@faraday said in Emotional separation from fictional content:
These two statements articulate very well why I am so resistant to the suggestions by @surreality and others to put the onus on the plot/game runners.
I will repeat for, what, jesus, the fifth time? Everyone has a part to play in this, the players included.
There would not be the option for people to list preferences I described (and actually built) to go along with that idea if players did not have a vital part to play in this to make note of their interests•, and in the things they are not interested in doing at all.
By clicking a checkbox to indicate a plan, or likely potential for, a short list of commonly problematic subjects -- which is all I'm suggesting any GM be asked to do here -- you are giving people notice so they can take responsibility for managing themselves and their own reactions.
For these kinds of subjects, yeah, I do think it's on the game to say something about them, somewhere. I think the example statement you included is just fine.
Am I writing more than that? Yeah, but I think it's obvious enough by now that I'm wordy as heck by default just as a me thing, and I actually have a few other things going on policy-wise that are sometimes relevant based on subject matter. For instance, there's a list of subjects on the game that will always require consent to do to, or attempt to do to, another PC (this is stuff like IC physical intimacy, rape, pregnancy/miscarriage, acts against sexual preference, and so on -- things that we really should generally not be forcing on others who aren't interested in exploring that with the person who wants to do so with them, in my opinion). Yeah, I gotta list those; I also feel I should explain why a subject is included.
As an example, the original setup also includes 'no forced template changes', as it was created for a WoD setup. It is entirely possible for this to happen without a player's consent -- you can actually get sucked into a sphere -- and if you already have an alt in that sphere, well, you are now in the unfun position of being required to give up one of your characters completely due to the common structure of alt rules, and the only say you potentially get is 'which one'. That, frankly, blows if you didn't plan for it or weren't interested in getting into that, and there's no IC reason one of those characters is simply vanishing into the ether, it's a case of common game policy coming into conflict with itself in a way that can suck for the player.
I also think it's important to note why not every subject someone might mention is going to be included, why any things are like this at all, etc. This is actually a little closer to some of the subjects @Ghost mentions later, or at least there's a lot of overlap in this list with the RP dynamics in which they emerge. But a lot of what I'm looking at is like this: it's a 'whole game' approach.
Do I think everybody needs to do this or go to this level of detail? Pfft, no. Foolproof? Hahahaha no, because, again, nothing is. Things that can potentially help reduce a measure of drama, give people a clear, policy-and-staff supported means of saying: no, that is not something I am comfortable with and I am not interested in doing that, other than just FTB (which isn't infallible; some things, often intimate things, leave people with a character they are no longer comfortable playing when the lights flick back on again).
- This is also intended to be a tool for people looking for like minds to explore certain subject matter with, and a great tool for staff and GMs to see the kinds of stories players do or do not want to see among the current active playerbase. Nobody wants exploration scenes? Then don't spend a week planning and getting ready to run that, everybody wants raids instead, so write up a good raid. There's only three other people who like exploration? Get in touch with those people and see if you can do something with them for that. And so on. I would love to have this information as a GM to save me some time and maximize the fun I can create for others on the game, and I'd love to have it as a player to know who loves underwater basket weaving so I can get in touch with them and we can get our underwater basket weaving groove on even if absolutely nobody else on the game could possibly give a crap about underwater basket weaving.
@Ghost said in Emotional separation from fictional content:
@Thenomain touched on it briefly, but I think part of the impassioned response to this topic is somewhat self-defense in nature, like an emotionally guarding response to protecting oneself against the dangers of triggering content and the uncomfortable feelings that may come from the onus being placed onto them to maintain objectivity.
Accidental tripwire to some, thoughtless attack to others.
Here's the problem: it's neither.
The way you are putting this, it is coming across -- to me, at least -- like so: "If you think any combination of circumstances might at any time cause you to lose objectivity, you are not welcome here."
But you, yourself, are not approaching this issue from a position of objectivity. Nobody is. It's just that some of the assumptions here are a little more transparent -- it's about 'protecting oneself' only, about protecting oneself from 'discomfort', etc. You've continued to conflate other issues that, while emotional and important to handle with maturity, are not the same.
I keep saying they're not the same because they aren't the same.
Being sad is simply not the same thing as having something appear that triggers a flashback. Not feeling like you're included in the group enough this week is not the same thing as triggering a panic attack. Stop thinking in terms of the pop culture definition of 'trigger' as 'something that made me feel my own feels' (<dodgeball>"Nobody makes me bleed my own blood!"</dodgeball> <cough>), because that is not the reality you're actually dealing with here. (Yeah, you're going to have to explain that to countless folks who inhabit the strange corners of tumblr sometimes, too. "No, Quyzzylynne Millenialyx, being sad that you didn't get your wish granted is not the same as having a panic attack or flashback.")
This is like the difference between eating food that gives you gas and bloating or the runs, vs. eating something that causes anaphylactic shock. Treatment for these things is not the same, because these things are not the same, and the risks associated with these things are not the same. Sure, I'd take a bad case of the runs over anaphylaxis any day, but I don't get to pick. Nobody does. And that's why demanding someone that has anaphylaxis must behave as though they're just bloated and gassy is not only not a solution, it's either uninformed or insulting, and it's also potentially dangerous. That's essentially the attitude you're taking, here.
Let's take this analogy further: say you know you have a food allergy that could cause this to occur. Like everybody else, you have stuff that doesn't agree with you, but you have a food allergy that could potentially cause anaphylactic shock. We see the same kind of warnings as the one you're proposing on menus all the time, sometimes posted on the front of the restaurant before you even go in the door. There's a warning on the menu that tells you: fish and shellfish are prepared in our kitchens. If you have a strong enough allergy to fish and shellfish, even if you don't eat them, you may choose to avoid that restaurant. Let's say, though, it's a restaurant that's actually known for it's beef and chicken BBQ. That's its primary draw and what it specializes in, and they only have one fish item on the menu.
Do you still avoid the restaurant?
And then there's another note on the menu, one we're likely all also familiar with, mentioning how, specifically, uncooked or undercooked meat or fish or eggs may cause illness, usually right alongside the steaks and the descriptions of what they mean by rare, medium, and well-done. You're still allowed to order the rare, they offer the rare, but they're still telling you: there are risks associated with ordering this, be advised, and giving you the opportunity to make up your own mind about the risks you're going to take.
Even as someone without a food allergy to worry about -- do you not order the rare? Do you just order something that isn't steak instead? That's ultimately up to you, because there are more options than just rare steak to be had on the menu, and you can order any of those other things and enjoy them just fine. There's just a known risk associated with the rare steak that the restaurant wants you to be aware of before you proceed with your order.
It's a fairly broad standard to list a standardized risk level or specific types of risks to the character in a game on any plot or event. We already accept this as a part of the culture.
We do this because it gives the players -- who are ultimately more important than characters, and aren't replaceable like characters are -- the agency to choose: is this a risk I want to take? And we consider that to be important, and valid.
It makes the entire situation here a baffling exercise in cognitive dissonance to me.
Players are ultimately more important than characters.
We recognize a need to label risk to characters for individual plots to provide players with the agency to choose whether or not to engage with that potential risk.
Why, then, does the idea of labeling an individual plots being labeled with potential risks to the players so they can do the very same thing -- choose whether or not to engage with that potential risk -- seem anything but a complete reasonable measure to consider?
Instead, it's all 'get the fuck out of my hobby if you can't demonstrate flawless grace, poise, and self-control in the midst of that unexpected seizure, go play some tennis.' Seriously? No. Fuck that idea.
)
