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

[iserith]

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?

Agreed. I think it's just fine to tell someone "You know, nothing personal, but this probably isn't the game for you." It may not be what they want to hear, but it's at least honest and spares them any issues in the game.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Bawylie]

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

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.

There is an essential element of empathy that I can't find in your post; the idea that a person believes that a weakness is a "trump card" and is trying to ruin your enjoyment. I haven't found that. The whole Rawl's Veil of Ignorance, man. That could be, and, in other contexts, might be me. People just want to game and have fun, and if I can help them by making some de minimis change like "no spiders," that's cool by me.

Just my opinion.

I have no interest in empathy policing, but I do try to accommodate reasonable interests and aversions, generally. If that somehow turns into a kind of de facto edit/censor power over game content, then I likely have a problem to work out with that player.

 

[Celebrim]

Just going to say this once-

If someone says, after carefully reading and considering your opinion, that they disagree with you ... it is perhaps best not to say that ... no, really, they 100% agree with you.

I have found that to be a useful rule in most of my dealing with people. Even more useful when talking to my spouse.

Regardless of the utility you have found in your conversations, what I frequently discover is that I get all these people saying how much they disagree with me, and then follow up that statement or thesis with a bunch of things that I do not in fact disagree with.

Your examples are spot on to what I'm trying to communicate.

I'm not going to give you any ultimatums, but I find it ironic you are going to police me about polite conversation when you open up yours with "Just going to say this once-". I could quibble with tons of other ways you write, for example I consider the phrase "just my opinion" vaguely insulting, but I'm not actually interested in tone policing or getting into a lecture on how you ought to write.

If it makes you feel better to think of my response in this manner, then I'll happily reword my response. If in fact you disagree with me, you have done absolutely nothing to make it clear why you disagree with me. And as long as we are talking pet peeves, one of my biggest pet peeves is someone stating "You are wrong!" and then providing a whole list of reasons why that I don't actually disagree with. Whether it is conscious or unconscious behavior, I consider this well poisoning. But again, do we really want to go there, looking for reasons to be offended?

 

[iserith]

But again, do we really want to go there, looking for reasons to be offended?

*repeatedly and urgently taps the index card with an "X" on it*

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Honestly this thread just reinforces my lack of desire to play RPG's with random people. I don't care to deal with the "issues" of people at the gaming table. Sure I get it that people don't want graphic descriptions of child abuse, rape, etc, most don't and I don't have that in my games. But tiptoeing around someone's litany of PTSD conditions...no thanks.

Reminds me of one of the dudes I game with and he uses D&D as a personal power trip since he has no power at all in his life due to endless bad choices he has made. But in D&D he can kick butt and be the big man! He gets whiny when things go wrong, or the dice are angry, or they run into something that they need to run from to avoid dying. Its tiring to deal with, but he's my brother and I'm kind of stuck with him. And I make a point of needling him when he gets pissy.

Though the more I think of it I suppose its more of a situation where I don't mind addressing someones issues as long as it isn't a drag on my fun. I'm selfish I guess but I'd rather not play than play a game I have to be tiptoeing around stuff in as I suck as self censoring.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Lanefan]

If you don't have a reasonably thick skin you'll probably not last long at my table.

- Pretty much anything goes for language.
- We don't often get into deep descriptions of gore etc. but once in a while it'll happen.
- Violence is fair game.
- Slavery is fair game (as evidenced by a famous post-combat quote from one PC whose pre-adventuring background was as a slaver: "Stop taking prisoners and start taking inventory!").
- PvP is fair game as long as it stays in character.
- Sex, romance, jealousy, etc. are all fair game; though we don't usually go into the intimate details of the sex.
- Violently-forced sex doesn't happen; and is perhaps the only place we really don't go.
- Non-violently forced sex (e.g. via charm or love potion or whatever) is - somewhat surprisingly now I think about it, given my players' social views - usually OK; including one instance where during a fierce PvP fight the party's PC Bard charmed both main combatants and then used Suggestion on each that they make love, not war.... (the Bard then had to go into hiding the next day once these two PCs realized what had happened, though their argument ended as now they had a common enemy!)

EDIT: and as for the original question, you're warned what you're in for on joining and after that it's on you to tell me if you think I've crossed a line.

Lan-"yeah my game is the 'wild west' of gaming - and roaring good fun, too"-efan

 

[Henry]

If anything, all this reinforces is the need for at the very least discussing a basic social contract before game #1 if dealing with any group, established or not.

 

[Staccat0]

You can count me as one of the ones with the negative reaction, as I'd never allow that at my table. For one, there's no justification given when the card is pulled whether this is something they just don't like or if it's something they're unable to deal with. Additionally, it forms this awkward scenario where the DM has to figure out how to transition to a non-contentious scene while also not wrapping up the current one, and if for whatever reason it was to be a recurring theme, then now the plot grinds to a halt.
Especially with the OP's example of a disease, if you're THAT determined to avoid the topic then it's something you need to bring front and center to the DM before play ever starts and find out if he/she is on board or not. Having a card that can derail things at a moments notice for any number of topics sounds like a recipe for failure to me.

That's fine. It's pretty common at Con games and I've never heard of someone invoking it in bad faith. I'm sure it happens, because plenty of people are selfish but for me the potential cost outweighs the overall benefit, YMMV. At the end of the day, nothing in my games is too precious that I'd be willing to make someone force me to monologue about something that makes them feel uncomfortable. I've played with DMs from Matt Mercer all the way down to pothead teens and I've honestly never played in a game that was so terribly engrossing, haha. Maybe I'm just unlucky. I'll definitely never force you to play at my table, but until you do please forgive me for not counting you among the people I ave played with, haha.