@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.
@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 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
@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:
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.
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:
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.
@Rook said in Emotional separation from fictional content:
I'd have warning stickers on me. For self-protection?
This is 50% of why I worked up an 'RP preferences' system for wiki: so people can outline their personal limits (and, conversely, content wishlists) to whatever level of specificity they're interested in describing them.
The other 50% being 'it's a really convenient listing of what people are looking for right now' so people can know what the current crop of players are specifically wanting to see as plots, saving people time that might have been wasted on pure guesswork. Not only is this useful for staff and GMs, it's useful for every other player that player is interacting with, since everyone has access to the information equally.
Being able to do this in a way that allows people to write that up outside the context of a potential conflict or direct inquiry takes a little bit of the pressure off. People are not always comfortable talking about their sore spots (or sekrit dreamz) directly, or at least are not as comfortable with some specifics as they might be if given the ability to write out what they wish on their own. Then, if someone has questions, they can ask if needs be for any additional clarification.
@Coin Yes and no? If you're talking about a plot that's werewolf only, or on a werewolf only game, or even has a description about 'this is a scene about werewolves going on a hunt' this is self-explanatory to some extent.
Even then, if your writeup is otherwise 'this is the werewolf tea sipping society scene at the garden party center, formal attire required' (which, for the record, I am finding it hilarious to mentally envision at the moment), you may still want to stick a 'things won't stay that way and violent and gory interruptions are in the plans'.
...thank you, internets: 
@Coin said in Emotional separation from fictional content:
That said, I think every game does a good job of outlining these themes in the books and if you read the books and think you can handle it, more power to you--but I don't think "violence" is a tag needed for a scene centered around werewolves, for example.
I'd actually say a 'violence' tag is almost too general to be relevant on its own. OK, sure, if the scene is otherwise described as a garden party, noting that it isn't going to remain (literally?) hearts and flowers land is not a bad thing.
Otherwise, 'violence' on its own is not typically a trigger -- this is sorta like the 'includes mature content' to some extent. There's just not enough information to make a decision here. Specific forms of violence -- 'child abuse', 'domestic violence', 'sexual assault', 'torture' -- are common triggers, however, but someone horrified by one may not give a damn about the other three. A label of simply 'violence' is so vague it just doesn't give people the information they actually need to make their decision about participation.
@Arkandel said in Emotional separation from fictional content:
See, the issue here is that labeling can only get us so far. Nevermind for a moment that this can be a code limitation (not all games have customizable/tag'able +event code) or even the fact no games as of now that I can remember actually require or even recommend the practice - which means we might be holding STs accountable for not doing things staff itself didn't prioritize enough to mention, it's still not that easy to pigeon-hole these things.
There aren't any that don't allow for a summary.
There is nothing whatsoever preventing (the hypothetical) you from adding a line at the bottom of the summary, ex: "Note: This scene may contain elements of child abuse and satanic rituals. If these things are not for you, do not attend."
Is "mature content, caution is advised" enough?
No, not by a long shot. "Mature content" is all the content on some games. That gives someone almost no information at all to the extent that it's borderline useless.
"There might be something that involves mature content in here!" doesn't allow players to make an informed decision at all because it is not, in most game settings in which this becomes an issue, at all informative.
People do not have an issue with "mature content". They have issues with specific forms of mature content, not any and all mature content on the whole.
What if we start with good ol' fashioned murder of adults by the bad guys but at some point there's a dead kid as well?
This? I would not consider a huge deal personally. If I was going to put in a notice, it would be 'involves witnessing the death of NPCs of all ages'.
Or how about unintended consequences - we hit the PCs with some hostages they need to rescue from a gang, and one of them is a woman who had a bruise on her cheek - was she beaten? Or the plot I already mentioned I ran which included abused animals.
If it relies on inference to guess at what might have happened (bruise)? No.
Abused animals? 'Involves cruelty to animals.' (Same would be true for a goat sacrifice or something in the above. <shrug>)
What I'm saying is these things... they're a sort of minefield. You can try to be a good sport and warn players but you can't have laundry lists of everything that might be encountered in a plot ahead of time, including things posed spontaneously or without necessarily giving them a lot of thought - I can see myself posing the aforementioned woman's bruise along with other evidence of rough treatment for the hostages (they're dirty, dehydrated, one guy has a broken ankle, one girl has a black eye - shit!) and not think too hard someone might fixate on that.
Again, inference is not the same thing as a scene that involves walking into a scene in which a husband is brutally assaulting his wife and I am reasonably sure most players are well aware of the difference; the slope is nowhere near as slippery or inferential as you're presenting it to be in this argument. Someone simply having a bruise is something one could encounter on almost any game. Walk into any given bar RL and you'll probably see someone with a bruise or injury, same with any grocery store or shopping mall.
Speaking of this though, one thing I've noticed is the insistence some STs have to go all-out on gore, substituting it for horror. Some plots feel like there's barely a step without stepping into someone's entrails or walking by to see gutted, brained carcasses rotting nailed on walls - I suppose there may be a separation between super-intense overemphasized grossness and signs of real world abuse but again, what's the solution? Because I've never seen anyone offering FTB for those segments in PrPs.
Would a "graphic violence" label suffice here? Does it need to be specific? Should it be?
I would include a gore warning, personally. In part, because it's not actually the act of witnessing the actual act of violence in this case, but that's sorta neither here nor there. 'Extreme gore factor' would cover it more accurately, since you can have gore without actual violence, and violence without actual gore, really. You could be running a pure investigation scene that involves a forensic investigation of the area you're describing above, for example, in the aftermath of whatever violence took place.
While I have no clue about how good or bad the rest of this site is, this covers some things fairly well, especially here:
Linked Article:
The idea for content warnings arose in order to recognize — and respect — the diverging struggles and experiences of others by supplying an easy, advisory mechanism for would-be readers.
This way, they’re prepared and are able to choose whether or not they wish to be subjected to content that may adversely impact their mental state.
However, there’s a tendency for people to claim that these steps are a form of coddling, rather than see them for what they really are: Simple and considerate notice markers that empowers would-be readers with the decision of choice.
Instead of this being seen as a way to appreciate the importance of mental health, more often content warnings are greeted with hostility by people not personally affected taking personal offense — as if their rights were being threatened or revoked.
Complaints range from “Why can’t people worried about reading content just stay off the internet?” to “Grow up” to “Just deal with it” — never once considering that they’re preoccupation with situations that don’t directly concern them. That, possibly, their well-being only reflects self-centeredness and a refusal to value the feelings, mental health, or anxiety of others.
Notice you felt the need to include a spoiler warning in this thread while reading the article, and think about that a sec. Now think about which is actually more important.
@Arkandel said in Emotional separation from fictional content:
- What is the correct response by the latter to the former after such a triggered response? Even assuming the best of intentions such things are bound to happen, so how should staff handle an upset player?
It really depends on what steps have been taken to prevent it from happening. If a plot was clearly labeled, the content is clearly allowed on the game, and all the i's were dotted and the t's were crossed, it really is on the player.
If something hits someone harder than expected -- which can happen -- or something they didn't expect or know would trouble them does? Well, first, they know for the next time. In this case, I would say best possible practice would be to minimize any lingering impact on the character within whatever reasonable bounds the IC reality allows. There's FTB to avoid the RP of a thing, and that's a step one default requirement. There's also maybe toning down the horror show factor for the aftermath if there's some discretion there to do so, to avoid the 'I don't know how to play something that has been broken in this way' factor, which can be troubling and hard as well. If there's means to give somebody an IC reality they can deal with that doesn't evade required consequences or break reality, I do strongly suggest looking for that option, and potentially working with the player at least a little to find something that might be a good out for them. Hell, 'these things occur, but your character has a blackout and doesn't remember the trauma' is not unreasonable and it's something that does occur frequently enough RL that there are flaws and conditions for this in WoD, which seems to be the prime environment in which such circumstances arise.
- How do we achieve both (1) and (2) without discouraging people from running things which aren't either inoffensive or completely black and white? Or is it better in certain games that controversial themes are never ran, and staff plots/public PrPs are always 'safe'? If so, when?
If someone is discouraged by having to clearly label their content, I question whether they have the emotional maturity to run a plot, and I am reasonably certain they don't have the emotional maturity to run a game. Mutual trust and respect is not an easy thing, but some measure of it is required for these game environments to work at all. Demonstrating trust (labeling, thus potentially revealing some content) is as necessary as granting trust (understanding that people running things are not doing so with the intent to cause harm if an issue does arise, and not acting like the person who did is a giant asshat trying to be every sort of evil when seeking resolution of some kind).
Again, I think the examples from television aren't quite right for the two reasons mentioned before: they're ungranted wish fulfillment as opposed to inflicted emotional trauma, and the level of separation in the passive vs. interactive consumption of entertainment is considerably different. 'Not getting the daydream wish' isn't the same as being actively hurt by something, even if everyone has a general baseline wish of 'not being actively hurt by things if at all possible'.
A closer parallel for this wouldn't be a trigger, but 'that character I had my heart set on hooking up with mine isn't interested'. While that may suck, and be sad, and arguably we have all probably gone through 'the person I'm crushing on isn't interested' in real life at some point, it isn't the same as reliving the suicide of a friend, the loss of a child, a rape, the murder of a sibling.
What makes me sad is that I would swear I had that exact jacket in the 80s.
@Thenomain I would actually not stick this one as rule #1. It's more a... 1b?
This sounds like splitting hairs but I swear it isn't -- it's simply because this is something that has other precedents it relies on folks understanding to make sense.
Rule #1 for me is this: There are real people on the other side of the screen, and what happens to real people is ultimately more important than anything that happens to pretend people.
While that is one of those 'it should go without saying' sentiments, it is what a lot of the fundamentals are based on:
FTB is sort of the 1a under 'RL comes first', really, on there.
While it sounds fussy to bring this up, it's not, really. People forget it all the time. (How many times have we seen posts about 'OMG HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE TO GET A JOB DONE I HAVE BEEN WAITING A WHOLE TEN MINUTES HERE!' or 'OMG why don't I have an answer to my complex question at 3am on a Tuesday on channel within 30 seconds?!' and so on over the years? All signs somebody forgot reality was a thing for a hot minute or twelve.)
@The-Tree-of-Woe said in Emotional separation from fictional content:
I have also seen people who viciously emotionally abused others by telling them they were too invested, when in fact it boiled down to them holding the other person by the wrists and making them slap themselves in the face, while chanting "Stop hitting yourself!"
Also, this.
I tend to find this comes up the most often not when someone actually is too invested, but when someone expresses even the slightest irritation that someone else pulled a major dick move on them, either IC, OOC, or both, as a deflection tactic. It isn't that they did something that might, say, have crossed a line, or just be the sort of thing that maybe they should have thought to ask about, or clearly didn't think through properly before charging ahead like a bull in a fine glassware emporium, it's that clearly the other guy is just too sensitive.
Kinda hate those people. Kinda hate them a lot. Sometimes this isn't even intentional dickery, but really, if you hurt somebody, you don't get to tell them that you didn't. If you didn't mean to do it, yeah, by all means make that known, but not meaning to do it doesn't mean you didn't do it anyway. Very crazy-making.
@Paris I have actually seen this same pattern, unfortunately. Someone I knew on Shang played a 'phoenix' sort of character who would come back from the dead if killed. (I'm sure you can see where this is likely going.) I'll be damned if I didn't see her badger countless players IC and OOC into snuffing her IC (most of whom were just doing so to get her to leave them alone -- I saw her badgering behavior so it wasn't just a he said/she said sort of thing), after which, inevitably, she'd go on at length OOC about how disgusting they were that they had done so, even if it was only to get her to shut up and stop badgering them to do it. The type is out there in the wild. 
I am not entirely sure how well some of the inspiration jives with the questions, for a big reason: a lot of what's being complained about, from the summary provided, is about wish fulfillment and people's wishes being not granted. That's a different animal by far than being shocked and surprised by the appearance of unexpectedly traumatic and highly personal subject matter that might set off somebody's PTSD or somesuch.
The former is not getting the pony you asked for when you were five. The latter is unexpectedly getting the pony you had when you were five served to you for dinner without warning, and those two things are in no way the same.
1a (players): It's a player's responsibility to be as aware as possible of their own limits and boundaries. This is possible only to a point, however. Someone may never have been exposed to <subject> before, and may not know until then that they find it troubling or disturbing to them. It may also be simply a matter of how something's played out. Taking a film example and comparing it to RP doesn't always work, because there is a greater measure of separation in material you're passively consuming vs. that with which you're interacting. I can watch a rape scene in a film and only rarely has it bothered me (exception: Strange Days, which is a great movie, but holy shit did I have to stop watching it the first time after realizing what the hell was happening). I will not go within a mile of one on a game.
That passive vs. interactive difference is huge, because while both are works of fiction, you are actively engaged with one in ways you are not with the other; that alone diminishes the separation factor. You, the player, are involved, even if the events are occurring to a character in the story. There's less separation in RP by default here.
1b (storytellers/GMs): If you know you're including something that is a common trigger, label that shit up front to enable people to make the decision for themselves as to whether or not they wish to participate. If they read the warning and ignore it, it's on them. People should be given the tools to make an educated choice, however, and there are no two ways about this one to me: this is a fundamental and genuinely baseline level of player-to-player respect in my book.
1c (game): Games should set clear standards re: the maturity level expected on their game, which subjects they will allow, and which they will disallow (if any), and whatever other conditions apply. If something about the setting or game world is commonly objectionable (sexism or slavery in historical settings, religious persecution, etc.), even if it should arguably be understood that players should know this coming in, you should still lay out how this is handled on your game. Is it minimized? Not a thing? Handwaved away? In full force IC? In full force IC for NPCs but players are exceptions? "It happens, it just doesn't happen right here... " -- whatever you're going with, say so, and say so clearly. If something requires additional approvals to go into it, say so. If anything goes, say so.
(Other two post-nap.)
@ThatGuyThere This still sounds like the odds are a little less awful than WoD when it comes to that problem, since it sounds like the amount of min-maxing required is less extreme in FS3.
...cannot even begin to recount the number of characters I've min-maxed and buffed in WoD over the years to be good at their one thing they're even remotely able to be good at that never once succeeded on a roll for it. There have been many.
@Arkandel It is way too early in the day for the amount of vodka that requires. Goddamn.
@Paris Technically, it's worse than that. Even if you never had to seek medical help for it, you have to declare it, or risk fraud.
Like we need another way for abusers and rapists to get a power/control trip rush out of their crimes.
That increase in premiums should be charged to the criminal, dammit.
@Rook I don't disagree.
What ultimately frustrates me about it is that what are generally a bunch of childish shits trying to stir the pot end up stirring up real negative consequences.
And those consequences are almost never, ever for them. Which is intensely frustrating.
@Tinuviel This is all I have to say about that: OCTOPUSSY.
