The GM is Not There to Entertain You

[Mannahnin]

Agency-huyagency. All this stuff feels very silly to me.

My opinion on this is dead simple: "your" character isn't your character. It's our character. Like everything else in life, it doesn't, (or, at least, shouldn't) belong to one individual, but to the collective.

I can't quite go that far about characters.

But I think it's entirely true of our story. And while I always want to respect player agency with their characters, that means respecting their decisions, not always making the outcomes of those decisions what they were hoping for.

I'm fine with according the player full ownership of their character, but it's not in an authorial sense. They don't get to dictate every win or loss. They don't get to decide everything good or bad that happens to the character. The way I prefer to play there generally isn't a story laid out ahead of time. The GM sets up situations, sites and relationships, the players make characters and decisions, and we find out what the story is after the fact.

One thing that seems neat to me about PbtA rules is that who's deciding some stuff seems a little more transparent. Someone earlier in the thread (IIRC) talked about PbtA doing conflict resolution whereas D&D mostly does task resolution. So if the PC makes his Check in D&D, we know he succeeded at the task, but it's pretty much always up to the DM's judgement whether and when the conflict is resolved. Whereas if the PC is making a Move in AW, the check generally resolves the conflict, and whether he succeeded or failed actually binds the GM in terms of limiting what kind of consequences ensue.

 

[Thomas Shey]

We have a common scenario from fantasy and dramatic fiction. One that players can be expected to occasionally get into through their choices. One game makes playing that scenario out lengthy and un-fun, and makes subsequent game scenes more difficult and less fun to play out. A different game lets the scenario play out quickly and more enjoyably, and doesn't hinder following scenes the same way.

On the other hand, this can be read as players telling you they don't want to see that kind of scenario. The fact it occurs in related fiction doesn't mean they'll accept it here; as I've noted before, media matters when looking at genres.

It seems to me like there's something to that second game. Maybe it would be a fun one to play, and does this particular thing better, even if I love the first game.



I'm not sure that I grant your premise. I'm not sure they really WOULD rather waste hours in a losing fight, or would make that choice if they realized that's what it would entail. I think that situation sucks all around. I don't think it's giving up agency to non-lethally lose a fight or confrontation once in a while, if you CHOSE to get into that fight or confrontation, and either misjudged your opposition or rolled so badly that you lost.

See above, however. You're going in with the premise that the players aren't resistant to getting captured at all. My time in the hobby suggests this is a big leap. Even in superhero games, where its usually more benign just because of the genre conventions, people are pretty foot draggy about it, and elsewhere they tend to be outright hostile.

I certainly do try to avoid forcing any loss of agency. Part of honoring player agency is letting them get themselves into a bad situation and lose once in a while. If we can have non-TPK losses, that seems like an improvement to the game. More fun for everyone involved.

Again, I think this misunderstands a good number of people; I've seen a fair number of people who would literally rather their character die than get captured.

Basically, I think your argument has some sound basis as long as people are actually onboard getting captured at all, but just assuming that is not, I think, a great idea.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Agency-huyagency. All this stuff feels very silly to me.

My opinion on this is dead simple: "your" character isn't your character. It's our character. Like everything else in life, it doesn't, (or, at least, shouldn't) belong to one individual, but to the collective.

You can have that attitude, but I can promise there's a large number of players who disagree, or only agree to a limited degree.

 

[Mannahnin]

On the other hand, this can be read as players telling you they don't want to see that kind of scenario. The fact it occurs in related fiction doesn't mean they'll accept it here; as I've noted before, media matters when looking at genres.

See above, however. You're going in with the premise that the players aren't resistant to getting captured at all. My time in the hobby suggests this is a big leap. Even in superhero games, where its usually more benign just because of the genre conventions, people are pretty foot draggy about it, and elsewhere they tend to be outright hostile.


Again, I think this misunderstands a good number of people; I've seen a fair number of people who would literally rather their character die than get captured.

Basically, I think your argument has some sound basis as long as people are actually onboard getting captured at all, but just assuming that is not, I think, a great idea.

I think this is to some extent a self-fulfilling prophecy. As a rule, players never want to lose any given encounter or situation. Some may be philosophical and open to losing sometimes in general, but in the moment it almost always smarts.

I think that if occasionally losing were more often a setback rather than a death sentence, players might not loathe it so much.

I certainly try to avoid using the trope much in D&D, even when the players are steering themselves toward it, precisely because of how negatively it tends to play out. This heightens my curiosity about the possibility of another game handling it better.

 

[niklinna]

I think this is to some extent a self-fulfilling prophecy. As a rule, players never want to lose any given encounter or situation. Some may be philosophical and open to losing sometimes in general, but in the moment it almost always smarts.

I think that if occasionally losing were more often a setback rather than a death sentence, players might not loathe it so much.

I certainly try to avoid using the trope much in D&D, even when the players are steering themselves toward it, precisely because of how negatively it tends to play out. This heightens my curiosity about the possibility of another game handling it better.

You can also argue that in D&D (and quite a few other systems), nearly all combats are to the death for the NPCs. So many creatures just fight and fight til they die, instead of fleeing or surrending. It sets a precedent for the players, that those other options aren't viable.

 

[Mannahnin]

You can also argue that in D&D (and quite a few other systems), nearly all combats are to the death for the NPCs. So many creatures just fight and fight til they die, instead of fleeing or surrending. It sets a precedent for the players, that those other options aren't viable.

Yeah, there's definitely something to be said for DMs needing to help establish the idea that conflict or encounters don't always lead to combat, and combat isn't always to the death.

I've definitely done more of this since digging into the OSR and starting to regularly use Reaction Rolls and Morale. Potential enemies wanting to make a deal, or actual enemies fleeing or surrendering instead of fighting to the death adds more dimension to the game, and hopefully sets a precedent.

I also keep trying to improve/add rules for fleeing a fight. Make it more viable. Players still tend to be reluctant, and I'm not sure how much of that is pure resistance to ever losing, and how much is having been conditioned into being convinced that fleeing doesn't actually work and there's no point.

 

[Lanefan]

On the other hand, this can be read as players telling you they don't want to see that kind of scenario.

Players generally don't want their characters to die, either. Doesn't mean it ain't gonna happen.

See above, however. You're going in with the premise that the players aren't resistant to getting captured at all. My time in the hobby suggests this is a big leap. Even in superhero games, where its usually more benign just because of the genre conventions, people are pretty foot draggy about it, and elsewhere they tend to be outright hostile.

Players are generally resistant to any bad things happening to their characters, of which capture is but one. No problem here.

Again, I think this misunderstands a good number of people; I've seen a fair number of people who would literally rather their character die than get captured.

Their characters, their choice.

And, ironically enough, this means their replacement PCs are almost certainly going to be brought in having already been captured, via meeting the surviving captured PCs while in captivity!

 

[Lanefan]

Yeah, there's definitely something to be said for DMs needing to help establish the idea that conflict or encounters don't always lead to combat, and combat isn't always to the death.

I've definitely done more of this since digging into the OSR and starting to regularly use Reaction Rolls and Morale. Potential enemies wanting to make a deal, or actual enemies fleeing or surrendering instead of fighting to the death adds more dimension to the game, and hopefully sets a precedent.

For me it depends on the enemy and how said enemy has been set up and-or presented. Last night, for example, the party were up against a combined group of fanatical cultists who would fight to the death and hope their deity would aid them (and one actually got said aid!) and faux-Roman Legionnaires here as, in effect, guards and troop support. More or less the "boss battle" of the adventure.

The Legionnaires were (mostly) honourable and disciplined sorts, and the party had been accepting their surrender through earlier encounters and treating well those who had surrendered. Result: the Legionnaires came to see the PCs as decent-enough folk when it came to things like honour in combat etc., meaning that when last night's battle erupted it was fairly easy for some party Legionnaire captives to talk the other Legionnaires into neutrality. This meant the PCs could, while keeping just a half-eye on the soldiers, focus on the Clerics.

Still cost them two party members out of six - one was outright beheaded in melee (thanks to the divine intervention noted above!) and another was (permanently?) changed into a giant ant with no memories of her former self - but they got through it.

I also keep trying to improve/add rules for fleeing a fight. Make it more viable. Players still tend to be reluctant, and I'm not sure how much of that is pure resistance to ever losing, and how much is having been conditioned into being convinced that fleeing doesn't actually work and there's no point.

Part of it might also be reluctance to split the party, as fleeing often works best if only some do it while the rest (often sacrificially) cover their flight.

 

[aramis erak]

I think that last bit is exactly what blue refuses to accept/acknowledge.

Blue's not the only one. I flat out reject the axiom of "One person leaves it's no longer the same game."

But Same GM, same Setting, same rules: May or may not be the same game. Depends upon the characters and the story continuity.

You can have that attitude, but I can promise there's a large number of players who disagree, or only agree to a limited degree.

I make it clear to most of my players that, if you aren't there, your character still is and gets used with or without you.
So, no, characters aren't personal property in the same way as dice, nor as book characters: your ownership only matters while you are present. And, for regulars, who gets to play your character when you're absent if it's prearranged.

Also, in some games, given the way the character creation works, you don't even have full control over the nature... Spirit of the Century being the clearest. 2 of your 5 aspects are created by other players.

 

[overgeeked]

Blue's not the only one. I flat out reject the axiom of "One person leaves it's no longer the same game."

But Same GM, same Setting, same rules: May or may not be the same game. Depends upon the characters and the story continuity.

I think you might have lost track of who was saying what.

Lanefan was saying that if the referee leaves the game ceases to exist. I agreed with that.

Blue seems to think that the referee isn't that important and that if any one of the players leaves then the game ceases to exist. Likely he means "in the exact same way as it did before that player left". But left that part unsaid for some reason. But that's flat out not true.

If a player leaves, the band plays on. If the referee leaves, the game's over.

Players are not on par with referees in their importance to the continuation of the game. We really need to stop pretending they are. Without the one referee there's no game. Without 1-40 players there's no game. The referee to player population ratio is still something like 1:20 or higher. Which is why you have paid referees as a thing now. So many players desperate to play that they'll pay for the pleasure.