Quote from: Dracones on September 13, 2023, 07:37:17 PM

Quote from: Scooter on September 13, 2023, 05:49:44 PM
What about if the PC puts on a Girdle of masculinity/femininity without being warned?

I'm guessing that's already major taboo in those circles.

Oh yeah, the consent around this....and charm person (and other ropey spells) has long been "problematic"

Quote from: rytrasmi on September 13, 2023, 05:44:38 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 13, 2023, 04:47:59 PM
Microscope encourages sharing in a sense by not having any long-term ownership of characters or other elements. So everyone can leave their mark and radically change the timeline. This is "collaborative" in a sense, but it is based on individual contribution rather than consensus (which tends to be dominated by just a few people in most social dynamics).

I don't think that's opposed to consent, because without ownership, there is no consent needed. Outside of a scene, the emperor isn't owned by any player, so it's not violating any player to have him killed.

Sure, that's one way to put it. You have total authority on your turn, so it's not collaborative, but since everyone takes turns, it is collaborative. Obviously the latter is encouraged otherwise it wouldn't be a social game.

As for sharing, no, not really. Sharing implies consent. You ask for permission and it's granted or not. In the game you simply take total control of the world and then yield it when your turn is done. There is no asking or granting of permission.

As for your comments on consent, you seem to be implying there's some sort of causal relationship, i.e., the idea that no consent is needed just happens to naturally flow from the fact that no player owns any part of the world. Ownership is a side issue. What makes the game work is that you don't need anyone's permission to mess with anything. The game would still function with ownership of characters and such, but it wouldn't function with a requirement for consent.

It seems like we're largely agreeing, with minor differences in spin.

I agree that what makes the game work is that you can change anything on your turn except the cards previously established. And yeah, part of the fun is making new twists and wrinkles across the timeline that throw off previous expectations and assumptions.

There's lots of different games that work different ways. Some games are largely improv (like Toon), while others are competitive between players (like some Paranoia or Amber games), while some are collaborative (like troupe-style Ars Magica), and so forth.

Quote from: Thorn Drumheller on September 14, 2023, 01:54:05 PM

Quote from: Dracones on September 13, 2023, 07:37:17 PM

Quote from: Scooter on September 13, 2023, 05:49:44 PM
What about if the PC puts on a Girdle of masculinity/femininity without being warned?

I'm guessing that's already major taboo in those circles.

Oh yeah, the consent around this....and charm person (and other ropey spells) has long been "problematic"

I'd be curious about other people's experiences with charming PCs and/or sex-change of PCs.

I've avoided both of these in my games since being a teenager. In my childhood, there were some shitty moves GMs who did stuff with mind-controlling PCs (including me a few times).

Quote from: jhkim on September 14, 2023, 09:00:30 PM

Quote from: Thorn Drumheller on September 14, 2023, 01:54:05 PM

Quote from: Dracones on September 13, 2023, 07:37:17 PM

Quote from: Scooter on September 13, 2023, 05:49:44 PM
What about if the PC puts on a Girdle of masculinity/femininity without being warned?

I'm guessing that's already major taboo in those circles.

Oh yeah, the consent around this....and charm person (and other ropey spells) has long been "problematic"

I'd be curious about other people's experiences with charming PCs and/or sex-change of PCs.

I've avoided both of these in my games since being a teenager. In my childhood, there were some shitty moves GMs who did stuff with mind-controlling PCs (including me a few times).

Unwritten rule since the early 90's in my neck of the woods has always been "don't dick over your players in ways they're not comfortable with or you'll soon find yourself without players."

Prime example from college was a GM who thought he'd introduce drama by having a male player PC mind controlled into raping a newly joined female played PC. He was kicked from the group by the players.

A less extreme example was a GM who ran an RPG as a sales pitch for the product he was selling (some enzyme-boosting nonsense) where an enzyme-sucking monster weakened the party until they agreed to take an enzyme booster. He never got to run a second session.

To be fair that was two out of dozens of campaigns I played in college, but it highlights my point that GM fiat is only as total as the group allows it to be and consent isn't a one-time thing in RPGs any more than it is anywhere else in life.

Dick GMs in my experience quickly end up with either empty tables or a group of catpiss men no one else wants at their tables.

Non-dick GMs learn to read a room and not throw things at groups beyond their comfort zone (and where their real vs. professed line is).

Quote from: jhkim on September 14, 2023, 09:00:30 PM

Quote from: Thorn Drumheller on September 14, 2023, 01:54:05 PM

Quote from: Dracones on September 13, 2023, 07:37:17 PM

Quote from: Scooter on September 13, 2023, 05:49:44 PM
What about if the PC puts on a Girdle of masculinity/femininity without being warned?

I'm guessing that's already major taboo in those circles.

Oh yeah, the consent around this....and charm person (and other ropey spells) has long been "problematic"

I'd be curious about other people's experiences with charming PCs and/or sex-change of PCs.

I've avoided both of these in my games since being a teenager. In my childhood, there were some shitty moves GMs who did stuff with mind-controlling PCs (including me a few times).

I've used charms more time than I could count.  I've used various cursed item, shape changes, dominations, etc. quite a bit.  Depending on the players, the characters, the setting, and the tone of the game, it gets handled differently. 

I've had gruesome charms that are "fade to black", same as we would if a character managed to get tortured, cooked and eaten, etc.  I've also had rather light-hearted charms where I took the player aside, explained what the parameters were, and let them roleplay it.  We've even had a couple of times where the character was charmed in a minor way, and the player was so correct and subtle in their playing, that it went on for most of a session.  It helps to be playing a game where "charm" is more of a "new best friend" thing than complete mind control.  Once, the other players figured it out pretty quick, but it was so amusing, they decided not to have their characters do anything about it, much to the chagrin of the charmed character, whose player was doing his best to stick to the spirit of the charm while getting help.

I've also had games where none of that stuff would happen, as it wouldn't fit.  Being able to do things like this is one of the big reasons I don't often play with strangers.  And when I do play with strangers, I'm not going to depend on session zero or consent or any other of that stuff to iron out where the sharp edges lie.  I'll just not go there, same as I wouldn't with a whole host of other things. 

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on September 15, 2023, 09:09:03 AM

Quote from: jhkim on September 14, 2023, 09:00:30 PM

Quote from: Thorn Drumheller on September 14, 2023, 01:54:05 PM
Oh yeah, the consent around this....and charm person (and other ropey spells) has long been "problematic"

I'd be curious about other people's experiences with charming PCs and/or sex-change of PCs.

I've avoided both of these in my games since being a teenager. In my childhood, there were some shitty moves GMs who did stuff with mind-controlling PCs (including me a few times).

I've used charms more time than I could count.  I've used various cursed item, shape changes, dominations, etc. quite a bit.  Depending on the players, the characters, the setting, and the tone of the game, it gets handled differently. 

I've had gruesome charms that are "fade to black", same as we would if a character managed to get tortured, cooked and eaten, etc.  I've also had rather light-hearted charms where I took the player aside, explained what the parameters were, and let them roleplay it.  We've even had a couple of times where the character was charmed in a minor way, and the player was so correct and subtle in their playing, that it went on for most of a session.  It helps to be playing a game where "charm" is more of a "new best friend" thing than complete mind control.  Once, the other players figured it out pretty quick, but it was so amusing, they decided not to have their characters do anything about it, much to the chagrin of the charmed character, whose player was doing his best to stick to the spirit of the charm while getting help.

I've also had games where none of that stuff would happen, as it wouldn't fit.  Being able to do things like this is one of the big reasons I don't often play with strangers.  And when I do play with strangers, I'm not going to depend on session zero or consent or any other of that stuff to iron out where the sharp edges lie.  I'll just not go there, same as I wouldn't with a whole host of other things.

To clarify, I didn't mean any mental effects or charms - I was thinking mostly of being directly mind-controlled by an enemy to act against the party. Likewise, with curses, I was thinking specifically of a permanent sex change like the Girdle of Masculinity/Femininity rather than curses more broadly. I've generally avoided these two.

Certainly with Call of Cthulhu, I've had a host of insanity effects on PCs, and a few other mental effects as well.

But yeah, it's tricky, and I find there are edges to iron out - even among friends.

I much prefer the "new best friend" type of charm over things like mind control. It gives the player something to do. In the case of a spell where the PC has to follow suggestions of the caster, I might give the player a couple of options if they have trouble with it.

Mind control just creates another NPC for me to run. No thanks.

Besides, mind control is boring. Even in movies, I don't know why but I find it dull. Hero is acting weird, oh snap, the villain is controlling him! It merely transforms hero vs villain conflict into hero vs other hero conflict. Even when it works, it feels cheap. It was a novelty long ago I assume but now it's a yawn.

Quote from: rytrasmi on September 15, 2023, 04:01:13 PM
I much prefer the "new best friend" type of charm over things like mind control.

It's the original Charm from pg. 43 of the AD&D DMG

Quote from: Scooter on September 15, 2023, 04:16:07 PM

Quote from: rytrasmi on September 15, 2023, 04:01:13 PM
I much prefer the "new best friend" type of charm over things like mind control.

It's the original Charm from pg. 43 of the AD&D DMG

Indeed. A lot of times it gets read as Domination or Possession than mere "new best friend!" That you can abuse Charm is part of the moral quandrary for Alignment fun, (and gets into even Ravenloft Darklords who are cursed for their own crapulence in abusing charm, illusions, etc.) but that's another discussion. And many games love to explore that fun, including my beloved 90s games like WoD & IN SJG.

Allowing someone's assumptions to endanger them, even knowingly abusing such assumptions, is not direct control. It is taking advantage of omission, if not outright manipulation (both often seen as a moral (ideal) bad, if ethically (contextual) excusable), but not overt overriding of choice. The fun of Charm is consent becoming lax in judgment in the face of attraction/affiliation/aspiration... a wonderful discussion unto itself.

Players can protest and give pushback on any number of things.  I've had games come to a grinding halt because I chose one set of bad guys they didn't want to play against, or go somewhere they found uninteresting.

But.

The GM has to be considered too.  He is also playing, and gets a say as just like everyone else.  But this is session zero stuff, not a consent issue.   

Quote from: VisionStorm on September 11, 2023, 03:19:20 PM
Twitter rando said a thing. News at 11!

Pretty much.

Quote from: weirdguy564 on September 16, 2023, 05:22:58 AM

The GM has to be considered too.  He is also playing, and gets a say as just like everyone else.  But this is session zero stuff, not a consent issue.

No, the GM ISN'T like anyone else.  He is the GAME MASTER.  If my players stopped a session just because they disliked the encounter they'd be gone.

Quote from: Scooter on September 24, 2023, 08:57:33 AM

Quote from: weirdguy564 on September 16, 2023, 05:22:58 AM

The GM has to be considered too.  He is also playing, and gets a say as just like everyone else.  But this is session zero stuff, not a consent issue.

No, the GM ISN'T like anyone else.  He is the GAME MASTER.  If my players stopped a session just because they disliked the encounter they'd be gone.

Yep.

Guess what - even in a fantasy world, bad shit can happen to good people all the time.  That type of stuff doesn't give PCs a free pass.

I've run games where PCs have been kidnapped, taken prisoner of war, tortured, been enslaved, had unwanted exploratory surgery, forced into just about any number of bad situations. Almost always it was because they took a risk that didn't pan out - some due to a bad roll, some due to stupidity, too-cavalier towards danger, etc. In some cases, death was less than in glorious battle on the field of honor - being run over by a wagon, stabbed by a street urchin, falling off a roof during a chase, even a  communicable disease.

I've had players disappointed by the results, but never so entitled to think their PCs shouldn't ever fail.

You're simply NOT a good Game Master if you don't traumatize your players! Get some of these triggered freakos at your table and BREAK THEM even more!   

Quote from: 3catcircus on September 24, 2023, 10:47:17 PM

Quote from: Scooter on September 24, 2023, 08:57:33 AM

Quote from: weirdguy564 on September 16, 2023, 05:22:58 AM

The GM has to be considered too.  He is also playing, and gets a say as just like everyone else.  But this is session zero stuff, not a consent issue.

No, the GM ISN'T like anyone else.  He is the GAME MASTER.  If my players stopped a session just because they disliked the encounter they'd be gone.

Yep.

Guess what - even in a fantasy world, bad shit can happen to good people all the time.  That type of stuff doesn't give PCs a free pass.

I've run games where PCs have been kidnapped, taken prisoner of war, tortured, been enslaved, had unwanted exploratory surgery, forced into just about any number of bad situations. Almost always it was because they took a risk that didn't pan out - some due to a bad roll, some due to stupidity, too-cavalier towards danger, etc. In some cases, death was less than in glorious battle on the field of honor - being run over by a wagon, stabbed by a street urchin, falling off a roof during a chase, even a  communicable disease.

I've had players disappointed by the results, but never so entitled to think their PCs shouldn't ever fail.

The GM IS the clockmaker god of the game world.