D&D General The Art and the Artist: Discussing Problematic Issues in D&D

[CleverNickName]

My players are my friends and family. If one of them says that she is an arachnophobe, I am not going to use spiders in my adventures. Full stop. I don't need her to explain herself to me, I don't need a note from her doctor, and I certainly don't decide I should "help her get over it." There is no rhetoric, there is no back-and-forth, there is no deep dive into her mental health and justifications. I cross out "Giant Spider" and write "Dire Wolf" in its place, done.

If one of my players is a survivor of sexual abuse, it will never come up in my game. Forever. I don't need her to explain herself, we don't need to talk about it as a group, we don't need to discuss how it might be "unrealistic for the setting and era," or anything of the sort. Her mental wellbeing takes priority over my darling campaign setting. The conversation starts and ends the moment she says "this makes me uncomfortable." She is my friend, not a sociology experiment or political statement.

So if you are a game developer, you expand that into its broadest terms. The people at your table are now the people in your town, the people in your country. Do you care about them any less? Is it really so inconvenient for you, game developer, to consider those in your audience who might be traumatized by what you produce? Of course you can't account for every possible traumatic experience that every person might carry--but you can choose to believe those who speak up about them, and make provisions.

 

[Bill Zebub]

If one of my players is a survivor of sexual abuse, it will never come up in my game. Forever. I don't need her to explain herself, we don't need to talk about it as a group, we don't need to discuss how it might be "unrealistic for the setting and era," or anything of the sort. Her mental wellbeing takes priority over my darling campaign setting. The conversation starts and ends the moment she says "this makes me uncomfortable." She is my friend, not a sociology experiment or political statement.

You don’t ask her to quantify the actual harm?

 

[CleverNickName]

You don’t ask her to quantify the actual harm?

No, not really. If a particular topic is making her uncomfortable enough to speak up, that topic goes out the window. We call a break, I make some adjustments, and we move on. I'm not even offended.

 

[MGibster]

So if you are a game developer, you expand that into its broadest terms. The people at your table are now the people in your town, the people in your country. Do you care about them any less? Is it really so inconvenient for you, game developer, to consider those in your audience who might be traumatized by what you produce? Of course you can't account for every possible traumatic experience that every person might carry--but you can choose to believe those who speak up about them, and make provisions.

Yes, I care less about people I might never meet than I do the people I'm gaming with at my table. Don't get me wrong, I harbor goodwill towards people in general so I wish them well. But as a game developer, if I'm working on creating a villainous faction of mind controlling spiders, I'm not going to be the least bit concerned that arachnophobes might have a hard time participating in the game. If someone tells me they suffer from arachnophobia I'm not going to doubt them. But at the same time, I don't feel any obligation to cater to their needs. Maybe the game with a villainous faction of mind controlling spiders isn't the game for them. It's okay to make a game that isn't for everyone. (That's as a game developer. As a GM, I had a player at my table uncomfortable with spiders and when I found out I removed spiders from the game.)

 

[Charlaquin]

The primary definition is physical. And I get words have other meanings, and often are used in other contexts because of their power in the primary sense, but here I just think it is very poor augmentation to call something that isn't actual violence, violence. Because like I said, you really do water down the term. People stop listening if you call things that aren't really A, A, simply because A has an emotional intensity to it and a sense of urgency. It is certainly poetic. I understand why it would be useful to describe a persons 'violent ridicule' in the literary sense.

I strongly disagree. Psychological, emotional, and cultural violence are real violence, and quite the contrary from “watering down the term” by describing them as such, you downplay the severity of those forms of violence by refusing to call them what they are.

 

[Vaalingrade]

No, not really. If a particular topic is making her uncomfortable enough to speak up, that topic goes out the window. We call a break, I make some adjustments, and we move on. I'm not even offended.

Wait.

So you don't spend hours demanding she define spider in all its form and then complain she used the wrong word about how spiders make her feel?

What new spore of madness is this?

 

[Bedrockgames]

I strongly disagree. Psychological, emotional, and cultural violence are real violence, and quite the contrary from “watering down the term” by describing them as such, you downplay the severity of those forms of violence by refusing to call them what they are.

I strongly disagree too. This argument just doesn't hold water I think. These things can all be bad, they can also use and include violence. But taking horrible things, that aren't violent, but still horrible, and labeling them violent, seriously clouds these issues.

 

[CleverNickName]

Yes, I care less about people I might never meet than I do the people I'm gaming with at my table. Don't get me wrong, I harbor goodwill towards people in general so I wish them well. But as a game developer, if I'm working on creating a villainous faction of mind controlling spiders, I'm not going to be the least bit concerned that arachnophobes might have a hard time participating in the game. If someone tells me they suffer from arachnophobia I'm not going to doubt them. But at the same time, I don't feel any obligation to cater to their needs. Maybe the game with a villainous faction of mind controlling spiders isn't the game for them. It's okay to make a game that isn't for everyone. (That's as a game developer. As a GM, I had a player at my table uncomfortable with spiders and when I found out I removed spiders from the game.)

I'm following you, and I agree. Now instead of arachnophobia, how about something a little more closer to the topic at hand. Would you still have that level of concern about a product that reinforces harmful racial stereotypes or misogyny? Would you be just as comfortable with having those elements in your game?

I'd like to think that the answer would be a firm "well of course not" but... well... (gestures at the thread)

 

[Vaalingrade]

I'm following you, and I agree. Now instead of arachnophobia, how about something a little more closer to the topic at hand. Would you still have that level of concern about a product that reinforces harmful racial stereotypes or misogyny? Would you be just as comfortable with having those elements in your game?

I'd like to think that the answer would be a firm "well of course not" but... well... (gestures at the thread)

Well hold on there, friend.

We haven't even started litigating 'reinforces' or 'product'. We'll have to conveniently ignore the racism and misogyny until we settle these important questions.

 

[Thunderfoot]

So if you are a game developer, you expand that into its broadest terms. The people at your table are now the people in your town, the people in your country. Do you care about them any less? Is it really so inconvenient for you, game developer, to consider those in your audience who might be traumatized by what you produce? Of course you can't account for every possible traumatic experience that every person might carry--but you can choose to believe those who speak up about them, and make provisions.

Sorry, no... If you start to cater to each and every little group we are reduced to on-disclosed humi oid and non-gluten, soy-free, low-carb, vegan casserole.... There comes a point where a CONSUMER has to take responsibility for their own issues(yes I used issues) and realize no it is NOT my problem. I'm not saying publishers should suddenly fill their pages with misogynistic, homo-phobic, racialy charged, overtly sexual, child stabbing, sheep raping badness... Devil's Advocate... What about those that are offended by your particular cause de' jour? Are their concerns any less than yours?

There was a phrase we used in the military.. Suck it up and drive on. It doesn't mean give-up, neither does it mean don't fight the fight where someone is obviously making a 'trolling', 'inflammatory' or 'charged' statement. (ie making a group of religious crusaders that wear white robes and hoods and set religious iconography on fire as a positive hero group named the Kul Klock Klangs in your new campaign setting is probably NOT very smart, or subtle). What it does mean is that you must take responsibility for your own misery and either get past it or suffer. And if 99% of the people in the world say the sky is blue and you being colorblind say you are offfended because its obviously grey... Suck it up Buttercup, because while I feel sorry for your condition, I'm not going to start calling the sky non-discriminatory shade.