Emotional separation from fictional content

[mietze]

It did work a lot better than me trying to outline every possible thing and then warn in advance. Plus, knowing boundaries also helped me guide things when other players would insert ideas into play. Which is something awesome, that should be encouraged, that isn't going to get labeled in a summary warning.

I also think shock gore/violence for its own sake is boring as hell. I feel that I very much operated on a middle ground of respect. I prefer slow burn horror/tough choices/etc rather than gratuitous "ooh this ought to be edgy" stuff because the latter is boring. (Like the people who think the only way to make your character "dark" is to have a Rapey McRaperson Does White Slavery! background that some poor staffer has to read through).

[Arkandel]

@mietze said in Emotional separation from fictional content:

It did work a lot better than me trying to outline every possible thing and then warn in advance. Plus, knowing boundaries also helped me guide things when other players would insert ideas into play. Which is something awesome, that should be encouraged, that isn't going to get labeled in a summary warning.

How would you apply the approach in open (public) PrPs? Same approach? I.e. if I'm running something for friends I've known for a while it's a solved problem since I usually know if they have any such boundaries and they trust me more than average.

Also, and asking in general here, should MU* staff take a preemptive stance about this? It was mentioned earlier in the thread but although there are often stringent guidelines about what needs to be included in a plot (risk level, location, sometimes even time) I don't remember ever seen even a suggestion about rating content. Ought it be mandatory, even if it's "PG13" by default?

[mietze]

Apu, it is on the player to exit ooc with minimal fuss then. They should neither derail the scene that others are enjoying not target the people in it for abuse. They cannot expect everything to be dropped to attend to them.

[mietze]

@Arkandel Yeah, I paged or mailed every one ahead of time and also checked in for boundaries before the scene kicked off with everyone assembled. And also requested that if there was an element they couldn't handle for any reason to page me immediately to see if it could be resolved for them to continue or to allow me to work with them for quick no harm no foul exit.

If someone got nasty ooc or harassed other people in the name of their upset, I booted them and apologized to the others.

[mietze]

Hmmm, probably should also mention that aside from strictly social or info dump gatherings (court, etc), I am one of those awful horrible people that puts a size limit to my plot scenes and sticks to it. If I'm running an adventure I'm giving up my pc/personal play for the evening, but I'm not giving up my fun. So I stay within my personal limits as to how many people I can safely handle and be super attentive to. It makes keeping track/behind the scenes negotiating a lot easier and more respectful of everyone's time. I do not run things I don't enjoy/can't be attentive to my player's enjoyment of, if that makes sense.

[surreality]

@Arkandel said in Emotional separation from fictional content:

• Similarly I like to think on my feet. In fact I always felt that was one of my strengths as a ST - I can come up with shit on the fly and it makes sense within the story's narrative. No matter what I'd very much like to retain that freedom; it doesn't mean "throw dead babies at the players for shock value" but it does mean not having to walk on eggshells either. Surely there must be a middle ground where failing to put in that "#animalsacrifice" tag still lets me slay a virtual goat's throat over an altar if the situation calls for it.

And it still boggles my mind that the same people who would never go without providing a spoiler warning about content out of consideration for others would not think it even more important to allow people to avoid viewing content that wouldn't just spoil the mystery of a happy fun story thing, but could do them personal emotional harm.

It isn't as though you can't use a stock 'this scene involves satanic rituals and may involve sacrifices' line.

On a personal level, seeing the 'this is confusing and hard' argument here feels like a desire to avoid labeling on the gut level. The 'the slope is too slippery' is further feeding this interpretation for me. I will actually go so far as to say that this argument, "it's too hard" as a reason to throw in the towel on it and ignore reasonable precautions that will cover 95% of all possible issues because 5% may remain? Is approaching being somewhat offensive in itself, and here's why:

1. Allowing a desire for perfect solution (which does not and will never exist) to discount useful means and tools to prevent the vast majority of incidents and issues is not remotely productive. This is like saying 'why bother with condoms because they're not 100% effective,' and it's just plain silly.

2. Proactive labeling (by players in preferences, by GMs in event descriptions, and staff/games in theme/setting/policy files) actually allows more content that might otherwise be quashed due to general trends against people enjoying it. Given the choice between banning a subject, and allowing a subject with labeling/informed consent for participation, I will go with the latter every time because it is actually a better preservation of creative freedom than disallowing for all based on the feelings of some. At the same time, it recalls Rule #1:

3. The real people behind the characters in a story are ultimately more important than the characters or the story.

The responsibility is, and must be, a shared one.

To allow for maximum options, maximum creativity, maximum chill, maximum fun, and minimal drama, everybody has to do their part. None of these parts are totally easy or foolproof, all of them require thought and a measure of trust, responsibility, and adaptability.

[faraday]

@surreality said in Emotional separation from fictional content:

And it still boggles my mind that the same people who would never go without providing a spoiler warning about content out of consideration for others would not think it even more important to allow people to avoid viewing content that wouldn't just spoil the mystery of a happy fun story thing, but could do them personal emotional harm.

I think it's less a question of malice and more about cultural expectations.

When you see a movie trailer, it's considered poor form to put in too many spoilers, but you'd never expect to see a disclaimer (beyond the general movie rating) about there being particular themes that might upset people. Even on TV, an episode has to be pretty freaking graphic to warrant a special "Viewer discretion is advised" notice on HBO because the general bar for content is "mature".

And I know someone brought up the interactive/non-interactive point a few pages ago, but the same standards apply to video games. I can know that Mass Effect Andromeda is rated 'M' for mature audiences, but if I want to know more about the specific reasons why it's rated M because I'm sensitive to something, it's my responsibility to seek out that information.

I like to consider myself a pretty sympathetic and caring person, but it would never occur to me to apply more stringent standards to a MUSH than apply to every other form of entertainment I'm aware of.

[Auspice]

So, in answer to the 'it's on the player to quietly extract themselves' situation...

... I have seen players do this and then be attacked by the ST. In an 'oh my god I put time and effort into making a scene for you and you don't appreciate me!' sort of way.

I think people are scared of that happening, so they just sort of get to where they either want warnings up front or they try to force themselves to stomach it because they don't want to risk pissing off an ST.

It falls back to the 'failure to communicate' issue, sadly. But it's def. not a 'omg this is just shitty players refusing to politely excuse themselves.' I can promise that's not always the case (I don't doubt it sometimes is, mind you).

[Arkandel]

@faraday said in Emotional separation from fictional content:

When you see a movie trailer, it's considered poor form to put in too many spoilers, but you'd never expect to see a disclaimer (beyond the general movie rating) about there being particular themes that might upset people. Even on TV, an episode has to be pretty freaking graphic to warrant a special "Viewer discretion is advised* notice on HBO because the general bar for content is "mature".

Spoilers aside, trailers are also based on either fully developed or scripted products; a director knows the exact script, full dialogue and all the actors in the advertised work ahead of time.

Storytelling entails a lot of improvisation - maybe @Ganymede will have thoughts about improvisation on stage I don't, but my general process for MU involves designing the general framework of a story - the major NPCs, a potential structure for the arc barring PC interference and a lot of spontaneous work in each scene itself.

Note this still doesn't excuse throwing dead babies into the plot out of the blue without warning.

[surreality]

@faraday said in Emotional separation from fictional content:

I like to consider myself a pretty sympathetic and caring person, but it would never occur to me to apply more stringent standards to a MUSH than apply to every other form of entertainment I'm aware of.

This just isn't the case at all, though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay_television_content_descriptors <-- more elaborate than what you describe and still not terribly in depth.

Here are more examples:
https://support.wattpad.com/hc/en-us/articles/200774334-Content-Guidelines
https://forum.choiceofgames.com/t/thoughts-on-content-warnings/23883 <-- a discussion of this very issue
This is the dreaded tumblr but their list is actually pretty damned good, as is their description: http://trigger-warning-guide.tumblr.com/triggers
An even more expansive list, much of which we absolutely have typically encountered in a great deal of media: http://allthetropes.wikia.com/wiki/Content_Warnings

[faraday]

@surreality said in Emotional separation from fictional content:

@faraday said in Emotional separation from fictional content:

I like to consider myself a pretty sympathetic and caring person, but it would never occur to me to apply more stringent standards to a MUSH than apply to every other form of entertainment I'm aware of.

This just isn't the case at all, though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay_television_content_descriptors <-- more elaborate than what you describe and still not terribly in depth.

But that's what I was referring to when I talked about the ratings. As you say, it's not terribly in depth. That's the standard everyone's used to. I don't understand your point?

[surreality]

@faraday I'm looking for the examples I've seen -- some of which are downright silly, really, but we've all seen them -- like 'vampire violence' and so on. I've seen them most often in movie trailer/previews but finding the proper search term to find them is not working well on no sleep.

And, frankly, I know how I aim to run any place I run. You use a common trigger in a plot or know it may go there, you label that shit. You do not tell a player that simply because a certain thing may potentially occur on the game, they shouldn't be on that game, or that because some people have issues with <subject>, <subject> is not permitted on the game.

Because those are the real alternatives, and those are profoundly shitty alternatives to allowing people to have additional freedom -- along with the additional responsibility that comes with it.

[faraday]

@surreality I think you're referring to the Ratings Descriptors in the MPAA system like "Intense sci-fi violence" and "Frightening images" which are extremely subjective and so ludicrously broad as to be useless IMHO. They're never specific to the degree that people seem to be wanting in this thread.

And I'm not saying there's anything wrong with wanting them to be more specific at the expense of spoilers. I just think it's unfair to vilify people for failing to do so when it's not the cultural norm.

[surreality]

@faraday What do you think people are actually asking for?

I disagree that it isn't the cultural norm in all settings as you're claiming -- and it's rapidly becoming moreso, more broadly. And it's happening for a reason, and it's a reason that is valid.

Fanfic, though I don't really enjoy it personally, tends to be covered in warnings, for instance. The MPAA system is obviously a thing even if it's ridiculous.

[surreality]

@faraday said in Emotional separation from fictional content:

And I'm not saying there's anything wrong with wanting them to be more specific at the expense of spoilers. I just think it's unfair to vilify people for failing to do so when it's not the cultural norm.

Here's the issue with this, specifically.

The alternative is to prohibit players from content that may be 99% enjoyable to them without incident. Because 'just don't play there' seems to be the answer you're proposing, and that vilifies the players -- for essentially not being psychic.

Take the common rape objection. It's common enough that many games ban it outright. Some games take no stance on this. Should a player who doesn't want to play a rape scene only ever play on games where it is banned for/to everyone at all times and under all circumstances? Because that's not a lot of games left over. That's a whole lot of 'villainous players' who never want to engage with that subject ever playing on a whole lot of games that do permit it -- they just permit it under clearly labeled and consent-based circumstances.

Shang (sigh, again... ) manages more controversial content on a daily basis than almost any WoD game I've ever seen does in a year and it does so with considerable maturity by comparison. A huge part of why is that people are able to list the specific things they do and do not want in RP, and people are expected to take reasonable measures respect that. It's a worthwhile example to learn from.

[Arkandel]

@surreality said in Emotional separation from fictional content:

Shang (sigh, again... ) manages more controversial content on a daily basis than almost any WoD game I've ever seen does in a year and it does so with considerable maturity by comparison. A huge part of why is that people are able to list the specific things they do and do not want in RP, and people are expected to take reasonable measures respect that. It's a worthwhile example to learn from.

Hmm.

So far we've spoken about posting tags as warnings in PrPs. What if we borrow a page from Shang's book (no, not the one with the tentacles) and make into being more than sex?

This might be a case @Thenomain might want to chip in about code solving social problems, but what if we allowed players to privately or publicly list general categories of things they are into or squicked by?

So for example I list:

YES:

• Puzzle-solving
• Social scenes
• Generic violence
• Strong language

NO:

• Domestic abuse
• Addictions and drug use
• Illness

Let's say no one can see the 'no' list because some people might not want to announce their blindspots for the whole world to see. So how it'd work is I spot an +event I like and I /signup for it. The ST then (perhaps after a delay so they can't deduce who is who) gets to get a list of all the participants' YES and NO lists, without knowing who's who, and can plan accordingly.

Would that work?

[surreality]

@Arkandel said in Emotional separation from fictional content:

So far we've spoken about posting tags as warnings in PrPs. What if we borrow a page from Shang's book (no, not the one with the tentacles) and make into being more than sex?

This is what I have been advocating, working on, and talking about extensively for literally two years now.

http://138.68.45.233/index.php/Resource:Prefs/List

This is the example page for a WoD game for a player-side preference list, with examples.

Seriously. This is universally useful. It gives people a clear indication of what to avoid. It allows people to express these things outside of a moment of conflict or when they feel put on the spot. It gives fellow players an easily referenced guide to both find people into the same things they are and avoid the subjects their normal play partners may wish to avoid when and if at all possible. It also provides an instant resource for STs to see what the current group of players really wants right now and how they do or don't want to see it go down to best choose what kind of plots to run to generate the most interest.

There is almost no downside to this other than the time it takes to write it down, and the possibility that somebody's going to be an asshole and use the information with the explicit purpose of stepping all over somebody and being a dick, in which case you ban the asshole for being an asshole.

Edit: and here's how it would have appeared on the character's page: http://138.68.45.233/index.php/Character:A_Sample_Character#tab=RP

[Auspice]

@Arkandel

Maybe instead of getting a list of the YES/NO lists, if there was a pre-determined list of 'themes,' the ST could log in what themes were going to be in place.
The list doesn't even have to be published.

But if it was on your 'NO' list, you could get an @mail:
'As a note, the +event you signed up for (#1929, Stuff Happening) has been flagged as potentially including the following:

• Drug Use
• Domestic Abuse
  If you wish to step out, please retract your RSVP.'

That way people would have their own sort of personal 'out'? Without any spoilers or peoples' triggers being directly/specifically outed anywhere?

[Arkandel]

@Auspice Yes, I like this one better.

Edit: Or leave the "YES"-part's implementation as before, to let the ST know what the consensus is for themes their participants so far like. But I still like your "NO" handling better.

[faraday]

@surreality said in Emotional separation from fictional content:

The alternative is to prohibit players from content that may be 99% enjoyable to them without incident. Because 'just don't play there' seems to be the answer you're proposing, and that vilifies the players -- for essentially not being psychic.

It wasn't my intention to vilify anyone, merely to suggest that people who want to avoid particular kinds of content take the responsibility to communicate those desires with plot staff before joining a plot rather than expecting plot staff to be psychic and figure out what they need to warn people about in advance.

For example: I remember a scene on TGG during the Stalingrad campaign, the PCs came across an escaped German POW woman whom it was implied had been or would be assaulted by her captors. In another scene on a Battlestar game, there was a Cylon attack on a freighter and dead men/women/children were posed non-graphically in the background. Could either of these scenes have been potentially upsetting to someone? Sure. But were either of those scenes out of line with the general gritty rating/atmosphere of the game? Not at all. More importantly, both things were improv, as @Arkandel mentioned.

The way I see it, I as a parent need to take proactive measures to explore the content of a movie or video game before I let my kids watch/play it, instead of just relying on a general "PG-13" rating guide. Those little "Vampire Violence" blurbs are useless. It takes more work than that to educate myself if I care about more detail. I think the same standards apply to MUSHes.

But if someone wants to propose a specific "content rating system for MUSHes" that is more appropriate than the MPAA or TV ratings guides, I'm happy to consider using it.