Quote from: crkrueger on August 01, 2022, 07:40:47 PM

Quote from: Slambo on July 31, 2022, 01:32:06 PM
In 5e theres no method to take a paladin's powers or even a cleric. The worst they can do is become an oathbreaker.

Im pretty sure there is mention 'somewhere' about clerics falling from grace in 5e. But can not find it so it may well be not a thing. It was never mentioned in BX and its squirrelled away in AD&D. Not sure on 2e.

Paladins in 5e indeed seem to have no fall from grace rules. Least I can not recall them and the oathbreaker doesnt really count as its an NPC path more than a PC one.

In one campaign one of my characters was put in a pretty bad situation. But that was discussed and Ok'd prior amd was overall only known between me and the DM what happened to the character.

In our early Gamma World campaign one of the PCs had their start off begin with some pretty severe torture and left for dead. It certainly set the tone that things were deadly serious.

In a Star Frontiers campaign the PCs all got caught by a crime lord and electro-tortured. But eventually got loose and proceeded to wreak havoc on the boss' space station. They also gave a space pirate a taste of her own medicine when they found out shed been torturing some of the peanut aliens on Volturnus.

I go into graphic details and make the players disgusted to the point they think I was a master executioner in a previous life.

Just kidding! I tend to skip details and roll some dice. Although I've not tortured a player in a game (other than having a bad night) for decades. It's one of those things best mentioned and not played out.

Well, I don't require players to have their characters always adhere to a value system based on the Declaration of Human Rights. To tell the truth, I have a bigger problem with situations where it is the PCs who are being tortured. I once had such a scene, I describe the terrible pain the character is feeling, the player's reaction is something like "OK, so what? I don't feel that pain".

Quote from: Jason Coplen on August 01, 2022, 10:31:15 PM
I go into graphic details and make the players disgusted to the point they think I was a master executioner in a previous life.

Just kidding! I tend to skip details and roll some dice. Although I've not tortured a player in a game (other than having a bad night) for decades. It's one of those things best mentioned and not played out.

Having worked the trauma bay, I could probably go into some gross-out detail, but I don't...usually...

Quote from: HappyDaze on August 02, 2022, 12:59:34 PM

Quote from: Jason Coplen on August 01, 2022, 10:31:15 PM
I go into graphic details and make the players disgusted to the point they think I was a master executioner in a previous life.

Just kidding! I tend to skip details and roll some dice. Although I've not tortured a player in a game (other than having a bad night) for decades. It's one of those things best mentioned and not played out.

Having worked the trauma bay, I could probably go into some gross-out detail, but I don't...usually...

The funny thing is the game itself tends to be pretty violent and descriptive. I mean, when you got adventurers who are hacking bad guys to bits it's an exceedingly bloody affair. I tend to use Conan the Barbarian movie as a template. Decapitations, exploding knees, and fans of crimson from deep fissure-like wounds.

So torture is just removing bits that are smaller.

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on August 02, 2022, 01:22:39 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on August 02, 2022, 12:59:34 PM

Quote from: Jason Coplen on August 01, 2022, 10:31:15 PM
I go into graphic details and make the players disgusted to the point they think I was a master executioner in a previous life.

Just kidding! I tend to skip details and roll some dice. Although I've not tortured a player in a game (other than having a bad night) for decades. It's one of those things best mentioned and not played out.

Having worked the trauma bay, I could probably go into some gross-out detail, but I don't...usually...

The funny thing is the game itself tends to be pretty violent and descriptive. I mean, when you got adventurers who are hacking bad guys to bits it's an exceedingly bloody affair. I tend to use Conan the Barbarian movie as a template. Decapitations, exploding knees, and fans of crimson from deep fissure-like wounds.

So torture is just removing bits that are smaller.

Greetings!

Damn straight, Rob! For many, many years, I have been accustomed to using critical strike charts from either WFRP or Rolemaster. Likewise, I make constant and regular use of such similar tables for my D&D games.

Maybe we are immoral, bloodthirsty savages that revel in violence and gore?

We are not alone, however.

All of my players eagerly roll their dice, and exclaim, "What does it say on the crit chart? I hit the fucker hard with two strikes from my battleaxe!" OR "YES! Three arrows hit her dead on target! Any cool results on the chart?"

In combat actions, I am typically descriptive and detailed. Torture episodes are not exempt, and are treated with the appropriate attention to blood, gore, and suffering they deserve. When players are the victims, such details etch like brands in their minds the roadmap to revenge and victory against such villains. When the Players are in power over an enemy, such details form the tidbits of emotional satisfaction and justice against the villain for their crimes. Players love this stuff! They want their enemies to scream and suffer! They are well satisfied when they get the confession, or the information they seek, or just the finality of executing some evil bastard, and knowing that they ensured that the evil bastard didn't get away lightly, or squirm and escape, but they too, experienced being helpless and filled with terror, and damned with agony until they died.

The simple villagers, the rainbow unicorns, the happy faeries, the kind centaurs--they deserve justice and vengence!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

My campaigns always have an explicit social contract with a "stoplight" content warning system.

This includes:

• A general movie rating.
• A Whitelist for content I, the GM, need for the campaign's story to proceed.
• A Greenlist for content players marked as generally acceptable on a safety questionnaire
• A Yellowlist for content players marked as permissible if and only if you have metagame approval from the other players. This typically includes inter-PC romance.
• A Redlist for content players marked as a safety consideration or just generally distasteful (I view them as fundamentally the same.) Redlist content is banned.

Depending on the campaign, explicit sex and torture can either be on the Yellowlist or on the Redlist. If you're being an edgelord and know it (and I have been in those groups) I suppose you can greenlist it. 0/ 10. Do not recommend.

Full disclosure, this approach is derived from Monte Cook Gaming's "Consent in Gaming." Yes, indeed; he is on the Red for the Woke-index for this exact product, but I do think there are salvageable ideas in it. I hate safety terminology with a firey passion, too, as it makes it sound like roleplaying risks allowing sexual assault. I don't view safety tools as being there for safety; they're there to keep the group on the same page about what kind of campaign they're creating, and that means drawing lines on what is acceptable content, what isn't, what can be if you follow due metagame process, and really all this stuff should be written down. The Consent in Gaming questionnaire (with some adjustments) is perfect for that. It's not safety; it's preventing someone ruin the bloody campaign, and to a less extent it's not being an ass and accidentally or deliberately fingering someone with a phobia (I've seen both.) I would much prefer to call these "content guidelines," and in my own work I do. But for better or for worse, the industry decided these tools will be called, "safety tools."


Yay.


Regardless, after implementing stoplight social contracts, I have basically not had an issue with players randomly asking to torture an NPC when that's obviously inappropriate for the tone of the campaign.

Quote from: Fheredin on August 02, 2022, 07:22:10 PM
My campaigns always have an explicit social contract with a "stoplight" content warning system.

This includes:

• A general movie rating.
• A Whitelist for content I, the GM, need for the campaign's story to proceed.
• A Greenlist for content players marked as generally acceptable on a safety questionnaire
• A Yellowlist for content players marked as permissible if and only if you have metagame approval from the other players. This typically includes inter-PC romance.
• A Redlist for content players marked as a safety consideration or just generally distasteful (I view them as fundamentally the same.) Redlist content is banned.

Depending on the campaign, explicit sex and torture can either be on the Yellowlist or on the Redlist. If you're being an edgelord and know it (and I have been in those groups) I suppose you can greenlist it. 0/ 10. Do not recommend.

Full disclosure, this approach is derived from Monte Cook Gaming's "Consent in Gaming." Yes, indeed; he is on the Red for the Woke-index for this exact product, but I do think there are salvageable ideas in it. I hate safety terminology with a firey passion, too, as it makes it sound like roleplaying risks allowing sexual assault. I don't view safety tools as being there for safety; they're there to keep the group on the same page about what kind of campaign they're creating, and that means drawing lines on what is acceptable content, what isn't, what can be if you follow due metagame process, and really all this stuff should be written down. The Consent in Gaming questionnaire (with some adjustments) is perfect for that. It's not safety; it's preventing someone ruin the bloody campaign, and to a less extent it's not being an ass and accidentally or deliberately fingering someone with a phobia (I've seen both.) I would much prefer to call these "content guidelines," and in my own work I do. But for better or for worse, the industry decided these tools will be called, "safety tools."


Yay.


Regardless, after implementing stoplight social contracts, I have basically not had an issue with players randomly asking to torture an NPC when that's obviously inappropriate for the tone of the campaign.

Your players must be absolutely horrible people, if you need such tools for them.  I've been gaming for over forty years now, both in a home game that still has four of the original players, and in public gaming groups (including PFS and LG).  I have had exactly one session where a problem player took the game in an uncomfortable direction.  The GM told him to knock it off and he wasn't invited back.  All of this without ever using safety tools or a written set of guidelines or "trigger words."  I treat stories about these kinds of terrible gamers who need to be protected against the same way I treat stories of gaming groups that were "unwelcoming" to women or minorities: the people who relate these stories always seem to have another agenda that is being served.  And, in this case, they always seem to either be attention-whoring snowflakes or people who want to gatekeep out other people they don't like (all while decrying gatekeeping and demanding safety tools as a remedy).

For me, it's generally a fade-to-black thing.  While I expect it's an effective way to get what's wanted, I find it squicky and don't want to rp the experience in detail.  I also don't think I would want to game with people who want to play it out in detail.  It's only ever come up a few times when I was running a game, so I don't feel a need for a detailed system - maybe just an opposed charisma check or somesuch.  As for consequences, if it's known that PCs engaged in torture NPCs will exhibit appropriate reactions for their culture.  And in an alignment game, it's a step towards evil unless there's an extremely good reason, e.g. make a terrorist tell you which school bus they put a bomb in or the like. 

Quote from: Eirikrautha on August 02, 2022, 11:52:36 PM

Quote from: Fheredin on August 02, 2022, 07:22:10 PM
My campaigns always have an explicit social contract with a "stoplight" content warning system.

This includes:

• A general movie rating.
• A Whitelist for content I, the GM, need for the campaign's story to proceed.
• A Greenlist for content players marked as generally acceptable on a safety questionnaire
• A Yellowlist for content players marked as permissible if and only if you have metagame approval from the other players. This typically includes inter-PC romance.
• A Redlist for content players marked as a safety consideration or just generally distasteful (I view them as fundamentally the same.) Redlist content is banned.

Depending on the campaign, explicit sex and torture can either be on the Yellowlist or on the Redlist. If you're being an edgelord and know it (and I have been in those groups) I suppose you can greenlist it. 0/ 10. Do not recommend.

Full disclosure, this approach is derived from Monte Cook Gaming's "Consent in Gaming." Yes, indeed; he is on the Red for the Woke-index for this exact product, but I do think there are salvageable ideas in it. I hate safety terminology with a firey passion, too, as it makes it sound like roleplaying risks allowing sexual assault. I don't view safety tools as being there for safety; they're there to keep the group on the same page about what kind of campaign they're creating, and that means drawing lines on what is acceptable content, what isn't, what can be if you follow due metagame process, and really all this stuff should be written down. The Consent in Gaming questionnaire (with some adjustments) is perfect for that. It's not safety; it's preventing someone ruin the bloody campaign, and to a less extent it's not being an ass and accidentally or deliberately fingering someone with a phobia (I've seen both.) I would much prefer to call these "content guidelines," and in my own work I do. But for better or for worse, the industry decided these tools will be called, "safety tools."


Yay.


Regardless, after implementing stoplight social contracts, I have basically not had an issue with players randomly asking to torture an NPC when that's obviously inappropriate for the tone of the campaign.

Your players must be absolutely horrible people, if you need such tools for them.  I've been gaming for over forty years now, both in a home game that still has four of the original players, and in public gaming groups (including PFS and LG).  I have had exactly one session where a problem player took the game in an uncomfortable direction.  The GM told him to knock it off and he wasn't invited back.  All of this without ever using safety tools or a written set of guidelines or "trigger words."  I treat stories about these kinds of terrible gamers who need to be protected against the same way I treat stories of gaming groups that were "unwelcoming" to women or minorities: the people who relate these stories always seem to have another agenda that is being served.  And, in this case, they always seem to either be attention-whoring snowflakes or people who want to gatekeep out other people they don't like (all while decrying gatekeeping and demanding safety tools as a remedy).

I expect this is a generational thing, as gaming for "forty years," would put you in the middle of Gen X, and I'm a Millennial, so you definitely have been playing with a completely different cohort of people. The sad reality of my generation is that very few of them are well behaved, and that was especially true during their teen and tween years. If you don't remember, being over the top edgy and assertive was totally a thing back from 1995(ish) to 2010.

Is safety my primary reason to have an explicit social contract? No. I do it because players knowing what the content limits are makes for a better story and therefore better game experience. It also helps the overall process to have a formal metagame governance process for the game itself, as it helps the game move beyond the, "GM = God" mentality, and having a formal process requires writing things down. It just happens that this functions as a safety tool.

I also find it baffling that so few people are open to explicit social contracts. You're willing to erase and rewrite your inventory several times a session, but you aren't willing to write down the terms of the game itself? I don't get it.

Just because someone is a particular age doesn't mean they exclusively game with the same age of people. Several of my groups have a wide range of ages.

Sometimes things come up that are outside the game. The GM (most often) or perhaps a player speaks up and the idea is dropped and we move on. This is easily done with torture or sex or whatever. If fact, GMs have done this for decades like "Okay, you go up stairs with the tavern wench," and the game moves on.

It's reasonable for people who have been getting along fine by being courteous and respectful (and other normal social behavior) to be hostile to overwrought "tools" and "frameworks" particularly when the carry pretentious names like "social contract."

"Safety tools" are presented as some kind of esoteric wisdom that has only been recently unearthed. You stupid troglodytes have been doing it all wrong. We bring the sacred Tablets of Safety that codify the laws of how to be a decent person. Perhaps this is why many gamers find them offensive.

Besides, it's completely unreasonable to expect people to know what they want and don't want before the game is underway. There's no way in hell I would waste 2 hours of my life watching a movie about dog shows, but I enjoyed Best in Show. Contradiction!

Lists of allowed/disallowed content stifle the game. There is no way in hell I would want torture in the game, but maybe a situation will arise where I would be perfectly fine with torture coming up. How the fuck do I know at the start of the game? Hello emergent narrative! (And if it turns out I don't want it, I speak up when it comes up.)

Maybe you are correct and it is a generational thing. We used to channel surf and occasionally find cool shows we never knew existed. We used to go to movies blind just because our friends were going. These days people curate everything and if something bothers them they cut it off. Don't like someone? Ghost them. You couldn't do that before. You had to answer the fucking phone and talk to the person. You know, like a normal socialized person.

I find it baffling that people feel the need to fill out an explicit written contract just to play a game. It's excessively legalistic and micro managing. And it also opens up the door for people to start thinking up minor pet peeves and hang ups that are silly and wouldn't have come up otherwise, and forcing their personal bugbears on the rest of the group.

Like inter-PC romance, for example. Usually this would be a non issue, and if it comes up (during play), it comes up. But since we went through the trouble of writing up a contract now I need explicit permission from other players to even engage in inter-PC romance? Usually my character simply makes advances IC towards the other PC if appropriate for the scene, and if the player gets weirded out I back off. Otherwise it proceeds through RP normally. Obviously I'm not gonna have my character force themselves on another PC (or NPC for that matter) or engage in explicit sex, but if characters go there it happens, generally fade to black. None of that stuff requires an explicit contract in advance.

The only thing I need written down beyond character data or adventure notes are the house rules. And that's only because I tend to have a lot of those, sometimes with significant changes to the core rules or homebrewed rules baked in, including stuff that may affect character creation and progression. So it pays to have a document with all the changes so everyone's on the same page and can reference them when creating or advancing characters, or if using a special rule not found in the core books.

Quote from: rytrasmi on August 03, 2022, 09:18:28 AM
Besides, it's completely unreasonable to expect people to know what they want and don't want before the game is underway. There's no way in hell I would waste 2 hours of my life watching a movie about dog shows, but I enjoyed Best in Show. Contradiction!

Pretty much, there's been plenty of times I've watched films I normally wouldn't watch just cuz I used to go to the movies a lot with my mom in my teens and I ended up liking or appreciating for what they were.

Quote
Lists of allowed/disallowed content stifle the game. There is no way in hell I would want torture in the game, but maybe a situation will arise where I would be perfectly fine with torture coming up. How the fuck do I know at the start of the game? Hello emergent narrative! (And if it turns out I don't want it, I speak up when it comes up.)

Yeah, torture is normally not my thing and the times it has come in my games it's usually being edgy players RPing stupid evil characters (who later faced stupid evil consequences), but I wouldn't be against some of the character driven, dramatic stuff that SHARK described for his own games. Sometimes torture can make narrative sense and enhance the game experience if done appropriately. But how are we gonna find out if we mark it off as "red" in a vacuum with no context before play even starts?

Quote
Maybe you are correct and it is a generational thing. We used to channel surf and occasionally find cool shows we never knew existed. We used to go to movies blind just because our friends were going. These days people curate everything and if something bothers them they cut it off. Don't like someone? Ghost them. You couldn't do that before. You had to answer the fucking phone and talk to the person. You know, like a normal socialized person.

Boomers fucked up Millennials with all that helicopter parenting and participation trophies, then 9/11 fucked them up the rest of the way by creating a culture that valued "safety" over liberty and held official authority as sacrosanct. Now we need an official authoritative document on what content is allowed before a game starts.