@arkandel said in Sensitivity in gaming:
I do admit it's surprising to see it spark 'is Arkandel evil?' tangents but here we are.
... you know which website you're on, right? Here people are either entirely good, or entirely evil. We don't do nuance and context here.
To be fair, it's not just finger pointing and name calling. There are also cat gifs.
@greenflashlight said in Sensitivity in gaming:
I am hard-pressed to think of a single circumstance in which one person can say, "Please don't hurt me," and a second can reply, "That places an undue burden on my ability to play make-believe," without that second person deeply sucking as a human being.
You've never played with Spider?
People use claims of traumas to try and tip the story away from situations that would disadvantage their characters. I think being skeptical is perfectly reasonable, and my general reaction to that is to give players a 'graceful out' to the story if they do not wanna participate.
I do not change the story unless there is a group consensus about it. I, and I'm sure a few others in this thread given some of the previous answers, have been burned by this as a manipulation tactic too many times now.
It might sound cold, ultimately I agree with @Warma-Sheen that it's ultimately up to the player with the issue to avoid the thing they have issues with, and like @Lotherio, the theme and genre of the thing you're playing should be telling about what content you should expect to see come up. (Naturally, anything that would be outside the norm should get a content warning, but I am not going to put a 'extreme violence and gore' warning on every Werewolf scene I run. That is pretty much just the default.)
So like -- yeah. Being aware of what limits others have expressed is good, but I don't think it's the GM's responsibility to try and keep track of everyone's preferences and try to create something that fits within all of those -- especially not if you're going to go into the level of detail that @Carma suggests with that sheet. That's a good tool for introspection on what you are and are not good with, not something that I would ever suggest you expect someone else to keep track of.
Racism isn't Tinkerbell. It doesn't need you to believe in it for it to exist.
I fail to see what is so difficult about giving your players a warning before running a scene with common triggers involved. I do every time and it hasn’t been immersion breaking or a hassle at all. It just seems to me to be common courtesy since my goal is for people to have fun not relive past trauma.
@derp Thank you for stating it so baldly.
@derp said in Sensitivity in gaming:
I don't think it's the GM's responsibility to try and keep track of everyone's preferences
That's where I fall on the matter. As a GM, that is frankly not a responsibility I'm comfortable taking on, and I don't think it's fair to try to make other people responsible for your mental health.
That said, I think that there's a middle ground between "any player can red card an entire scene at any time for their own comfort" and "too bad if you're uncomfortable, suck it up or leave".
Players should cooperate to find the best solution on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes that might mean I bow out of a scene I'm uncomfortable with so that the others can keep playing. Sometimes that might mean we collectively agree to FTB or gloss over some squicky bits so I can keep playing. It just depends.
I do think it's a good idea for games to provide some general guidance on what sort of content can be expected, and what sort you might want to provide a content warning for. But those are just structures to guide people, not a replacement for good communication.
One of the things that caught my attention in the original video was a DM's thoughts in a forum whose community seemed to otherwise certainly care about offending others.
On that post she expressed the concern that she can't always afford the time to do a deep dive in all of the material presented in her campaigns. She could handle the broad strokes of a historic campaign set in the Middle Ages for example but she might misrepresent the sides of a conflict, miss context on wars or even massacres that took place around that time (they happened a lot!) unless she did a lot of footwork. She said something like "at some point it feels like work, and I already have one of those".
I think it's fair to expect players joining - for example - a Vampire game set in the Balkans around 1200 to be prepared for some dark themes, and not expect the game runner to be familiar with every injustice committed at the time. On the other hand it's reasonable to expect the GM (or STs) to not fixate on the victimization of minorities to the point of turning them into spectacles either, at least without warnings offered well ahead of time.
@greenflashlight said in Sensitivity in gaming:
@derp Thank you for stating it so baldly.
I'm a big believer in honest communication.
I do not think it's realistic for a prp runner or staffer at a medium to large game to keep track of individual triggers. Some people have a social gift for doing so, but it doesn't come naturally for a lot of people.
I do think it harms nothing to give a content disclosure for graphic gore/violence or sexual content (rape, seductive NPCs, detailed descriptions of sexual activity in the background or foreground). I also think its good as a GM to always have a parachute out for a player that is non disruptive as possible either because a lot of unexpected issues can come up whether that's a trigger or needing to bail for a family emergency or a migraine/gutbuster diarrhea/someone has a kid throwing up type of situation. One person bailing shouldn't disrupt the scene as callous as that sounds and I find that genuine people are relieved by that and the problematic people don't pull that shit when they realize it won't deep six everything.
Why a video that includes kind of gross dismissal of trans folks along with other issues, something i suppose i should be prepared to deal with here by now but is nevertheless disappointing, needs to be used to initiate that discussion (which has been initiated many times here and is a good thing to have imo, multiple times) I dunno. I guess it does unintentionally illustrate why its so hard to have real discussions like that on a game though and how easy to slip up and forget known experiences of others.
Hence why I think that its good to have no harm no foul parachutes for any given scene and disclose level of graphicness and common squicks. If someone is using it as a way to escape consequences it can be noted and passed on to deal with by other means, that kind of issue will never be deal with in any given scene anyway.
I hit a trigger of one of my players at a meat-space tabletop game I was running once. Full on straight up triggered her. It was possibly the worst experience of my gaming history, it tanked the game completely, and we never picked a session back up. If I could have a do-over...I wish, wish, wish, wish, REALLY wish we'd had a conversation at the outset of the game for what sorts of things people couldn't handle, but the group I was playing with at the time went LOL a lot about people being "offended" (rather than harmed) by content in "just a game".
I felt so small, like such a jerk, like a terrible person, because while it was all in good fun, it was directly my words that had that impact on her and it was awful.
ETA: I cannot overstate how awful it is to be engaged with somebody's trauma like this and KNOW that you're the one that instigated what's going on. Save yourself this trouble and communicate potentially sticky shit BEFORE you get into it. I knew the content was problematic in general, but my players loved the twisted/dark stuff, and it was not any worse than any of the rest of it (was tamer, really) EXCEPT that it related to actual trauma somebody had personally dealt with.
Was it my job to communicate first and be aware of this? I mean, probably not in the strictest of senses. Would it have saved my table and a lot of heartache? Absolutely.
Would I have rather had my players laugh AT me for having the conversation, than upset one of them like this? yes. yes. yes. a million times yes. They're gonna laugh at me and my funny voices anyway.
I think there are some valid arguments made in the video. There is a point where being sensitive tips over into the death of creativity, and the end result is that the only thing you're either allowed to or feel comfortable writing about is your own little bubble. I think that would be unfortunate. You can't please everybody, nor can you avoid offending somebody.
People from the same background can have vastly different trigger points. Minority populations can have different views than their ethnic majority cousins, for example re: appropriation, where a minority population might be possessive about their identifiers, while the same ethnicity while having the majority viewpoint are proud to see their cultural identifiers adopted by others. The Chinese Cheongsam dress is an example of this. I remember reading a while back @Ganymede giving a great dissection of its history and how its use comes off to them.
Where is the line? I don't know. Its probably quite fluid. Trying to be respectful is always good, but I do think there's only so much you can reasonably expect others to research and consider, unless you prefer that the only settings and characters we see are exactly who we are in real life.
Anyhow, I hope watching this video isn't going to get me more ben shapiro videos in my youtube stream. Because they're the worst. All I wanted was to listen to Joe Rogan talk about some MMA stuff, not go down the rabbit hole of idiocy.
@derp said in Sensitivity in gaming:
People use claims of traumas to try and tip the story away from situations that would disadvantage their characters. I think being skeptical is perfectly reasonable, and my general reaction to that is to give players a 'graceful out' to the story if they do not wanna participate.
This is where I sit. If I am running a scene that someone wants out of, that's cool. I'm not going to force anyone to re-live trauma because I want to tell a story.
I do not change the story unless there is a group consensus about it. I, and I'm sure a few others in this thread given some of the previous answers, have been burned by this as a manipulation tactic too many times now.
And this is the result. It is unlikely that I will pause or change a story for any one player unless the other players are okay with it.
That said, if there were a viewable form like the one Carma presented for players or PCs, I don't think it is unreasonable for a GM to look at who's attending an event and tailoring a story or uninviting certain folks based on the intended content. The purpose of this sort of vetting, in my opinion, is to avoid harming people, not necessarily changing stories to accommodate.
Of course, if the participants are all squicked out by the story to be told, then it might be a wise idea for the GM to change the story if they want to run it.
@lordbelh said in Sensitivity in gaming:
There is a point where being sensitive tips over into the death of creativity, and the end result is that the only thing you're either allowed to or feel comfortable writing about is your own little bubble. I think that would be unfortunate.
While this may be true as a principle, I think it is false in practice.
As a professional writer -- lawyers should treat writing as their profession -- one of the tenets is to tell a story that can reach and compel one's audience. If my story offends a jury, my client is fucked. In storytelling for RPGs, the same tenet holds true: you should be writing stories for your audience, which is your gaming group.
If a gaming group doesn't like a particular subject, then the tenet should compel their GM to alter the story. But that said, the opinions of one do not always reflect the opinions of all, so the tenet compels a GM to continue with the story if only a small portion of the group wants to leave it.
Where the argument falls apart in application here is that a GM who tells stories their audience dislikes is not going to be a GM for very long. Also, the analogy between being a GM and an author falls apart easily and quickly given the proximity between the two to their audience. If you want to write a squicky story, go for it; if you want people to participate in that story, you should be mindful of what goes too far.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
So, let's say we sit down to have a plot, and my plot is the investigation about a murdered kid. One of my players is genuinely upset by violence to children, particularly of the sort that we're looking at. They let me know this two seconds before "game on".
If I can substitute a fully-grown cousin instead of somebody's kid without it materially impacting my plan / ruining the evening, there's really no reason for me to not do it.
If it can't be changed without ruining the whole night (clues and motivations and things don't make sense, whatever), then we work together to give the player a comfortable exit and then we go on with the original plan.
#1 doesn't hurt me. It doesn't hurt my other players. #2 isn't bad, either -- it sucks for the traumatized person, but I would so rather sit a night out without my friends hating me for it (or feeling like jerks for it!!) than try and stumble through this sort of mindfield.
@ganymede Well. I can't say I disagree with any of that. My point wasn't that you shouldn't consider others' opinions. Only that at some point I think it can become counter productive. That line's fluid, and changes regards go circumstances, with the caveat that at some point you're pretty much always in the wrong regardless of who your audience is, even if they cheer you on.
lol YIKES
@lordbelh said in Sensitivity in gaming:
My point wasn't that you shouldn't consider others' opinions. Only that at some point I think it can become counter productive. That line's fluid, and changes regards go circumstances, with the caveat that at some point you're pretty much always in the wrong regardless of who your audience is, even if they cheer you on.
In my line of work, I have become mostly callous to: (1) others' opinions; and (2) always being in the wrong.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
@ganymede said in Sensitivity in gaming:
In my line of work, I have become mostly callous to: (1) others' opinions; and (2) always being in the wrong.
This. All of this.
ETA: I had a friend who wanted to do legal work shadow me and my attorney for a day. After all the client meetings and various research and writing work was done, his response was:
"Jesus, now I get why you're so fucking soulless."
Which was kind of endearing, believe it or not.
This thread comes from a place of like -- gushing empathy, but there is an entire other side of the population that learn to professionally disconnect from emotional reactions and making decisions based on how people feel.
Racism isn't Tinkerbell. It doesn't need you to believe in it for it to exist.
What exactly requires "gushing empathy" here?
@saosmash said in Sensitivity in gaming:
What exactly requires "gushing empathy" here?
It's just another thing that incels and Ben Shapiro want, fear, and will never have.
And if you as a GM really do not give a shit about any player triggers or whatever, no matter what, fair enough. But it really doesn't harm anything for you to say "if you come to one of my scenes you get what you get and I don't care to hear if its something you find you don't want to play out or be notified of any discomfort, it won't change anything anyway."
While I don't have a "fuck you and any sensibilities you might have, keep them to yourself" disclaimer, I have absolutely told people that the scene will go on even if there's a dropout (usually around idling times), there will be graphic violence (i don't do graphic sensual themes unless the players are known anymore), ect. And then I follow through.
I find the vast majority of people will self select out if they have an issue with my parameters, and if someone throws a fit, then they are just removed. Having the policy of removal rather than stoppage and realistic disclosure has allowed me to have pretty no holds barred storytelling (there's really only one subject that is a no go for me, but its usually a non issue on any mush I care to play) when I've wanted to do an intense or graphic story. (Which isn't all the time.)
But I guess that's easier for me since I do tend to note other folks' prefs/remember discussions about what they like/don't and there are certain people i will not include in intense scenes even if they had said its okay, because its not worth the risk imo. I would say thats impossible to expect or do for strangers or people without much interaction to know. Its just not a realistic expectation to have that people who do not know you are going to deduce what you don't want, or that you can read people accurately most of the time.
To me its all about the risk I'm willing to take on as a storyteller for aggravation or ooc drama or hurt. I tend to save the intensity until I know that its less likely to cause upset, because even if I don't particularly care for that person, it is an energy suck that is not fun if i guess wrong.
@arkandel said in Sensitivity in gaming:
I do admit it's surprising to see it spark 'is Arkandel evil?' tangents but here we are.
... you know which website you're on, right? Here people are either entirely good, or entirely evil. We don't do nuance and context here.
