Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7602979" data-attributes="member: 4937">Let me get this straight:a) I the player imagine Francis the Guard.b) I the player imagine that my character believes Francis the Guard exists.c) I the player then conclude firstly that Frances the Guard exists (!!)d) and secondly, that this particular NPC is in fact Francis the Guard(!?!?!) All the other potentially interesting things you are saying for me get wrecked on this bizarre twisted illogical argument.&nbsp;&nbsp; It sounds like some barrister's attempt at a loophole, a diversion from the actual point of the case, to try to lead the court in a merry chase of semantics that in fact isn't really that clever at all.&nbsp;&nbsp; This is bog simple.&nbsp; Control of your player does not require that everything your player imagines to be true conforms to your desires.&nbsp; Far from being an attempt to assert any sort of control over your character, this is by definition and very plainly an attempt at asserting control over the setting, by the obvious fact that Francis is not your character.&nbsp;&nbsp; The question is not, &quot;Does Francis exist?&quot;, because we would need to know far more of the situation than is provided in the example.&nbsp; The only question of any real importance that can be answered from the example is, &quot;Can Bob's player force every other participant in the game to concede that not only does Francis exist, but he is here right now.&quot; I suppose I could hit the player with a club and hope if they survived that they would have amnesia.&nbsp; But I think that would hardly be advisable as sound DMing.&nbsp;&nbsp; Then again, many claim that GMs should seek to kill their players...Case closed then.&nbsp; You and iserith don't nearly have as much to disagree about as the heatedness of the exchange would indicate.Yes.&nbsp; Not much.&nbsp; It's not something I'm saying you ought to really worry about, in the sense that it is some sort of sin or crime against the player.&nbsp;&nbsp; What I am saying is that as a thoughtful GM, you ought to be consciously aware of when you have dipped a toe over the line and are in the player's business.&nbsp;&nbsp; Doing what you are doing there is &quot;Director Stance&quot;.&nbsp;&nbsp; It's the GM not only being the curator of the story, but the conductor of the actors in it.&nbsp;&nbsp; You are giving the players stage direction and cues.&nbsp; And that's not always a bad thing, but the important thing is to know that you are doing it and what it involves and what it risks, so that you are making the choice consciously and intelligently and intentionally, and not painting yourself into a corner accidently.&nbsp;&nbsp; Ultimately, it's a railroading technique, and a heavy reliance on &quot;Director Stance&quot; indicates low trust by the DM in their players and their players ability to play their characters.&nbsp; I guess I don't really think it's &quot;too much&quot;, but I'm not impressed by it, because I'd rather see you talking about how you encourage your players to mature as players, and &quot;Director Stance&quot; really doesn't do that because it teaches the player that part of the game belongs to the GM.&nbsp;&nbsp; A GM in director stance is too absorbed by their own artistic vision, and in my opinion is - ironically considering the larger discussion - not taking enough feedback from the players.That said, there might really be times to use &quot;Director Stance&quot; as a GM - though at the moment I can't really think of a great example.&nbsp; After all, when I listed &quot;Director Stance&quot; in my essay on railroading, I never said &quot;Good GMs never use these techniques.&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; What I really said was, &quot;Good GMs understand these techniques and use them appropriately (and appropriately tends to be sparingly).&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7602979, member: 4937"] Let me get this straight: a) I the player imagine Francis the Guard. b) I the player imagine that my character believes Francis the Guard exists. c) I the player then conclude firstly that Frances the Guard exists (!!) d) and secondly, that this particular NPC is in fact Francis the Guard(!?!?!) All the other potentially interesting things you are saying for me get wrecked on this bizarre twisted illogical argument. It sounds like some barrister's attempt at a loophole, a diversion from the actual point of the case, to try to lead the court in a merry chase of semantics that in fact isn't really that clever at all. This is bog simple. Control of your player does not require that everything your player imagines to be true conforms to your desires. Far from being an attempt to assert any sort of control over your character, this is by definition and very plainly an attempt at asserting control over the setting, by the obvious fact that Francis is not your character. The question is not, "Does Francis exist?", because we would need to know far more of the situation than is provided in the example. The only question of any real importance that can be answered from the example is, "Can Bob's player force every other participant in the game to concede that not only does Francis exist, but he is here right now." I suppose I could hit the player with a club and hope if they survived that they would have amnesia. But I think that would hardly be advisable as sound DMing. Then again, many claim that GMs should seek to kill their players... Case closed then. You and iserith don't nearly have as much to disagree about as the heatedness of the exchange would indicate. Yes. Not much. It's not something I'm saying you ought to really worry about, in the sense that it is some sort of sin or crime against the player. What I am saying is that as a thoughtful GM, you ought to be consciously aware of when you have dipped a toe over the line and are in the player's business. Doing what you are doing there is "Director Stance". It's the GM not only being the curator of the story, but the conductor of the actors in it. You are giving the players stage direction and cues. And that's not always a bad thing, but the important thing is to know that you are doing it and what it involves and what it risks, so that you are making the choice consciously and intelligently and intentionally, and not painting yourself into a corner accidently. Ultimately, it's a railroading technique, and a heavy reliance on "Director Stance" indicates low trust by the DM in their players and their players ability to play their characters. I guess I don't really think it's "too much", but I'm not impressed by it, because I'd rather see you talking about how you encourage your players to mature as players, and "Director Stance" really doesn't do that because it teaches the player that part of the game belongs to the GM. A GM in director stance is too absorbed by their own artistic vision, and in my opinion is - ironically considering the larger discussion - not taking enough feedback from the players. That said, there might really be times to use "Director Stance" as a GM - though at the moment I can't really think of a great example. After all, when I listed "Director Stance" in my essay on railroading, I never said "Good GMs never use these techniques." What I really said was, "Good GMs understand these techniques and use them appropriately (and appropriately tends to be sparingly)." [/QUOTE]

Verification