So Dungeon World co-creator Adam Koebel also does actual play videos with RollPlay, with his Far Verona campaign recently concluding its second season.
The reason the second season concluded is that it was cancelled, and the reason it was cancelled is that Adam sprung a sexual assault encounter on one of his players without warning. The player directly affected, Elspeth Eastman, has recorded her explanation of events here; RollPlay have not edited the episode in question so if you really want to see what happens you can if you like. (It’s the last encounter of the session, beginning about 1 hours 16 minutes in, I am not going to link it here because I don’t want to needlessly increase its exposure; if you really want to see it you can search in YouTube.)
Adam’s apology video, which I won’t link here because I really don’t think it passes muster in any respect, largely tries to pass this off as an “oops, we didn’t talk about people’s lines and veils or any other sort of safeguarding stuff before the game started and by the time it got awkward it was too late” situation.
I’m sorry, that just doesn’t cut it. That is shit you say when, for example, you have a giant spider encounter and didn’t realise that one of your players has a phobia of spiders. You shouldn’t need people to tell you that sexual assault isn’t something they are cool with happening in a game: it’s one of those topics where you need to get people to specifically agree to it prior to anything happening before you even include it in a game.
You should goddamn know that sexual assault is the sort of topic which you don’t introduce to a game without some sort of conversation, and if you have not had that conversation, you shouldn’t do it. Nobody as active on the indie RPG scene as Adam should be unaware of this. More disturbingly, for reasons I will get into later in this post, it honestly seems like Adam didn’t at the time recognise that what happened was essentially sexual assault, when the issues with consent in the encounter in question should have made it wholly goddamn obvious that it was an assault.
On top of that, as Elspeth notes what is done to her player character is radically at odds with what she had requested for the PC’s character arc in previous discussions with Adam. Supposedly he passed it off to her as him misreading her intentions, but the intention was for the character – a robot bartender who’d been cast aside by his former owner – to learn to be more assertive and say “no” to people more often and exert more agency. An encounter in which that agency is taken away from them is not how you accomplish this.
I simply can’t take Adam’s apology seriously. You cannot credibly apologise for something if you do not actually understand what you did wrong, or do not really consider what you did to be all that wrong, and Adam’s apology is so lacklustre and misses the point so much that I think he must still either doesn’t understand what he did wrong, or is unwilling to say that it was actually all that wrong. Yes, some form of conversation about lines and veils and an X-card mechanic should have happened, he’s correct to say that. But he totally fails to address why he thought it was appropriate to do such a scene without prior discussion in the first place, especially on a stream which a significant online audience was watching.
Now, people have taken this up with him, and he’s since made a somewhat better apology – but I dunno, folks. It feels a bit rehearsed, a bit stiff – like he’s gone over the immediate backlash to his initial apology and tried to craft something which makes the right noises. In other words, it’s not an apology intended to convey his actual feelings of contrition, it’s an attempt to stop people shouting at him by saying what he thinks they want to hear. If he is going to step away from starting any new campaigns and do the work on himself to work out why the fuck he considered it appropriate in the moment and avoid doing it again, great, good on him – but I’m going to believe he’s done the work when I see the results.
In particular, take a good strong look at his wording: he is going to work on himself before he starts new campaigns to sort his head out, and in his existing campaigns he is going to implement safeguarding measures. If you read that in a hurry that might sound good, but it’s not, because it’s a honking great contradiction. There are only two things which can be true here, neither of which match what Adam is doing in terms of actively continuing his existing streamed campaigns:
- Good safeguarding is a sufficient and proportionate safeguard for his existing campaigns. In which case it should be fine for new campaigns too and there’s no good reason for him to beg off on starting new ones due to this situation; the statement that he is going to do so is a meaningless PR gesture, and in general if your apology includes a meaningless PR gesture as opposed to something you actually sincerely mean that kind of means the apology is probably bullshit.
- Adam has realised his internalised attitudes are dangerous enough that he really should not start running new campaigns until he has sorted them out, even with safeguarding techniques. In which case, those same techniques won’t be sufficient for his existing campaigns and he should stop running those too, and by not doing so he is deliberately endangering his players, because, by his own admission, he has realised he cannot control himself in this respect and needs to do significant self-examination before he can be trusted again.
I bet that by the time his existing campaigns are done and he needs to start a new one to keep the e-fame flowing, he’ll discover that actually, the work he’d done on himself whilst his existing campaigns were running was sufficient, no need for a break at all. What convenient timing!
Of course, you may feel different about this and that’s your right. But if this does bother you and you were intending to promote or put down money for Dungeon World, it might be worth thinking about how you feel around promoting Adam’s work in light of this.
(Content warning: from here on in I am going to go more into the specifics of the incident)