Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 9759133" data-attributes="member: 4937">Hmmm... really interesting question.&nbsp; I'm inclined to say &quot;Yes.&quot; but that answer may be subtly different from what you think is implied by &quot;coercive&quot;.&nbsp; For example, we'd normally think that if someone gave verbal consent or agreement that they weren't being coerced, as the normal implication of those words.&nbsp; But I think it's reasonable to consider the question of whether you are being manipulated.&nbsp; For example, con artists almost always depend heavily on the consent of their mark to all off the con.&nbsp; If someone chooses to give away their life savings to someone else, and is in fact eager to do so, but then doesn't realize that they are being tricked and the reward they expect to receive isn't forthcoming, was that &quot;coercive&quot;?&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether it is definitionally coercive or not, it's definitely not consent as we normally think of it either.Taking that a step further, what if an investment banker has a relationship with a client and without malice advises them to invest in a risky but potentially rewarding investment which then doesn't pan out.&nbsp; Was that &quot;coercive&quot;?&nbsp; I can see in my head a lot of situations arising in gaming that would be just as subtle.&nbsp; The trouble is that a good GM is always trying their best to entertain the players, but that can easily get congruent with the thinking &quot;The best outcome for this scene is the one that I'm imagining&quot;.&nbsp; There are trade offs being letting go and letting things happen and letting the dice fall where they may and putting your thumb on the wheel in order to steer things toward what you see as a preferable outcome.&nbsp; Should I fudge to prevent a TPK isn't got the malice we normally associate with &quot;coercion&quot; but is still pretty coercive.&nbsp; I hope that explains what I'm thinking a bit.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 9759133, member: 4937"] Hmmm... really interesting question. I'm inclined to say "Yes." but that answer may be subtly different from what you think is implied by "coercive". For example, we'd normally think that if someone gave verbal consent or agreement that they weren't being coerced, as the normal implication of those words. But I think it's reasonable to consider the question of whether you are being manipulated. For example, con artists almost always depend heavily on the consent of their mark to all off the con. If someone chooses to give away their life savings to someone else, and is in fact eager to do so, but then doesn't realize that they are being tricked and the reward they expect to receive isn't forthcoming, was that "coercive"? Whether it is definitionally coercive or not, it's definitely not consent as we normally think of it either. Taking that a step further, what if an investment banker has a relationship with a client and without malice advises them to invest in a risky but potentially rewarding investment which then doesn't pan out. Was that "coercive"? I can see in my head a lot of situations arising in gaming that would be just as subtle. The trouble is that a good GM is always trying their best to entertain the players, but that can easily get congruent with the thinking "The best outcome for this scene is the one that I'm imagining". There are trade offs being letting go and letting things happen and letting the dice fall where they may and putting your thumb on the wheel in order to steer things toward what you see as a preferable outcome. Should I fudge to prevent a TPK isn't got the malice we normally associate with "coercion" but is still pretty coercive. I hope that explains what I'm thinking a bit. [/QUOTE]

Verification