It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
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.This is in contrast with "Nobody Gets Hurt" where the social agreement is:
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.
we know where each other's lines are, and we agree not to cross them.In the thread, some people said things, including:
Posted By: JesseOne of the great misunderstanding of Ron's discussion of Lines and Veils in Sex & Sorcery was that these were things that you should hammer out in advance with your play group like some kind of contract written in blood. I think that's socially problematic because it creates fictional trenches in the name of social safety rather than actual understanding of each other's lines. What Ron was getting at was that these things *exist*. People have lines. Some creative material gets veiled.
When you go into a social situation knowing these things exist then you can *discover* them rather organically. Someone introduces some fictional content and someone else gets a little squicky about it. You know you're walking near a line for that person. The question is when that happens what do you do?
For No One Gets Hurt, you back away. You revise your content. You throw a veil over something and quickly move on. You introduce new content that quickly moves play away from the line.
For I Will Not Abandon You, you keep going. You acknowledge that you're crossing a line but you also trust the other player to handle it. The other player plays through the uncomfortable content with you.
These are reciprocal relationships. If they don't check out for your material, you don't check out for theirs. These also apply to oneself. You might find yourself cornered by the fiction and you realize you're about to do something that makes *yourself* uncomfortable. For No One Gets Hurt, you rationalize a way out of doing that. In I Will Not Abandon You, you go there and trust the group to play through it with you.
For whatever reason whenever I talk about this stuff people liken it to therapy. That's not what it is. It's about emotional and creative integrity to the demands of the fiction and about appreciating the social honesty of that fiction.
Posted By: lumpleyI 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.So, before we go on, I want to make one thing clear: this thread is not about definitions. I don't wanna ban discussions of "what does that mean?" entirely, but let's keep all definitional talk squarely in the realm of "how do we continue to play into places past people's comfort zones in a way that is healthy and affirming for everyone involved?" If you wanna debate definition (and honestly, I might, myself) let's keep that in the parent thread.
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.Whendoes our consensus really need to trump one person's vision?Whichchallenging ideas are really more valuable than our feelings?