I think we’re saying the same thing from different points of view. The DM killing a character isn’t in and of itself a problem. But it could be one sign the DM is being a dick, and one would need to understand the wider context to get a sense of what happened.
So I think it’s important to leave open the possibility that someone can raise concerns about this, and for whoever is mediating that conflict to be able to talk to the DM and player about this and understand what happened.
DMs,
Thank you all for your work on the Code of Conduct. I know you put a lot of thought into it. I’ll be happy to adopt it at VALUE tables and provide feedback if needed.
Re: everything else,
I appreciate that it’s being kept short so it can be read by someone walking in, and that it’s being focused on the overall play environment. For myself, I wouldn’t want to see a process for overturning DM decisions, including player death, in the Code. If people have concerns related to treating others without respect/equality, they should definitely voice them. But in that case we should focus on the wellbeing of real human beings, and not changing the outcome of a game.
Re: the “fun” thing- a DM can’t make anyone have fun. At best, all a DM can do is provide an opportunity for fun- whether someone has fun is up to the person. I’d be really, really careful about saying what a DM’s job is in the written rules. Otherwise, we get into the “I’m not having fun, so you as the DM aren’t doing your job.”
As an interesting note- some old guides used to specify that it was a DM’s job to be a neutral arbiter of the game. Not to favor the party, not to favor the monsters, not even to make sure that everyone had fun. This would be especially true for challenge-type modules. You might hope that everyone has fun when you selected the adventure, but it absolutely was not your job to ensure it during play.
Hey all!
I observed the discussion in the last days and wanted to say two things about it:
It is nice to have something a (new) player can read through when entering a VALUE location. Just to get to know what to expect and see that there are boundaries - for others and them self. Also it’s good for a DM to have something to point out in the case of someone acting outside of the code. You show them the line and ask them to leave - that’s easier than unwanted discussion.
The second point from my side is, that this should ONLY be game independent rules or let’s call them social rules. If you are not having fun you should look for another table/DM next time instead of starting a discussion. Everybody is different and that’s fine. If you come a few times you have a good chance to find a group or table (or even multiple) where you can and will have fun. But for me - this is 100% independent from a code of conduct. It’s in the name: it’s about conduct/behavior, that’s it. And most people will find a way to agree on that, while I am quite certain that it’s almost impossible to have everyone agree on what’s the best/most fun game.
I think our job as humans is to make sure we are as safe a space as can reasonably be expected from a group without formal organisation for people attending open game nights. I think this Code of Conduct does that quite well, though some of the comments offer improvements I can definitely get behind.
People who join “private” games (private in the sense that a DM will handpick people) should/could be made aware that this Code of Conduct isn’t in place at their games, though I would hope many DMs would still choose to use it.
The important thing is that players (and DMs) should know what is considered a reasonable expectation in behavior from others in a social setting they haven’t been in (much), with a group of people that is diverse in terms of age-range and backgrounds and that may also be new to the same social setting.
For “private” games, players don’t change as much so the group kind of establishes social norms simply by playing together. That’s not necessarily the case for open games.
I see what everone means about the point re ‘fun’. I guess what I meant about my earlier comment about GMs having a responsibility to ensure everyone is having fun is that because GMs are in a position of control and authority by virtue of facilitating the group, and they are empowered by these rules to take action, it brings with it a responsibility to ensure that everyone is on the same page at the table. That there is clear communication about what people’s expectations are, so that the group can find a way to cater to everyone’s tastes and ideas of fun.
The reason I suggested having this in the code of conduct was to mitigate an all-too-common problem of the ‘That Guy’ DM or situations of vexatious, adversarial douchebaggery. I think there is a difference between ‘the playstyle of this group/DM isn’t right for me’ and ‘this is a DM who is just trying to bully or browbeat us and does not care what the rest of the table thinks’. Think of this as the flipside to the line in the CoC that tells the players that the DM ‘plays the antagonist, but isn’t your antagonist’. I think we need a similar clause telling the DM that they should act in a similar manner. Articulating a policy that finds the line between the two is really hard.
And obviously, play styles can vary. Like not everyone will have fun all the time. But as Arthilas said, it should be the GM’s goal even if it isn’t always achievable. And the way of achieving this really is through clear communication of what to expect, what their idea of fun is, and allowing people to choose accordingly, and then finding common ground with the whole table on where the session can go. Like when I was at VALUE, Arthilas made it absolutely clear that the whole session would just be about puns and wordplay and everyone leaned into that.
The point isn’t to mandate a specific play style or idea of fun, but the point is to have the meta-conversation about what your play style and idea of fun are so you can all work together towards it. And if someone isn’t having fun, figuring out if it’s possible to meet in the middle or if this person needs to switch tables. Like I said in a different post, when I was at VALUE, the table I was at was not my preferred playstyle, and I would have enjoyed other styles more, but I still had fun as I felt the group still met me half way and I could enjoy myself regardless.
Maybe the word ‘fun’ isn’t helpful here because of how different people’s ideas of fun are? I wanted to keep it brief and concise, and not suggest a long-winded paragraph, but does anyone else ave any other ideas about how to articulate a point like this?
a very classic “don’t kill your players - that’s what they have characters for” 
(yes I know that is 100 % missing your point)
imho there is no need to add anything specific like that at all, if anything at all we can go with “play the antagonist for the characters, not for the players”, but i’m also pretty much one of the guys that can live with a simple one liner CoC like “don’t be an asshole”
Sure.
Quick example: We used to have a DM here who ran mysteries in which one of the players played the culprit. The games were crazy fun and everybody loved them; they were not cooperative.
Another example: When you go to see a movie, you don’t always expect the movie to be fun, do you? A great movie could be, for example, interesting rather than fun. RPGs are no different. We’ve had games which I think nobody at the table would describe as fun, but which were nonetheless very good games that everybody appreciated.
The broader point is that these games of ours, their players, and the methods we use to ensure safe and positive environments cover a lot of territory, and any document like this has to be careful to account for that.
[Insert “Now ya tell me … apologies to all those players who ‘moved away’!” joke here.]
Choice of words aside, I could sign off on that.
I see what you mean, i think we were talking across purposes where when I was talking about cooperating I meant communicating with each other and listening to others’ input rather than necessarily co-op style play. Maybe ‘collaborative’ would be a less ambiguous way of describing this, where even when the dynamic is PVP, so to speak, there’s still a degree of collaborating to play even if characters are working against each other?
Anyway, ‘don’t be an asshole’ is not sufficient as a code of conduct because it doesn’t make clear what constitutes being an asshole, and some people just do not know where the line is and cannot read the room.
Thank you. May I ask if you had more experience with code of conducts with minors. The research i did in CoC in gaming spaces, larps, and other roleplaying groups had 3 modes.
There are also CoC for groups that specifically deal with minors like sports teams, problem is that they are very long and very specific and we would prefer to keep it short with maybe a longer sage advice page.
So far we had minors at the table, especially we have one regularly at the Saturday table. On the Friday games we had them sometimes during the holidays but they are rare.
We have this in the Respect Others point: “Theft or aggressive behaviour is not tolerated. Aggressive behaviour includes threats of or actual physical aggression, using racial, gender, or cultural slurs and otherwise harassing others.” But I see how this can be misinterpreted/overseen. Maybe it is also not enough?
To your last point, I understand, but right now there is a strong blow back from people who don’t want a responsible person, because it would elevate others. Right now the form is to share information with the DM chat, and to inform and investigate. There are lots of problems with that solution but right now that’s what we have.
For me, the minors thing isn’t big on the list, though if we’re creating a CoC, we might aswell include it. The problems we’ve had have been exclusively related to adults, afaik. Implementing and following through with a code of conduct would lead to minors being safer, too.
I think for me, the “minor” part would read something like:
Everyone is welcome at our games regardless of age. Minors are expected to abide by the Youth Safety Laws Vienna. Please note that most players and DMs are adults. While we try to create a safe space for everyone, we cannot guarantee all content and player behavior will be youth appropriate. Parents or Guardians are welcome to watch or play with their teenagers, and/or contact the DM about the contents of the game. Should someone under the age of (12?) participate, a responsible adult must remain on site. RPG Vienna / VALUE / the DM will not be responsible for supervising before or after the game, or during breaks.
regarding your @katnyx last sentence
would suggest something like:
"… one trusted guardian must be there to account for a child that is 13 or younger.
I’d defer to ohmi on this as their experience in a sports club will be invaluable, especially with regard to any responsibilities for venues depending on the law. And what @katnyx said is really good as well regarding expectations to abide by youth safety law and the limits of VALUE’s responsibilities.
I think the crucial thing is to decide on a policy and implement it, bearing in mind the pros, cons, responsibilities, and challenges that come with it, and the resources available. I helped organise a local convention where minors were allowed but in specific conditions:
But the club I help run is strictly adults only because of licensing restrictions in pubs/venues we use that don’t allow minors. It saves us a lot of fine grained finagling. But obviously this narrows our age reach and audience.
So whatever approach VALUE would use, whether banning an age group entirely or allowing them with supervision, the important thing is communicating expectations and responsibilities.
As for CoC specific to minors, the best thing to do is to set the standard of regular behaviour as part of the CoC to a standard that would be appropriate for all ages. That way you don’t need to get incredibly specific for a CoC involving minors. And have a short section/paragraph about minors and supervision like katnyx suggested.
Just to add quickly, we got some feedback from new members at the club I help run that needed us to rethink and rewrite some of our club rules, CoCs, and general info docs. The discussion on this thread was really helpful, and helped us refine some of the points we had as well. So thank you all so much! The sharing of insight has been very reciprocal.
Since this came up in a meeting the other night and hasn’t been answered here:
I’m by no means an expert on these matters, but I also dabble in sports. I’m sure different federations and teams do things differently, but the codes of conduct I’ve encountered have mostly been very specific. You sometimes see broad stuff like ‘uphold the values of,’ but most of it’s more along the lines of ‘no alcohol while wearing team insignia at event X.’ They’re for clarifying conduct questions that might not be obvious.
More complicated subjects are usually handled in separate policies and/or training. The WADA code dealing with doping, for instance, is a well-known example.
Safeguarding also has its own policies and training. It’s not like what’s been discussed in this thread. All the training I’ve had has been strongly focused on harrassment and abuse, particularly of minors. Defining harrassment and abuse, preventing harrassment and abuse, recognizing harrassment and abuse, reporting harrassment and abuse, etc. Again, with a strong focus on minors.
These policies don’t deal with expectations of minors, but obligations toward minors.
I’ve been following conversations for a while, but I have to say, I’m not completely sure what your stance is here.
This is a problem that needs to be solved. It is increasing in frequency because there are more and more players and DMs joining.
So question 1: How would you solve these issues? I think the individual issues don’t need to be here, but I believe they have been written about in the private messaging group. Not solving them is not an option if you ask me.
So question 2: I have read you say multiple times that the codes of conduct you know are all about protecting minors. Are you saying that is we need to do here, despite the fact that that is not what anyone creating this was talking about?
Finally,
There are several of us, including me, who are saddened that this is not, in fact, enough. But that’s essentially what we have right now and it’s failing us.
I’m only aware of one egregious incident, and that’s probably something that can only be solved through personal communication or stronger measures rather than by means of a written document. (Nothing wrong with trying, though.)
But perhaps you’ve put your finger on another aspect of the issue worth considering. If things are getting more problematic because of more and more people joining, perhaps that’s something to look at, too?
Seems like that’s no longer the case?
A lot of people have been talking about safety. If that’s the point of this exercise - and I’m not saying it has to be, but if it is - then yes, I think you should start with the most vulnerable members of a group, and I hope that that’s something everybody can agree on.
While I’m aware of several incidents - involving 3 players and 3 DMs by a quick headcount - I’m with you that communication is the way to go. However, problems can be solved with several ways of communicating.
Again, this is all my opinion, I could definitely be wrong about this.
Part of the problem we have experienced in the past is that the expectations regarding
While the document certainly isn’t perfect, it’s also not trying to be perfect. It’s trying to target specific issues we’ve had around those two topics in a broad way to allow for creative problem solving. By creating an expectation of how we are to behave, that creates a basis on which to talk about what behavior can reasonably be expected.
I disagree there. We are still a group of adults. To the best of my knowledge, we have one regular underage player. There is one person at Wowkeepers I’m unsure about, but other than that, we barely get anyone underage. The one person I know about for sure has been coming back for almost a year, despite the fact that he usually plays with a table full of adults. He is a teenager. His mom seems to be involved. If he didn’t want to be there and if he didn’t feel safe, I seriously doubt he would be. Of course, this is an assumption - again, I think the best choice would be to talk to them rather than make assumptions.
The point of this exercise, as mentioned above, is to solve some problems we have been having.
The point is not to think of potential problems, because - while that would increase the safety - there is simply no use in trying to think of problems people who have no problems (or who cannot voice them) or are not currently in our community could potentially have if they were to join the community.
That’s too many hypotheticals. That kind of thinking is useful when there are specific reasons you need to have those things defined - like when trying to save a Verein from liability for misbehavior on part of its members - but that isn’t an issue for us. If we finish implementing this and it turns out that there are more problems than we thought, that’s a new starting point. But we can only go by what we know.
Some general thoughts:
How vulnerable someone is can be related to age, but also to trauma, prior experiences, maturity, and a bunch of other stuff. Which is why the focus of this should be “psychological safety” in my opinion - creating a space where people too scared to speak up can be heard and allowing people to choose not to relive their traumas by offering a heads-up about content is empowering in that we don’t decide what qualifies as “vulnerable”. Someone who is 14 but relatively mature and happy might be less vulnerable than someone who is 30, but gone through a bunch of shit experiences for the past 29 years.
In D&D terms, some PCs may be immune to psychic damage and laugh off an attempt at someone casting vicious mockery at them. Someone else might be knocked out from the same mockery. And it’s also not constant, but depending on the day and the situation. That situation translates to human life quite well - or at least I believe it does.
So you have been told about one thing and considered it egregious. For me, there are more incidents to be considered egregious. For someone else, there might be none at all.
Our job in the current constellation of our community is not, in my opinion, to validate or invalidate other people’s emotions or perception or truth. Our job is to make sure that when people feel that something has gone wrong, they have the option to voice that - either at the table or anonymously through the form. By putting that in writing, we are telling people that we want them to communicate with us.
And yes, in our current “organisation”, there is still an open question / process regarding what to do with those “tough cases” where someone who reads the anonymous reports might feel compelled to permanently ban a player or DM. I think the question of how to handle that will linger on. However, lack of clarity on something that only comprises 5% of likely reports does not mean we shouldn’t follow through on the rest of the 95%. And maybe, as we work through it, we will find a solution for the 5%. We are not trying to be perfect. We are just trying to be a bit better.
OK, my turn to say that I’m not quite sure what your position is.
You say that this is just about solving specific problems, but earlier you also said that our job is to make sure to provide a safe space, and that this code does that well.
I feel it can be improved upon.
I think there are a couple of assumptions here that lead down the wrong path:
When a group of adults opens its doors to minors, it is no longer simply the same group of adults as before. The makeup of the group changes, and it would be good for the group to be aware of that.
Minors remain in situations that are unsafe far too often. If you’ve never encountered this, you’re very fortunate.
There is a point to thinking about potential problems. That’s a big part of what safety means.
Just because there can be at-risk individuals within any group of people does not mean that there are not groups that are more vulnerable than others.
You’re trying to make things a bit better. I think that’s great. Truly. And so am I. I’m not sure where all this resistance is coming from.
in an attempt to shift this discussion towards a productive direction …
imo if we feel we need to tackle the “Kids @ VALUE” topic we have the following options:
clear that we are a “bunch of adults” (tm @katnyx), and are not a ‘youth association’ who will take care of your kids
Kian’s (YellaYella!) events, like the one that happened todaystill, as @katnyx mentioned, the main focus about the CoC is still, what methods we wanna use, how to make people who feel unsafe at a VALUE game heard, plus providing a guideline & safety tools so that (esp. new) DMs and players know what to expect
… that being said, I fully agree that it is very sad that the “don’t be an asshole” is not enough