The Six Cultures of Gaming

[jmartkdr2]

LOL. No. All horror creators for all media are not given a curated list of the audience's / participant's personal fears, phobias, and traumas. The GM of a horror game (if they're being responsible and using safety tools) is given such a list. And the point of those safety tools is to not poke the players in their fears, phobias, and traumas. A game focused on scaring the players is by definition a violation of that trust and abusive. Or the GM is not using safety tools and therefore shouldn't be running a horror game in the first place. Because they will inevitably stumble into and poke a player in their fears, phobias, and traumas. Dealing with a player having a mental health issue at the table over an elf game is not something you want to deal with...again, that's the point of the safety tools, to not poke the players in their fears, phobias, and traumas.

So a horror game gm should go out of their way to never scare their players, no matter what the players want, because the players wanting to be scarred is irrelevant to what the gm should do?

 

[Emerikol]

Yes to this idea that player skill and character skill are not only difficult to separate out, I'd say they are impossible to separate out, though the degree to which they bleed (or whatever term you want to use) varies widely based on approach. I tried to suggest this in my thread on the D&D forum of hybrid approaches to stuff like a character searching a room, but most people wanted to yell at me that since the players aren't detectives or whatever that asking players to describe what they mean when they say their character searches a room (even if a roll is eventually involved) is somehow unfair. What a player knows can't help but influence what a character does (even if technically it shouldn't), even if the choice is to not do something.

Then again, I am weirdo who would put myself in the TRAD culture category with a healthy dollop of OSR style player-skill aspects.

Good points. I generally role for a lot of things but if the group suggests and approach that is good I will increase the odds in their favor. As for strategy and tactics, it's generally all player bleed into character. I don't do a contest of intelligence to decide who wins the strategy or tactics conflict.

One joke we used to banter about was having the character call for an intelligence check when their human player tried to have them do something really dumb.

 

[prabe]

So a horror game gm should go out of their way to never scare their players, no matter what the players want, because the players wanting to be scarred is irrelevant to what the gm should do?

I think there's a difference as a GM between using something kinda universally human and using something specific to one or more of your players. Like, using something like loss-of-self as opposed to something like parasitic spiders crawling all through you. People who join a horror game might be cool with the former, but it's distinctly likely that someone's going to have a phobia triggered by the latter. Using the latter, knowing someone has the phobia is the behavior @overgeeked is objecting to (I think--please correct me if I'm wrong).

 

[loverdrive]

So a horror game gm should go out of their way to never scare their players, no matter what the players want, because the players wanting to be scarred is irrelevant to what the gm should do?

The GM shouldn't go overboard and poke at traumatic things.

It's about being spooked not hurt. I am fine with otherworldly horrors, or Jason Voorheez, or bloodsucking vampires, or aliens, or whatever. That's scary in a cool, controlled way. But I wouldn't be fine with "oh, let's see how Alice would react to her character being raped! That's scary, right?"

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

LOL. No. All horror creators for all media are not given a curated list of the audience's / participant's personal fears, phobias, and traumas. The GM of a horror game (if they're being responsible and using safety tools) is given such a list. And the point of those safety tools is to not poke the players in their fears, phobias, and traumas. A game focused on scaring the players is by definition a violation of that trust and abusive. Or the GM is not using safety tools and therefore shouldn't be running a horror game in the first place. Because they will inevitably stumble into and poke a player in their fears, phobias, and traumas. Dealing with a player having a mental health issue at the table over an elf game is not something you want to deal with...again, that's the point of the safety tools, to not poke the players in their fears, phobias, and traumas.

Do ones boundaries have to be violated for one to be scared? The venn diagram of things that scare me, and things id be uncomfortable being in the game at all, and would likely want to police with safety tools, is not a circle.

I'm also contextually willing to seek out things that brush up against my traumas to explore them in safe ways, horror is traditionally an avenue for doing that.

 

[loverdrive]

Perhaps, but taken to extremes, it leads to exclusionary thinking. Which has been a nasty bit of US sociodynamics for the last 250 years... (yes, before they united.) I get enough on the news to not want it in games.

Well, there's something about siths and absolutes.

How I see it, say, wargames and RPGs are two separate hobbies, and no sane person would disagree with that, but that doesn't mean that there's any hostility between them.

from where I sit, yes, there is. They're both focused upon player choice and engagement. Especially the OSR's "sandbox-or-nothing" crowd. They're both aiming to make the GM/Referee into something other than what many who didn't have access to Gary's rambles nor Dave's post-TSR efforts

Hmm, that's not how I see it, but I am no OSR guru, I merely dabble.

I think that OSR focuses on, khm, "beliveability" (is this a word? It's a word now). Like, logical responses of the world. The GM doesn't get out of their way to pose choice and engage the players. As my buddy once said, "I'm not your friend, I'm not a entertainer, I'm the orc camp standing on the other side of the river."

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Well, there's something about siths and absolutes.

How I see it, say, wargames and RPGs are two separate hobbies, and no sane person would disagree with that, but that doesn't mean that there's any hostility between them.


Hmm, that's not how I see it, but I am no OSR guru, I merely dabble.

I think that OSR focuses on, khm, "beliveability" (is this a word? It's a word now). Like, logical responses of the world. The GM doesn't get out of their way to pose choice and engage the players. As my buddy once said, "I'm not your friend, I'm not a entertainer, I'm the orc camp standing on the other side of the river."

I think that for the OSR crowd, that believability is what emphasizes player choice and agency. If the GM is going to make anything I choose to do work out, my choices feel less meaningful, they don't have consequences. That can lead to the story feeling arbitrary and hollow, so when someone like your friend commits to being the orc camp across the river rather than a 'friend' or 'entertainer' it makes me feel like they're going to simulate the world in a way that it will respect my choices. My choices can lead to us being completely successful in our goals, or completely failing our goals, and the GM will respect that outcome, rather than rigging it in my favor (thereby robbing the victory of meaning) or forcing the most 'entertaining' outcome.

 

[overgeeked]

So a horror game gm should go out of their way to never scare their players, no matter what the players want, because the players wanting to be scarred is irrelevant to what the gm should do?

It's a context thing. You watch a horror movie and they have jump scares. That scares you personally. But at no time when watching a horror movie are you personally afraid for your life. The movie might get to you and make you paranoid or worry overmuch about serial killers (or whatever) for a few hours or days. Or give you bad dreams. But that's it. Because it's not you, it's the character in the fiction that's in danger. And people are generally smart enough to avoid horror fiction specifically about the things that properly bother them, i.e. their fears, phobias, and traumas.

You get a vicarious thrill through watching someone else in a fictional situation be afraid for their (fictional) life. That's horror gaming also. The split between character and player is absolute. It has to be. The player gets a vicarious thrill from watching and controlling their character in a horror situation...at no point should the focus shift from the character being scared to the player being scared. The scares and monsters you put into the game should never be designed to scare the player at the table. Again, violating the safety tools. Real people do all kinds of weird and wild and unpredictable things when they are scared.

Vicarious thrills, absolutely what horror gaming is about. Trying to frighten and traumatize your players? GTFO.

I think there's a difference as a GM between using something kinda universally human and using something specific to one or more of your players. Like, using something like loss-of-self as opposed to something like parasitic spiders crawling all through you. People who join a horror game might be cool with the former, but it's distinctly likely that someone's going to have a phobia triggered by the latter. Using the latter, knowing someone has the phobia is the behavior @overgeeked is objecting to (I think--please correct me if I'm wrong).

In part, yes. But it all depends on context. The example of parasitic spiders hits more potential problems than a generic "loss of self". You hit on loss of self, arachnophobia, loss of bodily control, bodily autonomy, rape, etc. That's why safety tools exist. To avoid hurting people. Because that's not the point. Safe vicarious thrills is the point. So one player might be fine with those parasitic spiders, but another has arachnophobia and another has a solid nope on loss of bodily control. You use safety tools to find out where people's lines are so that you don't cross them. You use things like the X card for when something no one thought of comes up and is a problem.

The GM shouldn't go overboard and poke at traumatic things.

It's about being spooked not hurt. I am fine with otherworldly horrors, or Jason Voorheez, or bloodsucking vampires, or aliens, or whatever. That's scary in a cool, controlled way. But I wouldn't be fine with "oh, let's see how Alice would react to her character being raped! That's scary, right?"

Exactly.

Do ones boundaries have to be violated for one to be scared?

It depends. There are different kinds of boundaries. The ones that matter to this topic are what safety tools call lines and veils. A line is like a line in the sand. You do not cross that line, period. Crossing that line is a violation of trust. I tell you this particular thing really bothers me, then you do that...just to bother me. It's a violation of trust that ends games and friendships. Don't do that. Other things are not as hard and fast, like veils. You don't like that thing being the focus of the story so you don't want it in your face, keep it veiled and it's okay. Generally everything not covered by lines and veils is fair game. Things will come up in play that no one thought of, that's what the X card is for.

Again, vicarious thrills on behalf of your character is the goal. That's horror gaming. The DM scaring the players is not.

The venn diagram of things that scare me, and things id be uncomfortable being in the game at all, and would likely want to police with safety tools, is not a circle.

I'm also contextually willing to seek out things that brush up against my traumas to explore them in safe ways, horror is traditionally an avenue for doing that.

It depends on the person and the context. Some people use gaming as therapy, some don't. Some use horror in general as therapy, some don't. Some want to brush up against their traumas as a way of dealing with them, others want to avoid their traumas at all costs but still enjoy a nice vicarious thrill from engaging in horror media, whether films, stories, RPGs, or whatever.

The Fate Horror Toolkit and Consent in Gaming are both great resources.

 

[jmartkdr2]

The GM shouldn't go overboard and poke at traumatic things.

It's about being spooked not hurt. I am fine with otherworldly horrors, or Jason Voorheez, or bloodsucking vampires, or aliens, or whatever. That's scary in a cool, controlled way. But I wouldn't be fine with "oh, let's see how Alice would react to her character being raped! That's scary, right?"

Well sure, but that's not what anyone was suggesting, so it seems odd to make a big deal about objecting to it.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

You keep conflating the idea of scaring players, and crossing their boundaries. As if nothing that could scare players, is acceptable to their boundaries (which are things they draw themselves as adults whose agency is to be respected) while playing a horror game.

If I tell you that child abuse scares me (which is one of my personal triggers) but that I don't mind you using it because we're agreeing to play the kind of game where it could come up, what would be the problem with you using it to scare me? and its not like giving you that consent removes the fear factor from it?

Like for instance, domestic abuse scares me, but one of my favorite scenes in supernatural (trigger warning, obviously) is this, and it does still deeply scare me, but I'd probably still be ok with something like it happening in the right kind of game (Hunter: The Vigil, and CoFD in general springs to mind) with people that I trust to handle it respectfully: