[MFUC]The risk of hurting players (adult language)

[Clyde L. Rhoer]

So my game Outside is getting a name change to reflect my new understanding of what I've been subconsciously wanting to accomplish. More about those particulars here. So ... "My Fucked Up Childhood..." is born.

I am wanting to discuss the possibility of players being hurt by a game, the merits and flaws of perhaps pushing at the players buttons, whose responsibility it is to protect the player (Designer, the player, and/or the other players), and how far is too far. A good primer to examine some of the issues and dangers is here. (Do not post to this old thread.) I don't want to discuss mechanics at this point, just concepts.

So what am I trying to accomplish? I want to create a game that will push towards people examining the problems of childhood, perhaps even their own. I want to point to the lack of power by making characters powerful and then constraining that power. I want to force possibly painful situations. I want Catharsis not sales. I also don't want to have blood on my hands. MFUC as it is presently spinning through my head, doesn't have a gamemaster so players might be forced on a side they don't want to visit.

That leads to the next question. How far is too far? Can I force situations of Rape or Molestation through game rules, or is that too dangerous? Are disclamers enough or do you have to do some hand holding for those who don't know their own limits?

Thoughts?

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Clyde,

Some points to consider ...

1. Some readers are hurt by specific things that you cannot foresee.

2. These questions are the same for role-playing texts as they are for any entertainment device (note I said "device," not "medium").

3. No answer at the philosophical level seems to be forthcoming ... internet-speak could go 'round for years about whether Hitler should be held responsible for Mein Kampf, blah blah blah.

So! You are a writer, and a publisher. What will your work accomplish, out there? You do not know. Trying to second-guess what it might accomplish (I use this verb neutrally, as in "cause") carries its own risk, up to and including stifling your own work, or resulting in a work with no power to accomplish anything.

Is there a comparable work in a comparable medium you could find? Hard to say, but if you think so, then make the comparison and see what you think happened in that case.

For my own work, I like to consider the controversial self-portrait by Robert Mapplethorpe - for what it's worth to anyone else (probably nothing), I consider Mapplethorpe to have done the right thing, despite outcries about "art" or "porn" or "offensive" or whatever. The photo speaks to me, in some kind of way I consider communicative, and that's that - I'm glad he did it, although I also recognize that at least some of the outcry may be heartfelt or may represent people who otherwise would have liked the rest of his work. I have to decide in my writings, therefore, whether I think it can speak to (some) others. That's a personal criterion, not intended to be adopted by you or any other writer-publisher.

However, I presented it as an example of at least one person's solution to this conundrum, and that may be helpful to you.

Best, Ron

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

Hi, Clyde.

Under the Bed doesn't have, for instance, a "pedophelia" mechanic, but it's been at stake. It also doesn't have a mechanic for the death of a child, but there have been stories about dead children. The game is only fertilizer for the issues of the players, really; they talk about what they want to talk about, sometimes whether they want to or not. Whatever the flaws and merits of the game, it does encourage some people to start talking about things they were (are) afraid of as kids.

So, here are some shitty answers to your questions:

1: A game can hurt you. It's personal storytelling.

2: The benefits of playing in a game where you might get hurt is that, if the players are doing their jobs, greater intimacy will emerge in their relationships. The danger is that the intimacy might be with the wrong people, that a player didn't know what they were getting into.

3: It is your responsibility as a designer to foresee issues that might arise and do with them what you will. You will not catch everything; the game happens at the table, not at design time. Know that you will be surprised.

4: "How far is too far" is a question that will be determined by individual groups.

I don't play Under the Bed with kids. I've tried a couple of times. It's a pretty wonky game and they often have a hard time grokking it, but that's not why: it's because it turns out that it's a game about adults' relationships to childhood, their own and others', hypothetical and real. Sometimes, you get a turn or two in and someone's eyes open wide and they slide their chair back a little, and they say, "Oh. It's that kind of game." Sometimes, they want to quit the game (you can do so without breaking it). Sometimes it doesn't click with the players, making a disjointed and boring story and I can only speculate why.

I think your questions are very valid concerns. I also think that you should write your game, make it playable, and play it with people you trust and want to know better. I think you should design it so that there are no balance of power issues, so that everyone at the table, should they fall, knows that the other players will pick them up; that doing so is part of the game, part of the agreement when they sit down at the table.

I look forward very much to hearing more.

[Callan S.]

So what am I trying to accomplish? I want to create a game that will push towards people examining the problems of childhood, perhaps even their own. I want to point to the lack of power by making characters powerful and then constraining that power. I want to force possibly painful situations.

I think what crosses the line is when someone can take you somewhere where your vulnerable, while they themselves are invulnerable.

Take vulnerability as being impressionable and exposed, without many mental defences. I'll hypothesize that people will more readily accept going somewhere painful/where they feel vulnerable, if the person taking them there is also vulnerable. It's a sort of MAD situation - if they do anything that hurts you, because the person taking them is vulnerable, that'll feedback into them as well. Not to say all hurt is bad. But it ensures it's used with utmost care and concern.

At a mechanical level I'd initially suggest some mechanics which slowly expose each player at their own pace (as they must believe others are becoming vulnerable too), but cannot increase in level unless everyones at about the same level. This'd means if anyone just wont take it to the next level, no one can. That might frustrate your desire to force situations. But do you want to force the situation, or force the player to really think about engaging such a situation in game? Even if they don't do the situation, you've gotten somewhere by simply getting them to think about taking the opportunity "What would that involve?". Sure, you don't get to see what happens in their mind if they don't play it out. But is it all about visceral feedback? Or provoking thought? Well, yeah, that's what I think.

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

Oh, Callan, that reminds me of something.

Clyde, don't try to force situations. My experience with Under the Bed has shown that, when one player (or, potentially, the game itself) pushes too hard, players disengage. Under the Bed gives the opportunity for escalation, but it requires buy-in by the other players for it to actually happen.

Last year, UtB went on a tour of Finland with Eero Tuovinen and Ben Lehman. They made some really interesting observations, and one of them was from a game that had, at first, a fairy tale feeling, but one player brought in a rapacious uncle. If I recall correctly, what happened was that Ben pushed the player to actually set the Stakes precisely: "Do you want to know if his uncle rapes her? Is that the stakes? Or, instead, do you wanto know if he comes over and she doesn't like him?" You have to actually say what the Stakes are in a game like UtB, and if you can't make yourself say them, you've obviously gone too far for at least one player (you). The other aspect is that, no matter how horrible the Stakes, you get the same number of dice.

Similarly, sometimes, the players will threaten the life of the child. There used to be a special caution about it in the rules: "If you're going to threaten the life of the Child, check to make sure it's OK with every other player first." What that did is make it seem like that was a super hardcore way to play. In practice, what it did was make the players disengage from the Child, to become callous.

Where the escalation comes in is that, once you're challenged by another player and win the conflict, you have to turn around and make another one. Often, you'll escalate to a tougher conflict than the last because you were at the shitty end of the stick last time.

So, there are a couple of rules implications about this without there being actual rules. This is what Vincent calls the Fruitful Void: where the implications of the play at the table and rules makes something happen outside of the algorithmic output of the rules alone.

[Clyde L. Rhoer]

Hi guys,

Thanks so much for all the thoughtful responses. I definitely feel much better about pressing on. I wish I had something more substantial to add to your posts, but I don't. I'll be mulling over your advice.