Since one of the goals of this forum is to move towards a theory of role playing it is necessary to look back at role playing's roots - in psychotherapy.

The GNS model presented here all looks at hobby games. In other words games played for fun. The players in these games by their nature are volunteers. The goal is to have fun (however that is defined). Not so therapy games.

My old Family Therapy professor nearly twenty yeard ago told "People come into therapy to NOT get better." Freudian insight may sound all nice and dandy but few people really want it. They gain as few insights as they can so they can get off the couch fast. (Actually I've only had one job where I had a couch - darned the luck.)

Since the participants are involuntary or at best unmotivated, the goal of the game is not fun. Instead it is suppose to be helpful/thearputic to the player. Usually this means gaining insight, practicing a skill, or using tha game a communication tool.

My observation has been that clients resist statements that are too direct. These come across as cliched and controlling. Games are one way to be indirect since they give players emotional distance from the process (very much not simulationist). Due to time constrains (and client's patience limits) thearpy simulation games can not tell whole stories. They are fragments that the client has to pull together themselves (that being one of the skills therapy teaches.)

There are many examples of role playing in therapy. The Gestalt techniqu of talking to the empty chair, or switching roles with another person. Transactional Analysis use of moves (Games People play). Psycho drama - for the hard core (this is a very powerful technique that I don't use - it doesn't open cans of worms, it rips them open and crams them down your throat.) Axline discusses "Play therapy" which really just uses play as a language to talk to children with. This often involves playing with dolls in houses and mild story telling and so is role playing. I've used Matrix Games in therapy for 15 years. And the list goes on.

I think that for any model to be complete it should include an understanding of the involuntary player. The challenges of hooking such players to engage are palpable.

Chris Engle
Hamster Press

Right,
So, anybody want to talk about sandplay/worldplay and its relationship to narrativism? Kind of interesting to me, since I'm working on some floor games rules...

LET'S GET BOB DRUNK

This is a Matrix Game I use to teach court ordered alcoholics about family dysfunctions. Each player needs one d6, paper and pencil. On the paper they draw a ligert scale (a line that has Hate on one in and Love on the other.)

Players pick a role of someone around BOB. I try to assign player roles similar to the one they hold in their own families. Since they are not playing themselves they are freed from the embarrasement. The game gives them social permission to act out. The arguments they make are projects of thought in their own minds. This sneaky method shows way more than people think it does.

The game master/therapist introduces Bob. Bob is an average guy, just like the people in the game. He is going to face a series of problems. The players get to act as his collective brain to decide what he does. Then they switch back into their role play characters and argue how they cope with Bob's actions. They are told that if they fail to cope they feel "sad".

Imagine you were a member of Bob's family. Now imagine you are Bob. You're boss just jusmped your case about coming in late again. How do you deal with this?

The players then make a Matrix Game argument about what they want Bob to do. Many will try to make him go drink. A few will try to make him do something smart. As teh arguments are made I rule on their strength. This is a feedback moment since it shows the players what I (an expert) think will happen. They then do a big dice rolling contest. They roll for their own arguments and keep on rolling till only one argument remains. This "thought" is what Bob does.

Next the players switch back to their roles in the family. I ask them to make an argument about how they cope. Without any instruction at all they make perfect descriptions of dysfunctional roles (hero, scape goat, lost child, mascot). They then mark how happy they are on the ligert scale.

At the end of the game I plot out the ligert scales onto a graph and they see "objectively" how Bob affected the world around him.

At no time are the clients told what to think or what conclusions to draw but it has been my experience that they are able to tell me about dysfuntional familes weeks afterward and can remember playing the game years later.

Therapy games create emotional space for people to work their problems out in.

Chris Engle (MSSW ACSW LCSW)
Hamster Press

Hey Chris,

Interesting. So, the game generates information, and it's up to the player/patient to figure out how to put that information to use in his own life situation? The game exposes the forces acting upon Bob, and the consequences to his family, but it leaves the the player/patient to figure out (in real life, outside the game) effective techniques of thinking about and responding to those forces? Are you aware of any roleplaying games that go beyond creating emotional space for the person to work out their problems, and actually teach ways to think and respond?

Paul

Paul Czege wrote: Are you aware of any roleplaying games that go beyond creating emotional space for the person to work out their problems, and actually teach ways to think and respond?

Paul

MatrixGamer wrote: Psycho Drama, when it is well run, is suppose to go beyond just dealing with the past, but like I said I don't use it.

Emily Care wrote:

MatrixGamer wrote: Psycho Drama, when it is well run, is suppose to go beyond just dealing with the past, but like I said I don't use it.

How close do you get? What's the line that you draw? How would you draw the line in a recreational rpg setting?

Having done some psychodrama, I think that there is a very clear niche for 'therapy' in RPG-play. I would be hesitant to couch it as a stance or put it into a GNS "mode" (psychodrama, like RPG's, has discrete rules and roles that you play--but I don't think GNS is especially adequate to describing it).

I have:
1. Taken conflicts from psychodrama based on how I related to them and explored them in RPG contexts.
2. Held conversations in RPG's that were (consciously, in the begining of the scene) based on psycho-dramatic activities and techniques (i.e. my character was constructed to be appropriate to the action/drama and the NPC was well formulated to be another character in the drama).

Of course things like doubling and role-reversal don't happen in traditional RPG's (although they could ... that'd be interesting).

I think there needs to be a great amount of trust for this to work properly. Far moreso than for other games.

-Marco

I'm interested in what the rules of psychodrama are. I use the gestalty moves and a mild hypnotic enducing voice but theoretically am very here and now. Too many years of Structual Family therapy training and a swift dose of behaviorism do that.

Psycho drama really does require lots of trust before it is used. Simple gestalt moves don't. Matrix Games require even less because they give players full permision to hide behind their character.

Therapy games can fit in the GNS model (I think) but it remains to be seen how.

Chris Engle

Hi folks,

All of this seems like a no-brainer to me. "Therapy" represents a real-world social context in which to play - so it would be a major feature of the Social Contract employed by a given group.

All the other stuff - components of Exploration, GNS, Techniques, etc - simply play out from there, probably in a wide variety of possible applications or approaches. I can certainly imagine any of the three Creative Agendas being utilized constructively or non-constructively in a therapeutic context.

The fact that therapy is so dramatically different from the more familiar Social Contract (or larger context) of "gamer with his pals" picture shouldn't be permitted to distract us, or to imply that we're somehow dealing with an automatically difficult version of the ideas.

Best,
Ron

Wow, Ron- here I thought this could be an incredibly complicated issue and you go and simply it almost out of existence.

I'd just add this about the "unwilling" aspect: given Ron's post, I'd say the unwillingness Chris Engle is initially pointing at is an unwillingness to engage with the therapy, as opposed to a reluctance to engage in the play per se.

But since a degree of reluctance to engage with the play itself can show up, well, for anyone and in any Creative Agenda, there might be something applicable to play in general in how unwillingnes to engage in therapy is handled.

Or not - specific Social Contract stuff isn't always useful at the Creative Agenda/Techniques/Ephemera levels. But that's where I could see an "unwillingness" discussion going,

Gordon

For those of use without psychiatric experience, could you explain what Psycho-Drama is?

I lifted this off the net. The author is cited at the bottem so credit is given but I did not ask permission to post it here so I expect this will be erased in the not to distant futures. I gound this by googling pyschodrama therapy.

What psychodrama is – and what it is not
By Karen Carnabucci, MSS, LCSW, TEP
Psychodrama is a holistic method that uses action to explore a person’s public and private worlds in a multi-dimensional way.

Unfortunately, psychodrama was stained with bad reputation in some circles in the 1960s when the method was used incorrectly and haphazardly by many people – some of them not even psychotherapists – with little or no training in its use.

Psychodrama is not drama therapy – which is a separate and distinct creative arts discipline. It does not refer to current events, movies, television or theater productions that are psychologically intense. Group leaders who use role play are not necessarily using psychodrama although psychodrama theory is the root of modern role play.

Psychodrama, which was originated in 1921 by Dr. J.L. Moreno, is the true forerunner of creative arts therapies as we know them today. It is also an effective way to build community, which is also a powerful healing force, and an important avenue to develop creativity and spontaneity in daily life.

However, psychodrama is more than a non-traditional kind of therapy, and the exercises are not mere techniques. Psychodrama — literally “psyche in action” — is a complex method with a distinct philosophy and theory that is highly adaptable to health, education, theater, business and worship settings.

In psychodrama, participants explore concerns in a safe environment with action rather than simply talking about them. This involves not only exploring the history but also the psychological dimensions that are not normally addressed in conventional dramatic process: unspoken thoughts, encounters with those not present, portrayals of fantasies of what others might be thinking and feeling; night dreams and envisioning possibilities.

Group members — if available — play roles in the enactment with the guidance of the director. The goals of psychodrama are to help people discover their inner truth, express emotions freely, establish authentic interactions with others and experiment with new behaviors.

Parts of this method have been adapted by Fritz Perls in his Gestalt therapy including the “empty chair” technique originated by Moreno; with family therapist Virginia Satir incorporating the action sociogram, calling it sculpting; and Eric Berne identifying the ego states of parent, adult, child in development of Transactional Analysis. In the 1960s and later, many psychotherapists began using a combination of these ideas and others, sometimes using the name “experiential therapy.”

Beyond psychotherapy, Jonathan Fox used psychodramatic philosophy to develop Playback Theatre, which combines improvised theater and community building and is now recognized as a method of its own (Read “Improvising Real Life” by Jo Salas to learn how Playback originated). Peter Pitzele has employed psychodramatic ideas in creating Bibliodrama to enliven stories of scripture; he details the method in his books, “Our Fathers’ Wells” and “Scripture Windows.”

Others have adapted psychodramatic techniques as well as Moreno’s sociodrama, a related method, to explore societal issues, for use in business and organizational settings.

Moreno was at odds with the ideas of Freud, who had developed the only organized treatment of mental problems in modern times. He disagreed with Freud’s emphasis on pathology and verbal exploration of issues while the analyst remained a “blank slate” to hold the patient’s projections and transference.

Moreno saw that humans occupy and move in space, not just talk, and take roles in relationships with others rather than in isolation. He employed the stage as a space for action to take place and collected a group from which issues could emerge. He identified the protagonist as a person who enacts his or her drama with the help of a leader who interacts in a respectful manner rather than staying silent.

Karen Carnabucci, MSS, LCSW, TEP, practices and teaches psychodrama and the use of the creative arts in psychotherapy, education and personal growth. She offers personal and professional development workshops in Racine, Wis., and has written “Whole Person Marketing” for helping and healing professionals who are looking for creative ways to market their practices. She also offers a free e-mail newsletter, Whole Person Practice. For more information, write karen@companionsinhealing.com or see www.companionsinhealing.com.

I think that for any model to be complete it should include an understanding of the involuntary player. The challenges of hooking such players to engage are palpable.

Moreno saw that humans occupy and move in space, not just talk, and take roles in relationships with others rather than in isolation. He employed the stage as a space for action to take place and collected a group from which issues could emerge. He identified the protagonist as a person who enacts his or her drama with the help of a leader who interacts in a respectful manner rather than staying silent.

Games used in therapy, with the purpose of aiding the therapy, are Sim in Big Model terms.

While the same game used in other contexts may be more facilitating of Gamism or Narrativism, and while exploring the competitive drive or thematic concerns of a patient might even be the point of playing the game in the therapeutic context, I take it that the ultimate purpose of any RPG used in therapy is going to be to gain a better understandig of the problems or types of problems a patient is confronting in the real world. This is a fundamentally Exploratory aim: the imaginary material is being used to 'confirm' and/or deepen our understanding of various real-world issues relating to the person/people in therapy and those they are attached to. This is a pretty clear case of Big Model Sim in my book.

At least this was the conclusion I came to as a result of my 'social mode' threads about a year ago.

Best,

Sean

I offer a made up verbatim report of a role play used in a counseling session.

Identifying Information: Tom is a 19 year old white single male who came to counseling due to depression following a fight with his girlfriend. He has agreed to come to counseling to reduce depression and learn how to communicate with his girl friend more effectively.

Progress so far: Lets say that Tom has come to a few sessions and the therapist has established raport. He has told his story but continues to fell all his symptoms as he did prior to coming to counseling.

At the start of the next session, the therapist starts by makeing small talk (how are you? What have you been up to? etc.) This establishes the social scene that the theraputic intervention will happen in. The therapist notes that Tom remains vissibly tense. From past experience he sumizes that the session will follow the same past as the last ones, which as noted did not help.

C: Tom, I want to try something different. I've noticed that when we talk about here now stuff it seems to work you up more and not relieve you. We know that you have some issues with your girlfriend. Lets imagine for a moment that she is in the chair over there.

T: But she's not there.

C: Exactly! This will make it a lot easier do because the emotions will be so much less. Imagine that she is listening intently to you and is understanding everything you say. She can't read you mind so you need to say what you want her to hear.

T: (Looking a little embarrassed) Well I want her to know that I'm really tired.

C: Good. (He looks over at the empty chair.) Tell her more about your fatigue.

T: Well, it seems like I can't do anything right. I should be able to do this but I just can't.

C: It's a good thing she's listening to all of this. Tell her what it's like when you feel like this.

T: I get mad.

C: Does she think you're getting mad at her?

T: Yeah.

C: You may be getting a little angry at her. Are you angry at anything else.

T: I'm really mad at my self.

At this point the role play ends and the session moves on to having Tom explore the nature of his self hatred.

Role play was just a technique to help Tom get beyond his internal defenses that stop him from admitting self hate. Therapists have noted from decades that sometimes, when the right words are spoken, people unlock a lot of pent up emotions that then come spilling out. That is not the end of the therapy - it is the beginning. The next task is to bring those emotions into the here and now and help the person find a way to cope with them. This may be an existential change of perspective, a behavior change that changes stress, a change in cognitions, or a referral to a doctor for medication.

Alright. There is some ephemera with explanation of the therapists thinking.

I don't see Tom as a simulationist because he does not want to fully put himself into the role. He is trying to not do it (I failed to mention that Tom seldom if ever looked at the empty chair.) The therapist is also helping him not dive in the role by admitting that the chair is empty and that his girlfriend just listens (which given the nature of the referral is unlikely to be the case.) In a way it is almost gamist on the part of the therapist. He is playing with words to find a way to open Tom up but he is not power playing a world wrecking because he is also helping Tom keep emtional safty by not letting him go too far into it.

Chris Engle
Hamster Press

Chris,

I think you're shying away from therapeutic roleplay, and the session you quote specifically, from being simulationism because the participants do not want to recreate what is actually going on in their lives. It's clear, though, that the participants are not there to gain something material nor to tell the best story.

Sim can be done in worlds where the sky is green, the player characters are all androids, and sea sponges have become sentient and try to take over the world. The important thing isn't that the player simulate their own lives, just that they simulate the lives of their android player characters as they would happen in that world. Similarly, I think distancing one's self from the character played in therapeutic roleplay doesn't mean you're not exploring the realistic thoughts and feelings of that character in the real world. As I've stated on the Forge before, I think therapeutic roleplay is usually very much Sim.

In fact, I'm not sure how much good gamist play would be in therapy. Narrativism makes sense in that if used properly it could point out the contrast between good resolutions to conflicts and bad. Sim still makes more sense in role-reversal and empty chair types of roleplay. I don't see much benefit to just picking a good story path when addressing someone who's not really there. Exploring the feelings and thoughts of the characters in turn explores veiled thoughts and feelings of the players. The distance provided by playing a role is a safety net, not an obstruction. If you want to get to attitudes about situations, then Nar works well in gaming and I think would work in therapy too. If you want to get to the internal feelings and thoughts of people in those situations, I think Sim in its exploration of character flavor is the way to go.

groundhog wrote: The important thing isn't that the player simulate their own lives, just that they simulate the lives of their android player characters as they would happen in that world.

The Big Model doesn't cover therapeutic games. Full stop.

It talks about why people play games when fun is the desired outcome. Therapy has, well, healing as the goal, not fun. There are a lot of parallels between the two, but they are fundamentally different creatures.

It's like the fishing for sport or fishing for food. It sounds the same but is actually very very different.

James

I'd buy this. The intent is very different. Can the Big Model be expanded to take therpay games into account? A general theory of role playing probably should.

In the "Recognizable Patterns - Simulation" thread I asked Ron Edwards about people like my wife who view games as a means to a social interaction rather than a end in themselves. I see therapy games falling more in here. The game is a means to a social end - not a game end (Gamist-winning, Narrativist-telling a good story, Simulationist-getting it right).

I see the effect of too many years of Matrix Gaming on my thinking. I see catagorical models as things to slip through. Elements of a Matrix Game matrix only hold useful meaning when they are viewed from a distance. Get too close and they lose it. They become vulnerable to the "So what?" charge - that challenges their relevance to what is happening here and now.

I see involuntary, or non game focused players as potential exceptions to the model because they are the most likely to say "So what?"

Chris Engle
Hamster Press

Hello,

Chris, I think you missed my post on the first page of this discussion. My point there was to expand the scope of the model, hypothetically, in exactly the way you describe.

And as I said, it's very simple: change the Social Contract, the "real world social goals," and everything else lines up from there.

Best,
Ron

Social contract would then talk about "Real Wrold Social Goals" which stand outside of the context of the game. This would include hitting on the one woman in the group for a date as much as it would working on relieving someone's depression.

Delving into the game (ie accepting the quest) and going into the model would then fall into any of the creative agenda's previously established. I can easily see using games as a simulation, to look at a narrative, or to just score points (The game "Talking Feeling Doing" is the game you play while you're doing something else (Note: TFD is a boardgame so don't take this analogy too far).

A therapist and client may delve into the Big Model for only a few minutes and then come back to the other social goal - therapy. It would not matter if they were resistant or not because if they refused to go into the game they would be non-players.

I can accept this logic. It provides a good answer to people bringing up resistant players, connects the Big Model to the wider world outside of gaming and suggests that even brief forrays into a game would fit the rest of the model. This nicely bridges the gap between the hobby (all us drooling fanboys and girls) and the rest of the world.

Cool! I think this thread might be over.

Chris Engle
Hamster Press

PS: If any of you still want to go on. I'll keep providing first hand verbatim reports to crew on but my question is answered.

Chris Engle said:

Wouldn't the intent of the participants matter in what stance is taken? When I use a technique (like a simulation game - simulation here is more in line with the wargame take on the meaning) I'm in the here and now trying to effect an emotional change in the person in front of me - here and now. The game is a tool to bypass resistance. The person who is "playing" came into the office to solve a here and now problem. They are stuck. The game helps them by pass their resistance. It isn't about simulating life (robot or otherwise) it is enacting life right now.

groundhog wrote: I've experienced role-playing in customer service training, cultural awareness training, drug resistance education, sex ed, and many other areas, too. I'm aware these aren't therapy per se, but the uses of role-playing in education are inspired by and borrowed from therapeutic uses.

MatrixGamer wrote: I am personally satisfied with Ron's explanation that therapy has "other social agendas" (beyond using a game for fun) and that all types of creative agendas can exist when theraputic role playes do delve into exploration etc.

My initial concern was that if there is a conscious move to make something less real (and thus easier to cope with) is that ducking the simulationist creative agenda. I now realize that one can be a simulationist "lite" and still have it as the agenda.

John Kim wrote:

MatrixGamer wrote: I am personally satisfied with Ron's explanation that therapy has "other social agendas" (beyond using a game for fun) and that all types of creative agendas can exist when theraputic role playes do delve into exploration etc.

My initial concern was that if there is a conscious move to make something less real (and thus easier to cope with) is that ducking the simulationist creative agenda. I now realize that one can be a simulationist "lite" and still have it as the agenda.

I can't quite parse either sentence of the latter paragraph. What is the agenda you are referring to?