Quote from: Headless;879335We are down in the weeds now, completely missing the point, but since we are...

I the example about the fishing pole; I said it was written on the sheet, the fact that the notional imaginary character had fishing as a skill was merely supporting evidence.  

If the PC had on their sheet that they had the fishing pole then yes. They have it. I would though expect them to have left it at camp where it belongs. Not with them on a delve unless they actually expected to be down there so long that foraging in underground streams or lakes was a logistical consideration. There is a PC game based on the AD&D random dungeon gen that has this. Buying a fishing pole ASAP is vital to surviving since you get lost or trapped in unknown regions all too easily.

In this case yes the DM would be out of line for declaring it broken if the PCs were at camp. But makes sense it might break if it were taken with down into a dungeon.

Just for clarity.   If i don't go on the quest the marriage doesn't happen. Some people seem to think the quest stops the marriage.   No the quest makes the marriage happen.

I keep trying to avoid it.

Kill the groom. If you can't kill the groom, then look, you and the GM are arguing over who gets to prewrite the story. Not character agency. I think you might very much enjoy something like The Adventures of Baron Munchausen or Primetime Adventures, or maybe the conventions of online "simming", all of which give much more clearly delineated "author powers" to the players.

Quote from: Arminius;879481Kill the groom. If you can't kill the groom, then look, you and the GM are arguing over who gets to prewrite the story. Not character agency. I think you might very much enjoy something like The Adventures of Baron Munchausen or Primetime Adventures, or maybe the conventions of online "simming", all of which give much more clearly delineated "author powers" to the players.

Thank you for your help but I don't think you understand my issue.  My fault I didn't explain it well.  

The online simming suggestions do sound interesting, but that doesn't help my Roleplaying.

I will take one more swing at it.  

Let's say my DM is rail roading. (He's not or at least not bad, but for clarity let's say he is).  I don't like this train and keep trying to get off.  At what point does my refusing to be railroaded change from player agency to blocking.

Quote from: Headless;879488I will take one more swing at it.  

Let's say my DM is rail roading. (He's not or at least not bad, but for clarity let's say he is).  I don't like this train and keep trying to get off.  At what point does my refusing to be railroaded change from player agency to blocking.

That may be subjective.

Is everyone else wanting off the train too?
Yes? Then no. You arent "blocking".
No? Then maybee you are, maybee you arent "blocking".

Example: Council of Wyrms gets accused of being a railroad when it isnt. It can be made into one. But that is not the modules fault. Example is the cross country caravan. The NPCs want you to follow the the cultists.
What if you do not want to? Say you want to race ahead and wait for them at their destination? Or say instead of following disguised as Mercenaries as the NPCs suggest, you instead continue your disguise as cultists? (which is what the group I am DMing for did.) The DM can roll with that or say "No. You cant." In this example the DM says No. You cant race ahead, you cant disguise. Are any of the other players with you on bypassing the caravan? If no then you are at an impasse and can either work something out with the DM or try persuasion of PCs and/or DM. And what if the DM goes with your idea but the other players want to stay with the caravan? Who is "blocking" who.

Or are you "blocking" at all? For others this is bog standard group interactions.

Or worse case scenario: You or the whole group declair you would rather get drunk in the tavern than go off pestering dragons. Here things get messy. If you and the group agreed to the proposed campaign then why did you bother agreeing when you had no intention of playing through? At this point the DM can roll with it or tell you that in a month Tiamat was summoned and the world was overrun with dragons and your characters were eaten. The End. The world moved on without you and possibly something really bad happens. If the DM tries to force you the players into one single course then maybee you need a new DM? Or at least have a discussion with the DM on how to be more flexible. Some DMs really do not know they are forcing things. They may just really believe that this one single course is the only course. Or were told that this is how its done and know no better. Or really can not change gears.

In the end sometimes the exact same sequence of events can mean very different things depending on the players, DM, and how they all interact, react, and believe things should go.

Quote from: Headless;879488Let's say my DM is rail roading. (He's not or at least not bad, but for clarity let's say he is).  I don't like this train and keep trying to get off.  At what point does my refusing to be railroaded change from player agency to blocking.

First: While roleplaying games are a form of improvisational game, they are not structured in the same way that theatrical improv games are structured. While there are some lessons which can transitions from one to the other, this is not universally true. And even when stuff can be transferred from one to the other, they'll often require adaptation.

One of the key differences is that RPGs feature unbalanced power structures and assigned narrative controls. In a theatrical improv games, all participants are generally equal with each other and have identical narrative control. This is not the case with a traditional RPG, which assigns narrative control: The players control their characters; the GM controls the world.

This means that offers in an RPG which infringe on another person's purview can be legitimately rejected. For example, if someone in a theatrical improv game were to say, "I look around for a secret door!" then the appropriate response is, "You find one!" But if a player in an RPG looks around for a secret door, it's perfectly reasonable for the GM to look at his map and say, "There isn't one."

(This also broaches the fact that RPGs almost always feature established facts which are unknown to a portion of the players. This is virtually never true in a theatrical improv game.)

This is further complicated by the fact that most RPGs also feature the specific dynamic of overcoming challenges, including mechanical structures specifically designed to determine the outcomes of those challenges. In a theatrical improv game you can say, "I slay the dragon!" and that offer will generally be accepted. But in an RPG you have to actually make that happen.

The result of all this is that, by and large, the concepts of "offer" and "block" as understood and used in a theatrical improv game are largely meaningless in an RPG.

With that being said, some of the principles of "don't block offers" can be usefully applied to RPGs. GMs, for example, can reflect on the fact that whenever a player proposes a course of action they are generally proposing something they would find interesting and, therefore, the principles of default to yes are useful.

On the other hand, in many forms of play it's also reasonable for the players to accept offers. I'm not a fan of railroading, but there are plenty of groups which operate around the basic dynamic of a GM preparing a particular scenario for the evening: Rejecting the GM's offer of that scenario is tantamount to saying, "I don't want to play."

So, to circle all the way back to your question: The definition of a railroad is basically the GM making specific offers that the players are not allowed to refuse. So if the GM is railroading then, yes, refusing his offers is blocking. (On the other hand, the GM shouldn't be railroading the players.)

Quote from: Headless;879461Just for clarity.   If i don't go on the quest the marriage doesn't happen. Some people seem to think the quest stops the marriage.   No the quest makes the marriage happen.

I keep trying to avoid it.

Just tell him there's no way you'd go:).

Quote from: Headless;879488I will take one more swing at it.  

Let's say my DM is rail roading. (He's not or at least not bad, but for clarity let's say he is).  I don't like this train and keep trying to get off.  At what point does my refusing to be railroaded change from player agency to blocking.

If you agreed that the GM is in his right to railroad you (at least occasionally), and you're going to go with it because the view from the train is nice, you're already blocking when you resist it longer than 15 minutes;).

If you didn't agree to any such thing, and it seems you haven't, the answer is "there's no such point".
In this case, you should just tell him in no uncertain terms that it ain't gonna happen, no way your character will go on this quest. The marriage doesn't happen.
And you might consider marrying the sister, it's almost as efficient as killing the groom:D!

Quote from: Headless;879488Thank you for your help but I don't think you understand my issue.  My fault I didn't explain it well.  

The online simming suggestions do sound interesting, but that doesn't help my Roleplaying.

I will take one more swing at it.  

Let's say my DM is rail roading. (He's not or at least not bad, but for clarity let's say he is).  I don't like this train and keep trying to get off.  At what point does my refusing to be railroaded change from player agency to blocking.

Answering your question doesn't help your roleplaying either.  How would it?  Sticking a label on it doesn't do diddly squat, unless your hypothetical DM really would be impressed by your claim that a bunch of strangers says he's doing it wrong.  (It is not my impression that your average DM reacts to the same outside a spectrum between "Tough luck, this is my game, not theirs," and "Go fuck yourself, wiseass.")

At my table -- and I expect at the tables of most of the posters here -- the player, barring IC coercion or enforced in-game behavior mechanics, has the absolute right to decide for himself how he's going to play his character.  "Blocking" isn't an issue, because at most of our tables, there's no such thing.  You've been repeatedly asking us how to handle a style of game with which most of us are unfamiliar and wouldn't be interested in playing.

I'm sorry if you're not getting the answer you want, but this is far less a case that we don't understand what you've been saying than it is we're not giving you an answer with which you agree.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;879517First: While roleplaying games are a form of improvisational game, they are not structured in the same way that theatrical improv games are structured. While there are some lessons which can transitions from one to the other, this is not universally true. And even when stuff can be transferred from one to the other, they'll often require adaptation.

QFT.  I reflexively bristle whenever I see the word "improv" appear in an RPG-related discussion because of this very point.  Although both are improvisational games, traditional RPGs and theatrical improv games are not the same thing at all.  It's questionable whether they're even in the same postal code.

Some of the more recent RPGs have moved closer to theatrical improv, but those playstyles are neither traditional nor objectively superior/better/preferable.  Some people prefer them, others don't - and this particular forum is mostly populated by people who don't.

Quote from: Headless;879488Let's say my DM is rail roading. (He's not or at least not bad, but for clarity let's say he is).  I don't like this train and keep trying to get off.  At what point does my refusing to be railroaded change from player agency to blocking.

Depends a lot on the group and DM in question.

There are groups where the players' primary job is to board the train and enjoy the scenery as it rolls down the track.  In such a game, I guess you'd be blocking as soon as you offered more than token reluctance to hop on board.

If I'm the GM, on the other hand, then there's no point at which player agency transitions to blocking because, to me, player agency is the entire point of the game.  I create a setting and situation, then ask my players "what do you want to do?" and any answer is fine with me.  There's no question of resisting what I tell them to do because I don't tell them what to do in the first place.

Can you talk to the GM and clarify which type of group you're in?

Quote from: Ravenswing;879534You've been repeatedly asking us how to handle a style of game with which most of us are unfamiliar and wouldn't be interested in playing.
[/COLOR]

Last post for me.  The problem has been solved for a while, I decided to see where this train was going.  I have enjoyed the conversation though so I kept posting.

Two things I feel like I stumbled into a simmering schism I was unaware of.  I know nothing of 'story teller games' which have been mentioned and alluded to a couple times.  

As for a game you aren't familiar with.  No it's standard role playing.  Maybe a bit to the railroad side of the rail road-sandbox spectrum.  Our DM is great.  My trouble is I think he has a plan, and I have no idea what it is, and what level of effort is required to avoid being ground under the gears of the advancing plan.  

Here I was trying to make things clear.  It doesn't seem to be my strong suit.  Again, I enjoyed the conversation.  Problem solved.  Thanks for your help.  Those of you who have never encountered and problems stemming from player DM communication imperfections, I hope you know what a lucky scion of a bitch you are.

Quote from: Headless;879561Those of you who have never encountered and problems stemming from player DM communication imperfections, I hope you know what a lucky scion of a bitch you are.

And those of us who don't encounter that because they learned to communicate with the GMs, are merely experienced.

Quote from: AsenRG;879571And those of us who don't encounter that because they learned to communicate with the GMs, are merely experienced.

Do you remember it?  And are you telling me you never encounter communication miss cues when you sit down at a new table with a new DM?  If you never have to sit down with a new table, you are an even luckier scion of a bitch.  Games are like soap bubbles, they are beautiful while they last but pop all too easily.

Quote from: Headless;879561As for a game you aren't familiar with.  No it's standard role playing.  Maybe a bit to the railroad side of the rail road-sandbox spectrum.

There is no railroad-sandbox spectrum. The opposite of a railroad is not a sandbox.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;879656There is no railroad-sandbox spectrum. The opposite of a railroad is not a sandbox.

Thanks for the link.  I am enjoying reading it.  My favorite think about this board is when i am using words and discover that they already belong to someone else.  

Cjange the spectrum from sandbox rail road.  To defailt yez default no.

Quote from: Headless;879618Do you remember it?

Remember what, not having the experience?
Sure, that's why I try to share said experience, whatever it is:).

QuoteAnd are you telling me you never encounter communication miss cues when you sit down at a new table with a new DM?

Never might be too strong a word. "Rarely and seldom for anything important" is closer, though my goal is more often to prevent the players from misunderstanding me;).

QuoteIf you never have to sit down with a new table, you are an even luckier scion of a bitch.  Games are like soap bubbles, they are beautiful while they last but pop all too easily.

I don't like what you'retrying to imply about my mother...:mad:
And since I'm GMing, I can choose whether to sit on other tables, or just invite people on my table.