tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2858586393857050613.post1378005957771183920..comments2024-01-26T11:56:46.170+10:30Comments on ST Wild: On Roleplaying: Following the Path to its Rightful Conclusion.Shannonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00456068019298922261noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2858586393857050613.post-4223362235982860922012-09-20T01:52:24.223+09:302012-09-20T01:52:24.223+09:30Yeah, from the context I didn't think you mean...Yeah, from the context I didn't think you meant it in a power-trippy sense, but I wanted to get clarification anyway because there's a whole mess of people who see GMing as a power trip out there and they don't need any more encouragement than they already get. ;)<br /><br />But yeah, players being obstructive or turtling up or trying to evade what the GM's trying to do is definitely a dysfunction that can happen, GMs refusing to go along with the direction the players want to take the game in or refusing to take player input that doesn't fit their purposes into account is a thing. Resistive would be a good word for it if it didn't have any outside baggage.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2858586393857050613.post-78321938638811511952012-09-19T21:47:16.316+09:302012-09-19T21:47:16.316+09:30By the way, that wasn't a dig against us discu...By the way, that wasn't a dig against us discussing whether we should use a particular word or not. There is a LOT of power in word choices and we have to take on board not just the meaning we ascribe to certain words but also the meaning that those around us ascribe to it.<br /><br />I may one day talk about power dynamics in roleplaying games (in generalities, of course, each game is different) but I certainly won't be using such a loaded term as 'resistant' because you are right. It is loaded with other meanings.Shannonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00456068019298922261noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2858586393857050613.post-41500256973325279332012-09-19T21:32:12.729+09:302012-09-19T21:32:12.729+09:30Ahh, the meanings behind words and how they affect...Ahh, the meanings behind words and how they affect us. I guess I kind of meant it to imply when people resist what they might enjoy based on fear so you've got me there. Having said that, I'd definitely say that GMs can be incredibly resistant as well so for me the word doesn't engender an automatic power relationship with the GM in control or in power.Shannonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00456068019298922261noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2858586393857050613.post-75581423115857498832012-09-19T19:33:04.314+09:302012-09-19T19:33:04.314+09:30Re: talking - obviously you're not going to ta...Re: talking - obviously you're not going to talk people into blatantly going against their own self-interest for no real benefit, and if your adversary is actually obsessed with a particular goal to a truly insane extent they aren't going to be swayed from it.<br /><br />At the same time, to run with the serial killer example a bit, I agree that they're not going to put the knife down and give up being a killer, but at the same time if the PCs demonstrate that they clearly have the killer surrounded and there's no escape this time they might be convinced that it's best to surrender and hope to kill another day than to resist and get gunned down right there. Obviously some situations aren't open to negotiation, but that isn't the same thing as someone being impossible to talk to: it's just a matter of engineering a situation in which they <i>are</i> open to negotiation (like the "I've got a gun to your head/have a bomb strapped to me/have your loved one in my power" example I gave earlier). That will, of course, require some smarts, some luck, and a good understanding of the adversary's motivations, but then again if the players have demonstrably sussed out how to exert that leverage that's good playing on their part.<br /><br />Re: "resistant" - I'm not 100% thrilled with using the term in discussion of the relationship between GM and players, to be honest. It's the sort of thing I've seen used in reference to doctors and patients and teachers and students, and I tend to think that if a GM starts thinking of their relationship with their players as that of an authority figure to people on whom authority is exerted that's a bad sign in itself.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2858586393857050613.post-26166601595528264062012-09-19T11:58:41.052+09:302012-09-19T11:58:41.052+09:30You've got some really good points here. In t...You've got some really good points here. In truth your first comment was what I was trying to say though you said it better. If they've figured out a way to out-fox the enemy that's clever, see if you can make it work even if you can poke holes in their plans. There's ALWAYS going to be some holes in any plan but people's plans do sometimes work.<br /><br />As for it being impossible for it to be impossible to talk someone down, if the situation is set up a certain way you can normally make some headway but I stand by the fact that some people in some situations are not open to negotiation. A serial killer won't just put the knife down and never kill again just because you had some good points - though they might just let this victim live. If you want to stop him and have no ability to arrest him, you may still need to shoot it out but the talking part may do part of the work for you and make the rest of your job easier.<br /><br />With the third comment, I'm glad you made that point because a lot of GMs with bad habits are likely to accuse players of being resistant toward their actions even when those actions are just repeated bad habits. The reason I put in the 'resistant' comment is that I've had players be suspicious about me for things I've never done but which they had to deal with other Game Masters. <br /><br />Still, every time a player is suspicious or resistant its still worth taking a hard look at yourself to make sure that their fears aren't true before claiming they're resistant. The moment you stop doing that is generally the moment you start being to blame.Shannonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00456068019298922261noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2858586393857050613.post-66147696445048339302012-09-18T19:44:52.387+09:302012-09-18T19:44:52.387+09:30Comments part 3 (really sorry)...
Once you've...Comments part 3 (really sorry)...<br /><br /><i>Once you've regained their trust they'll be less resistant and you'll all have a more enjoyable time of it.</i><br /><br />I trust you mean here "once you've regained their trust they'll spend more time enjoying the game and less time second-guessing your decisions", as opposed to "once you've regained their trust they'll be less resistant to you doing the same thing which wrecked their trust again"? ;)<br /><br />I think the point about knowing your players and being unafraid to shamelessly cater to their preferences is an excellent one. Just as there's players who don't trust their GMs because of bad experiences with railroading in the past, I think there's a lot of GMs who don't trust their players to take the game in an interesting direction and aren't willing to give the players their heads for that reason. I also think that there's a lot of people who are so committed to their personal vision of what "fun" is that they're not willing to sacrifice much of their session to other people's conception of fun. (The old gripe about tabletop RPGs being "20 minutes of fun packed into 4 hours" seems to be a fond phrase of such folk - the assumption being that it isn't at all fun or amusing or enjoyable to let other players' preferences have a bit of the spotlight.) I think part of the mark of a good GM is that they enjoy helping their players get what their players love out of an RPG session, even if the enjoyment in question isn't usually to the GM's tastes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2858586393857050613.post-42428301051658973992012-09-18T19:43:36.957+09:302012-09-18T19:43:36.957+09:30Comment part 2 (sorry)...
If they've put in a...Comment part 2 (sorry)...<br /><br /><i>If they've put in a lot of effort to talk down the enemy, then even if you know that's an impossibility it's still worth letting that matter. Both on the thematic level of having to deal with someone who's too stubborn to live and on the level that perhaps the enemy is willing to discuss things over a trade in bullets - each shooting at the other when they get the chance while they talk it over.</i><br /><br />Or alternately you can revise your assumption about what's an "impossibility". If the players are constantly trying to talk to the villain then they're clearly telegraphing you that they're interested in a diplomatic solution to the scenario. The decision that this is "impossible" sounds more like a GMly decision that talky endings aren't fun - a premise the players clearly don't agree with in this example - rather than an in-character feature of the villain's psychology.<br /><br />If the villain thinks they could get what they want - or a close approximation of they want - by talking then a diplomatic approach by the PCs might be a golden opportunity for the big bad to make the case as to why what they want isn't so bad after all. Or they might plan on keeping the PCs talking, having realises that they tend to want to go for a diplomatic solution, with the intent that their goons can get in a better position to snipe the PCs during the conversation - at which point the PCs' diplomatic skills and what they actually have to say might actually be enough to make the villain reconsider.<br /><br />And, of course, diplomacy involves leverage. If the PCs have their adversary at a disadvantage even the most stubborn NPC might decide it's worth talking, so the difficult part of the ending might be getting that advantage in the first place. "Tell us why we should let you live" or "Freeze! This is a suitcase nuke! Pull that trigger and I'll blow us all to hell!" or "You should be aware that your son is in our keeping, in a secret location you'll never find if you kill us. We should discuss a peaceful settlement quickly before his air runs out" are all advantageous ways to kick off a negotiation.<br /><br />Another point: in my experience players try especially hard to talk to adversaries if their antagonists' motivations make no sense to them - because they want to understand why the hell the big bad is doing this in the first place, a lot of the time, and sometimes because they think they can get a win like the "talk the Master into realising his super-mutant plan is stupid" ending of Fallout. So it's probably also worth thinking about the <i>tone</i> of those attempted conversations. If the players are saying stuff to the bad guy like "Why? Why are you doing this? How does this even remotely benefit you?" that might be a sign you've not done a good job of communicating the villain's motivations or explaining the significance of what they're doing - which might be fair enough if they're meant to be mysterious, but in the interests of not being frustratingly oblique it might be best to make sure the players have at least a decent shot of getting a proper answer before - or even during - the final confrontation. This also lends itself for taking the ending in interesting directions because the PCs may, once they finally work out what the villain's after, decide that they approve of the adversary's goals but not their methods and come up with a clever way for everyone to come away happy. (Or, indeed, they could decide that the opponent's goals are so important that their dubious methods, in retrospect, are acceptable means to this end, and offer to regard their quarrel with their foe a misunderstanding and suggest an alliance.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2858586393857050613.post-87898136963673654852012-09-18T19:42:05.663+09:302012-09-18T19:42:05.663+09:30Comment part 1:
These thoughts might not be espec...Comment part 1:<br /><br />These thoughts might not be especially relevant because I'm a GM of the "set up an interesting situation, add player characters, see what happens, declare an ending at a point when it feels appropriate" school, but some things that jumped out at me:<br /><br /><i>Maybe it'd be too short and flat an ending to just let them snipe the Big Bad or maybe you know that the enemy has already been tipped off due to player actions or the set-up just wouldn't be conducive to their plans, but its often easy to make a few simple changes to let them get something out of their ambush. If their actions have built up to it, it would be flat for them to get nothing out of their efforts.</i><br /><br />Assuming a scenario where the point is to defeat a villain (which I tend not to run because I prefer the PCs having more proactive goals than "Someone wants to so something which would change the world; let's stop 'em!") I'm a very strong advocate of the idea that players/PCs should enjoy the benefits of genuinely out-thinking the GM or the NPCs. If the villain honestly does predictably take a route where there's a nice sniping position and doesn't have his security detail go ahead to sweep for assassins then let 'em eat the consequences of their own incompetence (though even then sniping them would require the PCs to learn the villain's movements in sufficient detail to plan the ambush). If they're a bit more security-conscious but at the same time the players have come up with a truly brilliant way to neutralise the security then bravo to them, let 'em do it.<br /><br />I think the trick in making pushover endings like that not feel flat is in remembering that even though <b>you</b> know that the bad guy's been completely outfoxed and the PCs' plan ought to go like a dream provided they don't screw up, <b>the players don't know that and shouldn't be given that impression</b>. Pulling off an assassination (or a heist, or a ritual, or an exorcism, or a coup d'etat, or whatever it is the campaign's built up to) should be a tense process even if there aren't actually any unexpected snags. So if as GM you make sure to highlight the riskiness of the situation, the jumping at shadows as the players infiltrate the abandoned warehouse, the maddening way the rain keeps sounding like footsteps behind them, the way the sound of the sniper rifle being assembled sounds impossibly, horrifyingly loud, the moment where they're sure one of the security detail just looked right at them before the guard looks away again, then it should still be exciting even if goes 100% to plan.<br /><br />Of course, it takes only one botched roll to throw everything into chaos...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com