One of the problems I intend to go into in this is it really isn't reasonable to ask people to disclose all their personal affairs, especially in the situation where formalizing a social contract is most needed. You're asking me a question about things I haven't talked in great openness with my own parents. It's none of your affair and I have no intention of pre-disclosing that sort of information to you or anyone else.
We're in complete agreement here. In fact, it's my only major criticism of the doc. I don't even know yet how to reconcile this concern with other in-game tools. I want to be inclusive, but not to humiliate someone by asking they reveal something they don't want public. I hope as a hobbyist community we can figure this out.
Funny it's never come up in 30 years of gaming.
Because we're improving as a society, working toward being more aware of and considerate toward others' experiences and identities. Got a long way to go, but thirty years ago I knew people who wouldn't come out the closet, and put up with "gay jokes" at the table in silence. And mental illness and emotional distress were more stigmatized than now. The past is not a good indicator of whether we should be working toward inclusivity now.
The 'how' is almost always where all the real acrimony is. Political debates are rarely about the goals, but on the means of getting there. People don't disagree that society should be secure and prosperous. They disagree greatly of the particulars of attaining those goals, even to the point of violence. Capitalism versus communism isn't a debate about the ends, but about the means. Even in debates like global warming, the debate over the facts is really just proxy debate over the particulars of how to address the problem. It's the 'how' of that question that is the actual driving force of all the acrimony.
This ("The 'how' is almost always where all the real acrimony is") is objectively, verifiably not the case as evidenced in any televised debate, most major continual news feeds, and hundreds of online forums (at least in the English-speaking West).
One long buried question has been "secure and prosperous" FOR WHOM. Historically in the West this has been whites, mostly straight white males, ideally Christian (and regionally, ideally Catholic or ideally Protestant), ideally wealthy. Whether the other demographics are indigenous peoples, immigrants, refugees, certain faiths, certain gender identities, certain medical conditions or needs, etc., there is a constantly an undercurrent questioning who should and should not benefit from political or economic systems. Business, laws, and court rulings are shaped by it. Voting districts. US Constitutional Amendments, even. Now that question is being brought to the fore, and the folks who always assumed it would be for mostly for them (or for them alone) are worried that it's not, or that it's going to "the wrong people." Only when they feel they won't have everything they want do the questions of means get beaten to death. And racists and bigots and such specifically prefer to exclude certain communities, and many of those folks are in control of those means of "security and prosperity," working actively against those things for much of the population. Yes, people vehemently, vocally, and publicly disagree what security and prosperity even are, let alone who gets them.
And no, Capitalism vs Communism is mostly about the ends, not the means: even if everyone somehow winds up with "enough," Capitalism rewards some people more than others. That's the whole point of Capitalism, that potential for "more" instead of "enough." The goals are entirely different: as originally presented, one leads to the others, is itself a "means." And no, the debate over climate change is often very much about whether it's happening at all, and if it is, whose fault and who should pay for the changes. If everyone believed it a credible, perceptible threat, or valued the billions who will be impacted, there'd be actual action, not repeals of safeguards and withdrawals from treaties and increases in fossil fuel production and use.
Claiming political debate is "rarely about the goals," and not about the social values, racism, religion, or any of the major personal and social influences on economic systems, law, or government structure demonstrates either an ignorance of real-world politics or a calculated attempt to divert the conversation, and in either case undermines credibility.
More importantly, that, and the equally specious statements about debates over climate change and economic systems are entirely irrelevant, red herrings. This discussion of this gaming doc is not a political debate - it's about the values and contracts of social gaming. That's it. Let's keep it there.
The questions of "whom" and "whether" are central to this discussion. The "how" depends on the others, and too many folks have already decried the "whether." Much of this thread has been about "whether," and that has almost nothing to do with the doc itself.
That's ridiculous, illogical, and absurd. This is all about the 'how' and peoples discomfort with the proposed how. This is not even remotely that one side wants to be inclusive of people with PTSD and the other side just doesn't. You should probably stop pretending that is the terms of the discussion if you want it to be constructive.
You've moved goalposts, reworded, and sidestepped the point, and threw disparaging words around without explanation or justification.
The question isn't about "wanting" (and no one visible to me has claimed anyone wants someone with PTSD to not game with them, or suggested such a thing), it's about being entirely respectful of, trusting in the sincerity of, and willing to accommodate such a condition without hassle. One "side" clearly isn't so willing, as again evidenced by numerous posts here and elsewhere, where the posters say outright that a person who doesn't want to play their game as presented for whatever reason at all should leave. It doesn't get clearer than that.
If a group is willing to shift chairs to accommodate a player's broken leg, those same good, ethical people should be willing to change the game to accommodate that player's PTSD. If they aren't, they have decided that the player's emotional health and/or presence in the game is not as important as the content of their game. There's no other framing for it. But if you believe there is, state it. If you believe that this excluding choice/behaviour is justified, explain why. If you feel that choice wasn't acceptable, but believe this doc doesn't address a case like this, or does so weakly or wrongly, describe the specific problem, maybe even offer an alternative.
But it could be any heartfelt objection, not just PTSD. A player may not want to see slavery in the game. A player who wants a gender-non-conforming character. A player who doesn't want cartoonish portrayals of mental illness. Whatever. A group or GM unwilling to work with such a player is the problem, not the player. They have determined that their enjoyment of a particular game element is more valuable than the experience of making it enjoyable to everyone who's expressed interest in playing if not for [X].
Proponents of inclusivity argue that all reasonable means to accommodate that person should be acceptable to everyone at the table, and all work toward that. Now, it could be that this adventure, already underway, hinges on that element, and that a change to X undermines the entire narrative. Well, if there's really no other way to make this adventure work, maybe the answer is, "We can't do that for this adventure because, you know, that's like the whole point, but we'll be wrapping up soon, and the next one won't have X." Ideally this isn't the case, but maybe it has to be. And if that's the case, one would hope a reasonable player would appreciate the consideration, and be looking forward to that next session.
I've seen no argument from anyone on "either" side that someone deliberately being difficult, pushing buttons, or trying to exploit accommodation as a social "power play" is okay. This doc, the X-Card, the other tools and the principals of inclusivity don't support or condone crappy behavior or bad faith acting. No one likes that crap, and no one should put up with it.
I sincerely look forward to your own document on how to increase, encourage, and maintain inclusivity in gaming. Every idea towards it is worth consideration, and even if it's not universally useful (and really, what could be?), if it helps some games expand and be more open, unreserved kudos.
