My first attempt at running My Life with Master can be found here...  http://eruditus.livejournal.com/21224.html#cutid1

This is a breakdown of the master and characters.  Tomorrow I will post the game session.

eruditus wrote:
My first attempt at running My Life with Master can be found here...  http://eruditus.livejournal.com/21224.html#cutid1

This is a breakdown of the master and characters.  Tomorrow I will post the game session.

I want to ask you a question about something I see as quite common in MLWM actual play reports, to see if we can talk about where the feature originates: with the text, or with the group.  I'm going to focus on a particular element of the character write-ups.  In particular, three of the four characters.

Oleg the Butcher -- Less than Human - His missing legs makes him slow and lumberous unless in the Soup Kitchen or his shop (where he uses his wheeled cart)
Deacon Fyodor -- Less than human - The deacon has a horrible stutter unless he is speaking on matters of faith
Alexei -- Less than human - The deacon has a horrible stutter unless he is speaking on matters of faith

There seems to be, and this isn't limited to your AP account, an easy association between "Less than Human" and physical or mental handicap, disability, deficiency.

My question is, is this something that comes from your playgroup, as people, making a judgement: handicapped people are in some sense "less than human"?  Or is this something the text encourages by example or explicitly.  Or do you think this comes out of gamer culture in some way?  People draw parallels between  "Less than human" and traditional physical or psych disads and slot them in without thinking about the rhetorical weight (because I doubt anyone would say: you have a horrible stutter, you're subhuman (actually I don't doubt that, I just doubt how common people like that are)).

So I'm interested in your thoughts of where that comes from in your group.

Ian Charvill

Ian wrote:
My question is, is this something that comes from your playgroup, as people, making a judgement: handicapped people are in some sense "less than human"?  Or is this something the text encourages by example or explicitly.

Hey Ian,

I want to ask you a question about something I see as quite common in MLWM actual play reports, to see if we can talk about where the feature originates: with the text, or with the group.

Check the "Understanding More and Less" section of the text on pages 48-50.

Paul

As I see it, one of the most important things about the entire game is that the very terms "More than Human" and "Less than Human" are lies. They represent how the minion sees himself or herself through the lens of their repulsive, victimized relationship with the Master.

It is essential to the role of Love in the game that the Connections can see the minions as really human, with their "less thans" not diminishing their humanity after all; and also that their "more thans" actually do diminish their humanity, rendering them things instead of people, because those are really the only aspects their Master values, what gives them utility toward his ends.

Therefore when I see a minion with a Less Than Human defined as stuttering or a lame leg, or anything similar, it fills me with anger on behalf of the minion, because it means the Master and the Townspeople both unjustly reduce the minion's Humanity through their behavior and belittlement of this very trait. It is through this feature, more than any other, that the minion is humanized in my eyes.

Best, Ron

Ron just sold a copy of My Life with Master.

As far as my group both previous comments are on target.  This was their first session.  I assume further sessions will allow the players to develop more well-thought-out More/less thans.  The group was focusing on getting their heads around the ideas here after decades of dugeon crawling :) 

That being said this is an interesting comment.  Thank you for bringing this up (really).  We, of course, never questioned the assumption here, no matter what the subtext was (per Ron's comment).  We just immediately sought traditional handicaps with a twist.  That is not to imply we think folk with such handicaps are in any way Less than Human yet that is the message to the casual reader.

On the otherhand there are SO many more aspects of this session that could send someone off in a huff.  In the privacy of our own homes our group threw political correctness to the wind and yet here these issues are out in the light (good thing I do not mention my players by name).  My sincere apologies for those who are offended.  Not that I feel apologies are neccessary but we cover some pretty rough topics (and my LJ is not often PG).  I am certain I do not have to say this to most however I hope most realize that these topics are not displayed for the purpose of callousness or malice, rather to explore a darker side of humanity and to learn more about ourselves. 

BTW This is turning out to be longer than I had anticipated.  I will be posting Part One of the Story tonight... I suspect it will be four parts - one for each "round" of play where each of the characters are given an instruction by the master an do an overture for Love.  I am not only trying to capture mood but also some of the inner dynamics that were displayed during chatter.

Hi there,

I look forward to your accounts of play. What I'd really like to know is, has any real person expressed any actual offense regarding the contents of your game? Has any real-live, actual person ever expressed the Less Than Human rules in play as literally marginalizing people with handicaps?

Or are you constructing an elaborate defense (including, I think, being unfair to the text on the basis of this "casual reader" that I think you're inventing) against your fear of such reactions?

The game text is absolutely explicit that the minions are fully human. You can find that very statement in black and white. You can also find that the definitions of Less Than and More Than are very clear - the former concerns the perceptions of the Townspeople and the Master, and the latter concerns the utility to the Master. They are not defined as actually "less than" human, for instance.

These are not dodges or qualifiers or attempts to obfuscate an underlying/actual meanness of the text. The text features no such meanness.

I'm going to base my point where it should be based: actual play. Are your players, the people who used the text and invented the minions, treating the minions as less than human (in the marginalized, contemptuous sense of that term, the one you're fixated on), or are they utilizing those features as inroads to humanizing the minions?

Let's not get into a wrangle about this in an abstract sense, and I don't want to derail your posting about play. For maximum payoff for this topic, in your upcoming accounts, I'll look forward to an explicit description of every Connection scene you've played so far. That, and only that, will address the issues you're talking about here.

Best, Ron

Hi Ron,

I look forward to your accounts of play. What I'd really like to know is, has any real person expressed any actual offense regarding the contents of your game? Has any real-live, actual person ever expressed the Less Than Human rules in play as literally marginalizing people with handicaps?

Or are you constructing an elaborate defense (including, I think, being unfair to the text on the basis of this "casual reader" that I think you're inventing) against your fear of such reactions?

These are not dodges or qualifiers or attempts to obfuscate an underlying/actual meanness of the text. The text features no such meanness.

I'm going to base my point where it should be based: actual play. Are your players, the people who used the text and invented the minions, treating the minions as less than human (in the marginalized, contemptuous sense of that term, the one you're fixated on), or are they utilizing those features as inroads to humanizing the minions?

Hi Eruditus

First thing to say is to echo Ron's advice about not cringing or focussing too much on the element that I asked you about.  Worrying too much about what people will think about the account you give.  That won't make anyone happy.

The analogy that occurs to me is when you hear the formulaic start to a usually bigotted joke.  "There was an Englishman, Irishman and Scotsman" or whatever. Jokes like that don't always turn out to be bigotted, but often they are, and when you hear a few of them, if you're not inclined to find bigotry funny, the start will make you wince a little, become uneasy.  Now, as I wrote, jokes starting like that don't always end badly but the good chance that they might and that chance makes you wince.

Now I'm physically handicapped, and I have an inecapable awareness of the way mainstream media treat handicapped people.  The stereotypes, the condescension, the revulsion at times, the freakshow at times.  So when I see something starting Less Than Human - etc. then I wince.  I know that this may not end well, given the beginning.

Michael -- the pattern is there, whether it's a con game or not so I don't think it's just that, although I take your point fully about wanting to get on with the game might leave you with your first and not particularly inspired choice.  For a non-handicap related eg: I don't know, off the top of my head, maybe "Can't be seen but only heard by anyone they try to interact with, except when coming to do violence when people cannot look away"?

Paul -- I don't have a copy of the text.  I want to stress personally, that I'm not assuming anything about your game.  I wanted to discuss a particular issue that I feel a measure of disquiet about -- I hope the above explains why -- and Eruditus's thread came along and presented an opportunity to raise the issue.

Ron -- thanks you for your post, it was humane and touching.  I'm still curious as to why the specific motif of a handicapped person is used in this context so regularly to generate this particular emotional connexion.  I may be more interested in that particular thing than most people though.

So, back to Eruditus: only focus on the issue that I raised to the extent that it interests you to do so.  If you think: well that was interesting to think about for a bit, but I'm more interested in this other thing, then write about the other thing.  But if you want to respond to my point, here or PM, then great.  That goes for Michael,  Ron and Paul too.  I'm open to dialogue on this.  But I don't want to hijack the thread.

All the best
Ian

The First "Round" posted here: http://eruditus.livejournal.com/21737.html#cutid1

Please let me know what details you'd like to know.  I don't think I can duplicate rolls but I may be able to approximate them (especially when I did or didn't give intimacy/desperation/sincerity dice).

Ian wrote:

So, back to Eruditus: only focus on the issue that I raised to the extent that it interests you to do so.  If you think: well that was interesting to think about for a bit, but I'm more interested in this other thing, then write about the other thing.  But if you want to respond to my point, here or PM, then great.  That goes for Michael,  Ron and Paul too.  I'm open to dialogue on this.  But I don't want to hijack the thread.

Absolutely.  Your actual play account would I think be, by my tastes anyway, more meaty, there would be more to go on, if you talked more about what the people at the table were doing and used that to give a context to the fictional bits, rather than focussing on an account of the fictional events of play.

Ian