Casanova, homosexuality and underage sex

[lumpley]

Far away and long ago, in a thread called I listened to my friend's game last night, Mike Holmes made a really cool suggestion: when the PC just ate her favorite meal, she gets +1 to her damage rolls.

You could convey a culture to the players the exact same way.  Set up a short list of actions that get you your bonus, like "have consensual sex with someone (regardless of age or gender)" or "take a sauna then dive into the lake through a hole hacked in the ice" or "eat haggis" or whatever.  (sex, health, food... need fashion too, what else?)

Like Pendragon only with actions, not traits.  Like Dying Earth, too.

-Vincent

[Valamir]

Dust Devils takes a similiar approach with the various methods available for "healing" damage...a shot of whiskey, a daliance with a saloon gal, etc.

Its not so obvious in DD because that's a mind set that (via hollywood) we are all pretty much aware of.  Translate the technique into something less familiar and I think it would work fabulously.

"Hmm, I've suffered damage to my Noble Bearing stat, how will I get it back...ahh I know...I'll have my way with a serving girl and then impale a peasant for looking at me wrong...that should do the trick..."

[Veiltender]

This is an interesting concern. I ran into a similar problem with my Legends of the Five Rings game. I have one player who is very into Bushido and Japanese culture, to point where he has practically adopted it. The rest of my group, who incidentally are all relatively inexperienced 'casual' gamers, had a real problem playing in the world.
    You see, the one player wanted to play the very foreign culture of Rokugan to the hilt, complete with kow-towing, culturally accepted lying, caste system arrogance, the whole nine yards. The rest of the group wanted to be: 'us, but with big swords and nifty martial arts abilities.' I had real trouble reconciling the different views on playing in this foreign, incrutably Oriental culture. And of course the joke is that Rokugan is already watered down. Eventually I had to give up on my L5R game and play 7th Sea to keep my group from breaking up entirely.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Vincent,

This mechanic was central to my unpublished game Fantasy for Real, which has been so cannibalized both for my and others' games that it'll probably never get completed.

It's also central to the refreshment mechanics for The Dying Earth.

Best,
Ron

[Walt Freitag]

I agree with the idea of mechanics as a powerful means of conveying and reinforcing unexpected or unfamiliar culture.

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting something, but isn't this a clear case of the basic ideas of "Baseline-Vision" theory in action? If cultural mores (especially the player-characters' own) are unfamiliar or unexpected, they're an aspect of "Vision" which must be supported by a scaffolding of system. Any element of system, from resolution mechanics to GM play of NPCs to the GM's description of the tapestries on the walls, could contribute to this.

- Walt

[Mike Holmes]

I'm a little surprised some folk here can't see what there is to discuss.  The equivalent thread on rpg.net is now at 62 posts without a single flame and contains a lively discussion of how desireable it is to portray alien cultures per se and how one can practically do so while avoiding the pitfalls inherent in making them too alien or the game too didactic.

A challenge, eh? Well, we are a bit literalist here. Your question at the end of the original post seemed to only ask if it was a good idea. Which for us here is a done deal assumption.

But you want advice on how to do this well? Well, why didn't you say so, Englishman? I've got whole rants on subjects like this. :-)

First to your specific concerns.

That being so, if it is true that some wish to explore other mindsets how can this be achieved?  Are there mechanical approaches which would assist?  

First, a couple of good mechanical approaches have already been mentioned. But do you remember the work that Mr. Elliot and the rest of us did on The Kap?
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=1296
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=1410

And then the abortive follow up that I had with Gareth on Mesopotamia?

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=1454

These all sought strong mechanical ways to really explore setting.

Aria?

Are there practical GMing techniques or play techniques that would assist?  What are the pitfalls in attempting to reflect other cultures more accurately when in actual play?

Well, the obvious answer is work, work, work. The biggest problem with trying to do this sort of game, is that cultures are massively complex beasties. Moreso than I think people are cognizant of. But we're all subtly aware. This is why when watching Stargate every once in a while it bugs you that everyone speaks English. I mean, I'm sure there's some bogus reason, but you still get this notion that everyone's just from some shell of a culture.

So, as Tolkien knew, to get a really powerful portrayal of a culture start with a realistic language. Now, who has time for that? Basically you can't make up an entire culture. It's impossible. No one person knows enough.

So what can you do? Well, there are several options. The first starts with the notion that all humans are similar in some basic ways. That is, we all need to eat, etc. These basics can then be extended. The option that usually gets used is to then assume that almost everything is the same as some culture you're familiar with, except for exceptions. That is, you get Vikings who worship only one god. Or you get English folks who can cook. ;-)

This is a bad technique. First, it often, as my example above, relies on stereotypes. This makes a culture seem like cardboard if it isn't instantly obvious as to the technique used. Even putting in a lot of exceptions is problematic. One still wants to have a from the "ground up" sort of experience.

OTOH, this can be used with an understanding that it is an artifice to explore small selected areas. For example if you want to look at monotheism in a iron age tribe, then the Viking thing might not be so bad.

In any case, as we can't make it all up, we have to have some method. Well, one thing that I like is to make up only what I need. That is, I only describe what the players come across, not defining things befor hand. That way, I don't have to have everything thought out, and can develop what's needed in play. This way, I can have those "issue" features present, and still portray something with an illusion of depth.

The problem with this tactic is that as GM I often don't think far enough out of the box and end up with bland or, worse, American (or Viking, or whatever), descriptions for the facets encountered. This can be really tough to overcome. So it's important to prepackage enough. This is classic Illusionism, or No Myth play if out in the open.

Another tool is to get the players in on it. See the Iron Game Chef Sim entry called Sign in Stranger. One of it's mechanics is that the players must regularly invent behaviors that have no explanation. Then they invent the explanation. That's such a cool idea that Em better publish it before someone beats her to it. In any case, players can be a font of creativity to draw from, and sometimes randomness is just what the doctor ordered.

Another note is to avoid the "stereotype" feel by ensuring that you display the culture as individuals. While the stereotype may actually be good for defining graspable qualities for the culture as a whole, nothing brings it home like an exception to the rule. And within the mores, taboos, and other cultural limits there should be variety. A good sign of an unbelievable culture is one that has no lattitude in members across many parameters.

2)  Can the exploration of other cultures mores shed light upon our own?

Again, this seems boolean. We'll all agree. What are you looking for in this one?

3)  What makes something difficult to roleplay?  Is it simply a question of taboo issues or are there areas which are not taboo but remain too alien to still accurately portray?

I'd say this is a spectrum (but then I say that a lot). As things get more alien, they get more difficult obviously. I don't think portrayal of anything one can imagine is impossible, per se, but I do think that after a time that there comes a point where players just won't. There's only so much entertainment to be had from this, and at a certain point it's not rewarding.

So, no, I'm not playing in that game of yours where we're all energy beings floating endlessly through space for eternity, and correct play consists of huddling in the Foetal position for hours.

OTOH, any reasonable human culture I think can be rewarding (an unreasonable one being, perphas one that killed all their children, which couldn't be a culture). This gets a big YMMV.

If so, given we are human and speaking of human viewpoints what does that say about us as humans?

It means we have limited patience. But that's not a big flaw IMO.

Does that mean the roleplaying of aliens or fantasy races as anything other than men with pointy ears is necessarily impossible? Should we even try or is the only point in portrayal of the non-human the gaining of nifty powers?  

I'm on record as saying that it's merely difficult to portray aliens. Again for most people that's not enough reason to play. But for some it is. I've been the Hiver before. And played for acccuracy. Hard. But rewarding in it's own unique way.

Part of this sort of play becomes, again as above, the player having to fill in what the game text does not as occasion arises. And to the extent that a GM wants a player to play this way, he ought to give that player huge Directorial powers. In fact he ought to give the aliens to the player as a whole. Anything less makes it night impossible.

Yet another example of appropriate use of Director Stance for Sim play.

4)  Can the tension between our own values and those of the cultures we portray in game be used to generate drama in and of itself?  Is there potentially a way of creating story now by utilising our own discomfort?

Sorta. Depends on what Drama is. But, yeah, when we see a Klingon eat bloodworms, that does evoke emotions in the player. This can be used to some good effect. Whether or not that's Drama, I'm not sure. Sure can be suspenseful, tho.

If for example we play a game set in heroic age Greece with the premise, What does it mean to be a Hero?  Can the tension between our notions of heroism and the highly divergent classical Greek notions of heroism assist in investigating that premise?  If so, how can this most effectively be done without lapsing into didacticism?

This one I'm not so sure on.


Is that any better?

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Max,

As a rule, please don't issue comparative RPG.net/Forge challenges. There's no reason that any particular topic here should "match" its discussion there, or vice versa.

Speaking specifically and non-comparatively regarding the Forge, you'll have to come up with a topic with more meat than this one to get much more discusssion of worth.

Basically, what you're saying has nothing to do with Narrativism vs. Simulationism. You're talking about depth of Simulationist experience and (in personal terms) emotional commitment to playing outside of one's own values.

And what can we say about this? Nothing. We know you'd like to do it. We know that you wish other role-players would like it more, or were better at it. The only possible response is, "Neat. Now we know one possible way that you, Max, want to play."

That's it. Nothing more to say. It's not much of a topic.

Best,
Ron

[clehrich]

I agree with the idea of mechanics as a powerful means of conveying and reinforcing unexpected or unfamiliar culture.

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting something, but isn't this a clear case of the basic ideas of "Baseline-Vision" theory in action? If cultural mores (especially the player-characters' own) are unfamiliar or unexpected, they're an aspect of "Vision" which must be supported by a scaffolding of system. Any element of system, from resolution mechanics to GM play of NPCs to the GM's description of the tapestries on the walls, could contribute to this.

My suggestion on the mechanics here would indeed be to think about Baseline and Vision; if the goal is to get people to explore alien (in whatever sense) mindsets and cultures, I'd be very specific in designing the tension.

Let's take the Casanova example.  Now I suspect, and I think Balb. suspects, that most players are going to think 18th century as all foofy clothing and whatnot, basically modern Americans but pompous and oddly dressed.  I haven't really looked into 18th century games, but take whatever is standard and expected in them (and the novels and films they reflect) and set that as Baseline.

Now you've got Vision: this is the stuff you're digging out of Casanova, which as it turns out is really different from the Baseline.  Cool.

But now you need to prioritize.  I mean, you could explore practically anything here about the differences between the players' expectations and the realities of the mid-late 18th century.  So you decide that you're going to prioritize sexual mores, because this is the Casanova RPG, not the 18th C. RPG.

Here's the trick: you need to mechanize (to some degree) the prioritized tensions, but you're going to have to give up on the de-prioritized tensions.  So you need to reward the player who responds to the offer of an 11 year-old girl with, "Hmm, I'm afraid I really prefer larger breasts, Madame," or "Hmm, okay!"  Similarly, you need to reward the player who responds to a male pass with, "No, but thanks for the compliment."  Meantime tensions less important to you will have to go by the wayside.

To take a similarly charged example, if the players want to deal with the Church in a grotesquely modern fashion, you have to accept this; if on the other hand they constantly make remarks about how half the priests are gay, you don't accept this (punish through mechanics).

That's a bit strong, I suppose, but my point is that there's no reason you can't explore such things, encourage that exploration, and reward it.  You just have to be very clear.  You need to think about how they players are likely to respond, and how you think they ought to respond, and use that to push them into the tension area.  This will focus their attention, and provoke the exploration of morals and so forth that you want.

Incidentally, a lot of this sort of thing went into designing the aliens in Aurora.  In order to set up a Baseline, we went to some lengths to encourage people to do the Star Trek thing: oh, I see, those guys are basically samurai with funny ears, etc.  Then we bend and twist wildly so as to provide the Vision, and hope that tension will happen.  My problem with that system is that the chief designer really dislikes personality mechanics of all sorts, so he was unwilling to use mechanics to provoke the tensions and reward getting away from Baseline.  Result?  Most players ignore 90% of the species descriptions and play Star Trek aliens in new rubber suits.

Chris

[M. J. Young]

Yesterday, when this thread was more about homosexuality and pedophilia, I hesitated to enter the fray; I did not want to appear to be the stick-in-the-mud moralist throwing a wet towel on a good idea.

The idea has expanded now, so I can say a bit more; I've also had a bit of time to consider the problems of the narrower focus.

I did create a playable alien race whose radically different mindset made them truly inhuman; I know how hard it is to do, and to play. The race is used to populate a world in which player characters are human visitors (regarded as aliens by the indigs). This is partly because it's a Multiverser world and that's how Multiverser is usually played; but it's also because getting into the mindset of an alien is an extremely difficult task requiring that whoever does it work all the way back to the core beliefs and assumptions of the character and all the way forward to the impact of those beliefs on action. Asking a referee to do this in presenting the world is hard enough. Asking players to come to this level of understanding in an ongoing and developing character personality is more than most want to do--as someone's Rokugan example illustrates.

I am in favor of exploring the alien, though, whether it's culture or religion or time or place. I just a few weeks back posted a Game Ideas Unlimited article on the idea of getting into the mindset of the people in the world you're presenting, so that they're not just us in a different place.

I am also on record as supporting play of people who are different--most commonly cross-gender, but also alternative sexualities--as a way of understanding how other people think. I usually do it on a more subtle level (although I play one female character for every two males, I think), exploring characters whose attitudes are different from mine in more fundamental personal levels (the cavalier who assumes that everyone will follow him).

In regard specifically to the Cassanova issue, though, sure, if you want to play something like that, and you feel that it's something your group can handle, more power to you. Some people aren't going to be comfortable playing in such a game, and I trust you're willing to let them step out of it and find another game. But if you're talking about publishing a game which encourages players to be involved in imagined pedophilia (as defined today), you might be crossing the line into child pornography; and in this country, at least, that's not only a criminal offense but a Megan's Law matter, which could really mess up your life for the long term.

Not all people who oppose pedophilia do so from cultural biases; I know a few people in the medical and mental health professions who maintain that it is unhealthy physically and emotionally for children of that age to have such relationships no matter how badly they want them. I know a girl who started taking serious interest in sex when she was about six or seven; I know of a family in which incestuous sexual contact between underage cousins as young as five was occurring outside the knowledge of the adults, with some pretty severe consequences. It is not clear that any child interested in sex is old enough to be involved in it, or that any particular mother understands this. In our society, pedophilia may be the one sexual offense that is not becoming acceptable, and I'd be careful about getting connected to anything that appears to promote it.

I hope that comes across as reasonable concern. I know that Max is not trying to promote real pedophilia, but it might appear from the outside that he was, and that could be problematic.

--M. J. Young

[John Kim]

Far away and long ago, in a thread called I listened to my friend's game last night, Mike Holmes made a really cool suggestion: when the PC just ate her favorite meal, she gets +1 to her damage rolls.

You could convey a culture to the players the exact same way.  Set up a short list of actions that get you your bonus, like "have consensual sex with someone (regardless of age or gender)" or "take a sauna then dive into the lake through a hole hacked in the ice" or "eat haggis" or whatever.  (sex, health, food... need fashion too, what else?)

Hrrm.  This seems like a possibly successful approach, but conveying culture has been an extremely important aspect of my Vinland game, and I have taken the opposite approach.  I avoid mechanizing any of the cultural or psychological aspects of the game.  And I have to say that it is working pretty well.  The players are doing pretty well at internalizing slavery, arranged marriages, raiding, and a bunch of other issues.  

You describe this as a "cool suggestion" -- but have you had much experience using it in play and found it to be more successful?  

Personally, I have disliked all of the personality mechanics that I have encountered in play.  To Chris Lehrich -- while I'm sorry to hear about the rubber-suit problem in Aurora, consider as a counter-example the Ripper CoC game, where we threw out the Sanity mechanics -- and what we got was an absolutely terrific set of mental breakdowns (even from Cullen, who is not exactly a shining star of role-playing).  

I think a problem I have is that this approach is that it seems to emphasize what I would say are surface traits, at the expense of depth.  You encourage token taking of actions which fit some list of typical culture actions, but there is no reason behind them.  Someone will eat haggis because it gives a bonus, but they have no idea *why* someone would eat haggis.  (OK, well, maybe that's not the best example -- since I don't think anyone can understand why one would eat haggis. :-)

[Thierry Michel]

You encourage token taking of actions which fit some list of typical culture actions, but there is no reason behind them.

That's my problem with the refresh mechanics as well. However, I'm interested in the solution, as someone suggested, of having a set of cultural values (Pendragon-style) *and* refreshing them with the appropriate actions (Dying Earth-style).

[lumpley]

Nope, John, nicely asked: I haven't played with those kinds of culture mechanics.  I have no idea if they'd actually work.

I agree with you that my suggestion is too superficial for serious internalization-of-alien-culture games.  Have Sex with 18th Century Kids the RPG needs a serious, subtle, dude well thought out system, which I ain't got.

But if all you want to do is play up cultural differences at the color level, like say a game about 18th Century libertines where the meaty conflicts are about money and political power, and who they have sex with is just color -- superficial could be good enough.  (That's where I'd put the Dying Earth refresh mechanics, too.)

I avoid mechanizing any of the cultural or psychological aspects of the game. And I have to say that it is working pretty well. The players are doing pretty well at internalizing slavery, arranged marriages, raiding, and a bunch of other issues.

What techniques are you using to communicate the cultural stuff?  Exposition, the actions of NPCs, anything else?  I'm also curious about like the expertise breakdown of your group -- are you The Authority on such matters, or is everybody sort of in there mixing it up?  How does your group handle conflicting opinions?

(Not challenging, just curious, in case I need to say so.)

-Vincent

[clehrich]

Personally, I have disliked all of the personality mechanics that I have encountered in play.  To Chris Lehrich -- while I'm sorry to hear about the rubber-suit problem in Aurora, consider as a counter-example the Ripper CoC game, where we threw out the Sanity mechanics -- and what we got was an absolutely terrific set of mental breakdowns (even from Cullen, who is not exactly a shining star of role-playing).  ... I think a problem I have is that this approach is that it seems to emphasize what I would say are surface traits, at the expense of depth.  You encourage token taking of actions which fit some list of typical culture actions, but there is no reason behind them.

I think this is a question of balance, and of knowing your players fairly well.  A few mechanics here and there -- which can be extremely slight and small -- may prod players into doing something they wouldn't otherwise think to do.  My sense is that good players will then try to back-justify.  That is, they will try to figure out why their PCs have done whatever they've done.  In order to make the world coherent, which is often important because otherwise you're lost all the time, you start trying to understand the world and its attitudes.  And that leads to depth.

The example I gave, about Casanova, was predicated on the assumption that the game would be "about" sexual mores and so forth.  If the game is not about this, if (as in the Ripper CoC game) it's really about exploring the setting and the characters' places within it, I think the tension between Vision and Baseline is sufficiently strong that you don't need a lot of mechanics to force it.  In that case, in fact, the Vision was sufficiently unclear (to the players and PCs) and so apparently powerful that everyone kept pushing toward it, through exploration, out of a desire to be powerful, not get killed, and figure out what the hell was going on.

I guess my point is just that "mechanics" need not be strongly formalized; in the case of personality mechanics, I think the only reason to formalize them is if you want them to be centerpieces of play, as otherwise they do indeed become surface behaviors done merely for rewards.  (Note: it sounds like TROS does this well, but I haven't really read it yet, I admit.)

[John Kim]

What techniques are you using to communicate the cultural stuff?  Exposition, the actions of NPCs, anything else?  I'm also curious about like the expertise breakdown of your group -- are you The Authority on such matters, or is everybody sort of in there mixing it up?  How does your group handle conflicting opinions?  

Well, several people are mixing it up, but I am usually the final authority.  I'll commonly defer to Liz or more rarely to Jim on historical matters about  Iceland and Scandanavia -- but I can in principle trump this by saying that things are different in Vinland.  If a point is controversial for some reason, I think I'll sometimes open it up to group decision.  There is never a formal vote, but people will all have their say.  

An example of this was the session before last, when Jim played a Whimsy Card named "Ominous Omen" -- and he suggested that it be an eclipse, which would be pretty darn major and he wasn't sure if that was going too far.  I was ambivalent about accepting that, partly just because of its momentous nature and also because of the cultural question of how well they predicted eclipses.  I turned the question over to the group, though.  We talked about it, and Heather said "I just went to the *land of the dead*.  I think we can handle an eclipse".  Everyone agreed with that.  I thought it was a little unfair, since her travelling to the land of the dead to outward appearances just meant that she went into a trance and came out a while later to report on what her dead grandmother said.  An eclipse is actually much more major and overt.  

I think the relationships are a vital part of the culture play.  Almost all of the original PCs are now married (and Kjartan is scheduled to marry at the end of the summer).  There is a big web of relationships which connects everyone.  This is something which has developed over the course of the game.  I think it really gains momentum: one solid relationship suggests another, which when played out suggests another, etc.  Originally it was more action/adventure-y, but at this point it is very soap opera-y.  (By the way, I should give feedback Chris' suggestion of soap opera structure in another post.)  

One thing which I have blatantly tried to hammer home is the idea that there is no privacy.  They live in a big open house with all their relatives, with servants frequently around.  This is important for play, because it means that most discussions with NPCs are open season for rumor to pass on, and the PCs inevitably see that rumor come back to them.  Whenever they speak to an NPC, it is always public unless unusual steps are taken (which themselves will draw comment).  Upon reflection, I think this is important for PCs behavior, because they take things like honor seriously since they are being judged on it, and since they judge others based on it.  

NPCs are important, but they need to be established through action and relations.  I have several NPCs who I think I know pretty well, but they've never taken off in play.  Just chatting with an NPC gets nothing, I find.  There really needs to be substantial issues to interacting with that NPC -- i.e. seeking her help in some matter, trying to impress, negotiating for something, etc.

[Mike Holmes]

Just really quickly... System Does Matter simply says that there are better and worse tools for running a game for a set of people. System is just how we determine what happens in-game. If the system is, "whatever you want" or equally loose (AKA freeform) on some particular point like sanity failures, and that system works best, then that's the right system. System Does Matter, doesn't mean you have to have mechanics for everything. In fact that would be impossible.

I'm very fond of mechanics for most applications, for instance, but freeform is just as valid a choice for others. And there are probably other choices as well.

Mike