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

[Blue Orange]

You know, the OP probably leans pretty left, and wants to put the warning labels in. That's his prerogative as the artist, and he's the one going to the trouble of making what sounds like a pretty cool compendium of folkloric monsters.

I kind of like the idea of having specific single-letter codes attached to the monsters, so it's not too obtrusive. You might have an index in front so GMs who know they have a player who gets triggered by, say, child abuse can avoid those particular monsters.

Personally, I think stuff like this goes with the territory. Folklore is scary. These stories were told by poor, isolated peasants, who often knew little about the world outside their village and had to live with the fear of starvation and disease (not to mention exploitative lords and knights) every day. It's not surprising they would tell dark stories and try to keep their kids from wandering off alone into the forest where, yeah, a wolf might eat them.

 

[bedir than]

I still dont see "fay". I see "fey" with an e.

The book needs to let the reader know, "fey" is wrong.

I'm assuming you don't insist on similar for modern English via Spanish words with origins Arabic?

 

[Vaalingrade]

That's likely true. But I feel as though this supports my argument that the bulk of the audience doesn't care about content warnings one way or the other.

Depends on what you mean by audience, honestly, as well as if you consider people who might appreciate a creators who shows thoughtfulness and will come around later to consume other works that are more to their liking later.

Personally, I do keep track of such creators as it also suggests to me that they're less likely to just be using such subject matter for the lurid shock value.

But then again, I've become jaded by so many 'how the sausage is made' conversations with fellow authors who either think a content warning would cost them a sale or 'ruin' the emotional impact of ambushing people with things they aren't comfortable with. Then they get real mad when the 1-star reviews come a-rollin' in.

 

[tomBitonti]

I don't think anyone really cares about warning labels at the end of the day. Oh, some people might lament them while others laud them. But I don't believe the bulk of your audience has strong feelings one way or the other.

I don’t care about labels on music or video games. In either case, I’ll get any warning that I need from reviews.

I would appreciate a lot more warnings for movies and shows that have excessive violence or sexual content, especially if that content is gratuitous or simple “ugly”. I find that I have more and more of a problem with gratuitous or ugly writing. Although, I’m not sure how such a warning should be made.
TomB

 

[MGibster]

Depends on what you mean by audience, honestly, as well as if you consider people who might appreciate a creators who shows thoughtfulness and will come around later to consume other works that are more to their liking later.

Just out of curiosity, what do you think I mean by audience? (I swear someone could say the sky was blue and another person would come along and say it depended on what they meant by blue.)

Personally, I do keep track of such creators as it also suggests to me that they're less likely to just be using such subject matter for the lurid shock value.

I don't doubt it you keep track of it. But do you think a significant portion of gamers do? Would 1991's Vampire the Masquerade have been a better or more successful game if it had a stronger content warning up front? I think the answer to both those questions is no. The inclusion of content warning in a game does nothing to hurt or hinder the success of it. For the most part, it doesn't matter. A crummy game with a content warning is still going to be a crummy game. A great game with no warning is still a great game.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Just out of curiosity, what do you think I mean by audience? (I swear someone could say the sky was blue and another person would come along and say it depended on what they meant by blue.)

First, that's no need for attitude. I wasn't arguing with you, just philosophizing. So let's back off me, shall we?

Second, I think you mean the people who want to content being produced (and thus not the target of the content warning)

I don't doubt it you keep track of it. But do you think a significant portion of gamers do?

Define significant. More than people assume, which brings us back to what one means by audience because if you're just going by the definition of preaching to the choir then by definition the 'audience' doesn't care.

However, that ignores the people who are going to leave bad reviews and make video essays about the Thing That Ambushed Me and won't give any future releases the time of day because the well is now tainted.

Would 1991's Vampire the Masquerade have been a better or more successful game if it had a stronger content warning up front?

VtD really wore what it wanted to be on its sleeve. It didn't need to specifically call out a warning because it wasn't coy about what it was all about.

The inclusion of content warning in a game does nothing to hurt or hinder the success of it. For the most part, it doesn't matter. A crummy game with a content warning is still going to be a crummy game. A great game with no warning is still a great game.

Again, a game that isn't up front about what it is, that ambushes with questionable content is going to poison the well against is creators and the product line. Remember early edgelord Pathfinder and the stigma they created for themselves? Could have saved themselves some pain if they just let people know maybe they didn't want to interact with their book with the hillbilly ogres or white panel van demon lord instead of making it a 'fun' surprise' and earning a hearty 'Thanks, I hate it' in return.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

I don't doubt it you keep track of it. But do you think a significant portion of gamers do? Would 1991's Vampire the Masquerade have been a better or more successful game if it had a stronger content warning up front? I think the answer to both those questions is no. The inclusion of content warning in a game does nothing to hurt or hinder the success of it. For the most part, it doesn't matter.

Remember the line of supplements they published under the Black Dog label, I think it was called? Books with content and cover art so disturbing that the books had to be bagged in black plastic, so that no one would be offended by the covers or be able to leaf through the pages? Those books were not really anything special, but they had a mystique about them because of the packaging.

 

[S'mon]

Will most potential buyers care about content warnings? I think no; but those who do care, some of them really care. I think the trick is to give adequate warning for those who need/want it, without repelling the majority. I think the current proposed approach threads that needle pretty well. There is a minority who will be repelled even by the proposed warnings, and there are some who'd like them to go further, in some cases to the extent of the content warnings dominating the product. The former group are not Sacrosanct's target audience anyway. The latter are 'his guys', but I think they'll accept a more moderate approach.

 

[Blue Orange]

Remember the line of supplements they published under the Black Dog label, I think it was called? Books with content and cover art so disturbing that the books had to be bagged in black plastic, so that no one would be offended by the covers or be able to leaf through the pages? Those books were not really anything special, but they had a mystique about them because of the packaging.

The 'Parental Advisory: Explicit Lyrics' label increased sales back in the 90s if I remember right.

 

[AtomicPope]

It's never a bad idea to preface your work with a discussion of the contents. If that means there should be a warning, then do it and preferrably somewhere on the cover. That could serve as a selling point for adults but also to prevent kids from buying it.