[X] My Assistant

[_Pax._]

That their way is the right way.

Oh, but it is. My way is in fact the only right way ...

...

...

...

... for me. So if the game doesn't fit my needs, and wants? Why should I stay?

Sometimes, no gaming is superior to bad gaming.

That you must fully disclose your story.

Straw man.

It's not the story you have to fully disclose, it's the kind and degree of content in that story which you should disclose.

[thorya]

Most of the people in this thread have argued for a false dichotomy. That their way is the right way. That you must fully disclose your story. That you must use the horror presented in the setting already. That you can't use your own horrific situations for the characters. They completely deny any alternative. What you have done is confused what I have done. I am not arguing that it should be "Tarantino for everyone". I'm arguing that the most potent horror and fear will come from taking control out of the characters' hands.

The most potent fear and horror would probably come from the GM sexually assaulting one of the players physically, in real life. Or locking all of the players in a basement for a few hours against their will and telling them it's all part of the game. But I don't think anyone's going to argue that a GM should do this, just because it creates the most potent horror and fear. If they were playing a BDSM scene sure, but even there they would have talked about the boundaries of what everyone is comfortable with before hand. The point is that there is a line on what is okay content and what is not in any activity, that's as true for roleplaying games as it is for any other form of adult interaction. The line is different for different situations and different groups. But any time you're getting close to where the line is, you need to step out of the game for a bit and have that discussion. That doesn't mean ruining whatever story you're going to try to run the group through, but it does mean acknowledging that some people may not be okay with a character that compulsively rapes people.

Further, that line can even be in really strange places and it's still the job of the GM and everyone else playing to respect it. A guy I played with in high school had strange boundaries when it came to what happened to his character's family because his dad drowned when we were in middle school. He wasn't wrong for having those boundaries and I wasn't a better roleplayer or whatever because I didn't. Not respecting those boundaries would have been wrong though. And launching into a scenario where I killed his character's parents without first talking with him would have made me a bad GM and just generally a dick.

Most people aren't saying the GM was wrong for taking control out of the characters hands or even necessarily for running this scenario. He's wrong because he clearly did not know where the line on what is appropriate and acceptable for his group was and he didn't even try to find out before plunging deep into material that is over a lot of people's lines. And further, when questioned still, as far as I can tell, never actually had the conversation about what is okay and what isn't.

This sort of ignoring boundaries isn't limited to new GMs. It comes from experienced players and GM's too. It's a common problem. Talk with women that have roleplayed, you'll find that this sort of dick behavior and GM and players refusing to accept that some material is off limits is why a lot of them stop playing or will only play with other women.

[Lionhearted]

I was going to explain what abhors me about the bunraku scene, but then I just ended up feeling like I wanted to destroy something beautiful.
Suffice to say, it's not the violence of it, Fantasy violence don't move me much, it's not the age of the girl... That's just tugging for heartstrings.
It's the utter soulless apathy that get's to me, it's the dehumanizing greed and it's the willful quenching of sentience...

[_Pax._]

It's the utter soulless apathy that get's to me, it's the dehumanizing greed and it's the willful quenching of sentience...

AHA, thank you, I knew there was a fourth button in there, and I couldn't for some reason put my finger on it. But you just did. Gratzi!

[StealthSigma]

Oh, but it is. My way is in fact the only right way ...

...

...

...

... for me. So if the game doesn't fit my needs, and wants? Why should I stay?

Pax, you started out preceding with "if it were me". However you eventually abandoned that stance and instead decided that your choice of action is the the right one that the topic creator should follow. It also started, in my opinion, a significant turn in the tone and content of the thread.

Full stop. WALK AWAY. This "GM" (and I hesitate to sully the term by using it for that creep) isn't worth your time.

Straw man.

It's not the story you have to fully disclose, it's the kind and degree of content in that story which you should disclose.

I had a incorrect recollection of the specifics of the statement that was written. The original statement isn't an absolute, but it's pretty close to it.

This thread is pretty much exactly why I advocate FULL DISCLOSURE of everything related to a game that isn't strictly necessary to remain hidden for the storyline of the campaign (and if doing crap like the OPs GM did is strictly necessary to remain hidden, the game needs to be rethought).

--

The most potent fear and horror would probably come from the GM sexually assaulting one of the players physically, in real life. Or locking all of the players in a basement for a few hours against their will and telling them it's all part of the game. But I don't think anyone's going to argue that a GM should do this, just because it creates the most potent horror and fear. If they were playing a BDSM scene sure, but even there they would have talked about the boundaries of what everyone is comfortable with before hand. The point is that there is a line on what is okay content and what is not in any activity, that's as true for roleplaying games as it is for any other form of adult interaction. The line is different for different situations and different groups. But any time you're getting close to where the line is, you need to step out of the game for a bit and have that discussion. That doesn't mean ruining whatever story you're going to try to run the group through, but it does mean acknowledging that some people may not be okay with a character that compulsively rapes people.

I'm confused. Are you talking horror for the character or for the player? These are two different things and they are not mutually inclusive. What may be horrific for the player may not be so for the character and what may be horrific for the character may not be for the player.

Further, that line can even be in really strange places and it's still the job of the GM and everyone else playing to respect it. A guy I played with in high school had strange boundaries when it came to what happened to his character's family because his dad drowned when we were in middle school. He wasn't wrong for having those boundaries and I wasn't a better roleplayer or whatever because I didn't. Not respecting those boundaries would have been wrong though. And launching into a scenario where I killed his character's parents without first talking with him would have made me a bad GM and just generally a dick.

I generally don't consider people dicks if ignorance is play. I don't expect people to know every little piece of history about every person they come in contact with before ever having contact with them. Having the players tell the GM where their lines are is a better solution, in my opinion, than disclosing events of the story. It's better overall since a GM can craft a story that does not cross those lines and the GM has guidance on what to do when he needs to improvise. It's also more reliable since it's not necessary for the GM to judge if content he's included, which he probably doesn't believe crosses the line, crosses the line. Obviously, not everything would be covered but the method does preserve mystery and it does not preclude having a reasoned adult discussion regarding the events and of course increasing the blacklist.

--

It's the utter soulless apathy that get's to me, it's the dehumanizing greed and it's the willful quenching of sentience...

Now imagine that a lot of people would do just that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

[All4BigGuns]

Whether it is horrific for the character or not is immaterial if the player is uncomfortable with such things, and if the player is uncomfortable with it, it should be avoided, period.

Ignorance is no excuse, as before doing something, it should be discussed with the group to ensure that EVERYONE is comfortable with it, and if EVEN ONE PERSON isn't, DON'T DO IT.

[Lionhearted]

Hm, not what I was getting at. Fascinating experiment though...
Right let's break it down shall we?
1) The girl is not sedated, a very easy precaution to avoid unnecessary suffering. Not only is she in incredible pain and feel overwhelming dread, but also it's complicating the procedure endangering her health for no rational reason.
Whether they do this because they get some sadistic pleasure out of it or simply don't care enough I don't know, which is worse?
2) Human exploitation and suffering because of petty greed. Is there any lower kind of scum to roam the earth?
3) When I use Personafix I treat it as possession you're still you, but you're an impotent witness.
Remove the chip and they're back to themselves... traumatised, but intact.
The other way to treat it, is as actually realigning thoughts patterns, memories and personality traits, then you're truly dead... the person that was you no longer exist... There's just a husk left. That! is truly terrifying.

[_Pax._]

Pax, you started out preceding with "if it were me". However you eventually abandoned that stance and instead decided that your choice of action is the the right one that the topic creator should follow. It also started, in my opinion, a significant turn in the tone and content of the thread.

My posts being rooted in my personal opinion and POV were already established in this thread - as you yourself just corroborated. Forgive me if I did not feel I had to affix a dnial-of-objective-authority boilerplate to every subsequent post. :sigh:

I had a incorrect recollection of the specifics of the statement that was written. The original statement isn't an absolute, but it's pretty close to it.

It's an exhortation to a specific action, in echo of my earlier posts (the character of which you have already admitted was "for me" / "in my shoes"). No more, no less.

I generally don't consider people dicks if ignorance is play. I don't expect people to know every little piece of history about every person they come in contact with before ever having contact with them.

Hence, disclosure of content and themes.

In some Fantasy-setting games (D&D and such), i have come right out before characters are made, and said "this is not going to be a Disney fantasy. Open sewers, crushing poverty, all the ills and evils of prostitution, basically all the DOWN-sides of a pre-renaissance world will be there. I won't necessarily throw them in yoru face, but their presence will inform everything else."

Or for an Eberron game, I reminded people that that world is basically int he throes of a magic-modified Industrial Revolution ... and that I wouldn't be whitewashing over issues like child labor, slavery, and so on.

Thus, when something ugly crops up, that's part and parcel of the setting within those previously-stated parameters? I don't need to know, or even think too much about, where any particular player's limits are. They have been informed of where the game is likely to go, in terms of theme and content (or even just backdrop); it's now their responsibility to speak up and say "I have a problem with ____". And we can negotiate around that limit, find a way that the player avoids being pushed out of their OOC comfort zone, while I as GM can still tell stories within the theme and aesthetic already outlined.

That kind of disclosure is nothing but good for any group. Sure, after you know someone really well, you can probably leave the disclosure out. But, if in doing so you create a problem, OWN IT. As the GM, if you spring something uncomfortable on a player and they react badly, the fault is 100% yours, not theirs.

Having the players tell the GM where their lines are is a better solution, [...]

So ... a player should lay bare their entire soul to a GM, before playing?

Some lines, you see, are the kind that you don't like to admit to publicly. For example, maybe someone was raped, so sexual violence involving their character is a gigantic problem. But they're not comfortable wearing their status as a rape victim on their sleeve, for all to see.

Better, in that case, for the GM to disclose the themes and the kind of content she expects to use in her campaign, and let the players hold that up to their own inner yardsticks and decide for themselves whether or not to put up a yellow or red flag on something. BEcause then, that person's issue with sexual violence only comes out if it matters, and not as a blanket, boilerplate disclosure before every new game.

[_Pax._]

Hm, not what I was getting at. Fascinating experiment though...
Right let's break it down shall we?
1) The girl is not sedated, a very easy precaution to avoid unnecessary suffering. Not only is she in incredible pain and feel overwhelming dread, but also it's complicating the procedure endangering her health for no rational reason.

She could be locked in position sufficiently to not endanger any procedures.

Whether they do this because they get some sadistic pleasure out of it or simply don't care enough I don't know, which is worse?

Anaesthesia is expensive. And it's not like one of the puppets is going to complain AFTERwards, right?

Still, this discomfited me enough, I decide the screams were from being strapped to the table BEFORE having a (cheap and uncomfortable) anaesthetic administered. IOW, I backed off on that part, because it crossed my own line.

2) Human exploitation and suffering because of petty greed. Is there any lower kind of scum to roam the earth?

No, especially when it's children being exploited.

3) When I use Personafix I treat it as possession you're still you, but you're an impotent witness.
Remove the chip and they're back to themselves... traumatised, but intact.
The other way to treat it, is as actually realigning thoughts patterns, memories and personality traits, then you're truly dead... the person that was you no longer exist... There's just a husk left. That! is truly terrifying.

I'd rather be just a husk, than be trapped inside my own head unable to stop what's happening to me. Especially being a twelve or thirteen year old child, forced into prostitution with "clients" whose only restriction is probably "no permanent damage".

Being twelve years old, aware, forced to do, well, let's leave it at "things" with complete strangers, unable even to CRY let alone stop any of it, or stop being AWARE of it? And knowing you will NEVER escape?? That is serious horror, to me. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/frown.gif) And also crosses a few of those "inner lines people might not like to discuss publicly", which is all I'll say about that.

Hence why I had to back off on the scene, even if only a little bit. Leaving that girl fully awake, lucid, and aware during the implant procedure ... *shakes head* no. Just, no. As a player, if I'd been at a con, and the GM had played it straight, or worse, played it up? I'd've broken into OOC, explained I had issues with the scene, and if the GM wasn't willing to gloss over at least the worst of it for me .... frankly, I'd've stood up and walked away, right then and there.

Which, funny enough, is what I've been suggesting in this thread. *shrug*

[Lionhearted]

Even when strapped down she would have off-the chart BPM, which can pose all kind of issues. Be very likely to go into a state of shock. Muscle tears, broken teeth and other stress induced injuries...
and how would you prevent the spine from moving thus endangering paralysis?

It's kind of a pointless exercise though since SR is capable of incision less surgery.

[All4BigGuns]

What I find disturbing is the sheer level of callousness and lack of empathy exhibited by some posters in this thread. I mean come on, it seems like some people are trying to say "you're uncomfortable with something in the game? well 'suck it up' and 'grow a pair'.", which I think is utterly ridiculous.

[StealthSigma]

1) The girl is not sedated, a very easy precaution to avoid unnecessary suffering. Not only is she in incredible pain and feel overwhelming dread, but also it's complicating the procedure endangering her health for no rational reason.
Whether they do this because they get some sadistic pleasure out of it or simply don't care enough I don't know, which is worse?

She's not consciously sedated which is a distinction worth making. Local anesthesia is already cheaper and recommended over general anesthesia in our world due to complications that can during general anesthesia. It's not easy to tell what is exactly causing the screams. It could be a hope for help as much as it could be pain.

2) Human exploitation and suffering because of petty greed. Is there any lower kind of scum to roam the earth?

Human exploitation and suffering because of lust and gluttony. The greed element wouldn't matter if there weren't people willing to pay. You could kill the guy performing the surgery and it wouldn't matter. Someone new would take the place to keep up the supply.

3) When I use Personafix I treat it as possession you're still you, but you're an impotent witness.
Remove the chip and they're back to themselves... traumatised, but intact.
The other way to treat it, is as actually realigning thoughts patterns, memories and personality traits, then you're truly dead... the person that was you no longer exist... There's just a husk left. That! is truly terrifying.

I find the later more merciful. The former is far more cruel. You can remove the chip and subject the individual will be fully cognizant of what happened to her. The latter contains no such issue. There are people now in our world that suggest, with good reason, that children who suffer sexual abuse are often times better off dead than living because for many there is no coping or recovering from the severe breach of trust.

--

Some lines, you see, are the kind that you don't like to admit to publicly. For example, maybe someone was raped, so sexual violence involving their character is a gigantic problem. But they're not comfortable wearing their status as a rape victim on their sleeve, for all to see.

Better, in that case, for the GM to disclose the themes and the kind of content she expects to use in her campaign, and let the players hold that up to their own inner yardsticks and decide for themselves whether or not to put up a yellow or red flag on something. BEcause then, that person's issue with sexual violence only comes out if it matters, and not as a blanket, boilerplate disclosure before every new game.

So you equate the following two as different?

Player A: "I have issues with sexual violence."

GM: "My campaign will have sexual violence, mutilation, and child labor."
Player A: "I have issues with the sexual violence."

They're identical and the end result is identical. The line crossed is identified in both scenarios. It must always be identified if it is not to be crossed. There's two differences between the two scenarios. The second scenario can, just by description cross the line with specificity. The first method protects the player by permitting far more generic blacklists. The second scenario also permits more meta-gaming. I did not say that a player need explain why they take issue with something, merely that they take issue with it.

--

Even when strapped down she would have off-the chart BPM, which can pose all kind of issues. Be very likely to go into a state of shock. Muscle tears, broken teeth and other stress induced injuries...
and how would you prevent the spine from moving thus endangering paralysis?

It's kind of a pointless exercise though since SR is capable of incision less surgery.

Every single one of those things can be done with drugs. Anesthesia, motor inhibitors, muscle relaxants, drugs that lower blood pressure....

[Lionhearted]

Just "strapped down" wouldn't help much though.
Also some doll makers are nice enough to install a datalock.
Witnesses also have a minute chance to be free, husks are just... Gone. Why that is worse to me would be a question of faith however.

[All4BigGuns]

The point is that it is the GM's responsibility not to create a storyline that is offensive to ANY of the players. The only way to do this (especially when a group first forms) is to disclose the themes so that one or more players can say if they're comfortable with it or not. The player neither should be expected to specify which makes them uncomfortable. A simple "I am uncomfortable with this" is quite sufficient. Any more detail can dredge up old, potentially painful, memories (it may not, but someone should not be expected to even discuss something they are uncomfortable with if they do not wish to).

If the GM absolutely requires detail, he can then ask the player for a private conversation (again may be refused if they are uncomfortable even discussing it).

[Lionhearted]

Funny how mature always seem to equate to sex,drugs and violence neh?
What about philosophical, religious or political themes?

[StealthSigma]

Just "strapped down" wouldn't help much though.
Also some doll makers are nice enough to install a datalock.
Witnesses also have a minute chance to be free, husks are just... Gone. Why that is worse to me would be a question of faith however.

Strapping down would be done regardless, especially if the "patient" is in anything other than a horizontal position. It's a protection against accidental movement as much as, if not more, than purposeful movement on part of the patient. Securing is securing.

[Lionhearted]

Of course, but just strapping someone down without any other precautions, wouldn't help in the least on keeping the operation safe.
A fully sensually aware patient is a major (unnecessary) risk.
Yes I know there's exceptions where anathesia isn't an option, but that's often to a part of the body that doesn't have any pain receptors (the brain)

[_Pax._]

Even when strapped down she would have off-the chart BPM, which can pose all kind of issues. Be very likely to go into a state of shock. Muscle tears, broken teeth and other stress induced injuries...
and how would you prevent the spine from moving thus endangering paralysis?

Trodes. RAS override. Remember, this is the 2070's. ;D

In fact, it strikes me that massive, overkill anesthaesia for minor procedures (dental work, for example) is probably a thing of the past. Easier to pop some 'trodes on your patient, give them a pleasant, relaxing simulation (something that keeps the heart rate down) and engage the RAS override feature at maximum. Poof, no worries about pain, twitching, etc.

[_Pax._]

So you equate the following two as different?

Player A: "I have issues with sexual violence."

GM: "My campaign will have sexual violence, mutilation, and child labor."
Player A: "I have issues with the sexual violence."

More like:

Game #1
Player A: "I have issues with sexual violence."
GM: "... we're playing a 4-color, Comics Code style superhero RPG. WTF did I need to know that for?"

Game #2
Player A: "I have issues with sexual violence."
GM: "... we're playing a G-rated Disney style campaign. WTF did I need to know that for?"

Game #3
Player A: "I have issues with sexual violence."
GM: "... we're playing a PG-level game of BESM. WTF did I need to know that for?"

[...]

Game #73
Player A: "I have issues with sexual violence."
GM: "Oh, well, my game is going to be dealing with that, at least once. Maybe you should find a different game for now."

VERSUES

Game #1
GM: "We'll be playing a superheroes RPG, 4-color, and the world obeys the Comics Code."
Player A: "Cool. Dibs on the flying brick!"

Game #2
GM: "We'll be playing a family-friendly Disney-movie sort of game."
Player A: "Cool. Can I be a talking squirrel?"

Game #3
GM: "We'll be playing BESM, and I want to keep this PG rated."
Player A: "Cool. So, Sentai, Magical Girl, or what?"

[...]

Game #73
GM: "We'll be playing a very dark game, which will explore some very adult themes - violence, sexuality, and more."
Player A: "Uh. That might be a problem; I have issues with sexual violence. Guess I'll catch you guys next time, eh?"


I think you can guess which of those two I find preferable, not just as a GM, nor as Player A, but any of Players B, C, D, E, and so on.

They're identical and the end result is identical.

No, they're not. As I've just illustrated above, they are only identical for the one specific game that would have crossed that line. For every other game, the player's declaration was not only unnecessary, but possibly even inappropriate, tot eh point of causing unnecessary discomfort in the GM and/or other players.

Having the GM make their declaration first, however, means that Player A's issue(s) only come to light when they actually matter.

Because, you know, if you (for example) have a problem with extremely explicit blood and gore, I do not need to be told that before sitting down to play CandyLand, FFS.

[Lionhearted]

Clearly you never watched happy tree friends Pax (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[hermit]

Funny how mature always seem to equate to sex,drugs and violence neh?
What about philosophical, religious or political themes?

I'd directly blame video games for part 1. Specifically, the "Mature Content" label, which translates as "contains sex, violence, drugs and/or evil words". As for political/philosophical themes? I recon that's pretty impolite and a recipie for disaster to do in America. In a society as fracured and torn as theirs, that's probably not the worst approach.

[_Pax._]

Clearly you never watched happy tree friends Pax (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

I did specify family-friendly ... and yes, the Happy Tree friends is exactly why I did so. Ha! ;D

[StealthSigma]

I think you can guess which of those two I find preferable, not just as a GM, nor as Player A, but any of Players B, C, D, E, and so on.


No, they're not. As I've just illustrated above, they are only identical for the one specific game that would have crossed that line. For every other game, the player's declaration was not only unnecessary, but possibly even inappropriate, tot eh point of causing unnecessary discomfort in the GM and/or other players.

Having the GM make their declaration first, however, means that Player A's issue(s) only come to light when they actually matter.

Because, you know, if you (for example) have a problem with extremely explicit blood and gore, I do not need to be told that before sitting down to play CandyLand, FFS.

Your method treats things as a case by case basis. Which might make sense if you have a group of high variable players. Knowing these things beforehand applies not only to the current game but also future selections. Further, your method does not support on the fly or off-script content for a GM. That method also only restrains the GM. It applies no such restrictions to players. Pre-compiling the list of off-limit subjects permits all participants to follow it.

[_Pax._]

Your method treats things as a case by case basis.

Um ... yes? BEcause each case - each GM, each group of players - is different?

Not everyone has the luxury of playing with the same six or eight or however many people, year in, year out, for decades. Not to mention, those who go to conventions, either to play or to GM.

Best GM practises, IMO, would be those that accommodate the widest range of circumstances a GM might find themselves in.

Further, your method does not support on the fly or off-script content for a GM.

If the nature of the game is going to change, then the players should be made aware of that as far in advance as practicably possible.

Pre-compiling the list of off-limit subjects permits all participants to follow it.

... and only works if he roster of players and GM(s) never changes. My experiences indicate that as a fairly infrequent occurrance overall.

[Dolanar]

One slight objection Pax...Best GM practices suggests if you're making a game for a convention, it should be designed to be as friendly to as many people as possible, & taking into account the overall audience the convention might cater to. But otherwise I do agreee a GM can cut down on problems by stating the sorts of themes that will appear in a game.