D&D 5E Player consent required -spoilers for new adv book

[MGibster]

What’s the meaningful distinction?

Because there's a big difference between something you dislike and something that induces an anxiety attack.

 

[Scribe]

Is this about protecting people with sensitivities or about protecting people with anxiety issues?

Same thing.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think it depends on how it’s depicted. Like, a witch waving her wand and turning someone into a frog with a puff of smoke, or a person’s hair, nails, and canines growing? Yeah, those are pretty tame. On the other hand, a visceral description of flesh tearing, bones cracking, and organs re-arranging themselves as someone’s whole body structure is violently forced into a new shape? That’ll make a lot of people physically ill to hear.

Now me, I love body horror! I actually like to crank it up on Mind Flayers; rather than the whole body being turned into a purple Cthulhu-monster, I like to describe them as walking corpses with four tentacles that erupted through the front of the skull. But I check in with players about their comfort level with body horror before I use mind flayers, cause I know that imagery could seriously upset people who aren’t prepared for it.

Sure how it is fine matters. If I am gaming with a GM who starts describing it like a 12 year old who is titillated by the violence, then probably not going to continue playing with them after that session (unless the campaign is incredibly good otherwise).

And if you want to check with people, that is fair. The issue is people deal with friends and the social dynamic differently. A lot of that is shaped by things like his familiar people are with he another, where they live and what cultural expectations they all share or have. A gaming table in LA might be very different from one in Boston for example. And so the point here is people can navigate that stuff how they want, they don’t need other gamers or designers telling them how to communicate tastes and expectations with their friends at the table (I have some friends who might appreciate you asking if they are ok with content like that, I have some who would be insulted if find it strange). In some groups that question might even create discomfort (because suddenly they wonder why you would ask that in the first place)

 

[Bedrockgames]

Interesting to see the argument that this is ok if it’s about defending fun, but not ok if it’s about protecting people with sensitivities.

That isn’t the argument I am making. I am saying those are very different arguments. If it is about fun, versus mental health, that changes the bar (invoking mental health makes it a more urgent issue)

 

[Nikosandros]

When fava beans are being sold at my local super-market, they put on a sign to warn those who are allergic. I'm personally not allergic to them, so I can ignore the sign, while still appreciating why it is a very good idea to have it on display.

 

[polyhedral man]

I think it depends on how it’s depicted. Like, a witch waving her wand and turning someone into a frog with a puff of smoke, or a person’s hair, nails, and canines growing? Yeah, those are pretty tame. On the other hand, a visceral description of flesh tearing, bones cracking, and organs re-arranging themselves as someone’s whole body structure is violently forced into a new shape? That’ll make a lot of people physically ill to hear.

Now me, I love body horror! I actually like to crank it up on Mind Flayers; rather than the whole body being turned into a purple Cthulhu-monster, I like to describe them as walking corpses with four tentacles that erupted through the front of the skull. But I check in with players about their comfort level with body horror before I use mind flayers, cause I know that imagery could seriously upset people who aren’t prepared for it.

Question - how would you feel if someone was offended by your sentence

a visceral description of flesh tearing, bones cracking, and organs re-arranging themselves as someone’s whole body structure is violently forced into a new shape?

because they were offended, they would have appreciated it if you had issued a content warning before mentioning it.

Ok. Now take that, and change it slightly.
Now that person is not offended. However, they are suggesting that you ought to do it. And if you do not comply, your action is reprehensible.
If you ask them their rationale, and ask them whether they were offended. They will say no i wasn't personally. But someone might be offended.
Therefore you shouldn't do it. If you do, you are doing something reprehensible.

Now let's change it again. Now that person is requiring you to do it when you are speaking with your friends.

No doubt, someone will accuse me of a strawman. Treat it as a thought experiment rather. Some people are quite content to self-police themselves like that, and think it's virtuous. In which case we will have to agree that we disagree.

 

[Micah Sweet]

When fava beans are being sold at my local super-market, they put on a sign to warn those who are allergic. I'm personally not allergic to them, so I can ignore the sign, while still appreciating why it is a very good idea to have it on display.

Like the carnival sign, however, I suspect that is more about liability than kindness.

 

[ilgatto]

If you don’t know someone has a phobia or trauma, that’s one thing. But once you do, the social calculus changes. A friend does not intentionally expose a friend to something that may reasonably be expected to cause emotional pain, regardless of the context.

For years, one of my best friends and I had a running joke. At some point, he asked me to end it because it bothered his wife deeply. Because it bothered her, it had started bothering him. I honored his request. I didn’t continue the joke, even when it was just the two of us hanging out.

This isn’t pop psychology, it’s basic human empathy.

And I’m definitely not talking about using gaming as therapy, especially by amateurs. I’m talking about avoiding pushing a friend’s buttons instead of messing with them in order to run a game. Why make a buddy squirm for fun?

A huge amen to that. As a true friend will no doubt stop making the joke out of their own accord should they notice something is off even before the other has told them - or at least ask if something is wrong.

As to the OP, I suppose the question is whether WotC or any other (gaming) company should include a caveat like that like they did - or perhaps why this one, specifically.

 

[Cadence]

Asking players if there is anything they wouldn’t like bothers a lot of people believe it or not.

That just seems strange to me. Can't they just decline to answer? (I assume it doesn't bother them to the level that the DM should warn them in advance that they'll ask?)

There are some play styles where that isn’t an issue, but for me it is up there with things like wish lists for magic items. I really am not a fan of the players editing the game world in that way (just my preference, there are people who do like that, and that is fine). But again I think people are universalizing their own preferences and sensibilities here

It feels like there are lots of things that might clue a player in that a particular campaign isn't for them (genre, system, power level, intraparty conflict or not, VTT vs TOTM vs figs, etc..) that come up at the stage of the potential DM selling a campaign idea to the potential players.

How does your group usually decide what game is next? If I want to run a WWI superheroes game using Champions and half the usual group isn't interested, then I don't change it, I put it away for later and see what other folks want to run. If all but one person in the group is excited, then maybe that one person sits it out if it's a big piece of the idea they don't like. If it's something particular about how things were back in WWI (racism? sexism?homophobia? descriptions of trench warfare?) then maybe it depends on how big a part of the setting it is.

I do think we all negotiate the question ‘is this the game for me?’ Differently. I don’t think a formal procedure is the solution to that question. Me I would rather get a feel from conversation with a GM but ultimately what is going to turn me off to a campaign isn’t whether it has mindflayers or werewolves but if Whether I like the people playing, the Gm’s style, and whether there are things like smoking at the table. Those are all things I am happy to discover over 1-2 sessions before deciding if I want to continue

I assume people will ignore this like they do all the other things in the books they don't like unless it's like adventurer's guild or at a con.

 

[Nikosandros]

Like the carnival sign, however, I suspect that is more about liability than kindness.

That's actually likely, but it is still very useful for those who are allergic.