Before I start, I want to warn my readers that this isn't going to be an easy post for some to read, because it involves domestic violence. I would recommend that you approach this post cautiously for that reason.
Yesterday, on his 'Crossing the Verse blog, Ozymandias quoted a dialogue, that I'd like to post here as well.
We are all seeing a lot of stuff like this now, and not just connected to role-playing games. I have no specific things to say about any of the posts above, except that they are more or less representative of a growing number of people who believe that the means to making their own lives easier is to create rules that they themselves feel that they're able to live by, and that ~ they feel ~ others ought to live by too. All this, we are told, is so that everyone can feel "safe." Because "safe" is the most important thing there is, especially in any sort of group activity.
Now, let me take a step back. I am going to talk about D&D again, but first I want to explain about something else.
When I was young, my father hit me. I have talked abut this on this blog before, but about a month ago I had a revelation about it. See, my father did not hit me when I was an infant, or when I was a child. I remember that I was 14 years old the first time my father hit me with his fist. I had been given spankings, and I had experienced my father's belt, but as far as I knew, those times were not done in anger. Growing up in the 70s, most kids had stories of being hit with a belt and that wasn't unique.
But at 14, my father made a connection in his head that a belt wasn't controlling my behavior. I wasn't growing up the way he expected me to grow up. I wasn't working hard at school. I wasn't pursuing a future in science or engineering. I wasn't speaking politely to my mother or my sister, mostly because they weren't speaking politely to me. And I wasn't afraid of a belt. In fact, I was getting to the point that I'd rather take the belt than kow-tow to an agenda that did not fit my interests.
So my father got desperate, and he lost his temper, and he hit me with his fists. I had said something to my sister that was inconsiderate, and my father found me in the laundry room. I can remember him coming right at me. And me putting up my arms to protect my face. And being hit in the face and the body. And then it was over and I remember being told that I better never speak badly to my sister again.
That didn't happen very often. But it did happen, and no, I didn't feel safe. It happened right up until I was nearly 20. But before I explain what stopped it, I want to explain what caused it.
When my father was hitting me at 14, my father felt SAFE. I was just a young teenager, about 120 lbs, less than half my father's weight, and I was a nerd. I avoided fights as a kid because I lost fights. My father had worked as a forest fighter. He had worked as a roughneck around oil wells. When I was 14, he was 42, and a big man. He had big, beefy hands. I wasn't gonna do anything to him. He didn't have to hesitate before rushing in to beat me up.
At 19, I was out of high school but still living at home. I was bigger. I had worked construction jobs. My hands were harder. My shoulders were wider. I had played football and I had grown. That's where I was when my father got his last try to learn me something.
I remember I was in the basement rec room. And it was really late. Something had pissed him off but I don't remember what. I heard him coming down the stairs and I must have known why then, though I've forgotten now. He had his fists closed.
I had my fists closed too. And I remember I said, "Come on, old man. You wanna fight. I'm ready for you."
And just like that, my father backed the fuck down. We never did fight. And he never closed a fist in my presence again.
He didn't feel safe any more.
That's the center point of this post. I had a relationship with my father after that, and it was never what I'd call satisfactory. Towards the end, it became fucking impossible. But not because he hit me. No. We settled that business. And settling that, for a time, there were things we were able to sort out between us and I did have some good times with him. He's in an old age home now, with Alzheimers, and I don't visit him. I stopped visiting him casually in 2007 when he was healthy and well. I saw him at my mother's bedside in 2012 before she passed. And at my daughters wedding in 2016. Not since. Because not all parents are good parents, and not even family deserves an infinite number of chances.
Beware of people who make a crusade out of feeling safe. Asking to feel safe by controlling what other people say or do, or by what emotions they display, is not a good thing. Any policy that begins with what other people have to do is a road to persecution and the abuse of power.
I did not treat my daughter as my father had treated me. I did spank her on three occasions, all of which my daughter remembers. Those spankings consisted of her bending over my lap and being smacked one time. And not hard. Because I learned as a child that the worse thing about being spanked isn't the pain. The pain is nothing. The pain is choosing to be hit by the wrench by your father because fuck him. The worst thing about being spanked is the humiliation that it is happening.
One spank just makes the message stick. The first time I spanked her was to stop her from touching burning wood in the fireplace. She was, I think, four. I don't remember why the other two times. It seemed to matter at the time. But I felt safe too, didn't I?
I was not going to be my father. And that's what matters. It isn't about what people do to us. We can't, and shouldn't try, to control other people. That's my father's crime. Not that he hit me. But that he refused to understand me, or try to understand me. I could stand here today and talk about how I didn't feel safe ~ and I sure didn't ~ but it was far, far worse that I wasn't understood than that I didn't feel safe. I'd have taken a hundred beatings if it meant my father would have asked me a fucking question about what I wanted, and believed me.
But he never did.
People who want to feel safe aren't listening. They don't want to listen. When someone raises a voice in their presence, from pain or confusion or from frustration, they don't want to hear any of that. The safety people don't want to reach out. They don't want to forgive anybody, anything. They just want everyone to bend, to make them feel safe.
And once they feel safe, believe me ... that isn't going to end well.
I want to say that D&D shouldn't be about any of this. It shouldn't be about people making rules about the behaviour of other people. If you don't like other people, then don't play with them. Or find a way to speak with them, and understand them, and forgive them. There is no kindness like forgiveness, and no cruelty like shame.
Forcing others to quiet themselves for the sake of safety is shaming. It is ritualized humiliation for people who don't fit it, who don't toe the line, who are too passionate, or too high strung, or too stressed for reasons that have nothing to do with a D&D table. I am ready, as a DM, to ask someone who won't speak kindly to others to leave my table. But I won't take a part in shaming them. I won't make rules that enable them to stay on if they act as I dictate. And I will let them join my game again, if we can talk and discuss things, and make room for our forgiving one another.
If we want to make rules, let's make that one. Let's demand that if someone has an issue, if someone has raised their voice and gotten upset, that no one is allowed to speak with superior judgment that a role-playing game is THIS, or that people have gathered for THIS reason, or that for the sake of EVERYONE, an individual is disposable, or that the right to play somehow justifies a right to dictate how other people should present a game, or check-in because we say so, or kowtow to the lines we draw for ourselves, or fail to be acknowledged because, while they're of some kind of race, they're not of a certain kind of passively accepted personality. How about the rule reads, "Everyone has a right to be heard, and acknowledged, and forgiven, even if that doesn't make everyone feel safe."
I like that rule. I don't want my players safe. I want them scared. A gane where everyone feels safe is just sitting around softly tossing a ball. It is boring.
ReplyDeleteA succinct articulation of one of dividing lines in the culture war. There is nothing safe about people speaking their minds, not safe for themselves or others.
ReplyDeleteThis is kind, touching, and insightful. Thank-you, Alexis.
ReplyDeleteYeah... No. This isn't a rule that applies to you. And I don't think it means that. There's an enormous difference between power and care. You weren't raised with that, so it's probably hard to connect that. But this is about care, you're conflating care with control. It's not sound rpg praxis.
ReplyDeleteEric,
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure how you can say how the rule doesn't apply to me. The rule is meant to apply to everyone.
You misunderstand me. I am a strong advocate of care, of empathy and concern for other people. I think it is a social responsibility. But I am strongly opposed to people who want to codify that into restrictions on human behaviour.
So, I am going to advocate for the concept of a Session Zero, and an X-Card, because I do not think that these things at all restrict anyone's behavior.
ReplyDeleteA Session Zero is, at it's core, the idea of taking time before the first time you and a group get together to play D&D, and telling the people at the table what your game is like. It is saying "Oh, hey, my game is set in a magical version of Renaissance Earth. NPCs will have attitudes reflective of the research I have done into the sociology and cultural history of people of the time. I have a robust economic system in place that informs the availabity of all goods." It is saying "I run a modified version of AD&D." It is saying "There is an element of random generation in my character creation rules." At some tables, there may be some back-and-forth discussion about these things between players and a DM, especially if the DM is new, unskilled, or lacking a distinctive style of their own yet. A Session Zero is not the players deciding, or being told, exactly what things will happen to them over the course of a campaign. It is really just an opportunity for players to make sure they are playing in the right game, and that DMs have the right players. I personally disagree with the terminology "session zero," because I don't usually dedicate table time to this stuff. I feel that I can usually summarize what my plans are for a game into an elevator pitch, or an email, and the people I play with will respond that they are, or are not interested in my premise.
A X-Card is like a BDSM safe word. It is there to tell players at the table "You are hurting me. Can we stop and talk about why and how you are hurting me?" The resolution to the problem does not always have to be "that player has to stop what they are doing." It does not have to be "We will never talk about the bad thing again." The resolution could be that, after a brief discussion, or even just a moment to breathe, we can return to the game without stopping or changing anything. It might be that, "yes, as a table we think this thing is bad. Please don't do it, or find another table." It might, by contrast, be "We as a table think this thing is fine, and even necessary to our game. If you do not want to deal with it, please find another table."
I am somewhat aware of lines and veils. I do not know what x/o cards, or support flowers or check-in cards are, though based on what I know about the other tools mentioned I would suspect that they either A) Help players to understand what they are getting themselves into by playing, or B) empowering a player to explain that they are not having a great time, and give them a chance to either understand and accept what is causing them problems, empower others at the table to change what is causing problems, or allow the player to gracefully separate themselves from the problem. I think these two things are worth-while for every table.
I, do not like how that Pathfinder 'rule' is written though. I agree that everyone deserves to be able let to play Pathfinder, if that is what they really want, but the way that 'rule' is written would make me relectant to run the game for fear that packs of rabib gamers would force themselves into my home to excercise their god and rulebook given right to play Pathfinder regardless of who they may be.
Do NOT get me started on why safe words in BDSM are a really, really bad idea. In fact, after a series of bad events in that community, safe words are being increasingly banned in favor of the top knowing what the hell they are doing and keeping the lines of communications open at all times and in both directions.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, Matt ~ and I also explain what my world is and what to expect and the sort of thing I'm going to run. I'm perfectly willing to start a party in an environment where they want to be, where the game will be good for them, and I try to keep the content of the game suitable to the sort of people that I'm running. I will reduce the sex and the torture porn and whatever else, if it feels I'm playing to the wrong crowd. I do the same with my conversation when I spend any time with anyone. I get to know them, find out what works for them and then stay within those boundaries.
I will argue, however, that this SHOULD NOT BE CODIFIED with bullshit terms like "Session Zero" or "X-Card." Such words are political in nature, rely upon an uncertain definition for what they mean exactly and create messes where misunderstandings occur because the words themselves have existed in our culture for a very short time.
We should be expressing ourselves in ordinary, simple words, expressing exactly what makes us uncomfortable and seeking understanding and compromise. We should not be inventing short-cuts which become weapon-words in arguments, as we shout, "X-Card! X-Card!" like a shibboleth that will magically make everything better. Buzz terms do NOT clarify; they create context-wars and endless banter about what should have been done or is not being done or what is protocol or policy or whatever, further dividing ourselves from ourselves.
Let's dump the politics and just tell people, "Say what you think." Without the new vocabulary.
"Liberal" and "conservative" are political buzz words. How well do they work in casual conversation?
ReplyDeleteNot very well; and they're over 300 years old.
ReplyDeleteI was actually not aware of a shift away from safewords. I intend to spend some time educating myself on that, but would love to hear what you have to say about it.
ReplyDeleteTo be clear, I do not use these things at my table. I do encourage my players to talk to me if there is any problem. I have learned to gage my players because I have been playing with most of them for years.
It also appears that I was wrong in how an X-Card is supposed to be used. Apparently the X-Card is for blatantly editing out content, rather than discussing it. So, used as intended, an X-Card is a horrible idea.
So, I would have to concede, given that I misunderstood the term and what it is for, that codifying the rules using these terms is a bad idea.
I do not think that simple words really fix the problem either though. The invention of measures like the X-Card, if we assume the best intentions, is to empower people who are used to their desire to be heard, acknowledged, and forgiven being ignored. "Everyone deserves to be heard" is a phrase made meaningless by disingenuous HR departments, uninterested school administrators, and dishonest politicians. If you are playing D&D with people you know, and trust, then "Hey, I respect you and your feelings. You deserve to be heard. Tell me if I am ever making you upset,' holds a lot more water than the same sentence from a guy at a gamestore table you've never met. I think it would be beneficial in that context for a player to have something to make explicit their right to be heard.
Okay, briefly. In BDSM, safe words rely upon a person being put under serious stress by a variety of intended stress-creating processes designed for that purpose. While under stress, the subject is also obtaining a mix of pain and pleasure, the goal of BDSM. In the state of mind that results, the subject is NOT capable of self-determining the condition of their own mental and physical health ~ yet safe words suppose that they must, for the Top in order to know whether or not they have gone too far. If the Bottom does not use a safe word, the Top can move on blissfully as though nothing is wrong ~ and people get seriously hurt this way, both physically and with mental trauma.
ReplyDeleteA responsible Top does what you do with your players, Matt; she gages his responses, breathing, movements and so on, from a standpoint of having participated with that Bottom for many, many sessions ~ and if something seems off, then it most probably is and it is her responsibility to either slow the scene down or directly open a dialogue with the Bottom until she is assured that he is fine. THAT is the responsible way to participate in that activity.
If I were at a gamestore and playing with strangers, I would assume responsibility for making sure these players understood that, while I might be stern, harsh or otherwise inflexible as a DM, I would make it perfectly understood that those things, and the game itself, were totally open for discussion. As a DM, it would be stupid for me not to do that. And if I had a player who doubted that, I would go the extra distance and make them understand that I was ready and anxious to talk.
I have done this many times on my blog campaign, which is harder because I can't show with my voice and body language the sincerity of my position. Yet even there, by choosing my words carefully, I have turned people around on what they thought I meant, and encouraged them to believe that I was listening and I was concerned for their welfare.
I hate phrases like, "You deserve to be heard." That too is political. Why compare the speaker with every other speaker, like I am making an argument for egalitarianism? Why not just say, "How can I help you?" It is a much better, more direct appeal.
I totally agree, Alexis, about the futility of these buzzwords - especially with:
ReplyDelete> Such words are political in nature, rely upon an uncertain definition for what they mean exactly and create messes where misunderstandings occur because the words themselves have existed in our culture for a very short time.
I read the tweets in question and I misunderstood what they meant by session zero, and had no idea what any of the other things were. I'd always thought session zero was for character creation in systems like 3e where creating a character can take several hours. What is an X-Card? Lines and veils?? Bizarre.
As you say, plain language will work better.
Thanks for the elaboration. That makes sense. I suppose I felt it to be common sense to have an awareness of a bottom's behavior regardless of safeword usage, but I can see how an inexperienced, oblivious, or abusive top could misuse that safety measure.
ReplyDeleteIn the same way, in D&D, we need better DMs. We need better tools to teach DMs how to gage their table, how to open conversations, and how to care for the people around them.
But we both know that Paizo and WoTC don't seem to have any interest in making better DMs. The popular D&D YouTubers don't seem to want to or be able to handle it either. So, what could any of us, your readers, be doing to help make better DMs?