D&D General [+] Ravenloft, horror, & safety tools...

[Faolyn]

This is where someone might look at your list and wonder if there's some cynicism at work. You don't want a common fantasy trope (magic that enchants or manipulates the will) used against the PCs (or specifically your PC) but are OK with using it. If I had a player coming to me with that, then I'd be wondering about their commitment to the principles of free will/control rather than fair play in a game and be tempted to take it right off the list of PC abilities as well so that it's never a question at all, for anybody.

I've read more than a few horror stories involving terrible GMs who have their DMPCs mind control PCs for really creepy (usually sexual) reasons. I would assume that @overgeeked wanted to avoid something like that.

In this particular case, though, I'd ask them to define mind control. In one game, I had an NPC monster cast enemies abound (or as I like to call it, create temporary ally) on a PC. Would this count as mind control? Does something like charm person count, which is short-term, or are we talking full-fledged domination that's off-limits, like with a vampire or 'cubus or nymph?

 

[Remathilis]

The issue with some tools is that their is a tendency to overgeneralize. For example, the problem with mind control magic isn't "you failed your save, attack your allies for me!" But more issues with consent and scenarios where things happen to the PC and due to the magic they cannot fight back against (Jessica Jones style).

I think in addition to tools like this, a general overview of tone and such helps. I tend to run my game PG-13, with lower levels of gore or sex. If a line gets crossed, it's non intentional and we will walk it back as needed. That sort of communication presented plainly can fix some of the more generic issues with these tools...

 

[billd91]

It's not about reciprocity. There's no negotiation or give and take about lines and veils. If someone tells me something is a line, I don't cross it. I also won't try to negotiate that line away. That defeats the purpose of safety tools.

It may honest but if mind control is ok as long as it's not used on your character it starts to look a lot less like a safety tool. That may be the scrutiny you invite when you take the concepts in the safety list and start to break them out between you as user/you as target rather than the Green, Yellow, Red of Consent in Gaming.

Ultimately, I want my players to feel safe, but not necessarily protected from events that may occasionally frustrate them when the dice don't go their way.

 

[overgeeked]

I've read more than a few horror stories involving terrible GMs who have their DMPCs mind control PCs for really creepy (usually sexual) reasons. I would assume that @overgeeked wanted to avoid something like that.

Gah. That honestly never crossed my mind. Crap like that is exactly why safety tools are necessary.

In this particular case, though, I'd ask them to define mind control. In one game, I had an NPC monster cast enemies abound (or as I like to call it, create temporary ally) on a PC. Would this count as mind control? Does something like charm person count, which is short-term, or are we talking full-fledged domination that's off-limits, like with a vampire or 'cubus or nymph?

For me, it depends. I'm fine with things like failing the save on a fear and having to run away until I make the save. It's still lame that I get to do nothing until I make the save, but it's not objectionable, to me. The objectionable stuff is where the DM gets to directly control my character, or forces me to control my character in ways I don't want to, like mind controlled to attack my party. Something like charm where I'd be forced to be neutral or friendly...it's iffy. For me.

 

[overgeeked]

The issue with some tools is that their is a tendency to overgeneralize.

Absolutely. There needs to be tools with greater granularity...resolution...whatever that dig down to the specifics. The safety tools we have are the beginning of the conversation, not the end. I'm going to be digging into subgenres of horror and pulling the main tropes / themes and turning those into a safety tool checklist. I think something like that would be useful.

For example, the problem with mind control magic isn't "you failed your save, attack your allies for me!" But more issues with consent and scenarios where things happen to the PC and due to the magic they cannot fight back against (Jessica Jones style).

For me, it's nothing more complex than "it's the one thing I get to control in the game, don't take that control away."

I think in addition to tools like this, a general overview of tone and such helps. I tend to run my game PG-13, with lower levels of gore or sex. If a line gets crossed, it's non intentional and we will walk it back as needed. That sort of communication presented plainly can fix some of the more generic issues with these tools...

Absolutely. I tend to run games about the same movie rating and caveats as you, though I typically go somewhere between PG-13 and R. I like the Sly Flourish video on safety tools I linked above. In it he talks about using the movie rating system, lines and veils, and the pause button to have your bases covered. That seems like a good idea to me.

 

[DemoMonkey]

I'm not sure I understand where the distinction is between "Having this in the game is emotionally harmful" to me and "I just don't care for that". when it comes to lines. Or maybe there is no distinction?

I dislike halflings in games. (No really, I do!) They spoil my enjoyment of the game by making it too explicitly Tolkien derivative. But they don't make me feel unsafe.

Would that be the sort of thing that should be covered by a "Line"? I haven't encountered the concept enough to be able to say.

 

[overgeeked]

It may honest but if mind control is ok as long as it's not used on your character it starts to look a lot less like a safety tool.

Why? If I presented you with that on a safety checklist would you insist that I go into excruciating personal detail to justify my desire to not have my autonomy forcibly removed? That seems like it defeats the purpose of the safety tools.

That may be the scrutiny you invite when you take the concepts in the safety list and start to break them out between you as user/you as target rather than the Green, Yellow, Red of Consent in Gaming.

I think that split is important. Someone might be fine with spiders in a game but refuse to have direct interaction with spiders themselves. I don't see why this is any different. Adding granularity to things like this can only help.

Ultimately, I want my players to feel safe, but not necessarily protected from events that may occasionally frustrate them when the dice don't go their way.

So do I. It's funny you think that's what I'm after. When I get to play I keep asking the DM to make things harder. When playing 5E it's basically a foregone conclusion that the players just win...all the time. That's really boring. I don't mind losing. After seven years of 5E I'm longing to have something even minorly negative happen to a character of mine.

 

[Remathilis]

Edit. answered upthread

 

[Faolyn]

Gah. That honestly never crossed my mind. Crap like that is exactly why safety tools are necessary.

I've read waaay too much of r/rpghorrorstories.

On the other hand, it makes me appreciate my group a lot more.

 

[jayoungr]

For 5E specific horror gaming, there's Grim Hollow, a grimdark & dark fantasy pair (soon to be trilogy) of books that present a wonderful setting that can easily be used as is, as part of Ravenloft, or simply stripped for parts and ideas.

I've been hearing/seeing enthusiatic references to this supplement a lot lately. Can someone sell me on it? What makes it stand out?