PC vs Player Assumptions

[Arkandel]

@Auspice said in PC vs Player Assumptions:

I've encountered people who rail so hard at 'being wrong' that they get incredibly upset about it. You can approach it as being helpful, wanting to make sure no wires got crossed, and it becomes the end of the world.

Once egos get in the way RP goes out the window. The moment your character's success or failure at anything begins to reflect emotionally to you as a person there's no coming back from it.

This is far, far from a rare condition. In fact all but a handful of players I've ever met in MU* were truly immune to it; most are simply able to handle it. Some fail, often in spectacular ways. But it's really not a given in any way.

[Ghost]

Call me cold or callous if you will, but honestly when I GM I couldn't care less (from a fairness standpoint) about someone's vision of their character or their personal aversion to failure when it comes to what their PCs know vs what they know. I know some players are averse to being told what their PCs know, whether or not it fits into their views of what they want, or whether or not not being successful is fun. The fact remains that as a GM of scenes (or a game) including multiple players, those particular whims are far less important than maintaining a fair, GM-corruption free environment.

Some gamers often like to throw fits about poor dice rolls, not being successful, or not getting want from the GM, and it can be very spoiled angry child behavior. They do it to pressure the GM into giving into their Aisle5 temper tantrum over a candy bar, or else they'll make the experience negative or exhausting. Like children, if you reward it, you legitimize the behavior.

Of course, as a GM I'm sympathetic! Losing doesn't give that addictive brain chemical response, but if the rules of the game are "Your OOC knowledge of the setting or what's in the book do not equate to your character knowing it" or "Failure and success both happen and each should be approached maturely", then PPFFFT people who pull that stuff can walk. If they can prove why their character knows said information without referencing RL googling or their own personal experiences, I may allow it. Regardless, what a player wants for their character" or vision of it, can often mean that they win where others fail. So...nah, don't like that one bit.

But then again, I like to run tabletop games and not "writing clubs with some dice included".

[Auspice]

@Arkandel said in PC vs Player Assumptions:

@Auspice said in PC vs Player Assumptions:

I've encountered people who rail so hard at 'being wrong' that they get incredibly upset about it. You can approach it as being helpful, wanting to make sure no wires got crossed, and it becomes the end of the world.

Once egos get in the way RP goes out the window. The moment your character's success or failure at anything begins to reflect emotionally to you as a person there's no coming back from it.

This is far, far from a rare condition. In fact all but a handful of players I've ever met in MU* were truly immune to it; most are simply able to handle it. Some fail, often in spectacular ways. But it's really not a given in any way.

Many (most) of us want to think we're immune to it and unfortunately that only compounds the issue. I know it's something that I am steadily improving in myself. Like anything in life, I am always a work in progress.

But as I said: if I know someone, I know how they will respond if I approach them. If I don't know them, I have no way of knowing if they'll go 'awesome! I totally missed that, thanks for letting me know.' or if they'll go 'omg I never get anything wrong this must be because Jack and Heather were chatting OOC and you didn't tell them to stop. I've been MUing and Staffing for twenty-five years and I've never had anyone miss info ICly that their character would know.'

[mietze]

To build (I think) on Auspice's point I would add that delayed reactions are definitely a thing as well. Some one can be really emotionally overwhelmed at the time and then after sleeping on it be okay and even excited about new possibilities for their PC. Others are still on a high or super punchy and fine in the moment, but after their brain and heart have a chance to catch up they are very upset, either sad or angry. People even have huge letdowns after a major success, because then it can be oh shit what the fuck do I do now that I have achieved the driving goal?

As staff/ST while I do draw strong boundaries of how I tolerate people treating me/other players oocly in a scene, I do not judge someone as reactive or super cooperative on a single scene basis. Once I ST for someone multiple times (I find that I'm unwilling to decide to exclude anyone from my STing unless I have had at least 10 interactions with them as a ST, unless they are over the top explosive or abusive towards me or fellow players in the scene, which does very rarely happen) I usually can pick up their reaction patterns and know to check in with the "yes I'm FINE YAY!!!!" people who I know are likely to fret or process for a few days, as well as to not take personally when people are shocked or complainy or cold when they hit an unexpected failure because I know it will only be a matter of time until they start to page my eyes out with how excited they are about new directions or they want feedback guidance.

I often feel that especially in the WoD places I've played the meatgrinder atmosphere did not allow for STs to have the patience or time to process stuff with players, since most of the time you had to ve up and running with the newest thing put on your plate. But follow through both player initiated and staff initiated can really build bonds and trust, and not immediately deciding someone is a certain way after one plot culmination event (especially if it happened at hour 4+). I am pretty strict with behavior expectations for my players (being on time for start, time limits for posing/action declarations, ooc chatter during action resolutions/sequences), so it is very important for me to do follow through and be receptive to feedback/questions. I have found it built a ton of trust with folks who liked my style and quickly let me know who to refer to other STs whose styles fit the person better if possible and just preparing myself if I was the only ST available to be able to handle the person as kindly and best as possible (and go get a 90 min massage the next day.)

[Auspice]

@mietze

Yeah, I never base someone on that first interaction. But I absolutely feel nerves going into that first interaction (not the scene itself: having to discuss something).

It definitely comes from a few interactions. How do they respond? How do they follow up?

After a handful of times, there's enough rapport that I know. I learn if they're someone I can page on the spot or if it's better to @mail (so they can chew it over and respond on their own time). If they're someone who feels more at-ease if I include emoticons or if they'd rather it just be blunt and straightforward. If I need to couch it in soothing verbiage (the 'hey this is nothing bad, we just need to talk about some plot stuff') or if I can just jump right in.

There are a lot of factors.

I consider this all part of ethical staffing.

[surreality]

The only thing I can really suggest here is how I'd handle it:

• If a player is missing something IC that I, as the person leading the plot, know they would know in character, I'd page them with something like: "As the cryptozoologist on the team, you'd recognize the sound you just heard from recordings you've encountered over the years purported to be of a bigfoot." This comes across as less 'you're a dummy, player, and missing this!' and more as intended: 'As a GM keeping your character's specialty in mind, this is extra info that's tailored to your character. Here's a good place for your IC specialty to come into play!'

• Ask at the start of the scene if people want some nudging, or not. For instance, per the example given with the well, an OOC comment of, "The well appears to be normal, but X seems more out of place/unique/unexpected for this environment."

[silverfox]

I'm reading and what I'm reading is not really what I was meaning, so I think maybe I didn't understand the conversation.

I'm talking about not knowing things that are written in theme/documentation files but I didn't know they exist, but it is assumed it is general knowledge.

For example: WoD, I tried a werewolf. (Meh, trying, it is going poorly exactly because of stuff like this.) When I read about the forms of the werewolf I had a misunderstanding about full wolf form and then the halfway form. So I posed one way, only for it to be totally 100% the wrong thing. It became super obvious in the next few poses my understanding was wrong because everyone kept posing the other way. But my character had been a werewolf for yeeaarrsss. She would have known better, but I didn't.

That is the kind of thing that fucks me up and makes it super hard for me to continue a scene. I'm upset with myself for getting stupid stuff like that wrong.

@Auspice I totally get what you say about STers and so many personalities. I don't ever expect the ST to reach out and ask me anything. However, I do appreciate when it does happen, and then if they can help me fix it.

[Arkandel]

I fondly remember @Coin's reaction when I misread his set at one point and thought combat was about to start, leading to me shifting out of the blue into full Garou murderform in the middle of the street at some random time while people were still just getting out of their cars and shit.

[Auspice]

@Arkandel said in PC vs Player Assumptions:

I fondly remember @Coin's reaction when I misread his set at one point and thought combat was about to start, leading to me shifting out of the blue into full Garou murderform in the middle of the street at some random time while people were still just getting out of their cars and shit.

[Coin]

@Arkandel said in PC vs Player Assumptions:

I fondly remember @Coin's reaction when I misread his set at one point and thought combat was about to start, leading to me shifting out of the blue into full Garou murderform in the middle of the street at some random time while people were still just getting out of their cars and shit.

My reaction IC or OOC? Also, I don't remember either. Remind an old man of the hilarity, please.

[Arkandel]

@Coin I think you were crying. Or facepalming. Or facepalming while crying.

Granted I have driven folks to the bottle before with my inability to read the actual words in other people's posts in large scenes as opposed to what I assumed they had typed.

[Coin]

@Arkandel said in PC vs Player Assumptions:

@Coin I think you were crying. Or facepalming. Or facepalming while crying.

Granted I have driven folks to the bottle before with my inability to read the actual words in other people's posts in large scenes as opposed to what I assumed they had typed.

Thank god our hobby isn't reliant on reading comprehension.

[silverfox]

@Coin

[Ominous]

@Ghost said in PC vs Player Assumptions:

There's a few schools of thought. Lots of D&D players find it totally normal to never use metal weapons on a rust monster even though there have been no rolls to determine if the character knows about it or if it's the first time the character has encountered one. The D&D player doesnt want their metal weapons ruined, so since the PLAYER knows the monster will ruin the weapon, it's somewhat accepted that suddenly the character will arbitrarily adjust based on this knowledge. This is normal for hardcore D&D players. I think it's kinda lame and metagamey

D&D was designed to challenge the players rather than tell stories about the characters, as it developed out of wargames and boardgames. D&D focuses more on the game side of RPG rather than the roleplay side.

[Tinuviel]

@Ominous It can be that way. But it doesn't have to be. No system is the totality of a game.

[insomniac7809]

@Tinuviel True! But since the specific example is a rust monster...

I mean, a rust monster. This is not a creature that shows up in a game because it has a deep resonance in fantasy or mythology, or because it's a part of a rich world-building that makes rust monsters a part of the setting. Gary (RIP) took a five-cent Chinese plastic supermarket toy and gave it mechanics specifically to fuck with the players. It exists because it's funny to watch the guys who'd charge an orc army run screaming from a friendly bug/dog thing.

So, like, in the spectrum between OOC puzzle-solving exercise and IC dramatics, having a rust monster shows up inclines me toward the former.

[Tinuviel]

@insomniac7809 said in PC vs Player Assumptions:

So, like, in the spectrum between OOC puzzle-solving exercise and IC dramatics, having a rust monster shows up inclines me toward the former.

It depends on how you frame it, and how your players react to it. Which is largely the subject of the thread. Both approaches are equally possible, these days, and it's important to identify which one you're going for and which one your players want/expect.

[Arkandel]

@insomniac7809 said in PC vs Player Assumptions:

@Tinuviel True! But since the specific example is a rust monster...

Let's go with that example (and mind you, I'm not pitching a game now - just running with the narrative).

The game can be set around a city in decline until an earthquake unearths some kind of major ancient site in the nearby mountains; there are tunnels leading down into the earth and the first few brave souls to venture within came back with tales of strange creatures and vast riches.

Pretty soon the whole place is bristling with activity - the remaining noble Houses in the area trying to stake their claims hiring adventurers to man their excavation attempts, Guilds might see their own chance to take control of the suddenly shift in political dynamics in the area and of course privateers have opportunities to make a quick profit on their own.

I think all this is perfectly doable. PCs can run customary dungeon-crawling scenes based on their level and size the traditional way and when they're not out there killing rust monsters they can interact within that environment, play political sides against each other, make their own, recruit promising adventurers or... anything, really.

Obviously this is a skeleton of an idea but I think there's potential.

[Tinuviel]

It's important to note that no way of running or playing a game is intrinsically wrong. (ETA: Within the confines of this particular discussion's parameters) It's only wrong if your view is different from those with whom you are playing.

[Ominous]

@Tinuviel said in PC vs Player Assumptions:

@Ominous It can be that way. But it doesn't have to be. No system is the totality of a game.

Certainly. I am not saying that you can't use D&D to run a different style of game, but systems are designed with certain things in mind. You could do World of Darkness with D&D, but it would be easier to use World of Darkness.