[UA] Feedback on UA-ish convention scenario concept

[James O'Rance]

For the sake of not spawning another glut of emails, I'm going to try 
responding to a bunch of people in one post. Doug and Dion can decide to 
read this if they want to, but they know the consequences by now!  :)

"Timothy Ferguson" <ferguson at beyond.net.au>:

 >>>(I assume you mean dissociative identity disorder?  Not simple 
dissociative disorders like those found in the autistic?)<<<

Yes, and being up in the witching hour is probably not a good excuse for 
that slip! My father worked for years with the mentally disabled (including 
autists) and although I've seen a range of conditions and severities as a 
child, I don't think I could run a good scenario involving that type of PC. 
A Down's syndrome PC mght be good in some scenarios (I'll keep that idea) 
but autism seems a bit hard to play.

 >>>You need a central...a personality in partial fusion with the rest, 
otherwise you get utter quarantine in some basic skills.  This could be your 
guardian...your protector alter, run as an NPC.<<<

I think that the central would be "shared" by the players, although they 
might not realise what was happening (certainly not at first). As only one 
player speaks to the GM at any given time, this would be quite possible.

 >>>Um, you have multiple socials?  In true DID what would happen here is 
that the one you spoke to would be the one who was situationaly dominant.<<<

Yes; each of the players has a social. What situations they became dominant 
in would depend partly on the design of their alter characters (obviously 
decided by me during character design) and partly by the player's actions 
and behaviours. For example, if one player always becomes loud or agitated 
or tries to interrupt during certain situations, that would indicate that 
he's becoming dominant in those situations.

 >>>I'd point out that role-playing with DID is a sort of pandering, that is 
it is legitimatising the mechanism instead of challenging it.<<<

That's something that I wanted opinions on; thanks! So maybe this 
psychiatrist has a reason for the roleplay that isn't based purely on 
therapy (maybe something OU-related). It would be possible for the players 
to search out this hidden agenda.

I've just remembered some of the Typhoid Mary miniseries by Marvel, written 
by whats-her-name. There were some therapy sessions in those, I think; 
possibly something UAable.

Me:
>The other players are free to converse with each
>other, of
>course,

 >>>There is no "of course".  Many DID people can't communicate between all 
of their alters.  You can just say that Sandy hates Jessica and will never 
talk to her...or that only 3 of the characters can see Snuffleupagus.<<<

The "of course" was based on player dynamics, not on the truth of the 
disorder - I was vaguely aware that not all alters can communicate with each 
other. Thanks for challenging this assumption - although I might have 
considered the possiblity when working out the character interactions, 
having one or more alters "invisible" to each other might make the game more 
interesting.

 >>>When your players get this, they have the ability to make NPCs for brief 
purposes.  This should freak your players out a little- when they realise 
that it isn't systemic or coincidental searching.<<<

I would certainly allow this. With the metagame context that each of the 
alters is playing a separate character in a roleplay run by a psychiatrist, 
this would be a new alter (or probably just a sliver) emerging. I'd start 
engaging the player as though he were the plumber in your example.

 >>>DID is often causeless, although there is a heightened statistical 
occurrence in abused children.  Abused-child-DID is a bit of a cliché among 
those who have it.<<<

I probably won't use child abuse in this scenario for two reasons. First, 
it's a terrible cliche of the sensationalist-shock type of game that I've 
mentioned (as is graphic drug use - sodomising junkies in a pentacle is one 
exaggeration that was used as an example of this style of game a few years 
ago).
Secondly, I did a course called "Children at Risk" last year, and I'm a bit 
sensitive about trivialising this kind of issue. I don't want to trivialise 
mental illness, either, which is why I'm going to give the scenario a lot of 
thought over the nest few months.

 >>>They don't get to choose, in the real world - virtually all DID people 
use a non-democratic personality structure.<<<

That's fine - the differeing strengths of player personalities will help to 
make this true!


Royal Minister of Stuff <yokeltania at yahoo.com>:

 >>>For instance, you could have the main GM sit in one room, in a 
comfortable chair<<<

Whilst I'd love to have a comfortable chair, the convention location 
(probably in a high school) may make this problematic!

 >>>Ultimately, of course, you want all the players interlinked.  Each 
character should be aware of at least one other and in conflict with that 
person<<<

I was thinking that each alter would be friendly with two others, and either 
afraid/hostile/invisible to one.

 >>>Don't assign one player as "the Captain," let them work that out 
themselves.<<<

Definitely. The most influential alter would be based on actual play, not 
numbers on a character sheet.


holycrow at mindspring.com:

 >>>MPD is the result of terrible trauma at a very young age -- stresses so 
bad that the only two options a mind has are "go multiple" or "go 
catatonic." Usually it's a repetitive trauma.<<<

This is something that I was thinking of working into a UA scenario. 
Repetitve trauma at a young age might be a description applied to the child 
of someone involved in the OU. The different alters might each be created to 
deal with a particular type of trauma - thus, they each have failed notches 
on a different Madness Meter. I wouldn't actually write a character 
statistic sheet for this game (short sharp shocks are typically run without 
an overt system) but the personality briefing would include the relevant 
info, and I'd use it as a guideline for switching focus from one player to 
the next.

For example, when the psychiatrist/GM begins to describe a weird magical 
effect in the "game", he'd describe it directly to a particular player - who 
may respond rather dramatically!

 >>>Therapists may want to reunify the personalities into a coherent whole, 
but that's often considered an ideal outcome.  More often, it's just a 
matter of taking things as they are and helping the personae recognize, 
respect and adapt to one another.<<<

I wouldn't expect it to happen, but dramatically-oriented players may 
realise the truth of their situation and attempt some kind of integration so 
as to create a satisfying conclusion to the scenario. As psychiatrist/GM, 
I'd possibly aim for the second aim - perhaps the roleplay is intended to 
confront the alters with their fears in a "safe" environment, and help them 
to overcome it.

Naturally, there should be a second goal to the scenario, one with the GM is 
aware of but the psychiatrist isn't. This may be discovering some horrible 
crime in the patient's past, learning the psychiatrist's hidden agenda, or 
something else. I have plenty of time to decide on that.

It's in the second, hidden goal that UA elements could be brought in, 
although I'd try to keep actual magic out of things. OU yes, magic, maybe 
not.


James O’Rance
“Divine being creates petting zoo. It gets out of hand.”
- The Bible (summarised by John W. Mangrum)

http://www.geocities.com/dragon-dreamer/




_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.


_______________________________________________
UA mailing list
UA at lists.uchicago.edu
http://lists.uchicago.edu/mailman/listinfo/ua