QuoteHave you played Dogs with reactive players?  

Some of us Don't want to play Dogs, damnit!
Go, Play 2300 AD with that silly rule and reactive players.

I hope you get my point.

What you just said is:

"Well, if you have problems with people who  can't trace lines of sight correctly in ASL, you should play Memoir '44!"

Stop it.

What the fuck does Dogs have to do with anything?

Yes, I have played it, and GMed it. In both cases, it was depressing and boring, and boring and depressing, by turns. Nothing to do with the players being active or reactive.

But what the fuck does one game have to do with anything? We're talking about GMing techniques in general.

Quote from: SettembriniWhat you just said is:

"Well, if you have problems with people who  can't trace lines of sight correctly in ASL, you should play Memoir '44!"

What I was trying to say is:

Tracing line of sight is not stupid.  It works in ASL.  In ASL it's a good technique for enjoyable play.

edit: Like what you were saying in post #2.  Maybe someone claimed that it's a universal technique that should be applied in all games, but that's not my take on it.  It's specific to Dogs and other games like it.

Quote from: JimBobOzIt's stupid because it claims to be universal, but doesn't work for reactive players.

As said, since the principle only applies whenever a player actually wishes her character to do something, complaining that it ignores those players who don't want to be active is frankly beside the point. You can't say "yes" when there is no question to be answered.

I take a different tack to JimBob. It's not an issue of reactive vs. proactive or whatever. It's that "say yes or roll dice" doesn't work when players desperately want to be told "no". Even with the best of intentions on all parts, "no" is what gives a game a sense of verisimilitude.

That said, I'm currently inclining toward a default philosophy of not saying "no" unless I have a good reason in terms of a strong feel for the setting/situation, established precedent, or a specific detail that I've prepared. E.g., if there's a moat filled with crocodiles, it's there, period, and no the crocs aren't baby crocs or tame crocs or narcoleptic crocs who faint if you clap your hands. But if you want to try running across the backs of the crocs and that's roughly in the tone of the game, I'm not going to expend a lot of effort on whether such a thing is plausible--to the dice, I say!

What I think is perhaps overlooked in this whole thing is the way that dice mechanics can take the pressure off the GM's having to prepare or judge every detail of the game. A high variance in random outcomes, combined with a little flexibility in interpolating the cause behind what might seem to be an unlikely result, seems like it could be a good strategy, and I have to give Forge writers credit for leading me in what looks like a promising direction. On the other hand, remove too much influence from judgment and you have a game where how you do something doesn't really matter...and in that case I'd suggest that neither failure nor success should be allowed to produce extreme results very easily. (I think this may be the philosophy behind a few indie games and/or games that have influenced indie design such as Heroquest.)

Quote from: SettembriniThis is always bad advice, as it is implausible and therefore killing any suspension of disbelief. For Star Wars it might work, but then even there it is stretching the suspension of disbelief.

Feng Shui, Paranoia, Toon, Tales from the Floating Vagabond, GURPS: Callahans

And that's just off the top of my head

QuoteFeng Shui, Paranoia, Toon, Tales from the Floating Vagabond, GURPS: Callahans

These are, as you well know, special cases designed for this "PotC" mindset. It cannot be a general advice, as it assumes a certain way of GMing.

I'm all about baddies bursting through the door when the action slows...but then again, I have hack-n-slashers that sometimes need that kind of prodding.

...and it's exciting...as long as the method isn't always the same and it's justifiable...

My whole point is: It does only work within certain, unspoken assumptions. You can easily spoil the strategic dimension in the game with that stuff.

Quote from: SettembriniThis is always bad advice, as it is implausible and therefore killing any suspension of disbelief. For Star Wars it might work, but then even there it is stretching the suspension of disbelief.

I think the advice was more, if things are going slow make something exciting happen. They are metaphorical thugs, rather than always brutish louts.

That obviously works in most games, at least most games people want to play in, obviously in doesn't work in "Paint: The Drying" a lesser known WoD setting. It would ruin the atmosphere.

Still I have to give you credit for the earlier 2300AD reference, can't have enough of them.

Quote from: BagpussThat obviously works in most games, at least most games people want to play in, obviously in doesn't work in "Paint: The Drying" a lesser known WoD setting. It would ruin the atmosphere.

Not to mention the paint...