This is split from Is it the GM's responsibility to make the game fun? -- 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.