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

[Yaarel]

View attachment 146938

I have it right there. And on the first page I give definitions of the word. I'm sorry if I'm sounding hostile towards your position; it's not my intention. But what is sounds like, is that unless I'm writing the book in Old English, then it's misleading. I think you're going a bit far and unreasonable here in your ask. I'm not writing an academic paper (despite my citations). I'm writing a 5e gamebook, depicting the creatures of mythology and folklore of several European regions as they appeared (or as close as possible because often there were discrepancies) in that folklore as opposed to how they are often depicted in modern literature/media/games.

That's it. It's not a PhD thesis. The audience won't largely care.

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

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



For example, TheFreeDictionary .com entry, based on the American Heritage Dictionary says:

fey​

fated to die soon; under a spell; enchanted; whimsical; otherworldly
Not to be confused with: fay – a fairy

 

[TheSword]

An editors note/sidebar at the start and possibly a short line or two on the back cover seems like a reasonable precaution.

Stating individually what’s wrong with using the monsters in your book, when you chose to put them in there seems a bit weird.

I mean, make them, or don’t make them. But don’t sell them and then make people feel guilty for using them.

 

[Dire Bare]

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 do!

Some times labels are used by creators and/or corporations simply to CYA - Cover Your Arse!

But they can certainly be useful. As a teacher, I use movie and TV ratings to help sift through appropriate videos to share with my classes. I have to also make sure that, despite the rating, a specific piece is still appropriate and useful. The more specific labels we sometimes get that list WHY a show is rated are even more helpful. Reviews on CommonSenseMedia.com, which are essentially warning reviews, are even more helpful. Same with music, I have to be careful of all media I use in the classroom. If I were a parent, I'd have similar uses for warning labels.

In my personal life, movie and TV reviews are my go-to, rather than labels . . . . but part of my use of reviews is to gauge if the media has any themes that will trigger or upset me.

I also sometimes find them useful in situations such as this. After purchasing @Sacrosanct's fey monster book, an easy reference to which creatures might deserve a closer look is appreciated. A more detailed discussion on WHY certain creatures might be problematic would be VERY useful to me. The warning on the cover helps me decide if I should purchase this book in the first place, although it isn't a guarantee that I'll find the content useful, enjoyable, or appropriate to my tastes.

Not every book necessarily needs a warning label, but I find them useful (in context). I doubt I'm alone on that.

 

[Dire Bare]

Not at all. I feel I've explained this in the screen shot I provided. You absolutely can use the term "fey" as a broad term while keeping the individual name, folklore, and descriptions in each monster entry as they appeared in originating folklore.

I don't think that's misleading at all. But I'll admit my error if others also feel that's misleading

Nope. Not misleading. Perhaps a few medieval folklore scholars will get a little itchy, but you're fine I think.

 

[Dire Bare]

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

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



For example, TheFreeDictionary .com entry, based on the American Heritage Dictionary says:

fey​

fated to die soon; under a spell; enchanted; whimsical; otherworldly
Not to be confused with: fay – a fairy

The use of "fey" is not wrong. Language changes, it evolves, and this isn't a scholarly article, it's a game book. The use of "fey" will confuse absolutely no one, whereas the use of "fay" would.

@Sacrosanct is presenting creatures from folklore and trying to give some of their original context, but he's writing for a nonacademic, modern audience.

 

[Dire Bare]

I mean, make them, or don’t make them. But don’t sell them and then make people feel guilty for using them.

This isn't the point at all of warning labels, to convince folks to NOT use parts of your product, or to feel guilty for doing so. Sheesh.

The point is to . . . warn . . . folks that certain elements MIGHT be problematic for them and to proceed with caution. And sometimes to explain WHY certain elements MIGHT be problematic.

It's a good thing.

 

[MGibster]

That's it. It's not a PhD thesis. The audience won't largely care.

Boom! I think that's a healthy attitude to take to any game.

 

[MGibster]

I do!

Sure. But when I said the bulk of the audience didn't care I didn't mean to single out my favorite bulky fuzzy animal poster as someone who didn't. When you look at movies and music with explicit warnings, how much of a real difference does it make to their success or failure? There's an argument to be made that if you were a rap album in 1992 without a Parental Advisory Label nobody would take you seriously, but for the most part they didn't seem to help or hurt album sales all that much.

But they can certainly be useful. As a teacher, I use movie and TV ratings to help sift through appropriate videos to share with my classes. I have to also make sure that, despite the rating, a specific piece is still appropriate and useful. The more specific labels we sometimes get that list WHY a show is rated are even more helpful.

Most of the audience isn't made up of teachers looking for something to put in their classroom. I doubt such a group is a statistically significant audience for most music, television, and movies. Again, I'm not going to argue that nobody cares. You say you care and explained why and have no reason to doubt you. But I don't think most of the audience really cares one way or the other. The success of Sacrosanct's project will be almost entirely due to the strength of the content rather than any warning about it.

 

[TheSword]

This isn't the point at all of warning labels, to convince folks to NOT use parts of your product, or to feel guilty for doing so. Sheesh.

The point is to . . . warn . . . folks that certain elements MIGHT be problematic for them and to proceed with caution. And sometimes to explain WHY certain elements MIGHT be problematic.

It's a good thing.

Well you selectively quoted me there. I said a warning label at the start and end of the book was a sensible idea.

I said creating problematic pieces of work and the labeling them such is silly when there are non-problematic elements in the book. It comes off as lecturing and judgemental. Just my opinion.

 

[Cadence]

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

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

For example, TheFreeDictionary .com entry, based on the American Heritage Dictionary says:

fey​

fated to die soon; under a spell; enchanted; whimsical; otherworldly
Not to be confused with: fay – a fairy

From the full OED, the following are given for Fey:
1. Fated to die (archaic except in Scotland)
2. Presaging death. (obsolete)
3. Accursed (obsolete)
4. Feeble (obsolete)
5. Disordered in mind like one about to die; possessing or displaying magical, fairylike, or unearthly qualities. Now frequently used ironically, in sense ‘affected, whimsy’.

More commonly available, dictionary.com gives:
1. doomed (British Dialect)
2. appearing to be under a spell (chiefly Scottish)
3. Supernatural; unreal; enchanted (elves, fairies, and other fey creatures)
4. being in unnaturally high spirits
5. whimsical, strange, otherworldly

On google scholar, fey seems to be regularly used for the fairy: Google Scholar

In that light, it doesn't seem that heinous to me for a 5e game book, where fey is the term the game uses, to use it.