Gente Che Gioca > Sotto il cofano
[inglese] I Will Not Abandon You vs. Nobody Gets Hurt
Paolo "Ermy" Davolio:
Questo topic è per segnalare un post di spiegazione che ho trovato riguardante le due modalità di gioco "I Will Not Abandon You" e "Nobody Gets Hurt", tematica importante affrontata in uno dei panel di Ron Edwards a INC 2011.
Per qualche motivo che mi sfugge non sapevo niente di questa (per me interessantissima) parte di teoria, fino a quando non ho letto i due termini sul sito di INC tra gli eventi disponibili diversi mesi fa.
Qui sotto c'è il post a riguardo di Meguey Baker sul blog "Fair game":
http://www.fairgame-rpgs.com/comment.php?entry=32
Non ho trovato link in materia qui su gcc, quindi questo thread è anche per permettere a chiunque conoscesse articoli o interventi interessanti sull'argomento di cogliere l'occasione di postarli o linkarli, se vuole (anche perché come noterete il post che sto linkando io risale a gennaio 2006, non proprio recentissimo quindi).
Questo thread NON è per discutere liberamente sull'argomento - suggerirei a chi volesse farlo di aprire un nuovo thread in sezione Sotto il Cofano.
Moreno Roncucci:
Quel link non è ad "un intervento sull'argomento"... è il post in cui Meguey Baker (autrice di "Mille e una Notte" e moglie di Vincent) ha coniato i termini! 8)
E magari se saltasse fuori finalmente il filmato della conferenza di Ron Edwards a INC 2011, che era proprio sull'argomento... ::)
Comunque se ne è già parla (sto elencando i risultati di una ricerca nel forum, non sono stato a rileggerli per vedere che non ci siano errori)
http://www.gentechegioca.it/smf/index.php/topic,604.msg8648.html#msg8648
http://www.gentechegioca.it/smf/index.php/topic,338.msg3709.html#msg3709
Adesso ti cerco qualche link su the forge. Stai lontano dai thread sull'argomento su story-games, ce n'è uno recente dove hanno sparato cazzate allucinanti...
Moreno Roncucci:
In generale, molte discussioni in rete su questi termini sono "avvelenate" dal contesto sociale testosteronico/frustrato/poser tipico dei forum di gdr: nessuno ci sta a dire che gioca "nobody gets hurt" (a parte me, credo...), vogliono tutti dire che giocano da fighi, ganzi, senza "paure da mammolette"... e iniziano ad elencare qualunque cazzata da Annie Rice della Domenica avvenuta nel loro gioco come implicita "prove" di come giocano "I will not abandon you"... roba tipo "nelle mie partite ci accoltelliamo tranquillamente", "nelle mie partite i PG fanno sacrifici umani" o roba adolescienziale di questo tipo.
Quindi, diffidare sempre dagli interventi in rete su questo argomento Quelli in grado di parlarne con cognizione di causa sono pochissimi (Ron, Vincent, Meguey e pochissimi altri)
Moreno Roncucci:
Ecco qualche pezzo e spizzico. Di solito non sono thread interi, sono dei post qua e là...
Ecco la sequenza di post di Meguey sull'argomento (i commenti sono di Ron Edwards, ho preso l'elenco da un suo post:
Meg lays the foundation: Ritual and gaming/game design
Her concepts and terms: More alphabet soup
An application that Meg confirms: Sex & Sorcery: re-reading it
Il terzo non è tanto un articolo di Meguey, quanto una delle poche discussioni in cui Meguey è intervenuta direttamente a dire "sì, intendevo dire proprio questo" (specificatamente, ai commenti di Ron Edwards e Sydney Freedberg)
Dopo aver letto tutti e tre (compresi i commenti al post nel blog) dovresti avere un idea chiara di che si tratta. (se hai fretta puoi saltare il primo, che è utile per inquadrtare il contesto ma è precedente alla creazone dei due termini)
Notare cosa dice Vincent nei commenti al post di Meguey: si tratta di un fiscorso di game design. E' il gioco ad incoraggiare un modo o l'altro.
Se ne parla in questo thread What is possible to achieve with game design? (Adult with some vulgarities) da dove prendo questa frase di Sydney Freedberg (con quote di Ron e Meguey: scusa il quote ripetuto, ma ho preferito lasciarlo per la leggibilità:
-------------------quote da Sydney Freedberg--------------------------------------
There are two very different game-procedural approaches you can take that will make a critical difference to how this plays. Ron Edwards talks about them in terms of "superfamilies":
Quote from: Ron Edwards on August 26, 2005, 11:02:37 AM
--- Citazione ---On the left-hand side, one superfamily is rooted in stuff like Over the Edge and Cyberpunk and goes on through the "door" of Sorcerer, branching apart from there. It includes Dogs in the Vineyard.
On the right-hand side, the other superfamily is rooted in stuff like Story Engine and Soap, and it goes on through the "door" of Universalis, branching apart rather drastically from there. It includes (via MLWM) Polaris.
All you people who are crazed with anticipation, just settle down. All that matters now is one single point, and you don't really need the diagram for it. Except to see Dogs 'way over on one side and Polaris 'way over on another, like critters in vastly different sectors of a phylogeny.
On the side which includes Dogs, single participants have overriding, brutal, arbitrary authority over the "II" of IIEE. In other words, what their characters want to do and start to do cannot be overriden or even mechanically modified by anyone else at the table. If you state, "He kisses her," and the group goes into the Conflict Resolution system, it's established, the kiss is both intended and initiated.
On the side which includes Polaris, the entire IIEE of any character's actions/etc is subject to vetting of some kind, whether it's negation, modification, or letting it lie, and whether it's full-group or by a designated person. All actions are subject to drastic reinterpretations of the outcomes of Conflict Resolution. Including the first "I," intent, of IIEE. If you state, "He kisses her," then eventually, the way the scene works out, it's at least possible that he never even thought about or tried to kiss her.
Bald, painful fact: the left-hand side is socially more dangerous, and the right-hand side is socially safer. And it strikes me very firmly, after discussing this game with a number of people who were involved, that at least a couple people were approaching playing Dogs as if it were in the other "superfamily." They assumed that if they were uncomfortable with what a given PC was about to be doing, that they had a say in vetting that stated action. Whereas, bluntly, the game is set up for exactly the opposite.
--- Termina citazione ---
Meguey Baker, coming from a different but complementary angle, talks about "Nobody Gets Hurt" vs. "I Will Not Abandon You":
--- Citazione ---In IWNAY, the social agreements are:
I as a player expect to get my buttons pushed, and I will not abandon you, my fellow players, when that happens. I will remain present and engaged and play through the issue.
I as a player expect to push buttons, and I will not abandon you, my fellow players, when you react. I will remain present and engaged as you play through the issue
In NGH, the social agreement is that we know where each other's lines are, and we agree not to cross them.
Both are reciprocal systems. If one person is pushing buttons and the other is supposed to just take it and not respond, the button pusher is a bully and the relationship is abusive. Notice I'm not talking about the characters, here. This is all about the players at the table. In any game. I bet I could get just as hurt playing White Wolf or GURPS as I could playing Dogs in the Vineyard or Sorcerer.
It sure helps to be clear which kind of social contract is expected: If the players are not all clear, sooner or later you'll run into a NGH player in a IWNAY game, and they will get hurt, sometimes in a big way. If you get a IWNAY player in a NGH game, that player will wind up transgressing other people's boundaries and coming off like a jerk. That player may also feel like everyone else is pulling their punches.
Examples:
NGH play: Jill has a hard line at kids-in-danger; Robin could make the victim a child, but doesn't.
NGH play: Jill has a hard line at kids-in-danger, and Robin makes the victim a child anyway. Robin's obnoxious and Jill may stop playing - Robin has broken NGH.
IWNAY play: Jill has a hard line at kids-in-danger. Robin makes the victim a child, maybe even on purpose to push Jill's buttons. Jill reacts but stays with it, Robin stays engaged, Jill gets to examine something about her issues with kids in danger.
IWNAY play: Jill has a hard line at kids-in-danger. Robin makes the victim a child, maybe even on purpose to push Jill's buttons. Jill bails out - either by actually leaving the game or by disengaging from it. Jill has broken IWNAY.
IWNAY play: Jill has a hard line at kids-in-danger. Robin makes the victim a child, maybe even on purpose to push Jill's buttons. Jill reacts but stays with it, but Robin can't deal with Jill's reaction, so Robin bails out - either by actually leaving the game or by disengaging from it. Robin has broken IWNAY.
There is a design part to this. When a game has solid support for handling highly intense emotional scenes (which are most likely to trigger players, I suspect and in my experience), the tendency for the game to require IWNAY play (in order to be successful) is high. Here I think of DitV, Sorcerer, and to some extent Bacchanal. I mean mechanical support for getting into and out of emotionally charged conflict, and solid writing that lets the players understand the reasons why they might allow themselves to be pushed emotionally. This is where the designer gets to say "This can create heavy stuff. I know that. I'm prepared for that. Here's where I've thought about it and how I reccomend you handle it my game." This is the designer saying I willl not abandon you; I will give you mechanics to help deal with this when it comes up, I'm with you in this.
--- Termina citazione ---
See how Ron's mechanical stuff and Meguey's social stuff reinforce each other? A game in the Universalis-Polaris "superfamily" game gives players vetoes over game content to enforce "nobody gets hurt"; a game in the Sorcerer-Dogs "superfamily" gives no such veto and instead encourages "I will not abandon you." You have a big choice ahead whether building some kind of safety cut-out into your game hurts or helps your ultimate objective.
--------------fine quote--------------------------
Quel thread era del 2006, by the way, non so coa penserebbero oggi gli autori (con la teoria è più facile, dal 2004 ad oggi ci sono stati pochi cambiamenti e si vengono a sapere, con il game design le opinioni cambiano più in fretta e sono personali), l'ho postato come un esempio di come queste cosa possono influenzare il game design.
(continua)
Moreno Roncucci:
(segue)
Ecco alcuni quote (cercherò di tenerli più corti)
Ron Edwards sul rapporto fra "IWNAY" e i contenuti genericamente "scabrosi":
That's a fascinating issue regarding how No One Gets Hurt relates to graphic content, or more accurately, and to use my terminology, Lines. Emily and I discussed that at length at one point. If I remember correctly, it's easy to associate I Will Not Abandon You play with graphic and horrific stuff, and No One Gets Hurt with fluffy bunny stuff, but that can be misleading. Ultimately Lines' contents are a highly localized phenomenon, and so cannot be associated with one or the other. So your conclusion that you have a very graphic game built on No One Gets Hurt is really interesting and relevant.
il tema viene approfondito in questo actual play di Carry: (qui ho tenuto il quote largo perchè tocca un sacco di altri argomenti interessanti)
"How did you create this level of trust in your group?" The answer is, I didn't, and it's not "my" group, and trust is not the issue. This probably looks like a brush-off answer, or perhaps one intended to promote the image of a mysterious sage, but it is neither. The problem is that the angle your questions are arriving from isn't relevant to how play proceeds in my experience these days. And unfortunately, to communicate to you how it does proceed would require ten years, exactly ten in fact.
In 1996, I embarked on an attempt to see whether role-playing was fun for real. Not fun because it reminded me of being 14, not fun because it was better than sitting around lonely, not fun because it reinforced my position in a subculture, not fun because it was a way to get laid, not fun because it celebrated something else like movies or comics, and not fun because I'd bought books and hence it must be. I wanted to see whether it was fun in the sense that doing something uniquely rewarding with people I liked being with is fun. The answer turned out to be "yes," but for that to be reliably the case, a whole lot of subcultural, economic, and procedural aspects of role-playing had to be abandoned.
By abandoning those aspects, then issues of trust, for instance, became irrelevant, because trust (and friendship) are not at risk during play. This means the question is not "how can you build that sort of trust," but rather, "why are most role-playing groups characterized by lack of basic trust?" We addressed that question here at the Forge during the Infamous Five threads, with the issue of Social Context. Once that was established, Meg could arrive at her two constructions of I Will Not Abandon You vs. No One Gets Hurt (basically two kinds of trust, and about what), and I could lay out, and distinguish between, roles of leadership and roles of authority, as I did last summer.
Another issue is content. If you track my actual play posts and related articles from the beginning of the Forge, you'll find an ongoing process* which puts [identification with characters] at the service of, or subordinate to, or derived from [identification with conflicts]. It also places single-individual imagining at the service of group-level communication. During this process, incredibly explicit material suddenly became ... no big deal, across several different groups at once. The point is that explicit content is not a difficult issue after all, and although Lines and Veils (my terms) are a reality, they are easily observed in all media and therefore easily established in play. The real issue is relevant content.
Bluntly, Chris, your reaction to the use of masturbation as a framing scene for a conflict for a latent, conflicted, violent gay guy is an imagined mountain regarding a molehill. The question is not why I and my group are comfortable with the mountain, but why you and yours are frightened and disoriented by a molehill.
But in saying that, I bet a reader or two is thinking that I'm talking about masturbation's sexual content. I'm not. The reason this scene functioned in our game is the same reason it would function in any story media. (1) The situation is familiar - non-controversially familiar. (2) The situation raises a unique crisis for the character in question, as we know from his Burden (go back and read it, please). The key point here is that the situation did not raise a unique crisis for any of us, the real people, because of point #1.
That's why Christoph's comparison with incest in Polaris is actually off the mark. This isn't about sex, or graphic-ness, or transgression. This isn't Legend of the Overfiend, in which a woman performs a blowjob on a demon and when he comes, her head explodes. That movie relies on going over the line. Our scene during play relies on staying inside the lines and seeing what's there. The reason the masturbation stuff disturbs gamers is not because it's so edgy and so freaky and so wild, but rather the opposite.
E questo, signore e signori, è il motivo per cui il gioco più "I will not Abandon you" pubblicato in Italia è Dubbio. Perché, a livello personale, vi fa più soffrire il vedere squartamenti, sesso estremo e perversioni varie (yawn... tutta roba già vista nei fumetti...) o il rivivere gli addii, gli abbandoni, la fine di qualcosa che credevate eterno?
----------------
In quest'altro thread, Joel Shempert di "Story by the throat" parla di una sua partita a Poison'd, e di alcuni problemi che ha trovato. Prima risponde Vincent, gentilmente. Poi arriva Ron e gli chiede Do you want me to speak bluntly to you about your GMing? ...e lo sventurato risponde di sì!!
il post di Ron è questo. Non sto a quotarlo, dovrei quotarlo tutto...
E leggetevi anche la risposta di Joel...
OK, se hai letto tutta questa massa di link, ormai dovresti saperne abbastanza da essere immunizzato contro la massa di puttanate che si dicono su Story-games sull'argomento (ci sono anche post interessanti, solo che per riuscire a distinguerli dalle puttanate... devi sapere già cosa dicono!) quindi posso iniziare a linkare anche i seguenti thread:
Da qui, in'altra citazione di Vincent Baker:
------------------------------------
Here's a thing that many people miss about I Will Not Abandon You play: it's the hurt person, the person whose nerve gets hit or whose line gets crossed, who has the first opportunity to abandon or not. I Will Not Abandon You play depends first and overwhelmingly on the hurt person's grace in pain, will, and discipline to stay engaged. For unhurt players, being there for a hurt player is (usually) very easy to do, and thus only a secondary and minor consideration.
Nobody Gets Hurt and I Will Not Abandon You are observations you make about play as it's happening or after it's happened, not agreements you make up-front. Or, I mean, make agreements up-front if you want, and do your best to stick to them, but sometimes you hurt someone anyway, and sometimes when it comes to it you ditch right the hell out, up-front agreements notwithstanding.
----------------------------------------------
Infine, uno degli ultimi thread sull'argomento su story-game, per avere un idea di cosa si dice sull'argomento. Per essere un thread di story-game è abbastanza preciso (OK, confesso, lo linko perchè in quel thread ho corretto Jesse Burneko... ma non solo per quello!)
I Will Not Abandon You" - what is it?
Notare come imperi la confusione fra linee, veli, IWNAY e NGH (ma se avete letto i thread precedenti non dovreste correre il rischio di cascarci)
Il vero motivo per cui lo linko è questo intervento di Vincent Baker:
I will not abandon you and nobody gets hurt are, kind of as usual, emotionally provocative names for what's really a simple technical difference between rules.
When I say a thing you don't like, can you veto me by the rules, or would you have to step outside of the rules to veto me?
You can see the implications for our social interactions as we play. If the former, our precious consensus comes first, even when I have something challenging and provocative I want to say. If the latter, my precious idea comes first, even when I'm being a total wad.
Then, as VERY usual, they became rallying cries for people including me who prefer one to the other. I hope that's over. Because of course the real value of them is not as rallying cries, but as insights into rule design, so that you can look carefully at both and create more sophisticated games. When does our consensus really need to trump one person's vision? Which challenging ideas are really more valuable than our feelings?
E con questo, ho finito!
Navigazione
[0] Indice dei post
Vai alla versione completa