|
Post by Probie Tim on Jan 15, 2018 11:20:06 GMT -8
Did you even read what I said?? Yes, I did, but I don't think it matters. ...that came out wrong. What you say matters, I just don't think it applies to the discussion at hand. You don't get to decide how my character reacts to a slaughterhouse, to an inn, to seeing a brutal murder, to witnessing a lynch mob, to eating a meal, to ANY normal event, with out external influences. And I believe that to a certain extent, "GM agency" allows that I do. Have you ever personally been in a situation where suddenly you are frightened, and you have to take a moment to compose yourself? That's what I'm talking about; that fear is the GM of our little RPG we call "reality" invoking his "GM agency" to tell your player that you are experiencing fear. You totally have the option to take a deep breath, swallow it down, and go on as if you didn't have that fear, but it's still there. That's what I'm getting at. Say you're walking down the street one day, right past a bank. Suddenly 18 cop cars race around the corner, lights and sirens blaring. All the cops jump out of their cars, weapons drawn, taking up positions behind cover, all pointing their guns at the bank, right where you're at. Just as suddenly, 4 guys wearing tactical body armor and and AR-15s burst out of the bank and start firing at the cops. There's a virtual cornucopia of bullets flying right past your head, your shoulders, your legs, you name it. I am perfectly within my rights as GM to invoke my "agency" and say something like, "holy shit, man, this is unlike anything you've ever experienced; you're scared, you could get shot at any moment." That's the sudden fear I mentioned above that you experience in those situations whether you want to or not. What you do with it is totally up to you; you could curl up in a ball and cry. You could dive for cover. You could be an off-duty cop who swallows his fear, dives behind a trash can, and pulls out his own weapon. You could turn and run, screaming. You can turn that fear into heroism, cowardice, more fear, defiance, whatever you want; but the fear still comes on you because that's what happens to people: we experience these emotions in certain circumstances whether we want to or not. That's "GM agency". I get to do that as a GM. You get to say, "eff that, I swallow it down and jump into the fray, I will not let bank robbers make me afraid!" That's "player agency". At least, IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by lowkeyoh on Jan 15, 2018 12:10:05 GMT -8
Did you even read what I said?? Yes, I did, but I don't think it matters. ...that came out wrong. What you say matters, I just don't think it applies to the discussion at hand. And I think you are wrong. It has generally been agreed upon that supernatural or extradimensional elements in the game override the general course of human reaction. Players don't get to decide they aren't afraid in the face of a wizard casting fear on them (if they fail their save) and players don't get to decide they aren't afraid in the face of cosmic horror. And I think no one is arguing that they do, so using that as your example to prove a point isn't really swaying any hearts and minds. What if my character was a decorated marine? What if I'm several birds inside a man suit? What if I'm actual Cthulhu and people should be afraid of me? What if blah blah what if what if until infinity. We can sit here and create hypotheticals and counter hypotheticals all day. But at what point does you assuming 'this is unlike anything you've ever experienced' accurate. You aren't in control of a characters background. Similarly, not everyone feels fear in those situations. PLENTY of people do not. Does the average person? Yes. Should the GM get to dictate that my characters is one of those people? No. Why? Why do you get to do that.
|
|
|
Post by Probie Tim on Jan 15, 2018 12:29:38 GMT -8
What if my character was a decorated marine? What if I'm several birds inside a man suit? What if I'm actual Cthulhu and people should be afraid of me? Do you honestly think marines don't experience fear in the face of something like that? Or that several birds wouldn't freak the eff out and take to the skies if a gunfight originated around them? And if you ARE Cthulhu, then I'm not going to tell you that a gunfight from a bank robbery gives you fear anyway, you're probably going to eat them all. But ultimately, your examples are so far afield - save the marines - that they're not really even applicable to the conversation. And from the marines I've spoken to? They experience fear in the face of hostile enemies; they're just trained to deal with it. And that's exactly what I'm talking about: "Hey, marine, there's a gunfight and you're scared." "Sure am. I take a breath, aim my weapon, and fire, then I duck and cover setup for another shot." Similarly, not everyone feels fear in those situations. PLENTY of people do not. Does the average person? Yes. Should the GM get to dictate that my characters is one of those people? No. Generally speaking, the rules allow for those type of people: they have some sort of "fearless" or "cool under pressure" edge or advantage or whatever. That mechanic dictates whether you're one of "those people" or not. But if that precedent hasn't been mechanically set, either by actual rules or a conversation with the GM about the concept, then yeah, the GM gets to say whether a character experiences involuntary fear in a fear-inducing situation, and then the player gets to say how the character reacts to that involuntary fear.
|
|
shinigamitwo
Initiate Douchebag
Posts: 45
Preferred Game Systems: oWoD, Deadlands, D&D
Currently Playing: Deadlands HOE Classic - The Doctor Rides Agin!
Currently Running: Vampire 20th Anniversary
|
Post by shinigamitwo on Jan 15, 2018 13:32:18 GMT -8
So, I'm going to go left as I feel I agree with both sides of this argument and have an interesting thought about it.
The thought being that we use ideas like "That is the most horrifying thing you have ever witnessed" as a short hand. It serves the same purpose as knocking out Worf does in Star Trek TNG. Namely, look at how trait-I-need-to-display the alien is, I'm going to have it best the character with the highest trait-I-need-to-display in the cast. The problem with using that in gaming is that the majority of the cast is players and thus should have some agency and being unconscious for the encounter prevents that while Micheal Dorn just gets to hit the craft services table.
To this end, what if instead of using narration that goes "The crime scene is one of the most brutal you've ever seen" or "You vomit in disgust over the crime scene," one uses something more like "This is the sort of thing that would make a medical examiner lose their lunch." This way, I can use the short hand to get across to my players how horrible I think it is while not forcing the characters to be my proxies.
I'm not running diddly to be able to check out how this works so I wanted to poke the various internet folk to see what they thought.
Unrelated to all of this. This was my first time actually watching y'all on YouTube as I normally save you for my commute. I was glad that the "raid" happened the first time I was watching it as I got to see all the various confusion and comments rather then staring at tail lights during it.
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on Jan 15, 2018 14:32:49 GMT -8
What if my character was a decorated marine? What if I'm several birds inside a man suit? What if I'm actual Cthulhu and people should be afraid of me? Do you honestly think marines don't experience fear in the face of something like that? Some of them? Of course. Most of them? Almost certainly. All of them? Not a chance. And it's the player's choice which of those they fall under. But regardless.... You ignored the most important part of his post. WHY? Why do you get to decide what that character feels? You don't even get to decide whether the character turns left or right at any given time. So why is it that you are "allowed" to dictate his emotions?
|
|
tyler
Journeyman Douchebag
Posts: 226
|
Post by tyler on Jan 15, 2018 15:30:22 GMT -8
Why does Tim get to say "This event happens and it is scary?"
Because he's the fucking *GM*.
It's up to the player to determine how their character reacts.
If you can't handle the GM telling you that a situation is scary, and then determine, on your own, how your character reacts, than I'm going to say you're a piss-poor roleplayer and should be ashamed of yourself. But that's just my opinion, and doesn't reflect the opinions or values of anyone but myself.
|
|
|
Post by Probie Tim on Jan 15, 2018 15:59:20 GMT -8
I get to decide that because "GM" stands for GAME MASTER. I take on the role of EVERYTHING in the game except for your specific PC's thoughts and actions. That means physical, that means supernatural, that means forces in the world which can't be explained... like what causes some people to have fear in the face of fearful events. My god, I cannot believe how some players try to absolutely neuter the GM. A player who hears a GM say "this event happens and your character is scared" and doesn't realize that the GM is setting a scene and NOT taking control of the character, and can't take that information and act accordingly without getting upset... well, I submit that's the other side of the "dick GM" argument. And it's the player's choice which of those they fall under. Not all the time. Especially if there's a "fearless" edge or advantage or whatever, and the character doesn't take it. If that's available and you didn't take it? Yeah, I'm going to tell you that your character is scared if the situation warrants it; how you react to that, what you do with that, that's on you. And that's because I'm the GAME MASTER. Ultimately? We're talking about two different play styles. One talking about traditional GM roles and duties and methods, the other talking about newer "story game" roles and duties and methods. You're not going to convince me that I shouldn't do this, and I'm not going to convince you that I should. So we should probably just leave it at that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2018 16:03:28 GMT -8
I feel like I'm in between Tim and Ayslyn on this. Generally in the gaming, we need to have the GM (who knows our character's backgrounds) tell us sensory things - the wretched smell, the way that the strange geometries give us headaches, etc. They do not get to decide we dive overboard and swim back home.
But, if you're an accountant who stumbles in on a massive orgy of murder and suicide in a place you're not expecting it - and the system has no mechanics for defense of the trauma - odds are very good your body will react and wretch. You will definitely have a different reaction than a seasoned Delta Green operative would.
Know your table. If your players don't want to have their actions/reactions told in a narrative, don't do it. If your players are okay with it, go for it. Whatever is comfortable for you and your group.
I think a lot of the 'You feel X' comes up a lot in games with horror. Part of the issue is as a GM, you're trying to make characters afraid, and the arguably best way to do that is to disquiet the player. I traditionally play a Halloween horror Dread game, and it does an amazing job of putting us in a place of unease because mechanically, there is no safety. That level of anxiety ratchets up each time someone touches the Jenga tower. I've played plenty of CoC games with players who just go 'Well, I can handle the 2d6 SAN loss, no biggie.'
Again, it really, as everything in the hobby, comes down to subjective opinions. If you don't like the GM/playing style of the group, and you have the luxury of trying to find or create one more to your liking, go for it. A session does not belong only to the GM nor does it belong only to the players. It's like any hobby - if you're not getting your money worth because of the play style, thank everyone for their time, and move on.
I've done that plenty of time in the group I've had since I moved to East TN. There are games or play styles that aren't a good fit for me, so I sit the campaign out and get back on the merry go round when it comes back around.
|
|
|
Post by chronovore on Jan 15, 2018 17:01:36 GMT -8
I am curious what exactly is considered normal in a world of the fantastic like many RPGs. Hrm, yeah, that was even part of the podcast's discussion! CoC determining that a zombie sighting causes -1d6 SAN, and a corpse is -1d4 SAN — and yet Probie Tim encountered corpses on the regular and is not a raving loon. I think it was countered that, within the context of the game, these things are considered un-SAN-itizing (sorry-not-sorry) and that's just the way it is. stork pointed out that at its core this is just a game mechanic. It's the way the game ramps up player character instability in the face of adversity, emulating lovecraftian fiction. That, in turn, reminded me of the creator of Biohazard/Resident Evil (videogame) stating unequivocally that the "remote control car" style controls of the early entries in the series was specifically because he wanted the players to deal with the lack of coordination caused by panic and fear. He felt the gameplay was improved by impeding natural use of the player's control over their character.
|
|
HyveMynd
Supporter
Dirty hippie, PbtA, Fate, & Cortex Prime <3er
Posts: 2,273
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, Cortex Plus, Fate, Ubiquity
Currently Playing: Monsterhearts 2
Currently Running: The Sprawl
Favorite Species of Monkey: None
|
Post by HyveMynd on Jan 15, 2018 17:46:04 GMT -8
I'm going to go all hippie here for a moment. Sometimes I think the division of roles between player and GM that a number of games have is unhelpful. I feel it can lead to "because I'm the GM" arguments, people saying "the GM is god", and other antagonistic relationships. True, players and GMs do have different responsibilities, but I'm coming around to the idea that everyone sitting around the table is a player. I bring that up because looking at things that way allows the term "player agency" to cover everyone at the table. As for the whole "emotion" thing, I'm more on the side of Probie Tim and tyler here. I consider "agency" to be "the capacity, condition, or state of acting or of exerting power". If a player is still able to have their character act in a way they've chosen, I don't feel they've had their player agency taken away. "This is the most terrifying thing you've ever seen" is a far cry from "You drop to the floor clutching your head and babbling incoherently". The first one allows the player to have their character respond however they wish; they player retains agency of their character. The second one dictates character action; the player has lost agency of their character.
|
|
|
Post by lowkeyoh on Jan 15, 2018 17:57:57 GMT -8
"This is the most terrifying thing you've ever seen" is a far cry from "You drop to the floor clutching your head and babbling incoherently". The first one allows the player to have their character respond however they wish; they player retains agency of their character. The second one dictates character action; the player has lost agency of their character. Turn in your hippy gun and badge, you're off the force! But seriously. "This is the most terrifying thing you've ever seen" is also a far cry from "This is a very terrifying thing you are seeing" Saying that a character has never witnessed anything more horrific is a slippery slope, especially if there's trauma in their backstory. This is more terrifying than when my mother was butchered when I was 9? This is more terrifying than the time my wife fell into a coma and we thought she was going to die? It's infringing upon a characters perception of an event. I have no problem being told something is scary or terrifying. I have a problem with a GM prioritizing things like fear and stress vs things my character has experienced in the past, especially when they don't live in my characters head and I do.
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on Jan 15, 2018 18:50:28 GMT -8
I debated responding at all.... But fuck it.
Passionate disagreement is one thing. Being an asshole is entirely something else. Fuck it. I'm out of this conversation. Have fun.
|
|
HyveMynd
Supporter
Dirty hippie, PbtA, Fate, & Cortex Prime <3er
Posts: 2,273
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, Cortex Plus, Fate, Ubiquity
Currently Playing: Monsterhearts 2
Currently Running: The Sprawl
Favorite Species of Monkey: None
|
Post by HyveMynd on Jan 15, 2018 19:20:39 GMT -8
"This is the most terrifying thing you've ever seen" is a far cry from "You drop to the floor clutching your head and babbling incoherently". The first one allows the player to have their character respond however they wish; they player retains agency of their character. The second one dictates character action; the player has lost agency of their character. Turn in your hippy gun and badge, you're off the force! But seriously. "This is the most terrifying thing you've ever seen" is also a far cry from "This is a very terrifying thing you are seeing" Saying that a character has never witnessed anything more horrific is a slippery slope, especially if there's trauma in their backstory. This is more terrifying than when my mother was butchered when I was 9? This is more terrifying than the time my wife fell into a coma and we thought she was going to die? It's infringing upon a characters perception of an event. I have no problem being told something is scary or terrifying. I have a problem with a GM prioritizing things like fear and stress vs things my character has experienced in the past, especially when they don't live in my characters head and I do. Excellent point. "The sight in front of you is absolutely terrifying." is a much better way to phrase that, as it does not make assumptions about what the character has/has not experienced and how they are ranked. Can I have my hippie gun and badge back now, sir? I'd like to rejoin the force.
|
|
|
Post by greatwyrm on Jan 15, 2018 19:38:11 GMT -8
I think this is pretty close to the same arguments we get about Social Interaction-type rules and it's silly.
"The dragon eats your leg." "Oh, no! That's terrible!" "The dragon is also very scary." "F@$# NO IT ISN'T! I'M NOT SCARED OF ANYTHING!"
|
|
|
Post by chronovore on Jan 15, 2018 21:19:26 GMT -8
(…) The argument could be made that Tim enjoys enough agency in his day to day existence, but that players who don't have that feeling of agency, who would benefit the most from agency in roleplaying, are the ones most likely to be unable to speak up about it in a game session I'm not quite sure how to respond to this, because it's getting into areas I have no business speaking about; I'm a software developer, not a therapist, heh. To me, though, it boils down to this one question: is the player - the one who doesn't have that feeling of agency - having fun in the game? If so, that level of agency obviously isn't that important to them, or at least it isn't as important as the fun they're having playing the game. Or maybe that's the only way they've ever played RPGs and player agency isn't really a "thing" in their group, and they're totally fine with that. God knows that's what D&D was to me for many years as I was coming up. But this is why I say that no one can take your agency who you don't don't give permission to take it; no one is forcing you to play the game. If you're playing a game where the GM is an "overbearing, transgressionist" GM and you don't say anything and you continue playing, you're endorsing his or her behavior. We've talked about having "adult conversations" for years on the show; if someone is impinging on your agency, and you're not OK with it, you need to have an "adult conversation". Any... therapeutic concerns behind or beyond that are WAY beyond where I'm comfortable treading. Your test for "is the player having fun" is a good one. I recall reading an article some time ago about license, agency, and identity in online spaces. In one case, there was a person whose character was virtually assaulted via emotes. The other players were able to describe things which were happening to her character without any form of systemic consent. In essence, the other players were able to rape, assault, and humiliate her character in that space. The entire consensually imagined space became a home for non-consensual violation. It seems automatic to argue that she could just logoff, or counter with her own set of emotes, but this is akin to the argument of "Why did she go out late at night?" or "What was she doing in that club, anyway?" It rests on the idea that some people should expect problems and others should not. She had a right to be in that space, and to conduct her business unmolested, virtually or otherwise. Bringing this back to person-to-person, tabletop RPGs, there should hopefully be a better option than "get up and leave." I agree with your suggestion of just outright denying the GM's speculation, and gina 's "how about it has this flavor instead…?" are both good places to change up the situation and keep it interactive.
|
|