[Amber] Why won't you let me set stakes?

[TonyLB]

I'm taking Paka's advice to put the question of "What are stakes?  What is risk?  Does it imply gambling?" into the context of my own experiences with folks who couldn't get on the same page about this.

I was playing Harper in a play-by-email game.  He was fun, a good-for-nothing, selfish, manipulative, abusive, downright evil bastard.  Charming though, and dedicated above all to the proposition that he could get on without the freaky blood-alliances that everyone else was making with wierd primal beings from the dawn of time.  And he did okay, if I do say so myself.

In a conflict with some mook NPCs, an ally PC cut loose with a poorly targetted Soul-Cage spell of some sort.  The GM determined that Harper's soul had been ripped from his body.  Rough justice, but ... whatever.

Anyway, I said "What are my options here?"  The GM said "You can take a chance on getting back into your body on raw willpower, but it's very dicey.  Or you can accept that offer from the Dragon-Blood-Whatsis, and reincarnate as half-draconic, in which case you're pretty much guaranteed."

"Cool," says I, "I'll try to get back on raw willpower."

GM:  "No, seriously ... it's unlikely that you'll be able to succeed."
Me:  "I'm ... really okay with that."
GM:  "I'm just going to roll a twenty-sider.  If you don't get a twenty then the character's dead.  Sure you don't want the Draconic option?"
Me:  "Wow, those are bad odds.  But yes, I'm sure.  Roll it."
GM:  "You jackass!"
Me:  "What?"
GM:  "You know I won't kill you on a die roll."
Me:  "I know nothing of the sort!  Roll the damn die, roll it fair, and let's find out what happens!"
GM:  "Fine.  I rolled a 16.  Close enough, he manages to get back into his body, but is much weakened."
Me:  "The HELL?  I think not!  It's not a twenty.  He's dead.  Thank you very much for an enjoyable game.  I hope that you will let the others discover that Harper died as he lived, self-involved, evil, but principled."
GM:  "Stop being such a twit!  It's totally fair for me to weaken the character!  It's a near-death experience, he should be weakened!"
Me:  "I'm not arguing.  You can't get much weaker than dead."

Anyway, after much OOC back and forth I agreed (with honest reluctance) to let him get back into his body much weakened.  I played the game for a while longer, until the GM pulled the whole magician's-force "Pick a card, any card, THIS ONE!" thing again, and then I left.  But that's another story.

To this day, I think I should have stuck with my insistence that Harper died there.  It was just about the rawest moment of stakes-setting that I'd ever managed (at that time):  "I will accept a straight up, unmodified, 95% chance of instant irrevocable character death, rather than compromise his principles."  That was cool.  It was the risk I wanted to take, win or lose.

But that sort of thing is, in fact, exceptionally rare in Amber play.  That was explicit, communicated risk.  "If you win then X, if you lose then Y."  What is far more common (and the technique that the GM was clearly more accustomed to) is risk through uncertainty.  "If you become half-draconic then the GM will do ... something ... with that.  You don't know what."

And I think that's why I was always entranced by Amber in theory and disappointed in practice:  because the system generated uncertainty by the bucketloads, but I couldn't make the sort of statements I wanted through accepting uncertainty.

Basically, saying "I'm willing to put you on the spot and make you decide what happens to my character ... I'm that committed to this principle," isn't the same thing as saying "I'm willing to refer my character's fate to the heartless, implacable dice ... I'm that committed to this principle."  But I'm not sure exactly how they differ ... I feel that they are, but have trouble putting precise words to it.  Does anyone else have a better way to say this?  Or different opinions on what was happening in the Actual Play?

[C. Edwards]

It seems to come down to this:

..but I couldn't make the sort of statements I wanted through accepting uncertainty.

With the options you were presented, you knew which one would make the statement you wanted to make. The GM undermined the power of that statement by removing the associated risk.

It's not that Harper did or did not die for his principles, but that accepting the ultimate sacrifice in the name of Harper's principles was apparently never really an option. You were being doomed to a game full of watered down statements in the name of character preservation.

-Chris

[Marhault]

It sounds to me like your GM was uncomfortable being the deciding factor in the Drama/Karma resolution system Amber uses.  He stumbled when he gave you the option of trying to get back under your own power.  He tried to use Force (I think I'm using the term correctly) to get you to go along with his plans.  In fact, he did it twice.  Once when he gave you the option, and once when gave you the odds: "1 in 20 or you're dead!"

If he wasn't willing to actually kill your character, he shouldn't have involved the die at all.  Would you have been happy if he'd told you up front that your options were a) survive, majorly weakened, but on your own terms, or b) make the draconic pact and get off uninjured?  That is what the stakes really were in this conflict.

[Supplanter]

It's an interesting situation. A few things could have been happening, depending on how the GM saw the situation. The first thing I want to say, though, is that, no matter which it was, he done you wrong. Actually, the most benign interpretation is a social-contract misunderstanding between you and the GM, but even so he failed to honor your sincerity at the moment of crisis. The possibilities I see

* GMly reluctance to kill PCs in a system where the GM can't hide behind a formal resolution mechanism. Mark Woodhouse hates ADRPG-type play for just this sort of thing.

* Wujickism! The GM believes that his job is to visit continuing torment on the PCs and the PCs' job is to "suck on it and like it," in the memorable formulation of a Nationals ballplayer. Your "suicide squeeze" strikes him as you taking your ball and going home. Death? Too good for 'em! This veers toward straight-up Illusionism - the GM has determined that the campaign is about these pacts you allude to, and his job is to get you into one.

* GM believes you're all playing under a script-immnuity contract (however tacit), with its  subclause of "the PCs won't abuse their immunity." Thus he's not able to hear what you're actually saying - he's seeing script immunity abuse.

* GM regards your action not as "stepping up" to - what does Ron call it, the "guts" challenge - but as a PC committing suicide. PC suicide is a big flashing "campaign in trouble" sign. He's too embarrassed/frightened to straightforwardly address his fear - Tony, you're unhappy, aren't you? - and falls into bluff, and bluster when the bluff gets called.

My own view is that you probably really did make clear that you wanted what you wanted, and he should have let you go. Of course, my view is also that he shouldn't have pulled out a die. He should have dropped out to OOC play after the first few "really really dangerouses" and your "I don't cares" and said, "Okay, you're dead. Give yourself a big IC sendoff and I'll play along if that's what you think is the best thing for the character. OR, let's retcon now, but I need to hear from you right away."

One last thought: the Corwin saga produces at most three Amberite corpses, all in the last book. (Two of which are never found, because of that darn Abyss.) If you include the "fan fiction" (aka the Merlin chronicles) I don't think you get even one extra Amber/Chaos body. So a system that maximizes protagonist survival will make sense to hardcore Amber fans. That may have helped further the disjunct between you and your GM.

Best,


Jim

[Josh Roby]

First off, were you playing Amber diceless?  Where'd that d20 come from?  I think that's one of two big indicators that the GM was not comfortable dictating/narrating your character's death.  The second big indicator is the "you jackass" part of your paraphrased transcript.  Did you get the sense that he thought you were trying to force his hand?  The script immunity scenario laid out by Jim may be really accurate.

The concept of accepting, even appreciating, character death is not commonly understood in the wider gaming world.  The phrase "You could die" generally means, "Pick something else because your death is not acceptable stakes for me."  Certainly if that's what they mean, that's what they should say, but roleplaying is based on smoke and mirrors; it's hard for some to step out from behind them when dealing with player decisions outside the fiction.

[TonyLB]

If he wasn't willing to actually kill your character, he shouldn't have involved the die at all.  Would you have been happy if he'd told you up front that your options were a) survive, majorly weakened, but on your own terms, or b) make the draconic pact and get off uninjured?  That is what the stakes really were in this conflict.

In the interest of utter honesty:  My memory on this is hazy, this having been a good long time ago.  I think that a die was involved, but it might have been some other manner of "this is really seriously risky" tag.  I'm quite sure that it was presented to me as a serious risk, not just a "GM will decide what you deserve" thing ... which again, an odd thing in an Amber game.  Anyway, I'd like to discuss it under the assumption that I remember it right, but there are other real people involved, and just on the off chance that they jump in to say "Hey, I never would have used a die in an Amber game," I'm going to say right up front:  Not The Point.  Also, for those who are saying "Using a die in Amber is a clear sign of X," I'll say:  Not The Point.  If you want to say "Disavowing GM responsibility for the outcome of any action under the system is a clear sign of X" then I'm right there with you.

Anyway, if I'd been offered the options you listed I would have been substantially less happy with the initial situation.  First off, as pointed out, those are pretty watered down choices compared with the stark possibility of death.  I'd have been fine with "50% chance of death" or "5% chance of death" or even "1% chance of death", but the real, objective chance of death is a big deal to me.

Second, the "substantially weakened" bit ... that's not a cost to me, the player.  Yeah, Harper as a character might have felt bad about it (though ... probably not) but certainly I as a player would have just said "Cool.  Story fodder!"  In other games I have explicitly asked for my characters to be depowered by horrible accidents (and once through legal action and a welding torch) on numerous occasions.  So, see, there's no tension there for me.  If I were offered a die roll between "Survive unscathed" and "Survive, majorly weakened," I as a player would be totally uninterested in the outcome of the roll.  Whatever.  Six of one, half a dozen of the other.  Roll the dice if you want, but it doesn't really matter to me, so I'm not going to get all tense about it.

Now if the GM had said to me "Okay, here's the deal ... you get back into your body, guaranteed ... but if you want to take a risk, you can choose to have Harper have an out-of-body experience and gain a whole new ability to interact with a new realm of quasi-spiritual beings, but there's a 50% chance that the process will turn him half-draconic as well ... " now that would have been a hell of a choice to make.  The reward of "whole new areas of information, intrigue and roleplaying" on the one hand, and the risk of "50% chance of having him rewritten in a way that totally reverses what you've done so far" on the other.  Those both speak to me, the player.  That ... urgh ... I can't tell you how I'd make that choice.  It could go either way.  But I'd be happy with a game that presented it to me.

[Brand_Robins]

Basically, saying "I'm willing to put you on the spot and make you decide what happens to my character ... I'm that committed to this principle," isn't the same thing as saying "I'm willing to refer my character's fate to the heartless, implacable dice ... I'm that committed to this principle."  But I'm not sure exactly how they differ ... I feel that they are, but have trouble putting precise words to it.  Does anyone else have a better way to say this?  Or different opinions on what was happening in the Actual Play?

On this topic specifically, I have to say that in the situation at hand your response is pretty understandable just on the general basis of the way the GM was pushing things. He seems to have had a fairly obvious agenda, and getting your back up against the railroad is a pretty typical PC response for players in general.

So, before I even get into this on a more abstract level: would you say that this type of interaction is true in most games that you play? Are you asking us a specific question about this example, or just using it as a template for backgrounding the fact that in game you would rather trust the (supposedly) dumb dice to give you story than the (supposedly) smart human beings at the table across from you?

Because the first has been covered, and doesn't seem to be your point. The second, I think, is going to come down to a matter of personality type and how we deal with information and interactions.

[Mark Woodhouse]

Jim overstates my issue. I have a deep distrust of subjective resolution, and the subcultural assumptions that drive a lot of Amber play make it more distasteful for me, but I wouldn't say hate. It's the angst of a spurned lover, dammit.

This is almost exactly the same kind of stuff that I object to, though, in an even more obvious form. Here's my typical beef.

GM: "Here is a situation."
Player: "Looks like my options are A, B, or C."
GM: "Well, yeah, you could try that. How 'bout D? That might work too."
Player: "So what does my character think his odds are if he tries B?"
GM: "How should I know? You have all the facts."
Player: "So... looks pretty good to me. I do B."
GM: "Dude. You are so utterly screwed. I can't believe you did that - it was completely obvious that you should do D."
...cue lecture on how obvious D was...

No clear stake-setting, no clear way to assess chances of success. It's Let's Make A Deal.

Tony's case, though, is even nastier. The GM says what the stakes are, he tells Tony the odds, and then he reneges on the deal. Way to teach players not to bother making choices.

[TonyLB]

So, before I even get into this on a more abstract level: would you say that this type of interaction is true in most games that you play? Are you asking us a specific question about this example, or just using it as a template for backgrounding the fact that in game you would rather trust the (supposedly) dumb dice to give you story than the (supposedly) smart human beings at the table across from you?

Hrm ... yeah, I think I do feel like that across the board.  If I'm taking a risk, I want it to be a risk that's (at least in part) out of the control of the people at the table.

Or ... man!  This is hard!  There are places where uncertainty strikes me as exactly right.  Like, in the same game Harper and an NPC (Lord of Shadows) spent a lot of time working together.  They were both pretty skeevey people, not in any great sense "trustworthy," but they went through a lot.  The GM then framed a situation in which it would be very difficult to pursue Harper's goals without putting his life in the NPCs hands, as a matter of pure trust.

I decided that Harper trusted the guy ... not because I thought it was the rational choice, but just because ... he chose to trust him, even knowing he might be betrayed.  It wouldn't have been the wrong choice, even if he were betrayed.  The trusting was ... it was something he'd come to, something important.  And it was very tense waiting to see whether the NPC was going to come through for him (he did). 

It would have been pretty seriously wrong (at least in my head) to have the Lord of Shadow's reaction determined by random chance.  Because I can't form any sort of relationship with the dice, and I wanted Lord of Shadow's choice to be informed by what each choice would mean.  I wanted the betrayal or the good faith to be a conscious choice ... to be a person addressing the issue.

But I didn't want the question of whether he lived or died to be anyone's conscious choice.  I didn't want his life or death to be part of someone else's story (even the GM's).  It was mine.  Does that make sense?

[Mikko Lehtinen]

Hey Tony,

this reminds me of a situation we had a week ago in our Amber campaign.

I'm playing Istwan, the son of Deirdre. Istwan's mortal allies had betrayed him, and kidnapped his wife Erika, who was pregnant to Istwan's cousin Dorian, another player. Istwan had to choose: should I negotiate with them or use raw force? There was a big chance that Erika would end up dead. Without thinking, I said: "Ok. I'll kill them all as quickly as I can."

It worked out well.

But it felt too easy somehow. There was no real risk in my mind. I knew the GM wouldn't just kill Erika like that, she was too important for the story. And I'm afraid that if Erika would have died, I would had been angry at the GM. "How could you kill Erika like that? That's boring."

Perhaps these kind of fast conflicts with huge stakes just don't work very well in Amber Diceless. The system works much better in slowly developing, epic conflicts, where the players have a chance to give loads of player input to the GM. Without this input it's impossible for the GM to make a "fair judgement" that the players can accept. It's a social contract thing. It's hard for the GM if he is reduced to a random number generator, and I can understand the tendency to avoid these kind of situations.

The problem is, I love to live dangerously, and to gamble with high stakes, just like you.

We have a houserule that helps us somewhat: "the coins". You might remember the mechanic, we've discussed it before. We have agreed that if a player spends a coin on some action, it will always have dramatic consequences, good or bad. Spending a coin is a risky move, it's asking for trouble, and in these specific situations the GM can judge whatever he wants, and no player will complain to him how "unfair" his judgement was.

Spending a coin is actually a lot like Bringing Down the Pain in TSoY! For example, I'd imagine that it is the only situation in our game where a player character could die. We've already seen how other "story protected" characters get killed after somebody spends a coin.

This is a very interesting thread to me! Lately we've had similar discussions with my group, and I've been telling them the same things that you are saying here, Tony. I think I'll point them to this thread.

[Callan S.]

Basically, saying "I'm willing to put you on the spot and make you decide what happens to my character ... I'm that committed to this principle," isn't the same thing as saying "I'm willing to refer my character's fate to the heartless, implacable dice ... I'm that committed to this principle."  But I'm not sure exactly how they differ ... I feel that they are, but have trouble putting precise words to it.  Does anyone else have a better way to say this?  Or different opinions on what was happening in the Actual Play?

Their different because with "I'm willing to put you on the spot and make you decide what happens to my character ... I'm that committed to this principle," your not saying anything, the other person is (if they say anything at all - your own example see's the GM avoid that).

While with the dice, they let you talk in hard, concrete words. Your not just saying your PC is willing to die, your spelling it out in exact percentile! That's strong language! There's no ambiguity there - your address is compelling, exacting and very much in everyones face!

I hypothesize: Uncertainty is great, but the nature of it can ironically mean other people at the table are themselves uncertain of what your saying your PC would face. But the uncertainty inherant in dice is very easy to communicate and really carries the address.

Selfish side note: This is the exact same sort of issue gamism faces - what sort of risk are you willing to take on? "Well, um, I call the risk, but I guess I let the GM decide exactly how risky it is, like always". Not to mention, the way the GM's call is supposed to be modereated is by social feedback - which requires everyone to really think how the game world works. Now that's a recipe for agenda subversion - but I digress.

[Andy Kitkowski]

Hey Tony, thanks for spilling this interesting moment in time.  Man, your posts in Actual Play are pretty much spot on examples of what happens with Theory when the rubber hits the road.  Tony then just takes it a step further, doing donuts in the Wal Mart parking lot! :-)

OK, blowing aside, I think what was pretty much going on was straight-up social contract misunderstandings. 

First off, I want to take a look at this again:

* GM regards your action not as "stepping up" to - what does Ron call it, the "guts" challenge - but as a PC committing suicide. PC suicide is a big flashing "campaign in trouble" sign. He's too embarrassed/frightened to straightforwardly address his fear - Tony, you're unhappy, aren't you? - and falls into bluff, and bluster when the bluff gets called.

I'm wondering if the above wasn't actually the case? I've not participated in many play-by-posts/emails, but a staple of the PC suicidal move usually reflects on the player not wanting to play anymore: The game is boring, they became busy, they don't like the direction the game is going and want out, real world concerns yadda yadda yadda.

I'm wondering if things might have been different if you prefaced either your "Hey, I wanna take the gamble!" email with a lengthy, perhaps 2-3 page (to get all the nuances, subtleties and all right in place) describing how you like the game, choices are important, This Isn't a Suicide, I really *AM* taking the Million Dollar Challenge just for the hell of it because I really am interested in the outcome, I totally am fine with you killing off my dude, etc... If that would have made a difference?  Maybe a kind of clearing of the table, backing up, and slapping him with your Social Contract Mission Statement in a way that brought him on board as to why you were making that decision, and not doing it as "A Suicide" or "To be a Dick"?

Also, in the above, because it's the nature of such RPGs, maybe making a backdoor so that this character could really die, but in 3-5 days a new character could be introduced that you could take control of and continue playing with?  <--- This would have really settled things, I think. Because it would have given the GM an opportunity to really make that decision with the knowledge that you weren't just Suiciding... and it would have stopped you from blowing yourself if you REALLY WERE Suiciding, and dressing it up in fancy rationalizations. :-)

But yeah, sounds like it links back to the Great Social Contract.

Basically, saying "I'm willing to put you on the spot and make you decide what happens to my character ... I'm that committed to this principle," isn't the same thing as saying "I'm willing to refer my character's fate to the heartless, implacable dice ... I'm that committed to this principle."  But I'm not sure exactly how they differ ... I feel that they are, but have trouble putting precise words to it.  Does anyone else have a better way to say this?  Or different opinions on what was happening in the Actual Play?

Yeah, as I indicated above, the best way to do this is to address the issue with a quick paragraph on your own agenda as you join the game... but in the above situation, where it hasn't really been spelled out and you two are in this situation, then the aforementioned 2-3 page carefully written, explanative email is probably the only way you can do it without hurting egos and derailing things. As it is, I don't think there's a problem with your message above, and no better way to say it.  It's just how you say it, how much back-peddling and explanation required:

Starting the game, and you're the GM:  A quick paragraph or two, and include a witty story about how it worked out for everyone, and maybe a story about how it failed because everyone wasn't on the same page.
Starting the game, and you're a player:  The above, with a little more explanation and humility, indicating to the GM in great detail that you're not intending on being the Big Campign Derailer Dickweed but rather this stuff is How You Roll, etc.  A few extra paragraphs, and maybe an additional explanative story or two.

In the middle of the game (as you were), where none of this social contract stuff had been spelled out in detail before:  Aw shit, this is where you have to be careful, writing out that two or three page email with plenty of humility, explanative stories, etc, so that you don't come off as a dick.

In the end, you don't need to explain your reasons, or use any humility, just say "That's just the Way I Roll, deal with it and let's move on", but you'll come off to them as the guy who likes to derail campaigns with dickish behavior.  When you take time to explain why you roll the way you do, why you like those big decisions, you're not only clearing the air, but you're also inviting them to watch your behavior and mimic it, to try it out and see what they think.

And use some empathy, too.  In the above, if you REALLY wanted to "play the game" and weren't Suiciding to cancel your involvement, then you could have told the GM (because you had a good idea as to how he operated) on the sly, "...and hey, if I die?  Totally cool with me. I can just sit out a few days and come back as another charcater, we can work it out on the side.  I'll leave that decision in your hands."  That would have gone a little further, I think.  But then again, if you really wanted deep down to Suicide to ditch the game (you gave indicators that you already had an inkling to give it up), then it was a good way to go, just let the GM know.

-Andy

[Bankuei]

Hi Tony,

GM:  "Stop being such a twit!  It's totally fair for me to weaken the character!  It's a near-death experience, he should be weakened!"

You're coming from the point that it's totally fair if your character dies, and he's coming from the point that you're trying to be an ass and force his hand.  Was there other markers that he was not very comfortable with dealing with the "man behind the curtain" situation of how things get decided in Amber play?

Chris

[William Burke]

Me:  "The HELL?  I think not!  It's not a twenty.  He's dead.  Thank you very much for an enjoyable game.  I hope that you will let the others discover that Harper died as he lived, self-involved, evil, but principled."
GM:  "Stop being such a twit!  It's totally fair for me to weaken the character!  It's a near-death experience, he should be weakened!"

I think this little bit of crosstalk really clarifies where the GM is coming from on this issue.  From the GM's perspective, character death is always totally unacceptable; thus, every time you say "I'm willing to let my character die over this," he hears "If you don't do what I want, I'm leaving the game."  To his ears, it's the equivalent of saying "I'm willing to stab myself in the face over this."  Further, it seems pretty clear that he thinks you're obviously either on board with this or at least aware of how he feels -- this comes off, to me, as a big social contract issue.

Anyway, I said "What are my options here?"  The GM said "You can take a chance on getting back into your body on raw willpower, but it's very dicey.  Or you can accept that offer from the Dragon-Blood-Whatsis, and reincarnate as half-draconic, in which case you're pretty much guaranteed."

"Cool," says I, "I'll try to get back on raw willpower."

GM thinks: Wait.  He's taking the option that has a high risk of death.  He KNOWS that character death is unacceptable to me and that that threat is thus a false one that I put in to encourage him to make the choice I want him to make.  Why is he doing this?  Is he missing that his character might die?  Is he missing that that means not to do it?

GM:  "No, seriously ... it's unlikely that you'll be able to succeed."
Me:  "I'm ... really okay with that."
GM:  "I'm just going to roll a twenty-sider.  If you don't get a twenty then the character's dead.  Sure you don't want the Draconic option?"
Me:  "Wow, those are bad odds.  But yes, I'm sure.  Roll it."

GM thinks: What the hell?  He's not missing anything.  He's deliberately messing up my game by doing something I don't want him to do, AND by calling me on my threat, which we both know is a lie that I won't follow up on because character death is bad.

GM:  "You jackass!"
Me:  "What?"
GM:  "You know I won't kill you on a die roll."
Me:  "I know nothing of the sort!  Roll the damn die, roll it fair, and let's find out what happens!"

GM thinks: He's denying it!  I can't believe he won't admit he's deliberately messing things up.  Well, okay, I can't kill him, that's not allowed.  However, I'm going to punish him to show that he can't just blithely ignore what I want.  I'm the GM, dang it.

GM:  "Fine.  I rolled a 16.  Close enough, he manages to get back into his body, but is much weakened."
Me:  "The HELL?  I think not!  It's not a twenty.  He's dead.  Thank you very much for an enjoyable game.  I hope that you will let the others discover that Harper died as he lived, self-involved, evil, but principled."
GM:  "Stop being such a twit!  It's totally fair for me to weaken the character!  It's a near-death experience, he should be weakened!"

GM thinks: Now he's threatening me -- in response to me punishing his character, he'll quit the game!  Why is he being so unreasonable?

It seems that "character death is bad" is so clear for the GM that he interprets every suggestion that it's not intrinsically bad as actually being subtextually about something else.  That's my interpretation, anyway.

[TonyLB]

I think people are spot on in their analysis.  But I don't think it ends there.  Take a look at what you guys are saying:

People (GMs particularly) will threaten Stakes that they absolutely, positively, cannot let somebody accept, because Stakes are not just Stakes ... they're a channel of communication.  They're a code.  As in bridge-bidding, sometimes saying "Two no-trump" means "UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES should you, my partner, allow this hand to be played with a bid of two no-trump!"

People don't say what they mean, they say what they think everyone will understand as a cue to what they mean.  Yes, that's fucked up in terms of social contract ... but, really, how many of our games have explicit channels for discussing this?  If this is a place that social contract breaks down, shouldn't we be paying attention to it, in order to provide ways of communicating to resolve it?

Just as a (totally random) example:  I could imagine sets of Stakes being given an importance rating.  Character-Death would be, I dunno, 50.  Destruction of the universe would be 100.  Getting roughed up and left in an alley would be 10.  Then players (the GM included) would be given resources that they could spend to threaten and accept stakes.

In that case you'd actually have a communication channel for the exchange that took place.

GM:  Okay, I've got like a thousand stake-setting points left.  So I'm going to set these stakes:  either you become a dragon or you risk death (50).
Me:  Becoming a dragon is a much bigger deal for me than risking death.  That's 75 points.
GM:  Fine.  I'll pay 75 to pose it, and 50 to pose the death risk.  But the dragon thing is cool for me, so you can accept it for zero.  But the character death thing is still 50.
Me:  Dammit!  I don't have 50 stake-accepting points!  You're railroading me!
GM:  Well, maybe you should have been conserving your points then.

Would I be steamed to be railroaded in such a fashion?  Sure.  Of course I would.  "Here's your choice which, by the way, you don't get to choose."  But at least this system (rough and pointless as it is) would mean that we weren't speaking different languages in terms of what stakes meant.  When the GM put down the "you will die" and intended it to be an insurmountable wall I wouldn't be able to breeze through it as if it were made of fog.  We'd both know that those were stakes I wasn't allowed to accept.  Wouldn't that be better?