Physical Contact Restrictions - Before or After the Fact?

Community Larp discussion
#1

tl;dr this is a some-what lengthy post about the rules of physical contact in LARP, whether the prohibition should come before or after physical contact has happened, and a potential alternative to prohibition in order to allow physical contact in mature-themed LARP.

Apologies for the long-winded post, but there is admittedly a lot to cover with such a potentially serious subject.

[size=150]Background[/size]
Having recently finished reading the Solmukohta 2012 book (link leads to diatribe post), an interesting idea struck me when related to previous comments by LARPers about physical contact in LARP. I thought I would put this in it’s own thread as I’m interested in the opinions of those who browse these forums in relation to this subject.

One interesting comment that was made in one of the later articles in the aforementioned book (I forget which one) was that physical contact in the Nordic (and neighboring countries) LARP scene is a widely accepted part of LARP for them. It was compared to LARP in the USA, where physical contact is prohibited, except for (at most) a light touch on the shoulder to cast certain spells (depending on the mechanics of the LARP in question). In the book, this restriction on physical contact was attributed to the fact that in the USA you can sue anyone for perceived ‘damages’. I’m not sure if that’s actually the origin of the prohibition, but the unwillingness of GM’s to get caught up in legal disputes of such a nature, or he-said she-said disagreements, was quoted by the essay.

In NZ, all the LARP’s I’ve been to (both theatreform and boffer) have prohibited physical contact, yet in NZ, you can’t sue people (I’m no lawyer, please correct me if I’m wrong). That said, we do have laws against harassment, and the prohibition makes court cases surrounding physical or sexual harassment less likely (at least, I’m guessing that’s a motivation behind the rule). On a similar vein, I’ve heard a number of LARPers (especially in the Auckland scene, who are more accustomed to boffer combat) want to have a more hands-on experience from LARP. As an example, instead of saying that you’ve bound someone in rope, you’d actually do so. As a (perhaps) less extreme example, hugging your ally when you’ve beaten the orc horde, because that’s what your bubbly affectionate character would do, rather than avoid doing so because of the physical contact prohibition.

It’s understandable that in family-friendly games with low age restrictions, that a prohibition would exist to prevent any confusion or upset on the part of a younger participant who has yet to reach their legal majority. However, if we were to consider a game with an age restriction of legal majority (in this country, I am given to understand that’s 18 years of age, although correct me if I’m wrong), could a more after-the-fact mechanic for personal safety exist and be used successfully in this country to run LARPs that dealt with mature content (by which I mean things like horror, or touchy subjects that cause upset), without damaging the perception of LARP in the eyes of potential new LARPers and the public? As an example in favour of after-the-fact safety rules being successful, the LARP scene in the netherlands is the biggest in the world, is still growing, and allows physical contact.

I realise similar discussions about the physical contact prohibition have occurred on Diatribe in the past, but I thought I would bring to light an alternative. I realise a number of alternatives have been proposed in previous discussion, but I have not seen any with the particular scope of LARP I have proposed, and the alternative that follows. Please forgive me if I am repeating a previous discussion that has already occurred.

[size=150]Proposition[/size]
To explain what I mean when I say “after-the-fact safety rule”, a good example of it would be something like the Traffic Light System. As a set of OOC calls;
[ul][li]“Green” means go. Everything is alright, and whatever is happening, or is proposed to happen, is alright to continue and does not breach the caller’s personal limits.[/li]
[li]“Orange” means slow. The caller is approaching their personal limits of what they feel comfortable with, and whatever is going on probably shouldn’t go any further in an unsafe direction, but is alright to continue.[/li]
[li]“Red” means stop. The caller has reached, or exceeded, their personal limits, and whatever is making them uncomfortable should stop, or lessen until an “orange” state is achieved, or the caller should be allowed to leave the place in which the actions that are the cause of the “red” call are occurring.[/li][/ul]
Whenever someone is unsure whether their action would make someone uncomfortable, they can ask the person who is subject to the action OOC whether they are alright with the action they wish to perform, and the subject can answer with one of the above calls. In the event that a person was not asked before the action that breaches their limits is performed, and does not want something uncomfortable to continue, they can use of the “red” call to stop it.

Not everyone knows their limits, and while informed consent is a nice idea, when it comes to experiences that push boundaries, there’s no guarantee that someone who thought they knew their limits wont discover that their actual limits are different to what they imagined. To clarify; I’m not seeking to push people’s limits by proposing the use of the Traffic Light System in mature-themed LARP instead of prohibiting physical contact out-right, but simply to allow physical contact with provided safety words to ensure that people don’t get subjected to anything they don’t want to, at least not for prolonged periods of time. I think it goes without saying that participants in a LARP using such a system would still be subject to the law, that they should all be mature individuals, that the actions of participants aren’t in the hands of the LARP organisers/GM’s, and that a LARP relies on everyone playing by the rules & the spirit of the game (e.g. fair play) for such a system to work.

Having said all that, it’s just my opinion, and what I’d really like is the opinions of others. What are your thoughts on such a system, and would a LARP using such a system be something you’d be interested in attending (if everything else about the LARP was also to your tastes)?

#2

Very interesting idea Nick. I was thinking on this recently as well, largely from a perspective of “I’m fine with any contact, but how do I communicate that in advance of any contact?”. Under the Traffic Lights System, would you just call out “Green” if any contact was about to occur to let someone know it’s all okay?

Jon

#3

Calling out anything would - to me - signify some kind of intention that what is about to happen is not OK - if I was about to hug someone* and they said anything on my way towards them, it would make me stop to parse whatever they said. The idea has some merit, but I think in practice you’d only need the “Orange” and “Red” calls. Actually calling out a colour would also (in my opinion) be a great way to break character; I’d much prefer simply “OK” or “No”, as they can be interpreted in an in-character fashion.

My 2c

[size=85]*not that I would. I’m not a huggy guy, and mostly for that reason I don’t create huggy characters. I don’t mind at all if people hug me though, as long as it’s not a complete surprise[/size]

#4

We already have “time out” - a call that is already understood to mean “stop”.

Rather than create another set of rules, why not just stress at the start of games that “time out” is used:

  • If there is a rl injury/emergency
  • If you feel uncomfortable/unsafe
#5

I’m not sure what you mean by “After the Fact”. If a physical contact has happened that someone isn’t OK with, it’s too late to put a prohibition on it. That traffic light thing you propose sounds more like a ‘During’.

#6

Good point. Admittedly, the traffic light system was the first thing that came to mind. The calls could take on any form, or even be more in-character words, as you’ve demonstrated.

[quote=“amphigori”]We already have “time out” - a call that is already understood to mean “stop”.

Rather than create another set of rules, why not just stress at the start of games that “time out” is used:

  • If there is a rl injury/emergency
  • If you feel uncomfortable/unsafe[/quote]

The “time-out” call is used by different games in different ways to mean different things. Not only that, the one you’ve given has a massive scope. A physical injury shouldn’t be confused with someone being upset or their discomfort, as each situation requires a different set of actions to make it right again. I think “time out” is an unsuitable call for limiting physical contact, but you’re right in that we have a number of similar mechanisms already in the community.

It admittedly doesn’t have to be the traffic light thing, but could be any call, as demonstrated by Viperion. The traffic light calls could be used before (e.g. “is it alright if I tie you up”), during (e.g. something has started to happen and you’re not ok with it), or after (e.g. someone has tackle-hugged you from behind and already let go before you know what’s happened). The versatility of the calls was one of the reasons I chose it as an example.

#7

My experience of “Time Out” in every NZ game I’ve been in means: stop playing and assess a problem.

I think it’s totally acceptable to use this in the case of a physical injury or someone feeling uncomfortable.

“Time Out” means something’s wrong, we need to stop RPing and assess the situation and we will only resume play when everyone involved agrees that things are fine.

#8

[quote=“amphigori”]My experience of “Time Out” in every NZ game I’ve been in means: stop playing and assess a problem.

I think it’s totally acceptable to use this in the case of a physical injury or someone feeling uncomfortable.

“Time Out” means something’s wrong, we need to stop RPing and assess the situation and we will only resume play when everyone involved agrees that things are fine.[/quote]

Fair enough, although the situations I am proposing an alternative for wouldn’t necessarily be so serious that a time-out call would need to be made nor play to be stopped for people other than those immediately affected.

#9

My observations in Teonn is that two variations of “Time Out” are practiced …

  1. The Shout
  • Someone shouts “Time Out!”
  • Something major is wrong, or someone is injured
  • Everyone stop, crouch, and repeat the warning
  1. The Aside
  • Someone makes a ‘T’ with their hands
  • Somebody wants to make an OOC comment, or express something about the current situation
  • They make their comment, un-‘T’ their hands, and continue RP

Not sure how widespread this is, either in Teonn or in other LARPs, but it is a pattern I’ve seen quite frequently.

#10

I read somewhere that there was a larp community that liked doing big emotional stuff where they had the practice of making an “OK” sign with their hand and holding it to their chest as a proactive indicator that they were fine. (Like if someone’s roleplaying an emotional melt down or serious physical injury, people don’t have to worry if they should time out and ask if they’re OK.)

#11

Starwars does have pysical contact for combat:
Brawling can be done through purchasing a skill - but you basically touch your target with an open hand to attack - (the much hated damage calls are used)

Grapple can be done - requires 3 people to grapple 1 person- each must gently place 1 hand on the target. Target cannot escape without a break hold skill.

Martial arts can buy the ability to grapple a target with the same effect as 3 people holding 1 person - but it requires two hands placed onto the target gently and open. (no grabbing)

Throw + Choke are both abilities used in close combat (note - not force choke or abilities) however the person doing the throwing or choke indicates the direction he wishes to throw his target - then the target moves in that direction and lands on the ground at their own pace. (and is not thrown) and the choke is a call. The hands are kept on the body / arms of target and a grapple is maintained.

It’s alot of rules but this is how it is done in the UK (at starwars) and how it is run here. We have never had any problems.

I think they key point I am trying to make is that you CAN have in character contact if you have rules in place for it. To be honnest there is not alot that you cannot do in starwars if you have enough xp… having said that there are quite a few pages of rules… (less than a WoD lrp - so if you can manage the monthly games you should be fine at starwars :slight_smile: )

#12

I think it’s been suggested before, but another idea was some sort of colour sticker indicating your acceptable level of contact. Cons: breaks suspension of disbelief. Also, might not be great for anyone who is colour-blind. But lets you tell at a glance who you can or can’t contact.

I think potentially you have the GM’s dictate their contact rules for each game. If a player is not comfortable with them, they are free to opt out of the game. Obviously it’s a balancing act between finding a level that as many people are comfortable with against the level of immersion.

Jon

#13

[quote=“Jon Ball”]I think it’s been suggested before, but another idea was some sort of colour sticker indicating your acceptable level of contact. Cons: breaks suspension of disbelief. Also, might not be great for anyone who is colour-blind. But lets you tell at a glance who you can or can’t contact.

I think potentially you have the GM’s dictate their contact rules for each game. If a player is not comfortable with them, they are free to opt out of the game. Obviously it’s a balancing act between finding a level that as many people are comfortable with against the level of immersion.

Jon[/quote]

Admittedly, the complexity of the issue, and the many varied preferences of people regarding their limits and comfort zones, is part of the reason I’m looking for something that could deal with every situation regarding levels of psychological comfort in general. It’s difficult to categorise the many varied situations, and still fit everyone’s preferences. Some form of quick, game-wide recognised form of yes/no regarding limits, and such a safeword to opt out of situations, would be desirable in any LARP that was likely to push people’s limits (not that I plan on running one, at least not currently).

#14

Plus in fast-action scenes you won’t have time to check on everyone’s stickers (bracelets were also suggested at some point). Not to mention you can’t see that stuff at night anyway.

My personal preference would be to not indicate “I am fine with physical contact” to people around by stickers or bracelets, because this very much depends on the person too. While I am totally ok with Derek throwing me over his shoulder and carrying through half of Motu Moana, or Gaffy putting his big arm around my neck to restrict my movements, I would not want random newbies or people I am not that comfortable with to do the same - and if I was wearing said sticker and they saw others doing it to me, they would think it’s ok for anyone to do it to me - and it is not.

#15

Other cons: its blanket, and fails to recognise the fact that players may be comfortable with physical contact from some players, but not others.

#16

I agree with what amphigori and Ignifluous have said. Time Out is a single call that means “stop play and discuss issue”, it’s versatile enough for every situation, and it’s already in use. Personally I wouldn’t like to see a bunch of other metagame calls (as opposed to game system calls) being introduced.

For me, the considerations are:

[ol][li]The organisers need to express the default boundary levels for the game. “This game is no contact except where participants agree to it,” for example. Time Out is then used for exceptions that participants have not previously agreed to. [/li]
[li]Priming participants to use Time Out for both boundary and safety issues.[/li]
[li]Making participants aware that some people may have arrangements among themselves outside the default boundary levels of the game, especially if they know each other well.[/li][/ol]

#17

There’s elegance in simplicity.

#18

As Ignifluous said previously, the “Time Out” shout isn’t likely to be appropriate for a personal boundary call. For example, the person making the call probably doesn’t want the whole game to stop and all attention focussed on them just because a random-stranger-hug or IC shouting match made them feel uncomfortable. They probably just want a chance to say “Hey, you’re way inside my personal space”, or “I’m not really a huggy person except with my close OOC friends”. There’s no reason to stop the game for that.

The “T” hand gesture is already in very common use in Auckland larps for situations where something needs to be discussed OOC and yet doesn’t need to stop play for everyone around.

#19

Adding to Jackie and Kara:

T sign for I want an OOC time aside. check, exist in larp culture.

TIME OUT for serious shit. Stop, find issue, resolve, continue once GM calls time in.

Both work for defining levels of contact. One a gentle aside and one for “I don’t feel safe” and play needs to stop.

Also ooc whisper communication works too.

Edit: bloody smartphone keyboard

#20

In saying this, Nick, you should absolutely experiment with your idea in one of the games you run. See how it works. If you and your players find value in it, go for it. As a GM you should feel empowered to use whatever rules/systems you think provide the best experience for your players.

Maybe it’ll catch on as a wider-spread mechanic. But I think that for the time being the 'Time Out" and “T hand-symbol” seem to be fulfilling the requirements to ensure people have a means to opt-out of something dangerous/unsafe/upsetting.