This thread, as opposed to this other thread on my forum, is going to be specifically for discussion of my NEW law. I don't want it to turn into a discussion of the virtues or failings of the Monarda Law. If you want to do that, either go to the other thread, or make a new thread here. But in this thread, I want people to tell me their opinions of my law, the "Rebecca Borgstrom is a Moron Law".

Here it is:

RPGPundit's Rebecca Borgstrom is a Moron Law

If your players make requests, unless it is absolutely certain that it is allowed, always say no. You can make it a reserved "no", one that allows for the possibility that if the players' circumstances or approach changes they may be able to do what they're intending or get what they want. Or you can make it a loud boisterous "NO, fuckwit!", involving some kind of a pipe beating to immediately follow. But always say no unless its blatantly obvious that you must permit what they're desiring, either because the player has been crafty enough in his use of resources, or because the player has earned it through sheer balls.

I propose that players and gaming groups will actually be FAR less dysfunctional using the Rebecca Borgstrom is a Moron Law, than they will with the Monarda Law. I've been running games for a very long time, and with a great deal of success. My OD&D players have repeatedly said that this was their favourite setting, that the game was the one game they would keep playing no matter the circumstances; my Traveller players say that this campaign is unlike any they have ever done before, my Port Blacksand players too have stated that they would choose that campaign over any other. So I feel pretty safe in saying my method works. And it has worked for decades now.

And my method is simple. Make the fuckers bleed.

Make them suffer.
Make them face impossible, life threatening odds. Make it clear that you're the one in charge of what they get or don't get, and generally don't give them anything.

Hell, by the time my last Amber campaign had reached its zenith, most of my players were at the point where their characters would have considered death a sweet embracing release.

And the players kept coming back, desperate for more, every week. As they do in all my campaigns.

Why? Because those are what great campaigns are made of. A campaign where your players get to willy-nilly wish for whatever they like will be a short lived and very troubled campaign.

And this strikes at the very heart of what's wrong with Swine-narrativism, of why it is so unbelievably inane. It proposes that each player is a protagonist. But every player can't be a protagonist. Yes, I know, you all want to play dark troubled ultrapowerful superbeings who are the only hope for a universe they may not want to save, but see, you can't ALL be the "only" hope.

Protagonism doesn't actually work in RPGs. At least not individual protagonism, at least not all at once. And narrativism tries to do exactly that. Which is why it's bullshit.

Trust me, make your PCs suffer. Make them suffer horribly. Then make them suffer some more. Make it seem like their every wish is being denied, then their every hope. But occasionally, when by the strength of their own will they pull a victory out of the jaws of defeat, give it to them. Sometimes with dark consequences, but give it.

For fuck's sake, don't let them all survive, either. Kill some of them, seemingly at random. The ones that do survive, and conquer, and go on to make things right again, and ultimately triumph, will be all the more satisfied. Because in that type of campaign their victories, their gains, mean something. Every time they run square into grim death and pluck out a fighting chance at life, it will mean something, because they'll fucking well know the DM brooked them no favours.

And that, Mz. Borgstrom and associated Narrativist Swine, is how you create protagonism.

---

So, opinions?

RPGPundit

The law is utterly unworkable in some games, and pretty damn stupid in most. What if the rules don't specify you can hold your breath? Do you automatically drown the moment your face goes underwater?

A better law would be to say no when it's something that the setting wouldn't logically allow.

How about this for a new law:

EITHER "Say yes or roll the dice" OR "Say no or roll the dice". ALWAYS tell your players which route you're going to take before the campaign starts, and NEVER CROSS THE STREAMS.

Quote from: WarthurHow about this for a new law:

EITHER "Say yes or roll the dice" OR "Say no or roll the dice". ALWAYS tell your players which route you're going to take before the campaign starts, and NEVER CROSS THE STREAMS.

Now that's enlightened legislation!  I agree.

Quote from: James McMurrayThe law is utterly unworkable in some games, and pretty damn stupid in most. What if the rules don't specify you can hold your breath? Do you automatically drown the moment your face goes underwater?

A better law would be to say no when it's something that the setting wouldn't logically allow.

.

you must have missed the "reserved NO" part.

or as I like to call it: the "no.....unless" rule.

say no to the intial request if it isn't clear if it should happen, but give an "unless" condition so that it can happen under certain conditions.

Quote from: James McMurrayThe law is utterly unworkable in some games, and pretty damn stupid in most. What if the rules don't specify you can hold your breath? Do you automatically drown the moment your face goes underwater?

A better law would be to say no when it's something that the setting wouldn't logically allow.

Um, I would classify it as "absolutely certain", and therefore allowed, that someone could swim a certain distance underwater while holding their breath.  That's just common sense.

Anyways, those aren't really the kinds of player's requests we're talking about here. It isn't so much "could my pc survive one round underwater?" as much as it is "shouldn't my knowledge (policeman) skill allow me to spend five minutes underwater without going up for air??" or "couldn't it be that I'm secretly the half-atlantean child of an undersea king, and can thus breathe underwater?".

RPGPundit

An Aside RE: Rebecca Borgstrom...

I think it's her game, and whatever she wants to be one the rules to her game -- awesome.  If people like it, and enjoy playing it -- also cool.  Even if only GrimGent enjoys her game -- that's okay too.  It's a good thing that she made something that's being enjoyed by others.

Does it sound like a game I'd enjoy?  No.  Do I think Nobilis is a model I'd want to emulate for either artistic or business reasons?  No.

Is she a Moron for making the game she wanted, getting it published, and having a fan base?  Not at all.  I haven't seen *anything* to suggest she's a Moron.

Do I think some of the people picking up the concept of "Always say yes" from her game -- regardless of how it works in Nobilis, how it was written, what her intention was -- and then apply that to *all* RPGs are morons?  Well... I might say they're not on the right track.

If they became increasingly vocal in their evangelizing of this Law (possibly misunderstood) and spammed up discussion of game design trying to apply it to every other RPG -- then would they be a Moron?  No necessarily... but they would be acting like one.

I guess I don't have any grudge against Ms. Borgstrom, so the title is a bit more mean spirited than I think is warranted.  Just my 2 cents.

Quote from: James McMurrayA better law would be to say no when it's something that the setting wouldn't logically allow.

...Which is essentially how the Monarda Law works out in any case: the players should always have the freedom to try anything, but unless what they attempt lies within the actual abilities of their characters, it's just not going to happen. If you absolutely insist, you can jump off the rooftop, flapping your arms wildly; but unless you already have the power of flight, that's only going to end up with a long fall and your remains splattered all over the pavement.

"No, unless you have a death wish."

Quote from: StuartIs she a Moron for making the game she wanted, getting it published, and having a fan base?  Not at all.  I haven't seen *anything* to suggest she's a Moron.

Aside from her writing a terrible game AND writing it terribly poorly, I chose the title of my law mainly due to the stupidity of both the content AND title of her "monarda law".

RPGPundit

"Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, the reverse is true."

Quote from: GrimGent...Which is essentially how the Monarda Law works out in any case: the players should always have the freedom to try anything, but unless what they attempt lies within the actual abilities of their characters, it's just not going to happen. If you absolutely insist, you can jump off the rooftop, flapping your arms wildly; but unless you already have the power of flight, that's only going to end up with a long fall and your remains splattered all over the pavement.

"No, unless you have a death wish."

Grimgent; your sexual fantasies about Borgstrom aside, I explicitly stated that this is not the thread to talk about the so-called "monarda law". Please don't derail this thread. If you want to talk about MY law, do it here. If you want to talk about the monarda law, go do it somewhere else.

RPGPundit

Quote from: JongWK"Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, the reverse is true."

You're claiming there's no practical difference between the two laws. But there is, a very big difference. The difference is in the results.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditIt isn't so much "could my pc survive one round underwater?" as much as it is "shouldn't my knowledge (policeman) skill allow me to spend five minutes underwater without going up for air??" or "couldn't it be that I'm secretly the half-atlantean child of an undersea king, and can thus breathe underwater?".

That wouldn't work in Nobilis either, you know.

Quote from: RPGPunditSo, opinions?

It's really not the way I like to play games.  I don't doubt that you've gotten good results, but I tell you straight up that you would not get those good results if I were playing with you.

So, as a personal style?  Sure, go for it.  As a universal law?  No.  It's idiocy.

Quote from: RPGPunditPlease don't derail this thread. If you want to talk about MY law, do it here. If you want to talk about the monarda law, go do it somewhere else.

Oh, fine: have fun with it. I'll just point out that despite your bizarre convictions to the contrary, the players "getting to willy-nilly wish for whatever they like" has nothing to do with Monarda, and your entire law is therefore based on a misconception without any textual support at all.