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

[Imaculata]

1. Rape
2. Molestation
3. Pedophilia

These things weren't even under discussion when I started my campaign, I presume that no player wants this in their fantasy roleplaying game. Besides, if there was anyone in my group that really wanted to engage in such acts in the game as a player, that would be creepy, and I would not want to play with them.

4. Racism (though this is very common, human, dwarves, elves vs orcs, goblins, etc...)
5. Sexism
6. Murder (probably the most common)

These things I do not mind having in the game. Racism is a common thing in my current campaign, since some groups simply don't get along. Sexism appears occasionally within churches in my campaign (I had a sexist bishop who was of the opinion that women were not fit to rule a city), and murder of course happens all the time in D&D.

I'll also add torture specifically. Torture is something that does occur in my current campaign, but again we don't get into sick sadistic details. The goal is to tell a fun story that takes place in a certain time period in which torture did historically happen. But that doesn't mean I want to make my players uncomfortable with the details.

 

[MechaPilot]

What do the rest of you do?

In general, my thought on the issue is this: If your game contains sensitive material, or bars certain material, as a DM you have an obligation to disclose that to potential players.

Let me offer an example of how important this is. I have previously related my worst moment as a player (here's a link, for the convenience of anyone who hasn't read my recount of it). That moment almost caused my to give up on the entire hobby of TTRPGs. And, importantly, that moment could have been avoided if the DM had disclosed to me the content that would be allowed at that table, because I would have declined to play with them.

Fortunately, I stuck with the hobby, and it's given me many years of joy. However, that experience has stuck with me, and it informs how I behave as a DM. The biggest of these outcomes is that I always disclose the nature of allowed and disallowed content to prospective players. I use movie rating shorthand to describe it, because most people are familiar with what movie ratings mean, content wise.

I describe my games as R rated: swearing is allowed (in and out of character); sex and romance are allowed (in character, that is); violence is par for the course (murder hobos, and all that); and tragedies like lost loved ones may be present.

But, I also describe that R rating as a "light" R. Yes, Sex and romance are allowed in character, but there will always be a fade-to-black before any sex occurs. Yes, the world is violent (and so are the PCs, probably), but torture and sexual violence are completely off the table, as is the use of magic to compel participation in sex. Yes, tragedies happen in the game, but they won't be lingered on or described in graphic detail.

Apart from those limits, you can expect my game to potentially include anything you might see in an R rated film. That said, this is a game, we play for fun, and I do my best to have some sense of tact and decorum. If spousal abuse shows up in one of my games, it won't be in graphic descriptions. Rather, it would be more of a shallow mention of the signs of it. A shopkeep abused by his wife might jump when she calls him from another room of the shop, or have the odd bruise when the PCs arrive to buy something.

Limits other than content include a bar on evil characters, unless I know the player well. I've seen far too many players make evil characters as an excuse to be a jerk to other players. Unless you've sufficiently illustrated your maturity to me, you won't be playing an evil character at my table.

 

[JonnyP71]

So, how did many of you cope with the old school Satyr? The one from traditional Greek mythology. Or the Succubus?

Did you tone them down, or do their 'antics' with charmed party members simply happen off screen?

(I know the Charm is less potent in 5E, but in earlier iterations of the game it lasted *much* longer)

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

So, how did many of you cope with the old school Satyr? The one from traditional Greek mythology. Or the Succubus?

Did you tone them down, or do their 'antics' with charmed party members simply happen off screen?

(I know the Charm is less potent in 5E, but in earlier iterations of the game it lasted *much* longer)

Those sorts of creatures just don't come up unless the group I'm playing with at the time are okay with the subject matter implied by their nature, and even then they are presented in a way as to not seem like anyone is trying to say what they do without consent of their targets is "okay" or "normal" in any way, and there is a general fade-to-black approach rather than addressing any specific details for any sexual activity in any of my campaigns ever because I prefer to keep my sexual encounters and my game playing separate (much like how I like to keep my sushi and my pulled-pork, which I greatly enjoy both of, as separate meals).

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

In general, my thought on the issue is this: If your game contains sensitive material, or bars certain material, as a DM you have an obligation to disclose that to potential players..

We mostly flip this around, having folks let us know if there's anything that they're not comfortable with. I say, 'mostly' because really its all about developing a dialogue and an understanding that, for our table at least, we're not going to go out of our way to upset someone.

Still, like in life, someone will get hurt/upset eventually. Bad things will happen. Life will have its ups and downs. And if possible we'll try and help them but obviously, long term, it always comes down to them helping themselves. And, while we would hope this shouldn't need to be said, kicking folks when they're down is jerk move!

 

[MechaPilot]

We mostly flip this around, having folks let us know if there's anything that they're not comfortable with. I say, 'mostly' because really its all about developing a dialogue and an understanding that, for our table at least, we're not going to go out of our way to upset someone.

Having people let the DM know if there's any taboo subjects can help, but I would give some words of caution on that front:

1) A prospective player might legitimately not expect a given topic to come up, or even know that such a topic could come up, and so they won't mention it because they don't see any reasonable expectation of it being present. This was the case in the incident I was involved in; had I been given the expectation from anyone I'd played with before, or spoken with about D&D before, that violent sexual content (much less being expected to roleplay it) was something I could potentially encounter while playing the game, I would've, in no uncertain terms, mentioned what a huge dealbreaker that was for me.

2) Frequently, people who've been through some bad stuff don't like talking about it. It took me quite a while to be able to mention what happened to me. And, to be perfectly frank, while I've mentioned it a few times here on enworld I can only think of two people I've mentioned it to in real life. Mentioning it in-person makes remembering and discussing what happened far more personal and real than typing it out. Now, one can always just mention what the dealbreaker content is without explaining, but doing so always begs the question of "why." Some people don't have enough tact, or have too much curiosity, to not ask the question, and that can get really uncomfortable if you're not ready to talk about the why of it.

Still, like in life, someone will get hurt/upset eventually. Bad things will happen. Life will have its ups and downs. And if possible we'll try and help them but obviously, long term, it always comes down to them helping themselves.

Granted, no system of warning will be perfect. Things will come up, maybe it'll even be a matter of a player not expecting to have a problem with something until it's staring them in the face. All we can do is try to inform people of what they can reasonably expect from our games, and what is plainly not allowed in them.

And, while we would hope this shouldn't need to be said, kicking folks when they're down is jerk move!

I agree. Unfortunately, it seems these days that a lot of things that shouldn't need to be said truly do need to be said. I've met my fair share of decent people, but, on the whole, people seem to be leaning more in the direction of trying to be offensive just to get attention, or to get a rise out of others. There seem to be a lot more people who want to incite problems than there are people who want to avoid them, or to apologize for accidentally causing one.

 

[iserith]

Out of curiosity, what do you think about sensitive topics presented in an ironic way or as a parody that criticizes the topic? As a quick example, what if an NPC is a racist or sexist (in a fantasy context) and is obviously a buffoon or otherwise a complete jerk in a way that essentially lambastes racism or sexism?

 

[Satyrn]

One thing I do insist upon when I'm joining a D&D game is that it can't have any violence in it.

On an unrelated note, I'm having some issues finding games to play in.

Have you tried Ponyfinder?

 

[Imaculata]

Out of curiosity, what do you think about sensitive topics presented in an ironic way or as a parody that criticizes the topic? As a quick example, what if an NPC is a racist or sexist (in a fantasy context) and is obviously a buffoon or otherwise a complete jerk in a way that essentially lambastes racism or sexism?

I do that all the time. In the example I gave earlier of the sexist bishop, I wanted my players to dislike the bishop-character, while also giving them a social challenge (he's unreasonable regarding certain topics). I also often show my players that npc's in the setting are a bit racist towards Kturgians (because the country is notorious for its cruel pirate attacks) and people from Cyr (because their emperor is conquering lots of countries, and is generally a very bad dude). This helps build the world and explain how various factions are perceived. This also challenges the players to confirm whether these perceptions are correct. Are all Kturgians cruel untrustworthy pirates? Does that make Kturgian slaves okay? Are all people from Cyr not to be trusted? Are the rumors about their emperor true?

 

[Henry]

Funny thing: My normal group, with whom I have gamed weekly for many years, actually had a “taboo subject” discussion in a recent game. It was something that came out of the blue for which I did not expect, due to the fact that we’ve known one another for years, and have talked about some of the most “blue” subjects imaginable in confidence. We were playing something we’ve never done before — a much darker themed game, involving characters of neutral or evil bent, which the table agreed they wanted to try.

The subject of doing a particularly deplorable act came up, as a solution to a problem the group faced. There was no graphic detailing, just mention of the action as a possible solution. At least two people at the table became somewhat vocal about the group not taking this action. My character, somewhat of a a neutral Evil psychopath, had no problems with going forward, but I as a player had a bit of a surprise moment that for a group who is pretty comfortable about a wide range of topics, we still had to stop the game long enough to have a discussion about this and future boundaries. It was a reminder to me that, no matter how comfortable you are as a group, it’s still worth having the discussion at the table or behind the scenes, to avoid causing a disruption at the table that could actually ruin games and friendships.