TheRPGSite

In their new book WotC suggest that DMs must ask for consent any time something bad is going to happen to a Player Character.
#dnd #dnd5e #ttrpg #OSR

I can't imagine how one would run something like werewolves and lycanthropy infections in a game where that is meant to be a surprise but transformations require an OK from the players.

This stuff seems way over board for me. I don't mind if people have a different approach to play that involves more player input in world building or something, but that is a matter of what people are looking to get out of a game session and an RPG. This seems to crank things up to a level where there is a moral impetus that makes it bad not to do that. It also seems like a terribly slippery slope. You begin with massive transformations like a cursed polymorph event, which shouldn't require buy in (though i can see complaining if the GM is railroading that plot), and it will naturally lead to the players having to sign off on level drain, HP loss, death, etc

Remember, when playing Chutes & Ladders, after a child makes a spin, warn that the number of spaces will land the character on a chute, and that the player can spin again to avoid getting hurt feelings.  Because we're saying the player is amoral.  Stupid game anyway, teaching morality to children.  Zealots.

The Human Retardation Project proceeds apace.

I wouldn't dismiss "consent" right away.

Just tell your players what kind of game you run beforehand.

It is better for everyone involved.

If they cannot handle a TPK etc., they can choose other table.

Don't want to turn into a werewolf etc.? Likewise.

Although "read the room" is also useful. I was a bit gruesome with combat descriptions but my players reacted poorly so I dialed it back.

I have also considered only allowing a PC to die if the player said "the PC is willing to die for that". Otherwise, the PC must run, fall unconscious, etc. I think it could work for some genres. But I never put it in practice.

I've played games where I eventually noticed that the PCs simply couldn't die. I certainly wish the GM had told me this beforehand!

Twitter rando said a thing. News at 11!

Quote from: Eric Diaz on September 11, 2023, 03:15:18 PM
I wouldn't dismiss "consent" right away.

Just tell your players what kind of game you run beforehand.

It is better for everyone involved.

If they cannot handle a TPK etc., they can choose other table.

Don't want to turn into a werewolf etc.? Likewise.

Although "read the room" is also useful. I was a bit gruesome with combat descriptions but my players reacted poorly so I dialed it back.

I have also considered only allowing a PC to die if the player said "the PC is willing to die for that". Otherwise, the PC must run, fall unconscious, etc. I think ti could work for some genres. But I never put it in practice.

I've played games where I eventually noticed that the PCs simply couldn't die. I certainly wish the GM had told me this beforehand!

That could work for a Pulp game, would need playtesting tho.

If it wasn't a Pulp game then that was a shitty game.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on September 11, 2023, 03:15:18 PM
I wouldn't dismiss "consent" right away.

Just tell your players what kind of game you run beforehand.

Ok.  "I run a TTFRPG."   

That should cover everything that could happen to a PC.

Quote from: Scooter on September 11, 2023, 03:25:23 PM
Ok.  "I run a TTFRPG."   

That should cover everything that could happen to a PC.

  Since Toon is Castle Falkenstein is D&D is Champions is Warhammer is Traveller is Call of Cthulhu ... ;)

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on September 11, 2023, 03:30:40 PM

Quote from: Scooter on September 11, 2023, 03:25:23 PM
Ok.  "I run a TTFRPG."   

That should cover everything that could happen to a PC.

  Since Toon is Castle Falkenstein is D&D is Champions is Warhammer is Traveller is Call of Cthulhu ... ;)

So?

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on September 11, 2023, 03:30:40 PM

Quote from: Scooter on September 11, 2023, 03:25:23 PM
Ok.  "I run a TTFRPG."   

That should cover everything that could happen to a PC.

  Since Toon is Castle Falkenstein is D&D is Champions is Warhammer is Traveller is Call of Cthulhu ... ;)

Just run Toon Cthulhu as a gritty, epic superhero game in space.  "What Ate Roger Rabbit?"

Quote from: VisionStorm on September 11, 2023, 03:19:20 PM
Twitter rando said a thing. News at 11!

That's not what this is. This is something appearing in an official D&D product.

This reminds me of a book I read, I think it was by John Ringo...

Marine sergeant:  I need 3 volunteers, you, you, and you!
Civilian:  How do they volunteer?  They didn't say anything.
Marine sergeant:  They volunteered when they joined the Marines

Similarly, when someone joins my game they opt in to all the things, good and bad, that can happen.  In this diminished age it might be useful to explain before someone joins that bad things can really happen to their characters, especially if they screw up, but once in they're in for good or ill.  (Or til the player quits, of course)

Quote from: Mishihari on September 12, 2023, 01:19:30 PM
This reminds me of a book I read, I think it was by John Ringo...

Marine sergeant:  I need 3 volunteers, you, you, and you!
Civilian:  How do they volunteer, they didn't say anything?
Marine sergeant:  They volunteered when they joined the Marines

Similarly, when someone joins my game they opt in to all the things, good and bad, that can happen.  In this diminished age it might be useful to explain before someone joins that bad things can really happen to their characters, especially if they screw up, but once in they're in for good or ill.  (Or til the player quits, of course)

Yarp. I am still bewildered by the notion that a grown ass person would be actually offended because something happened to a fictional character in a game. " BLACKLEAF NO!!!!!!!" has become reality.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 11, 2023, 03:22:36 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on September 11, 2023, 03:15:18 PM
Although "read the room" is also useful. I was a bit gruesome with combat descriptions but my players reacted poorly so I dialed it back.

I have also considered only allowing a PC to die if the player said "the PC is willing to die for that". Otherwise, the PC must run, fall unconscious, etc. I think ti could work for some genres. But I never put it in practice.

I've played games where I eventually noticed that the PCs simply couldn't die. I certainly wish the GM had told me this beforehand!

That could work for a Pulp game, would need playtesting tho.

If it wasn't a Pulp game then that was a shitty game.

I've played in a bunch of games where effectively the PC only died with permission.

I've enjoyed Toon, which isn't pulp but has an absolute "PCs don't die" rule.

I also played in a serious "adventures in history" game where all the PCs were immortal beings, and we played out adventures in non-linear time. i.e. The first adventure might be in the 1600s, and the second adventure in the 700s. So for continuity, PCs couldn't permanently die - though they could be crippled or trapped for decades.

Though requiring consent doesn't mean that PCs don't die. In almost all the cases of player death that I can think of, the player was fine with it and enjoyed having a dramatic death scene.

Also, I've also had plenty of relatively light-hearted games where no PCs died - like Champions, James Bond 007, Marvel Superheroes, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer. In the Buffy the Vampire Slayer RPG, effectively PCs can't permanently die except by player choice, since returning from the dead only costs 1 drama point. (Though they might be out for a few episodes and the player has to take over an NPC.)

Quote from: jhkim on September 12, 2023, 02:35:45 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 11, 2023, 03:22:36 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on September 11, 2023, 03:15:18 PM
Although "read the room" is also useful. I was a bit gruesome with combat descriptions but my players reacted poorly so I dialed it back.

I have also considered only allowing a PC to die if the player said "the PC is willing to die for that". Otherwise, the PC must run, fall unconscious, etc. I think ti could work for some genres. But I never put it in practice.

I've played games where I eventually noticed that the PCs simply couldn't die. I certainly wish the GM had told me this beforehand!

That could work for a Pulp game, would need playtesting tho.

If it wasn't a Pulp game then that was a shitty game.

I've played in a bunch of games where effectively the PC only died with permission.

I've enjoyed Toon, which isn't pulp but has an absolute "PCs don't die" rule.

I also played in a serious "adventures in history" game where all the PCs were immortal beings, and we played out adventures in non-linear time. i.e. The first adventure might be in the 1600s, and the second adventure in the 700s. So for continuity, PCs couldn't permanently die - though they could be crippled or trapped for decades.

Though requiring consent doesn't mean that PCs don't die. In almost all the cases of player death that I can think of, the player was fine with it and enjoyed having a dramatic death scene.

Also, I've also had plenty of relatively light-hearted games where no PCs died - like Champions, James Bond 007, Marvel Superheroes, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer. In the Buffy the Vampire Slayer RPG, effectively PCs can't permanently die except by player choice, since returning from the dead only costs 1 drama point. (Though they might be out for a few episodes and the player has to take over an NPC.)

How many of those have a big player base?

Maybe Champions/Hero and Marvel.

Now, let me rephrase it to see if I can convey my opinion in a clearer way:

Quote
If it wasn't a Pulp game (or any game where it's asumed by the genre conceits) then that was a shitty game (given that the GM DIDN'T inform you)

Clearer now?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 12, 2023, 02:48:20 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 12, 2023, 02:35:45 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 11, 2023, 03:22:36 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on September 11, 2023, 03:15:18 PM
Although "read the room" is also useful. I was a bit gruesome with combat descriptions but my players reacted poorly so I dialed it back.

I have also considered only allowing a PC to die if the player said "the PC is willing to die for that". Otherwise, the PC must run, fall unconscious, etc. I think ti could work for some genres. But I never put it in practice.

I've played games where I eventually noticed that the PCs simply couldn't die. I certainly wish the GM had told me this beforehand!

That could work for a Pulp game, would need playtesting tho.

If it wasn't a Pulp game then that was a shitty game.

I've played in a bunch of games where effectively the PC only died with permission.

I've enjoyed Toon, which isn't pulp but has an absolute "PCs don't die" rule.

I also played in a serious "adventures in history" game where all the PCs were immortal beings, and we played out adventures in non-linear time. i.e. The first adventure might be in the 1600s, and the second adventure in the 700s. So for continuity, PCs couldn't permanently die - though they could be crippled or trapped for decades.

Though requiring consent doesn't mean that PCs don't die. In almost all the cases of player death that I can think of, the player was fine with it and enjoyed having a dramatic death scene.

Also, I've also had plenty of relatively light-hearted games where no PCs died - like Champions, James Bond 007, Marvel Superheroes, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer. In the Buffy the Vampire Slayer RPG, effectively PCs can't permanently die except by player choice, since returning from the dead only costs 1 drama point. (Though they might be out for a few episodes and the player has to take over an NPC.)

How many of those have a big player base?

Maybe Champions/Hero and Marvel.

Now, let me rephrase it to see if I can convey my opinion in a clearer way:

Quote
If it wasn't a Pulp game (or any game where it's asumed by the genre conceits) then that was a shitty game (given that the GM DIDN'T inform you)

Clearer now?

I agree. I enjoy a storygame called Microscope, where a PC can die only by consent (maybe, also by vote, don't remember now). BUT, there it make sense: it's diceless, there's close to no structure to determine the outcome, except by player consent (or majority vote).

That rule could make sense in some game.
Surely, one of theese game isn't D&D (or WFRP or Call of Cthulhu...).
Also...in Ad&D-like systems...you already got a polymorph saving throw, introducing player's consent would go counter the spirit of the game.

(edited the last sentence as it was confusing).

Quote from: Murphy78 on September 12, 2023, 04:32:56 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 12, 2023, 02:48:20 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 12, 2023, 02:35:45 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 11, 2023, 03:22:36 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on September 11, 2023, 03:15:18 PM
Although "read the room" is also useful. I was a bit gruesome with combat descriptions but my players reacted poorly so I dialed it back.

I have also considered only allowing a PC to die if the player said "the PC is willing to die for that". Otherwise, the PC must run, fall unconscious, etc. I think ti could work for some genres. But I never put it in practice.

I've played games where I eventually noticed that the PCs simply couldn't die. I certainly wish the GM had told me this beforehand!

That could work for a Pulp game, would need playtesting tho.

If it wasn't a Pulp game then that was a shitty game.

I've played in a bunch of games where effectively the PC only died with permission.

I've enjoyed Toon, which isn't pulp but has an absolute "PCs don't die" rule.

I also played in a serious "adventures in history" game where all the PCs were immortal beings, and we played out adventures in non-linear time. i.e. The first adventure might be in the 1600s, and the second adventure in the 700s. So for continuity, PCs couldn't permanently die - though they could be crippled or trapped for decades.

Though requiring consent doesn't mean that PCs don't die. In almost all the cases of player death that I can think of, the player was fine with it and enjoyed having a dramatic death scene.

Also, I've also had plenty of relatively light-hearted games where no PCs died - like Champions, James Bond 007, Marvel Superheroes, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer. In the Buffy the Vampire Slayer RPG, effectively PCs can't permanently die except by player choice, since returning from the dead only costs 1 drama point. (Though they might be out for a few episodes and the player has to take over an NPC.)

How many of those have a big player base?

Maybe Champions/Hero and Marvel.

Now, let me rephrase it to see if I can convey my opinion in a clearer way:

Quote
If it wasn't a Pulp game (or any game where it's asumed by the genre conceits) then that was a shitty game (given that the GM DIDN'T inform you)

Clearer now?

I agree. I enjoy a storygame called Microscope, where a PC can die only by consent (maybe, also by vote, don't remember now). BUT, there it make sense: it's diceless, there's close to no structure to determine the outcome, except by player consent (or majority vote).

That rule could make sense in some game.
Surely, one of theese game isn't D&D (or WFRP or Call of Cthulhu...).
Also...in Ad&D-like systems...you can fail a polymorph saving throw only by consent...go figure.

Wrong, in D&D-like games you don't roll a ST for polymorph wehn you're willing to submit/accept the magic, since you're not resisting there's no need for a ST. It's not that you fail it, it's that there's no ST.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 12, 2023, 04:56:27 PM

Quote from: Murphy78 on September 12, 2023, 04:32:56 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 12, 2023, 02:48:20 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 12, 2023, 02:35:45 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 11, 2023, 03:22:36 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on September 11, 2023, 03:15:18 PM
Although "read the room" is also useful. I was a bit gruesome with combat descriptions but my players reacted poorly so I dialed it back.

I have also considered only allowing a PC to die if the player said "the PC is willing to die for that". Otherwise, the PC must run, fall unconscious, etc. I think ti could work for some genres. But I never put it in practice.

I've played games where I eventually noticed that the PCs simply couldn't die. I certainly wish the GM had told me this beforehand!

That could work for a Pulp game, would need playtesting tho.

If it wasn't a Pulp game then that was a shitty game.

I've played in a bunch of games where effectively the PC only died with permission.

I've enjoyed Toon, which isn't pulp but has an absolute "PCs don't die" rule.

I also played in a serious "adventures in history" game where all the PCs were immortal beings, and we played out adventures in non-linear time. i.e. The first adventure might be in the 1600s, and the second adventure in the 700s. So for continuity, PCs couldn't permanently die - though they could be crippled or trapped for decades.

Though requiring consent doesn't mean that PCs don't die. In almost all the cases of player death that I can think of, the player was fine with it and enjoyed having a dramatic death scene.

Also, I've also had plenty of relatively light-hearted games where no PCs died - like Champions, James Bond 007, Marvel Superheroes, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer. In the Buffy the Vampire Slayer RPG, effectively PCs can't permanently die except by player choice, since returning from the dead only costs 1 drama point. (Though they might be out for a few episodes and the player has to take over an NPC.)

How many of those have a big player base?

Maybe Champions/Hero and Marvel.

Now, let me rephrase it to see if I can convey my opinion in a clearer way:

Quote
If it wasn't a Pulp game (or any game where it's asumed by the genre conceits) then that was a shitty game (given that the GM DIDN'T inform you)

Clearer now?

I agree. I enjoy a storygame called Microscope, where a PC can die only by consent (maybe, also by vote, don't remember now). BUT, there it make sense: it's diceless, there's close to no structure to determine the outcome, except by player consent (or majority vote).

That rule could make sense in some game.
Surely, one of theese game isn't D&D (or WFRP or Call of Cthulhu...).
Also...in Ad&D-like systems...you can fail a polymorph saving throw only by consent...go figure.

Wrong, in D&D-like games you don't roll a ST for polymorph wehn you're willing to submit/accept the magic, since you're not resisting there's no need for a ST. It's not that you fail it, it's that there's no ST.

I meant that it would be silly to introduce the player's  consent in Ad&d, because you got a saving throw against polymorph. It would be ludicrous and it would go against a basic mechanic (and the spirit) of the game.

Anyway, I rewrote that sentence as it was confusing.

Quote from: Murphy78 on September 12, 2023, 04:32:56 PM
I agree. I enjoy a storygame called Microscope, where a PC can die only by consent (maybe, also by vote, don't remember now). BUT, there it make sense: it's diceless, there's close to no structure to determine the outcome, except by player consent (or majority vote).

Is that a new version of Microscope or something? The version I played had no such rule and basically stated that if a character dies, too bad so sad, you can create a scene with the character in the past before they died. In non-linear time, nobody really dies, you just need to respect causality.

Quote from: rytrasmi on September 13, 2023, 12:32:43 PM

Quote from: Murphy78 on September 12, 2023, 04:32:56 PM
I agree. I enjoy a storygame called Microscope, where a PC can die only by consent (maybe, also by vote, don't remember now). BUT, there it make sense: it's diceless, there's close to no structure to determine the outcome, except by player consent (or majority vote).

Is that a new version of Microscope or something? The version I played had no such rule and basically stated that if a character dies, too bad so sad, you can create a scene with the character in the past before they died. In non-linear time, nobody really dies, you just need to respect causality.

Microscope, as far as I know, only has 1 edition. It has got an expansion, Microscope Explorer, but the core manual got only one version.
As to killing characters only with player's consent, actually the rule is there. Microscope rules state that, when you try doing something to another player's character, that player decide the outcome. That include also killing him.

Sure, in the next scene, you can go back to the time before he died and play that character another time. But he's still dead, so to speak, in the time of his death and after.

Quote from: Murphy78 on September 13, 2023, 01:31:01 PM

Quote from: rytrasmi on September 13, 2023, 12:32:43 PM
Is that a new version of Microscope or something? The version I played had no such rule and basically stated that if a character dies, too bad so sad, you can create a scene with the character in the past before they died. In non-linear time, nobody really dies, you just need to respect causality.

Microscope, as far as I know, only has 1 edition. It has got an expansion, Microscope Explorer, but the core manual got only one version.
As to killing characters only with player's consent, actually the rule is there. Microscope rules state that, when you try doing something to another player's character, that player decide the outcome. That include also killing him.

Sure, in the next scene, you can go back to the time before he died and play that character another time. But he's still dead, so to speak, in the time of his death and after.

This might be a mixup between Events and Scenes. On p42 in the chapter on "Playing Scenes"

QuoteDoing Things To Characters

Each player controls the fate of the character they chose during the Scene setup. If you want to do something to someone else's character, describe what you are trying to do and your intended effect. It's up to the other player to decide the result.

QuoteA player says the gladiator character he controls tries to stab the Emperor and kill him. The Emperor's player gets to say if the Emperor is slain, wounded, or escapes the attack entirely.

So within a scene, a character has a specific player who is playing them - and that person decides their character's fate. Outside of a Scene, though, a player could create a timeline Event of "The Death of the Emperor" and then it would be established that the emperor dies. Since at that point no one is playing the emperor, there is no consent needed.

Yeah, okay, when role playing a scene with other players you can't just get to declare that another player's character is dead. You only control a character for a scene; nobody owns them. This is just to encourage role play, rather than some consent dogma. You can just declare that character dead in an event or kill him in another scene where you play him. We had one memorable game where someone was shocked that a character they created was summarily killed by another player.

It's a mechanic, not consent thing. Microscope discourages collaboration and doesn't give a fuck about consent and in my mind that's a huge part of what makes it fun.

Quote from: Microscope
Nuking Atlantis
Or "Can I just say that guy is dead?"
It doesn't matter who created that gleaming city on the hill or
who played that character in the last Scene: if it's your turn,
you can do whatever you want. No one owns anything in the
history. You can make an Event and say "this is when the Prophet
gets assassinated" or "this is when that awesome city you guys
have been going on about gets nuked. Boom!" You have nigh
unlimited power, so long as you don't contradict what's already
been established.
Don't pull your punches. Killing a character or nuking a city
doesn't remove it from the game because you can always go
back in time and explore what it was like when it was still around.
No matter what you do, other players can still go back and use
it, so don't be afraid to wipe things out. Nothing is ever removed
from the history. The past is never closed.

Edit: Also, the player deciding if the character they controls dies or not is just in Played Scenes. There are also Dictated Scenes where you control any characters you want and narrate what happens. So the whole agreeing to die thing is just part of the mechanics that distinguish the different types of scenes. Nobody owns characters, but if you want to kill a character that another player created and loves, you can 100% do it, just wait until your turn.

Much like playing monopoly, consent happens when you agree to sit down and play the game.

"Wait a minute - I never agreed to be poor!" ;D

Quote from: rytrasmi on September 13, 2023, 02:22:12 PM
Yeah, okay, when role playing a scene with other players you can't just get to declare that another player's character is dead. You only control a character for a scene; nobody owns them. This is just to encourage role play, rather than some consent dogma. You can just declare that character dead in an event or kill him in another scene where you play him. We had one memorable game where someone was shocked that a character they created was summarily killed by another player.

It's a mechanic, not consent thing. Microscope discourages collaboration and doesn't give a fuck about consent and in my mind that's a huge part of what makes it fun.

Microscope encourages sharing in a sense by not having any long-term ownership of characters or other elements. So everyone can leave their mark and radically change the timeline. This is "collaborative" in a sense, but it is based on individual contribution rather than consensus (which tends to be dominated by just a few people in most social dynamics).

I don't think that's opposed to consent, because without ownership, there is no consent needed. Outside of a scene, the emperor isn't owned by any player, so it's not violating any player to have him killed.

Quote from: jhkim on September 13, 2023, 04:47:59 PM

Quote from: rytrasmi on September 13, 2023, 02:22:12 PM
Yeah, okay, when role playing a scene with other players you can't just get to declare that another player's character is dead. You only control a character for a scene; nobody owns them. This is just to encourage role play, rather than some consent dogma. You can just declare that character dead in an event or kill him in another scene where you play him. We had one memorable game where someone was shocked that a character they created was summarily killed by another player.

It's a mechanic, not consent thing. Microscope discourages collaboration and doesn't give a fuck about consent and in my mind that's a huge part of what makes it fun.

Microscope encourages sharing in a sense by not having any long-term ownership of characters or other elements. So everyone can leave their mark and radically change the timeline. This is "collaborative" in a sense, but it is based on individual contribution rather than consensus (which tends to be dominated by just a few people in most social dynamics).

I don't think that's opposed to consent, because without ownership, there is no consent needed. Outside of a scene, the emperor isn't owned by any player, so it's not violating any player to have him killed.

Sure, that's one way to put it. You have total authority on your turn, so it's not collaborative, but since everyone takes turns, it is collaborative. Obviously the latter is encouraged otherwise it wouldn't be a social game.

As for sharing, no, not really. Sharing implies consent. You ask for permission and it's granted or not. In the game you simply take total control of the world and then yield it when your turn is done. There is no asking or granting of permission.

As for your comments on consent, you seem to be implying there's some sort of causal relationship, i.e., the idea that no consent is needed just happens to naturally flow from the fact that no player owns any part of the world. Ownership is a side issue. What makes the game work is that you don't need anyone's permission to mess with anything. The game would still function with ownership of characters and such, but it wouldn't function with a requirement for consent.

What about if the PC puts on a Girdle of masculinity/femininity without being warned?  I guess those that would normally bitch probably wouldn't because they don't know what sex they are anyway.

You're dead Marcy, get out of here!

Quote from: Scooter on September 13, 2023, 05:49:44 PM
What about if the PC puts on a Girdle of masculinity/femininity without being warned?

I'm guessing that's already major taboo in those circles.

Quote from: rytrasmi on September 13, 2023, 02:22:12 PM
Yeah, okay, when role playing a scene with other players you can't just get to declare that another player's character is dead. You only control a character for a scene; nobody owns them. This is just to encourage role play, rather than some consent dogma. You can just declare that character dead in an event or kill him in another scene where you play him. We had one memorable game where someone was shocked that a character they created was summarily killed by another player.

It's a mechanic, not consent thing. Microscope discourages collaboration and doesn't give a fuck about consent and in my mind that's a huge part of what makes it fun.

Quote from: Microscope
Nuking Atlantis
Or "Can I just say that guy is dead?"
It doesn't matter who created that gleaming city on the hill or
who played that character in the last Scene: if it's your turn,
you can do whatever you want. No one owns anything in the
history. You can make an Event and say "this is when the Prophet
gets assassinated" or "this is when that awesome city you guys
have been going on about gets nuked. Boom!" You have nigh
unlimited power, so long as you don't contradict what's already
been established.
Don't pull your punches. Killing a character or nuking a city
doesn't remove it from the game because you can always go
back in time and explore what it was like when it was still around.
No matter what you do, other players can still go back and use
it, so don't be afraid to wipe things out. Nothing is ever removed
from the history. The past is never closed.

Edit: Also, the player deciding if the character they controls dies or not is just in Played Scenes. There are also Dictated Scenes where you control any characters you want and narrate what happens. So the whole agreeing to die thing is just part of the mechanics that distinguish the different types of scenes. Nobody owns characters, but if you want to kill a character that another player created and loves, you can 100% do it, just wait until your turn.

Sure, I was strictly speaking about played scenes, because that's the one moment when you get to roleplay a PC in a game of Microscope. In Periods, Events and dictated Scenes you don't really have a PC, you just run things limited only by focus/legacy, palette and logic (don't contradict what has already been established).

Quote from: Dracones on September 13, 2023, 07:37:17 PM

Quote from: Scooter on September 13, 2023, 05:49:44 PM
What about if the PC puts on a Girdle of masculinity/femininity without being warned?

I'm guessing that's already major taboo in those circles.

Oh yeah, the consent around this....and charm person (and other ropey spells) has long been "problematic"

Quote from: rytrasmi on September 13, 2023, 05:44:38 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 13, 2023, 04:47:59 PM
Microscope encourages sharing in a sense by not having any long-term ownership of characters or other elements. So everyone can leave their mark and radically change the timeline. This is "collaborative" in a sense, but it is based on individual contribution rather than consensus (which tends to be dominated by just a few people in most social dynamics).

I don't think that's opposed to consent, because without ownership, there is no consent needed. Outside of a scene, the emperor isn't owned by any player, so it's not violating any player to have him killed.

Sure, that's one way to put it. You have total authority on your turn, so it's not collaborative, but since everyone takes turns, it is collaborative. Obviously the latter is encouraged otherwise it wouldn't be a social game.

As for sharing, no, not really. Sharing implies consent. You ask for permission and it's granted or not. In the game you simply take total control of the world and then yield it when your turn is done. There is no asking or granting of permission.

As for your comments on consent, you seem to be implying there's some sort of causal relationship, i.e., the idea that no consent is needed just happens to naturally flow from the fact that no player owns any part of the world. Ownership is a side issue. What makes the game work is that you don't need anyone's permission to mess with anything. The game would still function with ownership of characters and such, but it wouldn't function with a requirement for consent.

It seems like we're largely agreeing, with minor differences in spin.

I agree that what makes the game work is that you can change anything on your turn except the cards previously established. And yeah, part of the fun is making new twists and wrinkles across the timeline that throw off previous expectations and assumptions.

There's lots of different games that work different ways. Some games are largely improv (like Toon), while others are competitive between players (like some Paranoia or Amber games), while some are collaborative (like troupe-style Ars Magica), and so forth.

Quote from: Thorn Drumheller on September 14, 2023, 01:54:05 PM

Quote from: Dracones on September 13, 2023, 07:37:17 PM

Quote from: Scooter on September 13, 2023, 05:49:44 PM
What about if the PC puts on a Girdle of masculinity/femininity without being warned?

I'm guessing that's already major taboo in those circles.

Oh yeah, the consent around this....and charm person (and other ropey spells) has long been "problematic"

I'd be curious about other people's experiences with charming PCs and/or sex-change of PCs.

I've avoided both of these in my games since being a teenager. In my childhood, there were some shitty moves GMs who did stuff with mind-controlling PCs (including me a few times).

Quote from: jhkim on September 14, 2023, 09:00:30 PM

Quote from: Thorn Drumheller on September 14, 2023, 01:54:05 PM

Quote from: Dracones on September 13, 2023, 07:37:17 PM

Quote from: Scooter on September 13, 2023, 05:49:44 PM
What about if the PC puts on a Girdle of masculinity/femininity without being warned?

I'm guessing that's already major taboo in those circles.

Oh yeah, the consent around this....and charm person (and other ropey spells) has long been "problematic"

I'd be curious about other people's experiences with charming PCs and/or sex-change of PCs.

I've avoided both of these in my games since being a teenager. In my childhood, there were some shitty moves GMs who did stuff with mind-controlling PCs (including me a few times).

Unwritten rule since the early 90's in my neck of the woods has always been "don't dick over your players in ways they're not comfortable with or you'll soon find yourself without players."

Prime example from college was a GM who thought he'd introduce drama by having a male player PC mind controlled into raping a newly joined female played PC. He was kicked from the group by the players.

A less extreme example was a GM who ran an RPG as a sales pitch for the product he was selling (some enzyme-boosting nonsense) where an enzyme-sucking monster weakened the party until they agreed to take an enzyme booster. He never got to run a second session.

To be fair that was two out of dozens of campaigns I played in college, but it highlights my point that GM fiat is only as total as the group allows it to be and consent isn't a one-time thing in RPGs any more than it is anywhere else in life.

Dick GMs in my experience quickly end up with either empty tables or a group of catpiss men no one else wants at their tables.

Non-dick GMs learn to read a room and not throw things at groups beyond their comfort zone (and where their real vs. professed line is).

Quote from: jhkim on September 14, 2023, 09:00:30 PM

Quote from: Thorn Drumheller on September 14, 2023, 01:54:05 PM

Quote from: Dracones on September 13, 2023, 07:37:17 PM

Quote from: Scooter on September 13, 2023, 05:49:44 PM
What about if the PC puts on a Girdle of masculinity/femininity without being warned?

I'm guessing that's already major taboo in those circles.

Oh yeah, the consent around this....and charm person (and other ropey spells) has long been "problematic"

I'd be curious about other people's experiences with charming PCs and/or sex-change of PCs.

I've avoided both of these in my games since being a teenager. In my childhood, there were some shitty moves GMs who did stuff with mind-controlling PCs (including me a few times).

I've used charms more time than I could count.  I've used various cursed item, shape changes, dominations, etc. quite a bit.  Depending on the players, the characters, the setting, and the tone of the game, it gets handled differently. 

I've had gruesome charms that are "fade to black", same as we would if a character managed to get tortured, cooked and eaten, etc.  I've also had rather light-hearted charms where I took the player aside, explained what the parameters were, and let them roleplay it.  We've even had a couple of times where the character was charmed in a minor way, and the player was so correct and subtle in their playing, that it went on for most of a session.  It helps to be playing a game where "charm" is more of a "new best friend" thing than complete mind control.  Once, the other players figured it out pretty quick, but it was so amusing, they decided not to have their characters do anything about it, much to the chagrin of the charmed character, whose player was doing his best to stick to the spirit of the charm while getting help.

I've also had games where none of that stuff would happen, as it wouldn't fit.  Being able to do things like this is one of the big reasons I don't often play with strangers.  And when I do play with strangers, I'm not going to depend on session zero or consent or any other of that stuff to iron out where the sharp edges lie.  I'll just not go there, same as I wouldn't with a whole host of other things. 

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on September 15, 2023, 09:09:03 AM

Quote from: jhkim on September 14, 2023, 09:00:30 PM

Quote from: Thorn Drumheller on September 14, 2023, 01:54:05 PM
Oh yeah, the consent around this....and charm person (and other ropey spells) has long been "problematic"

I'd be curious about other people's experiences with charming PCs and/or sex-change of PCs.

I've avoided both of these in my games since being a teenager. In my childhood, there were some shitty moves GMs who did stuff with mind-controlling PCs (including me a few times).

I've used charms more time than I could count.  I've used various cursed item, shape changes, dominations, etc. quite a bit.  Depending on the players, the characters, the setting, and the tone of the game, it gets handled differently. 

I've had gruesome charms that are "fade to black", same as we would if a character managed to get tortured, cooked and eaten, etc.  I've also had rather light-hearted charms where I took the player aside, explained what the parameters were, and let them roleplay it.  We've even had a couple of times where the character was charmed in a minor way, and the player was so correct and subtle in their playing, that it went on for most of a session.  It helps to be playing a game where "charm" is more of a "new best friend" thing than complete mind control.  Once, the other players figured it out pretty quick, but it was so amusing, they decided not to have their characters do anything about it, much to the chagrin of the charmed character, whose player was doing his best to stick to the spirit of the charm while getting help.

I've also had games where none of that stuff would happen, as it wouldn't fit.  Being able to do things like this is one of the big reasons I don't often play with strangers.  And when I do play with strangers, I'm not going to depend on session zero or consent or any other of that stuff to iron out where the sharp edges lie.  I'll just not go there, same as I wouldn't with a whole host of other things.

To clarify, I didn't mean any mental effects or charms - I was thinking mostly of being directly mind-controlled by an enemy to act against the party. Likewise, with curses, I was thinking specifically of a permanent sex change like the Girdle of Masculinity/Femininity rather than curses more broadly. I've generally avoided these two.

Certainly with Call of Cthulhu, I've had a host of insanity effects on PCs, and a few other mental effects as well.

But yeah, it's tricky, and I find there are edges to iron out - even among friends.

I much prefer the "new best friend" type of charm over things like mind control. It gives the player something to do. In the case of a spell where the PC has to follow suggestions of the caster, I might give the player a couple of options if they have trouble with it.

Mind control just creates another NPC for me to run. No thanks.

Besides, mind control is boring. Even in movies, I don't know why but I find it dull. Hero is acting weird, oh snap, the villain is controlling him! It merely transforms hero vs villain conflict into hero vs other hero conflict. Even when it works, it feels cheap. It was a novelty long ago I assume but now it's a yawn.

Quote from: rytrasmi on September 15, 2023, 04:01:13 PM
I much prefer the "new best friend" type of charm over things like mind control.

It's the original Charm from pg. 43 of the AD&D DMG

Quote from: Scooter on September 15, 2023, 04:16:07 PM

Quote from: rytrasmi on September 15, 2023, 04:01:13 PM
I much prefer the "new best friend" type of charm over things like mind control.

It's the original Charm from pg. 43 of the AD&D DMG

Indeed. A lot of times it gets read as Domination or Possession than mere "new best friend!" That you can abuse Charm is part of the moral quandrary for Alignment fun, (and gets into even Ravenloft Darklords who are cursed for their own crapulence in abusing charm, illusions, etc.) but that's another discussion. And many games love to explore that fun, including my beloved 90s games like WoD & IN SJG.

Allowing someone's assumptions to endanger them, even knowingly abusing such assumptions, is not direct control. It is taking advantage of omission, if not outright manipulation (both often seen as a moral (ideal) bad, if ethically (contextual) excusable), but not overt overriding of choice. The fun of Charm is consent becoming lax in judgment in the face of attraction/affiliation/aspiration... a wonderful discussion unto itself.

Players can protest and give pushback on any number of things.  I've had games come to a grinding halt because I chose one set of bad guys they didn't want to play against, or go somewhere they found uninteresting.

But.

The GM has to be considered too.  He is also playing, and gets a say as just like everyone else.  But this is session zero stuff, not a consent issue.   

Quote from: VisionStorm on September 11, 2023, 03:19:20 PM
Twitter rando said a thing. News at 11!

Pretty much.

Quote from: weirdguy564 on September 16, 2023, 05:22:58 AM

The GM has to be considered too.  He is also playing, and gets a say as just like everyone else.  But this is session zero stuff, not a consent issue.

No, the GM ISN'T like anyone else.  He is the GAME MASTER.  If my players stopped a session just because they disliked the encounter they'd be gone.

Quote from: Scooter on September 24, 2023, 08:57:33 AM

Quote from: weirdguy564 on September 16, 2023, 05:22:58 AM

The GM has to be considered too.  He is also playing, and gets a say as just like everyone else.  But this is session zero stuff, not a consent issue.

No, the GM ISN'T like anyone else.  He is the GAME MASTER.  If my players stopped a session just because they disliked the encounter they'd be gone.

Yep.

Guess what - even in a fantasy world, bad shit can happen to good people all the time.  That type of stuff doesn't give PCs a free pass.

I've run games where PCs have been kidnapped, taken prisoner of war, tortured, been enslaved, had unwanted exploratory surgery, forced into just about any number of bad situations. Almost always it was because they took a risk that didn't pan out - some due to a bad roll, some due to stupidity, too-cavalier towards danger, etc. In some cases, death was less than in glorious battle on the field of honor - being run over by a wagon, stabbed by a street urchin, falling off a roof during a chase, even a  communicable disease.

I've had players disappointed by the results, but never so entitled to think their PCs shouldn't ever fail.

You're simply NOT a good Game Master if you don't traumatize your players! Get some of these triggered freakos at your table and BREAK THEM even more!   

Quote from: 3catcircus on September 24, 2023, 10:47:17 PM

Quote from: Scooter on September 24, 2023, 08:57:33 AM

Quote from: weirdguy564 on September 16, 2023, 05:22:58 AM

The GM has to be considered too.  He is also playing, and gets a say as just like everyone else.  But this is session zero stuff, not a consent issue.

No, the GM ISN'T like anyone else.  He is the GAME MASTER.  If my players stopped a session just because they disliked the encounter they'd be gone.

Yep.

Guess what - even in a fantasy world, bad shit can happen to good people all the time.  That type of stuff doesn't give PCs a free pass.

I've run games where PCs have been kidnapped, taken prisoner of war, tortured, been enslaved, had unwanted exploratory surgery, forced into just about any number of bad situations. Almost always it was because they took a risk that didn't pan out - some due to a bad roll, some due to stupidity, too-cavalier towards danger, etc. In some cases, death was less than in glorious battle on the field of honor - being run over by a wagon, stabbed by a street urchin, falling off a roof during a chase, even a  communicable disease.

I've had players disappointed by the results, but never so entitled to think their PCs shouldn't ever fail.

The GM IS the clockmaker god of the game world.

Pretty soon these people will be admonishing you for polymorphing your own character into annother type of creature, calling it "Bilogical Appropriation".

Hilarity ensues when your wizard is sued for defamation because he shape-shifted into a troll.

Some of this stupid smacks of storygamer infestation.

The horrible DM must be prevented from taking away player power! Consent being just a new ploy. Remember how prior it was all about "Tha Fiction!" my precious.

Quote from: Scooter on September 24, 2023, 08:57:33 AM

Quote from: weirdguy564 on September 16, 2023, 05:22:58 AM

The GM has to be considered too.  He is also playing, and gets a say as just like everyone else.  But this is session zero stuff, not a consent issue.

No, the GM ISN'T like anyone else.  He is the GAME MASTER.  If my players stopped a session just because they disliked the encounter they'd be gone.

He's only a GM if he has players.

The GM is a player. He's player who runs the game by the consent of his players. And if the players no longer give their consent to his shitty style then he's just some dude at an empty table (or asked to leave the table if in a public space or not running in his own home).

This is a cooperative hobby. Consent runs in both directions and the GM only has special authority by consent of his players.

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 25, 2023, 07:47:22 AM

Quote from: Scooter on September 24, 2023, 08:57:33 AM

Quote from: weirdguy564 on September 16, 2023, 05:22:58 AM

The GM has to be considered too.  He is also playing, and gets a say as just like everyone else.  But this is session zero stuff, not a consent issue.

No, the GM ISN'T like anyone else.  He is the GAME MASTER.  If my players stopped a session just because they disliked the encounter they'd be gone.

He's only a GM if he has players.

The GM is a player. He's player who runs the game by the consent of his players. And if the players no longer give their consent to his shitty style then he's just some dude at an empty table (or asked to leave the table if in a public space or not running in his own home).

This is a cooperative hobby. Consent runs in both directions and the GM only has special authority by consent of his players.

You're completely missing the point. Player consent is given at session zero. After that, it's all consensual non-consent. Don't like the way a campaign is going to be conducted? Discuss it before it starts and forever hold your peace.

How about this: if the players don't want the GM to have NPCs do bad shit to PCs in a heroic campaign, are those same players going to be butt-hurt if the GM won't let the PCs do bad shit to the NPCs in a villain campaign? The answer is most likely yes - because of ridiculous player entitlement.

Should a GM accommodate certain requests? Sure - allow them to quest for the ultimate magic item or immortality or godhood or a kingdom. But the GM shouldn't be spoon feeding player wants and desires and sheltering then from the in-game reality. We have enough of that shit going on in the real world, with the predictable detrimental consequences to fragile egos.

Quote from: 3catcircus on September 25, 2023, 08:34:52 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 25, 2023, 07:47:22 AM

Quote from: Scooter on September 24, 2023, 08:57:33 AM

Quote from: weirdguy564 on September 16, 2023, 05:22:58 AM

The GM has to be considered too.  He is also playing, and gets a say as just like everyone else.  But this is session zero stuff, not a consent issue.

No, the GM ISN'T like anyone else.  He is the GAME MASTER.  If my players stopped a session just because they disliked the encounter they'd be gone.

He's only a GM if he has players.

The GM is a player. He's player who runs the game by the consent of his players. And if the players no longer give their consent to his shitty style then he's just some dude at an empty table (or asked to leave the table if in a public space or not running in his own home).

This is a cooperative hobby. Consent runs in both directions and the GM only has special authority by consent of his players.

You're completely missing the point. Player consent is given at session zero. After that, it's all consensual non-consent. Don't like the way a campaign is going to be conducted? Discuss it before it starts and forever hold your peace.

How about this: if the players don't want the GM to have NPCs do bad shit to PCs in a heroic campaign, are those same players going to be butt-hurt if the GM won't let the PCs do bad shit to the NPCs in a villain campaign? The answer is most likely yes - because of ridiculous player entitlement.

Should a GM accommodate certain requests? Sure - allow them to quest for the ultimate magic item or immortality or godhood or a kingdom. But the GM shouldn't be spoon feeding player wants and desires and sheltering then from the in-game reality. We have enough of that shit going on in the real world, with the predictable detrimental consequences to fragile egos.

No, he's not missing the point.  He's ignoring the point.  It's two different things.  Ask him about his experiences with traditional D&D.  He's part of the group of folks who had a bad DM once that hurt his fee-fees, so now he wants DMs to be controlled or restricted by "the rules" as much as players.  Scratch any 3e or 4e fan and you'll usually find someone with a similar story.  It's like deciding that, because you met a cop who abused his authority, the entire profession of "police officer" needs to be removed (well... seems there are a lot of people nowadays that fall for this same lousy logic).

Sure, a lousy GM will have his players leave (I've done it).  But that doesn't make the definition of "lousy DM" mean "A DM that does something consistent with the setting that the players don't like."  If you agree to play Ravenloft, your character might get charmed or turned into a vampire.  It's part of the expectations of the setting...

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 25, 2023, 07:47:22 AM

He's only a GM if he has players.

No shit moron.  How long did it take for you to figure that out?

Quote from: 3catcircus on September 25, 2023, 08:34:52 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 25, 2023, 07:47:22 AM
The GM is a player. He's player who runs the game by the consent of his players. And if the players no longer give their consent to his shitty style then he's just some dude at an empty table (or asked to leave the table if in a public space or not running in his own home).

This is a cooperative hobby. Consent runs in both directions and the GM only has special authority by consent of his players.

You're completely missing the point. Player consent is given at session zero. After that, it's all consensual non-consent. Don't like the way a campaign is going to be conducted? Discuss it before it starts and forever hold your peace.

To me, this sounds legalistic and combative. Like the GM is holding the players to a contract, rather than trying to have fun with them.

Campaigns often don't go in ways that can be foreseen at the start. There are all sorts of different directions it can go in. If I'm a player, I might sign up with a GM, but later have a problem with how he is doing things. If I'm a GM, especially in a campaign, I generally play with my friends. I'm not trying to play "gotcha" with them. I'll check in with them about how they're enjoying things. We all might enjoy a change of direction for the campaign.

Having played since I was a pre-teen in the 1970s, I've had plenty of cases where I was a bad GM or a bad player - as well as dealing with bad GMs and/or players. Some people are assholes that I'd never want to play with. On the other hand, some people are OK, but they have a bad day and/or bad ideas, and sometimes they mess up - making the game unfun. If so, other people at the table should call them on their bullshit. We correct, and the game goes on.

Quote from: 3catcircus on September 25, 2023, 08:34:52 AM
Should a GM accommodate certain requests? Sure - allow them to quest for the ultimate magic item or immortality or godhood or a kingdom. But the GM shouldn't be spoon feeding player wants and desires and sheltering then from the in-game reality. We have enough of that shit going on in the real world, with the predictable detrimental consequences to fragile egos.

Those aren't the only two possibilities, though. Sometimes the GM can pull shit on the players and claim it's just enforcing in-game reality. Conversely, sometimes the players can pull shit that makes the game unfun for the GM. They can talk about it and correct.

Me as DM: "YOU FAILED. The ritual proceeds as planned. Make a save vs Spell at -3"

There, now it's in hands of the dice. No DM bias. No whiney players. Just chance. Fate. Done.

Quote from: blackstone on September 25, 2023, 03:15:14 PM
Me as DM: "YOU FAILED. The ritual proceeds as planned. Make a save vs Spell at -3"

There, now it's in hands of the dice. No DM bias. No whiney players. Just chance. Fate. Done.

For a lot of things yes. For player stupidity or entitlement? No need for dice, they deserve all the misery they get.

GM: there are about 100 cannibalistic orcs in the fortress, and your party's reconnaissance indicates about 30% are on duty at any given point in time.

Player: Fuck it, I'm level 10 I can take some orcs. I'll charge inside and kill them all.

GM: You sure you don't want to wait for the rest of the party?

Player: Nope - I charge inside while giving a warcry. They'll cower before me.

GM:As you charge into the entrance your world turns upside down and there is suddenly agonizing pain at several locations in and on your body. In your haste, you failed to notice (or even state you were going to be in the lookout for) that the floor looked a bit odd. You've fallen into a spiked pit taking ::roll roll roll:: 8 pts of damage. The orcs at the entrance guard post have come over to the edge of the pit and are standing over your impaled body and are slowly stabbing you with their spears, over and over ::roll roll:: for 16 pts of damage, while their compatriots begin ringing alarm bells and, oh btw, that burning sensation you're feeling is because they've also opened the floodgates for the pit cleaning system and acid is pouring from the top drain opening of the pit and spilling all over you ::rolly roll:: for 6 pts of damage. Roll for initiative.

Player: That's not fair you didn't even give me a chance! No way are orcs able to do that. I should have automatically known there was a trap there!

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 25, 2023, 12:04:41 PM

Quote from: 3catcircus on September 25, 2023, 08:34:52 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 25, 2023, 07:47:22 AM

Quote from: Scooter on September 24, 2023, 08:57:33 AM

Quote from: weirdguy564 on September 16, 2023, 05:22:58 AM

The GM has to be considered too.  He is also playing, and gets a say as just like everyone else.  But this is session zero stuff, not a consent issue.

No, the GM ISN'T like anyone else.  He is the GAME MASTER.  If my players stopped a session just because they disliked the encounter they'd be gone.

He's only a GM if he has players.

The GM is a player. He's player who runs the game by the consent of his players. And if the players no longer give their consent to his shitty style then he's just some dude at an empty table (or asked to leave the table if in a public space or not running in his own home).

This is a cooperative hobby. Consent runs in both directions and the GM only has special authority by consent of his players.

You're completely missing the point. Player consent is given at session zero. After that, it's all consensual non-consent. Don't like the way a campaign is going to be conducted? Discuss it before it starts and forever hold your peace.

How about this: if the players don't want the GM to have NPCs do bad shit to PCs in a heroic campaign, are those same players going to be butt-hurt if the GM won't let the PCs do bad shit to the NPCs in a villain campaign? The answer is most likely yes - because of ridiculous player entitlement.

Should a GM accommodate certain requests? Sure - allow them to quest for the ultimate magic item or immortality or godhood or a kingdom. But the GM shouldn't be spoon feeding player wants and desires and sheltering then from the in-game reality. We have enough of that shit going on in the real world, with the predictable detrimental consequences to fragile egos.

No, he's not missing the point.  He's ignoring the point.

He's doing neither.

He's countering the point with his own nuanced and demonstrably accurate views that don't even have to exist as exclusive either/or propositions because both can be true at the same time. The GM IS the "Master" ("Yes, massa!") and has the final say in his own campaign. And he is also only the "Master" if he actually has players, which will leave if he's a piece of shit--meaning that he also has to take their wishes into account, at least to some extend.

And you dumb fucks are attacking him and reading shit into his posts that he never said (such as wanting DMs to be controlled by the rules), cuz he stepped into your two minutes hate and nuance cannot exist in this right-wing SJW forum. Cuz you can't stand people who get in the way of you mindlessly raging against hypothetical snowflakes that might exist somewhere in the internet (likely not playing TTRPGs or pushing their moronic views anywhere other than their empty online posts or your own politically obsessed imaginations). So anyone who offers some sort of alternate take must be some kind of SJW by proxy or ultimately want something that must be derided as idiotic despite being demonstrably true.

Quote from: VisionStorm on September 25, 2023, 03:54:41 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 25, 2023, 12:04:41 PM

Quote from: 3catcircus on September 25, 2023, 08:34:52 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 25, 2023, 07:47:22 AM

Quote from: Scooter on September 24, 2023, 08:57:33 AM

Quote from: weirdguy564 on September 16, 2023, 05:22:58 AM

The GM has to be considered too.  He is also playing, and gets a say as just like everyone else.  But this is session zero stuff, not a consent issue.

No, the GM ISN'T like anyone else.  He is the GAME MASTER.  If my players stopped a session just because they disliked the encounter they'd be gone.

He's only a GM if he has players.

The GM is a player. He's player who runs the game by the consent of his players. And if the players no longer give their consent to his shitty style then he's just some dude at an empty table (or asked to leave the table if in a public space or not running in his own home).

This is a cooperative hobby. Consent runs in both directions and the GM only has special authority by consent of his players.

You're completely missing the point. Player consent is given at session zero. After that, it's all consensual non-consent. Don't like the way a campaign is going to be conducted? Discuss it before it starts and forever hold your peace.

How about this: if the players don't want the GM to have NPCs do bad shit to PCs in a heroic campaign, are those same players going to be butt-hurt if the GM won't let the PCs do bad shit to the NPCs in a villain campaign? The answer is most likely yes - because of ridiculous player entitlement.

Should a GM accommodate certain requests? Sure - allow them to quest for the ultimate magic item or immortality or godhood or a kingdom. But the GM shouldn't be spoon feeding player wants and desires and sheltering then from the in-game reality. We have enough of that shit going on in the real world, with the predictable detrimental consequences to fragile egos.

No, he's not missing the point.  He's ignoring the point.

He's doing neither.

He's countering the point with his own nuanced and demonstrably accurate views that don't even have to exist as exclusive either/or propositions because both can be true at the same time. The GM IS the "Master" ("Yes, massa!") and has the final say in his own campaign. And he is also only the "Master" if he actually has players, which will leave if he's a piece of shit--meaning that he also has to take their wishes into account, at least to some extend.

And you dumb fucks are attacking him and reading shit into his posts that he never said (such as wanting DMs to be controlled by the rules), cuz he stepped into your two minutes hate and nuance cannot exist in this right-wing SJW forum. Cuz you can't stand people who get in the way of you mindlessly raging against hypothetical snowflakes that might exist somewhere in the internet (likely not playing TTRPGs or pushing their moronic views anywhere other than their empty online posts or your own politically obsessed imaginations). So anyone who offers some sort of alternate take must be some kind of SJW by proxy or ultimately want something that must be derided as idiotic despite being demonstrably true.

Found Chris24601's alt...

Quote from: 3catcircus on September 25, 2023, 03:52:55 PM

GM: You sure you don't want to wait for the rest of the party?

WTF is that about?  The GM doesn't coach the players.  Don't coddle the players.

Quote from: Scooter on September 25, 2023, 05:47:46 PM

Quote from: 3catcircus on September 25, 2023, 03:52:55 PM

GM: You sure you don't want to wait for the rest of the party?

WTF is that about?  The GM doesn't coach the players.  Don't coddle the players.

Any GM worth their salt would ask that.  The GM offers the player a chance to avoid an obvious tactical blunder. 

The GM probably spent a couple hours of prescious time designing that Orc Lair so the players could have the enjoyment of defeating it.  Now one player potentially has to sit out the session because of their foolishness. 

Also, maybe the GM was giving the foolish player enough rope to hang themself with?

Quote from: Svenhelgrim on September 25, 2023, 06:07:11 PM

Quote from: Scooter on September 25, 2023, 05:47:46 PM


WTF is that about?  The GM doesn't coach the players.  Don't coddle the players.

Any GM worth their salt would ask that. 

Wrong it isn't the job of a GM to coach players over in your face, obvious shit.  Only if you're GMing children.  Not adults.  You've been GMing too many children posing as adults.

Quote from: Scooter on September 25, 2023, 07:08:57 PM

Quote from: Svenhelgrim on September 25, 2023, 06:07:11 PM

Quote from: Scooter on September 25, 2023, 05:47:46 PM


WTF is that about?  The GM doesn't coach the players.  Don't coddle the players.

Any GM worth their salt would ask that. 

Wrong it isn't the job of a GM to coach players over in your face, obvious shit.  Only if you're GMing children.  Not adults.  You've been GMing too many children posing as adults.

I believe in giving players a "is that your final answer?" moment before bringing down rods from God.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 25, 2023, 04:55:24 PMFound Chris24601's alt...

Oh, look! You have no argument. Just glib dismissal. What a surprise.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 25, 2023, 04:55:24 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on September 25, 2023, 03:54:41 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 25, 2023, 12:04:41 PM

Quote from: 3catcircus on September 25, 2023, 08:34:52 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 25, 2023, 07:47:22 AM

Quote from: Scooter on September 24, 2023, 08:57:33 AM

Quote from: weirdguy564 on September 16, 2023, 05:22:58 AM

The GM has to be considered too.  He is also playing, and gets a say as just like everyone else.  But this is session zero stuff, not a consent issue.

No, the GM ISN'T like anyone else.  He is the GAME MASTER.  If my players stopped a session just because they disliked the encounter they'd be gone.

He's only a GM if he has players.

The GM is a player. He's player who runs the game by the consent of his players. And if the players no longer give their consent to his shitty style then he's just some dude at an empty table (or asked to leave the table if in a public space or not running in his own home).

This is a cooperative hobby. Consent runs in both directions and the GM only has special authority by consent of his players.

You're completely missing the point. Player consent is given at session zero. After that, it's all consensual non-consent. Don't like the way a campaign is going to be conducted? Discuss it before it starts and forever hold your peace.

How about this: if the players don't want the GM to have NPCs do bad shit to PCs in a heroic campaign, are those same players going to be butt-hurt if the GM won't let the PCs do bad shit to the NPCs in a villain campaign? The answer is most likely yes - because of ridiculous player entitlement.

Should a GM accommodate certain requests? Sure - allow them to quest for the ultimate magic item or immortality or godhood or a kingdom. But the GM shouldn't be spoon feeding player wants and desires and sheltering then from the in-game reality. We have enough of that shit going on in the real world, with the predictable detrimental consequences to fragile egos.

No, he's not missing the point.  He's ignoring the point.

He's doing neither.

He's countering the point with his own nuanced and demonstrably accurate views that don't even have to exist as exclusive either/or propositions because both can be true at the same time. The GM IS the "Master" ("Yes, massa!") and has the final say in his own campaign. And he is also only the "Master" if he actually has players, which will leave if he's a piece of shit--meaning that he also has to take their wishes into account, at least to some extend.

And you dumb fucks are attacking him and reading shit into his posts that he never said (such as wanting DMs to be controlled by the rules), cuz he stepped into your two minutes hate and nuance cannot exist in this right-wing SJW forum. Cuz you can't stand people who get in the way of you mindlessly raging against hypothetical snowflakes that might exist somewhere in the internet (likely not playing TTRPGs or pushing their moronic views anywhere other than their empty online posts or your own politically obsessed imaginations). So anyone who offers some sort of alternate take must be some kind of SJW by proxy or ultimately want something that must be derided as idiotic despite being demonstrably true.

Found Chris24601's alt...

This statement of disbelief that more than one person could possibly disagree with you is proof you've crawled so far up your own ass in an attempt to smell your own farts that you've become an infinitely recursive inverse Oroboros.

Tell you what, smart guy... Sock puppets are banned here. If you genuinely think I and VisionStorm are socks, then report it. If you're right I'm gone. If you're wrong (which you are) then maybe allow yourself a bit of self-reflection about the fact you might actually be wrong about some things...

...especially given that you find yourself on the same side as a toxic manchild who's ability to communicate tops out in calling other people smooth-brains in possibly the most exemplary case of the Dunning-Kruger Effect of all time.

Nah, I just like to watch you two rage.  Smack one, and the other yelps.  Not because you are the same person.  Just because you are both broken in the same way.

Let the EuOroboros keep eating  his own tail. Don't engage it's a waste of time and he gets off on it.

Just don't acknowledge him. It's the worst possible thing to do a shit disturber.

Quote from: Abraxus on September 25, 2023, 10:39:58 PM
Let the EuOroboros keep eating  his own tail. Don't engage it's a waste of time and he gets off on it.

Just don't acknowledge him. It's the worst possible thing to do a shit disturber.

Are you following me onto other threads now?  Dude, I'm married...

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 25, 2023, 10:33:33 PM
Nah, I just like to watch you two rage.  Smack one, and the other yelps.  Not because you are the same person.  Just because you are both broken in the same way.

"Broken" meaning that we're not habitual liars obsessed with SJWs to the point that any position that gets ostensibly attributed to them, we have to take the polar opposite and attack anyone who doesn't do the same.

Quote from: Abraxus on September 25, 2023, 10:39:58 PM
Let the EuOroboros keep eating  his own tail. Don't engage it's a waste of time and he gets off on it.

Just don't acknowledge him. It's the worst possible thing to do a shit disturber.

I try. But every now and then the desire to punch back gets the better of me.

I find their "Cargo Cult of the Earth Tone Box of Wasps"* to be sad overall.

* explanation for the phrase available upon request, but I don't feel like kicking down any further tonight.

Quote from: 3catcircus on September 25, 2023, 09:14:11 PM

I believe in giving players a "is that your final answer?" moment before bringing down rods from God.

I treat adults like adults.

Quote from: Scooter on September 25, 2023, 07:08:57 PM

Quote from: Svenhelgrim on September 25, 2023, 06:07:11 PM

Quote from: Scooter on September 25, 2023, 05:47:46 PM


WTF is that about?  The GM doesn't coach the players.  Don't coddle the players.

Any GM worth their salt would ask that. 

Wrong it isn't the job of a GM to coach players over in your face, obvious shit.  Only if you're GMing children.  Not adults.  You've been GMing too many children posing as adults.

I am sorry. But we are all out of applications for village idiot here. Please take a number and wait your turn.

Fucks sake what a bunch of drivel. The DM is the players senses in the world. The DM is dead to rights to say "Are you sure?" and to remind the player that they are about to do something their character likely knows is a bad idea.

I unfortunately blame Gygax style of micro managing control freak  style of DMing pushed in the 1E DMG.


Many here and elsewhere believe it to be the gospel truth to the point that they come off as caricature and stereotypes of the worst GM.

I hope they run home games because that shit would not fly at my table. Most people that I game with and I would guess many of the player too. I don't care if you wear the Viking hat or soiled tampon or whatever. I will treat you with respect as I would any DM try the Gygaxian approach and I'm leaving the table. Or if it's my place I'm tossing your ads out on the street. Utterly non-negotiable or up for debate.

You want equal say, pay me a months rent or lose the confrontational attitude or get out. I do the same to players. No one is saying bend over backwards or even be their friend. If you think you're going to be a pure asshole  and expect everyone to just take it . Nah you're not paying me to put up with your shit.

Thanks Gygax you gave us at least two generations of misanthropic DM

Quote from: Omega on September 26, 2023, 09:59:54 AM

I am sorry. But we are all out of applications for village idiot here.

Well, you and your family filled them all in.

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 25, 2023, 07:47:22 AM

Quote from: Scooter on September 24, 2023, 08:57:33 AM

Quote from: weirdguy564 on September 16, 2023, 05:22:58 AM

The GM has to be considered too.  He is also playing, and gets a say as just like everyone else.  But this is session zero stuff, not a consent issue.

No, the GM ISN'T like anyone else.  He is the GAME MASTER.  If my players stopped a session just because they disliked the encounter they'd be gone.

He's only a GM if he has players.

The GM is a player. He's player who runs the game by the consent of his players. And if the players no longer give their consent to his shitty style then he's just some dude at an empty table (or asked to leave the table if in a public space or not running in his own home).

This is a cooperative hobby. Consent runs in both directions and the GM only has special authority by consent of his players.

Yes, a GM is only a GM if he has players. That's a given.

After that, this is where we disagree.

The GM is NOT a player. The GM/DM is first a foremost a referee. This goes back all the way to the roots of the RPG hobby in wargaming.  Now you may say we "evolved" from that, but have we really? Is it really an evolution?

I'd argue we haven't. In fact, the change in the GM/player dichotomy to where we're all "players" is a DE-evolution of the RPG. because some of us forgot that being the DM/GM is a role of many different skills or "hats" he has to wear.

The first "hat" is to create the world the characters live in. The DM/GM presents the world to the players, He makes them aware what's in that world and how it all works. At least to a point. Part of the fun comes from the mystery and exploration of the world. Not everything need to be said, but enough of the important things that the player characters would know. That's it. Everything else is there for the player characters to discover during the course of play. How much the DM/GM devotes to this varies.

The next "hat" the DM/GM must wear is his role as being EVERYTHING in that world the PCs interact with. Every monster. Every, NPC. Every god, demon, orc, fish, etc. Now the degree the DM/GM is willing to put into this is a personal preference.

Lastly, and most importantly, is the "hat" of referee. The referee understands the rules, be it a large set of books or maybe a homebrew thing in a notebook. They are not just his rules though. They are the rules of the game, and the players must understand what those rules are. If the players understand not only the rules, but also that many circumstances in the game will be decided by the dice within the framework of the rules, there is no consent to be given. the dice determine the result. The players understand that bad things may happen to their characters. Therefore, A referee does not need to ask the players for consent to adjudicate the game. The GM/DM is a neutral arbiter of the rules.

Because without a Referee, you no longer have a neutral party involved. It just becomes story-telling and Mary-Sue nonsense.

The dice introduce chance/fate/risk. What's the point then of playing an RPG without risk involved?

Now this does exclude certain things that maybe excluded from the game due to certain people and/or age groups, and that is agree upon before the game. No graphic depictions of rape or murder? If the group agrees upon this, fine.

But to force the DM to say he cannot polymorph, turn to stone, kill, etc. to a PC? Well...you're not playing an RPG then.

You're Mary-Sue story-telling.

Besides, if it's been made perfectly clear to the players that the dice will decide if your PC will have harm to them or not, then the players have no argument. It's a moot point.

You can't argue against fate/chance.

You can play however you want. If you want to play a game where it's all touchy-feely, no harm comes to the PCs, and they will always win at the end of the day, then go ahead.

To me, that sounds boring. There's no risk. There's no chance of failure. Fate is never tempted.

Me? I want a game where, yes, my PC may die. Or may turn into a newt! He may attempt to jump a ravine and possibly fall to his death (or severely injured). He may risk his life in the Tomb of Horrors. Tempt Fate by betting it all on the spin of the wheel.

But look at the words I use: "may", "possibly", "Fate", "Risk"

Those words introduce some mystery into the world. The unknown. Risk. Fate. That's a game I want to play.

You want safe.

I am not one for removing risk, fate danger or anything else that adds excitement to an adventure. I certainly don't want it to be safe.

I also don't need an DM/GM/Player being an aggressive anti-social retarded absolutely anal retentive asshole either.

Unless you're paying the players or drew up a contract thst either or signed they can and will walk away. The impression given to me at least here is that players are chained to the table unable to ok Vesak away without any power. Like it or not the power is shared. Players without an DM have no campaign. DMs who act like aggressive control freak will find themselves playing D&D solitaire.

You don't have to coddle players I certainly don't. If I tried to play the " I am DM hear me ROAR!" I would face my players engaging in a walkout. Again I blame Gygax and players who allow themselves to be treated like garbage.

This isn't even about risk vs safety, but a bunch of try hards hyperventilating about hypothetical SJWs ruining TTRPGs in general cuz WotC published ONE module that included a bullshit "Player Consent" disclaimer involving their characters being turned into mind flayers. Therefore D&D now "officially" requires DMs to ask for player consent before using polymorph. Except that isn't exactly what happened.

Because this module was a special case, were EVERYONE (not just PCs) in an entire geographic region would end up being turned into mind flayers (apparently without a save) if the PCs failed to stop some cultists or something. Which is not at all a normal scenario that you're likely to face in a regular D&D adventure.

Granted, you could still say that the disclaimer is a stupid and ham fisted way to handle that eventuality. But that still doesn't mean that this is about "OMG, these snowflakes can't handle failing a polymorph save. What a bunch of pussies! LMAO". This is a stupid adventure with a poorly thought out scenario that includes some "Player Consent" bullshit as a work around for how poorly constructed this module is.

But of course, everyone here needs to have their two minutes hate raging about tha SJWs ruining gaming so they can have an excuse to post about it at the main board (this came up in another thread before Pundit made a video on it). And go off on wild hypotheticals that have fuck to do with the actual circumstances that originally brought this stupid "Player Consent" disclaimer about. And since many of them also lack reading comprehension or any problems with inserting shit into other people's posts that they never said, they also have to attack anyone who brings nuance into the discussion. Cuz this isn't about having rational discourse, but about raging about snowflakes about how tough they are, cuz they like to play rough in an elfgame about rolling dice.

Quote from: VisionStorm on September 27, 2023, 12:23:25 AM
This isn't even about risk vs safety, but a bunch of try hards hyperventilating about hypothetical SJWs ruining TTRPGs in general cuz WotC published ONE module that included a bullshit "Player Consent" disclaimer

Because we've seen this before. It starts with one little harmless thing, then it blossoms into a full blown outbreak of insanity, and doesn't stop until an entire industry or beloved franchise is destroyed. Look at what has happened to comics for example. Star Wars, MSheU, etc.

Quote from: Thor's Nads on September 27, 2023, 12:26:56 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on September 27, 2023, 12:23:25 AM
This isn't even about risk vs safety, but a bunch of try hards hyperventilating about hypothetical SJWs ruining TTRPGs in general cuz WotC published ONE module that included a bullshit "Player Consent" disclaimer

Because we've seen this before. It starts with one little harmless thing, then it blossoms into a full blown outbreak of insanity, and doesn't stop until an entire industry or beloved franchise is destroyed. Look at what has happened to comics for example. Star Wars, MSheU, etc.

You're not really addressing what I'm saying. You're just clinging to one tiny thing I said at the start in prelude to the actual point of my post. But have fun raging about hypothetical scenarios that are out of context with what this actual module was about.

And I'm well aware about what happened in other industries. And it already happened in TTRPGs well before it did in any of the rest. Even the stupid player consent stuff has happened before. Even Pundit said in his own video that he didn't wanna make a video about this precisely because it's been covered before. This shit ain't something new. You're not visionary warning us about some impending disaster. You're just raging to rage out of habit because you love to rage

Quote from: blackstone on September 26, 2023, 06:57:23 PM
The dice introduce chance/fate/risk. What's the point then of playing an RPG without risk involved?

Now this does exclude certain things that maybe excluded from the game due to certain people and/or age groups, and that is agree upon before the game. No graphic depictions of rape or murder? If the group agrees upon this, fine.

But to force the DM to say he cannot polymorph, turn to stone, kill, etc. to a PC? Well...you're not playing an RPG then.

You're Mary-Sue story-telling.

You're characterizing consent mechanics as meaning nothing bad happens - but in my experience, consent mechanics have mostly come out of horror games where tons of horrible stuff happens to the PCs, but the game wants to establish that things don't go too far.

Most of what I play is traditional RPGs - but I also have played a lot of indie and small-press story games, and various larps. For example, I've played about two dozen games at conventions that used the X-card, and larps that use the equivalent. These are often for horror games, but sometimes for some other games as well. And in my experience, it has made no difference in the outcome. PCs have died, and/or had terrible things happen to them, and the players have never touched the X-card and refused consent.

I don't advocate for consent mechanics, and don't use them in my own games, but having one doesn't mean that nothing bad happens. It means that there is a possible limit to what can happen, if it gets unfun for the players.

Your post implies that everything should be negotiated at the start, like in a session zero -- but as I said, that sounds legalistic and combative to me, like a player needs to be fought against and held to a contract.

I don't entirely understand what all of the debate and discussion is about. The GM has the final say in what happens, period. If he wants to turn his party into a flock of green flamingoes and have them devoured by a motorcycle-riding shark, he needs only speak and it is done. Of course, players should also be made aware of the sort of setting they're going to experience.

Quote from: jhkim on September 27, 2023, 03:01:30 AM

Quote from: blackstone on September 26, 2023, 06:57:23 PM
The dice introduce chance/fate/risk. What's the point then of playing an RPG without risk involved?

Now this does exclude certain things that maybe excluded from the game due to certain people and/or age groups, and that is agree upon before the game. No graphic depictions of rape or murder? If the group agrees upon this, fine.

But to force the DM to say he cannot polymorph, turn to stone, kill, etc. to a PC? Well...you're not playing an RPG then.

You're Mary-Sue story-telling.

You're characterizing consent mechanics as meaning nothing bad happens - but in my experience, consent mechanics have mostly come out of horror games where tons of horrible stuff happens to the PCs, but the game wants to establish that things don't go too far.

Most of what I play is traditional RPGs - but I also have played a lot of indie and small-press story games, and various larps. For example, I've played about two dozen games at conventions that used the X-card, and larps that use the equivalent. These are often for horror games, but sometimes for some other games as well. And in my experience, it has made no difference in the outcome. PCs have died, and/or had terrible things happen to them, and the players have never touched the X-card and refused consent.

I don't advocate for consent mechanics, and don't use them in my own games, but having one doesn't mean that nothing bad happens. It means that there is a possible limit to what can happen, if it gets unfun for the players.

Your post implies that everything should be negotiated at the start, like in a session zero -- but as I said, that sounds legalistic and combative to me, like a player needs to be fought against and held to a contract.

The idea of consent: I think when it comes to certain adult themes in a group of PLAYERS of mixed ages and backgrounds, you absolutely want agreement with everyone. You want to avoid a situation where someone may become uncomfortable.

But to say to the DM that no detrimental harm, not even the potential of it, may come to the CHARACTERS is anathema to me.

see the difference here? The difference is the PLAYERS vs the CHARACTERS.

The problem is that many players get too emotionally invested in their characters to the point that they project themselves into their characters.

So, when something bad happens to a character, they take it personally as if it happened to them and get way to emotionally invested in the character.

Therein lies the problem: somewhere along the line, the idea that the character you're playing is YOU somehow got incorporated into the RPG zeitgeist.

They're not. You are not the character. sure, you give that PC life by the actions he or she takes within the game world, but they are not you.

You have to divorce your own personal emotions, feelings, and motivations from the character you play. Otherwise it becomes way too intense...and then you throw the X-card.

Good players don't need such crutches. Good players understand the difference. When something bad happens to their character, they can go with it. Heck, it may introduce some interesting role-playing opportunities.

Quote from: SmallMountaineer on September 27, 2023, 06:30:07 AM
I don't entirely understand what all of the debate and discussion is about. The GM has the final say in what happens, period. If he wants to turn his party into a flock of green flamingoes and have them devoured by a motorcycle-riding shark, he needs only speak and it is done. Of course, players should also be made aware of the sort of setting they're going to experience.

And such a GM would be a piece of shit wasting their players time, and so is anyone bloviating about the GM's presumed authoritae at anyone else pointing that out. There is justified GM authority, and then there's people beating their chest like lunatics about some basic game convention that exist only in the name expediting gameplay, and taking it to absurd extremes like it's some sacred absolute that exists for its own sake instead of for a practical purpose.

The GM's word is not final for the sake of being final. It's final for a specific purpose, and if he abuses that purpose he needs to be called out for the piece of shit that he is--right in the middle of play, grinding his precious game session to a screeching halt. There's also no practical way that players can be made aware that the GM is like this before it actually happens, because GMs who behave this way aren't gonna be upfront about it, or even aware that they're shit GMs. This is the sort of thing that you only learn about when it happens.

Quote from: VisionStorm on September 27, 2023, 07:40:40 AM


The GM's word is not final for the sake of being final. It's final for a specific purpose, and if he abuses that purpose he needs to be called out for the piece of shit that he is--right in the middle of play, grinding his precious game session to a screeching halt. There's also no practical way that players can be made aware that the GM is like this before it actually happens, because GMs who behave this way aren't gonna be upfront about it, or even aware that they're shit GMs. This is the sort of thing that you only learn about when it happens.

You're ranting about nothing because such GMs take themselves out of the ecosystem quickly. 

Quote from: Scooter on September 27, 2023, 08:20:51 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on September 27, 2023, 07:40:40 AM


The GM's word is not final for the sake of being final. It's final for a specific purpose, and if he abuses that purpose he needs to be called out for the piece of shit that he is--right in the middle of play, grinding his precious game session to a screeching halt. There's also no practical way that players can be made aware that the GM is like this before it actually happens, because GMs who behave this way aren't gonna be upfront about it, or even aware that they're shit GMs. This is the sort of thing that you only learn about when it happens.

You're ranting about nothing because such GMs take themselves out of the ecosystem quickly.

Then why the fuck are you defending them (which is the only reason I'm even making these points rather than bringing them up in a vacuum for the heck of it)?

And not just that, but saying that 1) the GM's authoritae is final, and 2) "Of course, players should also be made aware of the sort of setting they're going to experience" (direct quote from the post I was responding to). Literally means that 3) you agree with the bullshit Player Consent Disclaimer that kicked of this entire discussion and everyone's been raging about. Because that is precisely what making players aware that's what you have in store for them is: Asking for their consent before hand, before you take them down your stupid adventure scenario.

So congrats! You just agreed with the moronic thing you were supposedly ranting against this entire discussion.

And THAT'S the sort of pretzel logic you go down to once you engage in this moronic insistence about the presume sacred authority of the GM, without taking into account the ACTUAL+FULL context that sprang this entire discussion.

So in closing...

Quote from: Scooter on September 27, 2023, 08:20:51 AMYou're ranting about nothing

Right back at you.

@ Vidionstorm

Imo it's just pretending their online persona is their real life version and both tend to be separate.

If many acted like this to players in real life the players ( unless desperate or very forgiving ) would be walking away from the table.

Again no one is suing the players gave to be coddled like children if one is going to do something thst runs the risk of being disturbing at the table such as graphic descriptions of gore and torture an simple heads up to the player is not too much to ask.

" suck it up buttercup" or similar BS statements might make the player leave or want to punch the DM in the face. Note I am not encouraging such behaviour or participated in such. I have been at ground zero where DMs push the player too far and the player lashes out. Ignoring any and all attempts by the other players like myself to diffuse the situation. Many here think they are immune because they can hide " I'm the DM" if your an asshole getting off in provoking a reaction from the players don't be surprised if it gets out of hand.

I had to break up three such altercations since I started gaming. One I took my time because again the DM was acting like many here. Refused to listen to any advice. I even told him if he continued to behave next session and player xyz was going to fight him I would do nothing . He laughed in my face and I only intervened after  the fifth or sixth punch.

Play stupid games win stupid prizes.

DM: "You fail to stop the ritual. The cultists are able to complete the spell and the world falls into chaos. Everyone, roll a save vs Spell at -3 for your characters. Those who fail are polymorphed into mind flayers."

If the players fully know well beforehand that such a thing can happen to their characters, the outcome is left to the dice to decide, which takes both players and DM out of the situation in determining the outcome...

How is that abusive?

It isn't.

The only way the DM is MAYBE abusive is if he does not let the players know at the beginning of play such things can occur.

But the funny thing is for most experienced players these situations that my occur are a given in a game world. Characters die, or get turned to stone, or get polymorphed into things. The potential is there.

So to even have to explain to some players that "hey your character could die/get turned to stone/polymorphed" is pretty sad really.

Quote from: Abraxus on September 27, 2023, 09:03:53 AM
@ Vidionstorm

Imo it's just pretending their online persona is their real life version and both tend to be separate.

Pretty much. Acting tough, like being a stupid hard ass in an elfgame makes them badass. And jumping the gun without knowing the full details of WTF they're arguing about.

Quote from: blackstone on September 27, 2023, 10:00:59 AMThe only way the DM is MAYBE abusive is if he does not let the players know at the beginning of play such things can occur.

Which is precisely how this particular module is designed, and as far as I could tell from the snippets that came up in the earlier thread before Pundit posted the video on this one, you don't even get a save. PCs are investigating some mystery in a town and it isn't till the end that they find out that there are mind flayers involved and that being turned into mind flayers if the cultists succeed is in the cards (and not just them, but EVERYONE in a miles wide region they'd have to port out of to avoid the morph). And the way that the module tries to get around the players walking into that potential trap scenario is...

*drumroll*

To use the Player Consent Disclaimer to let them know before hand.

So we're back to square one. You agree with the Player Consent Disclaimer you're claiming to be against.

At this point I think it has to be deliberate Trolling. No one is that obtuse or dense on purpose. Arguing with a person for the sake of it even when they agree with their position.

Quote from: VisionStorm on September 27, 2023, 10:39:59 AM

Quote from: Abraxus on September 27, 2023, 09:03:53 AM
@ Vidionstorm

Imo it's just pretending their online persona is their real life version and both tend to be separate.

Pretty much. Acting tough, like being a stupid hard ass in an elfgame makes them badass. And jumping the gun without knowing the full details of WTF they're arguing about.

Quote from: blackstone on September 27, 2023, 10:00:59 AMThe only way the DM is MAYBE abusive is if he does not let the players know at the beginning of play such things can occur.

Which is precisely how this particular module is designed, and as far as I could tell from the snippets that came up in the earlier thread before Pundit posted the video on this one, you don't even get a save. PCs are investigating some mystery in a town and it isn't till the end that they find out that there are mind flayers involved and that being turned into mind flayers if the cultists succeed is in the cards (and not just them, but EVERYONE in a miles wide region they'd have to port out of to avoid the morph). And the way that the module tries to get around the players walking into that potential trap scenario is...

*drumroll*

To use the Player Consent Disclaimer to let them know before hand.

So we're back to square one. You agree with the Player Consent Disclaimer you're claiming to be against.

Ok, I think we're in agreement here, but we're getting lost in the semantics.

When you say consent, I equate it with permission. I think mutual agreement might be more appropriate.

If I tell you before the campaign starts, "bad shit can happen to your PCs like death, polymorph, etc." A DM isn't asking for permission, he's making them aware of the situation.

A DM doesn't need to ask for permission. He presents the game world, acts as an interface with the game world, and most importantly is rules arbiter. The dice do everything else.

If that's is the adventure as written and the DM wants to run it as is, then yes, the characters if they fail will suffer the consequences. As long as the players are aware that "bad shit can happen", it's a moot point.

Also, a DM might want to introduce a saving throw. It's just a module. Tweak it to however you want.

Quote from: VisionStorm on September 27, 2023, 10:39:59 AM

Quote from: blackstone on September 27, 2023, 10:00:59 AMThe only way the DM is MAYBE abusive is if he does not let the players know at the beginning of play such things can occur.

Which is precisely how this particular module is designed, and as far as I could tell from the snippets that came up in the earlier thread before Pundit posted the video on this one, you don't even get a save. PCs are investigating some mystery in a town and it isn't till the end that they find out that there are mind flayers involved and that being turned into mind flayers if the cultists succeed is in the cards (and not just them, but EVERYONE in a miles wide region they'd have to port out of to avoid the morph).

Just to comment -- I have no opinions on the module either way, since I haven't read it. As a rule, I don't make judgements about books without reading them. Snippets and second-hand chat about a module often fail to give an accurate assessment.

I disliked the original Lost Mine of Phandelver, which makes me uninterested in a sequel.

---

Quote from: blackstone on September 27, 2023, 01:33:48 PM
If I tell you before the campaign starts, "bad shit can happen to your PCs like death, polymorph, etc." A DM isn't asking for permission, he's making them aware of the situation.

A DM doesn't need to ask for permission. He presents the game world, acts as an interface with the game world, and most importantly is rules arbiter. The dice do everything else.

If that's is the adventure as written and the DM wants to run it as is, then yes, the characters if they fail will suffer the consequences. As long as the players are aware that "bad shit can happen", it's a moot point.

Also, a DM might want to introduce a saving throw. It's just a module. Tweak it to however you want.

Saying "bad shit can happen" is nearly meaningless without understanding the type of bad shit and its likelihood/frequency.

If I say "bad shit can happen" in a space opera game, does that mean that my PC could have his hand cut off and learn that his enemy is his father? Or does that mean that my PC could find out that Cthulhu is rising and will devastate the Earth Federation?

I should have said I was paraphrasing for the most part.

The degree of "bad shit" happening and how much is up to the DM to disclose.

Quote from: blackstone on September 27, 2023, 02:47:36 PM
I should have said I was paraphrasing for the most part.

The degree of "bad shit" happening and how much is up to the DM to disclose.

There's something to be said regarding "ignorance is bliss" where players don't have to know about every instance of bad shit happening.

Real example: you have a tire pressure monitor for your car and it sets off a caution light. You fill up the tire but put off going to the shop to get it looked at.  You *know* bad shit is coming but you don't take the initiative to deal with it until the leak is so bad you run flat.  Compare that to someone who doesn't have that system but also never checks the pressure routinely and then they run flat.

Who is worse off? The guy who knew but did nothing or the guy who it came out of the blue for?

The consent crowd would claim that the out of the blue case is worse. But the end result is the same unless you actually get your tire looked at before it runs flat.

Likewise in the elfgame - players (or their characters) who knew bad shit is coming because the GM warned them at season zero  and do nothing to protect themselves end up the same as those for whom the GM didn't say anything at session zero.

You're still polymorphed/petrified/dead/the opposite sex/melted/captured/tortured/whatever.

Quote from: blackstone on September 27, 2023, 01:33:48 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on September 27, 2023, 10:39:59 AM

Quote from: Abraxus on September 27, 2023, 09:03:53 AM
@ Vidionstorm

Imo it's just pretending their online persona is their real life version and both tend to be separate.

Pretty much. Acting tough, like being a stupid hard ass in an elfgame makes them badass. And jumping the gun without knowing the full details of WTF they're arguing about.

Quote from: blackstone on September 27, 2023, 10:00:59 AMThe only way the DM is MAYBE abusive is if he does not let the players know at the beginning of play such things can occur.

Which is precisely how this particular module is designed, and as far as I could tell from the snippets that came up in the earlier thread before Pundit posted the video on this one, you don't even get a save. PCs are investigating some mystery in a town and it isn't till the end that they find out that there are mind flayers involved and that being turned into mind flayers if the cultists succeed is in the cards (and not just them, but EVERYONE in a miles wide region they'd have to port out of to avoid the morph). And the way that the module tries to get around the players walking into that potential trap scenario is...

*drumroll*

To use the Player Consent Disclaimer to let them know before hand.

So we're back to square one. You agree with the Player Consent Disclaimer you're claiming to be against.

Ok, I think we're in agreement here, but we're getting lost in the semantics.

When you say consent, I equate it with permission. I think mutual agreement might be more appropriate.

If I tell you before the campaign starts, "bad shit can happen to your PCs like death, polymorph, etc." A DM isn't asking for permission, he's making them aware of the situation.

A DM doesn't need to ask for permission. He presents the game world, acts as an interface with the game world, and most importantly is rules arbiter. The dice do everything else.

If that's is the adventure as written and the DM wants to run it as is, then yes, the characters if they fail will suffer the consequences. As long as the players are aware that "bad shit can happen", it's a moot point.

Also, a DM might want to introduce a saving throw. It's just a module. Tweak it to however you want.

On one thing I think we can agree on: the words "Player Consent" make me sick of my stomach. These people have completely wiped their asses with them and they comes off  conceited AF, and loaded with additional weight and meaning. Like you're about to rape your players if you don't ask first.

Quote from: jhkim on September 27, 2023, 02:43:52 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on September 27, 2023, 10:39:59 AM

Quote from: blackstone on September 27, 2023, 10:00:59 AMThe only way the DM is MAYBE abusive is if he does not let the players know at the beginning of play such things can occur.

Which is precisely how this particular module is designed, and as far as I could tell from the snippets that came up in the earlier thread before Pundit posted the video on this one, you don't even get a save. PCs are investigating some mystery in a town and it isn't till the end that they find out that there are mind flayers involved and that being turned into mind flayers if the cultists succeed is in the cards (and not just them, but EVERYONE in a miles wide region they'd have to port out of to avoid the morph).

Just to comment -- I have no opinions on the module either way, since I haven't read it. As a rule, I don't make judgements about books without reading them. Snippets and second-hand chat about a module often fail to give an accurate assessment.

I get that to an extend. But this entire discussion is way pass that point anyways. And these are relevant details that aren't being accounted for.

Quote from: Svenhelgrim on September 25, 2023, 06:07:11 PM
Any GM worth their salt would ask that.  The GM offers the player a chance to avoid an obvious tactical blunder. 

I ask the players that a lot. 
I fact it's on one of my GM shirts.
I especially like asking it when there's absolutely nothing to fear. 
It builds tension.
And when I over use it, and they get into a fix.,  it's like "Hey, I asked if you were sure?".