PDA

View Full Version : DM Help Issues that are too touchy for games?



Pages : [1] 2

Jon_Dahl
2015-11-28, 02:34 PM
Are there some moral or ethical things that you avoid in your games?

I'm relative uncensored gamemaster/DM myself, and watching Game of Thrones has just made me worse, a lot worse. I always try to be sensitive, though.

If there are female players, I don't let their characters be subjected to sexual violence. I think that might be too excessive in games. This does break my immersion to the game as a gamemaster, however, since I don't see why evil creatures of male gender wouldn't rape a female captive. That's like the oldest story in the books. I still don't let that happen. I don't know what I'd do if a male player played a female character and she ended up captive in the hands of evil creatures. Hard to say.

Once in D&D 3.5, I had a planar ally, female Jann, who was sexually pretty rauchy. One player complained that he didn't feel comfortable with that so I had to ditch her. That was the only time that I had an off-game issue of that sort in my games. Well... Once I described a giant spider to a female gamer (an adult) in a graphic manner, and she couldn't take it. She had this sort of "episode". It ended up in a silliness, but she liked that I stopped being so graphic about the spider and I didn't mind, so that was ok.

This one time, I asked my players what should be the culturally accepted age of consent in my game. It ended up being very low: when puberty starts. I had to make that one sure, because I was worried that someone might get upset if I married a 14-year-old NPC girl to an 18-year-old NPC boy. That wasn't a problem, however. I felt pretty embarassed asking that question, but I'm happy that I did, because we ended up having a bit more medieval-ish mood in my game (modern western age of consent is just so modern and so western, really) and no one got upset, so that was good.

What about your games? Moral issues are on the table from time to time or are you guys at the same frequency?

sktarq
2015-11-28, 03:02 PM
This a large part of what session 0 is about for me.

I generally run an R rated game as a baseline.

I ask about rape, slavery, & torture of the characters. And trust me if rape of a male character comes up and a player has invested their macho self ideals into the PC things can get explosive FAST

Graphic description. See session 0. I discuss this because it can really effect how people percieve the tone of the game. Some people like the cinematic nature of knowing what a sword strike for 9 HP of damage does and others would rather not think about the idea that the target must really hurt now. . .

Innocents. . . a less commonly discussed one but a topic I always want to cover. How the party treats innocents, how much the party sees innocents suffering (and how graphically) can really drive people away. In many cases a rather detached view is best-particularly if the PCs are dealing with moral grey zones or need-of-many vs needs-of-the-few type stuff

Also religion. Find out how literal people take their religion and how they see the interaction of religious belief s and the game world. Huge variety exists and often as long as people don't feel they are being mocked things tend to be easily dealt with.

Racism, sexism, etc . . . Again something I discuss in session 0 and thus has been reduced/ignored etc at many of my tables but isn't something I think of never touch.

Stereotypes-I like to use near stereotypes in some of my games. NPC's that at a glance allow a PC to see how a stereotype could have come out of such a NPC but how it doesn't tell their whole story. Thus I have to be careful with it. I avoid ones that I think may causes issues for the particular players in that game/table but don't have any that are verboten overall.

Also I tend toward a dark cynical + dark humour playstyle. In lighter games all of the above are toned down.

DaveSonOfDave
2015-11-28, 05:10 PM
To be honest, I feel if there's a topic that makes a player uncomfortable, than their needs should take precedence over immersion or what might make sense to the situation. Yes, the thing that is making their skin crawl might be something that the scenario might call for, but really, if someone is taking exception with a particular topic, there's really no reason why you shouldn't cut it out, lest you needlessly antagonize someone who is coming over to play a game and subsequently make the experience more lousy for them.

Steampunkette
2015-11-28, 06:54 PM
Rape and Sexual Assault are horrible crimes that leave deep wounds and affect about 1 in 6 people. Any time you belly up to the table there's a significant chance someone at your table has been molested, assaulted, or hurt in a way that is both painful and socially unacceptable to discuss.

Best move: drop rape from all games with no discussion, and forbid player actions that lean in the direction of sexual assault.

Any lost verisimilitude can be handwaved pretty easily without bringing up the threat of imminent loss of power and dehumanization.

"The orcs find you sexually repulsive, and your blood would weaken their bloodline" "The drow guards are under strict orders not to violate the sacrifices to Llolth" etc, etc, etc.

sktarq
2015-11-28, 06:55 PM
To be honest, make the experience more lousy for them.

Erm-I don't think that's really in question. I think the OP was asking about where people have found those limits that set people on edge not that they should be avoided.

JoeJ
2015-11-28, 07:03 PM
I'll add my agreement to discussing this during session 0 so everybody is on the same page.

For me, one of my hard rules is that rape and other forms of sexual violence do not happen to PCs. They only occur between NPCs and off stage (actually, consensual sex occurs off stage too). It's fine if a player wants to have that be a part of their character's background, but it isn't going to happen during the game.

Overcoming prejudice can sometimes be fun, but only if it fits the player's vision for their character. So sometimes I will have fantasy races in my game worlds that suffer discrimination, and I'll warn players during character creation so they'll know what they're getting into if they play that race. Real world racism I'm more careful about. My favorite era for Mutants & Masterminds is World War II, but when I'm running that kind of game I make it the rule that PCs will only suffer prejudice because of their race, gender, religion, etc., either from NPC heroes or from the general public, if the player chooses Prejudice as one of their character's complications. Villains can be prejudiced (Many of them are Nazis, so it's pretty much assumed), but that's a weakness the PCs can use against them. My way may not be historically accurate, but if realism is a high priority for you, then you probably shouldn't be playing a superhero game in the first place. :smalltongue:

BWR
2015-11-28, 07:22 PM
There are really two relevant dimensions here: the players and the game.
Some games are appropriate for all sorts of nastiness (Kult for how it should be done, TGTSNBM for how not to do it), and some, like HSHC, TOON or Paranoia, are not appropriate. Some games can be run to include or exclude sensitive issues and still fit with the setting and the intended tone of the game.
Players are pretty well covered by other posters. The problem is not everyone has the same idea of acceptability, as in the OP's example. I do not agree with the idea that some things should never be included in a game. As in most things in life I feel that if everyone involved is ok with it, who am I to tell them what to do?

Fortunately, my players are pretty open-minded about most stuff and we generally have similar sensibilities so things aren't a problem. Torture occurs in some cases because it's a horrible thing that horrible people do (and lots of RPGs are, frankly, riddled with horrible people). Rape is another form of torture and sometimes happens (mostly to NPCs). Sex happens too and some characters are a bit more adventurous and promiscuous than others. We aren't interested in dwelling on the subjects or getting too graphic (they aren't the point of the game) but we don't shy away from the subjects when they fit the game.

cobaltstarfire
2015-11-28, 07:52 PM
Mental Illness can be a touchy issue I think that should be discusses before playing, or if not left alone if someone expresses discomfort.

This was something that never really occurred to me till earlier this year when my DM wanted to apply some variant rules for insanity to the game. (at the time it had been less than a year since I had been discharged). The DM at first didn't want to budge on it because he felt it would be "fun" and "interesting", not to mention it made sense to be driven atleast a little bit mad by looking upon Zargon.

I had never thought I would be bothered by something like insanity in game, but the moment I had to start rolling for my characters sanity I almost cried. I didn't want to purposely think about or put myself into that kind of mindspace, I didn't want to play a character that suffered from mental illness. It didn't sound fun or interesting, only terrifying. Fortunately either I was able to babble something out that explained why I wasn't down for it, or the DM was able to glean that this was a very uncomfortable thing from me.

NichG
2015-11-28, 09:15 PM
This is of course player-specific, not just in what the issues are, but in how the player will respond to them being raised.

But there's another side to it too, which is that it matters how and why the issue is raised during the game. I think that in general, if you take something which is at the edge of someone's comfort zone and raise it in a flippant or gratuitous manner, that's far more likely to make them lose the ability to enjoy the game or become offended, than if you raise it in a serious and coherent manner. In the former case, it's very easy for it to come across as GM bullying, even if its not intended as such, and that added feeling of antagonism will amplify any uncertainty or fear or discomfort about the situation.

That's not saying 'all players can deal with all issues if they're raised in a serious manner', just that you're a lot more likely to get a strong negative reaction from a player for things which its obvious they aren't being treated seriously and the player considers it a serious thing.

Winter_Wolf
2015-11-28, 09:56 PM
My line is graphic sexual stuff, including TMI descriptions, sexual assault of any kind, et cetera. I'm not having it either as player or GM, it exceeds my comfort level and wildly deviates from my purpose in participating in role playing games.

BootStrapTommy
2015-11-28, 10:16 PM
It will never cease to bother me that the attitude that rape is taboo in a game about gratuitous fantasy violence exists.

Party members murdering entire villages, killing innocents, and robbing and stealing? Genocide? That's called being an adventurer!

Rape? Now, wait a minute, that might be too much for some folks. Let's rein it in here...

Seriously guys, there's something horribly ****ed up about the fact that you all can rationalize such horrible things, yet your buttholes clench at the thought of sexual violence...

Steampunkette
2015-11-28, 10:41 PM
Maybe all that stuff you just brought up, Tommy, doesn't happen in the games we play where good aligned heroic characters are saving the day...

Maybe it's because we're discussing a highly sensitive subject that has a huge impact on many players lives and how it isn't fun to be reminded of a horrible moment in your own life.

Maybe the things you brought up are antisocial power fantasies where a pc getting raped is a loss of power.

And maybe, just maybe, you should unpack why you're defending Rape as something that should happen in games by comparing it to antisocial power fantasies that you think enough players engage in for it to be a universal argument rather than a niche case.

PrincessCupcake
2015-11-28, 10:41 PM
I find "taboo" to vary widely from one group to another. I've had some groups that are totally fine with gratuitous violence, sexual assault, insanity, racial tension, etc. and some groups that balk at the very concept of half of those. It just depends on what the group is coming to the table for. (I had one group that balked at the description of the average murderhobo, and another that said it didn't go far enough. *shrug*

Heck, I had one group I DMed that I actually had to reign in after they managed to creep me out.

Session 0 is the ideal place to sort out comfort levels, but you cannot predict everything in advance. Sometimes you just have to establish a safe word.

Tvtyrant
2015-11-28, 11:00 PM
It will never cease to bother me that the attitude that rape is taboo in a game about gratuitous fantasy violence exists.

Party members murdering entire villages, killing innocents, and robbing and stealing? Genocide? That's called being an adventurer!

Rape? Now, wait a minute, that might be too much for some folks. Let's rein it in here...

Seriously guys, there's something horribly ****ed up about the fact that you all can rationalize such horrible things, yet your buttholes clench at the thought of sexual violence...

Perhaps because those things are more emotionally distant? I have never known an individual who was murdered, and genocide is pretty far away from my life. Torture and cannibalism are right out. No one I have ever met has not known at least one person who was raped, if they were not raped themselves. The whole degrees of separation thing comes up.

And I don't think there is anything wrong with having emotional issues based on your life instead of some objective moral compass. In an emotionally objective world people would simply shrug off most of the issues that face us today, but we don't live in that world for a reason. We are keyed in to eliminating personal stressers because they are bad for our health and make us unhappy, and being unhappy to prove that you are objective helps no one.

Zalphon
2015-11-28, 11:13 PM
It's a case-by-case basis. I've got a gamer at my table (well her's, she hosts) who has been raped. Naturally, nobody even proposes stuff like that.

Other stuff, like torture and whatnot, is fair game, because nobody has ever experienced it (except in SERE School).

NichG
2015-11-28, 11:20 PM
Yeah, the thing to keep in mind is that trigger-based taboos are not about things which are intellectually or abstractly awful. They're about things which cause an uncontrolled, even physiological reaction - adrenaline spike, etc. You can intellectually realize that the complete annihilation of an entire city is objectively more horrible than, say, a graphic description of a spider. But the former generally won't cause an instinctual reaction, while the latter can in some people.

Since the things in game are imaginary, any amount of real harm against a real player trumps any amount of imagined harm against imagined people.

Anderlith
2015-11-29, 12:07 AM
Rape & sexual assault will never happen to a PC in my games, its too real. I play the villains, that means I would be describing "me" raping someone (even in narrative third person) & that is not okay. The though sickens me. Even if I was able to distance myself mentally, the player would be forced by me to have their character raped, its basically condoning the horrid practice. That being said rape exists in the game world, an NPC could have rape in their background or possibly suffer it during the story. Most likely not though.

Torture can happen. But I'm willing to draw back to basically saying "They torture you" instead of graphic detail because there is no reason to be graphic if no one wants that kind of sh*t in a game. I don't want to be graphic when it comes to that. & if the player is uncomfortable I'm more than willing to dial it back to them being roughed up & punched a lot like in an action movie. No need to describe jumper cables being attached, when you can get the same feel with a few gut punches while tied to a chair.

Kids being killed? Yes that can happen. I'm not too caught up on that idea, but it is a heinous crime & I wouldn't be light about the subject, but if I knew someone who lost a kid I wouldn't include it unless it was okay.

Florian
2015-11-29, 02:50 AM
Hard to say. First off, as a gm, I don't feel any immersion and also don't aim for it. If I opt to include anything into the game, its not because of versimilitude or shock value, it's because it is a conscious choice that it should be explored and handled by the players.
I then proceed to write up all those things and create kind of a parental advisory sticker - Buyers beware.

Sure, it will always happen that something can be a trigger nonetheless, so I'm well prepared to drop the issue the instant I notice something going wrong, maybe because they hit too close to home.

Ifni
2015-11-29, 03:18 AM
In general, I think it's a good idea to just mention in advance "Hey, if there is something you really do not want to come up in game / happen to your character, tell me privately. I don't need to know your reasons." There are all sorts of things that hit close to home for specific people, which you may not realize in advance. I have actually seen more cases involving medical issues than anything else: if your little sister has leukemia and there's nothing you can do, I can imagine wanting to steer clear of plotlines involving kids with wasting diseases, even if there's nothing at all R-rated.

Likewise, if obviously sensitive topics (like sexual assault or coercion) are going to come up, just ask what people are comfortable with. If you can, do it outside the session so nobody has to explain their triggers in front of an audience.

As a ST, there are also some topics I don't want to treat - I'm not generally interested in conveying non-stop pervasive sexism or racism, because it depresses me; I will also not generally use rape as a plot point. (I have used unrequited love between NPCs as a plot point, and when the PC didn't intervene in time it blew up in their face, but the way in which it blew up was "this turns into a complicated love quadrangle involving the PC's apprentice and the son of the local ruler, which leads to the PC's apprentice punching the son in the face using Super Magic Ninja Powers they're not supposed to have, which leads to CONSEQUENCES".)

I have seen both bad and good examples of treating sensitive issues.

I was the only female player in a face-to-face game; a couple of the male players decided they wanted to have their characters rape a female NPC. I expressed my unhappiness about this; the GM didn't say anything. I indicated my (male) PC would try to stop them. They proceeded to explain to me that no man would stop one of his male friends from raping a woman. (As a woman in my early 20s, sitting in a room with five guys who all considerably outweighed me and were between me and the door, this was a little unnerving, especially as the other men in the room were looking uncomfortable but not speaking up.) I stood my ground and eventually they backed down (IC, my character was fairly min-maxed and quite capable of killing theirs, and OOC, I was fairly sure I wasn't in actual physical danger), but once we got through the game I avoided those guys in the future.

Two PCs who were heading toward a consensual romantic relationship both got hit simultaneously with mind-control effects (for Exalted players: Solar/Lunar mates, the first one's Limit Break triggered the second one's Limit Break), which respectively made them (a) incapable of impulse control and (b) incapable of saying no. This wasn't something the ST did, it was a combination of choices made during character creation and some really horrible dicerolls. They were in a bedroom at the time and it had previously been established that character (a)'s failures of impulse control usually involved finding a sexual partner.

After we all stared at the dice for a bit and went, "... huh", we talked over what we were comfortable with. The person playing the incapable-of-refusing PC didn't mind, but the player of the incapable-of-impulse-control PC really, really did not want the scene to go in a sexual direction. So it didn't. It involved serious boundary-violation/consent issues, but was completely non-sexual. (The incapable-of-impulse-control PC quizzed the other one about her backstory; she was a very private person with some secrets that had been entrusted to her by others, which she'd promised never to reveal.) There was at least as much IC tension and angst as there would've been the other way, but it avoided discomfort for the players.

As far as touchy issues go, my characters in PbP games have also experienced:
-Romancing and marrying other PCs
-Flashbacking to being a serial abuser and rapist in a past incarnation
-Meeting with very powerful people who have mind-control powers against which she has no defense
-Purchasing slaves
[this one is happening right now, and it is very uncomfortable, even though the PC's intentions are pretty unambiguously good - the slaves have been subjected to a process that destroys their minds, and she thinks she can reverse it]

In every case the ST has just asked me where my boundaries lie, and I've told them. We also tend to make use of trigger warnings in posts, for the benefit of other players at the table. It seems to work okay.

goto124
2015-11-29, 05:21 AM
I've always wondered why lack of rape breaks someone's immersion. Heck, for me it's rape that breaks immersion, because while my first reaction is "AAAAHHHHHH", some time later my second reaction is "wait, why did the writer include rape? To mark the rapist as irredeemable? To make the auidence feel sympathy for the poor innocent rape victim?" It stops a lot of discussion about morality and sexuality. It's horrible and disgusting but otherwise not interesting.

Actually, I'll design my NPC such that they won't rape people, especially not the PCs. Something as simple as 'kick the almost-rapist in the groin' works well. Improbable reasons for a person to get away from rape is still better than... rape. I'll fudge dice and change the rules to avoid it, it's still far less awful.

I'm alright with slavery and torture when it's not overly described in a gorish manner.

Seto
2015-11-29, 05:27 AM
II was the only female player in a face-to-face game; a couple of the male players decided they wanted to have their characters rape a female NPC. I expressed my unhappiness about this; the GM didn't say anything. I indicated my (male) PC would try to stop them. They proceeded to explain to me that no man would stop one of his male friends from raping a woman. (As a woman in my early 20s, sitting in a room with five guys who all considerably outweighed me and were between me and the door, this was a little unnerving, especially as the other men in the room were looking uncomfortable but not speaking up.) I stood my ground and eventually they backed down (IC, my character was fairly min-maxed and quite capable of killing theirs, and OOC, I was fairly sure I wasn't in actual physical danger), but once we got through the game I avoided those guys in the future.

This one (the fourth sentence) actually made me blurt "WHAT ?" out loud. Holy crap. Thankful nothing happened to you and hopefully it was just talk and these guys would think twice before applying their words irl, but that's pretty awful talk nonetheless. I would have been definitely creeped out too (and I'm male, so unlike you I wouldn't even have had to deal with concern for my own safety on top of that).

To the OP : As most of the posters here, I'd avoid rape and sexual assault. Depending on the case, we could hint at it, if it's distant enough. For example, one of my players included it in his PC's backstory (there aren't much half-orcs in my world...), but I would definitely not make it a part of a session.
As for the rest... I'm a pretty new DM, so I have yet to test and find my and my table's limits. The most disturbing thing we've had so far was flaying lycanthropes alive for selling their fur (I ripped it off from these forums), but this was actually one of the best sessions we've had. The players were grossed out enough that it made their PCs angry and enhanced the game's immersive experience, but not enough that they themselves were uncomfortable or unhappy with the game.

goto124
2015-11-29, 05:32 AM
We're assuming NPC on PC, right?

Seto
2015-11-29, 05:39 AM
We're assuming NPC on PC, right?

Not necessarily. NPC on PC rape (or PC on PC, for that matter, unless the whole table has unambiguously stated they can handle it) is a big no-no, but neither would I describe NPC-on-NPC rape during a session. At most, hint at it, as something that happened in the past, or might happen in the future. And even then, cautiously.
According to the rules of not having it take place during a session (if only because I, personally, am not comfortable with it, even if my players are, which they are probably not), if PC-on-NPC happened I'd ask the relevant player to stop it.

Crake
2015-11-29, 06:58 AM
I'm with the session 0 sentiment. Find out what people consider the line, and just make sure the game doesn't involve that kind of stuff. Unless you're running a horror game, then just use that to fuel your campaign :smalltongue:

If my players don't give me any restraints, then literally anything can happen. I will take the game wherever it steers itself (since i run a very player driven game), and it can (and has) gone to very dark places, including rape, torture and murder for both fun and personal gain, both from a player on NPC perspective, and from an NPC on player perspective. Lets just say, you mess up binding a succubus, then you can't complain about the consequences.

I've had the fortune of playing with rather hardy players though, and nobody I know has any "triggers" though. The worst I have is a player who can't stand the idea of brains, and we all give him absolute **** for it, and refer to brains as "fluffy bunnies". He knows what we mean though.

I threw a mind flayer brain surgeon at one of his characters who opened up his skull to analyze his memories for tampering. His character paid money for the service.

Florian
2015-11-29, 07:29 AM
@goto124:

Sometimes, the absence of something can really break immersion.
For example, if you want to portray the horros of war and occupation, especially the dehumanizing that will lead to war crimes, then leaving out certain stuff will miss the point of the whole exercise.

mephnick
2015-11-29, 09:42 AM
@goto124:
For example, if you want to portray the horrors of war and occupation, especially the dehumanizing that will lead to war crimes, then leaving out certain stuff will miss the point of the whole exercise.

Man, you guys have some weird hobbies.

I just want to hang out with friends and play a fun story. The real world is depressing enough.

No wonder people think we're weird.

Florian
2015-11-29, 09:58 AM
Man, you guys have some weird hobbies.

I just want to hang out with friends and play a fun story. The real world is depressing enough.

No wonder people think we're weird.

I actually once used that as an important background part in an L5R campaign.
The era was Pre Clan War, so still in the 1000 Years of Peace, the characters were regular samurai with families and kids (The whole engagement, marrying, kidmaking stuff was part of gameplay) and they were confronted with a conspiracy made up from multi clan youths who idolized war without knowing it and were hellbent on instigating an incident which they were sure would escalate to full scale war so they could finally have their shot at "glory".
It was interesting confronting the players with those "Hollywood"-notions of war the kids had and contrast that to the real cruelty when they happened.

Alberic Strein
2015-11-29, 10:24 AM
Honestly, there are so many damn things that can upset players that I don't even bother with it on session 0. Of course, I usually DM in real life so it's easy to judge how are some things affecting players and putting out all the breaks if I feel something is going wrong. For example, last game turned a bit horror-ish, and one of the creatures was a slithering spine like thing, and that pushed all the worst buttons of one of my players, so we stopped with the descriptions and everything was good.

The issue is with skype or roll20 games, when someone turning silent can be : 1) Gone to get some food 2) Nothing to say 3) Drinking 4) Dealing with something in real life 5) Taking something badly.

So making sure each player is alright can be an horrenduous challenge.

I would never for the life of me drop the subjects of my campaigns to PG 13 level as a baseline though.

ThinkMinty
2015-11-29, 11:42 AM
Don't throw rape in just to make the villain more evil. it's kinda...gratuitous. You can get by just fine on having villains sexually harass people. A grope, some really pervy comments, some lecherous licking, or sexual harassment can firmly sell "this person is a predator" without the same level of WOAH HEY WHAT THE ACTUAL **** that rape in a game would.

Seriously, a squeeze in the wrong place can unsettle the player and show off how mean the villain is just as well without being nearly as contentious.

the_david
2015-11-29, 12:21 PM
Some spoilers, but I feel they are necessary.

In Bastion of Broken Souls the story begins with a parent's worst nightmare as babies are born "listless and limp". It turns out that something is eating "unborn souls". It's the most evil deed I've seen in an RPG adventure, but I feel it might just be too much for some parents.

Another one that actually caught me offguard was Rise of the Runelords. One of the NPC's was supposed to get a crush on one of the PC's, preferably a female PC with a high charisma. Now I had 3 players I hadn't played with before in this group and 2 of them were a couple. You can probably see where this is going, but in my defense, I'm a bit autistic so it took me a while to understand why they didn't respond to my emails anymore. I'm not sure if the other 2 players figured it out but at the time they seemed as perplexed as I am. At the time it seemed like a good idea as the player was introverted and I wanted to try to get her a bit more involved. She was also playing an Elf Ranger with a charisma of 14. (Don't ask.)
But yeah, that's how a gay game master got rid of 2 players in a single session.

mephnick
2015-11-29, 12:34 PM
Some spoilers, but I feel they are necessary.

In Bastion of Broken Souls the story begins with a parent's worst nightmare as babies are born "listless and limp". It turns out that something is eating "unborn souls". It's the most evil deed I've seen in an RPG adventure, but I feel it might just be too much for some parents.

As a couple that's gone through a very depressing late term miscarriage, we'd find that pretty hard to get past at the beginning of an adventure probably.

Maybe now if we were warned ahead of time that the game would be very graphic then it'd be ok, but if it was just dropped on us a year ago I guarantee my wife would have had to leave.

CoffeeIncluded
2015-11-29, 05:57 PM
If I don't explicitly ask my players what they would or would not want in a game, or what might be considered too far, I ask them during play. For instance, right now in a game I'm running, one of my players is a racial minority who has had racist encounters in the past. Racism and speciesism is a running theme in my game, and another character is playing a half-Orc, which basically guarantees that she'll be and has been on the receiving end of tense encounters, casual rasist remarks, etcetera. I explicitly asked my players, especially the one playing the half Orc and the one who has dealt with this in real life, if they would be okay with some of the encounters going forward and to please get me to stop if they feel uncomfortable.

I don't do rape or sexual assault in my games, with one massive exception. And I think my player and I handled it well. She had decided to, as part of a spy mission, pretend to seduce an NPC. I had written him as a black dragon (he was shapeshifted to a human at the time) who is trying to breed an army of half-dragons. And here was a woman throwing herself at him. When she realized how big a mistake she made he wouldn't let her get away. Thankfully the other characters rescued her--I don't know if I would have been able to pull that trigger if they didn't.

In either case, I was talking to the player OOC the entire time this was happening, constantly asking if she was okay with what was going on or if she was too uncomfortable or wanted me to stop.

Mr Beer
2015-11-29, 06:24 PM
I've had villains who are also rapists, BTW I don't think this is gratuitous, there are a wide spectrum of antagonists available to the players. I wouldn't have a villain rape a PC or rape 'on screen'. I would also skip graphic descriptions of torture because I'm not a sadist. Sex is fade-to-black because frankly I'm not comfortable describing graphic sex scenes.

The most graphic stuff that happens on screen is when I describe fatal critical hits in a sentence or two of gory detail.

Pinjata
2015-11-29, 06:49 PM
Interesting thread. For me, rape is also pretty no-no and interestingly enough with all the genocidal stuff my players tried to pull off, they never tried to rape enybody. Its really odd, but death of their characters does not deeply upset them. i can not imagine the jimmies rustled if one of the PCs got raped by something like an ogre. I rather not try it. But I'd like to know why is rape worse then death in games.

ShadowFireLance
2015-11-29, 07:12 PM
This is a subject that has bothered me since I've been here, and I can say that I must have read at least 50 threads on this subject alone. Everyone has degrees of separation, but the entire point of a role-play is to get into the mind of the character. If you don't understand your actions within an attempt at a realistic world has ramifications, why are you here? What's the point besides rolling dice and faking an accent? I'd argue that the entire point of say, D&D or WoD or even Exalted, is a simulation of events that most people don't think can happen. If you don't want to really get into it, there's plenty of board games out there. But if you want a DM to dedicate their time and effort to an immersive world, crafting an adventure or making the story entertaining, then understand that the entirety of the experience should be personal, and everything that comes with it.
If you feel nothing killing another intelligent being, be it Orc or Goblin, then you're obviously in the wrong game. This highlights the issues of course, with D&D, but that's something else entirely.

Florian
2015-11-29, 07:14 PM
But I'd like to know why is rape worse then death in games.

Emotional distance to the subject matter. I think it's fair to say that most of us are lucky enough to live in countries where people you hold dear are not killed on a regular basis, stuff like torture is next to unheard of, and so on.

So the list of taboo/touchy items shrinks down to what we know and fear from our experience.

goto124
2015-11-29, 08:12 PM
Wow, I realized how many subjects I could miss even if I tried to cover them at the very start. I wouldn't recognise fantasic racism/specism to affect certain discriminated players in a similar fashion to RL racism, and it wouldn't cross my head that dead babies cross into "no you're too much" zone.

Huh! Is that what it's called, the "too much" zone?

Tvtyrant
2015-11-29, 08:19 PM
This is a subject that has bothered me since I've been here, and I can say that I must have read at least 50 threads on this subject alone. Everyone has degrees of separation, but the entire point of a role-play is to get into the mind of the character. If you don't understand your actions within an attempt at a realistic world has ramifications, why are you here? What's the point besides rolling dice and faking an accent? I'd argue that the entire point of say, D&D or WoD or even Exalted, is a simulation of events that most people don't think can happen. If you don't want to really get into it, there's plenty of board games out there. But if you want a DM to dedicate their time and effort to an immersive world, crafting an adventure or making the story entertaining, then understand that the entirety of the experience should be personal, and everything that comes with it.
If you feel nothing killing another intelligent being, be it Orc or Goblin, then you're obviously in the wrong game. This highlights the issues of course, with D&D, but that's something else entirely.

I think that is a pretty hostile attitude to take. The DM and the players are there to enjoy a game, the players are not obligated to put up with the DMs desires any more than the DM has an obligation to put up with a players actions. Here you are arguing that the player should be forced to put up with things that actively distress them or just not play, which I think is a tremendous entry fee to pretend to be elves.

Which goes into your second point: if roleplaying something causes you tremendous anxiety to the point where you cannot seperate yourself from your character, than you probably shouldn't be doing that. Just like I do not drink in front of people who are AA members and tell them that parties are probably wrong for them.

TLDR: Arguing that someone who isn't willing to personally suffer to play an elf Paladin shouldn't be allowed to sounds awfully like "bad fun wrong" to me.

Mr Beer
2015-11-29, 09:14 PM
sounds awfully like "bad fun wrong" to me.

I second this assessment. Just because a group isn't interested in an ultra-immersive gritfest, doesn't mean that they've somehow failed at RPGs.

ShadowFireLance
2015-11-29, 09:33 PM
I think that is a pretty hostile attitude to take. The DM and the players are there to enjoy a game, the players are not obligated to put up with the DMs desires any more than the DM has an obligation to put up with a players actions. Here you are arguing that the player should be forced to put up with things that actively distress them or just not play, which I think is a tremendous entry fee to pretend to be elves.

Which goes into your second point: if roleplaying something causes you tremendous anxiety to the point where you cannot separate yourself from your character, than you probably shouldn't be doing that. Just like I do not drink in front of people who are AA members and tell them that parties are probably wrong for them.

TLDR: Arguing that someone who isn't willing to personally suffer to play an elf Paladin shouldn't be allowed to sounds awfully like "bad fun wrong" to me.

The point is missed here. The DM and players are there to enjoy, this is a point I don't argue. However, the entire point of a RPG is to be immersive. I never feel anxiety that I can't separate myself from a character, I feel like the character is a real person, like a brother or a sister that I've known forever, that I've seen grow. This is the point of an RPG, to pretend to be someone else for a while. I never once said that they had to suffer to play anything, I'm saying that they should give it their all instead of retaining this detached approach a lot of people use. I think it's great that a lot of people react so badly to taking away player agency, because that means that you're interested in your character's well-being. It may very well be 'badwrongfun' but at that point you're ignoring the purpose of the material.

On Elves: I don't think any Human should be able to play something with that level of age. Orcs, Humans, Halflings and such are perfectly acceptable. But can anyone really understand the meaning of being 200? 300? Not until the far future. But this is my opinion of course, and others can chose how they like their games.


I second this assessment. Just because a group isn't interested in an ultra-immersive gritfest, doesn't mean that they've somehow failed at RPGs.
I'm not arguing for a 'gritfest', I'm arguing for the immersiveness. The game designers had a specific goal, and I feel a lot of people miss that.

Mr Beer
2015-11-29, 10:03 PM
I'm not arguing for a 'gritfest', I'm arguing for the immersiveness. The game designers had a specific goal, and I feel a lot of people miss that.

Seems off-topic if your point is entirely about immersivesness as opposed to touchy subjects but anyway it came across as rather elitist, which was what I was responding to.

NichG
2015-11-29, 10:21 PM
Putting aside the whole debate about whether RPGs are designed for immersiveness or not, and whether that actually would matter, which really would need its own thread...

'Touchy' issues aren't really going to increase the immersion of the person they trigger. The thing that is bothering the person is something from their own life, not their character's life or personality. So you can have someone playing a jungle warrior but that won't change whether they have a strong response when they hear a detailed description of a spider. Their character shouldn't, but you've picked something where the person's real-life response is so automatic that it overrides whatever was supposed to be going on in the game. You've got the equivalent of a horror movie jumpscare - you might get a response, but its totally incoherent with any concept of immersion and not really useful.

You can have players that want to engage their touchy issues, treat the game as a kind of therapy, and that can work. But it isn't going to go well if you just put things in the game as an afterthought, 'because its historically realistic' or things like that. If you're going to try to go down that particular path you have to do so with deliberate design more or less centered around that specific player and their responses, checking carefully to make sure it doesn't go to far. It's not going to cut it to just say 'Just deal with it.' and expect the result to actually be an increase in real immersion.

AMFV
2015-11-29, 10:37 PM
The chief problem is one that was touched on earlier in the thread by NichG, I believe. Everybody has issues with something, very few of these issues necessarily make sense. It is therefore almost impossible to plan around things that are bothering people in advance. As a result paying attention to people's comfort level is critical during a game.

That said, if I tell somebody I'm running Invasion of the Demon Spiders (or somesuch) and they're such a severe arachnophobe that even having a spider described causes them issues, and they don't bring that up in advance. Then that isn't really my responsibility. There are certain things that are common enough in fantasy games as to be assumed to be okay, giant spiders being one of them. Of course, there is nothing wrong with being afraid of spiders. But there is something wrong with entering a game where there is prior knowledge that the thing that causes you such visceral terror would be a chief part, without any kind of advance notice, is kind of a problem on the part of the player.

To be fair, if I am running a game where it may not be that giant spiders are an integral part, and neither party thinks to mention it beforehand. I would say that it's no foul on either party. At that point both sides (The DM and unaffected players and the affected player) should talk out a solution that works for all parties. In the most extreme cases this could involve the player skipping sessions, or leaving the group altogether, that is an unfortunate situation but that happens. Part of having those kind of issues is recognizing that your issues should not dictate things for other people. I have very unpleasant visceral reactions to fireworks, I would NEVER ask that somebody not set off fireworks on the Fourth or New Years, just because it's unpleasant for me, because I recognize that my mental health is primarily my responsibility. If I were to have a similar post traumatic reaction to something in the game, I would recognize that it would be my responsibility both to highlight the problem, and to work out a solution that does not infringe on other players.

Lastly, there are issues that are generally viewed as so unpleasant that they should be brought up. If your game is going to be gritty and include large amounts of torture, violence, sexual violence, or whatever type of thing that most folks would find abhorrent, then you should probably mention that at the start. The chief issue is that those lines are very societally based, and are easy to muck up. If I'm playing D&D with Amish folks or TV censors from the 1950s then any mention of people sleeping in the same bed might be seen as too far for entertainment. If I'm hanging out with my buddies from the Marines, then the line will be entirely different, one should always feel out one's group to get a general feeling about where the line is before starting. This is generally a good practice for gaming in general, knowing what your group enjoys will help you to provide a better experience for them.

cobaltstarfire
2015-11-29, 10:59 PM
The point is missed here. The DM and players are there to enjoy, this is a point I don't argue. However, the entire point of a RPG is to be immersive. I never feel anxiety that I can't separate myself from a character, I feel like the character is a real person, like a brother or a sister that I've known forever, that I've seen grow. This is the point of an RPG, to pretend to be someone else for a while. I never once said that they had to suffer to play anything, I'm saying that they should give it their all instead of retaining this detached approach a lot of people use. I think it's great that a lot of people react so badly to taking away player agency, because that means that you're interested in your character's well-being.


Um yeah no, if you had been in my DM's place and forced my character to be stricken with mental illness/disturbance than that makes you terrible, and I would quite the game, and probably tell everyone in the area to not game with you. My not having to return to therapy is more important than whatever immersion you think is being lost by not driving my character mad.

AMFV
2015-11-29, 11:07 PM
Um yeah no, if you had been in my DM's place and forced my character to be stricken with mental illness/disturbance than that makes you terrible, and I would quite the game, and probably tell everyone in the area to not game with you. My not having to return to therapy is more important than whatever immersion you think is being lost by not driving my character mad.

Well your case is likely profoundly different, as you guys were giving a variant rule a trial run, rather than playing a game where that is an expected aspect. I assume that ShadowFireLance is probably pretty open about the fact that their games are deeply immersive, and that they are that sort of game.

It is partly your responsibility to both be open about the fact that your issues may cause problems in the game, and that it would make you a poor fit for certain games. For example, a Call of Cthulu game, would likely be profoundly troubling for you.

Again, there is a grey area, where it might not be stated that something is an issue, or it might be not evident that something will be an aspect of the game. But you cannot hold other people responsible to both notice that you are in distress (which is not always evident) and to alter their own activities to suit you. There are some activities that I can't enjoy because of my stuffs, and I would not try to prevent others from doing so.

cobaltstarfire
2015-11-29, 11:25 PM
Of course I would never join a game like Call of Cthulhu that'd be rather silly on my part, and pretty rude.


Though in my case I also didn't realize I'd react that way until the variant was dropped on us in the middle of the encounter. But I was upfront about it the moment it came up. Had it been something like me giving Call of Cthulhu a try I probably would have decided to bow out gracefully upon realizing that I couldn't handle the insanity aspects of it, cause it's Call of Cthulhu the whole being driven mad is kind of expected! I certainly wouldn't expect the players or GM to change the nature of such a game.


Which I suppose is part of that grey area, sometimes a person doesn't know what is a serious no-go until they are confronted with it, so even with full disclosure at the start of a game, it's always good (as you have said) to pay attention to that kind of stuff, and respect the player if they are becoming uncomfortable. Also of course for the player to respect everyone else if it just happens to be that kind of game and it was more than they could handle.

My problem mostly comes from "If you don't want to do the whole immersion and get into your characters mindspace, then get out" that the guy was pushing.

GrayGriffin
2015-11-29, 11:32 PM
The point is missed here. The DM and players are there to enjoy, this is a point I don't argue. However, the entire point of a RPG is to be immersive. I never feel anxiety that I can't separate myself from a character, I feel like the character is a real person, like a brother or a sister that I've known forever, that I've seen grow. This is the point of an RPG, to pretend to be someone else for a while. I never once said that they had to suffer to play anything, I'm saying that they should give it their all instead of retaining this detached approach a lot of people use. I think it's great that a lot of people react so badly to taking away player agency, because that means that you're interested in your character's well-being. It may very well be 'badwrongfun' but at that point you're ignoring the purpose of the material.

This is a terrible metaphor. Are you implying that people are wrong for getting upset when someone really close to them, especially a sibling, gets hurt? You do realize that empathy is a thing that exists, right? If you had been my DM and had told me not to get upset over something happening to my character because "it's like they're your sister, not you," I would literally have punched you and probably hit you with a book. Because I do have a little sister, and I care for her safety just as much as my own.

AMFV
2015-11-29, 11:33 PM
Of course I would never join a game like Call of Cthulhu that'd be rather silly on my part, and pretty rude.

I wouldn't assume you would. My point was more to suggest that it's likely that ShadowFireLance's games are advertised as the deep immersion type and that would be red flag for you, now that you are aware of the current problem.



Though in my case I also didn't realize I'd react that way until the variant was dropped on us in the middle of the encounter. But I was upfront about it the moment it came up. Had it been something like me giving Call of Cthulhu a try I probably would have decided to bow out gracefully upon realizing that I couldn't handle the insanity aspects of it, cause it's Call of Cthulhu the whole being driven mad is kind of expected! I certainly wouldn't expect the players or GM to change the nature of such a game.


That's definitely true. I remember one of the most serious issues I had with anything being caused by a lecture at a university, which has very little to do with anything I would associate with anything. I wouldn't suggest that a DM should continue going once a player has expressed discomfort, but I would suggest that if a player is experiencing discomfort it is at least in part their responsibility to make this clear (as I believe you did)



Which I suppose is part of that grey area, sometimes a person doesn't know what is a serious no-go until they are confronted with it, so even with full disclosure at the start of a game, it's always good (as you have said) to pay attention to that kind of stuff, and respect the player if they are becoming uncomfortable.

This is exactly the reason why you can't really rule anything out a the onset, or at a session zero. Unless the player has already experienced it or has significant issues with something going in. It's more a give and take, personally for me, I tend not to be into the deep gritty type of games, just not my thing, but I wouldn't necessarily rule anything out for any game I was playing, unless it was pretty clear the bulk of the group was against it (I also would do my best to avoid things that make any one person uncomfortable, but I wouldn't necessarily bend the game around it. Ergo if you were a player in my game, and we were doing a section where sanity was important to the plot, I would probably ask if you minded sitting out a session, or try to set up a section of solo adventuring for you.) That's I think the key, finding ways to make people comfortable without jeopardizing the quality of the experience for everybody.

goto124
2015-11-30, 12:29 AM
you've picked something where the person's real-life response is so automatic that it overrides whatever was supposed to be going on in the game.

You've got the equivalent of a horror movie jumpscare - you might get a response, but its totally incoherent with any concept of immersion and not really useful.

You've made me realized something that I'd only had in the back of my mind. Thank you for putting it into words.

Jon_Dahl
2015-11-30, 01:48 AM
Before there's any more people trying to argue with ShadowFireLance, I wish to thank him for his refreshingly different approach to gaming. It would be great to play D&D with someone who has that insight towards immersion in roleplaying. I think I could learn a thing or two. I know people who have your approach (more or less), but I don't really play that much with them. I guess they don't like my games.

BootStrapTommy
2015-11-30, 02:28 AM
Maybe it's because we're discussing a highly sensitive subject that has a huge impact on many players lives and how it isn't fun to be reminded of a horrible moment in your own life. Last time I checked, murder has a pretty big impact on people's lives too. As do any number of horrible things which have been boiled down to little more than tropes in the TTRPG world. And you probably know more people than you think effected by those things.


And maybe, just maybe, you should unpack why you're defending Rape as something that should happen in games by comparing it to antisocial power fantasies that you think enough players engage in for it to be a universal argument rather than a niche case. You would have to be blind to not see that most of those behaviors are rampant in TTRPGs. It's a gooddamn trope at this point. We actually have a name for it! We call them murderhobos, and much ink has been spilled in analysis of their behavior.


Perhaps because those things are more emotionally distant? I have never known an individual who was murdered, and genocide is pretty far away from my life. Torture and cannibalism are right out. No one I have ever met has not known at least one person who was raped, if they were not raped themselves. The whole degrees of separation thing comes up. Exactly. But what frightens me is that those things are more emotionally distant to us, despite the scale at which they are perpetrate in the real world. To me that's a pretty scary thing, and says something about how and in what ways we have become desensitized to the plight of our fellow human beings on those scales.

And I call into question to what degree we should be accepting of those behaviors, given our adversion to violence of the more personal variety.

goto124
2015-11-30, 02:33 AM
Erm... people adverse to violence can avoid games that are about violence. Should we go around stopping people from playing violent games? Probably not.

BootStrapTommy
2015-11-30, 02:49 AM
Is that so, goto? Hmmm... Case and point, don't you think?

Everyone handles things very differently. One can hardly get away with generalizations about boundaries, given everyone has different boundaries.

I think this is another thread whose answer boils down to "This is why any good group begins with a discussion of preferences and boundaries."

Not every group is going to be adverse to sexual violence. But then again, not every group is gunna feel comfortable with the kind of senseless violence common in most TTRPG circles. I certainly am not comfortable with either, something I've made pretty clear to my players.

ShadowFireLance
2015-11-30, 03:55 AM
This is a terrible metaphor. Are you implying that people are wrong for getting upset when someone really close to them, especially a sibling, gets hurt? You do realize that empathy is a thing that exists, right? If you had been my DM and had told me not to get upset over something happening to my character because "it's like they're your sister, not you," I would literally have punched you and probably hit you with a book. Because I do have a little sister, and I care for her safety just as much as my own.

It's a terrible metaphor, but I find a lack of words to describe the exact situation. I have never once implied that you should not get upset if something were to happen to someone you care about. However, empathy is a trait that I've had a severe lack of usage, personally.
I would like to say that I think you misinterpreted my statement. You're actually supporting the point I was attempting to make, if your sister were threatened, you would do your best to protect her. In this case, the character that you've seen grow can be considered a sibling, at some level. Of course this varies from person to person, so I cannot make judgements except for what I've seen.



Before there's any more people trying to argue with ShadowFireLance, I wish to thank him for his refreshingly different approach to gaming. It would be great to play D&D with someone who has that insight towards immersion in roleplaying. I think I could learn a thing or two. I know people who have your approach (more or less), but I don't really play that much with them. I guess they don't like my games.

It's a style that will either drag you in or drown you. But thanks. :smallsmile:

In regards to cobaltstarfire on insanity.
I prefer not to use diseases or afflictions or anything like that, mostly because I feel it cheapens the effect. A person has a detached state from having 'scared' on a character sheet, to the player experiencing it. However, if you or anyone else had ever brought up that you weren't comfortable with it, I would be glad to talk and see what we can do to work things out. But like others have said before me, that's something you should very well bring up before you enter a game that I like to run.

goto124
2015-11-30, 04:17 AM
You meant mental illnesses, right?

The great thing about physical illnesses, is that they don't (directly) affect the way the character is roleplayed. "This does -1 to your STR, and gives you purple warts on your hands." It's quite simple to handle and react to.

But mental stuff? (It feels like) the GM is essentially reaching into your character's mind - a place usually thought of as untouchable by anyone other than yourself - and tries to play with it. It feels cheap ("Oh, neither you nor your character wants to kiss the foot of my totally awesome NPC? Make your Will save!") and breaks enjoyment by snatching away the player's ability to make choices.

It helps to give the players agency even in the case of 'illness'. From an example told by this forum a while ago, a PC (let's call her Alice) was hit by a curse that made her more attracted to gold and other shiny expensive things. When the party walked past a shop with a golden scepter on display, the GM could mention the scepter in passing to the group, then turn to Alice's player and say "Alice, in the shop was a marvelous gold scepter, polished to an impressive shine and engraved with an extremely detailed dragon. A pair of large, perfectly cut emeralds were set in the eyes of the dragon."

As more clues are dropped, Alice's player could choose to react to the situation in different ways. Alice could start hoarding gold, but Alice could also start getting rid of all her gold in an attempt to curb her addiction. Choice is key.

Florian
2015-11-30, 04:18 AM
@GrayGriffin:

That may come over as harsh, but you can't pile on all the blame on the gm, especially if he anounced up front what will happen. If people have too deep emotional scars or can't separate fictional content from real life experience, they should stay away from these kind of games.

@BootStrapTommy:

You're right, but I fear going deeper down into that topic is not too fitting for a rpg forum.

hifidelity2
2015-11-30, 05:59 AM
Taking sktarq post and expanding / modifying it


This a large part of what session 0 is about for me.

I generally run an adult rated game as a baseline. – none of my players are under 18

In the end this is a game and its meant to be fun for both players and GM

Rape
I cant think of a time I have used rape – other than a broad – “The army passed through an area raping and pillaging as they went”

Slavery
Most worlds / campaigns will have at least one society that have slavery in it. The level can go from very harsh (slaves do menial work so killing one has no more consequences that stepping on a bug), to “enlightened” slavery where there are very strict rules about how you treat them and it’s a crime to mistreat a slave. (This can be fun as a “Good” character may want to free the slaves only to find most are very happy with their lot)

Torture
No problem what so ever – level of description can vary from “I use my intimidation / Torture skill – roll a will save” to a detailed description of what is happening

Innocents
How the party treats innocents, how much the party sees innocents suffering is up to the PC’s. I may use it to tug at their heart strings / sense of duty and / or give them options to show how despicable they are

Also religion.
Since is most games it’s a made up religion I have no issues around it. A few games may be set in “modern times” and so will have religions you see today but any excesses are done by made up sects

Racism, sexism, etc

Will match the world and PC’s will be advised. If women are considered to be second class citizens or Elves despised then I will pre-warn them. Sometimes PC’s want to pay that character as its more of a challenge.

Stereotypes

I like to use near stereotypes in some of my games. NPC's that at a glance allow a PC to see how a stereotype could have come out of such a NPC but how it doesn't tell their whole story. Thus I have to be careful with it. I avoid ones that I think may causes issues for the particular players in that game/table but don't have any that are verboten overall.

Frozen_Feet
2015-11-30, 08:43 AM
No.

There are issues which are too touchy for some players, but that's a different thing. When you are designing or organizing a game, you have to choose a target audience, because you can't please everyone.

In fact, I just returned from a convention where I ran LotFP's Death Love Doom thrice, with a note it wasn't suitable for anyone. 15 people still came to my table, some of them complete beginners, all of them were visibly horrified by the content, yet their macabre curiosity made them stay till the end. (The only player who had to leave prematurely due to a job shift came back for a second game.)

They had fun, I had fun. If they had any expections, I broke pretty much all of them. No discussion was ever had of what would be comfortable, but we ended with people laughing and thanking me for a great game nonetheless.

You can play games this way, too. It works, because of bile fascination and self-selection. Remember, someone made Boku no Pico and some people watch it too. That watching it could cause trauma to someone doesn't matter because those people don't have to watch it. They're not the target audience and when they're not the target audience, their issues don't have much weight.

Steampunkette
2015-11-30, 08:58 AM
You would have to be blind to not see that most of those behaviors are rampant in TTRPGs. It's a gooddamn trope at this point. We actually have a name for it! We call them murderhobos, and much ink has been spilled in analysis of their behavior.

Yes. We have a derogatory term for a specific type of table top gamer who pretty much ignores roleplay considerations and just murders the heck out of anything in their path.

And we have lots of discussions about the antisocial tendencies of these players.

Clearly, that means those players are the largest group of players and all discussion of sensitivity towards anything they feel little to nothing about are completely invalid.

Please remove your head from your fourth point of contact. You're not arguing that it's cool at some tables to handle subjects other tables might consider touchy. You're arguing that NO ONE should find them touchy.

As to murder it affects a VASTLY SMALLER PORTION of the population, either as victim or relative thereof, than sexual assault. And, surprisingly, few people survive it long enough to play a table top game. Dunno why that is... More on point: Someone who has had a violent death in their life can choose not to join a game which is built around violence. But thankfully they don't have Sex Dungeons and Rape Dragons released, yet, unfortunately that makes it a lot harder to be aware of a given story having sexual violence in it in advance...

In short: Rule Zero should be number 1. The muderhobo's opinions on whether or not someone should "Suck it Up" is freaking irrelevant.

goto124
2015-11-30, 09:09 AM
There's plenty of middle ground between "Rainbows, Cupcakes, Fluffy Penguins (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3In4gDQMa9Q)" and "Sex Dungeons & Rape Dragons".

It's a matter of where in the middle ground the game should/will be. For example, many people accept violence, and may even play for the violence. Much fewer people accept rape.

Beleriphon
2015-11-30, 09:25 AM
On the topic of casual physical violence, I'd like to point out that TTRPG tends to treat combat like a Hollywood movie. Even movies like Saving Private Ryan aren't actually that shocking because they aren't that realistic. RPGs usually go from stabbing a goblin in the face, and it falls over dead. There's no multi-turn rolls and descriptions how the stab wound has incapacitated the creature but it didn't kill the goblin and the poor thing is now gurgling with a collapsed lunch and broken bones and probably wont die for another three or four hours. Never mind how much blood is in a body, there's stuff that makes full of Dragon Age: Origins for how bloody the characters get in a fight, but using swords in close quarters will result in blood stains.

GreyBlack
2015-11-30, 09:42 AM
I was once involved with a DM who asked us if we had any taboo subjects or triggers to be avoided during gameplay. We were going to be running an evil campaign, but didn't want to squick out any of our players or hurt any of us.

This backfired catastrophically when the first action in game was literally murdering an innocent person for extremely fantasy-races-based racism (no good humans...). From there, it only went downhill, leaving the DM speechless at times as to how cruel our characters could be. This culminated in one of our characters abducting a small child and doing unspeakable deeds to it, while my character actually dropping a Locate City Bomb (negative level variant) on the town and asking how much XP I get.

.... the shopkeeper tried to rip me off... and the DM was mortified...

goto124
2015-11-30, 09:46 AM
DM tried not to creep out the players, players end up being the ones who creep out the DM?

Frozen_Feet
2015-11-30, 09:54 AM
@Steampunkette: while it would be absurd to say no-one should be touchy about some issues, it is easy to argue a lot of people should be less touchy regarding great many.

Because while those who sink to lowest level of Kohlberg's moral stages when playing D&D might not be the largest customer base for RPGs, neither are those who get trauma flashbacks from them.

To use an RPG specific touchy issue: player-versus-player is frowned upon in RPG communities. But this taboo was mostly created and is perpetuated solely by roleplayers themselves. If we examine tabletop games outside roleplay, we quickly find player-versus-player is in fact more common than co-operative play! Indeed, we have games like Diplomacy, Poker, Werewolf and Monopoly, which invidually rival or exceed D&D in popularity, where deception and coercion of other players is a fundamental game strategy.

So when you introduce an all-new group to an RPG, there's a whole host of questions which regularly go unasked by experienced players:

Is there any reason to ban PvP? Would losing to another player really ruin a new player's enjoyment, when that's pretty much expected in other tabletop games? Is acting as a group in any way vital to roleplaying? Is co-operative play the main appeal here, or is it something else?

So on and so forth.

In another discussion like this, I pointed out day-time soap operas are full of stuff which are "controversial" in RPGs... but soap operas have much wider appeal, to women also.

I don't remember the exact reply, but it was along the line "soap operas are inferior form of entertainment and I don't want it in my hobby".

In a small hobby, it's easy to get trapped in an echo chamber and forget the bigger picture. I feel many efforts to make RPGs appeal to a wider audience fail because their approach is informed by ideological cliques and experienced players talking of what other experienced players think is good gaming. There could be, say, a notable market for a soap opera game among middle-aged ladies or notable market for Death Love Doom among horror movie fans, but no-one's tried to offer that to them.

Steampunkette
2015-11-30, 10:47 AM
It's very easy to argue about something that doesn't directly affect you and how that thing shouldn't affect others. That's definitely true. That doesn't make the arguments valid, just easy.

That said, yeah. Any given sensitive topic is probably not going to affect a given table. But the chances that at least One sensitive topic will affect any given table are pretty high, just by the law of large numbers.

And, as always, Rule Zero should come into play. Talk to the people who belly up to the table and get to know where the fun ends, so you can tip toe around that line rather than flinging yourself across it and ruining someone else's night. That's all I'm saying.

Well. That and that arguing people should "get over" deep seated emotional trauma because maybe someone at the table wants to play an antisocial personality type that triggers that trauma is freaking stupid.

NichG
2015-11-30, 11:04 AM
One complicating factor, just to throw this into the mix, is that there is a kind of behavior that crops up now and then where someone realizes that by saying that something offends them or triggers them, they get a bit of power over others and can seize social control. So they end up wearing touchiness about things like a badge - exaggerating about how strongly things affect them, or even purposefully injecting themselves into situations that are likely to offend them so they can generate drama, get attention, act self-righteous about it, etc.

If we're talking about session 0 type interviews, where you haven't really had a chance to see how a new player actually behaves and responds in gameplay and social situations, then how do you distinguish someone who is honestly bothered by something from someone who is amplifying? And in that line, is there a point at which you'd say to someone 'okay, I understand if you don't want to play in a game that has X; that means this game probably isn't for you' as opposed to 'so I will avoid having X in this game'?

Steampunkette
2015-11-30, 11:26 AM
A few questions:

1. How can you tell that someone is exaggerating how badly something effects them? You're not in their shoes and have no idea what they're feeling.

2. A lot of people who feel strongly about a topic feel the need to argue for or against that topic, even when it risks harm to themselves. Why is this considered a self-righteous or negative thing, when advocacy is generally accepted as not only a valid but needed example of discourse?

3. Who cares? If someone says they feel uncomfortable about rape in a game and you don't put rape in the game then whether they're "Lying" or not (from your external perspective) is completely irrelevant because there's no rape in the game.

And if you do decide to tell them to leave the table because you'll have it in the game, the result is the same: They don't interact with the thing that sets them off.

Raine_Sage
2015-11-30, 12:46 PM
There are two problems with comparing sexual violence to physical violence.


1. Dramatization of violence is never realistic. People don't die in one hit in real life. They scream, they cry, they gurgle, they soil themselves. The process can take hours, especially if it's a gut shot. This ties into the fact that Movie or Game violence never focuses on the experiences of the victim unless it's the protagonist dying of a horrific battle wound. If as a DM I started lingering over the loving descriptions of every enemy's death rattle or how they scream for their mothers until the very end I can almost guarantee you a lot of your players would start getting very uncomfortable very fast. Violence in Games and Movies relies on you not seeing the enemies as "people" precisely to prevent that pesky empathy thing from ruining your experience. It's why storm troopers are a thing, it's why zombies exploded onto the scene the way they did. Huge swaths of disposable enemies you don't have to feel bad for when they die. Hell it's the reason for "Always Chaotic Evil" races in DnD.

Compare this to sexual violence which almost always lingers on the experience of the victim both during and after the fact, and which doesn't have any of the moral justifications killing does that can make you see the recipient as deserving. You can always argue that killing someone is justified, maybe they're dangerous, maybe you know they'll never stop chasing you until they're dead, maybe their crimes were so horrific you want to be sure they're never given a chance to repeat them. You can never argue someone deserves to raped. Well I mean you can, but you can't do it without coming off like a sadist and a creep.


2. Violence is an inherently public event. Wars are public. Shootings are public. Bar room brawls are public. Violence spills out into the open by its very nature, it's loud it's messy and it's visible. Sexual violence is private, it's done away from prying eyes and the victims are often discouraged from talking about their experiences. I don't think I need to elaborate too much on why people are generally OK discussing something highly visible vs. something incredibly private.

cobaltstarfire
2015-11-30, 12:48 PM
I have to say, I don't think most of the other "touchy" issues brought up really bother me much as a player. (Which is probably why the insanity thing kind of snuck up on me, and part of why I brought it up...because it was surprising for everyone involved at my table I think).

I play mostly D&D but after a year long stint of role master I really missed things like the wounds table. Even if there are some pretty horrific things on it, it made combat more involved, and in at least one case led to some role play choices I may not have been able to make in a D&D game unless the GM was the sort who would at least describe criticals a little on the graphic side.


Though I think what's really important is how certain things are handled. For example if rape were involved in a game, it likely wouldn't bother me, unless it was treated like a joke. (and that's more awareness that folks who make rape jokes are more likely to be ok with rape). Though I think that rape is a touchy subject because it's often much more personal and comes with a lot of extra baggage that violence doesn't necessarily come with.

People who play violent games and such aren't necessarily violent people, they don't become violent people because they consume violent media either. Numerous studies have been done now and violent games/movies/books/TV generally don't make people violent, though it is good to make sure that children understand the difference between fantasy and reality.

I'm pretty sure most of us are rather peaceful and likely even friendly in real life, even those of us who enjoy murderhoboism.

GrayGriffin
2015-11-30, 01:27 PM
@GrayGriffin:

That may come over as harsh, but you can't pile on all the blame on the gm, especially if he anounced up front what will happen. If people have too deep emotional scars or can't separate fictional content from real life experience, they should stay away from these kind of games.

What about if someone told the GM they were uncomfortable with something and he went ahead with that anyways? That's the issue that's being discussed here. Why are you piling all the blame on the players?

AMFV
2015-11-30, 02:35 PM
I think all of the arguments contrasting violence with sexual assault are a non sequitur. The depiction of both may be equally disturbing to different folks. Heck, as folks have pointed out, the depiction of spiders may be too disturbing for some folks. Or even the possibility that their character had a mental illness. Everybody has things that they aren't comfortable with, that's fine.

However, blanket avoiding things just because you suspect that somebody else may be uncomfortable with them is somewhat a poor decision to my mind. Firstly, because, I, personally would be significantly more bothered by the idea that others were bending their preferences around me, treating me as though I were somehow broken, or deciding that I couldn't handle something for me. Secondly, and following on that first point, it is NOT your job to decide other people's comfort level. Somebody who is a rape survivor may be fine with sexual violence themes in his or her games. You don't get to decide what somebody else is comfortable with. I've been to war, I'm fine with war in games, I've experienced horrific poverty (to the point where food was in question), I'm fine with horrific poverty in games, I've had brushes with mental illness, and I'm fine with that aspect as well. There are things that I've not experienced that would bother me far more than those things. I don't need (nor does anyone else) people to wrap them up in pillows because they aren't adults, treating a victim (or somebody you believe may have been a victim) like a child, is to dehumanize them, only in the other direction.

I'll reiterate, it's fine if a table plays a game that has content that isn't your cup of tea, but it's not okay to force them to change their game to suite your needs. It's fine if you play "Rapin', Pillagin' and Murderin'" The Game, but not okay if you keep going when somebody is clearly uncomfortable without offering them an out.

Edit: Also to add, sometimes going through an experience that was traumatic, again, can even be cathartic. (I'm not saying it would be for everybody, and the gaming table isn't a therapist's office), but there are certainly people who seek that kind of aspect from games even in a small way. After all, fighting bullies in a game when you can't in real life, is fairly omnipresent in fiction, and that's for a reason. The things that are true in a small scale, are often true in a larger scale.

Steampunkette
2015-11-30, 03:04 PM
AMFV: No one is going to force anyone to change their games.

It's essentially impossible, since the DM can just say "Well this is how I'm going to run it and I know you're uncomfortable with that, so you should step away from the table."

As far as "I'd feel uncomfortable being treated as if I were broken"... that's kind of pointless speculation. I mean it's totally accurate, don't get me wrong. But as someone who was triggered pretty hard, and recently, at work by her coworkers: That's the least of the discomfort.

First comes the sense of betrayal.
Then the terror of what they'll do.
Then the terror of how you'll react.
Then you freeze up.
Then come the tears.
Then there's the anger that wells up and gives you brief fantasies of righteous indignation.
Followed by the realization that you're fundamentally broken in a way you don't control. At least by society's standards.
Then comes the isolation when you try to convey all of this to someone who doesn't understand.
Then you're back to Betrayal, and terror and tears...
And then you recast events and wonder how much the triggering event played a part in them. Did the person always have it in for you?
And then the self-inspection and derogation as you internalize the pain as your own fault.
More tears.
Lost sleep.
Panic attacks.

I'd rather feel uncomfortable knowing that someone is trying to protect me from another loss of control over my emotions, than know that they're comfortable knowingly inducing it after I've told them about the problem.

It's like finding out someone has an allergy to cinnamon and then bringing cinnamon rolls as the snack for the game session. At best you're going to alienate that person. At worst you're going to send them away from the table, possibly permanently, for fear of their safety.

AMFV
2015-11-30, 03:24 PM
AMFV: No one is going to force anyone to change their games.

It's essentially impossible, since the DM can just say "Well this is how I'm going to run it and I know you're uncomfortable with that, so you should step away from the table."

Or we could have a player, bully the DM into playing something that they don't want too, and make them miserably wade through scenarios, enjoying it less and less. It just depends on which of them is more aggressive in that scenario. I've certainly seen it that way.



As far as "I'd feel uncomfortable being treated as if I were broken"... that's kind of pointless speculation. I mean it's totally accurate, don't get me wrong. But as someone who was triggered pretty hard, and recently, at work by her coworkers: That's the least of the discomfort.

As you stated before, you aren't me, you don't know how I feel. My statement was that being mollycoddled would be MORE uncomfortable for me, than having a minor reference to something that was a problem for me in my past. Significantly so in fact. Because there is nothing wrong with having mental issues, my struggles with traumatic stuff, that's beyond my control, so yes, I may experience the wonderful joys of that visceral reaction. But the other response, trying to shelter me, that's a rejection of my character.

The one is somebody causing me discomfort, due to something outside of my control, the other is the person basically maligning my character. Which is why I'd rather have a full-on flashback (which doesn't happen often), than to have somebody go out of their way to "protect" me, without my prior askance. And I have asked for that on occasion.




First comes the sense of betrayal.
Then the terror of what they'll do.
Then the terror of how you'll react.
Then you freeze up.
Then come the tears.
Then there's the anger that wells up and gives you brief fantasies of righteous indignation.
Followed by the realization that you're fundamentally broken in a way you don't control. At least by society's standards.
Then comes the isolation when you try to convey all of this to someone who doesn't understand.
Then you're back to Betrayal, and terror and tears...
And then you recast events and wonder how much the triggering event played a part in them. Did the person always have it in for you?
And then the self-inspection and derogation as you internalize the pain as your own fault.
More tears.
Lost sleep.
Panic attacks.

I hate to reiterate this, but your feelings are just those. Your feelings. How I may feel in that instance may be completely different from your reaction. What I need and want from others may be completely different. You only get to speak for one person's feelings in these cases, and that person is you. Certainly if something has that negative an effect on you, you should avoid it. But not everybody who has the same sort of background as whatever caused the triggering thing, may want that.



I'd rather feel uncomfortable knowing that someone is trying to protect me from another loss of control over my emotions, than know that they're comfortable knowingly inducing it after I've told them about the problem.

It's like finding out someone has an allergy to cinnamon and then bringing cinnamon rolls as the snack for the game session. At best you're going to alienate that person. At worst you're going to send them away from the table, possibly permanently, for fear of their safety.

The problem with your analogy is the order it's presented. I've never seen a scenario where "too touchy" situations came up AFTER they were discussed. They come up before. Essentially what we see is more like this: "Player A has an allergy to cinnamon, but never mentions it, because that's private, and it never really comes up. Then the DM brings cinnamon rolls to a game." That's the scenario, we see, because people do not go around broadcasting their previous mental health issues (or even strong dislikes really). Outside of the anonymity of an internet forum, I certainly don't. So the issue is that we can't just not bring any food at all because somebody might have an allergy, or on a lesser note, they may not like the food. I mean asking about what sort of food somebody likes beforehand, is probably a good strategy, but that doesn't solve all problems.

Again, we've not had a lot of people deliberately forcing somebody through a problem scenario, the only instance of somebody even having a problem (that was mentioned in this thread) was Cobaltstarfire, who was unaware of the problem herself, and when the DM noticed it, he stopped immediately

cobaltstarfire
2015-11-30, 03:27 PM
I think all of the arguments contrasting violence with sexual assault are a non sequitur.

I think most of that talk is replying to the guy saying that he worries about society because people playing role playing games are more likely to find rape to be touchy than violence because if we're not as touchy with violence it apparently means we're violent people or at the very least callous and more likely to be dangerous or something?

But I suppose it is kind of besides the point, since everyone is different and has different thresholds for various things while still being good decent people in real life.

Edit: I too would feel a little annoyed if someone tried to decide for me what I needed to be protected from though. That's something I and I alone can decide. I'm the sort who strongly refuses to identify with my problem, I don't want it put on a pedestal, I don't want to be protected or tip toed around. I do appreciate being asked if something is ok, but having someone censor things or others on my behalf is not something I typically appreciate. It's about the same as having someone walk up and taking the tire iron from me and changing a flat tire for me without even asking, or not allowing me to cut my own piece of wood on a table saw, simply because I've only recently learned how to use it and they think they're doing me a favor by doing it for me.


A good take away is probably "ask don't assume". when it comes down to it.

BootStrapTommy
2015-11-30, 04:36 PM
Please remove your head from your fourth point of contact. You're not arguing that it's cool at some tables to handle subjects other tables might consider touchy. You're arguing that NO ONE should find them touchy. You are definitely putting words in my mouth there. That was certainly not the issue I was addressing.


As to murder it affects a VASTLY SMALLER PORTION of the population, either as victim or relative thereof, than sexual assault. And, surprisingly, few people survive it long enough to play a table top game. Dunno why that is... More on point: Someone who has had a violent death in their life can choose not to join a game which is built around violence. But thankfully they don't have Sex Dungeons and Rape Dragons released, yet, unfortunately that makes it a lot harder to be aware of a given story having sexual violence in it in advance...
You know, a vastly smaller portion of rape survivors are male. Doesn't mean my GMs and players don't owe me the courtesy of consideration toward my inclusion in that demographic, now does it?

It's always a bad idea to make arguments based on scale. The probability of inclusion in a demographic has no real bearing on the actual demographic make up of a group. The latter, not the former, should be the prime consideration.


You're right, but I fear going deeper down into that topic is not too fitting for a rpg forum. While I agree that the cultural aspect of our comfort with violence is probably not a good topic for these forums, I do think the topic of varying levels of comfort with violence within the context of the game is warrant in a discussion of boundaries. It seems to be something no one pays attention to. And those of us (myself and notably one of my players) who do take such issue often find ourselves the target of comments to the effect of Steampunkette's. Why play a game containing violence if it offends you?


Emotional distance to the subject matter. I think it's fair to say that most of us are lucky enough to live in countries where people you hold dear are not killed on a regular basis, stuff like torture is next to unheard of, and so on. Aptly put. Though for the record, if death were actually preferable to victimhood, I wouldn't be alive. I'm personally inclined from experience to think death the worse fate.

Unfortunately the dead have a habit of being dead, which makes them none to inclined to be vocal about their discomforts...

Steampunkette
2015-11-30, 04:39 PM
The problem with your analogy is the order it's presented. I've never seen a scenario where "too touchy" situations came up AFTER they were discussed. They come up before. Essentially what we see is more like this: "Player A has an allergy to cinnamon, but never mentions it, because that's private, and it never really comes up. Then the DM brings cinnamon rolls to a game." That's the scenario, we see, because people do not go around broadcasting their previous mental health issues (or even strong dislikes really). Outside of the anonymity of an internet forum, I certainly don't. So the issue is that we can't just not bring any food at all because somebody might have an allergy, or on a lesser note, they may not like the food. I mean asking about what sort of food somebody likes beforehand, is probably a good strategy, but that doesn't solve all problems.

You're right about my feelings being my own. I'm saying that the kind of strong reactions to these experiences that result in panic attacks are not the kind of thing where you'd rather experience them than feel uncomfortable people are moving on eggshells around you. Maybe that's not a thing you have to deal with, currently, but I'm trying to convey the kind of reactions these situations can produce.

As to the Cinnamon Allergy: Look through this thread, again. Look to the people saying that the best way to handle these kind of things are to lay out things BEFORE the game starts (generally as the GM) providing content warnings and making sure everyone is comfortable.

It's more common than you might think. And it's a REALLY great idea to avoid cinnamoning someone. After all, Music and Movies and Stage Shows and even Books have content warnings for similar reasons (Though for Movies it's mostly about what parents shouldn't expose their kids to that they promptly ignore and then complain about it afterward).

Heck, the Book of Vile Darkness had a content warning right on the cover 'cause WotC wanted to produce the material for players looking for dark games, but also wanted to make sure people who would feel uncomfortable about the contents knew they'd be getting into some graphic stuff.

The cinnamon roll thing is actually a little far off the mark, you're right. It's closer to ordering a pizza in the middle of the session, deciding what toppings to put on it, and learning someone hates Onions and is allergic to Mushrooms.

But then there are also people who will come to the next session with a bag of mushrooms to flick at the person allergic to them because they think it's funny. And I kind of feel like there's a few people like that in this thread.

Ruslan
2015-11-30, 04:53 PM
If there are female players, I don't let their characters be subjected to sexual violence. I think that might be too excessive in games. This does break my immersion to the game as a gamemaster, however, since I don't see why evil creatures of male gender wouldn't rape a female captive.


Sometimes, the absence of something can really break immersion.
For example, if you want to portray the horros of war and occupation, especially the dehumanizing that will lead to war crimes, then leaving out certain stuff will miss the point of the whole exercise.
Whenever I hear the "but the absence of rape will break immersion!" argument, I am reminded of the fact that Schindler's List and Life is Beautiful, two of all-time greatest films for depicting wartime horrors, did so without graphic sexual violence. I honestly can't imagine anyone critiquing Schindler's List with "nice movie, but not enough raping to maintain my immersion". If the absence of graphic rape didn't break immersion for Spielberg, it won't break it at your table.

Steampunkette
2015-11-30, 04:55 PM
You know, a vastly smaller portion of rape survivors are male. Doesn't mean my GMs and players don't owe me the courtesy of consideration toward my inclusion in that demographic, now does it?

It's always a bad idea to make arguments based on scale. The probability of inclusion in a demographic has no real bearing on the actual demographic make up of a group. The latter, not the former, should be the prime consideration.


You have completely missed my point.

So, roughly, 18% of people you're going to meet in your life are people who have been sexually assaulted. Whether that's molestation or rape isn't the important thing. Male or female or gender nonconforming is irrelevant.

A further 1-4% of all people you meet are going to be transgender or otherwise gender nonconforming.

Depending on the survey between 4 and 10% of people you're going to meet in your life will be gay, bisexual, or otherwise not heteronormative.

Another 6% of people you run into will have had issues with miscarriages or loss of children.

And somewhere around .3% of people you meet will be the survivors of victims of murder.

I'm not saying we should ignore those .3% because they're not as big a number as the other groups. I'm saying that unless D&D, Shadowrun, and countless other tabletop games are rewritten in such a way as to have no violence in them there's nothing you can do about those .3% of people not wanting to deal with this kind of imaginary violence. And y'know, my heart goes out to those people who can't enjoy a massive quantity of media because it centers around violence.

That really is a huge crux of the matter, too: Society treats these things as different because they ARE different. Comparing rape to murder may be convenient for an argument on how people deserve equal treatment, but going out of your way to treat more people worse isn't the right course of action. Specifically adding negativity to make things "equal" at your table is the wrong way to go about it. Maybe look for games without violence, rape, and discrimination, instead of adding discrimination and rape where they don't exist at the expense of others.

Those other things I listed? You can talk to the people at your table and avoid the negative and triggering effects of those issues WITHOUT rewriting the game. There's nothing in the Forgotten Realms, for example, that dictates transgender characters get ostracized. Or gay ones get chased down and beaten to death. Nothing that says female Player Characters earn 60% of a share of the loot that a male Player Character earns. And no rules at all exist on how to engage in sexual assault of an unwilling target.

When you make the conscious choice to add those things into your game, you should make sure everyone you're playing with knows what they're getting into. So settle in to a Rule Zero discussion with your players and DM.

icefractal
2015-11-30, 04:58 PM
To use an RPG specific touchy issue: player-versus-player is frowned upon in RPG communities. But this taboo was mostly created and is perpetuated solely by roleplayers themselves. If we examine tabletop games outside roleplay, we quickly find player-versus-player is in fact more common than co-operative play! Indeed, we have games like Diplomacy, Poker, Werewolf and Monopoly, which invidually rival or exceed D&D in popularity, where deception and coercion of other players is a fundamental game strategy.The main difference with those games is twofold:
1) The game happens, you compete with each-other, someone wins, and then the game ends. You don't have to contrive an excuse why you'd still associate with Mr. Backstabby (or spend time making new characters), because the next time you play is a clean slate.
2) Player actions are significant constrained by the game rules. When playing Werewolves, for example, you can't choose to leave the village for somewhere safer, or stay awake all night with a shotgun, or lead a mutiny against the Sheriff, or execute more than one person in a single day. Whereas in an RPG, players can and probably will do all of those things.

That said, PvP in RPGs can work. It does have a significant 'overhead' cost though, in that the security measures and secrecy that become necessary will eat up a fair amount of gaming time.

Kami2awa
2015-11-30, 05:01 PM
There's a powerful tool that GMs can use for when horrible stuff comes up:

Fade to black.

That is to say, the horrible stuff happens, but you don't roleplay or describe it. In fact, you can have more impact on the story if things are left to the PCs' imaginations, because they'll imagine something horrible within their own scope of horrible things that they are willing to imagine.

BootStrapTommy
2015-11-30, 05:06 PM
Whenever I hear the "but the absence of rape will break immersion!" argument, I am reminded of the fact that Schindler's List and Life is Beautiful, two of all-time greatest films for depicting wartime horrors, did so without graphic sexual violence. I honestly can't imagine anyone critiquing Schindler's List with "nice movie, but not enough raping to maintain my immersion". If the absence of graphic rape didn't break immersion for Spielberg, it won't break it at your table. I'm not sure you watched the same Schindler's List I did. Because Amon Goethe's sexual deviances with his maid are hardly overlooked in the film. Maybe not graphically depicted, but depicted nonetheless.

Not to counter your point, mind you. Just Schindler's List might not be the anecdote you were looking for...

Steampunkette
2015-11-30, 05:07 PM
If there are female players, I don't let their characters be subjected to sexual violence. I think that might be too excessive in games. This does break my immersion to the game as a gamemaster, however, since I don't see why evil creatures of male gender wouldn't rape a female captive.

Sometimes, the absence of something can really break immersion.
For example, if you want to portray the horros of war and occupation, especially the dehumanizing that will lead to war crimes, then leaving out certain stuff will miss the point of the whole exercise.Whenever I hear the "but the absence of rape will break immersion!" argument, I am reminded of the fact that Schindler's List and Life is Beautiful, two of all-time greatest films for depicting wartime horrors, did so without graphic sexual violence. I honestly can't imagine anyone critiquing Schindler's List with "nice movie, but not enough raping to maintain my immersion". If the absence of graphic rape didn't break immersion for Spielberg, it won't break it at your table.

Quoted for truth.

People who need rape and discrimination to feel like the game world is real when Unicorns prance around fields and spellcasters alter the flow of the universe by wiggling their fingers and reciting a few weird words, where fighters make 8 accurate strikes and run 30ft in six seconds, and where someone with a couple of bits of wire can open the most complex locking mechanism known to man in under 6 seconds, confuse the heck out of me.

It's like... You can suspend disbelief that tasks that are literally impossible can be done, but evil men MUST rape women (Notice there was no Evil Men must rape Men or Evil Women raping Women in the quoted post regardless of what we've seen endlessly throughout history, mostly in closed environments like prisons, ships, and cloisters) just boggles my mind.

And MOST rape isn't performed by strangers. It's done by family and friends, people the victim knows really well and lets their guard down around. Often as not the rapist feels like there was an emotional bond or other reason why it was okay to do what they did.

And in places like Prisons, military campaigns, or captive situations rape is almost never about sexual attraction and almost always about power and dominance. Gender is kind of irrelevant, regardless of what movies tell you.

Florian
2015-11-30, 05:17 PM
You know, that was pretty much what the "not including something breaks versimilitude" argument is not about.

It is not about making dark even darker or accentuating how bad someone is by deliberatelly breaking taboos.

To use the above given figures, it is about depicting things as they are if the game is about handling exactly those things.

Kami2awa
2015-11-30, 05:18 PM
There's a powerful tool that GMs can use for when horrible stuff comes up:

Fade to black.

That is to say, the horrible stuff happens, but you don't roleplay or describe it. In fact, you can have more impact on the story if things are left to the PCs' imaginations, because they'll imagine something horrible within their own scope of horrible things that they are willing to imagine.

Having said this, there is also the even more powerful tool of "I don't want that behaviour in our game." - and the next step is "I don't want you in our game." Some of the behaviour that people have been describing I would not put up with or gloss over at all.

Ruslan
2015-11-30, 05:27 PM
I'm not sure you watched the same Schindler's List I did. Because Amon Goethe's sexual deviances with his maid are hardly overlooked in the film. Maybe not graphically depicted, but depicted nonetheless.

Not to counter your point, mind you. Just Schindler's List might not be the anecdote you were looking for...I have to admit, it's been a while since I watched SL, and I may have forgotten about that particular scene. I was under the impression they conveniently faded to black, but I might be wrong. Memory, they say, is the first thing to go.

JoeJ
2015-11-30, 05:48 PM
There's a powerful tool that GMs can use for when horrible stuff comes up:

Fade to black.

That is to say, the horrible stuff happens, but you don't roleplay or describe it. In fact, you can have more impact on the story if things are left to the PCs' imaginations, because they'll imagine something horrible within their own scope of horrible things that they are willing to imagine.

I agree with this. In fact, if a PC is captured, the player can decide how brutally they're treated. (Within reason, of course. A paladin captured by hobgoblins might have been beaten up, tortured, or simply thrown into a cell and left there, but they probably weren't given cocoa and a magic sword.)

AMFV
2015-11-30, 06:09 PM
You're right about my feelings being my own. I'm saying that the kind of strong reactions to these experiences that result in panic attacks are not the kind of thing where you'd rather experience them than feel uncomfortable people are moving on eggshells around you. Maybe that's not a thing you have to deal with, currently, but I'm trying to convey the kind of reactions these situations can produce.

I have PTSD. I've had flashbacks, I've been unable to sleep... for days at a time. I've jumped at every tiny sound, panicked when I didn't have a rifle and I was getting out of my car. Maybe you shouldn't jump to conclusions about what other people experience. I would rather be stuck awake three days, than see my friends treat me like a child. One thing is suckish, the other thing indicates that my friends don't think of me as an equal, and worse still they don't even think I can decide for myself.



As to the Cinnamon Allergy: Look through this thread, again. Look to the people saying that the best way to handle these kind of things are to lay out things BEFORE the game starts (generally as the GM) providing content warnings and making sure everyone is comfortable.

Certainly, if your game is going to include subjects that are obviously squicky for many people, it should be discussed beforehand. But what is going to be an issue for somebody is not always easy to foresee. Look at Cobaltblue's example, she did not even recognize it was going to be a problem until it actually happened, that is I suspect much more common than the DM springs the rapefest on the players.



It's more common than you might think. And it's a REALLY great idea to avoid cinnamoning someone. After all, Music and Movies and Stage Shows and even Books have content warnings for similar reasons (Though for Movies it's mostly about what parents shouldn't expose their kids to that they promptly ignore and then complain about it afterward).

You are mistaken. The content warnings are to avoid consumption by children without their parent's involvement. I game pretty much exclusively with adults, and I trust adults to be able to tell me when they have a problem with something. That's part of being an adult.



The cinnamon roll thing is actually a little far off the mark, you're right. It's closer to ordering a pizza in the middle of the session, deciding what toppings to put on it, and learning someone hates Onions and is allergic to Mushrooms.

But then there are also people who will come to the next session with a bag of mushrooms to flick at the person allergic to them because they think it's funny. And I kind of feel like there's a few people like that in this thread.

I suspect that in real life that number dwindles significantly. I would agree that there are people of poor character. But that doesn't mean that a topic should be off-limits to ALL games (as you earlier implied) but that it's something that should be handled well.


You have completely missed my point.

So, roughly, 18% of people you're going to meet in your life are people who have been sexually assaulted. Whether that's molestation or rape isn't the important thing. Male or female or gender nonconforming is irrelevant.

A further 1-4% of all people you meet are going to be transgender or otherwise gender nonconforming.

Depending on the survey between 4 and 10% of people you're going to meet in your life will be gay, bisexual, or otherwise not heteronormative.

Another 6% of people you run into will have had issues with miscarriages or loss of children.

And somewhere around .3% of people you meet will be the survivors of victims of murder.

If you're including all forms of sexual assault, not just rape, it would only be fair to include all acts of violence against a person, in which case the number of people who have experienced violence swells up to about half.


There's a powerful tool that GMs can use for when horrible stuff comes up:

Fade to black.

That is to say, the horrible stuff happens, but you don't roleplay or describe it. In fact, you can have more impact on the story if things are left to the PCs' imaginations, because they'll imagine something horrible within their own scope of horrible things that they are willing to imagine.


Quoted for truth.

People who need rape and discrimination to feel like the game world is real when Unicorns prance around fields and spellcasters alter the flow of the universe by wiggling their fingers and reciting a few weird words, where fighters make 8 accurate strikes and run 30ft in six seconds, and where someone with a couple of bits of wire can open the most complex locking mechanism known to man in under 6 seconds, confuse the heck out of me.

It's like... You can suspend disbelief that tasks that are literally impossible can be done, but evil men MUST rape women (Notice there was no Evil Men must rape Men or Evil Women raping Women in the quoted post regardless of what we've seen endlessly throughout history, mostly in closed environments like prisons, ships, and cloisters) just boggles my mind.

And MOST rape isn't performed by strangers. It's done by family and friends, people the victim knows really well and lets their guard down around. Often as not the rapist feels like there was an emotional bond or other reason why it was okay to do what they did.

And in places like Prisons, military campaigns, or captive situations rape is almost never about sexual attraction and almost always about power and dominance. Gender is kind of irrelevant, regardless of what movies tell you.

You folks may not need that to have immersion. Others may, you don't get to decide what is relevant to their experience, and what they need to have immersion. Nor should you judge them based on that. I would not want to play in a game where sexual assault was commonplace, and certainly not one where it's acted out, but I understand that somebody else might, and that's completely fine.

goto124
2015-11-30, 07:08 PM
I seem to misunderstand the mollycoddling argument.

If the GM brings cinnamon rolls to the table and a player is allergic to cinnamon, said player should bring up the allergy! Nothing wrong with that right, unless somehow the GM starts saying "No you're a liar you just hate me"?

I don't think there's any food-related issue that can be an analogy for rape. Anyway, is it reasonable for a GM to avoid rape because it's rather well known to make people rather queasy, to put it mildly? I would say yes, it is reasonable, even more so when the topic of rape is by and large easily avoided. If the GM wants to bring rape up in the games, there's always the option of "ask the players beforehand". The only thing the GM loses is surprise, and very few people would want to be surprised by rape.

On the other hand, playing DnD and trying to avoid violence because violence makes some people uncomfortable is... it's like playing CoC and trying to avoid insanity. If a player uncomfortable with a core component of the game (e.g. spiders in a campaign about a Temple of Lolth) somehow joined the game anyway, it's best to say "I understand your fears, but we need people who don't freak out at the mention of spiders. Please try a spider-less game."

Broken Twin
2015-11-30, 07:51 PM
I'm in rough agreement with AMFV here. My primary group and I suffer from a wide range of issues (one in a very similar situation to AMFV), and we all are trying to cope and live with our various problems. It's one thing to know you can rely on your friends when things go bad, it's another to force them to handle your issues because you can't or won't.

I don't think anybody here is fine with the idea of forcing someone to participate in subject matter they don't wish to engage in. But at the same time, you shouldn't constantly be on your toes that something might offend or trigger someone at the table. If it's something they know about, they can bring it up beforehand to determine if they can play with the group in question, or they can strive to handle any issues that may come up on their own. If something unexpected happens (like the insanity example given before), then I really hope the group would know how to handle the situation maturely. Because in the end, behaving like rational adults goes a long way to solving any issues that come up at the game table (or life in general, for that matter).

Sexual violence is a relatively common trigger (as far as such things go), so it makes sense that a GM would warn new players beforehand if they intend to allow or utilize those themes in their games.


Also, I think the 'coddling' argument is more about the people who use their real or imagined issues to deliberately create tension and draw attention to themselves. As intensely aggravating as these people can be to deal with (especially since they're usually oblivious to the negativity their actions cause), I don't believe they're nearly as common a problem as the internet occasionally makes them seem to be. I blame confirmation bias for that one.

GrayGriffin
2015-11-30, 08:31 PM
Also, I think the 'coddling' argument is more about the people who use their real or imagined issues to deliberately create tension and draw attention to themselves. As intensely aggravating as these people can be to deal with (especially since they're usually oblivious to the negativity their actions cause), I don't believe they're nearly as common a problem as the internet occasionally makes them seem to be. I blame confirmation bias for that one.

Okay, so tell me, how is someone supposed to speak up without "drawing attention to themselves"? This is always so confusing. Of COURSE you're going to draw attention to yourself when you speak up about what makes you uncomfortable. What's so bad about paying attention to someone because they're speaking? This sounds more like a way of silencing discussion than anything. Read the threads about bad players/DMs and see how many people decided to let things keep going on because they didn't want to "draw attention to themselves."

Faily
2015-11-30, 08:49 PM
Every playgroup is different, and what is acceptable and fine in some would be met with mortified horror with others.

I have different groups: in one, sex is completely glossed over except as jokes, most of the time. Romance, flirtation, that kind of thing, basically does not exist. Another group is similar, but sex does get mentioned from time to time... mostly when characters get drunk and have one-night stands. In a third group, it is a lot more common that people play promiscuous characters, but we fade to black. Sometimes the GM makes a roll to tell the player how enjoyable the experience was with their date. Rape has never happened in either of these groups, but consequences from sex, like pregnancy, has occurred.

In a fourth group, we have had pregnancies, rape, coercion, kidnapping of children, torture and difficult situations for people's morale and ethics; and we manage to do so because we don't linger on the topics too long to make anyone uncomfortable, it's not graphic, and the most important thing is that the players and the GM trust eachother and understand how far each one is comfortable to go. We are all adults, we've known eachother for quite some time, we can communicate what makes us uncomfortable to ensure everyone is enjoying themselves. Even in the scene where one of my characters were coerced into sex, I had the feeling that the GM was quite willing to let the scene go a different direction if my character absolutely refused.


As for the murderhoboing, it's never really been an issue with my groups, as we usually play Good-characters in D&D who are the heroes. We don't kill noncombatants, kids, or people who have surrendered. We've hade many scenarios where PCs have gone out of their way in a combat to deal non-lethal damage, use incapacitating spells and such, even at threats to their own life, to avoid killing innocents. *grumbles about the mobs in Shackled City and the stupid Mob Rules*

BootStrapTommy
2015-11-30, 09:10 PM
The only thing the GM loses is surprise, and very few people would want to be surprised by rape. Ain't that the truth.


On the other hand, playing DnD and trying to avoid violence because violence makes some people uncomfortable is... it's like playing CoC and trying to avoid insanity. If a player uncomfortable with a core component of the game (e.g. spiders in a campaign about a Temple of Lolth) somehow joined the game anyway, it's best to say "I understand your fears, but we need people who don't freak out at the mention of spiders. Please try a spider-less game." Same could easily have been said about rape. If you're uncomfortable with it coming up in game play, then maybe you shouldn't be playing with the kind of people who might bring it up in gameplay?

cobaltstarfire
2015-11-30, 09:38 PM
Same could easily have been said about rape. If you're uncomfortable with it coming up in game play, then maybe you shouldn't be playing with the kind of people who might bring it up in gameplay?

Isn't the entire point of this thread about disclosing things like that before the game starts so that you can choose not to play if you don't want to deal with such things?

NichG
2015-11-30, 09:56 PM
A few questions:

1. How can you tell that someone is exaggerating how badly something effects them? You're not in their shoes and have no idea what they're feeling.

This is the question I'm trying to ask seriously here. If I know a person for a period of time, this is something that can be detected. Some people are socially manipulative and once you've gamed with them for 20-30 hours it becomes obvious that that's what they're doing, but its a much harder thing to distinguish in a session 0 interview. But this is also a thing that happens - IME its about at the same rate as people who actually seriously get triggered by things that actually come up in games, somewhere about 5% of players - and, for what it's worth, I've never seen rape be the trigger in either case; I've seen it be violence against kids, discussion of religious topics or things related to religion (angels, etc), and in one case 'being judged'.



2. A lot of people who feel strongly about a topic feel the need to argue for or against that topic, even when it risks harm to themselves. Why is this considered a self-righteous or negative thing, when advocacy is generally accepted as not only a valid but needed example of discourse?


Fundamentally, the reason why its a problem is that its disruptive and inappropriate for the context. There's a bunch of premises behind getting together a social group to play a tabletop RPG. If we want to establish a social contract, its important that everyone who is attending be honest about what they're actually trying to get out of the experience. If someone comes in and is dishonest about that, even if they believe it's for a very good reason, it's still betraying the trust of the other players and is harmful to the overall group dynamic.

Ultimately it comes down to the same point as staying away from triggers: you're bringing a lot of friends together to do something friendly, and you don't want that to be a bad experience for them. Part of that involves not letting people exploit or abuse the relationships in the group for their own ends.



3. Who cares? If someone says they feel uncomfortable about rape in a game and you don't put rape in the game then whether they're "Lying" or not (from your external perspective) is completely irrelevant because there's no rape in the game.

And if you do decide to tell them to leave the table because you'll have it in the game, the result is the same: They don't interact with the thing that sets them off.

So how about death? Someone goes to a D&D game and says 'I had a relative die recently, and death is a trigger for me'. Do you run a D&D campaign with no death, or do you say 'this is probably not the campaign for you?'.

sktarq
2015-11-30, 10:04 PM
Okay, so tell me, how is someone supposed to speak up without "drawing attention to themselves"? This is always so confusing. Of COURSE you're going to draw attention to yourself when you speak up about what makes you uncomfortable. What's so bad about paying attention to someone because they're speaking? This sounds more like a way of silencing discussion than anything. Read the threads about bad players/DMs and see how many people decided to let things keep going on because they didn't want to "draw attention to themselves."

Okay this brings up a good point. That is how to properly run a session zero so that it is a benefit not a problematic event.

First point - it should be clear that it is the beginning of an open discussion not the end. It is a chance to feel out players and read their reactions before tying it to a plot point. But that doesn't mean that when something comes up in play that what was said during the session 0 can be used against the player-that would massively cruel and morally wrong IMO. A large part of session zero is about making sure the game will be built in a way that is fun for everyone and that should come across to the players at the time. Ending it with a invitation to talk to the DM to work out any issues that come up in game is something I think should be standard. Also just because someone is uncomfortable having something in the game shouldn't have even the appearance of negative reaction - especially any link to the player's experiences or perceived experiences.

Okay my second big thing. There are shades of exposure that are important to differentiate in both the session 0 and the game. For example rape.

No rape in the world

Distant and indirect rape acknowledgment-rape may be distantly referenced. As part of setting based wars or that when the PC go to free a wrongfully convicted person on the gallows one of the other people to be executed is a rapist type exposures.

Direct rape acknowledgment-the PC meet and interact with NPC who may be rapists or victims but nothing is shown and no PC's are involved

Proximate offscreen Rape-the PCs see rape - often the lead up. but it is not described. The sorcerer casting charm person on a young target and inviting them to their room, the guard at the prison or whatever.

Proximate on screen rape-as above but the rape itself is described

PC on NPC coercion: When the PC uses high bluff skills, and especially if spells/supernatural abilities/powers like glibbness, or charm person are involved then many players will see it as rape (I generally do). In what came as a shock to me this variant has a high component of on-screen off-screen shift in responses.

PC on NPC forceable rape: Exactly as it sounds....this tends to be a touchy one.

PC on PC rape. . . by spell or force- this one - is beyond touchy this one needs giant warning labels on it.

NPC on PC offscreen sex by skill: The player looses will saves or contested rolls-they have been seduced
NPC on PC offscreen sex by spell or force: what it sounds like-rape
NPC on PC onscreen sex by any of the above.

Sexual-wiles story rape: This one is often the trickiest. If the PC has an option of using sex to get past a plot point things can be highly problematic. IF the PC's manage to not see other options (and especially if the DM hasn't given them any) then the PC may well view the situation as rape of their character and with good reason.

and since anytime an NPC has sex with the players character the DM is choosing ho the other party looks, acts, etc and the fact the NPC has a dominate spell as a spell known it could be seen as the DM doing it-which somewhat changes if the DM is using a pre built game.

- So yeah there are plenty of people for whom the first couple on the list are fine but are totally not okay farther down the list. Thus if somebody finds that the lack of existence of any rapists in the jails pulls them out of the game I totally get that but if others would rather not think about at all in what is supposed to be a fun evening that's fine too and the DM couldn't really be expected to know without asking and frankly monitoring as it does come up.

BootStrapTommy
2015-11-30, 10:32 PM
Isn't the entire point of this thread about disclosing things like that before the game starts so that you can choose not to play if you don't want to deal with such things? Yeah, that's pretty much the gist of it. So far don't think anyone seems to disagree on that point.

AMFV
2015-11-30, 10:54 PM
I seem to misunderstand the mollycoddling argument.

If the GM brings cinnamon rolls to the table and a player is allergic to cinnamon, said player should bring up the allergy! Nothing wrong with that right, unless somehow the GM starts saying "No you're a liar you just hate me"?

I don't think there's any food-related issue that can be an analogy for rape. Anyway, is it reasonable for a GM to avoid rape because it's rather well known to make people rather queasy, to put it mildly? I would say yes, it is reasonable, even more so when the topic of rape is by and large easily avoided. If the GM wants to bring rape up in the games, there's always the option of "ask the players beforehand". The only thing the GM loses is surprise, and very few people would want to be surprised by rape.

On the other hand, playing DnD and trying to avoid violence because violence makes some people uncomfortable is... it's like playing CoC and trying to avoid insanity. If a player uncomfortable with a core component of the game (e.g. spiders in a campaign about a Temple of Lolth) somehow joined the game anyway, it's best to say "I understand your fears, but we need people who don't freak out at the mention of spiders. Please try a spider-less game."

I think I was the only person who used the word mollycoddling, and there's nothing in your post that addresses what I was describing at all. Or is even close for that matter.

The analogy to the Cinnamon allergy, it would effectively run like this. " The Player finds out that the DM (and the other players) have decided that the player is probably allergic to cinnamon rolls, and therefore has been going out of their way to avoid them in game, without consulting the player. Essentially reducing the role of the player to that of a child who can't make their own decisions vis a vis whether they would want to cinnamon rolls."

Truth be told, the analogy breaks down here. But the argument wasn't "The DM is mollycoddling the player if he or she continues to do something after the player has expressed distaste," but rather "the DM is mollycoddling the player if her or she avoids something because they feel it may be "too mature" or "too advanced" or "too anything" for that particular player without consulting them on the matter."

Edit: As a further note, what I said, is that I would feel that the DM was mollycoddling me in such a scenario, and would find it very offensive.

Broken Twin
2015-11-30, 11:16 PM
Okay, so tell me, how is someone supposed to speak up without "drawing attention to themselves"? This is always so confusing. Of COURSE you're going to draw attention to yourself when you speak up about what makes you uncomfortable. What's so bad about paying attention to someone because they're speaking? This sounds more like a way of silencing discussion than anything. Read the threads about bad players/DMs and see how many people decided to let things keep going on because they didn't want to "draw attention to themselves."

You're misunderstanding the statement. The problem isn't that these few problem people are drawing attention to themselves. It's that they're deliberately causing problems for the attention it gives them. Please keep in mind that I'm specifically talking about the type of person NichG was referring to in post #66, and not people with who have legitimate issues with whatever subject matter has come up. The confirmation bias in regards to the former being common has made it more difficult for the latter to speak up when they need to.

Or, to rephrase: It's not an issue to get people's attention when you have a problem. It's a issue when you use having a problem just to get people's attention.

goto124
2015-11-30, 11:30 PM
Ah, thanks for the clarification, AMFV.

To be honest, how does the player tell mollycoddling is going on? The reverse (too many examples of players and GM who don't understand how rape is horrible) is rather obvious, but we're talking about the GM and players going out of their way to avoid a certain topic (which probably is far better than rape). What does 'going out of their way' mean here, and how is it different from e.g. avoiding aliens in a medieval fantasy?

AMFV
2015-11-30, 11:40 PM
Ah, thanks for the clarification, AMFV.

To be honest, how does the player tell mollycoddling is going on? The reverse (too many examples of players and GM who don't understand how rape is horrible) is rather obvious, but we're talking about the GM and players going out of their way to avoid a certain topic (which probably is far better than rape). What does 'going out of their way' mean here, and how is it different from e.g. avoiding aliens in a medieval fantasy?

Well often I suspect people would be told outright. Folks are generally proud of their efforts to protect people from things, and may mention it. Alternatively other players may have resentment over the issue and mention it. I've seen variations of both. I suppose that if somebody were going out of their way to protect me, I might not ever know. What I am saying is that if it were revealed it would be more hurtful to me, than any kind of brush with anything that's potentially triggering or what-not, might be.

There is a fairly complicated line here as well. Sexual assault generally falls under taboo discussion topics, without any work, and therefore usually people assume that isn't going to come up in conversation (or in games), spiders on the other hand, may come up in games. I'm not saying that any one solution is the best one, only that removing something from your game to "protect" another human being, may be not only unnecessary but also something that does them a disservice in a hurtful way. People (who are adults) should be free to make their own choices regarding what bothers them. I don't need my friends deciding what I'm okay with.

As another sidenote, this changes drastically when gaming with children, who: A.) Aren't often adept enough to realize something is bothering them, and will try to hide it. B.) Are extremely susceptible to peer pressure, and may want to "fit in"and C.)May not have the savvy to actually say that something is bothering them. Treating children like children (by removing things that may bother them) is fine, but treating adults like children isn't, to my thinking.

goto124
2015-11-30, 11:53 PM
Apologies if I sound rude when repeating a question that, I felt, had went unanswered.

What does 'going out of their way' mean here, and how is it different from e.g. avoiding aliens in a medieval fantasy - that is, avoiding topics because they just don't fit the game and/or themes the GM is striving for?

AMFV
2015-12-01, 12:04 AM
Apologies if I sound rude when repeating a question that, I felt, had went unanswered.

What does 'going out of their way' mean here, and how is it different from e.g. avoiding aliens in a medieval fantasy - that is, avoiding topics because they just don't fit the game and/or themes the GM is striving for?

This would essentially avoid ignoring things that DO fit the theme of the game, in a way that's patronizing to one player. For example somebody might run a Game of Thrones game, but completely remove all mention of sexual material, even though those are large aspects of that world and setting. Or could run a Call of Cthulu game, but scrap the insanity rules (which could actually be really fun, but a different game nonetheless), or running a game set in a warzone, but avoiding describing any of the aspects of war.

The major line here is in intent, if the intent of the DM is to "protect" a player, who has not previously expressed any desire to avoid a particular stimuli, then the DM is in the wrong. If the DM excludes aspects for other reasons, then that's a different story, for an example one could contrast war movies in the 1950s and war movies in the present era, which are similar in terms of genre, but not similar in terms of themes or presentation, but that decision should be based on the player's stated desires and the sort of campaign that is being run.

LnGrrrR
2015-12-01, 12:06 AM
It will never cease to bother me that the attitude that rape is taboo in a game about gratuitous fantasy violence exists.

Party members murdering entire villages, killing innocents, and robbing and stealing? Genocide? That's called being an adventurer!

Rape? Now, wait a minute, that might be too much for some folks. Let's rein it in here...

Seriously guys, there's something horribly ****ed up about the fact that you all can rationalize such horrible things, yet your buttholes clench at the thought of sexual violence...

Well, there's probably a very low number of people who have been attacked by a marauding orc. There's probably an even lesser amount of people playing the game who are dead.

However, there are probably a statistically relevant number who have been sexually abused.

AMFV
2015-12-01, 12:08 AM
Well, there's probably a very low number of people who have been attacked by a marauding orc. There's probably an even lesser amount of people playing the game who are dead.

However, there are probably a statistically relevant number who have been sexually abused.

This argument is somewhat misleading, since the number of people who have been involved in violence is significantly higher than the number of people who have been sexually assaulted. Now there is less of a cultural aversion to violence, and that means that violence in media may be more expected, but to claim that avoiding sexual assault, is due to a higher statistical incidence of sexual assault over violence, is a pretty misleading claim.

BayardSPSR
2015-12-01, 12:11 AM
DM tried not to creep out the players, players end up being the ones who creep out the DM?

It's easy to forget that DMs can have limits too. When I do a session 0, as I've started to, I ask people if there's anything they don't want to see in-game, and provide an example or two of my own - usually "no murderhobos" and "no suicide." The thing can be anything. I also usually ask if there's anything specific that players want to see in the game. The point of session 0 isn't just to ask what triggers people, and I try to avoid creating the expectation that asking for something to be excluded indicates a vulnerability of some kind. @NichG, this means that in my case I really don't care whether or not someone is "genuinely" triggered. It's none of my business.


So how about death? Someone goes to a D&D game and says 'I had a relative die recently, and death is a trigger for me'. Do you run a D&D campaign with no death, or do you say 'this is probably not the campaign for you?'.

Both of those seem like they resolve the issue. Of course, I imagine a lot of players might object to a lack of death, which sets up the same question for them. No two people are obligated to play together.

@AMFV, would you object to a GM asking you if there was anything you wanted excluded from the game? Or does any suggestion of the possibility of preferences on your part bother you? I'm interested in your perspective.

JoeJ
2015-12-01, 12:16 AM
This argument is somewhat misleading, since the number of people who have been involved in violence is significantly higher than the number of people who have been sexually assaulted. Now there is less of a cultural aversion to violence, and that means that violence in media may be more expected, but to claim that avoiding sexual assault, is due to a higher statistical incidence of sexual assault over violence, is a pretty misleading claim.

However, the relative acceptability of sexual violence vs. other kinds of violence within various modern societies is both off topic for a roleplaying forum and probably not something that can be adequately addressed within a forum setting.

goto124
2015-12-01, 12:20 AM
I can imagine how lack of death would make very little sense in a game such as DnD. It's like CoC without the insanity rules - technically possible, but it involves a huge rewrite of the setting, and if it was brought up mid-campaign I would take a few minutes to explain to the person why we can't just get rid of death right now, and gently say "please find another game".

Speaking of GoT, instead of avoiding all the sexual stuff, how about avoiding graphic descriptions of rape, leaving such acts to subtext and 'fade to black'? Especially if the GM was upfront about this before the game starts?

LnGrrrR
2015-12-01, 12:25 AM
This argument is somewhat misleading, since the number of people who have been involved in violence is significantly higher than the number of people who have been sexually assaulted. Now there is less of a cultural aversion to violence, and that means that violence in media may be more expected, but to claim that avoiding sexual assault, is due to a higher statistical incidence of sexual assault over violence, is a pretty misleading claim.

True, but I think that sexual assault tends to be a deeper violation of one's sense of self than most forms of violence. Most violence in DnD is fantastical in nature. Players are not often beating or robbing a "non-evil" race using the threat of violence. (At least, my players haven't.)

In addition, violence is seen as many as justified in many cases. There's a reason Nazis get thrown into so many video games, after all. But sexual assault can't be justified, either in real-life, or in game. DnD would likely be less interesting for people if you had to send an ambassador to meet with the orcs, then had to propose a treaty, outline responses in case they violated the terms of the treaty, etc etc until it finally got to war. There are other games whereby violence is much more of a "last resort" option.

But I can't envision how a DnD game without sexual abuse is lessened greatly.

tl;dr: Violence is inherent to DnD, and is basically what the core rules are based off of. Not so with sexual abuse.

AMFV
2015-12-01, 12:35 AM
@AMFV, would you object to a GM asking you if there was anything you wanted excluded from the game? Or does any suggestion of the possibility of preferences on your part bother you? I'm interested in your perspective.

Absolutely not. My complaint would be with the idea (as several people presented) that because victims of sexual assault are prevalent (although statistics on that are actually widely varied), that sexual assault shouldn't be in games. Which is the sort of mollycoddling thing I was discussing.

Also, it's not always possible to know how something will affect you. We have Cobalt's example, where she was not aware of the effect that in-game mental illness would have on her. So there are limits to that kind of session zero thing, my main caution about it, would be not to assume that it fixes all problems.


However, the relative acceptability of sexual violence vs. other kinds of violence within various modern societies is both off topic for a roleplaying forum and probably not something that can be adequately addressed within a forum setting.

True, and to be fair, the main crux is that violence is typically seen as acceptable in certain circumstances (in war, or in self-defense) whereas I can never think of a situation where sexual violence would be justified, that may be part of the split.


I can imagine how lack of death would make very little sense in a game such as DnD. It's like CoC without the insanity rules - technically possible, but it involves a huge rewrite of the setting, and if it was brought up mid-campaign I would take a few minutes to explain to the person why we can't just get rid of death right now, and gently say "please find another game".

Speaking of GoT, instead of avoiding all the sexual stuff, how about avoiding graphic descriptions of rape, leaving such acts to subtext and 'fade to black'? Especially if the GM was upfront about this before the game starts?

As I stated earlier, it would depend on the reasons why the GM was having the fade to black occur. If it was because they thought I couldn't handle it, then I'd have a problem with it. If it was because they couldn't handle it, or didn't want to, or disliked that kind of scene, then that's totally cool. Again my only issue is with somebody who argues that the choice about whether or not I can handle something should not be completely up to me.


True, but I think that sexual assault tends to be a deeper violation of one's sense of self than most forms of violence. Most violence in DnD is fantastical in nature. Players are not often beating or robbing a "non-evil" race using the threat of violence. (At least, my players haven't.)

I disagree with this. Completely. I've known a lot of victims of violence, and it is a pretty deeply sitting thing. I would say it may be as deep a violation as the other, just depending on how it affects your sense of yourself.



In addition, violence is seen as many as justified in many cases. There's a reason Nazis get thrown into so many video games, after all. But sexual assault can't be justified, either in real-life, or in game. DnD would likely be less interesting for people if you had to send an ambassador to meet with the orcs, then had to propose a treaty, outline responses in case they violated the terms of the treaty, etc etc until it finally got to war. There are other games whereby violence is much more of a "last resort" option.

I always view lethal force as a "last resort" option in D&D when I'm playing as a Good character, of course if I am attacked with lethal force, and I cannot subdue the enemy, then it is necessary. But I view Good character's viewpoints the same as I would view mine, lethal force is the last resort, only to be used when necessary and as sparingly as possible. Essentially just like the escalation of force and rules of engagement in a real military conflict. As an unrelated note, exactly what the EOF and ROE may be varies from character to character, and their backstory and what not.



But I can't envision how a DnD game without sexual abuse is lessened greatly.

tl;dr: Violence is inherent to DnD, and is basically what the core rules are based off of. Not so with sexual abuse.

True, and I'm not advocating that all games have sexual abuse in them. Only that removing sexual abuse from a game that otherwise would have it, because it may bother somebody without first finding out if that's actually the case, is removing their ability to act as an adult.

Geddy2112
2015-12-01, 12:40 AM
I am surprised that this unholy abomination (https://1d4chan.org/wiki/FATAL) has not been mentioned yet. We all agree that rule zero seperates out any of the issues that some of us might not care for in game, and that some of us won't be bothered with. My group certainly has some sensitive subjects for certain players, and knowing that we deliberately avoid them.


But FATAL.....basically anything taken that far is something most people agree on as too much for a game. I don't care how grimdarkedgy or realistic you like your games, "roll for anal circumference" should never ever be part of the game. Unless your playing FATAL as a complete and utter satire because it is a terrible system in addition to being toxic filth.

AMFV
2015-12-01, 12:44 AM
I am surprised that this unholy abomination (https://1d4chan.org/wiki/FATAL) has not been mentioned yet. We all agree that rule zero seperates out any of the issues that some of us might not care for in game, and that some of us won't be bothered with. My group certainly has some sensitive subjects for certain players, and knowing that we deliberately avoid them.


But FATAL.....basically anything taken that far is something most people agree on as too much for a game. I don't care how grimdarkedgy or realistic you like your games, "roll for anal circumference" should never ever be part of the game. Unless your playing FATAL as a complete and utter satire because it is a terrible system in addition to being toxic filth.

I don't know if anybody, anywhere has ever played FATAL seriously. And while I might not be able to understand why a person would want to, that doesn't mean that I would argue that they're doing something wrong. Certainly, a serious FATAL game would immediately let people know what's involved in it, and thus would effectively cover the "session zero" bit that people are recommending.

LnGrrrR
2015-12-01, 12:46 AM
AMFV,

I don't think I was clear when it comes to the violence comment. Certainly, being attacked can be just as unsettling. However, being attacked in a DnD world feels different to me, personally, as it is based in fantasy. I think that being attacked with a sword is more removed from real-world violence, than the "fantasy" equivalent of abuse is towards real world abuse. Also, and I could be very wrong, but from a personal standpoint it feels that being a victim of violence doesn't come with the same sort of "he/she deserved it" that abuse may get.

I also usually play characters in which they at least try to justify it to themselves. (Look, look, he cast a spell first at me, totally within my rights to lop his head off.) But it's the rare DnD game which doesn't magically conjure up a convenient reason to start swinging swords relatively quickly. (Though a "LAWYERS!" splatbook would be hilarious.)

I personally don't ever bring up that sort of stuff in my game. If it starts popping up, it's one of the few times I will be ham-fisted and railroad a scene to prevent it from happening. That should be enough for my players to get the hint, and if not, I'll speak with them OOC. My players may want that, but I don't, and if they're looking for that sort of interaction, they can either choose to stay at my table or not. I will include -isms, and sometimes slavery, and sometimes really really horrible stuff. But that's a line I don't cross, personally.

BayardSPSR
2015-12-01, 12:48 AM
Absolutely not. My complaint would be with the idea (as several people presented) that because victims of sexual assault are prevalent (although statistics on that are actually widely varied), that sexual assault shouldn't be in games. Which is the sort of mollycoddling thing I was discussing.

...

Also, it's not always possible to know how something will affect you. We have Cobalt's example, where she was not aware of the effect that in-game mental illness would have on her. So there are limits to that kind of session zero thing, my main caution about it, would be not to assume that it fixes all problems.

...

As I stated earlier, it would depend on the reasons why the GM was having the fade to black occur. If it was because they thought I couldn't handle it, then I'd have a problem with it. If it was because they couldn't handle it, or didn't want to, or disliked that kind of scene, then that's totally cool. Again my only issue is with somebody who argues that the choice about whether or not I can handle something should not be completely up to me.

...

True, and I'm not advocating that all games have sexual abuse in them. Only that removing sexual abuse from a game that otherwise would have it, because it may bother somebody without first finding out if that's actually the case, is removing their ability to act as an adult.

I see. I agree with all of this.

AMFV
2015-12-01, 12:54 AM
AMFV,

I don't think I was clear when it comes to the violence comment. Certainly, being attacked can be just as unsettling. However, being attacked in a DnD world feels different to me, personally, as it is based in fantasy. I think that being attacked with a sword is more removed from real-world violence, than the "fantasy" equivalent of abuse is towards real world abuse. Also, and I could be very wrong, but from a personal standpoint it feels that being a victim of violence doesn't come with the same sort of "he/she deserved it" that abuse may get.

I'm not sure that's the case either. Domestic abuse victims certainly get a lot of that. And people who are on the wrong side of military conflicts do as well. But there is a cultural distinction that is in play here, and I do understand that.



I also usually play characters in which they at least try to justify it to themselves. (Look, look, he cast a spell first at me, totally within my rights to lop his head off.) But it's the rare DnD game which doesn't magically conjure up a convenient reason to start swinging swords relatively quickly. (Though a "LAWYERS!" splatbook would be hilarious.)


I've actually wanted to play a Sha'ir that's worked as an extraplaner attorney for some time, but have never found a game in which that would fit.



I personally don't ever bring up that sort of stuff in my game. If it starts popping up, it's one of the few times I will be ham-fisted and railroad a scene to prevent it from happening. That should be enough for my players to get the hint, and if not, I'll speak with them OOC. My players may want that, but I don't, and if they're looking for that sort of interaction, they can either choose to stay at my table or not. I will include -isms, and sometimes slavery, and sometimes really really horrible stuff. But that's a line I don't cross, personally.

I don't either. Being honest, I don't even usually include fairly PG-13 consensual sex stuff in my games. That's a personal preference. There's nothing wrong with excluding something from a game because you don't like it. But excluding something because you think somebody else may not be able to handle it... that's where I have the problem. In the first case, it's the DM exercising his agency, as an adult he can not include stimuli he finds offensive, the same way as a player could leave in a game where that was prevalent. In the second case, it's somebody else determining that somebody doesn't have the ability to handle something, removing their agency and right to a decision.

daremetoidareyo
2015-12-01, 12:57 AM
Okay, so tell me, how is someone supposed to speak up without "drawing attention to themselves"? This is always so confusing. Of COURSE you're going to draw attention to yourself when you speak up about what makes you uncomfortable. What's so bad about paying attention to someone because they're speaking? This sounds more like a way of silencing discussion than anything. Read the threads about bad players/DMs and see how many people decided to let things keep going on because they didn't want to "draw attention to themselves."

In that other form of "roleplay", the failure to use a safeword for one's own safety is their fault. They cannot set up an elaborate system of power exchange and refuse to pull the ripcord of the only parachute available. I don't see any reason why this analogy can't be extended into gaming roleplay. If you're uncomfortable, speak up. People will judge you one way or the other regardless. But one's safety is guaranteed if they are responsible for their own vigilance.

There is no simple rule that can be made for all groups on this one. It isn't immoral to have tough issues. Or a lack thereof. Some people use social justice for interpersonal power parasitism, but those people grow up the rest of the way eventually. And their existence does not preclude the necessity for an open mind when receiving information about player's mental states. Tread carefully is the only blanket advice from this thread that really carries any heft.

BootStrapTommy
2015-12-01, 02:42 AM
I am surprised that this unholy abomination (https://1d4chan.org/wiki/FATAL) has not been mentioned yet. Why would you ruin a perfectly good conversation by bringing that up?

Why, man? WHY?!


I also usually play characters in which they at least try to justify it to themselves. (Look, look, he cast a spell first at me, totally within my rights to lop his head off.) But it's the rare DnD game which doesn't magically conjure up a convenient reason to start swinging swords relatively quickly. (Though a "LAWYERS!" splatbook would be hilarious.) You've hit on the point I've been working towards here quit well.

These discussions almost always seem to dwell on rape. That bothers me. Because people can easily be uncomfortable with some of the ways violence generally manifests in TTRPGs. Violence manifests itself in different ways, and to different degrees, in TTRPGs with different people. As you said, it's a rare D&D game that doesn't conjure up a convenient reason to start swinging. My point was that we should take some time to address ways in which those "convenient reasons" might stray into territory which all involved might not feel comfortable about. That's the crux of the issue I've been driving at.

Thanks for the convenient catalyst for its formation into words.

NichG
2015-12-01, 02:52 AM
It's easy to forget that DMs can have limits too. When I do a session 0, as I've started to, I ask people if there's anything they don't want to see in-game, and provide an example or two of my own - usually "no murderhobos" and "no suicide." The thing can be anything. I also usually ask if there's anything specific that players want to see in the game. The point of session 0 isn't just to ask what triggers people, and I try to avoid creating the expectation that asking for something to be excluded indicates a vulnerability of some kind. @NichG, this means that in my case I really don't care whether or not someone is "genuinely" triggered. It's none of my business.

Both of those seem like they resolve the issue. Of course, I imagine a lot of players might object to a lack of death, which sets up the same question for them. No two people are obligated to play together.


I don't really think 'resolving the issue' is that hard for anyone in this thread. But, moving beyond that, since there are multiple different ways that one can resolve the issue, I think there's a nuanced question of how one might decide between them and what kind of session 0 strategies can be used to help make the best choice.

One way I could do a Session 0 would be to say 'here are the issues my game will include; you may now choose to stay or leave'.
I could also say 'What do you guys have a problem with?' and then regardless of the response, I can say 'okay, so we won't have those things.'
I could also just say 'Tell me about the game you want to play' and let people volunteer what they think is relevant.

These strategies all have different kinds of consequences as far as the dynamic. In all cases, I can 'resolve the issue', but in some cases I may get to keep players I'd otherwise not be able to work with, in other cases I might get people amplifying things that actually wouldn't be a problem (for various reasons), etc.

I mean, its almost certainly fine to not worry one bit about any of this. As much noise as has been generated in this thread, odds are that if you just run the game you were going to run, you're not going to line up a real trigger for someone at the table, and even if you do it'll be unpleasant and awkward but its not the end of the world - apologize, determine if the want to keep playing, and move forward. So this isn't life or death GMing 101 stuff anyhow. But I think its still an interesting thing to talk about given the sorts of situations you might encounter as you push into the boundaries or do more explorative and non-traditional gaming, or just when you are dealing with large groups of people such as GMing for a club.

Florian
2015-12-01, 05:37 AM
@BootStrapTommy:

I differentiate pretty much between "play to win" and "play to experience". This whole diskussion made me think about my gm'ing behaviour and I came to the conclusion that D&D/PF is the only game I play where violence and somesuch are glossed over so that the challenge of beating an encounter stands front and center, not the discussion about the implications of the actions. That leads to no graphical details, comic violence and all the rest. Hollywood cinema ;)

The games I enjoy more and where I actually aim for immersion are also the games where violence may be a sad part of life, but something to be avoided because all participants will come to harm, physically and mentally, and where I don't gloss things over. The deed done has consequences. For those games, I will not use D&D-style abstract systems, but rather things like L5R or Pendragon.

Anecdotal: In a session of L5R, a player new to this kind of gaming got enraged with a merchant a told me he'll cut him down. I let him do ot without any rolling, just describing how the gutted merchants flopps down to the floor, deaththrows and all. The player was shocked. Not at the desciption, but at the consequences of his actions.

@Mollycoddling:

That's actually a three-ways thing, as there is not only the one gm and the one player, but the other players as well and consent has to be reached between more than two people. Maybe that's my cultural bias, but I will always put "good for all" above "good for one".
So, if I host a game and I had a vegan player, I would offer some vegan snacks but wouldn't refrain from offering meat-based stuff for the rest if they want that, and to hell with offending sensibilities.

goto124
2015-12-01, 05:42 AM
A DnD game that glosses over violence could easily focus on other aspects such as politics and emotions that have nothing to do with violence. In addition, a game could also gloss over violence against mindless animals and demons to concentrate on the effects of violence commited against innocents.

I hope that player left the L5R table.

@Mollycoddling: Doesn'r really work for e.g. (sexual) violence or slavery getting featured in a game, unless you mean the GM plays a separate game with the other players that doesn't include the metaphorical vegan.

Hyena
2015-12-01, 05:59 AM
There are no things too touchy for my games. My gaming tables, real or virtual, have always been for mature people, who can tell the difference between the reality and fiction. Those who can't aren't welcome there.

Florian
2015-12-01, 06:11 AM
A DnD game that glosses over violence could easily focus on other aspects such as politics and emotions that have nothing to do with violence. In addition, a game could also gloss over violence against mindless animals and demons to concentrate on the effects of violence commited against innocents.

I hope that player left the L5R table.

@Mollycoddling: Doesn'r really work for e.g. (sexual) violence or slavery getting featured in a game, unless you mean the GM plays a separate game with the other players that doesn't include the metaphorical vegan.

Actually no, but he became a bit thoughtful about the difference between "just a game" and hndling delicate matters with respect they are due.
See, quite a bit of the stuff that came up in this discussion is about people using games for a bit of venting and powertripping and in my experiece, that most often leads to the whole Hostel-type of shock value stuff that even more delavues the content.

And like hyena just said, there is a marked difference between reality and fiction.

Frozen_Feet
2015-12-01, 08:12 AM
The main difference with those games is twofold:
1) The game happens, you compete with each-other, someone wins, and then the game ends. You don't have to contrive an excuse why you'd still associate with Mr. Backstabby (or spend time making new characters), because the next time you play is a clean slate.
2) Player actions are significant constrained by the game rules. When playing Werewolves, for example, you can't choose to leave the village for somewhere safer, or stay awake all night with a shotgun, or lead a mutiny against the Sheriff, or execute more than one person in a single day. Whereas in an RPG, players can and probably will do all of those things.

I'm glad you picked up on this.

1) This isn't really true. First, RPGs can be run as one-shots just as well. Two, when a group owns a game, they typically will play it more than once (often in succession) and information of how people play IS NOT forgotten between sessions.

So the question of whether to keep playing with Mr. Backstabby does exist for other games. If anything, it's even more plain because it is directly targeted at a player.

2) This claim is true, but it's also a red herring. What matters is not the amount of possible moves, but the quality of them.

Steampunkette described the feeling of being betrayed. Now, she did it from perspective of a person being triggered by transgressive game content, but let's not forget that completely mentally healthy people feel the same way when betrayed and can lose their temper because of it - the feeling's just less intense.

That's the reason for running gags of Diplomacy ending friendships and bad games of Monopoly upping divorce rates.

But, because PvP is the default state of those games, losing your temper over it is seen as being a sore loser. "In the end, it's just a game - you should relax". That is an actual codified rule in many tabletop games where deception is key.

So neither observation 1) nor 2) really refute what I was getting at: people play against each other in other games and it works. People more commonly than not can deal with being betrayed in a game and can deal with starting over. "But RPGs are different!" is not a sufficient counter-point. It's too superficial.

goto124
2015-12-01, 08:31 AM
The RPG system(s) being built around the assumption of party of 4 players working together to fight stuff set up by the GM would be quite unconductive towards PvP though.

Florian
2015-12-01, 08:32 AM
@Frozen_Feet:

The main difference, as far as I can see it, lies in method acting and immersion. Both can move things from being abstract concepts to literally happening to you, the player.

Now it's quite common for people to try to "be the character" and some such things, but I think this is rare for people playing settlers of catan or risk.

@goto124:

That may be true for gamistic games like D&D, but there're enough out there that are expressily PvP. Take a look at Mountain Witch, if you want an good example.

NichG
2015-12-01, 09:56 AM
I'm glad you picked up on this.

1) This isn't really true. First, RPGs can be run as one-shots just as well. Two, when a group owns a game, they typically will play it more than once (often in succession) and information of how people play IS NOT forgotten between sessions.

So the question of whether to keep playing with Mr. Backstabby does exist for other games. If anything, it's even more plain because it is directly targeted at a player.


I do think it matters that the game ends, but perhaps that was a misleading way of putting it. Instead, I would say that a major difference is that in a campaign-style tabletop RPGs, the game continues. I actually think a oneshot is ideal for having PvP, but its terrible in a campaign.

In a tabletop RPG campaign, the situation is that you get a number of people get together to play for several hours. Once everything gets set up, this kind of occasion is expected to repeat - the participants are supposed to take it as a serious social commitment, arrange their schedule around it, etc.

Now, in such a situation, there's an expectation of being able to play. But if you have PvP and you get killed, then what? Do you just get to make a new character at the same power level (in which case, there's all sorts of screwy metagame behavior that can result)? Is there a power spiral that effectively removes you from the game, but doesn't tell you that so you just sit there being ineffectual? Do you just leave the group? So (deadly) PvP immediately creates potential problems in a campaign environment that don't exist for one-off games. This means that there had better be well thought out game design backing it, or its going to fall apart pretty quickly.

What about non-lethal PvP - doing things to spite each-other, etc? Well, that puts tension on the metagame consideration that everyone is expecting to be able to play together. If you know this other guy is your enemy and is just making everything about your life worse by being involved, that's a strong motivation to sneak off and do things on your own whenever possible. The most extreme version of that is that you basically leave the party entirely and just do a separate parallel solo game. That puts a lot of strain on the GM's attention, and spotlight sharing becomes a serious problem.

So PvP is just difficult to accomodate. And actually, we shouldn't be surprised, because competitive social games are designed from the ground up to be nothing but competitive. When you go into a game of Monopoly, you don't think the outcome is going to be everyone at the table cooperating with each-other to become rich together - you can't even do that, since the game isn't designed to support it. Even games with both cooperation and competition usually formally structure those modalities - like, the best team can share a win, things like that. So it makes sense that if you try to put PvP into a game that wasn't designed explicitly to center around making PvP work, you're going to get something dysfunctional.

And when people have dysfunctional gaming experiences, they get pissed off - at the game, but also often at the other participants.

BayardSPSR
2015-12-01, 10:31 AM
These strategies all have different kinds of consequences as far as the dynamic. In all cases, I can 'resolve the issue', but in some cases I may get to keep players I'd otherwise not be able to work with, in other cases I might get people amplifying things that actually wouldn't be a problem (for various reasons), etc.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand why someone "amplifying things" would matter.

Socratov
2015-12-01, 10:38 AM
To give my cp on the matter I have to tread back as it were to why I play.

I play beucase I want to experience a story in which I contribute by making actions, coverse with in story elements and carve a path in a story setting. Which means I adore PTerry´s Theory of Narrativity: a story will happen beycause it wants to be told.

That said, a story will have its limits. For me to enjoy a story (and yes, I can enjoy an episode of ASOIAF as well as the next) there is a certain amount of escapism neccessary which means that real world stuff doesn't join the table.

for example:


having a fall out with a friend at the table? please act your age and set it aside for the time being, or don't show up, yes that goes for every one involved, evenespecially if it involves the DM
things that cut a little close to home (mental instability, loss of familymembers, loss of appendages) are treated like jokes about touchy moments in history: we give time to deal with it and will aks if things are ok, but don't expect us to wait indefinitely. You don't get to fluffify the game on account of your grandma being dead for 30 years. If you still have issues regarding that seek a grief counsilor because we are not your free therapy session
severe trauma issues that don't just cut close to home as much as they hit home hard (cases of PTSD with specific triggers, rape and other forms of sexual violence, sexual abuseof minors and explicit animal cruelty) have IMO no place in the stories I'm willing to experience and I will not take a part in such stories.




This is just a couple of things I don't abide with. Though you may find that I am lax on other things like racism, mysoginy, androginy, torture, gratuitous violence, as long as they serve a story purpose. I know my bards ususally tries to jump beds form one conquest to another (using the term manwhore is a bit light) and I know other players in my group are fine with that and have other quirks. Thing is, Even though I don't send out a PSA, but more like spoil the beans on what my concept is for my character. If someone isn't really OK with what I have in mind I try to find a solution with them within reason.

NichG
2015-12-01, 11:58 AM
I'm sorry, but I don't understand why someone "amplifying things" would matter.

Anecdotal example: I was in a game with a player who had, through optimization but also through custom stuff worked out with the DM, an extremely powerful character. At one point the DM nerfed his custom stuff. He went around Skyping all the other players trying to convince them what a horrible DM he had, and how unfair it was, etc, etc. He would customize the diatribe for the person he was talking to. He'd claim the DM was picking on him, singling him out for abuse because of something he did in-character. Or that 'we work so much harder than the other players, so we deserve to have more powerful characters, but the DM isn't letting us'. Things like that. He very much wanted to be seen as a victim because in his mind it would get the other players on his side against the DM and let him compel the DM to... well, whatever he thought he could get from that kind of dynamic. I don't think there was actually the possibility of him being satisfied with the outcome. It was pretty obvious what was going on when you saw the behavior, but even despite that the game fell apart from DM burn-out because the DM couldn't get past the idea that it was his responsibility to figure out some way for this guy to fit into the group dynamic and have fun.

Sometimes a willingness to compromise and try to meet a player's needs becomes a thing that can be abused.

GrayGriffin
2015-12-01, 12:03 PM
There are no things too touchy for my games. My gaming tables, real or virtual, have always been for mature people, who can tell the difference between the reality and fiction. Those who can't aren't welcome there.

I don't think you understand how trauma and reactions to triggers work at all.



things that cut a little close to home (mental instability, loss of familymembers, loss of appendages) are treated like jokes about touchy moments in history: we give time to deal with it and will aks if things are ok, but don't expect us to wait indefinitely. You don't get to fluffify the game on account of your grandma being dead for 30 years. If you still have issues regarding that seek a grief counsilor because we are not your free therapy session

...do you know that people can be getting therapy at one time and be participating in your game at another time, in the same time frame? And that part of therapy involves choosing how to be exposed to your traumas? Would you really kick a friend out of your game once some random statute of limitations for their trauma passed?

The Insanity
2015-12-01, 12:15 PM
There are no things too touchy for my games. My gaming tables, real or virtual, have always been for mature people, who can tell the difference between the reality and fiction. Those who can't aren't welcome there.
Seconded. Wanted to say something like this myself.

Frozen_Feet
2015-12-01, 12:17 PM
I'm sorry, but I don't understand why someone "amplifying things" would matter.

Two words: Satanic panic.

Really, the history of the hobby should answer many of the questions on "why it matters" whether people are exaggarating or outright lying about what offends them.

---

@NichG: aye, PvP does become harder to implement in a long-running campaign. The larger point here is that a lot of people don't even try to implement it, because tradition and little else.

It loops back to the question you posed about Session 0: how do we really know whether something is a problem to a person before actually playing the game?

I could pose a similarly-themed questions to you: are those problems of PvP in a campaign actual observations, or are you just theory-crafting? How do we really know how bad those things are before trying them out?

The actual answers are that we don't. RPG design needs a healthy dose of heuristics and empiricism to produce fruitful results. Occasionally, this means subjecting your players to transgressive stuff.

It's also known from economics that in case of new or niche ideas, supply creates demand. In other words, you need to offer a product to people who cannot make an assessment of whether they want it or not before-the-fact. No middle-aged lady can tell you they want Bold & Beautiful: the RPG before you play it with them.

And this again serves to answer other people who asked "why does it matter?" if people exaggarate or lie about their problems, or just can't give an informed opinion. Like I said before, my opinion is that a lot of attempts to expand the hobby failed because they let their design be informed too much by ideological cliques or older players. It's a failure and corruption of market research. People have lost time, effort and money and failed to reach their goals because they asked the wrong people or received misleading answers.

---

@All the people talking about FATAL:

Why on Earth are you talking about that old joke of a system, when you could talk about, say, Lamentations of the Flame Princess, which:

1) Is an actual working game system, at least insofar as you can use it to just play traditional D&D-like games without having to censor or houserule it.
2) Has a healthy supply of transgressive and horrifying content like Death Love Doom, with more being produced as we speak.
3) Has people actually playing it, like me.
4) Is contemporary and doing fairly well for an indie game/company, probably being the most succesful RPG franchise to have been created in Finland.

Florian
2015-12-01, 12:23 PM
@GrayGriffin:

Let me be blunt about this: If you happen to have a trauma and you have been informed that an upcoming game might touch on this, then it is up to you to participate or not. No one else. The important point is bringing up those things even before session zero.

To be even more blunt, if you chose to participate and things come up that touch on your personal trauma, please remember that this is only a game dealing with fictional matter. If you can't differentiate between fictional matter and your trauma, just say "stop". Mature people will take that cue, but don't count on 'em understandwhy you can't separate these two things.

Really, I do wonder why people parzicipate and then complaon when they have been warned beforehand.

NichG
2015-12-01, 12:43 PM
I could pose a similarly-themed questions to you: are those problems of PvP in a campaign actual observations, or are you just theory-crafting? How do we really know how bad those things are before trying them out?

The actual answers are that we don't. RPG design needs a healthy dose of heuristics and empiricism to produce fruitful results. Occasionally, this means subjecting your players to transgressive stuff.

Not entirely theory-crafting. I've seen enough quasi-PvP or asymmetric-PvP situations arise spontaneously to see how things can go badly. What tends to happen is that people import their assumptions about what the social contract at the table is. When one player is willing to make those assumptions more lax than another, there's a meta-game disadvantage suffered by the player who has chosen to act more in ways to support the harmony of the game. That results in an unfair situation - one guy has basically not been told its okay for him to fight back, but the other guy doesn't care.

I've been in a game where for example one player had their character betray the party in a really big way - sided with the BBEG to corrupt the world and basically succeeded - but in that fight they got knocked out and captured by the PCs. The PCs ended up pardoning the character and then sort of kind of allowing them back into the party, because the other player said 'no, I'm not just going to roll up a new character' and gambled correctly that the other players wouldn't feel that it was right to just summarily execute another PC. In the same game, one player got a really dangerous curse but really thought it was cool (it caused other people to suffer harm who harmed him, but the scale and extent of the curse was exponentially growing with time). We tricked him into going with us to a place we could remove the curse from him, and did so. The player felt betrayed, so he suicided his character in an extremely destructive way to the setting, then rolled up a new character whose stated goal was basically 'kill all supernatural beings' (which all the PCs were), and then tried to wink-wink-nudge-nudge his way back into the party, which was pretty awkward because no one really knew how to say 'no, we're not buying it, we're not adventuring with you' - and he predictably caused quite a lot of collateral damage to us by the end of the campaign.

What it came down to was basically that there wasn't any kind of consensus of what was acceptable or not. PvP was not in the game by design, but it happened, and then everyone was just confused about what to do about it.

There are in fact games designed around PvP, and they work because the premise is clear from the start. I think you see a lot more of this in LARPs actually. There was a yearly game where I went to grad school called 'Amber Throne War' which took place over the weekend - you get your one character, if you die then you're out of the event, and only one person can be king. I got the feeling that worked fairly well. There were also two Vampire LARPs in the area which always seemed to be drama magnets but still kept up a significant portion of the local gaming clubs as participants, so I don't know if you want to call that success or failure.

GrayGriffin
2015-12-01, 01:17 PM
@GrayGriffin:

Let me be blunt about this: If you happen to have a trauma and you have been informed that an upcoming game might touch on this, then it is up to you to participate or not. No one else. The important point is bringing up those things even before session zero.

To be even more blunt, if you chose to participate and things come up that touch on your personal trauma, please remember that this is only a game dealing with fictional matter. If you can't differentiate between fictional matter and your trauma, just say "stop". Mature people will take that cue, but don't count on 'em understandwhy you can't separate these two things.

Really, I do wonder why people parzicipate and then complaon when they have been warned beforehand.

We are talking about DMs that refuse to accomodate. And you are another person who doesn't understand how trauma works. IT'S NOT A ISSUE OF BEING UNABLE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN REALITY AND FICTION. IT'S AN ISSUE OF THE FICTION BRINGING UP PAINFUL MEMORIES OF REALITY. BECAUSE THAT'S HOW MEMORIES WORK.

LnGrrrR
2015-12-01, 01:20 PM
I've also seen this happen. It becomes very much a race to the bottom. The big issue is that if there's two people in the game, and one does want PVP and the other doesn't, you can't satisfy both. If you satisfy the PVP player, then the other person will be annoyed because he doesn't want to get wrapped up with it. If you satisfy the non-PVP player, the PVP will chafe at the restriction.

You can only really do it if everyone is into it. And even then, as noted, it requires extra work on the part of the GM, because you don't often have PCs plotting against each other in the open.

In the above example of a PC siding with the BBEG, that PC becomes an NPC controlled by me, usually with some input from the original PC so that I stay true to his character. And it can work really well too! They seethed with rage at that PC, but they DIDN'T do so against the player, because the player rolled up a new guy to join the fight against him. Now instead of being just another villain of the week, it was somewhat that they knew, that betrayed them. The key thing is to separate the PC from the player, and it's much easier to do that when the player isn't actively playing the PC that betrayed the rest of the group.

AMFV
2015-12-01, 01:29 PM
We are talking about DMs that refuse to accomodate. And you are another person who doesn't understand how trauma works. IT'S NOT A ISSUE OF BEING UNABLE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN REALITY AND FICTION. IT'S AN ISSUE OF THE FICTION BRINGING UP PAINFUL MEMORIES OF REALITY. BECAUSE THAT'S HOW MEMORIES WORK.

I understand how trauma works. I don't feel that a DM should have to bend over backwards to accommodate me. Now if the entire group were willing to do so, and offered, and I had brought up the issue previously I would feel differently. Yes, fantasy can trigger memories of trauma, but to be fair, at least in my case experiencing those things in an environment where I am in control, where I could simply leave... That is cathartic, that is therapeutic, and I enjoy that.

A DM has absolutely no obligation to make his game suitable for all possible players, that would be impossible, since player preferences and comfort zones are liable to come into direct conflict. I mean we've had people in this very thread argue that lacking certain elements would ruin their immersion, and other people argue just as vehemently that they would not play in any game that contained these elements. Clearly there is no way that a DM could run a table with both of those folks at it, at least with both of them winding up happy in the end. So expecting him to accommodate you, is fairly unreasonable, asking if it's a possibility, is not. Making it an expectation is.

Florian
2015-12-01, 01:51 PM
@GrayGriffin:

No need to shout around, man.

I understand pretty well how trauma works. If you want, I've encountered a lot of darkness and evil in my live so far. A lot of broken people and scar tissue, enough to make one cry.

At that point, I could tell a lot of stories, about my tours of duty to Kosovo and Somalia, and so on.
The important part is, thought, that every victim, as well as perpetrator, I've met so far simply wanted to get back to normality, withouit being "packed in cotton" after the first period and get on with life. Wounds heal, scars fade. If not, You've got to do somethang about it and don't hope for other people watching out constantly to not hurt you.

Edit: I'll echo what AMFV said: If you've never been to the deep end, than don't talk about the deep end, as you don't know anything.

Hyena
2015-12-01, 02:15 PM
I don't think you understand how trauma and reactions to triggers work at all.

Actually, I'm pretty sure I do. I strongly believe that triggers, safe spaces and other complete bull**** can stay on Tumblr, just where it belongs. If someone is to play an RPG with the adults, I'm expecting this someone to act like an adult. If he can't - well, there are plenty of other gaming tables, I guess. I've had a player, who couldn't handle mistakes and losses of any kind - she almost cried when her character was in danger of dying, and her reactions to other's people bad decisions - not to mention THEIR character deaths - were deeply disturbing. In the end, she managed to suck it up and complete the campaign with all of us, so that was a happy ending, I guess.

BayardSPSR
2015-12-01, 02:45 PM
Sometimes a willingness to compromise and try to meet a player's needs becomes a thing that can be abused.

Yes. You don't have to compromise, though. If what a player wants isn't what you want, or what the other players want, there's nothing wrong with offering them a choice between not getting what they want and opting out.


Two words: Satanic panic.

Really, the history of the hobby should answer many of the questions on "why it matters" whether people are exaggerating or outright lying about what offends them.

Didn't the whole Satan thing end up not mattering? RPGs are more popular than ever, D&D remains a successful franchise, and games exist now that are far more transgressive than what people were panicking about back in those ancient pre-internet days.


It loops back to the question you posed about Session 0: how do we really know whether something is a problem to a person before actually playing the game?

I could pose a similarly-themed questions to you: are those problems of PvP in a campaign actual observations, or are you just theory-crafting? How do we really know how bad those things are before trying them out?

The actual answers are that we don't. RPG design needs a healthy dose of heuristics and empiricism to produce fruitful results. Occasionally, this means subjecting your players to transgressive stuff.

It's also known from economics that in case of new or niche ideas, supply creates demand. In other words, you need to offer a product to people who cannot make an assessment of whether they want it or not before-the-fact. No middle-aged lady can tell you they want Bold & Beautiful: the RPG before you play it with them.

And this again serves to answer other people who asked "why does it matter?" if people exaggerate or lie about their problems, or just can't give an informed opinion. Like I said before, my opinion is that a lot of attempts to expand the hobby failed because they let their design be informed too much by ideological cliques or older players. It's a failure and corruption of market research. People have lost time, effort and money and failed to reach their goals because they asked the wrong people or received misleading answers.

I think RPG design is something of a different issue. Discussing micro-local taboo topics for a group of people sitting at the same table on a regular basis, rather than RPG designers conducting market research, I don't think it matters what people want at all. It matters what people say they want, and that they have a specific opportunity to say what they want. Obviously that's no guarantee of perfect results, but I don't know that it should be.

As far as RPG design goes, experimentation is an important and valuable thing for the industry and the global gaming community, and I wish there was more of it. How many new versions of early D&D editions are there by now?

BootStrapTommy
2015-12-01, 02:57 PM
Now it's quite common for people to try to "be the character" and some such things, but I think this is rare for people playing settlers of catan or risk. You've never played Settlers of Catan with me.

Frozen_Feet
2015-12-01, 03:18 PM
A thing about post-traumatic stress is that not all people who undergo trauma experience it in the first place and not all people who experience it suffer from it to the point where it's a disorder. Losing in a fist-fight can lead to post-traumatic stress as bad as any sexual violence, but considering overall frequency of events it's much rarer.

Another is that actual stress DISORDERS are finicky, irrational, characterized by disproportionate reactions to mundane events, and can be triggered by, frankly, silly things. That's why we call them, you know, disorders. A war veteran might be able to play Twilight 2000 just fine but be shocked by a car engine failing. A victim of assault might be able to play D&D but suffer an anxiety attack when a stranger says hello to them.

Saying "we should ban extreme violent and sexual content" focuses too much on the obvious. It is of more benefit to those who dislike such things for social or ideological reasons, than actual sufferers of disorders. Actual triggers are non-obvious and personal.

Lastly, AMFV's statements reminded me of a claim I can't track the source of at the moment: shortly, that people who've experienced violence tend to fantasize about violence and peruse violent entertainment, because that allows them to re-experience and deal with their misery in an environment they control. I'm not sure what conclusions to draw from it, but I know I turn my bad experiences into humor, the author of Death Love Doom claims he made it as a way to deal with his own bad break-up, and plenty of musicians openly state their songs serve a similar purpose.

That's one thing to think about: the dark and disturbing thing that's hard for you to deal with due to your trauma, might be a vehicle for the creator to overcome their trauma. It is not at all given that dark and disturbing entertainment originates solely, or even primarily, from untroubled people.

Back to PvP and other RPG-specific touchy issues next time.

Knaight
2015-12-01, 03:30 PM
As has been stated before, this sort of thing is extremely group dependent. With that said, there's a sort of standard set of things that can be either generally assumed to be noncontroversial, and then there are things that are absolutely outside of that - maybe it's just stuff people don't want to deal with, maybe it's the sort of thing that has a lot of potential to turn into an ugly argument, maybe it's something else entirely. Just about all of these can work with individual groups, but the probability of it being a problem ahead of time is lower.

As a rule, I know the people I play with, and am almost always the GM who gets to make these decisions. There are exceptions to this, such as my current group containing some of my younger brother's friends I don't know particularly well, but that's generally what happens. Session 0 type stuff generally isn't needed as a result - plus, unless I know that I have players who are way over on the role playing end anyways, I'm unlikely to GM anything that deals with particularly controversial themes in the first place. Still, some examples of games or game events which can be reasonably be predicted to go a certain way, and which I as such avoid.


In a city-intrigue based game (or one where the PCs are playing cops or criminals), a political faction takes power and starts changing civilian weapon restrictions, which then affects the. This might make a lot of sense in setting, particularly if it's something like someone with contacts to an arms dealer trying to do them a favor to get one in return. It's also got a pretty high probability of turning into an ugly OOC political argument, which is exactly how I don't want to spend RPG time. If I know ahead of time that this is a political hot button for the group and there are people on both sides of the issue, there is no way I'm bringing this up. If it's a group I don't know particularly well, it's a risk I still don't want to take. If I've got a group that generally is on the same side on this one, sure, why not?

A historical game, set in Europe during the religious wars of the 1600's, focusing on the religious organizations. Again, there's the potential for the game to get derailed by an OOC argument which has decent odds of getting ugly, and again that's exactly what I don't want. In this case, there are specific groups I've been in where I absolutely wouldn't run this, starting with one where there have been heated religious arguments already and I know full well that this would be fuel for that particular fire. There are others where I'd be willing to run this.

Graphic depictions of the horrors of being under an occupying force of some kind. Basically, this is the sort of situation where things like children being murdered is pretty likely, and where I'd want say, parents with young children to know that before being committed to the game. It's also just really bleak in general, so I'd make sure ahead of time that people knew they were getting a really bleak game, particularly those that had played games I GMed before and who thus likely already expected my normal not-completely-bleak style.

Segev
2015-12-01, 03:48 PM
I think people arguing over what "should" be the line, and getting mad at others for setting it too restrictively or too liberally for their taste, are forgetting that this whole thing is a game, and that its PRIMARY purpose is to have fun.

Assuming we're all mature individuals, it is up to us to both communicate when we become uncomfortable and why, and to listen when others do so. Then to calmly determine if the person's discomfort is something they're willing to live with, and whether or not their discomfort or leaving the game to avoid it is worth leaving the discomforting element in the game.

I'm more than a bit of a prude, especially by modern pop culture standards, and while I don't mind a certain amount of sensuality in a game, I am made quite uncomfortable by other-than-clinical discussion of actual sexual contact of any sort. It's too close to porn, which makes me very uncomfortable. I will generally bring this up if things seem to be getting too graphic for my taste, and politely ask if the scene can be faded to black. Or, if there's something...unresolved...about where it's going, if the scene can be averted altogether.

I would respect the other players if they felt that no, it couldn't...but I would leave, as it would not be fun for me to stay, and if it were likely to be a regular or even repeating occurrence, I probably would drop the game. That way, they can play what they want and I am not enduring uncomfortable situations.

I do not think it unreasonable to expect this from most players. I get that it can be traumatic to have something happen all of a sudden that you weren't expecting. But while common problem areas should be approached with at least some delicacy, it's unreasonable to expect people to know where your lines are if you haven't spelled them out.

But in the end, it's a GAME. Be considerate of others' enjoyment, and you'll naturally avoid most of these "touchy" areas getting too unpleasant simply by people adequately communicating when they see something untoward.

I actually ran an Eberron game once, but realized that the horror scene I had come up with as crucial to pushing the plot forward was too dark, and would probably ruin everybody's enjoyment. I wasn't able to figure out my way around it, though I should have been, so I just let the game die before it got there.

The specific situation was that the party was in a settlement that had just been founded in the middle of nowhere, in a valley surrounded on three sides by a huge mountain range. A mad druid had contaminated the water supply with, essentially, lust potion, and the youths and maidens were not only paired off with great alacrity but most couples were pregnant.

When winter came, the women were getting sicker and sicker as they became more gravid, until they started dying of privation. The part that was too dark for me to feel comfortable running it was that the husbands of the dead women would start to commit suicide, laying themselves with self-inflicted entrail-spilling wounds over their wives' graves, only to be covered by a thick layer of snow.

Before the snows melted, flowers would be found growing out of the mounds marking these graves, and enormous bulbs would grow heavily upon them. If they were left alone, eventually crying would be heard from them: babies were within as they blossomed.

Things would only get creepier from there, and I thought the emotional trauma of half the young people of the village being dead and leaving behind infant children in horrific circumstances was just...a bit much. So I didn't actually go through with it.

cobaltstarfire
2015-12-01, 03:56 PM
Lastly, AMFV's statements reminded me of a claim I can't track the source of at the moment: shortly, that people who've experienced violence tend to fantasize about violence and peruse violent entertainment, because that allows them to re-experience and deal with their misery in an environment they control.



I've seen things about this too, like playing various FPS games can be used as therapy for soldiers suffering for PTSD.

But that kind of therapy hinges a lot on the person being in control, and being able to stop whenever they want. Also good to keep in mind that everyone is different just because a form of therapy works for one person doesn't mean it'll work for the next. That's why there are so many different kinds and approaches.


I have this feeling that given the right group of people, playing D&D can be very good therapy for some. Though probably in that way it'd be even more important to get the boundaries nailed down...but there also has to be a willingness for some of those boundaries to shrink or come down entirely. Since the point of therapy is to heal and manage.

Frozen_Feet
2015-12-01, 03:56 PM
@Segev: you totally ought to sell your horror idea to James Raggi. :smallamused:

Florian
2015-12-01, 04:18 PM
@Frozen_Feet:

You noticed that, in essence, he wasn't going on about that?
What he said was, that other people knowing ones background, should not empower those people to leave something out for the sake of said person, as that can be seen as a demeaning and condescending process. That would be "wraping someone in cotton" without due consent.

@Segev:

A mature decision.

GrayGriffin
2015-12-01, 06:33 PM
@GrayGriffin:

No need to shout around, man.

I understand pretty well how trauma works. If you want, I've encountered a lot of darkness and evil in my live so far. A lot of broken people and scar tissue, enough to make one cry.

At that point, I could tell a lot of stories, about my tours of duty to Kosovo and Somalia, and so on.
The important part is, thought, that every victim, as well as perpetrator, I've met so far simply wanted to get back to normality, withouit being "packed in cotton" after the first period and get on with life. Wounds heal, scars fade. If not, You've got to do somethang about it and don't hope for other people watching out constantly to not hurt you.

Edit: I'll echo what AMFV said: If you've never been to the deep end, than don't talk about the deep end, as you don't know anything.

...I was emotionally abused in my childhood by parents who thought they were doing what was good for me. I still have serious emotional scars from that, even if they don't show up most of the time. And I didn't want to bring it up until you started making baseless assumptions about me. Why don't you not presume you know what others have been through?


Actually, I'm pretty sure I do. I strongly believe that triggers, safe spaces and other complete bull**** can stay on Tumblr, just where it belongs. If someone is to play an RPG with the adults, I'm expecting this someone to act like an adult. If he can't - well, there are plenty of other gaming tables, I guess. I've had a player, who couldn't handle mistakes and losses of any kind - she almost cried when her character was in danger of dying, and her reactions to other's people bad decisions - not to mention THEIR character deaths - were deeply disturbing. In the end, she managed to suck it up and complete the campaign with all of us, so that was a happy ending, I guess.

I'm curious-do you also call your players childish when they cheer when something goes their way? When they laugh over their victories?

Also, do you realise that triggers and safe spaces are not some new-fangled idea from Tumblr, but ideas that have been around for ages?

NichG
2015-12-01, 08:30 PM
Yes. You don't have to compromise, though. If what a player wants isn't what you want, or what the other players want, there's nothing wrong with offering them a choice between not getting what they want and opting out.


Sure, you can just decide 'I will not compromise', but that's really limiting yourself and your ability to GM effectively. The best gaming is customized to the players.

It's a trust matter. If everyone at the table is acting in good faith with each other you can do so much more with the game.

BayardSPSR
2015-12-01, 10:12 PM
I'll echo what AMFV said: If you've never been to the deep end, than don't talk about the deep end, as you don't know anything.

I didn't want to respond to this initially, but in support of GrayGriffin I will add just that this pool we swim in has many deep ends, and they have been visited by many swimmers. I would like to suggest that we don't challenge each other to prove our right to have opinions on this topic.


Sure, you can just decide 'I will not compromise', but that's really limiting yourself and your ability to GM effectively. The best gaming is customized to the players.

It's a trust matter. If everyone at the table is acting in good faith with each other you can do so much more with the game.

I agree completely. I'd even go farther that that and talk about collaborative fiction, shared fantasy, emergent storytelling, and all that great stuff, but what I was specifically trying to say was that "I don't think you'd fit well with this game" shouldn't be a prohibited option.

BootStrapTommy
2015-12-01, 11:48 PM
Also, do you realise that triggers and safe spaces are not some new-fangled idea from Tumblr, but ideas that have been around for ages? That may be true, but Tumblr provided an engine for such silly ideas to be propagated to impressionable persons behind a screen of anonymity.

As a male survivor of sexual violence, one thing that became clear to me was that I did not live in a culture which provided me the option of being overcome by the trauma of my experience and hiding from "triggers", as many seem want to do. There's no pity for a guy who claims a woman assaulted him. I had to chose. Hide from the world or deal with it. Off myself or overcome.

The frightening thing to me is how pervasive the mentality of safe spaces and trigger warnings has become. It makes me sad for those who adopt it, knowing they can be handicapping themselves in their struggles by hiding from their problems instead of facing it.

I chose to fight the battle. Not everyone does, but Frozen Feet brought up a good point:


That's one thing to think about: the dark and disturbing thing that's hard for you to deal with due to your trauma, might be a vehicle for the creator to overcome their trauma. It is not at all given that dark and disturbing entertainment originates solely, or even primarily, from untroubled people.I think Cobalt really hit it on the head by adding that that only works when the sufferer possesses the control to stop it. Communication is key. Roleplaying actually presents a great opportunity in that regard. Roleplaying played at part in helping me on my path to overcome my own issues.

It's not to say everyone needs to confront their demons with dice, but I think we should at least not go so far as to discount them the option.

Which brings us to the age old answer to many a thread: good RP groups always begin with a discussion of expectations. The creative process is always better off if we all at least start on the same page.

GrayGriffin
2015-12-02, 12:25 AM
That may be true, but Tumblr provided an engine for such silly ideas to be propagated to impressionable persons behind a screen of anonymity.

As a male survivor of sexual violence, one thing that became clear to me was that I did not live in a culture which provided me the option of being overcome by the trauma of my experience and hiding from "triggers", as many seem want to do. There's no pity for a guy who claims a woman assaulted him. I had to chose. Hide from the world or deal with it. Off myself or overcome.

The frightening thing to me is how pervasive the mentality of safe spaces and trigger warnings has become. It makes me sad for those who adopt it, knowing they can be handicapping themselves in their struggles by hiding from their problems instead of facing it.

I chose to fight the battle. Not everyone does, but Frozen Feet brought up a good point:

I think Cobalt really hit it on the head by adding that that only works when the sufferer possesses the control to stop it. Communication is key. Roleplaying actually presents a great opportunity in that regard. Roleplaying played at part in helping me on my path to overcome my own issues.

It's not to say everyone needs to confront their demons with dice, but I think we should at least not go so far as to discount them the option.

Which brings us to the age old answer to many a thread: good RP groups always begin with a discussion of expectations. The creative process is always better off if we all at least start on the same page.

Why are you still on this forum then? Do you realize that this forum is one of those "safe spaces" with "trigger warnings" you claim to hate so much?

EDIT: Also:

Do not assume your experiences reflect everyone else's.
Sometimes trigger warnings are there so that people can CHOOSE whether or not to expose themselves to something. You know, the "confronting your demons" thing you were talking about?
How even is Tumblr more anonymous than any other social media website?

Talakeal
2015-12-02, 12:45 AM
Out of curiosity, do people actually manage to keep their campaigns PG-13?

I (almost) never have explicit sex, torture, or rape, but the amount of profanity, realistic violence, and nudity in my games would easily rate a movie based on them a hard R if not an NC-17.

The Conan movies barely scrape by with an R, and even the (uncut versions) of The Hobbit has an R rating.

Steampunkette
2015-12-02, 12:48 AM
Because it's culturally dominated by young women, young racial minorities of any gender, and gender or sexual minorities of any race or gender who are young, ergo it is to be derided.

BayardSPSR
2015-12-02, 12:56 AM
Out of curiosity, do people actually manage to keep their campaigns PG-13?

I (almost) never have explicit sex, torture, or rape, but the amount of profanity, realistic violence, and nudity in my games would easily rate a movie based on them a hard R if not an NC-17.

The Conan movies barely scrape by with an R, and even the (uncut versions) of The Hobbit have an R rating.

It can be done! I've run PG games - maybe even G, but it was a long time ago. It's entirely a question of audience.

goto124
2015-12-02, 01:45 AM
That would be "wraping someone in cotton" without due consent.

Consent you say? The GM could, well, ask the player.


Sometimes trigger warnings are there so that people can CHOOSE whether or not to expose themselves to something. You know, the "confronting your demons" thing you were talking about?

Seconding this. It lets the player choose for themselves, instead of giving them a nasty shock.

In addition, if an issue wasn't covered in Session Zero (e.g. a giant spider in a campaign that's otherise spider-free), that doesn't mean the arachnophobic player has zero (har har) right to speak up and suggest, for example, "could you tone down the descriptions please?", or "you guys can control my character while I take a break". The GM could also choose to refluff the spider into a different creature. Different possibilities.

JoeJ
2015-12-02, 01:46 AM
Out of curiosity, do people actually manage to keep their campaigns PG-13?

I (almost) never have explicit sex, torture, or rape, but the amount of profanity, realistic violence, and nudity in my games would easily rate a movie based on them a hard R if not an NC-17.

The Conan movies barely scrape by with an R, and even the (uncut versions) of The Hobbit has an R rating.

The nudity, at least, shouldn't be affecting the rating. Unless you're doing something very different than I've ever seen, all you get in RPGs is like (American) TV nudity: you're told the character is nude, but you don't actually see any naughty bits except within the privacy of your own imagination.

AMFV
2015-12-02, 02:08 AM
Out of curiosity, do people actually manage to keep their campaigns PG-13?

I (almost) never have explicit sex, torture, or rape, but the amount of profanity, realistic violence, and nudity in my games would easily rate a movie based on them a hard R if not an NC-17.

The Conan movies barely scrape by with an R, and even the (uncut versions) of The Hobbit has an R rating.

Well there's a big difference between showing violence, profanity, and nudity, and telling about violence, profanity, and nudity. Animated violence after all rarely pushes a film past PG-13, including extremely violent films, such as Under The Red Hood, which would certainly have been rated R if it were not animated. Putting it into descriptions makes it tamer still. We aren't seeing the things happen, at worst we're imagining them, and one can more easily tune out descriptions that are heard or read.


Because it's culturally dominated by young women, young racial minorities of any gender, and gender or sexual minorities of any race or gender who are young, ergo it is to be derided.

Ummm, you've lost me here, I'm not sure what we're deriding.


Consent you say? The GM could, well, ask the player.



Seconding this. It lets the player choose for themselves, instead of giving them a nasty shock.

In addition, if an issue wasn't covered in Session Zero (e.g. a giant spider in a campaign that's otherise spider-free), that doesn't mean the arachnophobic player has zero (har har) right to speak up and suggest, for example, "could you tone down the descriptions please?", or "you guys can control my character while I take a break". The GM could also choose to refluff the spider into a different creature. Different possibilities.

Exactly.

goto124
2015-12-02, 02:21 AM
Imagine that Steampunkette's statement is in sarcastic blue.


Exactly.

Thanks!

AMFV
2015-12-02, 02:33 AM
Imagine that Steampunkette's statement is in sarcastic blue.


No, I was tracking on the sarcasm, I just wasn't sure what she was referring to as "it".

NichG
2015-12-02, 03:52 AM
I agree completely. I'd even go farther that that and talk about collaborative fiction, shared fantasy, emergent storytelling, and all that great stuff, but what I was specifically trying to say was that "I don't think you'd fit well with this game" shouldn't be a prohibited option.

No, I agree, its an absolutely essential option. But its one I think is better as a scalpel rather than a hammer :smallsmile:

Steampunkette
2015-12-02, 04:47 AM
No, I was tracking on the sarcasm, I just wasn't sure what she was referring to as "it".

Tumblr.

And the sarcastic blue would be half accurate... so maybe dark purple?

Frozen_Feet
2015-12-02, 06:26 AM
@Florian: I understand what AMFV was talking of, I was referring to this point in particular:


Yes, fantasy can trigger memories of trauma, but to be fair, at least in my case experiencing those things in an environment where I am in control, where I could simply leave... That is cathartic, that is therapeutic, and I enjoy that.

---

@BayardSPR



Didn't the whole Satan thing end up not mattering? RPGs are more popular than ever, D&D remains a successful franchise, and games exist now that are far more transgressive than what people were panicking about back in those ancient pre-internet days.

It ended up not mattering in the same way Salem witch trials ended up not mattering. After all, they no longer burn witches and the town probably gets healthy revenue from curious tourists. So it was, like, totally worth it, right? :smalltongue:

More seriously: the panic basically killed the hobby in many places and lead to people being bullied in school or having to fight their parents about whether they can meet their friends. Those people might be adults and past that now, but they probably don't want that happening to anyone else.

The panic also considerably changed the face of the hobby. TSR cleaned up mentions of devils and demons from D&D, de-emphasized evil characters and ties to horror and pulp-fiction, implemented an in-company content policy etc.. This was fueled by and ended up reinforcing stereotype of RPGs being for kids, and led to great many adults ignoring the hobby. Of course, every dark cloud has a silver lining and we got Vampire and Cyberpunk partially as result of backlash towards how D&D couldn't handle that sort of content.

It's also worth noting the panic also gave rise to Anno Domini and Age of Kings, RPGs which were explorations of Christian and biblical history. They were, in essence, appeals to and attempts to pacify the loudest complainers. They failed to make an impact, because the complainers weren't actually interested in having RPGs for themselves, they just wanted the thing that offended them gone.

So in actuality, the panic did end up mattering, in good, bad and ugly.

Also, while RPGs may be enjoying success and goodwill now, doesn't necessarily mean it will remain to be so or that the future of the hobby is on a firm basis. Tabletop RPGs continue to be a niche hobby, especially in small countries like Finland. A big driving force of the hobby here consists of a really small group of indie game-makers who are one failed product away from bankrupcy.


I think RPG design is something of a different issue. Discussing micro-local taboo topics for a group of people sitting at the same table on a regular basis, rather than RPG designers conducting market research, I don't think it matters what people want at all. It matters what people say they want, and that they have a specific opportunity to say what they want. Obviously that's no guarantee of perfect results, but I don't know that it should be.

Every RPG designer I know started with their local group, indeed, every GM I know of has dabbled in game design out of necessity.

What happens in local groups is hence important, because it ties to my larger point of how people regularly don't question what they've learned of the hobby from others. On a practical level, this can mean a person interested in RPGs is forced to quit the hobby because everyone they know told the type of game they want to play is wrong, and they never asked for a second opinion. On its most basic, this can manifest as someone not knowing Sci-fi RPGs are a thing.

You can think of it this way: how many conventions there are in Finland? How many GMs in those cons run something like Death Love Doom? How many of those GMs accept complete beginners in such a game?

The hobby is small enough it could be just me doing that.

Socratov
2015-12-02, 06:55 AM
I don't think you understand how trauma and reactions to triggers work at all.



...do you know that people can be getting therapy at one time and be participating in your game at another time, in the same time frame? And that part of therapy involves choosing how to be exposed to your traumas? Would you really kick a friend out of your game once some random statute of limitations for their trauma passed?

sure, if their participation and subsequent limitations activley holds back the enjoyment of the rest of the group then maybe the group as a whole and the player as a person would be better off taking some time apart. Please note the fact that you only quoted a part of that bulletpoint which would incidate an example statue of limitations, as well as made an assumption on what would qualify as hitting a bit close to home. withthe statute of limitations I usually err on the side of caution. Of course it's not a good thing to start invoking similar things to horrible accidents a scant few years after a player has gotten traumatised by or following one such accident. this would more likely follow my indication fo the next bulletpoint where PTSD is invoked: this is a condition not just for military people or people who have been in combat, but could arise just as well following a car accident. At this moment there is no statute of limitations and it's a no-go.

Should someone have lost their parents or grand parents due to old age, or suffered a divorce, or the recent death of a pet, a severe injury, you name it, there is a statute of limitations and things will get discussed.

I would also liek to stress that 'kicking' somone out of your gaming group should never be like some form of immedeate firingm, but rather the result of a long talk in which both parties can state how they feel about something and reach an understanding.

hifidelity2
2015-12-02, 07:05 AM
The nudity, at least, shouldn't be affecting the rating. Unless you're doing something very different than I've ever seen, all you get in RPGs is like (American) TV nudity: you're told the character is nude, but you don't actually see any naughty bits except within the privacy of your own imagination.
Ahh but I have a very good imagination :redface: :smallwink:

Frozen_Feet
2015-12-02, 09:05 AM
Regarding Tumblr:

It may be superficially dominated by young women and members of ethnic and sexual minorities, but many of the arguments and theories popular there are older than their parents.

I recently read a book called "Älkää säätäkö päätänne - häiriö on todellisuudessa" ("Don't adjust your heads - the flaw is in reality").

It was a critique of psychological culture, mainly of continued use of obsolete (mostly Freudian) theories in psychology and therapy and missappropriation of specialist terms by laypersons.

One target of criticism was overgeneralization of rare psychological issues to explain common bad experiences. The book focused on narcism (it was all the rage to call a partner who left you a narcist a decade ago), but the way discussions on offensive content revolve around stress disorders is an example of the same thing, really.

A second target was the concept of rejection and mystification of knowledge. Basically, disagreement with (rejection of) theory (in Freudian psychotherapy, of childhood traumas underlying person's issues) is seen as proof of the theory (the person has trauma, otherwise they wouldn't reject them!). Only a special sort of person (in this case, a psychotherapeutist) can determine correct information. This sort of thinking plagues many other discussions on contemporary problems: f.ex., disagreement with feminism is seen as proof that feminism is needed; denying your privilege is proof you are privileged and only disprivileged people can truly tell you if you're not; criticism or appropriation of another culture's habits is automatically invalid/offensive if you're not of that culture's main ethnicity; so on and so forth.

There was a specific essay on the book about trauma debriefing; mostly, it noted the same thing AMFV did (=overprotective attitudes towards traumatized people against their will is unhelpful), but also that there's no special benefit to talking to a nominal expert (=psychotherapeut/psychologist) as opposed to a close friend or acquitance (f.ex. a family member, a priest or a military squad leader). If there's something to take away from that, it's that being the "table psychologist" is part of the GM's job, insofar as the GM is de facto leader of the playgroup and the person who enjoys greatest trust. Granted, the book's 9 years old, so it's possible new research has overturned this one.

Anyways, back to Tumblr - the point is that many of the phenomena which one might criticize it for are not unique to a particular group of people, or even particular ideology. If people on Tumblr trumpet faulty pop-psychology or pop-sociology, that's a symptom of a wider culture where everyone does that. Insofar as it matters who is making faulty arguments, I'll note psychotherapeuts are the actual experts we expect to know better, whereas your average Tumblr poster is not; so widespread errors in thinking of the former group are much more worrying than of the latter group.

goto124
2015-12-02, 09:18 AM
So the question is how to deal with these issues when we're just ordinary people who want to play a game, not psychotherapeuts.

Why is it the GM's job to be the "table psychologist"? Especially if the GM isn't that close to the player. Being respectful of a player's fear of spiders is one thing, being actively involved in helping the player overcome the fear of spiders is quite another.

TekDragon
2015-12-02, 09:20 AM
I'm fortunate enough to be in a campaign that's half female.

I cannot imagine trying to bring a strong rape theme into the dynamic. There are too many strong and evocative plot hooks available for a good DM to have to resort to sexual abuse to make a point. In my opinion, if you're a DM resorting to sexual abuse to set a scene as evil I would pull you aside and suggest you bone up on your literary chops.

goto124
2015-12-02, 09:20 AM
... and leave the table afterwards?

Florian
2015-12-02, 09:27 AM
@Frozen_Feet:

That book's from Finnland, right?

Frozen_Feet
2015-12-02, 09:48 AM
@Goto124: again, it's the GM's job insofar as the GM is de facto leader of the group and person who enjoys greatest trust.

If the GM is not, it's not.

@Florian: yes.

sktarq
2015-12-02, 10:17 AM
I'm fortunate enough to be in a campaign that's half female.

I cannot imagine trying to bring a strong rape theme into the dynamic. There are too many strong and evocative plot hooks available for a good DM to have to resort to sexual abuse to make a point. In my opinion, if you're a DM resorting to sexual abuse to set a scene as evil I would pull you aside and suggest you bone up on your literary chops.

I'm sorry but that seems ridiculous to me. As the DM of a table more than half female more than half the time (depending on the game run) I have no reason to say that those players are any more or less able to deal with certain issues (including rape-and I know that I have rape victims at the table) because of their gender. If you don't wish to include it in your game or that you think it would not be enjoyable for your group that's fine. But it is a subject that other tables are fine with - at which point it can be a significant tool-and not just directly applied to the PC's. And yes it is a tool that can be misused but so can many storytelling tools. To call somebody a lesser storyteller because they choose to include a subject you choose not to event when there is no detriment to either DM's outcome is asinine behavior where you are declaring your tastes better than other people's.

AMFV
2015-12-02, 01:35 PM
So the question is how to deal with these issues when we're just ordinary people who want to play a game, not psychotherapeuts.

Why is it the GM's job to be the "table psychologist"? Especially if the GM isn't that close to the player. Being respectful of a player's fear of spiders is one thing, being actively involved in helping the player overcome the fear of spiders is quite another.

It most certainly is not. I was not advocating that the DM act as therapist. In fact choosing to avoid bringing up a stimulus without the player's consent is a sort of therapy, just as deliberately bringing it up more without their askance would be.

If you are not a professional who is treating me, you do not know what is best for me. And even a professional who is treating me, would not act against my decisions even if they believed they were not in my best interest unless they thought I was a danger to myself or others.

What I was arguing was choice, that a person who wants, or doesn't mind being exposed to something that they find difficult, is as much allowed to make that choice, as a person who doesn't want to be exposed to it. Players at a table are neither the children, nor the patients of the DM, they should get a say, you know, as full grown adults


I'm fortunate enough to be in a campaign that's half female.

I cannot imagine trying to bring a strong rape theme into the dynamic. There are too many strong and evocative plot hooks available for a good DM to have to resort to sexual abuse to make a point. In my opinion, if you're a DM resorting to sexual abuse to set a scene as evil I would pull you aside and suggest you bone up on your literary chops.

This is pretty troubling to me, the idea that a topic should NEVER be touched on. Or that touching on a particular topic is "bad writing", certainly there are ways that rape could lessen or cheapen a work... but to argue that is always the case is deeply troubling. Look at American History X, where there are several scenes of violence of that nature, which in my opinion improve that work. Macbeth contains the brutal and merciless murder of children, does that cheapen Macbeth. Hamlet contains suicide, madness, feigning illness for personal advantage, and many other potentially triggering topics.

Just because something is a difficult subject for some, does not mean it should be a topic that nobody is allowed to discuss, and stories are one form of discussion. As I said, I would most likely not feature sexual violence in a game, but to claim that only men would, or that including it is always negative, is a bit hamfisted.

Talakeal
2015-12-02, 02:18 PM
One problem I have had come up in my games is violence against children.


Once I was running a western game where a band of outlaws was holed up in the local schoolhouse and had taken the towns children hostage. The players were hired by the townsfolk to rescue them, and they decided to go in guns blazing. Most of the children were killed in the shootout.

Another time I was running a sword and sorcery game where an evil cultist had kidnapped a bunch of infants from the surrounding town and was planning to sacrifice them to an eldritch horror. The players went to stop his ritual, and though they succeeded they didn't quite get there in time to save all of the kids and a few of them ended up being sacrificed.


Both of these times I had a player strongly object to the content and (temporarily) quit the campaign.


I have never quite understood the taboo against violence towards children. I know it is a common sentiment, and have heard that many people will turn off any media which displays it, heck showing violence against children in movies and video games it even outlawed in many countries.

Actually, let me rephrase that, I understand the taboo, what I don't understand is the level of distance. For example, in Fallout 3 all of the children are immune to any form of harm, but this in a post apocalyptic setting where a nuclear holocaust has wiped out 99.9% of the world's population, children included. People have no problem with, say, a zombie horde or a rampaging dragon or a marauding army massacring an entire town, children included, but only if it happens off screen. That seems odd to me.

Segev
2015-12-02, 03:42 PM
Out of curiosity, do people actually manage to keep their campaigns PG-13?

I (almost) never have explicit sex, torture, or rape, but the amount of profanity, realistic violence, and nudity in my games would easily rate a movie based on them a hard R if not an NC-17.

The Conan movies barely scrape by with an R, and even the (uncut versions) of The Hobbit has an R rating.

Just to re-iterate what others have said, stating somebody is nude, or even stating "and then they had sex," is not going to make something more than PG-13, which covers "bringing up the topics." Text and verbal media can get away with wording that calls up potential minds-eye depictions that are R- or X-rated without actually demanding the mind's eye "see" them. Throw a picture of full-frontal nudity in, and it jumps to R. PG-13 remains PG-13 as long as the suggestion is all you have.

Text, to get to R ratings, needs to actually provide word-count to describing the "naughty bits" and climbs swiftly to X if it gets into actual pornographic descriptions, but simply "telling" (rather than "showing with words") the "naughty" actions will only garner a PG-13 type rating.

It is, in fact, kind of fascinating how much suggestive "tell only" stuff can get into young adult literature which, if not very carefully edited for screen, can become downright R-rated very quickly if put into film.

A Game Of Thrones, the novel and its sequels, had a lot of sex and nudity, but it was not lavishly described; a naked girl would pull a blanket over her chest, or a kid would see two people "wrestling" and not understand what it was he'd seen. In the horselords' camp, it was disturbing to Dany how half-naked women were "taken" in broad public repeatedly. But it wasn't SHOWN; it wasn't a pornographic description of the act, so the mind's eye could conjure as much or as little of it as it wanted.

The TV series took a perverse glee in showing these scenes outright, with not even a hint of carefully-chosen camera angles; it went from PG-13 rated "tell" to X-rated "show" by simple virtue of leaving nothing to the imagination. (And, frankly, it was repulsive for it; I couldn't keep watching it. Which I was saddened by, as I liked the books.)



Regarding "safe spaces" and this forum...no. This forum is NOT a "safe space" in the sense that the term is used these days and various activist groups want to get them put on campuses. I am allowed to have and voice a dissenting opinion, even if it's one that the "protected" group doesn't like, here. It may not make me popular, but as long as I'm not hurling invective at people, merely expressing a differing, unsupportive opinion is not grounds to be punished.

This forum is a "safe space" only in the sense that there are full-on topics we can't bring up. These topics are usually not on topic for the forum in the first place, and also are blanket-enforced, regardless of what side of the debate one is on. This is not true of the "safe spaces" being advocated on college campuses, which are zones where voicing an opinion that differs from the approved one is grounds for immediate removal and censure.

THAT is why people get up in arms over these so-called "safe spaces." They're really just One View Only zones, designed to insulate people from having to hear divergent views from those approved by whatever powers established the "safe space." It isn't that anybody (in this thread, that I've seen, anyway) is opposed to civil discussion and respect for others, but that they're opposed to the notion that it is okay to tell others that they are not allowed to have and voice their opinion just because it isn't PC.

AMFV
2015-12-02, 03:51 PM
One problem I have had come up in my games is violence against children.


Once I was running a western game where a band of outlaws was holed up in the local schoolhouse and had taken the towns children hostage. The players were hired by the townsfolk to rescue them, and they decided to go in guns blazing. Most of the children were killed in the shootout.

Another time I was running a sword and sorcery game where an evil cultist had kidnapped a bunch of infants from the surrounding town and was planning to sacrifice them to an eldritch horror. The players went to stop his ritual, and though they succeeded they didn't quite get there in time to save all of the kids and a few of them ended up being sacrificed.


Both of these times I had a player strongly object to the content and (temporarily) quit the campaign.


Was it the same player? Because if so you probably should have at least notified them that child death would be a possibility in the second game. Since they had reacted so strongly to it before.



I have never quite understood the taboo against violence towards children. I know it is a common sentiment, and have heard that many people will turn off any media which displays it, heck showing violence against children in movies and video games it even outlawed in many countries.

Actually, let me rephrase that, I understand the taboo, what I don't understand is the level of distance. For example, in Fallout 3 all of the children are immune to any form of harm, but this in a post apocalyptic setting where a nuclear holocaust has wiped out 99.9% of the world's population, children included. People have no problem with, say, a zombie horde or a rampaging dragon or a marauding army massacring an entire town, children included, but only if it happens off screen. That seems odd to me.

Well there's a lot of difference in death by action, even by DM action, and death by backstory. Something that is described in the lead up to something, is passive. While the DM created the setting, it isn't the same thing as somebody actively saying "My character (or my NPC) stabs the child" It's essentially something that happened in the past. Also if there is a focus on it being everybody, then it isn't something particularly dangerous to children, but more akin to a force of nature.

So again, the clear difference is in active voice, and action, as opposed to a passive voice and backstory type situation.

GrayGriffin
2015-12-02, 04:52 PM
Regarding "safe spaces" and this forum...no. This forum is NOT a "safe space" in the sense that the term is used these days and various activist groups want to get them put on campuses. I am allowed to have and voice a dissenting opinion, even if it's one that the "protected" group doesn't like, here. It may not make me popular, but as long as I'm not hurling invective at people, merely expressing a differing, unsupportive opinion is not grounds to be punished.

This forum is a "safe space" only in the sense that there are full-on topics we can't bring up. These topics are usually not on topic for the forum in the first place, and also are blanket-enforced, regardless of what side of the debate one is on. This is not true of the "safe spaces" being advocated on college campuses, which are zones where voicing an opinion that differs from the approved one is grounds for immediate removal and censure.

THAT is why people get up in arms over these so-called "safe spaces." They're really just One View Only zones, designed to insulate people from having to hear divergent views from those approved by whatever powers established the "safe space." It isn't that anybody (in this thread, that I've seen, anyway) is opposed to civil discussion and respect for others, but that they're opposed to the notion that it is okay to tell others that they are not allowed to have and voice their opinion just because it isn't PC.

Here's a little tip: Most of the time those "dissenting" opinions are opinions that specifically hurt marginalized groups and are often widespread outside of the "safe space." Which is why those safe spaces exist, so that people know there's one ****ing place where they never have to hear that hurtful opinion. See also: the quote in my signature.

Talakeal
2015-12-02, 04:53 PM
Was it the same player? Because if so you probably should have at least notified them that child death would be a possibility in the second game. Since they had reacted so strongly to it before.

No, not the same player.

AMFV
2015-12-02, 05:21 PM
No, not the same player.

Ah, that's good. Since it has come up twice, I would consider adding it to your session zero meeting, and then maybe bringing it up before. Like when the players are about to charge in guns blazing, gently remind them, "Hey guys, this is a game where kids can die (remember the session zero), and that plan is very likely to cause that, are you folks really okay with that?"

If they are, then you're absolved of responsibility, and if they aren't they can reformulate their plan accordingly.

goto124
2015-12-02, 05:30 PM
It's less 'kids can die' and more 'anyone can die, including kids'.

Also, aren't safe spaces of the sort where e.g. you're not allowed to disparage LGBT people? In fact, we have an LGBT thread, and it's considered simple courtsey not to disparage LGBT people in an LGBT thread.

An analogy could be made here: it's like going to a gaming convention and declaring everyone there is promoting violence and wasting their time on a useless hobby.

Mr Beer
2015-12-02, 05:36 PM
I would also liek to stress that 'kicking' somone out of your gaming group should never be like some form of immedeate firingm, but rather the result of a long talk in which both parties can state how they feel about something and reach an understanding.

'Never' is a strong word. There are a number of egregious things that people could do at my table that would get them 'immediately fired'.

goto124
2015-12-02, 05:42 PM
We're talking about players leaving because they have a fear of spiders and the campaign is about a Temple of Lolth.

Not players getting their characters to rape NPCs.

AMFV
2015-12-02, 05:43 PM
'Never' is a strong word. There are a number of egregious things that people could do at my table that would get them 'immediately fired'.

Drinking for example, is pretty common in games, but generally frowned on in the workplace.

Talakeal
2015-12-02, 05:54 PM
There are a lot of things I find very unpleasant. I dont like rape, or torture, or slavery, or men hurting women, or corporal punishment of any sort. As a dog lover I really dont like seeing violence towards dogs, and as someone who has had a pot of boiling water spilled on me it is really uncomfortable to imagine anyone using boiling oil as a weapon. I am also kind of grossed out by amphibious worms.

It is uncomfortable for me to experiance this in any media, but if it is handled well my discomfort often adds to the experiance and gives it more weight.


In an RPG i generally dont hold back from displaying a realistically dark setting unless a player asks me to, and I dont expect it from the DM.

However, if the DM wants to have ny character or someone they are close to be raped or tortured or killed or betrayed they better not deny me the consequences. My character will get revenge, they will be upset, they might start acting "emo" or mentally unstable, I might change alignment, and I might even get myself killed. I have had a number of DMs who wanted to either "punish my character" or show how dark their story / how evil their villain is by doing things to my PC that are betond the pale and then expecting me to just roll with it and contunue to "play nice" as if nothing ever happened, and that is asking too much of me.

LnGrrrR
2015-12-02, 06:01 PM
One problem I have had come up in my games is violence against children.


Once I was running a western game where a band of outlaws was holed up in the local schoolhouse and had taken the towns children hostage. The players were hired by the townsfolk to rescue them, and they decided to go in guns blazing. Most of the children were killed in the shootout.

Another time I was running a sword and sorcery game where an evil cultist had kidnapped a bunch of infants from the surrounding town and was planning to sacrifice them to an eldritch horror. The players went to stop his ritual, and though they succeeded they didn't quite get there in time to save all of the kids and a few of them ended up being sacrificed.


Both of these times I had a player strongly object to the content and (temporarily) quit the campaign.


I have never quite understood the taboo against violence towards children. I know it is a common sentiment, and have heard that many people will turn off any media which displays it, heck showing violence against children in movies and video games it even outlawed in many countries.

Actually, let me rephrase that, I understand the taboo, what I don't understand is the level of distance. For example, in Fallout 3 all of the children are immune to any form of harm, but this in a post apocalyptic setting where a nuclear holocaust has wiped out 99.9% of the world's population, children included. People have no problem with, say, a zombie horde or a rampaging dragon or a marauding army massacring an entire town, children included, but only if it happens off screen. That seems odd to me.

See, here's the thing about situations like that. Is your gameworld improved by the death of the children? Is there something that the death of the children does that couldn't be accomplished by some other method? I understand if you want to make this guy an evil psychopath/scumbag. But I think there are ways for players to regret not stopping a bad guy that don't end up with murdered children. I know that "baby sacrifice" is a trope in stories, but those stories usually have a happy ending. "Killing the bad guy but not fast enough to prevent X child murders" isn't really a happy ending.

As far as people having no problem with it, it's because they aren't experiencing it. There's all sorts of messed up stuff that occurs in the world every day, but people don't think about it every second, because they're not confronting it. It's basic human nature. When people confront something, they tend to have stronger opinions on it.

Edit: I guess I don't get why all these DMs are so eager to be ultragrimdark in order to have a successful campaign. Yes, there should be moments that have dire consequences. And yes, occasionally the bad guy will do something really evil. But wholesale slaughter of babies, sexual abuse, etc etc are lazy ways to point to a character and say, "This guy is bad!" You can get away with it in other fiction because it's controlled; it's rare that the bad guy doesn't get his karmic retribution. But there's no guarantee of that in DnD, obviously.

Kami2awa
2015-12-02, 06:02 PM
I think a lot of this comes down a to a very simple way to GM well under most circumstances - Know Thy Players. This also applies to being a player rather than a GM.

I know this is not always easy, but if you get to know the people you game with, you are likely to avoid 90% of the problems discussed here. You very quickly learn what the group will react well to. If you know that adult themes of various kinds will upset your friends, don't bring them up in game! You wouldn't do so under other circumstances if you knew your companions would be upset.

If you're gaming with people you don't know, don't run a game full of sexual crimes and visceral descriptions, because that's asking for trouble. OTOH, if you know your group enjoys that kind of events in game, then include them.

Segev
2015-12-02, 06:29 PM
Here's a little tip: Most of the time those "dissenting" opinions are opinions that specifically hurt marginalized groups and are often widespread outside of the "safe space." Which is why those safe spaces exist, so that people know there's one ****ing place where they never have to hear that hurtful opinion. See also: the quote in my signature.

Regarding the quote, I'm not looking to justify "making somebody feel like garbage." I am, however, refusing to allow somebody declaring that me not agreeing with their worldview, nor agreeing that their problems are something I should bend over backwards to accommodate just because they say so, to make me stop expressing what I think. Especially when there are demands on the floor for changes to be made to accommodate their worldview, preferences, or lifestyle. Demands that I change my life in inconvenient ways, or cede the culture of my homeland to their desired changes, will be met with argument, and if that hurts their feelings, that's their problem.

I generally DO try not to hurt people's feelings. I don't LIKE hurting people, physically or emotionally. I derive no pleasure from schadenfreud under most circumstances (though I will admit to laughing at Looney Tunes, and to deriving satisfaction from humiliation congas applied to fictional villains explicitly and brilliantly designed to be hatable).

I do not, therefore, appreciate having only one side of a topic being allowed to be expressed on the grounds that those who are expressing that side are "hurt" or "made to feel like garbage" if I so much as voice a dissenting opinion.

It's not acceptable to hurl slurs, invective, and cruelty at people at any time. You don't need a "safe space" to prevent that; you need to have a cultural standard of politeness and civility and respect. Safe spaces do not accomplish that, they only encourage counter-bullying. The truth is that the people who have the power to establish those "safe spaces" do so for their own purposes, to cultivate an environment where only their chosen views can be shared until the very notion that somebody would disagree is considered vile. Debate is not allowed. Only the orthodox opinion about what the problem is and the orthodox solution to the problem is permitted to even be discussed.

I don't deny that there are problems. I don't deny that we need to be civil. I do not defend those who hurl slurs and invective and deliberately demean and hurt people. But "safe spaces" and demanding that so much as offering reasons why the demands made by people with a certain problem should not be unquestioningly met are not going to do that. All they're designed to do is force one side's demands down everybody's throats without ALLOWING debate.

Mercifully, that is not the case on this forum.

goto124
2015-12-02, 06:31 PM
'Bending over to accomodate'? How about 'leave the safe space'?

And when the opinion being expressed is "don't disparage LGBT people", and the so-called "common" courtsey to "not disparage LGBT people" is sadly rather rare in many countries - a situation that will take a long time to change - and meanwhile LGBT people just want a place where they aren't disparaged.

There're plenty of spaces where LGBT people can find LGBT opposition. There's a lack of spaces where LGBT people can find LGBT support.



If lack of [touchy topic] breaks a player's sense of immersion, but the rest of the group prefers the lack of [touchy topic], the player should leave the group. This is a game anyway, and there're always other games where the player can interact with [touchy topic].

Florian
2015-12-02, 06:35 PM
100% agreement with Segev.

goto124
2015-12-02, 06:41 PM
Do people live in the safe spaces for their entire lives? Can they?

I already made my argument a post or two above, depending on how one counts number of posts. We already have spaces where it's considered rude at best to present an opposing opinion - is it okay to walk into a stargazing group and tell them off for 'wasting their time staring at the stars' instead of doing charity work?

Let's take it to another thread, we're going off-topic.



I'll check why the children were roped into the situation where they could get killed.

Okay, I see it now. Infants were suitable sacrifice, and make great victims because the players can understand why they can't do anything to save themselves. There's no need to say 'oh this kidnapped person is heavily drugged/had a Sleep spell cast on/etc' which can lead to the players trying to wake the kidnapped people up, at which point it can quickly spiral down into railroading.

I can also see why a few of the infants would get killed along the way - there're people actively trying to kill them, and infants are limited to 'cry loudly' and 'trash about'.

Florian
2015-12-02, 06:51 PM
Do people live in the safe spaces for their entire lives? Can they?

I already made my argument a post or two above, depending on how one counts number of posts. We already have spaces where it's considered rude at best to present an opposing opinion - is it okay to walk into a stargazing group and tell them off for 'wasting their time staring at the stars' instead of doing charity work?

You are deliberatelly creating a dichotomy here that does not need to exist. If you want to have this discussion on a blanket black vs. white niveau, ok, shoot, but don't expect any meaninful answers.

sktarq
2015-12-02, 07:07 PM
As far as people having no problem with it, it's because they aren't experiencing it. There's all sorts of messed up stuff that occurs in the world every day, but people don't think about it every second, because they're not confronting it. It's basic human nature. When people confront something, they tend to have stronger opinions on it.

Edit: I guess I don't get why all these DMs are so eager to be ultragrimdark in order to have a successful campaign. Yes, there should be moments that have dire consequences. And yes, occasionally the bad guy will do something really evil. But wholesale slaughter of babies, sexual abuse, etc etc are lazy ways to point to a character and say, "This guy is bad!" You can get away with it in other fiction because it's controlled; it's rare that the bad guy doesn't get his karmic retribution. But there's no guarantee of that in DnD, obviously.

Wow. First paragraph is rather insulting because you claim to know what a wide spectrum of people who you know very little about are thinking and feeling. Also plenty of people are very much aware that bad things happen every day-and have gotten to the point where we internalize it and find a world-especially one in the kind of trouble that needs heroes/antiheros would be better off to ring false or just the fact that we find those things as interesting story drivers.

And not just in the "prove the BBEG" is evil way either. If that was the only way to use such things then I'd agree it would be lazy but there many ways to use horrible things in the game world. Starving children act as a motivation for the escalating clan war for one dead easy example. If prove BBEG is evil is how you see to use deep darkness by all means skip it but it has a wider use for others.

goto124
2015-12-02, 07:13 PM
Motivation huh? Once could argue it's not much better than "prove the BBEG is evil". It's cheap and lazy.

Also, why starving children? What about the rest of the village? Surely they're starving too? Starving adults! Starvation is a valid topic with potential to be interesting and provide plot hooks.

Segev
2015-12-02, 07:17 PM
A particularly hateable NPC I designed for another DM once used Necrotic Cyst and Necrotic Tumor on children and other innocents, then surrounded himself with them as hostages which he'd order to one by one "escape" and run to the heroes, "grateful for the rescue," and cling to them. And then he'd detonate them with Necrotic Eruption.

AMFV
2015-12-02, 07:23 PM
Wow. First paragraph is rather insulting because you claim to know what a wide spectrum of people who you know very little about are thinking and feeling. Also plenty of people are very much aware that bad things happen every day-and have gotten to the point where we internalize it and find a world-especially one in the kind of trouble that needs heroes/antiheros would be better off to ring false or just the fact that we find those things as interesting story drivers.

And not just in the "prove the BBEG" is evil way either. If that was the only way to use such things then I'd agree it would be lazy but there many ways to use horrible things in the game world. Starving children act as a motivation for the escalating clan war for one dead easy example. If prove BBEG is evil is how you see to use deep darkness by all means skip it but it has a wider use for others.

Well it depends, I don't thnk that you need to "prove the BBEG is evil" so much as have him act in character. If he's the sort of evil that would murder children, or wants to, then having him not could be out of character for him. Now taming down something for general consumption is fine. But it's fine to have a game where evil people do some VERY evil things.


Motivation huh? Once could argue it's not much better than "prove the BBEG is evil". It's cheap and lazy.

Also, why starving children? What about the rest of the village? Surely they're starving too? Starving adults! Starvation is a valid topic with potential to be intereting and provide plot hooks.

Well starving children tend to be more emotionally wrenching, because they don't have any options. A starving adult could (theoretically) do something that would make them not starving, a starving child doesn't have the option to go out into the world, or to leave, or to do anything.

So while an adult might not have the actual wherewithall to do anything a child certainly won't. And this is a pretty significant thing as far as player motivation is concerned.


A particularly hateable NPC I designed for another DM once used Necrotic Cyst and Necrotic Tumor on children and other innocents, then surrounded himself with them as hostages which he'd order to one by one "escape" and run to the heroes, "grateful for the rescue," and cling to them. And then he'd detonate them with Necrotic Eruption.

That's awful, but certainly an evil thing to do.

sktarq
2015-12-02, 07:51 PM
Motivation huh? Once could argue it's not much better than "prove the BBEG is evil". It's cheap and lazy.

Also, why starving children? What about the rest of the village? Surely they're starving too? Starving adults! Starvation is a valid topic with potential to be interesting and provide plot hooks.

Why starving children? Two thing First: Yes the whole villages in those cases would probably be in famine conditions but my point was the children would not be spared and would probably take the brunt of it because both that is who I expect the PC's to notice and
Secondly; in real world famines the kids tend to die off and catch it in the chin most. Sad but true. It has several reason many logical etc that I could get into with the players as parts of plot hooks.

As for motivation being dark being bad I simply disagree. Any type of motivation can be cheap and easy. It is all in presentation and complexity.

AMFV: I think you missed my point. It was not that BBEG's can't be horrible and do VERY evil things that would be problematic for many players but to refute that such a use is the primary reason for having such topics and actions in the game.

Alberic Strein
2015-12-02, 07:55 PM
See, here's the thing about situations like that. Is your gameworld improved by the death of the children?

A particularly hateable NPC I designed for another DM once used Necrotic Cyst and Necrotic Tumor on children and other innocents, then surrounded himself with them as hostages which he'd order to one by one "escape" and run to the heroes, "grateful for the rescue," and cling to them. And then he'd detonate them with Necrotic Eruption.
It can be, yes, like in this instance.

As a thumb rule I don't pull any punches when giving my players pathos, dying lovers, children, doomed starving populations, the most disgusting and visceraly repulsive monsters, etc... Because it does make for interesting roleplaying.

It's the example I always pull, but I really like to bring Broos as monsters whenever I GM MRQII. These creatures are really, really, horribly unsettling. (Basically infectuous beastmen who capture people, infect them sexually, release their prisoners and let them reach the safety of their families. Before long the victims inflate and birth another broo, which then attacks the families, bringing more broos in existence, etc...).

It is horribly absurdly disgusting. And it makes for some great, great roleplaying opportunities. For a one-shot one group that had basically formed for some nice DMT went to collect taxes to a tardy town, arrived between two attacks, discovered it was besieged by broos and upon succeeding a knowledge check, immediately opted to get the flying heck out of here. Forget the mission, forget the treasure, nope nope nope nope!

All of them? Not quite. One player had come to slay monsters, earn gold and kick ass, so he opted to stay and "never split the party was in effect" which forced the group to argue about leaving or completing the mission, soon followed by negociation attempts to sway the other party, which the lone player won by an absurd amount of luck, the party stayed, did the mission, collected the gold, and had lots of fun.

Nobody was hurt, nothing graphic was ever mentioned, really the game was a normal DMT in every single way. Except that this time, the group was playing for keeps.

Fun times.

goto124
2015-12-02, 07:58 PM
People readily accept the idea that children are innocents who can't do anything to save themselves. That's why children are great victims for a plot.

Alberic Strein
2015-12-02, 08:00 PM
People readily accept the idea that children are innocents who can't do anything to save themselves. That's why children are great victims for a plot.
And that protecting the young is a visceral instinct in many social mammals, among which humans.

Knaight
2015-12-02, 08:43 PM
The TV series took a perverse glee in showing these scenes outright, with not even a hint of carefully-chosen camera angles; it went from PG-13 rated "tell" to X-rated "show" by simple virtue of leaving nothing to the imagination. (And, frankly, it was repulsive for it; I couldn't keep watching it. Which I was saddened by, as I liked the books.)

These scenes, then several that weren't even in the books, with a bunch of more interesting content cut to make room. They couldn't pander to the lowest common denominator any more obviously if they brought Uwe Boll into the team.

gadren
2015-12-02, 09:12 PM
So many posts in this thread just make me... actually physically ill and angry at the same time.

I can't even begin to coherently respond.

ShadowFireLance
2015-12-02, 09:18 PM
So many posts in this thread just make me... actually physically ill and angry at the same time.

I can't even begin to coherently respond.

Out of curiosity, why would you even respond to this thread then? This seems like an attempt to instigate an argument where there is none.

AMFV
2015-12-02, 09:28 PM
So many posts in this thread just make me... actually physically ill and angry at the same time.

I can't even begin to coherently respond.


Out of curiosity, why would you even respond to this thread then? This seems like an attempt to instigate an argument where there is none.

Yes, at the very least I'd like to know what posts made you physically ill. I think the biggest argument was mine, and arguing that people should get to choose whether they are exposed to stimuli doesn't seem all that controversial to me. I don't think there's been any really controversial arguments, except possibly that what might not be appropriate content for some games, could be fine in others with appropriate consent.

LnGrrrR
2015-12-02, 10:16 PM
My comment wasn't to argue that no one can empathize with those who they don't have experience with, but people tend to have their opinions changed moreso through emotions than logic.

If people like dying children and rape and whatnot in their games, hey have fun I guess. I don't see the appeal personally. I can make a scumbag villain without those things. Sure he may be marginally less EVIL, but I'm fine with that, and so far, my players had been to. At least, I haven't had any say "You know what? I really wish that bad guy raped a few more babies. Then I REALLY would've wanted to beat him!"

Talakeal
2015-12-02, 10:28 PM
A little more information on the child killing if I may:

In the first case I actually based the scenario on a dream I had, so only my subconscious knows why. I didn't intend it to be a combat mission, rather a social or stealth based one. In truth the gang leader was initially bluffing and had no desire to see the kids harmed, he was just panicked and backed into a corner. However, once the players came in gun's blazing he had no choice but to pee or get off the pot. Then he saw his wife eviscerated in front of him and made the decision to fight back, using the kids as human shields.



The second case was also a little bit of an accident. My adventure involved something like "a green moss that glows whenever blood is spilled upon it" but I was typing the adventure notes on my iPad and the auto correct changed it to "a giant moth that grows whenever a baby is killed for it". I decided that was even weirder and just ran with it.

I actually wasn't thinking of the babies as people, more like objectives, and that was probably the fatal lack of empathy on my part.

Basically they were each being sacrificed at a different time in a different place, and then when the players finally fight the eldritch horror it gains powers based on how many children were sacrificed to it. The players did remarkably well, I think they saved 8/10 of the children, and it was more a challenge for the players to multi task and work under time constraints. They did very well, but it wasn't really feasible for them to save all of the sacrifices, and as a result one of the players got really mad at me for putting them in a situation where children were killed and they couldn't save everyone.

gadren
2015-12-02, 10:41 PM
Out of curiosity, why would you even respond to this thread then? I started to write about what I would do to the male players that want to rape a female npc in front of a female player, and when she tried to stop them they told her she was acting out of character because no man would stop a buddy from raping someone. After writing it, I realized my response was a bit... too graphic, but I still felt compelled to express my outrage.
This seems like an attempt to instigate an argument where there is none. No arguments? Really? What thread have you been reading?

AMFV
2015-12-02, 10:49 PM
I started to write about what I would do to the male players that want to rape a female npc in front of a female player, and when she tried to stop them they told her she was acting out of character because no man would stop a buddy from raping someone. After writing it, I realized my response was a bit... too graphic, but I still felt compelled to express my outrage. No arguments? Really? What thread have you been reading?

Ah, I think the issue is that you're several pages behind. There's still a good bit of discussion, but I think people have largely moved out of controversy. I do think that the "No man would stop a buddy from raping somebody" is probably not a game I'd want to be in. But to be perfectly fair, I don't think that should be a game that people aren't allowed to have. Or that I would physically assault somebody for having that sentiment (as idiotic and awful as it is).

People are allowed to have games that have things in them that I find repellent, I realize that those wouldn't be the game for me. Now it would have been better if she was told about that in advance. Which is I think the major crux of this.

On that note I'm starting to come up with a session zero list:

Do we have sexual content (how much is prevalent in game, how descriptive it is). If the game has sexual content, then probably how nonconsensual sex is handled should be addressed, if you're running a game without, then there's no reason at all to even bring it up.

What's the violence threshold? Ergo, are we in fantasy violence land, or are we in Jack Bauer torture land.

Are innocents (such as children) considered protected or are they as vulnerable as everybody else?

Those seem to be the three biggest ones, are there any content things I'm missing?

gadren
2015-12-02, 11:08 PM
Ah, I think the issue is that you're several pages behind. There's still a good bit of discussion, but I think people have largely moved out of controversy. I do think that the "No man would stop a buddy from raping somebody" is probably not a game I'd want to be in. But to be perfectly fair, I don't think that should be a game that people aren't allowed to have. Or that I would physically assault somebody for having that sentiment (as idiotic and awful as it is).

People are allowed to have games that have things in them that I find repellent, I realize that those wouldn't be the game for me. Now it would have been better if she was told about that in advance. Which is I think the major crux of this.

On that note I'm starting to come up with a session zero list:

Do we have sexual content (how much is prevalent in game, how descriptive it is). If the game has sexual content, then probably how nonconsensual sex is handled should be addressed, if you're running a game without, then there's no reason at all to even bring it up.

What's the violence threshold? Ergo, are we in fantasy violence land, or are we in Jack Bauer torture land.

Are innocents (such as children) considered protected or are they as vulnerable as everybody else?

Those seem to be the three biggest ones, are there any content things I'm missing?

Well, what infuriates me (and it isn't just that one story) is what is revealed about people beyond just what they do on graph paper.
If I was playing D&D with my male friends, even if it was just my male friends, and one told me that my character stopping their character from raping someone was OOC because no man would stop their friend from raping someone, I (the real me) would be in jail by the end of the night. It really has nothing to do with D&D at the point, it has to do with that person being of the most vile class of creature on the planet.

Knaight
2015-12-03, 12:04 AM
Ah, I think the issue is that you're several pages behind. There's still a good bit of discussion, but I think people have largely moved out of controversy. I do think that the "No man would stop a buddy from raping somebody" is probably not a game I'd want to be in. But to be perfectly fair, I don't think that should be a game that people aren't allowed to have. Or that I would physically assault somebody for having that sentiment (as idiotic and awful as it is).


The problem here is in the entirely out of game sentiment. "No man would stop a buddy from raping somebody" as a statement made by a man contains the statement "[The speaker] wouldn't stop a buddy from raping somebody, and considers the very idea that someone else would ridiculous". That's not exactly a shining endorsement of that person's character, and it's a lot less hypothetical than seemingly similar things to the effect of "I'd just go and murder a bunch of people if I wasn't specifically stopped by an outside force", which is at least probably not true.

RickAllison
2015-12-03, 12:10 AM
In the few campaigns I've done (and the one I'm GMing), we have always had a rather laissez-faire approach. Slavery became a contentious issue in the last Star Wars campaign I was in, as the party went into the business, but we had to tiptoe the moral line. In that case, we addressed it with a simultaneous in- and out-of-character discussion where we considered the moral implications of all the members. We eventually agreed to sell to colonists who would treat them well and refused to sell them to the spice mines or into chattel slavery (I do not wish to clarify that last one any further).

In my experience, the best ways to deal with this content are discussion beforehand and skirting around the issue while making it present. Discussion is always paramount, as you probably don't want to put a real-life victim through their ordeals in a game as well (the odds are minuscule, but still present), but avoiding those issues can restrict the depth of those campaigns. If they are open to it, encourage them to incorporate any problems into their character designs, and work with that. Which segues into my second suggestion, skirting around the topics while having them present. At the end of the day, RPGs are supposed to be fun and cinematic, so make subjects like this cinematic as well. How many times have movies had heroes ascend the tower/fortress/what-have-you to rescue his love/sister before she is deflowered by the villain? If a player is up for it, that could be a Crowning Moment of Awesome for the party (especially if the would-be victim gets his/her hand on a dagger for the coup-de-grace).

For phobias like spiders and snakes and such, it might make for a very interesting situation to play off the player's fears, but always leave room for catharsis. If you describe the hissing and slithering of a rock python hiding in the shadows, make sure to let any frightened party members eventually make a belt out of it, or do whatever they wish against it (setting it on fire, banishing it to an eternal pit of pain, etc.). You could get some excellent roleplay with the party and some NPC allies from a simple "What? I don't like snakes."
Even better if they become so proficient at killing what they hate most that they become famous for it!

tl;dr: Talk it over with the players. If they are willing to touch on it, be sensitive and let them have the opportunity for catharsis afterwards. Don't be afraid to bend the rules a little to give them their win if they look like they need it.

sktarq
2015-12-03, 12:35 AM
Well, what infuriates me (and it isn't just that one story) is what is revealed about people beyond just what they do on graph paper... It really has nothing to do with D&D at the point, it has to do with that person being of the most vile class of creature on the planet.
Firstly has little to do with the game and you say as such.

Secondly yeah player can and will shock and disappoint both each other and the DM. Everyone will have those moments in playing when you realize that your friends think XXX is okay when you think it is foul.
And while "mature content" ups the chances of this happening a large part of that is just many people talk about such things and so don't know how their friends feel, some is that in game how people "think" about a subject can be very different for reasons from being in character to the idea that theoretically is the only way they had dealt with those subjects.

gadren
2015-12-03, 12:58 AM
Firstly has little to do with the game and you say as such.

I guess I wasn't clear, but what I meant is people try to excuse behavior as "just a game" when it is more than that. Then when people get offended, they just claim they don't understand how to roleplay or some BS.

AMFV
2015-12-03, 05:13 AM
The problem here is in the entirely out of game sentiment. "No man would stop a buddy from raping somebody" as a statement made by a man contains the statement "[The speaker] wouldn't stop a buddy from raping somebody, and considers the very idea that someone else would ridiculous". That's not exactly a shining endorsement of that person's character, and it's a lot less hypothetical than seemingly similar things to the effect of "I'd just go and murder a bunch of people if I wasn't specifically stopped by an outside force", which is at least probably not true.

To be perfectly fair, it sounds to me, as somebody who has spent time with people who might say those kind of things, like a bad joke. I've never heard anybody say something like that seriously and I doubt that in this case it was serious. It sounds like a joke, and a bad one for mixed company, but I strongly doubt it reflects actual belief.

Just because somebody says something doesn't mean it somethng they believe. Again, I'd be more likely to suspect it was a joke in poor taste that the person playing missed, because it was so shocking, and not something she was used to.


Firstly has little to do with the game and you say as such.

Secondly yeah player can and will shock and disappoint both each other and the DM. Everyone will have those moments in playing when you realize that your friends think XXX is okay when you think it is foul.
And while "mature content" ups the chances of this happening a large part of that is just many people talk about such things and so don't know how their friends feel, some is that in game how people "think" about a subject can be very different for reasons from being in character to the idea that theoretically is the only way they had dealt with those subjects.

Well also to be fair, I'm not sure that the people were entirely serious. It can be difficult to gauge that sort of thing when you're interacting with strangers.


I guess I wasn't clear, but what I meant is people try to excuse behavior as "just a game" when it is more than that. Then when people get offended, they just claim they don't understand how to roleplay or some BS.

But it is just a game...

That's a pretty important point here, I'm not going to argue that what these people did wasn't in poor taste, but they didn't rape anybody. They didn't threaten to rape anybody. They didn't discuss any kind of harm on anybody in the real world. They only notionally discussed harm, which is pretty far removed from actually doing anything.

As I said, I would guess, that it was a joke, and a poor one. I've spent a lot of time with people who make jokes in bad taste, that sounds exactly like one of them, and not like something I've ever heard anybody say in real life, not even the most misogynistic folks I've met. As such my inclination is to suspect that it was a bad joke.

Which moves even further the goalposts from something they would actually do or consider. And even barring that it's not a joke, again, words are not actions, and those words are far removed from any action, they weren't discussing an actual event, or real people, but fictional ones, I imagine if confronted with actual people, or actual events the tune would change very quickly.

Socratov
2015-12-03, 05:52 AM
'Never' is a strong word. There are a number of egregious things that people could do at my table that would get them 'immediately fired'.
Well, IMO you need to go pretty far for me to actually kick you out of the place right that instance, and if it gets to that stage other problems will have surfaced and the gaming group/campaign will have been gone by then. Until then I'd like to be civil about it and use actual words before we get to the suddenly everything erupts stage of things.


But it is just a game...


And it stops being a game when trauma is experienced or dormant trauma is triggered. Like other touchy/real world topics, the fact that it shouldn't be an issue won't ever make it a non-issue if it is experienced as being an issue in the first place. (this sounds like circular reasoning, but actuall yisn't: as long as it's perceived as an issue the fact that it should not be an issue doesn't invalidate the issue).

goto124
2015-12-03, 06:10 AM
The people who want that level of black humor should not play at the same table as those who don't want it.

Comet
2015-12-03, 06:25 AM
Yeah, everyone at the table should just take it easy for a session or two when starting a new group. Go light on the jokes, feel the room, get to know the people around you. Just basic social stuff and being a decent human being.

Problem is, of course, when you've got people who are unable or unwilling to do that. This is sadly common in roleplaying because those people can also see roleplaying as their personal Narnia where they don't need to be decent human beings because they have elf ears and can shoot fireballs at will.

I don't know if that's fixable.

AMFV
2015-12-03, 06:41 AM
And it stops being a game when trauma is experienced or dormant trauma is triggered. Like other touchy/real world topics, the fact that it shouldn't be an issue won't ever make it a non-issue if it is experienced as being an issue in the first place. (this sounds like circular reasoning, but actuall yisn't: as long as it's perceived as an issue the fact that it should not be an issue doesn't invalidate the issue).

It doesn't stop being a game. At least not in the sense that was being implied. Which is that what somebody does in the game, or says, has a bearing on the outside world or how they would act there. Which isnt necessarily the case.

And even if somebody has a bad reaction to something in a game. That doesn't take it out of what it is. Its still a game, it's just now a game that's uncomfortable for a participant. It doesn't cease being a game, because somebody is troubled by it, even deeply so. Any more than a car backfiring, becomes anything else for somebody that might react badly to that, or a guy with a beard for somebody that might react badly to that. As my issues are my issues, others are others, just because somebody behaves badly in a game, doesn't mean they'll behave badly elsewhere.


The people who want that level of black humor should not play at the same table as those who don't want it.

That's certainly true, but it's not always easy for people to assess and gauge. Which is why we have pages and pages of discussion on the topic.


Yeah, everyone at the table should just take it easy for a session or two when starting a new group. Go light on the jokes, feel the room, get to know the people around you. Just basic social stuff and being a decent human being.

Problem is, of course, when you've got people who are unable or unwilling to do that. This is sadly common in roleplaying because those people can also see roleplaying as their personal Narnia where they don't need to be decent human beings because they have elf ears and can shoot fireballs at will.

I don't know if that's fixable.

I don't think it's that, at all. I suspect it's a black humor type joke. Not wish-fulfillment. Again it just doesn't fit with what that would look like, or how I've seen that sort of wish-fulfillment thing described.

Florian
2015-12-03, 07:01 AM
@Knaight:

I can't really wrap my head about the whole thing as it has been presented. If the speaker was being serious about it, I'd be pretty horrified about the person and his social enviroment. Truth be told, my reaction to that would have been direct violence and I'm not ashamed of that.
If it was about "You don't stop someone having fun in-game", I would quit the game right now, as I'm not into powertripping, especially not using those topics for wish fulfillment.

@goto124:

I fully agree with your sentiment here. There are things noone should joke about. Take them seriously? yes. But humour, even dark humour? No.

@socratov:

I have to disagree with you there. It still stays a game as all content stays purelly fictional.

Alberic Strein
2015-12-03, 07:16 AM
This is sadly common in roleplaying because those people can also see roleplaying as their personal Narnia where they don't need to be decent human beings because they have elf ears and can shoot fireballs at will.

Unless you have inside information I do not have access to I would argue that it's simply a bunch of players being socially dysfunctional, though not malign in any way, being coupled with getting in a room with people who are not quite acquaintances -more than coworkers- and less than friends, though not always, to play a game, which is a pleasant, sometimes stressful hobby which can bring people to go beyond the limits of good taste in the company they are with.

To be perfectly fair, it sounds to me, as somebody who has spent time with people who might say those kind of things, like a bad joke.
While I mainly agree with AMFV on pretty much every point he brings up, I want to single that one out. Of course we have no idea of the situation, the context, what the person actually meant, etc... But I can say two things for a fact:
1)I have made this kind of joke, and worse, with my best friend. Only with my best friend, and explicitely because he is fine with, and enjoys, it.
2)Some players I met were wholly unable to make the difference between their best friend of 20 years and people they met twice in their life who spend a couple hours a week playing the same social game.

So yeah, poor taste, may very well warrant excuses, but does not give insight to a person's beliefs.


The people who want that level of black humor should not play at the same table as those who don't want it.
Yes, and it sucks that this situation happened, and that some people are socially blind. This is true.

But let's be honest here, you are going to get offended. People are going to offend you, whether they want it or not and with, or without, malicious intent. Because that's what people do and are. We all have different views, experiences and beliefs. Honestly, it takes everything I have to tiptoe enough around touchy subjects to avoid upsetting a single person for few hours. I cannot preemptively neuter anything I could say that would offend 5+ people around a table while still playing and enjoying a game. There will come a time, possibly after a few hours, where I won't care that what I'm saying may be interpreted in an offensive way, I just want to get on with the damn game.

And most people can actually take being somewhat offended quite well. When the DM turned my character into a woman, no save, and he wouldn't hear anything about me preferring almost anything but that, I got offended. I bitched about it by my lonesome because I didn't want to negatively impact the game for anyone else, pouted for a while next game and then went on. Because, while I was offended, I didn't feel so horribly attacked at the very core of my being that I was seething with rage. Likewise for most people I ever played with, they didn't like something, sometimes talked about it for a bit, sometimes not, pouted for a couple of minutes/hours/days, and then it was all water under the bridge.

That is not to say you don't have the right to be offended, or that people should feel empowered to offend others, or that there are not issues that will offend us all so hard so much so strongly that it will make us fly right off our rocker. And of course each and everyone should tread very carefully around those issues.

My point is that there are different levels of offensive and that while the deeper levels are a definitive no-no zone and any and everyone should respect those boundaries, we can deal with being slightly offended, being made uncomfortable by something and that our ability to take on ourselves is part of what makes socializing with us a pleasure and not a nightmarish minefield.

Ps:


I fully agree with your sentiment here. There are things noone should joke about. Take them seriously? yes. But humour, even dark humour? No.

There is absolutely, absolutely nothing in the whole wide world that anyone doesn't have the right to joke about. There are however people around with you cannot joke around certain subjects and one should respect that.

But anyone has the right to make a damn joke about whatever damn pleases them to.

Comet
2015-12-03, 07:22 AM
I don't think it's that, at all. I suspect it's a black humor type joke. Not wish-fulfillment. Again it just doesn't fit with what that would look like, or how I've seen that sort of wish-fulfillment thing described.

Yes, you're right. We should always give people the benefit of the doubt. In this case it was probably just a joke in poor taste, in which case a simple "hey, not cool" should be enough to clear the issue.

We've certainly had a couple of those situations where something awkward might have come up but the group naturally sorted it out with a minute of uneasy laughs and agreeing that we're not going to go there. I've always played with friends or at least people someone at the table knows, though, so I've been pretty lucky when it comes to gaming.

Frozen_Feet
2015-12-03, 09:09 AM
It is uncomfortable for me to experiance this in any media, but if it is handled well my discomfort often adds to the experiance and gives it more weight.

I'd like to bring more attention to this, because it reveals an underlying aspect of human experience which is important to the discussion.

Roller coasters are a thing. Ghost trains are a thing. All of the spinning infernal devices in amusement parks are a thing. All of them rely on causing primitive reactions which are outside conscious control - namely, terror, and you can't really know how much terror before you get in. (More, while you can choose to opt in or opt out, once you do opt in, you're trapped for the whole ride.) But because on a conscious level we know it is safe, that terror turns into a source of amusement.

More, there's a book examining what makes humour funny, and author of Schlock Mercenary posted an useful Venn diagram in his review of it. The basic idea is this: non-transgressive things are unfunny. (They may be interesting, but they don't get a laugh out of you.) Transgressive things which are perceived as being presented with ill intent are offensive/insulting. ("Perceived as" is important, because the audience can be mistaken of a person's intentions, leading them to laughing or crying foul at the wrong part.) Only transgressive things perceived as being presented with benign intent are really funny.

Many of threads like this bog down at the idea that people being uncomfortable is antithetical to people having fun. In actuality, the best fun can only be had when there's a chance for people to feel uncomfortable.

That's why random chance and gambling mechanics are so prevalent in gaming: uncontrollable risk of losing is a source of anxiety, and because it's a source of anxiety, it's also a source of excitement and fun. This principle applies all the way to the darkest levels of humour and horror. It also answers why use violence towards children (etc.), indeed, why use violence at all in games: because that's the actually transgressive stuff, the stuff which evokes feelings in people. You can call it lazy, but you might as well call it effective.

---

So, now back to perceptions of people. Gadren's example is so provoking, because it breaks the good faith assumption of "it's all just a game".

Let me tell an example of another game, people playing Red & Pleasant land. When the GM described a guard house had four hungry-looking vampire knights in it, a female player with a dwarf character asked "Are they hot? Can I hit on them?"

Unsurprisingly, her level 1 dwarf lost her saving throw vs. Domination. At this point, the player next to her lowered a hand on her shoulder and said: "don't worry. Studies tell four out of five enjoy gang rape." At which point everyone laughed.

The biggest difference is that in this scenario, no-one had any reason to think the statement reflects the second player's actual beliefs on anything; it was a consciously absurd remark of an absurd game situation.

(Of course, there's also an RPG-specific difference: in Gadren's example, a player's decision on how to play their character was questioned, which is whole other kerfuffle.)

A problem in previous threads, and in discussions of dark humour in general, has been that some people claim there is no difference; that intent is absolutely unknowable or every claim about taboo topics should be taken seriously; in short, that you cannot joke about some things.

In light of how humour works, I don't think that's true at all. However, history has shown that if you tell people it is true enough times, they will believe so and can do some pretty dangerous things as a result.

Sure, "it was a joke" is a cheap shield for a person with actual ill intent to hide behind; but I don't think it would work as a shield at all if people weren't honest about it most of the time.

goto124
2015-12-03, 09:54 AM
Not to mention, context matters a lot for determing intent. Such as how well you know the joke-teller, the known history of the joke-teller, etc.

Frozen_Feet
2015-12-03, 10:23 AM
Yes. Which is why it's important to not poison wells, especially on the net where it is both hard to falsify bad-faith and ad hominem arguments, and (on anonymous forums like this) unrealistic to expect people to do that in the first place.

That's why f.ex. Godwin's law came about - it's such a cheap tactic to call people you disagree with Nazis that it's better for everyone to just ignore it.

ngilop
2015-12-03, 10:51 AM
Rape and Sexual Assault are horrible crimes that leave deep wounds and affect about 1 in 6 people. Any time you belly up to the table there's a significant chance someone at your table has been molested, assaulted, or hurt in a way that is both painful and socially unacceptable to discuss.

Best move: drop rape from all games with no discussion, and forbid player actions that lean in the direction of sexual assault.

Any lost verisimilitude can be handwaved pretty easily without bringing up the threat of imminent loss of power and dehumanization.

"The orcs find you sexually repulsive, and your blood would weaken their bloodline" "The drow guards are under strict orders not to violate the sacrifices to Llolth" etc, etc, etc.

Yeah pretty much this. had a guy like the OP as a DM once, even the whole it breaks immersion argument.
We were starting a new campaign with a couple new players, one of which was a survivor of a brutal sexual assault that left both emotional and physical scars.

I met with the DM before the game and told him to just fade to black or drop the graphic violence altogether for this one campaign. Due to certain circumstances with the group.

He decided that verisimilitude and game immersion was more important than giving in to various player's individual "no's". Also that's pretty much why I feel that Song of Fire and Ice/Game fo thrones is such as DOODDOOHEAD story. basically captain neckbeard wrote a fourth of a story and say ' ughh what I write bout now derp herp!' then he got the 'brilliant' idea of filling 5/12 of it with everybody and their cousin getting raped, and plopped in killing anybody the reader had gotten attached to fill in the missing gaps.

SO yeah, the session zero thing should be done at al tables.

Also I say stay away form trying to bring real world stuff into the game like PTSD and such. Especially if you are ignorant of it yourself and especially if you have never had it or intimately known anybody who has. what the typical PC goes though in life is beyond what would happen to any of us in the real world. When was the last time anybody you know had their very soul's attacked?

Florian
2015-12-03, 12:05 PM
There is absolutely, absolutely nothing in the whole wide world that anyone doesn't have the right to joke about. There are however people around with you cannot joke around certain subjects and one should respect that.

But anyone has the right to make a damn joke about whatever damn pleases them to.

I have to disagree with you on that one. You know the difference between "laugh with" and "laugh at"? You are right, there are poeple about that know this exact difference and react to it.

Alberic Strein
2015-12-03, 12:21 PM
I have to disagree with you on that one. You know the difference between "laugh with" and "laugh at"? You are right, there are poeple about that know this exact difference and react to it.
And some people know that this difference stems from the treatment of the subject, not the nature.

Segev
2015-12-03, 01:26 PM
That's why f.ex. Godwin's law came about - it's such a cheap tactic to call people you disagree with Nazis that it's better for everyone to just ignore it.

Dear heaven, I just conceived a parody wherein somebody who calls others on Godwin's Law gets called a "Godwin-Nazi" by others.

Florian
2015-12-03, 01:31 PM
Dear heaven, I just conceived a parody wherein somebody who calls others on Godwin's Law gets called a "Godwin-Nazi" by others.

Wouldn't joke around with that. See that every day right now. It is real.

ngilop
2015-12-03, 02:28 PM
Ps:

There is absolutely, absolutely nothing in the whole wide world that anyone doesn't have the right to joke about. There are however people around with you cannot joke around certain subjects and one should respect that.

But anyone has the right to make a damn joke about whatever damn pleases them to.

I would be inclined to agree IF a joke was made in a vacuum. Alas nothing ever exists in a vacuum.

While I can makes jokes about old lesbians to my Mom, her partner, and their friends (PS my mom is homosexual). You bet you arse that I'm not going to go up to these ultra lbgt peoples and say the same things. Its rude , asinine, and down right ludicours to expect everyone around you to have the same sense of humor and find everything you think is funny, funny.

Some guys think setting a kitten on fire is funny and say lol I killed that kitten good. I myself am appalled that there are sick, in my mind, enough people to think that torturing and killing a semi innocent (cuz you know cats be scheming 24/7) being are finding it hilarious.


SO in the end. I completely disagree with you. One should take into consideration their surroundings, the people round them, and realize that we are all different.

Steampunkette
2015-12-03, 02:57 PM
You must not have read his post very well...

His whole latter half of the main part of his post was "Take into consideration who you're telling the joke to"

That said, I still disagree. Everyone has the right to make GOOD NATURED jokes. If you're telling jokes to be mean to an already wounded person, you deserve to be thoroughly disabused of the idea that it's okay.

Do you have the right to tell the joke? Freedom of speech, sure. But everyone has the right to shut you the heck up.

Florian
2015-12-03, 03:03 PM
You must not have read his post very well...

His whole latter half of the main part of his post was "Take into consideration who you're telling the joke to"

That said, I still disagree. Everyone has the right to make GOOD NATURED jokes. If you're telling jokes to be mean to an already wounded person, you deserve to be thoroughly disabused of the idea that it's okay.

Do you have the right to tell the joke? Freedom of speech, sure. But everyone has the right to shut you the heck up.

Freedom of speech is a very U.S. American concepts that is not universally applicable, you know?

Steampunkette
2015-12-03, 03:14 PM
True.

And in nations where you don't have it the argument is inapplicable. Like countries with Hate Speech Laws.

But arguing that it's illegal, there, doesn't change the fact that someone here has that right. And if that's the argument they're making it completely undermines the fact that you can't do it somewhere else.

However whether you're in Germany, the UK, or the US you've still got the ability to say whatever the heck you want: It's only the consequences that are different.

For the record: I'm on the side of hate speech laws and not saying viciously nasty crap or making jokes that punch down on the downtrodden.

LnGrrrR
2015-12-03, 03:23 PM
Freedom of speech is a very U.S. American concepts that is not universally applicable, you know?

'MURICA!

(Sorry, I had to.)

Segev
2015-12-03, 03:30 PM
I, on the other hand, am strongly opposed to "hate speech" laws, because they effectively allow the powers that be to define whatever they don't want to hear (or want others to hear) as "hate speech."

Don't think that homosexuals should be getting married? Hate speech.
Don't think that Christian icons should be displayed on public grounds? Hate speech.

It doesn't matter who's running the rule-making; when you have "hate speech" laws, anything that the powers that be are offended by is "obviously" hateful. And thus okay to ban.

On the other hand, a right to SPEAK is not a right to be HEARD. You have every right to talk about how Mormons are a scourge upon the earth and that Muslims should be given 36 pairs of Mormon missionaries as their 72 virgins; this doesn't mean anybody who finds your words offensive has to give you time, space, or a forum in which to talk to them about it if they don't want to. You have every right to spew Nazi propaganda or to discuss climate change (on any side of the issue), but if people don't want to hear it, they don't have to listen, and you have no right to compel them.

That, then, means that we, as social groups, have a right to censure and censor others in the sense that we have a right to close our personal communication channels to them if we wish to, and to avoid them. And if you actively harass people, you're in the wrong and should stop it AND should be called out on your behavior.

In general, any action taken with pure intent to cause others pain is bad. I don't think anybody on this board supports such things, nor advocates them. It's one reason why I get so frustrated when people start yammering about "hate speech" and accusing each other of "hate" just for having differing opinions. Even if the opinions aren't what you want to hear about, they are very likely NOT motivated by hate! Which is why I oppose "hate speech" laws: they tend to be written to silence sides of a debate on the grounds that not hearing what they want to hear is painful.

Reality is sometimes painful. Just because something isn't what you want to hear doesn't make it wrong. While doing one's best not to be insulting when saying such things is always good, making only one side of an issue taboo in order to "prevent pain" is really just bullying.

BayardSPSR
2015-12-03, 03:31 PM
Freedom of speech is a very U.S. American concepts that is not universally applicable, you know?

Even in a US context, people forget that constitutional freedom of speech is mostly a prohibition on government restriction of political expression, not "you can't be offended if I call you a ****** or the internet!" There's actually a traditional exception for "fighting words," if one that has been dwindling away as our society becomes less prone to retaliating violently to personal insults.

Freedom of speech doesn't actually exist on the internet, contrary to the opinions of almost everyone on the internet. People who own sites have complete control over what may or may not be said on their site (terms of use).

Separately, I'd like to point out (in support of joke-context being important) that one of the reasons people object to, say, racist humor isn't that they're offensive - it's that they make actual racists more confident in their beliefs. The same applies to homophobic jokes, misogynistic jokes, and so on.

Edit:


I, on the other hand, am strongly opposed to "hate speech" laws, because they effectively allow the powers that be to define whatever they don't want to hear (or want others to hear) as "hate speech."

Don't think that homosexuals should be getting married? Hate speech.
Don't think that Christian icons should be displayed on public grounds? Hate speech.

It doesn't matter who's running the rule-making; when you have "hate speech" laws, anything that the powers that be are offended by is "obviously" hateful. And thus okay to ban.

On the other hand, a right to SPEAK is not a right to be HEARD. You have every right to talk about how Mormons are a scourge upon the earth and that Muslims should be given 36 pairs of Mormon missionaries as their 72 virgins; this doesn't mean anybody who finds your words offensive has to give you time, space, or a forum in which to talk to them about it if they don't want to. You have every right to spew Nazi propaganda or to discuss climate change (on any side of the issue), but if people don't want to hear it, they don't have to listen, and you have no right to compel them.

That, then, means that we, as social groups, have a right to censure and censor others in the sense that we have a right to close our personal communication channels to them if we wish to, and to avoid them. And if you actively harass people, you're in the wrong and should stop it AND should be called out on your behavior.

In general, any action taken with pure intent to cause others pain is bad. I don't think anybody on this board supports such things, nor advocates them. It's one reason why I get so frustrated when people start yammering about "hate speech" and accusing each other of "hate" just for having differing opinions. Even if the opinions aren't what you want to hear about, they are very likely NOT motivated by hate! Which is why I oppose "hate speech" laws: they tend to be written to silence sides of a debate on the grounds that not hearing what they want to hear is painful.

Reality is sometimes painful. Just because something isn't what you want to hear doesn't make it wrong. While doing one's best not to be insulting when saying such things is always good, making only one side of an issue taboo in order to "prevent pain" is really just bullying.

As you say, reality is sometimes painful. And the reality is that in some places certain kinds of speech have been extraordinarily effective in inciting genocidal violence and, believe it or not, remain effective in inciting violence today. I don't know what your location is, but I can think of a few places where it clearly isn't. Hate exists, and it kills.

Segev
2015-12-03, 03:56 PM
Even in a US context, people forget that constitutional freedom of speech is mostly a prohibition on government restriction of political expression, not "you can't be offended if I call you a ****** or the internet!" There's actually a traditional exception for "fighting words," if one that has been dwindling away as our society becomes less prone to retaliating violently to personal insults.Sure. Like I said, your right to speak is not a right to be heard.


As you say, reality is sometimes painful. And the reality is that in some places certain kinds of speech have been extraordinarily effective in inciting genocidal violence and, believe it or not, remain effective in inciting violence today. I don't know what your location is, but I can think of a few places where it clearly isn't. Hate exists, and it kills.
Yes, but the speech that is effective at inciting violence is rarely actually legally identified as hate speech. Which just supports my point that hate speech laws are not used for that purpose, and thus do harm rather than good.

In fact, even calling people out for the kind of speech that inspires riots such as have happened in middle America tends to be, itself, called "hate." Because it's not about actually stopping people from ginning up hate (which is useful to the people who are stirring up anger and strife), but to silence the opposition (which is concerned about the kind of excrement-stirring that is being done with speech calling for "retribution" against people based on their skin color and profession).

I don't think I can get more specific than that without veering sharply into politics. But the point stands: you're right, speech can stir up violence. But the people wielding the "ban hate speech" hammer are not even trying to stop that kind of speech, but to silence its opposition.

BayardSPSR
2015-12-03, 04:06 PM
Sure. Like I said, your right to speak is not a right to be heard.

Yes, but the speech that is effective at inciting violence is rarely actually legally identified as hate speech. Which just supports my point that hate speech laws are not used for that purpose, and thus do harm rather than good.

In fact, even calling people out for the kind of speech that inspires riots such as have happened in middle America tends to be, itself, called "hate." Because it's not about actually stopping people from ginning up hate (which is useful to the people who are stirring up anger and strife), but to silence the opposition (which is concerned about the kind of excrement-stirring that is being done with speech calling for "retribution" against people based on their skin color and profession).

I don't think I can get more specific than that without veering sharply into politics. But the point stands: you're right, speech can stir up violence. But the people wielding the "ban hate speech" hammer are not even trying to stop that kind of speech, but to silence its opposition.

I'm not talking about middle America.

Kid Jake
2015-12-03, 04:20 PM
I'm not talking about middle America.

So you're talking about third world warzones then, like...Canada or Sweden that maintain their fragile internal peace only by making sure nobody's feelings are hurt? Because the places I can think of off the top of my head where words regularly incite violence are not the same places sporting hate speech laws, and often deriding the very words which actually DO cause violence does in fact fall under the hate speech laws.

BayardSPSR
2015-12-03, 04:29 PM
So you're talking about third world warzones then, like...Canada or Sweden that maintain their fragile internal peace only by making sure nobody's feelings are hurt? Because the places I can think of off the top of my head where words regularly incite violence are not the same places sporting hate speech laws, and often deriding the very words which actually DO cause violence does in fact fall under the hate speech laws.

Seriously? You've never heard of Germany? I thought it was the country most known for hate-speech legislation. I'm not trying to claim any special vulnerability to incitement on the part of the average German citizen, and I won't spend time debating the effectiveness of the Volksverhetzung law, but I can think of a few good reasons for it to exist.
At least six million, in fact.
So when people stay stuff like

You have every right to spew Nazi propaganda
it's important to remember that in some places you actually literally don't, and that even if laws against such are a ploy to keep political opponents out of office, ploys to keep some people out of office might have reasonable justifications.

Kid Jake
2015-12-03, 04:39 PM
Seriously? You've never heard of Germany? I thought it was the country most known for hate-speech legislation. I'm not trying to claim any special vulnerability to incitement on the part of the average German citizen, and I won't spend time debating the effectiveness of the Volksverhetzung, but I can think of a few good reasons for it to exist.
At least six million, in fact.
So when people stay stuff like

it's important to remember that in some places you actually literally don't, and that even if laws against such are a ploy to keep political opponents out of office, ploys to keep some people out of office might have reasonable justifications.

I'm not sure if you realize this...but it wasn't German lynch mobs running around in the 40's raising hell all over Europe it was the German government. You know the government right? Those people that then wrote and implemented the hate speech laws to keep people from bringing up their less than flattering past?

Ravens_cry
2015-12-03, 04:47 PM
Wow, I come into the thread and find it Godwinned. As for the topic, I'd say, no, there isn't.
I think role playing games have potential that only interactive media can to bring to life issues and really make you feel them. It's one thing to have a story about a female character in a misogynistic society, it's another to have to live it as female character. And since there's a live DM as opposed to a computer spouting canned lines, it can react and be alive the way even computer and video games can not.
I will say though, that there can be issues that are too touchy for a particular group. Maybe the players just aren't mature enough, have no desire to play through such a campaign, or whose personal experiences make it uncomfortable, and that's OK.
If you're going to go for the issues, you need to be sure everyone's OK with it and to treat the subject matter with respect.
If they aren't or you can't, do not go there. But if you can, it could shape into a thought provoking exercise, even if it's not as outright 'fun' as more escapist campaigns.

Mr Beer
2015-12-03, 05:24 PM
Well, IMO you need to go pretty far for me to actually kick you out of the place right that instance, and if it gets to that stage other problems will have surfaced and the gaming group/campaign will have been gone by then. Until then I'd like to be civil about it and use actual words before we get to the suddenly everything erupts stage of things.

Let's say other problems may have surfaced...

Look, generally it should and will go the way you say, we have a discussion like civilised people and agree to disagree and part ways as amicably as possible. To an extent, this relies on knowing the people you game with, you bring new people into the group with a certain amount of care and then you know what to expect from them.

All I'm saying is, a brief read through the 'Worst Player Ever' threads will provide numerous examples of people that don't really need a long exchange of our mutual thoughts and feelings and expectations but rather a terse 'goodbye'.

That said, in many cases, a certain amount of clear discussion early on can prevent a lot of nightmare games later.

Mr Beer
2015-12-03, 05:25 PM
There is absolutely, absolutely nothing in the whole wide world that anyone doesn't have the right to joke about. There are however people around with you cannot joke around certain subjects and one should respect that.

But anyone has the right to make a damn joke about whatever damn pleases them to.

so much this

Knaight
2015-12-03, 05:32 PM
Seriously? You've never heard of Germany? I thought it was the country most known for hate-speech legislation. I'm not trying to claim any special vulnerability to incitement on the part of the average German citizen, and I won't spend time debating the effectiveness of the Volksverhetzung law, but I can think of a few good reasons for it to exist.
At least six million, in fact.

If the count is restricted entirely to concentration camps, and not expanded to include other military casualties that number is still about 11 million. The 6 million figure is specifically the number of Jews killed in the concentration camps; they weren't the only target.


I'm not sure if you realize this...but it wasn't German lynch mobs running around in the 40's raising hell all over Europe it was the German government. You know the government right? Those people that then wrote and implemented the hate speech laws to keep people from bringing up their less than flattering past?
Are you really pretending that the German government under the Nazi regime and the subsequent ones were really the same government? It's not just that huge chunks of the people in said government were arrested (See: Trials, Nuremberg), or that East Germany was basically a Soviet Satellite state for decades, or even that public opinion turned against the Nazi government pretty quickly once the extent of their murderous policies was known and the promised empire was clearly not going to happen. It's that the combined effects of these things were the systematic ousting of the Nazi party in its entirety, with replacement coming in almost entirely from different people who would have been considered ideological enemies of the Nazi party, supported by a population that was suddenly very hostile to the Nazi party. Treating the Third Reich and the people who wrote and implemented those laws as the same government is at best disingenuous.

While we're at it, those laws don't keep people from bringing up their less than flattering past, and there's no real effort to keep that information hidden. German culture is very open about how less than flattering their past is. It's not conveniently excised from public history curriculum, it's not treated as if it's something from the past that could never affect the present, and it's just generally very well remembered. There's a reason that most Germans are still extremely hesitant to show even the faintest signs of nationalism.

Segev
2015-12-03, 05:40 PM
*cough* I'm not sure that discussing Germany's troubled history in this particular way is apropos of even the side-conversation about whether or not censoring certain speech is constructive or not.

Kid Jake
2015-12-03, 05:54 PM
Are you really pretending that the German government under the Nazi regime and the subsequent ones were really the same government? It's not just that huge chunks of the people in said government were arrested (See: Trials, Nuremberg), or that East Germany was basically a Soviet Satellite state for decades, or even that public opinion turned against the Nazi government pretty quickly once the extent of their murderous policies was known and the promised empire was clearly not going to happen. It's that the combined effects of these things were the systematic ousting of the Nazi party in its entirety, with replacement coming in almost entirely from different people who would have been considered ideological enemies of the Nazi party, supported by a population that was suddenly very hostile to the Nazi party. Treating the Third Reich and the people who wrote and implemented those laws as the same government is at best disingenuous.


No, I'm saying that you can't use disastrous state sponsored propaganda from the past to excuse state sponsored propaganda in the here and now.

Florian
2015-12-03, 06:21 PM
*Drops Edward Bernays and grabs some popcorn*

Go on, this will get funny.

goto124
2015-12-03, 07:27 PM
Let's go make jokes about people getting their souls sucked out. Soul-sucking doesn't exist IRL, so no one gets offended too terribly.

How about elves getting their souls sucked out?

AMFV
2015-12-03, 07:29 PM
Let's go make jokes about people getting their souls sucked out. Soul-sucking doesn't exist IRL, so no one gets offended too terribly.

How about elves getting their souls sucked out?

I take offense at that! My third cousin twice removed was an Elf who had his soul sucked out.

Steampunkette
2015-12-03, 09:57 PM
Yeah, we're veering way off into a political discussion involving real world politics.

I'll say this and then I'll back out: Protecting Human Dignity and Life is important. And while there are some Hate Speech laws that are abused by those in power, the law still tends to protect those it was meant to protect, giving them a legal avenue to seek redress from systemic violence.

Like all legislation, the possibility for abuse exists. Write the legislation to take that fact into account and maintain a reasonable structure of support and you'll be golden.

Just because something could be abused doesn't mean the damage it repairs will be automatically less than the damage it could potentially create. And that's true of any ruling, whether at the game table or in politics.

StealthyRobot
2015-12-04, 01:11 AM
Secondly yeah player can and will shock and disappoint both each other and the DM. Everyone will have those moments in playing when you realize that your friends think XXX is okay when you think it is foul.
And while "mature content" ups the chances of this happening a large part of that is just many people talk about such things and so don't know how their friends feel, some is that in game how people "think" about a subject can be very different for reasons from being in character to the idea that theoretically is the only way they had dealt with those subjects.

There are also players who will have their characters do terrible things while feeling horrible about it.

One time the party ranger, who was generally a nice guy, failed a seemingly random will saving throw while watching a prisoner inside an ancient ruins. He had to begin torturing the prisoner. Nothing too graphic, but had to say what sort of torture took place. The rest of the party woke up due to the screaming and snapped him out of it, but it really set the mood of the dungeon.

I should also mention that the majority of the campaign was not dark. We met a roaming goblin clan who basically went around everywhere and acted a bit like circus clowns. They became comedy relief, showing up at random times, like when we discovered who the BBEG was a goblin poked his head around the corner and yelled "DUN- DUN- DUUUUN!"