What are the DM's obligations of disclosure for sensitive game material? What is "sensitive" game material?

[MNblockhead]

Quote Originally Posted by ExploderWizard View Post

I just try to avoid gaming with snowflakes. Anyone that can be "triggered" by made up fantasy game content, isn't stable enough to be playing.



You saying that doesn't make it not true, nor an invalid approach to avoiding problems.
Some solutions just don't require a great deal of discussion.

Make what true?

I think the objection to the comment is that it wasn't a civil response. It was just name calling. It is also insensitive and seems mean-spirited, but mostly it was just a pointless comment.

But fine. Let's engage the comment as if it was sincere.

I'll assume the OP is using "snowflake" here mostly in the sense of "overly sensitive." I'll assume he is using "triggered" in the sense of either "greatly upset by" or a symptom of PTSD.

With my home games, I think I would agree with what I think ExploderWizards point is to some degree. I'm going to communicate the general theme of the game and I invite adults who should have the capacity to understand what the theme implies. I also play with experienced players in my home game, so they know what D&D is about and the various sword & sorcery tropes.

But I don't know all my players equally well. Some people I play with I've known since elementary school and others I've only been playing with for a few years. Some of the players I only know in the context of D&D. If they were sexually abused, or suffer from wartime PTSD (I play with a number of ex-military), or suffered a brutal attack at some point in their lives, well, it hasn't come up. If I was playing a game and described kids being used as human shields or killed in retaliation to, say, an NPC commoner family helping the party and if a player said, "hey, man, I'm not comfortable with this. I've seen the real thing in Iraq." Or just, "man, I have kids, this is making me uncomfortable." I'm not going to call them a "snowflake" and tell them to find another game.

It is tricker with public forums. Adventurer's League has a pretty clear code of conduct and the adventures themselves are designed, from what I've seen, to be pretty family friendly. Convention games outside of official organized play (PFS and AL) are even more tricky. I think event descriptions should note appropriate ages for the games (child only, all ages, over 18 only etc.). Yet, you are not going to be able to note everything that could upset anyone.

Still, if something does come up during play, is it so difficult to have some empathy and to be civil about it? The response may be that the thing that upsets you is integral to the plot, maybe this isn't the game for you. But if the player's issue can be accommodated, why not try? Why take a stand against empathy?

 

[Bitbrain]

When me and my dad first joined our old group, the main DM asked both of us if there was one single thing that would bother each of us. He promised never to implement it.

My dad announced that if his character was ever put into a situation where selling his PC's soul to a fiend was required to succeed, he would quit right there.

I myself informed the DM that my PC intended to save the world from monstrous threats that sought to threaten the world, not be an instigator of the next great extinction event. If my character was ever required to kill a wild animal (such as a giant slug, wild boar, elephant, or wolf) of nonmagical nature, I would quit.

The main DM kept his word, and while life eventually forced us to quit, I can say with all honesty that my Half-Elf Sorcerer never killed any creature of the Animal or Beast types.

Well, except for that one time we were in a haunted house, but that was only because a demon was possessing the rats and forcing them to attack us . . .

 

[Riley37]

I like the Session Zero conversation, the card with the X, and the invitation to tell the DM about any tough topics. Mostly, I like the willingness to stop or re-direct the game if a player is in distress. When all else fails, compassion still works.

I'm in a 5E game with the grimness level of Game of Thrones. Possibly rougher. The DM has asked players to tell him about "handle with care" topics. He stumbled across one of mine. Another player has the backstory that his PC was a soldier, had a brother who was also a soldier, and in the course of a battle, the PC ran away, leaving his brother wounded on the battlefield. A villain wizard used magic to put PCs through nightmares, so this background story emerged in play. Well, this session happened a month or two after, in real life, my brother died. I decided not to interrupt the session, I rolled with it, but afterwards I asked the DM to add "death of a sibling" to the list of tough topics, especially "PC is unable to prevent the death of his brother".

Turns out, the DM had a long-term plan for the brother to return, as an undead revenant. He told me, between sessions, about that plotline, and offered to cancel it. I thought about it, and decided that I could re-frame it in a way that worked for me. When the revenant showed up, I had my paladin PC challenge whether the revenant was right to blame his brother for his death... and then, after the fight was over, my PC helped dig a grave, and cast Ceremony over it the next day. My PC said some words which echoed what I had said at my real-life brother's memorial. It was a good scene.

The appearance of the revenant could have been an unpleasant session for me, if I had been blindsided. The DM trusted me not to tell other players about that plotline, and not to metagame ("an ambush at night? I ready my vial of holy water!"). The outcome was well worth the extra communication and care.

The *worst* usage of sensitive material in a D&D game that I've heard of, is a male DM, with an unreciprocated attraction to a female player, pushing the storyline towards sex or sexual assault involving that player's character. Not okay. Not a responsible use of the DM's role. If you ever see something like that happen... well, size up what's your best response under the circumstances, but don't just go along with it; the more everyone acts like nothing's wrong, the harder it can be for her to express any objections.

 

[pogre]

One of the things I think 99% of DMs would appreciate it is being told they have crossed a line. It would be much better if the issue were exposed in session zero, but sometimes (a lot of times) that doesn't happen.

Some folks are saying, "If X happens in a game - I'm walking."

Two things come to my mind:

1. If it is blatantly egregious - the DM should be publicly called on it - and then, you probably should walk.

2. While it may be an obvious breach of decorum to you, your DM may not see it, your DM might be from a different generation - the vast majority of these DMs would much rather you let her/him know so they don't ignorantly (without knowledge) continue to make this mistake.

Just walking quietly is the easier thing to do I realize, but I do hope folks will consider directly raising the issue.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

When me and my dad first joined our old group, the main DM asked both of us if there was one single thing that would bother each of us. He promised never to implement it.

My dad announced that if his character was ever put into a situation where selling his PC's soul to a fiend was required to succeed, he would quit right there.

I myself informed the DM that my PC intended to save the world from monstrous threats that sought to threaten the world, not be an instigator of the next great extinction event. If my character was ever required to kill a wild animal (such as a giant slug, wild boar, elephant, or wolf) of nonmagical nature, I would quit.

The main DM kept his word, and while life eventually forced us to quit, I can say with all honesty that my Half-Elf Sorcerer never killed any creature of the Animal or Beast types.

Well, except for that one time we were in a haunted house, but that was only because a demon was possessing the rats and forcing them to attack us . . .

I'm not sure how either of those issues is a 'walk away' condition. You don't need to succeed at everything. Your dad can set the boundary on their character that they will not sell their soul. It doesn't matter if the DM has an NPC make the offer, the character can decline even if the end result is failure of some task. Same thing with your character. Nothing compels your PC to kill a Beast and being placed in a situation where there is a tempting option is an interesting role playing opportunity.

Both of these conditions seems to be outside the normal 'disturbing events' definition. Here your PCs are dictating to the DM conditions that they don't want to deal with. What if you said that your rogue would walk if ever required to disarm a trap? Does the DM not ever put traps in their game? Or does your rogue just refuse to disarm them in the game because of character reasons. I know which one sounds more interesting to me.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

I would never go ahead and give out warnings on content (too spoilery anyway, and as discussed above, triggers are very context sensitive, so a person probably couldn't even tell ahead of time that something will bother him/her), but I definitely will listen if a player approaches me and tells me he is bothered by something.

I mean when I started I didn't really have much "no gos" but then we had the rogue in a party that decide to torture an enemy that was taken prisoner and I was like "Okay, let's not do that again".

 

[Dualazi]

A. I do think that there are some issues that require prior warning to a group before the come up in play. For example, I am uncomfortable with running overly sexual situations in my 5e games (or, really, any RPGs), and while I understand that others have more comfort with that, I would expect some type of heads up before entering that type of campaign. Allowing PvP would be something else that falls into that category- to me, these are basic playstyle issues that need to be clearly communicated.

B. OTOH, I also feel that life is too diverse and that we all know that we are playing a game. A game that often involves (for lack of a better term) killing. So, there are often ancillary issues that arise (leprosy, rabies, poison, death, madness, etc.) that I would never consider specifically warning the table about; this is a part of the play. For example, I wouldn't think about warning the table that the upcoming session involves madness and a murder mystery out of a concern that someone, at some point, may have struggled with mental illness and/or someone may have had a murder in their extended family.

So I am trying to reconcile these two views. Now, it should go without saying that if anyone at the table approached me and told me that they were uncomfortable with something, I would change it.

But I'm not sure how I reconcile my views in (A) and (B). Am I wrong? Is my approach common or uncommon? What do the rest of you do?

You don't really need to reconcile it too much because it's not a binary answer, and because you already have the common-sense approach to it. Many things like disease, insanity, and murder are well tread elements of the genre and often have rules directly associated with them, while sexual situations do not, to the best of my knowledge. As such I don't find your viewpoint to be outside the norm for most RPG communities.

If you're trying to deduce what a DM is Obligated to disclose/avoid, then the answer is nothing. In the same way you're not obligated to be polite, you can do as you wish when running a game, whether or not that keeps players. I would rather keep it that way than see some self-styled 'code', though I doubt that was ever anyone's intent in the thread.

In the indie-RPG world there is a pretty common thing where you put an "X" on an index card and put it in the middle of a table. As a rule, if someone touches the "X" everyone agrees to politely move the conversation on.

So, if you are playing Apocalypse World and somehow end up describing sexual assault and a player touches the card you know that you've said enough and everyone can just move on with the actual story. I've been using it for years with a people from a variety of backgrounds (including people with psychological trauma) and I've never had someone invoke it. Still, I think it makes everyone feel comfortable and the first time I explain it people usually meet it with a positive reaction.

You can count me as one of the ones with the negative reaction, as I'd never allow that at my table. For one, there's no justification given when the card is pulled whether this is something they just don't like or if it's something they're unable to deal with. Additionally, it forms this awkward scenario where the DM has to figure out how to transition to a non-contentious scene while also not wrapping up the current one, and if for whatever reason it was to be a recurring theme, then now the plot grinds to a halt.
Especially with the OP's example of a disease, if you're THAT determined to avoid the topic then it's something you need to bring front and center to the DM before play ever starts and find out if he/she is on board or not. Having a card that can derail things at a moments notice for any number of topics sounds like a recipe for failure to me.

You might tackle the tone, content, and maturity level of the game in a session zero. That would be the best time to decide collectively if you wanted to play a nice PG Narnia style game, a grim and gritty Game of Thrones, or something in between.

Maybe we need a visual - a sliding scale of various Batman movies and tv shows. Adam West on the far left, Batman the Animated Series as a midpoint, and the Dark Knight Returns on the far right. Couple of points between. George Clooney not a valid option.

Ultimately this is, as usual, the correct advice. Just talk to your players like human beings and if your goals for an imaginary make-believe world don't align, then figure out if you'd rather compromise or go separate ways.

 

[Warpiglet]

I think the main point of contention in the present discussion is largely semantic in nature. Most people objecting to censoring the game object to changing the general expectation of the genre to accommodate someone who is looking for a reason to be upset OR someone who is so fragile as to have no business in playing an adventure game.

I doubt anyone would object to sensitiviy to someone with a bona fide trauma. And frankly, for me, it is WEIRD to include any detail about sexual assault or "torture porn." Come on. Just yuck.

But if we have to ferret out any possible discomfort ahead of time, we are in trouble. And this is a trend on college campuses and elsewhere. If you are freaked out by graphic violence, do not go to a war movie. If you are super freaked out by discussion of sexual assaults etc., don't go to the vagina monologues.

Don't try to shut a production down for everyone else. It's on YOU. Which is why I avoid things that make me uncomfortable OR keep my mouth shut and hold on tight. My needs do not trump everyone else's.

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

But if we have to ferret out any possible discomfort ahead of time, we are in trouble. And this is a trend on college campuses and elsewhere. If you are freaked out by graphic violence, do not go to a war movie. If you are super freaked out by discussion of sexual assaults etc., don't go to the vagina monologues.

Don't try to shut a production down for everyone else. It's on YOU. Which is why I avoid things that make me uncomfortable OR keep my mouth shut and hold on tight. My needs do not trump everyone else's.

A wise someone once said, 'You are responsible for managing and maintaining your emotional health as much as your physical & psychological'.

 

[Jester David]

Consent is an important thing for a hobby that involves immersive storytelling where you are expected to place yourself into the role of a character. That brings along some serious personal engagement and inherent suspension of disbelief that can emotionally hit you where you live.
That said, I think consent for certain things is implied. Anything that's associated with medieval fantasy is fair game. This includes death by sword and claw, burned to death by a dragon, infected by leprosy, and oppressive kings. Maybe even some harsh crime and punishment and signs of medieval torture (although torturing a PC should be done lightly).
Generally, you should keep things PG-13 until you know your group and can gradually drift towards R in terms of some sex and violence. (I think most games are going to start at a hard R for language.)

A bit of this is common sense and a bit of this is knowing your players. Being able to tell if they're still okay. If someone starts to seem uncomfortable, dial it back. Or the camera pans away leaving things to the imagination. Or have some interruption in the scene.


It helps to be up front with your players. If you haven't said it before tell your players if something is crossing a line for them, they just have to say "fade to black" and you'll cut away without question or break from the scene in some tension ending way.


Now, obviously, some people are more private than others. I might not know someone's parents just died and they'll be upset by a scene of a dying parent. Or if they're privately battling alcoholism and I'm having a scene in a tavern with everyone having a great time drinking.
As much as people joke about being "triggered" certain things can really and seriously mess you up emotionally. Loss of a loved one. Divorce (your parents or your own). An assault. Rape. Addiction. A car crash. It only took us like 75 years after WWI to realise that "hey, this 'shell shocked' thing might be serious and a step beyond just cowardice" and start to call it PTSD. Now we have to start acknowledging that other trauma can equally mess up people.