What is a player entitled to in a game?
What is a player NOT entitled to in a game?
I'm not necessarily suggesting that there is one right answer to these questions. But I am interested in hearing what the different angles are, and the concerns that people have when it comes to examining the role of the player.
Quote from: Caesar SlaadWhat is a player entitled to in a game?
What is a player NOT entitled to in a game?
I'm not necessarily suggesting that there is one right answer to these questions. But I am interested in hearing what the different angles are, and the concerns that people have when it comes to examining the role of the player.
Personally, I feel this is determined by the individual group. Outside the group, I'm sure there are plenty of things which we'd like to be entitled to, but I basically feel this is a social contract thing and that doesn't exist outside said society.
Seanchai
Players are entitled to play their characters as they see fit and interact with the setting set forth by the GM through their characters.
They are entitled to be "heroes", not just every day people, at least in most games.
Those are big ones for me.
Players' entitlements? Is that like their rights? The power they should have?
Old Uncle Abe once said, Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.
If you're not testing the character, what are you giving the player XP for?
Players are entitled to have fun?
I dunno, that sounds a bit subversive to me.
Quote from: Caesar SlaadWhat is a player entitled to in a game?
Fun.
QuoteWhat is a player NOT entitled to in a game?
Fun at the expense of other players. If that's how a player gets their fun, they're really in the wrong hobby.
I'm not big on bait & switch kind of GMing. If you as a GM say you're going to run a particular kind of game...you run it. Players are entitled to that much.
Regards,
David R
James & David--yes.
In a way they're kinda the same thing.
I predict somebody's going to get hung up on whether this means that RPGs can/can't be competitive or involve characters who're at odds with each other.
One of the worst negative examples of what David's talking about was described over at Story Games, IIRC--some idiot GM started out playing a Renaissance/Early Modern Italian type of game using TSoY, then when some sort of climactic magical effect went off, the "players" "woke up" to find they were in a VR game within Shadowrun.
(Note: the SG people weren't endorsing that crap, they were throwing rotten tomatoes at it.)
The only two things players are absolutely entitled to are these:
1. To have a good time.
2. To walk if they aren't.
In between the first and second entitlement there's all kinds of room for maneuvering, but basically those are the two things Players have a right to, and nothing else.
RPGPundit
If you find you need to discuss entitlement of players or GM or both in a really prolonged and fundamental fashion, it means you're fucked. It means sociability hasn't worked at the level at which it needs to be working: the tacit level. For that reason, entitlement discussion will only exarcerbate the problem it's intended to solve. If you throw a party and people start demanding proper entertainment, it's best to call it a day and invite somebody else/go to somebody else's party next time.
Hey all,
Some of you are being rather more general than I expected.
I often hear things like players having absolute authority over PC actions (this is one I used to have, but I've toyed with some mechanics that close this off a little bit in an effort to make PC behavior more believable) and not killing PCs without player consent.
Oh.
Well, in that case, as a player I insist on my entitlement to having my PC be killed, at a minimum, for any extreme stupidity as I may commit.
What are those mechanics you're talking about? Homegrown?
Quote from: Pierce InverarityWhat are those mechanics you're talking about? Homegrown?
Yeah. It always seemed to me that player disinvolvement with the character means they ofter do things that strains credulity. A classical example is a fear-like response, overcoming revulsion.
This has been a while, but what I was toying with was a "commitment" mechanic that gave PCs an allotment of points. They points could be used to:
- gain benefits in line with the character's personality
- avoid compulsory behaviors that might exist in the game.
It's a bit of a compromise, and a carrot vs. stick approach. My hope is that if I give them points that can boost them in other ways, they'll be more reluctant to engage in behaviors that are less believable. But if it's important, they have the option.
Quote from: Elliot WilenI predict somebody's going to get hung up on whether this means that RPGs can/can't be competitive or involve characters who're at odds with each other.
I suspect that you're right. What people making that argument forget is that games such as football are fun
and competitive. And if you're a good sport, winning isn't fun because you're trouncing somebody else, it's just an outcome of playing the game. Competition doesn't have to be about making sure others are miserable. That said. . .
This is how, IME, a wide lot of miserable assholes view competition at the game table. It is this kind of person who I alluded to earlier. If somebody gets their jollies by ruining games for other participants, they're an asocial fuck who need to go back to the basement or learn how to turn their Miserable Asshole knob back down to Well Adjusted Human Being.
Quote from: Caesar SlaadSome of you are being rather more general than I expected.
I often hear things like players having absolute authority over PC actions (this is one I used to have, but I've toyed with some mechanics that close this off a little bit in an effort to make PC behavior more believable) and not killing PCs without player consent.
We're being general because we have to be. Players and GMs are entitled to nothing specific, only to the general thing of, "we will ask you what you find fun, interesting and fulfilling, and try to work it in with what everyone else likes, too."
What exactly that'll be will be very different for different gamers and groups, even for the same gamer during different sessions.
For example, in one campaign I as GM brought it out that a particular PC was the bastard daughter of the main villain of the campaign, and that this main villain had killed another PC's mother - he had her dead in his character background. For many players, this would be fucking with their character background, and completely unacceptable. But these particular two players had
asked for it. I'd read their PC backgrounds and said, "wow, that stuff is harsh, I would never inflict such a background on a PC." The players responded, "we like it. Bring stuff like that up in the game. Surprise us, fuck with us - just make it interesting." Most players feel entitled to complete control of their character's background; these two gave some of that authority to the GM, on the condition that the GM make it interesting.
There are no universal rules here. Just, "we will ask you what you find fun, interesting and fulfilling, and try to work it in with what everyone else likes, too." Players are entitled to neither more nor less than this.