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

*Deleted by user*

As a DM I'll self-censor for situations that would be iffy for a PG movie. Otherwise I'm not censoring unless someone specifically mentions something to me. I'm not a guardian for someone else's feelings and people participating in a game should understand that it might contain such references.

My campaigns and one-shots have the following warning in the group forum:

RPG-MA: This is NOT a Safe Space
Please be aware that this is a Mature game. While I will not be including anything particularly graphic, sexual, or strange in terms of the adventure content, I expect there to be plenty of off-color jokes and the like. Some of these comments may verge on topics that may not be very welcome in today's polite and, some might say, overly-sensitive society. If you are someone who is likely to find offense at such things, this may not be the game for you and there is no shame in bowing out to spare yourself being triggered.

As some of you know each other and some don't, I encourage anyone thinking of making such comments to use your best judgment to err on the side of funny over offensive and to get a feel for the group before going full blast on "inappropriate" jokes and the like. I will not be policing the speech of the game's participants, but remember that the only way to win a game is to be invited to play again, so please govern yourself accordingly.

Click to expand...

I haven't had any issues at the table and I would say that my one-shots in particular are a very diverse crowd. If someone had a particular issue that was important to them and brought it up prior to the game, I'd certainly take steps to address it to the extent it was reasonable.

Ask every new player in private if they have any taboos or triggers that you should be respectful about. Then respect them. E-mail or text works great, and gives them time to think about their answer.

I handle this the other way around - rather than me disclose all the things I have planned for the campaign that might upset a player's enjoyment or comfort at the table, I give every new player to my table prompting before we even start playing together to tell me what, if anything, would bother them if it happened during play, whether that's story elements they aren't comfortable with or play-style elements they aren't a fan of.

It's part of my process of making sure everyone at my table is having a good time (me included, because I don't enjoy someone being upset that they chose the wrong crowd to play with).

I have an AL character that is based on a toned-down version of The Hound from Game of Thrones. I always ask if anyone minds mild profanity before I play him at a table. If there are kids present, I play the G rated version of him. In a similar vein, I tend to reign in the controversial game material when DM'ing based on the table. My home campaign has wandered into the issues of slavery and prostitution at times and I tread carefully. You only need so much realism in a fantasy game we play for enjoyment.

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.

Terms like "trigger warning" and "safe space" have been politicized by bad actors working in bad faith and have tarnished them to the general populace. However, I think it's healthy and honest to remind ourselves that these are terms meant to help people with PTSD. Even if you personally disagree with their usefulness. Even if you are a trained professional in that field who hates the terms. It seems crazy to not respect the benign wishes of someone who has been through intense trauma. So, whatever you do in your game, it seems fair to give the same basic heads-up that you get before an episode of Game of Thrones. There is almost no media that we consume in life without a content warning and we never complain.

In the end, most people appreciate an effort to make them comfortable. Whatever works.

EDIT: I will note that my main game is with a very close group of friends. It's nearly impossible to offend us, however it's presented for mass consumption so I tend to not go too crazy. I also get enough grit when I read the news of the world.

Well, we assume a general quality of emotional health for those at our table, and assume that they've dealt with anything that needs dealing with and if not, are seeking help and are considerate enough to let us know if they have a problem.

At to be honest, if they have a problem that could disrupt the game, then we might modify the table for them or we might not, depending on how much hassle it would be. After all, its on them to get help/help themselves care for and better their emotional health.

Nothing is flagged before hand. We're generally insulting/racist/bigoted/insensitive to all races, colours, species, vegetables and creeds, equally! Of course, having an honest, good intent goes a long way and obviously if someone breaks down in tears we're not going to push a point or wish to contribute to their suffering.

So aye, its only a problem if it becomes one, and then we deal with it.

If I plan some particularly unpleasant events for the game I will forewarn my players. However I won't tone it down if it fits the story - they've been forewarned, it's up to them if they turn up. I prefer a game to be dark and gritty, rather than comic fantasy.

In general though, I do listen to the topic of my players' conversations before deciding on how far to take things - but I did warn them recently before a session which touched on topics such as slaves being sold for food and breeding purposes.

WARNING: Minor Critical Role season 2 spoilers - I don't know how to do the collapsable spoiler thing so skip this post if you care about Critical Role spoilers

I only DM at home with a group of players that I've been playing with for over two years. It is easier when you know your players. If you go too far or your players do, it is easier to call each other out without too much embarrassment or hurt feelings. Make sure players are comfortable telling you when they are uncomfortable. In public forums, when playing with strangers, you have to be more careful because you don't know everyone's personality and life experiences. You can't anticipate every issue someone might have. I guess were I to DM in a public venue, I would keep it PG and not be defensive if someone expresses discomfort.

When starting a new campaign or bringing in new players, I will mention a few ground rules, but they are not black and white.

1. No evil player characters in my campaign.

I'm just not interested in that kind of game. That said, I do like to put characters in morally ambiguous circumstances. At times they will have to question if they ARE the good guys. But I have no interest in participating in the role-play of torture and rape, for example.

2. Sexual situationsif they occur, are "fade to black" situations. Look, if you want to play the Cassanova bard who uses his or her sexual prowess to woo people to gain information or just for fun. Fine. But I'm not roleplaying a sex scene with you.

3. Violence against children.

I'd probably just scrap the campaign if I had players killing kids for kicks in my game. But, at the same time, there could be some interesting dilemmas to role-play here. What do you do with the kids of "evil" races when you clear out their stronghold? Similarly, having a terrible beast harm or threaten to harm a child is a common trope because it can make the characters become invested in stopping the evil and more willing to take risks to save / avenge the victim.

I just listened to a recent episode of Critical Role where this came up twice. First, Matt Mercer graphically described a child being mauled by a gnoll. The second instance was when the party killed a baby manticore in front of its mother.

As for the scene where a gnoll mauls a kid. It was borderline disturbing for me, but it was supposed to. It wasn't gratuitous and it is not like Mercer fills his sessions with graphic depictions of violence to kids. I think that it was appropriate in this context. It added to the game. It seems that some players, especially those in their teens, like to be shocking for the sake of trying to be out-shock each other. That's not the case here and I think it can be appropriate. But if I had someone in my party who recently lost a kid, or someone who had been mauled or had a child mauled by a dog or other animal, I would be sensitive and try to either avoid such scenes or just not go into graphic detail.

As for the second, it felt a bit like the player WAS trying to be shocking for entertainment value. I rolled my eyes as I listened to it. I would get annoyed as a DM if there were players acting out the whole "hey bad guy, watch me kill your children." I though Matt Mercer's response was interesting. I didn't expect him to chastise or say no, which he didn't (though there was some groaning and "really?" comments). Instead he gave the mother Manticore advantage on all attacks against that player's character and it ONLY attacked that player's character, ignoring all the other characters. While I rarely allow "narrative sense" to dictate my game's mechanics (I'm not playing for an audience), I would definitely consider doing this.

On the other hand, that could be the form of feeding the troll. Doing so just gives that player the extra attention they seem to be seeking.