At 11:14 PM 12/23/2000, you wrote:
>Two things occur to me about this example of the way the game went.
>1) The pcs said 'We KNEW there was going to be a Charmer'.
Not the PCs. The players themselves. And only after I insisted that they
play along with their PCs perceptions. They didn't say anything like "Ah,
we'd discussed once a long time ago there might be a Charmer. This seems a
bit strange to me. I don't listen to his words, and try to concentrate on
the fact that he's a bad guy." Or even, "Hey guys, you know we discussed
whether this might be a Charmer -- don't listen to him!" They never made
any plans how to deal with it if their suspicions were true, never actually
mentioned anythign to each other in char after the first discussion on who
might be doing what (after they had nearly killed the first
semi-mind-controlled guy they'd tracked down, several sessions before).
Just the players complaining that they had to go along with this.
>2) That the person involved said she felt a little frustrated that the players
>didn't fall in line with what she considered obvious clues as to the way
>the game
>would be played.
Well, yes.
>In reference to point 1), I'm wondering if mind control (or whatever you
>like to
>call something that externally the behaviour of a player's character) may
>be an
>overused motif in the game.
Overused? That depends--depsite the fact that I have run Fudge Deryni for
2 1/2 years, a setting filled with people who can control your mind and
there's little way to prevent it, I've never had a problem with it in that
game. But in that case it is pretty much total control--in BNW, it is
*influence* that is available. The guy has the superhuman ability (to once
again quote the book) to "sell icemakers to Eskimos." He says things, and
you just find it hard to disbelieve. I don't think that if such a
construct exists in the hands of the PCs, that it can never exist in the
hands of any NPCs.
>In reference to point 2), however, the DM has no need to become frustrated,
>because the situation that the DM offers is up to the players to interpret and
>offer interesting new insights. As an ideal, anyway.
>It seems to me that the thing that the DM DOESN'T ever really need to do is
>define the behaviour of the pcs. That, after all, is in the province of the
>player. If a player isn't playing the game, but simply going through the
>motions,
>then the situation has failed to capture their imagination, and take them
>into a
>new role playing environment.
I understand this, but if the player is refusing to go along with the
perceptions of the char (the information is the purview of the GM), then is
it not up to the GM to step in? Just as you would when they aren't playing
their Heroic quirks (we had that problem too. Yeah, it's really heroic to
shoot the mind-controlled girlfriend of another PC in the chest with an
arrow. But that's another story).
I don't like telling the players how to play thier chars, but I think that
when it is violating a part of the setting/genre, I *need* to do so. I
just don't like it.
>By and large, players (at least in my experience) are very keen to attempt
>something new and untested, to find out how the world works, and to find a new
>direction to move in. That direction can be something that the DM offers them
>with something new, like the situation where the players must find a way
>around
>the obstacle that confronts them.
My players are very good about going outside the planned areas. I'm not
sure what this has to do with the question I had though...
>If, on the other hand, the obstacle is insuperable, then you haven't created
>something that they can interact with, really. You've merely INSTRUCTED
>them in
>the direction that they MUST take.
Of course. But sometimes realizing that a task is unsurmountable is part
of it -- they *were* dealing with someone out of their league...but instead
of working within the char's perceptions ("I'm a nice reasonable
guy...don't hurt me, be nice to me, turn me over to the authorities."),
they remained belligerant. They didn't try and talk their way out of it --
and they refused to play it until I forced the mechanic.
Maybe I'm not explaining what I feel is wrong very well. It's part of a
larger picture too, which I hadn't wanted to get into since I know where
the majority of *that* problem comes from, even if I have no idea how to
fix it and there really is no advice anyone can give me that can help [1]
>Making the players roll dice at the beginning of the game doesn't really mean
>anything, either. Role playing games are not about 'transparency of
>administration'. They're about sharing a fantasy of one sort or another. If
>you're going to use dice, then I would suggest that they be used to do the
>thing
>that they were designed to do, to wit, raise tension.
Yes, they are about "transparency" to some extent--you can't "share a
fantasy" and do complex calculations at teh same time (IMO, of
course). That's one reason why I generally play Fudge, and not Rolemaster
or GURPS. To me, Fudge is generally pretty transparent. I made them make
the roll so I didn't have to interrupt the tension/flow just to bring in
the mechanic, hoping I could pull off the "mood" well enough I wouldn't
have to use the mechanic at all. It didn't work.
I've never seen dice as being designed to raise tension. They sometimes
end up serving that purpose, although I think that's secondary to the true
purpose of dice: to add in a random element. The random element says
"will he or won't he." That's all I want from it. Tension comes from the
situation (Bob jumping over a chasm, Johnny trying to kill the bad guy with
a sword, Jane sneaking past the guards who will assuredly shoot her dead on
the spot if they notice her).
>If you want players to behave in a particular fashion, then you must actually
>manipulate the situation so that they feel that the new direction is one
>that is
>in line with the natural flow of the game, from the point of view of their
>character. Not from the point of view of the DM. That deus ex machina
>should be
>reserved for especially difficult situations.
The deux ex machina should *never* be used, IMO. Fudging yes, but not an
outright DEM (even if the only difference is feel). In a world where
anyone might have the possibility of mind control, it isn't a DEM to have
the NPCs have it, anymore than it would be if the PCs had it.
Jennifer
[1] Group dynamics is the issue. I'm really good friends with these
people, but I feel that they get into a bad spiral...they don't like taking
risks (boring), and their chars always have trouble with authority figures
who don't worship them. Apart, they seem much better...but as a group it
is the SOP. And it will be very hard for me to break up this dynamic
without hurting feelings. I'm workign on it, bit by bit. But I'm in the
position I've never had to deal with--they're your friends, they don't work
in the game, and you *can't* just say "get out."
----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/
