• Gender and Game Mechanics: Part 4 – Care in Action?

    by  • September 11, 2013 • Essays • 2 Comments

    This is part four of a series. The first post can be found here: Gender and Game Mechanics Series: Part 1 – Introduction and the previous post here: Gender and Game Mechanics: Part 3 – How we fare in Care and Justice. In the previous posts I talked about how sociology and sociolinguistic studies on gendered communication styles could be useful heuristic tools to evaluate game systems and mechanics. I began with discussing two conflict resolution styles that trend differently by gender (care and justice). I looked at how traditional modes of RPG conflict resolution seem to be justice-oriented, and had a look at how that might affect the experience of care-oriented players at the table. In this post, I’d like to look at mechanics or systems that might have a stronger care-oriented bias, and at hybrid models which seem to combine elements of both.

    As a reminder, care mediation is focused on relationship management. It  assumes: connection between individuals,  prioritizes modes of resolution that are internal to the community (rather than external rules or laws) and emphasizes the need for reciprocity. Tolerance, empathy, and active listening are encouraged and each conflict is seen as particular and contextual (rather than universal). Also, in pretend play, it was noted that girl playgroups generally used care mediation through the fiction rather than stepping outside of it.

    So in terms of RPG conflict resolution, what would this look like? I think we could assume that a “pure” care-oriented system1 would likely not depend on an external arbitrator  like a dice roll. We would for certain expect that the system would help make it clear how the relationship of the participants (possibly including any and all of:  the characters in conflict, any characters observing the conflict, and all players involved in the game) changed as a result of the resolution. We could assume that conflicts would resolve through a process of talking where being heard is prioritized, and all the participants’ needs are understood, and met equitably well. The conflict in question would likely be understood and considered by participants as a particular conflict (examining context) rather than a “genre” of, or universalized conflict. And ideally, given the tendency to play through the fiction, players should as much as possible be able to reach a resolution on conflict without stepping out of character, or at least out of the fiction of the game.

    Are there systems that employ something like this? Recently I played in an all-feme Nordic larp in Sweden called Mad about the Boy2. The larp was (for the most part) a 360 degree immersive drama game set in a real-world near-future post-apocalypse involving strong emotional themes. The in-game play spanned two full in-character days and the vast majority of  conflicts were not governed by mechanics. at all Conflicts between individuals not involving a weapon were handled naturalistically.

    When characters came into conflict, they resolved it through discussion in character, much like one would do in real life with another person.  Characters did not have stats or abilities, players did not roll dice, roshambo, or do anything but talk. Any player in the vicinity could weigh in as an interested party. No GM/Storyteller/Producer monitored, mediated or interfered with the conflict’s resolution. There was no way for one character to force another character to do anything that they didn’t want to do without the support of, or consequences of the community, unless the character was armed and ready to use explosive violence to do it. Even where weapons were involved (limited to three guns present in the fiction of the game), the rules governing their use were extremely simple:

    • One person pulling a gun assumed control of the room.
    • A second gunholder pulling a gun on the first before the first could train the gun back overtook control of the room.
    • Where two people with guns ganged up on a third with a gun, numbers ruled.
    • A person shot at would be hit, but had the right to determine the severity of the wound received.

    Is this care mediation? Let’s see: This system is based in talk. It allows players through their characters to negotiate their needs and the needs of others. Meta-techniques in the game like windowpaning (drawing a window to make a dramatic aside to your fellow players) are even present to ensure that where your character is unable to ensure their needs (or your as a player) are articulated, the player can still enter them into the fictive space for consideration. It encourages active listening and tolerance of other players (even when not their characters). It places a strong emphasis on, and provides a strong approval power to the community of play and it’s self-regulating skills (both in and out of character).  Because all fiction is expressed naturalistically, the players must confront the changes evident in the relationship as a course of play, or not, as to the dramatic action.

    It certainly supports a lot of care-mediation values, or put more aptly: it does not constrain them. It does constrain some justice-mediation values. While characters in the game could logistically appeal to the authoritative body in the fiction to be a point of resolution the conflicts (there is a government entity in the setting but one that does not have immediate martial power to exert) the game does not provide a source of systemic resolution that clearly determines outcome. Autonomy and independence are constrained by the need to garner and maintain community support to keep power. Reciprocity might equal out to fair but it might not; rights of any individual may not be respected as a matter of community interest inside a charged situation powered by a collective.

    Is it surprising to find a structure which has a care-mediation bias written in large part by women  (2 of 3 larpwrights were women) for an all-female cast that prioritizes themes about women and their values and communities? I don’t think so.

    Also, it’s worth noting to find that this kind of structure is not uncommon among art larps coming out of Nordic countries, all five of which rank in the top 10 in terms of gender equality3.

    Just sayin’.

    Next up: Hybrid Care and Justice in Powered by the Apocalypse games.

    1. By “system” I am talking about the process play is resolved including social system rather than just mechanics.
    2. Trine Lise Lindahl, Tor Kjetil Edland, and Margrete Raaum, Mad about the Boy, 2010
    3. UN International Human Development Indicators for Gender Equality 1-10: Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland, Norway, Germany, Slovenia, France, and Iceland
    avatar

    About

    By trade a systems analyst and by academics a cultural studies and theatre geek, Mo spends an inordinate amount of time in life, work and play figuring out how things work. She likes to break them down, tinker with their guts and then mogyver them back together with a rusty screwdriver and some duct tape.

    2 Responses to Gender and Game Mechanics: Part 4 – Care in Action?

    1. avatar
      valleyviolet
      September 16, 2013 at 21:45

      I’m finding this series fascinating as it seems to encapsulate some of the “push against traditional rules systems” that I’ve seen in my local LARP community. There are definitely people in non-Nordic groups (in my case the greater-Chicago-land group) who are striving for a focus on personal interaction and resolution in a more natural in-fiction manner.

      I find the implications of how you’ve classified care and justice very interesting and look forward to hearing more in this series. :)

      Thumb up Thumb down +1
    2. Pingback: Gender and Game Mechanics: Part 5 - Hybrid Care and Justice (Powered by the Apocalypse) | Gaming As Women

    Comments are closed.