[DitV]deconstructing dogs, gencon play

[Jason Lee]

I was reading Emily's post and thinking, "So?  Looks like perfectly normal play to me.  What's the big deal?"  Of course, I believed there was something personally revealing to the players involved because Emily said so and she wouldn't lead me astray.  Would she?  But I didn't see it at all.  The issues weren't anything unusual, they were just your standard R-rated movie issues.  I mean no disrespect.  I just didn't see anything out of place.  I mean, if you aren't feeling anything while playing then why are you playing?

So then I read Ben's post and maybe started to see what all the hubbub was about.  If this is really about Clinton and Ben's personal differences in perspective colliding then I can see how that would be significant.  If the game became a vehicle for forming a bond between the players, some "real life" connection was made, then I see the significance.

I'm sure you can design for this kind of get-to-know-each-other play, but I'm not convinced you can engineer a game system to do it safely.  You need mutual respect to talk to others about personal issues.  That can be moderated by another person, but you can't actually create it - it has to be both voluntary and conscious.  How you choose to go about discussing those issues is just going to affect how effective it is.  Perhaps you can engineer distance to the issues into a game, and therefore some artificial safety, but if you don't start bringing the issues close at some point you won't get any personal growth.  Well, that's how I see it anyway.

Unless... I'm still missing what's special here?

[Emily Care]

Hi Jason,

I was reading Emily's post and thinking, "So?  Looks like perfectly normal play to me.  What's the big deal?" 

At least one other person pm'd me asking a similar question.  Guess I did a bad job of communicating the level of emotional collision, or else this kind of hurt and (mis)understanding is more common than I realize, though I doubt it.
First off, let me say that this is 100% not the place to process the issues between Clinton & Ben. Ben, if you want to do that, take it to pm or phone call.  The purposes of this thread (since I was requested to begin it) are to 1) communicate to others how it is that Dogs creates a situation where the players may easily get in over their head, as happened in this game, and 2) to see if there are ways we can address it via rpg design.

To answer Jason and address the first issue:  The events in this game were probably typical for Dogs.  That's a huge thing right there about the game--how many games allow & even ask you to be judge, jury & executioner over someone in a situation that you might have experienced in college, or in your childhood?  If it is common in other games, how do people deal with the real-person reverberations that it may bring up? 

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.

Instead, we have small towns, full of people that could well be like our descendants, or our neighbors, over whom we have moral and judicial authority.  And as players we are given due cause for metting out justice--sins, injustices, demonic attacks, etc--but as players we are given absolute authority to decide how our characters handle the situation.  There are not safeties.  There are not real guidelines.  A friend of mine asked how it is that a coherent sense of the policies of the Faith can be established using the rules of Dogs.  That's just it--what gets established is not some authority from far away, it is simply the choices and narrations that are handed down in this place and this time.  Not even this "town" and "territory" but this table, this hand pushing dice forward.

So, for me, though I completely agree with Ben and Matt that the issues raised were independent of the in-game events.  We could indeed have stumbled over the same conflict while watching a film, or having a chat on the Con floor. But Dogs unerringly lead us to a place where we not only were exposed to some issues that triggered Ben & Clint, but that gave Clint the ability to act on them in character that gave Ben an experience of Clint's reactions that was deeply troubling to him.  Clint said he found things out about himself he hadn't known before. I don't know if any of us would have seen the depths of each other's reactions to all of this in another venue outside of a therapy session.  I completely agree with Clint that all role playing is group therapy.  Whether we acknowledge it or not, we are asking parts of ourselves to come out and play, and they will surprise us and others if we are not aware of it.

best,
Emily   

[Matt Wilson]

Although 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.

Yes, exactly. Your reaction during play was kind of "just slapped in the face," so I provided a slappy-to-the-masses example.

[Christopher Weeks]

The account of what happened and the discussion of the theraputic effects of gaming got me thinking about this other post of Emily's.  How does that curve apply to this game?  You were all friends, so was skipping the warm-up OK?  Is this very discussion part of Integration?  Is it possible to consider all elements of that curve when you're playing a one-shot?  It seems that to whatever extent this will sprout ideas about game design methods, the techniques of psychodrama will be fair game.

[gsoylent]

Hi 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.

Sure, but isn't that the whole point of "orcs"?

The process of sanitising violence to the point it can actually appear as good, clean fun in genre fiction is something we take for granted, but its actually quite a sophisticated achievement. And it works. We get all the thrills and we don't have to pay the emotional price.

Frankly if you are talking about removing those 'distancing techniques' then I'd expect the subject matter of the game to be comparatively toned down. I've never killed anyone, odds are I never will. But a few years back I lost someone I was close to, I guess we all have. My world did not come crumbling down, but it was not that great either. The point being I am in no hurry to rediscover those feelings, certainly not just for a game.

If you want to evoke real feelings in a game, maybe the starting point should be things which are more "real" to us to start with and which we are more experienced with dealing with; the messing end of a relationship or the long bitter legal squabble over an inheritance with estranged relatives.  These are the kind of strong emotional situations I can relate to though either direct or indirect experience and handle.

Maybe I am just too British...

[Jason Lee]

Thanks, Emily.

I don't think bad communication is to blame.  There is a bit of a veil over the events and motivations of the people involved, so it's hard to get a grip on the whys.  I've never met the people involved in person, so I can't really reconstruct the interactions.  That's perfectly fine, I wouldn't ask for otherwise.  That leaves me a bit fuzzy on the chain of cause and effect, and hence the significance - even with Clinton and Vincent's additions.  However, I'm quite honestly content to stay fuzzy (I hate shaving anyway), seeing as the topics for the thread can be discussed in the abstract.

So... hmmm... grief...

I tend to think of the effects of grief in circles of empathy.  The closer you are to a loss the more severe the grief - this is usually associated with actual physical proximity (how close it is to your perceptions).  You might feel more grief when your cat dies then when your uncle who lives in another state dies.  Or you might feel more grief when you run over a cat then when someone tells you their cat died.

Your father dies of liver failure after struggling in the hospital for 2 months.
Your father dies young of a heart attack while helping you shingle your roof.

Your friend tells you their cousin was decapitated by a bridge in a boating accident.
Your friend then tells you their cousin's eight year old son was in the boat watching.

What makes certain events more painful than others?  How is grief, and empathy with the grief of others, made more intense?  Did my use of the word "Your" in the above statements instead of "Someone's" have any effect?  Does a change to daily life increase the perceived "amount" of loss and hence the "amount" of grief?

Anyway, what I'm getting at is:  Is there anything specifically about the structure of Dogs that closes the circle?  I've read a few actual play threads and a briefing of the mechanics, but I haven't actually read the book or played it, so I certainly don't know.  I do see how it being setup to have more intense issues will increase the chance of emotional collision, but is there anything that increases personal significance? 

I'm not sure how or if this relates to Ron's categorization of Dogs.  If players have more control over events then they have more ability to create some distance for themselves.  However, that can be a doubled-edged sword if other people's control can be used to prevent you from turtling up.  I know Dogs has a rule about allowing you to veto stakes before hand, but based on the play examples I've seen that rule doesn't seem to get much use, and without it control is allowed to come in both flavors of ugly.

[GB Steve]

Even though I've seen some pretty vicious behaviour from characters in Dogs, I don't think that they've been malicious or aimed at upsetting other players, but you can guarantee that players won't get upset if what transpires is close to home. Players have their feelings and they bring them to the table. I guess the important thing is not to take away from the table feelings of antipathy towards other players. I don't see that there's any shame in moving away from the table if you're uncomfortable about the game, but I'm not so sure that it's possible to play Dogs under censure. I think this might change the focus from exploration to avoidance.

Every time I've run Dogs I've been a pretty agressive GM but this has stayed at the table. The viciousness is aimed at the characters and making their lives more interesting, and hence, hopefully, more enjoyable to play. Dogs is about moral choices and consequences so I give 'em that, in spades.

I haven't so far gone deep into any idea of social contract, nor have I given any warnings with Dogs. I've just gone with a gut feeling that the players can handle it. So far, I've not been proved wrong. And several of my players have bought Dogs on the strength of this too. But a warning at the start about content of the game is not necessarily out of place, especially if you don't know the players well.

I don't agree with Clinton's bit about group therapy. It's only therapy if you want it to be, and therapy is quite resistable. I generally don't go along to learn or grow as a person and the gaming set-up is often false. But as that's not really up for discussion, I'll just show that I'm sitting on the other side of the fence.

A things that's interesting about Dogs is how some players use it as an opportunity to move away from the White Middle Class Liberal mindset that is pretty much the norm for roleplayers (well in the UK and France it is), and play characters with much more absolutist views. Given that there tend to be different degrees of this movement away from liberalism around the table, it inevitably leads to conflicts between the characters, conflicts that would not occur between the players under usual circumstances.

A few examples of this are:
- on meeting starving children who looked enviously at his food, one Dog beat them and decried their sin of envy.
- another Dog, on finding out that someone was a cannibal, shot her straightaway.
- several Dogs stood by and watched a man beat his wife with a stick, and persuaded another not to intervene.

(All this happened in Fort Lemon which is my favourite Town at the moment).

[Larry L.]

This whole thread is pretty fucking intense shit.

Emily'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.

What Weeks said.

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.

[Andrew Norris]

..."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.

It's interesting. That kind of thing comes up a lot in Sex and Sorcery (which has been really helpful to our group) but as we've seen here, it can easily happen in other areas of controversy.

[Clinton R. Nixon]

This 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.

No joke.

Here's a followup question: how do we know we're crossing a line?

I've been ticked about this thread all day, as I feel like I'm being portrayed as a bad guy. And that's made me think about it a lot. I wasn't a bad guy, in my opinion, but I had to question that. And what I came to is this: I obviously crossed a line Ben didn't want to. Not with my character, but with my personal portrayal of him. (I tend to take on the voice and face of my characters: see retarded bugbear named Buglurz for more details.) But I didn't know I was doing that. I had no idea what was making him uncomfortable, and as I recall (please, guys, correct me here if wrong), once it was obvious Ben was uncomfortable, Vincent asked him about it, and he said to let it wait until the end of the game.

So, hm. So, how do we know each other's boundaries, especially in a game like this? We had several sets of friends at the table, but some of us didn't know each other that well. I have no doubt whatso-fuckin'-ever this wouldn't have happened if Ben and I had been playing RPGs together for even a few weeks.

Anyway, cool stuff here to chew on.

[Meguey]

Larry

"When does one have consent to step over that interpersonal boundary?"

Clinton

How do we know we're crossing a line? How do we know each other's boundaries, especially in a game like this?

Wht you are talking about is Containment. Containment is what allows people the safety net to go into the deeper places. I explicitly Do Not mean that no one will be emotionally triggered or even wounded, I mean that they will be supported into and out of the experience in ways that foster positive integration of the experience.

Now, it's a truth that the possibility of something *way* more intense than you expected coming up in your game is there. However, Dogs specifically drives you towards that place, and it says so explicitly in the text.

~Meguey

[Marco]

I'm sure it's tempting to think that this is all some kind of IIEE issue. That's good for theory. It's not though. This is about one player being made uncomfortable by another and it has nothing to do with mechanics or even the implied or explict social contract of the game.

Look at this:

Clinton:

All 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.

I wouldn't try to argue you out of it. I do psychodrama and I think the connections with roleplaying are there and extant (I think there's a paper to be written on that, in fact). But, you know, are you familiar with for-real group therapy (and I don't mean marrige counseling)? Or are you just talking about it? In for-real group therapy there is a facilitator who has powers that DitV explictly takes away. There's also rules or structures for discussion and for making the place safe for that kind of activity.

If you want to argue that good roleplaying is some kid of degenerate group therapy, fine--but consider who you are hangin' out with:

See, there's another way to get to those same dark places very reliably: it's when people in late high school play evil characters in Dungeons and Dragons. Again and again (and look around if you don't believe me) you get people who let their collective Ids out (terrible psych term, yeh?) and then, because they've got themselves a drop of maturity, after a while, become horrified with themselves.

Yeah? I've heard that story at least 10 times.

It doesn't require special rules or special IIEE mechanics. All it takes is the group going "Hey, let's be *evil.*"--and evil they are. Impressing others with their evil too. That's not uncommon. And it's not especially therapeutic IMHO even though it does get them in touch with a part of themselves they don't like. It's not therapeutic because: (a) it can hurt other players at the table (in at least three cases I know of the parties that put a stop to it were women who were applaed by PC rape) and (b) because despite having some psychological truth to it, it isn't therapy. There is no structure. The "learning" is very, very basic.

It seems that to whatever extent this will sprout ideas about game design methods, the techniques of psychodrama will be fair game.

You 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.

-Marco

[Emily Care]

You 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.

Hey folks,

Many good points have been made, but if it is agreeable to those who took part in this actual game of Dogs, I would like to wind down this thread & end it soon.  I am finding it extremely painful to see our feelings & actions be used as examples hypothetical or otherwise. 

Also, I did not raise this early enough, but I've talked with Ben about it, and part of my ground rules about describing each other's issues & so on were not observed early on in this thread.  The reference Marco makes to "with great relish" et al, was said about Clint before he had a chance to describe his own feelings etc.  My apologies, both Clint & Ben, for not stepping up to talk about this earlier, I think I've done you a dis-service by not addressing it sooner. 

So, folks involved in the game, please feel free to give your parting thoughts. Other folks please take discussions of these issues to other threads/blogs. 

best,
Emily

[Clinton R. Nixon]

Parting thoughts:

This thread was great, if a little touchy. Most of that's probably my fault: I spend a lot of time in my personal life making sure no one thinks I'm the bad guy, and that might have gotten transferred here.

If you asked me, "Would you play that game over again with the same people under the same circumstances," absolutely. In a heartbeat. For all the drama, it was a good game, and we became better friends. It's funny: it's like the dark sibling to my totally positive kill puppies for satan experience long ago that made my group better friends then. Discussing why DitV makes for rougher games than kpfs could be a whole thread.

The only thing I'm really disappointed with in this discussion is that Vincent described me pulling an awesome and trixy dice manuever in Dogs and we never got to discuss how awesome dice strategy can be in Dogs to get what you want. When I looked at his dice, which looked like he'd win, and looked at mine and realized I could beat him through forcing him to take a blow he didn't want to take, I felt like the world poker champ or something.

And I'd like to say publically, "Em, thanks for moderating this discussion."