DM-therapy!

[Rich Forest]

Tomas,

Ok, I get where you're coming from on posting it here--your heroic defense confused me a bit.  It gave me the impression that you weren't really interested in the feedback.  It makes sense now.

In the meantime, I've been thinking about the main point people are raising in their responses, which basically boils down to, "I just don't get it."  I'm in there a bit.  I mean, I think I can get it from a GM's standpoint.  If you're a frustrated GM, I can see the therapeutic value of it, sure.  You get to take revenge on the players.  That seems to be the point.  But maybe it isn't, or it isn't entirely.  

So let me try to work it out some more.  I'm not sure if I get it from a player's standpoint, but here's my stab at "getting it."  It's what you've experienced, over and over, in countless games.  No matter what you do, ultimately, the GM is in charge of everything and your only real effectiveness is your social effectiveness.  In these cases, the rules are an illusion (it's the "Golden Rule," after all, in many a game).  So the one thing that ostensibly empowers you as a player, the rules, are meaningless if the GM is fudging and ignoring them left and right.  Pervo's the same as this, really, except... you know the GM gets to do whatever he wants.  It's right out there in the open.  No obfuscation, no sense that maybe, just maybe, you can be effective through the rules.  Just the GM's power, and if you are clever enough and effective enough on a social level, you can at least beat out the other players.  Same as always, but this time it's explicit.

Am I getting the point here?  

Of course, this seems most useful to both GMs and players who have had Bad Experiences (TM).  Which I suppose is a lot of people.  So maybe the reason I wasn't getting it was that I haven't really had all that many bad experiences of this sort, at least not for a very, very long time.  I can see the usefulness of it in challenging or revealing unspoken issues that many players and GMs have with each other.  

I'll take a break now and wait to see your response to Jasper's questions, which I'm interested in as well.

Rich

[Tomas HVM]

What, as you perceive it, is the benefit of playing Pervo for the GM, and for the players (is there one for the players)?

It's dead simple: when the GM get a game to lead (Pervo), where he is supposed to disregard the fun of the players, and he discovers that they still have fun, he may be delivered from the fear of boring his players.

In my experience GMs who make decisions in tune with the drama, pertaining to method and genre, not as much to players mood and expectations, are generally better off and more popular than other GMs.

To be a good GM you need to be brutal, cynical and creative.

Your brutality promises the players you will not hold back any consequence when their characters deserves it. I talso insulates you from some of the most disrupoting social conventions, which could otherwise suppress your effective action-range as a GM.

Your cynicism create distance between you and the drama, letting you see it from afar or above, and keep the oversight. It also enables you to invest evenly in all kinds of non-player characters, and to be fair in your dealings.

Your creativeness enables you to create surprising twists and turns in the drama. It hightens the quality of your response to player initiatives, and it makes it easier for you to weave the fiction in a "realistic" way.

Pervo is good training of the first two of these principles, but it pertains especially to the "brutality" of the GM.

... the rules are an illusion ... So the one thing that ostensibly empowers you as a player, the rules, are meaningless if the GM is fudging and ignoring them left and right. Pervo's the same as this, really, except... you know the GM gets to do whatever he wants.

You certainly got a good point in this. I have never thought on it like this, but it makes sense, and certainly applies to Pervo.

In addition to this, Pervo also is good for the players (and popular because of it) in another way; it enables them to let loose (like in many other improvised games), and to explore anxieties linked to authorities, loss of control and sex. It is really effective in this regard, as you may experience total humiliation within the relative safe context of a game, and still live to tell. It's like a purgatory! The anxiety is burned away!

As the game transcend the social borders, and make use of player insults, it becomes more effective in this respect. At the same time the fairness of it (everybody is killed, and insulted), makes it a positive social experience, and not a private neurotic one. That is a very important point. If you did this to one of the players in another RPG, you would be overly brutal, an evil man, and a bad GM.

All this therapeutic talk is alright, as long as you keep in mind that Pervo is a grotesquely humorous roleplaying game, with therapeutic side-effects (a fact which may surprise you), but still played for the entertainment of it.

Hope that clarified it somehow.

[matthijs]

Hello all!

I've been lurking on the Forge for a while now (a good place to lurk), but thought I'd go public and post some comments about how Pervo can be played. I've only played it once, and it was years ago, at a con.

The unpredictable and cynical cruelty of the GM, who didn't seem to care _at all_ what you were supposed to do at a gaming session, was a bit of a shock. The public humiliation took some time getting used to. I remember we all had to write our names down at the top of the paper. A few had sloppy handwriting, and didn't get a lot of Cleverness Points (Flinkhetspoeng). I got severely punished for having a stupid name. I don't remember very much of the actual session - two characters got their bodies fused together, and the players were forced to speak simultaneously, trying to say the same words at the same time, so they were talking rubbish veeery slowly most of the time. One character was forced down onto a large blade and cut slowly in half. We were told we could hand in requests for more Cleverness, if we wanted; nobody dared at first, because we assumed our characters would be killed (and we'd be ridiculed again), but I took a shot at it, and actually received some points. At no point did the GM, who we didn't know (then), show any sign of liking us, or trying to do anything else than inflict pain on the characters and humiliation on the players.

It's one of the more notable gaming sessions I've experienced (top 20 at least). Hard to say whether I actually enjoyed it as such - I guess I did, after a fashion. But I can definitely see Tomas' point that it must do wonders for the GM. After having done all this to a bunch of players, you'll never have to worry that you're too harsh on them again.

I might like it more if I played it again, since now I know both the game and its creator, and would find it easier to take a step back and laugh at the sheer over-the-top cruelty of it all. However, that would take a bit of the fun away from it as well.

I'm not really sure that the written document does justice to the game as it is (was?) played. I'm also not quite sure that it can be pulled off at all by just any GM. It's all about attitude, and is one of those things that's very simple once you get it, but very hard to describe - like "what's rock and roll".

- Matthijs

[Jasper]

Thanks for posting that play experience, Matthijs, that helped a lot.  I agree that the write-up of the game, as it stands, does not really describe Pervo or its funciton, as far as I see it now.

However, I also have to say that I have grave doubts as to the beneficial effect of GMing a Pervo game.  Perhaps I'd have to see one to judge it...but this seems like a strange kind of hazing in a way.  Personally, I would never want to be a player of Pervo, nor would I want to GM it.  Specifically, I fail to see how the GM's cruelty (both to characters and players) will make him a better GM.  Matthijs says that perhaps the GM will no longer fear being cruel in the future...that may be true, but I don't see how it helps.

On the other hand, Thomas, you said that Pervo would let a GM learn that players have fun even if without him, so he can stop worrying so much.  That might be a noble goal...but I don't see how the GM indiscriminantly killing characters facilitates that.

PS. Please don't take my criticisms too personally.  I don't wish to activate the "heroic defense" of Pervo any more than it already has been, since I don't think that will help any of us.

[Tomas HVM]

I don't take criticism personally. At least I try not to do it.

You may doubt the effects of this game. It's only natural. The sideeffects were not premeditated, but discovered in play. So they are there.

What I'm concerned with is why they are there, and how the experience may be used. I try to use it to strenghten GMs in handling their players. I also try to increase our insight into roleplaying games, by referring to these sideeffects, and giving theories on how they come about.

I think there is knowledge to be had from Pervo, both on a practical and a theoretical level.

[Rich Forest]

Tomas,

I thought I was getting it all figured out, but then Jasper's comments and your response have made me think some more.  'Cause, y'know, it does really seem like a kind of hazing ritual to me, too.  

I try to use it to strenghten GMs in handling their players. I also try to increase our insight into roleplaying games, by referring to these sideeffects, and giving theories on how they come about.

Has Pervo primarily used by LARP players/GMs?  Given the large pool of players, it seems more practical at a convention and/or LARP oriented function.  Was it designed with LARPers more in mind, or table-top players?  

I'm curious because the idea of the GM needing to strengthen his ability to handle the players is setting off alarm bells for me, from a mostly table-top perspective.  I mean, the GM is just another player.  Sure, depending on the game and the group dynamic, he may be the player handing out credibility.  But he's still a person hanging out with a bunch of other people.  In functional groups of friends, he shouldn't need something like pervo to strengthen his ability to handle the players.  He shouldn't be "handling" the players at all, should he?  I mean, yeah, the GM has a certain authority in the game.  But it's an authority based on trust.  I trust him to fulfill his role and to do so in a fair manner, he trusts me to do my part.  Certainly, not all GMs and players can be trusted.  But I choose not to play with people who I can't trust.  If there's one thing I've become conscious of through the Forge, it's that.  

Now in a LARP context, I can see this as more of a big deal.  There are a lot more people involved, and perhaps the GM does need to practice socially just saying, "No." Or, "the buck stops here."  Which is why I'm interested in the context of your design and play of Pervo.

Rich

[matthijs]

Rich,

I mean, the GM is just another player. Sure, depending on the game and the group dynamic, he may be the player handing out credibility. But he's still a person hanging out with a bunch of other people. In functional groups of friends, he shouldn't need something like pervo to strengthen his ability to handle the players. He shouldn't be "handling" the players at all, should he?

This sounds a bit dogmatic. I believe there's a consensus at the Forge that all players are created equal, and that the GM is just another player. However, a lot of people don't play like this - and don't want to. A lot of players are more comfortable with letting the GM have the responsibility for the adventure, and actually expect and enjoy a bit of railroading from that Specially Empowered Individual.

I'm speaking from immediate personal experience here. I'm running a campaign using a game called "Draug", of my own design, set in a folkloristic 1800's Norway, with trolls, little people, and national romantics. I've tried to empower the players, telling them to take charge of sub-plots, create NPC's, feel free to describe events, and guide the action; but they just don't really feel like it. So, last session, I ran a good old railroader, with almost every action pre-planned, and they loved it.

I think one of the reasons they enjoyed this session so much, is that I gave a powerful signal - as a GM - that I was prepared to take responsibility for the game and for the players' enjoyment. I don't believe this is a sign of a dysfunctional group.

In Keith Johnstone's book "Impro", one of the (very many) important points is that the instructor / group leader must make it clear that he/she takes full responsibility for the results; if the group fails, it's the leader's fault. This gives the actors the freedom to improvise without having to make judgements about themselves or the other actors; they have a safety net in case they screw up.

Perhaps the same thing could be said about the GM's role in a group of players...

(Is this considered "off-topic"? I'm used to posting in a fairly anarchistic group, so just let me know if this should have been posted elsewhere...)

- Matthijs

[Tomas HVM]

Has Pervo primarily used by LARP players/GMs?

No, never. it is a verbal roleplaying game (my term for "tabletop"). It is well suited for convention play, for the reasons stated before in this thread.

There's no need to sound the alarm, at least not on behalf of game masters who struggle, ask for help, and get it.

You may have a sound and stable relationship to your players, but this is not true for every GM on this earth. To present practical "exercises" by which GMs may earn insights, is one of the best ways of helping them. The sideeffects of Pervo makes it an ideal tool for this, in respect of problems with GM-authority, and sound attitudes towards the chaotic nature of players.

Let loose, and let chaos rule you!
- may be the deepest insight presented by such an exercise.

[Rich Forest]

Mattijs, you'll probably be surprised that I don't particularly disagree with anything you're saying.  We're probably in danger of talking past each other—I didn't mean to imply that the power split in play needs to be even between players and GMs.  What you're describing, as long as everyone is in on it, is just fine.  The players are putting their trust in you, and you're doing your best to live up to it.  And it sounds like it's working.  

I have no problem with that.  

I was skeptical about Pervo, but open and interested, right up until that bit about teaching GMs to handle players.  That's where my alarm bells went off.  (They're little bells, by the way, not, "Oh my god, we have to stop this maniac!" alarm bells.  More like, "wait a minute, now I have a new question" bells.)  Not that the GMs couldn't be helped in some ways by it—I certainly have no concerns about people asking for help and getting it, nor do I labor under the illusion that all game groups are happy and functional.  

What concerned me was the degree that it continues to place the GM in an entirely separate place.  So I've gone back and read the thread over once more, to try to pin down how this game is valuable to players.  

In addition to this, Pervo also is good for the players (and popular because of it) in another way; it enables them to let loose (like in many other improvised games), and to explore anxieties linked to authorities, loss of control and sex. It is really effective in this regard, as you may experience total humiliation within the relative safe context of a game, and still live to tell. It's like a purgatory! The anxiety is burned away!

As the game transcend the social borders, and make use of player insults, it becomes more effective in this respect. At the same time the fairness of it (everybody is killed, and insulted), makes it a positive social experience, and not a private neurotic one. That is a very important point. If you did this to one of the players in another RPG, you would be overly brutal, an evil man, and a bad GM.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on the first one, having not played the game myself.  But there's an assumption that is still at work here in the part about fairness.  Tomas, it doesn't seem to me that everyone is killed and everyone is insulted.  The GM isn't, is he?  It's fair among the players, I suppose, in a sense.  Although you could probably argue that some people likely are insulted more, and this may not be a light matter.  But since it's the fairness of Pervo that transforms it into a positive social experience, I think it's problematic that the GM stays free and clear.  

I never get to get back at him, the bastard :-)  See, the playing field still isn't really level.  

I get that the whole thing aims at allowing for a kind of group emotional release, and the release of anxieties allows everyone to go away from the experience with new insights.  I'm ultimately not convinced that the release is as effective for players as it is for GMs.  In fact, I'm less convinced now about that part than I was before, although I'm much clearer on the potential positive effects that you've outlined.  I think the issue for me isn't, "Can Pervo have positive effects for the GM?"  Sure, I'm open to that possibility.  The issue for me isn't even, "Can Pervo have positive effects for the players?" I'm a bit more skeptical of this one, but I'll leave open the possibility that it might have some.  I guess the question, for me, is more like, "Does the potential for it to have these positive effects outweigh the potential negative ones?"  Here, the answer will vary for different people.  For me, the jury's still out, but I lean toward skepticism.  

That said, I think we may have reached a bit of an impasse here.  If the only way to understand it truly is to play it, well, we're hardly going to get past that wall by talking about it.

So I'll grant you this: I can see it having usefulness in helping some people let loose and not worry as much about staying in control.  How's that?

Rich

[Tomas HVM]

Hi Rich,

play it! Gather a bunch of people around you (10-20), and let loose!

But please don't play it as some therapeutic experiment. Do it for the heck and fun of it! That's the primary goal of Pervo.

[matthijs]

Rich,

I agree that there's no fairness in Pervo, in the sense that the GM and players are in two entirely different "places". The one time I played it, I can't say I felt like I could "let loose" either, in the way Tomas describes; there was too much paranoia, and the sense that the GM might pounce on you at any time. It was perhaps cathartic, though I didn't really feel a great sense of release in the end. It was a bit like role-playing through "I have no mouth, but I must scream", as a matter of fact...

- Matthijs

[Tomas HVM]

There is indeed fairness in Pervo; all players are treated equal, and as they, in a context with a elevated GM, must be regarded the true social collective, they all share the experience. This sharing is essential.

The GM is in fact outside this collective, like some sort of joint focal point for the players, and is, if anyone is, the one treated unfair by the game. I mean: the game isn't showing of his sympathetic side...

However; most GMs and players understand this; Pervo is a game, it's allowed to explore such things in a game.

As for Matthijs' experience with the game: it's his, and true to the game.

[Mike Holmes]

Hi Tomas,

First, consider not telling people that if they don't see the value or reason behind the game that they should play the game. It's very true that the only way to see what a game will do in actual play is to actually play. But that doesn't mean that a game can't be discussed here. Basically, in telling people that they can't argue against you until they've played the game, you eliminate 100% of the dialog until somebody plays. If people make arguments pre-play, debate them on that level. We understand that it's your experience that the game does what you say it does, and we believe you. But that doesn't mean that there's nothing to discuss there.

Consider that, for one, if people reading the rules don't see the point of play that they might not play. Whether or not the game does what it's supposed to do. That ought to merit some discussion right there, and Rich was giving you good feedback on that topic.


I think that I have a better handling on your game now from the posts that you have made that respond directly to the people giving you feedback. And what I'd posit, possibly controversially though that's not my intent, is that what your game is doing is teaching the idea that we term on The Forge as Coherence. That is, the game has a simple and clear direction on how the players and GM all interact. In doing so, as an exercise, I think that it can show people that one can have an understanding between each other of what the game is supposed to be about that's clear. And that, I think, if anything would be what most GMs would take away in terms of a lesson. The "fear" that you speak of, the fear of being unfair or mean to players is precisely the fear that not everyone is on the same sheet of music in terms of what play is supposed to be.

While I think that the game might serve as an interesting excercise, as you put it, I think it also has some potential problems. It seems to me that the players are being sacrificed on the alter of the GM's need for catharsis here. As Matthijs points out, in play he felt trapped (I love the Ellison reference) and paraniod. These elements can be fun, but I'm not sure I see where it would be in this context. Rather, it seems to me that what you get is a GM who can take out his aggressive impulses on the players.

Don't take this as an insult, but that seems like a hypothetical anger therapy session that allowed the angry party to verbally abuse the people in their relationships in order to make the angry party feel better. Which in the long run I'd doubt the effectiveness of, and which in the short run may stress out the abused. If the intent is not to address the GM's issues about his players, then why the particular context?

It seems extreme and unfocused in terms of it's objectives. The "solution" to the problem of Incoherence is generally assumed to be writing games that deliver a coherent means of play. That is, why do the "exercise" when you can play another game that delivers all the other elements of a RPG, and delivers an equally coherent way to play? Why not incorporate the lesson into the game?

Because, other than the lesson, I'm not seeing anything particularly attractive to a game that's about, from what I can see, characters dying greusomely. I can do that in Cthulhu, and get an investigation out of it as well. :-)

This really is more of a Theory discussion that a design discussion...

Mike

[Tomas HVM]

First, consider not telling people that if they don't see the value or reason behind the game that they should play the game.

This is not called for. I've listened to arguments alot here, and answered them. I've also refuted some claims on the game, which I consider unfounded, with referral to actual experience of play. It must be allowed to do so.

I've not nubbed Rich in any way, at least I hope he doesn't feel so, by stating that he should play the game. It seemed a reasonable thing to do, as a conclusion to the debate we had, nothing more.

I think that I have a better handling on your game now from the posts that you have made that respond directly to the people giving you feedback. And what I'd posit ... is that what your game is doing is teaching the idea that we term on The Forge as Coherence. That is, the game has a simple and clear direction on how the players and GM all interact. In doing so, as an exercise, I think that it can show people that one can have an understanding between each other of what the game is supposed to be about that's clear. And that, I think, if anything would be what most GMs would take away in terms of a lesson. The "fear" that you speak of, the fear of being unfair or mean to players is precisely the fear that not everyone is on the same sheet of music in terms of what play is supposed to be.

I think this is one of the brightest thoughts I've read on this game so far, including my own. Thank you!

I've never thought about "coherence" as an important lesson to be had from Pervo, but you are obviously right. I have talked about "persuing consequences" with Gms though, in relation to this game, and I think that has been my way of offering this point to them.

It seems to me that the players are being sacrificed on the alter of the GM's need for catharsis here. As Matthijs points out, in play he felt trapped (I love the Ellison reference) and paraniod. These elements can be fun, but I'm not sure I see where it would be in this context. Rather, it seems to me that what you get is a GM who can take out his aggressive impulses on the players.

I consider Matthijs' game-participation an example of what some players will experience. It is not the only type of experience given by this game, so I have to elaborate on it.

You are supposed to feel trapped by the game, and certainly the GM gives you good reason to feel preyed upon. Players killed in the early stages of the game, are all left with these experiences, and then something (a bit of fun, and the refreshing novelty of it). Even players in the later stages of the game may be left with little more than this, depending on their own attitude; their will or ability to savvy the theme. However; players may come through these initial stages of angst, experience a bloody bloom, or catharsis, and wring themselves inside out. More or less in a controlled manner. As I've seen this happen, and played out with fervor, I am pretty confident some players experience Pervo on a deeper level that the one Matthijs refer to.

The "sacrifice" of players, as you term it, is a new experience to most players. It si not a "sacrifice" as much as it is a real lesson to be killed without excuse and driven from the table. I think it's a good lesson. It may spur some thoughts about what a GM normally is, and is expected to do. It may open your eyes to the fact that RPGs don't have to be all cuddly and nice. It may theach you a lesson on real authority, and what it get away with.

The last thing this does, is to leave players with anything like the emotional wounds a real sacrifice of anyone would create. I have never experienced anyone close to such a state, and never heard of anyone either.

Players tend to love Pervo, however easy they are killed. It might be so because the game is fun in a brutal way, and very refreshing,

... allowed the angry party to verbally abuse the people in their relationships in order to make the angry party feel better. Which in the long run I'd doubt the effectiveness of, and which in the short run may stress out the abused.

You use strong language, talking about "sacrifice" and "angry party", and "abuse". However serious the game may be considered, this language is a bit over the top. I do not consider your description of "angry party"... etc. as relevant to the game. It is not a description close to the reality of the game.

I take it the field is unfamiliar to most roleplayers; discussing a game in relation to angst, sensuality, power, submission and death, and real life lessons related to this. It's all a part of Pervo I accepted when I found it there, and I want to keep it in the game. I consider the game a small gem, in all it's grotesque glory. I think this attitude, my frankness about it, and the provocative game-theme itself, makes it hard to discuss Pervo. But it also makes it worth our time to discuss it.

In the short run the players tend to get on very well with the game, even after they've played it.

It is a excercise I recommend to GMs in want of guidance on certain aspects of GMing (authority/dramafeeding and brutality/consequence). I don't recommend it as a GM-style, just an excercise, so any long-term effectiveness is dependant on their ability to gain insights from the excercise, and to use those insights in normal games. I'm confident the excercise is better than anything I could tell them on GMing, in certain aspects, and combined with my verbal advice I hold it to a very valuable excercise.

The "solution" to the problem of Incoherence is generally assumed to be writing games that deliver a coherent means of play. That is, why do the "exercise" when you can play another game that delivers all the other elements of a RPG, and delivers an equally coherent way to play? Why not incorporate the lesson into the game?

The problem being that there is many games out there, leaving their GMs out in the cold on such things. I try not to do that in my games, and find it hard, so I'm not on a high horse here. It's a fact that the method given to GMs often is lacking. Pervo serve a purpose for GMs of such games, or in their predicament, but it's not a game that will "save" them as such.

Pervo is not intended to do more than a little bad, and a little good, mashed together like a nice little catharsis :-)

I'm not seeing anything particularly attractive to a game that's about, from what I can see, characters dying greusomely.

Seems like you're overlooking some essential parts of the game then; the finer points of player interaction with pain and domination... etc.

This really is more of a Theory discussion that a design discussion...

Really; it's not! The game is just a tad original in it's design, and so is the discussion on it.

Once again: I strongly recommend you (all) to try this game! It's a small novelty, if nothing else...

[failrate]

No, the players CAN kill the GM.  RPGs are based on social contract, so the players can just decide that the GM has no power over them, just like in Labyrinth.

PS, gotta get me some of them David Bowie pants