Sensitivity in gaming

Derp

@greenflashlight said in Sensitivity in gaming:

You don't get to tell me what is and is not relevant to my process of trying to extrapolate an answer to a personal question which is not directly addressed by your statements but only prompted by it.

And likewise, you don't get to set up a false dichotomy in which you tell me that my motivation must have been one of two things that only further your ability to start a fight on the matter, when in fact it was neither of those things and the context in which it was delivered matters, rather than your broad generalizations about what my intention must have been.

@tinuviel said in Sensitivity in gaming:

For the record, I wasn't implying that GM's should be mindreaders or that they should go out of their way to cater to every single person.

I mean, you didn't imply anything. You stated it pretty directly, here:

@tinuviel said in Sensitivity in gaming:

Like a film. It's not my responsibility to tell the cinema that I'm triggered by X, it's the cinema's job (by law or regulation in most places) to tell me what I can expect. The same should go for plots and events.

And I disagree that the burden is on your GM in this case. It absolutely is your repsonsibility to tell your GM that you are triggered by X.

Tinuviel

@derp said in Sensitivity in gaming:

@tinuviel said in Sensitivity in gaming:

For the record, I wasn't implying that GM's should be mindreaders or that they should go out of their way to cater to every single person.

I mean, you didn't imply anything. You stated it pretty directly, here:

@tinuviel said in Sensitivity in gaming:

Like a film. It's not my responsibility to tell the cinema that I'm triggered by X, it's the cinema's job (by law or regulation in most places) to tell me what I can expect. The same should go for plots and events.

And I disagree that the burden is on your GM in this case. It absolutely is your repsonsibility to tell your GM that you are triggered by X.

Then yet again we have a fundamental disagreement about reasonable expectations and common decency. So there's very little point in this conversation continuing.

Derp

@tinuviel said in Sensitivity in gaming:

Then yet again we have a fundamental disagreement about reasonable expectations and common decency.

I mean -- yeah. That was kind of my point? What you consider reasonable I consider a pretty ballsy imposition and kind of entitled. So. Agree?

I mean, for what it's worth, on your broader point, I actually agree. But I also think that 'Cinema Ratings' sort of disclaimers are pretty well handled by the theme of the game itself, and the files that typically go into them. Anything extra needs to be communicated, and that burden of communication falls on the player with the need outside the scope of what has already been communicated.

Tinuviel

@derp said in Sensitivity in gaming:

Anything extra needs to be communicated, and that burden of communication falls on the player with the need outside the scope of what has already been communicated.

Well, not really. Because anything extra is what is being run by the GM in question. I'm specifically not talking about phobias or other such things, that's... there's far too many of those to reasonably expect every single instance to be listed.

I'm talking about what a reasonable person (tm) would understand to be traumatic in a general sense. A game might well be for mature audiences, with oodles of violence and murder on a regular basis - but that doesn't extend to things like sexual assault, crimes against children, etc. Things that many people, not just those of us with specific triggers, would be repulsed by if it happened in reality.

That's all.

Roz

This is an entitled, ballsy imposition?

@tinuviel said in Sensitivity in gaming:

"This plot will involve violence/scenes of a sexual nature/excessive drug use/eldrich horror/etc"

It's literally 16 words. Plenty of games have a variety of potential plot themes with varying levels of darkness and horror. There are games that aren't horror games, but may have horror plots, and the game's theme wouldn't necessarily be a warning across the board.

Derp

@roz said in Sensitivity in gaming:

and the game's theme wouldn't necessarily be a warning across the board.

I mean, sure. I don't come across many instances in which scenes are run that are wildly out of a game's theme already, but I suppose that if such a case came up that'd be fine if you're jumping from PG-13 to NC-17 or whatever. But that isn't really what I was talking about, and seems like a pretty edge case, in my experience, when most games will pretty explicitly tell you what sorts of scenes are common and most scenes tend to stick to that kind of a theme.

Going outside of those into darker, more dangerous territory is often in and of itself a violation of a game's rules, and at that point I think content warnings are probably the least of your concerns.

Tinuviel

@derp I mean even with NC-17 there's a wide array of things that are appropriate for that level but aren't common on a specific game.

So to meet you somewhat in the middle, I think that if a plot/scene/whatever is expected to have elements outside of the norm (for that game) that aren't immediately obvious - an investigation plot leads you to a sexual assault victim, for instance - that should be noted before-hand.

ETA: That said, I think more games should have a 'news rating' or something, to explicitly state what sorts of things (violence, drug use, etc) are thematically anticipated to be common. That way people will know what sort of things they should be expected to disclose regarding triggers in their +finger. So we both win.

Derp

@tinuviel said in Sensitivity in gaming:

ETA: That said, I think more games should have a 'news rating' or something, to explicitly state what sorts of things (violence, drug use, etc) are thematically anticipated to be common. That way people will know what sort of things they should be expected to disclose regarding triggers in their +finger. So we both win.

I mean, this is what I thought already normally happened, so I'm all for this. I think it makes more sense, anyway.

I mean, I get it, people should be more sensitive, but ffs, we're all adults, and we're capable of addressing our own needs. Which is easier and less likely to end in disaster?

Player, to me: Hey, does this scene involve any spiders? because that could be an issue.
Me: Wasn't planning on spiders, no, so I think we're good, but if they come up I'll steer us clear or give you an escape!

or me trying to compare my scene to an arbitrary list that may or may not include something you think it should include?

You say this is not that heavy a lift(1):

"This plot will involve violence/scenes of a sexual nature/excessive drug use/eldrich horror/etc"

I say that a much lighter and more directed lift is:

Player: Hey. No sharks, right?

And I know which direction I prefer that communication come from.

I don't think we're disagreeing about the end result. Just the methodology to get there.

(1) With the understanding that the content warning in question there should really just be a game default if those kinds of scenes are allowed.

Tinuviel

@derp said in Sensitivity in gaming:

we're all adults

Source?

Sharks and spiders and such are valid triggers, of course, but not exactly what I was talking about.

There needs to be a balance between the responsibility of the player and the GM to disclose. I'm using GM to mean 'the person that is running the scene' not 'the person in charge of the game' to be clear.

Many people that run plot, in my experience, like to surprise people - and that's all fine and good, jumpscares are popular for a reason. I'm not saying that a GM has to ensure that they don't include fluffy bunnies because someone might be afraid of bunnies, I'm specifically talking about things that if you saw a news report about it they'd say something like "the following includes scenes that might be disturbing for some viewers."

It has to be a combination of policy, reasonable expectations from players and GMs, and communication from both sides.

Derp

@tinuviel

Ok, so, with some clarification on terms and conditions I think we're in a similar place, lol.

Tinuviel

@derp said in Sensitivity in gaming:

@tinuviel

Ok, so, with some clarification on terms and conditions I think we're in a similar place, lol.

Don't make such baseless accusations.

Ominous

alt text

I'm going back to enjoying my Friday night by continuing to get hammered.

Rinel

This doesn't work for MU*s, but every ttrpg I've been in has had a session 0 where we discuss the tone of the upcoming game, what we can reasonably expect to see, and what people are not okay with. With the option to send a private message to the DM if you want to nix something without airing it publicly.

This, to me, is a basic courtesy to everyone involved.

Rucket

@rinel said in Sensitivity in gaming:

This doesn't work for MU*s, but every ttrpg I've been in has had a session 0 where we discuss the tone of the upcoming game, what we can reasonably expect to see, and what people are not okay with. With the option to send a private message to the DM if you want to nix something without airing it publicly.

This, to me, is a basic courtesy to everyone involved.

I mean, it could work for MUs if people were willing to put in the effort to tag events, or if Staff very clearly lay out what sorts of content players might expect on their game in a rating file. Usually when I see any sort of content warning it's just "R - Adult things may happen" or some such shit.

WTF are "Adult things"? Banging and some violence sure, but paying bills and going to work are adult things too (/s on the last bit)

Having something like ESRB content descriptors could work:

"This scene may include Crude Humor, Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Use of Drugs and Strong Sexual Content" as just an example.

Ganymede

@rucket said in Sensitivity in gaming:

I mean, it could work for MUs if people were willing to put in the effort to tag events, or if Staff very clearly lay out what sorts of content players might expect on their game in a rating file. Usually when I see any sort of content warning it's just "R - Adult things may happen" or some such shit.

Here's what I think people are dancing around.

First, there could be tags or ratings for scenes to give people a heads-up on where the GM hopes to go. But having run enough scenes with enough people, I know that a GM can't truly predict what's going to happen. GMs may go into things with the best of intentions, and have it go horribly wrong.

Second, staff leaning on a rating system as a crutch can lead to mischief. For example, if I'm going into a scene which is rated NC-17 I may be ready for something like Adele Exarchopolous' and Lea Seydoux's sex scenes in Blue is the Warmest Colour, but may also have a problem with Monica Bellucci's rape in Irreversible. Creepers also seem to thrive in places which have these levels of "consent" to scenes, where they can manipulate a player into believing they have to play through something because "IC consequences" and "you knowingly entered into an NC-17 scene."

Finally, MUSHing is akin to improv and therefore requires far more collaboration than either a TT game or a movie to work. Rating systems are good when you know the end product, but that's not really the case in MUSH scenes.

I think the better policy is to have player-end preference lists that a GM should examine before they put together a scene and run it. If a player wants to dive off the deep-end, the GM can wrangle them back in by saying something like: "hey, look, what you want to do is going to run afoul of your fellow players' preferences, but if they are okay with it we can go forward; input, everyone?"

Warma Sheen

@roz said in Sensitivity in gaming:

This is an entitled, ballsy imposition?

@tinuviel said in Sensitivity in gaming:

"This plot will involve violence/scenes of a sexual nature/excessive drug use/eldrich horror/etc"

It's literally 16 words. Plenty of games have a variety of potential plot themes with varying levels of darkness and horror. There are games that aren't horror games, but may have horror plots, and the game's theme wouldn't necessarily be a warning across the board.

I get that the idea of this is that it is something simple and everyone should make the little bit of effort to do it because it could help. I get that 100%. I also think that it could hurt. Those of us who have run their fair share of scenes know that running scenes are unpredictable and sometimes players can be delicate.

I'm not arguing that this is all good in principle. I disagree with the practical application and/or execution.

I dislike the idea of the onus being put on the storyteller to make a declaration of what is reasonable and/or common enough of a trigger to include in a warning. I can already see people taking offense that their trigger wasn't included because it wasn't common enough to list, sparking a rant on why it actually is very common and the person who omitted it was just ignorant/racist/biased/uneducated/etc. I can already see people taking offense that the warning wasn't specific enough (i.e. "You said there would be violence but you didn't say it would be THAT kind of violence and if I had known...")

So no, it isn't an entitled or ballsy imposition to give a general warning. But I do think it is entitled or ballsy to assume that giving a general warning will solve more problems than it creates. And I do think it is an imposition to expect a storyteller to be responsible for correctly identifying any and all offending triggers that could come up and everyone else involved would all assume to be reasonable and common. This is where issues of creativity come into play. Being in a scene is not a straight line (at least not in my opinion, not when it is good). There are twists and turns and all sort of interesting elements that fall into it. If you're limited to only the things you've given warnings about, it does hem you in. Player X did A which would normally result in B, but since I didn't give a warning about it I should stay away from that. Or if player Y brings trigger C into the scene, I now have to have the scene respond to that possible trigger in the scene of FTB it. The other option is to check each random trigger that arises with each of the players privately. Cause if you do it as a group then the person is feeling pressured, etc... Now you're stopping the scene to check with each person, waiting on everyone to respond before things move forward, hoping they didn't toss out their pose and then go afk or switch tabs elsemu until they think they need to check back for their turn...

I understand that there are ways for the plot runner to handle those situations and everything. I understand why it is important to handle triggers in the appropriate way. All of that is good for certain areas of life. But at a certain point it just stops being fun. Maybe that sounds insensitive. I certainly don't mean to be, but especially as a plot runner, having the responsibility for everyone else's triggers is a heavy burden I wouldn't want to have.

If a game wants plot runners to toss down a headstaff-generated boilerplate warning before a scene, that's no big deal. But don't put the responsibility of what that means on the plot runner. Some people will have the expectation that the scene will be limited to the triggers listed. Or the other players are also limited to the listed triggers. Players may not think the trigger warnings apply to them - or they limit themselves because of it (e.g. I would love to have my familiar help me in this fight, but violence to animals wasn't warned against so now I can't use it or I might trigger someone and I don't want that risk - oh look, I died.)

I also think the fallout from someone triggered after joining a scene where they believed they would be emotionally safe because their triggers should have been identified beforehand will be much worse than someone who joins a scene knowing it is their responsibility to step away if something comes up.

And in practical regards, there are enough barriers to people running plots that adding the responsibility (implied or perceived) for every other player's mental/emotional wellbeing should not be added to the heap.

TLDR: Trigger warnings definitely have merit, but I think it is more productive, safer, and responsible for people to be responsible for themselves and their mental/emotional well-being. Also, plot runners don't need more burdens.

TNP

@ganymede said in Sensitivity in gaming:

I think the better policy is to have player-end preference lists that a GM should examine before they put together a scene and run it.

That's assuming a plot is being run for specific people. Having to check the trigger list for 30 players before they develop a plot is impractical and not the GM's job. A much better idea is:

plot is announced
Player: p GM=Hey, I have an issue with ____. Is that going to come up in the plot?

And if it is, they don't sign up.

Seraphim73

I think that any robust system is going to require both GMs and Players to work together to avoid causing harm (just like most everything else in this cooperative hobby). GMs can give some specific triggers for what they’re planning, Players can ask about their own specific triggers if it seems plausible that it’ll come up, and both GMs and Players can check in as things change (as they inevitably do).

This is a little more work than just sitting down and running a scene or playing in one, but isn’t it worth it to keep from harming fellow players?

As a side note, those of us who are arachnophobic would very much thank GMs for a warning before having graphic descriptions of spider-bits.

And I think that might be the key: it’s not (usually) just a mention that’s the problem, it’s detailed descriptions. Like @faraday and others have said, in a war game you can expect violence, but that doesn’t mean there will be graphic descriptions of wounds or gore. If there are, probably a good thing to mention. Similarly, I don’t have a problem if there are spiders in a scene, but I don’t want detailed descriptions of them. If there’s a mention of a slaughtered village population, sure, but I don’t need descriptions of any of the details.

ETA: This is absolutely not the case for some things like violence toward children or sexual assault — the detail in these can make things worse, but even a mention can be harmful.

Ganymede

@tnp

This is true. My post was calculated for the lion's share of scenes I'm involved with, which are small in number.

mietze

As a GM, it's just as easy to have exit hatches for people in your scene, if not easier, than trying to label every possible trigger or undesirable content that might come up. That way if something does come up, you can extricate that person immediately with little fanfare. The non-disruptive players I've dealt with always appreciate that, they don't want to become the focus of everything when they need to go. The people who get off on disrupting things don't get what they want (and usually don't come no another plot of mine or ask me to run things for them ever again, which is fine with me.)

I think honestly, if you are running an intense-content scene for randos or open invite, as a GM you're a bit crazy if you don't give yourself some breathing room to deal with people who wander away from the keyboard/have emergencies/become disruptive/need to unexpectedly GTFO. I can't say that I've needed it /frequently/ but when those situations have come up it's been the best gift I gave myself as a storyteller.