Posts made by surreality

@mietze That's why I am kinda nnngh on the blind system YES/NO idea, personally.

I'm interested in the prefs setup not because it's a way of replacing -- or ever forbidding -- communication.

I'm interested in the 'can state the basics in a neutral way, in their own time, while they're in a comfort zone (which fosters more openness) outside of a direct conversation, inquiry, or potential confrontation' factor because there are folks who do have trouble bringing this up. This allows people to bring this up in a way that is comfortable for them, doesn't involve pressure (to impress or go along or comply or not offend, which a lot of folks also have), and gives them time to go into whatever level of detail they do or don't want.

This information is there to form a baseline to start a conversation if one is warranted on the subject -- not replace one.

And this is handy not just for GMs, but for fellow players. "Hey, should I start a brawl with this guy for fu--oooh, he loves brawls, hells yeah, let me ask him about that!" "Should I flirt with that gir--oh, she's a lesbian and isn't comfortable with that kind of male attention, I'll talk shop with her and hit on Judy over there instead when I want to get my flirt on." And so on.

This idea? Came up because of FC's infamous 'bang list' page. "OMG how do you know that player is cool with that kind of thing? Well, how do you know they aren't?!" -- and it grew from there. Why not give people a place to make their wishes clearly known that's easily referenced? Yeah, this isn't a moment to moment read, but space to make general preferences and views and limits known is a handy thing to have for a lot of reasons.

You take a pretty pro-active approach (and the stuff you've described is stuff I wish more people would do), but that's not something I've ever actually seen go down or had someone do. Not everybody does it that way, though -- and for the folks who just list an event and run with it, the warning tags can be a big help. (And really... this is most folks who run things. )

@faraday said in Emotional separation from fictional content:

@surreality said in Emotional separation from fictional content:

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?

YES.

I could say more, but I'm done being ranted and sworn at.

...and, you know, I had something constructive to say here, but since it's being interpreted as ranting and swearing at people, and @Ghost's post is all about the most entitled of all possible bullshit behavior and bears no resemblance to the way mature and reasonable adults behave, fuck this. Really. This is beyond pointless.

@Rook I haven't read it, but from what you're describing I get the general idea.

And I'm kinda giggling over here because I'm kinda doing the same thing, re: design.

I color-code things like whoa, and cringe when something falls outside of the standard header/display format that's set up. I'm still working on unifying all of that.

Also, people can pick their own colors; colorblindness is a thing and some people do use white backgrounds/etc. so the ability to customize this stuff is, IMHO, a useful thing.

The colors come in two sets: one set of four IC colors, one set of four OOC colors. This color-codes the data as it is presented in a way that subconsciously reinforces whether that information is IC or OOC info. Commands, help/news files, OOC talk, OOC notifications, even the headers and such for OOC areas all use the OOC colors. IC areas and notifications? Use the IC colors. (OOC talk and commands still show up in the OOC colors from an IC space, since they're still OOC info.)

It's subtle. It's super anal-retentive of me and I know it. I also know it's a handy subconscious cue/reminder about what's what.

@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.

@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.)

@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.

@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.

@Ghost said in Emotional separation from fictional content:

@mietze @surreality I think, in a way, it's all connected. The panic attack that comes from extreme content can be just as bad as an emotional response due to extreme attachment, which can both tie to feelings of self worth, exclusion, ostracism, lack of safety, insecurity.

Except it really, genuinely cannot. You know I adore you to bits, but they are genuinely not the same thing.

Connected, yes. The same, no. They are, genuinely and fundamentally, different things.

The example I am about to provide does not relate to an experience on a game. It's no secret on this board that I've been violently raped. I've said as much before; I'm not ashamed of it. It still took years to deal with it. It took over twenty years to write it out in detail over time so that I might share it with someone who, not understanding what they were doing, kept hopping up and down on the real trigger button with some of their language and behavior.

This didn't make me sad. This didn't make me uncomfortable. This gave me three months of the most terrifying nightmares I have ever had the misfortune of having. I literally could not look in the mirror in the morning as I brushed my teeth, terrified that I would either see the battered and bruised face of a 19-year old me -- or worse, the face of my attacker -- staring back at me. I had to go have a cup of coffee, a clove, go read something funny or watch something entertaining, before I could look at my own image in a mirror without physical paralysis kicking in and a panic attack starting to kick off if I caught something in the periphery of my vision of a reflection.

This went on for three months. It was not the extent of it. Presently? I may as well simply not have genitals, or any sexual drive that isn't directly hardwired to a sense of horror and revulsion. Some of the other aspects are simply too personal to share on a forum like this one, because the details are endless and etched indelibly into my brain. One of the reasons I am not playing at the moment is that I simply do not trust my own brain right now to do so.

This is part of what I wrote when I discussed the experience with the friend, in explaining why I really needed them to change their approach in regard to a specific issue, and to not make the kind of references they were making at the time. (It doesn't address that specifically, but I think you will see what I'm getting at.)

ADD brain exploded in a flare of tangents like the finale of a 4th of July fireworks display. (And I flinch, just now, realizing I typed that simile out only to suddenly remember that the fourth of July is his birthday. A shot of vodka gets added to the coffee for that one.) He almost killed you once. He loves guns. He’s always loved guns. He learned to shoot from his father. You remember what his father did for a living, don’t you? That he was one of those guys who invented new methods of killing people with ordinary household objects as a government contractor and consultant? You remember that, don’t you? You remember that his brother, his hero, murdered his wife? You remember that night with his hands around your neck but you remember him sobbing and begging and suddenly there’s that flash of standing in the park on what could have been any of a thousand different days in junior high or high school of him, the kid who wanted to grow up to be MacGuyver, smiling and looking back at you and crooking his hand and inviting ‘come on, keep up, let’s have an adventure!’ and then friend-since-age-five Sean’s voice is reminding you of how many ways they taught him in Pararescue school to kill someone with something nowhere as innately lethal as a gun and there are so many things in this bathroom but I’m not strong enough to make a weapon of any of them and I’m not faster than a bullet even if I was and…
And then it just got quiet. Dead quiet in my head. It’s never been like that. There has sometimes been peace, or tranquility, or just enough of a dull roar that I could think clearly, but it was just quiet, as if the sum of all of those thoughts had swelled my skull and cracked it apart to explode in their escape.
I just stared at him and to this day I could not tell you if I was even breathing. I felt my face swelling up with blood like I had when he was trying to strangle me, going so red my eyes felt on the verge of bulging, and I was cold enough to start shaking. All the blood in my body was rushing to my face and maybe my head had just exploded and blood was pouring out in spurts with the release of every terrible and terrifying thought.
Hindsight is 20/20. Monday morning quarterbacks, including myself, could doubtless, given time, have come up with an escape, or an out, or a defense that would be possible. I know because I’ve done it.
I could tell you every item that was in that room and likely where it came from, describe its layout. I could even tell you about the case of empty Yuengling in the attic access crawlspace behind a three foot square door with a little latch on it that you would enter by using the toilet as a stepstool, and who was there the night it was emptied over the very first tabletop Sabbat game I ever played with Matt and Ryan and Dave and Tom and Josie and the guy whose name I always forget because I can only ever recall how rivetingly beautiful his eyes were when I think of him, and it blots out absolutely everything else.
I could tell you everything about that room and every single item in it and none of it mattered.
I’ve hated myself for years at a time for not thinking of that thing to do or that thing to say, no matter how unreasonable, or unforgiving, or blind to the reality that expecting someone to react in an instant in the same way they might with the advantage of years of time to mull over the possibilities is absurd to the point of actual cruelty.
We do it all the time in our culture. Everyone does it all the fucking time. It’s all over politics. It’s all over every social outlet, in the media. All those things she could have done to protect herself that we tell ourselves to make ourselves feel safer and better because ultimately the idea that what happened to her can happen to you is fucking terrifying.
One edge of that sword is ‘it was her fault because she didn’t do the thing I’d know to do!’ and the other is ‘I can feel safe from that ever happening to me because I would have done that thing!’
I leave it to you to wonder which is actually more insidious along with me, because I will tell you this much: in that moment, none of those things matter. Once you have lived through it, you know with horrible certainty that there is no woulda-coulda-shoulda that makes one damned bit of difference. What you have is what happened, not what could have happened, or should have happened, or maybe would have happened, and you have to deal with the realities, not the what ifs.

That is how brutally and crystal clear those moments are in someone's head.

That is not sad.
That is not disappointed.
That is not revisiting the pattern of a breakup that you still feel wronged by.

It. Is. Not. The. Same.

Both things are important.

That gives them commonality; it does not make them the same.

@Ghost The things you are describing here are real issues. They're deep, emotional subject matter, and need to be handled in a mature way.

They're not the same as the kind of triggering content most folks are trying to describe here. As I keep saying: what people are talking about is not having to go through RP that stirs uncomfortable emotions or sadness.

The things people have thus far talked about labeling are things that, commonly, can trigger flashbacks of RL abuse and panic attacks.

People, generally, can control their reaction to sadness, or things that make them question themselves.

Panic attacks and flashbacks are just not the same thing, and it is unwise to equate the two.

@WTFE Except the shit you are flipping the fuck out about is people suggesting exactly that kind of labeling as being onerous and extreme, and accusing the folks who think this is a good idea of being too fragile for this cruel world, and they should just go off and play tennis instead.

The subject of more rare triggers has also come up, repeatedly. I have a few of those; they're not on the list of shit I'm suggesting people label, either.

Nobody's suggesting people not be allowed to play those things. Nobody is suggesting that they not be permitted on the game.

Some folks are saying: 'label common extreme triggers if you're going to run something that will likely include them' and 'if your game includes these common extreme triggers, you should outline how you intend to handle them in the context of the game'.

This is what is being decried in the stuff you're citing, because various people prefer to handle this in a different way, when there is clearly still room for both to occur concurrently.

Yes, really.

Nobody is asking to be treated like a precious snowflake because they got their feefees hurt. Nobody is screaming for heads to roll if somebody dares misstep. Nobody is demanding games be covered in bubble wrap.

Some people are asking that common extreme triggers be labeled so they can avoid engaging with that subject matter, thus avoiding trouble for themselves or the potential to cause trouble for others to the best of their ability, ideally without having to do more than glance over a list potential warning flags to make an informed decision without even having to bother anyone about it.

This prevents a shit-ton of drama. All the damn hand-wringing that it will never prevent it all because of the endless corner cases the world knows are out there as a justification to shriek and wail about how it's a crap solution is simply fucking bonkers.

You don't solve drama in this hobby. At best, you minimize it. And when such a clear and simple mechanism to reduce a considerable measure of it by ticking off a few little checkboxes on a web form is decried as horribly onerous and simply too much to bear, well... not my circus, not my monkeys, because I'm sure as shit doing it in the way that I think will spare me at least some of the shit-flinging from said monkeys.

If y'all seriously think it is "hubris at a level that staggers the imagination" to ask that people label common trigger content when advertising an event or starting a game so that people can effectively "get the fuck out of things that trigger them" and make informed decisions to avoid the content they know will be problematic in order to avoid problems for themselves and others around them, I know for damned sure this is not the hobby for me any longer.

@Collective Tagging in @Thenomain to take a peek, since he'll be able to give you the heads-up there on how plug and play things are. I know @faraday I think has hers more ready to go, and she's working on a new version of things that sounds pretty dang neat (her Ares setup) that I don't think is quite ready yet.

@Collective I don't think there's something out there with all of that built in at this time.

The basic TinyMUX install I think has the basic SGP globals, but you'd need to acquire and install the rest. There are some tips about where to get some of the things you'll want, but a lot can be found on mushcode.com.

@mietze said in Emotional separation from fictional content:

But I do not leave players hanging to approach me. As I have stated from the beginning, I ASK them to please communicate with me any no go areas they think I should know about, and also ask that should anything arise in scene to please let me know immediately.

You're not, no. @faraday and some others were suggesting that, however.

If someone cannot handle that two way communication, not even proactively but when warmly invited and encouraged with my own disclosure first?

Which is mentioned here explicitly:

@surreality said in Emotional separation from fictional content:

Sometimes even bringing up that they have an issue at all can be uncomfortable. Being able to do so in as non-confrontational and composed a way as possible, over whatever period of time it requires for them to do so in whatever level of detail they find appropriate, is something I feel is valid enough to make it an available option. I do not find it childish or immature or weak, and I also don't think it eliminates the need for further conversation in many instances. If someone is unwilling to engage in that conversation at all, yes, I do think you could have a problem.

I am sorry, but I do think that is a massive, massive red flag. And I do not think it is ever a good idea to automate/code something with the express intent of allowing players to avoid communication on a collaborative game.

I don't. I see it as an understanding that different people have different comfort zones. I see it as an understanding that not everyone is comfortable being asked about these things, even with the best of intentions behind it, and that proactively communicating their wishes in a different manner allows these people to also be heard in a way that can help provide them with a useful means of making their wishes known.

Think about this one, and in the general context, not only in the context of how you personally do/run things or approach running a scene: how many people come to staff when they have a problem on the game?

Probably less than half, and we all know it. We all know who the creepers/jerks/drama squads are, and know half the time no one will file a complaint. Why? Discomfort, awkwardness, embarrassment, and uncertainty. That has not served us well as a hobby. Do you really think bringing up personal issues with random strangers just to see if you may or may not want to participate in a one-shot event they're running is any less daunting? It's usually more so due to how personal it is -- and it's ultimately for less 'payoff' than 'I am being constantly hassled and this person won't leave me alone!' being resolved would be. But it's still a thing, it's still real, and it still happens. People leave games to avoid having to talk to someone about the problems they're having with some random jackass; that's frustrating and it's pretty damn tragic.

Communication issues, especially around personal sore spots, are far from rare in these parts. I don't see how recognizing that and taking steps to try to ensure these folks who may feel cowed or caught off guard in a confrontation or inquiry shouldn't have a means of making their wishes known in the way that they're comfortable doing so any more than you should be prevented from asking players about their comfort zones for events, or players approaching another GM to do the same.

@faraday 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, I have to actually consider this and how it can affect people, because as the creator of that game world, I do feel I bear some responsibility for what happens to the real people who play on it and the quality of their experience while they do so. I care about them having fun, and not having every possible landmine (and there are many potentials) stomped upon. Providing people with tools to moderate amongst themselves in a comfortable way is something I consider important. Prefs are a part of that. Labels are a part of that.

I do actually consider this to be a pretty solid list:

Trigger/Content Warning List: (only slightly modified from the tumblr list)

Rape and Sexual Assault
Abuse (physical, mental, emotional, sexual)
Child abuse/pedophilia
Animal cruelty or animal death
Suicide
Excessive or gratuitous violence (heavy gore)
Depiction of pornography (including child pornography)
Incest (including any and all elements of romantic or sexual relationships between family, tonal in theme, thought, or activity)
Kidnapping (forceful deprivation of/disregard for personal autonomy)
Death or dying
Miscarriages/Abortion/Forced Pregnancy
Torture
Slavery
Extreme and extended heavy focus on an *ism (sexism, racism, homophobia) in the plot or event (examples: an actual hate rally, the investigation of a gay bashing, people being kidnapped as slaves with the constant assertion they are less than human, etc.)

I don't think this list is so hyperspecific that it should present a problem of requiring people dance on eggshells at all times lest they stumble across that secret hidden giant rabbit phobia, and it covers the major common umbrella issues that tend to raise widespread objections or discomfort.

I also do not think that someone saying, "Hey, the baby seals!" is reason to tell others they are not allowed to do that thing; it's a reason to tell me 'hey, there will be those baby seals in this, so unless you want to suck it up, don't show up to this one' -- which is totally fine because not all scenes are for everyone, and that is OK. The entire point of labeling things and setting up clear personal preferences is to allow people to, on their own, seek and avoid the things they want out of their play experience. Say somebody really loves playing an abolitionist -- and wants to be a spy in a slave trader's camp. That means they're going to be immersed in some subject matter that a number of players would find very uncomfortable and objectionable. I do not believe in denying that player the opportunity to explore that storyline with others who would also have a lot of fun telling that story together because of the people who don't want to participate in it themselves.

@Thenomain My take on it isn't quite that. The above sums it up a bit better, I think.

Mature themes require maturity and consideration from everyone involved. It isn't all on the players, it isn't all on the GMs, and it isn't all on the staff. Everybody has to do their part to adult if you want a setting populated by adults.

@Ghost Again, this is why labeling things is relevant. Labeling oneself, labeling a plot, labeling how the game is going to handle a thing. No one is suggesting that people fly blind. Generally speaking -- and the files say as much -- most people are not assholes and if they know something is an issue, they won't go there. Most people who step on a land mine are blown up, too, and while they may not be going through a flashback, they are not exactly feeling good about it, either, and they wouldn't have done it if they knew it was there. Giving people the ability to say: "Hey, this is my thing, please don't go there." is granting them a powerful tool to express their wishes in a non-confrontational, non-emotionally explosive moment, in which they are likely to be considerably more clear-headed and rational and sensible.

@mietze Here's the thing with that. If I have no idea about content, I apparently will have to assume the worst about <subject>. <subject> is potentially damaging to me. You are a complete stranger. You may or may not be around a lot. Approaching you to ask about the content of your plot or event, in regard to things that I may not even want to have to think about enough to have to ask about, is not easy.

I will tell you what, I've been a lot more open with a lot of the stuff I've gone through on this board than many folk would be, but I actually never had told the entire story of what happened in a certain incident in my life until 20+ years after it happened -- not in voice, not in text, not even in some private journal somewhere, because it is private and traumatic to think about, let alone have to approach someone to try to broach the subject of it with them. I had to write it out over a period of days, and link it to someone in order to open a discussion about it, because it had, unfortunately, become relevant that they understand all the uncomfortable details. I think you're a wonderful person, and you're among the handful of folks I genuinely trust in this hobby, but I don't know you well enough to share that experience with you. Even my husband only knows the rough overview of events of that particular issue. People have stuff that's buried. It is not always easy for them to discuss it. Sometimes even bringing up that they have an issue at all can be uncomfortable. Being able to do so in as non-confrontational and composed a way as possible, over whatever period of time it requires for them to do so in whatever level of detail they find appropriate, is something I feel is valid enough to make it an available option. I do not find it childish or immature or weak, and I also don't think it eliminates the need for further conversation in many instances. If someone is unwilling to engage in that conversation at all, yes, I do think you could have a problem.

However, if I see a plot or event with the 'rape' box checked in it? I don't have to ask. I know to not show up.

I can write: "I do not do rape plots, please do not involve me in these themes," in my preferences -- and barring massive public scenes where it gets mentioned by somebody in a crowd, it is probably not going to come up and it's even more unlikely to just happen right in front of me or to my character. Generally speaking? People are not going to bring that up around me if they are aware, which I will appreciate.

The game can make a policy (like the common one a lot of games have re: 'for <subject>, consent is required to involve someone') re: rape, though similar themes are sometimes singled out like this elsewhere. Arx's take on sexism is similar; they just altered the setting rather than make policy to govern it. I don't believe in stripping it out of the setting -- read: making it unavailable to everyone -- just because some people find it objectionable.

In order to do that and ensure as comfortable an experience as possible? Yeah, I do think everyone has to do their part. It's important for that to be as comfortable as possible for not just me and my way of doing things, or you and your way of doing things.

@Thenomain re: mission statement: this is what I came up with for a main page. It's not the theme file, it's not the setting file, it's not a policy file.

Here Be Dragons is first and foremost a collaborative roleplaying environment. We're here to provide a cooperative framework for people to tell stories together in a game setting based on the Golden Era of Piracy in the Caribbean with a supernatural twist.
The game uses an original system, designed for a persistent multi-player online game world. The system helps establish the strengths and weaknesses of all of the characters in play. It is designed to be easy to learn and use in play, and to allow players to select ways in which their characters are distinctive if not truly unique in their abilities and individual characteristics.
While our setting is historically-based, it is not designed to be a strict historical recreation of the period. On the whole, player characters are exceptional by default. This means the unusual, the atypical, the unique, and the different will be more common among player characters than they would be in a realistic depiction of the era, even in the permissive setting that has been chosen as the primary focus of the game world.

I think that covers a lot, but the first paragraph is really key. I think the approach I aim to take, and have described, supports that statement pretty well, and supports the kind of community I want the game to have.

@faraday "This game has mature themes" gives someone no information.

Everyone needs to play their part, in my view, to create a positive environment. This is about the fifth time I'm saying it: there's a part for the players, a part for GMs, and a part for the game creators/staff. Nobody gets a pass. Everyone should be proactive.

You can consider it unreasonable all you want -- I don't. I don't because I have seen it work on one of the longest running games in the hobby, and that game has more controversial content inside a week than any year on the average game that isn't it. That's because this notion of everyone working cooperatively and proactively to create a positive experience actually works, but it takes cooperation. You do not put the onus for cooperation on one party and force them to chase people down to ask awkward and uncomfortable questions about something they may not want to be talking about in the first place that, by simply seeing a checked box, they would know to avoid without the kind of personal, one on one disclosure that a lot of the very self-conscious and avoidant people in this hobby can find especially uncomfortable.

That's the other reason for a space for people to express what they feel they need to in their own time, and outside of any potential 'conflict' conversational space. That's actually relevant.

If someone thinks it is too much stress and hassle and thus cannot be assed to check off a few boxes on a web form if they want to include common subjects of trauma if they want to use them in a plot, I don't think they have the emotional maturity to handle that content in a responsible manner and shouldn't be running plots. Re: @Ghost, I similar do not consider this to be 'catering to someone's disease', I consider it to be demonstrating respect for fellow participants on a game and allowing them to make decisions for themselves about their participation.

Again: rape may emerge in 1% of scenes on a game. If a game permits it to occur, even with strict regulation, you're saying they should go play tennis instead, and screw that other 99% of the game they would very much enjoy and contribute to, probably never actually encountering a single rape plot.

@mietze said in Emotional separation from fictional content:

It has nothing to do with unwelcome in the hobby.

However. If someone refuses to disclose to me large glaring or uncommon as triggers but not uncommon in theme no go areas, or does not possess the personal strength or will to communicate with me during a scene if something unexpected happens then yeah, I player don't feel especially safe inviting them into my scenes/play when there are certain boundaries that they feel they can trample on.

That's just it: part of the entire premise of everything I've been saying is that people need to disclose those things openly. It is on the players to make that information known.

If I didn't think this was critical, I wouldn't have written up an entire system to accomplish it in what I consider the most effective and useful way to communicate the information to others.

@Ghost said in Emotional separation from fictional content:

I did not suggest that players who might be susceptible to being triggered should be told that they are not welcome in the hobby. Scratch this from any realm of intent.

My stance is this:

If a player is incapable of separating themselves from IC content to such a degree, then they have a responsibility to decide to accept the risks of triggering, agree to the behaviors and content when they type +accept, or move along.

This is what you're missing here, though, and it's relevant: if it is possible for this to occur? If it 'might' happen? Could possibly? When it happens, it is going to shred that player's separation for a bit. The act of it happening, period, is 'this caused a flashback'.

That separation going !!!KABOOM!!! and causing a flashback or panic attack is the actual thing that occurs when an actually real trigger gets tripped. As such, if it possibly might happen? Then, yeah, the way you initially put this... they are simply not welcome.

I am not talking about people whining about not getting their way, or people getting their feels hurt. Don't confuse those things, 'cause they aren't the same.

Edit: To be clear: The player is not going to think, 'oh noes, I am experiencing what my character is!' and lose sight of the line in that direction. They are probably not going to be thinking of much of anything other than whatever trauma from their real life caused the issue in the first place -- which means the IC event crossed over the other direction, knocking them out of the character headspace entirely and into a very traumatic recollection of their own.

@Ghost said in Emotional separation from fictional content:

On the same hand, a reasonable GM should include details of potential content or themes as a favor to players.

To me, this is not a favor.

This is 'upholding the GM side of the mutual respect and responsible behavior' bargain, in the same way 'if something does go wrong, behave as reasonably as possible and remove yourself from the situation without personal attacks or accusations or screeching to all and sundry' is the player-side appropriate behavior in the mutual respect and reasonable behavior bargain.

Everyone has a part to play in maintaining a respectful game environment. That's not doing a favor to others -- that's an essential part of creating a positive game community with minimal drama and stress for all involved, in whatever capacity in which they are involved.

@Ghost said in Emotional separation from fictional content:

If a player cannot maintain their level of separation, they should not play these games. Period.

By this example, going back to my first post, should I no longer watch movies because I found a scene in Strange Days traumatic? Of course not.

This shit absolutely happens to perfectly reasonable people at times and for reasons they cannot predict. That's why people refer to these things often as 'land mines'.

This is the attitude I'm talking about when I'm talking about vilifying players for having a reaction to something; it's a downright shocking demonstration of privilege and ignorance. Seriously, there's a part of me that wants to just shake my head, because someone actually hitting a PTSD trigger is not a case of 'something happened IC that made me sad and I don't like it!' It is a visceral, intensely jarring experience, and it's actually rather rare. (I've had it happen twice in twenty years, for reference.)

To tell someone they are not welcome in this hobby if it is possible for this to happen to them is as ignorant as telling them they shouldn't participate on these games if they have ADD, or OCD, or depression, or anxiety... the list goes on and on.

Does it absolve them from consequences of bad behavior taken under those circumstances? No. Does it absolve them from IC consequences of whatever's going on? No. Just the same way the other things don't.

No one has suggested a free pass on 'nothing ever happens that makes me a little sad' and other than the initial tv-wish fulfillment framing, no one is suggesting 'nothing ever happens that isn't precisely what I want' is a good idea at all. Those things would not be reasonable.

Telling someone they're unwelcome in the hobby because they would like to be able to make informed choices about their participation in various events or specific aspects of the game ultimately in order to preserve everyone's peace of mind and the peace in general? Is... I kinda don't have words for this.

@faraday There are some additional layers of separation in what you're describing there, too, though, which are important to take note of.

The events you're describing are more or less scene-set background, or are implied.

That's a step removed from 'it happens to an NPC in front of you'.

And that's another step removed from 'it happens to your PC'.

And that's in addition to the passive vs. interactive layer issue.

People typically have less issue with things implied or in the background than events unfolding in real time, or things happening to their character directly.

@Arkandel @Auspice To give you some idea, the list there, someone could, when setting up an event on the wiki, directly link to the subjects that may be in play in that event in addition to any written warning or set of generic content warning flags. It would be super simple to implement that, in fact.

There are solid reasons to make the information public. Namely, STs and staff aren't the only people this information is useful to. Here's the partial writeup on this that went with the thing in the other links: http://138.68.45.233/index.php/Resource:Prefs

The bit re: Emotional Land Mines is relevant for everyone on a game, frankly.

@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

@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.