Indicating Discomfort in a Scene (online)

[surreality]

@faraday First... I really wish people would google that case before citing it as an example of absurdity. The warning on the linked image in this article is not for the lulz. https://www.2keller.com/library/the-mcdonalds-hot-coffee-lawsuit-do-you-know-what-really-happened-.cfm (There's a whole movie about this.)

The games you've run, from what I gather, don't often tread into triggery territory in the ways many people think of it. I don't recall if you mentioned running, or playing on, the one historical war game set in one of the world wars or not -- but that would be the closest I could think of from the games I've heard you mention that might warrant a tag here or there -- mostly because we do have a lot of active duty military in the hobby and there are some folks who may want a heads up if today's plot involves something along the lines of a gas attack or land mines (since there are people who we play with who have been through these things, or the very real threat of them, within the last decade). For instance, I would be inclined to mention, 'hey, tonight's GM'd scene involves a raid and rescue mission in a concentration camp; be advised' on a WWII game -- and I do not consider this in the least bit unreasonable to give players a heads-up about so they can self-police to their sensitivities. I'm not talking about labeling for every possible phobia or personal dislike here, but common extremes.

@Lisse24 I always figure it's best to have a general category for a pref -- and space for people to write what they want, rather than a checklist. So people could write whatever they wanted, at whatever length or level of detail they wanted. I've seen a lot of 'maybe, page and ask' on Shang, for instance, in +kinks, on things that people sometimes like but only under very specific circumstances they don't want to advertise, or if it's something that's great when they're in the mood for it but it's no-nay-never on a normal day, and so on.

The non-confrontational part is kinda huge, too. Some people are awkward bringing things up -- but even more often, I've noticed that people are awkward at explaining something when they're put on the spot. More people are willing to say, 'hey, this is a bit uncool for me' than are really able to explain what exactly isn't working when they are in that moment of active discomfort. When someone can explain themselves in a calm, unchallenged, pressure-free state of mind, it's a lot easier. There's no potential pressure to explain quickly to not hold up a scene and maybe miss something or get tongue-tied and potentially run into a misunderstanding, there's a little less chance for someone to feel pressured to omit something just to 'go along' and not stir the pot, and so on. When something comes up in scene, something's already wrong. It may be very wrong. And while it's important for people to speak up, sometimes it really is easier to have that written down somewhere and point rather than try to explain oneself when you're already upset, and know you run the risk of upsetting the other person by interrupting or disrupting as an added pressure on top.

[Thenomain]

Who remembers +warn?

Who remembers what it does?

For the rest: '+warn <character>' was a command that sent a simple personal message to someone else: My character is on the edge of violence due to actions your character is following.

This was a PvP indicator, and it was moderately successful. The goal of it was to indicate that the user is going to go along with this, and asks if the the recipient agrees. It gives the recipient a chance to stop and negotiate without breaking the flow of the scene for everyone every ten minutes to check if everyone's fine with how things are going.

I think PvP became more of a social stigma in the WoD circles so its use diminished, but it still exists here and there. It takes the burden of trying to figure out just how to say something in a way that won't cause more problems off your shoulders. Just 'warn bob': Okay, Bob has been warned that your character's on the edge of nastiness. Boom, done.

You can always not use it. There are very few Mu* commands that are not optional. But people seemed to like having the option of starting a conversation without having to figure out how to start it.

This is how I imagine the Stoplight system.

--

Incidentally: The first option, Lines and Veils, is a different take on the RP Prefs setup, where things are defined ahead of time. Someone mentioned there not being a "beforehand" option, and like 'warn' and not having to make a big deal of things, pre-defining your wants and bugbears is every bit a part of communication as waiting until you're feeling uncomfortable.

[faraday]

@surreality I guess you didn't see my note at the bottom about not making light of the McDs coffee lady, because I'm well familiar with the case. In fact, part of my actual job involves putting warning labels on medical devices, so I'm well familiar with the entire concept of advisories and liability. That's part of why I'm sensitive to it.

By placing the onus on the storytellers to apply warnings to scenes or to check preferences set via the tool before including someone, it's giving players some measure of expectation that they're going to be warned if something comes up. That then opens storytellers up to "liability" (in the MU sense of responsibility, not the legal sense) if they fail to provide appropriate warnings. I reject that responsibility utterly and completely.

If you're playing on a WWII game, it is entirely reasonable to assume that Nazis, concentration camps, gas attacks, death by land mine, etc. are all entirely fair game for the theme. If those things are potential triggers for someone, then they probably shouldn't be playing there.

[Tempest]

@Thenomain said in Indicating Discomfort in a Scene (online):

I think PvP became more of a social stigma in the WoD circles so its use diminished, but it still exists here and there.

I think, in my 5~ years of WoDing, I've seen a whopping two instances of genuine Player Killing.

And both left a pretty foul taste in my mouth for different reasons.

[kitteh]

@Thenomain Having some kind of red flag command is fine, although once you're moving beyond something as obviously delineated as 'PvP is about to happen' as your use case, I'm not sure what gains it has over page. If its just a generic red flag, it might fail to explain why in some cases. If it allows text, then it's basically just a dressed up page. I'm in no way against it, just kind of pointing out how it comes back to being able to communicate OOC at some stage.

Ultimately, tools are fine, but the failure is usually in the users so we need to train proper communication no matter what.

[surreality]

@Thenomain I actually really like +warn, for exactly the reasons you mention.

And, really, something like that could be easily modified for a comfort level thing, stoplight style, if someone wanted to use the stoplight thing. A default could be along the lines of +pref/yellow Bob giving Bob a message along the lines of 'you're making <sender> uncomfortable in the scene, please inquire or check their +prefs for details', or +pref/red Bob/<prefname> that could send them the text of the pref and your indication you'd like it to stop -- though really, this is a little uber-detached. Could be helpful, though. I do think +warn was a good idea and remains one.

@faraday I did miss that, yeah. Apologies.

There's no obligation to check prefs; I do think there should be one to mark specific common trigger content likely in scene.

And, really, there are plenty of things someone might be interested in story-wise in that setting. Someone who is fascinated with codebreaking and knows piles of history and spycraft and so on may be a great asset to a game, too, but that person may have been sitting right next to their buddy overseas when they hit an EID and watched their bunkmate's head explode. Yeah, I do think excluding that player from the game on the whole because someone simply can't be assed to say 'hey, <thing> is likely in this scene, be advised' is a massively crappy attitude to take toward any potential player, unless land mines are the entire point and thrust of your game. They aren't, and it's entirely possible for that example player to engage in the game in positive ways for themselves and others around them in a way that contributes to everyone's enjoyment without encountering that triggering content.

Quick edit: If someone's objection was 'Nazis are present', yeah, I would tell them this was so not the game for them, then. Similarly, if someone's trigger was 'outer space', obviously they shouldn't be on your BSG game. There is a 'duh' point. Someone who doesn't like rape, however, shouldn't be obligated to consent to rape RP happening everywhere around them on a WoD game, however, because while it is a horror present in the world, it is absolutely not the central theme, antagonist, or driving force of the game, so labeling 'rape in plot, be advised' keeps those sensitive out, and permits those comfortable with that aspect of theme to engage as they will.

[faraday]

@surreality said in Indicating Discomfort in a Scene (online):

There's no obligation to check prefs; I do think there should be one to mark specific common trigger content likely in scene. ... Yeah, I do think excluding that player from the game on the whole because someone simply can't be assed to say 'hey, <thing> is likely in this scene, be advised' is a massively crappy attitude to take toward any potential player.

And I think that any player joining a WWII game who can't be assed to say before a scene: "Hey, I'm leaving my codebreaking cubicle to venture out into the battlefield, there aren't going to be any land mines are there?" is taking a massively crappy attitude by putting responsibility for their hangups on their storytellers. And that is the crux of our disagreement. I don't think there's anything more constructive to be said.

[Rook]

@Tempest said in Indicating Discomfort in a Scene (online):

@Thenomain said in Indicating Discomfort in a Scene (online):

I think PvP became more of a social stigma in the WoD circles so its use diminished, but it still exists here and there.

I think, in my 5~ years of WoDing, I've seen a whopping two instances of genuine Player Killing.

And both left a pretty foul taste in my mouth for different reasons.

WoD's theme, from the books, is all about PVP. The fact that the social act of RPing in the theme precludes PVP for very obvious OOC reasons should be a huge warning sign toward people, yet, we do everything in our power to shoe-horn things so that they work. We kludge the fuck out of the game.

PVP when there is no respawn SUCKS. Even MMOs have to address the problem of character death, and come up with crazy ways (see: Eve Online) to explain it away.

[surreality]

@faraday We are never going to agree about this one, since I really just don't agree with that final analysis that this somehow absolves a player of any and all responsibility and leaves it solely on the GM in some way.

Everyone has a measure of responsibility. It is a cooperative hobby. There are very simple things everyone can do to contribute to creating a positive play experience for themselves and those around them.

Putting the onus entirely on any party involved doesn't work; sharing responsibility and demonstrating mutual respect may not always, but it has considerably more potential to do so with less waste of time, energy, and stress.

[faraday]

@surreality said in Indicating Discomfort in a Scene (online):

Everyone has a measure of responsibility.

Nope. I'm not taking that responsibility. My game policy is this:

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.

And for those who think that makes me some kind of uncaring monster - you're entitled to your opinion. But I shoulder enough responsibility for other peoples' health and well-being as a parent, in my job as a medical device programmer, and as a volunteer paramedic. I don't need that level of stress in my pretendy funtime games as well, thankyouverymuch. Anyone who expects me to take responsibility for their mental health should do us both a favor and play someplace else.

[surreality]

@faraday Again, that entirely misrepresents the point. It is not to make you take responsibility for someone else's mental health.

It is to alert people to commonly problematic content you plan to include in a scene so they can take responsibility for their own well-being and not attend.

By the logic you're using here, on every WoD game, when someone asks me if I would like to meet them for RP, I should be prepared to spend half an hour explaining to them what I do not want to have happen during a first meeting over lattes at the local coffee shop, from drive-by shootings to rape to witnessing child murder to being drugged by something that will turn me into a grue to <let this list just scrollllllllllllllll> and that I not be anally violated by an entire pack of werewolves wearing spandex and doing a WWF hand-slap whilst calling out 'TAG ME IN, BRO!', and then be prepared to be met with a similar list.

Again, in some games, and some themes, this is a much more reasonable approach than in others. Our respective experiences are shaping our perspectives here, and it is not in the least unreasonable to say that any individual approach is not going to be one size (aka 'approach') fits all (games).

[Thenomain]

@Tempest said in Indicating Discomfort in a Scene (online):

I think, in my 5~ years of WoDing, I've seen a whopping two instances of genuine Player Killing.

I hope it was Character Killing instead, or at least you called the cops.

Also, I was talking about PvP, not PK. I hope to champion allowing people to be more comfortable that the former doesn't have to lead to the latter.

@kitteh said in Indicating Discomfort in a Scene (online):

once you're moving beyond something as obviously delineated as 'PvP is about to happen' as your use case, I'm not sure what gains it has over page.

Then it's not for you, and so don't use it. If you're asking me to explain the thinking of its creation and the people who used it, I did try to; I'm not sure what else I can say other than if it makes people more comfortable to have an impartial and impersonal notification as an invitation to discussion, then there is value in it.

When you're already uncomfortable and more than likely a bit introverted, knowing that there is even the option, that someone is on your side, can do wonders.

--

As an aside, @faraday and @surreality are talking about different levels of responsibility. I do think that saying "this is a game and you're here voluntarily, so be aware of what's going on here" is a kind of responsibility.

Those of us from WoD games are used to AUPs and Ethics News Files that are pages and pages long. I find any straightforward explanation refreshing.

[faraday]

@surreality said in Indicating Discomfort in a Scene (online):

Again, that entirely misrepresents the point.

And again, you seem to have missed my point. But I've said my peace and I'm tired of arguing about it.

[Ganymede]

@surreality said in Indicating Discomfort in a Scene (online):

By the logic you're using here, on every WoD game, when someone asks me if I would like to meet them for RP, I should be prepared to spend half an hour explaining to them what I do not want to have happen during a first meeting over lattes at the local coffee shop, from drive-by shootings to rape to witnessing child murder to being drugged by something that will turn me into a grue to <let this list just scrollllllllllllllll> and that I not be anally violated by an entire pack of werewolves wearing spandex and doing a WWF hand-slap whilst calling out 'TAG ME IN, BRO!', and then be prepared to be met with a similar list.

If you are uncomfortable with being violated by a pack of were-bros, then you probably should not be on a World of Darkness game.

That said, I disagree; that's not the logic being employed here in the slightest. How people decide to take responsibility for their own well-being is up to them. If RP Prefs are used, that's one way to alert others. You could also interrupt scenes when they get too intense, and politely bow out.

Really, though, it is my privilege that I've never been in a scene where I've felt the need to log out or leave. Ever, in 20+ years. Whether I ask to FTB or just play through, I've been around people reasonable enough to respect that. When I've been informed of those who are not, and I'm staff, I'm not shy about showing them the door.

So, the side topic is: what do you do about people who don't respect others' discomfort? My answer: show them out.

[Thenomain]

@Ganymede said in Indicating Discomfort in a Scene (online):

If you are uncomfortable with being violated by a pack of were-bros, then you probably should not be on a World of Darkness game.

This reminds me, with both fondness for the humor of the situation, and bitterness for the situation, when this happened to a character of mine and someone they were with. A Vampire player we kind of knew said, 'Hey mind if I meet you in this spooky woods?' and we said 'Yes'. He showed up. And others showed up, though he gave no indication this would become a potential gangbang. We took it in stride. They used the situation to wave their Vampire dicks around, oooo we're bad guys, monsters monsters monsters! And we took it in stride, our characters acting scared and running away and acted logically for the situation. But when the characters went to people they knew and it looked like the Vampires were about to get in trouble for this, they OOCly flipped out, backpedalling so hard that you'd think they'd never been on a World of Darkness game before.

It wasn't funny, though, because they whined at the Vampire staffer that we were cheating, and she believed them. We had to go over her head to the headstaffers to keep from getting banned from the game, and even that was a close thing because one of them disliked us as players personally.

Haunted Memories. Good times.

[Misadventure]

Have you been in a scene where someone else felt the need to leave?

[Deleted]

I don't get the whole 'Touch the X' 'Touch the colored light' indirect sort of crazy stuff people seem to favor.

If something makes me uncomfortable, it's on me to say I am uncomfortable. I would feel like a mong tapping a freaking symbol instead of saying 'Excuse me, this makes me uncomfortable.'.

[Thenomain]

@Admiral said in Indicating Discomfort in a Scene (online):

I don't get the whole 'Touch the X' 'Touch the colored light' indirect sort of crazy stuff people seem to favor.

If something makes me uncomfortable, it's on me to say I am uncomfortable.

Hey, dude, it's like you're saying, "I don't get the whole raising your hand to indicate you want to say something. Just say it!"

This doesn't work for everyone.

Having options isn't a drawback in a system.

Ignoring the long-tail is.

edit to add: And if you don't want to use a system designed to add to options, then don't use it. I don't understand how that's a difficult thing for anyone to understand.

[surreality]

@Ganymede said in Indicating Discomfort in a Scene (online):

So, the side topic is: what do you do about people who don't respect others' discomfort? My answer: show them out.

This, no question.

Bear in mind, though, those examples are seemingly silly, yeah... but I am that person that got asked for a coffee shop scene and got mage-panther mind-control oral rape from out of nowhere, and piping up about not being super keen on that or expecting that out of a coffee shop scene was 'it's a non-consent game, deal with it'. I mean, yes, I am apparently the M* equivalent of Wiley Coyote in terms of being an anvil (crazy asshole) magnet, but still, I don't see that being a thing in many genres that someone might have to think to mention.

Do not agree re: tag-team spandex anal werebro violation, though, dang. o.o Feather boas or nothing, motherfuckers. A girl's gotta have some standards. (Attacked while walking in the woods and clawed to hell? Sure! Even dead, ok, I can cope.)

Part of this, to me, is the risk thing. We already rate plots based on risk of character death, because it sucks to lose a character. Super common and extreme triggers are also risk -- to the players. Why we're considering the characters above the players in terms of importance when it comes to giving people a notification of risk factors that they'll use to determine if they wish to participate or not strikes me as being somewhat backward.

[kitteh]

@Thenomain

I don't think anyone has really said that coming up with these systems is going to be objectively harmful, and that's a pretty obvious option. I even indicated as much in my post. But pointing out the whole 'you can't code away social problems' is also a valid point to make here, and you seem resistant to acknowledging it. People (on both sides, the overly willing to violate boundaries, and the overly expectant of others to cater to their own) need to be held to certain standards of reasonable adult behavior.

Tangentially, I think the 'that escalated quickly' scenarios (as @surreality mentions) can/should be dealt with via a whole different kind of policy. While its perfectly fine to say people should be comfortable with bad stuff in WoD, I don't think that can be extrapolated to 'if you agree to meet someone new for coffee RP they should definitely be able to rape you!' This is no different than the people who want to were-hulkout over minor insults, or otherwise justify violent PvP over the tiniest provocation. Conflict should always be to at least some degree proportionate (edit: and rooted in the story), and the people who argue for concepts that get around that (serial killers, etc) are almost always problem players anyway.