I played it fully, becaus the player who went in enjoys such things every once in a while. She had the same choice - leave the girl or mercy-kill - decided to kill everyone else, and patch her back up. After some expensive therapy/total mindwipe by an awakened psychiatrist NPC, she now attends a Horizon school and hopes to score a corp SIN! Buw, again, I knew my players and knew they can take this and wouldn't be freaked out. Different players, I'd act differently.

I'd never even consider that scenario, it pushes all the buttons for me personally...

I was probably more uncomfortable with that scene, than my players were, TBH.

To each their own. I can deal with it (though, to be honest, not too often), and the player begged me to run something ... far more drastic ... once. Wouldn't run it with al plars I know, and would have expected a small heads up about a difficult topic in the otherwise stellarly accessible adventure, but nobody's perfect I guess.

I've thrown some major things at my groups over the years to make them think and deal with socially awkward situations. So far, I've only had one negative response, and it was more shock than anything else.

It was when I was describing a Airship Naval Battle in a game of Airship Pirates. I don't hold back on the violence, instead I use it as paint for my brush of drama and interplay.

My humor aside, I'm a very, very dark person.

You can do very dark stuff without ever resorting to sexual violance, which in my opinon is pretty cheap and over-used anyway. Poverty and disease can be just as disturbing, just to name examples. And those need to be used carefuly too; someone who's taking care of his mother dying of terminal cancer might not respond any better to this than victims of sexual violence to rape.

Your humor is on the dark side.

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).

Another point on which you and I are in full, 110% agreement, All4.

I generally like to make a statement, up front, in any game I run, as to the content and theme(s). Even if that statement is just to reference an MPAA rating (my default is PG-13), and suggest everyone modulate their narratives and at-table language towards that benchmark.

*blinks* Okay everyone, get to your fallout bunkers...the End is Nigh. Pax and I are agreeing on something...

I've never really had a problem running content my players couldn't handle, but I've had players with characters that couldn't handle some of it. Had a character with the Pacifist quality get badly disturbed when an NPC ally who was secretly a vampire used their fangs to tear the throat out of an attacker.

That said, if I was planning on doing anything more disturbing than your typical blood and gore in combat, I'd definitely forewarn my players.

~Umi

I second the idea that I would have no problems playing in this game, with or without rationale as to why it has happened. Our games run from very light-hearted to more dark than I have seen anyone describe here. Of course our group is quite mature (everyone is 30+, and soon the majority will be 40+). We all have an immense amount of experience in role playing. I think my only question to the GM from the OP would have been “Is this going somewhere in a larger plot?” and if the answer was yes, I’ve have run with it.

The key to these sorts of situations is to only describe enough to get the imagination moving and let the players minds fill in the blanks. The characters can be as freaked out as possible, but a mature group can separate character from player squick. In my own experience I have never really been squicked out, perhaps I have an iron constitution. A good description of a scene can give me the chills, but that’s about as far as it goes. Just to provide a little example our current game has two unique characters in it, a GM created Vampire type and our only spell caster follows a free Master Shedim. We are playing in a very dark world.

As a side note, I poked out my “mind’s eye” many, many years ago. With friends like mine that was needed.

-D

I'm not a fan of railroading, and I think this GM made some missteps. But as someone pointed out, the existing social skill rules can be for more detrimental to player agency. Have your character cringe and do what some sneering suit says, or sleep with an obnoxious scumbag, or accept a blatant fabrication that a credulous five-year old would find suspicious - all because someone rolled a big, bloated pool of social skill dice.

It provides an avenue for character development/RP yes I agree. But the fashion in which it could have been applied could have been better.
Well, till he gives me an extremely good reason (in game or OOC) as to why it was even necessary to curse my character's nether regions, I shall continue to be a pest
Like some of the other posters have mentioned, absolute full disclosure spoils the story a bit BUT I think the party would have appreciated a warning label; our games prior to this particular incident were pretty Mirror Shades, then suddenly, this.

I haven't played SR in years but me and my friends used to run one off campaigns in modern times or 1800s to use the firearms combat system. We removed magic for those and it was OK.

Educational post...

A lot of people can have difficulty dividing character responses from player responses. What I've noticed is that a lot of people are prone to letting the world that they live and the experiences from it that have formulated their opinions on matter basically define what constitutes squick or horror for a character that lives in a world that barely resembles the one we live in. For example, why would the sight of someone's exposed spine during a surgery affect characters in Shadowrun? Many of these characters undergo very similar surgeries to get their augmentations. They are engaged in a career where they often get paid to kill people. Indignation over an unwilling participant? Sure. Repulsive thoughts. Unlikely. Shadowrunners are a hardened an resilient lot and a lot of what we would consider horrific shouldn't phase them.



I poked mine out when I took a college course dedicated to studying horror. It was necessary. The professor had no qualms about pushing the students to the limit of their sanity. You and I would probably agree that there's not much reason to restore it if it were even possible.
--



Shadowrun is both a campaign setting and a ruleset. People seem to forget that. The ruleset is not written with interdependence that requires magic or technomancy to be be present and it stands well with elements removed. In fact, it is my opinion that the Shadowrun system works a lot better once you remove magic. When you do that, you permit yourself to free up other areas from restrictions and chains that are put in because of magic.

I'm pretty sure some of the resident US troops could provide a valuable perspective here. If not: PTSD. Such sights can be worse for those with lots of horrible experiences than for average people (like vets freaking from the smell of a bbq). What doesn't kill you doesn't necessarily make you stronger. Might be a good idea to keep this in mind, too.

PTSD is a vicious little animal because in many cases you don't even realize you have. The way you think and act seem completely normal to you, in fact they are your new normal, the problem is others may think you are a borderline sociopath. My journey into ruthless violence as a lifestyle, and return to a life where I accept its potential necessity but it is not my default setting has taken me years to get to. Sure an open body might not squick me out, the helpless human whose will is about to be taken away would have and still would, but where as my reaction now would be business like, my reaction then would have been more inclined to keeping some alive for a show and tell later. You never really get over it, and none of it is ever really acceptable you just find ways to justify it to yourself so you can get up the next day.

Oh, I'm perfectly aware of PTSD. The statistics for it are not as robust as I would like and there's so much about it we don't understand. Is it more common among Army or marines? What's the prevalence among those in special forces compared to those who aren't? Studies do show that the rate is much lower (around half) for Iraq-UK veterans compares to Iraq-US veterans. Why is that? What's the rate of PTSD among those who entered the service to fund college education against those who did not have that as a primary motivation for serving. Also remember that the armed forces are a cross-section of a wide swath of individuals who range from the run of the mill through the exceptional. At the very least, most shadowrunners are exceptional in their own right.

It's also a mostly academic discussion anyway because Shadowrun includes a system that shows that a character is more or less susceptible to PTSD through the use of negative qualities.

You brilliantly evaded my point because it doesn't fit into your Tarantino for everybody narrative. Awesome.

I can say (personal Experience) that I think that the dreams/nightmares will always be there. No matter how well adjusted/hardened you think you are. Trick is to accept that. If you can do that, you can make it. As Faelan indicated, it takes time to detune your violence impulse. I still have mine, and it has been 22 years since I got out of the Corps. I tend to make people uncomfortable if they do not know me, becasue of HOW I move, act and react to stimuli, most of which (that training) is buried so deep in my subconscious that I still do not realize I am performing those actions by rote, even to this day.

QFT. Same problem here, I mean it ain't all bad, people do tend to leave myself and my wife alone in public unless we make a habit of frequenting the same place. Eventually they realize I will not exterminate them for looking in our direction. My violence impulse is back in its detached clinical reality I only let it out on the heavy bag.

Yeah... been meaning to get me a heavy bag. May eventually do that.

You brought up PTSD. It's something often happens after a specific high stress and high anxiety situation or over a sustained exposure. Though singular events usually only cause short term PTSD rather than long term. Shadowrunners, in general, tend to track better with the traits and features that provide protection against PTSD and they lack many of the situational effects that lead soldiers to PTSD of which most notably is a lack of control over the situation which probably explains why officers suffer it less than the enlisted. However, that's all hardly relevant since PTSD would be, for the purpose of an RPG, an effect that would be expressed through mechanical effects. Most of the specific symptoms of PTSD can be expressed through negative qualities.

So either the character is already suffering from the stress and anxiety of being exposed to these horrific situations (which are subjective) and would have negative qualities that reflect this. If its determined that they should suffer from it, then they receive the Negative quality, which isn't any different than what happened in this case aside from the fact that the incidence of it was 100% rather than some lesser amount.

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.

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.


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.

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.

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...

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!

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.





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.



--



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.



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.

--



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

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

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.

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.

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:


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.




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.


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.

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


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.


No, especially when it's children being exploited.


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. 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*

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.

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.

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.



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.



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.

--



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.

--



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

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.

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).

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

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.

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)

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.

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.


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.

Clearly you never watched happy tree friends Pax

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.

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

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.

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.


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.


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

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.