Quote from: Headless;878207I think perhaps my philosophy back ground is polluting my question.

Your philosophy background should be facilitating clarity of expression. Just sayin'.

Like others have already said, the skiing analogy expresses a way of playing that I do not recognise. I'm used to the GM presenting and describing a world, which the players then interact with. Maybe distinct story plotlines will arise out of that description or maybe the players will amuse themselves planning a bank heist, plundering a dungeon, rigging a local election, or whatever else enters their minds.

Essentially, as long as everyone is having fun, I try not to worry too much: we're not trying to tell a specific story (ski down the groove or even on a particular slope), whatever we do together is the story (they can ski where they like or even decide to drive down the mountain and go to the beach instead).

In my experience, if you find someone inscrutable, or if you find that some people are blocking the attempts of others (in a way that is unfun), then you should talk to them. If you can resolve things, that's great; if you can't, do something else together or play with a different group.

That may not be particularly helpful though...

The kind of "improv freestyle" game being described here fits better with FATE than D&D. You should look into that. Or the other kind of indie RPG games like that.

Quote from: Headless;878207We don't even know the way we communicate.  When someone explains they communicate differently we can hear them but we don't understand.  And we don't know we don't understand.  

I am pretty sure the last paragraph will not make sense to some people.  Fair.  Again no need to tell me our group sucks at role playing.  Actually no need to respond at all.

Nope, those words are quite clear.  It just makes it very difficult to get meaningful problem-solving out of us for your situation, if you're certain we can't really communicate.

As far as sucking at roleplaying goes, you've said this more than once now.  None of the rest of us have.  We have no idea whether your group sucks at roleplaying or not; we haven't observed you in play.  What you do have, apparently, is a radically different gaming style than most (or, likely, all) of us have encountered.

Quote from: Ravenswing;878392

As far as sucking at roleplaying goes, you've said this more than once now.  None of the rest of us have.  We have no idea whether your group sucks at roleplaying or not; we haven't observed you in play.  What you do have, apparently, is a radically different gaming style than most (or, likely, all) of us have encountered.

Three different people have said that on this thread.

Regarding the side-quest to stop the marriage, if you, as a PC, want to stop the marriage then you must have a plan to do so. Has the GM said that the side-quest is the only way to stop the wedding? If so, think of an alternative and suggest that. There are many ways to achieve something, rarely only one way.

If you feel blocked because you have a choice of do the side-quest or accept the wedding, then do something else, invent your own side-quest.

If, however, you feel blocked just because the GM says the wedding will go ahead without PC intervention, then that is a different issue. The world carries on without the PCs, if you want something to change then you have to make a change yourself or get someone else to make the change.

Quote from: Headless;877942The question is advice for me as a DM.  It's our job to put trees in front of our skiers.  And when they dodge it, move it back in front of them so it's a challenge.  But we don't want them to hit it, just dodge at the last minuet.

If they hit the tree, they hit the tree. As long as the GM gives the player the chance to avoid the tree then fair enough. If the player does not take the chance, or takes the chance but fails, then they hit the tree.

Quote from: Headless;877942It's a problem of clues.  Telling our players, "that didn't work but keep trying" when they need to keep trying, and "you are barking up the wrong tree, move it along" when there is nothing to find.  But we can't say that it stops being fun.

The thing about setting problems is that the GM should not decide beforehand what the solution is. Players should find the solution. If the players flounder, the GM should drop hints, give advice or lead the players.

The GM should never say "This is the solution" and then say that every other possible attempt is doomed to failure.

Fairly often, I come up with problems for which I have no idea how the players are going to solve it. They come up with ideas and I judge each one on its merits, play out the solution and then decide if it has worked or not. If it fails, it is always for an in-game reason that works itself out in play.

Quote from: Headless;877942How can we have our NPCs deceive them with out deceiving them as the DM?  Send them on the super weapon treasure hunt as the bad guy in disguise, with out them turning the weapon over to him in the last session and wondering why the world ended.

I have never had a problem with NPCs deceiving PCs. I don;t have to tell the players anything at all, there is no "contract" that I have to be honest with players. Quite the opposite, part of my job, as a GM, is to be deceptive. I hide things, I don't give straight answers where things are fuzzy, I blur things when things are blurry.

If I have an NPC who is leading the party astray, they might get an Insight roll to work something out, or I might drop some clues here and there, but if I am playing a master of deception then why should I make it easy for the players?

Quote from: Headless;877942Does my DM need me to do the side quest to move the story along, or does it just make sense for the characters inside the story to insist I go.  How is he to tell me, and should I even be able to figure it out?

You seem to feel railroaded about this.

I don't know the details of the side-quest, but there are many ways to stop a marriage, any or all might work.

Sleep with the bride or groom
Let the bride or groom think that the other has slept with someone else
Engineer a family squabble that breaks things up
Show one of the couple in a very bad light
Introduce a rival who breaks them up
Uncover dark secrets from their past
Make them jealous of other people
Burn down the church/temple where the wedding is going to be held

So, think of a way of stopping the wedding that is different from the GM's side-quest and do it.

Do not think that doing nothing is an option, as they will happily get married and live happily ever after without PC intervention.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;878232It's not the DM's job to make you hit a tree.

It's the DM's job to make a ski resort and let you loose on it and then you just do what you want.

I agree. Which includes the option to go snowshoeing instead. Suddenly, there's improvising.

I use trad systems, but there's always lots of improv at the table. Because it's part of the expected nature of play. You don't really need a special system for it. People make their choices, and there's consequences.

Maybe it's my philosophy background... but you mean to tell me I'm not supposed to be buck-naked while GMing in RP love-scenes? Wait what?

Have I been wrong all these years?

Quote from: tenbones;878462Maybe it's my philosophy background... but you mean to tell me I'm not supposed to be buck-naked while GMing in RP love-scenes? Wait what?

Have I been wrong all these years?

So wrong that Barry Sanders is far  right compared to where you've been.

Why? WHY didn't anyone tell me until now?!?!?!

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;878353It can happen. DM pitches a game about hunting a dragon, game starts, PC immediately rejects the quest hook and decides to go gardening.

But generally as long as it isn't bossing PCs around too much it's not "blocking."

Thats not improve in the manner we are more or less talking about. Thats pretty standard role play.

Improv RP is where there is no DM in the normal sense and just about allways no rules either. Its not round-robin/storytelling as the interplay is usually very different. But shares some elements.

Quote from: tenbones;878476Why? WHY didn't anyone tell me until now?!?!?!

The pictures were too good? :idunno:

I feel my questions were neglected, but ah well, I can live with that:).

Quote from: Headless;878323In theatre improv games you can't block, it just ends it.

Because there's no system for resolving such arguments, and at any rate, the public isn't there to see that. If there was a fast and seamless one, you can bet those rules would have changed.

QuoteRole playing is a form of improv.

Yes, to about the same degree as it is tactical simulation, novel writing and historical reenactment;).
Which is to say, it might be, but in some groups, it's a severely limited form of improve, and many of those groups expect and revel in the limitations.

QuoteMy other problem is getting a read on my DM. I find him inscruitible.  You can't help me with that part.

No, but it means you've got a good GM.

Now we're getting somewhere.

Quote from: Headless;877942I have found myself blocking the DM a couple of times.  Currently my fictional character doesn't want a NPC to marry his fictional sister also an NPC.  I would have to go do a side quest to make it happen.  I have been saying I 'm not going to do it.

This is not blocking.

Blocking is when someone denies the occurrence of an event or the existence of a premise offered by another. You did not deny the situation the DM presented, and now you have a choice in how to react to it.

Quote from: Headless;877942Totally meta, and Meta gaming is bad, but let's tell the story the DM is trying to tell.

Meta-gaming is far from bad, and impossible to eliminate even if it were, so it must be accounted for. That however is a somewhat complicated discussion I'm not prepared for at the moment.

Quote from: Headless;878011The question is how to know as a DM whether they have earned the death trap through their poor choices.  Or been forced into it through lack of options/information.

A DM has as much in common with stage magicians as they do actors and storytellers, so to answer your question you need to look at the tools and techniques of that discipline. Because the more control you have over what someone focuses on or thinks they know, the more control you'll have over the decisions they'll make. And since the DM has almost total control over the former when it comes to the game, they also have it over the latter.

Quote from: Headless;878323Role playing is a form of improv.  It's also group problem solving.  In improv you can't block, in group problem solving you need to reject the unsuited solutions.  I see a tension there.

That's because improv is all about creating situations while gaming is all about resolving them. In most RPGs, the DM is expected to create the situations while the players are expected to resolve them, but there's always some overlap, and problems can arise if these responsibilities are not clearly defined.

Quote from: Headless;878323My other problem is getting a read on my DM. I find him inscruitible.

Quote from: AsenRG;878555it means you've got a good GM.

That really depends on what they're inscrutable about. Because reading them and understanding how they think are the only reliable ways to know what the consequences of your character's actions will be, regardless of that the rules say.

Then again, maybe they just appear to be inscrutable

Quote from: Old One Eye;878338The DM' s job includes selectively blocking things the players throw out there that do not fit the milieu.

Yet how often should this occur in a working group?

Quote from: tenbones;878462you mean to tell me I'm not supposed to be buck-naked while GMing in RP love-scenes? Wait what?

Have I been wrong all these years?

Quote from: tenbones;878476Why? WHY didn't anyone tell me until now?!?!?!

Because you seemed to be having so much fun, we didn't want to ment...

Alright, nobody wanted to acknowledge there was a naked man in the room. Honestly, we were hoping the lack of eye contact would be enough of a hint.

I didn't say you sucked at role-playing.  I said you should try it, as in play a role and immerse in character and stop worrying about meta-concerns like story, narration, or whether you are improving correctly.

Too many mind. No mind.

When Headless clarifies what's meant here by an 'improv' game with a reference to 'blocking', it seems to me we've left the territory of what RPG commonly means. There is an important distinction here, and siting it in "role playing" makes sense.

What that has meant from the early days of the hobby is interacting with the world from the perspective of a given character, just as you do in real life from your real perspective.

If you have any concern about 'blocking' in real life, that is a social matter between you and other people in your world -- which (setting aside the somewhat different matter of theism) probably does not include some entity using you as a sock puppet.

What could you, the real you, do if you objected to your sister's betrothal? Accounting for differences in detail due to cultural and perhaps physical circumstances, those are broadly the same options available to your character.