Okay, we’ve seen a lot of discussion about groups and their ‘default’ agreements as to what’s cool regarding things that go down in play. Some people say that there is no default, or we should assume that there isn’t. Some say that there is a default.
Wandering the internet last night, I came upon something awesome. Three defaults; all of which I’ve actually seen in play. I’ve restated them a little – any blame is mine, and any praise belongs to the people that first found this way of putting the ideas. Here they are:
NOBODY GETS HURT
People that subscribe to this default setting are saying “We know where each other's lines are, and we agree not to cross them.”
TO THE PAIN
People subscribing to this default are saying “I will push you, maybe past your boundaries, but I will back off when you tell me to. In return, you will only tell me to back off when it hurts, not just when it's hard.”
I WILL NOT ABANDON YOU
People that subscribe to this default setting are saying “I as a player expect to get my buttons pushed, and I will not abandon you, my fellow players, when that happens. I will remain present and engaged and play through the issue, even if it hurts. I as a player expect to push buttons, and I will not abandon you, my fellow players, when you react. I will remain present and engaged as you play through the issue, even when it hurts.”
Now, in case you have no idea what “hurt” means in this context.
We’re talking about personal stuff – often in both player and character terms, but sometimes only one or the other, happening in the game. That starts at emotional scenes and simple player confusion – some players just don’t want to play out comforting the crying princess after they rescue her. And it runs to really seriously brutal thematic content, too - Children being killed. Rape. Hate crimes.
And some games favor one over the other.
There is a design part to this. When a game has solid support for handling highly intense emotional scenes (which are most likely to trigger players, I suspect and in my experience), the tendency for the game to require “I Will Not Abandon You” play (in order to be successful) is high. Here I think of DitV, Sorcerer, and to some extent Bacchanal. I mean mechanical support for getting into and out of emotionally charged conflict, and solid writing that lets the players understand the reasons why they might allow themselves to be pushed emotionally. This is where the designer gets to say "This can create heavy stuff. I know that. I'm prepared for that. Here's where I've thought about it and how I recommend you handle it my game." This is the designer saying I will not abandon you; I will give you mechanics to help deal with this when it comes up, I'm with you in this.
And, yes, this is simplified.
There are groups out there where people are playing to one of these styles, and people playing to others, and that can be a problem for those groups. There are groups that rate differently for social discomfort than for players coming up on bringing lingering pain in their real life history into the game – lots of them. There are infinite numbers of variations inside each of the three, and hazy cases, and so on, that can be pointed at.
You can consider this whole idea to be a complete falsehood, based on the fact that you can find those things, as you like. But it's a great place to start from with a group if you want to 'shorthand' a discussion of issues, and set this kind of thing up the way you want. And that makes it very, very useful, in my books.
When I bowed out of Tony's "Simple Thing#4" post here - this I think is part of the issue.
When I go to see a Romantic Comedy, I will feel hurt and abused if, at the end, some random mugger walks up and pops a cap in the head of the love interest.
Romantic Comedy's are "Nobody gets hurt"
When I watch a Sci-Fi action flick, I will be shocked if a sidekick if brutally killed (or even the hero).
Action movies are "To the Pain"
When I watch a Arthouse Psychodrama - I will sit through brutal and horrifying scenes and accept it if/when it all ends messily and without any light at the end of the tunnel.
Arthouse moves are "I will not abandon you"
Sometimes I like vanilla, other times I like being whipped with barbed wire.
Sometimes I like vanilla, other times I like being whipped with barbed wire.
Or as my girlfriend says, sometimes she likes soft silk and sometimes she likes coarse leather. Expectations can and should shift for the occasion, and there are ways of checking assumptions all around.
__________________
The society based on production is only productive, not creative.--Albert Camus
Going on hiatus, late March/early April, to settle annoyances and worries
Defaults exist; however in my games they develop over time by mutual consensus and are never explicitly stated. They also vary by system, genre, setting, and group composition. It's usually quite obvious when someone "crosses the line" or isn't playing "according to the rules".
Expectations can and should shift for the occasion, and there are ways of checking assumptions all around.
Absolutely.
It's good to remember there's more than one page to be on, and everyone should always be on the same page.
Imagine, if you will, a group all set to play "Nobody Gets Hurt", with a GM that's all set up for "I Will Not Abandon You" - and the results stun them enough that they can't express what they were aiming for. That would be some bad times, and I've seen things generally similar to that happen in games.
So have I, too many times. My group's solution is to talk about inspirations and attitudes, both what we want and what we don't. Being able to point at a book or film and say "like that, yes?, no?" makes a whole lot of things simpler. We also have a practice of respecting observations like "I would really like to play a nasty-ass bitch this time and do some real damage" and "I'm feeling sort of thrashed at this point and would like to keep the pain and woe quotient low." We often end up postponing ideas that everyone agrees are neat but not suitable, and then we have ideas ready to go when folks decide they're in the mood for it.
__________________
The society based on production is only productive, not creative.--Albert Camus
Going on hiatus, late March/early April, to settle annoyances and worries
Apparently, there's just not enough meat for people to talk over here...
All right, then, let's take this a step further.
If a game, by it's very nature, tends to brings up serious issues of the kind that hurt (in whatever sense) for a significant number of the players, and fails to provide support in the form of good advice or rules that deal with it, then that game has failed the players in that respect.
And further.
A game that is confused as to which level of consensus it's operating on, in these terms, and which confuses players in these terms, is doing a serious disservice to those players.
My group has a no rape and no anti-relgion for the sake of it agreements.
We know eachother well, so this never needs to be said, anyone whos met me will know my feelings about rape, and I've learnt to keep my anti-religion rants away from the gaming table because it annoys one of the other players.
__________________
Everything I say is subjective.
If a game, by it's very nature, tends to brings up serious issues of the kind that hurt (in whatever sense) for a significant number of the players, and fails to provide support in the form of good advice or rules that deal with it, then that game has failed the players in that respect.
I find that their are some issues that no ammount of support can possably help someone deal with.
IMO some issues just shouldn't be brought to the gameing table, what these issues are will depend on your group.
__________________
Everything I say is subjective.
Linear Mode
