social contract bent but not broken

[KingstonC]

About six months ago, I posted an actual play report about my TSoY game. In it, http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=15567.msg166281#msg166281 Kamia the barmaid, played by my friend Jessica, turns a trick for a Armeni trader, who turns violent, cheered on by his comrades, who later join in. As I said then...

The scene with J[essica] and the Ammeni traders got away from me in all sorts of ways.  I was planning on using the scene as a way to futher depict the captan  as a do-gooder, having him "rescue" J from the bad men who expected her to turn tricks, just because she worked in a bar. I did not expect J to accept the Ammeni offer. And, having the trick go bad as a way to bring the captan in again, I did not expect J to react the way she did. Although J said that I dealt with the scene sensitively, keeping the details of her plight veiled, while letting her react to the issue, I am not so sure. I was, despite her words to the contrary, a sexist GM.

At the time I wrote that, I was fully aware of what kind of GM puts female characters, played by female players, in this kind of situation; a Fucking Asshole GM, the worst kind of railroader combined with the worst kind of person. I was fully expecting this situation to distroy the game, and my friendship with Jessica. None of that happened. Instead, the game continued, the most successful campaign I have ever been a part of. And Jessica is still my friend.

Why did things turn out so well? I identify several elements:
1) Trust. I have known Jessica and her husband, Matt (also a player) for several years through gaming. We are friends outside of gaming, as well. My players trust me as a friend, creating a sort of cushion of trust in my intention that insulated me in this situation.
2) Veiling. During play, I described the attack in a clinical manner, not focusing on salacious details, as that was not the goal of my actions. My doing so, I did not threaten Jessica's dignity or sense of safety.
3) Dialogue. As soon as the scene ended, I knew I crossed a line. I began talking with Jessica about her feelings about it, and my intentions with the scene.I apologized for bringing these issues into the game without her express permission. I gave Jessica the option of a "do over", erasing the offending scene from continuity. She decided that the wanted to keep the scene in the game, and have her character seek revenge against the traders. This revenge subplot became one of the most satisfying elements of the campaign. Of the three elements, this element was, I think, the most important. Without identifying and dealing with my mistake on the social contract level, this problem would never have been solved.

[Brand_Robins]

Heya,

Good to hear things turned out well in the end. I remember that first thread, and the tight feeling I got in my gut over it. I've been in similar situations myself, and know how stressful it can be.

I would like to highlight one of your points as being highly important in my experience:

3) Dialogue. As soon as the scene ended, I knew I crossed a line. I began talking with Jessica about her feelings about it, and my intentions with the scene.I apologized for bringing these issues into the game without her express permission.... Without identifying and dealing with my mistake on the social contract level, this problem would never have been solved.

This, combined with specifically admiting that you made a mistake rather than trying to bluster over it, is the single best way to get past the times where you've fucked the dog. I don't know how many GM's I have seen cross a line, and then try to explain away why they did it, why they thought the player would want it, why they weren't really wrong -- and then wonder why their players lose trust in them. It really comes down to one of those "basic social interaction" things: when you fuck it, admit that you fucked it. A GM who admits they screwed up and tries to fix it will get more respect long term than one that never admits to error.

That we don't get this (historically as a group) I can only attribute to a fubared combination of geek falicies, power dynamics and the need to enforce one's will, and the silly idea of the game belonging to the GM and simply being inhabited by the lowly players.

[Callan S.]

This, combined with specifically admiting that you made a mistake rather than trying to bluster over it, is the single best way to get past the times where you've fucked the dog. I don't know how many GM's I have seen cross a line, and then try to explain away why they did it, why they thought the player would want it, why they weren't really wrong -- and then wonder why their players lose trust in them. It really comes down to one of those "basic social interaction" things: when you fuck it, admit that you fucked it. A GM who admits they screwed up and tries to fix it will get more respect long term than one that never admits to error.

I think there's an illusion of playing "under the rules" common in roleplay culture, that makes this difficult. For example, if I was playing a physical sport and a rule said certain move on another player is valid. But when I do it, it really, really hurts that other person. Now, I'm not going to do it again (I'd push for a rule change) and I'll say sorry for how things turned out. But I wont feel I was in the wrong for having followed the rules that we both knew were there. Any pressure on me to take that responsibility is just bullshit.

But in roleplay, the division between rule and a participants independent decisions is blurred. Enough to actually fool GM's into thinking their choices are actually the rules. And as such, they think taking responsiblity for the results of those actions is BS. It becomes a bit of a 'I was just following orders' situation.

Side note:It's partly why I'm lothe to slap rules together like most traditional RPG's do, which creates too much opportunity for this blurring.

[Brand_Robins]

For example, if I was playing a physical sport and a rule said certain move on another player is valid. But when I do it, it really, really hurts that other person. Now, I'm not going to do it again (I'd push for a rule change) and I'll say sorry for how things turned out. But I wont feel I was in the wrong for having followed the rules that we both knew were there. Any pressure on me to take that responsibility is just bullshit.

Egh, that depends. The current NCAA debacle about spearing shows that it isn't all just "its healthy and/or isn't against the rules" that is part of the culture. People do things they know are against the rules, people do things they know hurt other human beings and rationalize it as being okay because it isn't against the rules.

So I agree that sometimes the problem is that the rules don't prevent people from being hurt in gratuitous ways. However, its also deeper than that. A lot of people do injury knowing that what they are doing can do injury, or even knowing (at some level) that what they are doing is against the rules. In sports terms we're well past the anti-spearing rules, and we still have people dropping their helmet on every play.

[KingstonC]

Callan said

For example, if I was playing a physical sport and a rule said certain move on another player is valid. But when I do it, it really, really hurts that other person. Now, I'm not going to do it again (I'd push for a rule change) and I'll say sorry for how things turned out. But I wont feel I was in the wrong for having followed the rules that we both knew were there.

Then Brand said

So I agree that sometimes the problem is that the rules don't prevent people from being hurt in gratuitous ways. However, its also deeper than that. A lot of people do injury knowing that what they are doing can do injury, or even knowing (at some level) that what they are doing is against the rules. In sports terms we're well past the anti-spearing rules, and we still have people dropping their helmet on every play.

I guess this all goes to show that there is a social contract level in not only role playing, but every game- from coledge football to ping pong . This makes sense, since there is probably a social contract level to everything people do with other people.
But, role playing games are special. Because RPG's deal in creating a shared fiction, things can enter into the fiction (see my game as an example) that could never enter into a game of ping pong. There needs to be a higher awareness of social contract for role playing gamers because the range of ways that contract can be broken at the table.

[Callan S.]

Heya Brand,

People do things they know are against the rules, people do things they know hurt other human beings and rationalize it as being okay because it isn't against the rules.

Hold on, they can't be doing something that is against the rules but at the same time isn't against the rules. I think if something like that appears to be happening, you've just found out where the game design is flawed. Unless...see below:

A lot of people do injury knowing that what they are doing can do injury, or even knowing (at some level) that what they are doing is against the rules.

I think I get you, but also think it's a misdiagnosis (feel free to shoot me down). What people can do in full knowledge, is not breaking the rules, but aiming for a different goal than those intended by the game rules.

An example is in professional sports, where the rules of the game are about play this game and winning the game. But with the big money at stake, players can shift from the goal of 'play this game and win at it' to 'humour these rules while trying to get that cash'.

The difference is that any 'wiggle' room in the rules interpretation will be subverted toward this entirely different goal. That isn't breaking the rules, that's the other person entering into the activity most likely knowing your goal, but not telling you he doesn't share it, even as he agrees to play*.

I think a shifted goal is a different issue to the blurring of rules/player decisions.

* Side note: I'll contend this is a patern in traditional RPG's, but players barely understand their own goals in playing, let alone others. So they often agree to play with others who have very different goals...then there's this sense of betrayal after the 'rules get broken'.



Heya KingstonC (did you already say your real name?),

Tell me if it's off topic, but when you realised that you had 'crossed the line'...looking back at it, how much had the rules guided you at that point? Did you feel that you were being guided along until the moment you realised you'd crossed the line? At that moment, was there a sense that that guidance wasn't there? Wasn't there to point at and say 'well, this is part of the game'? Rather you realised it's your own choice and you would take responsiblity for it?*

Does the realisation make you wonder at all about other games and just how 'guided' you were in them? I'm not talking about unpleasant parts of other games, but where you would say 'I had real fun playing X'. How much did game X guide you?

Or am I being picky and the guidance is more like being guided to a field and once there, your movement within it's boundries is your own choice. And in your play example, you dialoged about what you did n that 'field' because you knew it was largely your own choice?

Sorry for all the questions! :)

* And you did admirably...I wonder if I could have done as well at that?

[Brand_Robins]

Callan,

I think you're very right -- and I think that that lack of understanding and communication is the biggest problem most games that crash and burn face.

The initial issue that I was getting at is close to that, but slightly different: even when we're all on the same page and working towards the same goal, there are times when issues of who has power when and issues of pride that can keep us from getting there. When we all know we're trying to do something, and someone muffs it and then refuses to acknowledge or appologize for their mistake -- even when it is obvious to everyone that they should -- it's pretty hard to get over. When the person doing that is the GM, however, it happens a lot. There are even articles and sections of books written that pretty much tell the GM to never admit they made a mistake, and I think that's a horrible way to go.

[KingstonC]

Heya KingstonC (did you already say your real name?),

Tell me if it's off topic, but when you realised that you had 'crossed the line'...looking back at it, how much had the rules guided you at that point? Did you feel that you were being guided along until the moment you realised you'd crossed the line? At that moment, was there a sense that that guidance wasn't there? Wasn't there to point at and say 'well, this is part of the game'? Rather you realised it's your own choice and you would take responsiblity for it?*

Does the realisation make you wonder at all about other games and just how 'guided' you were in them? I'm not talking about unpleasant parts of other games, but where you would say 'I had real fun playing X'. How much did game X guide you?

Or am I being picky and the guidance is more like being guided to a field and once there, your movement within it's boundries is your own choice. And in your play example, you dialoged about what you did n that 'field' because you knew it was largely your own choice?

Sorry for all the questions! :)

* And you did admirably...I wonder if I could have done as well at that?

I think part of the problem was that I expected one set of player behaviors that would have driven play into a guided area, and the player took it into another, unguided, area.

What I expected
Me: You realize there is somthing funny in your drink. You turn woozy. And then you realize that the trick has turned violent, and has brought in his friends.
Jessica (played by Samuel L. Jackson: Fuck no! I'm grabing my knife and castorating these motherfuckers!
Me: Ok. lets use our conflict resolution system to see what happens. And, remember, we all have gift dice, if we want to influence the conflicts outcome. Oh, and my favored NPC shows up to help.

What happened
Me: You realize there is somting funny in your drink. You turn woozy. And then you realize that the trick has turned violent, and has brought in his friends.
Jessica (played by herself): I study their faces, burning them into my brain so that I can wreak revenge.
me (to myself): Fucking shit. Now the rape is an actual part of the shared imagined space. And I did it.

So, there might have been some IIEE confusion in there as well. But that doesn't change the fact that I tied a player to the railroad tracks by bringing the situation as far as I did.

[Callan S.]

Heya Brand,

I dunno about admitting a mistake that everyone can see. That may be part of the problem. For example, imagine that I'm cooking for my friends a meat dish that is dear to my heart. And I serve it to one of my friends, who, for some reason, I didn't know was vegetarian. And they eat some thinking it's a vege dish, then get pissed off.

I don't think there's a mistake on my part that everyone can see...too reminiscent of a shameful act, that. There's just core values that we didn't know were so different. And the GM isn't going to admit the things they hold dear to them were wrong. Tricky situation though...it's hard to take this and turn it into celebrating a groups diversity when someones already pissed off.


Heya Kingston,

Me: You realize there is something funny in your drink. You turn woozy. And then you realize that the trick has turned violent, and has brought in his friends.
Jessica (played by herself): I study their faces, burning them into my brain so that I can wreak revenge.
me (to myself): Fucking shit. Now the rape is an actual part of the shared imagined space. And I did it.

It basically went like that? Hold on, are you sure it was you who kept rape in the SIS? She already used your attempted railroading as a narrativist jump point "Would my PC turn tricks? Well as a matter of fact, she would! COP THAT ADDRESS! :)"

And here, she actively drew on the scene as the springboard for a revenge plot, again using your attempted railroading to spring from.

You had no intention of going through with a rape scene, but perhaps, just perhaps she railroaded you into going through with it? Like a martial artist using the force of his opponents move to control that opponent.

Hmmm, I wonder if I'll get some shocked responces from various posters "No, women are always the victim! Women have no power to control stuff, ever!". Regardless, you mention not getting her express permission to bring in the issue. Did anyone ask your permission to bring in the full on rape scene? After all, what you initially wanted was just to have the suggestion that rape could happen - there's no reason that ever has to end up in a rape scene occuring. It's like you feinted a punch at her, but she grabbed the feint and using your force, put you wherever she wanted you to be. And then your apologising for feignting a punch at her.

Though even I think it's a bit academic whether she did have control - the absence of explicit pemission from both sides of the conflict is still disturbing.

[Josh Roby]

I don't think there's a mistake on my part that everyone can see...too reminiscent of a shameful act, that. There's just core values that we didn't know were so different. And the GM isn't going to admit the things they hold dear to them were wrong. Tricky situation though...it's hard to take this and turn it into celebrating a groups diversity when someones already pissed off.

The mistake isn't "serving meat", it's "serving meat to a vegetarian."  The GM isn't saying that "serving meat" is wrong, but that "serving meat to a vegetarian" was a mistake.  See the difference?

(And yes, this is predicated on the revolutionary proposition that you talk to players about what they do and don't want to see in the game -- if you don't do this, you are asking for a similar mistake.)

[Brand_Robins]

it's hard to take this and turn it into celebrating a groups diversity when someones already pissed off.

Uh, Callan, I'm not sure where this "pissed off" is coming from. That seems to be something you're reading in that I wasn't saying. I think your context is about 3 steps to one side of mine.

I was saying you know your friends are vegetarians, you in a moment of not thinking serve them meat. They eat about half of it then stop, realizing what is going on. They quietly push the dish to the side and try to concentrate on the rest of the meal. You realize something is wrong. They realize something is wrong.

At this point you say you're sorry, they laugh, life goes on.

Excpet that in gaming you don't say you're sorry, you say you were in the right because they should have like the meat, or they didn't specifically tell you they didn't want meat this meal, or if they don't like meat they shouldn't eat at your house.

Now, I can see the alternate you propose, where they start screaming and yelling about the meat and you're just sitting there stunned because they never once told you they were a vegetarian and you're just trying to figure out why they're now splashing red paint on your furniture. Getting pissed that way certainly doesn't help the situation and is just as irresponsible as the above reaction.

All this "how to deal with surprises" aside, initially I was talking about the times where you know something, forget to do it or overlook it, and when people ask you about it/bring it up in a reasonable way you still don't admit you are wrong. But in much of RPG land that is just fine, so long as you're the GM and the guys that got force-fed your meat are mere players.

[Rob Carriere]

But that doesn't change the fact that I tied a player to the railroad tracks by bringing the situation as far as I did.

I'm seeing lots of things, but nary a railroad track. As your own example with Samuel L. Jackson shows, there were genuine, relevant choices open to the player at this point. By definition, that means it wasn't a railroad.

Now if you want to argue that you shouldn't have created the situation at all, railroaded or otherwise, fine. I don't know any of the people involved, so I'm not going to be silly and second-guessing you. But if you believe yourself blame-worthy, blame yourself for the things you actually did do (setting up a situation), not for the things that you didn't do (dictating the outcome of that situation).

SR
--

[KingstonC]

But that doesn't change the fact that I tied a player to the railroad tracks by bringing the situation as far as I did.

Now if you want to argue that you shouldn't have created the situation at all, railroaded or otherwise, fine. I don't know any of the people involved, so I'm not going to be silly and second-guessing you. But if you believe yourself blame-worthy, blame yourself for the things you actually did do (setting up a situation), not for the things that you didn't do (dictating the outcome of that situation).

SR
--

Rob, you are completely correct. I was responsible for setting up the scene, and (possbily) miscomunicating the IIEE state of the conflict, but I did not dictate the outcome of the situation.

Callan, now that you say it, I think that there is some truth to your statements. The revenge plotline was very resonant for Jessica, and her actions as a player set them in motion. She, for one, never implied that I as a game master had done anything wrong. I guess I did that to myself.

Still, in the future, I would never bring these issues up without asking a player first.

[Callan S.]

Brand and Joshua,

'Pissed off' was an extreme, but it's the negative conotation in 'admitting' to it being 'wrong' or 'a mistake' I was aiming to illustrate. It's kind of tricky to get across the sort of 'display of personal investment', so I've only got a clunky example: Imagine someone tells a group of people that he is gay. These other people then frown and after a moment say "Look, we really didn't want to hear that...just admit it was the wrong thing to say that to us and a mistake, and we'll move on"

Clearly this isn't just something the person is saying, it's something that's near and dear to them. Just moving on would be dishonest and 'admitting' it was wrong or even just an accident to say, abhorent.

I imagine some people just say something, then wont face up to the damage it caused. But others are doing more than just talking, they are opening up part of themselves (a lot smaller in size than the 'I'm gay' revelation, but still opening up). But I don't have a leg/actual play account to stand on here, so I'll shut up for now! :)


KingstonC,

Still, in the future, I would never bring these issues up without asking a player first.

AMEN! And I think it goes both ways, though that might be hard to communicate. In that, you might bring up the idea of nasty situations (without any intention of play going there), but players should ask your permission to push on into those situations. Not asking because your a GM, but because your a fellow player.

[Kamia]

About six months ago, I posted an actual play report about my TSoY game. In it, http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=15567.msg166281#msg166281 Kamia the barmaid, played by my friend Jessica, turns a trick for a Armeni trader, who turns violent, cheered on by his comrades, who later join in. As I said then...

The scene with J[essica] and the Ammeni traders got away from me in all sorts of ways.  I was planning on using the scene as a way to futher depict the captan  as a do-gooder, having him "rescue" J from the bad men who expected her to turn tricks, just because she worked in a bar. I did not expect J to accept the Ammeni offer. And, having the trick go bad as a way to bring the captan in again, I did not expect J to react the way she did. Although J said that I dealt with the scene sensitively, keeping the details of her plight veiled, while letting her react to the issue, I am not so sure. I was, despite her words to the contrary, a sexist GM.

At the time I wrote that, I was fully aware of what kind of GM puts female characters, played by female players, in this kind of situation; a Fucking Asshole GM, the worst kind of railroader combined with the worst kind of person. I was fully expecting this situation to distroy the game, and my friendship with Jessica. None of that happened. Instead, the game continued, the most successful campaign I have ever been a part of. And Jessica is still my friend.

Why did things turn out so well? I identify several elements:
1) Trust. I have known Jessica and her husband, Matt (also a player) for several years through gaming. We are friends outside of gaming, as well. My players trust me as a friend, creating a sort of cushion of trust in my intention that insulated me in this situation.
2) Veiling. During play, I described the attack in a clinical manner, not focusing on salacious details, as that was not the goal of my actions. My doing so, I did not threaten Jessica's dignity or sense of safety.
3) Dialogue. As soon as the scene ended, I knew I crossed a line. I began talking with Jessica about her feelings about it, and my intentions with the scene.I apologized for bringing these issues into the game without her express permission. I gave Jessica the option of a "do over", erasing the offending scene from continuity. She decided that the wanted to keep the scene in the game, and have her character seek revenge against the traders. This revenge subplot became one of the most satisfying elements of the campaign. Of the three elements, this element was, I think, the most important. Without identifying and dealing with my mistake on the social contract level, this problem would never have been solved.

the reason this worked was because it was obvious by the look on your face afterward.  It was like that retro-active look the cat gets when it claws you before it realizes it knows you.  The "oh shit" face.

:kiss:

plus, for some reason, the character Kamia can come up with some ultra fantastic come-back lines EVER!

I can't do that irl and it was really cool to be able to role-play a balls to the wall tough chick with my best friends.  Truely they've seen me through so much, and have been so loyal and good to me, that it felt really safe to me to explore that kind of reaction through someone else's eyes so to speak.

Actually, it was thereputic to role-play both the awome come-back lines and sometimes grotesque physical retrubution in game, in a way I never could irl.

Speaking as a surviver and not just Kingston's friend, he handled it with caring and respect and I am grateful for the chance to heal some old wounds of my own in a safe if unothodox way.

enough gushy girlieness
jessica