Trigger Warning: Talk about Suicide, Relationship Abuse
So, who has a right to come to game? I think this is actually a multi-part question, or more to the point, splitting it into multiple questions makes it easier to understand all of them.
1. Who has the right to join a game, either initially or in process?
This, in many ways is the easiest to answer and the one that most games have explicitly defined. When a person or people decide to start a game, they decide who to invite or how to recruit. A game might be completely open, any member of the public can wander in and join. A game might be exclusive invite, only people specifically chosen by the person running the game. But there is generally a methodology decided upon as part of the game. However, this becomes more complicated as games progress. Do you allow any new person to join at any point? Do you require prior contact of some sort? Regardless, most games have a decision making process for who can join. My personal opinion is that both open and invite games have their advantages and disadvantages and that the important factor is consistency and fairness.
2. Who has the right to continue participating in a game?
This is a more complex question. On the one hand, I feel like once someone participates in a game for more than one session, I feel that they gain the right to continue participating in a game and that the right is theirs to lose in some way. Absent behavior that in some way removes that right, someone currently participating theoretically has the right to continue participating in a game.
Now, this is a player consideration, not a character consideration. There can be character choices that preclude the appearance of a character at a certain in character event or at the very least make things complicated, but those in-character choices should not necessarily remove the right of the player to continue in game, they might simply make it so they have to create a new character to continue in game.
3. Who has the right to decide whether someone can participate in a game?
This is finally the most complex part of the question in general. In most games, there is a centralized authority resting in the Head Storyteller or Storytellers. But there are a lot of complicated permutations. If one person hosts the game but another runs the game, is there joint authority over who is allowed to come? And what is the process by which someone can appeal to that authority to have a person's right to participate revoked?
Generally speaking, I feel like this is better approached from the sense of principles and complications rather than from a set of specific rules, because there is no one-size-fits-all way of looking at the problem. However, I think individual games should have a clear policy that covers these principles and situations. Not necessarily public, but one that is clear and consistent and well articulated within the staff(1). So, what are the principles that I think are important.
Principles
Principle 1-Neutrality and Fairness
Any process of justice, because let's be fair, any situation where someone's rights are being potentially revoked is a process of justice, should be founded on principles of Neutrality and Fairness. Part of this is consistency. Revoking one person's right of attendance for a specific offense and then not revoking another person's for the same or equivalent offense will almost certainly draw accusations of favoritism. At the same time, everyone involved in a game does deserve at least some consideration.
Principle 2-Game vs. Non-Game
There's a degree to which game decisions should be based on game events. Participation in a game should not necessarily mean opening up your entire life for review by the Storytelling staff. This doesn't mean that there should be no attention to activities that go on outside of game, but it does mean that there should be a stricter level of scrutiny for in-game as opposed to out-of-game actions. In-game activities impact the game much more directly and are much more likely to be a problem than out-of-game activities. That said, out-of-game behavior that hurts other players can be problematic.
Principle 3-Community Safety
An important principle for this, however, is community safety. Ultimately, considerations of whether someone still has the right to come to game should be based on the likelihood that their presence is disruptive to community safety in some way. One of the aspects of this is the necessary matrix of trust that is part of game. If someone cheats or otherwise violates the rules of the community, it can undermine that trust. If someone harasses another player, it can undermine the confidence of the player in the community. If someone does not feel safe around a participant, they might choose to drop out of the game. This becomes a conflict between the rights of two participants. Overall, community safety is a top priority.
Principle 4-The Game as a Priority
However, the game itself can also be a priority. One of the peculiarities of being a Head Storyteller is that the authority comes with expectations. And one of the most straightforward is that you make the effort to keep the game going. All participants expect that barring catastrophe, the game will continue. So one of the decision principles that must go in is the preservation of the game. Part of this, in my mind, is that it's not fair to punish the people involved in the game who are not part of the problem. However, there are complications to these principles that mean that it isn't completely straightforward to decide.
An important principle for this, however, is community safety. Ultimately, considerations of whether someone still has the right to come to game should be based on the likelihood that their presence is disruptive to community safety in some way. One of the aspects of this is the necessary matrix of trust that is part of game. If someone cheats or otherwise violates the rules of the community, it can undermine that trust. If someone harasses another player, it can undermine the confidence of the player in the community. If someone does not feel safe around a participant, they might choose to drop out of the game. This becomes a conflict between the rights of two participants. Overall, community safety is a top priority.
Principle 4-The Game as a Priority
However, the game itself can also be a priority. One of the peculiarities of being a Head Storyteller is that the authority comes with expectations. And one of the most straightforward is that you make the effort to keep the game going. All participants expect that barring catastrophe, the game will continue. So one of the decision principles that must go in is the preservation of the game. Part of this, in my mind, is that it's not fair to punish the people involved in the game who are not part of the problem. However, there are complications to these principles that mean that it isn't completely straightforward to decide.
Complications
Complication 1-Does Anyone Deserve Special Status or Priority?
So, one of the factors that complicates things is the question of whether there are people who deserve special status, a free pass or reduced level of scrutiny. The obvious question for this is Significant Others. Does an intimate partner get a pass where others don't? This is an important and complicated question. Is it different if it is a spouse or long-term partner? The other aspect of this is whether STs, including the Head ST deserve this status. As members of the community, STs should be accountable for their behavior.
Complication 2-Friendship vs. Responsibility
The second complication is that games often require a balance of friendship and responsibility. The short version of this is that gaming as a hobby often involves friends and balancing the desire to support friends with the responsibility to the game community as a whole. There can be a strong desire to prioritize friendship over responsibility, and that is sometimes the right thing to do, but I feel there's a degree to which being the Head ST of a game involves accepting certain responsibilities to the participants in the game. Overall, these two can easily come into conflict and the choice is not an easy one.
Overall, I don't have universal answers to these. I think that to a certain extent Storytellers occupy a special position within the game, but that position is one that is more likely to bring strict scrutiny than automatic immunity, because there is so much power associated with it. And I think that friendship and responsibility is a tenuous balancing act that is different in every specific situation.
Toolkit
So, what are the tools available to deal with some of these things. I deal with this aspect differently than some people and I don't support things like summary expulsion or three strikes rules when it comes to these situations, because LARPs are social groups, and being summarily dismissed from your social group really sucks. So I use a few other things.
Open Communication- Being an ST sometimes means having uncomfortable conversations. If a player is having a problem or being a problem, then the first step is communicating openly about what is happening. It isn't always easy, but talking openly about what is going on can be a major tool to solve problems. One major aspect of this is discretion and confidentiality. Sometimes people bring confidential concerns and it's important to respect that, because if you violate someone's trust then they won't tell you the next time they have a problem, and all of a sudden there's a problem that you don't know about.
Hiatus-While I don't believe in kicking people out summarily, I think mutually agreed upon hiatuses can be a good tool. Sometimes, a break to get some distance from a problem or issue can be a good tool for consideration. One potential issue is that people aren't used to being asked to take a break and may react as if the hiatus is summary expulsion in disguise. This issue can be fought against with more open communication. Meeting with someone before their return to game and specifically reaching out to set up such a meeting can be very useful.
Story Solutions- In concert with the hiatus, one important thing can be the use of narrative explanations for any necessitated absence. It's important to work with players to make sure that being open to community solutions doesn't mean they are penalized in game. Short term quests or mysterious imprisonments can give interesting way of taking a character out of game while the player is out of game and giving them momentum to re-enter.
Policy- One of the most important tools is to have some degree of policy as to who has the right to participate and to try and apply that policy fairly. I think future games that I run will have something in the genre of constitution/user agreement/statement of principles that lays out rights and responsibilities and remedies as well as what will be done to address issues. I'm not really one to think about things as punishments, but a sense of methods of reconciliation/remediation/community care are something useful as well. That said, fairness isn't always about absolute identical treatment. It's more about due consideration and open process.
Examples
So, here are a few examples that speak to some of the potential issues in a game. While all of these draw on things I've seen, they are not cunningly disguised real world examples. They are hypothetical situations, any resemblance to real events is probably because a lot of these are pretty universal. These are my opinions/approaches, not what I think everyone should do, but these kinds of situations do arise and should be considered.
Example #1
Example #1
The Breakup
Situation: Jack and Diane were both heavily invested in Horror in the Heartland, but after their messy breakup, they can't be in the same room together. Both play influential characters and have been part of the game since the beginning.
My Thoughts: First, I would try and talk with both of the participants and see where they stood, making sure that I wasn't only getting one side of the story or taking one person's word for everything. My first strategy would be to try and get the two of them to work out something between them, perhaps alternating sessions or agreeing to split the game space in some way. Then I would do what I could to narratively support their proposed solution. If they couldn't reach some arrangement, I would speak with each of them about the issue, then move to my second strategy, which would be to ask them both to take a short hiatus. Overall, my main priority would be to prevent the breakup from dividing the game itself.
Situation: Jack and Diane were both heavily invested in Horror in the Heartland, but after their messy breakup, they can't be in the same room together. Both play influential characters and have been part of the game since the beginning.
My Thoughts: First, I would try and talk with both of the participants and see where they stood, making sure that I wasn't only getting one side of the story or taking one person's word for everything. My first strategy would be to try and get the two of them to work out something between them, perhaps alternating sessions or agreeing to split the game space in some way. Then I would do what I could to narratively support their proposed solution. If they couldn't reach some arrangement, I would speak with each of them about the issue, then move to my second strategy, which would be to ask them both to take a short hiatus. Overall, my main priority would be to prevent the breakup from dividing the game itself.
Example #2
Smooth Criminal
Situation: Danny Ocean just recently plead guilty to a Class A misdemeanor theft charge after being caught swiping some iPads from the campus library. He has expressed interest in joining the Glaives and Goblins game, but other players have expressed trepidation, given that lots of real world possessions are unmonitored in the out of character area.
My Thoughts: I would have a conversation with Danny before considering his request to join the game. I would emphasize the fact that a community can be very hurt by things like theft and try and make sure that he understood that any theft would be met with a loss of his right to participate. I would mention that there were people that were uncomfortable, but that I would be willing to give him a chance. I wouldn't name names of who was uncomfortable and I'd come in with a stock response should any specific name be inquired after. "I'm not going to talk about who expressed concern." However, I would also make sure that people were securing their possessions in the out of character area and make sure that things were not being left out where anyone could take them. I might also buy some 5 dollar luggage locks and allow people to borrow them during game for their own peace of mind. If Danny was accused of stealing something, I'd investigate as fully as possible, but I'd also be willing to revoke his right to participate.
Situation: Danny Ocean just recently plead guilty to a Class A misdemeanor theft charge after being caught swiping some iPads from the campus library. He has expressed interest in joining the Glaives and Goblins game, but other players have expressed trepidation, given that lots of real world possessions are unmonitored in the out of character area.
My Thoughts: I would have a conversation with Danny before considering his request to join the game. I would emphasize the fact that a community can be very hurt by things like theft and try and make sure that he understood that any theft would be met with a loss of his right to participate. I would mention that there were people that were uncomfortable, but that I would be willing to give him a chance. I wouldn't name names of who was uncomfortable and I'd come in with a stock response should any specific name be inquired after. "I'm not going to talk about who expressed concern." However, I would also make sure that people were securing their possessions in the out of character area and make sure that things were not being left out where anyone could take them. I might also buy some 5 dollar luggage locks and allow people to borrow them during game for their own peace of mind. If Danny was accused of stealing something, I'd investigate as fully as possible, but I'd also be willing to revoke his right to participate.
Example #3
Neither a Borrower Nor a Lender Be
Situation: Polonius has been on the ST staff of Something Rotten in the State of Denmark for the past year and Laertes has been a player just as long. During a trip to GenCon, Polonius and Laertes shared a hotel room, but Polonius hasn't paid back Laertes for his share yet. Other players have begun to complain that Laertes has been using this leverage over Polonius to get favorable rulings in game.
My Thoughts: This one would require multiple conversations probably, trying to get to the bottom of the situation, but ultimately, I would start with letting both know individually that the behavior was problematic[Laertes shouldn't be asking for favors and Polonius shouldn't be giving them]. If the problem recurred, I would probably ask both of them to take a hiatus until the debt was settled unless the recurrence was obviously one sided and the other person talked to me directly. Overall, this is about the use of any outside power dynamic in game, any condition that induces favoritism between player and ST, in either direction.
My Thoughts: This one would require multiple conversations probably, trying to get to the bottom of the situation, but ultimately, I would start with letting both know individually that the behavior was problematic[Laertes shouldn't be asking for favors and Polonius shouldn't be giving them]. If the problem recurred, I would probably ask both of them to take a hiatus until the debt was settled unless the recurrence was obviously one sided and the other person talked to me directly. Overall, this is about the use of any outside power dynamic in game, any condition that induces favoritism between player and ST, in either direction.
Example #4
Haters Gonna Hate
Situation: Roderick tells racist jokes. He often tells them with an "I'm not racist, but" disclaimer, but the other players at the Trouble at Totleigh Towers LARP have grown uncomfortable with them nonetheless. Several of them approach Reginald, the ST about how this is making them uncomfortable and that they won't come to game if Roderick keeps making those jokes.
My Thoughts: This would be a hard conversation, but I'd sit down with Roderick and let him know that his actions were offending members of the community(not naming names). I would emphasize that the main issue in this case is that his actions at game are hurtful to other participants. I would then let those who had brought up the issue know to bring up any additional issues that may arise. If Roderick persists, I would ask him to leave the game as he was not respecting the needs of fellow community members.
Situation: Roderick tells racist jokes. He often tells them with an "I'm not racist, but" disclaimer, but the other players at the Trouble at Totleigh Towers LARP have grown uncomfortable with them nonetheless. Several of them approach Reginald, the ST about how this is making them uncomfortable and that they won't come to game if Roderick keeps making those jokes.
My Thoughts: This would be a hard conversation, but I'd sit down with Roderick and let him know that his actions were offending members of the community(not naming names). I would emphasize that the main issue in this case is that his actions at game are hurtful to other participants. I would then let those who had brought up the issue know to bring up any additional issues that may arise. If Roderick persists, I would ask him to leave the game as he was not respecting the needs of fellow community members.
Example #5
Goodbye Game
Situation: Wanda has been coming to the Neo-Dixie Punk LARP for about a year, when she hears that Earl came to a recent character creation session. She contacts the STs, letting them know that she and Earl were in a relationship that ended because of abuse. She won't continue to participate in game if he begins coming.
My Thoughts: This is a tricky balance in some ways, but my decision would be clear. I would prioritize the safety of members of the community rather than let someone who is a danger to them enter their safe space. One hard part is making sure that Wanda also has resources to deal with Earl outside of the game space, because his attempt to join might be an attempt to re-engage, which might be grounds for legal action. Ultimately, I would speak with Earl, let him know that because of prior negative interactions with another [anonymous] participant in the game, he could not participate in the game. I would let Wanda know the actions that were taken and make sure she knew she could reach out to us if anything else occurred.
Why Does This Matter
Situation: Wanda has been coming to the Neo-Dixie Punk LARP for about a year, when she hears that Earl came to a recent character creation session. She contacts the STs, letting them know that she and Earl were in a relationship that ended because of abuse. She won't continue to participate in game if he begins coming.
My Thoughts: This is a tricky balance in some ways, but my decision would be clear. I would prioritize the safety of members of the community rather than let someone who is a danger to them enter their safe space. One hard part is making sure that Wanda also has resources to deal with Earl outside of the game space, because his attempt to join might be an attempt to re-engage, which might be grounds for legal action. Ultimately, I would speak with Earl, let him know that because of prior negative interactions with another [anonymous] participant in the game, he could not participate in the game. I would let Wanda know the actions that were taken and make sure she knew she could reach out to us if anything else occurred.
Why Does This Matter
I can talk a bit about why this matters in a very general sense, talking about what exclusion from a community means, about the importance of fairness and equality, but for me, the idea of inclusion/exclusion is far more personal. When I was in college, I was running a small Changeling: the Dreaming tabletop game. I had a number of players and was a few sessions in when a friend who had not done much gaming expressed indirect interest in joining the game. I had known him for a while and while we did not hang out regularly, I knew that he could be a bit shy and that led to him being a bit isolated. Ultimately, I did not include him in the game. At the time, it was partially a matter of the game being more or less full and me not being sure about bringing in someone new to gaming. I didn't explicitly say no, but I could have directly addressed his implied interest and incorporated him or explicitly invited him to another game or at least explicitly explained my reasons. But I did exclude him, whether I had reasons or not.
A year or so later, that friend committed suicide. I don't blame myself for his suicide, and I'm not saying that any case where someone is denied the right to participate in a game bears that threat, but I do think that had I chosen differently, I might have been able to help my friend. And since that time, I have approached the idea of inclusion/exclusion very differently. It may lead to me being very conservative with my approach to exclusion. It may lead to me thinking about this issue much more than most people. But I feel the idea of the right to play is one of the thorny issues in gaming with the worst "is addressed: needs to be addressed" ratios.
We need to talk about this, in small groups and large.
(1) This is an important footnote. I feel this way because one of the recent crises in my game was partially precipitated by my own failure as a Head ST to properly examine this potential issue and to articulate a potential response.
(1) This is an important footnote. I feel this way because one of the recent crises in my game was partially precipitated by my own failure as a Head ST to properly examine this potential issue and to articulate a potential response.
