Big Tough Blog;

briecs:

itpiercesskin:

John Stavropoulos has a pitch he uses to set up lines and veils for role-playing games. Here’s an excerpt:

“…just simply lift this card up.”
It’s so easy! I will then actually lift the card to make it clear physically how easy it is.

“Don’t explain why.”
Explaining is bad because it’s extra effort, a higher barrier to accomplish your goal, and it can feel like being put on trial. Plus explanations means more time not playing.

I really like the intentionality that went into the pitch. The author, John, is clearly performing throughout his facilitator experience to provide players with tools to take home to their own tables.

I like that what John is doing for people who are new to RPGs, but I want something more for my own play with experienced role-players. Specifically, I think that an emphasis on communication about the specifics of a veil can be valuable for the continued life of a game.

I took part in a  2012 campaign of the Dresden Files RPG where play had to stop because of a disagreement on how to relate to the fiction. (Is it okay to kill vampires just because they’re evil?) Some players were real-world bothered by the moral stance of our collective game fiction, and so what began as an in-character argument became a real argument. We had enough sense to stop play for the night and discuss the problem. Before the next session we discussed the problem more and possible remedies in detail, eventually finding a workable solution.

Compared to what we did, the X-card seems to call for moving past the issue in fiction with the assumption that it won’t come up again in play. Whereas several issues the campaign was building towards hinged on the nature of vampire humanity. I found that my group’s almost excessive discussion was useful for understanding which parts of the fiction were troubling for people and how we could deal with it. Of course, we were fortunate to have a high level of trust throughout the group and to be dealing with an issue we could talk about without upsetting each other terribly. For these reasons I see the X-card as an excellent tool for one-shots and clear-cut content issues, but not the ideal solution for campaign games.

I was given the impression from talking with John that the X-Card is used primarily for triggering content - sexual assault, rape, too much violence, emotionally intense scenes, etc. For this use in long-term campaigns, I think it’s fine. Agreeing with the fiction or discussions about morality are definitely something to discuss off-table, in my opinion, and I think it’s different than using it to protect players from uncomfortable and sometimes triggering content. 

Part of why I like the X-Card - and a variation of it with an O on the reverse that Kira Scott introduced to me - is that it establishes a culture of trust. If I say stop, you stop, and then we move along like we agreed to. (There will be more of this coming eventually from me.) 

geekincognito:

So, Misspent Youth. Not exactly what I was expecting.

I guess we won- we thwarted the government- but in both sessions I didn’t really have fun. The friendship questions were sometimes cool, but also a way for players to mess with/manipulate other players and doing them before each of the seven…

I’ve had trouble with Misspent Youth before. Like many story games, the core hurdle for gameplay is how well your playgroup can set stakes for a scene. The book itself provides limited guidance for doing so, meaning you have to do that legwork for yourself every time.

When we were off our ‘A game’ for couple scenes in a row, the whole session started to feel weak. I hope you have more fun next time. :)

geekincognito:

An excellent discussion that starts with defining a spiel and morphs into a discussion about the Veil of gaming and how best to let players express discomfort with subject material.

Thanks for posting this! I particularily enjoyed this example spiel by Morgan S:

Playing with strangers is the best, but since we don’t all know each other, we have this one rule that trumps all the other rules in the games today. It’s sort of a safety brake. If something comes up in the fiction that is triggering or makes you uncomfortable, or dealing with that today will just ruin your fun, you can just say, “I Veil that”. What this means is that we will remove it from the fiction or narrate around it. For example, maybe a clown scorpion killed your best friend. When I say, “Then there are, like, 15 clown scorpions all over you.” You can say, “I Veil clown scorpions.” And here is the thing, you don’t have to justify why you don’t want something included. In fact, we don’t really want to know what your deal is with clown scorpions. Sometimes, if you are one of those people who are good at social cues, you might notice that someone looks uncomfortable with how the fiction is going, but they haven’t drawn the Veil yet. You can Veil for other people. Just point out the thing in the fiction that looks like it might be the culprit and say, “Hey, maybe we should Veil this.” If you get the slightest head nod or agreement, go ahead and Veil that shit. And of course, you can Veil your own stuff if it starts to squick you out. The final thing to know about the Veil is that if you introduce something in the fiction and someone else Veils it, you aren’t a jerk for having brought it up. You didn’t know that I was afraid of clown scorpions, and we are all just riffing stuff off the top of our heads. We will not assume that you are a clown scorpion fetishist. Now, if you bring up something that was already Veiled, your jerk status will be reviewed. Just remember to Veil easy.

Also this by John: I would ask, “just so we know what we’re editing out, is it Y or something else?” and then I’ll thank them for helping make the game fun.