How dark is too dark? RPG Campaigns and player comfort zones contextualized against contemporary society

When I build worlds for RPGs, I draw on all of my knowledge. D&D and most RPGs are filled with evil, or at least antagonists that are blind to the evil they do. As a result of my wide knowledge, my worlds get dark fast. The real world can be a disgusting, vile place. I personally place a lot of importance of logical, fully-realized worlds that encompass a wide range of ideas, but I have learned to take care with that when playing with others.

Why? Ultimately, D&D is game for relaxing with friends. Some players come to escape from the complexities and evils of the world for straight forward moral questions. Others enjoy complex and creative machinations, but have certain subjects that will immediately make a game uncomfortable, unfun, or even downright disturbing. And you have some that can handle those subjects that make them uncomfortable, as long as it is generalized without traumatic detail.

A while back when I was experiencing issues with getting a group of players to work together (it never worked out) in Pathfinder, I made a survey designed to identify what players liked/disliked in RPGs and also what they wanted from the campaign. At the end, there was a section called, "Topics/themes that are offensive or make you feel uncomfortable", and I included the following items:

Cannibalism

PC-NPC romantic dialogue

Suicide

Gaslighting

Certain monsters

Gory depictions

Sexual assault

Bad things happening to children

Abuse

Blasphemy

Prosititution

Prejudice and bigotry

Interspecies sexuality

Bugs/Vermin

Violent murder

Now, Rabbit, aren't these often themes in D&D? Yes, many of them are, and a lot of these get a pass from most people. In the unscientific small sample that I tested (6 people - 5 men, 1 woman), 2/3's had an included at least one item. We can't draw inferences about the rest of the RPG playing population from this, but I hypothesize that there are many others out there that also might not want to play in a game with one of those elements being prominent.

Pretty much every female RPG player I met does not want to hear gruesome rape details during a game (I personally can live without it, but depending on the game, I might still play despite my comfort zone if the topic was handled seriously by the DM and group). I have had people cite not being comfortable with the topics of gaslighting, suicide, necrophilia, blasphemy, and one for "bad things happening to children". I included the last one because I previously had hobgoblin soldiers kidnap and brainwash children into becoming fanatical child soldiers for Tiamat, which fought against the PCs who were led by a Paladin of Bahamut storming an occupied palace. They nearly TPKed because the Paladin was healing the brainwashed children that were dying from party defending themselves. I told you I write dark.

What is the best rule for avoiding problems? Know your audience. You don't need a fancy survey, but kudos if you make one. Talking to your players and knowing what they expect, hope for, and their dealbreakers will go a long way for everyone enjoying a game.

What if you think, "If they don't like it, it's their problem. It's just a story"? I suppose you have the right, but usually forward advice is not just a norm, but a good idea for DMs, If you are playing a campaign where magic is always wild and unstable, shouldn't you tell the players ahead of time before they make a spellcaster? If you are playing a game with gunpowder or different technology, don't you think the players will make better character creation choices with the technological context  rather than without? If you are going to be ok with PvP in your campaign, wouldn't be a good idea to let all players know that before the first indignant response to betrayal? As a player, I generally like to know what type of campaign is coming first. Without telling players important details to expect that often a character in game would know, a player can (reasonably) become frustrated, leading to unnecessary tension, conflict or even departure of players. When these frustrations arise, it generally makes the game less fun for all involved.

Whether you like asking your players how they feel about topics, it will matter in the end because you'll at least be aware of how you might alienate a player. Being informed about player preference also knows where you can get dark if you want, because "the night is long and full of terrors."

Fun and consequential Game Design - FF6's Peace talks with Emperor Gestahl

Vintage Final Fantasy 3(6) strategy guide

Final Fantasy 6 (called Final Fantasy 3 when I bought it) is an iconic RPG classic from the Super Nintendo. I am calling particular attention to the Peace Talk scene in the first half of the game. It stands out as one of the most interestingly consequential parts of the first half. At the same time, it disappointingly shows promise that it could have been developed more. and has elements worth considering for GM's and game designers who want to make player agency count in a quantitative fashion.

The event in Final Fantasy 6 surrounds peace talks with Emperor Gestahl, the leader of the enemy faction. You are invited to dinner to discuss terms, and beforehand you are asked to speak with soldiers in a timed segment. In fact, you need to speak with as many as possible, as each is worth 1 point, and each one may be or less worth it (some are battles that eat up time). I'll come back to this, but we can call this the "Pre-Score" for now.

After the player has accumulated points, they have a discussion with the Emperor. The player has multiple options to discuss, which are also worth points. In this discussion sub-game, the points represent how much the Emperor agrees with the player. The chart at the right scanned from the original strategy guide for Final Fantasy 3/6 shows how much each answer is worth. These points I'll call the "Diplomacy Score".

After the discussion with Gestahl, the player will be informed of the results. The results are determined by finding the total score by adding the "Pre-Score" and "Diplomacy Score" together.The end result is an intriguing simultaneous wealth and dearth of player agency.

Focusing on the dearth first, the actual answers you pick do not matter in content. For instance, in regards to Kefka's Fate, the player is asked what should be done: A) Jail Kefka, B) Forgive Kefka, or C) Execute Kefka. The 'correct' answer is Jail Kefka in that it is worth 5 points. The answer presumably is the Emperor's shared opinion, but your answer has no impact on Kefka's fate. In the best light, the point of the Peace talks is get Gestahl to like you, but the answers you give do not at all correspond to the rewards received at the end (Kefka goes to Jail irregardless until his escape).

That complaint aside, the outcomes of the discussions are highly consquential. One or more allied towns will no longer have soldiers blocking access to shops and treasure in South Figaro and Doma Castle, respectively. If you do very well, the player can open chests at the Weapon chamber at the Imperial Base. The best results involve being additionally gifted a item that lets a party member heal with overland walking (Tintinabar) and another item that reduces random encounters (Charm Bangle). The ability to get foreign troops out of allied cities is more associated with games like Civilization than most RPGs.

Summary

The basic kernel of this designed encounter has X elements. The setup, which is the "Pre-Score". There is the actual encounter for which the players act, and their actions will generate the "Diplomacy Score"; the options of the Diplomacy score may should be increased or limited based on the actions of the "Pre-Score". There are the stakes of the encounter, what is to be gained or lost; these include consequences. There are the motivations and beliefs of both sides; these motivations need to be matched with the stakes, and whether or not the consequences of the stakes are known to one or both parties. These are are all taken together for the "Final Score", which takes the "Pre-Score", the "Diplomacy Score", and (in D&D/Pathfinder) the mechanic skill check which determines a character's ability to negotiate. The "Final Score" is a rough rubric for defining gradients of player success and outcomes. These should be used as a guide, because the players will naturally think of additional consequences, or bargaining chips.

Discussion

Be able to change the world based on diplomatic player agency is a highly exciting game element to me. I have previously incorporated a diplomatic points systems like these in Pathfinder, using the aforementioned "Pre-Score" and "Diplomacy Score" framework to simulate the initial circumstances of the diplomatic encounter. I had an Ancient Green Dragon who was the master of an ancient forest, and the party was traveling to meet the dragon in the hopes of creating an alliance against invaders. I began with the Dragon's motivations and beliefs.

Ancient Dragon - Motivations

Accumulate Power, Prestige, Wealth
Preserve Forest,
Protect Family and Forest creatures/serfs

Ancient Dragon - Beliefs

Draconic Superiority
Very high attention to etiquette
Sees Greed in counterparties as a virtue, not vice
Pragmatic - not immediately swayed by evil dragon deities
Paranoid but prepared for attempts to undermine and/or assassinate

From there, I created encounters along the way that might sway the dragon's opinion of the party when the time came for the diplomacy. These encounters functionally form the "Pre-Score", which I used as a conditional modifiers to the 1d20 Diplomacy Check that would occur at the end.

"Pre-Score" examples.

Party resurrects slain dragon daughter of ancient dragon +8
Party aids forest servants +2
Party attacks forest servants -2
Party kills forest servants -4
Party robs hoard of slain dragon daughter +2
Party spares hoard of slain dragon daughter -2
Party kills red dragon invader +2

When the party meets the dragon, they negotiated for a war alliance of the ancient dragon and his domain with a Bahamut-worshipping theocracy against an Tiamat-worshipping goblinoid Empire. This was accomplished in-game with a discussion with the Dragon with proposals made on both sides, followed by a diplomacy check made by one player (the paladin of Bahamut). This diplomacy check was rolled using the diplomacy skill, and modified using normal modifiers, as well specifically scripted modifiers esoteric to this situation alone (these esoteric bonuses are where the "Diplomacy Score" comes back).

"Diplomacy Score" examples
Party member wearing dragonscale to negotiation -5 ("Are you wearing my daughter?)
Party flatters the ancient green dragon /humbles themselves before the ancient green dragon +2
Party bargains for a better deal +2
Party accepts first offer from ancient green dragon -2
Party negotiates for increased post-war autonomy for dragon +2
Party is rude -4 (excluding threats or bringing weapons)

Party is armed when visiting -4 (cumulative with being rude and threats)
Threaten to kill ancient green dragon -4 (cumulative with being rude and weapons)
Party offers a gift, low value (100-999 gp) +1
Party offers a gift, mid value (1,000 gp 9,999 gp) +3
Party offers a gift, high value (10,000 gp+) +5
Party demonstrates knowledge of Nature, or region +1

These modifiers were used in conjunction with normal modifiers for Diplomacy. The paladin negotiating had ~+20 to their diplomacy already. I left the Total Score somewhat simple, as I expected more open-ended answers as appropriate to a table-top RPG. For the "Final Score", it went something like the below.

"Final Score" Diplomacy Check & Stakes
DC 40 Accepts military offer without  reservation. party can choose a gift.
DC 35 Accepts military offer under condition of marriage alliance (if slain dragon daughter alive); party can choose a gift.
DC 35 Accepts military offer under condition of expanded territory in the Theocracy (if slain dragon daughter not alive)
DC 30 Declined offer but willing to allow freedom of movement for troops.
DC 25 Declined offer but will to continue to shelter refugees and allow some trade caravans
DC 20 Declined offer but ancient green dragon remains friendly
DC 15 Declined offer and party asked to leave
Anything less than 15 will result in the party being attacked, eaten, or enslaved by the dragon.
 
In-game results

The party resurrected the daughter dragon but also killed hostile servants to the ancient green dragon. The paladin's existing reputation as honest and trustworthy added positively, and the ancient green dragon's ambivalence about evil dragon gods allowed him to overlook the otherwise contentious match. The Bahamut worshipping paladin succeeded in getting the alliance, but was nervous about marrying a chromatic green dragon for a marriage alliance.  He also choose between two items: a rock and an anvil, and was given no help in determining the objects (The dragon said, "You should know - it's so clear of a choice, and both are good", i.e. dragons can be really unhelpful smart-asses). One was a powerful anvil for making items, the other was a philosopher's stone. The Paladin chose the anvil, and had immediate buyer's regret when he found out the truth.

The end result was player satisfaction, and importantly, the things being discussed actually had impact. The character did marry the dragon, the alliance did form, and conflict was reduced between the allied Bahamut theocracy and the ancient green dragon's forest.