Café de Nuit

[quote=That was two years ago. And it wasn't even a horror game. Since that episode, I definitely believe that comfort boundaries is something RPG books should talk about more. Kudos to WotC.[/quote]

So OK since there is a whole article on how to make your players feel comfortable why should they change characters like Drakov in the new book. He could still be around without any graphic details of preferred ways of torture etc. and anyway if you open a history book you will read the real Vlads, Nazis or even Pol Pots attrocities so I don't see the point of the rewrite. I feel this is an overzealous overprotection of the reader because they made mistake in CoS of how they depicted the Vistani compared to Van Richten's Guide to the Vistani which was I believe based on myths of mystical powers rather than stereoypes.

Mephisto wrote: So OK since there is a whole article on how to make your players feel comfortable why should they change characters like Drakov in the new book. He could still be around without any graphic details of preferred ways of torture etc. and anyway if you open a history book you will read the real Vlads, Nazis or even Pol Pots attrocities so I don't see the point of the rewrite. I feel this is an overzealous overprotection of the reader because they made mistake in CoS of how they depicted the Vistani compared to Van Richten's Guide to the Vistani which was I believe based on myths of mystical powers rather than stereoypes.

Just a theory, but I suspect that in the new 5E version of the setting the domains of dread are going to be separate islands floating alone in the mists. If that's the case, Vlad's old "I want to conquer my neighbors!" shtick doesn't work anymore, so he/she needs something else. Hence, a new direction. Again, just me speculating.

Jester, it appears to me that you just defeated your own argument. You wrote a single post that said that could reasonably be said about 'consent' and 'boundaries' in a horror game. I'd hardly call that part of your post lengthy in the context of a printed book.
Contrary to what you seem to be suggesting, nobody here has argued against knowing the players at the table or showing empathy and good judgment. It's just that some people don't feel a long chapter on nothing but sensitivity and boundaries is worthwhile. That page count could be put to better use. And if it adopts a preachy, hand-holding tone, some people will find that quite unappealing. As ever, YMMV.

ewancummins wrote:Not a single game you named is new. PF is a retclone of 3.5 with some house rules tacked on, and it came out when?
CoC is one of the oldest still-published RPGs.

That's exactly my point.
As all have text in their newest edition about limits, the x-card, hard and soft lines, etc.

ewancummins wrote:It's just that some people don't feel a long chapter on nothing but sensitivity and boundaries is worthwhile. That page count could be put to better use.

I don't think they promised a long chapter. Just that it would be included in some form.

EDIT: "lenghy discussion about Session Zero" was the term used in the gizmodo interview. Sounds reasonable to me, a good session zero is pretty important in a horror game.

Jester of the FoS wrote:

ewancummins wrote:Not a single game you named is new. PF is a retroclone of 3.5 with some house rules tacked on, and it came out when?
CoC is one of the oldest still-published RPGs.

That's exactly my point.
As all have text in their newest edition about limits, the x-card, hard and soft lines, etc.

Good to know. I won't invest a penny in any of them, then.

X cards. LOL. WTF is that crap?

''I'm triggered by my PC being killed."

Igor the Henchman wrote:

ewancummins wrote:It's just that some people don't feel a long chapter on nothing but sensitivity and boundaries is worthwhile. That page count could be put to better use.

I don't think they promised a long chapter. Just that it would be included in some form.

Nope, it says' lengthy.'

ewancummins wrote:

Igor the Henchman wrote:

ewancummins wrote:It's just that some people don't feel a long chapter on nothing but sensitivity and boundaries is worthwhile. That page count could be put to better use.

I don't think they promised a long chapter. Just that it would be included in some form.

Nope, it says' lengthy.'

Edited my post.

ewancummins wrote:Jester, it appears to me that you just defeated your own argument. You wrote a single post that said that could reasonably be said about 'consent' and 'boundaries' in a horror game. I'd hardly call that part of your post lengthy in the context of a printed book.
Contrary to what you seem to be suggesting, nobody here has argued against knowing the players at the table or showing empathy and good judgment. It's just that some people don't feel a long chapter on nothing but sensitivity and boundaries is worthwhile. That page count could be put to better use. And if it adopts a preachy, hand-holding tone, some people will find that quite unappealing. As ever, YMMV.

I equate "lengthy" with "substantial." As in "more than a sidebar" or the column hard and soft limits recives in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything.

It's probably a page or two and likely less than full chapter.

And it can easily be lengthy because there's a lot to discuss on the subject.
How to talk to your players. What to ask them. Methods on receiving feedback, such as forms or anonymous surveys. Subjects and topics to consider.
But also advice on what to do when a player discovers something makes them more uncomfortable than they expected at the table (like Igor's example). Such as the x-card or another signal that the player wants you to move on.

The book will also include a lengthy section on setting safe boundaries to keep everyone comfortable at the table.

That's from Polygon.

We're looking at different sites.

ewancummins wrote: X cards. LOL. WTF is that crap?

I don't know but I imagine info written in blue letters covered by red dots that you have to use glasses with red lenses to read it, like cluedo.

ewancummins wrote:

Jester of the FoS wrote:

ewancummins wrote:Not a single game you named is new. PF is a retroclone of 3.5 with some house rules tacked on, and it came out when?
CoC is one of the oldest still-published RPGs.

That's exactly my point.
As all have text in their newest edition about limits, the x-card, hard and soft lines, etc.

Good to know. I won't invest a penny in any of them, then.

X cards. LOL. WTF is that crap?

The x-card is literally that. A card placed on the table with an "x" on it, for when a player feels uncomfortable with the situation at the table. They touch it and the DM moves on.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SB0 ... PlI3A/edit

It's basically a "safe word" for tense and heightened games, such as horror, where people might need an emotional break.

ewancummins wrote:''I'm triggered by my PC being killed."

MOD HAT: Please be respectful.

This isn't the 1910s when "shell shocked" soldiers lacked "moral fibre" and were cowards.
People have real feelings and can experience real trauma, and being reminded of said trauma conjures very real emotional distress.

ewancummins wrote:''I'm triggered by my PC being killed."

Losing the hyperbole, there is a growing trend I’m seeing that is players disgruntled thief characters aren’t immortal and can die.

The whole concept of threat seems to be disappearing. I love the Ouside Xbox guys, but I stopped watching their D&D games because it became obvious they were never going to face real jeopardy.

Jester of the FoS wrote:

ewancummins wrote:''I'm triggered by my PC being killed."

MOD HAT: Please be respectful.

This isn't the 1910s when "shell shocked" soldiers lacked "moral fibre" and were cowards.
People have real feelings and can experience real trauma, and being reminded of said trauma conjures very real emotional distress.

Mod hat?
**** that noise.

I'm out.

Have fun without me, dudes.

[mod- text and profanity removed]