GM vs Player narrative authority

[Xavier Onassiss]

Re: GM vs Player narrative authority

 

This is my opinion:

 

HERO System is specifically a GAME DESIGN TOOLKIT. It's a kit for the DM and/or players to tailor the game to THEIR specifications, and it SPECIFICALLY lays a lot of the game on the GM. Many, many things in the HERO System rules are listed "GM's Discretion", and even if some rules AREN'T labeled "GM's Discretion", the official assumption is the GM is allowed and encouraged to make judgement calls.

 

That's what GM's do- they make JUDGEMENT CALLS.

 

Exactly. The player seemed to expect the GM to follow the "letter of the book" down to the last detail, and got bent out of shape when the GM chose to embellish the game with additional details like, "getting more drunk = higher penalty."

 

It's silly for a player NOT to expect this, especially in a Hero game. OTOH, an experienced GM should know how to handle a player who acts this way, which is why I suggested giving them a chance to "walk it back" once the player knows how the GM is going to rule on it.

 

I don't subscribe to the "no take-backs" school of GM-ing, especially when it comes to on-the-fly rulings like this one. Nor do I subscribe to "rules-lawyering" like this player was trying to get away with.

[Greywind]

Re: GM vs Player narrative authority

 

Going straight from the player's mouth I'd say the GM was being kind.

[ghost-angel]

Re: GM vs Player narrative authority

 

If the player had started with any other tactics beyond "the book says..." as a GM I would have listened and reconsidered, but anytime the "book" is used as a justification for "if it's not there I can say/do anything and get only the book modifier" has missed the point of gaming IMO.

 

Rule books are common ground to start from, not the game's babysitter.

[Matt the Bruins]

Re: GM vs Player narrative authority

 

I think the whole dispute could have been avoided if the player had the presence of mind to say "I meant epically drunk as in The Hangover, not as in that guy passed out in the gutter in a pool of his own urine."

[Laundry Knight]

Re: GM vs Player narrative authority

 

Having been epically drunk more times than I care to admit, I think the GM is being more than generous. The player is looking that the GM doesn't require a Dex roll just to stand up and walk across the room.

[Ninja-Bear]

Re: GM vs Player narrative authority

 

If the player had started with any other tactics beyond "the book says..." as a GM I would have listened and reconsidered, but anytime the "book" is used as a justification for "if it's not there I can say/do anything and get only the book modifier" has missed the point of gaming IMO.

 

Rule books are common ground to start from, not the game's babysitter.

 

How can rules be common ground if you don't like the tactic "it says in the rulebook"?

 

I take it to mean that though in the aproach of being nasty as saying "its in the rulebook page xyz" not "um I have a question, I looked at the modifier for doing this stunt and it says x why is it why?"

 

I try to apply the Golden rule to GMing. That is I try treat the players the way I would like to be treated.

[Greywind]

Re: GM vs Player narrative authority

 

I take it to mean that though in the aproach of being nasty as saying "its in the rulebook page xyz" not "um I have a question' date=' I looked at the modifier for doing this stunt and it says x why is it why?"[/quote']

"Because you used 'Epic' as a descriptor of your stunt."

[SteveZilla]

Re: GM vs Player narrative authority

 

"Because you used 'Epic' as a descriptor of your stunt."

 

Did the player use the word 'epic' later in that thread? I only made it about 3 pages in, and only saw the "especially trashed" descriptor. Which is why imo a -3 would have been justified. being 'drunk' isn't a binary state of being -- it can range from a heavy buzz (possibly not even a -1), to being projectile vomiting (-4?), to loss of conciousness (no penalty, since unconsciousness precludes activity).

 

Drunk is one level (to the point of incurring penalties), and IMO is above buzzed. Trashed is above that. Especially trashed is above that, and would IMO rise to the -3 level. But like others, I wouldn't object as a GM if the player wanted to reconsider his character's actions in light of that new information.

[Christopher]

Re: GM vs Player narrative authority

 

On the GMs side, Player said Epic, player gets Epic.

 

He's lucky I wouldn't smash a full -5 in Hero Terms on him for Skill Rolls and a full 1/2 OCV, 1/2 DCV for CVs. That's Epic, that's like the video passed around years ago of the man so drunk he could barely walk through the liquor store, and that with help of the furniture.

 

Epic. Means above and beyond.

Possible results:

What was supposed to be a fun Roleplaying moment, becomes the PC being beaten to a pulp (because you made it impossible for him to fight even normal drunks with thier -2).

They palyer is now extremely carefull to not word any sentence in any way that you MIGHT missinterpret. In effect he will stop trying to roleplay in such moments, as you might simply make his character unplayble/automatic looser as a result of ONE not completely thought out word.

 

Like post Nr. 5 said: "It's rare enough for a player asking for a penalty. Increasing that will only mean he never tries to do it again."

[Bodkins Odds]

Re: GM vs Player narrative authority

 

Which is why an "I was just using hyperbole" argument would have been appropriate if he didn't actually want an additional penalty. The "but the rulebook says..." argument smacks of trying to have your cake and eat it too.

[Christopher]

Re: GM vs Player narrative authority

 

Which is why an "I was just using hyperbole" argument would have been appropriate if he didn't actually want an additional penalty. The "but the rulebook says..." argument smacks of trying to have your cake and eat it too.

You really asume that the OP on RPG.net was a unbiased, word by word representation?

[Bodkins Odds]

Re: GM vs Player narrative authority

 

It doesn't matter. The OP on RPG.net was the only first hand account provided. I can't make a judgement on information I don't have. All I can do is explain my opinion of the situation as described.

[Christopher]

Re: GM vs Player narrative authority

 

It doesn't matter. The OP on RPG.net was the only first hand account provided. I can't make a judgement on information I don't have. All I can do is explain my opinion of the situation as described.

Let me show it to you from the perspective of the player:

He wanted to give the game a little bit color.

The GM reacts with something totally absurd, he give the player Character a PENALTY for the player being more colorfull. A reaction that from the viewpoint of the player was as expected as the GM picking up a knife and starting to stab the same player.

 

This entire action from the GM came out of the blue. Yet you epect the player to give a calm, elquent response such as "Dear GM. I repect you dearly, but I am inconveniencent at you stabbing me without apparent reason. Could you please explain yourself."

No, he picked a bad approach instead. So now you have to ESPECIALLY show him who is the boss?

 

I doubt you are even one quarter as perfect as you expect the player to be in this situation.

[Bodkins Odds]

Re: GM vs Player narrative authority

 

I expect people I game with, assuming they aren't children, to act like adults.

 

Furthermore, your scenario makes a number of assumptions about things we have no knowledge of. Without more first hand information we can make no further inferences about the situation than what was described in the OP on RPG.net.

 

If a player really was just trying to add color, then fine. But if he's just trying to weasel out of the consequences of a decision, which is what the response as described suggests, then he should simply deal with the consequences.

 

Personally, in the situations as described I would have just had the character wake up naked in an alleyway with a hangover sometime later instead of bothering with the bar fight or the extra penalty. But I'm weird.

[ghost-angel]

Re: GM vs Player narrative authority

 

How can rules be common ground if you don't like the tactic "it says in the rulebook"?

 

I take it to mean that though in the aproach of being nasty as saying "its in the rulebook page xyz" not "um I have a question, I looked at the modifier for doing this stunt and it says x why is it why?"

 

I try to apply the Golden rule to GMing. That is I try treat the players the way I would like to be treated.

 

"It says in the rulebook" is a poor argument tactic. If your only defense is that it isn't in the rules then it's wrong you've failed at roleplaying. The common ground is "drunk is a -2," once you start adding descriptors like "epically" or "especially" or "massively" or anything else you have deviated from the wording of the book and therefore are moving from common ground to new territory.

 

If you're going to use the exact wording in the rules as you defense, you best use the exact wording of the rules in your actions too. I stand by my statement: the rulebook is common ground to start on, not a defense tactic.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: GM vs Player narrative authority

 

Possible results:

What was supposed to be a fun Roleplaying moment, becomes the PC being beaten to a pulp (because you made it impossible for him to fight even normal drunks with thier -2).

They palyer is now extremely carefull to not word any sentence in any way that you MIGHT missinterpret. In effect he will stop trying to roleplay in such moments, as you might simply make his character unplayble/automatic looser as a result of ONE not completely thought out word.

 

Like post Nr. 5 said: "It's rare enough for a player asking for a penalty. Increasing that will only mean he never tries to do it again."

 

"It says in the rulebook" is a poor argument tactic. If your only defense is that it isn't in the rules then it's wrong you've failed at roleplaying. The common ground is "drunk is a -2," once you start adding descriptors like "epically" or "especially" or "massively" or anything else you have deviated from the wording of the book and therefore are moving from common ground to new territory.

 

If you're going to use the exact wording in the rules as you defense, you best use the exact wording of the rules in your actions too. I stand by my statement: the rulebook is common ground to start on, not a defense tactic.

 

So, as Christopher suggests, we end up with players who phrase every action in a manner consistent with the rule book. He will never again have a character "close in and elbow smash", "step back and kick out" or "slug him in the jaw". Instead, the character will "Strike the opponent", so that there is no risk the GM decides an action described outside rulebook quotes and therefore merits a penalty.

 

Which is why an "I was just using hyperbole" argument would have been appropriate if he didn't actually want an additional penalty. The "but the rulebook says..." argument smacks of trying to have your cake and eat it too.

 

What cake is he trying to have or eat? What benefit does the player derive from "being epically drunk" rather than being "precisely as drunk as required for a -2 penalty"? Would you allow him to state he gets mildly inebriated, just enough for a -1 penalty, but not the -2 penalty for being drunk set out in the rules? Would you criticize the GM for saying "NO - rules say drunk is a -2 penalty - either take the -2 or retract your claim that the character is intoxicated?"

 

What benefit is derived from being involved in this bar fight created by the player, with or without penalties? It doesn't seem linked to a scenario, nor would I expect him to ask for xp (but a -3 penalty would mean his opponents were comparatively more powerful, so he's within his rights to expect extra xp for that greater power disparity, right?).

 

The statement he's trying to have his cake and eat it too implies he is trying to get two separate, mutually exclusive benefits. I don't even see one benefit the player is trying to get.

[Ninja-Bear]

Re: GM vs Player narrative authority

 

So, as Christopher suggests, we end up with players who phrase every action in a manner consistent with the rule book. He will never again have a character "close in and elbow smash", "step back and kick out" or "slug him in the jaw". Instead, the character will "Strike the opponent", so that there is no risk the GM decides an action described outside rulebook quotes and therefore merits a penalty.

 

 

And then we check every 5 feet for traps along the way! Okay maybe not that bad, but once bitten twice shy is the way I would react being the player.

 

Oh and let me clairify to. As far as I know, we don't know at what scale of Romanticism vs realizism this game was in. If the game was more "realistic" then I do see the heavier penalty. However if the game was slanted towards Romaniticism then no I can't see it.

[ghost-angel]

Re: GM vs Player narrative authority

 

What cake is he trying to have or eat? What benefit does the player derive from "being epically drunk" rather than being "precisely as drunk as required for a -2 penalty"? Would you allow him to state he gets mildly inebriated' date=' just enough for a -1 penalty, but not the -2 penalty for being drunk set out in the rules? Would you criticize the GM for saying "NO - rules say drunk is a -2 penalty - either take the -2 or retract your claim that the character is intoxicated?"[/quote']

 

That's an extreme side of the scale.

 

The Point is, to stop using extremes and hyperbole, is that the Argument Used In Defense should Not Be "But the Book Says..."

 

I don't know how many times I can say that - the Player (and GM) both need to actually Talk Out The Situation - not just start pointing at paragraphs in the book.

 

IF - Book Used As Defense

THEN - Statement Of Action Must Match Book

ELSE - Deviation From Book Occurs, Book Is No Longer Valid Defense.

 

If the player's argument went more like "I was aiming for more than a normal drunk, for this character that is considered Epically drunk, it was more an in character perspective of the situation, not an out of character statement of action."

 

Then we're in a whole new ball of wax, and the GM should just go back and give the standard penalty. That's completely different from the player pulling out the rules and going "No, drunk is only -2. There is no other penalty for other kinds of drunk, they aren't even in the book." Which is poor argument ground to stand on.

 

And boring.

 

Or should we also - to continue with your extreme example of the ultimate conclusion: the GM is never allowed to judgement call a bonus or penalty, if it's not in the book there is no adjustment, heck if it's not in the book you can't even perform that action!

[bigbywolfe]

Re: GM vs Player narrative authority

 

Possible results:What was supposed to be a fun Roleplaying moment' date=' becomes the PC being beaten to a pulp (because you made it impossible for him to fight even normal drunks with thier -2).They palyer is now extremely carefull to not word any sentence in any way that you MIGHT missinterpret. In effect he will stop trying to roleplay in such moments, as you might simply make his character unplayble/automatic looser as a result of ONE not completely thought out word.Like post Nr. 5 said: "It's rare enough for a player asking for a penalty. Increasing that will only mean he never tries to do it again."[/quote']Lot of assumptions here. The player will be beaten to a pulp. Really? Do you know what the PC's base CV and skill levels are? Maybe it's a supers game or high level Dark Champions game and -3 just puts him on par with a normal who has 3DCV, and that's before accounting for half the NPCs in the fight being drunk and having their own penalties. Maybe the GM thought he was contributing to the "fun roleplaying moment" by giving the PC an actual challenge in a situation he would normally handle with ease. I'm not even sure describing your character as "especially drunk" is somehow improving roleplaying, especially if he doesn't actually roleplay being "especially drunk" beyond simply stating it. As to your quote of post #5 all I can say to you or that poster is "speak for yourself". My group puts ourselves in disadvantageous situations with self-imposed penalties all the time.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: GM vs Player narrative authority

 

Let me show it to you from the perspective of the player:He wanted to give the game a little bit color.The GM reacts with something totally absurd' date=' he give the player Character a PENALTY for the player being more colorfull. A reaction that from the viewpoint of the player was as expected as the GM picking up a knife and starting to stab the same player.This entire action from the GM came out of the blue. Yet you epect the player to give a calm, elquent response such as "Dear GM. I repect you dearly, but I am inconveniencent at you stabbing me without apparent reason. Could you please explain yourself."No, he picked a bad approach instead. So now you have to ESPECIALLY show him who is the boss?I doubt you are even one quarter as perfect as you expect the player to be in this situation.[/quote']There is nothing in your knife example that even remotely relates to real life or the situation at hand. Period. Your attempt to give us "the player's perspective" is a bundle of assumptions wrapped in a bad simile specifically designed to demonize the GM when you have no more knowledge of how the disagreement actually went than the rest of us.

[Sean Waters]

Re: GM vs Player narrative authority

 

Perhaps the GM should have used psychology, and asked: How drunk do you want to be on a scale of Tipsy, which carries a -1 penalty to rolls, up to Epically drunk, which carries a penalty of -3 to your rolls?

 

That way both GM and player know what they are getting and getting into, and no one has any reason for being upset about it.

 

Mind you, I still think the GM should have said:

Epically drunk? OK. Make a CON roll **sharp intake of breath** Make an INT roll **rolls eyes and tuts**

...OK you wake up in a dank room smelling of urine. What you had taken to be slats on the wall turn out to be bars when you, eventually, get upright, and not the sort of bars you were obviously going through last night, given your disheveled and vomit flecked state. You have bruised and bleeding knuckles and your ribs scream at you every time you breathe in. You can not get your left eye open properly...What do you want to do now? Oh, hang on, you desperately need to empty your bladder. Make a PER roll....

[Sean Waters]

Re: GM vs Player narrative authority

 

Also I wish I could actually decide precisely how drunk I was going to get. One tequila, two tequila, three tequila, floor...

[Ninja-Bear]

Re: GM vs Player narrative authority

 

That's an extreme side of the scale.

 

The Point is, to stop using extremes and hyperbole, is that the Argument Used In Defense should Not Be "But the Book Says..."

 

I don't know how many times I can say that - the Player (and GM) both need to actually Talk Out The Situation - not just start pointing at paragraphs in the book.

 

IF - Book Used As Defense

THEN - Statement Of Action Must Match Book

ELSE - Deviation From Book Occurs, Book Is No Longer Valid Defense.

QUOTE]

 

First I agree that GM and player should tak it out. Second drunk is different for each person-as in what should the modifier be? See to me epic and excessive is the same, apparently you disagree-which is fine. I think that this where the main rub is.

Interestingly I found intoxication in UMA 4th and it describes as possible effect for excessive drinking, (or breathing a strange atmoshperse). And doing so is described as being very difficult, -2 OCV -2DC. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, though penalties should also be based on what style of game it is. If it slides to realism then a higher penalty should be accepted. If the game is supposed to be a more Romantic game where things like swing across the room on a chandelier is not only expected but encourged then no. Also whle GM's are to make judgement calls, it still doesn't give license for GM's to pull arbitary numbers that aren't consistant with the rest of the game world. Compare drunk or intoxicated to slippery ground and tight rope. Slippery Ground is described as dificult as best and its only listed -1 DCV -1DC. Fighting on a tightrope (or narrow ledge) is -2 DCV -2 DC. Of all three only the intoxication's penalties can't be eliminted-even if studying Drunken style. Is giving a -3 really out of line, as I said earlier no-its the same penalty for not having the approriate Weapon Fam. But I can see why someone could question it. Fighting on ice-which most of us agree is very hard only is -1 DCV and-1DC and some people are jumping to -4 or greater? That's not consistant, what gives?

[Ninja-Bear]

Re: GM vs Player narrative authority

 

I do have a funny roleplaying story about being drunk (actually two). The first one I was using a heroic version of Pulsar and I gave him "likes to drink" for a psy lim. As it happens we're in a space bar and I got smashed while trying to hit on the alien chick. Looking back now the GM was generous caouse he allowed me to make a roll to offset the drunk penalties. The game, I was on fire with the dice. I fought better then the rest of group. It made for a memorable game!

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: GM vs Player narrative authority

 

There is nothing in your knife example that even remotely relates to real life or the situation at hand. Period. Your attempt to give us "the player's perspective" is a bundle of assumptions wrapped in a bad simile specifically designed to demonize the GM when you have no more knowledge of how the disagreement actually went than the rest of us.

 

Of course, no one is "demonizing" the player as, say, a fellow who wants to cite the book to weasel out of his own poor decisionmaking, and frustrate the GM's efforts to make the game more interesting by applying a wider array of modifiers.

 

I note that no one is suggesting the "epically drunk" PC get STUN Only damage reduction (or negation) to represent the pain-numbing effects of alcohol. Let's give him a bigger penalty in the interests of "greater realism" - but certainly no "realistic" bonus should apply! Why? because that's not in the book? Neither is a siding scale of penalties.

 

How drunk are the rest of the bar patrons, especially those who choose to participate in the fight, is another question that should be asked. Are they stone cold sober, or "drunk with a -2 penalty" as well? I'd have to call that -2 penalty pretty epically drunk compared to most source material bar fights - those guys seem to have little trouble hitting. But if that's "drunk", then most bar fight participants should have the -2 penalty, shouldn't they?

 

To me, I come back to both GM and player getting into a hissy fit over a -1 modifier that makes no real difference. What does it matter whether the PC wins this self-imposed bar fight or not? None whatsoever from the info provided. Will the extra modifier impact success or failure? Well, we don't really know. But it seems like a "who cares?' kind of moment. If the GM just said "fine, we'll stick with -2" OR the player just said "fine, -3 because he's extra-drunk", there would be no fight at the gaming table, so I hold them both at fault.

 

[And I also would expect the players to remind the GM of this precedent if they are able to manipulate a group of enemies into a drinking game - let's try to get them "epically drunk" so they take a -3.]