depends on the nature of the game and the players.
I don't think there can be any hard and fast rules, beyond responding and actually doing something to stop such behavior if anyone complains about it or looks like it makes them uncomfortable.
Who's responsibility is it to enforce the non-harrassmemt aspect of the campaign?
The GM. Or the person whose place you are playing at. The GM can kick you out of the game, the host can kick you out of their house. They're the ones with authority, so they get to do enforcement.
If they aren't doing so, telling them to step up or organizing a number of people to leave in protest or something else of that nature is definitely appropriate.
The GM describes a fantasy race as having a reputation as being rich and controlling things behind the scenes.
One of the players says something to the effect of "Oh, you mean like x real-life race."
If you were a player in this campaign, what would your expectations be as far as the response to the above, and who should make that response?
It really sorta depends. I'd definitely expect a disapproving look at the very least, and possibly much more up to and including kicking them out of the game depending on context and group dynamics (as noted above).
Are they just the kind of person who has no filter making a joke? A harsh look and a warning not to say that again might well be sufficient.
Are they saying it in dead seriousness while looking daggers at a member of said race in the room? Yeah...they probably need to leave and not be invited to future games.
Do you have a clear example? It's hard to answer because there are too many factors.
And "unintentional" makes it really difficult because it could be someone taking things personally that are not intended that way.
As you know, every group has its own dynamic. Which means it really needs to assessed on a case-by-case basis.
Sometimes this happens out of ignorance. Sometimes it is on the part of the viewer.
As far as WHO needs to enforce a non-harassment policy: the GM primarily. But the group as a whole also needs to share some responsibility and either support the GM, help educate the offending person, &/or clarify for the offended that no insult was intended.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where is the line when it comes to indirect or unintentional harassment of other players?
This depends a lot. Who are the players? What are the dynamics? What was the harassment?
I used to always be on the side of the people who felt harassed. And then, I gamed with someone who was very autistic. He had certain rituals he had to do to feel comfortable. This wasn't a minor psychological need; he could have a full-blown panic attack if he didn't do them, and then he was typically recovering from that for the rest of the night. We learned that no matter what the social norms were, we had to make certain allowances if we wanted to game with him. Because he couldn't change.
Every new player brought into the group was warned about him. Told up-front he's autistic, how it presents, about the rituals, what they are, etc. And by the time we were willing to take on new players, we had gamed with him long enough we could easily tell the difference between when it was something he couldn't help but do and something he chose to do. If he chose to harass someone, he was called out on it.
Unfortunately, after a few attempts with new players, the group felt forced to make a decision that the only women they would allow in were women already part of the group. Why? Because unless you accepted that he was really that autistic, he could come across as creepy. And we had way too many new women gamers who wanted him kicked because he was creepy and they felt harassed by his rituals because of it. After the sixth one was kicked from the group, the vote was taken... and it as a unanimous decision. We had to protect someone mentally disabled, and at the time we felt the only way to do it was to further another social injustice.
That group eventually broke up. He was moved by the state to a different facility that was better set-up to handle his care, the GM got married, several players took on jobs that left them too busy for gaming... In the end, all we could do was wish each other the best, hope he found another group as understanding as us, and part ways.
Ever since then, I've been a lot more critical of claims of harassment. Is it the player accused of it? The player accusing who is the problem? Or just a simple miscommunication? I try to find out what details I can, and observe as closely as I can, before I make a decision.
Who's responsibility is it to enforce the non-harrassmemt aspect of the campaign?
Everyone's. The GM can't necessarily know everything that goes on. They have a lot to do. So every single member of the group has a responsibility to enforce non-harassment, both on others and on themselves.
For some context, assume a campaign has a non-harrassmemt clause or rule in affect.
The GM describes a fantasy race as having a reputation as being rich and controlling things behind the scenes.
One of the players says something to the effect of "Oh, you mean like x real-life race."
If you were a player in this campaign, what would your expectations be as far as the response to the above, and who should make that response?
If you want to avoid racial stereotypes, you have to avoid gaming of any sort. Period. Because you can't make a monster of any type without accidentally portraying some kind of racist or nationalist stereotype. Sometimes, you can't even avoid them when writing heroic races.
The most blunt examples in Pathfinder? The orcs are Africans, half-orcs are African Americans, and ogres are hillbillies. And Pathfinder isn't the only game to equate African heritage with being an orc. And I don't believe it was intentional in any case.
So, after awhile, you're just going to have to accept that you're probably going to run across some racist or nationalist stereotype when creating a monster or race. Because not even Pathfinder could avoid them.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Who's responsibility is it to enforce the non-harrassmemt aspect of the campaign?
Everyone's. Until things are physically or legally risky enough that police need to be involved, anyone who decides that intervening against harassment is someone else's responsibility is as guilty as the perpetrator.
Where is the line when it comes to indirect or unintentional harassment of other players?My line and your line are going to be different. The example you sighted probably wouldn't even make me blink, but if it offends you, at the very least you should say something.
Who's responsibility is it to enforce the non-harrassmemt aspect of the campaign?
I kind of side with Deadmanwalking here. The host and the GM. I disagree with the people who say it's everyone's responsibility. Essentially, anyone besides those people is just a guest and doesn't have the right to tell other guests what to do. However, everyone has the right to speak their mind. In essence, you can tell my guests there being jerks, but you can't ask them to leave. However...
For some context, assume a campaign has a non-harrassmemt clause or rule in affect.
Hold up. There is an official policy in place. Like this is something everyone has been told and agreed to. That seems a little odd for an informal social gathering, but if that's how it is at your table— cool. If that's case, it's the responsibility of whoever instituted the policy.
My experience has been that there is never something so spelled out in place and things like this are a matter of the general social contract that's in place.
As a general life rule, I think that when people say things that you find offensive you should speak up if you can. Sometimes you may find yourself in a situation where that just isn't possible, but an RPG table is probably not one of those places.
In the instance you sighted, a simple "Do you know how incredibly bigoted that statement is?" might start the conversation you're hoping takes place.
In my own life, when people say things that I think are uncalled for (i.e. racists, homophobic, etc.) I call them out on it and leave it at that. Once I've said my peace, it generally doesn't bother me.
This depends really on the player in question, the spirit of the remark, and the other people at the table more than anything.
It's kind of a fact of life that people are very comfortable around groups of friends, so much so that they'll jokingly say things they otherwise wouldn't because of an implicit understanding that everyone else around them will realize it's a joke and react appropriately.
The phrase "Hey, f!@& you man" can be either said jokingly and in the spirit of good fun or become a prelude to a fistfight depending on how it's said, who it's said by, and who it's said TO.
Social situations have too much nuance to pass judgment on with this many degrees of separation between us and the "incident" (we're currently lacking most context, the identity of the person, their tone of voice and body language, history of similar remarks, reaction of everyone else at the table, etc. The list goes on basically forever).
TL;DR: It depends, man. You know better than we do, since you were there.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I kind of side with Deadmanwalking here. The host and the GM. I disagree with the people who say it's everyone's responsibility. Essentially, anyone besides those people is just a guest and doesn't have the right to tell other guests what to do. However, everyone has the right to speak their mind. In essence, you can tell my guests there being jerks, but you can't ask them to leave. However...
Reading other people's posts, I'm not sure there's actually disagreement here on what people should do, I think there's disagreement on what the word 'enforcement' means in this context.
I immediately, in my head, leapt to 'impose actual penalties' which necessitates authority. I'm betting you did the same.
Other people seem to have gone with 'does anything about it at all' which is a valid definition, but not the one I was thinking of.
In short, I think we all agree that everyone should speak up about this sort of thing...we were just using different definitions of whether that constitutes 'enforcement'.
For the record, this thread wasn't in response to an actual event, it's purpose was to gauge expectations.
While I haven't experienced any issues of harrassment in games I've been in, based on some other threads I've read, I've wondered if other players in those groups felt harrassed but didn't want to speak up.
Most of the groups I've been in have been fairly light-hearted, and we all tend to joke with one another.
I always let my groups know up front that if they're uncomfortable with anything, they should let me know.
This is why I was asking about who's responsibility it is to regulate behavior - If Player A says something that Player B finds offensive, but the GM didn't think it was offensive, then Player B may feel isolated and unable to have their concerns addressed.
I'm not sure if there is a better solution than having the responsibiliy to bring up the issue fall on the offended party's shoulders.
For the record, this thread wasn't in response to an actual event, it's purpose was to gauge expectations.
While I haven't experienced any issues of harrassment in games I've been in, based on some other threads I've read, I've wondered if other players in those groups felt harrassed but didn't want to speak up.
Most of the groups I've been in have been fairly light-hearted, and we all tend to joke with one another.
I always let my groups know up front that if they're uncomfortable with anything, they should let me know.
This is why I was asking about who's responsibility it is to regulate behavior - If Player A says something that Player B finds offensive, but the GM didn't think it was offensive, then Player B may feel isolated and unable to have their concerns addressed.
I'm not sure if there is a better solution than having the responsibiliy to bring up the issue fall on the offended party's shoulders.
The problem with this is inherent to gaming culture, based on it's origins, I suspect.
Individuals who have an issue with a group dynamic item tend to turn a blind eye to it, because Hey, I'm GAMING! With PEOPLE! AND SOCIAL! AND STUFF!
Case in point, I've been gaming for over thirty years, and I still have a hard time at points determining what a 'toxic' gaming environment is (not hygiene, mind, that's a different horse).
Fortunately there's a growing trend to not put up with that garbage which needs encouragement.
However, putting the onus on a new member or a single person socially causes pressures that may make that person 'have health/transportation/etc' issues that cause them to not want to confront the real issue face to face.
I'm not a smoker, for example. I used to game with a bunch of folks that were pretty decent, but some of the things that group did were on the borders of taste/legality. But I didn't care, because Hey, I'm GAMING! With PEOPLE! AND SOCIAL! AND STUFF!
When I started becoming sensitive to smoke, I stopped attending that group, and my health improved. It took a few months to figure out that it was a bad thing I was avoiding to health issues, and not because 'transportation just wasn't working' (though it was a causal factor).
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I kind of side with Deadmanwalking here. The host and the GM. I disagree with the people who say it's everyone's responsibility. Essentially, anyone besides those people is just a guest and doesn't have the right to tell other guests what to do. However, everyone has the right to speak their mind. In essence, you can tell my guests there being jerks, but you can't ask them to leave. However...Reading other people's posts, I'm not sure there's actually disagreement here on what people should do, I think there's disagreement on what the word 'enforcement' means in this context.
I immediately, in my head, leapt to 'impose actual penalties' which necessitates authority. I'm betting you did the same.
Other people seem to have gone with 'does anything about it at all' which is a valid definition, but not the one I was thinking of.
In short, I think we all agree that everyone should speak up about this sort of thing...we were just using different definitions of whether that constitutes 'enforcement'.
This. I, for one, was thinking of "enforcement" as including social enforcement, not merely the ability to banish someone from the premises.
I kind of side with Deadmanwalking here. The host and the GM. I disagree with the people who say it's everyone's responsibility. Essentially, anyone besides those people is just a guest and doesn't have the right to tell other guests what to do. However, everyone has the right to speak their mind. In essence, you can tell my guests there being jerks, but you can't ask them to leave. However...Reading other people's posts, I'm not sure there's actually disagreement here on what people should do, I think there's disagreement on what the word 'enforcement' means in this context.
I immediately, in my head, leapt to 'impose actual penalties' which necessitates authority. I'm betting you did the same.
Other people seem to have gone with 'does anything about it at all' which is a valid definition, but not the one I was thinking of.
In short, I think we all agree that everyone should speak up about this sort of thing...we were just using different definitions of whether that constitutes 'enforcement'.
I'm the same as Jiggy. Thinking of social enforcement and people talking to each other. I've been surprised how many times a simple, gentle discussion has solved an issue and salvaged a problem player. A lot of people don't want to cause problems, so often a gentle approach gets results.
But, I also think people have to enforce it on themselves. If you catch yourself doing it or think about your actions later and realize you caused a problem, it's your responsibility to both correct the problem and apologize.
|
|
This. I, for one, was thinking of "enforcement" as including social enforcement, not merely the ability to banish someone from the premises.
Yeah, and by that definition I totally agree that it's everyone's job. That just wasn't the direction my thoughts went first when I heard the word 'enforcement'.
Might have something to do with my usually being a GM...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another vote for everyone needing to help call out inappropriate behavior and comments. This can't all be on the GM—and the GM may be the person crossing the line.