The comfort zone

This excerpt from the D&D Dungeon Master's Guide has been getting shared on social media recently, turning into a gaming shibboleth after Elon Musk commented on it. (I'm surprised he had the time between tweeting puerile 'jokes', supporting fascists, and spreading misinformation about UK & European politics, but a brain soaked in ketamine has unusual priorities, I guess.)

It's a matter of etiquette rather than rules, and the DM's Guide approach isn't how I'd personally handle sensitivity among players. Consider two different games that you might join. One umpire (or DM if you must) offers the comfort tools outlined above. If you object to anything in the game you can stop the action and ask for something to be changed or deleted, much like a censor watching the pre-release cut of a movie. The other umpire starts off by saying that if you have any red lines you're better off not joining the game. So that's the equivalent of going to a movie theatre and checking the age ratings so you don't take your kids into an NC-17.

Those might be examples of Isaiah Berlin's two forms of liberty, though I'll leave it to the philosophers out there to tell us which is which. As I said in an old post, there's no point in subjecting anybody to an experience they're going to disapprove of, and both approaches deal with that. I prefer the certificate method to the x-card one, given that I very often aim to include extremely disquieting horror elements in my scenarios, and once called off a campaign rather than exclude one of my players who objected to the tone I was planning for the game. And I agree with Hubert Selby Jr that self-censorship is creatively stifling, and that would include group self-censorship. But if the creative outcome, the art, is not your main reason for roleplaying then you're perfectly entitled to join the self-censoring group. It all depends on what you're after.

Here's another way (from Upon a Distant Shore, a D&D campaign book) to handle players objecting to stuff in the game. It seems fair enough to me, but social media immediately lit up with people objecting that it wasn't using comfort "tools" the way they insist on framing them:

Folks get irate because not everyone uses their preferred gaming-table etiquette. But why? As long as you're told the etiquette upfront and so can ensure you aren't going to get unexpectedly upset or offended, isn't that all that matters? You go and watch Paddington in Peru, I'll watch Titus Andronicus, and we're both happy. So I'm not quite sure why the issue divides people into warring camps, other than the fact that pretty much anything does that these days; we're right back in the era of the Blues and the Greens. And Elon Musk is using that fact to buy control of the Western world, so we'd better all smarten the fuck up before it's too late.