Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by Emily Care, August 26, 2005, 02:25:03 PM
Quote from: Jason Lee on August 27, 2005, 12:23:16 AMI was reading Emily's post and thinking, "So? Looks like perfectly normal play to me. What's the big deal?"
QuoteAlthough I don't think either person's opinion was as unreasonable or abhorrent as"I think all people with brown hair are scum, and my character's going to kill them all."I'm sure that that's pretty much hyperbole, though.
Quote from: Emily Care on August 27, 2005, 07:17:17 AMHi Jason,Because a big difference in Dogs, as I see it, is that it strips away many of the distancing techniques that role playing games (and video games & films etc) use to allow us to skate through the treatment of huge and horrible situations. Take killing an orc. The most standard of role playing situations. As emotionally un-problematic as it gets. Why? Imagine your own self in the position of standing over an enemy with a sword & cutting their throat so that their blood gushes over you & the last light of sentience ceases in their eyes right before your own. No, the experience is never like that. "Orcs" have been demonized, we can imagine killing them in droves & not bat an eye. We as people have so little connection to them as a concept that the intense violence we hand out affects us not a whit. As I'm sure we've all noticed, Dogs is different.
Quote from: Christopher Weeks on August 26, 2005, 10:36:52 PMEmily's post way up at the top asks questions about how we can hit these hard, thorny issues without getting/causing hurt and how we can write games to facilitate that kind of hurt-free play. Sadly, I don't have anything smart to say on it, but I think that direction is more interesting than any of the four options that Ben's presenting. I've played some hard issues over the years and never been hurt by them. What I'm wondering now is if I've ever hurt others with my bull-moose "lines and veils are for pansies" attitude. I think it's possible.
Quote from: Larry Lade on August 27, 2005, 09:51:04 PM..."When does one have consent to step over that interpersonal boundary?"Holy fuck if that ain't a loaded question. Answer wrong and people can get broken.
Quote from: Larry Lade on August 27, 2005, 09:51:04 PMThis whole thread is pretty fucking intense shit.Because I think the real issue that came up in this game -- first in the fictional backstory in one context, fuelling what occured between the actual players in a completely different context -- is "When does one have consent to step over that interpersonal boundary?"Holy fuck if that ain't a loaded question. Answer wrong and people can get broken.
Quote"When does one have consent to step over that interpersonal boundary?"
QuoteHow do we know we're crossing a line? How do we know each other's boundaries, especially in a game like this?
QuoteAll good role-playing is group therapy.That's not a "theory" or anything. It's a tenet, something I believe like others believe in reincarnation or the Flying Spaghetti Monster or whatever. Ya can't argue me out of it, but you can discuss it if you like. It's important for this.
Quote from: Christopher Weeks on August 27, 2005, 08:02:27 AMIt seems that to whatever extent this will sprout ideas about game design methods, the techniques of psychodrama will be fair game.
Quote from: Marco on August 28, 2005, 04:11:55 PMYou could use a psychodrama group to address issues around rape and justice. However, if one participant was discussing fairly sadistic justice with great relish and enjoyment that would become a topic of the therapy and not a socially acceptable hands-off area of it. It wouldn't play out as described here. The techniques would also be substantially different. And when the issues that were actuall there out of the game came up, they'd be addressed between the people (where they really existed) and not in the game (where they didn't).That's why IIEE doesn't apply to this.