Quote from: Fheredin on January 28, 2024, 11:12:37 PM
Movies have ratings with warnings about the kinds of content within.

I think that a lot of the players you find in conventions have needlessly thin skins and that this phrase "trigger warning" is probably bad terminology, and the X-Card is now used to ruin everyone's immersion more than help anyone get out of permanent brain damage. But do not confuse the smoothbrain implementation with the idea itself being bad. The idea itself is good and helpful, especially if you keep the entire table on topic on what kind of story they are telling.

I used to agree with this take before this experience, but after that I am unsure on what would be a good implementation specially what you meant about: "if you keep the entire table on topic on what kind of story they are telling."


What I mean by this is that, it seems everyone understood the trigger warnings except me. I thought we were all on the same page after the Session 0 discussion. We are going to play heroes, that is the 'Good Guys', no sexual stuff nor racism, bullying or bigotry.

Then, it turns out that calling a vampire that had captured innocents and kept some in a dungeon on his estate a "filthy bloodsucker" and preparing to attack him on sight was somehow breaking that trigger warning and then I got that "X card" as you put it.

My concern about trigger warnings now is, where do you draw the line? It is apparent to me now that we had different definitions of what is and what isn't bigotry. How long should the "trigger warning" discussion be? Can it really cover every single aspect of play?

As someone that has no trigger warnings, this is somewhat confusing to me. I understand the idea of people not wanting certain stuff in the game but I don't really understand the idea of getting "triggered" by it. I really, really dislike when dogs, specifically dogs, are killed in movies, specially in graphical fashion.

However, that doesn't trigger me. I don't look away. I don't have nightmares about this at night. I just really love dogs and don't want to see them getting hurt. Is this what they call "privilege"? The fact that nothing really triggers me, is that because I have led what they called a "privileged life"?

I don't think so, but a lot of folks are commenting that they do like content warnings so perhaps I am the odd man here that does not get triggered by anything.

And that's not me saying that I don't dislike stuff when I am playing a roleplaying game. I don't really care for sexual stuff or romance, but I won't get trigger if players flirt with NPCs, if they bang prostitutes in a whore house, if they flirt/bang with each other's characters or if I am in a game and the GM narrates dogs getting brutally killed or even sexual abuse.

I just tune that out. It's make believe. I know it can't hurt me and I don't have to imagine it if I don't want to. When I am the one running games, if someone would ask me to skip a description or getting into too much detail about a certain situation or just to "fade to black" and move along what happens next, I would comply to be friendly even though I wouldn't ask them to do so if they were the ones running the game.

I don't think that's because I am "privileged" but perhaps that's what they mean when they say it?

Quote from: Silverblade on January 29, 2024, 12:11:47 AM

Quote from: Cipher on January 29, 2024, 12:06:44 AM

In my experience, the thing about the "personal sexual fantasy" has never been a thing because, as you say, no one wants to play that. So, as soon as that starts I would leave and never come back. I assume most people would.

However, I do notice that for whatever reason, it seems sexual and romantic themes are more common nowadays. Not that they were non-existant before, I told in a previous post about one female player in the AD&D 2e games of my youth that would always flirt with "handsome" male NPCs without missing a single opportunity. But, now it seems that even games that are revolved around that are somewhat popular, like the Thirsty Sword Lesbians example.

In that sense, I don't really understand the idea of a content warning beyond something akin to the ESRB in videogames meaning a quick blurb about: "this game contains profanity, blood and gore, drug use" and such. So people that want to play with children know the game is geared towards adults.

Outside of that, the LFG places that, at a glance, have more traffic seem to be sometimes have requirements instead of content warnings.

I've seen stuff like: "Must have LGBT representation" or "Women ONLY". I couldn't find the opposite, meaning "Cannot have LGBT representation" or "Men ONLY".

It's self insertion.  It's the same reason people write doctorate essays on character backgrounds and hate to see their character die.  It's the reason why their characters have the same world view, fears and phobias as their players.  RPGs have become a form of escapism that, I think, might be unhealthy for some individuals.  They can't seem to separate themselves from the game.

And this idea of self insertion is festering across all forms of entertainment.

I see.

See, I find that interesting, Silverblade. Because I have created characters that are basically me in that setting. With my appearance and values, and I have never felt the need to have them hog the spotlight or never die.

Don't get me wrong, any character that I create I put a lot of thought into their background and personality so I never want to see them die before completing their personal goals in the game. But, if that happens it happens, that was their story. Sometimes, you fail. And failure can lead to interesting stories, as well. I remember one time where an adventure got "derailed" because one of our party members died and we did a lot, and I mean a lot, to have them brought back to life.

That was an awesome story. Also, when a character stays behind and does the "you shall not pass!" and holds the line to let everyone escape with their hide. Heroic sacrifices are really cool, at least in my opinion.

Having said that, I think I see what you mean about "They can't seem to separate themselves from the game." I think that would be a key difference. Even though I have "self inserted" myself into a gameworld and I roleplay in first person and sometimes do funny accents or voices to reflect how my character would talk, I do have that degree of separation between me and my character.

This is a very interesting opinion. What would be your assessment on why these people can't separate themselves from their character?

In your opinion, would that be because they are unwilling or because they are unable?

Quote from: Cipher on January 29, 2024, 12:28:35 AM
I see.

See, I find that interesting, Silverblade. Because I have created characters that are basically me in that setting. With my appearance and values, and I have never felt the need to have them hog the spotlight or never die.

Don't get me wrong, any character that I create I put a lot of thought into their background and personality so I never want to see them die before completing their personal goals in the game. But, if that happens it happens, that was their story. Sometimes, you fail. And failure can lead to interesting stories, as well. I remember one time where an adventure got "derailed" because one of our party members died and we did a lot, and I mean a lot, to have them brought back to life.

That was an awesome story. Also, when a character stays behind and does the "you shall not pass!" and holds the line to let everyone escape with their hide. Heroic sacrifices are really cool, at least in my opinion.

Having said that, I think I see what you mean about "They can't seem to separate themselves from the game." I think that would be a key difference. Even though I have "self inserted" myself into a gameworld and I roleplay in first person and sometimes do funny accents or voices to reflect how my character would talk, I do have that degree of separation between me and my character.

This is a very interesting opinion. What would be your assessment on why these people can't separate themselves from their character?

In your opinion, would that be because they are unwilling or because they are unable?

They are narcissistic and have low self esteem.  But instead of facing the issues that are causing the low self esteem, they expect others to conform to them.  I am not a psychologist and only play one on TV but every person I've ever met whom I believed were narcissistic in nature also had low self esteem that they tried hard to cover.  Since they can't control reality, they will control what they can through the pretense of justice and self-righteousness.

I think most of us have self inserted ourselves in our characters.  But the characters are never carbon copies of my own personality with my same morality and beliefs.  Like you, I like to play heroic characters so an exercise in heroism is fun, just like a great heroic tale such as Lord of the Rings is fun.  But I am always able to separate myself from the character.  It's an exercise of character building and storytelling. 

Quote from: Silverblade on January 29, 2024, 12:45:33 AM

Quote from: Cipher on January 29, 2024, 12:28:35 AM
I see.

See, I find that interesting, Silverblade. Because I have created characters that are basically me in that setting. With my appearance and values, and I have never felt the need to have them hog the spotlight or never die.

Don't get me wrong, any character that I create I put a lot of thought into their background and personality so I never want to see them die before completing their personal goals in the game. But, if that happens it happens, that was their story. Sometimes, you fail. And failure can lead to interesting stories, as well. I remember one time where an adventure got "derailed" because one of our party members died and we did a lot, and I mean a lot, to have them brought back to life.

That was an awesome story. Also, when a character stays behind and does the "you shall not pass!" and holds the line to let everyone escape with their hide. Heroic sacrifices are really cool, at least in my opinion.

Having said that, I think I see what you mean about "They can't seem to separate themselves from the game." I think that would be a key difference. Even though I have "self inserted" myself into a gameworld and I roleplay in first person and sometimes do funny accents or voices to reflect how my character would talk, I do have that degree of separation between me and my character.

This is a very interesting opinion. What would be your assessment on why these people can't separate themselves from their character?

In your opinion, would that be because they are unwilling or because they are unable?

They are narcissistic and have low self esteem.  But instead of facing the issues that are causing the low self esteem, they expect others to conform to them.  I am not a psychologist and only play one on TV but every person I've ever met whom I believed were narcissistic in nature also had low self esteem that they tried hard to cover.  Since they can't control reality, they will control what they can through the pretense of justice and self-righteousness.

I think most of us have self inserted ourselves in our characters.  But the characters are never carbon copies of my own personality with my same morality and beliefs.  Like you, I like to play heroic characters so an exercise in heroism is fun, just like a great heroic tale such as Lord of the Rings is fun.  But I am always able to separate myself from the character.  It's an exercise of character building and storytelling.

I see. I think you are right about the low self-esteem thing. People that have low self-esteem are very fragile to any kind of frustration. If the smallest thing doesn't go their way, they take it badly and have a lot of problems adapting to stress.

Which checks out for the trigger warnings and playing the X Card. I would assume its the same kind of people that claim that women cannot be sexy anymore in media, since that frustrates them because they themselves don't consider themselves to be sexy. Even though, it has been proven time and time and again that women want to see good looking and sexy characters in their media, even other women. This is why fashion magazines have good looking women in them.

What I find strange is that all these talk about trigger warnings seems to be new/recent. If its indeed the case of people that are having a hard time with low self-esteem and anxiety and unable to adjust to stress, then why did this not happen in the past?

And I played AD&D 2e when I was 14 years old with other nerds. So, its not like these guys were jocks living the life in high school. But, when we were playing, they could be wise wizards or daring knights or canny rogues or pious clerics. There wasn't this idea of "this triggers me" and we were children.

And that never changed across the decades. I am only facing this situation now, when my old friends are not available to play and I have to seek games online with a younger crowd. As far as I am aware, these people are full adults, like 25+ or so, but I have no way to confirm since I didn't really asked their ages, but they didn't struck me as 18 year olds.

And back in the day we had Call of Cthulhu and World of Darkness so its not like people only played "power fantasy kiddie games" like D&D. And no "trigger warnings" on sight. Why would somehow there be a need for them now?

Quote from: Silverblade on January 28, 2024, 08:47:43 PM

Quote from: jhkim on January 28, 2024, 08:31:23 PM
As for your attitude about undead -- that is something that depends on the game world. For example, in the world of my current campaign, there are many non-evil undead creatures. There are holy mummies, specters of righteous vengeance, and helpful ghosts. Different worlds have different rules. As another example, in the "True Blood" book and TV series, there are many well-meaning vampires. In other worlds, vampires strongly tend towards evil but there are a few exceptions, like in Buffy the Vampire Slayer or World of Darkness, where a vampire might resist being evil.

The game world is obviously Faerun since the character was a paladin of Lathander.  If you are going to use a game world, then they should honor the lore of the world.  Lathander hates undead because they are an abomination to the cycle of birth and rebirth.  The player roleplayed correctly, in my opinion.  I don't understand why you are bringing up different worlds when clearly the setting was established?

Maybe in your games the GM has to stick to everything published, but lots of groups play differently -- where the game-world for that campaign is different than the published material. i.e. It's Greyhawk but X, Y, and Z are different - or it's Faerun but in year 1400 and A and B are different. Faerun a ton of varied sources - and even some that are contradictory. Even in canonical Faerun, there have apparently been a few good vampires like Thibbledorf Pwent (who was eventually cured of vampirism).

What's true in the world of that specific game is up to the GM, not up to TSR and/or WotC.

---

To Cipher, you say:

Quote from: Cipher on January 28, 2024, 05:32:23 PM
This is not the "goblin babies in the cave" situation.

It seems like the same issue. Some players see goblins as inherently evil, and it's a good act to kill them, even if they are prisoners or babies. Others see it as a moral dilemma. Likewise, if there is the possibility of a good vampire and/or a cure for vampirism, then it's a potential issue to deal with someone who has been turned. For example, in a scenario based on Dracula, if a character encounters Lucy Westenra and immediately kills her, that might be seen as evil by the other players who were looking for a way to save her.

Quote from: jhkim on January 29, 2024, 01:18:42 AM

Quote from: Cipher on January 28, 2024, 05:32:23 PM
This is not the "goblin babies in the cave" situation.

It seems like the same issue. Some players see goblins as inherently evil, and it's a good act to kill them, even if they are prisoners or babies. Others see it as a moral dilemma. Likewise, if there is the possibility of a good vampire and/or a cure for vampirism, then it's a potential issue to deal with someone who has been turned. For example, in a scenario based on Dracula, if a character encounters Lucy Westenra and immediately kills her, that might be seen as evil by the other players who were looking for a way to save her.

The thing this is a specific setting. Like I said, I am not privy to any changes to the lore in 5e Forgotten Realms, but as far as I know, undead are evil and monsters and Lathander is anti-undead. It was pointed out to me that a Wish spell can cure vampirism. And then what, does that excuse the vampire spawn of the crimes he committed? And this kidnappings are the crimes we know for sure, never mind whatever else he did to not turn into dust. You do realize they need to drink blood to exist, correct?

Some editions of D&D are very specific about orcs being evil because they were created by an evil god, so that makes sense. The same with drow. Individuals can curve this expectation but as a whole drow are evil.

Other settings like Goblin Slayer where goblins can only reproduce by rape, make it clear goblins are evil and are irredeemable. Even the baby goblins will grow up to prey on women.

In Lord of the Rings orcs/goblins are evil.

See, I can play the "in this setting" game just as well. But we are talking about specifically 5e's version of the Forgotten Realms.

If I google "D&D 5e Vampire Spawn" it says they are Neutral Evil undead. Meaning that they are evil as a whole, as well. And this one in particular was guilty of crimes against humanity and the city that hired our party. The same happens if I go to the Forgotten Realms wiki so I assume that this information is accurate.

As I said before in this thread, I would have been receptive to the characters making an argument about why we should interrogate/apprehend the vampire instead of killing him but I still don't buy the idea of "that specific vampire could be good!"

Giving the vampire time to escape or get the upper hand on us would have been not only a wrong choice but a potentially deadly one for our characters. The difference with the "goblin babies in a cave" is that the goblins are alive and, in that example, they are babies. This is an undead monster that is an adult and has been for some time before he was turned into a vampire spawn, and then existed as a vampire spawn for however many months or even years.

Why no argument for the giant spiders everyone gleefully killed in the sewers? Spiders are actually alive. I would think that killing living creatures would be more reprehensible than killing undead. We didn't need to kill them, they were just in the way, we could have fled or find another way around the sewers to get to the secret dungeon below the vampire's estate. But, we didn't. Spiders appeared, everyone rolled initiative. No one was triggered.

That's the thing here. And the female player playing the cleric made the same argument, that "killing" the vampire is wrong. But, I cannot kill a vampire since the vampire is not alive.


And as I said, they really didn't wanted me attacking the vampire on sight, but the real "trigger" was calling it a "filthy bloodsucker". Do you believe I am a bigot because of that, like them?  I don't think using that word choice is rude to anyone or insulting to anyone. Do you think I was wrong for referring to the vampire as a filthy bloodsucker just because there might be a chance this particular vampire spawn wasn't Neutral Evil like the book describes?

Quote from: Cipher on January 29, 2024, 01:54:25 AM

Quote from: jhkim on January 29, 2024, 01:18:42 AM

Quote from: Cipher on January 28, 2024, 05:32:23 PM
This is not the "goblin babies in the cave" situation.

It seems like the same issue. Some players see goblins as inherently evil, and it's a good act to kill them, even if they are prisoners or babies. Others see it as a moral dilemma. Likewise, if there is the possibility of a good vampire and/or a cure for vampirism, then it's a potential issue to deal with someone who has been turned. For example, in a scenario based on Dracula, if a character encounters Lucy Westenra and immediately kills her, that might be seen as evil by the other players who were looking for a way to save her.

Giving the vampire time to escape or get the upper hand on us would have been not only a wrong choice but a potentially deadly one for our characters. The difference with the "goblin babies in a cave" is that the goblins are alive and, in that example, they are babies. This is an undead monster that is an adult and has been for some time before he was turned into a vampire spawn, and then existed as a vampire spawn for however many months or even years.

Again, I don't know the specific situation, but my impression from what you say is that they saw the merchant as an innocent civilian who was preyed on by the master vampire and turned into a pawn against his will. It's a mismatch of how different people see the monster.

Goblin babies might be alive, but they are also evil as defined by the game. Someone can reason that if left alive, they will just grow up and commit evil acts. Allowing them to grow up is just inflicting their evil on their future victims, and thus the wrong choice.

I'm not saying siding either way - just that this seems to be the disagreement. How I would decide would depend on the specific details.

Quote from: Cipher on January 28, 2024, 05:32:23 PM
Greetings!

What are your thoughts on trigger warnings?

They are a way for abusive people to manipulate others.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 29, 2024, 03:20:47 AM

Quote from: Cipher on January 28, 2024, 05:32:23 PM
Greetings!

What are your thoughts on trigger warnings?

They are a way for abusive people to manipulate others.

I can't say I've ever been abused by a trigger warning.

People who demand trigger warnings or safety tools are a big red flag for me.  It's not because I reject the general concept of trigger warnings though I am dubious about their utility in a ttrpg context.  It's because players who demand this sort of thing have a strong tendency to be manipulative, narcissistic. self-absorbed control freaks who cause nothing but problems.  For me, this is not a philosophical issue.  It's a practical one.  Players who demand trigger warnings and talk about being unsafe while playing an rpg are very, very likely to be problem players who will cause me endless problems.  I don't need that shit.

I had a player who was literally triggered by unexpected sudden loud noises with involuntary reaction. She would become unresponsive for a minute as she tried to regain control. We would roll the dice more slowly and be careful not to drop anything. Everyone in the group knew about her condition and tried not to get too heated during RP to not smack the table as a reaction.

One of my friends has arachnophobia. Its not something that comes up as often, but when a giant spider or something like bebilith became an encounter, he would panic so his GM would replace the encounter on the spot. And this was a very "anti-consent sheet" grognard group.

Another friend was going to start a game with underwater exploration. One player realy wanted to play a game for the first time, but he had some kind of accident as a kid and had fear of drowning so he was going to leave the group. GM did the unthinkable and vaporized the whole lake and changed the adventure into "why has it been vaporized" mystery.

None if these people had a session long discussions on what they want or dont want in a game. They just stated their real life fears and triggers to the party/gm. GMs tried their best to accomidate them so they wouldnt feel like coming to an hours long torture session. But when something slipped past our control they never blamed others. And we never spent more than 5 minutes on the issue after apologizing.

IMO, if someone is demanding no sexism/racism/slavery/etc. at all, they are not suited to have a meaningful conversation in or out game at all. You can ask the GM to not shove one in all the time but even the most kid friendly heartwarming game is going to have that "girls cant play/boys are icky" children who the party is going to prove wrong. The general expectation of kid friendly/pg13/18+ is useful to determine what is going to happen in game but even pg13 cartoons have their dark moments.

Also by their standards, rest of that oarty is bigoted against beast. Giant spiders have int score too and being a "beast" creature you can use speak with animals spells to talk with it, something far more accessable than a level 9 spell. Maybe they are innocent and forced to attack you due to that vampire spawn. Of course they never think of that angle.

Quote from: Cipher on January 28, 2024, 07:12:01 PM
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.

Let's refocus the conversation for a moment to fix the underlying problem.  Which do you think is the easier lift:

1. Run a game yourself for some friends/acquaintances who you already know to be normal people, though not experienced gamers.
2. Find a way to have a fun game with the stark raving loons who already know the rules.

In the first option, you have to run the game. It's more work but also rewarding.  You need to teach new players that you already enjoy being around how to play.  Which means that the game might not be exactly what you want at first, because learning to play is a skill just like any other.  New players fall of the bike a few times before they get their balance.  You'll have some that aren't interested.  Some will drop out.  If you stick with it, eventually you'll find enough that enjoy it to keep going, and then build from there.  In other words, all you need from other people is the willingness to try it.

In the second option, you either have to adjust your thinking to accommodate things you already know are wrong, or you have to change a whole group of other people by getting them to examine their entire view of the world--which will touch on their deepest insecurities, assuming they are not blatantly lying in order to manipulate others.   The chances of success are negligible, and every step of the way will be frustrating to the Nth degree even if you did get some minor success. Assuming they don't toss you out first.   

I don't mind professional products having some indication of what's inside, not everyone is an 'I spit on your grave' fan for example.

But home game? Know who you are playing with is the simplest answer. My games are dark, although rarely do I get graphic in my description nor do I bring evil shit upfront to rub in peoples faces. My players twisted psyches do that for me.

I'm running another game where it's more Jason and the Argonauts so villains are more melodramatic than sadistic.

In both games the same rules apply, I know the players and they know me so we find a balance.


You try and x-card my game mid session though and you can take your idiot ass to play my little pony.

Quote from: Llew ap Hywel on January 29, 2024, 08:05:25 AMYou try and x-card my game mid session though and you can take your idiot ass to play my little pony.

I was thinking about the difference between playing the X-card and simply raising a hand to say "whoa, hang on, can we talk about this a second?" to a GM, and suddenly it struck me:

The thing with the X-card is that it is designed to give the complainer formal authority. Like Robert's Rules of Order, it's an attempt to formally bind the group to an agreement that obliges them to recognize a complaint and act to alleviate it; it's about putting power in the hands of the complainer rather than in the hands of the group, and whenever power is formally allocated to an individual over a group, the tendency is for individuals to come along who will start abusing that power. What starts as a way for rare players with genuine trauma to express objections without having to defend or justify themselves is always exploited by people simply looking for leverage over how to run a group.

Having accumulated enough observational data by now to know that trigger warnings don't in fact help people endure disturbing content any more than coming upon it "cold" would -- that they really only work as help deciding whether to engage at all, a choice which isn't always practical -- the notion of "enforcing" them only rings like another example of the same process.

The difference is that the X-card is an unquestionable veto that can be invoked at any time for any reason with no need for justification or explanation and no questioning or discussion allowed.  It's so easy to abuse that part of me suspects that it was designed to be abused.  You would have to be a fool to not anticipate that such an easy to abuse tool will be abused.  If something can be abused, it will be and these tools are very, very easy to abuse.