(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!
