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.
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.
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”
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.
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.
Minors under a certain age, often 16-18 were banned (often in LARPs and some game store games)
Minors under a certain age, often 16-18 had to be accompanied at all times by a parent/responsible adult. (Some AL-like associations and game stores)
Minors were allowed/the CoC didn’t specify. (The official AL CoC (2020))
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.
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:
They could only attend the convention in the daytime slot (evening games and events were adults only) and could only participate in events that were suitable to their age group.
GMs were required to give age ratings and flag games that were adult only or classified by certain age ratings
Providing general ‘please note’ disclaimers that alcohol would be served or consumed on the premises and GMs will be expected to give age ratings, that there may be adult only games happening at the same time. Con staff and GMs will not be responsible for supervising minors.
Parents/guardians/caregivers were expected to supervise minors under 16, and should take care to ensure the children whom they are supervising participate in age appropriate events
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.