The Kickstarter update with chapter 4 preveiw is up.
No link it is backer only
no coments from me yet. downloaded before clocking in at work and posting this on break
It definitely has one of the best GM advice sections I've ever read. Very new player friendly. I think it could bear with some more inclusive language, but it's overall a great section.
I'm curious if you have some examples where you don't feel it's inclusive enough? At the least if you do make sure to post it in the comments of the KS post.
Mostly I was hoping for an explicit statement about supporting gender equality, gender identity, and the like, as well as something like the Red Rule. That sort of thing.
I hadn't heard of red rules before but based off what I found about it the last sections of chapter 4 "The GM's Principles" and "Troubleshooting" seems to cover that.
I think it is for the best that SCRPG stays away from such a hot button issues as they tend to become a quagmire where may people quickly become offended no matter what is done.
Besides, do you really think that the 4th Chapter is the best place to put such a statement?
No. It should be in Chapter 1, right as the game is being introduced and can’t be missed.
And, frankly, I personally don’t want to game with anyone who thinks that adding a statement of inclusion or references to player consent tools is in any way problematic or a quagmire. If adding those brings even one person to the table who wouldn’t have come (generally for fear of discrimination or harassment), they’re worthy inclusions.
PlatinumWarlock agree!!!
The game already mentions the X-card and player consent for their character's death, although I understand the argument that it should be in Chapter 1 instead of Chapter 4. But I don't think you need to explicitly call out sex in Sentinels. It's not as "mature" a game as the other games I've seen that call it out (Fate, Exalted, World of Darkness) and I'm not sure mentioning sex is appropriate for the intended audience here.
Completely agree, actually.
While I always support inclusion in gaming, I am not sure it is a game's job to call it out. Ensuring systems are in place to allow for inclusion in character generation is important and listing GM tools like X-cards make sense to help run the system fairly. I am not sure what additional wording is needed to ensure inclusivity? In reality, these books are designed to create systems for table gaming. It is up to everyone around the table to provide a welcoming atmosphere.
Yeah, there are system-less options for this info -- best example I can think of is this one: https://www.montecookgames.com/store/product/consent-in-gaming/. It's free, so there's no reason folks shouldn't check it out.
There’s already a statement of opposition to gender, sexuality, and ability discrimination.
A red card rule really doesn’t belong; it’s very inclusion is a warning that the content is “adult” or “potentially traumatic”…
… and many a gamer will ruleslawyer the red card rule into a “close the scene, I don’t like it” tool. (And I have had players do just that… the ones who were the very reason I decided to try it in the first place.) In my experience, the red card is a false sense of security, as the player needing it needs it to protect against “that guy” but “that guy” is the guy most likely to use it, and “that guy” is often the type to do tit-for-tat when it’s used to stop their narration. It’s great on paper, but has limited use in a group that inherently has a level of respect. (Oh, and its inclusion actually made one of the “that guy” players push further and harder to trigger others. WHich is my we quit gaming with him.)
Oh all the people banned from FB RPG groups for being against this.
“I am going to have [violence/sex] in my game no matter what the players say”
sigh
Yeah, those are definitely not folks I’ll game with. 
I admit I sometimes feel like the "red card rule" type stuff is a really clumsy substitute for putting effort into having an RPG group where you can freely discuss beforehand what things you are and aren't comfortable with, and being willing to discuss and hash out what everyone does and doesn't want to do in general.
Like my old RP group had a Mormon player who said up front he was uncomfortable with anything too out there in terms of sex and bad language and could we basically keep it to "PG-rated", and some other people who stated up front they weren't really into "grimdark" content, and other stuff like that.
We'd also discuss things like, which ideas for campaigns that the GM has are the ones the players find most interesting. What setup of roles would work best in what idea we eventually decide on and who wanted to lay claim to each role. We'd even have brief feedback moments at the end of each play session where we'd all say what we liked and didn't like about that session's play, so we could tweak as we went along.
And considering the Sentinel Comics setup not only already encourages that type of interactions, but with things like the initiative passoff and the Twist system, made it an integral part of the game, I feel like as aramis said it might set too harsh a tone for too little benefit. I more would just continue focusing on the overall sentiment that a Sentinel Comics game is meant to be a continuous collaboration where everyone is having fun.
I think I would save in-depth discussion of handling sensitive material for sourcebooks like the Dark Watch book where you're getting into settings that are more likely to actually contain that sensitive material.
Why does a red card/x-card/etc. rule automatically imply adult or traumatic content? There are a ton of situations–yes, even in a Silver Age-style supers game–that can be upsetting to certain people, especially those with phobias (being tied up/bound or in enclosed spaces come immediately to mind) or some form of PTSD. I ran a Dragon Age game a few years back wherein one of the players was very up-front that spiders were a no-go area for her. That’s just the sort of thing that a red card/x-card is meant for, especially had we not had that conversation.
I don’t know every inch of my players’ history; they don’t know every inch of mine. If there’s something in the game that bothers a player enough to want to ‘card’ out of it, that’s entirely reasonable to me. If it’s being misused, that’s the sort of corner case that very quickly makes itself known (as it appears you, yourself have seen), at which point it becomes addressing a Problem Player not a problematic safety valve mechanism.
I do about 2/3 of my gaming at conventions at this point, where having a “Session Zero” isn’t an option. While my event descriptions aim to be clear on what’s going on–“Vigilantes investigate the serial murder of a college professor”, “Inquisition agents travel to Weisshaupt Fortress to negotiate a treaty with the Grey Wardens”, “Gunslingers must escort Samuel Clemens safely to Denver aboard the Westbound Express”, etc.–there’s no possible way a GM can include every scenario that might arise during that scenario. That’s where tools like the x-card come into play most readily. If someone’s uncomfortable, they can flip their card we can call a 5 minute break, and we can revisit/revise/retheme.
No, red/x-cards aren’t a substitute for the establishment of a solid social contract and understanding between a continually-meeting campaign group. However, they’re a tool in the arsenal for when those aren’t available. And with more and more people joining the hobby–especially from groups who have been marginalized from tabletop gaming in decades past–more tools in the arsenal is a good thing. I’m all in favor of having those up-front, easily accessible, and easily understood.
I admit if I was going to RP with a bunch of strangers at a convention (which I also admit I probably wouldn't for a variety of reasons), I'd just want to play a pregen character in a pre-published adventure at a table that had up-front guidelines for acceptable roleplaying conduct posted, which would sidestep a whole lot of the issue.
It still feels like a "red card rule" is meant to be a lesser substitute for the far more effective tactic of just laying out a groundwork for acceptable content and behavior beforehand, whether that's negotiated by the group itself (in the case of my RP group) or simply pregenerated up front by the GM and then left up to players to decide whether they like the stated rules for a pickup group or not (what I'd expect from a public session).
Basically, it's not that I feel like such things like a red card rule are bad, I just worry about them being used as a crutch to avoid actual communication about such things.
Further, rather than just having a vague blurb in an already huge book, saving "how to handle sensitive content" for a sourcebook that actually has that "sensitive content" is going to give you more room to discuss it in detail and within the context of the material being presented in the book for use, thus IMHO making it far more effective.
I feel like that would help avert problems like the ones aramis stated by making it clear up front what to/will be avoided altogether, and how sensitive content that's still allowed will be handled during actual play.
I’ve experienced it more from players demanding to be allowed to do it.
But there are people for whom the idea that a tangible “no discussion shut-the-scene-down” as part of core rules is essentially offensive on the grounds of treating them like kidergardeners. (I’ll admit, I am in this group. )
There are people who find such offensive in core rules because it implies the standard setting is socially borderline enough to routinely need that safety net.
There are people for whom the idea that a scene can be shutdown without explanation problematic - and note the Red Card as promulgated over the last couple years is a No discussion, no explanation, no questions may be asked, immediate fade out. In part, because the red card as promulgated is disruptive to play, and in part because it does nothing to prevent later breaches, because it doesn’t require the offended one to say what has triggered. (I also fall in this group.)
And there are people who will find it offensive because it limits their ability to attempt to traumatize others.
There are many who will find it offensive for one or more of the above… but the only ones who really should be discouraged are that last group.
GTG has been particularly open about their pro-LGBTQ, pro-diversity (including racial) stance. They already have a strong statement. And reminders to be collaborative and communicate. And they’ve done a lot by having a range of sample characters who are persons of color, and several that are obviously LGBTQ, in various Sentinels products.
They are being the change and living the example, rather than clumsily beaning people over the head with proverbial brick bats. The red card rule is just such a brick bat.
And I find it delightful that Haka was included as both a man and a woman in the same collection…
As a GM for Pathfinder with evil monsters that do things I'm not gonna mention on this forum, I feel it's better to have a talk about what is and isn't acceptable rather than have a red card at the table. Best way for me to not cross the line is for me to know where the line is after all.