The Line between Disruptive and RP

[mamaursula]

Feral wrote:

I have a question about etiquette and triggers based on my experience at this year's Paizocon.

At Paizocon I played in a PFS scenario that brought the party to a situation where we were considering killing some stabled horses in order to disrupt operations within the enemy base that we'd infiltrated. One of the players at the table immediately got upset and vetoed the idea. He didn't cite any real argument so we were confused - is your character opposed to this plan or are you as a player opposed? The player made it clear that harming animals was one of his triggers. We had a brief discussion, mostly based around the fact that in-character killing the animals would help with our mission but the triggered player's friend jumped in - you cannot violate someone's triggers without explicit consent.

The GM was puzzled. The rest of the players were puzzled. Not interested in forcing the issue we abandoned the plan and did other things. Fortunately, killing the hostile forces' horses wasn't necessary to achieve success in the scenario.

But what if it had been? What if the scenario specifically required us to kill those stabled horses to get our second prestige or unlock some boon? What's proper etiquette when the scenario's objectives directly conflict with a player's triggers? Are GMs in PFS scenarios empowered to reflavor things to avoid triggering players? Are they empowered to hand-wave things that are offensive to people when it comes up?

That can be super tricky, because no player is going to sit down at a table and say "I don't do giant spiders, heights, or killing horses." We are all "surprised" by what is about to be laid before us, so when something that triggers a player at the table it can be really uncomfortable and awkward for everyone. Hopefully the GM and players are understanding. If it's a scripted scenario, there really might not be an easy way around the trigger, and every reasonable accommodations should be made whenever possible. If that isn't possible then it falls to the player in question to decide whether they remain at the table or not.

I would assert that a good GM could come up with an alternative on the fly, but I am not always that kind of GM, due to lack of experience. Sometimes the best answers come from poling the table for alternatives. From my very limited experience with PFS, there is a lot of autonomy on the part of the GMs though, since no scenario goes unscathed through player interaction.

And just to try it out, here are the alternatives I came up for to killing the horses - hobbling them to slow their riders down, chasing the horses off, damaging the saddles/riding gear, mild poisoning to make them ineffective mounts. Thinking fast at the table is what we pay the volunteer GMs the big bucks for...wait, that's what they live for, thinking fast at the table.

Our greatest assets as role players is thinking on our feet and improvisational storytelling.

[Feral]

mamaursula wrote:

That can be super tricky, because no player is going to sit down at a table and say "I don't do giant spiders, heights, or killing horses." We are all "surprised" by what is about to be laid before us, so when something that triggers a player at the table it can be really uncomfortable and awkward for everyone. Hopefully the GM and players are understanding. If it's a scripted scenario, there really might not be an easy way around the trigger, and every reasonable accommodations should be made whenever possible. If that isn't possible then...

I don't know if PFS GMs are allowed that kind of leeway as far as reflavoring but I see what you're saying. When the player in question mentions that harming animals is his trigger, the GM says 'Oh, they're not horses after all. The stables are full of forest drakes!'.

[Gwen Smith]

nosig wrote:

If my Take 10 T-shirt upset anyone at the table - I'd switch it. (I bring an extra shirt just for this).

Good gods, nosig, what does that shirt look like? Is it "Take 10 on {insert offensive action here}" or something?

Inquiring minds wants to know!

[Wei Ji the Learner]

Dorothy Lindman wrote:

nosig wrote:

If my Take 10 T-shirt upset anyone at the table - I'd switch it. (I bring an extra shirt just for this).

Good gods, nosig, what does that shirt look like? Is it "Take 10 on {insert offensive action here}" or something?

Inquiring minds wants to know!

I suspect it just says 'Take 10' and the 'offensive' part is that Nosig simply points to it rather than saying 'I'm taking 10' all the time.

Personally, I want to get one of these. It would make life so much easier for the characters that can do that and get reliably high numbers...

[Jurassic Pratt]

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

Dorothy Lindman wrote:

nosig wrote:

If my Take 10 T-shirt upset anyone at the table - I'd switch it. (I bring an extra shirt just for this).

Good gods, nosig, what does that shirt look like? Is it "Take 10 on {insert offensive action here}" or something?

Inquiring minds wants to know!

I suspect it just says 'Take 10' and the 'offensive' part is that Nosig simply points to it rather than saying 'I'm taking 10' all the time.

Personally, I want to get one of these. It would make life so much easier for the characters that can do that and get reliably high numbers...

Hmmmm.... I honestly can't think of how someone could find that offensive in the slightest.

[Curio]

I've been quietly reading this thread and I have a few things to say regarding the current discussion (discounting the ms/miss/mrs part).

There are those who believe we should be careful with characters to make sure they are not offensive to others. There are also those who oppose this. While I can understand trying to keep PFS friendly and inclusive by not hurting anyone's feelings, it can also be hurtful and exclusive to limit character creation to what is "PC" to others.

For starters, how do you define "offensive"? Some may look at the LGBT community as "offensive". There are some who hate anything "magic" and call people involved with RPG games "devil worshippers". Parents playing PFS with their children sometimes tell you off for swearing (a common thing in RP game tables, to be sure), and then there are those who shrug it off as "the norm". There are those who can't take alcohol or drug references who might complain about a scenario involving them too.

I personally played at a table with a paladin of Arshea, who helped the party with their mission by successfully propositioning and then sleeping with an npc. None of us were bothered by this, but there are some who might be. Does that mean he shouldn't play his pally? No. The Gm could suggest, for instance, that the character had successfully flirted with said npc and went on a nice date, which would have brought a similar result. I doubt the player would have been upset if he'd been asked to tone it down that way.

Look at Golarion itself. You have a nation that worships devils and keeps slaves as a matter of course. To oppose this, there is a nation of freedom-fighters bent on taking down slavery. You have a whole world full of racism, towards humans, elves, dwarves, half-orcs, tieflings, what-have-you. There are Traits and Feats written with corruption, bigotry, and cruelty as part of their flavor. Much of these resources are allowable in PFS, though some have been banned. The thing is, Pathfinder's world is not PC. We can be, if we so choose, but what if we're not? Does it hurt the world of Golarion? Probably not.

What we must ask ourselves is this: Is the intent of the player to hurt other players with their character? Has the player shown hurtful and offensive behavior to other players out of character, or before/after the scenario? Do they appear to be particularly malicious with any player? Have they been asked to tone it down/stop and chosen to continue? If it appears to be the case, then yes, you have a disruptive player that needs to be kicked off the table and reported.

But what about those who like to roleplay? Are they necessarily being offensive with their choice of character personality? Are they being malicious? Or are they, much like actors, intrigued by a challenging character? Perhaps they enjoy finding ways to play someone so unlike themselves, or want to see if they can "redeem" the character over time. People always have some reason why they want to play ____. Instead of assuming the worst, maybe we should ask "why?" and see what their reason is. If the most important aspect of rping the character is not the particular area that the table finds offensive, you might be able to suggest a toned-down version that retains that spark they enjoy. Or just ask them to tone it down in general. Usually people will be accommodating if you ask politely. And really, isn't that what PFS strives for? Inclusion, respect, fun?

[BigNorseWolf]

Curio wrote:

What we must ask ourselves is this: Is the intent of the player to hurt other players with their character? Has the player shown hurtful and offensive behavior to other players out of character, or before/after the scenario? Do they appear to be particularly malicious with any player? Have they been asked to tone it down/stop and chosen to continue? If it appears to be the case, then yes, you have a disruptive player that needs to be kicked off the table and reported.

There's a disconnect between two underlying philosophies here. Is something offensive only when someone intends to offend or whenever someone is offended? One gives leave for people to be pretty hurtful with an excuse of "just joking" and the other stifles spontaneity and free spirit because someone can be offended, bothered, or read a negative implication into anything.

This being the internet of course a nuanced position between the two isn't possible. Anyone more towards one side or the other than you is automatically all the way on the other side.

Quote:

What we must ask ourselves is this: Is the intent of the player to hurt other players with their character? Has the player shown hurtful and offensive behavior to other players out of character

Something can be hurtful or offensive without intent, and something can cause offense without being offensive.

[LazGrizzle]

My only gripe at a table thus far, online or otherwise, wasn't playing characters cross-gender, it's when males play female characters by using a high pitched, fawning anime girl voice. My god it's insulting, atrocious, and makes me cringe. I've witnessed it happen, with the male in question doing eyelash-flutters and blowing kisses and even "tee-hee"ing.

I mean, it was during Carrion Crown even. Not exactly the type of theme or genre for a Sailor Moon type ditzy bimbo played by a male who apparently has no idea how females behave, outside of animated ones from Japan.

I thought it was a fluke, and maybe like: "Okay, this is just his ONE character...give it a few weeks, maybe it's his PC's gimmick."

Nope.

Next character, a martial, same high-pitched, baby-talking, hitting-on-other-pcs-in-character, same b~!@%$%!.

[thejeff]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Curio wrote:

What we must ask ourselves is this: Is the intent of the player to hurt other players with their character? Has the player shown hurtful and offensive behavior to other players out of character, or before/after the scenario? Do they appear to be particularly malicious with any player? Have they been asked to tone it down/stop and chosen to continue? If it appears to be the case, then yes, you have a disruptive player that needs to be kicked off the table and reported.

There's a disconnect between two underlying philosophies here. Is something offensive only when someone intends to offend or whenever someone is offended? One gives leave for people to be pretty hurtful with an excuse of "just joking" and the other stifles spontaneity and free spirit because someone can be offended, bothered, or read a negative implication into anything.

This being the internet of course a nuanced position between the two isn't possible. Anyone more towards one side or the other than you is automatically all the way on the other side.

Quote:

What we must ask ourselves is this: Is the intent of the player to hurt other players with their character? Has the player shown hurtful and offensive behavior to other players out of character

Something can be hurtful or offensive without intent, and something can cause offense without being offensive.

Correct, though the proper response is often quite different between the cases. Someone being offensive through ignorance can be handled by fixing the ignorance, for example. Someone being deliberately offensive cannot. You can often tell the difference by their reaction to finding out you're hurt or offended.

Some are also offended or made uncomfortable by things that shouldn't be a problem - the mere existence of gay characters, for example. Being offended or made uncomfortable should not in itself be privileged. It shouldn't become a weapon.

Which is why it's hard to have hard and fast rules about what's a problem. Judgement and common sense need to be involved. "Don't be a jerk" is the rule, but it's not always the person complained about who is the jerk. And I think both Mitch and Jessica have made it clear they understand that.

[LazGrizzle]

I understand the need for inclusivity and the broader appeal to allow everyone to enjoy a game, but if you are the type of individual that is "triggered" into anxiety or panic by *ANY* of the possible scenarios that may come up in a roleplaying game, I think it is your duty as a player to not limit the experience of the rest of the people at your table who may not have such a limitation, and in fact play the game looking forward to those type of situations that you are trying to avoid.

Perhaps we can have a labeling system, sort of like in TV shows and movies, that say on the cover: "warning, such-and-such content".

I have a minor seizure disorder akin to a much less severe form of epilepsy, and certain patterns of light can trigger it. So to prevent this from happening with my friends and ruining everyone's time, I choose not to participate when concerts or shows happen with huge light shows (looking at you, Disco Biscuits), instead of demanding the venue remove them so I can enjoy the show.

I hope I am not too dick-ish, as my wife has panic and anxiety disorder, as does my best friend, but they simply do not put themselves in situations where they may be triggered.

If someone is so prone to anxiety that imagining killing a horse can set them off, how is imagining killing a HUMAN any better?

[thejeff]

LazGrizzle wrote:

I understand the need for inclusivity and the broader appeal to allow everyone to enjoy a game, but if you are the type of individual that is "triggered" into anxiety or panic by *ANY* of the possible scenarios that may come up in a roleplaying game, I think it is your duty as a player to not limit the experience of the rest of the people at your table who may not have such a limitation, and in fact play the game looking forward to those type of situations that you are trying to avoid.

Perhaps we can have a labeling system, sort of like in TV shows and movies, that say on the cover: "warning, such-and-such content".

I have a minor seizure disorder akin to a much less severe form of epilepsy, and certain patterns of light can trigger it. So to prevent this from happening with my friends and ruining everyone's time, I choose not to participate when concerts or shows happen with huge light shows (looking at you, Disco Biscuits), instead of demanding the venue remove them so I can enjoy the show.

I hope I am not too dick-ish, as my wife has panic and anxiety disorder, as does my best friend, but they simply do not put themselves in situations where they may be triggered.

If someone is so prone to anxiety that imagining killing a horse can set them off, how is imagining killing a HUMAN any better?

Triggers aren't the same as prone to anxiety. They're specific. Imagining killing a human isn't BETTER, it's different and therefore not triggering.

You could have a warning system, but it's likely only to include the most common triggers - many of which aren't going to appear in PFS scenarios anyway. If you got down to "there are stabled horses in this scenario that players may suggest killing", you're pretty much at the list of all contents of the scenario.

If someone's triggered by things common in rpgs, I doubt they'd keep playing - at least not in public groups with strangers. Too much trauma. If they've got a problem with something rare and specific, like this case, they may well continue. And it'll probably come up once in a blue moon. Not a big enough problem to give up the hobby and lock yourself in a room for.

[BigNorseWolf]

TheJeff wrote:

Correct, though the proper response is often quite different between the cases. Someone being offensive through ignorance can be handled by fixing the ignorance, for example. Someone being deliberately offensive cannot. You can often tell the difference by their reaction to finding out you're hurt or offended.

I think you hit on this with your last sentence, but it interacts here...

Someone that has offended someone isn't automatically ignorant or boorish. It is possible that the offended party is being too sensitive. That possibility opens up a legitimate "chill out" response from the person being offensive on their opinion that the other person is being too sensitive.

[thejeff]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

TheJeff wrote:

Correct, though the proper response is often quite different between the cases. Someone being offensive through ignorance can be handled by fixing the ignorance, for example. Someone being deliberately offensive cannot. You can often tell the difference by their reaction to finding out you're hurt or offended.

I think you hit on this with your last sentence, but it interacts here...

Someone that has offended someone isn't automatically ignorant or boorish. It is possible that the offended party is being too sensitive. That possibility opens up a legitimate "chill out" response from the person being offensive on their opinion that the other person is being too sensitive.

In some cases. I was actually thinking there of looking for the barely concealed joy in those who'd intended the attack.

[nosig]

Dorothy Lindman wrote:

nosig wrote:

If my Take 10 T-shirt upset anyone at the table - I'd switch it. (I bring an extra shirt just for this).

Good gods, nosig, what does that shirt look like? Is it "Take 10 on {insert offensive action here}" or something?

Inquiring minds wants to know!

It has printed on the front of it...

Taking 10: When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted, you may choose to take 10. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, calculate your result as if you had rolled a 10. For many routine tasks, taking 10 makes them automatically successful. Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10. In most cases, taking 10 is purely a safety measure—you know (or expect) that an average roll will succeed but fear that a poor roll might fail, so you elect to settle for the average roll (a 10). Taking 10 is especially useful in situations where a particularly high roll wouldn't help.

[thejeff]

rknop wrote:

I was actually the GM at the scenario described. (At least, I'm 90% sure I was the GM. If not, we had exactly the same thing, with exactly the same player reaction, at my table.) I have to admit, I didn't even 100% understand what was going on as it happened; I thought the guy was making an in-character reaction, even though that didn't make sense. It was only later I figured out exactly what had happened, and the rest of the players handled it fine. It was fortunate that in this case it was just easy enough to dodge the issue altogether.

But, honestly, if a player says, "We can't have our characters hurt these pretend horses because I am triggered by hurting animals", then I believe that you've got a disability that means you should probably not be playing RPGs with random people. Harsh? Perhaps. But if there are things you can't handle imaginging that are reasonable possible for normal RPG groups to do (which obviously includes killing people, as that's constant, but could also very easily include swindling people, lying and cheating, and, yes, killing animals), then you should not be putting yourself into the situation of playing these RPGs, any more than you should watch a movie with an R rating if you're offended by any of nudity, extreme violence, or foul language. You should especially not be playing a game where the characters are Aspis agents, known to be evil, who are very likely going to make antisocial choices.

The player who refused to allow the other players to consider doing anything to the horses as part of their tactics later was playing an alien best that, upon seeing some prisoners tied up in a bed, immediately consumed them. If you can imagine that, but can't imagine hurting a horse, then, I repeat, you have problems that you should deal with before sitting down with strangers to play an RPG, especially one where the characters are evil.

Harsh? Perhaps. But, really, there are some things that should be reasonably expected when you play an RPG. If you absolutely can't handle them, then you're making a mistake playing RPGs. Our community standards indicate that we should not be creating a hostile environment for people based on their gender, sexual orientation, race, nationality, etc. BUT, our community standards do NOT include avoiding pretend violence. Much of the game is built on pretend violence. That's how it is. We need to admit and accept that.

Again, I think you're extrapolating. I haven't played that many PFS scenarios, but killing helpless animals hasn't come up. And in your case it was avoidable. It's not that reasonable an expectation.

You seem to have a problem with understanding that triggers are very specific. Being bothered by killing animals but not by other evil behaviors is exactly what one would expect of a trigger. Much like someone might be triggered by depiction of suicide, but not of murder or other violent death. Yes, it's a disability, I guess, but because it's such a specific circumstance, it's not enough to make you broadly unfit for normal society - even for RPGs.

It's not avoiding R-rated movies because you're offended by any of nudity, extreme violence, or foul language. You're suggesting avoiding R-Rated movies because you have panic attacks to depictions of suicide - despite the vast majority of R-rated movies not having any suicide, so you'd be fine with them.