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

[Dire Bare]

Why not? It was a reasonable request on the part of Scribe.

This is literally the point of the thread.

I didn't take @Scribe's request seriously at first, and I should have. I marked his post with the "laugh" response, and that was inappropriate of me. I'm pretty sure they have me on ignore (which is fine) and won't see this, but I am sorry for any offense.

I'm certainly not going to try and tell @Scribe or anyone else that they shouldn't be triggered or offended by things I post, but that is a different question on whether I should use a warning or hidden text . . . . like @Sacrosanct is making choices on how to include warnings in his gaming product, I reserve that choice in my posts (as long as I'm following board rules).

Honestly, I'm still not sure that my list of problematic tropes above needs to be placed under hidden text . . . but I'll go back and add them in. Later than perhaps is useful, but it's not a lot of work . . . .

 

[Yaarel]

I've had similar thoughts about various D&D monsters.

Take the hag . . . . a monster based on negative stereotypes about women, the elderly, and ugliness. That's before we get into the trope of child abduction. If we leave hags largely the same, but make it so that they can be of either gender, aren't necessarily old, and not necessarily ugly . . . . I don't know, how far do we go before it's not really a hag anymore? What are the defining characteristics of this beastie that need to stay? The answer, of course, is subjective and we all won't agree on where to draw lines.

Maybe . . . . hags ARE incredibly ugly and incredibly old (centuries old), but can be of either gender. Perhaps hags (in universe) deliberately play into the stereotypes of age and gender as a way to mess with adventurer's expectations. Perhaps most importantly, hags are not evil creatures, at least not inherently or automatically evil. And it's the evil ones who use illusion to appear young and beautiful, the good ones don't bother with that nonsense . . . . find a way to keep the beastie recognizable, but either eliminate some tropes or subvert them.

For me, the "hag" equates to a Norwegian folkbelief troll, and can be male or female, young or old, beautiful or ugly. It depends on the individual troll. Heh, not seeing the problem of gender neutrality for a hag. Both the males and the females tend to be superhumanly strong and innately magical.

Moreover the Norwegian water nymphs are typically male. The wood nymph (hulder) is typically female, but such males exist too (huldrekarl).

And so on.

For my culture, gender neutrality feels traditionally correct.

But I understand if other cultures have different gender assumptions. For example British cultures seem to have had difficulty celebrating male beauty, and would rather give angels and elves sex-changes into women, rather than deal with the possibility of masculine beauty.

 

[S'mon]

I've had similar thoughts about various D&D monsters.

Take the hag . . . . a monster based on negative stereotypes about women, the elderly, and ugliness. That's before we get into the trope of child abduction. If we leave hags largely the same, but make it so that they can be of either gender, aren't necessarily old, and not necessarily ugly . . . . I don't know, how far do we go before it's not really a hag anymore? What are the defining characteristics of this beastie that need to stay? The answer, of course, is subjective and we all won't agree on where to draw lines.

Maybe . . . . hags ARE incredibly ugly and incredibly old (centuries old), but can be of either gender. Perhaps hags (in universe) deliberately play into the stereotypes of age and gender as a way to mess with adventurer's expectations. Perhaps most importantly, hags are not evil creatures, at least not inherently or automatically evil. And it's the evil ones who use illusion to appear young and beautiful, the good ones don't bother with that nonsense . . . . find a way to keep the beastie recognizable, but either eliminate some tropes or subvert them.

IMC I tend to have many Neutral hags who can be helpful, if dangerous, to human society. I wasn't particularly trying to fight stereotypes, I just think they're a lot more interesting like that. I don't think I'm particularly subverting any tropes other than D&D Always Chaotic Evil, either.

 

[S'mon]

So here's where I'm at so far. These will be the only places where the warning will be noted, rather than each individual stat block (obviously not final version, nor edited, so ignore spelling errors).

View attachment 146854
View attachment 146855

While I find some of it a bit offputting, especially the cultural cringe around appropriation, I think this is a good effort (can you tell I've been marking papers today?) - it's not overly intrusive, and it gives fair warning of what's going on. I think it's particularly good that you have the on-cover content warning, ie pre-purchase. You may want to change 'Triggering Content' to 'Difficult Content' or similar, but I think the overall approach and structure is good.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

While I find some of it a bit offputting, especially the cultural cringe around appropriation,

That certainly gave me a pause. So for ages there have been (very valid) complaints about fantasy being so Eurocentric... but I guess we can just continue to do that and say that we're doing so to avoid cultural appropriation...

 

[Yaarel]

While I find some of it a bit offputting, especially the cultural cringe around appropriation, I think this is a good effort (can you tell I've been marking papers today?) - it's not overly intrusive, and it gives fair warning of what's going on. I think it's particularly good that you have the on-cover content warning, ie pre-purchase. You may want to change 'Triggering Content' to 'Difficult Content' or similar, but I think the overall approach and structure is good.

@Sacrosanct

I thought "troubling" or "troublesome" a good choice of words.

 

[Dire Bare]

My little vignette there does indeed have violence.
But what about other things in there?
Paralysis.
Being trapped in the dark.

These are very very common effects in the game. Are writers, DM's, whoever, REALLY supposed to act like psychologists and analyze every potential creature/situation/effect before presenting it in a book or a game? I can state with confidence that within the "intended audience" of the D&D community that Hypnotic Pattern or Hold Person or Darkness will indeed trigger someone. Are we to remove these things from the game? Perhaps the members of the audience should use some common sense and think, "I know D&D is a pretty violent game, with all kinds of weird stuff happening in it. Maybe it is not the game for me."

Sigh. You keep talking about removing things from the game, which no one else in this discussion is doing. A warning statement doesn't remove anything, it just warns. You keep conflating phobias with traumas, and common triggers with "everything can be triggering to someone".

You seem to be claiming that we are asking game designers to be "psychologists and analyze every possible situation", which again no one is doing. I think the consensus is to reject your idea of "it's everything or nothing" when it comes to including warnings.

If I decided to try my hand at game design, I would certainly take the time to try and think through my work to see if there might be any common trauma triggers and/or problematic elements that, in my opinion, could use a warning statement or label of some sort. I would also try to get other folks eyes on my writing, to see if they can find things I've missed. I might agree or disagree with their feedback, but it would be a useful step. If I was publishing professionally, I would most definitely try and get some sensitivity readers to look over my work. A relatively new term and job description!

Getting to your specifics, since you seem to need that:

• Graphic Violence - Yes, this gets a warning label from me. Some folks find this level of graphic description offensive, so if I'm including it, I'm also including a warning. Granted, that warning might double as a sales pitch! Only peer within if you can handle dark themes and the most gruesome depictions of violence . . .
  [*]Paralysis - (including hold person) I've actually known a person with this trigger, but to my knowledge, this isn't a common. No warning label.
  [*]Trapped in the dark - (including darkness) More of a phobia than a trauma trigger, and while fear of the dark is common, a true phobia or trauma isn't. No warning label.
  [*]Charm spells and effects - (including hypnotic pattern) Charm effects do require being careful, as they can lead to consent issues. I certainly wouldn't write about using charm effects to have any sort of sexual seduction effects, or if I did for some reason, that's getting a warning label! Using charm effects to influence emotion, to "push" a character in a specific emotional direction . . . honestly, I don't know. Undecided.
  [*]Photosensitivity - (again, hypnotic pattern) Not sure if this was your thinking, but I would be completely unconcerned with photosensitive readers, as while this may be a visual effect in universe, it isn't in game. Descriptions of brightly flashing and colored lights is unlikely to trigger anyone. No warning label.

I'm open to changing my mind on any of the above. Context also matters. What type of product am I designing? Who is the intended audience? Is this self-published or work-for-hire?

If other authors decide differently on these specifics, that's okay. Would their use of warning labels I don't feel necessary keep my from purchasing their product? Probably not. Would the lack of warning labels where I feel they are necessary keep me away? Probably yes. But not every product is for me, so that's okay too.

There's already some stuff out there that crosses lines for me personally that I won't purchase. Some of these products very much use warning labels, others don't. I'm okay with all of that.

 

[Yaarel]

Note, I object to "European" if it means misrepresenting Nordic cultures.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Note, I object to "European" if it means misrepresenting Nordic cultures.

That is just a placeholder term. I'm going to eliminate it completely, and just list as "in order to avoid cultural appropriation, the mythology will focus on European and Scandinavian folklore."

The primary references I used for the Nordic folklore were the Poetic and Prose Eddas, and Dr. Jackson Crawford's various presentations.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

the mythology will focus on European and Scandinavian folklore.

But Scandinavia is in Europe...