Customer Service & Community Manager
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly if someone has traumatic triggers that are outside a normal person in society they should check with the GM before play begins.
"Normal" is kind of a loaded term, especially when talking about people. I think in this context "common" might be more appropriate.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This also begs the question of 'what are common triggers' and 'how can one address them with a tag that can serve multiple purposes for the time spent creating them'?
I am an arachnophobe.
It's bad.
It turns me from an engaging and involved person into a terrified mess that shuts down and attempts to avoid the item in question.
I didn't realize HOW bad it was until a GM pulled out a mini to proxy for a *different* trigger item and that substitution shut me down, HARD.
I don't want spoilers for a given scenario.
For several years I avoided one particular scenario due to historical connections to said trigger item by the NPCs indicated in the scenario's title. When I presented the concern to someone who was running the scenario they inquired what the *limits* were, and I was able to define limits -- not everyone is capable of that, and presented in a vacuum or at the table with no warning doesn't provide for any means of addressing it.
If the tag is present, it helps, just as much as 'Starship' or 'Repeatable' or 'Vehicle' are tags over in Starfinder.
Tag: Arachnids
Tag: Suicide Themes
Tag: Unavoidable and Unsolvable Civil War/requires binary choice
are various tags I could see for scenarios I've played in the past.
...and I would have appreciated them in most cases rather than dealing with the stressors.
That being said, a well-meaning GM that's attempting to provide a GOOD experience can produce trigger concerns without even realizing it.
Not sure where the balance point would be, but the danger of going either too far in one direction or not nearly far enough is something that needs to be kept in mind.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm fairly new to Pathfinder as a player, despite having been fascinated with the system for a while now, and based on info from the playtest rulebook I think that some content advisories would be be incredibly useful.
To clarify for some who may not have dealt with content warnings, I'll provide myself as an example. If depictions of self-harm (including death) are part of a work, I greatly prefer a heads-up. Without it, the consequences are unpredictable and can be long-lasting. With it, I can gauge my own well-being to determine whether I can still participate. Once forewarned, the triggering content is less likely to be impactful and the results less dire because I wasn't sucker-punched.
I appreciate Paizo's team making strides in this area, especially since I know it is not a seamless process.
|
|
The issue is no one is ever going to be happy. The Arachnid warning is used when exactly? I have a player in my region who gets creeped out by any picture that kinda looks like a spider. I don't think he'll be happy when there is no arachnid warning for a kinda looks like a spider picture.
I have several friends who died form alchohol related incidents. I don't like being reminded of alcohol but I can deal with it. Can we get a alcohol/Bar tag?
I mean where would you draw a line and make eveyone happy? You can't.
Ho do people with extreme triggers watch TV or movies? Are there really arachnid warnings avalialbe on the internet somewhere?
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are there really arachnid warnings avalialbe on the internet somewhere?
doesthedogdie.com/ Started as just spoilers for animal death/suffering has expanded to contain over 50 types of warnings including "has spiders"
www.unconsentingmedia.org/ is a database for warnings regarding sexual violence in broadcast media.
www.commonsensemedia.org/ is a detailed ratings site aimed at parents who want more details when deciding on appropriate media for kids.
Starfinder Society Developer
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I admit, this is something I would love to see us do more of in scenarios, but it brings with it a tricky set of logistics. As people have already mentioned, there's a wide variety of triggers for a wide variety of people, and I can personally state that I don't have anywhere near enough knowledge/training to properly vet those when developing a scenario. Similarly, while our editors often catch a lot of sensitive information on their reads, that is something that is (as with many things) them going above-and-beyond in order to help us have better products.
I would also prefer not to have such a list live within the scenarios themselves or anywhere that takes reasonable effort to adjust. One pitfall I could see us getting into with a change like this, would be that we inadvertently miss one or more potential triggers in a scenario and then find ourselves inundated with requests to update the associated tags. For that reason alone, I'd want to see this system be something that could exist in a very easy to update location, and with a few select people able to make regular updates.
As with a lot of community initiated ideas, I think this has a lot of positive impact. I just see it being taxing on resources that are already notably taxed in several different ways.
|
Customer Service & Community Manager
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean where would you draw a line and make eveyone happy? You can't.
Definitely a consideration, but for me, not being able to fix everything for everyone is not a reason to not fix somethings for some people. I do feel that figuring out some of these questions (broadly as a society and specifically for Paizo if we were to go this direction), is not a simple thing to navigate. I believe that we shouldn't dismiss ideas like this just because there aren't easy, simple, or binary solutions to chose from. We've got some amazingly talented and skilled folks on staff as well as in our community and if this is something we would decide to go forward with, I am pretty confident in our collective abilities to move us in the right direction.
|
Venture-Agent, Netherlands—Utrecht
|
The issue is no one is ever going to be happy. The Arachnid warning is used when exactly? I have a player in my region who gets creeped out by any picture that kinda looks like a spider. I don't think he'll be happy when there is no arachnid warning for a kinda looks like a spider picture.
I have several friends who died form alchohol related incidents. I don't like being reminded of alcohol but I can deal with it. Can we get a alcohol/Bar tag?
I mean where would you draw a line and make eveyone happy? You can't.
Ho do people with extreme triggers watch TV or movies? Are there really arachnid warnings avalialbe on the internet somewhere?
I mean, we have a ratings system for movies and games (PEGI, ESRB), with individual icons/descriptions for each piece of media. Adopting that would help, at least.
As for "where to draw the line," yeah, that's a tricky one. As you said, we can't make everyone happy, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. The system isn't perfect, and cases like your friend getting scared by something "spidery enough, but technically not a spider" might happen. But with user-input, that will (hopefully) only happen once, as the system is self-correcting: users will go online and tag those scenarios, so future surprises won't happen again. That is, if everyone does the same, of course.
Sara Marie made a good point that can in theory be reverse-engineered. Her suggestion deals mainly with inclusivity of people, but could technically go for phobias as well: if people are really dedicated to avoiding such themes, if such a thing were such a deal-breaker, if a scenario pings on such a tag, people can avoid those scenarios as well. In that case, the tag would basically have the effect of a filter. That might need to be considered.
As Thurston said, I'm not qualified to make decisions about this, I just hope to be able to facilitate the debate.
As with a lot of community initiated ideas, I think this has a lot of positive impact. I just see it being taxing on resources that are already notably taxed in several different ways.
I understand, Thurston. It not perfect system. At the very least, thank you for taking your time reading (and considering) this! <3
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
I think doing this right requires coming at it from two directions.
On the one hand, if you have a trigger, especially if it's something uncommon, it could help to write a card with a short explanation what sort of thing really bothers you, and show it to the GM. The GM could say "no reason to worry in this scenario", or "gimme a sec, I can refurbish it so that won't be a problem" or "I'm sorry, but that particular thing is so pervasive in this scenario that I can't make it safe for you". The last response would be very rare of course.
With such a card, you don't have to have a big discussion at the table about your trigger. You can write (or have a friend write it) ahead of time, and just show it, and don't need to go into it deeply. We can put guidance for GMs in the Guide to make it clear how important it is for GMs to work with this.
But that isn't a complete solution. Because it's mostly a solution for well-prepared people who read the Guide, are on top of all the minutiae of PFS etcetera. And while of course being well-prepared is something we'd like everyone to be, it would be grossly insensitive to only try to help those people.
So on the other hand, I think some kind of forewarning should go in the scenario blurb in the website catalog. Specifically there, because that's what gets copy-pasted in for example the Warhorn catalog, and for conventions into their game offering system. So we need to put these things in at the source so they show up everywhere they're needed.
Now, the second half of what I'm saying is tricky to to because it's based on being able to actually enumerate all the triggers. I don't really know how many there are. I'm guessing there's a half a dozen or a full dozen big ones, and a long tail of other ones. Covering all of them would be impossible, but covering a lion's share would be reachable.
So what about the people with a rare trigger? Well, they're not being really helped now. If we help the people with a common trigger, will they think they're being helped and then stumble into something they weren't prepared for? It's a risk. Therefore, the first half of my post. People with triggers should be encouraged to have a trigger card, so that even if something slipped through the tagging process, the GM is aware and can try to intervene to do the needful.
Also, you could get a feeling that although you don't want to pin down a scenario to a very specific trigger, there's definitely heavy themes going on. For example, I thought The Half-Alive Streets was quite heavy, but I can't immediately put it down to a "canonical" trigger. A generic "this one is pretty dark" warning is already being used on some scenarios, and I think that's a good idea we should keep using.
|
How about a poll of the most common triggers to see which ones are the most common? Or even just a poll in general to see if this is something pervasive enough that it needs to be addressed at all? If it turns out to only be a small percentage of players have sever triggers wouldn't that be easier to deal with at the individual tables instead of "over taxing already taxed resources" by creating yet another layer of scenario tags/prep/screening for creators and editors?
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Before going down the trigger tag path I would encourage the responsible parties at Paizo to pursue the available academic research on the subject. Unfortunately there is very little published so far, but some data suggests that trigger warnings may be counterproductive. Other research says they can be helpful to people with severe post-traumatic stress. I’m not bashing trigger warnings, but I’m not praising them either. I just want to make sure the end result is more positive than negative.
Venture-Captain, Netherlands
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can marry both ideas into one I think?
Make several broad warnings, like: Warning, creatures. If you have a phobia of a certain creature, you can then ask the GM.
He can then tell you no, this scenario does not have spiders, so you're good, but it does have scorpions, so Bob should probably sit this one out.
|
|
If Paizo is going down the path of trigger warnings please put them in a separate "parental warnings" file. When I view scenario summaries I want to get excited and get a positive vibe not see a bunch of tags that create negative impressions.
Also, I would clearly define why/what a trigger warning is used for. For example I don't think homophobia deserves a tag. But some people are homophobic.
Personally I would highly recommend Paizo staff seek advice from a trained psychologist/psychiatrist and not leave it up to amateurs to figure it out.
|
|
You can marry both ideas into one I think?
Make several broad warnings, like: Warning, creatures. If you have a phobia of a certain creature, you can then ask the GM.He can then tell you no, this scenario does not have spiders, so you're good, but it does have scorpions, so Bob should probably sit this one out.
I think that would increase the need to talk to the DM rather than decrease it
|
Venture-Captain, Netherlands
|
I think that would increase the need to talk to the DM rather than decrease itYou can marry both ideas into one I think?
Make several broad warnings, like: Warning, creatures. If you have a phobia of a certain creature, you can then ask the GM.He can then tell you no, this scenario does not have spiders, so you're good, but it does have scorpions, so Bob should probably sit this one out.
But it would decrease the chance of triggers being missed. Also, depending on how severe your phobia is, you might want to talk to your GM anyway to see if this adventure is manageble for you.
For example, a spider as an enemy is OK for you, but not a 4 hour adventure into the boudoir of the spider queen.
|
|
I think that would increase the need to talk to the DM rather than decrease itYou can marry both ideas into one I think?
Make several broad warnings, like: Warning, creatures. If you have a phobia of a certain creature, you can then ask the GM.He can then tell you no, this scenario does not have spiders, so you're good, but it does have scorpions, so Bob should probably sit this one out.
There is too much nuance in phobias to avoid talking to the DM altogether. Broad warnings let individuals avoid or mentally prepare for certain scenarios.
Instead of asking or explaining your phobia every single game, you know which fraction of scenarios you need to prepare for or avoid.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is this something that the community could maintain in the Wiki?
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, I'm back from my self-imposed forum hiatus. I'm still going to try to keep posting down to once a day, so if I don't respond to a direct question right away, that's why.
Thank you to Sara and Thurston for joining the conversation. As I'll explain below, I think that Paizo's participation in this discussion is important.
Here's most of what I'd planned to post earlier. It's lengthy. Feel free to ignore parts or all of it. I encourage you at a minimum to go back and read Leathert's post from a few days ago, as it does a good job of illustrating one of the main flaws in the current system or any system that primarily relies on asking your GM.
Talking to people is hard for some people. PFS can be a great way to break out of your shell and become more comfortable in a public space interacting with people that you don't know well. It can also be incredibly intimidating. I know people who are nervous about attending PFS because of their social anxiety and general stress around meeting new people, not knowing the rules well enough, not having enough experience with RPGs, etc. And all of that is before any kind of trauma that they might want to avoid enters the picture.
PFS, by its nature, involves interacting with people who you don't know or don't know very well. Yes, people form very strong friendships through PFS. I have friends I've made through PFS who I'm comfortable talking to. But every table has the potential to have somebody new at it, or sometimes a GM you don't know. Every game in a public space has the potential to have someone you don't know nearby and within earshot.
Talking to people about trauma is not something that everyone is comfortable with. Sometimes that's an amplification of general social anxiety. Sometimes it's because the trauma is fresh. Sometimes it's because they don't want to be treated differently. Sometimes it's because they don't want that specific person to know about their trauma, or just that they don't know that person yet.
When you say things like, "The person with the trigger needs to speak up and ask others to respect not putting said mini out," or "Honestly if someone has traumatic triggers that are outside a normal person in society they should check with the GM before play begins," you're asking something that might not be possible for the person in that moment. I'll go into this more later.
A GM might also not completely understand what would be triggering in a given situation. So they may not think something is an issue, only to be wrong when it actually comes up. Having items identified beforehand at least gives them a clue that there might be something they should be looking for if someone asks.
And, GMs shouldn't have to know everything that they need to know to handle every potential situation that comes up. Nor should they have to be confronted with everybody's issues at the table. GMs are there to have fun just like everybody else. Asking them to be the first line in addressing the issue is asking a lot of the GMs. The existence of trigger warnings is not just helpful for the people with triggers. It's helpful in reducing the number of uncomfortable situations for everyone.
Second, those terms, in this context, are honestly a little insulting. "Adult content" implies that it's content only suitable for adults. That's fine as a guideline for parents deciding if they want to bring a child to a game. It covers a lot of topics that they might not be comfortable with their child experiencing. Applying it to a trigger warning implies that someone who has suffered trauma is not an "adult" or able to deal with things that "adults" can deal with. The same connotation is there for "parental" warnings.
Finally, while there is overlap in what those warnings might cover and what might warrant a trigger warning, they are not the same sets. First Steps Part 1: In Service to Lore might receive an "adult content" warning for the way that Zarta is depicted. Or maybe not. That's an easy thing to adjust if children are present, because a child being present is an obvious thing. A phobia of rats, however, is not an obvious thing. Nor is it an "adult" thing. So slapping an adult content warning onto that scenario, then asking a GM what is meant by that might get a response of, "Oh, Zarta. I'll tone that down," when the real concern is the dire rats. It's just not a specific enough term to be useful in the same situations where trigger warnings are useful.
The longer answer is that Paizo is best positioned to do this. There's the visibility issue, but there's also an issue of keeping the warnings up to date. As evidenced by the previous community effort at this, community initiatives have a tendency to be forgotten when the people involved in creating them stop updating them. There are a thousand reasons why that could happen, not the least of which is that the person stops participating in PFS.
Paizo is also the only group that can possibly be aware of a potential issue before a scenario is published. The community cannot review an upcoming scenario for issues if the community cannot see the upcoming scenarios. Paizo can. I'm not saying that it's trivial for them to do so. I'm saying they are the only ones in a position to do so.
There will always be situations that are missed, or that are borderline. Having a defined list of items that should definitely receive a warning should make identifying things easier, though.
And, Paizo's participation in the conversation, whether they are ultimately able to do anything or not, at least shows that they are concerned enough about the way their content could affect players that they are willing to engage in the conversation in the first place. I'll echo my thanks to Sara and Thurston for doing so. It's entirely possible that some larger corporate issue will ultimately prevent them from actively doing anything, but I'd rather not jump to that without the discussion taking place.
Regardless of what method, a list of common triggers would be able to potentially help a large number of people. We, of course, need to be aware of creating a false sense of security, which is why a good explanation of what is covered and what isn't should accompany the warnings in some form.
And if Paizo decided that they can't host or create the document, and that it has to be a community effort, then doing whatever they can to make sure a link to the community hosted document exists in an easy to find place on their site would help.
Warnings from the community inside of product discussion or a GM discussion thread are better than nothing. They are very hard to find if you don't know to look for them, and they are not guaranteed to exist for every situation that might warrant a warning, even under a reduced set of guidelines. The forums are not easy to navigate, especially for someone new to Pathfinder/Starfinder. It's a problem that comes up over and over with rules/clarifications discussions, and it would be no different here.
There's also the possibility that a trigger isn't identified as being potentially triggering, or that there isn't enough information available for any individual to make a decision. If they are comfortable having a conversation with their GM at that point, then they can have a conversation with their GM. But at least they know ahead of time for that specific session they might have to sit out or go back home before they go through the effort of arriving at the game. A single, general tag, or no tag at all, and just talking to the GM every session means they might have to step away from any single session they attend.
Again, that's not as big of a problem gaming with a local group who knows about your trigger and GMs that might warn you ahead of time. It's a very different situation when paying hundreds of dollars and traveling to a convention where you might not know any of the GMs or players who will be at your table. It still might happen. But having some information available will help reduce the number of times that it happens.
If you made it through some of all of that, thank you. I've done my best not to come across as combative in this post. As I mentioned earlier, posting in this thread has been draining for me. I haven't edited this post as much as I could, because I've reached the limit of what I can do today. If something in it comes across as insulting, or angry, I apologize. That isn't my intent.
I'm going to hide the thread again until sometime tomorrow (again, for my own personal health, not through an unwillingness to be disagreed with).
This is a complicated issue that warrants a discussion before a specific solution is decided on or against. What I wanted to see happen is happening now. Thank you to everyone for that being the case.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is this something that the community could maintain in the Wiki?
Possibly. The wiki has at least demonstrated a level of persistence and ability to stay up to date. See my thoughts under "Why is it so important that Paizo is involved? Why can't the community cover this?" in the post above this one for why I think Paizo's participation in some form is important.
|
|
I've been following this thread kind of close, and have come close to posting on it several times... and I think I can understand where most of the posters are coming from... maybe? Anyway, here's my 2 cp. on the subject.
I sort of look at "phobias" kind of like food allergies or food sensitivities...
I game with someone with a very bad (peanut) allergy. My sister (who I also game with a lot) is allergic to several things, including a bad allergy to chocolate (yeah, really). My niece is allergic to pineapple. If we're all around a table in our local game venue, ordering food can get to be... a challenge. But when we put in a snack order, we check... "Peanuts? Chocolate? Pineapple?". Yeah, I realize that the menu should tell us, but hay, someone could DIE from this, so we ask also. I figure warnings on scenarios aren't going to stop me from checking any more than ingredients listed on menus will stop me from asking. If someone at the table has issues with Fuzzy White Rabbits... I'll likely ask. (esp. if the scenario is named "The Revenge of the Easter Bunny").
If someone at the table has a "trigger" for something (whatever that might be) - and I know it - I'm going to ensure the judge knows about it too. Just like I tell the waiter about Peanuts/Chocolate/Pineapple/whatever. And I'm going to avoid it myself (in game and out), just like when I bring snacks ("Hay, this has bacon in it..."). Because these are my friends, and I like to play with them, and I want them to have fun playing a game with me too.
So - do TPTB want to post a warning? Go for it, but realize I'm going to ask anyway. Most likely a quiet aside to the judge before the game "Hay, Jo is kind of sensitive about Clowns - just in case there are any in the scenario. We might want to avoid them if there are - might want to talk to Jo about it if there's something like that in this one." Or maybe I'll just guide my friend to another scenario - or run something else.
|
|
Phobia's are pretty clearly defined:
Phobia, an extreme, irrational fear of a specific object or situation. A phobia is classified as a type of anxiety disorder, since anxiety is the chief symptom experienced by the sufferer. Phobias are thought to be learned emotional responses. ... Psychotherapy may also be useful in the treatment of phobias.
|
|
Top 10 Phobia List
1. Fear of Spiders – Arachnophobia
2. Fear of Snakes – Ophidiophobia
3. Fear of Heights – Acrophobia
4. Fear of Open Spaces – Agoraphobia
5. Fear of Dogs – Cynophobia
6. Fear of Thunderstorms – Astraphobia
7. Fear of Small Spaces – Claustrophobia
8. Fear of Germs – Mysophobia
9. Fear of Flying – Aerophobia
10. Fear of Holes – Trypophobia
|
|
If it's going to be done. I personally think general warnings similar to something HBO might have at the start of their TV shows. "Adult content", "extreme violence", etc. Any more detail than that should be put in a separate file for people who care can see them.
I care but I don't want to be concerned with other people's issues unless they are severe. I'd rather not see them unless someone asks.
Phobia's are severe reactions. I know someone with Agoraphobia and she cannot leave her house without strong anti-anxiety medication. I don't really know how someone with a stong phobia could play anything in organized play with a fear of facing their phobia straight on.
There clearly is a difference between Phobia's/adult content/horror themes. They should proably be treated in seperate categories and clearly defined.
For phobia's a trained profesional is in order to address. Otherwise it won't be done correctly it is a psychological disorder.
For tv here are the warnings. Obviously not all of them apply to published material but some of them do:
AC
Adult content
This indicates that the film or program may contain suggestive dialogue, crude humor or in extreme cases, drug references or depiction of drug and/or alcohol use that may not be suitable for children. Films rated "PG" or TV series rated "TV-PG" or higher often use this descriptor.
AL
Adult language
This suggests that the film, special or program may contain profanity, ranging from either mild profanity (such as "damn", "prick" or "ass") to expletives, with or without a sexual meaning; more than four uses of two or more expletives like "shit" or "f#&*" in a film/program, may result in the program being assigned a "GL" descriptor. Films rated "PG" or TV series rated "TV-PG" or higher often use this descriptor.
GL
Graphic language
This descriptor suggests that a movie, special event (for example, a stand-up comedy special) or series will contain a heavy amount of profanity, with relatively to very frequent usage of expletives with or without a sexual meaning. Criteria for the "GL" description is usually for films or television programs that contain the use of two or more expletive profanities (such as "shit", "cunt" or "motherf@$@er") more than four times during the run of the program. The use of this content descriptor is usually exclusive to films that are rated "R" or television series rated "TV-MA".
MV
Mild violence
This suggests that a movie or series contains a mild amount of violent content, either comedic or non-comedic in nature, that may or may not include some bloodshed. Films rated "PG" or TV series rated "TV-PG" or higher often use this content rating, however this descriptor is seldom used in "R" or "TV-MA" rated programs.
V
Violence
This is indicative of the program containing a moderate to significant amount of violent content (such as a physical altercation or shooting), which may include mild to moderate amounts of bloodshed. This does not necessarily account for incidents in which scenes may contain gory material or the depiction of dismemberment.
GV
Graphic violence
This means that the program or film may contain a heavy amount of violence, blood or gore,[6] that is unsuitable for younger audiences or those who are squeamish to such content. The usage of this descriptor depends on how long the blood or gore is actually shown and how much of it is included. The use of this content descriptor is typically exclusive to films that are rated "R" or television series rated "TV-MA", though there is rare use of this descriptor for films with a "PG-13" rating. Most American premium channels typically limit the usage of this particular content descriptor for "R"-rated films or "TV-MA" rated television series, based on the above description.
BN
Brief nudity
This is indicative that the film or program contains a minimal amount of moderate nudity, that may either be depicted in a sexual or non-sexual nature (such as a brief glimpse of a man's buttocks); nudity seen in the program or film may not necessarily be full-frontal in nature. The use of this content descriptor is commonly for films that are rated "PG-13" or "R", and television series or certain films rated "TV-14" or "TV-MA", but is sometimes used in films rated "PG" or television series or made-for-TV movies rated "TV-PG".
N
Nudity
This means that a live-action or animated film/program contains a moderate to significant amount of partial or full-frontal nudity, that may either be depicted in a sexual or non-sexual nature. This may either be for anything such as the display of topless women or exposed male buttocks, to in some cases, exposed genitalia. The use of this content descriptor is generally exclusive to films that are rated "R", and television series or certain films rated "TV-MA", and only occasionally used in films rated "PG-13" or television series or made-for-TV movies rated "TV-14". On softcore adult programs airing on channels such as Cinemax and The Movie Channel, this descriptor is generally referenced alongside the descriptor "SSC", for strong sexual content, as films that contain simulated or graphic depictions of sexual intercourse will often contain some degree of nudity, whether partial or full-frontal.
SSC
Strong sexual content
This signifies that the program may contain graphic sexual situations,[6] particularly scenes of simulated (or in rare cases, actual) sexual intercourse that is often of a pornographic nature (though in some instances, the sexual intercourse depicted may be in a realistic and artistic style), with the incorporation of moderate or full-frontal nudity. Scenes of men (or sometimes women, although this is not often shown) receiving oral sex may also fall within the criteria for an "SSC" rating. An "SSC" rating means the sexual content in the program may be unsuitable for those under the age of 18. The use of this content descriptor is strictly exclusive to films that are rated "R", and television series or certain films rated "TV-MA". On softcore adult programs airing on channels such as Cinemax and The Movie Channel, this descriptor is generally referenced alongside the descriptor "N", for nudity, as films that contain simulated or graphic depictions of sexual intercourse will often contain some degree of nudity, whether partial (for example, a female wearing clothes covering only the top half of her body for a portion of or throughout the scene, but whose breasts are exposed) or full-frontal.
RP
Rape
This denotes the film or program may contain graphic scenes of rape and/or other forms of sexual assault, depicted in a realistic and often violent, but fictional nature. Any program that contains such content is not likely suitable for anyone under the age of 18, or anyone who objects to and/or is uncomfortable with visual depictions of sexual abuse. The use of this content descriptor is fairly rare, and is strictly exclusive to films that are rated "R" or television series rated "TV-MA". The "RP" descriptor is often used with the "SSC" descriptor.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Ferious: I'd like your views on something I proposed before: a "trigger card".
It would go something like this. Bob has a fear of something. In the safety of his home, with the help of a friend, he writes a card describing what triggers him. He takes this card with him to the game. Before the game, he hands the card to the GM. The GM reads the card and consults the scenario to see if it will come up. If the trigger was in the scenario, the GM takes steps to censor it.
Bob didn't have to have an uncomfortable discussion at the table. He was able to compose the card in a safe environment with a friend to support him.
---
This isn't intended as the only part of a solution. I think we need solutions coming from both ends: some warning system so Bob can avoid scenarios that are a problem for him, but also a less awkward way to "discuss" with the GM in case a scenario slipped through the tagger's net.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Ferious: I'd like your views on something I proposed before: a "trigger card".
It would go something like this. Bob has a fear of something. In the safety of his home, with the help of a friend, he writes a card describing what triggers him. He takes this card with him to the game. Before the game, he hands the card to the GM. The GM reads the card and consults the scenario to see if it will come up. If the trigger was in the scenario, the GM takes steps to censor it.
Bob didn't have to have an uncomfortable discussion at the table. He was able to compose the card in a safe environment with a friend to support him.
---
This isn't intended as the only part of a solution. I think we need solutions coming from both ends: some warning system so Bob can avoid scenarios that are a problem for him, but also a less awkward way to "discuss" with the GM in case a scenario slipped through the tagger's net.
That doesn't work because once again it assumes the GM has all the knowledge which has backfired on me. The primary issue is that Paizo has blundered into some weird references (Treacherous Waves) and if you aren't aware of them you wouldn't realize you could be potentially referencing triggering content. In the case of Treacherous Waves there is references to rape in it (Forgotten Furnace) that I don't think anyone who was developing the scenario ever went and looked back at the previous scenario carefully. It was bad enough that I second guessed myself and asked one of the people I GM'd for if I missed anything else while running it.
EDIT:
I have more I want to talk but I'm partly sick and need to think about what I want to say.
|
|
How about allowing for a curating system, such as seen on steam?
I generall cannot enjoy games with a male protagonist. This is because I cannot get in their heads. One of the curator I am subscribed? to comments and mini-reviews lesbian content in video games and otherwise mentions where character creation does happen, in what form the lesbian content exists, if it is implied, etc, etc.
It is incredibly helpful to me in finding content that allows for a female protagonist, because reviews/curation would not exist if no such character existed.
Would it not be possible to adapt such a system to the forum? Using volunteers to do such?
I don't think anyone believes that we could have a perfect system that literally everyone would fit perfectly into. But I think it possible to find something that works for the majority.
|
|
@Lau - As a suggestion that might be a helpful thing for people to try if they are apprehensive about talking to their GM directly, that seems like a good suggestion. I’m not sure it’s appropriate as a policy from Paizo. I’m not sure how people would feel about being told they need to carry a “trauma card.” Not saying that’s what you intended. Just an example of how it might be viewed as a policy.
What the right solution is for any individual to communicate with their GM is going to be different for every individual. Having examples like that is definitely helpful. It’s just hard to say that it’s the solution without knowing more.
But I think you’re on the right track. Some combination of more information available than we have now about what is in the scenarios and more information containing informed suggestions as to how players and GMs might handle situations.
Adam also has a point. A GM is likely never to be fully prepared for everything that might come up. Nor sure they be expected to be. One of the great things about PFS is the ease of entry into it. Want to GM? Pick up a scenario and GM. I don’t expect or want it to be more difficult than that. But that is the situation that also means it’s impossible to know that every GM will be equipped to handle something like a phobia or a trauma should it come up.
Potentially adding a section to GM 101 for the GMs who take the time to read that might be helpful, though I don’t know how practical updating that document is.
|
|
I think the best way is to not change scenarios but instead have a reference page with Trauma and Phobia triggers. And thus allowing people with severe issues a method of avoiding their trauma reminders. or have someone else look it up for them and let them know what scenarios to avoid.
Anyone with severe phobia's/Trauma triggers I can't even imagine playing organized play at all.
We're talking a very small percentage of PFS/SFS players. My estimate is <1%. Most people with these kinds of things would not risk a public organized play and instead play home games where the GM knows what issues he/she is dealing with.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Oregon—Portland
|
We're talking a very small percentage of PFS/SFS players. My estimate is <1%. Most people with these kinds of things would not risk a public organized play and instead play home games where the GM knows what issues he/she is dealing with.
What exactly do you base that estimate on? Approximately 1 in 10 people have serious phobias, and nearly as many are struggling with PTSD at any given time.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've gmed over 400 organized play games and it has only applied to 1 player.
I mean conversely that could just be that people don't trust you which knowing a bunch of people with triggers in Pathfinder Society seems to be a common complaint.
|
|
I've gmed over 400 organized play games and it has only applied to 1 player.I mean conversely that could just be that people don't trust you which knowing a bunch of people with triggers in Pathfinder Society seems to be a common complaint.
OK, your reality is different then mine. I assume people who have content problems have pre-screened the content so they don't get surprised. They sign up for scenarios that appeal to them.
I do believe Rape and Suicide should be excluded all together from all scenarios. It's too harsh for too many.
|
|
I've had my say I will step out of this conversation. I do want to point out that Paizo does not live in a vacuum. If they are the only RPG company publishing caution tags it can very well turn people away just as much as gain trust.
From my understanding Paizo wants to target a younger crowd so I would expect the future products to be more light hearted in themes. With the exception of when they post "horror content" cautions.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What exactly do you base that estimate on? Approximately 1 in 10 people have serious phobias, and nearly as many are struggling with PTSD at any given time.
Keep in mind
people playing PFS is not a random sample of the population.
not everyone that has a phobia is bothered by a description of that phobia. Some people are perfectly fine with spider swarms being described but will freak at the actual spider.
Being willing to meet up with a bunch of random people and go on an adventure largely based on description selects against people who have a phobia that is triggered by said description.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've gmed over 400 organized play games and it has only applied to 1 player.I mean conversely that could just be that people don't trust you which knowing a bunch of people with triggers in Pathfinder Society seems to be a common complaint.OK, your reality is different then mine. I assume people who have content problems have pre-screened the content so they don't get surprised. They sign up for scenarios that appeal to them.
I do believe Rape and Suicide should be excluded all together from all scenarios. It's too harsh for too many.
How do you do that without reading the scenario and spending money? Do you not realize how weird that sounds? I can do it because I'm a Venture Agent. And even then you'd have to read the entire scenario to even find out that it has issues. Seriously, go read the description for Wrath of the Accursed and tell me how you can get transphobia out of it?
Edit:Also I know this example is a bit complicated because the issue is of framing.
|
|
I am going to double down on the under 1%. Today I asked each of 4 players as they came into my own game. We criss iver in some organized play games but not many. Between us we have about 2,500 games of irganixmzef experience. Between gming, playing and overhearing between us we know 2 peipke who spoke up about spiders. No one has ever heard someone speak up about a tramatic trigger.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whether or not anyone has been brave enough to approach you or any of your other GM friends has nothing to do with whether there is a population of PF players who would have a better gaming experience if there was a way to find out if a particular game would trigger PTSD or anything else that causes flashbacks, pain, and other recurring trauma.
National Institutes of Health estimate:
Past year prevalence of PTSD among U.S. adults aged 18 or older.
An estimated 3.6% of U.S. adults had PTSD in the past year.
Past year prevalence of PTSD among adults was higher for females (5.2%) than for males (1.8%).
The lifetime prevalence of PTSD was 6.8%.
And that's ONLY PTSD, not other kinds of triggered events.
So let's not take the bravery of your players in telling you about their psychological and emotional problems as a measure of actual occurrence of problems.
|
|
And then a percent of the percent would be willing to risk doing something with an unknown story based on violence and good vs. evil.
I'm not saying don't put tags. I'm saying it's very rare to encounter in organized play. As mentioned above I'd say put a general warning tag and if someone is concerned a reference to the more exact nature that an individual can choose to read or not read if they don't want to see it.
|
|
And then a percent of the percent would be willing to risk doing something with an unknown story based on violence and good vs. evil.
I'm not saying don't put tags. I'm saying it's very rare to encounter in organized play. As mentioned above I'd say put a general warning tag and if someone is concerned a reference to the more exact nature that an individual can choose to read or not read if they don't want to see it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
an individual can choose to read or not read if they don't want to see it.
So you'd have to buy every story you were considering playing and read through it yourself?
Sheer numbers are not the issue here. What's in question is whether Paizo wants to be a welcoming company for people who get triggered by certain stories. I'd say they do, based on how they've tried to make other very small minorities of players comfortable playing their published games.
There are several questions
Is there a best way to alert people about triggering material
Is that best way feasible to include in all of Paizo's products.
Is that best way economically viable for a small company like Paizo
If the best way can't be created by Paizo, is there a second-best way that would work?
Is Paizo even the correct actor for creating these warnings? Distributing these warnings?
Dismissing concerns because these people aren't important enough to matter isn't the way Paizo has handled minority problems in the past. I'm pretty sure they're interested in any good suggestion we can come up with.
I'm also pretty sure they want to hear from people who are affected by these issues. If you* aren't affected I'm not sure why you'd argue that Paizo shouldn't care.
*Generalized 'you', not any specific poster.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yep, it's Paizo's choice about published content before any tags are considered.
I prefer gritty over sanitized that's why I choose to play pathfinder over Toon the role playing game or 5e.
If I had a loved one who had ptsd triggers I would choose another game to play (like miniply or magic) with them or ask someone who already played the scenario if such and such comes up or I would play in a home game or I would gm.
I think someone in the community who cares enough should create a database of scenario issues. Paizo needs to make money to stay in business. They are losing market share big time. It all won't matter if they go out of business.
Someone should care enough to do it, don't wait for Paizo.
|
|
Someone really should start a thread dedicated only to exactly what scenarios create the biggest stress problems and what the trigger kind is. Warning others of the exact same thing. Such as Temple of emperial enlightenment. Suicide room. Should be avoided by those with ptsd involving Suicide. If changed change to save or victom under Murderous Command.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
I am going to double down on the under 1%. Today I asked each of 4 players as they came into my own game. We criss iver in some organized play games but not many. Between us we have about 2,500 games of irganixmzef experience. Between gming, playing and overhearing between us we know 2 peipke who spoke up about spiders. No one has ever heard someone speak up about a tramatic trigger.
Once again I will point this out again but considering that people getting murdered is a possible situation when openly talking about traumatic triggers why do you think asking people about them is going to net you any information? And yeah Im not even exaggerating on that one as I'm using a personal experience from tabletop.