Venture-Agent, Netherlands—Utrecht
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey all,
I had a talk with someone from my lodge about traumas and how it can affect you. I then made the link to Society adventures, where there's a chance you can run into these things without warning. In my lodge, which is quite small (+/- 15-20 people, ish?), there are several people with certain phobias and histories of mental problems, and I can imagine them being confronted with their specific triggers without warning will lead to a bad time.
Pathfinder 1 is nearing the end of its lifespan, but Starfinder is thriving, and Pathfinder 2 is practically around the corner. I think the addition of trigger warning tags in the scenario and in the blurb would be a big help for those who want to avoid certain themes. Starfinder already has tags for spaceship battles and factions, I think this would be a relatively easy addition.
What sort of tags should be included? I'm not sure there should be a definitive list authors should avoid or reference, but there are at least some common themes that could be helpful to know beforehand:
- Arachnophobia
- Horror (physical, mental, body horror, gore, and so on)
- Abuse (mental, physical, and so on)
- Rape (luckily, Society tends to shy away from this, which is a good thing)
- Suicide
- Blasphemy
- Gender/body identity
And possibly many more. Again, this isn't (and shouldn't be) the be-all-end-all list of things authors should shy away from or at the very least mention beforehand, but if an author thinks, "hmm, this might be offensive/problematic for some people," at least make it known. Also, there isn't anything wrong with trying to be inclusive, or being mindful of small groups of minorities. When it comes to phobias and triggers, there is no pandering. I remember people being offended by certain scenarios in Kaer Maga for featuring Miss Feathers, or the nonbinary NPC in a season 9 adventure. I also remember the time I ran The Traitor's Lodge, where the mood went from "regular light-hearted adventure" to "oh s%@@ this is messed up" in 15 minutes. Luckily no one was triggered, but I can imagine the scenario needing some redacting if young children are present. And similarly, arachnophobia is a real thing. There are lots of scenarios that have the odd spider. Using realistic minis would be problematic, and someone in my lodge already gets triggered when webs are mentioned. Reflavouring the spiders to say, scorpions might be okay, but it's even better if that weren't necessary.
I can go on with all sorts of stories, but the message is clear: people struggle with things authors might not even realise, and having a list of potential trigger warnings might be a good thing for both the authors and the audience. And ideally, that list is constantly moderated, so that it stays up-to-date and isn't influenced by troll suggestions (where the line between those two should lie isn't for me to decide, but I can imagine this being troll-sensitive)
All I'm trying to say is, Paizo is trying really hard lately to be inclusive. I applaud that. This is a similar simple method of catering to your player base that will increase goodwill towards the company.
|
I raised this very topic over four years ago now, (grief, four years) and let's just say that I wasn't particularly agreed with...
There is, somewhat on the web, a site which kept a list of adventures and potential triggers. I don't know how up to date it is, and unfortunately I'm not in a position to got hunting for it until tomorrow. Sorry.
Venture-Captain, Online—VTT
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Christian, there is a whole world between "I am fine with pretending to kill enemy creatures" and "no-one should be upset about anything, it's not real".
Some people will have phobias, traumatic memories or other issues with a ton of things that aren't considered remotely as 'bad' as killing, but for them personally they are incredibly hard to deal with. Being considerate of those people is just basic decency.
It requires so little effort as well that it seems aggressively hurtful not to, a quiet word from a player before a game, an X card, someone just saying "I'm not comfortable" is all it takes and the GM can guide things in a slightly different direction or reskin things enough that there's no issues. None of that detracts from the scenario or anyone elses experience, none of that changes the mechanics of a game, it's simple, relatively easy and welcoming, why wouldn't you do that if you had the chance?
|
or the nonbinary NPC in a season 9 adventure
What was the issue there?
Reflavouring the spiders to say, scorpions might be okay, but it's even better if that weren't necessary.
We have to do this with someone in our home game. (also, its 200 xp per level for spider removal) When we went to see harry potter II I brought a two foot by two foot piece of cardboard into the theater and held it up for... a fair bit of the movie. (the funny thing is that I apparently nat 20'd the slight of hand check to bring it in, and no one had any idea where it came from)
The thing is when you have 10,000 players something is a thing for everyone. If you took out everything that was a thing you wouldn't have adventure material left.
It seems an easy enough solution for the player to ask about their particular area of concerns. A hashtag system close enough to covering everything would spoil the encounters.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It’s much harder to do than it seems. The list of what might trigger someone is such a long one, creating an encompassing list is problematic. Certain subjects like child abuse, rape, essentially violent crime perpetrated against an individual are pretty obvious and we just don’t really see them in OP. I don’t think you’re going to sell many people that there needs to be a warning that a scenario includes the presence of a trans or gay character, assuming of course that it’s not sexualized in which case a simple “adult themes” tag would suffice. Where do you stop? Should a scenario be flagged because there is a creature with grab and claustrophobia could be triggered? There are phobias for most predatory animals from spiders to snakes to bats to rats. Virtually anything that slithers or is an insect could trigger an emotion. Do we tag everything with an undead because of necrophobia or horror themed? In most cases it just falls to the player to notify the GM if there is something in the scenario that effects them to the point they may not be able to continue comfortably. The developers do a pretty good job of avoiding unnecessarily triggering themes.
|
Venture-Agent, Netherlands—Utrecht
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
True, very true. At some point, you'll have to draw a line. And while it sucks to exclude certain groups, I feel like getting a community poll to see the top X most common phobias/triggers is a good idea. See, the problem isn't being confronted with the trigger, but having the option to opt out. Some people can deal with their triggers if they're forewarned, but when they're surprised by it, it can overwhelm them. In that case, asking before every single scenario, "hey is there thing X in here," is a lot more hassle than seeing the tag and deciding whether you're up for it or not.
And yeah, having a number of tags, but not others sucks. I'm wondering if the pros of having a lot of tags spelled out outweighs the anger or disappointment of those with triggers that aren't featured feeling left out or marginalised. And there probably isn't one true answer.
|
|
I think this is should be addressed is this is going to be discussed realistically:
What is the scope of the actual problem. Excluding sexual assault and suicide, how many people requesting trigger warnings have triggers and what are they? Between this thread and the other, I've seen two primary themes.
"I don't have a trigger and nobody I play with has a trigger, but I could imagine there being a person with a problem with X scenario and I'm going to solve it."
"I have a trigger, but I don't get triggered by the scenarios or I have ways to deal with it that work well for me."
And triggers are a separate issue from adult themes and children. On that issue, I feel the understanding that PFS scenarios are PG-13 equivalent is sufficient. As a father who plays RPGs, I am forewarned.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is Paizo's current tactic for advising on potential triggers:
Hell is a traumatic place replete with horrific sights and sounds. It may be prudent to discuss this with your players ahead of the adventure so that they can mentally prepare and raise any concerns. If any of the players are uncomfortable with particular details, strongly consider toning those down or glossing over those features to ensure that everyone can enjoy the adventure. Monitor your players’ reception to the ambiance; it’s okay to recalibrate your depiction of evil themes partway through the adventure.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Christian, there is a whole world between "I am fine with pretending to kill enemy creatures" and "no-one should be upset about anything, it's not real".
Some people will have phobias, traumatic memories or other issues with a ton of things that aren't considered remotely as 'bad' as killing, but for them personally they are incredibly hard to deal with. Being considerate of those people is just basic decency.
It requires so little effort as well that it seems aggressively hurtful not to, a quiet word from a player before a game, an X card, someone just saying "I'm not comfortable" is all it takes and the GM can guide things in a slightly different direction or reskin things enough that there's no issues. None of that detracts from the scenario or anyone elses experience, none of that changes the mechanics of a game, it's simple, relatively easy and welcoming, why wouldn't you do that if you had the chance?
Actually, I have had to do it quite often. Kids at my table? I tone down the R-rated stuff. A player uncomfortable with the imagery of suicide? Remove the noose and say there's a dagger in the ghost's back. So, yeah, I do try to be considerate of the feelings of others.
One tricky thing about trigger warnings is the problem of saying enough without saying too much. You need to be able to warn off people who might be offended or triggered by the material in a given product without the warning itself being triggering to affected people or a major spoiler to everyone else.
|
I didn’t miss his point at all. If someone is going to be triggered by the word, then they probably know enough not to go looking at the warnings behind the spoiler tag.
He also complained about spoiling the scenario for everyone else, and that is easily solved by the spoiler tag.
Honestly, when aware that something might be an issue for someone, there is zero reason not to take the small precaution of listing that behind a spoiler tag.
|
|
I didn’t miss his point at all. If someone is going to be triggered by the word, then they probably know enough not to go looking at the warnings behind the spoiler tag.
Except then they don't know they should avoid the scenario.
I used a relatively benign example. However, one part of his point was that trigger warnings need to be written sensatively to avoid being triggers themselves. A spoiler tag is not sufficient for that purpose because if you expect those with a trigger to merely avoid looking at all the spoiler tags, they don't know if their specific trigger is there or not. Either the warning was a waste of effort because it was unread or they avoid all scenarios with spoiler warnings.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This might be considered unempathetic but I believe the individual has to take the responsibility when it comes to benign things like most phobias. We cannot possibly warn you of every possible critter that might be a trigger, there simply are too many of them. The community can help by posting non-spoilery reviews or at least hiding spoiler material behind tags. To be honest if a person has such an extreme reaction that even reading the word freaks them out, then I’m sorry, but RPG is probably not a safe place for you to be.
OTOH, while we generally assume PG-13 content and the avoidance of issues of torture, slavery, rape, or other forms of extreme cruelty we can simply add an “adult themes” tag to the scenario if they do come up occasionally. TV does it. Cinema does it. Music does it. Even some book publications do it. That way if a person know they have an issue with a particular type of violent act and sees that label, they can investigate the particulars and decide if that is an adventure they should avoid or perhaps the content is not essential to the story and the GM can “tone it down” if notified of the situation.
I think it would be poor form to simply ignore this issue because it can be very real for some people. At the same time, individuals need to take some responsibility for themselves and help the rest of the community help them. It’s a balance and requires we all work together. We are not going to get the solution we want by simply slapping a label on a scenario.
Explore! Report! Cooperate!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I didn’t miss his point at all. If someone is going to be triggered by the word, then they probably know enough not to go looking at the warnings behind the spoiler tag.Except then they don't know they should avoid the scenario.
I used a relatively benign example. However, one part of his point was that trigger warnings need to be written sensatively to avoid being triggers themselves. A spoiler tag is not sufficient for that purpose because if you expect those with a trigger to merely avoid looking at all the spoiler tags, they don't know if their specific trigger is there or not. Either the warning was a waste of effort because it was unread or they avoid all scenarios with spoiler warnings.
The point is, once they are at the scenario and in the middle of it, it's too late. If the information is posted somewhere, then they can take the initiative to find it. If it's behind a spoiler tag, and they might be triggered just by the mention of something, at least they have the time to look on their own terms, instead of just encountering it in the middle of a scenario. If the warnings are in a standard place, then people will become aware of where they are, and they will know where to look or not if they want them.
The warnings don't need to be specific at all regarding how the thing appears in the scenario. If X creature is mentioned, then the player can talk to the GM, let them know about their phobia, and determine if it's a good scenario for them to play. The alternative is expecting them to do that for every single scenario or just telling them they shouldn't participate in PFS, because you can't be bothered to type a few extra words..
@Bob - There is at least one existing scenario that absolutely needs a specific trigger warning:
I love that scenario, but a warning should be on it.
I'm not the one who said mention of a word should be considered triggering. There are words in the titles of scenarios that involve triggers (Rats of Round Mountain). I don't think Paizo should avoid naming scenarios that way. But if a scenario is named something unrelated, and is going to involve a large or potentially triggering thing like:
it's not too much to ask that "rats" be on a warning somewhere. From there, yes, it's the player's responsibility to decide if they want to play, or to talk to the GM and let them know their concerns.
A blanket "This scenario contains adult themes and content to a larger degree than the typical scenario" is a start. But the idea that you can't possibly name every specific triggering situation, so you shouldn't name any specific triggering situation is a flawed one.
|
|
Strangely, Temple of Empyreal Enlightenment was the one that caused me to bring this up back then.
I've found the Trigger Warning list, but I'm afrad that it's woefully out of date.
Here.
|
|
ToEE is a perfect example of where a simple “adult themes” tag would be appropriate. Players could then investigate what exactly is the content by reading spoilered reviews. It’s a tricky situation because if you put a suicide tag on it, some will consider it spoiler and be upset. We should have a system where players can avoid spoilers for things they are not concerned about while still helping those with concerns locate potentially problematic content.
|
|
You don't just say on the scenario description that there is a suicide theme. You put a spoiler tag that says Trigger Warnings somewhere that people who care can look, and put the specific content inside the tag. If someone doesn't want a spoiler, they don't look.
EDIT: Also, "adult themes" could mean Zarta is in the scenario. That is by no means a sufficient warning for what is in ToEE. When you're dealing with a situation that may bring up emotions associated with someone killing themselves, the possibility that something might be spoiled in a small way for someone else really shouldn't be your first concern.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
Maybe a mediated approach could be helpful?
Say some people are triggered by spiders and others by rats. A scenario happens to include spiders and gets a [potential triggers] tag. A person with a rat trigger sees the tag and is considering signing up and asks the GM "hey I have a problem with rats, and this scenario has a trigger warning tag. Is it okay for me to play?" and then the GM can say that this one doesn't have your particular triggers.
This would be based on having 1-3 tags that vaguely indicate the more prevalent kinds of triggers. Tags could be [potential phobia triggers], [gore] and [adult themes] for example.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe a mediated approach could be helpful?
Say some people are triggered by spiders and others by rats. A scenario happens to include spiders and gets a [potential triggers] tag. A person with a rat trigger sees the tag and is considering signing up and asks the GM "hey I have a problem with rats, and this scenario has a trigger warning tag. Is it okay for me to play?" and then the GM can say that this one doesn't have your particular triggers.
This would be based on having 1-3 tags that vaguely indicate the more prevalent kinds of triggers. Tags could be [potential phobia triggers], [gore] and [adult themes] for example.
1) How is that functionally different from just asking about the phobia?
2) Wouldn't every scenario need a tag? every scenario is going to be something for someone so you'd have to ask about the phobia.
3) DM "No sure this scenarios fine" and then Justin sits at the table "Hi I'm a ratfolk with a ratfolk belt a ring of rat fangs and My rat familiar Algernon will be instructing you on the finer points of the monsters you encoun...why are they screaming?"* half the fun of RPGs and organized play in particular are the other people at the table but that means you've got 5 other unknown variables sitting at the table. RPgs in general and PFS in particular are variable environments. You can mitigate that a little but the fundamental nature of the game means you don't know what you're walking into.
*Actual character.
|
You make a good point. You can put all the tags in the world and still have it happen because player A summons a spider. Communication is the biggest factor here. The person with the trigger needs to speak up and ask others to respect not putting said mini out. This requires trust and that is why I love this company and all the players. Just talk to someone, cause they will listen and try to help.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
You make a good point. You can put all the tags in the world and still have it happen because player A summons a spider.
I will repeat... Just because you can’t avoid every instance, it doesn’t mean you shouldn’t take steps to avoid the ones that you can. ToEE is a particularly glaring one dealing with real world life and death issues. It goes beyond just the presence of the theme in the scenario by actively forcing the character to perform the act. How can people not see why that could be a problem?
Communication is the biggest factor here. The person with the trigger needs to speak up and ask others to respect not putting said mini out. This requires trust and that is why I love this company and all the players. Just talk to someone, cause they will listen and try to help.
People are attempting to talk about it in this thread and are being dismissed. That doesn’t promote a lot of trust. If we can’t discuss the idea of a trigger warning without being told it’s unnecessary, or too hard, how are we supposed to trust anyone with talking about our trauma?
Players come to PFS for a lot of reasons. For me, a lot of it is not having to think about the other things going on in my life. Expecting someone to recount or revisit their trauma every time they sit down at a table with a new GM is not a good solution. If your answer to the issue is that players should tell strangers whom they’ve just met what traumas they have endured, just to find out if a scenario might include one of those traumas, then you need to think about the issue longer.
Whether or not you think that trigger warnings work, or are helpful, or are necessary, there are people who appreciate them, and for whom they help avoid painful situations. The presence of a trigger warning inside of a spoiler tag on a scenario description affects you how? All you have to do is not look in the spoiler tag. All whoever creates the scenario description has to do is take an extra minute to add the tag. Sure, a line needs to be drawn somewhere. A Ratfolk PC is probably not over the line, but ToEE most definitely is.
Trigger warnings are not “adult content” warnings. They are not ratings. They are mentions of specific triggers that help people avoid reliving trauma. The effort that people have spent in this thread saying it is too hard to add the warnings is more than the effort required to post the warnings in the first place.
If you really do believe in PFS as a supportive environment, then start listening to the people who are asking for help. Nobody in this thread has the power to add the warnings to the scenario descriptions. Nobody has been directly or purposefully hurtful. But by people continuing to post the types of responses in this thread that place all of the onus on the person who has suffered the trauma, they are actively being unhelpful.
This thread, like other important ones, is unfortunately happening during Paizocon, when Paizo employees can’t read it or address it. I’d suggest before dismissing something as too difficult to accomplish, you let them weigh in on whether or not they’ve discussed it and decided that.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
People are attempting to talk about it in this thread and are being dismissed
Disagreement is not dismissal.
it doesn’t mean you shouldn’t take steps to avoid the ones that you can.
Considering the costs, benefits, challenges, and problems with a system is always something you need to do. Considering if an alternative solution might better meet your goal is something you always need to look out for.
Expecting someone to recount or revisit their trauma every time they sit down at a table with a new GM is not a good solution. If your answer to the issue is that players should tell strangers whom they’ve just met what traumas they have endured, just to find out if a scenario might include one of those traumas, then you need to think about the issue longer.
This is dismissal. Anyone that disagrees with you needs to think on it longer, because obviously there's something wrong with their thinking because they disagree with you. You're not engaging with the people that disagree with you, you're ignoring even the possibility that their points could have some validity. You don't even owe them the explanation of explaining WHY they're wrong, they just are.
I think the system you're proposing is more work than you realize and less effective than you realize. PFSs bag of mixed nuts means you're trying to avoid a conversation that you're going to have to have anyway.
I'm not placing the onus on the person who has an issue because I want to muahahahaha evilly and twirl my mustache it's because I don't see any other way that works. It's not fair of you to conflate the two.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, let’s assume for a moment that we place a “suicide” tag on a scenario. What happens next? Are we assuming that the player will simply avoid that scenario? Or are we expecting that they’ll have a conversation with the GM in advance regarding the material and see if it can be toned down for the session? If the former isn’t that being exclusive and “punishing” the player for having experienced a trauma in their life and if so, isn’t that sort of forcing them to relive the feeling of isolation that comes with such an event?
If the latter, then presumably they are having a productive conversation with the GM and if so, why wouldn’t they have essentially the same conversation had the “flag” simply been “be advised, adult content?” I am assuming that if someone has experienced a traumatic event significant enough that there is some level of PTSD they are keenly aware of it and it’s reasonable to expect they would reach out to the GM given a warning label. The benefit would be that (1) we would not need a laundry list of tags that couldn’t possibly be all-inclusive, and (2) if would encourage communication which is the essence of all resolution. Seems like that would be a reasonable arrangement and cover 99% of our needs. It would avoid the uncomfortable situation where someone with a trigger we have not defined experienced an uncomfortable session and inevitably feels like we are not sensitive to their specific trauma.
By placing the adult content label, the player can easily ask the GM what is the nature of the content. After hearing it, they can chose to have a conversation about adjusting the material or, if they are not comfortable having that conversation, they can walk away from the table without ever acknowledging they even have an issue.
I don’t believe that anyone is saying we shouldn’t be sensitive to this issue. We’re just disagreeing with the methods by which we address/resolve it.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
From my experience, when I’ve been in a place where I want to avoid certain topics, it is much easier to know specifically whether a topic is contained in something ahead of time.
If there were a suicide tag on ToEE, someone might choose to avoid the scenario. They might not drive an hour to get to the game location, since they know they aren’t up for it that day. They might know that they don’t feel like having that conversation that day.
Or, they might decide that that day, they feel like facing it. So they mentally prepare themselves for it to come up.
None of those things require talking to anyone or sharing their experience with anyone.
If 10 out of 20 scenarios say “adult content,” you expect them to arrive at a game and speak with their GM just to find out what that means? Not everyone has their GM’s phone number. Not everyone even has their GM’s email address. Traveling to a game and having to walk away from a table sucks. How in the world is that easier or less traumatic than adding the tag? The alternative is thet the player purchases the scenario and reads ahead, and I don’t think that’s the solution we want, either.
Reading that something contains triggering content is not (in my experience) disturbing. Working myself up to having a conversation with another person about something I don’t really want to talk about is. Doing so in a public place with other people around with someone I don’t know well or possibly at all? Forget about it.
If the information is there in a simple and easy to access place, then the effort required to get it and make a decision is clicking a button. What the person does with it after that is going to depend on the person, how severe the situation is for them, and how they are feeling that day. Looking at a tag is something private that allows the player to make a decision for themselves without involving someone else. Telling them they have to talk to their GM to find out more is making a complicated situation worse.
I really wish you would stop equating a trigger warning with an adult content warning. They are not the same thing. Triggering items can exist in things that are not aimed at adults. Harry Potter can be triggering, as people have already pointed out in this thread. Should it be rated R? You are way off in your view of what is being asked for.
EDIT:
I don’t believe that anyone is saying we shouldn’t be sensitive to this issue. We’re just disagreeing with the methods by which we address/resolve it.
This right here is the issue. People have said, hey, this thing, adding trigger warnings, is something we’ve found helpful in other types of media. Paizo, can you do this?
And you’re jumping into the conversation and saying, hey, that’s not helpful for you. You don’t really need that. This other thing is all you need.
You are, at least from what you have indicated so far, someone not affected by the issue telling people who are affected that the thing that has helped them in the past isn’t necessary. I don’t know you. Maybe you have a trigger, and you don’t find warnings helpful. But you’re very much coming across as saying that you know what’s best for others.
Everyone might not feel the way that I do about it. Someone else who is dealing with a triggering issue might not want the warnings or might not find them helpful. I really wish this thread were a discussion among people affected about what is helpful for them instead of people telling them what should be helpful for them.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't have any triggers myself, but from what I know about dealing with mental health, I can see the point in at least some kinds of warnings.
The main thing is that explaining your traumas/triggers every time there is a possibility of them is *exhausting*. So if we could reduce the amount of people who have to go through this even by some would be good. Also if you can deal with your triggers on your own time (by this I mean looking at the trigger tags at home and prepared instead of at the gaming table where people notice and ask things) it may reduce the stress. Also for some people the surprise is the worst part. So you might be able to deal with your triggers if you know they're coming.
And of course you cannot warn about everything. But this is not a binary choice of all or nothing. We can start somewhere and perhaps work from there. A partial solution is better than nothing, at least it shows that people understand the concept and will consider your problems valid.
When it comes to spoilers, I do consider people's mental health more important than the potential for spoilers. I don't understand why this is such a difficult concept. Just hide the warnings so that those who don't need them can ignore them. If someone has such a strong triggers that seeing the word would trigger them, that would happen anyway, hidden trigger tags or not. And seeing the "Triggers here" button again gives them time to mentally prepare if that is what it takes.
Perhaps doing this as a community effort could work, if it takes too many resources for Paizo to do it. We already have the Shared GM prep site, compared to the work there, trigger lists are nothing.
tl;dr If it helps even some, I consider a good idea.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the system you're proposing is more work than you realize and less effective than you realize. PFSs bag of mixed nuts means you're trying to avoid a conversation that you're going to have to have anyway.
I'm not placing the onus on the person who has an issue because I want to muahahahaha evilly and twirl my mustache it's because I don't see any other way that works. It's not fair of you to conflate the two.
I don’t know how effective tags are in general. I know that they have been helpful for me, and that others in this thread have indicated that they are effective for them. I know that the effort to edit ToEE’s scenario description and add a tag for suicide is minimal. In the absence of Paizo doing that, I will do it on any listings I post as an event organizer.
Maybe going through Paizo’s back catalog is something they don’t want to do. But they could still add tags going forward.
It’s fine if you don’t see a way for it to work. It’s fine if you don’t understand the need. It’s not fine if you say that because you don’t understand it, then it’s not necessary. I’ve provided an explanation in my last message why, for me, talking to someone every time an issue might come up is not a good solution. If my tone in the paragraph you quoted came off as dismissive, I apologize. I’m pretty upset at some of the things people are saying in this thread. Not because I think anyone is malicious, but because they are arguing against something that doesn’t affect them in any way.
Asking for more information in order to understand the request better is one thing. Repeatedly telling someone that the thing they find helpful isn’t helpful is something that I really wish people would stop doing. But it’s the internet, so I know that’s a battle I’ll never win.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The main thing is that explaining your traumas/triggers every time there is a possibility of them is *exhausting*. So if we could reduce the amount of people who have to go through this even by some would be good. Also if you can deal with your triggers on your own time (by this I mean looking at the trigger tags at home and prepared instead of at the gaming table where people notice and ask things) it may reduce the stress. Also for some people the surprise is the worst part. So you might be able to deal with your triggers if you know they're coming.
And of course you cannot warn about everything. But this is not a binary choice of all or nothing. We can start somewhere and perhaps work from there. A partial solution is better than nothing, at least it shows that people understand the concept and will consider your problems valid
Repeatedly telling someone that the thing they find helpful isn’t helpful is something that I really wish people would stop doing.
Quoting both of these posts for truth.
I have lived with PTSD since I was a child Thanks, US Army
How has serving impacted you?
— U.S. Army (@USArmy) May 23, 2019
I'm grateful that Paizo staff make every effort to keep themes like rape out of their scenarios. I'd be even more grateful if there were a way to know ahead of time (you know, the driving to the game store, having a painful discussion in public with a person you may not know) that painful topics were plot elements in a scenario.
Visible progress has been made in my lifetime around making life less dramatic and painful. I'd like to see more progress made.
|
|
I don’t know how effective tags are in general. I know that they have been helpful for me, and that others in this thread have indicated that they are effective for them. I know that the effort to edit ToEE’s scenario description and add a tag for suicide is minimal.
You are absolutely right that editing one scenario for one tag would be minimal.
But that's not what you're talking about. What you're talking about is editing hundreds of scenarios for .. what. 100 different triggers? More?
What happens when the warning is supposed to be there and isn't?
There's supposed to be a trigger warning but your thing isn't on the list because its the 101st most common thing? It gets added to the list and then you need to go BACK and put it on.
I'm not telling you it's not helpful at all, I'm telling you you're using the Texas sharpshooter fallacy (shoot the bullet then draw the bullseye)
In the absence of Paizo doing that, I will do it on any listings I post as an event organizer.
Which is great. You know your group. It's not a full list of encounters. It's not there tempting the munchkins it's something you need to look for. You can get feedback from your group that X should have been included. You possibly have more experience knowing what might be a thing.
That works.
t’s not fine if you say that because you don’t understand it, then it’s not necessary.
More backhanded dismissals.
|
|
No, I’m asking that Paizo be allowed to respond for Paizo. I am not demanding that all scenarios be reviewed. I am not saying that every item that might possibly be triggering for someone be identified. I’m saying there are obvious situations that can be addressed, and that the effort to do so is minimal. And that it would be great going forward if there were something in place for new scenarios.
I don’t know how effective tags are in general. I know that they have been helpful for me, and that others in this thread have indicated that they are effective for them. I know that the effort to edit ToEE’s scenario description and add a tag for suicide is minimal.You are absolutely right that editing one scenario for one tag would be minimal.
But that's not what you're talking about. What you're talking about is editing hundreds of scenarios for .. what. 100 different triggers? More?
What happens when the warning is supposed to be there and isn't?
There's supposed to be a trigger warning but your thing isn't on the list because its the 101st most common thing? It gets added to the list and then you need to go BACK and put it on.
I'm not telling you it's not helpful at all, I'm telling you you're using the Texas sharpshooter fallacy (shoot the bullet then draw the bullseye)
And what you’re doing is making adding tags sound way more complicated than it is. Most of what you have here is not what I’m asking for at all. I am, primarily, saying that suicide should be flagged when it appears. And that there are likely other items that should as well. The community developed list posted earlier is a good start. You, and others, are taking that to mean that I want anything that might possibly be triggering to anyone ever listed, including detailing every creature in every encounter. I don’t think that anyone has asked for that in this thread. There might be specific creatures which have common phobias associated with them which warrant discussing whether or not they should be tagged, but that does not mean that everything must be tagged.
In the absence of Paizo doing that, I will do it on any listings I post as an event organizer.Which is great. You know your group. It's not a full list of encounters. It's not there tempting the munchkins it's something you need to look for. You can get feedback from your group that X should have been included. You possibly have more experience knowing what might be a thing.
That works.
It does not take any knowledge of any specific group to know that suicide might be a triggering subject and might deserve more precaution than something else. No one has asked for a full list of encounters or even that specific creatures be mentioned. Saying there are spiders or rats in a scenario doesn’t spoil anything any more than naming a scenario Day of the Demon. I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that this was a misunderstanding of the request.
t’s not fine if you say that because you don’t understand it, then it’s not necessary.More backhanded dismissals.
I’m just asking that instead of jumping into the thread to say something that you admit to not fully understanding is impossible, maybe you let Paizo make that decision.
I don’t ultimately know what will come of this thread. Paizo may come back and say they’ve looked at it and decided they can’t/don’t want to do it. But people are jumping into the thread trying to make that decision. Maybe this results in Paizo going back and adding tags to everything. I think that’s unlikely, but might happen as a community effort like it did before. That would seem less effective, since finding that information is a lot more difficult. Maybe this results in Paizo adding tags going forward. That would be great. Maybe it only results in one specific scenario getting a tag put on it. Even that is a victory, no matter how small.
What I really hope, at a minimum, results from this, is that Paizo looks at the issue and has a conversation about whether or not it is something that they want to address. Or if they have had that conversation, that they communicate their reasons for deciding against it.
|
|
No, I’m asking that Paizo be allowed to respond for Paizo.
It's a text based medium, not a PA system. Stop making points because other people can't respond is a nonsensical objection.
I’m just asking that instead of jumping into the thread to say something that you admit to not fully understanding is impossible, maybe you let Paizo make that decision.
If I was using my mind control helmet aga.. I mean if I had a mind control helmet this would be a valid point. But you can't prove that I do so it's not.
I (and others apparently) are concerned about putting spoilers for the scenario right in the description makes it a little too tempting for munchkinry. That concern might very well be overwritten by greater needs of the few outweighing the lesser wants of the many, OR there might be some way of making it slightly harder / less tempting to access.
It's entirely possible there's a way of addressing both concerns but that can't happen when anyone that disagrees with you has to shut up.
Honest discussion, even honest argument, of divergent opinions looking at both sides tends to make the ensuing solutions better.
It does not take any knowledge of any specific group to know that suicide might be a triggering subject and might deserve more precaution than something else.
-I want warnings for the thing I have to deal with- is not singular for multiple values of I. Its entirely likely that suicide should go in the bin with... other issues that RPGs have not handled well but what the OP was asking for was more comprehensive than that.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I (and others apparently) are concerned about putting spoilers for the scenario right in the description makes it a little too tempting for munchkinry. That concern might very well be overwritten by greater needs of the few outweighing the lesser wants of the many, OR there might be some way of making it slightly harder / less tempting to access.
That is a very different response and approach than:
But that's not what you're talking about. What you're talking about is editing hundreds of scenarios for .. what. 100 different triggers? More?
Which feels like a vast exaggeration of the request aimed at shutting down the conversation.
It's entirely possible there's a way of addressing both concerns but that can't happen when anyone that disagrees with you has to shut up.
I am not asking that anyone who disagrees with me shut up. I am asking that if someone doesn’t understand or isn’t affected by the issue, that they take a step back and listen for a while instead of telling people who are what should solve the issue for them. You aren’t necessarily doing that, but others have.
You can make the point that you want to avoid too many spoilers without jumping to doing anything means munchkins win. So if we can agree that there is some solution somewhere between “warnings must be put on everything for everything” and “putting any warnings at all is impossible and spoils scenarios,” then at least that’s a start.
Honest discussion, even honest argument, of divergent opinions looking at both sides tends to make the ensuing solutions better.
I can agree with this. I’ll make an effort to be less confrontational.
It does not take any knowledge of any specific group to know that suicide might be a triggering subject and might deserve more precaution than something else.-I want warnings for the thing I have to deal with- is not singular for multiple values of I. Its entirely likely that suicide should go in the bin with... other issues that RPGs have not handled well but what the OP was asking for was more comprehensive than that.
I pointed out ToEE because to me that should be an obvious case where a warning would be prudent. It is not difficult to picture why that could be triggering for someone. It is also not just the inclusion of a subject that might be difficult for some people. It goes beyond that by imposing that action on a player’s character. And, given what seems to be the main concern around adding tags, it’s not even a major spoiler for the scenario. If there were ever an example in the material that Paizo has published that deserves a tag, that’s the one. It is very difficult to see an excuse for not putting a warning on that scenario. I think that is a good place to start for looking at one extreme of the issue, then work backwards from there to figure out where the line it.
Your example of a player sitting down with a Ratfolk character is good for identifying a situation that is outside the scope of what the warnings can cover. But it was taken as a reason not to have the warnings at all, and that is the wrong takeaway from that example. What I hope people get from that example is that you can’t control everything, and you can’t provide a warning for everything, so any system will inherently have limitations. That’s important to remember and relevant to other questions that you’ve asked.
I’ve said in earlier posts that my guess is there are a half dozen to dozen things that are obvious items to receive a tag. Several of those are identified in the document that Darrell Impey UK posted earlier. Have you looked at that document? If so, do you see a problem with using those as a starting point?
|
|
Which feels like a vast exaggeration of the request aimed at shutting down the conversation.
The original post discussed phobias. "How many phobias do you think we need to label for in a fantasy genre where horrible, creepy, and terrifying things will happen to your character to the point that being dipped into a ratswarm is just tuesday" .. 100 might be a high estimate but I don't think its unreasonable. Much less unreasonable to the point that it must be some attempt at social engineering (that i really, really do not have the social skills to try)
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which feels like a vast exaggeration of the request aimed at shutting down the conversation.The original post discussed phobias. "How many phobias do you think we need to label for in a fantasy genre where horrible, creepy, and terrifying things will happen to your character to the point that being dipped into a ratswarm is just tuesday" .. 100 might be a high estimate but I don't think its unreasonable. Much less unreasonable to the point that it must be some attempt at social engineering (that i really, really do not have the social skills to try)
The OP's second post (sixth post down in the thread) acknowledged that there need to be limits and suggested a means of determining them. I have said there needs to be a line several times. I have said that just because you can't cover every issue, it doesn't mean you shouldn't cover any issue at least twice (now three times). Please try to see how it might feel like you are ignoring the conversation to make a point that has already been acknowledged, even if that's not what you are intending to do. No one is denying that determining the list of warnings will mean that a lot of things will have to be left off or grouped together.
I'm glad for the short break that this thread took. Posting in it has been very draining for me, and I haven't been at my best/most considerate in everything I've said. I really don't want to get into a shouting match. Can we please move on to discussing productive things like how a manageable list of items might be determined, instead of arguing over who said what in the thread?
If I have the energy for it later, I am going to post a long, FAQ style summary of the questions that have been raised so far, answers that have been given, answers that have not been given, and the issues that need to be overcome -- both in the implementation and why this is so important to the people it is important to.
|
|
The OP's second post (sixth post down in the thread) acknowledged that there need to be limits and suggested a means of determining them. I have said there needs to be a line several times.
Did you put a number on that line? Approximate one? Yes, you have half a dozen as a starting point.
Where do you see the end point being?
Some of the items on the list are a big huh? I'd have at least 30 other things there before the last one.
I have said that just because you can't cover every issue, it doesn't mean you shouldn't cover any issue at least twice (now three times).
When you put a trigger warning system in place it comes with downsides vs no warning system if it gives false assurance.
Person with trigger J: if they listed triggers ABCDEFGH oh hey no J i'm in the clear (but the system doesn't cover J). Shows up at the table and is angry they weren't warned about J.
There's an error in the system. I love paizo products but I have had to make a swim check to get through a door in the middle of the desert. This goes doubly for the web page.
The system misses things. For example, the spreadsheet you linked one item from the end should include every instance that someone casts confusion.
It creates the expectation that there is an X free game. Then the players bring the Xiest thing that ever Xesed. Yes, you've found it useful in other media. How much of that media was as player dependent as an RPG? If D&Ds linear guild has a system that works thats an easy extrapolation. But what works for movies doesn't work here.
If we're both in different states watching game of thrones we're seeing just about the same show. If we're in different states playing the same scenario it can vary from the red wedding to an episode of my little pony depending on the DM and the group.
It's setting expectations for sensitivity levels of paizo that most gaming groups are going to...have a different take on.
It seems like the first step in creating homogenized organic all natural and boring adventures without anything that might offend anyone.
It's another thing on the pile of "Dms need to be aware of this.. and this and this and this and this and this and...." DMs aren't (necessarily) social workers or advocates.
Now, with that said, we seem to have very different ideas of what seeing a negative about an idea means. An idea having negatives doesn't mean it's automatically not worth doing like a logic puzzle where a negative result absolutely blocks it.
The positives might outweigh the negatives.
Listing a problem might let you find a solution. For example, something spelling out that there is no accounting for what the players might do with a scenario might keep expectations under control. ( warning warning?)
Listing which flags the system uses could keep a false negative under control. Arachnophobia is on the list Musophobia is not, I better not get my hopes up / i better ask. Seeing it in a spreadsheet lets you see what the list comprises of, seeing it as a spoiler tag on a scenario would not (because the scenario might not contain mice or mice not be one of the #s)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All of those are points that can be discussed, and definitely things to keep in mind with any system that gets proposed/goes into place. Thank you.
For my own (physical) health, I’m going to take a break from the forums until sometime later this week. I don’t want you to think that I’m ignoring what you’ve said here or don’t think you’ve made good points.
|
Venture-Captain, Online—VTT
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think a point some people might not be considering is that even if there were say, 30 or 40 good, or more solid things worth putting down should they show up... not all of them are going to be on each scenario, in fact most of them won't be. We wouldn't be seeing 30-40 every time but maybe 3 or 4, it's really not such a huge difference than the way Starfinder has the tags for factions or starship combat etc. I think we can afford to give up a couple of lines of text or an inch of column space if it helps people game more securely, more happily and more confidently, that seems a pretty small ask for what it gets imo.
Customer Service & Community Manager
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Getting content advisories, filtering and tagging, into more places on our site is something I'd personally like to see in the future. But it involves more than just me wanting that. It's a longer conversation with several teams in editorial, as well as operations and tech. For example, our current filtering and tagging system has not scaled with paizo.com's growth and would need to be updated first. Changing up how we do product descriptions would involve multiple departments doing due diligence to determine things like: what kinds of things need to be put into a content advisory notice, how to include themes in a way that doesn't spoil the adventure, etc. Adding content advisories to product intros, site descriptions, filters, tags, etc, would be a large scale project. Whether or not, or when, we have the resources to follow through on it would ultimately be a business decision. And while it's one I think would be a really good idea that doesn't mean it will happen.
However, since the subject came up earlier, I'd like to note that if we were to move forward with filtering and tagging for adventure searching:
Filters that would allow for content exclusion based on the presence of someone from a group of people, such as "contains a non-binary character", would not be an option I will consider for our site.
However, I would consider a tag for it, because I can easily see a use case for "I'm looking for an adventure to run for my friend who is non-binary and wants to play in an adventure that explicitly has a character who is non-binary in it."
Hope that helps with this discussion!
