Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="SMHWorlds" data-source="post: 7829625" data-attributes="member: 6853809">I only break that particular phrase out when a player is quite obviously meta-gaming to the detriment of the game or of another player. One of my player's was notorious for sticking their nose into other character's personal quests and stories. So, stuff like that which has zero in game origin.  I might also interrupt a character if they the player lack knowledge that their character has. Using the "you would not do that" in a positive way. In effect, handing agency back to the character.Even before Critical Role became a hit, the words "story" and "narrative" were huge fightin words in the design sphere for RPGs (and in RPGs in general). I still do not think that most people really understand the words as they are defined normally, or even how we commonly use them in RPGs. Since that phenomena broke upon us, those words have gained a number of new random momentums, such that they are almost meaningless in trying to describe play.My gut reaction to the topic is that there are three general circumstances under which a GM will intervene in the typical rpg game by negating a player's agency.The first is as I described above. A player is acting in an ignorant manner, though not necessarily with malice, and does not understand (or willfully ignores) character boundaries. OR the player is acting in ignorance of information that they should have had. The player might have been out of the room or not heard a specific piece of information or did not read the 545 page document on the one shot I am running. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> Regardless, the GM can and should step in here to keep the game's integrity intact.The second circumstance is what Matt Colville might call a cut scene. This is where the GM is telling the players what is happening (dare I say, narrating) and takes control of the characters' actions to move events along. The example given in the article is perfect for this. Real time (if I am reading it right) is running short and to move the game along, the GM lets the players know that their characters are doing what might be considered normal actions given the circumstances. Now, I have known a few GMs who will cut scene for 3 hours and 45 minutes of a 4 hour slot, lol. Cut scenes can be overused and abused as a technique, so once per game session, if that, would be my personal rule of thumb.  Though depending on the system and the game, this could be used more often and perhaps even by the players themselves.The third circumstance would be GM overreach. The GM constantly make moves and takes actions and offers feelings for a character or characters, subverting the player's choices and control. Although I in general paint this as a negative, like anything there is a spectrum. Some players simply will not act "awed" by a 40ft red dragon. Even though, there is a cultural and mechanical reason for them to be.. This is because the player does not want to ever be hindered by in world things. I know its a touchy subject, but if the actual Dracula shows up in your VtM game, your vampire would be impressed. On the other hand, players DO hate being told how to feel. And many GMs (myself included) have a bad habit of that. It is one thing to maintain the integrity and verisimilitude of the world; quite another to impose our personal will on a character and thus on the player. We are not there to create the perfect play; this is not a stage play or if it is, the actors have a ton of room to improv things. In the end, if there is a conflict between the world and the character, let the dice (i.e. mechanics) decide the outcome.</blockquote>

Verification