@TNP We tried. All of their contact numbers we have were M-F, and no holidays. 
Which is INSANE. Bri was looking for hours, but couldn't find it, calling every number on their web site. I suspect all of that info is probably in the packet they'll eventually send, but just so much argh.
2016 just haaaad to get one more kick in, I guess.
Nothing says 'have a great holiday weekend' like stress vomiting so violently you re-break a rib (and can feel it popping around in your chest), sprain several muscles throughout your torso and neck, and tear a few more.
Moving is not really a thing at the moment. Thank gods for still having some heavy duty painkillers handy, or breathing would barely be a thing right now.
Why this is something to be really fucking angry about? The husband's workplace keeps changing up their insurance constantly. As in, they've changed it no less than four times in the past six months. The new plan did not/does not kick in until today (and this happened two days ago now) -- but the latest insurance switch was done so recently we have no insurance cards or proof of insurance at all yet. Considering all the tests they're going to want to do... ffffffuck, yeah, we can't afford that until we have those.
@Thenomain I see where we're getting our wires crossed. I don't consider 'don't RP this' as handwavium, personally. I see it as 'edit the setting so it doesn't exist'.
@Thenomain said in Sensitive cultural/political/religious aspects of game themes.:
If you're not going to change history, then you are, as the back and forth between @Pyrephox and @Ominous concluded, allowing the hand-waving the RP of certain things. The only thing I can see that you can do is approach them with respect and I'd imagine that you'll say what is not okay for your game.
Here's the thing, though: I'm not saying 'those things don't exist, and people will not encounter them'.
Are all of my life experiences in some way influenced by the fact that I'm a caucasian female? Sure. But in any given circumstance, this is to a greater or lesser degree.
Insisting that someone's RP must focus exclusively on their cultural disadvantages in any given time or place is, you're essentially saying: "If you want to play a woman, a person of color, someone gay, you accept that the only RP you're going to do involves those subjects being front and center at all times, and those are the only character choices that will or can matter."
We ask this of precisely no one to that extreme in any other context, and ultimately, that's unrealistic -- see the 'to a greater or lesser degree' above. It strips out the 'to a lesser degree' possibility in its entirely.
It also essentially says that no, exceptions that actually existed shouldn't exist in play, because they're statistical anomalies for the era (even if they are substantially less so in the chosen setting).
I'm not down with limiting people in that fashion. To me, that forces people into far too small a box, essentially reducing their options to 'cookie cutter generic woman of the era' or similar.
@Kanye-Qwest The game has a preferences system accessible on game and on wiki that players can fill out re: this and various other subjects, stating their interest or lack thereof in that subject matter.
In other words, if someone wants to play a character who is very racist or sexist, they can say so there, in a completely non-confrontational• context. This provides a warning to others if that's something they don't want to deal with, but also means that a character who wants to explore those challenges knows there's someone they can reasonably expect to encounter them with IC. This is actually not uncommon already; I have seen endless wiki pages on games that make note of this, and do so to make fellow players aware in advance.
It also means that if someone is playing an exceptional character in some fashion, they can say, "I'm interested in exploring the difficulties of being a woman running a business in this setting," and players who might be uncertain about going there know it's safe territory.
This specific setup isn't so much about the design of the game world as it is a tool to enable communication amongst players surrounding topics of interest (or complete lack thereof), because these things are relevant on any game.
Despite all the horror stories here, people generally do not go looking to offend or upset their fellow players; more often than not, they have no idea that whatever it was they did would/could do so, and they feel like crap for having done it just like the person who had their comfort zone kicked in the shins does. This is a 'mutual fun' principle. Enabling people to explain what is or isn't fun for them in a comfortable, easily referenced, and non-confrontational fashion means they're much more likely to avoid the things they don't want, and are better able to find the ones they do.
• By 'non-confrontational', I mean: they are not in the heat of the moment when the explanation is made. These notes are things that can be set up at any time, and it's a lot more comfortable to express one's interests or lack thereof in a neutral space/frame of mind before 'oh, shit, danger, Will Robinson! LANDMINE!'
@Thenomain said in Sensitive cultural/political/religious aspects of game themes.:
This. A million times this. I've also seen it referred to in the writing circles as "internal consistency" as why you can't just say "because magic", for example. You can find a way around these things without addressing them, but as has been said a few times before then maybe you shouldn't be hanging them on the 17th Century or perhaps make an entirely new universe that's kind of 17th Century-ish.
<facerubs> I may be reading too much into this in my painkiller haze (2016 just haaaad to get one more kick to my ass in there), but I've already stated I'm not going to make a full fantasy earth replacement. That is a non-option and it's remaining that way.
I do not think, "These things exist in the world, and you will encounter these attitudes, but you should not be forced to have your roleplay focus on them at all times to the exclusion of anything else," is an unreasonable attitude at all. It is also grossly unrealistic to expect that the sum total of someone's experience is going to focus on their gender, religion, or race to the extent that nothing else should be permitted to matter about the character.
This is miles from 'pretend the issue does not exist through the magic of handwavium'; they are not in any way the same thing, and people really do need to not equate the two.
Pretending the issues don't exist has another very important downside: some players wish to explore those challenges IC. Some players may want to make a character who adheres rigidly to those social expectations -- which is a challenge, too. Handwavium makes both of those things difficult if not impossible.
Much of what @faraday describes is, I feel, spot on. Exceptions have existed throughout history. Yes, the play experience is shifted if the PCs on grid are predominantly exceptions -- but I'm with @ThatGuyThere on PCs typically being exceptions in some form or another in almost any game out there. Quite a few of them in exist in the specific setting I'm looking at, in fact; what @meitze describes about the realities of a 'frontier society' and the manner in which necessity often drastically alters how strictly -- or not -- these things are adhered to. It's also a fairly multi-cultural setting for the era, which also has a noteworthy impact. (Read: it is diverse enough that not everyone is going to have those same cultural norms or expectations; it would be crazy moon logic to force Eurocentric cultural expectations from a Maori character, a Chinese one, etc.)
Because "sensitive" is personal. It's very, very personal. I personally don't think it's okay to tell someone that they're not allowed to be "sensitive" about something, which has made dealing with rust-belt unemployed voters both more stressful and more open.
Which is why I feel allowing players to explore these things if they wish, but state so clearly they don't want their entire play experience to revolve around them or be reduced to them exclusively if that's how they feel about it, is not an unreasonable choice.
@Gilette said in Sensitive cultural/political/religious aspects of game themes.:
Anyway, as far as cultural/political/religious aspects goes... I teach history. It's probably why I take these things seriously. If you're going to set a game in the 40s, then I better see the cultural context. If you're going to set a game in the 40s and tiptoe around issues of race and gender then, hey, don't bother. Set it in modern times.
While I empathize a lot with 'this grates because I teach history', we all have things like that on games that ruffle our feathers. (Every seamstress with a perfect manicure ever, every fancy embroidered gown turned out from scratch overnight by a single person... I could go on here.)
The best you're really going to be able to hope for on most games is 'TV grade accuracy' -- which, yeah, varies in quality, but for a lot of things, that's going to be the most immersive understanding the average player is going to have of any given specific period they haven't personally lived through.
For the specific example of the 1940s, take a look at something like Agent Carter. They certainly don't address all the issues of the day and they don't cram the ones that do arise down the viewers' throats at every possible opportunity. Regardless, that story would not be that story if it was set in the modern day... at all. It does not suddenly become a story not worth telling without every horrible reality of that era being front and center in its most extreme form every moment.
One of the things that does actually aggravate me about games is when theme and 'reality' don't match up, like what @faraday points out with the exceptional becoming mainstream.
This isn't really theme and reality, though. Theme has nothing to do with it, really; it's a setting issue, specifically 'the percentage of atypical folks among PCs is higher than in the general population'. I'm with @ThatGuyThere on this one, however: PCs tend to be the exceptional folk in any given game world anyway. Provided they aren't taking it to a crazy snowflake place, it's not a huge issue to me.
My answers on this one:
Player-side, I am not comfortable with games that are universally and extremely anti-thing-that-is-an-issue-for-me-RL. For instance, I wouldn't touch the Gor theme with a bargepole because of its sexist overtones. (Yes, I know there are exceptions, but that's just it -- they're the exceptions, not the norm one is expected to deal with.) I don't, however, have an issue playing on Shang, where Gor themes are allowed, since participation in them is not mandatory, and I have a reliable means of saying: "I want nothing to do with that."
Staff-side... I'm looking at an alt-history setting. Outside this one little pocket of creation, the world is more or less how it was, save for a very minor presence of supernatural/mythic/paranormal themes that exist throughout the world on the whole but really are concentrated in this one small place for the most part.
However! ...the setting is, because the time period/setting in reality was, the early 1700s. Yeah, let that sink in a little about what that means in terms of sexuality, gender, religion, race, etc. There are some really ugly realities of that era, especially from out perspective today, and no, I can't pick a different era or setting for what I want to do, and I do not want to make a full-on fantasy setting at all, period, nor will I, since the only reason I'd be doing so would be to ease that 'modern sensibilities' vs. 'historical sensibilities' distinction. That much I know is firm.
The specific setting is "frontier" enough that a number of things can't be policed by the societal norms of the era, however, which is a starter help. That, in actual reality, allowed for more freedoms in certain respects than people would be accustomed to seeing at the time.
I ended up with what I feel is a bit of a cop-out but what I think is probably the best option (for me). Namely, amping up the 'it's a lot more free here, though these things do exist in the world, especially outside this area, and people may bring those attitudes in from the outside' -- which is pretty close, from what I can tell, to what the Shadowhunters game did (and many games do). That's bolstered by a specific OOC preference people can set up to note their characters' attitudes on these things, and how much the player wants to explore -- or explicitly avoid -- them.
Does that dilute 'theme' or 'setting'? A little. But I don't feel 'give people a little leeway to allow for creativity while preserving player comfort' is tantamount to 'now anything goes, it's all a worthless travesty, you may as well hand-wave everything because the sacred truth has already been despoiled', which is a worrying notion that seemed to emerge in the other thread.
This was inspired by the current conversation in the Shadowhunters MUSH thread, which is a little broad and warrants a discussion of its own. (Also, I'm gonna tangent and I would feel awful doing that in someone's advertisement.)
I know I'm looking at aspects of this for a project myself, and it's one of the few things that gives me pause about the theme/concept. It's probably the only reservation I have because I have my ideas about how to handle and where to 'draw the line', so to speak, but various other games have handled this in a variety of ways, to varying degrees of success. (I'm still waffling. I do not have a solid plan; I have ideas, though. It seems like I'm not the only creator-person who is facing this issue. Hence, thread.)
This strikes me as an issue that doesn't have a "right answer", but instead a variety of approaches to address the potential problems it can create when either a fantastical society or a historical setting is not aligned with the current understanding of how things should be.
How would you address this as a staffer? Would your approach change if you were using a completely invented fantasy setting vs. a historical one? What about an 'alt earth' setting ('The Man in the High Castle', World of Darkness, etc. which are essentially fantastical takes on the world we do know and draw from it's real history)?
As a player, how do these issues impact your choice to play somewhere or not, if they do at all? Do you think there are reasonable compromises to make on these subjects? If so, what kinds of things do you think would influence your decision one way or the other?
@Catsmeow I have steadfastly resolved to not start a goddamned thing until we are out of the holiday cookies given us by well-meaning friends and family, because:
Because cookies.
(And no matter what die+t I'm on or plan to start or anything, every year my parents give me one of those giant containers of Lindor Truffles. I have actually had to give them away other years, but 2016 can seriously fuck itself, I earned my gods-be-damned truffle-y goodness this year.)
At this point I just have to think they're being raptured to get the next world ready for us all to be awesometown when we all go up in a blaze of nuclear armageddon some time in the next howeverlong.
But I do have a growing irk for infantilizing monikers in general these days. I'm reading a series of books in which there are several strong women with different focuses; but reading, for example, the bad-ass mercenary's lover calling her "kitten" makes me want her to slap him.
If you like short horror fiction, you may appreciate this. It is probably my favorite short story (which would doubtless terrify anyone familiar with it), but it very much touches on that particular point and rather brilliantly. Is Clive Barker, so be aware of gore/sex factor as high.
My bed-hopping days are over, but they were wasted days in retrospect. I do wish I had taken that time to discover people that I could be bed-buddies with and share intelligent discourse.
Weirdly, I tended to do both back then. I was pretty lucky that way, I guess? I dunno. That particular designation tended to be 'great physical chemistry, great friends, the long term or a romantic relationship would never work as life partners without someone ending up dead, though'.
@Ganymede I think of it more this way: when I meet someone (well, would meet, married now so it's not an ongoing process in this particular respect), my first thought is not: "Do I want to spend the rest of my life with this person?" and never has been. That thought never even begins to emerge until I determine if they're worth hanging around with in the first place.
As a result, there are plenty of people I can have a blast with but would never want to tie my life to, and conversely, there are plenty of people who would tick all the boxes for 'would be a stable life partner' save for the 'if only I remotely enjoyed their company' part.
Most of the people who tried to 'sell themselves on the long term' generally were not the best company, which is sorta saying something since I'm an introvert and an only child and well-accustomed to taking care own entertainment for huge stretches of time without any trouble.
This has little to do with whether I would have slept with them or not. Friends with benefits was a thing, back when, and was a pretty healthy thing for me (and those people).
The stupid part about the subreddit is that they view relationships (or even sex) from a purely transactional point of view and they complain about the unfairness when there's no buyer for what they're selling.
I don't find it stupid to view a relationship from a transactional point of view. If anything, if people did this more, they would probably end up in more satisfying relationships. I've found that approaching relationships from such perspective often assists me in predicting whether a relationship will go south, and how fast, and for what reasons.
But, then, I'm a robot.
The x factor usually comes down to the intended target. It's generally unreasonable to expect them to approach the issue from a similar perspective.
If you're looking for something long term, yes, that's stuff to consider re: if it's going to work out in the long run. As the means of getting in the door/getting noticed in the first place, not as much; I have to at least like someone first before they'd ever get to the point at which I'd be considering the relationship option. This essentially strikes me as putting the cart ahead of the horse in some respects.
@surreality said in RL Anger:
Though if he's claiming he's learning to give himself hand jobs, I suppose it would fit the theme, though I can't see how that'd be a big selling point to women unless they really really like watching a guy jerk it or would rather he jerk it than do it themselves, which really just circles right back around to... coffee, I need more coffee, clearly.
If he has to learn how to give himself a hand job, that's your first issue right there.
It may ultimately solve his problem, though?
@Ganymede This actually sums it up a little better. I am still on early rounds of coffee today.
The stupid part about the subreddit is that they view relationships (or even sex) from a purely transactional point of view and they complain about the unfairness when there's no buyer for what they're selling.
Also, agreed on the massage therapist thing. I did marry one! Which is partly why I've heard the 'amateur masseuse' thing endlessly, as the term is so tied to the... not-therapy businesses out there. (And it would be amateur masseur anyway, goddammit!)
Though if he's claiming he's learning to give himself hand jobs, I suppose it would fit the theme, though I can't see how that'd be a big selling point to women unless they really really like watching a guy jerk it or would rather he jerk it than do it themselves, which really just circles right back around to... coffee, I need more coffee, clearly.
@Ganymede I think the whole idea of 'selling oneself' in that way is just... meh on its face, I guess. If people like you, they're going to like you with or without the job, with or without the looks, with or without the pog collection, etc. In other words, it strikes me that they're probably taking the wrong approach.
I get selling yourself to an employer, but that's a different sort of cost-benefit analysis sort of relationship, vs. 'someone you will ideally like to spend time with even if it's just long enough to explore their netherbits with passing interest'.
Q: What do you have to offer a woman? Even ignoring Chad for a minute - how would you sell yourself to a potential gf?
A: Well my pog collection is top tier (maybe top 6 collection in the world) and it is actually worth a lot of money.
A: I'm an amateur Masseuse in training
^ not the term actual massage therapists being trained by a legit school tend to use, frankly, and reeks of 'goddamn shady' (as in, the husband would punch this guy in the dick for describing himself that way, if he didn't punch him in the dick for randomly capping it).
@mietze I'm about to say that being 'late teens' is the inception moment for Even Cant, defined as 'the blathering stammering of nonsensical babble that wants to be words that spills out of someone's mouth when presented with the impossibly stupid that somehow, everyone who just felt some of their brain cells die for the same reason understands completely nonetheless'.
Sort of like Thieves Cant, just, you know, for MSBites, and the things like this that we run into on games that reduce us all to slack-jawed fish-gape or confused puppy head-tilts. 