Greetings!

What are your thoughts on trigger warnings?

Do you feel its something that the hobby was sorely lacking and its inclusion and enforcement is way overdue?

Do you believe its not something that should be retroactively included in all rulebooks but you are glad to see it when it is presented?

Do you find them a strange, maybe even awkward novelty, but at the end of the day a harmless addition that neither adds nor detracts from the experience, so you comply if you are presented with them but do not ask for them if you are not?

Do you reckon that they end up doing more harm than good, because by presenting a warning, it creates a negative expectation that soils the experience, that is, it creates the same boogieman that it tries to prevent. That by creating the warning it gives the people at the table anxiety over the kind of game it will be, but does nothing to really prevent the distress of something that they could find triggering?

Do you think this is an insidious way to provide the rules lawyers/special players ammunition to muscle the spotlight on them and their character and to have only what they want happen at the table. Where do you draw the line on how triggering is a description?

Let me hear your thoughts!



For those of you who want to read and are curious about the context of why I am asking this:

My understanding is that, as adults playing a game for fun, conversations about the tone and feel of the type of game we are going to play is something discussed in Session 0. And even if something crosses a line for someone, in my experience, it can be talked outside of the game and no one is left traumatized or friendships destroyed.

However, that was back in the day when I had friends to play IRL. I am so desperate to play that I joined an online 5e (ugh, yes. I caved) recently. I decided to play a Paladin of Lathander. I know paladins don't have to be religious anymore but I asked and the DM said it was OK with my character choice. We also had a Cleric of Lathander so it made sense for me to be a member of their militant order and our stories were connected, my character being a guardian for this cleric's pilgrimage.

Session 0 happened last week and we discussed that this was going to be a heroic style of game, which I like. The trigger warnings were mentioned about nothing sexual and such, which I am fine with. And also, they said no racism or bigotry of any kind. Which I don't have a problem with. They specifically said "No racial slurs, racial profiling or name calling/bullying of any kind". Since I am not a bully or a racist, I found no problem with those statements.

We started at level 3 and played a session last Sunday. We met again this past Friday for another session. The story so far that there had been some kidnappings in a city and the Mayor suspected cultists or monsters. We did some investigating, ruffed up some bandits for info, killed some spiders in the sewers and eventually it was revealed that a wealthy merchant was responsible because he is a Vampire Spawn, gathering flock to feast and/or to send to his master.

My character, as a paladin of Lathander, decided that this crime could not be tolerated any longer and shouted "Your foul deeds end now, filthy bloodsucker!" and prepared to attack. The game was stopped and I was accused of being a bigot for saying that, which was against the trigger warnings established. I defended myself, pointing out that the enemy was an undead monster, a foul creature of the night that has to feed on the living to survive and that slaying the vampire was not only our only choice, but that it was the righteous choice.

The other Players derided me as a murderhobo for not trying to reason with the vampire spawn, saying that he could be doing all of this against his own will, as the spawns must obey their Masters. I said that be that as it may, there is no way to cure vampirism so I was giving this poor creature mercy, by freeing them from their shackles.

I was corrected by saying that there are ways, such as the Wish spell. I didn't thought of this, but I am not sure if we had a feasible way to ensure this creature would not commit more crimes before someone can cast Wish and cure his vampirism.

After a lengthy discussion, the table agreed that this was bigotry and attacking the vampire without offering him a chance to explain was considered unnecessary violence. And as such, I was told that if I went through with striking down a vampire spawn, a foul undead creature, in the name of Lathander then that would break my Oath and I would lose my powers. I said that I disagreed with their consensus and decided that the game was not for me and left, without raising my voice or flinging insults.

The DM sent me a private message afterwards telling me that I was in the wrong, because the trigger warnings were already discussed beforehand and that I was rude and that with my attitude he would not be able to allow me to play with them in the future. I replied in the most polite way I could think of, that I was not interested in playing with them in the future.

Now, I can see the argument that if they want to have a game with little to no fatalities or no killing that's fine. But, I still think that my character shouldn't be threatened with breaking his Oath for striking down an undead creature. Maybe I am just an old fart, but I thought undead are monsters beyond redemption. This is not the "goblin babies in the cave" situation. It is my firm belief that in the past, we could have had a discussion about this at the table without the need for the table to brow beat me with the trigger warning shield and label me a 'bigot' for calling a vampire a "filthy bloodsucker". From what I understand, the problem wasn't that I wanted to kill the vampire, but that I acted as a bigot against vampires by calling him that and then proceeding to wanting to slay it.

Even the person playing the cleric of Lathander argued that Lathander disavowed of murder and accused me of trying to commit a "hate crime", when I pointed out that there is no way to 'kill' a vampire since they are no longer alive.

Anyways, I am eager to hear your thoughts about trigger warnings. Their inclusion and enforcement and what is their effect on the way we enjoy our hobby.

After that experience, you have to ask?  That's the problem with "trigger warnings"?  The people who use them can't be trusted to be fair, logical, etc.

I can tell people I run a PG-13 game (generally), which gets them in the ballpark of where the limits are. Then if something comes up, it's likely to be minor, and we can handle it after the game.  The difference is, that's no "trigger".  It's merely a statement of expectations that reasonable people can work around.

I tend to think of role-playing as an inherently "dangerous" activity in the sense that it involves inter-personal interaction, violence, various historical contexts, and so forth. Often the format allows people to act in ways that would be unacceptable in real life. That said, I think it's thoughtful and helpful to give people a heads up if you are going to be introducing some potentially thorny issues. It's pretty easy to guess what might be triggering to a lot of people. Other times, it's not as obvious, and you will have to navigate with the fallout as best you can.

In the US, just saying PG-13 or something like that does set some pretty good overall expectations.

Your story was full of red flags long before you came to the incident.  Terms like "trigger warnings" and "racial profiling" are code words used by the left to indicate the level of control they intend to have.  I would have noped the hell out of there on session 0.  I damn sure would not have been there long enough to see the end of the "lengthy discussion."  Dude, you got put through a struggle session and now you're feeling the post session insecurity that it's intended to cause.

The term "trigger warning" is flat out cringe when you fully understand what it's about.  The very use of the term "trigger warning" is enough to get me to loose respect for the person using it.  "Triggered" is a term that means that a PTSD flashback has been activated.  As someone who's done a lot of work with those that have been diagnosed with PTSD as well as personally being diagnosed with it, I find how it's used as a weapon to control other people's behavior absolutely revolting.  Shame on anyone that is using their trauma as leverage and if you are simply exploiting those around you by pretending to have trauma you are trash.

I appreciate content warnings when it comes to my entertainment though.  Sometimes I'm just not in the mood to digest some topics well and some topics I think aren't a good fit for me to use as subjects of play at the table.  When I run a game, I lay out that I run a PG-13 game and I don't really like getting too far into either romantic or sexual topics.  If I am looking to join a game as a player, I will talk to the GM and see what their guidelines are; if they are not compatible with me then I thank them and move on. 

A content advisory is a tool for the GM to let potential players know "you might not like this." At the table safety tools are a power mechanism for players to manipulate the experience without facilitating it. It's a social game not a therapy or bondage session, no one is compelled to participate and is free to walk away at any time.

Voted "May prime players to be anxious about content, setting them up for distress" as this happened to me a bit. I didn't walk as the GM asking for my triggers is a friend, but telling her ("they") my triggers wasn't great. Nothing in the Vaesen game itself was a problem ofc.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on January 28, 2024, 05:54:26 PM
After that experience, you have to ask?  That's the problem with "trigger warnings"?  The people who use them can't be trusted to be fair, logical, etc.

I can tell people I run a PG-13 game (generally), which gets them in the ballpark of where the limits are. Then if something comes up, it's likely to be minor, and we can handle it after the game.  The difference is, that's no "trigger".  It's merely a statement of expectations that reasonable people can work around.

I am just that desperate. I don't even like D&D anymore, but agreed because at least that table was looking for players to run a heroic game, instead of a morally grey our outright villainous campaign.

I am not saying those styles are "bad wrong fun" but I don't care for the edgy stuff. I like to play virtuous characters. If everyone at the table wants to commit crime and I don't' then I become the quote unquote "Lawful Stupid" cliche. To spare everyone, I rather just not join that kind of game.

I had heard about this "trigger warning" stuff but never actually been at a table/game that had them before. My stance previously was that it was unnecessary but harmless. Now, I am not so sure.

I see now that, like you said, I thought we were all in agreement of the type of game we wanted to have. It seems I was the one that was not in consensus with the rest. To me, that's not really the problem and wouldn't have made me quit the table. What made me quit was the almost two hours of everyone trying to shame me into change my stance and convince me not that I was just wrong, but that I was being a bigot. I can accept to have misunderstood the mood the table desired. I can even agree to not take offensive action against an undead on sight. But I will not and did not agree with their assessment that I was being a bigot.

For me, this was the problem with the idea of "trigger warnings". Their argument was that my actions were unacceptable because we had discussed the trigger warnings at the table and that I was breaking them by being a bigot. I categorically refused to accept that claim. I would have preferred two things instead of what happened:

1.- They, in character, try to convince my character why there is value or why I should stay my hand and not attack the vampire on sight.

2.- They let me know my actions are against the tone they want to have for the game. I decide if I want to continue or not.

I would really have welcomed  the first option. You know, actually roleplay the disagreement and even show my characters the supposed error of his ways. Absent of that, I would have been OK with just discussing the tone of the game.


But, my problem is that the game grind to a halt because I was, supposedly, breaking the trigger warning agreement that we had by being a bigot. I take this ordeal as a learning experience, and then pondered about this "trigger warning" business and how common and welcome it is within the hobby. Hence why I created the poll.

Quote from: BadApple on January 28, 2024, 06:15:52 PM
Your story was full of red flags long before you came to the incident.  Terms like "trigger warnings" and "racial profiling" are code words used by the left to indicate the level of control they intend to have.  I would have noped the hell out of there on session 0.  I damn sure would not have been there long enough to see the end of the "lengthy discussion."  Dude, you got put through a struggle session and now you're feeling the post session insecurity that it's intended to cause.

The term "trigger warning" is flat out cringe when you fully understand what it's about.  The very use of the term "trigger warning" is enough to get me to loose respect for the person using it.  "Triggered" is a term that means that a PTSD flashback has been activated.  As someone who's done a lot of work with those that have been diagnosed with PTSD as well as personally being diagnosed with it, I find how it's used as a weapon to control other people's behavior absolutely revolting.  Shame on anyone that is using their trauma as leverage and if you are simply exploiting those around you by pretending to have trauma you are trash.

I appreciate content warnings when it comes to my entertainment though.  Sometimes I'm just not in the mood to digest some topics well and some topics I think aren't a good fit for me to use as subjects of play at the table.  When I run a game, I lay out that I run a PG-13 game and I don't really like getting too far into either romantic or sexual topics.  If I am looking to join a game as a player, I will talk to the GM and see what their guidelines are; if they are not compatible with me then I thank them and move on.

I was just that desperate to play again.

I had heard of the term "trigger warning" in TTRPGs before, but never participated in a game that was actually using it. I don't even like D&D anymore but I decided to join this game because they said they wanted to play a heroic game without sexual stuff. Heroic as in "virtuous" or "the good guys" not necessarily as in power levels.

After seeing so many "looking for players" posts that have requirements about including sexual identity and foreplay and such, this game seemed vanilla enough for me. I personally do not have any "triggers" as such. I don't like to play the bad guy, I don't like sexual/romantic stuff but I am an adult and I can just let others have their fun and tune out and then tune back in when that stuff has passed. I have never said to a GM that a certain description is "too much information" for me. That's just the way I am. I like chill games where we take things seriously enough for the roleplay to have meaning and forge a story through our character's choices.

I've been a forever GM for years and I never had anyone give me any content warning or also tell me my descriptions are "TMI". Unfortunately, as I said, I don't have access to play with any of my friends anymore since about a handful of years and I am really desperate to return to the hobby either as a GM or as a Player. I just want to roleplay again.

This event has been a learning experience and I will be weary of a table that has "trigger warnings" moving forward. Before this, I would have voted the 3rd option of the poll: "Unnecessary but harmless".

Now, I am not so sure if they are really harmless and I wanted to gauge how others within the hobby think about the existence and inclusion of trigger warnings in their games.

Quote from: Wisithir on January 28, 2024, 06:38:00 PM
A content advisory is a tool for the GM to let potential players know "you might not like this." At the table safety tools are a power mechanism for players to manipulate the experience without facilitating it. It's a social game not a therapy or bondage session, no one is compelled to participate and is free to walk away at any time.

So, if I understood your stance correctly, and please do mention if I am not, you are fine with content advisory such like the old VtM games mentioning "this is a game about sex and violence", so everyone can know what kind of game they are getting into and bow out if they don't find it appealing, right?

But, you are not fine with trigger warnings as "safety tools" because there is no need for them since, like you said: "It's a social game not a therapy or bondage session, no one is compelled to participate and is free to walk away at any time."


Correct?

I'm not really "trigger warnings", but I am a "is there anything that would make you feel too uncomfortable to play so I can take that into consideration?"

I then supply an example, "for example, I'm really uncomfortable with explicit romance in my games, particularly if I'm having to run the girl, so anything that gets to a certain point WILL fade to black."

I don't give lists or anything so it generally has to be something right at the top of their mind when asked rather than something they see on a list and might have political thoughts about.

When you do that you tend to get much more constructive and useful answers than some list of potential triggers.

One of my players once said they'd just come off a game with a lot political wheeling and dealing (think a VtM relationship chart on steroids) and wanted to play something with fewer interpersonal rivalries/interconnections as a pallet cleanser/burnout avoidance. I found that a reasonable request so focused the campaign more on taming a frontier region.

One of my players in another game had a phobia of spiders, but as long as I didn't go into explicit descriptions of them, they would be okay. That was also reasonable, and so I didn't bother to describe their glistening fangs or hundreds of faceted eyes... just "it's a spider about the size of a man. It tries to bite you. Roll your Armor defense."

The funny ones for me are when people bring up something I had no intention to deal with anyway; as a rule I tend to stick to PG-13 (or PG if any players are under 12-ish), but can go mild R with the right crowd.

The idea is for everyone to have a good time, and if you can do something to improve someone else's enjoyment without penalizing someone else's; why wouldn't you?

However, since I don't have a list to prompt them or treat their input as any sort of "vote" (or that one vote means automatically means "vetoed") it lets me decide for myself how to handle things (often I can just go "soft focus" like with the spiders and that's sufficient for normal people).

Quote from: S'mon on January 28, 2024, 06:41:19 PM
Voted "May prime players to be anxious about content, setting them up for distress" as this happened to me a bit. I didn't walk as the GM asking for my triggers is a friend, but telling her ("they") my triggers wasn't great. Nothing in the Vaesen game itself was a problem ofc.

I added that option because I've heard of that before in other forms of media. Telling people they should be wary of graphical content makes them actually more anxious about the idea of actually how graphical or explicit the content will be to elicit such a warning, without really doing anything to alleviate the distress they will experience when said content is presented.

Through these lenses, I think they would do more harm than good. Since, no one can really know for sure how much is too much or how little is too little. One could say "I am not into gory descriptions" and then complain that even spilling blood is triggering or talking about corpses is triggering.

Someone said that "PG-13" is a good blanket statement but I disagree. I would say it is a good jumping point, but not all PG-13 content is made equal. Take a look at the 2000s Ninja Turtles cartoon. It was PG-13 with mostly no blood but there were some heavy and fairly dark themes in some episodes.

This is my concern here, where does anyone draw the line? For me its an unknown, because I don't have any such "trigger warnings". There is stuff that I like in games and stuff that I don't like, but it doesn't "trigger" me and I won't stop the narration or have the players not do/roleplay something just because its something that I don't enjoy. For example sexual stuff. I don't care for it in TTRPGs, but I won't stop others roleplaying about banging some prostitues at the whore house or women flirting with male NPCs.

And that's something that happened in my youth a lot. One girl that was semi-regular at our table, whenever a male NPC was introduced she would ask "Is he handsome?". If the answer was "yes" then she would immediately flirt with the NPC.

I find that sort of behavior annoying but not "triggering". I won't participate but I won't spoil her fun either.

I've been a long time lurker here to read some of the posts but never bothered to register.  It's been in the back of my mind to do so, just so I could use the search function.

But your post "triggered" me to register. 

Your experience is why I never attempted to join an online tabletop group.  Like you, I haven't had a good group of friends to play locally for a very very long time.  For me, part of the enjoyment of tabletop...is the tabletop.  The game itself, the drinks and snacks, shooting the breeze, are all important parts of the experience.  Online games take away from much of that.  I understand others feel differently but I personally am not ready to go online.

But I agree with some here.  Once the discussion for trigger warnings happened in session 0, I would have bailed.  And quite frankly, according to what you said, I don't even know what you did wrong.  You played your paladin according to his faith.  Lathander hates undead because it's a corruption of life.  If anything, as a DM or player, I'd be more upset at players roleplaying against their alignment or character core values.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 28, 2024, 07:31:35 PM
I'm not really "trigger warnings", but I am a "is there anything that would make you feel too uncomfortable to play so I can take that into consideration?"

I then supply an example, "for example, I'm really uncomfortable with explicit romance in my games, particularly if I'm having to run the girl, so anything that gets to a certain point WILL fade to black."

I don't give lists or anything so it generally has to be something right at the top of their mind when asked rather than something they see on a list and might have political thoughts about.

When you do that you tend to get much more constructive and useful answers than some list of potential triggers.

One of my players once said they'd just come off a game with a lot political wheeling and dealing (think a VtM relationship chart on steroids) and wanted to play something with fewer interpersonal rivalries/interconnections as a pallet cleanser/burnout avoidance. I found that a reasonable request so focused the campaign more on taming a frontier region.

One of my players in another game had a phobia of spiders, but as long as I didn't go into explicit descriptions of them, they would be okay. That was also reasonable, and so I didn't bother to describe their glistening fangs or hundreds of faceted eyes... just "it's a spider about the size of a man. It tries to bite you. Roll your Armor defense."

The funny ones for me are when people bring up something I had no intention to deal with anyway; as a rule I tend to stick to PG-13 (or PG if any players are under 12-ish), but can go mild R with the right crowd.

The idea is for everyone to have a good time, and if you can do something to improve someone else's enjoyment without penalizing someone else's; why wouldn't you?

However, since I don't have a list to prompt them or treat their input as any sort of "vote" (or that one vote means automatically means "vetoed") it lets me decide for myself how to handle things (often I can just go "soft focus" like with the spiders and that's sufficient for normal people).

Before this past experience, I would agree with this take. I don't mind "fading into black" as you say or be more minimalist in terms of description if someone asks.

This is what I meant with "having a discussion about it, as friends".  But, since now if I want to play I have to play with strangers, I was willing to go through the "trigger warning checklist".

I don't really remember all the stuff in there, because I just said "I don't have any trigger warnings, everything is fair game with me". But, like I said in my post, the agreement was no sexual stuff and no bigotry and racism. There were some specifics about that, but I paid no mind since I am not into being a bully a bigot or a racist.

However, it seems I grossly misunderstood what the meaning of those words mean for the table I was in. And after this experience, I wanted to gauge how the people that play TTRPGs see trigger warnings and their implementation.

Quote from: Silverblade on January 28, 2024, 07:32:41 PM
I've been a long time lurker here to read some of the posts but never bothered to register.  It's been in the back of my mind to do so, just so I could use the search function.

But your post "triggered" me to register. 

Your experience is why I never attempted to join an online tabletop group.  Like you, I haven't had a good group of friends to play locally for a very very long time.  For me, part of the enjoyment of tabletop...is the tabletop.  The game itself, the drinks and snacks, shooting the breeze, are all important parts of the experience.  Online games take away from much of that.  I understand others feel differently but I personally am not ready to go online.

But I agree with some here.  Once the discussion for trigger warnings happened in session 0, I would have bailed.  And quite frankly, according to what you said, I don't even know what you did wrong.  You played your paladin according to his faith.  Lathander hates undead because it's a corruption of life.  If anything, as a DM or player, I'd be more upset at players roleplaying against their alignment or character core values.

Indeed!

And, I would have been completely fine and open for their characters to make their case and convince my character that letting the vampire remain and interrogate/imprison him was the best outcome.

Before this experience, I was neutral on this "trigger warning" business. I've heard of it but never actually have been in a table/game with it. After this, I am not so sure if I would participate since I thought I understood what they did not wanted to be present in the game but it seems that I was the only one not in consensus on that.

As a laid back dude with no "trigger warnings", I think I am not a good fit for a table that enforces them since I clearly do not really understand their reach and application.


Like you, I vastly prefer IRL to have some beers and pretzels. But, since I moved away from my hometown I was playing online with my friends. However, life happened and everyone that I could play that was a friend just moved away from the hobby. It's understandable and I hold no ill will towards my friends for making that choice.

But, I am just so hungry for some roleplay that I decided to jump in with some strangers online and even agreed to play 5e, which I don't really care for. Needless to say, this has been a learning experience.

That's an awful experience. I would have quit too.

My view is that the rule book is the basis for the game. All of its content should be expected. And/or I might cite a movie or book as an example.

A bunch of adults gabbing at the pub don't need trigger warnings, so neither do imaginary elf games. With the exception of running games for kids. And in that case it's not even a trigger warning; it's a filter.