|
Post by OFTHEHILLPEOPLE on Jan 17, 2018 12:50:46 GMT -8
Psh, I'mma ask my pointed questions and you can't stop me.
And yes, there are clouds to the east.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2018 15:20:21 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 Wanna help cause fear? Take their character sheet away from them. No more looking at stats. No computing how much damage they've taken vs how much more they can take. No more chance for them to say 'I can take two more hits, at most, from this.'.
|
|
tyler
Journeyman Douchebag
Posts: 226
|
Post by tyler on Jan 17, 2018 15:40:53 GMT -8
Wanna help cause fear? Take their character sheet away from them. No more looking at stats. No computing how much damage they've taken vs how much more they can take. No more chance for them to say 'I can take two more hits, at most, from this.'. So...you're saying that the character sheets are holding us back?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2018 18:01:03 GMT -8
As far as the character sheets holding us back, I'm not saying that as much as there can be an extra level of shielding in your actions with the sheet. Like most people here at HJ, I'm going to assume you have a pretty good group, and aren't subject to this... but...
There's a certain amount of safety the sheets and numbers provide. They quantify what you can or can't take. For example, if you have the character sheet for a level one Laurie Strode and Michael Myers has chased you into a house, there's a certain amount of players who will look at that, assess their initiative and health, and base their decision (right or wrong) on whether to hide in the closet or run past Michael Myers and his McStabby risking the attack of opportunity. I think that same population might make different decisions based on systems - like multiple pulls from the Jenga tower in Dread, or if they have a system that has no character sheets.
In a similar note, I was listening to Adventure Zone today playing Monster of the Week. The stage magician PC accidentally lit a children's birthday party on fire doing a trick. The player tried to use their magic to calm the flames, and the GM said 'Is that what you want to do, or is that what your character would actually do when they've lit the room into an inferno?' I think I see that, and have been (and sometimes continue to be) guilty of it. In games I've been in where there is more of a risk that's not easily calculable - can I take two rounds of combat? can I escape? - I, and I think a lot of people, are more cautious than we are when we know we can withstand X rounds of wounds and if we get one last good init roll be free and clear.
Again, I make the assumption you and yours aren't those type of people, and again, I think the sheet and knowing how many hits you can take put a shield or buffer there. I've played a game, for example, where we didn't even have a character, and didn't know what skills we had until we tried to use them. It was an Illuminati game a friend was just improvising to kill time -- I will never forget having to make a Surpress Urination roll on an international flight.
tldr #MindlessRamble
|
|
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 17, 2018 19:09:28 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. It sounds to me like you're talking about what I've heard referred to as "bleed-out" fredrix. Meaning that the physical, mental, or emotional state of your character is bleeding out of the game to actually affect you, the player. (The reverse is "bleed-in".) It's not inherently positive or negative; it's just something that happens sometimes. That being said, I would not hold bleed up as a goal we should strive for, nor would I call a gaming experience "better" or "more authentic" because of bleed. I've had a bad experience with bleed-out before, and I'm therefore very reluctant to say GMs should aim to create a "genuine" emotion in their players. But I maintain, I ain’t going to come on to a mate, to turn him on for real Ditto. This is why we play with character portraits. We hold them up or point to them when talking in character, making it easier to remember that it's not ME flirting with YOU. It's my imaginary character flirting with your imaginary character. In a similar note, I was listening to Adventure Zone today playing Monster of the Week. The stage magician PC accidentally lit a children's birthday party on fire doing a trick. The player tried to use their magic to calm the flames, and the GM said 'Is that what you want to do, or is that what your character would actually do when they've lit the room into an inferno?' I've not listened to the episode you're referring to @seikuro. But in all honestly, if a GM said that to me I'd get a little pissed off. First of all, don't tell me how to play my character. Second of all, we make in-game decisions for three main reasons: because we're acting as an audience, because we're pretending to be an imaginary character, and because we're playing a game.
|
|
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 17, 2018 22:18:42 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 Wanna help cause fear? Take their character sheet away from them. No more looking at stats. No computing how much damage they've taken vs how much more they can take. No more chance for them to say 'I can take two more hits, at most, from this.'. I’m about to start an Unknown Armies campaign. In that system the players have character sheets with hit points. But the GM keeps track of the hit points, not telling the player how many they’ve just lost, just describing the effects ...
|
|
|
Post by uncommonman on Jan 17, 2018 23:39:36 GMT -8
I don't really understand how a question could rempve agency.
You are still able to choose how and what you answer.
A leading question could possibly be that but as some already said you can just say nothing/no.
|
|
|
Post by yojimbohawkins on Jan 18, 2018 1:31:35 GMT -8
To quote Stu, "GMs worthy of trust deserve trust". Sure, but trust has to be earned. I've recently been listening to the RPG Academy re-visiting an L5R Actual Play. They're basically giving it a 'GM's commentary' by playing the AP and having the GM, Jim McClure, and one of the hosts who played in the game talk about what happened, and also talking about GMing decisions made during the game. In the latest episode, they talk about the first combat the characters got into, against an 'Oni'. I won't go into my opinion of the way certain things were done, but the main point that the hosts were making about this is that the GM actually had no stats or plan for it (even though it was a fairly pivotal plot point and a 'planned' encounter) and made up all of his rolls (he rolled dice behind the screen and just made up the result to get the effect he wanted). The GM's stance was that the point of the combat wasn't to seriously threaten the characters, but to introduce them to the combat system and give them a plot point. He had no intention of seriously injuring them, although a character was injured in the fight. On one hand, I can see where he's coming from. It really sucks if your character dies in the first combat, especially if the game is a one shot AP/con game. On the other hand, I feel that careful planning by the GM can ensure that doesn't happen, or at least mitigate the threat level if you feel that you have to stage this combat encounter early on. However, what stood out for me, and what is salient to this discussion, is that the GM, Jim McClure, stated that he regularly does this in all the games he runs with his regular gaming group, and that in his opinion it is more important to tell a good story than get bogged down in the mechanics ( and yes, I see the fudge/not fudge parallel). He also stated that none of his players know that he does this and will never know (unless they listen to the episode, I guess?) and so it's ok. So is Jim a GM worthy of trust? Can a GM who believes that creating a good story is paramount be trusted? I may be doing him a disservice, but it feels that Jim believes that as long as you look after the characters and 'tell a good story', then all sins are forgiven. I think he's missing the point that the characters' create the story, not the GM, but I can't but wonder if this is something engenders trust in a GM or erodes it.
|
|
|
Post by chronovore on Jan 18, 2018 5:42:35 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 Wanna help cause fear? Take their character sheet away from them. No more looking at stats. No computing how much damage they've taken vs how much more they can take. No more chance for them to say 'I can take two more hits, at most, from this.'. That causes player fear. We're talking about character fear. Seriously though, we've been falling back on "fear" as the go-to emotion, but that's arguably lizard-brain level stuff. Maybe it's an emotion, maybe it's physical. What if we are talking about a DM who says, "Yeah, actually, you're in love with the elf queen. You're smitten." Or, alternatively, DM: "You're really angry at this shopkeeper now." Player: "What? Why? I was just starting to enjoy the bargaining process!" To me, those are greater transgressions on "BUT MY AGENCY…" than fear. It has repeatedly been pointed out, that "Something here in the tavern reminds you of home" is a neutral observation. Everyone has a home, something here evokes that — so what is it? Is it good, is it bad? Sad or happy? That's all up to the player. The only arguable lack of agency is that "home" has been evoked when the player/character were not prepared for it, and that shit happens all the damned time. But I'm starting to believe that, like Armor Class, this is just one of those topics where some people have one opinion, others have a different one, and we're not going to sway anyone with clever observations.
|
|
|
Post by Probie Tim on Jan 18, 2018 6:21:55 GMT -8
To quote Stu, "GMs worthy of trust deserve trust". Sure, but trust has to be earned. Of course. But doesn't it make more sense to start a game with trust and take it away if it's abused, than to start a game with distrust and have to build it? Shouldn't you give the GM a chance to show you if "scary shit happened, you're scared" actually is stepping on agency or if he just used "the wrong words"? So is Jim a GM worthy of trust? I have two responses to that: 1. Fudging dice rolls is a topic that has spawned thread after thread after thread, and while I get that there is come cross-pollination between these two topics, whoo boy do I not want to get into that again. 2. Personally, I think that... heh, never mind. I don't want to get into that topic again. So I guess only 1 response.
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Jan 18, 2018 8:23:41 GMT -8
I've definitely made up bad guys on the fly, but I usually write at least some basic stats or skills down. Generally, if I roll it, I write it down.
So I might say, "Okay, this bad guy has a gun. I'm going to give him a gun skill of 2 (scribble)," and since we're in a fight, I'll jot down HP and such, but I don't pantomime rolling the dice for him.
Having an entire fight, with not stats, and a string of ignored rolls? That's completely ignoring the G in RPG.
|
|
|
Post by Fiona on Jan 18, 2018 8:33:50 GMT -8
Great to have you back Tim <3
|
|
|
Post by ericfromnj on Jan 18, 2018 14:55:38 GMT -8
Stu, why are you not running L5R in 4e anyway?
|
|
|
Post by chronovore on Jan 18, 2018 16:41:11 GMT -8
I've definitely made up bad guys on the fly, but I usually write at least some basic stats or skills down. Generally, if I roll it, I write it down. So I might say, "Okay, this bad guy has a gun. I'm going to give him a gun skill of 2 (scribble)," and since we're in a fight, I'll jot down HP and such, but I don't pantomime rolling the dice for him. Having an entire fight, with not stats, and a string of ignored rolls? That's completely ignoring the G in RPG. I figure we all have. No plan survives contact with the players. When they were supposed to go to the wizard's tower but decide to rob a bank instead, even DMs who then pick up the book to find out how many human guards can be on hand to fill out the Combat Rating so the party will have some challenge? They're making up an enemy on the fly. If the bank has 6 guards because that's logical? That's been made on the fly. If the bank has 50 guards because that's what the CR requires? That's on the fly, too. The main difference is how long the DM is putting their nose in the book, delaying player interaction with the scenario, robbing emotional momentum from the, er, moment. Again, this gets back to trust between the players and their gamemaster, because it's all just Making Stuff Up.
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Jan 18, 2018 17:58:21 GMT -8
Stu, why are you not running L5R in 4e anyway? I was curious to see how the beta plays. Once I saw that the dice aren't narrative, but rather tied to specific game mechanics, I figured we'd do it. I've forgotten most of what I learned from 4th anyway, so I'd practically have to re-learn it all anyway. Might as well learn the new shiny.
|
|