TheRPGSite

This is split from Is it the GM's responsibility to make the game fun? (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4181) -- regarding a player's idea for handling time in prison.  

Quote from: JimBobOzFor example, faced with the prospect of the characters being in prison for their actions, when I said, "well, what are you going to do? Choose some other course, or...?" one player replied, "Couldn't we just assume we all go to prison, then fast-forward a few game years until we have a reunion?" That's laziness.

Quote from: JimBobOzBasically, it's the wussy way out. "Hey, my character was wounded... can we just fast-forward to when he's better?" "Hey, my character wasted his month's salary in two days... can we just fast-forward to when he gets his next pay?" Actions have consequences. If the players' actions had the consequence of their becoming rich and famous, nobody would be asking for a fast-forward. No reward without risk. If you just want a story where your character always succeeds without trouble and any failure is glossed over or retconned, sit at home and write Mary Sue fic. Roleplaying games are about stories, and adventures - stories have ups and downs, not only only ups or only downs, and adventures have risks; risk is meaningless unless there are negative consequences from time to time.

Huh?  To me, your examples drive home the idea that fast-forwarding is a good thing.  

I mean, if a character is wounded and in the hospital, am I going to use up session time role-playing out the character sitting around in a hospital bed?  Fuck no!!  That's not the down half of an adventure story -- that's just boring.  The down part is when the character gets out and finds that the bad guys ransacked his place and kidnapped his family while he was in.  So, yeah, I'm going to fast forward until they're well again and get into more trouble.  Am I missing something here?  Does anyone role-play out time spent healing?  

I agree that there has to be bad stuff which happens to the characters.  Being in prison for five years is no damn fun for the character.  But that doesn't mean that you should make the game no fun for the player to convey that.  The game should always remain fun for the players.

Fast forwarding has it's place in games and stories. Hell, one of the best shows on TV, Battlestar galactica, fast forwarded over a year at the end of the second season and it worked out great.

Of course the game should always remain fun for the players. The issue is not whether or not players should have fun, which is why I didn't mention it. The issue is whether player-characters should have consequences for their actions.

For example,

Quote from: jhkimI mean, if a character is wounded and in the hospital, am I going to use up session time role-playing out the character sitting around in a hospital bed? Fuck no!! That's not the down half of an adventure story -- that's just boring. The down part is when the character gets out and finds that the bad guys ransacked his place and kidnapped his family while he was in.

So your scenario is that, "okay, you avoid one negative thing - waiting to heal - but instead you get another negative thing - your family got kidnapped."

I've got no problem with players trading one negative for another; my problem is with players wanting to do away with the negative thing.

In the example I gave, "we spend time in prison, get out and have a reunion" was intended by the player to be exactly equivalent to, "we don't go to prison." The player wanted to avoid any negative consequences of their character's actions.

Quote from: JimBobOzIn the example I gave, "we spend time in prison, get out and have a reunion" was intended by the player to be exactly equivalent to, "we don't go to prison." The player wanted to avoid any negative consequences of their character's actions.

Having spent time in prison would still have ramifications, though, possibly when the characters least expect it: they'd never know when the social stigma of being ex-convicts might resurface to ruin the situation for them.

Fastforwarding has almost nothing to do with the referee.  If the players decide that is what they want to do, narrate events forward until they wish to step in or you reach the point they asked you to fastforward to.

More often than not, in an adventurous world, they're going to want to step in after a few months.  It all depends on how dense or desolate changes are at the location they sabbatical.

I thought you said you didn't like to teach your players lessons, JB?

Yeah, I found that a bit strange.  If I heard that suggestion from a player, I wouldn't immediately label them "lazy."  It would strike me that it's a signal from the player that he doesn't think a prison-game or prison-breakout game is something he's interested in, but an ex-cons game might well be.

It's not like having spent time in the clink has no impact on the characters.

Having once spent three sessions with my character in solitary confinement, just sitting there each week with fuck all to do as a player, count mine as a vote for fast forwarding.

Heh.  I posted this to the other thread before seeing this one:

QuoteQuote:
Originally Posted by JimBobOz
We're not playing Blues Brothers, we're playing Unknown Armies. It's meant to be grim and gritty.

Yeah, you'd need to be willing to spend the time to figure out how a bunch of characters who just got out of prison for violent crimes, and get together to think about continuing on the path that put the in prison could be grim and gritty. If you see that as an inherently comedic situation, you might find it a lot of work.  

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimBobOz
Roleplaying games are about stories, and adventures - stories have ups and downs, not only only ups or only downs, and adventures have risks; risk is meaningless unless there are negative consequences from time to time.

The only difference is whether you roleplay through all the boring stuff where the characters are in jail/hospital/skid row -- or if you paraphrase what happens over a period of time. The consequences are still there (including any statistical changes).

Quote from: JimBobOzIf you just want a story where your character always succeeds without trouble and any failure is glossed over or retconned, sit at home and write Mary Sue fic. Roleplaying games are about stories, and adventures - stories have ups and downs, not only only ups or only downs, and adventures have risks; risk is meaningless unless there are negative consequences from time to time.

Quote from: JimBobOzI've got no problem with players trading one negative for another; my problem is with players wanting to do away with the negative thing.

In the example I gave, "we spend time in prison, get out and have a reunion" was intended by the player to be exactly equivalent to, "we don't go to prison." The player wanted to avoid any negative consequences of their character's actions.

Well, I don't know the player in question, so I don't know.  

In my experience, I've never come across a player who wanted no risks or failures.  However, I have come across many players who wanted different types of risks and consequences.  

Failures and consequences can be fun, but for that they need to be the type that the players like.  One should be careful of pushing consequences which aren't fun simply because you want there to be consequences.  For example, I'm running a Call of Cthulhu game currently -- and the PCs are constantly are having horrible things happen to them.  Usually they have to pick the lesser of evils, and often the evil they pick turns out to be much worse than they thought.  However, the players enjoy this.  

I think one of the keys is that bad things happening to the PCs doesn't imply that I disapprove of the players and am trying to teach them a lesson.  In my game, bad things always happen to the PCs -- they just sometimes have choices about which bad things.  For example, two of the PCs went to jail recently -- but that was because I put them in a no-win situation.  The dean of Rochester cathedral was being possessed by an evil force which manifested through a clay statue of Jesus.  They were caught having shot the dean in the face with a shotgun and gone mad facing the statue.  

If you press that "un-fun consequences are better than no consequences", then the players are liable to lose interest in actually taking risks.

Quote from: JimBobOzIn the example I gave, "we spend time in prison, get out and have a reunion" was intended by the player to be exactly equivalent to, "we don't go to prison." The player wanted to avoid any negative consequences of their character's actions.

Well, they're roleplaying. Their characters may be supposed to suffer negative consequences (although that's not required). The players, on the other hand, don't have to suffer in any way.

Unless things can get interesting for the players once in prison, I'd fast forward to. Some players might not find prison time interesting at all, so I supposed this needs to be negociated.

Quote from: droogI thought you said you didn't like to teach your players lessons, JB?

I don't.

That actions have consequences isn't a lesson to be taught, it's the basis of a fun rpg. "Risk" is always something difficult to balance, as the GM. For example, players who enjoy combat, one of the things they enjoy is the risk of losing, which carries a risk of death or maiming. If there's no risk for their character, ever, then combat is not as much fun for them. But then, if their character dies, and we had a whole lot of plot wrapped up in that character, and the player was fond of them, then that hurts the fun a bit.

So between the fun of having some real risk, and the not-fun of losing your character, we have to find a balance. That balance-point is where the group as a whole seems to be comfortable with it.

The player who wanted the fast-forward is a player who doesn't enjoy any negative consequences at all for their character; it's a Mary Sue. This person wants it to always go their way. If I were GMing only this player, then I'd go ahead and give them what they want; but there are three other players in the group, so I have to balance things up. They want risk of failure, and they want the chance of character death and misery - that makes success all the sweeter, and they enjoy getting their character out of the shit from time to time. So I go with what the majority want. Mary Sue player just has to suck it up.

Normally I'd try to mash the different wants together, but because Mary Sue's at the extreme, it's not really possible. If Mary Sue succeeds all the time and never has any negative consequences for their actions, then the rest of the party just follows along in their shining wake.

Quote from: jhkimIn my experience, I've never come across a player who wanted no risks or failures. However, I have come across many players who wanted different types of risks and consequences.

As I've described, this is the player I've got in my group. The other three are as you describe; they want different risks and failures, and different degrees of them. I can with some thought accomodate different wishes for risk and failure; I can't really accomodate those who want none, or all - at least, not at the same time as the others.

We'll have to take your word on the player wanting 0 consequences all the time but can you please not use the term "Mary Sue" like that?  It hurts my head in much the same way as people throwing Forge jargon around.

Quote from: RedFoxWe'll have to take your word on the player wanting 0 consequences all the time but can you please not use the term "Mary Sue" like that?  It hurts my head in much the same way as people throwing Forge jargon around.

I thought it sounded nicer than "roleplaying as ego masturbation".

Quote from: jhkimIn my experience, I've never come across a player who wanted no risks or failures.  However, I have come across many players who wanted different types of risks and consequences.  

Failures and consequences can be fun, but for that they need to be the type that the players like.  One should be careful of pushing consequences which aren't fun simply because you want there to be consequences.

This seems relatively wise.

I certainly don't want un-fun gaming. One place where this trips me up is a conflict between fidelity to the world and the freedom to "choose" consequences that are fun.

The prison example is a good one -- if the PC's have taken actions that, IMO, would land them in prison, I prefer to have that happen.

FWIW, I'd be fine with fast-fowarding, assuming everyone in the game was okay with it and it wouldn't cause other problems ("You spend 21 days in the clink... at that time, with no PC's to stop him, Dr. KillEveryone perfects his doomsday machine and the world ends...")

However, in a lot of situations it's less a matter of time than game-state: some actions are hard to repair (killing someone, as an extreme case -- getting fired from a job for massive insubordination, etc.). I'd also class consequences that cause logistical hassles (splitting the party, etc.) as ones that might he hard to just fast-forward over.

One thing that I find very helpful is talking about what I see as the likely consequences of an action before it occurs...

In many cases this gives the PC's a chance to modify or abort the action -- or convince me that I'm wrong about my assumptions. Either way, if the actions play out the way I thought they would, at least everyone's on-board.

I've also found that in many cases, what seems obvious to me isn't obvious to everyone ("You're serious? If we go on a shooting rampage, someone might call the cops?! Really?!")

This technique only works under some condtions and it's not always easy to apply (I don't always have the level of awareness necessary to stop the game and talk about what's about to happen), but it seems like a reasonable middle-ground between some attempt at no-consequences and a ruthless application of consequences.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.[...] One thing that I find very helpful is talking about what I see as the likely consequences of an action before it occurs...

In many cases this gives the PC's a chance to modify or abort the action -- or convince me that I'm wrong about my assumptions. Either way, if the actions play out the way I thought they would, at least everyone's on-board.[...]

You'd think so, yes. Yet players can get stubborn.

"I don't care, I'm doing it anyway."

For example, in my most recent session, the Mary Sue character and her friends had gone to the villain's room in his share flat and were searching it. They came across his Little Guy, his homunculus,


When they shone their torch on him, he screamed a high-pitched, piercing scream. Most of them covered their ears and closed their eyes in pain and rushed out of the room. Mary Sue threw the bed cover over him and stomped on him repeatedly, crushing him to bloody pulp. The villain chose this time to come home.

"No! My little guy! No!" He zapped Mary Sue with a flesh-rending magical blast. She didn't think much of this, and proceeded to beat the crap out of him. Next her warped her hand - made all her fingers stick together, turning her hand into something like a flipper. "Back off!" he threatened, "or next time, it'll be your mouth and nose sealed up!"

The other PCs were urging Mary Sue to stop. The players began discussing whether he was evil or not. After one player tried to make a point, Mary Sue's player said "I don't care what you say. My character believes he is evil and she wants to kill him."

Luckily for Mary Sue, the other characters dragged her off him. Otherwise, her mouth and nose would have been sealed up. A nasty end for a character with "Fear Stimulus: Asphixiation." Of course, they could prevent her death by cutting her sealed-up face open, but that is pretty nasty and will stay with a player.

Even when warned of in-game consequences - horrendous magical death for the character - and persuaded by other players who don't want the campaign to go that way (murder), still the player persisted.

"I don't care, I'm doing it anyway."

The point is, you're in a postion to do absolutely anything you like. If you really want to, you can find a way around the characters being busted. You can even do it plausibly.

So whatever happens to the characters next comes from you. Talking about consequences is kind of beside the point. You should decide what's most fun for your game and do it.

If what happens next in the game is simply whatever we all think is most fun, then consequences bear no relationship to actions. I've tried that, and found it creates passive players. "Everything we do leads to success" or "everything we do leads to failure" or "everything we do has no effect on what happens next, it comes out the same anyway" is just boring.

Part of this particular group of players' sense of fun is that there's some consistency and plausibility to the game world. They want a world where crime leads to jail; but the simple fact is that "crime" can be the act and thoughts of a moment. "Woops." The solution, then, is to give the players more time to think about the consequences of their actions, and more knowledge of the likely consequences, than the characters would have.

But if there's one stubborn Mary Sue there's not much anyone can do.

Quote from: JimBobOzThe other PCs were urging Mary Sue to stop. The players began discussing whether he was evil or not. After one player tried to make a point, Mary Sue's player said "I don't care what you say. My character believes he is evil and she wants to kill him."

A case of cognitive dissonance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance) perhaps?  When an individual tries to hold two incompatible thoughts at the same time, despite evidence to the contrary.

As a player, I want to believe the bad guy is evil, because then I'm justified in stomping on him.  And that would be fun.  But as a character the evidence against the bad guy is slim.  Killing him is a violent, sickening action with no real grounds.

Oh, and JimBob, I'm very disappointed at your spelling of the word gaol :)

Quote from: Tyberious FunkA case of cognitive dissonance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance) perhaps?  When an individual tries to hold two incompatible thoughts at the same time, despite evidence to the contrary.

More like "an excuse to do what I want to do, screw you guys!"

Quote from: Tyberious FunkAs a player, I want to believe the bad guy is evil, because then I'm justified in stomping on him.  And that would be fun.  But as a character the evidence against the bad guy is slim.  Killing him is a violent, sickening action with no real grounds.

No grounds? Sure there are! You had only the bad guy's testimony that he was not a bad guy! Maybe he lied to you, and was playing you like a cheap violin.

"I didn't really kill her. She was trying to kill me, shoot me in the back, and I used our magical bond to transfer the death to her, instead." Does your character honestly believe that nonsense? :D

It could be true, or not... but does your character believe it?

I loved playing that villain.

Quote from: JimBobOzNo grounds? Sure there are! You had only the bad guy's testimony that he was not a bad guy! Maybe he lied to you, and was playing you like a cheap violin.

Maybe.  But that's hardly grounds for killing him.  That's grounds for handing him over to the police.  Letting justice have it's course.  We're adventurers... not vigilantes.  

Errr... at least, I think that's what we are.  :rolleyes:

Is it? I haven't been able to tell just what you guys are!

But hey, that happens in every group - it takes a few sessions to sort out what you're about, what your style will be.

Some players reckon they can get a shortcut on that by fast-forwarding or rewinding, but unfortunately it doesn't work that way. To figure out who you are and where you're going, you just have to play it out.

Quote from: JimBobOzIf what happens next in the game is simply whatever we all think is most fun, then consequences bear no relationship to actions. I've tried that, and found it creates passive players. "Everything we do leads to success" or "everything we do leads to failure" or "everything we do has no effect on what happens next, it comes out the same anyway" is just boring.

I didn't say 'what we all think'. I said 'what you think'. You have to run the thing, and you're not running PtA.

It's about having fun (right?). If you send them to prison, you need to make that fun in some way. If you don't, same deal. You have to make it up and run it, and maybe you have to deal with people saying "This sucks."

You fast-forward over something if you can't make it interesting. Not 'so the characters escape the consequences of their actions.' That's just putting an extra layer into your decision-making that doesn't need to be there.

I can't speak to your issue with your player, but it sounds to me like you maybe should boot him.

Quote from: JimBobOzLuckily for Mary Sue, the other characters dragged her off him. Otherwise, her mouth and nose would have been sealed up. A nasty end for a character with "Fear Stimulus: Asphixiation." Of course, they could prevent her death by cutting her sealed-up face open, but that is pretty nasty and will stay with a player.

Even when warned of in-game consequences - horrendous magical death for the character - and persuaded by other players who don't want the campaign to go that way (murder), still the player persisted.

On the one hand, as I said, I don't know your player, so maybe there is something wrong here.  But whenever you say things to show that she is in the wrong, it sounds perfectly normal to me.  

Wanting to not play out time in jail?  Sounds pretty reasonable -- something I would suggest as a player.  Ditto for skipping over time in the hospital.  

Stomp an unnatural monstrosity into a pulp?  Perhaps not a cool, reasoned response -- but perfectly understandable and matches stuff many of my PCs have done.  

Attacking the sorcerer responsible for the monstrosity, after he has blasted you?  Also seems normal to me.  

Continuing despite threats of death?  Again, check.  I mean, it's pretty darn usual for PCs to face threats of death.  It's a adventure game, damnit.  If I'm fighting what I think is an evil sorcerer and a murderer, I expect him to threaten me, and it's unlikely to get me to back down.  I would expect that following his orders is quite possibly more likely to get killed than not.  

Doing something the other PCs don't agree with?  Well, opinions differ on this one, but it's pretty common for me.  I don't like loner characters, but I like characters with strong convictions.  I usually prefer to role-play out intra-party conflicts as action rather than have everyone adventure by committee.  


Actually, a lot of this very closely matches what happened to me in a horror campaign years ago -- the Ripper Game (http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/ripper/).  My character, Inspector Grimmond, came upon a laboratory filled with unnatural horrors, including a fetus in a jar which turned and blinked at him.  He cracked and smashed up the place, over the objections of the other PC there.  

Later, in a different adventure, he was personally threatened with horrible death by a villain.  He refused to back down -- taking the threats as a sign that he was causing problems for the villain, which was exactly his intent.  He was later captured and tortured, and had starving rats chew up the lower half of his body before he was rescued.  

And indeed, Grimmond was something of a contentious point with the GM, similar to your complaints.  Similarly, last year there was a thread about our HarnMaster party on the Harn GM forum: "Reining in the party" (http://www.harnforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=6689).  I see it as mainly a GMing problem myself - the claims about our HarnMaster party were in my opinion totally off-base.

Quote from: jhkimOn the one hand, as I said, I don't know your player, so maybe there is something wrong here.  But whenever you say things to show that she is in the wrong, it sounds perfectly normal to me.  

I didn't say that her character's actions were wrong, I said that her character's actions had forseeable consequences, and that she didn't want to suffer these. She did not dispute the likely consequences when warned of them, only when suffering them.

I am happy for a character to shoot themselves in the foot; but if warned that this will make them limp a long time, they should not complain about limping, or argue vociferously about it.

Quote from: jhkimDoing something the other PCs don't agree with?  Well, opinions differ on this one, but it's pretty common for me.  I don't like loner characters, but I like characters with strong convictions.  I usually prefer to role-play out intra-party conflicts as action rather than have everyone adventure by committee.  

I generally agree with this. I merely mentioned it because it's a regular thing. My instinct is that some players have their characters act against the wishes or interests of the character party or game group not because "it's in-character," but simply to be contrary; some people establish identity merely by opposition.

This particular player will often say "well this is what I want to do, and you guys can't stop me," when in fact the other characters are very much in a position to stop her character.
   "I take the journal and send it to the press, you guys can't stop me."
"Well hang on a minute. You're all sitting there reading it together, you get up and go to take it away, guys, do you say anything to that?"
"Sure. Where are you going with that interesting journal we were just now reading and discussing?"
"They can't stop me! They don't know what I'm doing!"
"Well, they see your character get up with the journal in hand, so..."
etc

Players can do what they like with their characters in my campaigns. But there'll be common-sense consequences. "You stomped on his homunculus, he's upset," and so on.

I don't expect that I, as GM, will have right of veto over what the player wants to do with their character, or that I should get to tell them what's right and proper for their character. By the same token, I don't expect that players will have right of veto over what happens in the game world, nor should they tell me what's right and proper for it.

"Hey, that was wrongful arrest! The cops have to read us our rights before cuffing us!"
"That's not the law in this fictional town. They read you your rights once they're going to interview you."
"But that's wrong! The law is wrong! In the US it's different, it's wrong here."
"You may consider the law wrong, but that's what it is in this fictional town in the game world."
"I tell my solicitor I want to sue for wrongful arrest!"
"Your solicitor advises that you've no chance of a successful suit, costs would be awarded against you. Plus the suit wouldn't happen until the campaign was over, so it'll have no in-game effect."
"I don't care, I sue!"
"So you're arguing over a point you know will have no effect on the game?"
"I sue!"

It's a player who's trying to tell me what the game world is like, who's trying to impose that over the objections of the GM and the rest of the group. I see this as exactly equivalent to my saying, "well, I don't think your character would stomp the homunculus, so you can't do it."

Just as we don't run a player's character by game group committee, so too with the game world and NPCs.

If the player were arguing to make the game world more interesting, I'd be delighted; but the player's simply arguing to make the game world more in her character's favour. She is, essentially, a rules-light munchkin. Or perhaps trying to be both GM and player, I don't know.

Quote from: JimBobOzI didn't say that her character's actions were wrong, I said that her character's actions had forseeable consequences, and that she didn't want to suffer these. She did not dispute the likely consequences when warned of them, only when suffering them.

I am happy for a character to shoot themselves in the foot; but if warned that this will make them limp a long time, they should not complain about limping, or argue vociferously about it.

OK, see, here's the communication problem in the thread.  In your prior post, you didn't mention anything about her out-of-game complaints -- you only cited her character actions that I mentioned.  

You do give some examples in this post.  

From what you say about the journal incident, it sounds to me like the other players were clearly having their PCs act on the metagame information, i.e. that their PCs could automatically tell her character was up to something based on what she said out-of-character about her intentions.  However, you started this by jumping from her broad out-of-character statement to declaring as GM what her character does in front of the others.  I would think you could have asked instead.  (i.e. "How do you intend to leave with the journal?")  

On the lawsuit, I don't see what your deal was.  It sounds like you're trying to tell her that her character shouldn't sue, and she's insisting that she does.  After saying what the solicitor's advice is, your answer should be, "OK, you sue."  

Now, this doesn't mean that she's not being a jerk -- but trying to boss her around isn't going to make her less of a jerk, it makes things worse.  Reading in a bit from the tone you ascribe to her, it sounds like she feels that she is being bossed and expected to stick to the party line.  i.e. She feels that she has to argue to do what she wants.

Quote from: jhkimOK, see, here's the communication problem in the thread.  In your prior post, you didn't mention anything about her out-of-game complaints -- you only cited her character actions that I mentioned.  

That's because a character is an expression of a player; a disruptive player will often use their character to disrupt things. That way, they get to say, "but I'm just acting in character! Shouldn't I get extra xp for good roleplaying?" So to a degree, the player's out-of-game comments and actions are irrelevant. Looking at them in-character, we know a troublemaker when we see one.

Quote from: jhkimFrom what you say about the journal incident, it sounds to me like the other players were clearly having their PCs act on the metagame information, i.e. that their PCs could automatically tell her character was up to something based on what she said out-of-character about her intentions.

To a degree. However, three things.

Firstly, her character had engaged in erratic behaviour already. She launched herself at the cops to attack them, then stopped and just sat there. She once refused to confront a physical threat, saying, "I'm just a girl," but then was the first to physically threaten an NPC. Her character was erratic, unpredictable, inconsistent and impulsive. So if she got up taking away a piece of evidence which could possibly clear the party of involvement in someone's murder, well then it was reasonable that the other characters would say, "where are you going with that?"

Secondly, in general it was a reasonable thing for them to question. Again, it's a piece of evidence which could possibly clear them. If someone gets up from the table with that in hand, it's reasonable that others can say, "where are you going with that?"

Thirdly, the player had begun the out-of-game discussion, saying, "Guys, I want to send this journal away, but I'm only asking you out of character, as players - your characters can't stop me." When they protested that it was a bad idea, she said, "well I don't care I'll do it anyway." So the player had already begun the out-of-game discussion. I alow these from time-to-time, as often they're quicker ways of making group decisions than roleplaying it all out.

By contrast, after the party had beaten up the villain and tossed him in the rubbish bin, and the game group were debating what to do next, I was saying, "so, you're standing at the end of the alley where you've left behind a beaten-up guy who's still moaning, discussing what to do... people are passing by as shops open up..."

Sometimes things are better dealt with in out-of-character chatter, sometimes better dealt with in-character. It's very hard to decide which and when as these situations jump up suddenly, I'm sure I often get it wrong.

Quote from: jhkimHowever, you started this by jumping from her broad out-of-character statement to declaring as GM what her character does in front of the others.  I would think you could have asked instead.  (i.e. "How do you intend to leave with the journal?")  

I did. I asked her what her character was doing, "well, I get up from the table, and just walk off with the book." Earlier I just gave you all the abridged version, it's not an exact transcript of the session, as I didn't expect it to be analysed line-by-line ;)

Quote from: jhkimOn the lawsuit, I don't see what your deal was.  It sounds like you're trying to tell her that her character shouldn't sue, and she's insisting that she does.  After saying what the solicitor's advice is, your answer should be, "OK, you sue."  

It's because the issue was nothing to do with a lawsuit in-game. The issue was that the player has a particular conception of the game world, and is trying to impose that on the group. This is something that comes up frequently with this player, regardless of setting. This player's conception of the game world is invariably one which favours her character.

In any activity with more than one person, conflicts will arise. You have to distinguish between the symptoms of the conflicts - "I don't care, I'll sue anyway!" - and the causes of the conflicts - "I want the world to be as I say it is." I was trying to address the root cause.

Tyberious Funk recently pointed us to a wikipedia article on the five bases of power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_%28sociology%29#Five_bases_of_power),
   Legitimate Power
    Legitimate Power refers to power of an individual because of the relative position and duties of the holder of the position within an organization. Legitimate Power is formal authority delegated to the holder of the position.

Referent Power
    Referent Power means the power or ability of individuals to persuade and influence others. It's based on the charisma and interpersonal skills of the power holder. Here the person under power desires to identify with these personal qualities, and gains satisfaction from being an accepted follower.

Expert Power
    Expert Power is an individual's power deriving from the skills or expertise of the person and the organization's needs for those skills and expertise. Unlike the others, this type of power is usually highly specific and limited to the particular area in which the expert is trained and qualified.

Reward Power
    Reward Power depends upon the ability of the power wielder to confer valued material rewards, it refers to the degree to which the individual can give others a reward of some kind such as benefits, time off, desired gifts, promotions or increases in pay or responsibility.

Coercive Power
    Coercive Power means the application of negative influences onto employees. It might refer to the ability to demote or to withhold other rewards. It's the desire for valued rewards or the fear of having them withheld that ensures the obedience of those under power. Coercive Power tends to be the least effective form of power as it builds resentment and resistance within the targets of Coercive Power.
We can see that in most game groups, the GM is thought of as having all five kinds of power, though the "coercive power" is limited by the fact that roleplaying is a voluntary social activity - get too bossy and nasty and no-one will game with you. In many groups, some player may have "referent power." So what we've seen in my group is that one player has tried to use "referent power" to assert "expert power" and ensure control over "reward power."

"Hey guys [referent], that's ridiculous because our law isn't like that [expert], so really we shouldn't have been arrested, even though we were violent to the cops [attempt to grab reward, and avoid coercion]."

Basically, this player wants the power of the GM (deciding what the game world is like), while having only the responsibility of a player (not having to go to the trouble of preparing the game).

That's just the way this person is. Once, she asked us how to do a resume, since it's done differently in Australia, a country she was new to. We had in our group a person who's been on interview panels, and taken part in discussions about who to hire. My spouse as an interpreter has also taken part in these sorts of discussions. So those are two people who are well-qualified to advise on what sort of resume impresses, and what sort doesn't. She asked for their advice, acknowledged that it was right for Australia, then said, "But I don't want to do that, so I won't."

I can understand not wanting input or advice on your life, and so rejecting it when it's given; but I can't understand asking for advice, then rejecting it outright and entirely. I can only assume that as with the "villain's journal" situation, she was asking for advice hoping to be told what she already believed in. "Please reinforce what I already think."

So we're talking about a person who insists on their own point of view and course of action regardless, even after explicitly asking for advice.

Quote from: jhkimtrying to boss her around isn't going to make her less of a jerk, it makes things worse.  Reading in a bit from the tone you ascribe to her, it sounds like she feels that she is being bossed and expected to stick to the party line.  i.e. She feels that she has to argue to do what she wants.

Certainly.

I'm aware of what makes things worse. What will make them better? droog's already suggested booting her out. However, I always search for other solutions before doing that. I'm sure I'm not the first GM with a stupidly stubborn player bellowing "I know my rights!" Other people must have dealt with this better than I know how to.

I've tried bringing the subject up, but I just get, "I don't care, I'm doing it anyway." Some people just have trouble understanding they're in a game group.

I really can't stand the "my character will do this disruptive thing, because it's in character" shctick.

Who made that character?  Who decided what was in character and what wasn't?  It's not some revelation from Heaven, it's a fictional construct created by the player.  Next time create a fictional construct that won't disrupt the bloody game.

Quote from: jhkimNow, this doesn't mean that she's not being a jerk -- but trying to boss her around isn't going to make her less of a jerk, it makes things worse. Reading in a bit from the tone you ascribe to her, it sounds like she feels that she is being bossed and expected to stick to the party line. i.e. She feels that she has to argue to do what she wants.

Quote from: JimBobOzCertainly.

I'm aware of what makes things worse. What will make them better? droog's already suggested booting her out. However, I always search for other solutions before doing that. I'm sure I'm not the first GM with a stupidly stubborn player bellowing "I know my rights!" Other people must have dealt with this better than I know how to.

I've tried bringing the subject up, but I just get, "I don't care, I'm doing it anyway." Some people just have trouble understanding they're in a game group.

Bear in mind again that I have limited information here, but since you ask, here's what I'm picturing.  

It sounds to me like she's relatively new to role-playing, and she feels that whenever she brings up an idea, it is shot down by the group -- including you as well as the other players.  This is fairly common in newbies in games of any sort, in my experience -- including board games and card games.  Mind you, their ideas often are bad, but it's still not fun for them to be bossed.  Some just sit through this, but others will rebel in frustration and insist on pushing on with their ideas.  Usually, they don't want to always win, they just want to be able to play for themselves and be judged fairly, rather than be told what to do.  

My suggestion is that if you want to keep her in your group (which maybe you don't -- but I'm saying if), as GM you should to give her a space where she is right.  You shouldn't turn over the whole world, obviously.  However, there needs to be some small but still important section of the game where her ideas have merit and she has authority.  It could be one major NPC who takes her side -- a fan, perhaps, and/or someone in love with her.  The important thing is that there be some confirmation of her ideas, rather than everyone putting her ideas down.  If you could work it in, one idea might be to introduce a woman sorcerer who befriends her and helps her.  Only later she would find out that this is the rival that cursed her to drown, and feels guilty about it.

Thank you, Kyle...

Nice to see that you're more than content to talk about your players behind their backs to the world at large rather than discussing it with the people at the table, and to present one sided arguments that have you coming off smelling like roses.

Truly charming.

Regards,
Ben.

Quote from: Rugged IndoorsmanThank you, Kyle...

Nice to see that you're more than content to talk about your players behind their backs to the world at large rather than discussing it with the people at the table, and to present one sided arguments that have you coming off smelling like roses.

Truly charming.

Regards,
Ben.

Rule #1: Never reveal to your players which forums you hang out on and what identity you use if you plan to talk about game stuff :D

Quote from: Rugged IndoorsmanThank you, Kyle...

Nice to see that you're more than content to talk about your players behind their backs to the world at large rather than discussing it with the people at the table, and to present one sided arguments that have you coming off smelling like roses.

Truly charming.

Regards,
Ben.

Hey, Ben, welcome to theRPGsite.  

Just to put in a word -- I started this thread to some degree asking about Kyle's campaign, so he was incited to talking about it.  The him smelling like roses part, not so much.  

Incidentally, I mentioned above, this is exactly what happened to me from the other side on the Harn GM forum last year.  Our GM, David, started up a thread on the Harn GM Forum called "Reining in the party" (http://www.harnforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=6689) where he originally asked about how to deal with the problem of our "grossly unrealistic behavior" after we attacked a bunch of gypsies.  

A bit after he started, one of the players (Jim) came in on the thread, and then day or two later I joined in the discussion too.  It caused quite a hubbub, and a bunch of the HarnForum posters were opposed to the idea of players reading and posting in the GMing forum (though Jim was also a GM of this game).  

I think it ultimately worked out for the best, though, and our games have improved.  

And incidentally, I'd be very interested to hear about your side of things.

QuoteAnd incidentally, I'd be very interested to hear about your side of things.

Me too!

I'd be delighted to hear from Rugged Indoorsman.

In the past, I've found attempts at talking to this particular player (not RI) somewhat futile; feedback isn't accepted. That's why I was talking about these things with others, hoping they had useful insights. I thought that a better solution than simply booting out the offending player, which is the usual "solution" suggested by people.

I don't think I've presented myself as smelling like roses. But if you'd like to put some manure on those roses, I think that'd be very useful.

So come on, tell us the story.

From what I´ve read, I can sympathize with your player.

To insist on doing something is very often  a telltale for a session where it isn´t clear what options the player has, and how the game world works.
Using the game world then to limit the freedom of the payer is passive aggressive behaviour. Because the player at hand hasn´t subscribed to this gameworld.

And frankly, from the bits I gathered, I think you need to reconsider your way of communication. Love the player, do not subconciously wait for him to make another "mistake", which you then can "fight against" with game world reasons.

I´d say, play some reactive, mission based sessions. Where you can handle situations tactically instead of a free-form strategic meta-challenge.

Especially the Homunculus situation and the fact that you felt the need to show the picture is a clue to totall fuck-up in expectations.

Why in hell is the pic important?
Did you want to implant an emotion into the players?
Did you expect a reaction?
Seems so.
Frankly, I´d also try to destroy this cage.

Ahem,

Someone requested my side...

For the record, I'm the "Mary Sue" in JimBob's campaign, not Rugged Indoorsman. In general, this whole note strikes me as a big GM whine because JimBob and I do not get along terribly well, and he clearly does not enjoy gaming with me. I'm sure everyone can imagine at this stage that the feeling is mutual.

However, since I know the other players in my campaign read this about me (given that another of them is the one who pointed the thread out...) I'd like to take a moment to make a statement:

I don't dislike negative things happening to my character. In fact, I've only played with JimBob twice, and last time, my character died. I did not throw a fit over it or do anything at all other than take a few deep breaths and move on. In fact, JimBob is the one who ended that campaign, saying that he felt it was a good note for the story.

This is the perspective JimBob has not displayed: He wrote us an email saying our characters were probably going to go to jail. He said that the campaign would end at this stage because I, as a female, do not enjoy playing male characters, and prisons are not co-ed (this is actually a point that started off a previous debate long ago). Then he asked us what we thought were good ideas to do, implying that the campaign went to pot, and if we couldn't dig a way out, the game was over.

I suggested that we skip time because it seemed expedient, kept with JimBob's idea that we HAD to go to jail (despite failed suggestions of a mistrial, excellent lawyers, police errors, etc) and I thought everyone would be okay with the suggestion. It certainly wasn't self preservation of a figment of my imagination (ie, my character), despite JimBob's interpretation of said events.

I do find it interesting that "I kept doing what I wanted to do, despite being told next time, the NPC was going to do X to me" ... frankly, I read that as JimBob saying "if the other PCs hadn't stepped in, I planned to kill her." There's no option for any set of other things to happen to prevent that death, and certainly JimBob shows no intent himself to come up with a way to prevent it - instead he justifies it as natural consequences for your actions - antagonizing him. It has nothing to do with how you play your char or the story at large. Some GMs are like this, it just pays to know who they are and avoid 'em. :)

The moral of this story is that there's two sides to every complaint, and in general, GMs who go on complaining about players may want to consider if they just don't like the person they're playing with before they bother thinking up a dozen reasons why the player is a bad player. I knew walking into this game that JimBob and I don't get along - I should have just been wise enough to walk away instead of agreeing to play. That's how the cookie crumbles sometimes. /END rant and self defense

Setting JimBob aside, and trying to establish a meaningful discussion of players wanting to avoid the consequences of their actions - I personally think that's a complete bunk way for anyone to approach a game. There's no fun in a campaign with no risk, and there's nothing to lose if your character fails either, unless the GM or players get psyched out and want to end the story. Pragmatically speaking, anyone creative enough can turn a negative into a positive, and that's what both GMs and players ought to be doing.

That said, there are people who don't like bad things happening to their character - is there anything that can be done about that? I've noticed that it's a problem in a RP game that I run with our players. On one hand, I don't want to alienate them and ruin their fun by making bad things happen to them, but on the other hand, if nothing bad ever happens to anyone, there's no conflict. I just don't know how to ease players into a reasonable balance. Partly, we try by saying flat out "bad things happen to people here," but I don't feel the balance is right as of yet.

-E

Quote from: SettembriniTo insist on doing something is very often  a telltale for a session where it isn´t clear what options the player has, and how the game world works.

It was quite clear how the realistic part of the world worked; it was made clear in the campaign outline, and at each step during the game sessions. "I'll do X." "If you do X, probably Y or Z will happen."

How the "magickal" part of the game world worked wasn't known to the players; but this was the whole point of the campaign, discovering these unknown things.

Quote from: SettembriniUsing the game world then to limit the freedom of the payer is passive aggressive behaviour. Because the player at hand hasn´t subscribed to this gameworld.

Yes, they have - I outlined the campaign, told them the game system we'd be using - Unknown Armies - and they asked to join. I'd listed three campaigns I wanted to run this year, and they specifically asked to join that one, which I moved from being later in the year to being first up, just so they could join in.

They most certainly "subscribed to this gameworld." That one of them did not subscribe to the parts of the gameworld which disadvantaged them is simply plain old "sore loser." I've seen for example with other people playing D&D, they complain that hit points are unrealistic - when does this complaint come? When their character runs out of hit points. When it's a bunch of kobolds running out of hit points, they don't question the "realism" of it. Soon as it disadvantages them, suddenly they argue. That's called "sore loser."  

Quote from: SettembriniAnd frankly, from the bits I gathered, I think you need to reconsider your way of communication. Love the player, do not subconciously wait for him to make another "mistake", which you then can "fight against" with game world reasons.

Mate, if I were waiting for players to make a "mistake" so I could jump on them, their characters wouldn't have survived the first session.

If you actually read the campaign journals, you'll see that given that it was supposed to be a "realistic" setting, the PCs got cut a lot of slack.

Quote from: SettembriniEspecially the Homunculus situation and the fact that you felt the need to show the picture is a clue to totall fuck-up in expectations.

Why in hell is the pic important?
Did you want to implant an emotion into the players?
Did you expect a reaction?
Seems so.

I presented a picture for the usual purposes; an illustration, to bring the game world alive for people.

Absolutely I expected a reaction. I didn't present the pic during the session, though, only afterwards in the campaign journal. The reaction expected was horror; what action they took was up to them. Unknown Armies, especially the "street level" campaign, is about characters confronting the unnatural and how they react to it. It's the whole point of the campaign.

And I never said that to stomp the homunculus was the "wrong" thing to do. But it had the consequence that it upset the owner of the thing. So he started using his magic.

Note that the players did not think it unreasonable for him to be upset. So the homunculus was not the subject of any dispute. The disputes were to do with the police reaction to the PCs' actions.

Quote from: Rugged IndoorsmanThank you, Kyle...

Nice to see that you're more than content to talk about your players behind their backs to the world at large rather than discussing it with the people at the table, and to present one sided arguments that have you coming off smelling like roses.

Truly charming.

Regards,
Ben.

I don't think this thread would hold as much interest if Jimbob was in fact coming off smelling like roses :D

I'm interested in hearing your point of view, because I've read a lot about Jimbob's style of gming. He writes extensively about his campaigns - campaign outlines, ideas etc. It would be interesting to see how all of this actualy goes down with his players.

I've written about my players too, but clearly nothing as provocative as Jimbob. This merely means that the situation here is more useful to GMs. So, please give us your take on the whole thing.

Regards,
David R

Interesting post Paravox3 . Thanks for contributing.

Regards,
David R

As you can see from the timestamps, I cross-posted with ParaVox3.

I'm glad to have her posting and presenting her point of view. Mostly it's just different perspectives, but I'd just clarify one thing,

Quote from: ParaVox3This is the perspective JimBob has not displayed: He wrote us an email saying our characters were probably going to go to jail. He said that the campaign would end at this stage because I, as a female, do not enjoy playing male characters, and prisons are not co-ed (this is actually a point that started off a previous debate long ago). Then he asked us what we thought were good ideas to do, implying that the campaign went to pot, and if we couldn't dig a way out, the game was over.

I obviously wrote that email badly. My intention was to write it as, "shit, seems like it's going downhill! Is there some other way we can take? We can go any way you like, just be sure that's where you want it to go." I meant the message to be, "the options are open, but some of them don't look good," rather than, "we've reached a dead end."

I obviously expressed myself poorly.

Edit: oh, and

Quote from: ParaVox3and in general, GMs who go on complaining about players may want to consider if they just don't like the person they're playing with before they bother thinking up a dozen reasons why the player is a bad player.

I don't dislike this person. But I do dislike her style of play. That ain't the same thing. One of my closest friends I can't stand to game with, and my spouse doesn't even game at all ;)

*scratched*

No, JimBob, why did you show the pic to us?
Answer yourself that question.

In regards to the group contract, I don´tactually know. Just wanted to shar what I thought when I read that.

There is a difference between agreeing to play dark and gritty (tactical-reactive) and dark and gritty (strategic-freeform). I dunno if that was made clear.

But alas, instead of guessing, I´ll just sit and learn what the real reaosns were.

Quote from: SettembriniNo, JimBob, why did you show the pic to us?
Answer yourself that question.

Because it's a funny picture. I was posting it up along with the journal of the latest campaign events on the wiki for it, and thought people would be amused to see it. You're hearing all about the stuff happening at the game table, why not hear about the stuff in the campaign itself?

Don't read too much into things, mate.

Welcome aboard Paravox3 and Rugged Indoorsman.  I hope that despite the circumstances of your registration, you'll stick around and post some more.  :)

Call me naive, JimBob, but I don't really buy that you don't like me, especially after reading this thread. All in all, I think it was pretty rude, and not a way you talk about someone you like or respect. Being nice and reasonable at this stage is like trying to shove the cow back in the barn.

Anyway, I have other things to be contenting my time with.

I'd like to thank those who read my side of the story, however.

-E

Quote from: ParaVox3In general, this whole note strikes me as a big GM whine because JimBob and I do not get along terribly well, and he clearly does not enjoy gaming with me. I'm sure everyone can imagine at this stage that the feeling is mutual.

Then may I ask what in the hell you're doing in the same room together tossing dice around a table? Or even in the same forum game if that's where you meet?

Quote from: SettembriniNo, JimBob, why did you show the pic to us?

I can't answer for JimBob, but I've found that when people show a picture on the internet it's usually because either they made it and they think it's cool, or they found it and they think it's cool. By your tone I can see you think you know why it was shown. Why is that?

He's shown the homunculus pic twice on this forum that I'm aware of so far.

That indicates to me that he thinks it's a goofy pic and he wanted to share it.  *shrug*

And yeah, posting about your players on a web forum is rude.  I've made that mistake in the past.  Best bite the bullet and apologize, IMO.  Particularly when you come up with charming nicknames like "Mary Sue."  (Which I've also done, natch.)

I'd give my left nut to sit in on one of these games right now.

I'm not going to start rehashing the arguments I've had with Jimbo in his earlier threads on this campaign, just chiming in to say, before I read RI and Paravox's comments, that I was seriously thinking that Jimmy was really not handling his players well.

I mean, they find the Big Bad (or who they think is the big bad, with some strong evidence) has some little demon guy, smash said demon guy, are attacked by the Big Bad...


... and he doesn't expect them to fight him, possibly to the bitter end? What the fuck did he expect? Tea?  

So the player's actions were not entirely realistic in a 'realistic' sort of setting.  No Oscar this year for best actress in an RPG.  

Paravox's character was blasted by the guy, so she fought him. Of course he's gonna threaten to blast her again. I'm not the expert on UA's rules, but I imagine there should be some sort of rolling involved, especially during a beat down!  The way it was presented it was Jimbo saying 'no, I don't want you to kill my NPC right now, so if you don't back off, he gets a free 'I kill you and take your stuff' attack to stop you. It's not the climax I wanted, and you can't spoil it for me.

Maybe Paravox is a bad player, maybe she isn't.  What I do know is Jimmy ain't coming across as half the GM his essays and posts try to paint him as.  Could be a fluke, but no one looks pretty in these situations. :what:

Quote from: RedFoxAnd yeah, posting about your players on a web forum is rude.  I've made that mistake in the past.  Best bite the bullet and apologize, IMO.  Particularly when you come up with charming nicknames like "Mary Sue."  (Which I've also done, natch.)

Well, no doubt it'll be taken as insincere, but I am certainly sorry for hurt feeings caused.

The fact is that I am a talkative person, and I like to try to sort problems out. Sometimes, people aren't welcoming of these kinds of discussions - but I still feel the need to talk. So if I can't solve the problem by talking to that person, then I'll try to solve it by talking to others. It tends to go like this for me,

1. Talk to the person involved. If that doesn't work, then,
2. Talk to others who know that person, and see if they have suggestions for dealing with it (other than, "boot them!"). If that doesn't work, then,
3. Open it up to more general discussion.

Feedback isn't accepted, so onto #2. Unfortunately, there were no good suggestions at this stage, those I tried didn't work. So, we got to #3, and that's where the hurt feelings come in, and for that I'm sorry. I can only say that the only alternative I could see was simply, "boot them!" I don't see that that's more constructive. Which is better? To simply boot the person, or discuss it openly like this, and try to find a solution? In this case, the discussion went on too long, and caused offence. When I began posting about it, I didn't expect it to spawn another two or three threads and have so much discussion about it. That's my fault; no-one makes you post or say anything.

So for that I'm sorry. Again, I didn't know what else to do, apart from a booting. In trying to avoid doing one wrong thing, I ended up doing a worse thing. For that I am sorry.

I would note that despite this, almost the same group was in my best campaign ever, Tiwesdæg Clíewen (http://www.gamecircle.org/modules/wiwimod/index.php?page=Tiwesd%E6g+Cl%EDewen). So sometimes things work well, and sometimes they work badly, and both in the same group.

QuoteBy your tone I can see you think you know why it was shown. Why is that?

I got the impression, JimBob expects to stir emotions with that pic. Showing it to us, means, he thinks everyone should feel the same when seing this.

And this is a big DM fallacy.

When you have a  kewl scene, chances are high, not everybody think its kewl. Some will think it´s boring or silly.

Don´t railroad your players emotions.

They want to pick and chose for themselves.

Something tells me this thread is going to get more interesting...

Regards,
David R

I'd like to know -- were there any Cheetos at the table at all? ;)

Quote from: SpikeI mean, they find the Big Bad (or who they think is the big bad, with some strong evidence) has some little demon guy, smash said demon guy, are attacked by the Big Bad...


... and he doesn't expect them to fight him, possibly to the bitter end? What the fuck did he expect? Tea?

In UA, if someone hits you with magick...  like, say, fleshcrafting blasts...  they mean to fucking kill you.  It's worse, in fact, than shooting someone because psychologically it's more damaging.  Rules-wise, even.  If you're shot at, that's a Violence and Helplessness check.  If you're hit with a magic blast, that's an Unnatural, Violence, and Helplessness check.  Along with the physical damage, which is in no way "kid gloves."

i.e. if someone walks in the door and tries to rip you one with flesh-crafting, he's trying to murder you.  Getting someone to back off in the middle of a scuffle like that is like trying to stop a live fire-fight.  It's possible, but really fucking difficult.

Quote from: SpikeI mean, they find the Big Bad (or who they think is the big bad, with some strong evidence) has some little demon guy, smash said demon guy, are attacked by the Big Bad...


... and he doesn't expect them to fight him, possibly to the bitter end? What the fuck did he expect? Tea?  

As I said, I certainly expected them to not like him, probably to attack them, etc. I had no problem with that at all.  

Quote from: SpikeI'm not the expert on UA's rules, but I imagine there should be some sort of rolling involved, especially during a beat down!  The way it was presented it was Jimbo saying 'no, I don't want you to kill my NPC right now, so if you don't back off, he gets a free 'I kill you and take your stuff' attack to stop you. It's not the climax I wanted, and you can't spoil it for me.

No, it was, "this guy is more powerful than you realise, so be careful." I was quite happy for them to kill him - but he might have taken one or two of them with him, I wanted them to be aware of that. If PCs walk up to a dragon, okay they expect it to be powerful. But in a modern setting where the PCs don't yet know about "magick", then they don't expect a skinny little goth to be powerful. Even without the guy's "magick", Unknown Armies is "the roleplaying game of power and consequences." And the combat chapter begins with "six ways to stop a fight," noting that killing is a big deal. So it's very much in the spirit of the setting to ask players to consider seriously before their character kills another.

That may fit your own idea of a fun game, or not - but that's the setting the players signed up for. It's what I promised them, so I gave it to them.

And as I said, that was not the subject of any dispute in the game group.

Quote from: SpikeMaybe Paravox is a bad player, maybe she isn't.  What I do know is Jimmy ain't coming across as half the GM his essays and posts try to paint him as.  Could be a fluke, but no one looks pretty in these situations. :what:

My essays present an ideal; I've never said I always live up to that ideal. For example, in one thread we discussed how combat is often bland because it seems to be set in a "white room", featureless and dull. I said that ideally we'd give better descriptions and make things exciting, and that I wish I could say I did that, but I often forgot it in the heat of the combat.

I've also often said that the most important thing in any group is that everyone gets along. No amount of brilliant GMing or roleplaying can help you if someone just plain doesn't like you. ParaVox3, it's now revealed, just plain doesn't like me. If someone has a GMing or roleplaying tip which can help you game wonderfully, or even just okay, with someone who dislikes them - then I don't think I'd be the only one who'd love to hear it.

Lastly, I have good GMing advice because I make a lot of mistakes ;)

Quote from: StuartI'd like to know -- were there any Cheetos at the table at all? ;)

Unfortunately, not. Recently the players had requested that I as host supply them with "healthy" food. I'm sure the lack of cheetos didn't help :D  

Mate, the schadenfreude (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schadenfreude) now appearing in this thread is amazing. I hate you all! :p

Quote from: JimBobOzAs I said, I certainly expected them to not like him, probably to attack them, etc. I had no problem with that at all.  


No, it was, "this guy is more powerful than you realise, so be careful." I was quite happy for them to kill him - but he might have taken one or two of them with him, I wanted them to be aware of that. If PCs walk up to a dragon, okay they expect it to be powerful. But in a modern setting where the PCs don't yet know about "magick", then they don't expect a skinny little goth to be powerful. Even without the guy's "magick", Unknown Armies is "the roleplaying game of power and consequences." And the combat chapter begins with "six ways to stop a fight," noting that killing is a big deal. So it's very much in the spirit of the setting to ask players to consider seriously before their character kills another.

Dude, the warning was the homunculus.  That should tell people that the dude either A: has access to a powerful ritual, or B: is a flesh-crafter with no small power.  Either way, it means he's a Duke, which means bad news.

Of course, then you had the guy come in and start ripping people apart, at which point the warning's kind of a moot point.  When a Duke is bearing down on you and expending charges with intent to kill, you really only have the option of fleeing or fighting.  And it's very likely that reason isn't going to enter into people's reactions.  I know if someone was tearing huge chunks out of my flesh, I wouldn't be very reasonable either.

And I'll say again, I didn't have a problem with their pounding on him then.

Quote from: JimBobOzMate, the schadenfreude (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schadenfreude) now appearing in this thread is amazing. I hate you all! :p

This is the interesting part :deviousgrin: How's that go again? Payback a ...

BTW did I ever mention the two main mooks in my Feng Shui game named, Mr. Schanden and Mr. Fruede ?

Regards,
David R

QuoteMate, the schadenfreude now appearing in this thread is amazing. I hate you all!

Well, JB, what do you expect? You come on very strong when giving advice to other people, and you often put the blame on the GM/players/group.

I offered you advice in good faith (and I had to reach back into my memory to do it), but I have to say that, like Spike and Settembrini, there were certain doubts in my mind as to whether we'd heard the real story. That's based on your online behaviour as well as what I've heard elsewhere.

Quotethey mean to fucking kill you.  It's worse, in fact, than shooting someone because psychologically it's more damaging.

So what?
They are always out to kill me. One more reason to kill him first. Even more so, when the adventure is in a lull.

Quote from: JimBobOzI've also often said that the most important thing in any group is that everyone gets along. No amount of brilliant GMing or roleplaying can help you if someone just plain doesn't like you. ParaVox3, it's now revealed, just plain doesn't like me. If someone has a GMing or roleplaying tip which can help you game wonderfully, or even just okay, with someone who dislikes them - then I don't think I'd be the only one who'd love to hear it.

Er, dude.  She just read you calling her a "Mary Sue", a "rules-lite munchkin", and more -- not just complaining about her character behavior, but her out-of-game behavior like the resume.  I expect that has a fair amount to do with her just-expressed dislike.  

Also, it looks like my guess was way off that she was relatively new to role-playing.  (It appears she's GMed several games and runs a MUD.)  However, I was going off limited information.    

Now, I've seen games survive participants who argue and call each other names -- but yeah, this seems like it's not going to work.

Quote from: RedFoxDude, the warning was the homunculus.  That should tell people that the dude either A: has access to a powerful ritual, or B: is a flesh-crafter with no small power.  Either way, it means he's a Duke, which means bad news.

How so? This was apparently a point in the campaign where they didn't know much about magic. How are they supposed to see a freaky little creature and suddenly know about Fleshcrafting and Dukedom? Sure, they know something's up, but it looks like they'd have to be cheating* to suddenly assume the specifics.

* Unless using OOC knowledge is allowed in UA.

Quote from: droogWell, JB, what do you expect? You come on very strong when giving advice to other people, and you often put the blame on the GM/players/group.

And I was right. Both GM and player fucked up in this instance, by not finding a solution at the game table. ParaVox3 fucked up, and so did I.

Quote from: droogI offered you advice in good faith (and I had to reach back into my memory to do it),

With respect, the only advice I recall from you was, "boot the player." I didn't consider that the best solution. The least worst, perhaps - but not the best.

Quote from: droogbut I have to say that, like Spike and Settembrini, there were certain doubts in my mind as to whether we'd heard the real story. That's based on your online behaviour as well as what I've heard elsewhere.

It's always good to hear from all sides. That's why I welcomed their posts here.

Overall, we have GM + one player saying, "there's a player causing trouble," and two players saying, "stupid GM, it's his fault," while a fourth player hasn't commented, but would probably say, "what the fuck is wrong with you all?"

I do not think this is a terribly unusual thing, nor does it indictate that I or ParaVox3 are evil people unworthy to game with anyone. As I said, with me as GM and three out of four players the same, we previously had what was for me my best campaign ever, and what was well-spoken of by ParaVox3 and RuggedIndoorsman at the time and afterwards.

Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. I realise that you, droog, are keen to find extra reasons for your hatred of me, not much I can about that. But the general point is that players and GMs are responsible for what happens at the game table. If we fucked up, it's our fault.

Yes, I did wrong. Yes, I made a mistake. Yes, I have things to be sorry for. Yes, I was searching for solutions, and did it in the wrong way.

Now, who's next to confess to being imperfect as a GM and player? In detail, as I did.

Anyone?

Quote from: JimBobOzNow, who's next to confess to being imperfect as a GM and player? In detail, as I did.

Anyone?

Ahem :

 http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=68943#post68943

I do have my moments...

Regards,
David R

Sorry, David R, that's not a GM fuckup, that's just a normal course of events in an rpg. Make one PC the most important, then the player doesn't show or the character dies or something... That's not a GM fuckup. That's just "shit happens."

Try harder. I'm sure someone must be worse than me.

Quote from: JimBobOzWith respect, the only advice I recall from you was, "boot the player." I didn't consider that the best solution.
.................
I realise that you, droog, are keen to find extra reasons for your hatred of me, not much I can about that.the wrong way.

My advice was pragmatic – stop worrying about teaching people about consequences and think about how to take the game forward and make it fun.

Sounds to me like the player might be doing her own booting at this stage.

And you've got me wrong. I don't hate you. I don't even dislike you. Not that I think we could be best mates or anything.

Quote from: James McMurrayHow so? This was apparently a point in the campaign where they didn't know much about magic. How are they supposed to see a freaky little creature and suddenly know about Fleshcrafting and Dukedom? Sure, they know something's up, but it looks like they'd have to be cheating* to suddenly assume the specifics.

* Unless using OOC knowledge is allowed in UA.

My point was that it was the only warning they had been given, and it was rendered moot anyway by the adept bursting in going, "Wah, my critter!" and kicking ass at them.

I thought the problem with that scenario was that Paravox3 wasn't backing down after the guy had done major damage to her.  I could be off here, though.  It's been a few pages since the scenario was described.  And I'm still not entirely sure what JimBob's complaint about that situation was.

Quote from: droogMy advice was pragmatic – stop worrying about teaching people about consequences and think about how to take the game forward and make it fun.

Problem is, UA is "the roleplaying game of power and consequences." Forgetting about them is like, I dunno, forgetting about magic in Ars Magica. You can do it, but probably better just to play some other game.

Should I have canned the game and played or run something else? Maybe, yes. But you know how it is, you get into a game and think, "surely I can make this work a bit better, I'll give it another session or two."

Quote from: droogSounds to me like the player might be doing her own booting at this stage.

Yep, you're correct. And it's very unfortunate, I think. If we had always had only bad game sessions together, then I would say, "oh well, no loss." But four of the five of us have previously had a good campaign together. I imagine it was on the strength of that previous success that I was given another go, despite what I've now discovered is her personal dislike of me.

Quote from: droogAnd you've got me wrong. I don't hate you. I don't even dislike you. Not that I think we could be best mates or anything.

Then you need to work on clear expression in your posts. When a person over a period or a year or two consistently insults and tears down another as an individual, and enver has anything positive to say about them, then that individual gets an impression of dislike.

And yes, I also need to work on clearer expression. I fuck up, I learn, I try to improve.

Edit: oh, and the last session is written up on the campign page (http://www.gamecircle.org/modules/wiwimod/index.php?page=underground). I thought it was a good session, overall. The group break-up has come not from the events of that session, but from my public kvetching at length here.

Quote from: JimBobOzThen you need to work on clear expression in your posts. When a person over a period of a year or two consistently insults and tears down another as an individual, and never has anything positive to say about them, then that individual gets an impression of dislike.

Oh, I gave the impression I intended to.

Let's just say I wanted you to feel the consequences of your actions.

"I don't hate you, I just wanted to give you the impression that I hate you."

Yeah, whatever.

I guess as others have said, being called a cunt by droog is no great accomplishment. He's about as friendly in his posts as I am brief.

Quote from: JimBobOz"I don't hate you, I just wanted to give you the impression that I hate you."

Yeah, whatever.

I guess as others have said, being called a cunt by droog is no great accomplishment. He's about as friendly in his posts as I am brief.

You'll get it one day. But might I say that I think you have vastly improved on this forum? Must be the atmosphere.

That was old J Arcane who said that, wasn't it? Another fellow who needs to learn something. Spare the rod and spoil the child, I say.

I'm not going to get involved in all of this, being a generally private person. It could easily become very ugly and out of respect for those involved, and my own mental well-being, I'd rather avoid that.

However, I will say that I've found Jimbob's impressions of ParaVox3 are very far off base. I've GMed for her countless times, and played in many of her games as well, and she has never once had an issue with 'bad things' happening to her characters. Quite the opposite in fact, as some of our more memorable experiences have been in exactly those moments.

The issue of the player being booted is now pretty much a moot point as ParaVox3 and I have withdrawn from the game. It is a disappointment, as there was a lot of promise in it, and the previous campaign we played last year turned out to be great fun and very memorable for the most part.

Needless to say, she and I were struck entirely out of left field at finding this thread as well as the others, noting also a previous one several weeks ago on another of the players; I'm disappointed that this seems to be JimBob's preferred method of dealing with game issues.

Just to point out, ParaVox3 is my wife, so I'm undoubtedly biased in what I've said above.

Thanks,
Ben / Rugged Indoorsman.

Well, I've skimmed through the latest posts in the thread and thought about some possible responses.  I think there is only one thing I can add...

Anyone got a spare spot in a game in Melbourne?  My regular game seems to have imploded :)

Quote from: Rugged IndoorsmanNeedless to say, she and I were struck entirely out of left field at finding this thread as well as the others, noting also a previous one several weeks ago on another of the players; I'm disappointed that this seems to be JimBob's preferred method of dealing with game issues.

If you feel JimBob misrepresented the situation, I can understand being pissed off. But I'm actually glad that he shared the story with us and even more glad that we got your side as well.

Threads like these can be pretty beneficial for every GM and player.

JimBob's only mistake here (aside from possibly misrepresenting certain facts) was to get caught by his players.

It was not a mistake to air the issues, as such. It was a mistake to talk about them at length, and in nasty detail. However, given the nature of forums, once something is brought up, if it's at all interesting, it'll be talked about at length and in nasty detail; people will start other threads on issue brought up, and someone will challenge you, and in defending your point of view, you'll end up giving more details. So then it becomes a mistake to air the issues - because of what it'll lead to.

Certainly discussing things in a forum can bring in good ideas to help you with play; but many people will be offended at those discussions. So then you end up with the players leaving, and those issues are then irrelevant.

Sometimes you have some problems, and don't know the solutions, and find discussing them with the people involved unproductive. What do you do then? I don't know. Obviously this wasn't the thing to do.

That's why I said it was a mistake, and said that I was sorry. Of course the players are not going to forgive me, but when you fuck up, you should say sorry whether you're going to be forgiven or not.

I've more people to game with, and can have a full group next week. But people are not disposable like kleenex, and I'll regret their absence, which is mostly my own fault.

Quote from: Consonant DudeIf you feel JimBob misrepresented the situation, I can understand being pissed off. But I'm actually glad that he shared the story with us and even more glad that we got your side as well.

Threads like these can be pretty beneficial for every GM and player.

JimBob's only mistake here (aside from possibly misrepresenting certain facts) was to get caught by his players.

I agree that these threads can be useful, though in my experience they are even more useful when the players participate -- so I don't see how it was a mistake to get caught by the players.  

If there was a mistake, it would be in what he said about them.  Then again, it could well be that there wasn't a mistake -- i.e. the result of the group splitting apart was better than continuing in the fashion that it had been.  

My HarnMaster campaign went through a very similar GM-caught-complaining-debacle (http://www.harnforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=6689) last year, and I think that being caught by the players was ultimately very helpful to the campaign and sparked a lot of useful discussion.  I think the difference is that the GM didn't cross a line of saying anything too nasty about the players.  He did originally say that our role-playing was grossly unrealistic and needed reining in, but he was open to discussion on that once we joined.  Really, I talk about my games online all the time, and while I'll sometimes say something embarrassing, I don't consider it a mistake getting caught by my players.

It's not a mistake to air issues, and the truth wouldn't embarrass me. It's certainly not bad to post about your games, as it helps other people deal with the same issues and so on. That's presuming, of course, that what is posted is the truth. Afterall, the feedback based on fallicy is probably faulty itself.

In this case, I don't feel that JimBob was truthful, however, in either the facts he presented (from anything about my resume down to what happened with the homonculus) or his interpretation of my motivations. It's my full belief that he was simply saying awful things to justify his position. His first post was relatively innocuous. It's only when others began to say "I dunno, it seems like the player was just acting like a player" that OOC and personal things (not remotely true, imho) were added to give weight to his argument that I'm a bad apple. Slander's the reason this topic went bad and some of his players are picking up their toys and going home, not a belief that no one should talk about gaming. Heck, Rugged Indoorsman loves to read RPG forums, hence his discovery of JimBob's comments in the first place. :)

What it comes down to is this:  when what you're saying is slander, it's rude and inappropriate, whether it's said in a web forum for gaming or shouted on a street corner. Getting caught is just inevitable if it a consistent enough part of your modus operandi.

Quote from: Consonant DudeThreads like these can be pretty beneficial for every GM and player.

For me it emphasizes the importance of considering all the players at the table as equals, whether they're the GM or playing a PC.  It also reinforces my preference for a more oldschool approach to RPGs, and avoid meta-plotting, railroading, etc.

Once the dust settles it'll be interesting to hear from JimBobOz/Kyle about what he'd do differently in the future.  Besides bringing more Cheetos. ;)

QuoteIt also reinforces my preference for a more oldschool approach to RPGs, and avoid meta-plotting, railroading, etc.

Yay for challenge based Adventure Gaming!:haw:

Down with re-enacting TV shows!:mad:

I think my slowly growing impression from the previous threads is getting stronger. In this case, despite the player input at the start and everything else, Jimmy came into this game with really strong impressions of how it should work, and the players didn't cooperate with his vision.

Friction started there and moved quickly to antagonism between the players and the GM, than erupted here.


And when we tried to point out that he was perhaps being less flexible, Jimbo got defensive, rather than take a step back and look at it. Maybe he did take that step and look, and didn't see it.

Hindsight: In my RQ game one of my players got increasingly disruptive when the players couldn't find the Seneschal at the house.  I can't just boot her, not only would it end the game (three players is already pretty small for my tastes), but the repercussions from that would follow me home for a week or more.  

Now, while handing the players every clue they need is hardly good GMing, I could have changed my mind and suggested that someone knew something. I didn't, and there was a brief 'airing of laundry' at the game table... which I think got everyone cooled off.

So when the players chose to stake out hte mansion waiting for him to come back, I could have decided he was 'really busy moving the stolen ring' and wouldn't be back... ever, or I could let them follow him and feel like they accomplished something.  So, I let them follow him.  All is well, and no one decided not to come back next week.


Now, Jules, I don't know what exactly happens at your table. I can read what you write, sure... but I'm not there. The impression I get is that your players, or some of them (just like only some of mine were frustrated) were feeling like they weren't getting anywhere, and that everything they did was getting them punished.  Now, to you, you were just being 'realistic' or 'in canon' for the game.  Pointing out that 'the book says the game should play like this' is a bad sign. The book isn't running your game, you are.  I use a book for signs of when to roll dice, numbers and things like that. The players are my guide to how to actually run the game.  You should know this, you are the 'Cheetoist Guy'...

Quote from: ParaVox3In this case, I don't feel that JimBob was truthful, however, in either the facts he presented (from anything about my resume down to what happened with the homonculus) or his interpretation of my motivations. It's my full belief that he was simply saying awful things to justify his position. His first post was relatively innocuous. It's only when others began to say "I dunno, it seems like the player was just acting like a player" that OOC and personal things (not remotely true, imho) were added to give weight to his argument that I'm a bad apple.

It's not my place to discuss the truth or otherwise of what you or JimBob said here, because I have no way of knowing precisely what happened at your sessions - all the information I'm getting is obviously filtered through the perceptions of JimBob, yerself, and the other players.

What I will say is that my opinion of JimBob changed for the worse when the accusations started. The tone of the thread shifted from "How do I salvage this?" to "Look at what the players have done, they're fools, fools!" Not cool.

Bottom line: GMs need to remember that there is a limit to GM omnipotence: you don't know what your world and what your campaign looks like from the player's-eye-view. Situations which seem to hold a wealth of possibilities from the comfortable seat of omnipotence might seem very different if you're actually playing them.

It's always a mistake to post about your players online, particularly criticisms.  I only ever do it when for comedy purposes I intend them to read it.  

Generally, if things go south though, we're usually all a bit at fault.  One player may be too passive or too gung-ho or doing dumb stuff, but the odds are I'm not giving him or her a chance to shine or giving them the wrong plot signals or running something that isn't engaging them.  It's rarely a one way street.

Quote from: ParaVox3That said, there are people who don't like bad things happening to their character - is there anything that can be done about that? I've noticed that it's a problem in a RP game that I run with our players. On one hand, I don't want to alienate them and ruin their fun by making bad things happen to them, but on the other hand, if nothing bad ever happens to anyone, there's no conflict. I just don't know how to ease players into a reasonable balance. Partly, we try by saying flat out "bad things happen to people here," but I don't feel the balance is right as of yet.

-E

I think it's a hard balance to ever strike, some otherwise great players dislike bad stuff happening to their character.  Striking a balance between that and the need for conflict to have consequences is never entirely easy, I think any balance tends to be dynamic, flexing one way and the other as time goes on.

At the end of the day, we all muddle along as best we can, and if people are overall having fun then we're doing ok.

I think, this was not a game problem, but a people problem. I suspect the hostility evident in some of the posts on this thread, was there way before the events in the campaign took place. I could be wrong, but I think folks who are on friendly terms don't engage with each other in this manner.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: SettembriniYay for challenge based Adventure Gaming!

And flag-based Thematic Gaming!

And opposition based trollery!

Wait, what? :)

Ironically, if I remember the history of this campaign correctly it was another gamer entirely that had jimbo worried before any of this even occured, the guy who had stared evil in the face and went yellow...

Quote from: StuartOnce the dust settles it'll be interesting to hear from JimBobOz/Kyle about what he'd do differently in the future.  Besides bringing more Cheetos. ;)

In future, I'll try to game only with people who like me as a person, and who enjoy my company.

In one previous group, after each session we'd wander out to the car and have a chat, half an hour, an hour, usually about gaming of course, but often about our lives, our spouses and so on.

In another group, though we met to game at 7pm, we rarely started before 8pm, and once not till 8:45pm, and still another time never gamed - just chatted all evening.

In the game groups which had the best gaming, we got along well even without the dice and cheetos. That put us in a relaxed mood for the gaming, and gave us an attitude of open and free communication, and if there were any gaming troubles, it was easier to sort them out, and we were more motivated to sort them out, because of the non-gaming bond.

Whereas in this group, we had one player who only came for the game session, never a minute early or late, almost no discussion of anything beyond the game, and another player who when they arrived, sat down on the couch in the loungeroom (while I was preparing dinner in the kitchen) and cracked open a book, and always left straight after the end of the session, whether it was five minutes till the train or twenty.

In short, they were people who didn't enjoy my company, or were at best indifferent to it, they were only there for the gaming and the food.

Now, certainly I don't expect that everyone will like me or enjoy my company. I have many faults as a person, and even if I were fautless, well there's no accounting for taste and all that. But I'd thought, "well, you don't enjoy the company of everyone at work or in your sports team, but you still get along and get things done well enough, should be the same with gaming." And of course I was wrong. I'd forgotten the thing I'm always saying, that roleplaying is a social creative hobby, and the "social" part is a prerequisite, a foundation for the "creative" part.

There may be more "professional" sorts of gamers out there, professional in their attitudes towards gaming, who can game well with people regardless of their personal feelings about each-other. But I'm not one of them.

So what did I learn? Game with people whose company you enjoy and like, and who enjoy your company and like you. If any of the people begin by disliking you and not wanting to talk to you much, well there's not much hope. Of course I'd hoped that a period of good gaming would change the attitudes; but the good gaming can't happen with that negative or indifferent attitude.

They just plain didn't like me much or enjoy my company.

I feel extra-foolish because as I noted in the "I feel like a jerk" thread, when I accepted these people, I had to reject some others. And those others are rather warmer to me.

Quote from: JimBobOzThey just plain didn't like me much or enjoy my company.

That's rich. I hope it keeps you warm come gaming nights.

If I wrote a tenth of the stuff about you that you wrote about me on this forum, you wouldn't like me much either, and that's if I was telling the truth. You pretend like we never came over and had a nice discussion, or invited you to our wedding, or offered to go places and do things with you outside of gaming. Instead, you sieze on little things, exaggerate them to big things, then build an interesting and flagrantly false reality around them.

Flat out, you LIED about me several times in this thread, and even knowing that I am monitoring it, you STILL lie. Whatever your deal is, it's whacked. I mean, I've met people who lie online about their age, gender, and whatnot, but this really takes the cake.

I didn't say that it was always so, I said it was so now. I noted that we'd had a very successful campaign before, and that everyone had got along well then, but that it was not so now. I said that now it didn't seem you enjoyed my company. You said,

Quote from: ParaVox3I knew walking into this game that JimBob and I don't get along - I should have just been wise enough to walk away instead of agreeing to play.

"didn't get along", "don't enjoy my company" - I don't think those two things contradict each-other; in fact, they're basically the same.

Sometimes people's attitudes towards each-other change. People who got along well at one time later don't, or vice versa. That's to be mourned, but what can a person do? People change, people's attitudes change, and so on.

You've already said that given the way you felt, you shouldn't have joined in this time. And I've said the same thing.

I've also publicly apologised for bringing these things up in a public forum. It was wrong and I should not have done it.

If you don't enjoy a person's company, then you shouldn't game with them. That's the lesson for both of us. It's a statement of the obvious, sure, but obviously it's needed. I doubt we're the only ones ever to have made this mistake.