Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by Clyde L. Rhoer, August 15, 2006, 09:40:35 AM
QuoteSo here's what I want to talk about: * Is it possible to make a game like this? * If it is possible, what might it look like? * Can I go for this goal directly, or do I need to hide my goal some in metaphor, which I explain elsewhere? * Literature or games to look at. * Fun, is that possible?My initial thoughts are that directly isn't doable, and that the game will have to be about secrets. Likely there will be some mechanical advantage in revealing a secret in the game, but the secrets wouldn't have to be the players personal secrets... but they could be.
QuoteFun, is that possible?
Quote from: Clyde L. Rhoer on August 15, 2006, 09:40:35 AMI want to make a game that will change my life.[snip the specifics]So here's what I want to talk about:Is it possible to make a game like this?If it is possible, what might it look like?Can I go for this goal directly, or do I need to hide my goal some in metaphor, which I explain elsewhere?Literature or games to look at.Fun, is that possible?My initial thoughts are that directly isn't doable, and that the game will have to be about secrets. Likely there will be some mechanical advantage in revealing a secret in the game, but the secrets wouldn't have to be the players personal secrets... but they could be.
QuoteMeguey: Just to touch on the subject where I ask if that makes you uncomfortable. I wasn't referring to whether folks would help me in the game creation process. I was pointing to part of what helps to engender the silence. Should you feel uncomfortable? Yes, absolutely. That's natural. The rest of this may have nothing to do with you. What I was trying to point at was to have people examine that discomfort and realize if they come across such a situation that they should take it easy with that discomfort as the person speaking is likely looking for someone to listen, rather than use methods of shutting down the conversation to avoid their personal discomfort.
QuoteI'm also curious about your sex ed education courses. How are these topics dealt with? How are you taught how to address them? Is there literature you had to study before conducting these classes?
Quote from: Clyde L. Rhoer on August 15, 2006, 08:20:17 PMWhile I want to make a game that can address issues of Molestation and Rape, it's the silence I really want to focus on. My hope is it might also be useful for Gay folks, the Transgendered, and the Molesters....
Quote from: Ron Edwards on August 26, 2005, 03:02:37 PMOn the left-hand side, one superfamily is rooted in stuff like Over the Edge and Cyberpunk and goes on through the "door" of Sorcerer, branching apart from there. It includes Dogs in the Vineyard.On the right-hand side, the other superfamily is rooted in stuff like Story Engine and Soap, and it goes on through the "door" of Universalis, branching apart rather drastically from there. It includes (via MLWM) Polaris.All you people who are crazed with anticipation, just settle down. All that matters now is one single point, and you don't really need the diagram for it. Except to see Dogs 'way over on one side and Polaris 'way over on another, like critters in vastly different sectors of a phylogeny.On the side which includes Dogs, single participants have overriding, brutal, arbitrary authority over the "II" of IIEE. In other words, what their characters want to do and start to do cannot be overriden or even mechanically modified by anyone else at the table. If you state, "He kisses her," and the group goes into the Conflict Resolution system, it's established, the kiss is both intended and initiated.On the side which includes Polaris, the entire IIEE of any character's actions/etc is subject to vetting of some kind, whether it's negation, modification, or letting it lie, and whether it's full-group or by a designated person. All actions are subject to drastic reinterpretations of the outcomes of Conflict Resolution. Including the first "I," intent, of IIEE. If you state, "He kisses her," then eventually, the way the scene works out, it's at least possible that he never even thought about or tried to kiss her. Bald, painful fact: the left-hand side is socially more dangerous, and the right-hand side is socially safer. And it strikes me very firmly, after discussing this game with a number of people who were involved, that at least a couple people were approaching playing Dogs as if it were in the other "superfamily." They assumed that if they were uncomfortable with what a given PC was about to be doing, that they had a say in vetting that stated action. Whereas, bluntly, the game is set up for exactly the opposite.
QuoteIn IWNAY, the social agreements are: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.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 issueIn NGH, the social agreement is that we know where each other's lines are, and we agree not to cross them.Both are reciprocal systems. If one person is pushing buttons and the other is supposed to just take it and not respond, the button pusher is a bully and the relationship is abusive. Notice I'm not talking about the characters, here. This is all about the players at the table. In any game. I bet I could get just as hurt playing White Wolf or GURPS as I could playing Dogs in the Vineyard or Sorcerer.It sure helps to be clear which kind of social contract is expected: If the players are not all clear, sooner or later you'll run into a NGH player in a IWNAY game, and they will get hurt, sometimes in a big way. If you get a IWNAY player in a NGH game, that player will wind up transgressing other people's boundaries and coming off like a jerk. That player may also feel like everyone else is pulling their punches.Examples:NGH play: Jill has a hard line at kids-in-danger; Robin could make the victim a child, but doesn't.NGH play: Jill has a hard line at kids-in-danger, and Robin makes the victim a child anyway. Robin's obnoxious and Jill may stop playing - Robin has broken NGH.IWNAY play: Jill has a hard line at kids-in-danger. Robin makes the victim a child, maybe even on purpose to push Jill's buttons. Jill reacts but stays with it, Robin stays engaged, Jill gets to examine something about her issues with kids in danger.IWNAY play: Jill has a hard line at kids-in-danger. Robin makes the victim a child, maybe even on purpose to push Jill's buttons. Jill bails out - either by actually leaving the game or by disengaging from it. Jill has broken IWNAY.IWNAY play: Jill has a hard line at kids-in-danger. Robin makes the victim a child, maybe even on purpose to push Jill's buttons. Jill reacts but stays with it, but Robin can't deal with Jill's reaction, so Robin bails out - either by actually leaving the game or by disengaging from it. Robin has broken IWNAY.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 IWNAY 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 reccomend you handle it my game." This is the designer saying I willl not abandon you; I will give you mechanics to help deal with this when it comes up, I'm with you in this.