Emotional separation from fictional content

[Derp]

@surreality said in Emotional separation from fictional content:

The game I'm planning has a setting that involves chattel slavery, forced prostitution, murder, rampant sexism, racism, and homophobia, death cults, spirit possession, death from horrifying diseases, children being sold to brothels as early as the age of 8 in its era (though this WILL NOT BE happening on grid it does happen in the larger world and is known to be a thing).

Yeah. So. I pretty much stopped right here on this one and considered this for a minute.

No matter what, if it happens in the world, it can happen on the grid. Like, point blank. If you make this an okay thing in the world, players can expect that it will be an okay thing in the game. You might have an area where this is verboten, but players will find ways to leave that area, and when these things come up...

...you've already said that it happens in the world.

So I think that this line of thought might have a tiny flaw. You can't really say 'these things happen in the world but they never happen on grid'. That doesn't really seem like a realistic benchmark to set.

[surreality]

@mietze said in Emotional separation from fictional content:

It is simply not worth the risk of having someone try to make me responsible for managing their trauma, or putting the onus on me or I'm the bad person. I need equal partners who respect boundaries.

No one is asking you to do that.

No one is suggesting that you not to continue doing exactly what you are doing.

I have suggested that if the scene you're preparing to run plans to, or is likely to, include something from a specific list of common extreme triggers, that you check a little box to warn people in advance: "Hey, this might come up."

I have suggested that if you have personal limits or discomfort zones, you make them known to others (as all of your players should also be doing) proactively, for a basic starting reference.

[surreality]

@Derp There's a hard line 'no child sex on grid for any reason' policy. I'm not concerned about that one, to be honest. It happens in our world today, too -- but even Shang doesn't allow people to roleplay this, so I don't feel obligated to permit it to occur on screen, either.

Is it a thing that exists in the world? Yes. It exists in ours, too, today. Maybe there's a game that would permit someone to RP this in a plot or similar? I don't know of any off hand, though, and it's as relevant to any modern day game as it would be on that one.

[Derp]

@surreality said in Emotional separation from fictional content:

@Derp There's a hard line 'no child sex on grid for any reason' policy. I'm not concerned about that one, to be honest. It happens in our world today, too -- but even Shang doesn't allow people to roleplay this, so I don't feel obligated to permit it to occur on screen, either.

Is it a thing that exists in the world? Yes. It exists in ours, too, today. Maybe there's a game that would permit someone to RP this in a plot or similar? I don't know of any off hand, though, and it's as relevant to any modern day game as it would be on that one.

I'm sorry, I think I may have misworded what I was trying to get across here. Ok, let me try this another way.

Alternative Hypothesis: By stating up front that these things happen in the world, you add a certain level of acceptance of those things on the part of the players, who expect that they will have to interact with these things in some way. In creating the expectation that they will interact with them (or, at the very least, that it is probably interaction of this nature could occur, whether or not it ever happens), you create a reality not just for the world, but for what the players expect to find on the grid.

If you don't want something on the game, then it's probably for the best to come up with some reason why these things will never happen, period, rather than saying 'they happen, just not here'. By acknowledging that these are themes that could come up -at all-, you in some level translate that into expectations of what could occur on the grid. Trying to build it into the world but off of the grid/screen/whatever creates weird cognitive dissonance where you know these things occur but for some reason they never occur in this little bubble here, and then other players will eventually try and ensure that some of those things occur to give a more world-like feel to the grid structure. It's an issue of expectations management, really, while trying to not break immersion.

If something is verboten, it's best to just say 'you will not experience this', rather than say 'it's out there, but not here'. Does that make more sense?

[surreality]

@Derp I think I see what you're getting at, but I think it is an area with some nuance. For instance, something along those lines may be permitted as part of a character's history or background -- but it would not be something that players would encounter directly in game.

Again, I think of it this way: the example there is one we do find in the real world today. It would, I would think, be even more common in a WoD/CoD reality, which is inherently more grim than the real world is today.

That said, I can't picture any of the current WoD/CoD games I know of allowing someone to run a plot like this, or even a scene, involving interactions with an 8 year old sex slave being abused or engaging in sexual activity.

Running across someone who has endured this? Yes, PC or NPC, it is entirely possible. A plot to rescue children in these circumstances? Probably, but it is still very, very unlikely you're going to see the abuse/sex acts/etc. on screen, ever, on a modern setting game, even in areas where it's a legal/common/is known to occur. (Rushing into a squalid dorm room to unchain kids from their horrors and whisk them away to safety, for instance, I'm sure has happened before.)

[Paris]

Just leave an option to specify 'negotiable' and not just 'yes' or 'no' to a +prefs system, because me setting my prefs to allowing 'dark themes' on WoD games led to me getting rapey (physical and mental) stuff sprung on me by players AND staff, and then backlash when I expressed reservations ooc.

Apparently negotiating this so both parties are ok with it is a novel concept.

[SparklesTheClown]

@Derp I don't really understand the necessity of "all or nothing". Everyone having their particular preferences of what they want to play and what they don't want to play is basically RP 101.

Just straight up dictating what objectively does or doesn't happen in the world just seems kind of bizarre and heavy-handed to me. I'm not sure why expecting people to be adults, which has literally been the cornerstone of every good MU I've ever played, is so outrageous that one needs to finely dictate in IC terms why certain events don't happen. That's just kind of really weird.

Like, plenty of games say "We don't accept these kinds of themes", but they don't go "Oh this never happens 'cause unicorn magic" or something. That's just lazy writing in my opinion.

Can you imagine if Full House went out of its way to explain why there is a lack of brutal murder in the series?

[Gilette]

@Ghost

I think exploring that topic -- how to mitigate some of those mundane attachment problems -- would be a really good resource. I know it's something that I had to work on several years back, and is still something that can tap me on the shoulder now and again, even thought I know it's not nearly as much of an issue.

And I've had many, many "I'm not a therapist" discussions, too.

Also, is this Yet Another Arx Discussion?

[Coin]

@HelloProject said in Emotional separation from fictional content:

@Derp I don't really understand the necessity of "all or nothing". Everyone having their particular preferences of what they want to play and what they don't want to play is basically RP 101.

Just straight up dictating what objectively does or doesn't happen in the world just seems kind of bizarre and heavy-handed to me. I'm not sure why expecting people to be adults, which has literally been the cornerstone of every good MU I've ever played, is so outrageous that one needs to finely dictate in IC terms why certain events don't happen. That's just kind of really weird.

Like, plenty of games say "We don't accept these kinds of themes", but they don't go "Oh this never happens 'cause unicorn magic" or something. That's just lazy writing in my opinion.

Can you imagine if Full House went out of its way to explain why there is a lack of brutal murder in the series?

This may be the single most coherent post/thought I've ever seen you present.

[Coin]

@Coin said in Emotional separation from fictional content:

@HelloProject said in Emotional separation from fictional content:

@Derp I don't really understand the necessity of "all or nothing". Everyone having their particular preferences of what they want to play and what they don't want to play is basically RP 101.

Just straight up dictating what objectively does or doesn't happen in the world just seems kind of bizarre and heavy-handed to me. I'm not sure why expecting people to be adults, which has literally been the cornerstone of every good MU I've ever played, is so outrageous that one needs to finely dictate in IC terms why certain events don't happen. That's just kind of really weird.

Like, plenty of games say "We don't accept these kinds of themes", but they don't go "Oh this never happens 'cause unicorn magic" or something. That's just lazy writing in my opinion.

Can you imagine if Full House went out of its way to explain why there is a lack of brutal murder in the series?

This may be the single most coherent post/thought I've ever seen you present.

And the Full House analogy is spot on.

[Arkandel]

@Paris said in Emotional separation from fictional content:

Just leave an option to specify 'negotiable' and not just 'yes' or 'no' to a +prefs system, because me setting my prefs to allowing 'dark themes' on WoD games led to me getting rapey (physical and mental) stuff sprung on me by players AND staff, and then backlash when I expressed reservations ooc.

Apparently negotiating this so both parties are ok with it is a novel concept.

How binding would this 'negotiation' be? Because it can go wrong, fast.

You found out one of those ways yourself when someone asked you to do something then they took it back and blamed you for it. It can go wrong the other way, where someone gives a permission to do something and the other person takes it to the far, far extreme. Both have been known to happen. Some people change their minds; others are just assholes!

I think what it comes down to is... if you don't know someone really well you probably shouldn't be running controversial stuff with them from either end of the DM screen, and even if you are it can still go bad. Ultimately you may find yourself in front of a tired, cranky staff member with their own preconceptions on the matter and be labeled - unfairly or not - in a way you'd rather not be.

[faraday]

@Ghost said in Emotional separation from fictional content:

I think there are plenty of us (people who approach this hobby as a team-based creative hobby) who run into these emotional separation issues and think: "Fuck, I'm sorry, that sucks, but I'm...not a therapist? I wish I could help but I can't and I've got my own RL to put first, and I wish you the best, but please, please, PLEASE don't put the responsibility for that stuff on me.

@mietze said in Emotional separation from fictional content:

But asking me to be prepared to deal with other people's trauma, who I am not close to at all, and making it my as a scene runner responsibility to navigate it for them, when they are incapable or unwilling to communicate beyond very impersonal slotted in advance ways...honestly, that is a fucking trigger for ME...

Jumping back in for a moment to say ... 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. It's not that I don't care, it's that maybe I care too much. I feel f-ing horrible for what surreality and others have to go through. That sucks on an unbelievable level.

But I can't take responsibility for ensuring their mental health. That's a hot button for me personally. I know what it's like to be responsible for other peoples' health and well-being. I do not want that degree of responsibility in my pretendy-fun-times games. If playing a game with the potential for mature themes has the potential to put you into an emotional tailspin, then maybe those games just aren't good for you. If you want to take the risk, that's fine, you're an adult, but don't put it on me.

On a slightly different note, I liked @Thenomain's suggestion to have sort of a mission statement so I added a note to BSGU's Ratings policy:

The game, like the show, deals with heavy themes including genocide, war and various other traumas. Anything involving sexual abuse/exploitation/etc. of a minor is prohibited. (PC/NPC, IC/OOC, on-camera/off-camera - just don't go there.) Beyond that, if you are sensitive to a particular kind of content, it is your responsibility to communicate your boundaries to those you scene with. Resolving things off-camera is always an option if something makes you uncomfortable. If you are running scenes, be considerate of your fellow players and do your best not to blindside them with things that may be upsetting.

[Ghost]

Staff should make a reasonable attempt to provide rules and preview of the themes included in the game. They should make a reasonable attempt to create a safe playspace, and give players enough details on the content to provide the players with the information required to determine whether or not they want to opt out before becoming too invested in the game.

The majority of these games are come to for role-playing the dramatic; Improv drama theater, in a sense. They are not safe spaces to work emotional issues out or test life alongside triggers. The staff and players do not qualify as therapists or a representative population that can assist someone with a lack of emotional separation.

In short, the people who come to these games, come for the IC drama, the danger, the plot twists, the horror, the darkness, the sex, the loss, the story. Asking them to place the responsibility upon the game and player base to cater with utmost care for those choosing to enter the funhouse despite their lack of OOC emotional separation to the themes, is kind of like asking strangers to provide a heroin addict for a safe space to do heroin, but to keep an eye on them and make sure they don't OD from it.

It's uncomfortable. It's dangerous.

The concept that one's IC interactions could be deciding very real OOC mental and emotional health issues is heartbreaking.

Which is why I think there's nothing wrong with staff creating a policy that states that if staff decide by consensus that a player's mental and emotional health is being affected by the game, then requesting the player take a break or freeze their character until their objectivity returns is wholly acceptable.

That's reasonable to me.

Edit/note: And I know there are those of us out there, the medicated and objective, who have our own emotional issues and diagnoses, who do just fine on these games. We weigh our own level of involvement and attachment, deal with our psych/emotional issues on our own terms, and maybe ninja-style test run concepts through our characters. This statement doesn't apply to the people who control their levels of emotional distance. This comment is for the ones who cannot.

[Derp]

@Coin said in Emotional separation from fictional content:

@Coin said in Emotional separation from fictional content:

@HelloProject said in Emotional separation from fictional content:

@Derp I don't really understand the necessity of "all or nothing". Everyone having their particular preferences of what they want to play and what they don't want to play is basically RP 101.

Just straight up dictating what objectively does or doesn't happen in the world just seems kind of bizarre and heavy-handed to me. I'm not sure why expecting people to be adults, which has literally been the cornerstone of every good MU I've ever played, is so outrageous that one needs to finely dictate in IC terms why certain events don't happen. That's just kind of really weird.

Like, plenty of games say "We don't accept these kinds of themes", but they don't go "Oh this never happens 'cause unicorn magic" or something. That's just lazy writing in my opinion.

Can you imagine if Full House went out of its way to explain why there is a lack of brutal murder in the series?

This may be the single most coherent post/thought I've ever seen you present.

And the Full House analogy is spot on.

Except it was not, because that's not what I was saying.

Look, it's not that hard, guys. I'm saying that you cannot, as staff, say in your theme 'the world is a dark and terrible place full of murder and violence and rape. Roving bands of privateers take slaves of those too weak to fend for themselves. Food is scarce, so cannibalism is on the rise.

The world is a Dark and Scary Place. Except for here in Sunny Oasis, that is, where such things never occur!

You can't sell the world as a dark and violent place and all that and then say 'this will never happen on grid'. It's a thematic bait and switch. You set the expectation up in the player's minds that this is what they are getting, and then never show them any of that, or even allow them to show their own expectation of it. Someone's gonna want the slavers. Someone's gonna want the cannibals. And them bringing that on grid is entirely reasonable because you've already established that this is what the world is like.

It's easier to just say 'we do not want to see these kinds of things', period, point blank, rather than trying to go on some lengthy thing about why, yes, it's out there, but it's not -here-. One sets up an expectation that it can be encountered, when it really can't. The other just flat-out denies it without having to do a highwire tapdance about how you magically avoid it -always-.

[Arkandel]

@Ghost said in Emotional separation from fictional content:

Which is why I think there's nothing wrong with staff creating a policy that states that if staff decide by consensus that a player's mental and emotional health is being affected by the game, then requesting the player take a break or freeze their character until their objectivity returns is wholly acceptable.

There's nothing wrong with it, but it's just not how it plays out in many cases. Staff is a very mixed bag, you know? We tend to talk about it here like there's some sort of hive mind but it's just a microcosm of any other groups of MU*ers; outside truly tiny well knit groups there are a lot of opinions, life experiences and yes... triggers.

The effect is that many times the outcome when an issue comes up depends on the player and the staff member who handles it. Be honest here for example, would you treat someone you know - perhaps a friend - the same way you'd treat a stranger if both of them seem to be emotionally affected by the game, going to the extent of force-freezing their character? It's so much easier to do that for someone else '*for their own good' when there are no consequences to your relationship with them.

And similarly having seen the range of reactions on this thread alone can you say we'd all have judged the exact same issue in a similar matter? That's got nothing to do with experience, willingness to be fair, empathy... it has to do with who we are as people. Some of us might go "hey, if you were so emotionally affected then you shouldn't have joined, or left when you saw where it was going". Others would have thought the ST "you didn't communicate with your players enough, you saw that player was vulnerable so why didn't you do something more than suggest they leave?".

In other words, I don't see staff being less divided on this issue than we are here, man. We need more preemptive prevention, IMHO; after shit hits the fan it's usually a crapshoot.

[mietze]

@Arkandel I have and would again, in no uncertain terms, denied things to RL friends in game despite all sorts of tantrums and guilt tripping, when it was clear that they were breaking rules and/or being abusive and/or inappropriate with others.

Even though there's ooc relationship risk.

If you are unwilling to say no, you need to check yourself to an out of control friend, then you are a truly shitty friend. IMO.

[Arkandel]

@mietze But would you say that's the exception or the rule, from your observations?

[mietze]

No, I would not. I have had friends also check me (though I've never had to be disciplined in game, because it's relatively easy for me personally to maintain separation). The ability to be honest and to think in broader terms than "must keep friend happy at all costs" is not a rare commodity in our community. We bitch like it is, but IME it is not.

I think that we often as a community attempt many things to depersonalize the conversation or attempt at prevention to save our perception of comfort (but every human organization or group does this).

But it's not rare for someone to tell a friend "no" or "you need to step back" on a mush.

[Paris]

@Arkandel I am personally ok with most things except where the other party avoids all consequence for what they want to do to mine.

But yes, I recentlyish went along with a thing IC, but then got browbeaten ooc when my character discussed the incident with others. Folks need to remember that IC things don't just end when one scene ends, and imo ask for a one-off with a redshirt type character; and also that you can't control the impression you give others IC about what happened.

I probably will never again consent to scenes like that if it's a staff-alt, either. Then again, since I also got punished for ooc refusing to go along with a non-con scenario, I dunno. It all put me off MUSHing on games I don't run, since there a staffer can't retaliate if I don't become their dubcon bitch.

It frustrates me that people need to complicate this. If folks were just considerate, they'd get more of what they want. I'm really accomodating.

[Ghost]

@Arkandel oh yeah, staff is a very mixed bag, and such a policy could also lend to staffside gaslighting. I've seen it happen before, where staff decides someone has lost their objectivity and a player is forced from a game, seemingly, due to emotional issues, yet strangely everyone in the player base knows about it mid-process. Tread lightly.

I agree more proactive measures are needed, which is why I think the +accept process is important. People need to read the MU-style policies and EULA things.

I think the first proactive step is a well-written explanation about reasonable purpose and conflict resolution written as a two-way contract, something like this:

BlahBlahBlahMUX deals in mature themes that may be considered, at times, emotionally impacting to characters and players. We've painted guidelines in our content and behavior policies to provide what we feel is an acceptable and reasonable series of boundaries that will allow for safe, productive role play within the theme and setting.

It is our goal to provide a safe environment and in issues of harassment or abusive behavior outside of these lines, request an open dialogue between staff and players so that we may help the playerbase protect said safe, productive environment.

Because of this, behavior and responsibility on the game is a two-way contract. In joining this game, the acceptance of risk of being emotionally affected by this theme, content, or IC actions of other players, is to be accepted by each player and mitigated in a mature, communicative manner. Players are expected to maintain objectivity and resolve personal and emotional conflicts peacefully. In joining, players are signing a two-way contract to accept the reasonable attempt for a safe playspace with rules and appropriate theme, but the player's end of contract is maintain a separation between OOC and IC, to truly accept the OOC perils of role play in such a theme, and in the event of issues, maintain fairness and objectivity, as well.

It's a game. If the themes and content within are potential triggers that a player cannot emotionally distance themselves from, then BlahBlahBlahMUX kindly requests a reconsideration of joining this game. We care for the mental and emotional health of the individual, but as part of our contract to our players, it is our intention to provide a safe, productive playspace, and that will always include protecting our playerbase from players who have lost their ability to separate IC from OOC.

I dunno. Rambling. Something like this.