š®š¹ click here for the Italian version š®š¹ clicca qui per la versione in lingua italiana š®š¹
Here is the second and last part of the interview to Ron Edwards.
Lines and veils were a milestone in the RPG history, but nowadays thereās an immense number of formal āsafety tools,ā from the more specific to the more generic.
āFor all I know, some of those are perfectly valid,ā affirms Ron, āThe one I will object to is the X-Card, which I consider crude, ineffective and misdirected.ā
By the way, Edwards doesnāt use the term āsafety toolsā: itās linked to some trends of the hobby culture he doesnāt like. āOne beautiful thing that you might remember from that conversation with Keenan Kibrick is that, when people realize what line and veils are, they actually play outside the range they might have started with. Thatās why I like calling them ādanger tools,ā sometimes, just to reverse the terminology.ā (This is a semi-humorous comment: itās not a technical term nor any sort of formal vocabulary.)
About awareness
People advocating for formal āsafety toolsā usually report that such tools create awareness: they inform everyone at the table that, for instance, they can stop the game, or say ānoā to a certain content. Things that, afterwards, are often done, very interestingly, without using the formal tool anymore. This was told to me multiple times about the X-Card, for example: its presence is a vehicle for creating the right mindset, then, when needed, people speak up and discuss without really touching the card.
This last statement matches, to a certain degree, with Ronās observations: he too asked, sometimes, to people adopting the X-Card if it was actually used in play, and the answer was: āthatās funny, no.ā
āThe idea was: we need something like the X-Card on the table because it puts everybody on their best behavior,ā he continues āI donāt really buy that. I donāt think people are capable of functioning in that fashion. I trust people because I do things with them and we see how it goes. I donāt give credit to a line of text or a piece of paper which claims that it makes the game safer: anybody can say it.ā
About the fear of interrupting otherās fun
Another thing that Iāve heard many times is that āsafety toolsā remove hesitations or fears that make people refrain from speaking up. We often remain silent because of āpeer pressureā or because we donāt want to ābreak immersionā or āruin other peopleās fun.ā Conversely, when the discussion about content editing is ācamouflagedā behind ritual keywords and game procedures, people have the sensation that itās still part of the game, so itās not interrupting the activity.
āInside roleplaying culture, we created an artificial distinction between āinā and āoutā of character, which is extremely crude and inaccurate,ā Ron observes.
He recalls what he said before: the medium of roleplay is listening and reincorporating, itās not the record of what was spoken. Some people, he says, feel like theyāre the editors of everything that gets spoken at all times. Thereās this feeling that if somebody says something in the wrong moment, theyāre going to ruin the āfinal cutā that weāre producing. If we see roleplay like this, then āyes, itās a fragile medium.ā But it doesnāt need to be like this: weāre not on air and we can openly talk about what weāre doing. We can comment, we can edit, and nothing bad happens.
About emergency handling
Another common claim is that āsafety toolsā can handle stressful or harmful situations in the best way, because they are designed for that. To explain this concept to me, some people used an analogy with security protocols in case of earthquake or fire. During the emergency we canāt rely on common sense: thereās a too high risk of mistakes. Instead, we design a protocol in advance, and during the emergency we strictly follow the protocol to minimize the risk.
āI agree about that,ā Ron says, ābut why does this standardized procedure have to be very similar to striking someone in the face? Thatās what the X-Card basically is. I mean, a known procedure is a right thing, but canāt we have a good one?ā
Actually, his view emphasizes a shared vocabulary, much more than rigid procedures. āThereās a reason why somebody, at the tables I play at, will say ālineā or āveilā: itās a very clear statement, an understood one. Thatās a great idea: letās have some means by which we can communicate in play. Then we can go on from there and see how we do.ā
Also, Ron sees no reason to equate the basic process of play with an incipient emergency. Here he is talking about a far less difficult or dangerous event than an āemergency.ā If we observe emergencies during play, then we should probably not play together with these people.
About Luxton and tunnels
A quite special case, among the most famous āsafety tools,ā is the so-called Luxton technique. I was interested in examples on how it really works, but I couldnāt find any. Its description by P. H. Lee involves orienting the future content of the game in a specific direction: basically, the person who is having trouble is given full control over the development of that part of the fiction.
Ron is strongly against this. He also observes that Leeās statements are not supported by any concrete experience of play, and cannot be taken seriously.
Instead, he expresses appreciation for the Tunnel procedure in Stonewall 1969 by Stefano Burchi. He has seen it during play, even though he doesnāt recall the details to respect peopleās privacy. āThere was no manipulation of the outcome, the content of play was not edited. It was actually about how we manage talking to each other. Thereās a focus on the person who is having an emotional response, so that they continue to experience the troubling content, knowing that they can get through it.ā
Itās not (only) what you think
And now, the best part of the conversation.
Usually, when talking about these safety techniques, āit seems that the priority involved is to keep people from being hurt. You may notice that I never said that,ā Ron says.
Sounds shocking? Wait for the rest.
āThatās very much the distortion that was immediately put on top of the entire thing.ā The idea that roleplaying is an inherently dangerous activity, so, first of all, āwe have to find a way to make sure we donāt damage those people (notice thatās always them, others: very patronizing).ā
Another cultural problem is the assumption that there will be ābad actorsā at the table: toxic people, who are going to hurt others on purpose. Thus, we need tools by which the rest of us can make sure that those people donāt hurt too badly. But, Ron asks, āwould you go into any social, leisure activity with people that you presume being like that?ā
A rhetorical question: of course not, I answer; Iād never play with such a terrible person. Ron agrees. And he adds: if the social context is such that āyouāre worried to make yourself vulnerable to these peopleā¦ you know, maybe you should stop going to conventions at all. I would understand: I donāt trust a lot of the people there either.ā
Interesting risks and aesthetic concerns
He is talking about making ourselves vulnerable, after all. Is it a way to recognize that this is, somehow, a risky activity?
āThereās always a bit of a risk,ā Ron recognizes peacefully, āsame as any other social leisure activity.ā These risks āare real in many ways, but theyāre not like this: that playing hurts people, and we all have to be especially safe or else thatāll happen.ā As he said before, we should abandon the presumption that we are sitting among bullies or other bad people, and that we are handling a fragile activity that needs constant cleanup and correction. Given that, there are still certain risks, and methods to deal with them are welcome.
āActually, I do think that there are interesting risks,ā Ron says: we might want to go into territory that we find productively problematic, which much art does. Then, we should be doing it in some fashion, so it doesnāt just become crap. āSo, yeah, there are tools to do that.ā
āThere is a state of vulnerability, for having invested in the fiction so far, and then finding it going places that you donāt actually want.ā Of course, itās normal for the story to take unpredictable paths: itās an RPG, fiction is emergent, this is wonderful. The problem Ron is describing, here, is realizing that certain thematic or aesthetic aspects are not working for us, to the point that we canāt continue enjoying the activity.
āLet me emphasize that Iām not just talking about ābeing hurtā: Iām talking about any reasons,ā he underlines. āTo focus on the traumatic aspect is missing the range of what Iām talking about. Iām not saying the trauma issue is absent, Iām saying itās only one of many things that we should consider.ā For example, we might find something inappropriate simply because itās gross, stupid or too edgy, or because it would make our fiction ridiculous, adolescent. āI think it makes a lot of sense to keep the discussion at the level of aesthetics, because, you see, weāre no longer talking about the rules.ā
I find this to be a brilliant point. As players we have freedom to choose among the infinite things that the game rules allow us to do, and this naturally comes with a responsibility. Of course, there will be better and worse choices, in terms of the aesthetic judgement of the table: some will increase our enjoyment, some will decrease it, even drastically, for whatever reason. It doesnāt mean that the solution is to introduce new rules, trying to make the second kind of choices forbidden.
There are also other problems, Ron continues, that we donāt have a good vocabulary to describe.
āIn any bank of fiction in development, there are immutable things and mutable things. People can be very abusive by changing things, about a character, that another person would have thought were immutable.ā And, yes, this can hurt. Along with other, more basic forms of offense: we donāt have to forget about these, we can just see them as part of something wider and more complex.
Clarifying, not correcting
Now the question is: how can we deal with all this in a functional way? Letās see how Edwardsā tables do it.
āI think that, because itās a dynamic phenomenon in play, we should be gentle with one another about finding these things. Iāve seen people in play say: āare you sure?ā, or āIām not so sure,ā or āI donāt really like this.ā Without it being a silencing statement, such as: āyouāre a bad person, you broke the law, Iām now hurt and bleeding, shut up!ā ā which is what the X-Card is.ā
āThere are assessments and conversations that, rather than being corrective, are clarifying,ā Ron explains. āCorrectiveā means that someone has the fault of breaking things and now we have to fix them: itās a confrontational approach. While āclarifyingā means that we get to understand each other and then we continue, knowing that we are getting better at this.
āSo, yes, there are lines and veils, but letās find them, letās learn from one another. Donāt forget: itās not about winning an Oscar. What we are doing is going to evaporate, when weāre done.ā So, if we donāt do well this time, itās okay: maybe weāll talk about it after the session, or maybe weāll reflect upon it by ourselvesā¦ and the next time will be better. āIf you play music,ā Ron continues, with one of his most famous analogies, āyou know that youāre going to have ups and downs.ā
Crossing a cyberpunk line
In a Savage Worlds game with cyberpunk setting, where Ron was a player, not too long ago, the Game Master had planned a railroaded event: a woman NPC was supposed to show up on a motorcycle, shoot the person that the PCs were bodyguarding, and then run away. āWell, he was playing with the wrong table,ā Ron says. Players were very assertive, asking for an initiative roll and a chance to act. In the end, they defeated and killed the woman. Which was a bit of a shock for the GM, who made up this NPC he likedā¦ ābut, you know, this happens.ā
Then, one of the players said that the dead NPC had a pretty nice jacket. Another one commented: āSheās wearing leather pants too.ā
āIt was table talk, nobody was talking about actually taking anything from her body,ā Ron explains. But āthe sense of a sickening drop that I experienced at that momentā¦ it just grossed me out.ā What that player said is, he thinks, a clear example of āgoing over a line.ā
What happened, then? Well, the interesting part is that nobody said anything. āThinking back, all of us flinched, I remember.ā Everyone was silent. Some sort of nonverbal communication, we might say. It was enough: that thing never happened again.
āWe didnāt have a great, big āalright, everybody, we need a serious talkā kind of thing. But that didnāt happen again. I donāt really know by which social mechanism, but thatās okay, right?ā Ron continues. āThe more I think about it, the more Iām going to speculate that the person who had spoken reflected, by themselves.ā
He concludes: āThereās no perfect formula: when this happens, do that. But thereās room to be a little gentle about it. We donāt need a big confrontation, or a big āencounter groupā kind of thing. Thereās room depending on the people.ā