I am saying this explosion of concern for safety tools and that it suddenly seems like almost everyone has sone kind of mental health trigger, suggests to be strongly there is a performative and faddish element to much of it.
Or, more likely and more accurately, that the stigma against discussing this is empowering people to finally push back against the excesses of the past 30 years of edgelord rule over popular culture normalizing depictions of sexual assault, abuse, body horror and anything else used for shock value expressly to make people uncomfortable.
A stigma you are inadvertently reinforcing with these conspiracy theories.
If a post makes a correct point, and you disagree with it, you are trolling (just like Flat Earthers are trolling by disagreeing with someone that says the Earth is an oblate spheroid). If you disagree with a post that's point is subjective, that's not trolling, that's just having an opinion.
i haven’t been doing that though. The posts I have been disagreeing with are all in the realm of the subjective and debatable. At one point someone posted about science showing similarities between physical and emotional pain: my response was similarities don’t make them the same thing. And I pointed to the crucial differences (and even made a point of saying one wasn’t automatically more serious than the other).
Or, more likely and more accurately, that the stigma against discussing this is empowering people to finally push back against the excesses of the past 30 years of edgelord rule over popular culture normalizing depictions of sexual assault, abuse, body horror and anything else used for shock value expressly to make people uncomfortable.
If a post makes a correct point, and you disagree with it, you are trolling (just like Flat Earthers are trolling by disagreeing with someone that says the Earth is an oblate spheroid). If you disagree with a post that's point is subjective, that's not trolling, that's just having an opinion.
It is not an opinion that including triggers in your campaign can be damaging to your players. It is not an opinion that humans cannot read minds, and thus are incapable of knowing any/all triggers of anyone else without them telling you so. It is not an opinion that providing a resource to make sure that you and the rest of the table know the triggers early on in order to prevent their occurrence can help prevent harm. Therefore, if there is a resource to help prevent this issue before it becomes an issue at the table, that is objectively a good thing in these circumstances (which seems to be most, from my experience, and most of the other posters in this thread).
Listing down possible problems to prevent them from becoming problems cannot be a bad thing. That's like saying NASA should build and launch a rocket to Mars without considering anything that could go wrong on the mission. At the worst, it will be useless, at the best, it can have a tremendous positive effect.
If your table all perfectly knows each other and are basically telepaths, and thus incapable of ever including any trigger (no matter how big or small) in your table on accident, great for you. However, that will not be the case 9 times out of 10, so in every other circumstance this can be (and will probably be) helpful.
Your complaint about people possibly somehow abusing this to get attention or . . . I have no idea what possible bad thing could come from listing down triggers even if a trigger is completely fake . . . is like arguing against inventing phones because spam-calls exist, or music because sometimes people who can't sing become famous. Not only that, but you have not provided any cases where this has been detrimental in any way, besides you disliking the idea of it. Stop giving hypothetheories and back up your concerns with real evidence if you want to seem like you're arguing in good faith.
Not only that, but actually respond to posts, instead of giving short descriptions of "that's not what I said" or "you're mischaracterizing my position". If people are using faulty logic to come to conclusions about your posts, go through their responses thoroughly and refute them. That's arguing in good-faith. Simply refusing to give up any ground or acknowledge any possible mistakes on your part and telling people "you're wrong, I'm Ignoring you" is not arguing in good faith.
i have responded to strong points where I have seen them. Someone disagreeing with you just because you make an argument you think is solid, or even an argument that is solid, isn’t denying the truth. Trust me I feel my arguments have been quite strong as well. That doesn’t mean people I persuaded by them are trolling it denying reality: it means I failed to convince them of my position
I am not saying anything about anyone specific. I am speaking in general terms about instances I have seen online. Me saying I have seen lots of posts or examples that appear performative, isn’t me dismissing genuine mental health issues: it is me saying I take mental health issues seriously and am concerned when it appears to be something people are adopting for other reasons (because they are trying to fit in, because they have sensitized themselves to minor dislikes, because they are following a social script). But two things can be true here: mental health problems can be real and mental health problems can be exaggerated or even lied about. And keep in mind, I am not saying if someone reports mental health issues you should ignore them: you shouldn’t because you never know what is going on with someone. I am saying this explosion of concern for safety tools and that it suddenly seems like almost everyone has sone kind of mental health trigger, suggests to be strongly there is a performative and faddish element to much of it.
You are being very dismissive of mental health issues. You are doing so right now when you say "everyone has some kind of mental health trigger" and that it suggests that it's "performative and faddish." As I mentioned before, speaking up about one's mental health issues is becoming more and more socially acceptable; psychiatric care is more and more readily available; and diagnoses have become wider. I've brought this up before and you ignored it.
You have said you have panic attacks. How would you feel if someone were to say "well, it seems like everyone has them these days, therefore you are just being 'faddish' so who cares?"
And the point is, even if whatever bothers the person is totally not a mental health issue--it's just something that upsets them to the point they don't want to deal with it in-game--you still don't lose anything by making sure that you are considerate DM.
I am not saying anything about anyone specific. I am speaking in general terms about instances I have seen online. Me saying I have seen lots of posts or examples that appear performative, isn’t me dismissing genuine mental health issues: it is me saying I take mental health issues seriously and am concerned when it appears to be something people are adopting for other reasons (because they are trying to fit in, because they have sensitized themselves to minor dislikes, because they are following a social script). But two things can be true here: mental health problems can be real and mental health problems can be exaggerated or even lied about.
Kay, if you're gaming with someone who is LYING about their mental health problems, you need to find a new player
If they're lying about that, how can you trust them not to fudge spell slots, hit points or dice rolls?
And that's such a rare and unusual thing it's not real problem. It's a massive exception to the rules and standards
With the rest of your argument, what I see you saying here is we need to have two different categories for mental health issues. One for minor dislikes and one for "genuine" mental health issues.
So... identifying personal boundaries. Or limits. Lines, maybe. And then maybe differentiating them as being more firm boundary or a more flexible one. Like some kind of hard or soft lines
And keep in mind, I am not saying if someone reports mental health issues you should ignore them: you shouldn’t because you never know what is going on with someone. I am saying this explosion of concern for safety tools and that it suddenly seems like almost everyone has sone kind of mental health trigger, suggests to be strongly there is a performative and faddish element to much of it.
Just because we hadn't identified a problem until recently doesn't mean it wasn't always a problem or that it's some kind of fad
This is deeply, deeply dismissive and insulting
You literally ARE dismissing genuine mental health issues because they're more common than YOU think they should be or they don't reach your arbitrary personal level of genuineness
You're basically calling people liars for acknowledging and being more aware of their issues and trauma
You have. You said that safety tools are a bad idea, without providing any evidence to support this, even when people, like me, have provided reasonings for them being objectively beneficial in most cases. Like I said in my last post, good faith debates involve responding to the whole of the post and providing evidence and/or logical reasoning supported by evidence to refute the other side. You have continued to not do that.
The posts I have been disagreeing with are all in the realm of the subjective and debatable. At one point someone posted about science showing similarities between physical and emotional pain: my response was similarities don’t make them the same thing. And I pointed to the crucial differences (and even made a point of saying one wasn’t automatically more serious than the other).
What the heck does it matter if they're "not the same thing"?!?! Pain is pain. Pain is helpful to alert you when it thinks you could be in danger. It doesn't matter if one is physical or mental. This is like saying "verbal abuse is different from physical abuse" in order to support an argument against passing a law against verbal abuse. So what?!?! That doesn't make it lesser, that doesn't make it not worth considering, and that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to stop it. Your statement about them being different is both unnecessary and comes across as someone trying to underplay the effects of emotional/mental harm. You say that you're not trying to downplay mental illness/harm, but what you say and what you claim to say do not match up.
If you don't want people to think you're trying to downplay mental illness, provide me a good reason for you to say that. (Also, your response to that post didn't address their point, you dismissed it. They said that the body thinks mental and physical harm are practically the same, and you replied "but they're not" instead of conceding that your statement was wrong. You were wrong, they were right, and you tried to grasp to straws instead of concede the point.)
@AcererakTriple6 Listing possible problems to prevent them from becoming problems is great in theory, but you can't do that if you don't have any idea what the problem is or really even how to discuss it, Take this silly thig from the OP checklist
ok... So bob does this
That tells me nothing. What the heck am I supposed to say to alice when she expects to cast web & hold person with her wizard in a couple levels?
one of my primary issues is the language. I think when you use a term like 'consent' that has strong connotation of sexual consent in today's use, and when you use a term like safety, that strongly implies physical safety. Not consenting to a goblin showing up in an RPG is not what most people have in mind if they hear "This person did something to me without my consent". It is a powerful word and using it in this sense, I think weakens its use elsewhere. The same with safety. If people want to call these comfort tools or group compatibility tools, I would be much less critical. And it isn't that I oppose all safety tools. When people started using the X card, I barely cared. I even asked my own group if they wanted to use it (which was soundly ridiculed----not saying ridicule is the appropriate response but I think people often fail to understand how much cultural difference matters when it comes to things like safety tools, and how it simply doesn't fly the same in a lot of social circles). It was mainly when people really started pushing the need for tools like X cards as a requirement, when the consent in gaming thing with its checklist came out, and when this stuff starting becoming more ubiquitous that I felt the need to express my opinion on the matter. But I should say, people can always ignore my opinion. I just think it is important since we are all part of the same gaming community for people to speak honestly when they disagree with something or think it is an exaggerated reaction.
I agree completely, having such near exclusive focus on the GM's responsibilities in it makes that worse. Not only is the wording bad in awful misleading ways, so are the tools. All the checklist/form things I've seen are lacking pretty seriously in any real useful information needed to engage in Risk Averse Consensual... Horror & Safe Sane Consensual... ttrpg.
Given you bringing up the sexual connotations though, there are communities in that engage in strongly endorsing things like negotiation, consent checklists, education during events, safewords, hard & soft limits, & even an endless number of articles written on the subjects(many by actual therapists). I've considered jumping into the discussion & even wrote up a handful of posts throughout the day but kept deciding that there was simply no way to actually say things that were very relevant. Pulling a couple random checklists from those communities with google I came across a bunch of example questions that in many cases took little more than a word phrase or definition substitution to make relevant.
The Abyss looks back when you look into it. Any chance of PC []un[]willingly switching roles as involved bystander/villain/victim in horror? Yes_____ No_____Explanation:___________________________________________________________
Will the character generally be A: meek & fearful or B: brave & fearless C: Confused & overwhelmed D: Other? A_____ B_____ C_____ D_____ Explanation:___________________________________________________________
May the PCs verbally resist the horrors? Yes_____ No_____ Explanation:___________________________________________________________
Does resistance equal a "strong yellow"? Yes_____ No_____ Explanation:___________________________________________________________
Can the PCs successfully to "turn the tables" on horrors before the Dark Powers without descending into the abyss:? Yes_____ No_____
Victories over horror are often only temporary lulls while horrors regroup. Is the player OK with this? Yes_____ No_____ Explanation:___________________________________________________________
Dark Fantasy can show just how depraved an evil magician void of ethics can be in pursuit of . Is the player OK with this? Yes_____ No_____ Explanation:___________________________________________________________
Folk horror often takes a dark spin on or shows religion in its darker states. Is the player OK with this? Yes_____ No_____ Explanation:___________________________________________________________
Does the player agree their PC can become the subject of body horror? Yes_____ No_____ Explanation:___________________________________________________________
Does the player agree their PC can be given false memories? Yes_____ No_____ Explanation:___________________________________________________________
Does the player agree their PC can be have their memories manipulated? Yes_____ No_____ Explanation:___________________________________________________________
Does the player agree their PC can be made to question their memories? Yes_____ No_____ Explanation:___________________________________________________________
Does the player agree their PC can be have horrible things done to the PC's family & loved ones? Yes_____ No_____Explanation:___________________________________________________________
so on & so forth across the various horror genre types wotc has been tweeting coin image things for I may have missed
Are there any phobias or traumas that you'd like to limit or avoid? Yes_____ No_____ Explanation:___________________________________________________________
Is there anything you want to see happen or experience during the campaign? Yes_____ No_____ Explanation:___________________________________________________________
5. OOPS:
Does everybody involved understand that there is some risk of accident, miscommunication, misperception, and/or unintentional discomfort? Yes___ No___
Does everybody involved agree to discuss any mishaps in a constructive and non-blaming manner? Yes_____ No_____
These kind of questions provide the person answering them at least some level of insight into what the question is asking them to expect and they go on to arm the GM with at least some level of detail in the feedback they receive to provide them critical knowledge when a player is juiced on some fun mix of endorphins & cortisol resulting in a mental space* that might not be able to clearly recognize a problem & safeword in the moment.
*There is an actual term for it & tons of articles on it. The worst part is that's about all I can even say because the sudden push to thrust checklists into the ttrpg spotlight does not seem to even mention it in ways I could point at
1) It is not an opinion that including triggers in your campaign can be damaging to your players. 2) It is not an opinion that humans cannot read minds, and thus are incapable of knowing any/all triggers of anyone else without them telling you so. 3) It is not an opinion that providing a resource to make sure that you and the rest of the table know the triggers early on in order to prevent their occurrence can help prevent harm. 4) Therefore, if there is a resource to help prevent this issue before it becomes an issue at the table, that is objectively a good thing in these circumstances (which seems to be most, from my experience, and most of the other posters in this thread).
1) This wasn't exactly my point. My point was safety tools and trigger warning becoming the norm, seems to be having a negative effect on people. This is definitely an opinion. 2) I never claimed humans can read minds. I said we can get a sense of other people, and have a feeling based on our past experience, social cues, what people say, whether they are expressing a feeling that is genuine or performative (and I was clear this can't be known, only speculated and inferred). The point was people can be dishonest about their feelings, they can misunderstand their own feelings, and they can exaggerate their feelings, and we shouldn't automatically accept something because someone says they have feeling X about it. We should sometimes be skeptical if it seems warranted. 3) Yes this is an option. Things like trigger warnings, and safety tools are not proven science at all and they are still hotly debated by professionals. I've seen good arguments for both positions, but I tend to find the arguments against these things more persuasive. This is also not a matter we have at all settled as a society. In gaming this has certainly gained widespread acceptance: that doesn't mean gamers are right. 4) This argument rests on the assumption that the resource in fact helps prevent the problem. I am disputing that assumption. You are definitely making a strong argument but isn't one a person can't disagree with without denying reality or objectivity (very few moral arguments are so objective---if they were it would be a lot easier for humans to get along with one another). What is more, this argument doesn't account for the things I am pointing to: for example even if we accept the premise that these resources can help prevent said problems, if they create other problems in the process, that is a complication that needs to be addressed (and I am saying, I see other problems emerging & I think the notion that these tools prevent problems is not fully true)
You have. You said that safety tools are a bad idea, without providing any evidence to support this, even when people, like me, have provided reasonings for them being objectively beneficial in most cases.
I have provided reasons. Just like you have provided reasons for your position. We both reject one another's reasons. This is not an issue of one of us refusing to acknowledge objective truth, it is an issue of us disagreeing in our conclusions. I don't agree with you but I can at least see the argument for how your position might be right. You should try to see it from the other side as well.
@AcererakTriple6 Listing possible problems to prevent them from becoming problems is great in theory, but you can't do that if you don't have any idea what the problem is or really even how to discuss it, Take this silly thig from the OP checklist View attachment 136190
ok... So bob does this View attachment 136191
That tells me nothing. What the heck am I supposed to say to alice when she expects to cast web & hold person with her wizard in a couple levels?
I agree completely, having such near exclusive focus on the GM's responsibilities in it makes that worse. Not only is the wording bad in awful misleading ways, so are the tools. All the checklist/form things I've seen are lacking pretty seriously in any real useful information needed to engage in Risk Averse Consensual... Horror & Safe Sane Consensual... ttrpg.
Given you bringing up the sexual connotations though, there are communities in that engage in strongly endorsing things like negotiation, consent checklists, education during events, safewords, hard & soft limits, & even an endless number of articles written on the subjects(many by actual therapists). I've considered jumping into the discussion & even wrote up a handful of posts throughout the day but kept deciding that there was simply no way to actually say things that were very relevant. Pulling a couple random checklists from those communities with google I came across a bunch of example questions that in many cases took little more than a word phrase or definition substitution to make relevant.
The Abyss looks back when you look into it. Any chance of PC []un[]willingly switching roles as involved bystander/villain/victim in horror? Yes_____ No_____Explanation:___________________________________________________________
Will the character generally be A: meek & fearful or B: brave & fearless C: Confused & overwhelmed D: Other? A_____ B_____ C_____ D_____ Explanation:___________________________________________________________
May the PCs verbally resist the horrors? Yes_____ No_____ Explanation:___________________________________________________________
Does resistance equal a "strong yellow"? Yes_____ No_____ Explanation:___________________________________________________________
Can the PCs successfully to "turn the tables" on horrors before the Dark Powers without descending into the abyss:? Yes_____ No_____
Victories over horror are often only temporary lulls while horrors regroup. Is the player OK with this? Yes_____ No_____ Explanation:___________________________________________________________
Dark Fantasy can show just how depraved an evil magician void of ethics can be in pursuit of . Is the player OK with this? Yes_____ No_____ Explanation:___________________________________________________________
Folk horror often takes a dark spin on or shows religion in its darker states. Is the player OK with this? Yes_____ No_____ Explanation:___________________________________________________________
Does the player agree their PC can become the subject of body horror? Yes_____ No_____ Explanation:___________________________________________________________
Does the player agree their PC can be given false memories? Yes_____ No_____ Explanation:___________________________________________________________
Does the player agree their PC can be have their memories manipulated? Yes_____ No_____ Explanation:___________________________________________________________
Does the player agree their PC can be made to question their memories? Yes_____ No_____ Explanation:___________________________________________________________
Does the player agree their PC can be have horrible things done to the PC's family & loved ones? Yes_____ No_____Explanation:___________________________________________________________
so on & so forth across the various horror genre types wotc has been tweeting coin image things for I may have missed
Are there any phobias or traumas that you'd like to limit or avoid? Yes_____ No_____ Explanation:___________________________________________________________
Is there anything you want to see happen or experience during the campaign? Yes_____ No_____ Explanation:___________________________________________________________
5. OOPS:
Does everybody involved understand that there is some risk of accident, miscommunication, misperception, and/or unintentional discomfort? Yes___ No___
Does everybody involved agree to discuss any mishaps in a constructive and non-blaming manner? Yes_____ No_____
These kind of questions provide the person answering them at least some level of insight into what the question is asking them to expect and they go on to arm the GM with at least some level of detail in the feedback they receive to provide them critical knowledge when a player is juiced on some fun mix of endorphins & cortisol resulting in a mental space* that might not be able to clearly recognize a problem & safeword in the moment.
*There is an actual term for it & tons of articles on it. The worst part is that's about all I can even say because the sudden push to thrust checklists into the ttrpg spotlight does not seem to even mention it in ways I could point at
If you're confused by what a player puts, ask for clarification. These tools aren't meant to solve the problem perfectly, it's meant to give you a tool to start it. That does tell you something, it tells you that bondage could be a touchy subject for one of your players, so as a DM you should then do the work to find the cases where it would be okay and when it wouldn't be.
