Restatment: R. Corde's position re Psch mechanisms in rpgs
Kevin R. Hardwick
I asked Rick what was going on in the recent unfortunate exchange with
Mary and Warren. He obliged me, and I thought his restatement of his
position was sufficiently useful as to be worth excavating from the
depths of the original thread.
He summarized his concerns as follows:
"I was just enunciating the the idea if a mechanic is used for
tactical resolution, when PCs or NPCs attempt to make another character
feel, think or even act in a certain way, then some instances like this
should be resolved by a prescriptive mechanic. . . .
"My initial query in this thread asked if anyone had explored a
"system terminology" inclusive of this notion. . . . I of course do not
think prescriptive mechanics are necessarilly antithetical to RPGs nor
that the idea has been fully developed at any level, . . ."
This strikes me as succint and also straightforward, and quite useful,
given the devolution of the
debate in the original thread.
Let me emphasize that I don't think we will get very far here by trying
to pin blame on who and why the thread exploded. As stated above, I
think Rick is raising some interesting questions.
Let me try to restate them in my own words. Rick can then tell me
whether or not he thinks I understand what he's trying to get at.
Here's my attempt at reformulating Rick's question:
Should the feelings of a character always be authored by the player? Or
are their times when it is appropriate for the GM (often by application
of a pre-agreed rules mechanic) to enforce a particular emotion on a
character, irregardless of the wishes of the player? Are there times,
in other words, in which the player's control of the emotional life of
their character should be or can be removed to the GM, or in which the
GM coerces (say by application of a formal rule) a feeling on a
character that is normally controlled by someone else (a "player")?
Rick--does this get at your concern?
Warren, Mary, others--let me ask you to refrain from jumping in on this
until Rick confirms that I've successfully restated the issue at hand,
or else corrects me in some fashion. At that point, I'd like very much
to hear your side of the debate.
Thank you all!
Kevin
So
Kevin R. Hardwick
Recent conversation on another thread has suggested this question, and
I'd like to throw it out for debate. In attempting to restate an
argument by Rick Cordes, I wrote:
> Should the feelings of a character always be authored by the player?
> Or
> are their times when it is appropriate for the GM (often by
> application
> of a pre-agreed rules mechanic) to enforce a particular emotion on a
> character, irregardless of the wishes of the player? Are there times,
>
> in other words, in which the player's control of the emotional life of
>
> their character should be or can be removed to the GM, or in which the
>
> GM coerces (say by application of a formal rule) a feeling on a
> character that is normally controlled by someone else (a "player")?
Now I think the answer to these question is a firm "it depends on the
group contract, and on what the group in general wants to get out of the
game." Which is to say, sometimes yes, sometimes no.
Now let me add an extra layer of nuance to my original questions: Under
what circumstances might you answer "yes" to any of the above questions?
Or put another way: For what sorts of groups contract or agreed game
ends might one legitimately answer "yes" to any of the above questions?
Hmm. On rereading, I see that the first question above is different
from the others :) I think my intent is clear enough, so I'll leave it
at that.
My best,
Kevin
Red
Kevin R. Hardwick wrote:
> Or put another way: For what sorts of groups contract or agreed game
> ends might one legitimately answer "yes" to any of the above questions?
>
My take on this is that it is not so much that control is passed to the
GM, but that it is passed to the WORLD.
No-one thinks they will "contract" Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, It
is not something that humans are inclined to think, and not something
are players are likely to think, either. Under appropriate
circumstances, a statistically detectable group of individuals WILL
suffer PTSD; it therfore seems appropriate that a character be asked for
a "save against PTSD" or something similar, assuming the genre
conventions demand this level of detail.
Under those circumstances, in which the WORLD has a direct effect on
character psychology, it would seem appropriate to resort to a mechanic,
even a prescriptive one.
Brian Gleichman
Kevin R. Hardwick <krhr...@wt.infi.net> wrote in article
<35449FBD...@wt.infi.net>...
> In attempting to restate an
> argument by Rick Cordes,
I find it interesting that your restatement has drawn no response in
agreement or disagreement from Rick.
Perhaps it's due to net lag or his server dropping posts.
> Now let me add an extra layer of nuance to my original questions: Under
> what circumstances might you answer "yes" to any of the above questions?
I'm taking the 'you' above to mean my games and groups.
The answer is none.
A hard-line reading of your full post requires pointing out the exception
for OOC metagame enforcement of the game contract which in my case is more
of a list of 'do not' instead of 'do this'. Interested parties can refer to
the Interactions Model (shameless plug).
> Or put another way: For what sorts of groups contract or agreed game
> ends might one legitimately answer "yes" to any of the above questions?
Any of a number of contracts or ends that I wouldn't want to take part in.
Kevin R. Hardwick
Red wrote:
> Kevin R. Hardwick wrote:
>
> > Or put another way: For what sorts of groups contract or agreed
> game
> > ends might one legitimately answer "yes" to any of the above
> questions?
> >
>
> My take on this is that it is not so much that control is passed to
> the
> GM, but that it is passed to the WORLD.
>
> No-one thinks they will "contract" Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, It
>
> is not something that humans are inclined to think, and not something
> are players are likely to think, either. Under appropriate
> circumstances, a statistically detectable group of individuals WILL
> suffer PTSD; it therfore seems appropriate that a character be asked
> for
> a "save against PTSD" or something similar, assuming the genre
> conventions demand this level of detail.
>
> Under those circumstances, in which the WORLD has a direct effect on
> character psychology, it would seem appropriate to resort to a
> mechanic,
> even a prescriptive one.
This is reasonable, and it raises an important caveat.
In most games the agent through which the WORLD acts is the GM. For
those games, the way I have framed the question is reasonable. Some
games share the agency for the world among a variety of players.
THEATRIX, for example, permits players in various ways to author the
world during the play of the game. In those games, my comments would
have to be expanded to include the group as a whole, and the means by
which they express the agency of the world.
Best,
Kevin
Kevin R. Hardwick
Brian Gleichman wrote:
> > Now let me add an extra layer of nuance to my original questions:
> Under
> > what circumstances might you answer "yes" to any of the above
> questions?
>
> I'm taking the 'you' above to mean my games and groups.
>
> The answer is none.
Fair enough--but that is not what I was asking. What I was asking was,
in theory, what sorts of group contracts would demand this kind of
action by the GM (or, as Red puts it, by the World).
I realize that you may not have any interest in addressing this
question, since it does not address your own prefrences. But I'm not
looking for preference-based responses here--I'm treating this as a
theoretical problem, and not as a practical one.
I'm hoping that by doing so, we can avoid some of the flames that marred
earlier incarnations of this discussion.
> A hard-line reading of your full post requires pointing out the
> exception
> for OOC metagame enforcement of the game contract
I don't understand you here. Can you explain this further?And why do
you consider this a "hard-line" reading of my post?
It seems reasonable enough to me, although I'm not sure I grasp
your full intent.
> > Or put another way: For what sorts of groups contract or agreed
> game
> > ends might one legitimately answer "yes" to any of the above
> questions?
>
> Any of a number of contracts or ends that I wouldn't want to take part
> in.
Again--I'm not challenging your preferences. They are legit and
reasonable. But I'm asking a theoretical question.
Given the constraints I have outlined, what then follows for the group
contract?
My best,
Kevin
Travis S. Casey
>> ends might one legitimately answer "yes" to any of the above questions?
>
>GM, but that it is passed to the WORLD.
>
>No-one thinks they will "contract" Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, It
>is not something that humans are inclined to think, and not something
>are players are likely to think, either. Under appropriate
>circumstances, a statistically detectable group of individuals WILL
>suffer PTSD; it therfore seems appropriate that a character be asked for
>a "save against PTSD" or something similar, assuming the genre
>conventions demand this level of detail.
I'd argue with that first "no-one" -- no one *likes* to think that they're
vulnerable to such maladies, but when being honest will oneself, I think
that at least some people would admit that they likely would. Given my
own history, I'd think that I'd be fairly likely to.
Players who are playing the game properly will realize that their
characters are not supposed to just be puppets -- they're supposed to be
real people like us who have good days and bad days, tolerances and
intolerances, and may not always behave the way they think they should.
What I'm trying to get at is that some players will make their characters
suffer breakdowns, etc. without any game mechanic enforcing it. I've done
it, and I've gamed with people who have done it.
(Just to give an example -- I had a character who, after seeing another
player's character die from an infected wound that become gangrenous (it
was a very nastily realistic campaign) became paranoid about *any* sort of
wound -- even if it was just a cut that barely broke the skin, he'd insist
that it needed to be disinfected and properly bandaged immediately, and
he'd change the dressing often, slather it with antibiotic ointment, etc.
Thankfully, it was a low combat game and he wasn't a combat-oriented
character, or the other characters probably wouldn't have been able to put
up with it. That was just me, with no mechanics involved.)
>Under those circumstances, in which the WORLD has a direct effect on
>character psychology, it would seem appropriate to resort to a mechanic,
>even a prescriptive one.
As I posted in another post in this thread, I have no problem with doing
it either way. If the players will inflict such problems on characters on
their own, that's wonderful. If they'll do it with just some hinting from
the GM, that's fine. If they'll only do it if there are mechanics
involved, that's less OK for me, but that's just me.
It's like diced vs. diceless systems, I think -- some people are more
comfortable with one or the other, and some are so uncomfortable with one
or the other that they can't imagine anyone wanting to use the other. In
truth, neither method is better or worse -- all that matters is that it
works well for you and your players.
--
|\ _,,,---,,_ Travis S. Casey <efi...@io.com>
ZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ No one agrees with me. Not even me.
|,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-' Keeper of the rec.games.design FAQ:
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) http://www.io.com/~efindel/design.html
gwe...@dechert.com
In article <35449FBD...@wt.infi.net>,
In my (rather large) gaming group, we tend to all adhere to the idea that
games are like movies or TV shows, and the GM is sort of like the director.
A player is in total control of his or her character *until that control
conflicts with the plot/story or the enjoyment of the other players*. Also,
our GM's tend to be pretty vague with emotional information: "You're scared"
"You don't like this guy" "You want revenge" and let the players interpret
this into whatever the appropriate response would be from their character.
This has always worked for us. I find that if you think of your games as
movies or TV shows (or plays or what have you), the players tend to act as
though it's a group effort - the individual characters may be somewhat less
important than the overall story.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Mary K. Kuhner
In article <35449FBD...@wt.infi.net>,
Kevin R. Hardwick <krhr...@wt.infi.net> wrote:
>Now let me add an extra layer of nuance to my original questions: Under
>what circumstances might you answer "yes" to any of the above questions?
>Or put another way: For what sorts of groups contract or agreed game
>ends might one legitimately answer "yes" to any of the above questions?
["the above questions" are "when is it appropriate for external control
to be applied to a PC's actions, thoughts or emotions by the GM?"]
These are two different questions, as Kevin notes later! In order:
(1) When would I want to do this?
A couple of instances. If mind control or similar effects are applied
to the PC within the game reality, there are two different techniques
available for handling it. The GM can simply suggest to the player
what the external input is, and let the player manage the results.
This produces a subjective impression of "seductive" mind control
-- control which is most successful where it dovetails naturally
with the character's actual tendencies, and can be resisted relatively
well where it conflicts with them. Alternatively, the GM can
dictate the character's actions or reactions. This produces a
subjective impression of "coercive" mind control that pays no heed
to the victim's desires or nature.
I wouldn't want to play out a coercive mind-control situation long-
term, but for short-term things it can be quite intriguing and
dramatic. If you want to get across the subjective sensation of being
a "prisoner in your own head" coercion on the metagame level
can work perfectly.
A different instance is where, for some reason, a great deal of
abstraction is necessary and this deprives the player of enough
information to make an IC decision. If we decide not to play
out the interrogation, I can't make an IC decision as to whether
my character spills the beans, and having the GM, or a mechanic,
do so seems entirely appropriate. I'd apply the same reasoning
to a PC who sees something sanity-bending that is outside the GM's
capacity to describe.
I'd note a third, though trickier, instance for cases in which
the group wants to portray certain aspects of a character's psyche
as nearly autonomous, and externalize the struggle against them.
My character Markus has progressed from seeing the red flame
as a definitely external thing he tries to manipulate, to mostly
seeing it as part of himself; but now and again the GM enforces
an action which makes it clear that there is still some
distinction, which is a nice jolt for both player and character.
Elsewhere in the thread Brian mentions GM coercion to enforce
game contract. This is one that I *wouldn't* do; I'd always
try negotiation, or possibly throwing a temper tantrum, rather
than reflecting the conflict into the in-game reality.
(2) What kind of group contract would legitimately call for such
things?
In a strongly Game-oriented game, personality mechanics could
function just like morale rules and fog-of-war rules do in
wargames: an additional level of tactical complexity for the
players to manipulate. I am spoilt for such games, personally,
because I always forget I'm not supposed to be roleplaying;
but that's *my* problem, not the game's problem.
A highly stylized game meant to be appreciated more from Author
than from IC could well use such rules extensively: _Puppetland_
springs to mind. If you are specifically trying to avoid
Immersion or player identification with character, a layer of
behavioral mechanics could help; and there are stylistic
reasons one might want to do so.
Related to this: if you're trying to play something very non-
human, behavioral mechanics could be a useful jump-start. I'd
think seriously about them if I was going to do a PC party
composed solely of Rastur (the kifish aliens in _Radiant_)
in order to avoid six months of PCs who alternately behaved
as if they had very high or very low sfik. (I didn't need
to do this with Vikki, my Rastur-trained PC, because she
mainly interacted with humans during the first several years
of the campaign, giving me enough time to internalize her
worldview a bit.) I think this is the strongest argument
for the _Pendragon_ personality rules: you're trying for
characters who do not really behave like people, and may well
need some help in getting started with that.
Lastly, if you have one or two flaky players in a group
which is otherwise interested in roleplaying, you may need
behavioral rules to keep them from being too much of a pest
to everyone else. I haven't played anything but pick-up
games with such players in a long time, so I can't say much
about this other than that it's a situation I'd really
prefer to avoid if I could.
I reckon there are others, but I'm supposed to be working....
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Psychohist
Regarding use of mechanics for deciding player characters' emotions, 'Red'
posts, in part:
My take on this is that it is not so much that control
is passed to the GM, but that it is passed to the WORLD.
I think this is misleading terminology.
The player character's consciousness, body, and emotions are all part of the
world. If the mechanics are controlling all of the world, they should be
controlling player characters' conscious decisions as well, and there is no
need for players.
The question really is, how is the world's behavior adjudicated in these
various realms? Possibilities include gamesmaster judgement/fiat, player
judgement/fiat, mechanics, and mixtures of these.
No-one thinks they will "contract" Post Traumatic Stress
Disorder, It is not something that humans are inclined to
think, and not something are players are likely to think,
either. Under appropriate circumstances, a statistically
detectable group of individuals WILL suffer PTSD; it
therfore seems appropriate that a character be asked for
a "save against PTSD" or something similar, assuming the
genre conventions demand this level of detail.
That's one way of handling it. It might even be appropriate for some types of
games - PSTD is just another kind of disease to save against.
I've seen players role play the symptoms associated with continuing post
traumatic stress quite well, though. So leaving this up to the players is also
quite a viable option.
Thinking about this leads me to an answer to Kevin's question about what sort
of group contracts would make these types of mechanics a reasonable method of
adjudication.
I think mechanics for this type of thing would be most appropriate to group
contracts which emphasize player optimization to maximize their characters'
power. Under such a group contract, the player would be discouraged from
playing 'suboptimal' behaviors such as PSTD.
On the other hand, rules imposing PSTD in a well defined way could be accepted
by the players as just another pitfall to avoid or optimize against.
I'd hate playing under such a group contract, though.
Warren Dew
Psychohist
Kevin Hardwick posts, in part:
If you believe, as Brian believes (I hope I'm not putting
words in your mouth, Brian!) that the player should always
control the emotional state of their character, how do you
then operationalize that?
Imagine the two following situations:
... Great-Axe, sitting astride his trusty steed Blackmoor,
on the canyon rim, watches his true-love Tisur flee from
brigands on the other side of the chasm. The Canyon is
wide, the canyon is deep. Let's say 240 yards across, and
750 feet down to a raging river far below.
Great-Axe's player: "I spur my horse and jump the canyon
to save my true-love Tisur!"
Two possibilities spring to mind.
1. The horse balks. The horse is probably a gamesmaster character, and might
not want to leap to its death. But I a sufficiently effectively trained horse
might follow orders anyway, so more likely:
2. Great-Axe leaps. He and his horse plunge to their deaths. Tisur, seeing
the death of her lovable but dim barbarian, ceases fleeing and starts plying
her wiles against the bandit leader instead.
Now at this point the libertarian player says "But *I*
control Great-Axe's actions, and I want him to make the
leap. Screw genre, screw simulation, screw the plot,
Great-Axe lands safely on the other side."
Hm? Emotions can make you take the leap, but they can't get you to the other
side.
Great-Axe encounters a succubus--incredibly sexual,
incredibly sexy, incredibly persuasive. Great-Axe, man
of strong appetites, has been traveling alone across the
Great Desert of Lonely Geek for the last two months. This
is the first woman he's seen in all that time, and she's a
wet-dream come true. What's a poor, weak-willed barbarian
to do?
GM: "She's beautiful, she's red-headed, she's hot, and she
clearly wants YOU."
Player: "Nah--Great-Axe prefers brunettes. I ignore her
and ride on."
Great-Axe rides on. The succubus may leap on his back, digging her nails in
with full surprise, but the player has control of the character's emotions.
Besides, how does the gamesmaster know that by "brunettes", Great-Axe means
'female brunettes'?
Warren Dew
Andrew...@health.gov.au
In article <01bd71c9$36466470$517c5ecf@emet>,
"Brian Gleichman" <glei...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
<clip>
> The answer is none.
<clip> Any of a number of contracts or ends that I wouldn't want to take part
in.
Thank you for your opinion - remind me never to game with you. I couldn't
possibly be part of a game where the GM (moderator, whatever) had no control
over the players.
In Rolemaster, the Moon Mage profession has three spells, which get more
powerful at higher levels - Mood Swing, Mood Setting and Suicide. All three
allow one to modify the emotions of a character, PC or NPC.
This is just one example. If I say (as GM) "You're suddenly feeling a little
depressed - it's getting stronger". I would expect the player to incorporate
that into their roleplaying. Complete noninvolvement in PC emotions makes an
unplayable game.
All IMHO, of course.
Andrew...@health.gov.au
Group contract? what the *heck!?*
Is this like a formal contract that must be agreed to before anyone can play,
or is it more like an unspoken agreement between players? There's *no way*
I'd play *any* kind of game under *any* kind of formal contract, unless that
contract stipulated that I get paid for my efforts. And then I'd have a long
hard look at it before I agreed to it.
Is this an American thing? I've never heard of anything like it!
Perhaps I'm misinterpreting the term.
Brian Gleichman
Kevin R. Hardwick <krhr...@wt.infi.net> wrote in article
<35452F31...@wt.infi.net>...
> Fair enough--but that is not what I was asking.
Your first question seemed to ask MY viewpoint of if such mechanics are
useful in anything I'd be part of. I stand by my no.
The second question seemed to ask if I considered them justified under
certain group contracts. My answer is still yes. It's justifiable under any
group contract that calls for them.
> I realize that you may not have any interest in addressing this
> question, since it does not address your own prefrences. But I'm not
> looking for preference-based responses here--I'm treating this as a
> theoretical problem, and not as a practical one.
I sure you're aware of the ability of people to justify the use of any tool
or concept in almost any setting. Therefore I view considerations of
psychology mechanics outside the realm of preferences as a pointless
discussion.
Either the group contract calls for them or it doesn't. It will do so based
solely upon preference as I see little else relevant to the choice. You
would be better rewarded with an examination of what drives the preference.
As for the nature of group contracts with such a mechanic, I don't see the
presence or lack of such things defining any other part of the group
contract. In short, I can see some people using Psychology Mechanics in any
style of play or combination of contract items that come to mind. Can't say
I'd care for the results though.
> > A hard-line reading of your full post requires pointing out the
> > exception
> > for OOC metagame enforcement of the game contract
>
> I don't understand you here. Can you explain this further?And why do
> you consider this a "hard-line" reading of my post?
> It seems reasonable enough to me, although I'm not sure I grasp
> your full intent.
You original statement didn't limit GM control of a PC to a defined
mechanic (it specified only "often by application of a pre-agreed rules
mechanic", and 'often' does not mean always) nor did it specify a reason
for GM applying such control.
This allows a number of questions if one wishes to push the definition.
The one I had in mind was: Does a GM have the right to override a players
declared action that would violate the group contract. While I would never
dream of using psychology mechanics in this way, I still reserve to right
to intervene in these cases in a metagame fashion.
A rather detailed ('hard-line', i.e. lawyer style) reading of your post on
my part caused me to list the exception.
Mary K. Kuhner
In article <35459A61...@wt.infi.net>,
Kevin R. Hardwick <krhr...@wt.infi.net> wrote:
>If you will grant me that in the first case Great-Axe most likely cannot
>jump the chaosm, and if you will grant me that in the second case
>Great-Axe most likely cannot resist the wiles of a Succubus, then what
>separates the two cases?
>I could just easily have posited a character with, say, Kleptomania
>whose player refuses to steal, or a character with compulsive-obsessive
>disorder who refuses to be compulsive-obsessive. The basic issue
>remains the same.
This seems to me to beg the question--*why* do you have a character
with Kleptomania whose player refuses to steal?
I can see four possible cases:
(1) The player had little or no interest in playing a kleptomaniac
in the first place, but has been coerced into doing so--maybe by a
point system, maybe by the GM, maybe by a misbegotten idea that
"real roleplaying means taking weird disads".
(2) The player only wants his character to be kleptomaniac when it
doesn't do any harm--it's meant for a bit of flavor, not a serious
handicap to the character.
(3) The player really does want to do a kleptomaniac, but has
forgotten in the heat of the moment, or is too emotionally engaged
with the game situation to stick to it.
(4) The character really is kleptomaniac, but the player
believes (or experiences Immersively) that there is some reason
he wouldn't steal in this particular situation.
In the case of (1) or (2) the coercive mechanics will cure the
symptom--maybe--but do nothing to get at the root problem that
the player really doesn't want to be playing the character the
GM thinks he should be playing. I would vastly prefer to try
renegotiating the character at this point. Players who dislike
their characters are no fun at all for me either as GM or as
co-player.
In the case of (3) a reminder ought to be sufficient. This could
come in the form of a coercive mechanic if you like, but I
personally prefer a simple "Hey, doesn't Rhett notice all that
nice stuff lying around unguarded?" (In my opinion, one of the
great advantages of not giving disads point values is that you
can play characters who are "just a little kleptomaniac, but
not when it's really important" without being accused of cheating
or bad play. Such people do exist, after all, and make perfectly
reasonable PCs, often better ones than the all-out loonies.)
In the case of (4) you can get into big trouble very fast if
the GM overrules the player's judgement, since the GM almost
never understands the character as well as the player does, and
the player is likely to be justifiably frustrated with having
his roleplaying countermanded. (In my experience the usual
result of applying coercive mechanics in situation (4) is a
character who acts as a grotesque stereotype of his disad list.
After all, you're essentially saying the mechanic has better
judgement than the player; the player may well let you suffer
the pain of discovering it's just not so.)
Now, this whole matter is complicated by players who find themselves
in situations (1) or (2) "I don't want to play this disad" but lie
and claim situation (4) "It doesn't apply in this case." However,
if you take away the pressure that pushes people into taking disads
they don't actually want to play, I think this problem will take
care of itself.
Why is it different for physical actions? I'm not sure it *is*
different. If a player said "Rhett jumps the chasm, no matter
what" I would not resort to mechanics to force him not to--I would
ask what the hell was going on with that player. Is he angry
with the GM? Fed up with the scenario? A dramatist in a simulationist
game, or vice versa? Put off by the genre conventions? Suffering
low blood sugar? Correctly perceiving that the game needs that
result in order to remain playable? Something is funny here, and
it had better be fixed, not just given a symptomatic treatment.
I will add the caveat that I've been playing mainly in very
cooperative groups for the last decade or two. I can readily
imagine groups where the "reasonable" approach doesn't work;
what's not emotionally clear to me is why folks put up with this.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Brian Gleichman
Kevin R. Hardwick <krhr...@wt.infi.net> wrote in article
<35457F2D...@wt.infi.net>...
This is in response to the E. Gory Great-Axe examples:
> Situation One:
I really liked Warren's reply.
About the only difference is that being a bit of a softy I'd find Tisur a
more honorable way out.
> Okay--now on to the second situation:
There are two decision points wrapped in this question.
The first is if Great-Axe falls for the succubus as a result of his own
nature. This I leave completely up to the player.
Oddly I trust the players to play their character correctly. And strangely,
I have the idea that they just might know a character of their own creation
better than I do.
The second decision point is the alluded to "powerful super-natural
compulsion". This is a separate issue as it's an outside magical force and
not an internal decision. I've not consider this part of the psychology
mechanics thread as that referred to only internal decisions. It would be
handled as the magic rules dictate.
----------------------
Those were off-wall examples and as such one has a hard time seeing them as
serious.
But if they really occurred with the intent you imply (A PC attempting an
impossible physical act and a PC attempting a OOC action that should also
be impossible) other questions arise.
Mostly why in the heck he's attempting such things. Is he trying to make
fun of the game and slap the GM? Is he running a character he doesn't want
to run?
Any number of questions come up. Those are more interesting to me than the
idea of using psychology mechanics to gain control of his actions.
Carl D. Cravens
On 27 Apr 1998 16:27:32 GMT, psych...@aol.com (Psychohist) wrote:
>That's one way of handling it. It might even be appropriate for some types of
>games - PSTD is just another kind of disease to save against.
But can't we apply that thinking to love, fear, and other
"uncontrollable" emotions?
>I've seen players role play the symptoms associated with continuing post
>traumatic stress quite well, though. So leaving this up to the players is also
>quite a viable option.
Provided that the players are good at it. You can divide the world's
roleplayers into two basic groups... those which find "bad things
happening to the character" to be a new roleplaying experience to be
explored and enjoyed, and those that can't bear to let anything bad
happen to their character. I would venture to say that the latter
outnumber the former by a large factor.
You can't leave it up to the player who will tolerate no wrongs done to
his character outside of the clear-cut rules. Their loss, I think. But
you can't expect them to voluntarily and spontaneously play out
psychological horrors like PTSD. Or even a crush on a cute bar wench
if it doesn't fit the *player's* desires for his character.
I think this type of player sees the character as very much an extension
of self and is unwilling to accept such things because they personally
wouldn't want to deal with them.
(And I think a lot of the other type experiment with such things because
they're interested in seeing *how* they would deal with them.)
--
Carl D. Cravens (rave...@southwind.net)
* Phoenyx Roleplaying Listserver --- http://www.phoenyx.net/
Hail to the sun god, He sure is a fun god, Ra! Ra! Ra!
Carl D. Cravens
On Mon, 27 Apr 1998 21:21:53 -0400, "Kevin R. Hardwick" <krhr...@wt.infi.net> wrote:
>Fair enough--but that is not what I was asking. What I was asking was,
>in theory, what sorts of group contracts would demand this kind of
>action by the GM (or, as Red puts it, by the World).
A "players vs GM" contract, in which the players view the GM as
adversary and the game as something to be "won". Accquiring undesirable
mental traits or taking undesired actions due to "lack of self-control"
would be seen as "losing" the game. The GM would have to impose all
such undesired actions and the players would accept this the same way
they accept losing levels to a wight or accquiring lycanthropy. (And
the D&D reference is intentional.)
--
Carl D. Cravens (rave...@southwind.net)
* Phoenyx Roleplaying Listserver --- http://www.phoenyx.net/
BASIC programmers never die, they GOSUB without RETURN.
Kevin R. Hardwick
Brian Gleichman wrote:
> Kevin R. Hardwick <krhr...@wt.infi.net> wrote in article
> <35449FBD...@wt.infi.net>...
>
> > In attempting to restate an
> > argument by Rick Cordes,
>
> I find it interesting that your restatement has drawn no response in
> agreement or disagreement from Rick.
>
> Perhaps it's due to net lag or his server dropping posts.
Rick did try to contact me on Sunday in relation to this thread--but
there was not messageattached, so I don't know what was going on.
My guess is its net-lag that accounts for his lack of input.
Best,
Kevin
Kevin R. Hardwick
Brian Gleichman wrote:
> > Now let me add an extra layer of nuance to my original questions:
> Under
> > what circumstances might you answer "yes" to any of the above
> questions?
>
> I'm taking the 'you' above to mean my games and groups.
>
> The answer is none.
Now I'm intrigued :)
Let's turn my original query on its head and explore this new line of
discussion that Brian has opened up for us.
If you believe, as Brian believes (I hope I'm not putting words in your
mouth, Brian!) that the player should always control the emotional state
of their character, how do you then operationalize that?
Imagine the two following situations:
Both star E. Gory Great-Axe, barbarian extraordinaire, violent,
irascible,
man of strong appetites and no self discipline.
Situation One:
Great-Axe, sitting astride his trusty steed Blackmoor, on the canyon
rim, watches his true-love Tisur flee from brigands on the other side of
the chasm. The Canyon is wide, the canyon is deep. Let's say 240 yards
across, and 750 feet down to a raging river far below.
Great-Axe's player: "I spur my horse and jump the canyon to save my
true-love Tisur!"
Now at this point we can imagine several reactions from the GM.
For example, she might say "Well, the genre is Dadaist, so why not? You
land safely on the other side."
But more likely she says "Well, this is a simulationist game, and
there's no way even the studliest horse could leap across a 240 yard
wide canyon. Is that really what you want to do?" or "Well, the genre
is heroic, but even so, there is no way you could make the leap--it
would violate genre conventions if the world operated that way," or "It
would be a better story if Great-Axe doesn't do that--sorry."
Now at this point the libertarian player says "But *I* control
Great-Axe's actions, and I want him to make the leap. Screw genre,
screw simulation, screw the plot, Great-Axe lands safely on the other
side."
At this point, what is the agent of the world to do? Coercion of some
sort would, it seems to me, likely be in order :) Most likely the game
would stop at this point while the group hashed things out. And if the
group's sense of what the game was about backed that of the GM, then
most likely the recalcitrant player would either have to leave the game,
or else would have to modify their position.
Okay--now on to the second situation:
Great-Axe encounters a succubus--incredibly sexual, incredibly sexy,
incredibly persuasive. Great-Axe, man of strong appetites, has been
traveling alone across the Great Desert of Lonely Geek for the last two
months. This is the first woman he's seen in all that time, and she's a
wet-dream come true. What's a poor, weak-willed barbarian to do?
GM: "She's beautiful, she's red-headed, she's hot, and she clearly
wants YOU."
Player: "Nah--Great-Axe prefers brunettes. I ignore her and ride on."
Now this is a succubus, and the situation is stacked against poor
Great-Axe. After all, he weak-willed to start with, he's woman-deprived
for the last two months, he's got a sex-drive that won't quit, he's in
prime physical condition, and he's subject to a powerful super-natural
compulsion.
How should the GM (or the agent of the world) handle this situation? If
you don't want to coerce the player--if you act from the premise that
the player always controls the emotional, internal state of the
character, what do you do?
And what makes this situation different from the first?
My best,
Kevin
Kevin R. Hardwick
Grin. I see that I have been too cute for my own good, although I think
there is a certain measure of quibbling in your reply. So the example
was not perfectly crafted--so what? Surely you see where I was going
with it?
So lets posit, in response to your quibble, that there is no horse.
Great-Axe is on foot, and he chooses to leap the canyon.
Please grant me some slack, Warren! If I have to respond to every
quibble, how can I give the more important stuff my full attention?
There is so much instanteneous suspicion and cynicism about the motives
behind a post that meaningful conversation on this board has become very
difficult!
Anyway--the two situations were meant to represent two different kinds
of GM coercion.
In the first, the player chooses to assert control over the *physical*,
outward consequences of an action, while in the second he chooses to
assert control over the *emotional*, interior consequences of an action.
If you will grant me that in the first case Great-Axe most likely cannot
jump the chaosm, and if you will grant me that in the second case
Great-Axe most likely cannot resist the wiles of a Succubus, then what
separates the two cases?
I could just easily have posited a character with, say, Kleptomania
whose player refuses to steal, or a character with compulsive-obsessive
disorder who refuses to be compulsive-obsessive. The basic issue
remains the same.
Note, by the way, that I am not trying to challenge the legitmacy of the
preference Brian has expressed. I just want to explore its
implications. At what point can the GM (or the agent of the world, to
take into account Red's caveat) coerce a player--force the outcome of a
player's choice for their character to be something other than what the
player wants?
Best,
Kevin
Kevin R. Hardwick
Brian Gleichman wrote:
"I sure you're aware of the ability of people to justify the use of any
tool or concept in almost any setting. Therefore I view considerations
of psychology mechanics outside the realm of preferences as a pointless
discussion."
Again--fair enough.
But my original questions can in no sense be construed as being
restricted only to psychology mechanisms. What I'm asking is under what
circumstances can a GM coerce a PC's interior life?
For example--is it ever appropriate for a GM to use mind control? Love
potions? Mental domination? Mind-altering drugs on a PC?
In the traditional division of labor in an rpg, the player controls the
volitions of her character, and the GM controls the operation of the
world. But sometimes the world impinges on the interior life of a
character in fairly clear, direct ways. As, for example, when a fantasy
character comes under the spell of a succubus. Or when a character is
hypnotized. Or when a character is given truth-serum. Or when a
character becomes high on marijuana.
So given the radical mind-body dualism you are positing, how do you draw
the line?
All of these are staples of common rpg genres.
So I do not think you have constructively engaged the question. You are
still talking to Rick--you are still adressing *his* questions.
As an aside, this has nothing to do with my own preferences--the
positions staked out by Mary come closest to my own.
As to your second point (that we need to begin this discussion by being
clear about what preference we are supposing)--yes, exactly. That's why
I started the discussion by taking a certain set of positions as a
given.
*GIVEN* this set of preferences, how then do you proceed?
When you answer "I don't, because I don't share that preference," well,
that's nice. But it doesn't answer the question, does it?
If you *did* share the preference, how would you proceed? You are a
smart fellow--surely you are capable of imagining yourself in a
different set of preferences than you currently inhabit?
I'm not going to test you on this. There's no right or wrong answer
here. Its a collective though experiment.
Best,
Kevin
Kevin R. Hardwick
Kevin R. Hardwick <krhr...@wt.infi.net> wrote in article
<35452F31...@wt.infi.net>...
> Fair enough--but that is not what I was asking.
Your first question seemed to ask MY viewpoint of if such mechanics are
useful in anything I'd be part of. I stand by my no.
Here is a repost of the relevant portion of my original post in this thread:
>Should the feelings of a character always be authored by the
player?
> Or are their times when it is appropriate for the GM (often by
> application of a pre-agreed rules mechanic) to enforce a particular
emotion >on a character, irregardless of the wishes of the player?
Now I think the answer to these question is a firm "it depends on
the
group contract, and on what the group in general wants to get out
of the
game." Which is to say, sometimes yes, sometimes no.
Now let me add an extra layer of nuance to my original questions:
Under
what circumstances might you answer "yes" to any of the above questions?
Now, given that this is what I asked (notice the query directly above), how does your response advance the conversation?
I don't see how the material cited above can be read as a request for your position or preference!
If that is how you read it, please be assured now that that is not what I intended in the lines above.
Best,
Kevin
Brett Evill
(1) Landing safely educes an emotional state, but is not an emotional
state itself.
(2) GMs are not the only people who can be trusted to estimate what a
character's emotional state is. If a player know that his or her character
ought to be scared, but won't play him or her as scared, perhaps you need
another player.
IME, IMVHO, IIRC, AFAIK, IMC, AODA I find that, as a player, being told
that my character is scared, that he is in love, or that he doesn't
understand something is completely useless. I find that, for me, RP like
literature has to be affective to be effective. YMMV. ICBW.
This is going to get me flamed, I can tell.
--
Brett Evill
To reply, remove 'spamblocker.' from <b.e...@spamblocker.tyndale.apana.org.au>
Brett Evill
>Now at this point the libertarian player says "But *I* control
>Great-Axe's actions, and I want him to make the leap. Screw genre,
>screw simulation, screw the plot, Great-Axe lands safely on the other
>side."
>
>At this point, what is the agent of the world to do?
(merciful) "Your horse refuses."
(Skinnerian) "You plummet to your death. Generate a new character: first
level."
>
>Okay--now on to the second situation:
>How should the GM (or the agent of the world) handle this situation? If
>you don't want to coerce the player--if you act from the premise that
>the player always controls the emotional, internal state of the
>character, what do you do?
(merciful) At the end of the session you say: "I didn't find your
portrayal convincing, so I'm docking seventy-five experience points for
bad roleplay. Also, you unreasonably refused an obvious story hook, so I'm
docking you fifty points for bad storytelling. That leaves you with
twenty-five points. Don't spent them all in one place."
(Darwinian) You say: "I don't enjoy GMing for you. You're sacked."
Kevin R. Hardwick
Andrew...@health.gov.au wrote:
> Group contract? what the *heck!?*
>
> Is this like a formal contract that must be agreed to before anyone
> can play,
> or is it more like an unspoken agreement between players? There's *no
> way*
> I'd play *any* kind of game under *any* kind of formal contract,
> unless that
> contract stipulated that I get paid for my efforts. And then I'd have
> a long
> hard look at it before I agreed to it.
>
> Is this an American thing? I've never heard of anything like it!
> Perhaps I'm misinterpreting the term.
Nah--its rgfa jargon of fairly long standing--just a short hand term,
that's all.
IME, for what its worth, most groups have an informal agreement about
how things
work in their game. Usually this gets hashed out over time, as
conflicts develop and
get resolved within the group.
I think there is a section on this in the rgfa faq--John Kim was the
Keeper of the FAQ--is he
still about?
I'm tired, and what I've said above is not really a good definition of
the term. Maybe Mary
Kuhner or Warren or Neel or one of the other old-timers on this board
who represent our
insititutional memory can offer a better definition? If not, I'll try
to provide you with one
when I'm a bit more cogent.
Best,
Kevin
Kevin R. Hardwick
Brian Gleichman wrote:
> The second decision point is the alluded to "powerful super-natural
> compulsion". This is a separate issue as it's an outside magical force
> and
> not an internal decision. I've not consider this part of the
> psychology
> mechanics thread as that referred to only internal decisions. It would
> be
> handled as the magic rules dictate.
In case you haven't noticed, this is no longer the "psychology mechanics
thread."That's why I changed the subject header . . .
That said, here you begin to get at the question I'm asking.
Let me restate it again--here are the questions I asked in the original
post (somewhat abbreviated):
Should the feelings of a character always be authored by the player? . .
. For what sorts of group contract or agreed game ends might one
legitimately answer "yes" to this question?
You suggest that when its an "outside force" then it *is* appropriate
for the GM sometimes to author the feelings of the character, whereas
when its an "internal decision" it is not appropriate.
Okay--now, can you define the criteria that let you distinguish between
"outside forces" and "internal decisions?" How do you make this
distinction? Where do you draw the line?
Best,
Kevin
Kevin R. Hardwick
Brett Evill wrote:
> >Okay--now on to the second situation:
>
> >How should the GM (or the agent of the world) handle this situation?
> If
> >you don't want to coerce the player--if you act from the premise that
>
> >the player always controls the emotional, internal state of the
> >character, what do you do?
>
> (merciful) At the end of the session you say: "I didn't find your
> portrayal convincing, so I'm docking seventy-five experience points
> for
> bad roleplay. Also, you unreasonably refused an obvious story hook, so
> I'm
> docking you fifty points for bad storytelling. That leaves you with
> twenty-five points. Don't spent them all in one place."
>
> (Darwinian) You say: "I don't enjoy GMing for you. You're sacked."
LOL.
This wonderful . . . thank you for posting :)
Best,
Kevin
Kevin R. Hardwick
Brett Evill wrote:
> IME, IMVHO, IIRC, AFAIK, IMC, AODA I find that, as a player, being
> told
> that my character is scared, that he is in love, or that he doesn't
> understand something is completely useless. I find that, for me, RP
> like
> literature has to be affective to be effective. YMMV. ICBW.
>
> This is going to get me flamed, I can tell.
Not by me--this strikes me as a contribution to the thread.
I find the penultimate sentence ("I find that, for me . . .") intriguing
and a bit cryptic--can
you elaborate?
If I'm the GM in the E. Gory Greataxe scene, and I know that the
Succubus has snared you in her web (leaving aside for the moment how I
determined that--maybe I asked you to make a saving throw vs. magic and
you blew it), how do I present that to you? How should I proceed, as
GM, once I've figured out that your PC's will has been compromised, in a
manner that would be effective and inoffensive, for you?
Thanks!
Kevin
Kevin R. Hardwick
Brian Gleichman wrote:
> Those were off-wall examples and as such one has a hard time seeing
> them as
> serious.
They are intended to illustrate two extreme situations. Neither really
arose--the word play is by Kerry Lloyd, and dates from the late 1970s,
when Gamelords Ltd. was defining itself against Gygax and TSR.
In the first situation, a player insists on doing something that his
character is almost certainly physically not capable of doing. Here,
just about everyone would agree that the GM is well within her rights in
enforcing the consistency of the world.
In the second situation, the player insists on doing something that his
character is almost certainly emotionally not capable of doing. Here
there is some debate as to how the GM should proceed.
Best,
Kevin
Brian Gleichman
Kevin R. Hardwick <krhr...@wt.infi.net> wrote in article
> Brian Gleichman wrote:
> I don't see how the material cited above can be read as a request for
> your position or preference!
Even in rereading I don't see how it could be a request for anything else.
> If that is how you read it, please be assured now that that is not what
> I intended in the lines above.
I'll take your word for it. At least your latter posts make clear the game
you wish to play.
Brian Gleichman
> But my original questions can in no sense be construed as being
> restricted only to psychology mechanisms.
Then I remove the restriction on my answering statement and change it to
the following:
I view considerations of GM coercion of a PC's interior life outside the
realm of preferences as a pointless discussion.
> For example--is it ever appropriate for a GM to use mind control? Love
> potions? Mental domination? Mind-altering drugs on a PC?
Speaking for myself, it's as I've said before (in answer to your very
succubus example in fact). I don't consider such external forces the same
as GM control of internal ones.
There is a difference in saying 'Your character is seduce by Beth' and
saying 'You've fallen under the magical domination of the succubus'.
The former is under complete player control and all Beth can do is make an
excellent try. It's up to the player to decide the effect on his character.
The magical effects of the succubus however is under control of the magic
system I use.
I should note at this point that such things are hardly common in my games
(but not unheard of either).
It should also be noted that in our campaigns certain rare characters are
strong willed enough to brush off any such magical influence. It's to be
expected of a world where Hurin told Morgoth what he could do with his
offers and threats (in nice fancy terms) and made it stick (though he did
pay the price).
> So given the radical mind-body dualism you are positing, how do you draw
> the line?
I think the above divides it nicely. If it's not a magical or psychic
attack it's under the player's control as long as it doesn't violate the
game contract. And the game contract is a metagame issue.
> If you *did* share the preference, how would you proceed? You are a
> smart fellow--surely you are capable of imagining yourself in a
> different set of preferences than you currently inhabit?
If given the preference of cannibalist baby eating, I guess could come up
with a list of good spices to use. Somehow I think it would do a disservice
to true practitioners of an art I know nothing of and want nothing to do
with.
Is this what you really want? Wouldn't it be better to get such ideas from
those who actually like the concept?
I find it interesting that while there exists proponents of mechanical
methods for such PC control, they have yet to specify outside of vague
concepts these mechanics. This despite some posts requesting discussion on
that very subject. One can only draw the conclusion that either they don't
have such mechanics or they are unwilling to present them.
Now I could speak about my methods of handling external influences due to
magical or psychic means, but I consider that a different discussion.
Brian Gleichman
Andrew...@health.gov.au wrote in article
<6i39kj$l2a$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> Thank you for your opinion - remind me never to game with you.
Don't worry, if you ever show up I'll be certain to remind you.
Psychohist
Kevin Hardwick posts, in part:
Please grant me some slack, Warren!
Sorry - I couldn't resist the humor. But I did try to reply to your underlying
questions, though as we'll see below, I may have misinterpreted the intent of
your examples.
If you will grant me that in the first case Great-Axe
most likely cannot jump the chaosm, and if you will grant
me that in the second case Great-Axe most likely cannot
resist the wiles of a Succubus, then what separates the
two cases?
Okay, I thought the primary point of the first example was whether Great-Axe
could attempt the jump, not whether he could complete it. Viewed within that
framework, my answers seemed to me consistent. Great-Axe's player gets to make
Great-Axe's decisions in both situations.
So let me try again, this time comparing the completion of the jump to
resisting the succubus (please correct me if I'm still getting this wrong).
In the case of the jump, it's not a situation of Great-Axe's "most likely" not
being able to complete it - he has no chance at all. Once he's in the air, the
laws of physics, as represented by mechanics, take over.
The appropriate comparison is to a situation where Great-Axe has no chance at
all of resisting the succubus.
Leaving aside for the moment whether this is appropriate to succubi, it turns
out that in Laratoa, there exists telepathic skills that can permit a
sufficiently powerful telepath to 'take over' the mind of a resistant opponent.
This is the kind of comparison situation we're looking for.
If a telepath were to take over a player character in this way, the player of
the telepath (possibly the gamesmaster) would basically take over play of the
target character for the duration of the effect. Moreover, I have detailed
mechanics for how and whether the takeover occurs (deterministic mechanics, no
less).
On the other hand, this still doesn't "force the outcome of a
player's choice for their character to be something other than what the player
wants", insofar as it's not the player's choice that is being forced. It's not
even really the character's choice that is being forced; the consciousness of a
character under the control of a telepath is really only an observer.
If the telepath were a gamesmaster character, I would probably provide a
description to the player of what the player's character was doing. But there
would be no pretense that the player had any control or responsibility for the
character - the character would temporarily be a gamesmaster character.
I was confused by the succubus example because, apparently unlike both you and
Brian, I don't see that kind of temptation as beyond a character's control.
Temptations are meant to be resisted, after all. My feeling would be that the
character's player would be the one in the best position to judge whether the
character could resist the temptation.
I admit to having unusual experiences with regard to this kind of thing. I've
previously recounted how a vampire in my campaign has been pretty consistently
able to get player character victims, even against the players' wishes, just
through roleplaying. More recently, a similar thing happened with a player
character and a sweet young thing who turned out to be, essentially, a spy.
In both cases, I didn't realize that the vampire/enchantress had successfully
used the equivalent of a D&D 'charm' spell until after the fact; after all, no
such spell appears on my spell lists. These experiences have caused me to
place great faith in players' properly roleplaying such situations, at least
when the gamesmaster is roleplaying his characters appropriately.
I could just easily have posited a character with, say,
Kleptomania whose player refuses to steal ...
To me, if the character doesn't steal, it doesn't have kleptomania, no matter
what the player has written down on the character sheet. But then, I came out
pretty strongly against personality disads during the long thread on
advantages/disadvantages a couple months ago.
Warren Dew
Mary K. Kuhner
In article <6i3cop$piv$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
Is this like a formal contract that must be agreed to before anyone can play,
>or is it more like an unspoken agreement between players?
If you observe any gaming group for a while, you'll see that there
are things they're happy to do, and things they're willing to do,
and things that seriously piss them off. It varies a lot from group
to group, as this newsgroup often discovers to our mutual shock.
That's the group contract. I've seldom if ever seen one written
down, but every group of players that stays together any length of
time does have one.
They tend to cover things like "will we fudge to save a PC's life?"
and "are some topics too icky to bring up in the game?" and "is
it okay for a guy to play a female character, or vice versa?"
and "what do we do to shut up a player who talks too much?"
I've had a lot more luck, personally, with groups where the contract,
while unwritten, was *not* unspoken. You don't want to find out
mid-campaign (as I did a while back) that a certain topic is a
Major Freakout for one of your players and she assumed that of
course you knew that. You don't want to find out midway that
half your players assume you'll save a PC's life as necessary
and the other half is deeply offended by any sign of GM fudging.
And so forth.
I believe the term was modelled on "social contract" which also
is generally unwritten, possibly unspoken, but quite important.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Mary K. Kuhner
In article <3545F177...@wt.infi.net>,
Kevin R. Hardwick <krhr...@wt.infi.net> wrote:
>If I'm the GM in the E. Gory Greataxe scene, and I know that the
>Succubus has snared you in her web (leaving aside for the moment how I
>determined that--maybe I asked you to make a saving throw vs. magic and
>you blew it), how do I present that to you? How should I proceed, as
>GM, once I've figured out that your PC's will has been compromised, in a
>manner that would be effective and inoffensive, for you?
I can never resist questions meant for someone else....
There are two ways the GM can proceed here in our games. The first
is definitely ideal, if only we knew how to make it happen; the second
is what you resort to when the first doesn't happen.
(1) Just describe the situation as well as you can, and somehow
the player will magically pick up on what's happening.
I'm not kidding. Jon's PC Gold once met a bound gryphon deep
under a mountain. The beast had an agenda of its own, and saw
in Gold a kindred spirit who could help it out; so it charmed
her. I had decided this much, and was in the process of thinking
how to tell the player, when I realized I didn't have to: Gold
was acting exactly as the charm would have had her act, and I
didn't have to lift a finger.
Sarah told a good story along much the same lines, and I've seen
it happen more than once. How to do this deliberately? Beats
me. But it's sure nice when it works. The fact that the player
is just as unsure what's going on as his character is an added
treat.
(2) Explain to the player something about what's happening, and
work with him to figure out what it means. This is what Jon did
when my character Markus was influenced by the demon Triumph-
Becomes-Betrayal. He explained what the demon's influence was
like, using a lovely extended metaphor, and left me to figure
out what that meant in terms of actions.
In the case of the succubus, if method (1) didn't work I would
explain the charm, and then try to get across the nature of the
experience by analogy. "Imagine being a teenager again, and
that first flush of lust where you're overwhelmingly excited
and you really have no idea where it's going or why you feel
this way. Remember?--how all of a sudden your priorities
just get turned upside down, and things that sounded gross
and unappealing a few hours earlier now sound better than
anything else in the world?" (And if the player said "No,
wasn't like that at all" I'd look for another metaphor....)
If the GM can accurately evoke the feel of the desired
reaction, the player should be able to take it from there. The
player may want to ask: "How coercive is this? Enough to
completely swamp his common sense? Or can he distract himself
to some extent? Is it mainly physical, or mainly emotional?"
And so forth.
When this fails is when the player doesn't want to deal with
such situations in the first place; in which case it's probably
a mistake to include them in the game. Lots of other fun
things to do without messing with mind control. I happen to
like such material as a player, but in large part it's because
I *know* the GM isn't using it as a means of player coercion,
and because I trust him to leave me with plenty of roleplaying
scope.
I highly recommend extended analogies and metaphors, by the
way. Much easier to digest than simple statements "You feel
angry" or "You feel lustful." When Markus subsumed the fire
demon the GM said "The flame runs like oil into all the little
rivulets and pools of anger you've been harboring, and every
one of them leaps up into a pillar of fire." And I said,
"That's a flame for the time Sanjay said ... and a flame for
the way I was treated when ... and a sticky smouldering
napalm flame for my own behavior towards ..." and filled in
what the GM couldn't possibly have known. By the time we
finished with that I *knew* what his anger was about, and how
to play it. I've been much less successful with flat
statements.
I think GMs shy away from using description in such situations--
I know I did, back in Berkeley when I was running for random
players--because if you don't make it clear you're using coercion
some players won't pay any attention. But right now I feel
life's too short to play in that kind of game. Even in
Berkeley I eventually shook things down to six regular players
all of whom were willing to cooperate. And a good thing, too,
given how that scenario played out--a large part of it was
about arcane corruption and loss of self.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Red
Psychohist wrote:
> I think mechanics for this type of thing would be most appropriate to group
> contracts which emphasize player optimization to maximize their characters'
> power. Under such a group contract, the player would be discouraged from
> playing 'suboptimal' behaviors such as PSTD.
Hmm, weird. I run games which have no formal PC design mechanics,
minimalist systems and a strong social element to the gameflow dynamic.
My objective in this is to provide the characters with another obstacle,
like, say, a mountain, to overcome, strive against and do all those
heroic things. I imagine that most games motivated by power playing
wuld be unlikely to be interested in such a mechanic, becuase it will
limit the amount of time they can
run-around-looking-hard-gunning-down-bystanders. I am interested in
this idea because it is a better simulation of the world, so as to use
that finer simulation to giver a bigger stage for better roleplaying.
Kevin R. Hardwick
Brian Gleichman wrote:
> I find it interesting that while there exists proponents of mechanical
>
> methods for such PC control, they have yet to specify outside of vague
>
> concepts these mechanics. This despite some posts requesting
> discussion on
> that very subject. One can only draw the conclusion that either they
> don't
> have such mechanics or they are unwilling to present them.
Well, this conversation I'm trying to stimulate on this thread is very
much aimed at drawing this out.
I see this thread as about GM coercion. In some instances (when the
world impinges) GM coercion is OK. In others it is not.
You are correct, I think, that that is a group contract issue--how we
draw the line is in large measure how we structure the group contract.
Let me give you an example--a friend of mine is a philosopher, and a
physicalist. He believes that ultimately, the interior world is
*nothing* but the material operation of the brain. Its all
physical--there is no mind-body split. Eventually, he thinks, all
interior life can be explained in physical terms. Neuroscience will
explain love, fear, hatred, compassion, and so on, as functions of the
interaction of physical things in the world.
Given that he locates the mind firmly as a phenomena of the world, how
do you suppose he would draw the line you are proposing?
Best,
Kevin
Kevin R. Hardwick
Brian Gleichman wrote:
We've reached an impasse, which is too bad.
I'm not playing a game. But if, for whatever reason, you can't
understand what I write, then we're going to have a tough time having a
rational conversation.
Best,
Kevin
Kevin R. Hardwick
Psychohist wrote:
> Kevin Hardwick posts, in part:
>
> Please grant me some slack, Warren!
>
> Sorry - I couldn't resist the humor. But I did try to reply to your
> underlying
> questions, though as we'll see below, I may have misinterpreted the
> intent of
> your examples.
Smile. As it happens, *my* attempt at humor distracted several people
from the point of the examples. And of course, you did make an honest
attempt at getting at my underlying questions.
So let me say "sorry" too. As long as we both keep working at it with
good intent, I have faith that we'll be able to communicate!
If you will notice, most of my interventions so far in this thread have
been either clarifications, restatements of other people's questions, or
interventions to keep the thread on topic. Where I can, I've tried to
ask further questions to keep the discussion moving, or to sharpen the
issues as I see them. I will try to give substantive responses somewhat
later--my own take on the issues at hand. But at the moment I think we
are better served if I don't take a position of the issues, but focus
rather on synthesizing others'. That way, my own ego is not on the line
. . .
All my best,
Kevin
Kevin R. Hardwick
Carl--
I'd like to jusxtapose two of your comments:
Post One:
Carl D. Cravens wrote:
Post Two:
On Mon, 27 Apr 1998 21:21:53 -0400, "Kevin R. Hardwick"
<krhr...@wt.infi.net> wrote:
>Fair enough--but that is not what I was asking. What I was asking was,
>in theory, what sorts of group contracts would demand this kind of
>action by the GM (or, as Red puts it, by the World).
A "players vs GM" contract, in which the players view the GM as
adversary and the game as something to be "won". Accquiring undesirable
mental traits or taking undesired actions due to "lack of self-control"
would be seen as "losing" the game. The GM would have to impose all
such undesired actions and the players would accept this the same way
they accept losing levels to a wight or accquiring lycanthropy. (And
the D&D reference is intentional.)
******
My own comment:
Granted, the two comments of yours above come from two rather different
contexts. In the first, Red is talking about certain kinds of
"ingrained" physical limitations which impact a character's emotional
state. I thought your response to Red was persuasive.
In the second, I asked about the nature of group contracts, and you gave
an answer that I thought made much sense.
So--here we have two sensible posts. But the first suggests a
modification of the second, it seems to me.
If I have players of the second persuasion--for whom their character is
an immediate extension of their own ego--is it possible to have a group
contract that is *not* a "players vs GM" contract? Or, in your opinion,
is that the best I can expect?
A second and related question: if we assume that I have at least some
players in my group of the second type, is GM coercion of the player's
interior state warranted, at least on occasion, in your opinion?
My best,
Kevin
Brian Gleichman
> Given that he locates the mind firmly as a phenomena of the world, how
> do you suppose he would draw the line you are proposing?
There's too little information there to draw an real conclusion.
Off-hand I'd see that viewpoint causing one to lean heavily towards the Red
and Rick side of the house. But I can easily imagine other factors causing
opposite shifts. One trait does not define such details.
Brian Gleichman
Kevin R. Hardwick <krhr...@wt.infi.net> wrote in article
<35468521...@wt.infi.net>...
> We've reached an impasse, which is too bad.
An impasse it is then.
If it's 'too bad' or not is a matter of opinion. I prefer to think of it as
the natural outcome.
Mary K. Kuhner
In article <zaRR1wIe...@southwind.net>,
Carl D. Cravens <rave...@southwind.net> wrote:
>You can't leave it up to the player who will tolerate no wrongs done to
>his character outside of the clear-cut rules. Their loss, I think. But
>you can't expect them to voluntarily and spontaneously play out
>psychological horrors like PTSD. Or even a crush on a cute bar wench
>if it doesn't fit the *player's* desires for his character.
>I think this type of player sees the character as very much an extension
>of self and is unwilling to accept such things because they personally
>wouldn't want to deal with them.
I'll be a heretic here and suggest that if the player really
doesn't want to deal with such things, you are not doing your
player or your game any good by forcing the issue via coercive
mechanics. Better either to choose a style of game which the player
actually enjoys, or find another player.
Crushes on cute bar wenches are tremendously fun in the hands of
a player who likes that kind of thing, but teeth-achingly awful,
in my opinion, when forced on a player who hates it. There's no
way the player is going to do a good job or put any real sparkle
into it, so why bother?
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
gwe...@dechert.com
In article <6i3cop$piv$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
Andrew...@health.gov.au wrote:
>
> Group contract? what the *heck!?*
>
> I'd play *any* kind of game under *any* kind of formal contract, unless that
I think he meant sort of like the "group rules" - every gaming group has
them, generally informal, but universally understood. Some examples: The GM
tells the story. It's bad form to argue rules with the GM. It's bad form to
argue with other players. It's bad form to kill another PC (unless the plot
demands it). It's bad form to leave the gaming area messy (especially if
you're gaming in the GM's house).
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
gwe...@dechert.com
In article <354684C0...@wt.infi.net
> Given that he locates the mind firmly as a phenomena of the world, how
> do you suppose he would draw the line you are proposing?
>
availing themselves of the appropriate medicines (when and if available),
Characters rarely get to conciously determine what happens to their *bodies*
(damage, disease, hunger, fatigue etc.)
This leads to a rather interesting (albeit somewhat pointless) related
issue: How many people would object if the GM were to dictate when a
particular PC was hungry, tired, needed to evacuate, etc.?
IMO, these "physical" needs can be viewed as on the same level as a
character's emotions: If the GM needs to use them for a story, then he
should be able to with a minimum of fuss from the player.
Psychohist
Carl Cravens posts, in part:
You can divide the world's roleplayers into two basic
groups... those which find "bad things happening to the
character" to be a new roleplaying experience to be
explored and enjoyed, and those that can't bear to let
anything bad happen to their character. I would venture
to say that the latter outnumber the former by a large
factor.
True, and a very good point.
You can't leave it up to the player who will tolerate no
wrongs done to his character outside of the clear-cut
rules. Their loss, I think. But you can't expect them
to voluntarily and spontaneously play out psychological
horrors like PTSD. Or even a crush on a cute bar wench
if it doesn't fit the *player's* desires for his character.
I agree - their loss. But forcing them into something they don't want is
unlikely to make the situation better for them.
I mean, what's the justification for this? From the standpoint of
verisimilitude, the player's doing a good job of playing a character with no
emotions will be better than their botching the job of playing the emotional
response.
I suspect the justification that people are feeling, but not admitting to, is
that they think it's unfair to the players who do play their characters'
emotions. In my experience, though, players who enjoy exploring such things
don't really care if their characters are a little less powerful as a result.
If that's really the concern, though, it strikes me that going through PSTD
would be quite an experience - and thus worth quite a lot of experience points,
or the local equivalent. (Is awarding experience points for things like that a
'personality mechanic'?)
Though in truth, I don't know of a character who went through more than a mild
case of PSTD and continued to be played. The examples that come to my mind
were all retired by their players, except for the one that committed suicide.
----
Provided that you start with a group that includes one or more players that
like to explore such things, you can convert the second type of player to that
type of play. For example, you can provide sufficient spotlight time to play
out such things, permitting the second type to see how much fun it can be (for
crushes, anyway, maybe not for PSTD).
A certain amount of peer pressure can also be applied. Enough jokes about
Great-Axe's sexual orientation, and the player may decide it's better to fall
for the next succubus.
Warren Dew
Psychohist
Kevin Hardwick posts, in part:
Given that he locates the mind firmly as a phenomena
of the world, how do you suppose he would draw the
line you are proposing?
I should perhaps note here that I have the same opinion as your friend does;
I'll go further and say that I expect that not only emotions and such, but
consciousness itself, will eventually be explained through physics and
information theory.
To me, that means there isn't a distinction between 'of the world' and 'not of
the world'; everything is 'of the world'. The player/gamesmaster dichotomy is
simply a split of which parts of the world belong to whom.
While I haven't really thought of it that way before, I guess you could say
that, from my standpoint, the electronics and biochemistry of the central
nervous system belong to the player. This seems a pretty simple line to draw;
if your friend drew the line in the same place, I think he'd have opinions
pretty similar to Brian's and mine.
Warren Dew
Uncle Figgy
In article <6i5cjb$98c$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
gwe...@dechert.com writes:
> IMO, these "physical" needs can be viewed as on the same level as a
> character's emotions: If the GM needs to use them for a story, then he
> should be able to with a minimum of fuss from the player.
If a GM tried to use my character's emotions just so he can plan his
story, I'd get up and leave the gaming table right then and there.
Stories or adventure-plots that require such control shouldn't even be
introduced into the game.
The GM is more than welcome to try to manipulate the emotions of the
Player Characters, but should never attempt to control them (save for
things like spells, psionics, drugs, what-have-you that the character
would be suffering under). A GM is perfectly within rights to say,
"You see a small, lonely beggar boy" and then hope that the characters
have sympathy (if that's the emotion he was counting on). He crosses
the line if he says, "you see a small, lonely beggar boy and you're
overcome with sympathy". BUZZ! WRONG! What if I've decided my
character hates children? What if I've decided that my character
loathes the lower classes?
Remember, they're called *Player* characters for a reason...
Uncle Figgy
----------------------------------------------
Read Uncle Figgy's Guide to Good GameMastering
It's FREE!
http://members.aol.com/essuncius/cover.html
Neelakantan Krishnaswami
In article <35452D8C...@wt.infi.net>, krhr...@wt.infi.net wrote:
>
>In most games the agent through which the WORLD acts is the GM. For
>those games, the way I have framed the question is reasonable. Some
>games share the agency for the world among a variety of players.
>THEATRIX, for example, permits players in various ways to author the
>world during the play of the game. In those games, my comments would
>have to be expanded to include the group as a whole, and the means by
>which they express the agency of the world.
I can offer you an actual data point. (Shocking, I know.)
In the Feng Shui game I am in, experience points can be used like Theatrix
Plot Points. Now, after actually seeing them in use, I've noticed a detail
about our consensus that might be helpful to you.
Basically, it's considered okay to spend a plot point to force another PC to
a decision point, but utterly bad to use one to specify another PC's actions.
One PC, Johnny Tsang, is an undercover cop infiltrating the Triads. My
PC, Billy Wuan, is a pop star the local Triad boss is trying to use in a
money-laundering scheme. Billy isn't knuckling under, and at one point
Johnny and two NPC thugs were facing him down.
It would have been a legitimate use of a plot point to take over one of the
NPC thugs and have him say, "Okay, Johnny, you can prove your loyalty
by killing the kid. Dead singers sell better, anyway." This is kosher even
though it forces Johnny into a crisis point -- does he identify more with
the cops or the triads? (Perhaps especially so, since this is one of the
key conflicts in that character. I am not sure though.)
It would have been utterly unacceptable to use a plot point to force Johnny
to make a /particular/ decision, though. (In fact the question has not even
arisen in the discussions we've had about plot points; it's not even on the
map.)
Neel
Andrew...@health.gov.au
In article <01bd7258$606ff380$e45eddcf@emet>,
Okay, you've kinda trolled me into a more reasonable response. Having had the
term 'game contract' explained to me I'm feeling less worried about the state
of the hobby in America :-)
In my games, I usually trust the players to be able to roleplay their
emotions 'correctly'. The player knows best -- leave 'em to it. If some
situation arises where, for the sake of the story, some modification needs to
be made to a character's emotional state, I generally do the 'player
conference' thing. Ie take them aside, explain what's happening, and they
generally agree to roleplay the situation. All with minimal disruption to the
game in progress, of course.
GM: "Listen, your character just failed a Resistance Roll against a Suicide
spell. From now you're going to start feeling more and more depressed,
obsessed with death in general and your own in particular. No, you have no
idea where the spell came from."
Player: "Wow! This'll be fun!"
I must note that I never use deus ex machina-type spells or 'mind control' to
guide my players along to the next plot point. I'm not as crass as all that.
Manipulating the character's emotions is a thing to be done occasionally and
with care. And always so that the player understands what's going on and why
it would be advantageous to go along with it.
Perhaps I'm fortunate that I only ever game with players I know are good
players, and those who don't like the 'game contract' (new term for me)
generally drop out before they get too annoying.
Excuse me for going on, but I would like to provide you with an example of
this (it's a little off-topic): In a Rolemaster game I was playing that ran
for almost two years, we had a character who was actually a very bad, nasty
Unlife demon, although she took great pains to hide the fact from everyone,
especially Snapping Rotus, Unlife Destroyer! Another player in the beginning
hated the fact that this character had a secret, and that the character's
*player* didn't want other *players* to know of it. Not due to any suspicions
of using out-of-game knowledge in order to cheat or anything, but just
because it added something to the atmosphere and mystery of the game (set in
ICE's Shadow World (tm)). After about a year and a half, my character had
just about worked it out -- but then we had to wind up the campaign for other
reasons.
Sorry for that divergence. I have GMed games where a character has been
seduced by a Succubus, but in this case the player didn't raise any kind of
objection at all, so...
David Alex Lamb
> Can I infer, for example, that you view the interior life of a person as
> *always* under their control?
> For example, am I "free" to chose who I like and dislike, who I love and
> who I hate? Am I free to chose a passion for chocolate, or a dislike
> for caramel? Or are these and similar "interior" issues really not
> under my control?
I think this is a less than ingenious argument. The issue isn't whether
the character's emotions are under the character's control, but rather
whether they're under the player's control. If the player decides the
character hates Saxons (an example from Pendragon), the "no GM control"
people would surely say that failing to act hatefully toward Saxons is
poor roleplaying or a violation of the game contract.
If the player runs a "robotic" character who never displays any
emotional weaknesses, it seems appropriate for "the world", in the
person(s) of the NPCs, to view them as a little strange. I used to
think it might be appropriate for a GM to force the issue a little, but
the last few days' discussion are pushing me in the direction of
treating it as mostly a meta-game issue.
Lee Short
Kevin R. Hardwick wrote:
> I see this thread as about GM coercion. In some instances (when the
> world impinges) GM coercion is OK. In others it is not.
>
> You are correct, I think, that that is a group contract issue--how we
> draw the line is in large measure how we structure the group contract.
>
> Let me give you an example--a friend of mine is a philosopher, and a
> physicalist. He believes that ultimately, the interior world is
> *nothing* but the material operation of the brain. Its all
> physical--there is no mind-body split. Eventually, he thinks, all
> interior life can be explained in physical terms. Neuroscience will
> explain love, fear, hatred, compassion, and so on, as functions of the
> interaction of physical things in the world.
>
> Given that he locates the mind firmly as a phenomena of the world, how
> do you suppose he would draw the line you are proposing?
I see this as obviously related to your other statement
> We've divvied up ownership and the responsibilities that go with it in
> this and such a way. Its a group contract issue. But we just as easily
> could have divvied them up in some other way.
While I agree with your friend the physicalist about the
materialist nature of the real world, my game world is
not a physicalist world. It is a strongly dualist world, and
makes for a convenient division of responsibilites (although
sorcery can cross this barrier).
So keep in mind that it is the nature of the game world
that effects this. The GM's opinion of the real world is
not necessarily relevant.
Lee
--
Lee Short,
blac...@pro-ns.net
Carl D. Cravens
On 28 Apr 1998 03:44:49 GMT, "Brian Gleichman" <glei...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>I view considerations of GM coercion of a PC's interior life outside the
>realm of preferences as a pointless discussion.
I don't think it's pointless, because the matter *never* involves a
single individual's preferences. It always involves a minimum of the GM
and player. Thus talking about it can be beneficial to those who have
had group, ethical, or other problems with it.
(I consider very little discussion to be pointless. Some more fruitful
than others, but no conversation concerning human interaction in gaming
is totally without merit.)
>I think the above divides it nicely. If it's not a magical or psychic
>attack it's under the player's control as long as it doesn't violate the
>game contract. And the game contract is a metagame issue.
But that single caveat unravels your neat, "we don't need to think about
it solution" and brings us back to the original question. It's actually
no answer at all. (Because the original question *is* a metagame issue
in the first place, IMO.)
Doesn't the group contract normally include "the player will cause his
character to act consistently and in line with the declared personality
to the best of their ability"? And that group contract enters into play
when the GM (or other players!) think that the character is behaving
inconsistently with regard to past behavior or declared personality.
So we're back to square one. The axe-wielding womanizer falls for every
woman that bats an eyelash at him... until he meets a woman that the
*player* knows will harm him, and suddenly our well-sexed barbarian
isn't interested in the slightest. And it violates our "play
consistently" rule, so somebody is probably going to be bothered with
it.
Essentially, this comes down to "poor roleplaying" and what the heck do
you do about it.
>I find it interesting that while there exists proponents of mechanical
>methods for such PC control, they have yet to specify outside of vague
>concepts these mechanics. This despite some posts requesting discussion on
>that very subject. One can only draw the conclusion that either they don't
>have such mechanics or they are unwilling to present them.
They're generally simple... "Make an Ego roll at -5 to avoid doing what
you usually do with women that throw themselves at to you like that."
Complex and even formal mechanics aren't necessary.
--
Carl D. Cravens (rave...@southwind.net)
* Phoenyx Roleplaying Listserver --- http://www.phoenyx.net/
I don't have TIME to be charming...
Carl D. Cravens
On 28 Apr 1998 19:19:37 GMT, psych...@aol.com (Psychohist) wrote:
>I suspect the justification that people are feeling, but not admitting to, is
>that they think it's unfair to the players who do play their characters'
>emotions. In my experience, though, players who enjoy exploring such things
>don't really care if their characters are a little less powerful as a result.
I think you have a point here. I don't mind my character having
personality weaknesses because they're fun to play. But there is still
something annoying about a player who won't allow such things to happen
to his character. (Especially if such weaknesses are on the character
sheet and he ignores them.) Goes right along with the player who
insists on having a character that can best every other character in the
group in combat... they're not comfortable if they're not #1.
I showed him, though. MarkS-MAN (my character) is a modular cyborg.
Hat Trick was the strongest and toughest hero on the team and made sure
everyone knew it... nobody could beat him, and he made them try. I put
my duel off... until I could have the weapons lab whip up a bunch of
gadgets specifically designed to put Hat Trick down in seconds. And not
nerve gas or anything like that... I beat him at his own game with raw
strength and armor. Limited-uses strength (hydraulic boosters),
ablative and partial-cover armor and force screens. I had enough for
about three punches, could take maybe two, and no more than 24 seconds
worth of power for it all. But it was enough. Took the wind out of his
sails. The player's, I mean. I almost felt bad about it, me being a
Champions guru/rules-rapist extrordinaire. But it put him back in line
and got him used to bad things happening to his character once in
awhile. It may have diminished his fun in the game, or changed its
nature, but it eliminated the irritation the rest of the players were
feeling.
--
Carl D. Cravens (rave...@southwind.net)
* Phoenyx Roleplaying Listserver --- http://www.phoenyx.net/
Gimme another clip--we're gonna change lanes!
Carl D. Cravens
On 28 Apr 1998 17:46:51 GMT, mkku...@evolution.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) wrote:
>I'll be a heretic here and suggest that if the player really
>doesn't want to deal with such things, you are not doing your
>player or your game any good by forcing the issue via coercive
>mechanics. Better either to choose a style of game which the player
>actually enjoys, or find another player.
Very good point, Mary. I'm coming at it from the inconsistency
standpoint... what if the character has a crush on the bar wench only
when the player finds it convenient? The player enjoys playing the
crush until it becomes a liability to the character. It's difficult to
deal with.
--
Carl D. Cravens (rave...@southwind.net)
* Phoenyx Roleplaying Listserver --- http://www.phoenyx.net/
REALITY.SYS Corrupted: Re-boot universe? (Y/N/Q)
Carl D. Cravens
On Tue, 28 Apr 1998 22:54:37 -0400, "Kevin R. Hardwick" <krhr...@wt.infi.net> wrote:
>Granted, the two comments of yours above come from two rather different
>contexts. In the first, Red is talking about certain kinds of
>"ingrained" physical limitations which impact a character's emotional
>state. I thought your response to Red was persuasive.
>
>In the second, I asked about the nature of group contracts, and you gave
>an answer that I thought made much sense.
For a moment I was afraid that you were going to point out that I was
contradicting myself or something. I've been known to do that.
Keep in mind that I find these conversations very exploratory. I *do*
contradict myself, and its usually because I'm "thinking out loud" in my
posts and you're seeing my musings on the topic.
>If I have players of the second persuasion--for whom their character is
>an immediate extension of their own ego--is it possible to have a group
>contract that is *not* a "players vs GM" contract? Or, in your opinion,
>is that the best I can expect?
I think it's possible, but I think the contract ends up being an
"insulating" one. I had a player like this once. Had trouble playing
superheroes because the character was an extension of himself and he
couldn't see himself with superpowers and not using them to make himself
rich, even at others' expense. He also played the game to unwind. It
was clearly stated that he would tolerate no emotional issues, no tough
choices, no strokes of terrible luck, etc. He had enough of those in
real life and wanted no such worries in his roleplaying. Everything was
supposed to emotionally positive, and no negatives were allowed. (I'm
glad to be rid of him.)
He didn't see the game as a competition, but he wanted to be "insulated"
from any potential bad things that might happen to a PC. He didn't play
characters that could fall in love because it just reminded him that he
was 35, still single, and had no prospects.
People are unpredictable, but I have trouble seeing a player whose
character is a direct extension yet happily welcomes bad things. Unless
they were self-destructive, or felt unworthy of bad things.
Did I just paint all "ego extensionists" as being deranged? I don't
think I did, but it sounds dangerously close.
My favorite characters are essentially me. But they're also not me...
they're substantially different. MarkS-MAN is me with a emphasized Hero
Complex. And excessive paranoia. Something I might have become if I
were in the same circumstances and had certain traits emphasized or
eliminated. But not an extension of my ego. I'm terribly possessive of
him, because I *like* him and the stories he's part of now and in the
future. But I don't take it personally when his best friend betrays
him. Or shoots him in the head.
>A second and related question: if we assume that I have at least some
>players in my group of the second type, is GM coercion of the player's
>interior state warranted, at least on occasion, in your opinion?
Two days ago, I would have said, "Yes, the GM has the right." Today,
after my last two messages and various readings, I say, "No, it's a
metagame issue and should be resolved it he metagame, GM to player."
But the latter is harder.
Personally, I'm beginning to like what I hear from Mary... the "how does
Markus feel toward this person" and "could Markus be attracted to them"
that kind of thing. An exploratory GM method of learning the character
and letting the player control it all. And I'd bet good money that the
GM will get *better* and more *believable* hooks under the character's
skin with this than by saying, "Markus feel really attracted to this
person." Maybe you won't get what you wanted right now, but it's got to
generate useful material with a good player.
And that is what it all comes down to... good players that play their
character consistently and don't *need* to be told how the character
should react to something. If the player has trouble with this, then it
needs to be resolved out of play. Maybe the GM doesn't understand
something and needs it explained. Maybe the character's actions are
inconsistent and the player needs help in seeing that. The part I'm not
sure what to do with is the player who already *knows* that and insists
on acting in his own personal interests to the detriment of character
consistency. That's when "good of the whole" can take a beating... the
other players often dislike the inconsistency as well. I don't like
shoving a philosophy down my players' throats... if they don't want to
play in a way they're uncomfortable with, I don't want to make them.
But I've found it leads to serious dissatisfaction... and it brings us
back to the age-old question of, "He's really disruptive, but he's my
best friend and I can't kick him out, but he won't change. What can I
do?"
--
Carl D. Cravens (rave...@southwind.net)
* Phoenyx Roleplaying Listserver --- http://www.phoenyx.net/
Why get even, when you can get odd?
Kevin R. Hardwick
gwe...@dechert.com wrote:
> In article <354684C0...@wt.infi.net
> > Given that he locates the mind firmly as a phenomena of the world,
> how
> > do you suppose he would draw the line you are proposing?
> >
> That's easy. How else could he? Over and above dodging when
> appropriate, or
> availing themselves of the appropriate medicines (when and if
> available),
> Characters rarely get to conciously determine what happens to their
> *bodies*
> (damage, disease, hunger, fatigue etc.)
I'm not sure I follow your argument here. May I request further
explanation?
Can I infer, for example, that you view the interior life of a person as
*always* under their control?
For example, am I "free" to chose who I like and dislike, who I love and
who I hate? Am I free to chose a passion for chocolate, or a dislike
for caramel? Or are these and similar "interior" issues really not
under my control?
If not, then in what way is GM control over a character's emotions
different from control over other involuntary things that happen to a
character's body?
Or have a misread you completely? If so, please be assured its an
honest mistake on my part :)
My best,
Kevin
Kevin R. Hardwick
Psychohist wrote:
> To me, that means there isn't a distinction between 'of the world' and
> 'not of
> the world'; everything is 'of the world'. The player/gamesmaster
> dichotomy is
> simply a split of which parts of the world belong to whom.
Exactly--I quite agree. It is then, to a certain degree, arbitratry.
We've divvied up ownership and the responsibilities that go with it in
this and such a way. Its a group contract issue. But we just as easily
could have divvied them up in some other way.
As I understand Brian G.'s position--and I have to confess that I find
great difficulty in making sense of his writing--he would not agree. He
would argue
that there really is a difference between mind and body; that the line
between interior and exterior is in some sense fixed and concrete and
real.
It seems to me that there may be a defensible justification for GM
coercion of PC "interiorality" if we draw the line only slightly
differently.
Suppose, instead of our contract being "I control the interior life of
my character" we say instead "I control the conscious volitions of my
character." Or, in somewhat more technical terms, I control my
character's ego, but not his id, and on occasion not his super-ego.
Let's leave that thought alone for the moment, however--I think that
your next paragraph leads to a much more interesting set of conclusions.
> While I haven't really thought of it that way before, I guess you
> could say
> that, from my standpoint, the electronics and biochemistry of the
> central
> nervous system belong to the player. This seems a pretty simple line
> to draw;
> if your friend drew the line in the same place, I think he'd have
> opinions
> pretty similar to Brian's and mine.
My friend doesn't play rpgs :) His loss.
There is an interesting consistency problem that stems from this. What
is really going on is that authorship of the world is being shared
between player and GM. That part of the world that pertains to the
interior life of the character--to his electronics and
biochemistry--belongs to the player; the rest to the GM.
What this means, moving now to the four-stance model, is that all
players (or at least all those players who agree with you :) of
necessity are to some degree always in author stance. They have to
ensure that that part of the world that is in their control meshes
properly with that part of the world that is under the control of the
GM. If this is true, then two of the other stances--actor and
immersive--are really just strategies for accomplishing this same end.
Would you agree with this analysis?
Regarding GM coercion--by definition, we've now ruled that out as a
legitimate GM tactic, since that violates the group contract.
My best,
Kevin
Mary K. Kuhner
In article <35470359...@wt.infi.net>,
Kevin R. Hardwick <krhr...@wt.infi.net> wrote:
>Can I infer, for example, that you view the interior life of a person as
>*always* under their control?
>For example, am I "free" to chose who I like and dislike, who I love and
>who I hate? Am I free to chose a passion for chocolate, or a dislike
>for caramel? Or are these and similar "interior" issues really not
>under my control?
>If not, then in what way is GM control over a character's emotions
>different from control over other involuntary things that happen to a
>character's body?
I cannot speak for the original poster, but I think you are confusing
the player and the character here.
Just because the player makes a decision on behalf of the character
does not mean that the decision was a conscious one on the character's
part. I can perfectly well say "Chernoi goes off to the sleeper car
to read some reports, but falls asleep instead" (as Chernoi's player).
This does not mean Chernoi fell asleep on purpose; it means that, as
her player, I judge that that's what she would in fact do.
Generally speaking I would like to trust the player's judgement about
what their character does, whether that be physical, mental, or
emotional, leaving the GM to adjucate those actions' effects on the
rest of the game world. The only real exceptions I see are in
situations where the GM has information which the player lacks, and
therefore the player can't accurately portray what would happen:
for example, mind control requires at least some GM intervention
(usually) to get across what the controller is trying to do.
The problem, for me, with GM control over a character's emotions
is that the GM is almost always horribly ignorant about the
character's interior life, compared to the player. While I can
occasionally suggest dialog for Jon's PC Rita, I would
certainly not be able to make her decisions for her accurately
(I've tried to *predict* those decisions and generally failed).
So if I coerce Rita's emotions I will probably do a bad job,
damaging the character. I am simply not as competent as the player
is--he knows Rita better than I do, having developed her and
spent a good deal of time playing her.
From this it follows that I am more upset about GM intervention
the more it touches on character-specific material. In the Chernoi
example above, I would not mind particularly if the GM said "She's
pretty tired, isn't she? Bet she falls asleep instead of working"
or even "Make a Willpower roll. No? She falls asleep." Everyone
is somewhat prone to fall asleep when tired, so this doesn't require
much knowledge of the character. But saying "Markus is sexually
attracted to the mysterious stranger", unless he's being coerced by
some power which takes no account of his tastes, is a lot more
dangerous. I know a lot about what turns Markus on. The GM knows
rather less, and is likely to screw things up--missing, for example,
the fact that Markus finds macho men fun to quarrel with but not
at all interesting to make love to. Or that danger is a bigger
turn-on for him than status. Or...lots of things. So the GM is
likely to make blatant mistakes if he delves into this, and I'd
rather he didn't do so in any but the most tactful and non-coercive
ways.
Markus' sexual preferences aren't under his control (rather to
his wife's annoyance, and sometimes his player's). But they are
something which the player knows a lot more about than the GM, and
thus it makes a great deal of sense for the player, rather than
the GM, to arbitrate them.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
knight_...@ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au
Kevin R. Hardwick <krhr...@wt.infi.net> wrote:
: Can I infer, for example, that you view the interior life of a person as
: *always* under their control?
: For example, am I "free" to chose who I like and dislike, who I love and
: who I hate? Am I free to chose a passion for chocolate, or a dislike
: for caramel? Or are these and similar "interior" issues really not
: under my control?
I, the player, am not free to choose the gender I was born, my hair
colour or who my parents are. I am free to choose those for my character.
If I am not free to choose those, I am playing a character that is given
to me by the GM. Such is not really my character.
: If not, then in what way is GM control over a character's emotions
: different from control over other involuntary things that happen to a
: character's body?
Because the GM might as well be playing with themselves. The area in
which my character can act is hemmed in enough already. Besides, who says
the GM is going to be better than the player at controlling the
character? It smacks of railroading.
I would walk out of a campaign that did this.
To put it another way: why should the GM control the characters emotions?
How is this different to the other things the player decides for the
character (eye colour etc)?
--
Glenn Butcher
mailto:kni...@ucc.gu.uwa.edu._KILL__.au | "You know there's going to be
http://www.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au/~knight/ | more undead." "So? I have a sword."
Kevin R. Hardwick
knight_...@ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au wrote:
> Kevin R. Hardwick <krhr...@wt.infi.net> wrote:
>
> : Can I infer, for example, that you view the interior life of a
> person as
> : *always* under their control?
>
> : For example, am I "free" to chose who I like and dislike, who I love
> and
> : who I hate? Am I free to chose a passion for chocolate, or a
> dislike
> : for caramel? Or are these and similar "interior" issues really not
> : under my control?
>
> I, the player, am not free to choose the gender I was born, my hair
> colour or who my parents are. I am free to choose those for my
> character.
> If I am not free to choose those, I am playing a character that is
> given
> to me by the GM. Such is not really my character.
This confuses choices that the player makes before the game with those
that she makes during the game.
In most games, a player is not free to choose to switch gender, or
natural hair color, or who their parents are, once the choice has been
declared during character definition.
> : If not, then in what way is GM control over a character's emotions
> : different from control over other involuntary things that happen to
> a
> : character's body?
>
> Because the GM might as well be playing with themselves. The area in
> which my character can act is hemmed in enough already. Besides, who
> says
> the GM is going to be better than the player at controlling the
> character? It smacks of railroading.
Please be careful not to infer my beliefs from the questions I ask!
I've posed a question--I am not making an argument for one position over
another. If I choose at some point to do that, what you will get is a
series of declarative sentences, in the form of topic sentences,
followed by a reasons why you might choose to believe my declarations.
You'll get an argument. Here, I'm trying to probe somebody else's
position. That is a different rhetorical process altogether.
Anyway, I don't think you've responded directly to the question I
asked. You've inferred a position from my question--a belief that in
fact I do not hold and have not articulated--and then you have proceeded
to argue against that inferred belief.
I asked "in what ways is one form of GM coercion different from
another?" and you respond "because the GM may as well be playing
themself." This strikes me as a non-sequitor.
Best,
Kevin
Kevin R. Hardwick
David Alex Lamb wrote: I think this is a less than ingenious argument.
The issue isn't whether
> the character's emotions are under the character's control, but rather
>
> whether they're under the player's control.
Mary made essentially the same point, and I think its a valid criticism,
on the whole.
That said, once a player declares an emotional stance as part of
character definition, an emotional stance that is not subject to the
volition of the character, can the GM hold them to it?
If I define Great-Axe as "capable of lifting 400 pounds" and then try to
lift more than that, in some contracts the GM could quite legitmately
say "No." If I also define Great-Axe as "incapable of resisting a
pretty face," can the GM then coerce me later into playing that?
Mary has offered one set of reasons for not doing so. But they are part
of a general game style--her particular take on rpgs. Do you share her
preferences?
Best,
Kevin
Kevin R. Hardwick
Mary K. Kuhner wrote:
> I cannot speak for the original poster, but I think you are confusing
> the player and the character here.
>
> Just because the player makes a decision on behalf of the character
> does not mean that the decision was a conscious one on the character's
>
> part. I can perfectly well say "Chernoi goes off to the sleeper car
> to read some reports, but falls asleep instead" (as Chernoi's player).
>
> This does not mean Chernoi fell asleep on purpose; it means that, as
> her player, I judge that that's what she would in fact do.
Very good point--and you are right, my thinking did suffer from this
confusion.
Thank you!
> Generally speaking I would like to trust the player's judgement about
> what their character does, whether that be physical, mental, or
> emotional, leaving the GM to adjucate those actions' effects on the
> rest of the game world.
> The only real exceptions I see are in
> situations where the GM has information which the player lacks, and
> therefore the player can't accurately portray what would happen:
> for example, mind control requires at least some GM intervention
> (usually) to get across what the controller is trying to do.
Exactly. The E. Gory Great-axe scene with the sucubus is an example.
When I wrote that for this board, I left the details purposely vague.
But we could imagine that interaction unfolding in such a fashion that
Great-axe was under the magical spell of the Succubus.
Probably the easiest way to handle this is for the GM to say to Joe,
Great-Axe's player, "Joe, its a Succubus, and she has Great-Axe under
her spell. Play it appropriately."
The problem with such an approach is the violence it does to the deep-IC
player, for whom such OOC information is an intrusion on the illusion.
My best,
Kevin
Brian Gleichman
Kevin R. Hardwick <krhr...@wt.infi.net> wrote in article
<35470A79...@wt.infi.net>...
> Exactly--I quite agree. It is then, to a certain degree, arbitratry.
'Arbitrary'.
Duh.
Another word would be 'preference', but that was something you claimed
wasn't be sought. So happy you found it after all. I'm sure the change in
wording will make it all better for you.
Or have you now changed your mind and are suddenly seeking opinions and
preferences?
----------
Something about all this struck a memory. I've found the answers in past
posts from 9-97. I see your time off hasn't changed anything.
I learned then the futile nature of discussions with you. We simply don't
get along.
Not being one who enjoys pointless activities I'll leave you to your fun as
much as I can without withdrawing from the group. It should be a simple
matter of refraining from responding to your posts.
It would be nice if you returned the favor.
knight_...@ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au
Kevin R. Hardwick <krhr...@wt.infi.net> wrote:
: knight_...@ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au wrote:
: In most games, a player is not free to choose to switch gender, or
: natural hair color, or who their parents are, once the choice has been
: declared during character definition.
True. On the other hand, a character can not change their mind after
character creation, and act which is within the power of the character.
:> : If not, then in what way is GM control over a character's emotions
:> : different from control over other involuntary things that happen to
:> a
:> : character's body?
:>
:> Because the GM might as well be playing with themselves. The area in
:> which my character can act is hemmed in enough already. Besides, who
:> says
:> the GM is going to be better than the player at controlling the
:> character? It smacks of railroading.
: Please be careful not to infer my beliefs from the questions I ask!
: I've posed a question--I am not making an argument for one position over
: another. If I choose at some point to do that, what you will get is a
: series of declarative sentences, in the form of topic sentences,
: followed by a reasons why you might choose to believe my declarations.
: You'll get an argument. Here, I'm trying to probe somebody else's
: position. That is a different rhetorical process altogether.
I realised that you didn't necessarily follow that viewpoint, so I didn't
say "you" or "Kevein" at any stage. I did try to convey my extreme
distaste for that style (not necessarily very well tho :)
: Anyway, I don't think you've responded directly to the question I
: asked. You've inferred a position from my question--a belief that in
: fact I do not hold and have not articulated--and then you have proceeded
: to argue against that inferred belief.
Actually I was arguing against anyone who held that belief. I strongly
dislike being manipulated or coerced, which carries over into my
roleplaying. My strong feelings on the matter lead to write the above, in
an effort to stop anybody tempted to play in that style. Of course, some
groups may like it that way, but in the heat of the moment...
(Recently a DM of mine has manipulated a character into a bad emotional
situation, where she is liable to nervous breakdown. I recently found out
that this is deliberate, and event which really *ahem* annoys me).
: I asked "in what ways is one form of GM coercion different from
: another?" and you respond "because the GM may as well be playing
: themself." This strikes me as a non-sequitor.
Ok, I'll try and expalin myself better.
I think the crux of the matter is who owns the character. The owner of
the character is the final arbiter for the character of the character.
For example, if the player says that Horace is lusty, the player
probably has a different view on the matter than the GM. If Horace is
faced with a situation involving lust, who is the better judge of Horace
in that situation.
Alternatively, where Horace is a GM character (perhaps an NPC currently
being played by a player) then the GM would have a better understanding
of the character. (This situation cropped a few months ago, where a
player joined and was given an NPC to play. We spent several hours
discussing the character's personality and reactions to past events. Even
so, during the game the player would stop and ask how the character would
react. I gave the player suggestions, but said they were suggestions as
the _character was now the players_).
If the GM is playing with GM characters, then they are playing
with themselves.
This is assuming that the player is capable of deciding against the
character (a "good roleplayer"). It also assumes that the GM is not being
a prat ("your character sheet says lusty, thus you lust after her." "Yes,
but I didn't mean a female pig!").
I am also assuming that this takes place in a system which has no
personality mechanics (except perhaps guidelines or points for disadvantages.
--
"For a copper!" [The battle cry of Lynard the fire elemaster]
mailto:knight@ucc._GARBAGE_gu.uwa.edu.au
mailto:gle...@ichr.uwa._GARBAGE_edu.au
Home page: http://www.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au/~knight/
Brian Gleichman
Carl D. Cravens <rave...@southwind.net> wrote in article
<xMoR1wIe...@southwind.net>...
> I don't think it's pointless, because the matter *never* involves a
> single individual's preferences.
It's pointless when you have someone who refuses to discuss it as either a
'preference' or as a comparison of preferences. That was what was happening
in this case.
> (I consider very little discussion to be pointless. Some more fruitful
> than others, but no conversation concerning human interaction in gaming
> is totally without merit.)
I would agree with you as it concerns all initial conversations. But
sometimes the merit in such things is learning to avoid future
conversations on the same subject and with the same parties.
I'm not a patient as Warren and Mary and will end a debate when it dead
ends.
> Doesn't the group contract normally include "the player will cause his
> character to act consistently and in line with the declared personality
> to the best of their ability"?
Actually not all game contracts include this concept. Mary has pointed out
a couple of examples in fact where this would be a violation of the
existing game contract.
In our case, it's the game contract that the player owning the character is
the only judge of "act consistently and in line" that is allowed with any
overriding authority.
> Essentially, this comes down to "poor roleplaying" and what the heck do
> you do about it.
I don't have a 'poor role-playing' standard as such that I force people
into.
Rather I adjust the game to take into account that player's taste. If it's
only combat he wants, it's only combat opportunities he shall get. If it's
role-playing he wants, role-playing he'll get.
If he wants to role-play inconsistently, the world will react to him as it
does any inconsistent person. This may not make him happy and he'll either
change his style, accept the result, or leave.
I do have standards for the actual actions that players are allowed to
undertake with their characters. And of course there are other things that
could get a player in trouble with the game contract. But that is a
different subject.
> They're generally simple... "Make an Ego roll at -5 to avoid doing what
> you usually do with women that throw themselves at to you like that."
> Complex and even formal mechanics aren't necessary.
I'll leave that to those who proposed complex and formal mechanics. I think
they disagree with you.
Mary K. Kuhner
In article <RQpR1wIe...@southwind.net>,
Carl D. Cravens <rave...@southwind.net> wrote:
>Very good point, Mary. I'm coming at it from the inconsistency
>standpoint... what if the character has a crush on the bar wench only
>when the player finds it convenient? The player enjoys playing the
>crush until it becomes a liability to the character. It's difficult to
>deal with.
Owdge.
I'm not sure what to suggest here. I'm kind of ruthless about who
I play with, but I appreciate not everyone can do that.
I had one player in Berkeley who was not particularly a roleplayer;
he tended to play characters who were not very opinionated, and
who followed the "party line" and mostly did combat. They were
shallow, but they weren't inconsistent. The first two or three times
we tried pushing him to do something more complicated, we had no
luck (perhaps this was a good thing). Oddly enough, very near the
end of the campaign something finally seemed to click for him, and
we got some actual roleplaying out of him--his character was given
a baby Phoenix, symbol of his goddess, and had to act in a way
worthy of that gift. I was quite surprised and pleased at the way
the player handled this.
If you have any influence over the problem player at all, you might
suggest that he stick to characters who don't have a lot of hooks,
but just tend to go with the flow of the game. Better a bland
personality than a nonsensical one. I think I could believe in a
self-centered character who acted fond of the barmaid, but only
when it cost him nothing--not a character I'd adore, but at least
potentially consistent.
Beyond that, I don't know. I don't think rules can make a bad player
play well, especially one who doesn't *want* to play well.
I've belonged to a couple of small groups that contorted themselves
to hang on to one troublesome member, with the eventual result of
losing their non-troublesome people. Not sure I'd want to go
through that again. But that's easy for me to say, since I'm not in
such a situation with gaming, nor likely to be any time soon.
At this point it's clearly a pure meta-game issue. The players
aren't here for the same thing--how to keep them all happy? *Can*
one keep them all happy?
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Psychohist
'knight' posts, in part:
I think the crux of the matter is who owns the
character....
Alternatively, where Horace is a GM character (perhaps
an NPC currently being played by a player) then the GM
would have a better understanding of the character.
This brings up an interesting point. If Horace is a gamesmaster character
currently being played by the gamesmaster, who enforces 'in character' play?
Should the players be permitted to invoke applicable personality mechanics? Or
are gamesmasters magically perfect role players?
Warren Dew
Psychohist
Carl D. Cravens posts, in part:
Very good point, Mary. I'm coming at it from the
inconsistency standpoint... what if the character has
a crush on the bar wench only when the player finds it
convenient? The player enjoys playing the crush until
it becomes a liability to the character. It's difficult
to deal with.
Back when this was sometimes a problem in my playing groups, I found it easier
to deal with by looking at the situation from the point of view of characters
within the world. Often the characters can't tell whether a particular crush,
say, will be a liability, even when the players can.
In the long run, you could tell statistically, of course.
I've also known some players who only had crushes when convenient. I'm not
sure whether there was a correlation with their characters' behavior in this
regard.
Warren Dew
Psychohist
Kevin Hardwick posts, in part:
What is really going on is that authorship of the world is
being shared between player and GM. That part of the world
that pertains to the interior life of the character--to his
electronics and biochemistry--belongs to the player; the
rest to the GM.
What this means, moving now to the four-stance model, is
that all players (or at least all those players who agree
with you :) of necessity are to some degree always in
author stance. They have to ensure that that part of the
world that is in their control meshes properly with that
part of the world that is under the control of the GM.
Well, I'd agree that they are determining the behavior of their part of the
world.
I'm not so sure that's what the stances suggest, though. Actor, author, and
character stance all have an effect on the game world. My view is that the
differences are those of approach: character stance means the player is making
decisions from the point of view of the character, while author stance means
the player is making decisions from the point of view of a neutral outside
third party - an author.
Sarah specifically indicated that authors [of fiction] often adopt the
character stance rather than the author stance; was this different from your
view?
As far as meshing is concerned, I don't think responsibility for the interface
is well defined, which is part of what causes this kind of disagreement in the
first place.
If this is true, then two of the other stances--actor
and immersive--are really just strategies for
accomplishing this same end.
Would you agree with this analysis?
Well, I'd agree that all three of the actor, character, and author stances,
including the immersive subset of character, are all strategies for
accomplishing the same end, where the end is determining the behavior of the
game world or story.
Individual players' ends, of course, may differ: players might, for example,
specifically play for the acting or immersive experience.
Warren Dew
Thomas Cook
My thinking is that the player should have final say over what the
character does. What a character *feels* can only be guessed at by those
actions.
As a GM, I may make suggestions like "you feel that the black-robed
wizard is your friend" or "you want to pick up the ring", but at the
end of the day, the player has the final say. Free will is at the core of
the game - the player can decide to give into a charm, but as GM I don't
like to take control away. At worst, the character is paralyzed by the
internal struggle, but the character is never forced to *do* something
against the player's will.
Thomas.
knight_...@ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au
Psychohist <psych...@aol.com> wrote:
: 'knight' posts, in part:
Quite interesting. Often the only defense against a GM who refuses to
roleplay, or roleplays badly, or plays with a style you don't like is to
leave the campaign. It becomes frustrating when you are quite attached to
the character you have, or find just one part of the GM's style
irritating (but like the rest).
I have had the situation where I have asked the GM to have and use character
sheets for his NPC's, rather than winging it. Several players were sick
of NPC's who changed due to the story or just plain bad memory. I'm sure
other people wouldn't have minded this as much.
This sounds like the "what to do with a bad player" thread.
Glenn (knight)
--
Glenn Butcher
mailto:kni...@ucc.gu.uwa.edu._GARBAGE_au | "You know there's going to be
Red
Kevin R. Hardwick wrote:
> A "players vs GM" contract, in which the players view the GM as
> adversary and the game as something to be "won". Accquiring undesirable
> mental traits or taking undesired actions due to "lack of self-control"
> would be seen as "losing" the game. The GM would have to impose all
> such undesired actions and the players would accept this the same way
> they accept losing levels to a wight or accquiring lycanthropy. (And
> the D&D reference is intentional.)
That's ludicrous! The above perception, that losing control is on some
way "losing the game", betrays a very gamist approach to the question.
I suppose for some it may be true, but that is not something I am
familiar with, as I am coming to this from a simulationist perspective.
To me, losing control is just a part of life, and arguing that the
player is permitted to veto the impacts of the world around rests on the
implicit assumption that the player spends all their time in Author
stance, modifying the gameflow to suit a vision of the character, rather
than Immersing in the character and reacting to objective situations.
Psychohist wrote:
"The player character's consciousness, body, and emotions are all part
of the
world. If the mechanics are controlling all of the world, they should
be
controlling player characters' conscious decisions as well, and there is
no
need for players."
I must confess I do not know why this point was presented; it seems
tangential at best to the topic. Obviously the GM must not control
characters; but that does not mean that some aspects of the character's
world-experience should be off limits; this is merely saying that you do
NOT in fact want to Immerse in the character.
Another implicit assumption in both the above posts is in the level of
prescription; there is NO NEED to have PREscriptive personality
mechanics if you do not like them; but most games already DO have
prescriptive personality mechanics; hell, even the Skill system is a
personality mechanic, to some extent. Any game which has Charisma or
the like as a trait has a personality mechanic.
In the discussion about characters falling in and out of love/lust etc,
I agree with the bulk of what has been posted; this is better left to
the player. However, what if the "love" is in fact a magical effect?
What do you do when psychological impacts are mandated by game play?
Under these circumstances, they are "enemy action" and so SOME sort of
mechanic is involved.
One aspect of this conversation I find odd is that we are quite capable
of saying that the GM has power of life and death over characters, but
are unhappy with any representation of personality, no matter how
elegent, subtle or non-intrusive the mechanics turn out to be. If the
argument against personality mechanics is based on the position that the
player has TOTAL control, then surely we must also grant players the
right to veto their character's death?
Red
Neelakantan Krishnaswami wrote:
> It would have been utterly unacceptable to use a plot point to force Johnny
> to make a /particular/ decision, though. (In fact the question has not even
> arisen in the discussions we've had about plot points; it's not even on the
> map.)
I really like this effect. Perhaps the correct direction of personality
mechanics is to prompt crises rather than actions? It certainly
deserves some thought.
Red
Brian Gleichman wrote:
> There is a difference in saying 'Your character is seduce by Beth' and
> saying 'You've fallen under the magical domination of the succubus'.
>
Why?
> The former is under complete player control and all Beth can do is make an
> excellent try. It's up to the player to decide the effect on his character.
> The magical effects of the succubus however is under control of the magic
> system I use.
I put it you that you DO have personality mechanics, but becuase you
have subsumed them under the general Magic rules, they appear less
"intrusive".
> It should also be noted that in our campaigns certain rare characters are
> strong willed enough to brush off any such magical influence. It's to be
Strong willed? Is this not an aspect of the characters' personality?
At the very least, it must surely fall into the Mind part of the
mind/body dualism. Therefore, are you not using a personality mechanic?
> I think the above divides it nicely. If it's not a magical or psychic
> attack it's under the player's control as long as it doesn't violate the
> game contract. And the game contract is a metagame issue.
>
Personally, I think the mind/body dualism is illusory; quite a lot of
systems theory points to a strong link between physical and mental
states; the best known of these being the placebo effect, PTSD, faith
healing, and psychosomatic illnesses.
Brian, would you be prepared to discuss a set of mechanics which are NOT
prescriptive but descriptive in all circumstances other than those of,
for example, magical coercion?
> Now I could speak about my methods of handling external influences due to
> magical or psychic means, but I consider that a different discussion.
I don't think it is a different discussion at all and I would be
ineterested to know how you do handle these things.
Red
knight_...@ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au wrote:
> I have had the situation where I have asked the GM to have and use character
> sheets for his NPC's, rather than winging it. Several players were sick
> of NPC's who changed due to the story or just plain bad memory. I'm sure
> other people wouldn't have minded this as much.
Would you then be prepared to discuss personality mechanics with the
proviso that you only recommend their use for NPC's by those GM's who
feel this would be suitable to their styles?
Brian Gleichman
Red <red_arm...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<3546F197...@hotmail.com>...
> That's ludicrous! The above perception, that losing control is on some
> way "losing the game", betrays a very gamist approach to the question.
We would do well to remember that gamist is a perfectly valid way to play,
even if not to our taste.
<snip>
> rests on the
> implicit assumption that the player spends all their time in Author
> stance, modifying the gameflow to suit a vision of the character, rather
> than Immersing in the character and reacting to objective situations.
There are a large number of people who play mostly for Author enjoyment.
And there are a number of immerse players who would find the GM pulling
their characters here and there highly destructive to their goals as well.
> Obviously the GM must not control
> characters; but that does not mean that some aspects of the character's
> world-experience should be off limits; this is merely saying that you do
> NOT in fact want to Immerse in the character.
No, it means that certain people don't want some high and mightily GM
immersing in their character and overriding their internal decisions on a
whim, mechanical justification or not.
Mine, yours, his, hers. A tough concept for some people I know.
A flippant phrasing, but I hope you get the point. Surely by now you
realize that there is a large number of people your style doesn't work for.
I'd advise you to admit that some of us play in a way you wouldn't prefer
and perhaps even don't understand. Then you and those that agree with your
cause could get down to discussing exactly what mechanics you think suit
your needs best. I'd have fun watching that, even if I have nothing to add.
> If the
> argument against personality mechanics is based on the position that the
> player has TOTAL control, then surely we must also grant players the
> right to veto their character's death?
There are a large number of games where this power is granted to the
player. Mary's game in fact has this to a large degree if I recall
correctly.
knight_...@ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au
Red <red_arm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: knight_...@ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au wrote:
Sure, I wouldn't have a problem with this at all. My objection is not the
concept of personality mechanics, but being forced to accept rulings
based on them.
I actually use personality "suggestion" mechanics in one of my campaigns.
They note a few traits of importance to the character, but I consider
them guidelines. I find them, as a GM, of more use than the players do,
because I have a larger cast to keep track of. In that way they are an
extension of the GM's notes about the character, nothing more.
--
Glenn Butcher | knight@ucc_GARBAGE_.gu.uwa.edu.au
One OS to rule them all,
One OS to find them.
One OS to call them all,
And in salvation bind them.
In the bright land of Linux,
Where the hackers play.
(J. Scott Thayer, with apologies to J.R.R.T.)
Tim Dedeaux
>> A "players vs GM" contract, in which the players view the GM as
>> adversary and the game as something to be "won".
> That's ludicrous! The above perception, that losing control is on some
> way "losing the game", betrays a very gamist approach to the question.
I think only gamists would enjoy a "players vs GM" contracts. I am a
dramatist (who prefers high realism or at least verisimilitude, but not at
the expense of the story), and I'd hate such a contract. Your comments
indicate that simulationists probably would hate that one, too.
If I'm going to be player-vs-GM game, I'll just play chess or (more
likely) Battletech and let *everybody* be a player (really, you can't
"Beat" a GM unless he lets you win, because he can always just drop the
world's equivalent of Cthulhu or a nuclear bomb on you).
> I suppose for some it may be true, but that is not something I am
> familiar with, as I am coming to this from a simulationist perspective.
I'm familiar with it - it was something I was guilty of in my bad gm days
. . . from any perspective except a gamist (and probably from many gamist
perspectives) PCs-vs-GM setup isn't much fun for anybody (not even the
GM, in my experience - I knew I was doing something wrong but didn't
have the resources or experience to correct it - Dragon magazine really
wasn't much help at that point, and I didn't have inet access 8 years
ago when I was 15).
> To me, losing control is just a part of life, and arguing that the
> player is permitted to veto the impacts of the world around rests on the
> implicit assumption that the player spends all their time in Author
> stance, modifying the gameflow to suit a vision of the character, rather
> than Immersing in the character and reacting to objective situations.
I agree. Losing control is part of life, and thus also part of a lot
of good drama. I don't think (from a dramatist perspective, I must add)
that mechanics are a good way to do this. Maybe some simulationists would
find them fine, but for what I do, they're not that useful.
Timothy
Dedeaux T H I S S P A C E F O R R E N T
tdedeaux
@mc.edu
Mary K. Kuhner
In article <01bd735b$238ad080$885eddcf@emet>,
>> If the
>> argument against personality mechanics is based on the position that the
>> player has TOTAL control, then surely we must also grant players the
>> right to veto their character's death?
>There are a large number of games where this power is granted to the
>player. Mary's game in fact has this to a large degree if I recall
>correctly.
Yes, it does. Veto is maybe a little too strong a word, but the GM
will ask before killing a character, and we have twice arranged a
retcon to prevent a character's death. (We also had one situation
where the GM said in advance "I won't be able to save the character
if he tries that and fails. There's no way. The game world would
fall apart on me if I tried." As it happened the character didn't
go ahead, but if he had, and had died, I would have left him dead.
We're considering both the player's desires and the GM's here.)
Different gaming groups draw the GM control/player control line in
*very* different places. I don't think any of them are "wrong"
as long as (big caveat) they work towards the ends that the
group actually wants. (As opposed, for example, to being a tool
whereby a minority browbeats the majority.)
I know there are games that would be spoilt by a "player has veto
over character deaths" rule; in the Ars Magica campaign I'm running
we have an explicit "No Script Immunity for the PCs, very limited
Script Immunity for the PC group as a whole" contract. Different
tools for different games.
To return to Red's point, though, I do see a difference between
character death (which can be totally blind to the character's
personality) and character decisions (which, barring extreme
coercion, *always* flow from personality). The GM may be the most
informed and expert determiner of "if you fall off the cliff, will
you be fatally flattened at the bottom?" but he is relatively
unlikely to be the most informed and expert determiner of "if that
woman makes a pass at you, will you jump?"
It's this difference in expertese that makes me unwilling to give
over control of the PC's decisions to the GM or to a mechanic.
I know I can do a decent job of post-traumatic stress syndrome.
I'm not nearly so sanguine about some kind of unholy hybrid of my
decisions, the GM's decisions, and a mechanic.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
David Alex Lamb
Kevin R. Hardwick wrote:
> That said, once a player declares an emotional stance as part of
> character definition, an emotional stance that is not subject to the
> volition of the character, can the GM hold them to it?
>
> part of a general game style--her particular take on rpgs. Do you
> share her preferences?
My preferences are evolving - at least, theoretically, because at the
moment I'm not gaming. I haven't thought things through well enough
yet. I started with a very tactically-oriented, low-roleplaying group
in 1978, and was reasonably satisfied with it for a few years, until I
was exposed to a different DM who was very "in character" oriented. The
original group eventually realized that with almost every game (RPG,
board game, computer game, whatever) they'd play both the game itself,
and the "metagame" where they argued about how things ought to run.
Frank, the IC GM, nearly always refused to metagame while gaming. We
originally found this disconcerting, but eventually noticed that his
world and his NPCs seemed far more real than most we'd tried. I
eventually realized I was becoming dissatisfied because most of our
usual run of characters bore little resemblance to real human beings (or
unreal humanoids, for that matter). So, I started thinking that some
form of personality mechanic would make sense -- after seeing the GURPS
disad system, and eventually Pendragon. This newsgroup is the first
place I've seen "deep immersion" players articulate their preferences
(Frank didn't say much about it, he just did it).
I am beginning to think there are 3 levels
- The game, where players speak in character, announce intended actions,
and the GM reports the world's responses (or independent actions)
- The out-of-character game, or perhaps "just a tad above the character"
game, where players and GM remind each other of what *should* be
happening, e.g. "Wouldn't it be more typical for E. Gory to fall for
that woman's play?" or "About now Fred ought to be nocking an arrow,
oughtn't he?" or even (player to GM, in old-style D&D session)
"Shouldn't we be having a wandering monster check by now?"
- The between-sessions game, where the GM asks "E. Gory fell for every
other woman who behaved that way; why not for that one?" (possibly
escalating to "You're not properly playing the personality you wrote
down" or even "I don't think E. Gory, played that way, fits the
campaign atmosphere).
Personality mechanics, which try to dictate a player's choices of
emotion or action for his/her character, try to resolve things at the
game level. An alternative at this same level might be to have NPCs
(and other players' characters) start reacting to the PC's inconsistent
or unusual behavior. "Sumthin' aint right about that E. Gory Greataxe;
I'd ha thot he'd go fer that dame ..."
Someone's suggestion of docking experience points for "poor roleplaying"
seems like a mechanic at the between-sessions level. Other people seem
to prefer discussion rather than mechanics at this level.
I wonder if there is a cross-product of alternatives here (sorry to
those with proportional fonts):
Mechanic Player-directed
Game: personality mechanic player choice
OOC: plot points (?) inter-player suggestions
storypaths (?)
whimsy cards (?)
Session: EP rewards/penalties inter-player discussion
Carl D. Cravens
On Wed, 29 Apr 1998 10:54:33 -0400, "Kevin R. Hardwick" <krhr...@wt.infi.net> wrote:
>That said, once a player declares an emotional stance as part of
>character definition, an emotional stance that is not subject to the
>volition of the character, can the GM hold them to it?
Depends on the group contract. :)
>If I define Great-Axe as "capable of lifting 400 pounds" and then try to
>lift more than that, in some contracts the GM could quite legitmately
>say "No." If I also define Great-Axe as "incapable of resisting a
>pretty face," can the GM then coerce me later into playing that?
>
>Mary has offered one set of reasons for not doing so. But they are part
>of a general game style--her particular take on rpgs. Do you share her
>preferences?
Taking a lead from others in this thread... why did the player *choose*
a personality trait and later resist playing it? Has their concept of
the character changed? Did they discover that they were wrong about
being comfortable playing a certain trait they thought they would like?
The *cause* of this behavior is in the meta-game, so that's where I'd
look for a solution to the problem. If the player has no problem with
being "forced" to take consistent action by GM fiat or mechanics, then
it's a possible solution. But it might be better to re-think the
character concept and allow a change to something the player is more
comfortable with.
--
Carl D. Cravens (rave...@southwind.net)
* Phoenyx Roleplaying Listserver --- http://www.phoenyx.net/
This tagline made from 100% recycled ASCII.
Carl D. Cravens
On 29 Apr 1998 05:20:29 GMT, mkku...@evolution.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) wrote:
>At this point it's clearly a pure meta-game issue. The players
>aren't here for the same thing--how to keep them all happy? *Can*
>one keep them all happy?
I've decided that it's not worth holding on to players that don't mesh
well with my style and preferences. It's just caused too many problems.
It's tough telling a friend that he doesn't belong in my game when *he*
feels everything's hunky-dory. I recently dissolved my group. Enough
players had dropped out for one reason or another and I ended up with a
small handful. I'm not inviting a lot of them back, either. (Suddenly,
with friends moving away, having to get second jobs, etc. I have no
friends with any free time.)
But now I have the problem of having to build a new gaming group from
scratch, or finding another group to join. I'm not certain of the
latter... I've never joined an established group before.
--
Carl D. Cravens (rave...@southwind.net)
* Phoenyx Roleplaying Listserver --- http://www.phoenyx.net/
Contentsoftaglinemaysettleduringshipping.
Carl D. Cravens
On Wed, 29 Apr 1998 10:23:35 +0100, Red <red_army_blues@hotmail> wrote:
>Kevin R. Hardwick wrote:
No, I wrote...
>> A "players vs GM" contract, in which the players view the GM as
>> adversary and the game as something to be "won". Accquiring undesirable
>> mental traits or taking undesired actions due to "lack of self-control"
>> would be seen as "losing" the game. The GM would have to impose all
>> such undesired actions and the players would accept this the same way
>> they accept losing levels to a wight or accquiring lycanthropy. (And
>> the D&D reference is intentional.)
>
>That's ludicrous! The above perception, that losing control is on some
>way "losing the game", betrays a very gamist approach to the question.
You deny that there are gamist roleplayers? It's a very real attitude
and I've seen it many times.
>I suppose for some it may be true, but that is not something I am
>familiar with, as I am coming to this from a simulationist perspective.
Then open your mind and learn from others' experiences instead of
shouting denials.
>To me, losing control is just a part of life, and arguing that the
>player is permitted to veto the impacts of the world around rests on the
>implicit assumption that the player spends all their time in Author
>stance, modifying the gameflow to suit a vision of the character, rather
>than Immersing in the character and reacting to objective situations.
What, you've never played D&D with a bunch of thirteen-year-olds? This
was my entire group's form of play until I met a different group after
highschool.
>In the discussion about characters falling in and out of love/lust etc,
>I agree with the bulk of what has been posted; this is better left to
>the player. However, what if the "love" is in fact a magical effect?
>What do you do when psychological impacts are mandated by game play?
>Under these circumstances, they are "enemy action" and so SOME sort of
>mechanic is involved.
I think that comes into a very different realm. The same "rules" don't
apply.
>One aspect of this conversation I find odd is that we are quite capable
>of saying that the GM has power of life and death over characters, but
>are unhappy with any representation of personality, no matter how
>elegent, subtle or non-intrusive the mechanics turn out to be. If the
>argument against personality mechanics is based on the position that the
>player has TOTAL control, then surely we must also grant players the
>right to veto their character's death?
Heh. Have you been around for when I posit that very theory? :) (Maybe
not that strongly, but I do have strong feelings on the amount of
control the player should have over his character's destiny.)
--
Carl D. Cravens (rave...@southwind.net)
* Phoenyx Roleplaying Listserver --- http://www.phoenyx.net/
If at first you don't succeed, try 2nd or shortstop.
Carl D. Cravens
On 29 Apr 1998 05:30:40 GMT, "Brian Gleichman" <glei...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>I would agree with you as it concerns all initial conversations. But
>sometimes the merit in such things is learning to avoid future
>conversations on the same subject and with the same parties.
>
>I'm not a patient as Warren and Mary and will end a debate when it dead
>ends.
I get along swimmingly with Kevin. It isn't a matter of patience for
me. I may not always agree with him, but I have no trouble conversing
with him and coming away with something worth the effort. Most of us
are here to learn, and I personally revel in the different views brought
to this forum... I have learned much from those who have had different
experiences than I have.
If you lack patience for views or statements that you don't understand
or are unwilling to accept, it's quite possible that rgfa will have a
negative effect on your stress level.
>> Doesn't the group contract normally include "the player will cause his
>> character to act consistently and in line with the declared personality
>> to the best of their ability"?
>Actually not all game contracts include this concept. Mary has pointed out
>a couple of examples in fact where this would be a violation of the
>existing game contract.
But wouldn't you agree that this is part of the *normal* contract? I
would find a game lacking this fundamental understanding to be rather
unusual, myself.
>In our case, it's the game contract that the player owning the character is
>the only judge of "act consistently and in line" that is allowed with any
>overriding authority.
Hum. But he certainly is not the only judge, and he is obviously a
biased one. (I would say that none of the parties are unbiased,
actually... but the player certainly has more at stake in his character
than another player does.)
If a player's character acts in what is an apparently inconsitent
manner, he may shout "it is consistent" all he wants, but that does not
make it so, nor does it make it enjoyable for the others.
>> Essentially, this comes down to "poor roleplaying" and what the heck do
>> you do about it.
>
>I don't have a 'poor role-playing' standard as such that I force people
>into.
Nobody said anything about forcing.
>Rather I adjust the game to take into account that player's taste. If it's
>only combat he wants, it's only combat opportunities he shall get. If it's
>role-playing he wants, role-playing he'll get.
But if the rest of the players don't want only combat, you have conflict
that needs to be resolved.
>If he wants to role-play inconsistently, the world will react to him as it
>does any inconsistent person. This may not make him happy and he'll either
>change his style, accept the result, or leave.
What's the matter with talking to the player? Why turn it into a
"player vs GM" situation? And wait a minute... didn't you say that you
don't "force" standards, but didn't you just describe the specific way
in which you *do* force a stardard?
>I'll leave that to those who proposed complex and formal mechanics. I think
>they disagree with you.
I thought you said that there had been no complex or formal mechanics
presented? If they're proposing them, but there aren't any in use, then
those that are in use must be simple and informal.
--
Carl D. Cravens (rave...@southwind.net)
* Phoenyx Roleplaying Listserver --- http://www.phoenyx.net/
ZenCrafters: Total enlightenment, in about an hour.
Lee Short
Kevin R. Hardwick wrote:
> Lee Short wrote:
>
> > While I agree with your friend the physicalist about the
> > materialist nature of the real world, my game world is
> > not a physicalist world. It is a strongly dualist world, and
> > makes for a convenient division of responsibilites (although
> > sorcery can cross this barrier).
> >
> > So keep in mind that it is the nature of the game world
> > that effects this. The GM's opinion of the real world is
> > not necessarily relevant.
>
> This gives a simulationist twist to the argument, it seems
> to me. In your world, this is not entirely a group-contract
> issue. It is also an extension of the reality of the world--
> its basic essence, if you would.
>
Just so.
However, one could easily play in a dualist world
with personality mechanics. Just because the
world is inherently dualist, doesn't mean that such
dualism must be the dividing line between player and
GM control. If the group contract calls for personality
mechanics, and the world is a dualist world -- there will
be no problems because of this.
Let me note that most worlds I am aware of are
strongly dualist, so I suspect that use of personality
mechanics in a dualist world is actually quite common.
So the group contract is still relevant here.
Lee
--
Lee Short,
blac...@pro-ns.net
Rick Cordes
In article <6i6jfi$6pe$1...@enyo.uwa.edu.au>,
<knight_...@ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> wrote:
>Psychohist <psych...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>:Should the players be permitted to invoke applicable personality mechanics?
>:Or are gamesmasters magically perfect role players?
>
>Quite interesting. Often the only defense against a GM who refuses to
>roleplay, or roleplays badly, or plays with a style you don't like is to
>leave the campaign. It becomes frustrating when you are quite attached to
>the character you have, or find just one part of the GM's style
>irritating (but like the rest).
I think this question is indicative of the notion behavioral
mechanics enable GMs to coerce roleplay or abrogate roleplay initiative.
It never occurred to me anyone would think PCs but not NPCs should have
BMs. What is good for the goose, should also interest and challenge the
gander.
There is an interface between roleplay and tactics, and
behavioral mechanics is just the extension of the tactical mechanics
to where they overlap when roleplay may be predicated.
So far only examples of oppositional social interaction have
been cited or developed where BMs may be used. (I'm at a loss to understand
the attendant controversy as I was with the question above.) In such
cases I think the prescriptive mechanic goes only so far as to hand a
player a motive: telling the player how what their player thinks or
feels, and not compelling explicit action. Is the line for anyone out
there that is would be okay to hand a motive to a roleplayer (a feeling
or thought) but not a deed? If everyone can agree to this, I promise to
keep the controversy alive by advocating action as well may be perscribed.
John Kim
A few comments on this thread. In my experience, I feel
that players controlling their character's emotions works much
better than prescriptive mechanics or GM-based rulings.
Genuine prescriptive mechanics (i.e. the mechanic tells you
precisely what happens) simply cannot take into account actual
circumstances or personality. Examples: In one GURPS game, I played
a somewhat cowardly teleporter who was well-known for his tendency
to disappear if frightened. I did this several times by voluntary
role-playing -- but the few times when he was forced to make a Fear
Check, he had completely different (and IMO out-of-character)
reactions. In another game, I played an alcoholic with IQ stat 8.
The rules for "alcoholism" literally say that every time he is in the
presence of a drink, he must roll vs. IQ to avoid drinking it. This
is just completely non-functional.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-
Red <red_army_b...@hotmail.com> writes:
>No-one thinks they will "contract" Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, It
>is not something that humans are inclined to think, and not something
>are players are likely to think, either. Under appropriate
>circumstances, a statistically detectable group of individuals WILL
>suffer PTSD; it therfore seems appropriate that a character be asked for
>a "save against PTSD" or something similar, assuming the genre
>conventions demand this level of detail.
Yes, you can do this. One example might be _Call of Cthulhu_'s
Sanity stat and SAN loss mechanics. However, my experience was that
when we started a _Call of Cthulhu_ game which did *not* have SAN
mechanics, the result was that PC's had much more believable and
interesting mental breakdowns from stress. (Not being a psychologist,
I'm not sure if these qualify as PTSD.)
For example, my character started becoming paranoid as he was
faced with increasingly strange events. He increasingly began to link
all the events into a conspiracy which reached to the highest levels
of the government. He was not shocked by gore or death, but hints of
being watched or suspicious behavior by his friends could set him
into severe withdrawal. In contrast, another PC began to become
somewhat delusional, convinced that he was to carry on a secret
magical society while being guided by friendly spirits.
In my opinion, it is because of the player control here that
made these breakdowns interesting. As Grimmond's player, I understood
his personality and integrated his personality with the effects of
stress. I constructed and rationalized his conspiracy theories.
A "roll vs. PTSD" would not take into account his point-of-view (POV)
of what was stressful or how he would react to it. He reacted badly
to different things and in a very different way from other PC's.
John Kim
A quick comment here on the debate over personality
mechanics. Several people have brought up the issue of real-world
philosophy (i.e. mind-body dualism vs. behavioral). I think that
this is largely irrelevant to the question of personality
mechanics. As many people have pointed out: the question is
not whether the _character_ is in control of their emotions, but
whether the player is the best person to make decisions about
the character's emotions.
A parallel case would be the production of a play or movie...
Do you let the actors ad-lib some of their dialogue, or do you require
that they stick to the screenwriter's lines? As an actor, I view this
as having *nothing* to do with serious mind-body philosophy. Rather
it is a question of who will do the best job of portraying the
character in the context of the story.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
Within a role-playing game, the question is not "does the
character have complete control over her own emotions?" Rather, the
question we are discussing is: "Will the game be better if the GM or
mechanics take control over the character at times?"
My personal experience has been that there is no gain from
having the GM or flat mechanics overrule control of a PC. If the
player is doing a poor job of portraying a PC, then having the GM
take control in limited circumstances simply gains nothing. The
PC is no more believable or interesting as a result of these
"forced" behaviors. If I was worried about PC's getting an unfair
advantage by poor portrayal, then perhaps I would be concerned.
However, in the game I play, such an "advantage" isn't a concern.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
Red <red_arm...@hotmail.com> writes:
>Brian Gleichman wrote:
>> The former is under complete player control and all Beth can do is
>> make an excellent try. It's up to the player to decide the effect
>> on his character. The magical effects of the succubus however is
>> under control of the magic system I use.
>
>I put it you that you DO have personality mechanics, but becuase you
>have subsumed them under the general Magic rules, they appear less
>"intrusive".
Uh, I would say that they *are* less intrusive if they only
come into play as a result of magic. Also, the issue of magic is
a tricky one -- resisting a charm spell might be *nothing* like
normal personality. I.e. a character might be magic resistant
and thus throw off a succubus' spell, but be quite prone to
sleeping with bar wenches when drunk.
The logic behind having these "pseudo-personality" mechanics
only for things like mind control and charm spells is precisely
because these are special cases that don't work like normal human
behavior. If they worked like normal human behavior, then the
normal procedure (i.e. let the player decide) is the norm.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
>> I think the above divides it nicely. If it's not a magical or psychic
>> attack it's under the player's control as long as it doesn't violate the
>> game contract. And the game contract is a metagame issue.
>
>Personally, I think the mind/body dualism is illusory; quite a lot of
>systems theory points to a strong link between physical and mental
>states; the best known of these being the placebo effect, PTSD, faith
>healing, and psychosomatic illnesses.
An interesting question here: what about effects the opposite
way? That is, for those who like personality mechanics, what effect
does personality have on physical reality?
Example: My character has a real "killer instinct" and
patterns of aggressive behavior. Does he gain any sort of advantage
in personal combat for this?
Kevin R. Hardwick
Brian Gleichman wrote:
> Kevin R. Hardwick <krhr...@wt.infi.net> wrote in article
> <35470A79...@wt.infi.net>...
>
> > Exactly--I quite agree. It is then, to a certain degree,
> arbitratry.
>
> 'Arbitrary'.
>
> Duh.
>
> Another word would be 'preference', but that was something you claimed
>
> wasn't be sought. So happy you found it after all. I'm sure the change
> in
> wording will make it all better for you.
>
> Or have you now changed your mind and are suddenly seeking opinions
> and
> preferences?
The tone here is ad hominem.
I'm happy to discuss matters with you provided you refrain from
attacking my integrity. Here, as I read you, you accuse me of willfully
mistating your position,
or else of lying about mine.
Earlier you closed a comment with a gratuitous insult--in response to my
comment
that our failure to communicate was "too bad," you went out of your way
to assure
me and the rest of the rgfa world that from your perspective it was
welcome.
As long as you want to frame the issues that way, we don't have much to
talk about.
I don't seen any point in discussing substance with you when you are
more concerned to attack my character than you are to engage with the
ideas in my posts.
Kevin
Kevin R. Hardwick
Red wrote:
> Kevin R. Hardwick wrote:
>
> > A "players vs GM" contract, in which the players view the GM as
> > adversary and the game as something to be "won". Accquiring
> undesirable
> > mental traits or taking undesired actions due to "lack of
> self-control"
> > would be seen as "losing" the game. The GM would have to impose all
>
> > such undesired actions and the players would accept this the same
> way
> > they accept losing levels to a wight or accquiring lycanthropy.
> (And
> > the D&D reference is intentional.)
No, actually I did *not* write this. These are (IIRC) Carl's words.
Best,
Kevin
Kevin R. Hardwick
First--thanks for the clarification. And second, thank you for not
taking my
critique of your post personally!
knight_...@ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au wrote:
> Kevin R. Hardwick <krhr...@wt.infi.net> wrote:
> : knight_...@ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au wrote:
>
> : In most games, a player is not free to choose to switch gender, or
> : natural hair color, or who their parents are, once the choice has
> been
> : declared during character definition.
>
> True. On the other hand, a character can not change their mind after
> character creation, and act which is within the power of the
> character.
I'm really sorry--I've read this several times and I'm not sure what you
mean here! Its the last clause that is throwing me.
Also:
When you say "can not change their mind" do you mean "can not change the
declared personality (the contents of the character's mind)" or are you
using the
words in a colloquial sense, to mean, having made a decision or come to
a conclusion about somehting (have "made up their mind") they cannot now
decide on a new conclsuion or decision ("change their mind")?
Yowsa--my writing is terrible today. Does that make sense?
> I realised that you didn't necessarily follow that viewpoint, so I
> didn't
> say "you" or "Kevein" at any stage. I did try to convey my extreme
> distaste for that style (not necessarily very well tho :)
Cool. Thanks for the clarification.
I realized that I should not have unloaded on you, right after I made
the post. I was feeling somewhat besieged from sources elsewhere in the
thread. Sorry :)
> : I asked "in what ways is one form of GM coercion different from
> : another?" and you respond "because the GM may as well be playing
> : themself." This strikes me as a non-sequitor.
>
> Ok, I'll try and expalin myself better.
> I think the crux of the matter is who owns the character.
I agree with you very much--I think this is the heart of the entire
matter.
> The owner of
> the character is the final arbiter for the character of the character.
For your preferred style of play, of course :)
I can imagine some styles of play for which the question of "what is
character" might be defined somewhat differently. But the key issue
here is "how much of the character does the player own?"
Anyway, the rest of your post did lay out the connections. In your
original post you leaped to your conclusions without laying out the
connections--here, you've given me the connections. Given your
preferences, everything you say makes sense.
Thanks!
Kevin
Kevin R. Hardwick
Lee Short wrote:
> While I agree with your friend the physicalist about the
> materialist nature of the real world, my game world is
> not a physicalist world. It is a strongly dualist world, and
> makes for a convenient division of responsibilites (although
> sorcery can cross this barrier).
>
> So keep in mind that it is the nature of the game world
> that effects this. The GM's opinion of the real world is
> not necessarily relevant.
Thank you--I hadn't looked at it this way before.
I think this is an important point.
This gives a simulationist twist to the argument, it seems
to me. In your world, this is not entirely a group-contract
issue. It is also an extension of the reality of the world--
its basic essence, if you would.
Best,
Kevin
Kevin R. Hardwick
Brian Gleichman wrote:
"I learned then the futile nature of discussions with you. We simply
don't get along."
If you cannot have rational conversation with another person because of
a personality conflict, I wonder how you manage to get by in real life!
I'm envious of such an insulated position.
I have conversation with people I find difficult all the time on this
board--I do so because I get something out of it. If you don't get
anything out of conversation with me, that does not hurt my feelings a
bit. As you point out, sometimes that happens.
"Not being one who enjoys pointless activities I'll leave you to your
fun as much as I can without withdrawing from the group. It should be a
simple matter of refraining from responding to your posts."
Fair enough. I would encourage you to do precisely that. Half the time
I can't follow them anyway, so its no great loss to me.
(That, I suppose, my come across to you as gratuitous--given your thin
skin, it would not surprise me. But that is *not* how I intend the
statement.)
> It would be nice if you returned the favor.
Nope--I won't do that. If you say something that strikes me as
interesting, I'm going to comment. I don't expect you of necessity to
respond to my comments--but I may get something out of the conversation
with third parties.
I'm not here for your benefit, Brian, nor are you here for mine. I post
to this board because I learn from the conversation, and I also learn
what I think by the act of writing it out (see Carl Craven's recent post
in this thread in which he makes the same point).
But whatever, I'm not going to restrict my own activities in order to
please you.
For what it is worth, I'd probably be more inclined to accomodate you if
you were more polite.
Kevin
knight_...@ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au
:> : knight_...@ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au wrote:
:>
:> : In most games, a player is not free to choose to switch gender, or
:> : natural hair color, or who their parents are, once the choice has
:> been
:> : declared during character definition.
:>
:> True. On the other hand, a character can not change their mind after
:> character creation, and act which is within the power of the
:> character.
: I'm really sorry--I've read this several times and I'm not sure what you
: mean here! Its the last clause that is throwing me.
Perhaps if I change that "and act" to "an act". Makes a lot more sense
that way.
: Also:
: When you say "can not change their mind" do you mean "can not change the
: declared personality (the contents of the character's mind)" or are you
: using the
: words in a colloquial sense, to mean, having made a decision or come to
: a conclusion about somehting (have "made up their mind") they cannot now
: decide on a new conclsuion or decision ("change their mind")?
: Yowsa--my writing is terrible today. Does that make sense?
Not as bad as mine. The former ("change personality") is what I meant,
but I wasn't very clear on it. I wanted to expand on what I considered
the core of the matter later.
: I realized that I should not have unloaded on you, right after I made
: the post. I was feeling somewhat besieged from sources elsewhere in the
: thread. Sorry :)
Must...resist...feel...need...too...flame...arrghhh!
"Your mother was a troll. 10 gold or I'll tell."
(I've played too much angband lately. Rather apprppriate too.)
:> The owner of
:> the character is the final arbiter for the character of the character.
: For your preferred style of play, of course :)
Of course. I imagine this is basically true for all styles of play tho.
Different styles of play may define the "owner" differently (including
the group being the owner or partial owner).
: I can imagine some styles of play for which the question of "what is
: character" might be defined somewhat differently. But the key issue
: here is "how much of the character does the player own?"
Yep. In the campaigns I run, I have the player completely own the
character. Several other styles of play would seem to have the player
being the primary owner, but the group can override the player on the
actions of the character. Other groups would have the GM being the owner.
In the future I think I'll lay out who owns the character in my future
campaigns, and ask who in campaigns in which I intend to play. This
discussion has proved quite fruitful for me.
--
"Women. The best thing since the Nova spell" [Lynard the fire elemaster]
kni...@ucc.gu._SPLAT_uwa.edu.au | glennb@ichr._KILL_uwa.edu.au
Home page: http://www.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au/~knight/
finger -l for pgp public key
Brian Gleichman
> Brian Gleichman wrote:
>
> > There is a difference in saying 'Your character is seduce by Beth' and
> > saying 'You've fallen under the magical domination of the succubus'.
> >
>
> Why?
Beth is attempting to seduce and her target can choose to fall for her or
not. The succubus's successful use of magic is an act of force that removes
a target's choice.
One is seduction, the other is rape. One is asking, one is pulling a gun. I
think there's a difference here.
> I put it you that you DO have personality mechanics, but becuase you
> have subsumed them under the general Magic rules, they appear less
> "intrusive".
<snip>
> Strong willed? Is this not an aspect of the characters' personality?
That's stretching the definition way too far.
Those mechanics don't exist to justify the GM overriding player's decisions
for their characters. They exist solely to determine the result of the
forceful application of magic or psychic powers.
> Brian, would you be prepared to discuss a set of mechanics which are NOT
> prescriptive but descriptive in all circumstances other than those of,
> for example, magical coercion?
Likely not as I doubt I have anything to contribute to the discussion
beyond what I've already said (i.e. I think they're a bad idea for any
style of gaming I'd be interested in).
But I wouldn't mind half watching such a thread.
> > Now I could speak about my methods of handling external influences due
to
> > magical or psychic means, but I consider that a different discussion.
>
> I don't think it is a different discussion at all and I would be
> ineterested to know how you do handle these things.
The short version is by the use of a saving throw method.
Brian Gleichman
Carl D. Cravens <rave...@southwind.net> wrote in article
<Iu6R1wIe...@southwind.net>...
> If you lack patience for views or statements that you don't understand
> or are unwilling to accept, it's quite possible that rgfa will have a
> negative effect on your stress level.
I have great respect for a number of people here with vastly different
views than my own. I would had hoped that would be clear; and I think it is
for most of those familiar with my postings over the last few months.
I see this as a isolated problem between Kevin and myself as he is the only
person in all my time of posting to r.g.f.a I've had a real problem with,
now for the second time. There is a bit of history here.
I see my best course of action as simply ignoring him. If I had realized
that this was THAT Kevin, I would have done so before this flare up. Sadly
I had forgotten his last name over the last seven months.
Upon remembering who I was dealing with, I decided to end it now before it
became worse. Unfortunately I did so in a less polite fashion than normal
due to past experience, my own irritation at being drawn into another
thread with him, and his constant jabs at my admittedly bad writing skill.
For my part I have no desire to be a drain on what I've found to be the
only worthwhile newsgroup on the net and am sorry for my part in turning
the thread ugly.
I'm quite willing to leave if requested by a sufficient number of regular
posters here. I won't attempt to force myself on others and such requests
would indicate the end of any positive addition I would bring to the group.
Barring those requests I will continue my normal style of posting and will
hold to my intended path of ignoring Kevin.
Brian Gleichman
> But wouldn't you agree that this is part of the *normal* contract? I
> would find a game lacking this fundamental understanding to be rather
> unusual, myself.
I've seen a large number of games without this contract. Other than that, I
don't have polls or other methods of determining usual.
I would however suggest that 'unusual' is in no way invalid just for being
'unusual'.
> >In our case, it's the game contract that the player owning the character
is
> >the only judge of "act consistently and in line" that is allowed with
any
> >overriding authority.
>
> Hum. But he certainly is not the only judge, and he is obviously a
> biased one.
He's the only one that matters in game.
Naturally conflicts in styles between players and/or the GM can result in a
metagame resolution of some nature.
> >I don't have a 'poor role-playing' standard as such that I force people
> >into.
>
> Nobody said anything about forcing.
I would consider an in game mechanic designed to make it impossible for a
player to do 'poor role-playing' in the eyes of the GM to be forcing.
> But if the rest of the players don't want only combat, you have conflict
> that needs to be resolved.
I've always managed that quite well. Few groups have players who all agree
on everything.
Many groups have players who only care about combat. The hang back and wait
through role-playing sessions and come alive during the battles.
Rather easy to keep these guys happy except for the extreme cases.
> >If he wants to role-play inconsistently, the world will react to him as
it
> >does any inconsistent person. This may not make him happy and he'll
either
> >change his style, accept the result, or leave.
>
> What's the matter with talking to the player? Why turn it into a
> "player vs GM" situation?
I do that up front and the player is made aware of his choices.
> And wait a minute... didn't you say that you
> don't "force" standards, but didn't you just describe the specific way
> in which you *do* force a stardard?
It's a metagame method, not an in game mechanical one.
Metagame contracts with players are not only acceptable to me, they are
required. In game control of internal PC decisions by the GM is however
unacceptable to me.
> I thought you said that there had been no complex or formal mechanics
> presented? If they're proposing them, but there aren't any in use, then
> those that are in use must be simple and informal.
There have been those who seemed to call for them. I have no idea what the
details are as they haven't presented them.
In much the same way I haven't presented my ruleset to this group; but I
have in the past issued a call for detailed tactical systems. I assure you
my systems are not simple and informal.
Psychohist
In reference to the following:
Doesn't the group contract normally include "the player
will cause his character to act consistently and in line
with the declared personality to the best of their
ability"?
Carl Cravens posts:
But wouldn't you agree that this is part of the *normal*
contract? I would find a game lacking this fundamental
understanding to be rather unusual, myself.
I don't know about Brian, but I would not agree this is part of the normal
contract - quite the opposite. In my experience, the normal contract is the
inverse of that statement: 'to the best of their ability, the gamesmaster and
other players will interpret a character's personality according to the
player's play of the character'.
In fact, I personally still find strange the idea of defining a character's
personality before knowing how one will play the character, then playing the
character according to that personality. I wonder if there's a bit of a design
at start versus develop in play dichotomy here.
Warren Dew