In a thread from Actual Play Ron wrote:

Ron Edwards wrote:
1. No one hoses the bejesus out of a character like his own player.

I ran a small room LARP (which I think Forge theorists would consider more like a tabletop than a LARP) which had a safeword: "Chlorine."

Actually, two of the players refused to accept that the game was actually over until I had said the safeword, followed by "the game is actually over."

Although (other than that), the safeword didn't come up in the game, I think we were all pretty glad it was there. Since the theme of the game was betrayal, there was a lot of viciousness in terms of trust issues, which are central to RPGs, and so the tension was there. It didn't snap. But I'm glad we had a net for if it did.

It was an interesting experience. I have it on my list of actual play reports to write when I get the time.

yrs--
--Ben

I think a safeword is a good idea, and probably could be incorporated into "mainstream" non-sexual gaming more often, particularly with a group experimenting with adult themes like betrayal and/or torture.

A safe word is so you can say "no!" "stop!" "don't!" "what are you doing to me please stop I'm begging you, stop it goddamn it!" or "I'm going to call the police!" and not mean it, because that's part of the fun.

Who on earth are you guys roleplaying with, where if you say "Doug, jesus, knock it off and I'm not talking in character," they'll think you're still playing?

-Vincent
who intends no offense to people named Doug.

lumpley wrote: Who on earth are you guys roleplaying with, where if you say "Doug, jesus, knock it off and I'm not talking in character," they'll think you're still playing?

lumpley wrote: A safe word is so you can say "no!" "stop!" "don't!" "what are you doing to me please stop I'm begging you, stop it goddamn it!" or "I'm going to call the police!" and not mean it, because that's part of the fun.

Who on earth are you guys roleplaying with, where if you say "Doug, jesus, knock it off and I'm not talking in character," they'll think you're still playing?

-Vincent
who intends no offense to people named Doug.

lumpley wrote: A safe word is so you can say "no!" "stop!" "don't!" "what are you doing to me please stop I'm begging you, stop it goddamn it!" or "I'm going to call the police!" and not mean it, because that's part of the fun.

Who on earth are you guys roleplaying with, where if you say "Doug, jesus, knock it off and I'm not talking in character," they'll think you're still playing?

Hello,

I figure there are a whole lot of different things to be able to say stop about. Marco, you emphasize the potential for character death or incapacitation (and hence player inability-to-play), but others are emphasizing knowing whether the group or person is playing.

So let's make a list of what to say stop about.

1. Stop! If you do this, you won't be able to play further. So this is about continuing to play.

2. Stop! We are not playing at this time. Obviously, this is make the person stop playing.

3. Stop! I am not comfortable with explicitly imagining what is happening in our SIS. This is my "Veil" term

4. Stop! I am not comfortable with this stuff happening at all in our SIS. This is my "Line" term

Both #3-4 are actually threats or notifications that the speaking person might not continue to play, as the implied "or else."

5. Stop! I am aggravated with your character's actions (or any announced event during play, actually); please re-consider them. This one is interesting because it often calls for a "do over" during play, which as a sub-issue can be jarring to many people.

Any others that I'm missing?

Best,
Ron

The only thing that I can think of not on that list is

6: Stop! We don't both have the same picture of what's going on here!

Another that's sort-of-but-not-really related is

Stop! We need to resolve X before going farther. Technically this one happens all the time, as in "roll to hit." and "How much damage?" An extreme of this that was done locally as part of a Star Wars LARP was a literal "STOP!" when combat started in the room. Theory being that a) combat involving lasers could involve anyone in line of sight and b) would be "really" over so fast that it should be a stop time, from a sim perspective, even for people not in the fight.

This last one typically slips under the radar in tabletop, as it's not so much a play stoppage as it is System in action, but in high immersion games or in games with heavy system, having it as a stop condition can be useful.

James

A while ago, Brian Gleichman came up with an excellent model for comfort ratings in RPGs, termed an "Interaction Model" because it separated what was allowed PC-vs-PC, PC-vs-Game, Game-vs-PC, and Game-vs-Game. I still have it on my site, as "Interaction Model of RPGs". For example, it may be acceptable for PCs to torture NPCs, but not acceptable for NPCs to torture PCs.

I think that in many games fortune points serve a safeword-like function. They are activated by the player to protect the PC from things that might otherwise happen. However, I am wary of relying on such things because they often come too late. It's better to head off trouble before it reaches totally unacceptable levels rather than waiting for that to hit.

lumpley wrote: A safe word is so you can say "no!" "stop!" "don't!" "what are you doing to me please stop I'm begging you, stop it goddamn it!" or "I'm going to call the police!" and not mean it, because that's part of the fun.

Who on earth are you guys roleplaying with, where if you say "Doug, jesus, knock it off and I'm not talking in character," they'll think you're still playing?

-Vincent
who intends no offense to people named Doug.

But--if I have, say, Directoral Power and can dictate how the Duke responds then I might do it as an opening to some interesting avenues (the Duke is upset and imprisons me but his daughter was impressed and gets me out!).

Now--both points of play have their merrits. The level of immersion is usually considered to be higher in the first case. Some people dig on the creative exercise authorship in the second case. There are probably many other aspects of each sort of play too.

One place I can see a direct answer to Vincent's very reasonable objection is in the LARP example of "chlorine." In that example, the safeword wasn't used for its theoretically primary purpose -- to say, "No, wait, this isn't fun any more, stop it" -- or at least not very much.

But I do think that there can be value in knowing it's there. It's like knowing there's a net. You don't want to use it, because it's much cooler to do high-wire games without falling, but it's nice to know, in the back of your head, that if you do fall you won't die.

Here's what I'm thinking concretely. As I continue slowly struggling toward a revision of Shadows in the Fog, and as I start tinkering with a Dogs in the Vineyard supplement on the Inquisition, one thing that keeps arising is the question of just how far is too far. I think this is a bigger issue in Shadows, but I don't know for sure. If you state from the outset that there will be a safeword, you're also saying very powerfully that there might be a need for one, which is really saying that some things in the game are intended to go very far toward your limits of comfort. Rape, torture, serious horror---not CoC heebie-jeebies but serious scariness. Knowing that the game-writer takes this so seriously that he or she puts in a safeword might in effect say, "Okay, I'm really really not fooling around here. I want you to push scary, scary far. That will create the type of intensity I have in mind for this game. Don't worry, you've got a net." And then people push to their limits and don't use the net.

Does that make sense? It also follows up some of the ideas I tinkered with in the Ritual essay, I guess, but I'm not sure exactly how it fits in.

Marco's post brings back some truly horrible gaming experiences I've had... Say you hit on the Duke's daughter, and the Duke puts a price on your head large enough that every rogue in the land is gunning for you, and you say "Wait, that's a bit much, couldn't he just throw me out of the feast, or have me caned or something?" And the GM says, "The kind of character the Duke is, you should be greatful that I didn't have him kill you right there."

The safeword, I think, is a really neat idea because it has at its foundation the belief that every person in the game has a right to be happy with the direction the game is going, and contribute to what happens (even if only by veto).

I'm not sure if it's the best way to present that social contract, though. People will feel silly saying "Chlorine" or something. They probably won't want to admit that gaming is as important to them as sex, where the safeword is required. So they'll probably rely on the usual words for this kind of situation, "Hold up a bit..." "Wait..." "You can't be serious..." And with the safeword as an option, these traditional methods of communication will be made even more murky. "If he was really bothered, why didn't he say Chlorine?"

With a codified "game comes screeching to a halt" effect, too, the safeword comes with a lot of fear-of-use. Bringing the game to a screeching halt is a major effect, and I suspect people would rather not have something like that so obviously on their heads.

If there's a discussion and group-settling-upon of a safeword, it will introduce to everyone the concept that everyone's approval has some value; but I imagine it'd mostly be the GM saying, "If you've got a problem, say this" which strikes me as roughly the equivalent of a suggestion box in the boss's office.

clehrich wrote: Does that make sense? It also follows up some of the ideas I tinkered with in the Ritual essay, I guess, but I'm not sure exactly how it fits in.

Ben Lehman wrote: The existence of a safeword (any of Ron's types) creates a "ritual space" which does not only allow for edge-behavior and limit-pushing but, in fact, requires them.

My girlfriend and I were discussing this in the contest of LARPing, especially boffer LARPing where the object is in great part to have great verisimilitude and not go out-of-character. What's more, part of what both of us enjoy about boffer LARPs is the sense of immersion and intensity of characterization; it's jarring when someone says something out-of-character or calls a game break (which is as it should be, as most of the game breaks are for things like 'Hey, I just tripped over a log and I may have hurt myself). It's not the kind of thing that you want to do without good reason, but it makes it hard to steer scenes without feeling like you're coming close to disrupting not just your own, but everyone else's good time.

At the same time, the intensity of emotion and perspective can lead to actions which would be easily dismissed over a gaming table (betrayal, physical attacking, truly harsh words) seem very personal and immediate. I've seen people leave the game with hard feelings because of those events, which is bad - but it's not something you want to avoid, because when those emotional scenes work, they're great.

It's hard to come up with a safeword, or safeword-like response, that can be used for things like 'Please don't go there, I'm not comfortable roleplaying this particular scene/emotion/confrontation' without breaking the game. I had thought for a while of, perhaps, a 'curse word' which could be construed at an IC level of being a simple curse but which was only to be said when it was meant on an OOC level as 'Please tone it down and/or back off'.

A better idea that we came up with was the simple expedient of talking with the other people you're playing with about things that you wouldn't want coming up in game. If you don't want a particular button pushed, tell the people most likely to push it, and let them know how you feel or how an enjoyable way to push it would be.

The people I roleplay with a lot are very into verisimilitude of character motivations and action, and that kind of OOC collaboration is not something that I think they'd find easy to accept. But as you've been saying, the very existence of that safety net means that people will feel better - in this case, they'll feel more confident pushing all the other buttons, making for an even more intense and realistic game.

Madeline wrote:

With a codified "game comes screeching to a halt" effect, too, the safeword comes with a lot of fear-of-use. Bringing the game to a screeching halt is a major effect, and I suspect people would rather not have something like that so obviously on their heads.

This discussion reminds me of my brief but intense immersion in theater tech (at amateur, semi-professional, and professional venues) in the mid-80s. The bit of culture I'm describing may have been localized in that time and/or region, but I'd be surprised if it weren't more or less universal.

The specific "safeword" action in this culture is threatening to walk. In any given production, it was more likely than not that any given techie, especially the Technical Director, would threaten to walk at some point. Threatening to walk more than once in the same production was rare, though. And actually walking was so rare as to be long-remembered and retold when it happened. (As in, "Remember when Jones walked on the opening week of Salesman in 82 at the Repertory? What a clusterfuck that was.")

This bit of culture or whatever you want to call it struck me, after some reflection, as quite functional and adaptive, given circumstances where those in charge -- to wit, Directors -- (1) have big egos, (2) are accustomed to asking for and receiving miracles from their crews, and (3) cannot always tell, from where they're sitting, when their own demands cross the line into the grossly unreasonable -- and where the real ultimate recourse to having the line crossed, which is walking out on the production, would have drastic consequences for all concerned. ("You'll never work in this town again!" is a cliche for a reason.) On first witnessing the TD threaten to walk as the culmination of a screaming-in-each-other's-faces argument with the Director, it's understandable that the inexperienced young lighting assistant (that's me) would think "we're (meaning the production is) doomed," but with some experience he learns that this is all as ritualistic as a baseball team's manager kicking dirt on the umpire's shoes and being ejected from the game.

A second threat to walk in the same production is rarer, and more serious. The reason it's more serious is that a third threat cannot be made (on pain of the threatener being seen forevermore as a mere perpetual whiner) so the only subsequent recourse is Actually Walking. (It also appeared to me, though this is more speculative, that the second threat is not always an option depending on the reputations involved, in which case the first threat carries the weight of the second.)

And all these rules are understood by all (except perhaps the inexperienced lighting assistant), but never discussed or acknowledged explicitly.

The reason I brink this up is to build on Madeline's point about fear-of-use:

Madeline wrote: With a codified "game comes screeching to a halt" effect, too, the safeword comes with a lot of fear-of-use. Bringing the game to a screeching halt is a major effect, and I suspect people would rather not have something like that so obviously on their heads.

In the Scandinavian larping community there are two words used for this purpose; "Brems" and "Kutt" meaning respectively "Brake/Slow Down" and "Cut". The former is used to signal that whatever play is going on at the moment should not become more intensive, and that focus should gradually be changed. The latter is used to stop play at once. Most of the community agrees that use of these words should never require explanation, and that organizing a larp without these is highly irresponsible. Few rules are used, but these have become nearly universal.

-E

This is the opposite side of the threatening to threaten prob:

There's a word they use in the SCA, which is "hold!" It's supposed to mean "stop! Someone's in danger!" What it really means is "stop! Someone's in danger or you're not paying enough attention to meeee!" I can't imagine that "admin!" in LARPing is any different - necessary, yes, but also fully exploitable as a way to bully others and get what you want.

Ron wrote: 5. Stop! I am aggravated with your character's actions (or any announced event during play, actually); please re-consider them. This one is interesting because it often calls for a "do over" during play, which as a sub-issue can be jarring to many people.

Vincent,

What do you think about my suggestion that saying there might be a need for a safeword could help everyone focus on pushing their limits? I may have missed something, but I didn't see that in your post.

Chris,

The safeword that no one ever invokes is a clever bit of sleight-of-hand. It doesn't enter procedurally into play, but instead serves up front to reassure the group that the door is open.

I mean that: it reassures the group that the door is open, not that there's a guard rail. That group doesn't need a guard rail, that's why they never invoke the safeword. They need permission from one another to push their limits, not protection when it happens. Establishing the safeword is granting permission.

That group will, inevitably, find a way to grant itself permission. The faux-safeword is as good a way as any.

edit: I'm sounding kind of authoritarian today, aren't I? I should end this post with:

Anyhow, don't you think? That's how it seems to me.

-Vincent

Noon wrote: It's not so much that Doug wont stop, but why burden him with complex method of stopping when he's trying to concentrate?

Your trying to argue the more intuitive/common way of expressing something is better, but you might want to try some else as example as that one doesn't apply or atleast isn't meshing with me.

Anyway, I get your point. And the idea is that it is awkward. It's not supposed to fluidly fit play since its a deliberate interuptor to play. That's why 'Okay, I think I'd like to stop for awhile' isn't great because it fits right in to normal play. It looks like the rest of play.

It's sort of like ending a movie with 'and then after that not much else happend of note'. If your going to end or interupt something, it needs to be sharp...not sort of drift off aimlessly. 'THE END' is preferable...you can't work in the same text medium as the movie when your ending that medium.

Personally I'm just in favour of a short, sharp 'TIME OUT'

M. J. Young wrote: Chris makes a good point concerning designing games to be intense; in tabletop, though, I'd think that it would be better to have a physical sign--walk away from the table, or cover your ears with your hands. A safeword requires that we all remember the word and react to it appropriately, and that we remember not to use it when we didn't want to stop the game.

M. J. Young wrote: The problem arises because it's going to be more difficult to remember any word that you're less likely to use anyway, and we're talking about remembering the word at the moment when we are most flustered and upset, and so least likely to be able to remember anything that isn't second nature to us.

Madeline wrote: The safeword, I think, is a really neat idea because it has at its foundation the belief that every person in the game has a right to be happy with the direction the game is going, and contribute to what happens (even if only by veto).

I'm not sure if it's the best way to present that social contract, though.

But in games where turn-taking isn't built into things, this might not work as well. Sometimes, when things get furious, the loudest players are able to have the most effect on the events that occur, which can end up browbeating other players and overriding potential objections (or even drowning out Safewords or intimidating people into not using them). So I don't think people can use the excuse "well, we had a Safeword" as a way of defending possible abuses. If you're really going to go there, you better make damn sure that everyone's at least mostly okay with coming with you, Safewords or no.

Callan, I think that's a succinct understanding of the value of a safeword, and there isn't much I can add to it.

Let's face it. Even well-meaning people can miss signals. It isn't always obvious in the heat of the moment where the IC/OOC line is. When you say the agreed-upon "kumquat" safeword, everyone knows what's up.

Regarding working the objection method into system--

Disadvantages for using a safeword have been brought up, such as confusion of context, disruption of gameplay, etc. I want to bring up the Legend Role / You Should Be Dead systems in Softlands as examples of ways to achieve the effect within system.

The premise is that frequently a player wants to be able to try interesting things (like flirting with the Duke's daughter) without the possible OOC penalty of being taken out of the game. This happens most frequently with getting killed, but can also come up with such events that cut one out of plot like getting imprisoned for a long time, or even that change a character's personality beyond what a player wants to play, like getting tortured.

In the YSBD system, instead of having the bad thing happen, the player can instead chose to take YSBD point and some other negative consequence as a result of managing to get out of the situation (eg, the Duke orders you imprisoned and executed, but the royal wizard secretly releases you in exchange for a huge unknown favor, or you lose your arm escaping, or something). Then, at a point in the game when it's all right for your character to die or get removed from the game (generally climax), you "spend" your saved up YSBD points, which manifest as dice that contribute to the possibility of your death.

The Legend Roles are a less formal system that solve one possible safeword problem-- that of character integrity. Every character has a legend role ("deceiver", "unrequited lover", "blacksmith") which is a summary of the essence of who they are, that cannot be violated by game plot. At any point the player can interrupt the game and say "I don't want to be sold into slavery, because then I wouldn't be a blacksmith anymore and that violates my legend role", or even "I'm supposed to be a deceiver, but I've failed to successfully trick the last seven people I tried it on-- I need it to succeed this time, so can you just give it to me without rolling?" It's essentially a specific pre-agreed grounds on which that type of objection is allowed without awkwardness or need for argument.

I imagine that either of these can be exported to the general case-- is this more what you had in mind, Marco?

Hello List, welcome to the forge!

I think what your talking about are character life and death management and also managing what is being contributed to the game (blacksmith become slave contribution, for example).

This is a little different as its more about stopping play in a sudden and clear way. For example, in D&D, if I get hacked to death by an orcs sword...that's okay, my PC dies but I don't personally find it horrible or disturbing. Your points system applies to that sort of death.

Now, if some NPC suddenly snatches up a puppy in his hands and approaches a lathe...this doesn't affect whether my characters lives or dies...it wouldn't even change him like become a slave would change a blacksmith. This is a matter of stopping play sharply for another reason. While with my characters life or something that's important to how he lives (ie, being a blacksmith or whatever), its clear that those things are important to me. Now, if the GM's got an NPC doing this stuff, its clear he doesn't realise this is something that's important to me and I need to tell him in a way that is clear and consise, and to stop this happening now and start discussion on the topic.

lumpley wrote: Who on earth are you guys roleplaying with, where if you say "Doug, jesus, knock it off and I'm not talking in character," they'll think you're still playing?

-Vincent
who intends no offense to people named Doug.

List wrote: I imagine that either of these can be exported to the general case-- is this more what you had in mind, Marco?