D&D 5E Content Warning Labels? Yeah or Nay?

[S'mon]

It always confuses me how being mindful of people's feelings and actively trying not to do harm is this Great Evil to some people.

Well, there is a risk that you can do more harm than good, regardless of intention. If you are net causing harm while trying to do good, you're still causing harm.

 

[Vaalingrade]

And informing people of the content of a work is doing harm? Seriously?

 

[J.Quondam]

Well, there is a risk that you can do more harm than good, regardless of intention. If you are net causing harm while trying to do good, you're still causing harm.

But what harm could possibly be caused by avoiding certain material at a gaming table?

 

[HammerMan]

And informing people of the content of a work is doing harm? Seriously?

unfortunately you can see it right above you.

Put this under a spoiler please, some of us are not here for these topics.

You laugh, but I'm serious. Don't want to see it.

This is exactly the harm it CAN do... Scribe came to a discussion about trigger warnings and expected (like I had) we would be general with these things, and someone spelled things out that scribe didn't want to see...

 

[Vince_Snetterton]

I feel you aren't arguing in good faith, but . . . .

What is triggering varies, and when and how you should use warning labels is subjective. Of course. The decision rests with the author or editor of a product. Of course.

@Sacrosanct could forgo all warning labels entirely, that would be a fair choice. Or instead, they could label every single monster entry with detailed discussions of problematic elements, that would be fair also. Or anything in between.

Personally, if I felt my gaming product contained elements that could make folks uncomfortable or trigger them, in particular, regarding violence and oppression, I'd include some warnings. Perhaps a blanket warning on the back cover and in the front matter, "This product contains themes of violence and discrimination pulled from folklore and some may find them offensive or disturbing."

One issue we find in folklore, literature, and the roleplaying games based on them is problematic elements that are not obvious to those of us with degrees of certain privilege. For example, I don't always recognize folkloric themes based on racism, sexism, ageism, or lookism (I'm white, male, cis-gender, not super old yet, really good looking) . . . but they are there, they offend or trigger some folks, and others would like to BECOME aware of them (if they aren't already).

I absolutely loved @Sacrosanct's paragraph example upthread that discussed specifically what was potentially problematic for a specific creature. It's a warning . . . but it's also EDUCATION. And, personally, I love learning about the sources of monsters for D&D, and discussing elements of those monsters I may not be aware of, including problematic elements.

With that paragraph, it can help me avoid the use of certain monsters that either I, or my players, might find too problematic. Or perhaps give me a heads up, so I can use them, but with care. Or perhaps modify them to remove elements I find problematic. This warning gives me OPTIONS on how to use the particular beastie, and I LOVE that. Even with monsters that I don't find too problematic or triggering personally, I still like learning about the origins of the creatures, even if those origins are in the darker aspects of human psychology.

Some great examples of problematic elements that could probably use warnings and/or discussions include:

• Consent, rape, and sexual violence
• Incest
• Child abuse, abduction
• Sexism, usually against women
• Ageism, usually against the elderly
• Racism, discrimination, genocide
• This list is not all inclusive . . . .

Does that help?

Unfortunately, of that list you just created, I can see at least 4 that are socially acceptable in parts of the world, some of them across almost the entire planet.

I will respond with an example of my own. Here is my trigger warning. Don't read this if you have phobias:

You and a friend are hunting a deer down a game trail.
Suddenly, the ground at your feet erupts with giant insect head, half-ant, half preying mantis, pushing through, knocking you both off your feet. .
From its mouth, a stream of acid spurts forth, hitting your friend full in the face.
He dies screaming.
You are not that lucky.
Before you can escape, its mandibles clamp down on your ankle, almost severing your foot.
It drags you back under the earth, into its lair of tunnels.
Finally, you reach a chamber, but you have no idea what the size is, as there is no light.
You feel a sharp sting in your abdomen, then nothing else, realizing you are paralyzed.
You lose track of time, drifting in and out of consciousness.
Then you begin to get feeling back, though you still cannot move.
You sense movement in your abdomen.
That movement quickly becomes discomfort, then agony.
The Ankheg's eggs have hatched, and the larvae are eating their way out of you.

Now, no sane person would ever tell that kind of story to a child. The game is marketed to kids. But what I just described is a perfectly reasonable depiction of a char dying horribly in a game of D&D. And NO, I don't play the game with kids, for obvious reasons.

That is just one of hundreds of monsters in the D&D universe, some that have far worse outcomes.
The game has ALWAYS been dark. How exactly do you propose sanitizing it, unless you put trigger warnings on everything?

 

[Dire Bare]

Put this under a spoiler please, some of us are not here for these topics.

You laugh, but I'm serious. Don't want to see it.

I'll take away my "laugh" response to your post. But, at this point at least, I don't think I'll be putting that list under hidden spoiler tags.

Although it does add an interesting level to this conversation (in all seriousness), do we need trigger warnings for the discussion of trigger warnings? Should it be acknowledged in the OP that the discussion will likely bring up mention of some issues that some find troublesome? Or should we each be doing so in our own individual posts?

I think in an honest discussion about how trigger warnings should be used in a gaming product, we're gonna have to name a few of the problematic issues that deserve those warnings. I'm not going into detail, just giving a list.

 

[Scribe]

But, at this point at least, I don't think I'll be putting that list under hidden spoiler tags

Very well, I'll no longer be in this thread and I'll just start putting people on ignore.

 

[J.Quondam]

How exactly do you propose sanitizing it, unless you put trigger warnings on everything?

Hint: No one is trying to "sanitize" anything. That's precisely what content warnings are for: to help users make informed decisions before they delve into the material. Meanwhile, the material itself is still there, in all its unsanitized glory.
It's little different than putting a "may contain nuts" warning on a food label to help consumers avoid snacks that might cause an allergic reaction. If you don't need the warning, just ignore it. If you do, it's very helpful to avoid a serious problem.
This isn't hard to grasp.

 

[Vince_Snetterton]

Hint: No one is trying to "sanitize" anything. That's precisely what content warnings are for: to help users make informed decisions before they delve into the material. Meanwhile, the material itself is still there, in all its unsanitized glory.
It's little different than putting a "may contain nuts" warning on a food label to help consumers avoid snacks that might cause an allergic reaction. If you don't need the warning, just ignore it. If you do, it's very helpful to avoid a serious problem.
This isn't hard to grasp.

Then at this point, I repeat what I said. Every single source of D&D canon has multiple creatures/ situations that WILL trigger someone. Based on that, every single source of D&D canon needs a warning label.

 

[J.Quondam]

Then at this point, I repeat what I said. Every single source of D&D canon has multiple creatures/ situations that WILL trigger someone. Based on that, every single source of D&D canon needs a warning label.

You ignored the answer to that: because no one is trying to sanitize anything. They're just offering a common courtesy regarding some known issues. That's literally all there is to it. No slippery slope in sight.
This isn't hard to grasp.