I too don't actually like the war 40k setting or even much of the standard warhammer. It doesn't quite gel with me, it is too bleak bordering on the ridiculous. However, when massive amounts of damage is being done, bodies are going to be hitting the floor, bodies ruined by weapons and spells. Scum are scum, there is no two ways about this and scum with power can get away with a lot of abhorrent acts, at least until the heroes show up.
So plenty of horrible and terrible over here, but not omnipresent.
My worlds also have flowers, crystalline waters and actually decent people.
So, if I were to tell you, as your dm, "that your char needs to go in an underground desert, there are some rocks over there, what do you do?"You would walk from the game?
Honestly? I might.
My friends know that, outside of a clinical setting, I really have zero use for discussion of what goes on in a restroom. I think fart jokes are dumb, too.
So, I don't know. If my DM made passing reference to said subject, I'd be willing to overlook it. If he or she kept returning to the subject, or if I had to role-play any aspect of it, I think I'd probably give the game a pass.
Because while the daily biological functions of a character may not be important typically, in a game where you are playing a living breathing s+!*ting creature, it may actually be quite relevant, lead to encounters, be a part of the story, and so on.
It is a variant of the you are stuck in a box with no air, how do you get out? Your character needs air, solve this problem.
Yeahhhhh... But in my mind I'd be thinking, Really? You couldn't think of any other way to bring this into focus? Did this encounter really have to be centered around a bowel movement?
Granted, I might not be giving this thought excercise the attention it merits, but I can't think of a single situation that wouldn't still be just as fun and engaging if you took out all references to defecation.
I probably come off as squeamish, but really, that's only because I am. :D
I'm kinda klutzy, not fantastically pretty, and look silly in robes and chainmail. When I play I want to play someone who lets me get away from that aspect of myself. I don't really get that fun sense of being a noble hero when my adventure takes place with me in the loo. :P
Please don't think I'm saying you're doing it wrong if you and your players like the grittier, more realistic game in all its biological glory. It's just not how I roll.
If taking a dump or a piss were that important, we'd be hearing about these scenarios in Adventure Paths as well. Also, being squeamish does not make a person inferior to you. Hell, I can look at pictures of babies suffering Harlequin ichthyosis without flinching, yet the type of things that 3.5 Loyalist described make me frown. It's not out of disgust, it's more out of a lack of interest. And really, rape (someone was going to bring it up eventually) just makes me angry instead of disgusted. Also, I realized I have a hard time making truly horrid villains. I much prefer sympathetic villains for some reason.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All smooth Pippi.
I am reminded of a left4dead modded level, survival, and a buddy and I held off the zombie hordes for about 40 minutes. We were in a bathroom. He on the toilet, I was in the bathtub.
Ultra bad-ass standoff. The dead were packed so high. The toilet, a total mess. Fun times.
Which level was it, 3.5 Loyalist?
I still need to make a full L4D run with my pals.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Different people have different tolerances for violence. Just because you're a steely-eyed killer doesn't make the guy who's more sensitive to violence a worthless baby. And just because you are more sensitive to violence doesn't make the guy who isn't a potential murder suspect.
The key to running a game with either type is empathy. Good GMs learn to gauge their players' reactions as to what motivates them positively and negatively, what squicks them out, what crosses the line.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Know your audience."
Which level was it, 3.5 Loyalist?
I still need to make a full L4D run with my pals.
Okay, it is a house, with a large backyard and under-garage, and the toilet is very defensible.
Bad news?
The guns are out on the street.
So, if I were to tell you, as your dm, "that your char needs to go in an underground desert, there are some rocks over there, what do you do?"You would walk from the game?
Part of the problem with it is that unless we play out every bathroom break, I'm going to know this is just an opportunity for an ambush.
How many non-ambush pit stops do we have to play out to avoid the meta?
Do we add house rules about how often and how long and how much armor has to come off?
Do we do the same for all the other camp functions?Is it worth it?
You are over-thinking it. Events within stories don't have to be so complicated.
The player never deconstructed the need to go to the toilet. The player counted as if their armour was on, but the donning was rushed.
|
I avoid graphic descriptions of horrible stuff. I think it pollutes the mind and isn't fun for a group of friends who get together once a week for a role playing session. If a character is captured and tortured I draw a veil over the details and just give them the numbers (6 pts con damage, 2 pts wis and cha damage, 4 pts dex damage). Similarly I'll refer to a body as "obviously has been tortured before death". If it comes to say a village attacked and destroyed by orcs I'll be very descriptive about sounds, smells but use the best tradition of 'dodgy special effect horror' for sights (i.e. don't show it in the clear, but leave it to the imagination to fill in the blanks - you get a much scarier monster that way). The world is full enough of monstrosity already.I've played in games (mostly by email) where violence (including sexual violence) has been described in detail. It does make an impact, but my refs have always checked out with me before hand that they're not crossing the line.
100% agree with this post. Be mindful of your thoughts, for they become actions.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All is subjective. That is all.
100% agree with this post. Be mindful of your thoughts, for they become actions.
I avoid graphic descriptions of horrible stuff. I think it pollutes the mind and isn't fun for a group of friends who get together once a week for a role playing session. If a character is captured and tortured I draw a veil over the details and just give them the numbers (6 pts con damage, 2 pts wis and cha damage, 4 pts dex damage). Similarly I'll refer to a body as "obviously has been tortured before death". If it comes to say a village attacked and destroyed by orcs I'll be very descriptive about sounds, smells but use the best tradition of 'dodgy special effect horror' for sights (i.e. don't show it in the clear, but leave it to the imagination to fill in the blanks - you get a much scarier monster that way). The world is full enough of monstrosity already.I've played in games (mostly by email) where violence (including sexual violence) has been described in detail. It does make an impact, but my refs have always checked out with me before hand that they're not crossing the line.
To "Be mindful of your thoughts, for they become actions."
False.
I have thought of, and described all manner of vicious wounds and kills in dnd combat, but I have never:
a) axed someone in half.
b) bludgeoned a person to death with a warhammer.
c) caved a head in with a flail.
d) decapitated a foe with a sword.
e) exsanguinated a guard from behind, with a stab from a short sword.
f) furiously chopped someone to death with a falchion.
g) ground bones into grains with a greatclub.
h) hurled someone off a high tower to their death.
i) incinerated anyone with petrol/naphtha/fireballs.
Remember it is just a game, and like violent video games, playing them doesn't make you into a Viking marauder, ninja killer or relentless death squad commando.
This isn't about me being a bad-ass, this is about presenting a world that is bad-ass. More Conan or Gemmell than Saturday morning cartoons. Although I think I've used an anvil trap before. :DYes we get it...you like your novels dripping with gore between the leaves and spines, and you run your campaigns like that.
More power to you, that doesn't however make you more "edgy" or "cool", it just changes the scope of what becomes familiar to your players, and familiarity breeds contempt. Which means you either accept that or lock yourself on an endless threadmill to keep "upping the stakes".
If that's the way you roll, fine. If your idea of a quiet drama is "Dexter", that's cool. It's not the only way however to write a good story or run an engaging campaign, nor is it an inherently superior one. It's just a style, nothing more, nor less.
The first time you hang a story on a character's bathroom break, it's a clever device. the 2nd time and after, it's a tired cliche.
Your saying, familiarity breeds contempt is a nice saying, but it is false. Contempt does not follow being familiar with something. I am familiar with bananas, honey and tea, and have zero contempt for these things.
Are you familiar with sleeping in or a good night's sleep? Do you feel contempt for it? Are you familiar with your friends, do they fill you with contempt?
As for edginess or coolness, this is way off the mark, but you can feel free to imply I am desperate to be cool. I have left adolescence and caring about being cool behind a long time ago (I am dreadfully uncool by typical standards, I do gardening for fu**'s sake and tea appreciation).
This isn't about me being a bad-ass, this is about presenting a world that is bad-ass. More Conan or Gemmell than Saturday morning cartoons. Although I think I've used an anvil trap before. :DYes we get it...you like your novels dripping with gore between the leaves and spines, and you run your campaigns like that.
More power to you, that doesn't however make you more "edgy" or "cool", it just changes the scope of what becomes familiar to your players, and familiarity breeds contempt. Which means you either accept that or lock yourself on an endless threadmill to keep "upping the stakes".
If that's the way you roll, fine. If your idea of a quiet drama is "Dexter", that's cool. It's not the only way however to write a good story or run an engaging campaign, nor is it an inherently superior one. It's just a style, nothing more, nor less.
The first time you hang a story on a character's bathroom break, it's a clever device. the 2nd time and after, it's a tired cliche.
I much prefer Cadfael to Dexter.
100% agree with this post. Be mindful of your thoughts, for they become actions.
I avoid graphic descriptions of horrible stuff. I think it pollutes the mind and isn't fun for a group of friends who get together once a week for a role playing session. If a character is captured and tortured I draw a veil over the details and just give them the numbers (6 pts con damage, 2 pts wis and cha damage, 4 pts dex damage). Similarly I'll refer to a body as "obviously has been tortured before death". If it comes to say a village attacked and destroyed by orcs I'll be very descriptive about sounds, smells but use the best tradition of 'dodgy special effect horror' for sights (i.e. don't show it in the clear, but leave it to the imagination to fill in the blanks - you get a much scarier monster that way). The world is full enough of monstrosity already.I've played in games (mostly by email) where violence (including sexual violence) has been described in detail. It does make an impact, but my refs have always checked out with me before hand that they're not crossing the line.
To "Be mindful of your thoughts, for they become actions."
False.
I have thought of, and described all manner of vicious wounds and kills in dnd combat, but I have never:a) axed someone in half.
b) bludgeoned a person to death with a warhammer.
c) caved a head in with a flail.
d) decapitated a foe with a sword.
e) exsanguinated a guard from behind, with a stab from a short sword.
f) furiously chopped someone to death with a falchion.
g) ground bones into grains with a greatclub.
h) hurled someone off a high tower to their death.
i) incinerated anyone with petrol/naphtha/fireballs.
...Yet.
:)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's too much if the players or GM stop having fun. That's really all there is to it.
My GM enjoys telling us the manner in which our characters tear their enemies to shreds. Other than that, we go really light on the objectionable and messy stuff. Mostly because we have a young group with somewhat squeamish people in it. But even apart from that, the group prefers comedy and character drama to horror. Therefore, that's how we play.
If your group likes horror, by all means, play a horrific game. But make sure everyone's OK with it first.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
An amount of blood and gore is inseparable with being a good descriptive DM because blood and gore describes what the PCs are actually doing. It's not like the PCs are playing Parcheesi and severed heads roll through. You're not playing Super Contra either where the bad guys flop down.
The PCs are going around hacking up monsters with axes, swords, and fireballs. You can't describe that without an amount of bloodshed. You're only alternative to rollplay and say "Attack...hit...hp?...k dead". Does anyone want a DM like that? No thank you.
I'm sorry, but that's just absurd. You can describe things happening without going into great detail about the gore. I can say, "You end up stabbing him through the throat with your rapier, and he slides off it and crumples to the ground," without describing fountains of blood, bubbling gasps for air, etc.
Actually, come to think of it, Lisa's descriptions are rarely gory, and she's the best GM I've ever played with.
Part of the problem with it is that unless we play out every bathroom break, I'm going to know this is just an opportunity for an ambush.
This is true. Last time I roleplayed a bathroom break in a game, the halfing rogue was ambushed by a group of chimpanzees while the party was on a jungle march and he stepped off behind some bushes to make water.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Jessica Price - Add to that sentence in description..like one or two more sentences.
Why? I'm an editor. More would be too much.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really don't know what you mean by "pollute the mind" because if you mean have a significant impact on people's behavior and personality then this is patently false. It's been researched a hundred times by psychology academia and found that violent media does not have an impact in making adults more violent. Maybe temporarily more aggressive, but not more likely to go commit violent felonies. Unless you subject someone to a brainwashing amount of stimulation, I'm pretty sure they're going to be just as adjusted as they were before. Me watching American Psycho is going to push me no closer to actually hacking someone in the face with an axe.
Which studies? I've seen others that contradict yours.
Graphic violence will not guarantee that the viewer will become a violent criminal.
HOWEVER, it DOES desensitize you to violence. This thread alone proves that. Society as a whole is almost 'bored' with 'regular' violence... and it's escalated higher and higher with new benchmarks needed to 'shock and awe'.
Rambo 1 and 2... Lots of bullets flying around. Awesome explosions. I think a few stabbings with a knife. Rated R.
Rambo 4? 26 years later... Giant guns shoot people and they literally explode leaving peices on the ground. He sneaks up behind someone with a machette and pours their intestines on the ground... Also rated R.
Compare Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm street of the 80's, which were touted for their blood and gore... and compare them to a Saw or Collector type movies today. Gore and violence have SEVERLY escalated and become 'the new norm'... because people see anything less as 'childish.'
I have a friend in her mid twenties who is VERY squeamish about gore. She would never be able to watch the OLD standard let alone the new one... Why? Because she has not built up a resistance to it like so many other people have. She did not 'Pollute her mind' that way.
An amount of blood and gore is inseparable with being a good descriptive DM because blood and gore describes what the PCs are actually doing. It's not like the PCs are playing Parcheesi and severed heads roll through. You're not playing Super Contra either where the bad guys flop down.The PCs are going around hacking up monsters with axes, swords, and fireballs. You can't describe that without an amount of bloodshed. You're only alternative to rollplay and say "Attack...hit...hp?...k dead". Does anyone want a DM like that? No thank you.
Just like the lord of the rings movies? Three musketeers? Princess Bride? Dragonheart? etc. etc... Axes, swords, fireballs... do not need over graphic descriptions unless you WANT overly graphic descriptions.
Very few of the authors I've read get into the kind of detail people advocate here. Very few movies are as graphic as they seem to want.
DM's can keep their descriptions to a PG-13 level without being too sanitized or boring.
Honestly it's like people are saying you have two choices. Mary poppins or Saw. There is a LOT of grey area inbetween.
As for what is the 'right' amount? It's what is comfortable in the group. Nobody should be come physically ill because they wanted to hang out with friends.
Somepeople can not handle rape, some can handle with killing kids... if that's the case... DON'T DO IT. If you know however, that putting some kids 'in danger' is a great way to strike a chord with a player and get them fired up to save them.... GO for it! I've done THAT before, but I would personally never describe a visceral disection of a child the age of my friends kids... That's just not cool.
The PCs are going around hacking up monsters with axes, swords, and fireballs. You can't describe that without an amount of bloodshed. You're only alternative to rollplay and say "Attack...hit...hp?...k dead". Does anyone want a DM like that? No thank you.
I'd much rather play with a DM like that than one who accurately described the way the enemies were being killed.
An amount of blood and gore is inseparable with being a good descriptive DM because blood and gore describes what the PCs are actually doing. It's not like the PCs are playing Parcheesi and severed heads roll through. You're not playing Super Contra either where the bad guys flop down.
The PCs are going around hacking up monsters with axes, swords, and fireballs. You can't describe that without an amount of bloodshed. You're only alternative to rollplay and say "Attack...hit...hp?...k dead". Does anyone want a DM like that? No thank you.
I concur.
Brothers in gore-covered arms?
Btw, Rob Zombie was mentioned awhile back. While House of A Thousand Corpses was mindlessly violent IMO, Devils Rejects was a lot more than just "polluting the mind" with violent acts. If all you do is focus on the violent acts instead of the whole thing you're missing the point...
It'd be like watching Schindler's List and thinking "Oh this movie has way too many people dying it's just gratuitous violence and mindless filth!"
To support with another example, Lone Wolf and Cub. Blood and gore and people being cut to death all over, because it is a tale of vengeance, corruption and assassination. That isn't all there is to it, there are multiple story arcs, some great characters with the time taken to get into motivations and backstory. Tucked inside the books are a lot of info on Japanese history and society. It is one of the more famous series set in the Edo period. The illustrations aren't all about gore, but when masters and mooks are swinging swords or yaris at eachother, people get opened up.
An amount of blood and gore is inseparable with being a good descriptive DM because blood and gore describes what the PCs are actually doing. It's not like the PCs are playing Parcheesi and severed heads roll through. You're not playing Super Contra either where the bad guys flop down.
The PCs are going around hacking up monsters with axes, swords, and fireballs. You can't describe that without an amount of bloodshed. You're only alternative to rollplay and say "Attack...hit...hp?...k dead". Does anyone want a DM like that? No thank you.
I'm sorry, but that's just absurd. You can describe things happening without going into great detail about the gore. I can say, "You end up stabbing him through the throat with your rapier, and he slides off it and crumples to the ground," without describing fountains of blood, bubbling gasps for air, etc.
Actually, come to think of it, Lisa's descriptions are rarely gory, and she's the best GM I've ever played with.
Thrusting swords inflict a lot of internal bleeding, so there might not be a huge display from a great thrust, but if a spear or glaive gets the neck, such as with a crit that kills, it is going to be real messy, and I have no problem basking in that as a dm or player. Neither do my players, they are happy they earned their crits and feel satisfaction when enemies go down hard (and bleeding profusely), so huzzahs all round!
One of the better descriptions I've ever heard is from an old famous dm in my area. He will describe the injury, how it goes right in, make mention of bleeding and then say "you pull out your weapon, they are dead, but they don't even realise it." Then they fall, not fully realising the wound they took, but the player gets it and knows, that foe is mortally wounded.
You can go full gore, you can leave a bit hanging there and implied, you can explain mortal wounds to good effect.
I really don't know what you mean by "pollute the mind" because if you mean have a significant impact on people's behavior and personality then this is patently false. It's been researched a hundred times by psychology academia and found that violent media does not have an impact in making adults more violent. Maybe temporarily more aggressive, but not more likely to go commit violent felonies. Unless you subject someone to a brainwashing amount of stimulation, I'm pretty sure they're going to be just as adjusted as they were before. Me watching American Psycho is going to push me no closer to actually hacking someone in the face with an axe.Which studies? I've seen others that contradict yours.
Graphic violence will not guarantee that the viewer will become a violent criminal.
HOWEVER, it DOES desensitize you to violence. This thread alone proves that. Society as a whole is almost 'bored' with 'regular' violence... and it's escalated higher and higher with new benchmarks needed to 'shock and awe'.
Rambo 1 and 2... Lots of bullets flying around. Awesome explosions. I think a few stabbings with a knife. Rated R.
Rambo 4? 26 years later... Giant guns shoot people and they literally explode leaving peices on the ground. He sneaks up behind someone with a machette and pours their intestines on the ground... Also rated R.
Compare Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm street of the 80's, which were touted for their blood and gore... and compare them to a Saw or Collector type movies today. Gore and violence have SEVERLY escalated and become 'the new norm'... because people see anything less as 'childish.'
I have a friend in her mid twenties who is VERY squeamish about gore. She would never be able to watch the OLD standard let alone the new one... Why? Because she has not built up a resistance to it like so many other people have. She did not 'Pollute her mind' that way.
...
An amount of blood and gore is inseparable with being a good
Resistance and a personal taste for the realistic, is not pollution.
I have an idea what weapons do on bodies, so I am going to convey that. If someone doesn't want to kill foes in a gory manner, take a quarterstaff and aneurysm them to death. :D
Bastard swords, glaives, axes, mass perforation with broadhead arrows, maces, that is a rough way to go.
^Still violent. And I luled when I realized I was discussing this with the editor. That's a discussion that will go nowhere.
And LotR? Boring and way too long. Three muskateers? I think made it through 3 minutes of the new one and it was awful. Dragonheart? SERIOUSLY?
Actually, I forgot about that new version of 3 musketeers... My go-to for that story is the charlie sheen/Chris O'donnel one.
Still.. I saw a lot more then 3 minutes of the new one. Did they even finish the opening credits by then?
So your not a fan of LOTR or Dragonheart... both awesome shows in my opinion full of action, adventure, wit, and epic battles of good vs. evil... Ok, Lots of different opinions out there...
What kind of fantasy genre movies DO you compare your games to? What shows do you point at and say "I'd like my games to be like THAT..."
And LOTR had blood. Not fountains of it, but enough.
Truth! But blood and violence is not the same as 'graphic violence' or Gore. Hundreds or thousands died in those movies, bodies were stacked in piles... but they weren't 'graphic' about it. No exposed muscle tendons getting sawed through or intenstine spilling on the ground.
Good old fashioned fantasy violence.
And even then there's the risk of going too far. Two campaigns ago I had a particular villain (Harishek Ap Thulkesh the Blind Clockmaker) that the PCs ended up having to do a favor for in exchange for information that they needed to go up against the main campaign BBEG. Deal with a devil sort of proposition. In the end I made my players cry. Not their characters, but the players themselves, because of the moral dilemma I put them into, and what emotional strings I ended up tugging.
I really want to know what you wrote now...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And even then there's the risk of going too far. Two campaigns ago I had a particular villain (Harishek Ap Thulkesh the Blind Clockmaker) that the PCs ended up having to do a favor for in exchange for information that they needed to go up against the main campaign BBEG. Deal with a devil sort of proposition. In the end I made my players cry. Not their characters, but the players themselves, because of the moral dilemma I put them into, and what emotional strings I ended up tugging.I really want to know what you wrote now...
Also, I wrote it in 2005, so the horror may truly be in how my writing was then compared to now. It wasn't for publication, nor at the time did I ever expect to write anything for publication, so at best it received a run through spellcheck, but little else.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And even then there's the risk of going too far. Two campaigns ago I had a particular villain (Harishek Ap Thulkesh the Blind Clockmaker) that the PCs ended up having to do a favor for in exchange for information that they needed to go up against the main campaign BBEG. Deal with a devil sort of proposition. In the end I made my players cry. Not their characters, but the players themselves, because of the moral dilemma I put them into, and what emotional strings I ended up tugging.I really want to know what you wrote now...Also, I wrote it in 2005, so the horror may truly be in how my writing was then compared to now. It wasn't for publication, nor at the time did I ever expect to write anything for publication, so at best it received a run through spellcheck, but little else.
you made them listen...
you monster
This was incredible.
I do have a question for dms. Most of dnd/pf has been summarized sagely by a friend and fellow dm as "sitting around and talking, describing". Do players describe what they do and try to achieve in combat, and the end gory results, or is this solely the dm's task?
If a player really gets into the violent solutions and hacking, do you reign them in, has this happened, would you?
I generally let the dm go for the consequences, but sometimes it can be a bit flat (they are mentally busy elsewhere), so I will add description of kills as a player (and I do this as a dm). I've found it makes the dm smile, a player is really getting into the "violent solutions".
As a dm, I want to get the players involved in the game, and make the consequences of their actions theirs. So when they do well, I will push them to describe the killing of their opponent. Not just have it hang there that the dice roll killed the opponent--what did their character do to kill the opponent.
I like to pretend I'm prepping them to join Division.