TheRPGSite

Since we're having a party over here, I thought I'd join in, too. It irritated the hell out of me that no one referenced the exact text for the mythical and fabled "Say 'Yes'" in this  kerfu  (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1504&page=4), so I thought I'd post it. This is text from my game, which also happens to quote Vincent's original text. It's a double whammy on discount just for you:

Quote from: From The Burning Wheel page 75Vincent's Admonition
In his game, Dogs in the Vineyard, Vincent Baker articulates a convention of Burning Wheel so well that I'd rather use his words than my own. He says:

Every moment of play, roll dice or say "yes."
If nothing is at stake, say "yes" [to the player's request], whatever they're doing. Just go along with them. If they ask for information, give it to them. If they have their characters go somewhere, they're there. If they want it, it's theirs.
Sooner or later—sooner, because [your game's] pregnant with crisis—they'll have their characters do something that someone else won't like. Bang! Something's at stake. Start the conflict and roll the dice.
Roll dice, or say "yes."

Vincent's advice is perfect for Burning Wheel. Unless there is something at stake in the story you have created, don't bother with the dice. Keep moving, keep describing, keep roleplaying. But as soon as your character wants something—needs something—that he doesn't have, that he doesn't know, that someone else has, roll the dice.

Flip that around and it reveals a fundamental rule in Burning Wheel game play: When there is conflict, roll the dice. There is no social agreement for the resolution of conflict in this game. Roll the dice and let the obstacle system guide the outcome. Success or failure doesn't really matter. So long as the intent of the task is clearly stated, the story is going somewhere.

As you can see, the "Roll the dice or say yes" rule is for conflict resolution. The issues presented in the referenced thread surrounding the introduction of the crazy H-Bomb or the "solve the mystery now" or "I want be at the end of the dungeon" are not really covered by this rule. They are actually covered in an area above this rule -- the social contract of the gaming group. Egregious and outlandish requests that go beyond the scope of the game you've all agreed to play are addressed by the group as a whole, not by GM fiat or anything like that. You agreed to play DnD, so there's no H-Bombs and there's a particular system you must use to get to the end of the dungeon. That's some basic stuff that's left unspoken in most groups and games. In a few games and groups, it's explicit.

Also, it's worth noting that "Vincent's Admonition" is not a rule in the same context as, say, Advancement in Burning Wheel. It's not a "mechanic" per se. Just like in Dogs, it's advice for how to run the game for best results; it's an explicit statement not to roadblock the players and it's grease in the game set up wheels that helps get to big and important conflicts faster.

-Luke

Post Script: I would like to publicly and formally ask for forebearance and mercy in this thread (and any others I post here, really). Please refrain from calling me and my friends names. I would appreciate it and I think you will, too.

See? It's special rules for special games with special premises. No right or even claim whatsoever to be a universal law. So no right or need to bring it up in dicussions, where Adventure Gaming is concerned.

Adventure Gamin is Character-Task centered. It's also ressource centered.

Conflict Resolution is as important to Adventure Games, as equipment lists are for Thematic Games.,

Nobody cares for what you want, it's all about what your Character can plausibly do. And there you can have all kinds of "No", as a world modeled after reality, and not after the "issues, stakes and story goals" of  the players, has all kinds of impossibilites.

Case settled.

Quote from: SettembriniSee? It's special rules for special games with special premises. No right or even claim whatsoever to be a universal law. So no right or need to bring it up in dicussions, where Adventure Gaming is concerned.

Adventure Gamin is Character-Task centered. It's also ressource centered.

Conflict Resolution is as important to Adventure Games, as equipment lists are for Thematic Games.,

Nobody cares for what you want, it's all about what your Character can plausibly do. And there you can have all kinds of "No", as a world modeled after reality, and not after the "issues, stakes and story goals" of  the players, has all kinds of impossibilites.

Case settled.

What I'm wondering is why you insist on taking a piece of advice and taking it so broadly that it becomes useless in your games. It has a place and even a greater context in adventure gaming that you seem to be just unwilling to accept at your table. But maybe I'm wrong.

on the face of it, and reading how it is written in at least ONE source, I would agree that 'roll or say yes' is not in and of itself... bad.  

Seriously, it is an excellent method of keeping things running smoothly and not getting bogged down in minutae.  And if you are like me, so used to getting refused when playing that when you GM you treat every request for anything as a personal affront, its a great reminded to let things go and let the players enjoy the game a little.


But... we aren't dealing with the intent, or the face of things. The problem is in the wording, in the depiction. The Burnign wheel quote may be fairly harmlessly worded, but there are other quotable versions out there, adn the very hardest proponents are claiming it should be a hard written rule that hte GM can't refuse anything the players want without a spectacular reason. And who has time for spectacular reasons? I don't.

Yes is not always the answer.  In fact, saying no to even 'idiot simple' requests can provide a more interesting story for players. Conflict isn't always big battles. Think about the road warrior movie: Getting the damn truck was half the movie. (yes there was fighting gettign the truck... bear with me here...)

my five cents cause I'm too verbose to stick with two...

Quote from: SpikeBut... we aren't dealing with the intent, or the face of things. The problem is in the wording, in the depiction. The Burnign wheel quote may be fairly harmlessly worded, but there are other quotable versions out there, adn the very hardest proponents are claiming it should be a hard written rule that hte GM can't refuse anything the players want without a spectacular reason. And who has time for spectacular reasons? I don't.

Must the discussion always be framed in the terms of the most extreme opinions on this matter? Because for as far as I can tell, the people who've been involved in this discussion don't even espouse them. I'm not up on my rhetoric, but that's kind of a strawman. "You like 'yes or roll 'em' , so you're for free AK-47s for D&D PCs!"

Quote from: SpikeYes is not always the answer.  In fact, saying no to even 'idiot simple' requests can provide a more interesting story for players. Conflict isn't always big battles. Think about the road warrior movie: Getting the damn truck was half the movie. (yes there was fighting gettign the truck... bear with me here...)

You know that's a actually a great argument for 'yes or roll 'em' because there's a huge, huge difference between.
Q: Can I have a truck?
A: No.

and

Q: Can I have a truck?
A: Well, you've heard rumors that if you head for...
or
A: You can try to find one.

The former kills the whole situation dead. The latter is the basis for a whole night's fun in a post-apocalyptic wasteland.

It comes all down to this:

Is it an absolute?

Or

just: "Keep the game moving".?

The first can only be applied to those games designed for it, and even they use the "bullshit rule" which basically comes down to use common sense and isn't that absolute anymore.

The second has been, well, around for a long, long time.

QuoteQ: Can I have a truck?
A: Well, you've heard rumors that if you head for...
or
A: You can try to find one.

The former kills the whole situation dead. The latter is the basis for a whole night's fun in a post-apocalyptic wasteland.

The second is what we call roleplaying games. What have you been doing before Vincent and Luke came around? Boy this is strange, either I'm totally misreading, or there have been some strange games in the past...

Quote from: SettembriniIt comes all down to this:

Is it an absolute?

Or

just: "Keep the game moving".?

The first can only be applied to those games designed for it, and even they use the "bullshit rule" which basically comes down to use common sense and isn't that absolute anymore.

The second has been, well, around for a long, long time.

"Keep the game moving" is a good, basic piece of GM advice, given form in Burning Wheel as the advice to "let it ride", basically, one roll for a skill in a scene--not rerolling your stealth for every guard in the castle, say.  Basic, but good stuff--it never hurts to have it mentioned, that's for sure.

Quote from: SettembriniThe second is what we call roleplaying games. What have you been doing before Vincent and Luke came around? Boy this is strange, either I'm totally misreading, or there have been some strange games in the past...

Well, yeah, that's really possible, and IMO it relates to Swine behavior. Think about it. Railroading is the ultimate expression of No in an RPG. The only PC actions that are allowed or applicable are the ones that fit into the GM's 'story' or the RPG's metaplot.

JamesV, this thread was posted to defend the rule by pointing out a specific instance where it was reasonably written and fair minded. Sadly, there are other, less reasonable viewpoints that use the same 'rule' as a starting point. Pointing that out is not a strawman. The extremists are out there, and ignoring them doesn't make them go away.


Your truck senario was exactly what I was talking about. Saying 'well you've heard...' isn't the first thing that comes to mind when you hear 'say yes'.

There is no 'yes' in 'well you heard'.  See? Remember your lowest common denomenator: People are idiots, the more people, the more idiots.

If the rule was more akin to : Think carefully before saying no. then it might be fine, if a bit uncatchy.  



I'm going to go out on a limb here: But didn't Noblis include the 'say yes' rule first, and more strictly than Burning Wheel?

Quote from: SettembriniSee? It's special rules for special games with special premises. No right or even claim whatsoever to be a universal law. So no right or need to bring it up in dicussions, where Adventure Gaming is concerned.

Adventure Gamin is Character-Task centered. It's also ressource centered.

Conflict Resolution is as important to Adventure Games, as equipment lists are for Thematic Games.,

Nobody cares for what you want, it's all about what your Character can plausibly do. And there you can have all kinds of "No", as a world modeled after reality, and not after the "issues, stakes and story goals" of  the players, has all kinds of impossibilites.

Case settled.

This is the best answer.

QuoteWell, yeah, that's really possible, and IMO it relates to Swine behavior. Think about it. Railroading is the ultimate expression of No in an RPG. The only PC actions that are allowed or applicable are the ones that fit into the GM's 'story' or the RPG's metaplot.

It's a bit harsh to assume, but it clearly looks like it. Then I have to applaud Vincent and whoever else for bringing back some sense to some gamers, and showing them how you can actually play.
It's just ridiculous how some Folks think the Forge has a private ownership of functional play, when it has been around at good GMs since 1965. There must have been some real bad sessions in the mid nineties...

Quote from: SpikeYour truck senario was exactly what I was talking about. Saying 'well you've heard...' isn't the first thing that comes to mind when you hear 'say yes'.
There is no 'yes' in 'well you heard'.  See? Remember your lowest common denomenator: People are idiots, the more people, the more idiots.
If the rule was more akin to : Think carefully before saying no. then it might be fine, if a bit uncatchy.  

I'm going to go out on a limb here: But didn't Noblis include the 'say yes' rule first, and more strictly than Burning Wheel?

While it's not really a yes, it's definitely not a no. And for me that works and keeps my games flowing and fun.

Oh and if you're right and the rule showed up in Nobilis first, then Settimbrini was definitely right earlier. The rule had a specific context, in Nobilis the players have god-like powers. It then makes sense that their requests be indulged most of the time.

Quote from: SpikeI'm going to go out on a limb here: But didn't Noblis include the 'say yes' rule first, and more strictly than Burning Wheel?

"Never Say 'No'", when a player asks whether her character can attempt some in-game action during play. Once again, this doesn't apply to such matters as chargen, or even guarantee that the attempt will in any way prove successful.

(Also, it's not so much a rule as a piece of gamemastering advice, "if you wish to make sure that you do not slip and accidentally place your established story over the fun of the players in the game.")

Spike,
Actually, this rule as expressed in that text doesn't exist in any other games except maybe the Shadow of Yesterday. There's no secret cabal to encode dysfunctional versions of it into game texts. I think you might be talking about something else. Can anyone quote the text from Nobilis?


Settem,
So we're in agreement. Sweet. Thought I envy you your 40 years of smooth and functional play experience! For me, my gaming experience is littered with fruitless "No"s. In Paranoia, Dungeons and Dragons, Call of Cthulhu, Shadow Run and Fading Suns I've been smacked down to the point of being disinterested in play. Hell, I've even done it myself to players. I felt a reminder in the text would be useful. Since Burning Wheel is a traditional fantasy game, I wanted to help folks avoid a traditional fantasy rpg pitfall. Because as James V pointed out, there's a big difference between this:

QuoteQ: Can I have a truck?
A: No.

and this

QuoteQ: Can I have a truck?
A1: Well, you've heard rumors that if you head for...
or
A2: You can try to find one.

The former kills the whole situation dead. The latter is the basis for a whole night's fun in a post-apocalyptic wasteland.

As you said, Settem, the second is one of the fundamentals of a functional roleplaying game. Sometimes we need to be reminded of the fundamentals!

Thanks guys,
-Luke

Quote from: lukeCan anyone quote the text from Nobilis?

Certainly.

Quote from: Nobilis, page 22The Monarda Law: "Never Say 'No'"
If you wish to make sure that you do not slip and accidentally place your established story over the fun of the players in the game, a strict adherence to the Monarda Law shall save your soul from peril. Its application is simple. When a player asks you, "Can I do X?" -- where "I" means their character and "X" is some course of action -- use one of the four useful answers below.

"Yes", if their course of action seems innocuous or interesting.
"How?" if you don't see any way that they can do it.
"You can try!" if it seems possible but unlikely.
"Yes, but there's a catch", if you can think of a good catch.

Each of these adds enjoyment and possibilities to your game. Saying "no" rarely does.

Awesome! Thanks Grim Gent. I stand corrected. Though I think that this text could stand to be a bit more clear. The whole idea behind "Roll the dice or say yes" is that we're playing a game. And to get anything done in that game we've got to engage with the system. Hence, the "roll dice" part being first: "There's a system there, use it!"

The quoted text could serve its reader a bit better by saying, "don't just say 'No,' make a challenge out of it." (I don't know Nobilis' system well enough to use its game terminology.

-Luke

Never read Nobilis, but the Mondara Law seems more palatable to my personal gaming philosophy than the more cut and dried "roll dice or say yes."

But really, I can think of several good reasons to say no. Above, "killing the situation dead" is spoken of as a bad thing. It may not necessarily be. If one player is going of on a tangent that is going to bore the rest of the players and is pretty much a dead end, perhaps no is the best thing you can say. (Or a quick description of the actions and results that can be summed up as "no")

As for moving the game along, and perhaps this shows how comfortably I live near the G/S crossroads, but rules like the Take 10/20 rule in d20 provides me with a quick rule of thumb for the un-diced resolution when I don't feel things are worth a full-blown session of perilous conflict resolution.

Quote from: lukeThe quoted text could serve its reader a bit better by saying, "don't just say 'No,' make a challenge out of it." (I don't know Nobilis' system well enough to use its game terminology.

Well, as JamesV mentioned earlier, the PCs in Nob are assumed to be demigods: unless some power that is either miraculous in nature or from outside Creation altogether intervenes, they will never fail in any mundane task. There's an entire chapter dedicated to possible challenges, but those are not of the sort that common mortals face.

(A player can temporarily relinquish the perfection of her character and effectively ask for a GM fiat on the consequences. There's generally little reason to do so, though.)

QuoteAs you said, Settem, the second is one of the fundamentals of a functional roleplaying game. Sometimes we need to be reminded of the fundamentals!

That's absolutely true. But the realities of internet debate are a little bit different: People with half baked understanding run around, threadcrapping other peoples posts with this line, citing it, as if it was Vincent who invented it, and that they own the one and only key to functional by virtue of having read one and a half forge essays. This is obnoxious behaviour, and has not so much to do with what the phrase actually meant, but what was made out of it. At least to yourself you have to admit that these people exist, and thrive in the internet.

Hm. I read it differently. I thought it applied to situations like this:

GM: "There's an earthquake caused by the Evil Chancel dudes. Lois's car gets sucked under!"

Luke: "I want to fly around the earth and reverse its spin and turn back time and save my girl."

GM: "No."

Luke: "Whaddya mean, no?! I'm the thingie of Girlfriends and Time!"

You know, situation and conflict rather than, "I'd like to get suited up, have breakfast and hit the rooftops."

"No."

One's just cockblocking and bad GMing skills. The other's just stupid.
-Luke

Quote from: lukeGM: "There's an earthquake caused by the Evil Chancel dudes. Lois's car gets sucked under!"

Luke: "I want to fly around the earth and reverse its spin and turn back time and save my girl."

GM: "No."

Luke: "Whaddya mean, no?! I'm the thingie of Girlfriends and Time!"

That would simply be clumsy GMing: changing the course of history is something that the Power of Time could very well do, even without any flashy Superman tricks. In one of my games, an Excrucian turned the past hour in a small town into dust, resetting it for everyone except himself and the PCs.

Really, there's no good justification why the usual answer shouldn't always be "you can try".

"Can I flap my arms so hard that I'll rise into the air?"
"Sure, you can try. But it will just look silly, you know."

@Luke, BTW: Take a look here,

QuoteWow.
Big Let-down. I really had hoped for a highly political, strategic level Empire building/destruction game, all not in boardgame, but roleplay format, with plausibilities and "Grand Captainship" flying all over the table. I'd kill for such a game...

Thanks Judd! I think I have got an impression.

The subsystems still look very neat, maybe I can salvage them for my Traveller Campaigns.
       

from this thread
http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1591


 and tell me if I should buy Burning Empires;)

Hey Guys,

I'm happy to keep up the discussion, but I'm off to a Burning Empires BBQ. I'll try to get back to this tonight or tomorrow.

Plus, I have another thread I want to start.

thanks!
-L

The fact that something is old news, doesn't mean it is old news to everyone.

Sorceror had the whole relationship maps thing, which to some people was very big news indeed and really helped their gaming.  Some other people had been doing stuff like that for years, and so didn't find it so exciting.  In that instance, I was in the latter group, I had already been using similar techniques so it didn't add much to my life but other stuff in the book did.

Let it ride, a piece of frankly rather obvious advice from Burning Wheel, for some odd reason hadn't occurred to me.  I guess we all miss stuff from time to time.  Once pointed out, it was obvious, and now I use it.  So, thanks Luke for helping me out there.  Much appreciated.

And that's the thing, just because something is obvious doesn't mean everyone knows it.  Just because something is old news to one group of people, doesn't mean it can't be new and exciting to another group.

I'm not convinced the indie crowd are seeking to convert me to anything.  I think they're really buzzed with what they're doing and want to share that, which is cool.  A few of them go overboard, which is not cool but it's not really fair to lay that on all of them because it's not all of them.

I don't think people are saying Roll Dice or Say Yes is the rpg answer to E=MC2.  I think they're just saying they've found it really good advice, if one doesn't find it so useful oneself then it doesn't seem to me too hard to say "thanks, but I already know that one" or "thanks, but I don't think that one's that applicable to how I game".  If an individual then carries on trying to beat you with it, then it's fair enough to get annoyed as it is with anyone banging away about anything, but I don't see why we need to carry out preemptive strikes.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadAs for moving the game along, and perhaps this shows how comfortably I live near the G/S crossroads,

Meaningless statement. There's no such thing as either "G" or "S"; its based on a flawed theory that we don't take as dogma on these boards.

Why don't you pick a different way to describe yourself, that says what you were meaning to say without trying to jam yourself into a fake set of descriptors from a flawed theory?  Especially given that, as GNS posits, there's no such thing as a "G/S crossroad" because those are two distinct playstyles that can never possibly meet.  So let's make up new terminology instead, based on reality rather than on meaningless theories that have been demonstrated to be wrong time and again.

RPGPundit

@Balbinus: This is the spirit, we are on the same side of the argument. You do realize, that there is a bunch of threadcrappers on teh internets, who`ll bring it up in the E=MC-squaredmanner. And that's what gets my flaming fingers twitching.

And the problem is not with any specific citation of this "Law"; but with the overall issue that there is a bloc of people who are convinced that this should be a "Law"; and want to apply it to strip control of games from GMs, and try to argue viciously that this is somehow obviously a superior way to play for everyone.

Its iteration in Nobilis is, I'll admit, vastly more fucked up than in DiTV, since there its taken as a LAW, rather than just the very very strongly worded GM-advice of DiTV.

In either case, the Landmarks make it plain that people vastly prefer the conventional GM-Player balance of power, and that therefore these kinds of arguments are pointless.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Settembrini@Balbinus: This is the spirit, we are on the same side of the argument. You do realize, that there is a bunch of threadcrappers on teh internets, who`ll bring it up in the E=MC-squaredmanner. And that's what gets my flaming fingers twitching.

Of course there are, there are always folk who think that because something was great for them it is necessarily great for everyone.  The kind of people who on discovering they like liquorice will constantly try to persuade me that I will like it too if I just give it a proper try without prejudice.

However, I am an adult and I understand perfectly well that I don't like liquorice and feel no need to keep trying it to see if that's changed.  

Some posters don't know that and innocently ask if I might like liquorice, that's fair enough and really I'm to blame if I then bite their heads off for it.  Some however keep pushing liquorice at me, at which point the only sensible response is to kill them and shame them by not even taking their stuff (which is probably liquorice scented anyway).

Quote from: RPGPunditMeaningless statement. There's no such thing as either "G" or "S"; its based on a flawed theory that we don't take as dogma on these boards.

Why don't you pick a different way to describe yourself, that says what you were meaning to say without trying to jam yourself into a fake set of descriptors from a flawed theory? Especially given that, as GNS posits, there's no such thing as a "G/S crossroad" because those are two distinct playstyles that can never possibly meet.

What makes you think I am talking about GNS? I'm a disciple of the old "threefold model", and am comfortable using those terms despite that they have been inherited and jimmied around into GNS theory.

I don't accept that the playstyles are necessarily exclusive, either, and have argued to point vocifously on other forums. So it's a bit ironic that someone's picking a fight with me on the exclusivity of the poles.

I could explain more precisely what my "gaming philosophy" is, but I think that for most forumites, that was useful shorthand. Do you really not understand what I mean, or are you trying to make a point about GNS with which I don't necessarily disagree?

Here's my fundamental thought about GNS/GDS. The idea that different gamers strive for different things, and different games fulfill specific different needs, is an important observation and all game designers and GMs who hope to be worth a shit should pay attention to this. Any notion of universal exlusivity of the "poles" of GNS is largely manufactered. There are specific instances in which these goals can conflict, but in other instances they can overlap (I often use what is termed simulationism to what some would call narrative effect.)

Quote from: RPGPunditIts iteration in Nobilis is, I'll admit, vastly more fucked up than in DiTV, since there its taken as a LAW, rather than just the very very strongly worded GM-advice of DiTV.

Heh: that's just Ianthe talking. Her style can admittedly be a little high-flown at times.

(By way of explanation, one of the quirks of the game is that the chapters on running it are written as though they were a series of lessons by Ianthe Falls-Short, the Marchessa of Debate and one of the major NPCs. Incidentally, that also explains the arch tone of the earlier excerpt.)

I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that it's bad advice, per se.

I personally reject the notion that it's a rule or a law that the GM of any game is bound to follow. GMs are often arbitrators of game rules, but are never themselves subject to them, or else they cease to be GMs on the basic level.

The Monarda Law might not suit every game or group out there, but like dicelessness it does fit in with Nob. After all, the idea is that during the Commencement, when you are transformed into a Noble, you lose all doubt and hesitation about your abilities. You might still worry about the consequences or whether your actions are justified, but you always know exactly what you are capable of: exert yourself that much and you can lift Mount Rushmore, do this and every teardrop in the world turns into a pearl. It's only when some other supernatural agency becomes involved that things turn more uncertain.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadWhat makes you think I am talking about GNS? I'm a disciple of the old "threefold model", and am comfortable using those terms despite that they have been inherited and jimmied around into GNS theory.

I don't accept that the playstyles are necessarily exclusive, either, and have argued to point vocifously on other forums. So it's a bit ironic that someone's picking a fight with me on the exclusivity of the poles.

I could explain more precisely what my "gaming philosophy" is, but I think that for most forumites, that was useful shorthand. Do you really not understand what I mean, or are you trying to make a point about GNS with which I don't necessarily disagree?

My apologies, I made the presumption you were using GNS terminology. These days, when someone says "G" or "S" that is usually what they are talking about...

I'm glad you get my point though...


RPGPundit

A bit late getting back in:

As this is the 'working theory' portion of the board let's pull back from discussion of actual wording and 'other people'... I know, I brought those up...



While context wise the 'Monarda Law' works in Noblis because of the default power level. It is more than a bit heavy handed, but most of Noblis is heavy handed as well.

In the Burning wheel it is treated more like advice to keep the game running smooth.  

There is a fundamental difference between a game rule and a peice of GM advice however.  While it is 'Rule Zero' that the Game Rules are subject to actual play (though it seems some designers refuse to acknowledge it) making 'advice' into rules is inviting abuse from less mature players.

The Pundit, for that matter Spike (me), is a strong proponent of GM authority over the Game, to include the rules.  Sure, following this advice informally can make you a better GM, but being 'forced' to follow it isn't the answer.  Visions of Gaming Police standing over the table with guns at teh GM's head now...

The GM is the referee, the umpire of the Baseball game of RPGing. He's also the Commissioner.  The game writer is the guy that invented the game 100+ years ago (naismith? Or was that basketball...oh well).  Over the years the rules of baseball have changed from what was written.  It was the GM's of baseball that changed them.  If the inventor had written in some inflexible, unworkable bit of authority I'm sure it would have been the first thing to go. Make sense?



Now for Spike's Theory of 'Saying Yes' :

In the parts of the book reserved for GM advice: When presented with an unexpected question from a player, or one that poses a challenge to the GM, rather than simply announce a Yes or No to the player, the GM should carefully consider if 1) there is a good Roleplaying challenge that can come from it  or 2) if game play can be made smoother and more fun with a quick answer.

If the answer to 1 is yes, then the GM should present his answer as a challenge to the players.  If the answer to 2 is yes, then the GM can provide a yes or no as needed to keep the game moving, rather than draw out a long exchange to buy a pack of cigarettes from the local corner store.



What'cha think?:cool:

Quote from: SpikeWhile context wise the 'Monarda Law' works in Noblis because of the default power level. It is more than a bit heavy handed, but most of Noblis is heavy handed as well.

"Heavy-handed?" Not the word I'd use, but ah well... The Law ties in with the other ways in which Nob encourages all the players to participate in generating the setting, such as creating their Chancel and their Imperator together as part of chargen. Still, there's a reason why it isn't located in, say, the chapter on conflict resolution: it was never intended to be part of the game mechanics.

Anyway, I've run RPGs according to that same guideline ever since the early nineties, although it's not something that I'd have thought to codify into an actual rule. It would seem to have more to do with the GM's attitude and the expectations of the group than the power level.

Quote from: GrimGent"Heavy-handed?" Not the word I'd use, but ah well... The Law ties in with the other ways in which Nob encourages all the players to participate in generating the setting, such as creating their Chancel and their Imperator together as part of chargen. Still, there's a reason why it isn't located in, say, the chapter on conflict resolution: it was never intended to be part of the game mechanics.

One would argue that chosing to call it a law IS heavy handed, by default.  :pundit:

Quote from: SpikeOne would argue that chosing to call it a law IS heavy handed, by default.  :pundit:

...Except that the appellation is no more serious than dubbing the GM "the Hollyhock God" because of his ambition to craft a world. The Law is simply an optional safeguard against railroading when the rest of the group has no interest in being led by the nose, nothing more: the book stresses time after time that everyone is entitled to have fun during a game. Abide by it, and the events will unfold naturally from the actions of the characters rather than from any script written in advance.

(If the players want to be railroaded, that's another matter altogether, and perfectly acceptable.)

Quote from: GrimGent...Except that the appellation is no more serious than dubbing the GM "the Hollyhock God" because of his ambition to craft a world.

Again, I claimed Noblis was heavy handed across the board, so using a noblis 'God' as a counter argument is sort of silly. :D

As for the rest of your post: Consider this, the long running argument in general is not the rightness or wrongness of any one rule, it is about the entire concept of improving game play by writing rules to prevent 'bad play'.

If I wanted to, I could be a Hollyhock God that was a serious Railroader. Nothing in the rules will prevent that because I could simply ignore them or cheat around them. You COULD argue that if I did it enough I would not be playing Noblis anymore.

Remember rule zero: the game as played at the table does not have to resemble the game as written.  Its MY game once I sit down at the table, on either side of the screen, and how I play it is more objectively right than anything the writer wanted to set down.

You can't outrule 'bad play'. Rules do not create 'good play'. Facilitate, certainly.  But the Monarda Law, or "Say yes or roll' rule is about as stiff as wet toilet paper when it comes to stopping a freighttrain running the rails.

What they can do, and DO do is provide advice. They also give a tool to asshat players who want to bitch about not getting things handed to them.

Pick your poison.

Player: Can I have an Atom bomb?
DM: Hmm. That's pretty weird for D&D... Yes or roll the dice... hmm... which to choose... let's go with roll the dice.
*roll*
Player: Awesome a 6!
DM: Ooooooh so close! Better luck next time.
Player: What?! I got a 6 man -- it was a six-sided dice and I rolled a six.
DM: Yeah... you need to roll a 7 to find an Atom bomb in this game.

;)

Quote from: RPGPunditIn either case, the Landmarks make it plain that people vastly prefer the conventional GM-Player balance of power, and that therefore these kinds of arguments are pointless.

Yes, pointless given that the Landmarks are a hobbled together collection of logic fallacies. For example this above is a classic argumentum ad populum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_majority), but even the premise of majority preference required more to get there. :pundit:


As to whether 'say yes or roll the dice' is stupid I think it should be kept in mind that 'roll the dice' represents the game system as a whole.  This can include, at least in my mind, checking predetermined details that includes things like checking the map or the setting information. So for a game that assumes a setting more predetermined in a canned adventure or precreated by the GM the wording would be best changed to reflect that assumption.  So taking that text into context of the whole system should have it make a lot more sense for you.

Or at least that's the way I read it, but then I'm not the author.

Quote from: StuartPlayer: Can I have an Atom bomb?

*GM stops the game*

GM: What the fuck is wrong with you?

Player: But..   wait.  You're supposed to say yes or roll dice!

GM: Right.  And you're supposed to play this game.  Not some other idiotic bullshit you just made up.  Are you playing this game?

Player: Okay.  Then, I want a +10 sword.  I take it off the dead guy we killed.

(Return to start, until player actually plays the fucking game).

Actually it is specifically addressed on page 262 in the Dispute and Disagreement section of the small Die of Fate chapter. For those without the book the Die of Fate dice mechanic is sort of like the Supreme Court in that it is the catchall at the end of the system that hears very, very small percetange of the total cases in the system.

The specific text reads:

   The dispute must be surrounding something reasonable and feasible within the game context. A player cannot make a stand for beam weaponry in the Duke's toilet and hope to get a DoF roll.


So chalk one more up for 'missing context'.

P.S. Oh, and it is a '1' not a '6' on the DoF is a determination in favour of the player's request. :)

Quote(Return to start, until player actually plays the fucking game).

Player: Okay. Then, I want a +10 sword. I take it off the dead guy we killed.
GM: What the FUCK?! What the FUCK is wrong with you?!!?!
Player: Uh, dude -- you need to chill out.
GM: Fuck Chad, FUCK -- you need to start playing the FUCKING GAME!
Player: Well you said we could say what our charcter --
GM: FUCK!?>!@!!!  It has to be part of THIS GAME! Not some OTHER GAME!! FUCK!!?!
Player: Ok, ok -- he finds a +5 sword.
GM: HOLY FUCKING FUCK CHAD!!@!!!@! Are you kidding me?  What the FUCK kind of game are you playing???
Player: +4?
GM: Chad...
Player: 3?
GM: I swear to god Chad...
Player: What?! What do you want me to say??!?!
GM: Do you really think you'd find a magic sword in an empty room?  Think Chad, THINK!
Player: Um, ok, ok -- he, uh, he finds... nothing?
GM: and...?
Player: And he...uh... he thinks about his feelings?
GM: Okay good.  See -- that wasn't so hard, and you'll feel more empowered because I didn't say no to your suggestion.
Player: Yeah, that's really awesome. wow - is it that time already?  Jeez, I better get going...

:D

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen*GM stops the game*

GM: What the fuck is wrong with you?

Didn't see the word no in there either. :D
Coulda used a dopeslap though. :pimpdahoe:

Quote from: Stuart*snip*

You know something, though this is used as an argument for saying no, I've never really run a game where that has happened. No one has ever demanded the absurd or not even really the impossible. They've always asked for stuff that was achievable, though maybe difficult to do so. Now it's just my experience, but if the example above is really the way some folks will act, then no isn't likely to be strenuous enough for them. It would be easier just to kick them out of the group.

JamesV, I don't know who you are, but you speak sense and the truth.

Seriously, everyone else, if you're really playing with people that are so slippery that the moment you loosen your firm GM reins, they're making up imaginary bombs for their imaginary characters to do whatever imaginary thing that is totally not fun for everyone else, theory or nothing else will help you. You're already screwed.

I wake up happy every game day (Mondays) that I have a group of awesome individuals that care about making each other have the most fun possible.

Clinton, that's just unnatural.

Happiness on mondays is just wrong.

Quote from: Stuart*Fuck*

:p

Awesome, man.

QuoteNow it's just my experience, but if the example above is really the way some folks will act, then no isn't likely to be strenuous enough for them. It would be easier just to kick them out of the group.

DM: Get the hell out. Don't bother coming back you worthless piece of garbage.
Player: What? We've been friends since the 6th grade!
DM: You are dead to me...

---------------------------------

Kidding aside, there are all sorts of people in the world and some of those people will act differently from the ones you game with.  If people think it's an RPG -- with RPG type goals -- some will try and "win" the game in the same way they "win" other RPGs.  Being rewarded with widgets and treasure.  If the game says they can narrate what happens to their own character... it's pretty easy to imagine what they might do.

If you state very clearly that it's not a roleplaying game in the traditional sense, but rather a storytelling game and you "win" by working with the other players to tell a really cool story, and your own character is secondary to the overall story... I doubt you'll find the situation outlined above.  I doubt players of Once Upon a Time (http://www.atlas-games.com/onceuponatime/) run into that sort of probem (although there are ways that game is easily disrupted as well).

Quote from: StuartI doubt players of Once Upon a Time (http://www.atlas-games.com/onceuponatime/) run into that sort of probem (although there are ways that game is easily disrupted as well).

Totally the case.

Among my friends, Once Upon A Time stories sometimes get really crude and ribald.  This makes for much fun, but occasionally annoys someone if they were trying to play seriously.

No, I can't explain this.

Well, there is that ending "And it fit perfectly".  But we don't talk about that.

Much.

Quote from: blakkieYes, pointless given that the Landmarks are a hobbled together collection of logic fallacies. For example this above is a classic argumentum ad populum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_majority), but even the premise of majority preference required more to get there. :pundit:

Except an "argumentum ad populum" isn't in ANY way stupid if you are talking about what is "best" for the "Populum" in question.

If you're trying to create a supposedly universal set of theories about gaming, you can't start that theory by pissing on the position of the vast majority of gamers, arguing that they are playing wrong and either so stupid that they don't know it or are willingly pretending not to know it.

The idea in this Forum at least is to create theory and RPGs that actually serve the majority, instead of playing little elitist circle-jerks.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Clinton R. NixonJamesV, I don't know who you are, but you speak sense and the truth.

Seriously, everyone else, if you're really playing with people that are so slippery that the moment you loosen your firm GM reins, they're making up imaginary bombs for their imaginary characters to do whatever imaginary thing that is totally not fun for everyone else, theory or nothing else will help you. You're already screwed.

I wake up happy every game day (Mondays) that I have a group of awesome individuals that care about making each other have the most fun possible.

Except its not usually a question of such extreme things. Its more like the "death of a thousand cuts".

Its more like players asking for a bunch of little things, that they think they really want, because then they'll be COOL if they  have these things. The "things" in question could be items, powers, skills, or could be protagonism and "screen time"; it could be the desire that "more" of the plots of the game focus on them or interest them. They could feel that these requests are perfectly reasonable.
So do every other player.
In the end, the result is a game that quickly spirals out of control, as surely as if they had the atom bomb or the +10 sword.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditExcept an "argumentum ad populum" isn't in ANY way stupid if you are talking about what is "best" for the "Populum" in question.

During the black plague it was initially widely thought that it was largely transmitted by dogs and cats. There were city mayors that ordered total extermination of the dogs and cats based on this belief. Unfortunately it was in truth the fleas primarily carried on rats that was the major vector. Thus action based on the popular belief accelerated the spread of the plague. A widely held belief that was based on shallow observations and false assumptions.

Argumentum ad populum in action. :(

QuoteThe idea in this Forum at least is to create theory and RPGs that actually serve the majority, instead of playing little elitist circle-jerks.

Then why are you purposely closing your eyes things that have been shown to work in practice?  :)  With real people. People that had previously and even continue to play D&D? People that can play the games one way or another. People that actually [EDIT:change the rules to] play D&D differently than built?

Because believe it or not there are a good number of people that buy D&D books and play D&D that really take issue with a number of the things in it. A large number of things.


P.S.  So no comment on the rest of my post trying to explain 'say yes or roll' in terms of games like D&D?

Quote from: StuartPlayer: Okay. Then, I want a +10 sword. I take it off the dead guy we killed.
GM: What the FUCK?! What the FUCK is wrong with you?!!?!
Player: Uh, dude -- you need to chill out.
GM: Fuck Chad, FUCK -- you need to start playing the FUCKING GAME!
Player: Well you said we could say what our charcter --
GM: FUCK!?>!@!!!  It has to be part of THIS GAME! Not some OTHER GAME!! FUCK!!?!
Player: Ok, ok -- he finds a +5 sword.
GM: HOLY FUCKING FUCK CHAD!!@!!!@! Are you kidding me?  What the FUCK kind of game are you playing???
Player: +4?
GM: Chad...
Player: 3?
GM: I swear to god Chad...
Player: What?! What do you want me to say??!?!
GM: Do you really think you'd find a magic sword in an empty room?  Think Chad, THINK!
Player: Um, ok, ok -- he, uh, he finds... nothing?
GM: and...?
Player: And he...uh... he thinks about his feelings?
GM: Okay good.  See -- that wasn't so hard, and you'll feel more empowered because I didn't say no to your suggestion.
Player: Yeah, that's really awesome. wow - is it that time already?  Jeez, I better get going...

:D

That's a pretty poor handling of it by the GM. Under any system. :(

Also remember that up front Chad had a very real part in and accepted the basic design of the setting. This setting was not thrust upon him in an arbitrary manner.  Pride of ownership is a powerful motivating force.

But to clear something up, sure they might find something rare to the setting on the guy. But when they pick up one end of the stick they pick up the other.  Why is there, in the context of the setting, this rare sword on this body? Who did they just kill? Who's going to want that sword from them? What lengths will they go to to obtain it?

So the GM presents that choice to them, find the sword and deal with the conciquences. If the player(s) want to turn the heat up with that kind of challenge then I say GAME ON!  Damn I love to see that. Not in a sadistic way. But in a 'hero born before me' way. This is making action happen.

Quote from: blakkieDuring the black plague it was initially widely thought that it was largely transmitted by dogs and cats. There were city mayors that ordered total extermination of the dogs and cats based on this belief. Unfortunately it was in truth the fleas primarily carried on rats that was the major vector. Thus action based on the popular belief accelerated the spread of the plague. A widely held belief that was based on shallow observations and false assumptions.

So basically, you're arguing that mainstream RPG players are ignorant rubes who don't know what is really good for them?

Yea, its a real fucking mystery why Forgeites are so resented...

RPGPundit

Quote from: blakkieYes, pointless given that the Landmarks are a hobbled together collection of logic fallacies. For example this above is a classic argumentum ad populum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_majority), but even the premise of majority preference required more to get there. :pundit:

The basis of economics is that people know their own preferences and are capable of choosing the option best for them.  If you knew fuck-all about the social sciences, or even exercised the smallest bit of common sense, you would realize why "just because people prefer it doesn't mean it's more fun" is such a moronic thing to say.

Quote from: RPGPunditSo basically, you're arguing that mainstream RPG players are ignorant rubes who don't know what is really good for them?

Nope. I'm, among other things, suggesting that I've personally witnessed that when given the side by side choice I've seen more players than not show a preference towards 'empowerment' and the results have been solidly positive. This includes long time D&D players.  Now this isn't all gamers, and there are situations where it will work better than others.  Such as longer term gaming groups.

It also is going to work poorly with the what you call lawncrappers.  The socially challenged beyond your personal preference to tolerate. The people that I might go so far as to recommend not gaming with.


P.S.  I'm also suggesting you seem to be ignoring the actual meat of the topic and instead are focusing on red-word arguments. :(   EDIT Oh, and I happen to be a....what would you call it....RPGsiter? At least defined by where I post.  Welcome to your clientelel! :p  

Quote from: hgjsThe basis of economics is that people know their own preferences and are capable of choosing the option best for them.  If you knew fuck-all about the social sciences, or even exercised the smallest bit of common sense, you would realize why "just because people prefer it doesn't mean it's more fun" is such a moronic thing to say.

You are assuming a number of things, such as equal market exposure for customers to have had time to settle thing out.  Which simply isn't the case.  But "it's popular" isn't the only part of where his logic breaks down.

EDIT There is the small matter of the assumption of each individual feature in the product being a positive influence on the customer purchasing the whole of the product.

Also as has been shown earlier in the thread the concept of 'say yes or roll dice' isn't actually new nor particularly alien to D&D tables. :(


Anyway, I think that's enough of RPGPundit's obstification tactics for me. Thanks, and take care.

Quote from: blakkieNope. I'm, among other things, suggesting that I've personally witnessed that when given the side by side choice I've seen more players than not show a preference towards 'empowerment' and the results have been solidly positive. This includes long time D&D players.

So you're clinging to basic snobbery, then? "To know my tastes is to love them?" Those poor saps are only doing what they're doing because they haven't tried your (right) way yet?

Anybody else smell bacon...?

Fellas, all the empowerment a player needs, is total contorl over his character and the equipment he already has. Don't fuck with freedom of choice, and you need no stinkin' hand-holding "let's work together in peace and harmony" nonsense.

If you don't know what I mean, visit this forge thread:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=21227.15 (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=21227.15)

Wherein I recap a convention session and am being asked how I could GM so rockingly cool. When I explained, they said it is wrong because:

QuotePutting the GM on some sort of throne helps nothing.  It destroys any kind of open communication about the game.  [...]  It's a collaborative effort to have a good time.

Insert flowers, and hippie music...

But the players, who even posted in the thread were really lovin' it. PE is rubbish, if applied to every discussion, like it happened there. Some people are Forge-brain damaged. They cannot even grok regular adventure gaming anymore...

Quote from: YamoSo you're clinging to basic snobbery, then? "To know my tastes is to love them?" Those poor saps are only doing what they're doing because they haven't tried your (right) way yet?

WTF?  It is snobbery for me to note, and yes this is just antidotal evidence from me by itself, that many people respond quite positively to the general concept of 'player empowerment' in a gaming environment.  That is how game developers actually test their products to improve it and get it ready to sell. Get people to play with different variations and see what the results are.

It is pretty clear where Hunter Thompson would point if asked to identify the source of said bacon smell on this one. :pundit:

First I'll say I don't like shortening things down to a couple of words like 'player empowerment', which is why I try to put brackets around it.  It is way too broad, carries a lot of baggage, and people take it lots of different ways. But it's late and I'm short on words, so it'll have to do for now. :) Bedtime after this post.

Quote from: SettembriniFellas, all the empowerment a player needs, is total contorl over his character and the equipment he already has. Don't fuck with freedom of choice, and you need no stinkin' hand-holding "let's work together in peace and harmony" nonsense.

Here is the the problem I've found with what I think I'm hearing you say above.  Identifying what is character and what is setting breaks down.  Because the line blurs and bleeds. A lot.

Gear they don't have yet? Part of what defines a character is abilities, including abilities to construct gear.  Gear they already have? Well where did they get it from?

Then you have character's influence on things outside of them, and potential influence coming back in.

The setting heavily influences the choices of a character, and to ignore those influences you end up with things like anachronisms. Likewise a character should influence the world they are in, if they can't that's classic railroad.

A character that centred around doing something in a situation that just doesn't exist in the setting? It would be like a trap centric rogue in a trapless world. Nearly pointless.

So the upshot is that without real input and influence on the setting what ends up happening is that the player can get boxed in on the character.  This even happens in PC to PC influence sometimes.

Total character control implies either substantial setting control or a pathological situation.

Quote from: SettembriniInsert flowers, and hippie music...

It's not the flowers or the music that's attractive.

It's the fantastic sex.

:D

Quote from: SettembriniPE is rubbish, if applied to every discussion, like it happened there.

Anything is rubbish if applied to every discussion.

blakkie, I totally don't know what you are talking about.

EDIT: I don't understand it.

Quote from: Settembriniblakkie, I totally don't know what you are talking about.

It is late, sorry.  Short version:

Total character control requires substantial control of the setting.  Total setting control requires substantial control of the character. To try operate as though they aren't linked thusly results in a pathological disjoint between the character and it's environment.

QuoteTotal character control requires substantial control of the setting.  

???
Either you are talking bullshit, or something totally out of my area of experience.
Let's say, I have a traveller character. I can say anything he does (character control), w/o changing the way the imperium is organized (setting), no?

Quote from: SettembriniLet's say, I have a traveller character. I can say anything he does (character control), w/o changing the way the imperium is organized (setting), no?

What if you declare that he is the head of the Imperium, and that he initiates a 'reorg' or just desolves the Imperium and trades off some choice planets to the Hive Federation for a Diet Pepsi, a pack of Luckys, and a Light Sabre?

QuoteWhat if declare that he is the head of the Imperium, and that he initiates a 'reorg' or just desolves the Imperium and trades off some choice planets to the Hive Federation for a Diet Pepsi and a pack of Luckys?

Well you do know character creation rules? And you are not in control of the characters "story", but in control of his actions! You can state anything he DOES. As in "I buy a newspaper; I shoot at the  other guy."
Your statement is really bewildering me, we, clearly are talking about different things.

Quote from: SettembriniWell you do know character creation rules?

Oh now you're stepping all over my character?  Come see the repression inherent in the system! :(   Actually I haven't the first clue about Traveller character creation rules.  :o   So they don't have any ultra reet character creation optional rules in there?

QuoteYou can state anything he DOES. As in "I buy a newspaper; I shoot at the  other guy."

But what if there is no newspaper?   <----- The really important part, the rest of my post is just so much drivel to ignore. ;)

QuoteYour statement is really bewildering me, we, clearly are talking about different things.

It is because the example you set up wasn't something personally I could fill out that well. So I went way the hell over the top.  Including tossing in a Star Wars reference. :eek:

Quote from: SettembriniWell you do know character creation rules? And you are not in control of the characters "story", but in control of his actions! You can state anything he DOES. As in "I buy a newspaper; I shoot at the  other guy."
Your statement is really bewildering me, we, clearly are talking about different things.

Actual, total control of every detail of the character also means controlling their circumstances.

Actual, total control of the setting also requires controlling the circumstances of the character.

Simple.

Quote from: SpikeIf I wanted to, I could be a Hollyhock God that was a serious Railroader. Nothing in the rules will prevent that because I could simply ignore them or cheat around them. You COULD argue that if I did it enough I would not be playing Noblis anymore.

Well, not really: I would argue that at that point you aren't playing any game at all anymore, but instead telling a story to the rest of the group. In that respect, Nobilis is no different from D&D.

Besides, ignoring the players from the start would be akward when they already know that their characters should by rights be capable of the things they have suggested. It would be like telling a warrior in D&D just as a battle is beginning that all her armour and weapons were stolen a while back but you didn't mention it earlier because it didn't seem important at the time, or telling a wizard that he has quite inexplicably and without any warning forgotten all his spells... Pull off stunts like that once or twice without a really good reason, and soon you won't have a group left. As Settembrini just said, it's about control over the character, and in Nob the characters can rather easily control the setting.

QuoteActual, total control of every detail of the character also means controlling their circumstances.

That's sophism. You roll up a character, and there he is. And then you can go ahead and control his actions. Simple.

QuoteBut what if there is no newspaper?

Than the GM says:

"No, there isn't any"
"Why?"
"It's sold out, smash hit, with your faces and the burning mayor on it."
"I go to the library."
"You find one, and can read the newspaper there. Although it's definitely more heavily used than the others, seems to be a popular issue."

Very simple. I call it roleplaying games, let me tell you about it:

"The GM tells the players about the surrounding world. Then the players can  state the actions of their characters. The GM says how the world reacts to the stated action."

EDIT: Newspapers are obviously an artifact of the world, not the character. You have control about his ACTIONS not his surroundings. That's the whole fun: affect your surrounding through clever action.

There is no newspaper anywhere.....and let's step away from Traveller to the hypothetical game Offices & Overtime.

Player: I buy a newspaper.
GM: Nope, there isn't one.
Player: No problem. I have this totally bizatch Newspaper Finding skill, so I go out and find one. *picks up dice*
GM: No. There are no newspapers in this world. They were never invented.
Player: But my background says I had a newspaper route growing up. See, it says right here.  Plus my Newspaper Finding skill. And I wanted to fill out a resume this session to apply for a newspaper editor's job for my next level up. That's why I wanted the paper.
GM: Tough noogies, Paper Boi.

Why should there be a modern game world without newspapers? Your example is well, violating the basic assumptions about regular RPGs: Present a believable, plausible world.

I see your linguistic point, but it is irrelevant, isn't it?

Quote from: blakkieGM: No. There are no newspapers in this world. They were never invented.
Player: But my background says I had a newspaper route growing up. See, it says right here.

As an aside, this little scenario is actually plausible  in Nob since it's theoretically possible for newspapers to be Excruciated at any moment, at which point they would cease to have ever been even as memories or ideas except for the PCs and others like them... That's not something any GM wants to use for a casual bit of player-bashing, though, since constantly adjusting the setting to the changes would take an awfully lot of effort.

Quote from: SettembriniWhy should there be a modern game world without newspapers? Your example is well, violating the basic assumptions about regular RPGs: Present a believable, plausible world.

GM: This an alternate world, newpapers were never invented.
Player: What? Are there books?
GM: Yes. But no periodicals of any sort.
Player: I find that rather implausible.
GM: Who's deciding on the setting here? Me, that's who!

QuoteBecause I see your linguistic point, but it is irrelevant, isn't it?

'Newspaper' is just a placeholder. It can be pretty much anything.

See you are making an assumption about the GM-player communication and give and take that Luke purposefully put in specific rules for. First the player and the GM hash out the setting and character up front to figure out the major parts where they connect. Eliminating most furture incompatibility issues. Both between the PC and the setting and between the player's and GM's expectations and intentions.

Then during play if any small detail comes up that they can't quite see eye to eye on, or if there is some sort of barrier in the way of the player's intended PC actions, they go to the dice to decide.  With a high preference for testing a character skill to make the determination. 'Say yes or roll.'

Of course there could be other ways of a game system making those determinations.  Like a pregenerated map as I mentioned.  But the concept is basically the same.

Well, more Power to luke and all burning subsystems. But the problem that it adresses has never been one in sixteen years of gaming for me.

Wanna know why? Because when we say:"Let's play traveller." Everybody has the same assumptions. And in doubt, the GM makes the call. Always worked for us, and always will. I've never played with a crappy a GM as you supposed, and I doubt he'll be functional a being enough to use a burn-like system.

And the argument we are having is the one about player empowerment: Don't want it don't need it. You tried to "prove" that I needed it. And thats just wrong.

QuoteThen during play if any small detail comes up that they can't quite see eye to eye on, or if there is some sort of barrier in the way of the player's intended PC actions, they go to the dice to decide.

What kind of shitty GMs do you happen to know?
WTF, the GM always KNOWS what is most plausible, he's living and breathing the world. Something strange happened to gaming I suppose...

QuoteWTF, the GM always KNOWS what is most plausible, he's living and breathing the world.

Really?  Why?  Because you have choosen to define it that way?  What about the players, aren't they living and breathing the world too?

QuoteI've never played with a crappy a GM as you supposed...

Where did I suppose that?

QuoteAnd the argument we are having is the one about player empowerment: Don't want it don't need it. You tried to "prove" that I needed it.

Huh?

QuoteBecause you have choosen to define it that way?  

Yepp, and because he has read all the background info, and has read/written/defined the adventure.

QuoteWhat about the players, aren't they living and breathing the world too?

No, they are living and breathing their characters.

And because in games I like, stuff is DEFINED beforehand! There are challenges, there are rules there is plausability. How could I for example, influence Greyhawk in the Age of Worms Campaign? Only through the ACTIONS of my character (18th Level Cleric of Wee Jaas, btw.).

Quote from: SettembriniYepp, and because he has read all the background info, and has read/written/defined the adventure.

So why didn't anyone else read the background info? Actually they must have or there wouldn't be the collective understanding of what 'traveller' means. How about help define the adventure? Why not that?

QuoteNo, they are living and breathing their characters.

But as we've already gone over the character isn't independant from the setting.  Plus why don't they get to/want to live and breath the setting too? That's what I get from that engaged word that gets tossed around from time to time.

Quote from: blakkieIt is late, sorry.  Short version:

Total character control requires substantial control of the setting.  Total setting control requires substantial control of the character. To try operate as though they aren't linked thusly results in a pathological disjoint between the character and it's environment.

So after insulting every mainstream gamer by comparing them to medieval ignorants, you are now retreating into semantics and arguing that we can't know what the roles are?

We know what the roles are, thank you very much. Gamers have had little trouble figuring out where player power ends and GM power begins for a good thirty or so years now.

The fact that you personally want to play some kind of different game than the RPG, and wish others would too, doesn't make it so.

RPGPundit

QuoteSo why didn't anyone else read the background info?

Because they are not the GM.

QuoteActually the must have or there wouldn't be the collective understanding of what 'traveller' means.

Or have it told by them through the GM, Actual Play or novels and actual communication as in: "Traveller is Hard SF, very much like the movie outland mixed with Dune". Background info means especially the info for the current adventure.

QuoteHow about help define the adventure? Why not that?

Because there would be no challenge, if the plaers knew the answer/motivations/puzzles.

You can, obviously, have games like that. But they are not Adventure RPGs anymore, and therefore, especially for their lack of challenge, suspense and character centered nature, totally lame to me. The challenges in TRPGs as well as its suspense is totally different.

Quote from: SettembriniBecause they are not the GM.

Or have it told by them through the GM, Actual Play or novels and actual communication as in: "Traveller is Hard SF, very much like the movie outland mixed with Dune". Background info means especially the info for the current adventure.

And if they happened to have read it instead of getting it 2nd hand? Or had a desire for something extra to be added or tweaked that the other players were ok with?

QuoteBecause there would be no challenge, if the plaers knew the answer/motivations/puzzles.

Helping define the adventure doesn't mean authoring all the individual details.  Plus since dice help to trigger branches, then you really don't know how it's going to turn out anyway. Surely you haven't found that the GM always knew all of the possible solutions? Or knew which one the players would choose.

QuoteYou can, obviously, have games like that. But they are not Adventure RPGs anymore, and therefore, especially for their lack of challenge, suspense and character centered nature, totally lame to me. The challenges in TRPGs as well as its suspense is totally different.

Whoa. Back the train up. Lack of challenge???  Lack of suspense???  Lack of character centered???  Aye-karumba! You seem to have a very off picture of what is being suggested.

No, character centered they are. And this, I totally un-dig.
Tell me, for fuck's sake what "Player Empowerment" you envision for the Age of Worms Campaign?

EDIT: Go, read my actual play of Rifts, Tell me where "PE" is needed. Shut the fuck up about friggin' theoretical stuff and do it the forge way: THEORY ONLY WITH ACTUAL PLAY. Wherein Actual means Actual.

BTW I Know there is challenge in TRPGs. but not the challenge I like.

Quote from: SettembriniShut the fuck up about friggin' theoretical stuff and do it the forge way: THEORY ONLY WITH ACTUAL PLAY. Wherein Actual means Actual.

I mentioned before I really have nothing to do with The Forge, but perhaps I didn't mention it to you.  So exactly how does that format work?  Is it a block thingy like in that thread?  Are there particular entries that need to be or are expected to be filled out?  You can't ask someone about their past actual actual gaming experiences?

I'll do up a full response later. Right now my response to swearing and yelling wouldn't be the most constructive. ;)

Quote from: GrimGentWell, not really: I would argue that at that point you aren't playing any game at all anymore, but instead telling a story to the rest of the group. In that respect, Nobilis is no different from D&D.

Besides, ignoring the players from the start would be akward when they already know that their characters should by rights be capable of the things they have suggested. It would be like telling a warrior in D&D just as a battle is beginning that all her armour and weapons were stolen a while back but you didn't mention it earlier because it didn't seem important at the time, or telling a wizard that he has quite inexplicably and without any warning forgotten all his spells... Pull off stunts like that once or twice without a really good reason, and soon you won't have a group left. As Settembrini just said, it's about control over the character, and in Nob the characters can rather easily control the setting.

I don't know why you keep running up to Noblis again... anyway, we can both agree that absolute railroading is bad GMing, and barely qualifies as gaming (if indeed at all). The fact that it is possible for a GM/Hollyhock god to STILL railroad, even Noblis (despite Monarda) OR take a fighters weapons and armor away in D&D shows that shitty GM/HG's  are essentially teh same, rules be damned.

Thus, you have presented the straw man.  Very well, that fucker is dead, well and truly shredded, I wince at the brutality which you inflicted upon his poor benighted, defenceless self. Alas, I knew him not, for he was thine, not mine.


Because I HAVE played with GM's, regardless of system who have pulled shit like this. Sometimes its a misguided attempt to set up a challenge, sometimes its asshattery of the highest order. And no rule is going to stop that. That is my point, the very core of my arguement. A rule who's only purpose is to prevent bad play is worth less than the ink used to write it.

:pundit:

Quote from: SpikeA rule who's only purpose is to prevent bad play is worth less than the ink used to write it.

I was with you up until here.

Preventing bad play is a worthy goal, and lots of meaningful rules in games that I would not want to do without can be pointed at as having the purpose of "preventing bad play".

QuoteI'll do up a full response later. Right now my response to swearing and yelling wouldn't be the most constructive. ;)

What I'm suggesting was: Do back up your statements with actual play examples. When I'm TYPING LIKE THIS. I'm not yelling, but emphasizing. I might stick to bold letters in the future.

Quote from: SpikeBecause I HAVE played with GM's, regardless of system who have pulled shit like this.

Sure, it's not unthinkable that there are daft GMs out there who may occasionally get tired of the whole thing and just state "okay, all of you suffer spontaneous heart attacks and die: game over". I wouldn't play with any of them, and neither would any of the gamers I know. It's probably rare for anyone to want to be nothing more than the GM's obedient little puppet.

The reason why I brought up Nob is that most of the time there's no chance of failure even in the kind of tasks that might require a skill check in other games. Generally, the players are perfectly aware that what they have in mind should work, because the game focuses on the choices made and the consequences that follow. For instance, that Superman example from a few pages back? You can rewind time for the entire world... but it won't affect the other Nobilis who keep on living their lives as usual. Others could very well suffer from your actions: if at that moment another member of your Familia is crossing a street on the other side of the globe, she'll almost inevitably be struck by the flow of traffic as it begins to streak backwards, and you'll certainly inconvenience a large number of influential figures who'd make unpleasant enemies. So yes, you can do it... but there's a catch. A GM who tells you otherwise shows a lamentable lack of imagination and little concern for the rest of the group.

(A little clarification... In addition to whatever other effects the Commencement may have on the Nobilis, they are all "perfected": even at their weakest they remain as capable as common mortals are at their best. In practice, what this means is that every Noble automatically succeeds in any humanly possible task. Of course, the GM is the final arbiter on exactly which actions can be considered "humanly possible", although the chapter on the attributes does provide solid rules on what it takes to perform improbable, impossible and fabled feats.)

Quote from: SettembriniWhat I'm suggesting was: Do back up your statements with actual play examples. When I'm TYPING LIKE THIS. I'm not yelling, but emphasizing. I might stick to bold letters in the future.

Probably worth it, capitalisation is generally taken as shouting after all.

Quote from: SettembriniWhat I'm suggesting was: Do back up your statements with actual play examples. When I'm TYPING LIKE THIS. I'm not yelling, but emphasizing. I might stick to bold letters in the future.

I'll keep that in mind if you happen to forget to. ;)

To clarify, those questions in the post you were responding to were intended primarily to draw out specific instances of your actual play experience, if they existed fitting that criteria. I'm trying to query to fill in the gaps of my mental picture of where you are coming from. Mostly on longterm gaming, because I think that RIFTS thing gave me some insite on the shortterm.  I really don't want to sift through all the threads in this forum to discover it.  I really don't have the stomach for that.

Truth be told when I'm done in this thread I doubt I'll return to this forum. I like the other one better, where the talk somehow seems to me to be more about games. Because that's why I'm here. :)

QuoteTruth be told when I'm done in this thread I doubt I'll return to this forum. I like the other one better, where the talk somehow seems to me to be more about games. Because that's why I'm here. :)

Then let's talk about games.

Quote from: SettembriniThen let's talk about games.

Game discussion?  Actual game discussion?  On an RPG site?  That isn't about Exalted?  ABSURD! :p

Partially a responce to blakkie's quote, partially my trying to add in my two cents on avoiding problems in games.  As always, YMMV.

Quote from: blakkieA character that centred around doing something in a situation that just doesn't exist in the setting? It would be like a trap centric rogue in a trapless world. Nearly pointless.

So the upshot is that without real input and influence on the setting what ends up happening is that the player can get boxed in on the character.  This even happens in PC to PC influence sometimes.

Total character control implies either substantial setting control or a pathological situation.

Much of the situation becomes impossible if the DM/GM/whatever you want to call them clearly informs the players about the world that they will be playing in, and reminds them of this while looking over charecters prior to starting. (and while doing so can pull things from the pc's backgrounds to use in the game if they will add something to it.)

DM: Umm, joe, your char has a lot of trap related abilities...
Joe: Yep, he's the best in the land.
DM: I'm not arguing that, but you do realize that I hate running traps and have pretty much edited them out of the world like I mentioned earlier?
Joe: But I like disarming traps...  and I put the points into the skills...
DM: I know, and I'm not saying that you can't, I'm just letting you know that you aren't going to need to use those skills very often if at all.
Joe: Fair enough, but it's what I want for the charecter.
DM: Ok, just wanted to remind you.

The choices of the DM or the players as a whole will always box the players into a certain range of activity, if I want to put together a social climber charecter who is based off of charisma, and everyone else want a good old fashioned dungeon crawl, I'm going to be fighting for my life along with the others, or I'm going to leave and find a group that is playing what I want to play.  As long as the DM/GM/whatever is up front with me as to what kind of a game/game world he is wanting to run, then I know what I'm getting into and can make an informed choice.  It's kind of like an actor who reads over scripts before figuring out which one(s) they want to act in. They will have some control over the outlook of thier charecter, they are still constrained by the scope of the script/adventure.

THIS forum is supposed to be about trying to design better games and game mechanics. Its NOT supposed to be about what this thread was about, namely semantically debating minutae of theory.  I didn't say anything yet because I understood that there would be some initial resistence to the Landmarks and the concept that it might actually be cool and interesting to make RPG theory appeal to the majority instead of the elite, and I wanted to "let the dogs bark" as it were, so that could be put out of the way.

Meanwhile, if you want to talk about RPGs, go to the main "Roleplaying games" forum.
If you want to talk about how to be a better player, or a better GM, and about actual play in your games, go to the "Actual Play and the Craft of Gameplay" forum.

If you want to talk about GNS, go to the Forge. If Ron Edwards doesn't let people talk about GNS anymore because he's decided its perfect just the way it is, tough for you. Go to RPG.net.

This place is for people brave enough to want to make a whole new kind of theory. A practical one.

RPGPundit

Pundit: I don't know about you but I haven't been talking minutae, I've been declaring in big bold declarative statements what is wrong with the applied theory of 'say yes...et al...'

Quote from: SpikePundit: I don't know about you but I haven't been talking minutae, I've been declaring in big bold declarative statements what is wrong with the applied theory of 'say yes...et al...'

I joined in mostly because this thread appeared to be reinforcing the same misconceptions as some of the comments about the Monarda Law in that "Pistols at Dawn" discussion and its commentary companion. ("...The fuckheaded 'laws' of R. Borgstrom in her unplayable games. I believe the 'You have to say 'yes' or 'yes, but'' rule is her 'monarda law', whatever the fuck that means.") 'Tis somewhat odd to see folks railing against something that bears no resemblance to how the Law actually works.

Poontang, this is practical. It's a GM technique.

Quote from: droogPoontang, this is practical. It's a GM technique.

Witticism aside, I agree. A rule that minimizes GM denial in game is a positive thing. It encourages them to be mindful of what their players say and, to consider if it can be used to add to the tension or fun of the game. It has nothing to do with indulging whiny players asking for things that have no place at the table.

Quote from: SpikePundit: I don't know about you but I haven't been talking minutae, I've been declaring in big bold declarative statements what is wrong with the applied theory of 'say yes...et al...'

Yes, I know, and bally good that; the problem is that this isn't really what this board is envisioned to be... the very fact that we're arguing this rather than just discarding it offhand is part of the effort of the Forge Theorists to try to force the dialogue to take place on THEIR terms.

It shouldn't. This place should be focused on creating new theory and creating new games on OUR terms.

RPGPundit

Quote from: GrimGentI joined in mostly because this thread appeared to be reinforcing the same misconceptions as some of the comments about the Monarda Law in that "Pistols at Dawn" discussion and its commentary companion. ("...The fuckheaded 'laws' of R. Borgstrom in her unplayable games. I believe the 'You have to say 'yes' or 'yes, but'' rule is her 'monarda law', whatever the fuck that means.") 'Tis somewhat odd to see folks railing against something that bears no resemblance to how the Law actually works.

See, now if you feel there is this much confusion about the Monarda Law in the Online Community of Gamers, despite the much discussion and argument from people in the know, like yourself...

Imagine how such Laws are viewed or used at game tables filled with people who don't have access to your wisdom and insight?    

Personally, I could give fuck all about the borgstrom version of this rule. Noblis is a lovely coffee table book, but by no measure a game I would play or (shudder) run.  See comments regarding heavy handedness, then see your arguments back about 'Ianthe's style' to get a clue why this game has little appeal to me.  

My arguments are catagorical.  Rules of this sort are about as effective as real life laws mandating that people be nice to one another. Great, even wonderful sentiment.  Does absolutely NOTHING to make people actually act nice to one another, and very often is perverted to do the exact opposite, being sadistically cruel in teh name of enforcing Niceness.

"roll dice or say "yes"" is a stupid idea because it supposes that gamers are all active. Whereas in fact many are reactive.

Active players will push buttons and pull levers and open doors and talk to stranger NPCs and generally make things happen. Reactive players will wait for something to happen, and then respond to it. Passive players will never do anything at all unless you kick them in the arse. Some reactive players are mistaken for passive players; but they're not passive, they're just reactive players who haven't found anything they're interested in reacting to yet.

"Say "yes" or roll the dice" works well if all your players are active, and imaginative. That's because active players like having all opportunities open. But if your players are reactive, then they're like some guy in a video store, spending two hours there looking at the 10,000 movies and coming out with nothing - there were just too many choices for him.

Any saying or GM guideline that ignores what many gamers are actually like is a stupid one. It'd be as smart as me saying, "feed them all cheetos."

Quote from: JimBobOz"roll dice or say "yes"" is a stupid idea because it supposes that gamers are all active. Whereas in fact many are reactive.

Any saying or GM guideline that ignores what many gamers are actually like is a stupid one. It'd be as smart as me saying, "feed them all cheetos."

It's a dumb idea because it doesn't apply to everyone? Now that's a dumb idea. It's simply a piece of advice that is more than applicable when handling player requests or actions. So you might not need it for every situation, but it's there when you need it.

I consider this a nice piece of advice for reactive players, paraphrased from other sources:
"If things are going too slow, have some thug burst into the scene looking for trouble".

Are you saying this is a bad idea because it ignores all of the active players?

I'd like some of you to notice something. This JamesV is not a 'Forgie'. He's just a guy who roleplays who has found something useful to him.

Back in the Stone Age, I used to read Dragon and find bits of advice in there that were useful to me. Sometimes I'd come across something that would make me review my whole approach. Sometimes I'd read stuff I thought was blindingly obvious.

Talking about a technique somebody has discovered is not 'Forge Theorists' invading your space; it's just part of the natural dissemination of ideas. What it does mean is that games like BW and DitV are having an impact, and that is in turn reflecting back on the internet. People who discover something like to talk about it.

QuoteI consider this a nice piece of advice for reactive players, paraphrased from other sources:
"If things are going too slow, have some thug burst into the scene looking for trouble".

This 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.

Quote from: SpikeSee, now if you feel there is this much confusion about the Monarda Law in the Online Community of Gamers, despite the much discussion and argument from people in the know, like yourself...

That has nothing to do with my personal feelings. You only have to take a look at the kind of spurious "examples" of the Law proposed in various threads on these forums, about players claiming the "right" to discover nuclear bombs in medieval treasuries and to play ninjas in ancient Rome and whatnot, and it becomes instantly obvious that someone somewhere must have gotten her wires crossed because what is under debate is not anything even remotely like Nob.

Honestly, there's a clear contradiction between preserving the traditional power structure in the gaming group and opposing techniques such as this.
"The GM controls the setting and the players control their characters?" No. What discarding the principle of "saying 'yes'" without a second thought will lead to is this: "The players control their characters (but only when the GM allows it) and the GM controls the setting (as well as the PCs whenever he feels like it)."

Quote from: JimBobOz"Say "yes" or roll the dice" works well if all your players are active, and imaginative.

But that is the only time when it's actually supposed to take effect. Nothing about it advises the GM against throwing all the challenges he wants at those reactive players, after all.

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.

Suspension of disbeleif is a personal thing, and I think that people busting in and blazing away may not be ungraspable at all if the situation supports it.

In the sorts of games I normally run, by mid game, it's fairly normal that someone is gunning for them. Using the "screw it, ninjas attack" rule does not typically cause me any mental contortions.

Quote from: droogI'd like some of you to notice something. This JamesV is not a 'Forgie'. He's just a guy who roleplays who has found something useful to him.

*snip middle*

Talking about a technique somebody has discovered is not 'Forge Theorists' invading your space; it's just part of the natural dissemination of ideas. What it does mean is that games like BW and DitV are having an impact, and that is in turn reflecting back on the internet. People who discover something like to talk about it.

I must admit I do have an account at the Forge, it's incredibly old, and definitely of a under 10 post count. I visited the place years ago to see if it was for me and it definitely wasn't. I also want to say that while I do own BW, but it isn't where my understanding for this idea comes from, and I thought maybe explaining it can help elucidate my position:

I've always been an improvising GM. My notes are sparse and my NPC statblocks are almost shamefully brief. All I have are a headful of ideas, a consistent setting, a fairly quick wit, and my dice. While I did a good job of it, fun was had and no one complained, there were times I did say no. I learned that in saying it, I had to work my mind harder to figure out where next to take in game situations. I was realizing that denial is usually a dead-end in my games.

Then I spent two years as a member of my university's improvisational comedy group. Aside from a good deal of laughs, I learned about improvised scenes and the pitfall of 'denial'. In a scene it's frowned upon for a participant to deny, by ignoring or drastically changing, some fact that another person established earlier. It can undermine the other person's persona, and even the believability of the scene to the point where it forces the denier to have to re-establish everything. It takes the flow of action and events, brings them to a screetching halt and starts it all over from scratch.

It was in learning this that its applicition at the table became very apparent. Why force myself to be responsible for everything that happens in game, when I can mine the ideas of the other players, fix them to suit both mine and their needs, and integrate them into the events of the game? I didn't have to take everything at face value. I was the GM, it was my world and I was intent on maintaining what was established, but I could still put a positive version the idea out there for the other players to run with if they wanted. I think my GMing has become smoother since, and though it's not been without complaints (I've been running games off and on for 8 years now some failures are inevitable) it's also been more fun, and even less work for me.

Quote from: JamesVThen I spent two years as a member of my university's improvisational comedy group. Aside from a good deal of laughs, I learned about improvised scenes and the pitfall of 'denial'. In a scene it's frowned upon for a participant to deny, by ignoring or drastically changing, some fact that another person established earlier. It can undermine the other person's persona, and even the believability of the scene to the point where it forces the denier to have to re-establish everything. It takes the flow of action and events, brings them to a screetching halt and starts it all over from scratch.

Another way of talking about the phenomenon of denial, is the equally venerated improvisation tradition of saying "yes, and..." or "yes, but..." to another's offer of factual information.  In other words, you can make me your grandma, but you can't tell me how I'm going to behave as your grandma.  In a game situation, this sort of GM attitude works very well with character behavior, if not the surroundings of the character, as "I now have a +5 eggbeater," or "That evil giganto sloth is now my friend."

Of course, this assumes characters who are actively involved in the game, but GMs can deal with that by presenting their own offers of information, which will prompt the players to act, which will force the GM to act, etc.

Hi!
  I'm new here. I started playing D&D like 25 years ago, but haven't been playing it much lately (Mostly playing my game and Blood of Heroes).
  To be clear, I don't think that D&D is old and busted, but I also don't see Forge Theory as an affront to those good times we all had and are still having (including some of the more staunch Forge-ites).
  And I do see how a simple house rule of "Roll or say Yes" would be very useful in an Adventure Game.
  Maybe a better way to say it might have been, "How much does it matter? Spend that much effort on it!"
  Does it matter if the player wants to find a torch in an empty or abandoned room in a dungeon? If it does, have them roll based on how hard it is to find or how likely there is to be one. If it doesn't, say yes and get back to what does matter. That is not a case of plaers usurping GM powers, it is a case o the GM making decisions, just like they always have. But applying a metagame filter to the situation to match their own priorities.
  And to keep this relevant, there is a Landmark that supports this rule theory indirectly:

Quote5. Conflicts do arise in gaming groups; these conflicts are usually the product of social interaction between the players and not a problem with the rules themselves. The solution to these problems is not to "Narrow the rules", but to broaden the playstyle of a group to accomodate what the complaining players are missing. Thus, it is a Landmark that all correct gaming theories, if they deal with "player dis-satisfaction" at all, must focus the nature of that dissatisfaction on the rules ONLY to suggest that a given rules-set is too narrow; and even then only because it is a symptom of an interpersonal social conflict within a group.

Which basically means, if the player wants something that they should not be asking for, its not the fault of the rules. I mean, there is nothing stopping our A-Bomb player from asking for an A-Bomb if "roll or say yes" is not in effect.
  The origin of the quote is ditv, and I have played several sessions. There really hasn't been much problem with people acting out of character or making outlandish demands of the game or setting. It pretty much played like Wild West D&D (or Boot hill if you remember that turkey, lol). We played our chars, the GM played the world and it was fun. It was great because we didn't have to roll for piddly stuff. If the GM wanted a roll, we knew we were on the right track. Also, to clarify, the way most of the games play out, it feels task oriented. And pretty much plays out like D&D does. I say I wanna kill the Steward, then we roll a bunch of dice, describe HOW your character plans to accomplish this, futz around with some numbers and then find out if it happens or not. I can't say that my experiences with D&D were all that different, I want to kill that minotaur, explain how I wanna do it, roll some dice, futz around with some numbers, then find ot if it happens or not.
  I think its great that there is a place where we can talk theory besides the Forge, and I hope I did't step on any toes. But, I did want to point out that when a good idea comes around, just tweak it to match your game, you don't have to accept it all or nothing. Take the parts you like, discard the rest. In this case, I took it whole cloth, but I haven't been so generous with other forge theories. I hope that helps clear up my views and maybe even gets others to look at this idea in another light...

Quote from: JamesVIt's a dumb idea because it doesn't apply to everyone? Now that's a dumb idea. It's simply a piece of advice that is more than applicable when handling player requests or actions. So you might not need it for every situation, but it's there when you need it.

It's stupid because it claims to be universal, but doesn't work for reactive players. So if you follow it, and not all of your players are active, you'll get a mess of a game session.

Quote from: JamesVI consider this a nice piece of advice for reactive players, paraphrased from other sources:
"If things are going too slow, have some thug burst into the scene looking for trouble".

Are you saying this is a bad idea because it ignores all of the active players?

Nope, because your advice specified who it was to be applied to. Your advice didn't claim to be universal.

Anyone can toss out some little saying as a tool to use. Knowing which tool to use when is the more important thing.

Quote from: JimBobOzAny saying or GM guideline that ignores what many gamers are actually like is a stupid one. It'd be as smart as me saying, "feed them all cheetos."

I find that an excellent piece of GM'ing advice.  The cheeto part.  Just to be clear.

Say Yes... or roll the dice

GM: Ok, what are your characters doing?
Player 1: I go to the church and talk to the elders.
GM: Yes, good.
Player 2: I go to the market and talk to the towns folk.
GM: Yes, excellent.
Player 3: I go to the destroyed cavalry outpost and get a gattling gun. No wait -- 3 gattling guns so we can each have one.  And lots of ammo.
Player 1: Thanks.
Player 2: Cool.
GM: aaaaaaaaaggggghhhhhhhh..... (hits head on table)
Player 1: Uh...
GM: aaaaaaaagggggghhhhhhhh.... (starts rolling handfuls of dice rapidly and repeatedly)
Player 3: What the hell?! What's he doing?
Player 2: Oh man -- you better change what your character is doing - FAST!
GM: AAAAAAAGGGGGHHHHH!!!!! (dice roll violently across table and onto floor)
Player 3: Uh, ok, ok -- I uh, stare off into the sunset
GM:  AAAA-- (dice rolling stops)
Player 2: Keep going!
Player 3: And um, think about...
Player 1: say your childhood
Player 3: Yeah, he thinks about his childhood
GM: His troubled and tormented childhood?
Player 3: Sure, yeah, that's right
GM: Yes, that's great.  So let's continue --
Players: "Wow is that the time?" "Gee, I think I forgot to make a phonecall."  "What? Hold on, I'll be right there!"

:D

Just for the record:

The 'advice' about  having thugs break down a door during slow moments? That belongs to the detective writers of the 1950's. Hammet or someone like that, it's how he'd keep his plots moving.

And, depending on the game, it can work wonders.  Or it can be completely out of wack with what has been happening. Like some much else it's application that matters.

Stuart, I love you and want to have your babies.

RPGPundit

For Stuart, for daring to dream of shit that isn't even possible among reasonable human beings. You're the wind beneath my wings. :melodramatic:

Say No GMs, it's your world.

GM: Ok, what are your characters doing? Remember you're damned souls in Hell.
Player 1: I go to the Basilica of Beelzebul and talk to the Dark Acolytes.
GM: No. You have no power to do that.
Player 2: hmmm. I go to the Chambers of the Damned Sinners and talk to the lost souls there?
GM: Sorry. For the sin of participating in my game you're neck deep in my bullshit. You have to let yourself run free in my world, not yours!
Player 3: I give the remains of my soul to the Dark Lord Lucifer in exchange for the power to also join in tormenting souls!
Player 1: Yes! *crosses fingers*
Player 2: Cool.
GM: Nope, not happening. He doesn't share his power.
Player 1: Uh... ca
GM: Don't even ask.
Player 3: What the fuck?! What's he doing?
Player 2: Oh man -- you better agree with his sense of emulation!
Player 3: Uh, ok, ok -- I sit around and lament my situation.
GM: Yes, keep going.
Player 2: So, we're in hell.
Player 3: Yup join in my lamenting.
Player 1: Yeah, I wanna have a bad time too!
Player 3: Yeah, soon I get get tortured by demons for the sins I commited while I was alive!
GM: Brilliant. This is exciting and fitting to my setting!
Player 3: Sure, yeah. Any chance of escape?
GM: Duh, of course not, remember 'Abandon all hope Ye who enter'?
Players: Wow, this is just like the real thing. This is so much better than excitement and adventure.

Quote from: JimBobOzIt's stupid because it claims to be universal, but doesn't work for reactive players. So if you follow it, and not all of your players are active, you'll get a mess of a game session.

Have you played Dogs with reactive players?  I have.  The game still works, and Say yes or roll the dice still works, too.

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...:D

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. :D

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...