evileeyore
Mrrrph
Coming back to this because your obvious anti-chimp bias has been 'triggering' away in the back of my brain.All done to keep society going, because we're civilized human beings and not chimps.
Chimps (and most socially organized species) have social rules. It's what separates the socially organized animals from the pair and no social organization animals.
If someone cannot join a group out of self imposed fears and demands are made that said group change to accommodate those irrational fears, then they are emotionally frail.I don't understand how "frailty" has become part of this discussion.
Of course not and that's not what was being discussed.It's not a sign of frailty to respond to some cultural artefact, at least in part, in terms of the extent to which it speaks to you or your life or your experience.
Let me let you into a little secret: All movies made in countries that depict only those countries* show only the way that country views and responds to things.They present a certain American way of doing or thinking about things as if it exhausted the range of actual or plausible human responses.
It's a rare movie or other work of media that gives a multi-national or global view of things, and even then they are strongly biased.
* Or even when the movie is depicting another country, but obviously in a "this is how we see them way".
That is an artifact of the viewer far more often than an imposition placed by the creator. And this is where we come back to the 'frail' portion of the conversation: If you cannot view a work and understand the context in which you are viewing it is coloured strongly by your own preferences, then you may be 'weak' or 'frail'. And if in your you flee from something needlessly ("I can't play D&D because I saw a chainmail bikini/bare midriff or thigh/buff dude, those sexist pigs!") or loudly demand the work or those enjoying it change to suit your preferences instead of creating your own work or group to enjoy the other work, well... then, yes, you are emotional frail.Sometimes the disregard can be so total that it seems to exclude alternatives by implication.
Respond? No. Demand it's changed to suit you? Again, create your own gameworld or group within which to interpret the gameworld, or recognize you are joining a larger group and may have to bend a bit to fit in.It's not a sign of frailty to respond to a RPG book, at least in part, in terms of this picture of the gameworld that it creates, and how that relates to one's own sense of what counts as an engaging/plausible/interesting/pleasurable fiction - a fiction which one not only has to read about but has to participate in via a particular character.
I've played with a lot of reasonable Players (and GMs) and in some cases yes, they either adjusted a bit or I did.For reasonable players I'm not sure it requires any rethink of behaviour at all, does it?
I agree. The players need to adjust their assumptions. As the GM, you are playing in my world. Do not like this? Go find another GM or run your own game. I'd be more than happy to play (baring some things).For GMs the situation is different. If they are presenting a gameworld based on some set of assumptions about what makes for an engaging/plausible/interesting/pleasurable fiction, and it turns out that they have players who have different expectations in some of those respects, then some change may be required.
Agreed. Which is why charsheets I make don't bother to have space for either.Still it would be based on sex not gender, you technically should have room for both on the character sheet if you are going to have one.