thread: 2005-09-02 : Meg on Ritual
On 2005-09-06, Marco wrote:
Ninja,
I think "safe" is seen as a bad thing in some circles—games that are "not safe" are, I think, in a subtle (or not so subtle) way being praised for it. I don't believe this is a correct assessment. One can have a very honest game that is uncomfortable or even painful (in a good way) and provides therapeutic introspection. However, there is a difference between saying that something is 'difficult' and saying that something is 'safe.'
If the result of games not being safe is that people who come to the game looking for an intense, psychologically real experience get is brutalized by rules that encourage player-vs-player conflict in a way that leaves them without satifactory resolution or provides no checks on what one player introduces into a space where people who've shown up are willing to be vulnerable. If a game's play does this regularly then, IMO, it fails.
Healthy people don't come back for that over and over. If you are going to "be real" or engage in the sort of deeply felt, meaningful activity that these games are trying to deliver more than once then there needs to be a way to ensure that this is a valuable activity for someone other than the "winner."
I don't see that right now and I don't, outside of Vincent's post (which I think is insightful and valuable), see people calling for that (although I think, from what I know of Polaris, it has the strong potential to have that sort safety in it).
Faling that, though, I'm reminded that "evil character D&D" which offers reliable descent into psychological darkness (and player-vs-player conflict): it isn't a mode of play I'd praise especially, even if someone does find exploring that part of themselves valuable in some way.
-Marco
