[quote=“amphigori”]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.[/quote]
Thank you. I may, at some point in the future, run a game where physical contact is allowed outright, and add restricting or prohibiting OOC calls that people can use to immediately stop what is going on (to them) without disrupting the rest of the play (such as the serious “time out” call) to experiment with.
As in most discussions of this sort of nature my response to a certain degree can be summed up by ‘Context, Context, context!’.
First to the history of NZ LARP ‘no contact’ restrictions: i think it was probably just a case that we have adopted the US ways of doing things (because we played a bunch of WOD games and they have it written into their books etc.) and then it’s a case of ‘if it’s not broken…’.
But onto the broader topic, as suggested at the start i think the answer is to do with some sort of conexted based answer. As people have pointed out there are certain people i’m willing to be more physical with …(hey hey …sorry couldn’t resist) and others i’m not. So i think any system for calls needs not to be blanket.
As for as system for determining contact levels if people start a contact action (so if i'm going to wrestle you to the ground i put a hand on each of your shoulders and then step close or some other show of what i'm gong to do) then they stop for a beat to let the target object then continue the action if the target doesn't want the contact they simply say no and/or put there hand out to stop the other person from continuing at which point the players switch to narration.
Something like that or maybe just a safe word system. would probably work as long as it's in the context of a larp in which everyone understands that's what is happening. even though i dislike 'Big Game Theory' i think that it's concept of the 'social contract' of the game could be useful here. If everyone agrees to the social contract of a game like this it would be awesome. but if someone isn't clear on what they are getting into then it could turn into a screaming disaster. So perhaps having a keyword for such LARPs i was thinking 'full-contact' or 'theatrical' but the former sounds like you are sparring and the later sounds like your saying all other LARPs aren't theatrical...
i hope this helps and doesn’t fall into TL:DR territory
This is possible for some games, but certainly not all games. The simple consideration is that larp is most safe if you avoid physical contact, and my take on NZ larp history is that this was the primary consideration (others may provide alternative points of view, however).
Cohorts of players that wish to enable more physical contact between themselves (and have developed a sense of trust between each other) can self-organise as appropriate, but the safest default policy is non-contact.
I’m not against a contact-immersive approach to larp, but I do think that opt-out-after-the-fact presents significant problems because said contact could cross intimate personal boundaries (and trigger associated responses).
If I was going to implement a contact system, it would include a flag the indicate a player’s level of tolerance for contact, coupled with an after-the-fact cautioning system, like the one discussed here.
This is possible for some games, but certainly not all games. The simple consideration is that larp is most safe if you avoid physical contact, and my take on NZ larp history is that this was the primary consideration (others may provide alternative points of view, however). [/quote]
The genisis of the two different timeout calls in Auckland Larp was primarily from Mordavia which started in 2001, before a few years before WoD was around.
The “T” hand symbol for casual timeouts was in use at Lateral Worlds before Mordavia, I remember someone using it there (although I don’t think it was in the rulebook, it was an unwritten convention among players). I think its origin is in American sports, especially Basketball. Is it in the WoD rules? If so it’s possible it came to Lateral Worlds by way of WoD.
I’m not sure about the loud Time Out call, but it may have been in use at Lateral Worlds as well. I remember reading that in the UK (e.g. The Gathering) they have both loud Time Out and Man Down calls, and deciding that Man Down was superfluous as Time Out would cover it. So it’s also possible that I introduced this here in its current form, but I can’t remember. Will have to dig out my Lateral Worlds and Portal Games rulebooks.
Non-contact doesn’t have its origins in WoD larp. It’s common in fantasy larps all over the world including the USA and UK, at games that started in the 80s before WoD came about. We used it at Portal Games before I played at Lateral Worlds, without any exposure to WoD. It’s just an obvious safety and comfort consideration, especially to avoid larp combat degenerating into a brawl.
However, I gather that WoD does take non-contact to extremes with Basic Rule #1 saying “No Touching. This means none whatsoever, even with consent”, which technically disallows even consensual handshaking.
There were also people with SCA or steelfighting experience coming in with a “Hold!” or “Break!” call, which I remember at Mordavia for a while. I guess “Timeout!” beat them out as the default.
I’ve known the quick a-side timeout since I started larping, but the first time I saw the loud timeout call used was in Teonn. I guess it’s not really needed so much in theatre forms. We have a similar thing for injury time-outs in ultimate. It’s possibly in other sports too, but I don’t play those.
I disagree with this. I’d rather any such calls were designed to be as clearly OOC as possible, so as to avoid any possible confusion. The last thing we want is a situation where Player A says “no, don’t do that” because they’re uncomfortable and Player B thinks it’s an IC objection and keeps right on going.
I think timeout is a good call and covers most of what we need, but I have two issues with it:
Merely making a T with your hands may not be good enough, as the other player may in some circumstances not be able to see your hands. You have to also give verbal indication wherever you feel it’s necessary.
And this leads into 2) I conceptually don’t like using the same verbal call for “someone’s Vanya’d themselves” and “please don’t do that, it makes me uncomfortable”. The former tends to necessitate a full game stop in the vicinity, while the latter I feel is something best sorted between the affected players without disrupting anyone else’s game. Yes, in the first case you’re generally shouting it instead of just saying it, but it still pulls those around you out of character as they have to (however briefly) wonder whether you’re injured (or at least that’s how I’d react).
Because of those two points, I do think that a separate call (or calls) for personal comfort levels isn’t a bad idea and is worth trying out - and something akin to the traffic light system described sounds to me like it would be quite a good stab at this.
When the other person can’t see your hands you use “out of character” words, but this really works in any kind of situations.
E.g.:
(loudly) “I shall put you in shackles and you will rotten in this dungeon, mortal!” (lower voice) “Out of character - are you ok to actually have shackles put on you?”
I have a question here. There is so much said about how current system is not (possibly) good enough to prevent people from “feeling uncomfortable” or whatever else. Do we have actual EXAMPLES of such situations? Because, frankly speaking, the T-hands and “out of character” words seem to work well so far in most of cases, so if this situation needs upgrading it would be good to base it on actual real examples rather than potential ones, otherwise it is all theoretical speculation. Real examples would also give a better understanding of how exactly it is better to upgrade, methinks.
Now, speaking of potentially pulling people out of character with safety/comfort calls: before my first game I was told that people stay IC from Friday night till Sunday afternoon non-stop. That is not true, because people fall out of and back in character ALL THE TIME, and they do it very fast. As long as you keep smooth roleplaying it’s all good. Sometimes OOC comments are put in IC form which makes them extra funny, e.g. the question “does anybody have magic potion that protects from sun?” would always find you a bottle of sunblock. Nothing horrible about spending half a minute on OOC conversation with someone crying to make sure they just have a deep immersion and are not actually hurt or upset.
[quote=“Krintar”]
Because of those two points, I do think that a separate call (or calls) for personal comfort levels isn’t a bad idea and is worth trying out - and something akin to the traffic light system described sounds to me like it would be quite a good stab at this.[/quote]
Going to a different call for ‘someone is hurt’ would also fix this problem. Like the “Hold!” or “Break!” calls Steph mentioned had been used by some in the past.
If in a larp, for whatever reason, I feel as though my fellow roleplayers are not taking my objections/distress seriously enough, my planned approach is to raise my voice and add the words “OUT OF CHARACTER” to the front of statement.
“Out of character, please stop shouting at me and get out of my space.”
If I am so uncomfortable that I need to break character, I break character.
However, I can’t recollect an experience off the top of my head where I’ve actually had OOC discomfort mistaken for IC. In my experience, when someone is upset out of character, there is a distinct tonal and body language change. And even so, in my experience, everyone has always erred on the side of caution. Most of my IC hysterics have had someone double check I’m okay out of character. The most difficulty I have in communicating an OOC message is during mass combat - when it’s just been roleplaying between myself and a smaller group of people I can hardly recall any incidents where I was uncomfortable due to physical contact, and I can recall none that I couldn’t solve with a quiet word or easy action (i.e. someone was in my space shouting at me - I took a step back.)
[quote=“Anna K”]However, I can’t recollect an experience off the top of my head where I’ve actually had OOC discomfort mistaken for IC…
…(i.e. someone was in my space shouting at me - I took a step back.)[/quote]
That’s a nice way to approach it. When I was it such situation I used my IC ability and sent you evil crew people running away IC scared. Then you came back with a mob and killed some of us. In the end it was fun. 8)
This is the good moment to emphasise again that it’s ok to step back out of action if things don’t feel right. While it is everyone’s responsibility to keep an eye on weird things going on and try not to upset people, it also works the other way round. If you are upset/uncomfortable - take time to recover, if you need - go to your room and hide there for a while. Everyone need to take responsibility for their own mental health and know when to stop for emergency sanity recover. Don’t expect people to read your mind, don’t expect them to figure out somehow that while you are saying “I’m ok” and smile you actually feel horrible and bad and not wanting to be there right now at all, and you are just desperately trying to follow the fashionable pattern of “being nice to people and not upsetting them with your upset condition that may spoil their fun” behaviour.
Possibly, but it still doesn’t guarantee that people will read it, also some people are very good at acting out emotions and other conditions (like roleplaying drunk so well that even GMs totally believe it and cancel the scene). Also, it is easier to read people you know rather than strangers. Another also I’ll PM you because it is not politically correct.
[quote=“Aiwe”]
I have a question here. There is so much said about how current system is not (possibly) good enough to prevent people from “feeling uncomfortable” or whatever else. Do we have actual EXAMPLES of such situations? Because, frankly speaking, the T-hands and “out of character” words seem to work well so far in most of cases, so if this situation needs upgrading it would be good to base it on actual real examples rather than potential ones, otherwise it is all theoretical speculation. Real examples would also give a better understanding of how exactly it is better to upgrade, methinks.[/quote]
I thought the genesis of this discussion was to do with the idea of setting up games in which more physical contact was the norm and what sort of systems one should put in place to make such a game work and be comfortable to all people. I think we pretty much all agree that the current set-up is perfectly good for dealing with general LARP usage especially for ones which contain noobs.
But the question of a good way to set up a LARP to allow ,let us says seasoned, players to interact with each other and keep each other safe and happy. While being able to do more 'dramatic' things. is a good one.
Dreams in the Witch House is basically what you just described. We use the fore warned is forearmed approach coupled with the current system used by most other games.
I think the forewarning people is the key. And making it clear that it is a warning designed to help them cope with an intense game and not a challenge to see who can push themselves the furthest.
I think it has to come down to what works for the game organizer and what works for the people taking part.
[quote=“liquid_elf”][size=90]I thought the genesis of this discussion was to do with the idea of setting up games in which more physical contact was the norm and what sort of systems one should put in place to make such a game work and be comfortable to all people. I think we pretty much all agree that the current set-up is perfectly good for dealing with general LARP usage especially for ones which contain noobs.
But the question of a good way to set up a LARP to allow ,let us says seasoned, players to interact with each other and keep each other safe and happy. While being able to do more 'dramatic' things. is a good one.[/size][/quote]
Yes, that was indeed what I was looking for in creating this thread.
Dreams in the Witch House is basically what you just described. We use the fore warned is forearmed approach coupled with the current system used by most other games.
I think the forewarning people is the key. And making it clear that it is a warning designed to help them cope with an intense game and not a challenge to see who can push themselves the furthest.
I think it has to come down to what works for the game organizer and what works for the people taking part.[/size][/quote]
Dreams in the Witch House did indeed come to mind when I was thinking about this topic, before creating this thread.
[quote=“Krintar”][size=90]I think timeout is a good call and covers most of what we need, but I have two issues with it:
Merely making a T with your hands may not be good enough, as the other player may in some circumstances not be able to see your hands. You have to also give verbal indication wherever you feel it’s necessary.
And this leads into 2) I conceptually don’t like using the same verbal call for “someone’s Vanya’d themselves” and “please don’t do that, it makes me uncomfortable”. The former tends to necessitate a full game stop in the vicinity, while the latter I feel is something best sorted between the affected players without disrupting anyone else’s game. Yes, in the first case you’re generally shouting it instead of just saying it, but it still pulls those around you out of character as they have to (however briefly) wonder whether you’re injured (or at least that’s how I’d react).
Because of those two points, I do think that a separate call (or calls) for personal comfort levels isn’t a bad idea and is worth trying out - and something akin to the traffic light system described sounds to me like it would be quite a good stab at this.[/size][/quote]
I agree with the above points regarding the “Timeout” call, and the hand signal.
Take the hypothetical situation (because we don’t seem to have many examples in NZ) of “a LARP that includes only experienced LARPers, who have all agreed to the social contract of the game, including that of physical contact being a likelihood”. I think the definition between physical injury requiring medical attention, and a person being uncomfortable with, and wanting to immediately end, physical contact that is occurring (or about to occur), for whatever reason, should be OOC, easy to distinguish from other calls, and very quick to say and thus to respond to (for the people it is aimed at). These are the motivations behind my proposal for an alternative safeword, such as “red”.
Dreams in the Witch House is basically what you just described. We use the fore warned is forearmed approach coupled with the current system used by most other games.
I think the forewarning people is the key. And making it clear that it is a warning designed to help them cope with an intense game and not a challenge to see who can push themselves the furthest.
I think it has to come down to what works for the game organizer and what works for the people taking part.[/size][/quote]
Dreams in the Witch House did indeed come to mind when I was thinking about this topic, before creating this thread.[/quote]
I really like how the GM’s have handled Witch House. Lots of pre-LARP warnings about content. A clear understanding about responsibility, what falls on the player and what falls on everyone else.
I can go into into the game with the comfort that I have the responsibility to let GM’s and fellow players know where my comfort zones are (I did it via a semi-formal online declaration) and I know that it is my responsibility to control (or remove myself) from situations where I am uncomfortable (the declaration also stated that I accept and understand that responsibility).
The fact that it is all clear, and well documented means I know where I stand going into the game and I know the mechanisms I have to hand to sort out the responsibilities that fall on me.
The upshot is, if you are running a LARP where you wish to have contact as the norm it is best handled by pre-game communications and discussions.
In all of this great discussion, I really just have to comment that I think the existing systems are sufficient.
1: The social contract of the game is explained. This may include some contact or not.
2: It’s understood that individual relationships may have more or less contact. But that’s because of personal knowledge.
3: Timeout seems to be a perfectly useable and wide ranging call for most situations. Quietly, Timeout (or Out of Character) indicates a need to ask something between a small number of people. A shouted Timeout indicates a larger problem.
I have many people I know who are perfectly happy for me to grab them, or are happy to grab me. (Naturally, there are still limits…) I’ve had great encounters with people like Walter because we know each other. At the same time, I will be cautious with people I don’t know…
So far, for me anyway, it’s worked well.
I also would like to hear specific examples where personal responsibility to say timeout or remove oneself from a situation hasn’t worked.
Trying to fix something that isn’t broken isn’t a whole lot of use…
…sorry couldn’t resist) and others i’m not. So i think any system for calls needs not to be blanket.
