jhkimrpg ([info]jhkimrpg) wrote,
@ 2006-01-17 17:19:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Veils and NGH
So I just found Meg and Emily's blog Fair Game via Vincent's "anyway". There I find a fascinating post called "More Alphabet Soup" -- about the two ways to treat other players' boundaries: "Nobody gets hurt" (NGH) versus "I will not abandon you" (IWNAY).

I think an early and still excellent treatment of boundaries is Brian Gleichman's Interaction Model for Campaign Morality from rgfa in 1997. His key insight was recognizing that there is a big difference in how players draw their lines over the game, in particular regarding their character. So there are four ratings: Player vs. Player, Player vs. Game, Game vs. Player, and Game vs. Game. So, the same thing might be acceptable for a PC to do to an NPC -- but would be out of line being done to a PC. On the Forge, discussion was influenced by Ron Edwards' Sex and Sorcery supplement and introduced the term of "The Veil" for such things.

In general, I think I am a NGH sort of player. I don't go for shock, and I think there is plenty of meaning possible within people's boundaries. I'm more of a Jane Austen sort (like Jay Loomis) than a Kill Puppies for Satan sort. There is good art which transgresses -- but there is also very good art which does not. Still, we do draw in a lot of issues from real life into our games, and it's a very good question how we treat boundaries.

In the last episode of our Buffy the Vampire Slayer campaign, we hit on a whole bunch of things which I'm hoping will be bigger. The comedic center of the episode was having the PCs beat up on a bunch of geeks who were bringing down the reputation of their favorite bar. But then the magical influence turns some of the PCs into uber-geeks. It was comedy -- we all realize that it's in fun, and we have a safe rather than transgressive feeling. But at the same time, we're mocking ourselves and each other. It wasn't perfectly on -- I could have hoped for cooler satire, but we made a stab at it. It's NGH, I think, but also still personally meaningful.

There is another largely comedic subplot bit about mothering -- since my PC Slayer, Dot, recently had a baby and even more recently duplicated herself to watch the baby and slay vampires at the same time. So Dot has these two halves, one of whom is out and about while the other is watching the baby -- an obvious but I think still interesting narrative device about a mother's split of identity. Anyhow, I felt a little on my toes here as a man portraying a woman and new mother -- particularly in the same game with my wife, who was a full-time mom for our son's first year. Again, this is playful and comedic -- I would say NGH, but still meaningful.

I think that there is something about this that relates to Push/Pull as well. Essentially, NGH play feels more Pull -- players feel safe and open up their boundaries as a result. IWNAY play feels more Push -- players break through boundaries but then stay to make sure it is made OK. All of this is very touchy-feely, not very well-defined talk which I hope to formalize more after having digested it more.



(Post a new comment)


[info]tigerbunny_db
2006-01-18 02:32 am UTC (link)
Wacky. I would think of IWNAY as potentially just as Pull, and NGH as just as Push-friendly. I really distrust all this weird essentialism that seems to be sprouting around the P/P idea.

IWNAY can be Pull - I'm diving down into this stuff, and the rest of you are drawn in my wake as support and foils. NGH can be Push - here's the rules, now we're going to go all-out Macho Nar Yanger, secure in the safety of our lines & veils.

Also - don't mistake NGH for "lite and fluffy". It's just "hard boundaries, negotiated beforehand" vs "squishy boundaries, somewhat ad hoc, based on general commitment of support and respect".

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]beingfrank
2006-01-18 02:58 am UTC (link)
I'm not sure I agree with the links to push/pull either. Both seem to have potential for push and pull, and both push and pull can go bad if there's lack of clarity over IWNAY vs NGH. However, I think that's the situation where IWNAY/NGH is or should be established. I think that the process of establishing whether IWNAY or NGH applies is a different kettle of fish.

Though I'm not sure I think of IWNAY as 'squishy boundaries.' Isn't it more about how one should behave when there are no boundaries (in terms of content)? So NGH is about what stuff is acceptable, and IWNAY is about how stuff is acceptable.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]jhkimrpg
2006-01-19 12:30 am UTC (link)
Hmm. I certainly didn't think of NGH as being "fluffy". However, I do think it is light in a sense -- if a game is truly dark and disturbing, it doesn't seem to me to be like NGH. There are a couple of concepts which have been brought up lately, and I think they are linked in a way.

Pull / Push
Additive / Negational
Nobody Gets Hurt / I Will Not Abandon You

I don't think they're the same thing, but I'd like to ponder on the similarities and the differences. So, I can see the difference. For example, take Mo's Example where Kika set aside her weapons and charms and put herself at the mercy of Jerzom. So, that is a pull. So Brand could have responded by going past Mo's boundaries and doing something disturbing, but stood by what he did. So that would be Pull + IWNAY.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]brand_of_amber
2006-01-19 12:48 am UTC (link)
On the Kika note, I did go really, really far. After the game it took Mo about an hour to be able to talk about what had happened in game, and right after the decapitation and mutilation scene I had trouble meeting people's eyes.

However, they stood by me, and all of us by her, and that made it all turn out alright.

I'm not fully sure where that falls into the NGH/IWNAY scenario... it was more like a "no one abandons anyone, and will all commit to see it through" moment. So I guess more towards IWNAY

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]brand_of_amber
2006-01-18 02:59 am UTC (link)
My gut goes with tigerbunny on the push/pull issue. However, I could see it that NGH is supposed to keep things in the purple on this chart where IWNAY is designed to let you more easily pull it out of the purple -- either direction.

As for the IWNAY and NGH and TTP ideas, I think I'm... um... flexible. If I'm playing most simmy stuff, or character oriented Nar, I often go NGH. There is lots of meaningful play you can get out of NGH -- especially through celebration and reflection. (Which John, may be where your comfort comes from -- you're strong on that aspect, I think.)

IWNAY I usually save for fairly short, heavy, and pre-set to be brutal Nar games where we all know that it's gonna be bad, and go in with the understanding of it being bad and us sucking it up. When I want the meaning to be up front and built to an ugly/difficult premise, I go this way.

Which means, I guess, that most of the time I default to TTP. Of course, I don't mind screaming like a little girl when it hurts, so....

(Reply to this)


[info]badgerbag
2006-01-18 07:34 am UTC (link)
I thought your splitting of Dot was the most serious and interesting thing about the game! It was brilliant and edgy ... it was a very clear fictionalization/allegory of current feminist thinking about women's roles and motherhood as well as a sort of mind-blowing realization for me of what it must have been like for you to see me suddenly freak the fuck out at the reality of motherhood and all the expectations that came down on me (internally and externally). Er, that was too long of a sentence. Whatever, it was amazing and I couldn't do the equivalent across gender lines for how guys feel about damn near anything. And it's not like you play Dot as a version of me or anyone else - she's a cool fictional character with her own thing going and her own issues.

I'm going to have to think about the NGH etc. ideas maybe for Argentin...

(Reply to this)


[info]immlass
2006-01-19 02:39 pm UTC (link)
The recognition that there are different boundaries for different people is very important. Obviously, in addition to the distinctions you cite from Gleichman, there are also different boundaries for different players. For instance, in Amber games, I find I've gotten pretty picky about which players' characters I'll let my characters consider romantic involvements with. I've seen a couple of romances blow up and it wasn't fun to be involved in, closely or peripherally. Now I've drawn a boundary that excludes romance with a couple of players over that.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Boundaries
[info]vaxalon
2006-01-20 12:32 pm UTC (link)
"Boundary" is probably the wrong metaphor most of the time. It implies trespass and rightness and wrongness.

"Hurdle" might be a better term, in that they can come in varying heights, and in order to safely cross them, you have to be able to achieve a certain level of trust, and that successfully doing so (without tripping) is a triumph rather than a defeat.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]tigerbunny_db
2006-01-19 05:02 pm UTC (link)
Hey John, one more thing. I don't find Gleichman's model convincing because the "things" in it (Game and Player) aren't actually separable things - the game only exists as a phenomenon generated by the interaction of the players, and the model's actual text conflates character and player completely. I fail to see how this model has anything useful to say about Real People playing games without a serious going over.

Do you have any notion as to whether there's something salvageable from it for a post-Lumpley concept of What It Is That We Do? I think the PC/NPC line is only sort of meaningful - after all, every NPC is actually somebody's imaginative creation, and not every PC is an avatar.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]jhkimrpg
2006-01-19 06:27 pm UTC (link)
I think its pretty clear from context that the terms "Game" and "Player" are used as shorthand for "Parts of the game-world other than Player Characters" and "Player Characters". These are separable by the rules of the game, in general. (Depending on your definition of RPG, there may be some RPGs which don't have Player Characters -- such as Once Upon a Time. If so, then this particular distinction doesn't matter for that game. Similarly, in a game of Toon, the sections on PC Lethality don't matter.)

Obviously, the categories which Gleichman uses are generalizations which will not always be true. That doesn't deny their value in helping guide a social contract. For example, one player might be completely fine with any amount of blood-and-guts, but have problems with any sort of emotional abuse or rape. Another player might not care what happens to her PC, but there is a specific set of NPCs she doesn't want anything to happen to. And so forth.

This doesn't say that the model is broken -- just that it can't describe everything about player boundaries. Actual players will have more complicated boundaries than the broad categories of the model.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]tigerbunny_db
2006-01-20 03:00 am UTC (link)
No, see, that's my precise problem with the model - it uses these categories in a way that's misleading. There exists NO game for which the shorthand categories of the model are in fact correct, only games which to one degree or another pretend that this one set of imagined things over here is fundamentally different from that other set over there.

What this model tells you implicitly is that you only ought to have boundaries around the things that are "yours". Ginger kind of hints at this with her allusion to the real-people relationships behind the fiction being at least as determinative of boundaries as any classification of fictional entities. In the Gleichman model, the real people vanish behind fictional categories. Which kind of reflects Brian's priorities in play (as I understand them - a sort of exaltation of internal cause/authentic modeling and an aggressive dissociation between player & character), but doesn't match how people play the kinds of games where Lines & Veils and all their allies are most crucial.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]jhkimrpg
2006-01-20 04:26 am UTC (link)
There exists NO game for which the shorthand categories of the model are in fact correct, only games which to one degree or another pretend that this one set of imagined things over here is fundamentally different from that other set over there.

What this model tells you implicitly is that you only ought to have boundaries around the things that are "yours".


Mark, the former doesn't make sense. Boundaries are all about pretend -- that's the only thing they're about. This isn't a larp code. i.e. No one is talking about what physical player-to-player acts are acceptable. The issue is about fictional events which are portrayed. You're right in a sense: there is no fundamental difference between an NPC petting a kitten and an NPC raping and killing a child. Both of these are, in reality, just sounds being made by a player. Physically, they're no different than humming a tune. However, they are different in meaning to a player.

If there is a difference between one fictional thing and another fictional thing in a player's mind... Well, that's a real boundary. What we care about is in the players' mind. If, for example, he is okay with a male NPC getting raped but not a female NPC getting raped -- that's the line. What matters here is his emotions. He may well care differently about some fictional characters than other fictional characters.

Your latter statement is false. Gleichman's model doesn't say that you "ought" to only have boundaries around what is yours. It explicitly includes a "Game vs Game" category, which is specifically about things which the player does not have ownership over. By the model, you might rate "Game vs Game" as more heroic and less graphic than "Game vs Player". In that case, it would be acceptable for an NPC to torture a PC, but it would not be acceptable for an NPC to torture an NPC. Similarly, all four categories might be rated the same -- i.e. the players see no difference between PCs and NPCs. The only thing the model suggests is that some players (at least a significant fraction) care differently about what the PCs do and what happens to them compared to NPCs.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]tigerbunny_db
2006-01-20 05:18 am UTC (link)
I think we're going around and around semantics. There is no meaningful difference between NPCs and PCs except in terms of player investment/identification. This model does not even mention players at all. That's my criticism of it, not some kind of weird kittens/rapists thing. The model is all about the stuff in the fiction, and only by implication about the people. The important question in any ethics of gaming has to be about the people, not the fiction. The content I put into the fiction is only the merest tip of the iceberg of ways I can hurt you.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]jhkimrpg
2006-01-20 06:47 pm UTC (link)
The model is all about the stuff in the fiction, and only by implication about the people. The important question in any ethics of gaming has to be about the people, not the fiction. The content I put into the fiction is only the merest tip of the iceberg of ways I can hurt you.

OK, but surely it is reasonable to also refer to and classify the fictional content, right? I mean, you're correct that this model doesn't cover, say, the concept of IWNAY. It's only about mapping out boundaries within the fictional content, not even about how those boundaries are handled.

But mapping out boundaries is useful.

The limits of this were not a mistake or an oversight. We talked all the time about group contract on rgfa -- in fact, it seems to me that the Forge focus on "social contract" is a direct descendent of the "group contract" discussion of rgfa. This model was not meant to be a complete social contract, just a tool to help on one part of it. There may be an iceberg out there, but you have to start somewhere.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…