Gothic Horror: how hard can gamers take in?

[irontam]

Not Ravenloft, but I think pertinent.

Few years ago I played one of a motley bunch of cops in a friends KULT game. The DM wanted to run a dream sequence for one player so well in advance he spoke to the rest of us, telling us the basic gist of what he wanted to accomplish but impressed on us that we were free to delve into the deepest corners of our characters souls.

What followed was one of the best and disturbing gaming sessions i've taken part in. Including a painful scene with the characters children.

It worked so well because we were all good friends (gaming together for 8+ years), that there was little risk of anyone taking offence. By using good communication, the DM kept careful control of the situation.

I'm just starting a Ravenloft campaign, and am hoping to return the favour.

[Archedius]

No offense Mikhail, the violence level is the same as it's always been - there's just more people around. Genocide, war, plague, everything you've listed has been around as long as people have. There is no innocence to lose

News, videogames etc= big deal. If you go hunting you'll see more gore and blood. Throughout history much of the populace around the world has been drafted into armies and gone to war of some sort. lol don't romanticize history and don't denounce the present- it's the same as it's always been. People kill people and witness violence. It's part of humanity and history.
This is not a special century where everyone's jaded and inured to violence- for a good portion of the western world it's the safest it's ever been (which is offset by the rest fo the world sadly). Are you afraid of your villiage being pillaged? Probably not. Are you worried about being drafted into a war? Probably not.

Most people in history have had to witness and participate in REAL violence- we should be so lucky to only see news of it. In Europe in the late 1700's/early 1800's you had plenty of war, crime and brutality. Feel free to read up on it.

Gothicism came out of this environment and also sought to reflect the past trespasses of the medieval eras as well.

For some reason, a few people are still not understanding my point: I'm not saying you can't be shocking- you have to build up to it first and prime the imagination. And that only applies if you're wanting to actually run a Gothic horror game. If you're not- don't apply the term Gothic.

I've dmed for groups that included a perosn with learning difficulties and they did very well. Moreso than with normal DnD- Ravenloft really requires the DM to be effective. You can make horror work- its very nature is subtlety. Look at it this way, whatever it is you want to be horrifying (event, person, monster etc)- you want your players to realize they could've figured it out earlier...and then rue that fact that they didn't.

[High Priest Mikhal]

No offense Mikhail, the violence level is the same as it's always been - there's just more people around.

I agree, things are no different. I guess I should have mentioned how the advent of TV, the Internet, and global telecommunications have just driven home how bad things are (and always were).

Actually, the metaphor of a callous that has to be cut away to expose the soft skin underneath is what I meant to convey. Folks put up defenses and sometimes you have to get rough to get them to respond. Some folks put up emotional defenses that can ruin a game by blocking the horror from really reaching them. It just seems more prevalent today to me because of the constant harping of brutal violence and crime in the news. Why go through the emotional agony when it's just easier to stop caring? It's people like that that force the harsher approach because they don't respond if it's "someone else's problem." Actually, people who erect that kind of emotional defense are often more sensitive to horror than others. So that raises the question of why are they playing Ravenloft if they don't want to be horrified? I've known players like that.

Also it's "Mikhal," just one "i."

[Rotipher of the FoS]

If you want to get an emotional response from in-game events -- violent or otherwise -- then it's far more effective to build a relationship between the PCs and the affected NPCs than to lather on the gore. Things that are pretty bland when they affect strangers can impact players a lot more if they happen to PCs' friends or family. (And by that, I mean NPCs they've actually interacted with over time, not some random relative you made up just for the scenario in question.)

Why did viewers of CSI feel so horrified when Nick Stokes was buried alive and attacked by fire ants? Because they felt they knew him, and cared what happened to the guy ... this, despite having also watched countless grisly deaths on the very same program, with little distress. The random-generic-NPC's death is never as disturbing as that of the NPC-barmaid-who-flirts-with-the-ranger-every-week.

[Archedius]

I don't think the callous method works to be honest- if someone's inured to brutality and vulgar displays, another one won't be the thing to clear that away. The person will just become more jaded.

Rotipher makes an excellent point. Make them care or at least deal with that familiarity. It's another way of creating a buildup.

Also, try and impress upon your players to roleplay realistic characters. I don' t mean no wizards- I mean PC's with the complexity that real people have.

If a player wants to be a sociopath(a person born only able to care about themselves) or psychopath (a person that through events becomes purely self-focused) that's the only way I could see them truly being inured to the plight of anyone else. Barring those two conditions, there's always something a PC should roleplay caring about.

If they still don't want to RP having a valid personality- they're being lazy Might be time for a semi-mindless dungeon crawl until they're up to roleplaying again

BTW Mikhal, sry about mistyping your name- it was not intentional. I see what you're saying about the exposure to violence. I don't feel that violence seen from a distance is as traumatic to the human mind (and therefore requiring an emotional defense/becoming jaded) as that which is experienced, or worse yet, performed first hand.

However, I am of the opinion that people don't think as much as they should and keep their minds active- that does have an impact on the ability to roleplay.

I've had to make players read short horror stories as 'homework' so they could prime their imaginations enough to understand how they might feel/react in situations. It made a big difference in the game. The greataxe-wielding barbarian began to do more than just hack- he began to be a character : )

[High Priest Mikhal]

Mistyping my name is no big deal. It happens. Especially since it's a rather new name (it's supposed to be Japanese, but kanji doesn't have an equivalent of the "L" phonetic and it's often replaced with the "R" phonetic).

I guess you and Rotipher are right. Thinking back I did play with some very unsettled people. No wonder my experiences were abnormal.

[crazybantha]

Mistyping my name is no big deal. It happens. Especially since it's a rather new name (it's supposed to be Japanese, but kanji doesn't have an equivalent of the "L" phonetic and it's often replaced with the "R" phonetic).

I guess you and Rotipher are right. Thinking back I did play with some very unsettled people. No wonder my experiences were abnormal.

Interesting. I've been giving some thought on this jaded thing from time to time. I'm starting to think that there is no such thing as becoming jaded or callous. It's more a matter of two things: either you become, or are born, psycopathic (or in a similar state of "egotism"), or you learn to deal with your feelings about the subject. In the second case, you wouldn't stop feeling empathetic, you'd instead feel but rationalize it in a different manner.

My conclusion is that, most frequently, when someone doesn't seem to care about something moving, they are actually caring, they just don't know it.

I'm just saying this because 'jaded' doesn't sound like 'emotionally mature' or 'assertive', but 'callous' instead. (I'm not native to english, I only have an online dictionary at my dispose, heh)

[Archedius]

Crazybantha, I agree.

Look at Azalin, he cares about the concepts around people. Not the people themselves. He governs and protects Darkon becuase he cares about the concept of what he thinks a ruler should be. Irik? Means nothing to Azalin- he was to be the proper heir. On a side note- Azalin has little tantrums that he hides as being decisive action : )

I feel that Azalin isn't quite a psychopath, nor was he born a sociopath. I'm not sure where he would fall, especially now after being undead for so long. A psychologist would probably love to spend some time with our favorite Lich.

But yeah- on a practical note: if a player wants me to DM for them, they need to have a realisticly complex character with a complete background story. I can still evoke horror, buuuuttttt players seem less inclined to roleplay for some reason.

Make your players come up with 10 or so people that are either family, friends, lovers, business partners etc so that you as a DM have a slew of potential hooks to make the game personal. This helps counter the typical 'my character is a loner with no past' deal that is sometimes foisted upon DM's by players.

[Le Noir Faineant]

*Listen to Archedius, for he is wise.*

[crazybantha]

About sexual content and players' possible traumas, I'm wanting to apply lately a more realistic feel on the subject. I don't intend to make it one of the focal points - I would if it brought interesting plot hooks, but that's not what I'm talking about - what I'm saying is people tend to deal mainly in stereotypes.

Take the female monk of the sex goddess temple I cited above. Not to criticise a players' character concept, but it's a typical archetype perceived by the average male player. The player had to stop gaming due to personal reasons so the female monk became an NPC that tags along the party. The GM turned her into an exalted monk with poverty and chastity vows. I mean, from a female stereotype to... another? I understand he mostly did it for mechanical purposes (cool build) but still...

This thread also made me think a bit further about sexuality approach on average gamer's tables. So I decided to make an effort on the subject and change things a little on my games. In my SW campaign, for instance, the PCs will definitely start meeting more homo and heterosexuals (and assexuals, and bisexuals, etc) of different background, sexual philosophy and social norms - at the same proportion in real life as possible (subject to a space fantasy's convenience and poetic freedom, of course). Imagine a society that plainly accepts homosexuality. So the PCs are introduced to an important NPC - a war hero... and his husband. What about hutts and their sex life (note: hutts are assexual, as in having female and male sexual organs)?

This could be approached in a RL game in other ways, of course. Sex and horror often walk hand in hand, also we have sexual morality present in gothic horror. What I'd most think of is how sexuality deals with morality and society. Morality would be the main difference between general horror and gothic horror, so that's the spot, I guess.

[BigBadQDaddy]

Just to chime in my 2 cents, I have always felt the implied sexual confrontation between Mina and the Count in Dracula is about as far as a RL GM should go.
For those who may not have read it, it is very metaphorical as opposed to literal sexual content.

[Archedius]

What BigBadQDaddy said. Look at it this way- if you'd feel uncomfortable with a woman being at the table at ANY point in the game: then consider whatever's going on to be puerile. Would you be ok explaining this character/npc to your Mother? hmm? I would hope not.

If you want to stay true to the setting's Gothic traditions, there must be a sense of decorum to everything. Even the most vile and repulsive subjects are to be described in an elevated and subtle manner. Why? this avoids making people uncomfortable AND it lets your PC's use their imaginations. NEVER underestimate that effect, especially if you're going after horror!

A good DM describes events, people and things in a way that helps the players fill out the details- it's not the DMs job to imagine it for the players. It's a cooperation between everyone.

[crazybantha]

If you want to stay true to the setting's Gothic traditions, there must be a sense of decorum to everything. Even the most vile and repulsive subjects are to be described in an elevated and subtle manner.

I think I understand what you and BBQDaddy mean. Actually, what you said is exactly what I'm talking about. Except I'm on the other side. >.<'

Gothic horror is about subtlety, I agree. General horror is, too, mostly (or is supposed to be), at least. But you see, if it's also told in an elevated manner, I think that's another subject. For starters, I'm not familiar with contemporary gothic horror, but I think reading about a society's notion about sexuality one or three hundred years ago is subject to anacronism or some sort of questioning.

What I'm saying is, we can read those centuries' literature and like their sexual morality, how they approach the subject and how it's portrayed for what it is. But we can also dislike it, as far as personal taste goes.

Me, personally? I'm not looking forward to tell about sexuality in a romanticized way the way they did it back then (I'm not using 'romanticized' in a pejorative or naivete way). I want to use their method - subtlety as a horror technique - to approach morality and philosophy issues, contemporary sexuality as one (but not the main one). The cool thing is, they did it the same way back then! They dealt with contemporary subjects.

If I'm dealing with sex in a contemporary game, I won't have the same morals they did, so I won't subtly narrate the same sex thing they did. I'll narrate a new thing, one that's important to my time, in a subtle way. It has to be about my time because I want to make a certain statement about sex. When I said I wanted to change things at the table, when I wanted to break the stereotypes, I meant I want to implement a message on my games. I told what would it be about Star Wars.

In RL it would have to be in other ways, lest I hurt historycal consistensy. There will be, for instance, the same percentage of gay people it always were, but there wont' be any society that openly accepts them, unless I'm talking about a few groups that slightly resemble latin american indians or a few ancient greeks and romans (I hope I won't stereotype them in any way by this, lol). Or, fantasy serving me well, maybe the PCs can run into an elven or fey-like tribe with androginous or sexual customs uncommon for europeans.

As a side note, this raises the question about why they did it subtlely in gothic horror back then - was it because subtlety achieves horror, or because it was frowned upon to be explicit or, in any manner, outspoken, about sex? (remember: I'm not talking about sexual reality, but sexual explicity...)

Regarding players' comfortableness, I agree that subtlety helps. I'm not the average person when it comes to sexual morality (or morality in general for that matter), I consider myself an open person, so I tend to push people new ideas whenever I can. I think a lot, so it's me, lol.

Would you be ok explaining this character/npc to your Mother? hmm? I would hope not.

My mother's a painter and her artistic nude pieces hanged on the house's walls my childhood all along, so you can say I'm very comfortable with talking to her about many things.

[Gnarfflinger]

I really don't see how to deal with sexuality without boring players not involved or going way beyond my comfort zone. There are more than enough tools in the horror toolbox to give players a good scare. The Van Richten's Guides illustrate this perfectly with unknown terrors stalking innocent villagers and painfully devastating costs associated with the victory over the beasts that were stalked...

[Dion of the Fraternity]

Hence the gay sex in my campaign. If White Wolf players can easily and successfully pull it off with its "Dark Ages" line, then why can't Ravenloft gamers (which is supposedly the mature campaign setting)?