Red Prophet, Black Prophet - tying game sessions to the real world

[Clinton R. Nixon]

So, that gets to my question. Does veiling the experience by seeing the events through a character's eyes make it easier? Is that trivialising the concept? Or is it just evil of me to be doing this at all?

It makes it tolerable. It doesn't trivialize it. Now we're getting into serious "gaming as therapy" territory, which is where I live and game. My thought is that gaming is an excellent way to take ideas and problems from real life that are too big or too painful to approach, and approach them in the test environment of character and metaphor. Once we've learned to approach the problem, we can extrapolate that back out to our real life. I did this big time for about a year after I got divorced in 1999 - I played different characters going through the differing stages of emotional trauma I was involved in, and took my responses with them and reapplied them back to my life.

Our game, by the way, isn't really doing that like I normally would, with true metaphor. Instead, we're approaching the real problem through character, which is kind of an unintentional experiment for me.

[Remi Treuer]

So, that gets to my question. Does veiling the experience by seeing the events through a character's eyes make it easier? Is that trivialising the concept? Or is it just evil of me to be doing this at all?

I think that this goes back to Tris' suggestion. Everyone in the group needs to know what's going on and agree to play the events out. If this had just come out of the blue, and without or entire group's consensus, I think we would have avoided the subject entirely.

I think that because we've been playing Face of Angels as a relatively low-fidelity game, it's a little easier to veil things without making the game feel like it's missing plot beats and such. Also, the way stakes are set forces discussion and compromise. I guess, in the end, I feel that a good chunk of what made this touchy subject work in-game came from the mechanics of the game (so I disagree with you, Jason).

[Remi Treuer]

Face of Angels as a relatively low-fidelity game

I meant that as the action happening in big chunks, with story flow discussion followed by conflicts framed months apart in 'game time'.

[Remi Treuer]

Our game, by the way, isn't really doing that like I normally would, with true metaphor. Instead, we're approaching the real problem through character, which is kind of an unintentional experiment for me.

This is really interesting to me. In as direct a way as possible I'm dealing with both my feelings about 9/11 and the alien nature of what I understand of the people who did it.

I'm still a little mixed on the session as a whole. It was incredibly intense, and I believe it was the right thing to do, but I'm still a little uncomfortable even a couple days later. It's like the game was a direct tap into my feelings at that time.

[Clinton R. Nixon]

I'm still a little mixed on the session as a whole. It was incredibly intense, and I believe it was the right thing to do, but I'm still a little uncomfortable even a couple days later. It's like the game was a direct tap into my feelings at that time.

Well, I think the final two sessions will be easier, as we extrapolate a lot more. We'll see - they could get intense as we tap into our darkest fears of global religious war, but I think that it'll be a lot less personally anchored.

[Remi Treuer]

I'm still a little mixed on the session as a whole. It was incredibly intense, and I believe it was the right thing to do, but I'm still a little uncomfortable even a couple days later. It's like the game was a direct tap into my feelings at that time.

Well, I think the final two sessions will be easier, as we extrapolate a lot more. We'll see - they could get intense as we tap into our darkest fears of global religious war, but I think that it'll be a lot less personally anchored.

Absolutely. 'Mixed' isn't the right word there, it denotes regret or bad feelings. I'm still feeling the game, two days later, and that's an odd place to be. It's not a negative, just strange. I'm absolutely looking to how the extrapolation and looking inwards will play out.

[Jason Morningstar]

I actually didn't find it intense per se.  I felt pretty mellow throughout, and I think a lot of that is the result of the specific techniques in play - using cards in a tactical way breaks up the narrative tension.  There's no opportunity for a big emotional build; you have to consider your next play. 

There was a really powerful moment when (in preparation for a conflict that we later avoided)  I tried to put myself in the place of Raeda, my sister on flight 77, and had this strong, terrifying moment of empathy with the people who actually died.  And that was horrible but instructive.  I did have some back-of-my-mind questions about whether it was appropriate to be doing what we were doing, or if it was ultimately respectful, and I decided it was. 

[Russell Collins]

Empathy, there we go. That's what makes these kind of conflicts worth having! And it's easier to pull from our first hand history to get people wondering about how both sides felt than to try to get a band of adventurers to feel for a mythical beast.

This however has opened other doors in my games. A player I will refer to as Jerk, began suggesting historical events that our Technocrat group could have been responsible for after my "recent history" game led to them setting off the bomb at the Atlanta Olympics to hide evidence. He went so far as to suggest the Oklahoma bombing of McVey before his girlfriend actually hit him to shut him up. For him it was about having power over these events, not exploring them from unusual angles.

In reflection, I think that's what can trivialize the use of current events.

[TheTris]

I'm still a little mixed on the session as a whole. It was incredibly intense, and I believe it was the right thing to do, but I'm still a little uncomfortable even a couple days later. It's like the game was a direct tap into my feelings at that time.

Well, I think the final two sessions will be easier, as we extrapolate a lot more. We'll see - they could get intense as we tap into our darkest fears of global religious war, but I think that it'll be a lot less personally anchored.

It seems to me it would be a shame to drop what emotional involvement you have so far with the situation.  Global war is a cheap way out if it steps away from the empathy and horror the players have experienced in the build up.  I think the challenge is to play the global war as if it were as real as the rest of the story, and avoid an anticlimax when global war feels much less meaningful than your gaming of the more immediate events surrounding 9/11.

[Clinton R. Nixon]

It seems to me it would be a shame to drop what emotional involvement you have so far with the situation.  Global war is a cheap way out if it steps away from the empathy and horror the players have experienced in the build up.  I think the challenge is to play the global war as if it were as real as the rest of the story, and avoid an anticlimax when global war feels much less meaningful than your gaming of the more immediate events surrounding 9/11.

Howdy,

What's your real name?

[Remi Treuer]

I actually didn't find it intense per se.  I felt pretty mellow throughout, and I think a lot of that is the result of the specific techniques in play - using cards in a tactical way breaks up the narrative tension.  There's no opportunity for a big emotional build; you have to consider your next play. 

The whole thing sort of built toward the moment in a good way, directly addressing the elephant in the room. There was definitely energy in the room when the attacks finally unfolded. A 'looking over the shoulder, should we do this' vibe. It was nerve-wracking for me, at least.

[TheTris]

Hi!

I'm Tristan, but please call me Tris, everyone does.  I can see I might get asked that question a lot, so I'd better go about making some kind of sig to let people know.

Tris