I've been thinking about how to enable, "I will not abandon you" in SKMAV. What are some of the key characteristics of games that enable this type of play?

I've been thinking and thinking about this. I'm having trouble with "enabling"; one of the things that's hard to convey about IWNAY play is that it's the hurt person who doesn't abandon the hurter. I'm not sure that's a thing you enable, maybe you demand it instead.

Anyhow!

One key characteristics that some games share and others don't: procedurally, they're based on individual decision-making. When it's my turn to say what, I say what, and you can't ask me to reconsider, undo or mitigate, or recast what I said so that you like it better. Your only choice if you're hurt by what I said is to crash the game.

Combine that with subject matter predisposed to human badness, and you have a recipe for me saying things that hurt, and you having to choose between staying in the game hurt, or crashing the game so we can deal with the hurt.

-Vincent

Hi Vincent,

Without revealing personal details, has the crashing ever been a good experience for the hurt person? If so what are some of the things you think were helpful to facilitating that good experience? I've experienced crashing with Dogs before, but that was more about Ego's (mine playing a large role) and play-style than pain caused by the fiction. My concern is if I go with IWNAY style of play to represent the characters regaining of their voice the experience could cause that crashing for people whom have suffered abuse like myself. Text wise I want to prepare people for this and provide advice. I can of course write that advice myself, but I think it would be helpful for me to have other perspectives. Especially since I don't have a lot of experience with this type of play.

Right off the bat, you have to explain to the players that this game is meant to be played around personal issues, and some of those issues might be painful to explore.  I suggest letting the players, or even You Clyde, creating a "safe word" that puts the game on "pause" so that people can take a break, consider what everyone is feeling, and then get back into the game.

I know, I'm certainly not an expert on this kind of stuff, but it seems logical to me!

:)

Hi Len,

It appears I've been derelict in my duty to explain what I'm talking about. I Will Not Abandon You is a specific way to design a game with Nobody Gets Hurt being it's opposite. Let me use two games I know you're familiar with to explain. It will rely on my somewhat spotty memory....

Dogs In the Vineyard, is a game that takes a I Will Not Abandon You stance. In Dogs you don't get to question, defuse, or change what someone else is trying to add to the fiction. There's only two very limited things you can do, if the thing added to the fiction is in the escalation process you can fold yielding the stakes to the other person, but that very last thing they were trying to add doesn't come about. Also you might have a footing to argue against descriptions of how bad damage is-- because damage is inflicted in fallout. Besides that you just have to deal, so if the gamemaster introduces a girl who has been raped into the fiction, you just have to deal with that, or end the game, there's no safety button.

Mortal Coil is a game that takes a No One Gets Hurt stance. Mortal Coil has the Threshold of Credibility. This rule allows anyone to veto anything being added to the fiction. This is closer to a safe word. I may need to go this route but I think I'd prefer the other route. I think that a safe word, absolutely helps make the game safe, but could do two other things; encourage people to play who shouldn't, and perhaps undermine the game. I think if it's clear what the game's about it isn't unreasonable to expect people to take care of themselves. However I also realize people commonly do not effectively analyze their limits. So I'm a bit stuck on this issue.

"People commonly do not effectively analyze their limits," amen. I've never had a pre-play conversation stand up to what actually happens in play. People say upfront that they won't have a problem with X, but they do; people say upfrong that they don't want X, but they want it after all.

Same with advice in the game text, really. Game text: "this is an intense roleplaying game." Play group: "sure whatever, we can take it." Play group, later: "ouch!"

When my games have crashed, the outcomes of the crashes have ranged from basically okay though frustrating, to friendship threatening. None of the crashes I've seen have been on balance a good thing.

-Vincent

Would you say then that players need to find their limits in game? Is there any advice to give to players to help them with this? Or is pointing this out (directly addressing it specifically) the best way?

I've seen groups here at the local university try to be open about their hot buttons before a game starts, but I can't think of any times they've actually found their real boundaries.

Ok, Clyde, I'm more informed and knowledgeable now.

Thanks!

I'm sticking with the idea of a safe word, however.  With how your game is going, the Narrative usually only concerns player.  When that changes, how can you give the other players in that scene some control over what happens to their character? 

I understand the problems, which is why I've suggested NOT to put more than one player in a scene at a time.  With the depth and intensity of each characters issues, this would be a prime game to sit back and watch what other players are doing with their spotlight time.  Experienced players only!