|
Post by Stu Venable on Jan 15, 2018 23:33:30 GMT -8
I'm going to go all hippie here for a moment. "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. This. My point when I framed this argument in the podcast was that changing a few words completely changes the intent. And as such, it's more about a GM being mindful of language than a GM being mindful of player agency. We all know how the pressure of GMing can affect what we say and do -- and even the most mindful of us will say things that *seem* to infringe agency. But intent is important here (I think gina mentioned this). A GM might say, "this is the most terrifying thing you've ever seen." Some people might see this as impinging on agency. "Terrifying" is after all, a loaded term in RPGs. It's both a description and an emotion. If I say, "this shit is terrifying," the players should assume this is something above and beyond what most of them have seen. How they react to this is up to them -- assuming there aren't game mechanics that determine this -- is up to them. But players have a responsibility to "yes, and" as well. "The GM says this is terrifying shit, and I'm just a humble friar from a small town? Hell yes, I'm terrified!" Because of the fact that changing a few words can change the assumed intent, I think this whole thing is a very wide, grey line.
|
|
fredrix
Master Douchebag
Posts: 2,142
Preferred Game Systems: Fate, L5R, Pendragon, Gumshoe, Feng Shui
Currently Playing: Pendragon, Song of Ice and Fire, L5R, Feng Shui, Traveller
Currently Running: Fate, Coriolis, Nights Black Agents
Favorite Species of Monkey: 1970's NTV, dubbed by the BBC (though The Water Margin beats it)
|
Post by fredrix on Jan 16, 2018 1:19:43 GMT -8
One of the challenges about discussing emotions is that nobody actually knows what emotions are. I research emotions for work and for my PhD, and it’s very apparent that it is really REALLY hard to research emotions. For a start when you ask people how they feel, what they say is filtered semantically, socially etc. and as soon as they start to verbalise how they feel that act changes the way they feel. So (I am massively over-simplifying here) there is the neurological approach, from the likes of Panksepp and Biven who take a neurological approach and can identitfy a number of emotions that are more than physiological like say feeling hungry, that include lust, rage, panic, and interestingly, play. The film Inside Out was broadly based on Panksepps work, swapping out play for joy. Panksepp and Biven say these (I think seven but I can’t be bothered to look it up) emotions are shared by all mammals and some birds. Then there is an anthropological approach that says emotions are social constructed, and there are of course some, for example schadenfreude, which can only be socially constructed. Then there is the OTHER anthropological approach made famous by Paul ... somebody, gone out of my head, and I still can’t be bothered (Klee?) that lists the five facial expressions that are shared by cultures around they world. But emotions might also be performative according to other academics. So affect (as us academics like to call emotion) is a steaming mess of theory. But I like to think they are ALL right, modelling different aspects of an elusive truth. Add into this the complicating factor that as a GM, as Stu Venable said, your goal is to stimulate affect rather than dictate it (but if perfomative theories are right then you can stimulate it by dictating it). Specific examples from the discussion: turned on (lust) and fear. According to Panksepp, these are core mammalian neurological reactions. So sure the GM can dictate them. If I say you are turned on, then you are turned on. BUT what to DO about that is entirely up to you. I remember being turned on LOADS of times at school, but I had agency enough to choose to make a move on the object of my lust (mostly never), wait until I got home to have a wank (my preferred solution) or even just to ignore the feeling at let it pass. As a soldier friend said to me (but it’s so cliche sounding i’m sure he got it from a movie) “Of course VC winners are scared, but they get the medal because they did something brave despite their fear. People who don’t feel fear wind up dead”
|
|
|
Post by Probie Tim on Jan 16, 2018 6:25:52 GMT -8
Just a real quick clarification. Earlier in this thread, I did say this: "holy shit, man, this is unlike anything you've ever experienced; you're scared, you could get shot at any moment." The "unlike anything you've ever experienced" part was tossed in without forethought and is not the point I was trying to get at. What's italicized there, and in the original post, is what I've been focusing on: "you're scared". I do think that as the GM I could say, "no, it IS unlike anything you've ever experienced because you're a banker who comes home at night to two unruly kids and the most stressful thing you deal with is not having your slippers and evening newspaper waiting for you" (assuming that's your character concept), or "there's never been a bank shootout in my world", but I wouldn't do that because that's kind-of being a dick GM; plus, I don't actually know if a bank shootout is unlike anything you've ever experienced. I do know, however, if your character - considering the concept we've discussed and any edges/advantages/boons you've taken for your character - would experience involuntary and instinctual fear in that situation or not. And that's all that I am getting at.
|
|
|
Post by yojimbohawkins on Jan 16, 2018 8:56:46 GMT -8
But "it's the most frightening thing you've ever seen" is an emotional reaction and, I think, still within the agency of the GM to declare. .... I do try desperately to avoid this kind of response..... Did you even read what I said?? It's damn frustrating when half of what you say gets consistently ignored. Cthulhu rising up from the depths is an outlier. It's outside of anything that I am talking about, and I have REPEATEDLY acknowledged it's kin as exceptions to my stance. Yet I keep having it thrown in my face, as though I were arguing against it. Seeing Cthulhu rise up is extra-normal. Barring, of course, the campaign where you run into an elder god every other session. Then, I reserve the right to suggest that you no longer get to impose the "It's the most frightening thing you've ever seen." card.... But, I digress. I am exclusively talking about straight up, normal situations. 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. It feels like we all have a line that we'd rather our GM's not cross with regard to affecting our characters. Can your character be made to feel something through a game mechanic? I think most of us would agree that's fair within the rules of the game system/setting. Can the GM tell me my character feels a certain way, outside of a mechanical effect? I think I'd only object if the GM in question then also told me how my character was going to respond to the feeling; that's definitely a step too far. Any GM who says 'your character would do this' or 'your character wouldn't do that' has crossed the line, which I think we would all also agree with. But all of us are different, with different tolerance levels. I feel that this is a similar discussion to the social mechanics conversation that has happened elsewhere. Some players are willing to allow the possibility that their character can be persuaded by another character using a social skill against them, some absolutely will not. My personal view is that I'll initiate a conversation with that player if we're getting into a situation like that, and see if we can come to some sort of agreement. I think that's reasonable, and I'm willing to compromise, dependent on the situation. As a GM, personally I try to avoid using definitive language about how a character feels. I might say that what the character sees is disturbing, instead of saying that character sees something frightening, especially if I'm not planning to apply a fear mechanic on the character in question. Similarly, I might say something reminds the player of something else, but avoid telling the player they feel a particular way about it. I have had a player ask "Is this something that would affect my character?" and we've had a discussion about that, but in general, I'll try and avoid it, and rely on the player to lean into it instead. But each to their own.
|
|
|
Post by yojimbohawkins on Jan 16, 2018 9:04:22 GMT -8
One of the challenges about discussing emotions is that nobody actually knows what emotions are. I research emotions for work and for my PhD, and it’s very apparent that it is really REALLY hard to research emotions. For a start when you ask people how they feel, what they say is filtered semantically, socially etc. and as soon as they start to verbalise how they feel that act changes the way they feel. So (I am massively over-simplifying here) there is the neurological approach, from the likes of Panksepp and Biven who take a neurological approach and can identitfy a number of emotions that are more than physiological like say feeling hungry, that include lust, rage, panic, and interestingly, play. The film Inside Out was broadly based on Panksepps work, swapping out play for joy. Panksepp and Biven say these (I think seven but I can’t be bothered to look it up) emotions are shared by all mammals and some birds. Then there is an anthropological approach that says emotions are social constructed, and there are of course some, for example schadenfreude, which can only be socially constructed. Then there is the OTHER anthropological approach made famous by Paul ... somebody, gone out of my head, and I still can’t be bothered (Klee?) that lists the five facial expressions that are shared by cultures around they world. But emotions might also be performative according to other academics. So affect (as us academics like to call emotion) is a steaming mess of theory. But I like to think they are ALL right, modelling different aspects of an elusive truth. Add into this the complicating factor that as a GM, as Stu Venable said, your goal is to stimulate affect rather than dictate it (but if perfomative theories are right then you can stimulate it by dictating it). Specific examples from the discussion: turned on (lust) and fear. According to Panksepp, these are core mammalian neurological reactions. So sure the GM can dictate them. If I say you are turned on, then you are turned on. BUT what to DO about that is entirely up to you. I remember being turned on LOADS of times at school, but I had agency enough to choose to make a move on the object of my lust (mostly never), wait until I got home to have a wank (my preferred solution) or even just to ignore the feeling at let it pass. As a soldier friend said to me (but it’s so cliche sounding i’m sure he got it from a movie) “Of course VC winners are scared, but they get the medal because they did something brave despite their fear. People who don’t feel fear wind up dead” Fascinating. I still think I'd prefer to let the player run with their character's emotions, but this is interesting. I have a psychologist in my group as well. I wonder what he thinks about it.
|
|
fredrix
Master Douchebag
Posts: 2,142
Preferred Game Systems: Fate, L5R, Pendragon, Gumshoe, Feng Shui
Currently Playing: Pendragon, Song of Ice and Fire, L5R, Feng Shui, Traveller
Currently Running: Fate, Coriolis, Nights Black Agents
Favorite Species of Monkey: 1970's NTV, dubbed by the BBC (though The Water Margin beats it)
|
Post by fredrix on Jan 16, 2018 10:28:50 GMT -8
I should add, that it better (more authentic?) if the player has their own emotional experience, sometimes fear (on behalf) of the character may be experienced by the player as they watch the hit points count down to zero. Sometimes the GM can amplify that feeling with dim lights, spooky sound effects or whatever. And I wouldn’t advocate replacing a genuine narrative emotion with one you tell a player their character has. But I maintain, I ain’t going to come on to a mate, to turn him on for real
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2018 14:46:26 GMT -8
I think we're back into the actual examples going far afield.
Originally, a couple eps back, the example was 'You walk into the tavern. There's a smell that reminds you of home; what is it?' The discussion/sometimes-rolling-argument was that THAT language infringes on player agency because you are telling them the smell reminds them of home.
From there, it has covered a wide swath of topics and examples, from non-euclidian goemetry onwards, and a discussion of game mechanics having status effects like Shaken and Afraid, etc.
I had a good discussion with my friend who got me into HJ and I like his point: this coming up, at a table, is a specific incident where you should talk, not even as GM and players, but as people sharing the hobby (dividing by GM responsibility and player responsibility only further adds into the 'adversarial GM' feel) Tell the GM why you feel that having your memories prodded is a no-go for you. Did you have a GM before who would use that as ways to take control of your character?
And as a GM, you need to respect where that person is coming from.
I will use an example from me. When I moved to East TN and got a new D&D group, I had a great concept for a character. But, he was Chaotic Neutral. The GM said it was a no-go because, traditionally, that's the Selfish Asshole alignment a player uses to derail and destroy a table's fun or steal spotlight (in Vampire, that's been my experience with Malkavians as well). I explained where I saw Chaotic Neutral and my character - my character defaulted to the most savage magical spells he thought of at the time, he saw Chaos as something that tested you, and one day you would absolutely fail that test. The character viewed his first reaction as his best action.
How I feel that relates is in the end, we hashed out a common understanding of the character. If you don't want to have memories come up - "I'm a fighter; I've been in one gin joint from continent to continent. There is nothing unique" - that should be fine. The GM should accomodate you in the sense of, 'Hey, I want to work in an aspect of your time in Singapore here, how can we do it?' It really comes down to the table contract people sign on for. Lord knows it was infinitely easier when D&D was just dudes with no profile and no background more than 'I'm my last character's brother.'
YMMV
|
|
|
Post by chronovore on Jan 16, 2018 16:49:25 GMT -8
And just to spit 120 proof alcohol on the fire, I'm also un-sold on the concept that the player has final word over their character's backstory.
It's super-neat to have the GM and players work together, and say:
GM: "Hey, Shift. You recognize the guy running the snake-oil carriage. He's from your old guild. He was apprenticed under a different master."
Change that "You" to an "I" and that's the player asserting narrative color into the shared story. This can be AWESOME, unless the carriage-master was supposed to be the Big Bad in disguise, surreptitiously keeping an eye on the party.
Or what if the player says, "Well, yeah, I'm human but I my cousin was a half-elf and he taught me to curse in Elven"?
None of these are dealbreakers. I'm just trying to reinforce that EVERYTHING that goes on at the table is part of a shared fiction, and when we disagree, it's part of our implicit social contract to at least try to find a solution together.
|
|
|
Post by lowkeyoh on Jan 16, 2018 16:57:49 GMT -8
The player has complete control over the backstory. The GM has control over the setting and the plot. Backstory in the intersection of character and setting. It belongs to both player and GM.
A GM adding something that compromises the main motivation or conceit of the character without player input is wrong. A player adding something game breaking or setting breaking and expecting to make it to the table is also wrong. Hey @tim can I play a ninja?
The player shouldn't have the FINAL word on what does and does not make it in their backstory. It's their job to come up with one and get it OK'd by the GM. Just as it's the GM's job to mine from said backstory and add nuanced bits of flavor in there.
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Jan 16, 2018 17:08:00 GMT -8
I agree with you. I also think that GMs worthy of trust deserve trust.
And when that trust is there, I contend, something as innocuous as "what about this tavern reminds you of home?" becomes nothing more than an opportunity to bring your backstory to the present scene, rather than an opening to take over the character.
And in this situation, I believe that was the original writer's intent.
After all, GMs have the right to mine backstories.
If you tell the GM you were brought up in a happy family in a little house on a prairie, I don't think it's in any way a sin for the GM to say, "there's a old, beat up fiddle on the mantle, just like the kind your father would play after dinner." And, for myself at least, I don't think "there's an old man sitting next to the fire, playing fiddle. He reminds you of your long dead father," is out of bounds either.
Though, in all honesty, I'd rather have the player come to that conclusion organically, but unless I have a HUGE amount of detail about the PC's father, that's a tall order.
And quite frankly, it's entirely plausible that the player might not even remember all the details in that lengthy of a backstory -- especially it if was written months ago.
|
|
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 16, 2018 18:09:05 GMT -8
My point when I framed this argument in the podcast was that changing a few words completely changes the intent. And as such, it's more about a GM being mindful of language than a GM being mindful of player agency. We all know how the pressure of GMing can affect what we say and do -- and even the most mindful of us will say things that *seem* to infringe agency. But intent is important here (I think gina mentioned this). Just a real quick clarification. Earlier in this thread, I did say this: "holy shit, man, this is unlike anything you've ever experienced; you're scared, you could get shot at any moment." The "unlike anything you've ever experienced" part was tossed in without forethought and is not the point I was trying to get at. What's italicized there, and in the original post, is what I've been focusing on: "you're scared". I absolutely agree with this. I think that sometimes as GMs we end up using language that can be seen as taking away a player's agency by strongly implying the character's emotional reaction. "This is the scariest shit you've ever seen!" as opposed to something like "This is absolutely terrifying!" As has already been said, I feel we have to assume the GM is operating under good faith. (Unless the GM has already proven themselves to be untrustworthy, in which case why are you playing with them?) They don't intend to dictate how your character feels, they're simply trying to express to you, the player, the intensity of the effect or situation. Part of the GM acting as your character's senses is describing the intensity of something.
|
|
|
Post by joecrak on Jan 16, 2018 18:51:03 GMT -8
Okay, wow, lot's of arguments have taken place, But here's my unasked for opinion! Or slightly asked for. First up, the initial thing that started arguments, well maybe not the initial, but close enough. Thanks very much for reading my email with such gravitas, Probie Tim . I especially appreciated the hand on stork 's shoulder during the apology. Classy. I do so try. And while some of it was certainly me hamming it up for the cameras/viewers/listeners, it did seem genuine and deserving of something more than just "reading a listener email". And now, completely unrelated to Hyvie's post, I'm going to probably stick my foot into my mouth, here. I've been gaming a long time ("git off my lawn, you kids!") and I've seen some AWESOME advancements in the hobby - both in systems as well as player and GM skills and attitudes - but I wonder if sometimes we don't take things a little bit too far. Like, for instance, with "player agency". Especially at the expense of what I've called "GM agency". Take this hypothetical situation: You're playing someone on a Caribbean cruise. Halfway through, there's a huge earthquake; the boat pitches and yaws, huge waves are cresting and crashing against the side of the cruise liner, people are getting tossed onto their asses on the deck, dogs and cats are living together, mass hysteria. As the earthquake rumbles to a stop, the captain's eyes widen as he stares off into the distance past the bow of the ship; the quake caused an island to rise from the deep just a few football fields ahead of the ship. You can all see buildings on the island which don't conform to any earthly geometry or dimensions; trying to trace the outline of the buildings with your eyes almost gives you a headache and makes you feel queasy. Suddenly, a giant set of doors on the front (or is it side? you're not quite sure) of the tallest building slowly swings open and you are buffeted with a foul smelling, damp, heavy wind. A blackish, greenish, slimy... monstrosity pulls itself out of the building; the part which looks most like the being's head is bigger than the ship is long, and it doesn't quite seem possible that the entire thing fit in the building from which it's coming. As it stands up to its massive height, you're completely unsure what it is, but it has strong suggestions of octopoid, reptilian, and man-like qualities. The smell of death and fish and ozone and rot and unwholesomeness is overwhelming. It is, without doubt, the most frightening thing you've ever seen. Did I just impinge on your agency? According to some of the conversations which have happened here, on these forums, and on the show, yes. I told you that the smell was overwhelming and that it is the most frightening thing you've ever seen. But personally, I think that's going way too far. As a GM, I have to be able to tell you when things are frightening or overwhelming, especially in cases like that where - because of the completely alien and unknowable nature of the situation - I'm unable to impress upon you the exact effect seeing such a cosmic horror has on the human psyche. That's "GM agency". Note I never once said "the smell is so bad that you puke your guts up" or "it's so frightening that you dive off the side of the boat and start swimming home"; how your player reacts to the situation is completely your own deal... excepting, of course, if you're playing a game which has some sort of sanity or fear mechanic which would apply. But as the GM, I feel that I have to be able to tell the player things like, "yeah, you're scared; this is a really frightening situation for you". I say no, you did not infringe on my agency, because I still get to choose how to react, or I roll dice, and that tells me how I end up reacting, or I rolled dice, and that's what led to the description above, so of course what is stated happens, because a Hard Move has been triggered. Oh, right, but Tim's running the game, so it's not PbtA, so probably not a Hard Move. Regardless of all that, follow up examples have been provided, and every time I agree with Tim, that it's not removing agency. BUT that's due to several reasons, one being playstyle, which I'll get to later, but for now... It all depends on what game you are playing! We all know how many different games are out there, and they all have different rules. In Probie Tim 's first example, if we are playing CoC, by all rights he should demand everyone make a Sanity roll, and have all the players suffer the mechanical results of their success or failure. If success means they keep their cool, then they keep their cool, and maybe this ain't no big deal. I mean, what if this is a super hero game? Your character could be the exact opposite of terrified, and you could be excited cause you get to punch Cthulhu in his stupid tentacle face! Even more so if you're playing a Plulp action system like (shudder) Savage Worlds (shudder), or something better like Fate or Fate Accelerated. System Matters, I've said it before, and I'll say it again. We can always throw out hypothetical after hypothetical, but if we don't tie them to a specific system, then coming to a consensus will be incredibly difficult. 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. Oh boy, this is a delightful mix of agreements and disagreements. Since I already talked about systems mattering, and the disagreements aren't a big enough thing for me to care talking about, i can stop talking about that and focus on something that amuses me to no end. 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. This made me laugh, because the entire time it came off to me as Tim arguing in favor of the Story Telling game method. I mean, so many PbtA games have many occassions where they can take some level of Agency away from you due to their mechanics. Emotional: MonsterHearts: You can be turned on against your will Masks: You can be made to feel Angry, Afraid, Guilty, Hopeless, or Insecure against your will Physical: * ^^World Wide Wrestling: A face can leave an opponent speechless, while a heel can leave someone lying helplessly on the floor, each has a mechanical cost to do so. *caveat: Because that's a story telling game about telling a story to an audience, there's also a move that allows players to take back their agency by "Breaking Kayfabe" aka ignoring the script. ^^ Granted, this system also has an entire feature called Narrative control, where other players can narrate what your wrestler is doing in a match. Anyway, I was very amused, because when you sit down at a PbtA game, you should know that parts of the game take 'agency' away from you, those things are right there in the mechanics. Like MonsterHearts, sure you are turned on, you can't deny that, it happened. But you 100% get to decide how you react to being turned on. But yeah, Tim was arguing in favor of GMing Story games, I'm so proud of you! Now you just need to give up your control of your character as a Player, and play to find out! Oh, right, tying it all in to the beginning. I don't think any of Tim's hypotheticals remove agency, but that's because I mostly play story games where I'm used to that stuff. Like Stu's question about "What here reminds you of home?", my GMs and I would probably take it even further and say "Something here reminds you of home, what is it?" the point being, you can't say nothing. It's similar to one of the principle's of Masks. "Why do you want to be on the team" And you absolutely can not say you don't. Cause if you don't want to be on the team, then why are you playing this game? Anyway, that was a lot of talking. Happy to see Probie Tim embracing more Story game methods!
|
|
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 16, 2018 22:02:31 GMT -8
Happy to see Probie Tim embracing more Story game methods! What I'm hearing here, is that Probie Tim has banged the story game Queen, thereby gaining the Condition "One Of Us". Welcome to the clique, Probie.
|
|
|
Post by Probie Tim on Jan 17, 2018 6:30:16 GMT -8
Happy to see Probie Tim embracing more Story game methods! What I'm hearing here, is that Probie Tim has banged the story game Queen, thereby gaining the Condition "One Of Us". Holy hell, is that what I was saying!? Pump the brakes, here, folks, I take back EVERYTHING I've said in this thread. But seriously, no, I was equating the strong "but my agency!"/"you can't tell me I'm scared!" feeling with the more new-school, story-game crowd, and the whole, "you're scared"/"awesome, here's what I do" feeling with more... traditional RPers. If that doesn't jive, that's just my own ignorance of story game mechanics poking through. All of that said, I've been talking with some of the participants of this thread offline, and I've come to the conclusion that this all boils down to semantics and, as Stu said above, a trust issue. The whole argument - based on what I've read - comes down to the actual words "you're scared" versus something like "you're in a situation which would be considered scary". I think it's silly to think that a GM is going to script out their games to insure that they're not using any words which might inadvertently impinge agency (god knows there's no way I'm going to do that), so you have to look at the intent and the methods of the GM you're playing with. If you know that your GM is *not* the kind of GM who is going to take control of your character, then you should know and trust that "you're scared" is not any attempt on your GM's part to control your character. It's just, as Hyvie said above, "the GM acting as your character's senses" and "describing the intensity of something". And if you don't have that trust, again as Hyvie said above, why are you playing with them? To quote Stu, "GMs worthy of trust deserve trust".
|
|
tyler
Journeyman Douchebag
Posts: 226
|
Post by tyler on Jan 17, 2018 10:24:13 GMT -8
|
|