What are the DM's obligations of disclosure for sensitive game material? What is "sensitive" game material?

[Michael Silverbane]

I am typically pretty up front with people that I'm going to be spending any amount of time with outside of public, to let them know that I do not self censor in private, and that if they have any issues, that they would most likely be happier if they were not to associate with me.

It is unfortunate that people on both 'sides' of this issue seem to feel the need to ascribe some mental handicap to those with whom they disagree. Just because someone finds a topic distasteful or uncomfortable, that doesn't mean that they are somehow lesser. And likewise, those that are comfortable with topics that others find abhorrent are not somehow deficient because of it.

People have different lines as to what is and is not acceptable for discussion. Where those lines differ dramatically, it is okay for people to go their separate ways. No animosity need be involved.

 

[Celebrim]

Role Playing, before it became a term for a sort of game, was most commonly used to refer to a form of organized psychotherapy. One thing I actually refuse to do as a GM running games meant for entertainment is be anyone's therapist. If it really is the case that you have PTSD and I trigger that inadvertently, I don't really consider that my fault. I greatly sympathize with your situation, but if the game system determines that as a result of a failed horror check, a character has a heart attack and dies, and it turns out that your parent died of a heart attack in front you as a child and suddenly this is triggering horrible memories or even flashbacks for you - I adamantly insist that this is not my fault and I did not have to foresee that. Moreover, I adamantly insist that if you have some sort of emotional issue, that you not be using my table to work out those issues unless you can do it in such a way that it doesn't interfere with the enjoyment of a game which, at it's heart is meant to be a recreational activity. If it turns out you have PTSD because of some traumatic experience, I can totally empathize with that. If it turns out you are phobic of spiders or dogs or the number 13, well honestly, that's tough but that's not really my problem. I don't think that it means that that I'm under some sort of moral obligation to research ahead of time all the potential mental illnesses you may be suffering from and make an allowance for that. Frankly, I don't want you to disclose those to me up front because I don't want my first impression of you to be, "The person suffering from all that trauma." Rather, you are under an obligation regardless of your emotionally traumatic past, your war experiences, you childhood abuse, or whatever your particular peculiarities are to handle those personal issues in a way that doesn't disturb, disrupt, or frighten the group. We've all got hurts and pains in our past, and some more than others, but this is a game.

Period. Nonnegotiable. No matter how much sympathy I might have for that, this is a freaking game. Everyone at the table has the reasonable expectation that you aren't going to suffer panic attacks or hallucinations or demonstrate anger management issues as a result of playing it, and everyone at the table has the reasonable expectation that unless some 'trigger' really comes to the level of panic attacks or hallucinations for you, that you aren't going to get super distraught by something that happens in the game and make mountains out of molehills. If in fact you do this, IMO it is not me or the other characters that have made the table a non-safe place, but rather it is you that have. Any apologies would not be owed primarily to you, but by you to the rest of the table. I would hope that we could all be mature about your emotional problems and sympathize with the reasons why, but whatever the issue the moment you start treating me like the bad guy because you have emotional problems you are struggling with and I have to worry about violent acts or you otherwise trying to avenge yourself on me it's you making me feel unsafe.

On the exact opposite end of that spectrum, as your GM I promise not to be working out any social or emotional dysfunction I might have at the table as a goal of play. You sure as heck as a player don't need to learn about whatever problems I have in my past, whatever hangups I have, or be made to endure some sort of self-therapy that I'm engaging in rather than running an enjoyable game. I implicitly promise to not be insane.

I do understand some people have gone to conventions and found out that the person running the game wasn't actually sane, and that does sound like a horrible experience, but if encountering an insane person while gaming damaged you so much emotionally that you now are triggered regularly by gaming perhaps you should just leave gaming.

Tangentially to all of that, for adults, I generally run a game that is PG-13. There is a lot of mature content in my games, but it tends to be handled clinically or by suggestion rather than dwelled on as a graphic act. Sexuality, if it encroaches on the play, is always handled by suggestion with fade to black. Graphic violence usually happens off screen. But pretty much, I expect that everyone at the table that could watch a PG-13 superhero movie like say 'Wonder Woman' or a rated R war movie that deals frankly with the horrors of war like say 'Saving Private Ryan' should be able handle anything that comes up at the table. Acts of depravity by PC's are not forbidden per se, but if they were to become routine then I'd start to really worry about the mental health of the player, and at the very least talk to them privately about toning it down. Foul language is expected to be rare and to pass the 'Gone with the Wind Test' or 'Princess Bride' test of being necessary to the scene. If you want to play a character that for in game reasons 'cusses like a sailor', then you are expected to use in game oaths that are largely meaningless or even comic in the real world.

I say 'tangentially to all that', because I actually consider that a wholly separate subject, which I suspect some will be baffled by. But in fact I don't think the reason you tone down violence, sexuality, profanity or subjects like that has in fact anything to do with whether the persons at the table are 'strong enough to handle it' or anything of that sort. In the proper context, I can discuss any of that with frankness. It's not subject matter too intense for my delicate ears, nor really do I think any adult should treat it as too much for their delicacy. The delicate handling of it has nothing to do with that, and to borrow a word misued in another thread, has to do with the sacred.

When running the game for younger players, the content is handled accordingly. The movie version of a game for 12 year olds should be no worse than PG, and preferably on the lighter end of the PG scale. The movie version of a game for 6 year olds or 8 year olds should be rated G, and any violation of that should be primarily for 'intense situations' on the lines of a movie like 'Coraline' where the rating is owed to be scary and not anything that actually happens on screen. And even then, that should be done in consideration of the kid's ability to handle the macabre and sinister.

In short, I don't think that the GM is necessarily under any obligation to address or disclose specific 'sensitive content'. The GM probably has some obligation to state up front the sort of game that is being run, whether 'horror' or 'fantasy' or whatever, and the GM has some lesser obligation to explain to adults roughly where he's comfortable with the lines being drawn with respect to play, for which I find the movie rating system ideal.

The GM has probably a stronger obligation to do this when he is running an organized game for strangers. And I personally would put the onus on this on the convention organizers to make sure that they have some sort of content disclosure requirements similar to what is used in comics or movies or other media so that their customers can make informed choices, and so that they have the opportunity to potentially catch anyone running a table that might be doing something that doesn't reflect well on the community or on their convention. But I wouldn't expect the convention organizers to extend that content disclosure requirements out to the level of "has scenes with beer consumed in a tavern, barking dogs, heart attacks, and galley slaves".

I suspect a lot of people will think this is a really callous stand and that this means I'm wholly lacking in empathy. I'm not. If your phobic of spiders, I know what it means to be afraid. I can sympathize with that. But that doesn't mean you get to erase spiders from the imagined world. At best it means that if a spider comes into the game, I'll try to handle it clinically in the way I would any other tough subject out of respect for your weakness. Fundamentally though however sympathetic I am, you don't get use your weaknesses to take control of the game. Your weakness isn't a trump card that overrides every other consideration, and especially the enjoyment of everyone else at the table. If you are so phobic of spiders that the mere mention of them makes it impossible for you to play a game, that's something you need to work on, but not at my table. There are six or eight other players at the table that don't have that problem and aren't bringing that problem to the table.

 

[Celebrim]

A person can both be emotionally healthy and not want to engage with certain things in the game they are playing.

I would even go so far to say that not having any limits is a sign of being emotionally unhealthy.

I fully concur with this.

I also think that I don't need to implicitly state that my table contract assumes everyone is emotionally healthy adults when I'm playing with adults, nor do I think I need to explore the boundaries of my player's emotional health. Nor do I think it necessary to state that if it turns out your aren't emotionally healthy, it's you that are asking for allowances and not me.

 

[seebs]

I fully concur with this.

I also think that I don't need to implicitly state that my table contract assumes everyone is emotionally healthy adults when I'm playing with adults, nor do I think I need to explore the boundaries of my player's emotional health. Nor do I think it necessary to state that if it turns out your aren't emotionally healthy, it's you that are asking for allowances and not me.

I would think that "everyone is emotionally healthy" is a thing you should state explicitly in your table contract, or just not do. I know a lot more people who have at least one mental health problem than I do people with none at all. It's like physical health, really. Do I actually know anyone who doesn't need glasses, doesn't have any joint problems or high blood pressure or Mysterious Problem That We're Still Trying To Figure Out? I don't think I do. I was going to say I knew one, but then I remembered the "every so often has constant stomach pain for a day or two, doctors have no ideas but have suggested avoiding ibuprofen while they do more research" thing.

Now, lots of people are probably healthy enough, most of the time. But if you're just taking it for granted that no one in a group of five or six adults has at least one severe trauma lurking in their past, that's just not consistent with observable reality.

And yes, the people with trauma are asking for allowances. That's because they're the ones who need them. It's like the way the people with wheelchairs are asking for accommodations, not the people who don't want to install wheelchair ramps. But we generally have an understanding that we get better results when reasonable accommodations are a thing.

 

[Celebrim]

I would think that "everyone is emotionally healthy" is a thing you should state explicitly in your table contract...

That sounds insane to me. If a table contract looks like that, it's quickly going to resemble a multipage legal consent form. People laugh (usually good naturedly) at my lengthy house rules, but if I'm up front with a social contract that goes into details like that, I'd fully expect the players to be justified in walking away slowly and then fleeing as soon as they got around the corner.

I know a lot more people who have at least one mental health problem than I do people with none at all.

That we are all crazy to one extent or another is not news to me. But I still insist that with most people, my need to know about there problems and there need to disclose them is minimal, and that I can enjoy a warm friendship with them for years before they would ever need to or want to disclose their struggles to me. In the case of friendship that mostly involves meeting to game, I'd expect that length of time to be indefinite.

Now, lots of people are probably healthy enough, most of the time. But if you're just taking it for granted that no one in a group of five or six adults has at least one severe trauma lurking in their past, that's just not consistent with observable reality.

On the contrary, I take it for granted that everyone probably has had some sort of trauma in their past and some sort of problems. It's precisely because of that that if it ever occurred at my table that someone lost control, that I'd consider it on them and not me.

And yes, the people with trauma are asking for allowances. That's because they're the ones who need them. It's like the way the people with wheelchairs are asking for accommodations, not the people who don't want to install wheelchair ramps. But we generally have an understanding that we get better results when reasonable accommodations are a thing.

I have two response to that. First, since we all have trauma, we all need the same allowances that I'm extending in the first place. Secondly, even if you need special allowances, it's not at all clear that we get better results when we offer reasonable accommodations nor is it at all clear what reasonable accommodations mean. It's pretty easy to show for example that for a give level of accommodation, depending on size of the facility, or the number of parking spaces, there is a minimum below which any accommodation is not actually reasonable. A facility with 4 or 5 parking places if it accommodates one as handicapped parking in fact disaccomodates more people that it ever helps. Moreover, it's also notable that the good intentioned handicapped parking laws are abused far more often that they are actually observed with the original intent. It requires very little critical observation to note that a great many people acquire handicapped tags as a convenience rather than a necessity, because they can enjoy that accommodation as a privilege. They are quite capable of walking the extra 100 feet on their own if they are required to. They don't actually have the severe handicaps that those spaces were intended to accommodate.

And ironically, this selfish behavior might actually be good for society on some level, since it returns the parking lot to Parato efficiency most of the time, since the level of accommodation normally vastly exceeds the need for it. However, I question whether the people enjoying accommodation as a privilege are actually helping themselves rather than harming themselves.

 

[seebs]

That sounds insane to me. If a table contract looks like that, it's quickly going to resemble a multipage legal consent form. People laugh (usually good naturedly) at my lengthy house rules, but if I'm up front with a social contract that goes into details like that, I'd fully expect the players to be justified in walking away slowly and then fleeing as soon as they got around the corner.

"I just assume everyone will be emotionally healthy" is a pretty unusual thing, usually. Most people I know assume that at least some people are not emotionally healthy, and will need accommodations, and will be willing to make those accommodations. You've described a standard which specifically rules out ever changing things just because someone would be hurt by it, unless you think "emotionally healthy" people would be hurt by it. (And unless you've got a psych degree you haven't mentioned, or comparable experience, I'm not sure how qualified you are to make the evaluation.)

That we are all crazy to one extent or another is not news to me. But I still insist that with most people, my need to know about there problems and there need to disclose them is minimal, and that I can enjoy a warm friendship with them for years before they would ever need to or want to disclose their struggles to me. In the case of friendship that mostly involves meeting to game, I'd expect that length of time to be indefinite.

This expectation is inconsistent with the observed fact that this thread alone is full of examples of people being distressed by things that people thought were totally reasonable in games. I mean, we have actual examples of gaming groups thinking it's totally reasonable to expect someone to roleplay out their character being raped. That seems to me to suggest that the question of whether or where there should be boundaries is probably one that merits discussion at some level.

Roleplaying games, unlike most other hobbies, tend to involve some highly personal emotional reactions.

On the contrary, I take it for granted that everyone probably has had some sort of trauma in their past and some sort of problems. It's precisely because of that that if it ever occurred at my table that someone lost control, that I'd consider it on them and not me.

See, I think this is where we diverge. I usually consider people I game with to be friends. I usually care whether my friends are hurt by my actions. I don't try to assign blame or determine whether it's "on me", because assigning blame is what you do when you want to hurt people and get away with it. But I would prefer to avoid hurting them in the first place.

I have two response to that. First, since we all have trauma, we all need the same allowances that I'm extending in the first place.

You just made it pretty clear that you're not extending allowances at all.

Secondly, even if you need special allowances, it's not at all clear that we get better results when we offer reasonable accommodations nor is it at all clear what reasonable accommodations mean. It's pretty easy to show for example that for a give level of accommodation, depending on size of the facility, or the number of parking spaces, there is a minimum below which any accommodation is not actually reasonable. A facility with 4 or 5 parking places if it accommodates one as handicapped parking in fact disaccomodates more people that it ever helps. Moreover, it's also notable that the good intentioned handicapped parking laws are abused far more often that they are actually observed with the original intent. It requires very little critical observation to note that a great many people acq

I have seen a lot of people claim that handicapped parking laws are "abused" more than they're observed. I have never seen evidence for this, and I know that I have seen dozens of cases where someone asserted that something was an abuse, but in fact it was not. Not all disabilities are extremely obvious; it's quite possible for someone to be able to walk without a visible accommodation, but not to walk far without it, for instance.

... I note that you went ahead and said exactly the thing, so I was right that I didn't need to wait for you to finish making the argument to respond to it. Yes, I'm familiar with those claims, they're based on people not understanding how disabilities work. It's really easy to not be the one experiencing the pain and say "nah that's just a convenience thing".

Also consider that in some cases, it's perfectly reasonable to say "yeah, we do not wish to run a game like that". It's a lot better to tell someone up front that you're not willing to take a thing off the table than to have them get blind-sided by it. Thus, explicitly stating "we are not going to avoid any topics just because some people might find them upsetting" saves you time and actually makes things observably better. Thus my suggestion that you say the thing explicitly. That way, you avoid hurting people even if you don't wish to change to accommodate their needs.

And that's fine! I don't like to have to filter my sense of humor, so I made a special channel called "deaddove" on my Discord and I post the stuff that people might find upsetting there, and some people opt in, and some people don't. No one is harmed by this, everyone's happier. If I'm running a game, and I think of a quip that's too dark for some players, I rot13 it and people can decrypt or not as they see fit. No hardship, everyone's happier.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Bawylie]

Out of curiosity, what do you think about sensitive topics presented in an ironic way or as a parody that criticizes the topic? As a quick example, what if an NPC is a racist or sexist (in a fantasy context) and is obviously a buffoon or otherwise a complete jerk in a way that essentially lambastes racism or sexism?

I think portraying villains as villainous is fair game*.

*caveats for respecting the expressed wishes of individual players at your table.

 

[Celebrim]

Woah. So, on this last paragraph I excerpted. There a lot of ... not very neutral language, and I don't really agree with it.

No, you actually perfectly agree with it. You prove that by example.

Since the phrase "reasonable accommodations" has come up, I will use that, with an emphasis on the first word- reasonable.

As a DM, if someone told me that they had an issue with something .... let's use spiders, since that is your example ... I would certainly see if I could accommodate their concern. Let's take two scenarios-

A. A player's spouse/sibling was killed by a spiderbite a few months ago. The player says, "Hey, I'm not feeling spiders right now." I would definitely remove spiders from the campaign for a while. That seems like a reasonable accommodation.

B. I advertise that I am doing a one-shot Q1 Queen of the Demonweb Pits. Six people show up, we make introductions, get everything ready, and as we start, one person says, "Hey. By the way, I don't want anything involving spiders." Well, at that point, I'd probably have to continue the adventure with 5 people. There is no reasonable accommodation.

The first example has actually occurred in my game. A player's father died, and he asked me to drop to the side a subplot concerning his PC's involvement with his estranged parents until he was ready to continue it. That's a perfectly reasonable request and I accommodated it.

But notice the really important part of your examples is you decided what was reasonable. The person making the request didn't get to decide what was reasonable and force you to observe their demand. You decided in some cases that there was no reasonable accommodation. Request denied. Where is the "essential element of empathy" in your decision? Could it in fact be that whether or not you accede to the request has nothing to do with the empathy you have for it?

 

[seebs]

The first example has actually occurred in my game. A player's father died, and he asked me to drop to the side a subplot concerning his PC's involvement with his estranged parents until he was ready to continue it. That's a perfectly reasonable request and I accommodated it.

This directly contradicts what you have said about assuming everyone is a mature adult and you don't have a reason to change things to deal with their possibly-temporary mental health issues. You're now acknowledging that sometimes you would in fact change a thing based on another player's needs or boundaries.

No one has said "other people get to decide what's reasonable and force you to observe their demand" was a good idea. If you thought that was the argument, you were arguing against something people weren't saying.

The essential element of empathy is in understanding that people could have such concerns, and that it's reasonable to try to find strategies under which people don't get hurt when it could have been easily avoided. That would require, though, explicitly stating that you won't grant accommodations, rather than merely declaring that it's on them if they get hurt or can't deal.