GM vs Player narrative authority

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: GM vs Player narrative authority

 

Also whle GM's are to make judgement calls' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

Why not? Penalty skill levels or immunity to alcohol both seem reasonable means of reducing/eliminating the penalty.

 

I do agree that a comparison to other "btb" penalties seems appropriate. Do cinematic characters in a bar fight really seem more impeded than fighting on a narrow ledge or slippery ground? Now, if you told me you're going to Pull your Punch or use a precision-based attack while liquored up, use your Analyze Style or play possum to get a recovery, I might take issue with that kind of drunken judgement.

[SteveZilla]

Re: GM vs Player narrative authority

 

btb?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: GM vs Player narrative authority

 

"by the book" - edited

 

Should have remembered to AATUOOA

 

 

Always Avoid The Use Of Obscure Acronyms

 

[Xavier Onassiss]

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....

 

Text in BOLD above is pretty much exactly what I'd recommend. Come to think of it, I did recommend something very similar in a previous post, although I don't think of it as using psychology so much as just telling the player that he can run his character however he wants, but he's not running the game.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: GM vs Player narrative authority

 

Of course' date=' 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.']

Pretty sure someone uo thread did suggest giving the PC extra Stun or Stun only damage. Was that you? Also, my point has been, in every post, that more information is needed to really figure out who was being unreasonable, but with only the info available I would side with the GM. I don't disagree that it should have been a simple issue to talk out and should not have become a a game interupting problem. Maybe the GM was the one being an a$$hat, I don't know. Some who are siding with the player though are drastically expanding on the situation without evidense or reason, such as Christopher's insistance that the PC will "beaten to a pulp" which I think is far from sure thing from an extra -1 to the penalty or making crazy comparisons like the penalty os just as surprizing as if the GM tried to murder you and the players response is understandably the same in both situations which I just find stupid.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: GM vs Player narrative authority

 

I question why the player is expected to be unsurprised that the GM has changed the rules with no warning. If I try to grapple an opponent, I'd expect to roll using the rules for a Grab, not be told "Well, he's epically wiggly, so you take an extra -1 OCV".

 

Mind you, maybe the target paid for Epically Wiggly Change Environment, -1 to all OCV's used to Grab character. I'd be good with that!

[Xavier Onassiss]

Re: GM vs Player narrative authority

 

I question why the player is expected to be unsurprised that the GM has changed the rules with no warning. If I try to grapple an opponent, I'd expect to roll using the rules for a Grab, not be told "Well, he's epically wiggly, so you take an extra -1 OCV".

 

Mind you, maybe the target paid for Epically Wiggly Change Environment, -1 to all OCV's used to Grab character. I'd be good with that!

 

...or DCV skill levels v. Grabs, or extra DCV v. Grabs, or any other conditional modifier, regardless of the special effects. If a player gets up in my face when I'm GM and tries to say "that's not in the book" I'll tell him in no uncertain terms that he needs to STFU.

 

Modifiers aren't set in stone, and neither is "the book." The Grab example just proves the point, and the same thing goes for any other combat modifier, including drunkenness. If all anyone ever does is look things up in "the book" and slavishly do whatever it says, what exactly do you need a GM for?

[ghost-angel]

Re: GM vs Player narrative authority

 

I question why the player is expected to be unsurprised that the GM has changed the rules with no warning. If I try to grapple an opponent, I'd expect to roll using the rules for a Grab, not be told "Well, he's epically wiggly, so you take an extra -1 OCV".

 

Mind you, maybe the target paid for Epically Wiggly Change Environment, -1 to all OCV's used to Grab character. I'd be good with that!

 

I'm not surprised the Player was caught off guard by the GMs decision, and I'm not surprised - nor do I have a problem with - the player argued the point.

 

They just did it wrong.

[Ninja-Bear]

Re: GM vs Player narrative authority

 

If a player gets up in my face when I'm GM and tries to say "that's not in the book" I'll tell him in no uncertain terms that he needs to STFU.

 

How did we go from asking about a modifier to getting in the GM's face? Gm tells me that though and they aren't worth my time or effort to game with anymore. And I personally never said to be slavish to the rules, just in reason.

[Ninja-Bear]

Re: GM vs Player narrative authority

 

I'm not surprised the Player was caught off guard by the GMs decision, and I'm not surprised - nor do I have a problem with - the player argued the point.

 

They just did it wrong.

 

Then how would like a player to approach it? (Im truly curious not trying to be snarky).

[ghost-angel]

Re: GM vs Player narrative authority

 

As I mentioned before - instead of just pointing to the book and going "but the books says" they need to clarify what they mean by "epically drunk" and what the GM thinks that means, and how they imaged the situation being approached, maybe they were using hyperbole, maybe they meant it within context and from the perspective of the character and not a literal action statement, maybe they weren't even aware the GM would deviate from the book and would like to step back and rethink their actions with the new knowledge. Basically any tactic that isn't just "but the book says drunk is only -2."

[Ninja-Bear]

Re: GM vs Player narrative authority

 

As I mentioned before - instead of just pointing to the book and going "but the books says" they need to clarify what they mean by "epically drunk" and what the GM thinks that means' date=' and how they imaged the situation being approached, maybe they were using hyperbole, maybe they meant it within context and from the perspective of the character and not a literal action statement, maybe they weren't even aware the GM would deviate from the book and would like to step back and rethink their actions with the new knowledge. Basically any tactic that isn't just "but the book says drunk is only -2."[/quote']

 

Thanks Ghost-Angel. You said it before, but I must have missed the intent.

[Greywind]

Re: GM vs Player narrative authority

 

How did we go from asking about a modifier to getting in the GM's face? Gm tells me that though and they aren't worth my time or effort to game with anymore. And I personally never said to be slavish to the rules' date=' just in reason.[/quote']

Who decides what is "just in reason"? Usually the GM...

[Xavier Onassiss]

Re: GM vs Player narrative authority

 

How did we go from asking about a modifier to getting in the GM's face? Gm tells me that though and they aren't worth my time or effort to game with anymore. And I personally never said to be slavish to the rules' date=' just in reason.[/quote']

 

Well... fudge. You're right, I was reading too much into the original anecdote, and that's not what we should be talking about here. My apologies for going off on that tangent. However, I have to agree with the posters who've stated that arguing with the GM based on "that's not what the book says" is the wrong approach.

 

In this case, it seems like the player saw Drunk = -2 penalty written in "the book" and assumed that no matter how much or how little his character drank, that number was absolutely immutable. The GM exercised imagination, common sense, and his prerogative as referee to rule otherwise: More Drunk = Higher Penalty, and the player has a problem with this?

 

Epic fail.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: GM vs Player narrative authority

 

Modifiers aren't set in stone' date=' and neither is "the book." The Grab example just proves the point, and the same thing goes for any other combat modifier, including drunkenness. If all anyone ever does is look things up in "the book" and slavishly do whatever it says, what exactly do you need a GM for?[/quote']

 

The Grab example is one where there are all sorts of "by the book" constructs that could impose a change to the usual rule. If I just decide, arbitrarily, that this particular target is harder to Grab, that may go unnoticed because there are all sorts of other reasons it could change, but it doesn't change the fact I have made an arbitrary decision to change the penalty.

 

There's a balance here. If all anyone ever does is make up modifiers, what exactly do you need a book for?

 

What's wrong with the player pointing out that the usual penalty for drunkenness is -2, not the -3 spouted by the GM? If he commented "Ogre tries to grab your character, that's a -2 to OCV", I as a player would reply "Grab is only -1 OCV', and if he ignored the penalty, I'd call that to his attention. Now, had the GM said "You'll be at an additional -1 to the usual Drunken penalty as you are Epically drunk", I'd be inclined to roll with it, mainly because (as mentioned before) it doesn't actually matter anyway.

 

But if it doesn't actually matter anyway, then the GM digging in his heels and saying "I, the GM, have spoken so STFU" isn't any more reasonable. The book provides the common ground for determining many modifiers. Do I have to worry that, after assessing the impact fighting underwater would normally have, and leaping into the water after that aquatic villain, this water will turn out to be exceptional in some way, changing the ground rules?

[SteveZilla]

Re: GM vs Player narrative authority

 

Grab and being drunk both involve modifications to CV. But one is a state of being and the other is a combat *maneuver*.

 

All the player had to do was say, in response to the GM's -3 was "Whoa, I didn't mean that drunk!"

[Guest steamteck]

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.

 

.

 

Cuts both ways. Good descriptions like that might equally merit a bonus. Not giving anything there could equally result in always saying the boring " I strike him"

[Laundry Knight]

Re: GM vs Player narrative authority

 

Hugh, you are assuming that any digression from the rules is necessarily arbitrary and if that arbitrariness was a GM's primary motive, then I would be looking for a different GM.

 

Now, let's take the Grab issue in hand and let's say in the previous round the villain was knocked into slippery mud. This round one of the characters decides to do a bear hug on the villain. I would think that it would be totally appropriate for the GM to apply additional penalties due to the villain's current unintended state of slipperiness.

 

Likewise, I would not have a problem with a GM delcaring different penalties on different states of drunkenness. Getting drunk on beer is not as bad as getting drunk on whiskey while getting drunk on everclear is. I've been buzzed, I've been drunk, and I've been smashed. They are very different and have different real world penalties, and a GM should have the prerogative to reflect that in his games.

[Ninja-Bear]

Re: GM vs Player narrative authority

 

Well... fudge. You're right, I was reading too much into the original anecdote, and that's not what we should be talking about here. My apologies for going off on that tangent. However, I have to agree with the posters who've stated that arguing with the GM based on "that's not what the book says" is the wrong approach.

 

In this case, it seems like the player saw Drunk = -2 penalty written in "the book" and assumed that no matter how much or how little his character drank, that number was absolutely immutable. The GM exercised imagination, common sense, and his prerogative as referee to rule otherwise: More Drunk = Higher Penalty, and the player has a problem with this?

 

Epic fail.

 

As I said -3 isn't too bad of a penalty. I wonder what would happen if the GM said epic drunk should be a higher penalty, and from now on, its going to be at least -3 and maybe other penalties, but for this case only, I'll leave it at -2.

[Ninja-Bear]

Re: GM vs Player narrative authority

 

Who decides what is "just in reason"? Usually the GM...

 

True but does that mean the the GM has Carte Blanc to rule how he or she sees fit? And for the record, I not suspecting that you would suggest it either.

[Xavier Onassiss]

Re: GM vs Player narrative authority

 

The Grab example is one where there are all sorts of "by the book" constructs that could impose a change to the usual rule. If I just decide, arbitrarily, that this particular target is harder to Grab, that may go unnoticed because there are all sorts of other reasons it could change, but it doesn't change the fact I have made an arbitrary decision to change the penalty.

 

There's a balance here. If all anyone ever does is make up modifiers, what exactly do you need a book for?

 

What's wrong with the player pointing out that the usual penalty for drunkenness is -2, not the -3 spouted by the GM? If he commented "Ogre tries to grab your character, that's a -2 to OCV", I as a player would reply "Grab is only -1 OCV', and if he ignored the penalty, I'd call that to his attention. Now, had the GM said "You'll be at an additional -1 to the usual Drunken penalty as you are Epically drunk", I'd be inclined to roll with it, mainly because (as mentioned before) it doesn't actually matter anyway.

 

But if it doesn't actually matter anyway, then the GM digging in his heels and saying "I, the GM, have spoken so STFU" isn't any more reasonable. The book provides the common ground for determining many modifiers. Do I have to worry that, after assessing the impact fighting underwater would normally have, and leaping into the water after that aquatic villain, this water will turn out to be exceptional in some way, changing the ground rules?

 

The book is a starting point, not necessarily the last word. If the GM is given a sound reason for raising or lowering a modifier, he's justified in using his own judgement. Having pointed out that his character is more drunk than usual, there's no reason not to take the player at his word, and assess a higher penalty. That's called making a ruling, which is the GM's job. The underwater fighting example is pointless without more information; is there any reason to think the ground rules would change? If not, then it isn't relevant to this discussion: we're talking about the GM ruling on the player's own description of his character's actions here, not some completely arbitrary GM @$$-pull with no justification.

 

Now I already said "mea culpa" on the STFU thing, so why exactly are we still talking about that? What do want from me, an engraved apology?

[Gary Miles]

Re: GM vs Player narrative authority

 

Here's another example of GM vs Player authority, from my own Fantasy HERO campaign this time.

 

For the very first time, instead of requiring individual spells, or Multipower spell pools, I allowed one guy to use a Variable Power Pool for his spells.

 

Things were going great, until after one battle, he went to heal another PC.

 

Now, in my world, the highest amount of Healing Aid available- without being a cleric or paladin of Chrylisti, the Goddess of Light, Healing and Knowledge- is 2d6. ONLY a cleric or paladin of Chrylisti can have higher than 2d6. That's her in her portfolio, so that's the way it works.

 

The wizards VPP was enough, rules-wise, that he COULD do 4d6, if I allowed him. But I told him it wasn't possible- he wasn't a cleric or paladin of Chrylisti. So no more than 2d6.

 

Player argued with me for almost 30 minutes.

 

Was I being a dick? Or was I right?

 

PS: I got into it over this on RPGNet one time. When I ran a D&D version of this same world, I stated that only a cleric or paladin of Chrylisti had could take Cure Heavy Wounds or greater. The most anyone else could do was Cure Light Wounds. One guy argued with me for over a dozen posts that I was doing it wrong.

[phoenix240]

Re: GM vs Player narrative authority

 

Here's another example of GM vs Player authority, from my own Fantasy HERO campaign this time.

 

For the very first time, instead of requiring individual spells, or Multipower spell pools, I allowed one guy to use a Variable Power Pool for his spells.

 

Things were going great, until after one battle, he went to heal another PC.

 

Now, in my world, the highest amount of Healing Aid available- without being a cleric or paladin of Chrylisti, the Goddess of Light, Healing and Knowledge- is 2d6. ONLY a cleric or paladin of Chrylisti can have higher than 2d6. That's her in her portfolio, so that's the way it works.

 

The wizards VPP was enough, rules-wise, that he COULD do 4d6, if I allowed him. But I told him it wasn't possible- he wasn't a cleric or paladin of Chrylisti. So no more than 2d6.

 

Player argued with me for almost 30 minutes.

 

Was I being a dick? Or was I right?

 

PS: I got into it over this on RPGNet one time. When I ran a D&D version of this same world, I stated that only a cleric or paladin of Chrylisti had could take Cure Heavy Wounds or greater. The most anyone else could do was Cure Light Wounds. One guy argued with me for over a dozen posts that I was doing it wrong.

 

I think you were right. As the GM, you define the world and what's possible. You'd already been a flexible in allowing the VPP (which are GM's discretion anyway). And I gather you were up front with the restriction and rules of you world from the beginning? So, no, I don't think you were being a jerk.

[ghost-angel]

Re: GM vs Player narrative authority

 

You were right, you built a game world with certain restrictions in it, that's that.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: GM vs Player narrative authority

 

Hugh' date=' you are assuming that any digression from the rules is necessarily arbitrary and if that arbitrariness was a GM's primary motive, then I would be looking for a different GM.[/quote']

 

As I have said a few times, I don't see a lot of merit in the GM or the player's position. Both are being pretty obstinate over a non-issue, IMO. Neither is really considering the other's viewpoint. From the original anecdote, I see no more reason to assume the GM is not being arbitrary than to assume he is. The player seems to think he is being arbitrary. Perhaps he is. It seems like many in this thread leap to the conclusion the GM is right simply because he's the GM. I don't see either of the parties having the moral high ground based on the info we have.

 

Now' date=' let's take the Grab issue in hand and let's say in the previous round the villain was knocked into slippery mud. This round one of the characters decides to do a bear hug on the villain. I would think that it would be totally appropriate for the GM to apply additional penalties due to the villain's current unintended state of slipperiness.[/quote']

 

Similarly, would the player not be within his rights to ask what the target's DCV penalty is, given he is standing on feet slippery with this mud? Does he have a penalty to standing up again after having been knocked into that slippery mud?

 

Likewise' date=' I would not have a problem with a GM delcaring different penalties on different states of drunkenness. Getting drunk on beer is not as bad as getting drunk on whiskey while getting drunk on everclear is. I've been buzzed, I've been drunk, and I've been smashed. They are very different and have different real world penalties, and a GM should have the prerogative to reflect that in his games.[/quote']

 

Depends on how much of any given beverage one chooses to consume. It's easier to get drunk faster on high alcohol content - drinking a shot of whiskey is a lot faster than knocking back a pint of beer. But a case of beer is going to get you drunker than a shot of whiskey.

 

Here's another example of GM vs Player authority, from my own Fantasy HERO campaign this time.

 

For the very first time, instead of requiring individual spells, or Multipower spell pools, I allowed one guy to use a Variable Power Pool for his spells.

 

Things were going great, until after one battle, he went to heal another PC.

 

Now, in my world, the highest amount of Healing Aid available- without being a cleric or paladin of Chrylisti, the Goddess of Light, Healing and Knowledge- is 2d6. ONLY a cleric or paladin of Chrylisti can have higher than 2d6. That's her in her portfolio, so that's the way it works.

 

The wizards VPP was enough, rules-wise, that he COULD do 4d6, if I allowed him. But I told him it wasn't possible- he wasn't a cleric or paladin of Chrylisti. So no more than 2d6.

 

Player argued with me for almost 30 minutes.

 

Was I being a dick? Or was I right?

 

Campaign ground rule - I'd have no issue with that. I'd have no issue with a GM who published his homebrew States of Drunkenness modifiers beforehand either. The players had the chance to discuss whether your restrictions were considered to make for an acceptable game beforehand, and they'd have the chance to discuss the Seven States of Drunkenness (and consider whether they wanted a game where getting drunk was clearly so important as to merit all this attention). Having agreed with the ground rules, you work within them. If they turn out to cause problems that were not expected, you deal with that out of game, not during the game.