Sensitivity in gaming
-
This video about sensitivity in table-top and video gaming was shared on my Facebook yesterday.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkPUFH9kLfQ
With the disclaimer I don't agree with everything this video discusses or advocates (he cherry-picks extreme interpretations of sensitivity a bit too much for my liking) I do think it merits a discussion.
In your opinion how much effort should game runners (be that for a D&D game or a MUSH) be reasonably expected to put into not offending players? Or if that same question is flipped around, when are a player's demands to not be triggered crossing a line?
What do you think?
- He who takes offense when not intended is a fool. He who takes offense when intended is a greater fool.
-
@arkandel That's quite the topic, yo. Everyone please keep your hands and feet inside the vehicle for the duration of this ride...
I definitely don't think anyone should be trying to offend players, and I doubt most do. Some definitely try to 'shock' players and the methods for doing that can sometimes be triggering. I'm one of those people that think it is the player's responsibility to remove themselves from situations that are triggering - not to expect others to know and refrain certain topics. I generally get a very passionate disagreement to that view when it has been expressed before, but there's been little in my experiences that has swayed me from it. I certainly don't want anyone triggered or to feel anything other than happyfuntimes when playing a game, but I don't think it is everyone else's responsibility to avoid topics (assuming they even know what those topics are) for the benefit of one person.
If, however, players or plot runners are willing to go out of their way to accomodate certain individuals and their triggers then that is awesome and to be applauded. But on a base, general level, I think we all need to take individual responsibility for the games and scenes in which we play - as well as the themes in those games (e.g. if you are triggered by violent things, don't play on games with a dark, violent theme and then expect everyone to stick to sunshine and rainbows around you).
-
In TT games, my group has always vetted a player in with several months of public pay. There is an assumption everyone is open and can honestly say something's a trigger and can we move on. In one fantasy campaign i was running, I went a little over with some of the bad guys and the horror concept. One guy said nope, the group left the area and we avoided it IC, checked on each other OOC and played a fun game to wind down instead of continue the campaign.
On-line, I think the theme/genre should be telling. If I'm playing dark urban horror, a trigger can't be spooky horror. Like no one should be surprised. There could be an over the top moment. A player should speak up and remove from the situation if its a little over the top.
But I think the runner shouldn't push beyond R without some warning. Like I don't want to go in expecting Michael Myers/Halloween level horror (some blood, very little gore) and get like Rob Zombie mixed with the Human Centipede as a surprise twist. Not without a warning from the runner.
Everyone has different levels, OOC communication should go a long ways. I don't think a group of random players should necessarily concede to one at random, but if they're always pushing the same trigger with the one same player at random it seems purposeful/hurtful knowing they didn't like it the 7 other times and doing it over and over is cutting them out of some fun.
-
The only addition I'd make to that is that you can reasonably expect others to respect your boundaries as long as you've made them aware in advance. That's easier and usually more consistent in tabletop, but it's not like it's completely out of order to ask people you MU* with like, "hey, gore and torture should be a no-go please."
But yeah, I'd agree ultimately the onus is on you to leave if you're uncomfortable.
-
@arkandel I want to have fun, and I want the players at my table to have fun. Of course I'm going to be sensitive to their needs and wants from this game we play together - I consider it the bare minimum anyone should expect of a cooperative activity.
Now, a big part of that is communication, and the recognition that sometimes, some people just aren't going to fit well in the same group. The players I play hardcore horror with are a different group than I play light-hearted fantasy adventure with. If something comes up that someone finds unexpectedly icky or unpleasant, then we talk about it. If someone discovers that our desires or styles are just not working, then that's not saying that either one of us are bad, but maybe we don't play the same games, or at least not games the other person is GMing. But part of that is being very open about people being able to bring their discomfort to you and knowing that you aren't going to get angry, or mock them, or try and 'reason them out of it'.
I don't have a lot of squicks in gaming. And I don't mind - and even enjoy - exploring a lot of 'problematic' material in games. But I don't spring those things on my players when I'm GMing without giving a heads up either in the beginning-of-campaign organization, or right before a scene (I particularly do that with descriptions of gore/trauma - just say, hey, does anyone have any issues with X, and then work from there), and if we unexpectedly hit something that a player didn't realize was going to affect them, then we...talk about it like adults and tweak things so that the game is still enjoyable to everyone at the table.
It is not going to ruin a game for a player to say, "Hey, I'm not going to enjoy the game if X is included." I'd much rather tweak a game to not include X, or make sure that the player knows this particular game isn't going to be for them, than have a player miserable at the table but feeling pressured to go along with it.
EDIT: Also, wow, that video is so full of shit, filled with dishonest cherry picking and white boy flailing about how using the pronouns someone prefers is JUST TOO HAAAAAAARD.
-
I'm etching out a horror RPG myself. In addition to straight-up banning certain types of content, I have plans to include a modified version of this as part of a character sheet:
This way, Storytellers know which plots & NPCs your character should be kept away from. If you have a trigger for certain types of abuse, I won't be letting abuse survivor NPCs get close to your character.
I'm planning around limited visibility for PCs as well, as a way of checking OOCly if you're planning on taking a scene down a certain route. I don't want full transparency access for PCs, as that can lead to abuse.
This way, even if something is horrifying, the only way a scene can happen is if everyone in the scene is comfortable and has given their OOC enthusiastic consent to be horrified.
-
This is really awesome.
-
This is a really enragingly bad video & I've deleted it from my watch history because youtube's algorithm already subjects me to too much puerile whining from gamers who think they've been wounded by the existence of perspectives outside their own.
It's just not that hard to communicate with the players you're at the table with, be it a tabletop table or a MUSH table, about their comfort levels.
-
There is an extraordinarily large gap between "harming" and "offending." Exposing someone to a situation, scenario, or other stimuli that prompt the recall of a traumatic experience is different from making people feel confronted by their biases.
The former absolutely requires clear communication and feedback like @carma's post. The latter is an indication the story the table is trying to tell might not be for you.
-
@arkandel said in Sensitivity in gaming:
What do you think?
I think you just linked me a video from fucking Upper Echelon Gaming, who is an annoying prat that is constantly going on about how SJWs are ruining video games.
Is Big Purple (rpg.net) a bunch of gold medalists at the Woke Olympics with their heads stuck so far up their own asses that the lack of oxygen is clearly what is killing their brain cells? Yes. Upper Echelon, though, is not the person you want making that argument.
To your actual question (sorry, I was just a bit flabbergasted that someone actually linked to UEG), be upfront and clear about the themes of your game and it's base background lore. As long as you're clear on those fronts, it's on the player to do their research before joining a game. You can't get angry at Shang because some Karen decided to join without doing the research and gets bent out of sorts at the first PC she comes across being Dicktopus, the Titillating Testicularly Tentacled Treasure.
-
Lockdown keeping you from bathing in SJW blood, @Arkandel? Losing your youth? You need to chum the water this blatantly? Good luck with that. Oh, my kingdom for a way to block you.
Nice to see the others actually caring about the comfort of their compatriots and colleagues, though, and sharing good advice and examples in response. I hope it continues in that vein.
I don't have much to offer, I guess, outside of encouraging anybody and everybody, regardless of pre-determined permissions and whatnot to check in with your gaming partners and participants often if you're veering into anything that could cause stress beyond the norm. I'm another one firmly in the corner of constant affirmative two-way communication, although I'm skeptical of the ability of some of the people in these hobbies to even be able to reasonably judge their own content as triggering or offending their players.
Much easier in a TT situation where you can likely /see/ someone's distress if it comes up than in online text games where this is absent.
-
Before we go assuming @Arkandel is evil, let's all remember that he saw it on Facebook - presumably sans the context regarding the creator - and found it interesting. Not truthful, not accurate, not gospel, but interesting.
He/Him
-
@carma That's really good. wish I had something like this when I first started MUs so many years ago.
-
@arkandel said in Sensitivity in gaming:
In your opinion how much effort should game runners (be that for a D&D game or a MUSH) be reasonably expected to put into not offending players? Or if that same question is flipped around, when are a player's demands to not be triggered crossing a line?
I don't know anyone who wants to not be offended. The people I know want to not be hurt. They want to not have their unhealed wounds torn open by people who don't understand or respect how much trauma hurts to live with. I don't think that's unfair to ask for. I know sometimes people will cross the line because of poor communication, and sometimes even that is enough to destroy the bonds of trust in a person, but in most cases, a heartfelt apology from the person who hurt you is enough to solve it.
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.
If there are genuinely people out there who just want to not be offended, then fine, I guess they're snowflakes or whatever; but I am not prepared to accept their existence on the word of a YouTuber who, at roughly 2:30 into his video, gets angry that there exists a forum site which does not allow people to post Qanon conspiracy theories on their site.
-
I don't think Arkandel is evil, and I find I side with him in any discussion he partakes in more often than I don't side with him. But, come on, just going to UEG's videos section and looking at the first 20 videos shows such gems as The Fall of Society, You Have Been Convicted of Wrongthink, The SJW Mindset Explained, and Everything is GamerGate. A cursory check of the content should tell you "This guy is a tool."
Ceterum autem censeo Carthaginem esse delendam
-
@ominous said in Sensitivity in gaming:
just going to UEG's videos section
Sure, but why would you do that if you disagree with much of the video's contents and simply want to use it to spark discussion, as said in the first post? Especially if you've been linked to it through Facebook, and not found it on Youtube.
"Hey I found this interesting and we should talk about the concepts behind it" is not the same as "this person is totally right and I'm advocating for their views."
-
Yeeeeeah, sorry Arkandel but I'm like... five minutes into that video and I'm going to give myself a migraine from rolling my eyes so hard.
Like, a minute in, he's giving a pitch-perfect recital of the Thermian argument--link to the video that coined the phrase, but for those who don't want to watch a five-minute video, the "Thermian argument" is presenting the fictional in-universe justification for a plot or setting element as a response to critique, as though the speaker was a Thermian from Galaxy Quest. (If you haven't seen Galaxy Quest I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul, and the Thermians are a species of alien who don't understand that fiction exists, so when they have to deal with a conquering warlord coming to exterminate them, they kidnap the actors of a Star Trek expy to save them. Also watch Galaxy Quest it's hilarious and also legitimately the best Star Trek movie ever made.)
Point is: he tries to brush aside criticism of the racial problems with orcs by citing the in-universe explanation of how the orcs are actually elves who'd been tortured and degraded by Morgoth. Someone who knew Tolkien better, though, would know that this was only one of several explanations he toyed with through the years, although it's the closest that's come to a "canonical" answer. Other thoughts included the idea that Morgoth created the orcs as a mockery of Men and Elves, but that ran into the issue that evil, in Tolkien's conception, can only corrupt but not create. Another was that orcs aren't really alive at all, just matter set into motion by Morgoth and Sauron's will, but that has the issue with how they're presented in the books as individuals with personal desires, grudges, and so on. The thing about being corrupted elves is the best one he came up with, but as mentioned, that runs into the issue that corrupted elves should, then, be redeemable.
What all that word word words amounts to, though, is Tolkien trying to reconcile his cosmology and Catholic worldview with what orcs actually are, which is: something that looks like a person only hideous and inherently evil. (The letter mentioned in the video and the article referenced, incidentally, has Tolkien describing the orcs as "squat, broad, flat-nosed, sallow-skinned, with wide mouths and slant eyes: in fact degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types." "Mongol-types," here, being a reference to the archaic racial classifications, Caucasioid, Mongolod, and Negroid. You can tell that orcs are monsters because they look like really ugly Asian people.)
So no, some post-hoc worldbuilding to explain why the degraded and repulsive Mongoloid horde of subhumans are coming to slaughter, enslave, and rape the virtuous Normans and Saxons who stand against them doesn't actually make it stop being some really racist tropes. And then we can get into the D&D presentation of orcs, where they're physically powerful but mentally dim tribal creatures with an inherently savage disposition, lead by chiefs and bolstered by shamans or witch doctors to provide spellcasting ability. Incidentally, Gygax explained to D&D players that killing orc babies was moral behavior because "nits make lice," a word for word quote from when Colonel John Chivington sent the US Army to kill Cheyanne children at Sand Creek, Colorado.
(Oh, hey, and he brings up the Drow, too. The elves who have black skin because they turned evil. Like the Curse of Ham.)
Like, I'm not saying "cancel Tolkien" or "cancel Gygax" (although seriously Gary the fuck), but it's frankly some willful blindness to pretend that the "evil races" in fantasy and D&D don't have some fucked-up relationships to the real world. (This wasn't a discovery made on Tumblr, either. Michael Moorecock touched on a good bit of this in his essay "Starship Stormtroopers" in 1978, and The Iron Dream was written in 1974, with the conceit that it was a classic heroic pulp novel written by Adolph Hitler after his political ambitions didn't work out.)
Okay, back into this... six minutes whining about how someone ate a ban on RPG.net because people were saying to talk to an actual Native American before writing Native Americans into a published setting, and this guy gave a whole thing about how that's hard. Neato.
Two minutes complaining about pronouns. Rock the fuck on.
Okay, cool, and now we're onto PETA... oh he's saying that considering marginalized people who might be in your audience is exactly like PETA talking about how we shouldn't use animal characteristics as insults because he's made the whole argument around a strawman that people are saying that literally no one should ever be offended by anything so "what will the PETA people think" is exactly the same as "is this being racist and will that drive minorities out of my hobby."
Right, fuck this, tapping out.
-
@carma I am really glad to see people coming around to this. I'd set up a similar system for on-wiki preferences that players could set and add notes to as needed, and it was a lot more controversial at that time. Definitely go for it with this.
-
This post is deleted! -
@ominous said in Sensitivity in gaming:
But, come on, just going to UEG's videos section and looking at the first 20 videos shows such gems as The Fall of Society, You Have Been Convicted of Wrongthink, The SJW Mindset Explained, and Everything is GamerGate. A cursory check of the content should tell you "This guy is a tool."
I didn't look at any other videos made by the same creator - in fact I didn't agree with much of what he did have to say (which I said in the original post of this thread). I don't know who this guy is - I follow very few YouTube channels and almost all of them are about WoW, the NBA or ancient history. He's certainly not one of them.
I thought the video would serve as a way to spark a conversation. If I was wrong that's fine. I do admit it's surprising to see it spark 'is Arkandel evil?' tangents but here we are.
- He who takes offense when not intended is a fool. He who takes offense when intended is a greater fool.
