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

[Azzy]

I am NOT trolling.

Those that are supporting trigger warnings in this piece of Homebrew material MUST recognize that WOTC canon material is riddled with material that can trigger people in the same manner.

I really want to know. How can someone, anyone at all, support trigger warnings on this Homebrew publication but NOT want the same warnings applied to WOTC published material. Why are not those people organizing some movement to have WOTC either apply the same warnings to their material or sanitize the material.

This is no different than saying "Wow, that guy scratch built a fantastic sports car that looks and operates like a Shelby Cobra. But he has to add safety belts. But of course, we don't expect Ford to make its Shelbies or any other sports car with safety belts."

Oh, please. Yours is manufactured outrage at others trying to be considerate of others. Your hyperbolic examples are dishonest. Please give it a rest.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I think the Author's Note is fine, and certainly in line with how countless other publications do it.
On the other hand, seeing a label on each creature would be very off-putting, and not really necessary given the introduction. Honestly, it feels pretty micro-manage-y to me, like "Yes, yes, you already told me, now let me make up my own mind about the specifics."

But the point is help people avoid certain things if they want, or be warned before reading that type of content. You have only halfway done that if there is just a general "some of this stuff is real dark and gross."

Flagging every occurrence within the work is overkill IMO

A whole paragraph or intrusive banner, sure, but a small symbol in the corner of the page? That's just better organization.

So something more like this? I think I like this better than the "CONTENT WARNING" text. (Also, the icon would appear in the Author's Note paragraph, so it would be defined there. Also ignore the CR4 and CR2 disparity; this was a quick mock-up)

View attachment 146812

I really like the top corner style, here, but I think that what would work best is to have the author's note style warning, and a short glossory of types of content with associated symbols or abbreviations, and then use the symbol or abbreviation at the top right of each entry. Sidebars for a given critter are useful when it's complicated what is problematic or triggering about them, but most of the time "body horror, infanticide, loss of will" tells anyone who might be triggered what to expect reading that entry.

I will say as well, @tomBitonti that a good way to go is to explain the historical significance of the beast, rather than just it's behavior or in-world origin. "Hags warn children not to trust strangers in the wood, and not to wander or linger in the woods unnecessarily, and thus are beings that lurk and trick and then consume, etc." is both useful information, gives context to what kinds of stories the monster lends itself to, and serves as context for any content warning tags at the top right of the entry. I'll comment more on this at the end of the post.

In WotC's view, not every one of these titles necessarily has problematic content, but enough of them do that a blanket warning is appropriate (and easier than more specific warnings on specific products). On WotC's current titles, they are working hard to ensure these products don't need warning labels at all. They haven't been fully successful at that, and have gone back and edited products after publication to remove problematic elements. They've apologized publicly for their missteps, but haven't put any warning labels on the current products. How well their choices have addressed the content in their products . . . is subjective. I'm fine with how they've handled things so far, even if it isn't perfect.

Yeah they're doing a lot better than they used to, for sure.

To answer questions about warning labels, consider that most games very deliberately avoid either any non-consensual intimacy, or descriptions of torture. I think the idea of preserving these particular detail in the game block should be reconsidered. I’m OK to see them in a historical discussion, but don’t think they have a place in the basic monster block. A game master can add in details if more historically accurate details are needed.
TomB

I definitely think some of the creatures presented don't actually need to do the assault or whatever, but like, what would be the point of having a Grimm style hag/evil forest witch if they don't try to eat children? Even 5e DnD hags are at least cruel to children and IIRC canonically make new hags by eating a child (and then what, I don't recall, except that they become a hag when they come of age).

But my suggestion, I think, works better than most suggestions I've seen.

You are not on the planet Vulcan, where everything is black and white, and lines of pure logic always continue to valid conclusions.

Specifically, you use the word "need" several times. That word can be used in absolute logical terms, or it can be used conversationally. If one person uses it conversationally, as in "This sandwich needs mustard," and you take it to be a logical absolute, like, "The sandwich cannot be consumed (or perhaps literally cannot exist) without mustard," you have committed the "Fallacy of Equivocation" (also known as the "fallacy of lexical ambiguity"), swapping out the meaning of a word while nobody is looking. This renders your logical result invalid.

Work out what "need" actually means before you base a drive to logical conclusion on it. I daresay it is not as absolute as you paint it.

Just quoting this because it was a delight to read. Well said.

----------------------------------------

About monsters and their context and story, think of The Witcher stories. A given monster is not just used as a thing for Geralt to fight, they're used to tell the kind of story that is particular to that critter. Geralt has to be knowlegable, or willing to do research, in order to defeat many of them.

So part of their lore is what kinds of stories they are used to tell, what information can help the PCs deal with them, and the logic of their nature, both in world and in the meta.

 

[Vince_Snetterton]

Oh, please. Yours is manufactured outrage at others trying to be considerate of others. Your hyperbolic examples are dishonest. Please give it a rest.

My outrage is far from manufactured. It has been building over a long period of time, one 5e domino falling at a time.

 

[Sacrosanct]

If anyone is curious, here is the rough mock ups of the Introduction/Lore section (10 pages, so it's brief). The link expires in a few days, fyi.

 

[Azzy]

My outrage is far from manufactured. It has been building over a long period of time, one 5e domino falling at a time.

Be like Elsa....

 

[Yaarel]

I'm speaking from the perspective of an outsider, but Scandinavian culture certainly extends beyond the Scandinavian Peninsula. Whether the term Scandinavian should include Finns and Icelanders . . . . you can comment better than I. I've always assumed it did. I would imagine, however, that not all Finns and Icelanders would agree either way!

@Yaarel seems to feel lumping Scandinavians in with the rest of Europe isn't good in this context, and I'm willing to respect that position . . . . although I don't think it requires any of us to agree with the position, especially other Scandinavians on the board. I appreciate your input, especially as a Finn, even if I feel you were being a little dismissive to @Yaarel.

I wouldn't blink if a book on European mythology includes Western European cultures, Celtic cultures, Scandinavian cultures, and Eastern European cultures all in the same book, despite the distinct differences in these cultural regions and their mythology. I'm guessing most folks from those regions wouldn't mind either, but some would . . . .

I saw no problem with what @Crimson Longinus said.

Strictly speaking, Scandinavia is the name of the peninsula that comprises Norway and Sweden, and in this narrow sense even today Denmark isnt part of Scandinavia. It feels strange to say it, because historically Denmark did extend onto the peninsula, especially the area Skaane (the coastland of Skadhi), where Scandinavia gets its name.

Meanwhile the term "Nordic" countries is accurate and useful, and comprises all of the Nordic cultures, including Finland, Sami, and Iceland.

Iceland preserved the eddas and sagas. Much of the early material comes from Norway, and Norwegians selfidentify with the early material, and can relate to the history that is uniquely Icelandic.

We dont relate to "Continental Europe", such as Germany and France. The cultural appropriation of Nordic heritage during WW2 was severely painful for us.

The Nordic countries are a unique part of the continent of Europe. But hardly the only one. Europe has several cultural blocks that require distinctions, including Slavic and Hellenic. Celtic has a complex history but is notable and its folkbelief distinctive.

 

[Umbran]

Your hyperbolic examples are dishonest.

Folks, don't make it personal, and don't get insulting. Thanks.

 

[bedir than]

@Sacrosanct I enjoyed the symbolic abbreviations for types of traumas. As they are only on around 10% or so of the monsters, they would indicate to me that the author and/or editor sees those specific monsters as potential problems at certain tables.

To me those small symbols are like when I'm watching a show and they explain why they are adult or not. There are issues that my wife will not enjoy (from not gaining pleasure to triggers). There are times I watch them on my own.

I run games for high school students, the general public, and long time friends. More information is always better than less information as I decide what to include at my table.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I have not bought a WOTC product since my hard copy XGTE. I have never purchased a digital product from them. But the gaming cafe I patronize has a complete set of hard copies, which I read, and use, at my leisure. So, no, I have no idea they have warning labels on anything.

And now you are saying they are indeed sanitizing all 5e material to avoid such warning labels. I look forward to the new and improved PHB without the Darkness spell, Hold Person, Sickening Radiance, Scrying, Forcecage, etc etc etc, as well as the removal of scary monsters from D&D, let alone violence, or anything else that may trigger a person, whether it is one in 10, or one in 10,000.

Mod Note:

Your slippery slope argument has lost its sheen. Time to try a newer, better approach.

 

[Hussar]

Considering warning labels have been standard on virtually every form of entertainment for quite some time, one wonders why RPG's would be exempt. I mean, I'm looking, right now, at the warning label on Phoenix Point Year One and it says:

Phoenix Point contains depictions of science-fiction combat, including the use of guns, energy weapons, explosives, melee weapons, and other military-style devices. Phoenix Point also contains depictions of mutated humans and alien creatures that younger audiences may find disturbing.

So why is there any sort of problem with adding the same sort of thing to RPG products? True, they haven't really come with warnings in the past, but, again, where's the issue?

HUGE kudos to @Sacrosanct for stepping up here. Well done you sir!

On a side note, I feel that a single warning at the front, plus your symbol system would be perfectly fine. No one expects perfection. The effort is truly the point. You have done more than your due diligence and frankly, I think you're setting a standard here that is very impressive.

HUGE THUMBS UP!!!