Dungeons & Dragons and the ethics of imaginary violence

[Umbran]

In my view the only ethical concern with violence in games is how it affects the other players at the table.

I think this is an excellent point. I'll use an example outside of gaming, as it illustrates the point.

I have a friend who is a survivor of abuse as a child, and has PTSD as a result.

This person does not have a problem with most comic-book superhero movies. The Spider-Man flicks, X-men films, the current Marvel Cinematic universe, all cool, and they enjoy them.

The Daredevil TV show, or the movie Sin City, which are also based in comic books, however, are problematic. The violence in these is... more brutal. Less comic-book-like. And as a result, tends to act as a trigger. And not "trigger" in the common current usage of "it makes me uncomfortable". I mean trigger in the PTSD meaning of giving this person flashbacks to violent events in their past.

Now, most of us (thankfully) don't have to deal with outright PTSD at the table, but the point is that different portrayal can mean somewhat more to someone than you might think, and we should be respectful of that. I wouldn't invite my friend over to watch Daredevil. I wouldn't run a game scene with a violent rape if someone at the table had suffered such in real life.

Imaginary violence may not be a big deal, as a general thing, but we can respect individual tolerances as well.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think this is an excellent point. I'll use an example outside of gaming, as it illustrates the point.

I have a friend who is a survivor of abuse as a child, and has PTSD as a result.

This person does not have a problem with most comic-book superhero movies. The Spider-Man flicks, X-men films, the current Marvel Cinematic universe, all cool, and they enjoy them.

The Daredevil TV show, or the movie Sin City, which are also based in comic books, however, are problematic. The violence in these is... more brutal. Less comic-book-like. And as a result, tends to act as a trigger. And not "trigger" in the common current usage of "it makes me uncomfortable". I mean trigger in the PTSD meaning of giving this person flashbacks to violent events in their past.

Now, most of us (thankfully) don't have to deal with outright PTSD at the table, but the point is that different portrayal can mean somewhat more to someone than you might think, and we should be respectful of that. I wouldn't invite my friend over to watch Daredevil. I wouldn't run a game scene with a violent rape if someone at the table had suffered such in real life.

Imaginary violence may not be a big deal, as a general thing, but we can respect individual tolerances as well.

Does your friend game with you as well?

I am a but cautious about connecting what I said to anything dealing with real mental illness, since I think is beyond the scope of the advice I was offering. My point was largely restricted to people simply being troubled or annoyed by behavior. I just don't have the training or background to know the correct course of action where something as serious as PTSD is involved. So I can't comment in respect to that.

I am speaking more about general awareness of how your behavior at the table is obviously affecting people. The point I make in the linked post isn't that people should shy away from violence, even extreme violence in games, but that they should cognizant of reactions at the table and just generally aware of what the expectations are in the group. I'm running a game right now where the characters routinely torture enemies and are all around bad guys. There has also been coercive violence within the party itself. I knew this could potentially be an issue so I had a talk with the group when this stuff started cropping up to find out what their parameters were (in this case I was going into an existing group as an outside GM, so I was trying to respect their preferences).

If someone at your table has PTSD issue, then I think it is beyond the simple ethical question I was raising and is going to require a lot more effort on the GM and other player's part to understand what needs to be done at the table to make it work out. I doubt it can be covered by a simple rule of thumb like the one I am suggesting.

 

[Umbran]

Does your friend game with you as well?

On occasion, yes.

I am a but cautious about connecting what I said to anything dealing with real mental illness, since I think is beyond the scope of the advice I was offering.

It wasn't intended to be typical, merely demonstrative of the basic reasoning by using a case that should be abundantly clear, but isn't absurd. If you keep it down at the level of "I don't like it", then some may be tempted to quibble. I don't think anyone's going to quibble this one.

Once you accept one case where it is reasonable to be respectful of how people have various levels of tolerance for imaginary violence, the discussion isn't, "yes or no," but is instead, "Where should we draw lines?"

I am speaking more about general awareness of how your behavior at the table is obviously affecting people.

Yep. And I agree with you.

I'm perhaps only adding that folks may have stuff going on that you don't know about, so their reactions can seem a bit odd to you, but that doesn't mean they're actually being unreasonable if they ask to keep it toned down.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'm perhaps only adding that folks may have stuff going on that you don't know about, so their reactions can seem a bit odd to you, but that doesn't mean they're actually being unreasonable if they ask to keep it toned down.

I would agree. This is something every group will deal with in their own way I suppose. There will be times as well where people have conflicting preferences on this front. I think awareness also goes both ways with expectations. Sometimes things just are not a good fit, for example if you have a group that has an established approach and it is too intense for someone new, then the person may be better off with a group that is more to their tastes and sensitivities.