Quote from: Anon Adderlan;878686Yet how often should this occur in a working group?

The DM should block the players whenever they want to attempt something that should be impossible in the milieu.

I royally pissed of a player once when they were deep in a dungeon and encountered a pool of water with a ring on the bottom.  I had already established the pool was 6 foot deep.  The player said he was using his long sword to fish the ring out, but was being careful not to put his hand in the water.  I told him his sword was not long enough, and he would have to plunge his arm into the water to reach it.  I blocked what he wanted to do because it was impossible.  (Purposefully using a clear cut case of impossibility here, most cases will be less clear cut.)

The DM should block a player who wants to do something that will harm the game itself, even if it is perfectly possible.  I have a long standing rule of not splitting the party for long periods of time and will stop run by the game if they go their separate ways.

How often these instances occur is a matter of how closely player expectations match DM expectations.  In general, the more they game together, the less often blocking occurs.

That isnt blocking. That is the DM correcting the player.

Player: "I backstab the ogre!"
DM: "um. You are standing in front of him still. You'll have move around behind the ogre to do that."

This is not "blocking".

Its the DMs job to correct wrong assumptions, incorrect guesses, and occasionally remind them that reality still has some tenuous grip on their characters possible actions.

And here we see why Gary was so scornful about "amateur theatrics."

RPGs are not improvisational theater.

Quote from: AsenRG;878555Yes, to about the same degree as it is tactical simulation, novel writing and historical reenactment;).

* beer *

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;878823* beer *

I am honoured to accept a beer from you, oh old and wise one! Here's another one for you, because Gronan' thirst should be great:)!
And there's also this six-pack we can share if we meet in person;).

Anon alderan.    I found you comments helpful, I do believe we are getting somewhere.

I would quibble or split hairs on what blocking is, and whether or not pen and paper RPGs are improv.  They are not theatre games.  But they are improv, they are also tactical simulations and historical re-enactments.  

I would say that telling the player their sword is too short to reach the ring with out getting their hand wet is not blocking.  Telling them they aren't allowed to go get the trestle table from room three and using it to stop the swinging axe trap in room six, is.  Or saying you can get it but it is completely pulverized and doesn't stop the axe.    Or in the above example something as simple as.
 "You have a fishing rod?  You don't have a fishing rod.
  Sure I do, it's written right there, I have a secondary skill in fishing as a back ground choice, I have never gotten to use it before.
Well, it broke in the fight with the Orc guards."
That's blocking, or rail roading.  If the DM wants to do that you don't have many options.


Sorry I missed your questions ArsenRG.  

More to say not sure how to say it correctly I will wait.

Quote from: Headless;878993"You have a fishing rod?  You don't have a fishing rod.
  Sure I do, it's written right there, I have a secondary skill in fishing as a back ground choice, I have never gotten to use it before.
Well, it broke in the fight with the Orc guards."
That's blocking, or rail roading.  If the DM wants to do that you don't have many options.

I have never seen any DM do anything like that ever.  It's more like

I have a fishing rod.
There's no fishing rod on your sheet.  You don't have a fishing rod.
I have fishing skill.
Everyone knows who knows how to fish does not carry a fishing rod everywhere they go.  If it isn't on your sheet, you don't have it.  

That's neither blocking nor railroading.  That's just enforcing consistency.  You either have it on your sheet or you don't.  I have never seen a DM do what you describe but I would call it bad DMing.

Quote from: Headless;878993Sorry I missed your questions ArsenRG.  

More to say not sure how to say it correctly I will wait.

No problem, I don't insist on answering. No skin off my back even if you choose to disregard them completely:).

OTOH, if my notes say that the axe trap will pulverize wood, that's not blocking, it's merely keeping the world consistent, which is a goal that lacks in improv;).

Quote from: AsenRG;879301OTOH, if my notes say that the axe trap will pulverize wood, that's not blocking, it's merely keeping the world consistent, which is a goal that lacks in improv;).

Actually keeping the world consistent in improv is important too.

Quote from: Headless;878993Or in the above example something as simple as.
 "You have a fishing rod?  You don't have a fishing rod.
  Sure I do, it's written right there, I have a secondary skill in fishing as a back ground choice, I have never gotten to use it before.
Well, it broke in the fight with the Orc guards."

That's blocking, or rail roading.  If the DM wants to do that you don't have many options.

No that is not blocking or railroading. You seen to have a very skewed idea of what those terms mean.

The above example is again the DM reminding the player that there are certain limitations in place. If you didnt buy a fishing pole or at some point say. "I am making a fishing pole while we camp" then no. You dont magically have a fishing pole. (unless you are a Warlock. heh-heh...)

Personally I would not have said "it broke" that was the wrong solution. Instead the DM should have stuck to "No. You never said you had one so now you don't have one." and then I'd have followed up by suggesting that if the materials are on hand the PC can of course now make one and do their fishing.

Part of improve should be establishing early on what the characters have on them. Or hand the DM a inventory list.

Or as a certain popular skit goes. "No you do not have Mordenkainen's Faithful Watchdog present because all you did was say you were buying the components and never said you were actually casting it. So now you are surrounded by Ogres!"

Quote from: yosemitemike;879009That's neither blocking nor railroading.  That's just enforcing consistency.  You either have it on your sheet or you don't.  I have never seen a DM do what you describe but I would call it bad DMing.

Beyond that, there are other considerations.

In this case?  Fishing poles are FRAGILE.  It's a long, awkward, fragile piece of wood -- jointed rods not being invented before the 18th century.  I would just plain laugh at someone who insisted that he'd had one strapped to his back through any number of encounters, adventures and combats.

Moreover, c'mon.  I don't run my campaigns like MacGyver, and players can't just declare themselves in possession of any piece of equipment pertaining to any skill they possess.  ("Well, yeah, I break out my anvil and portable forge -- I got Blacksmith skill, ya know!")  I doubt many others do as well, outside of weird pulp milieus.

I wouldn't bust the chops of someone -- in a loosey-goosey campaign -- who claimed to own fishing hooks and a spool of string, but seriously.

We 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.  

In the example about the axe trap; that happened in a game.  I had a low level thief that wanted to see what was on the other side of a room.  I had previously discovered the trap, we had finished the dungeon and come back to the room.  We were playing 3.5 or something.  My disarm skill was low enough that I wasn't going to risk it.  So we got the tressle table.  Now if your notes say it pulverizes wood that's fair.  But a five or six foot section of 6" thick oak?  Ok, how many times can it do that?  When that didn't work I wanted to go back to the garbage room the carrion crawler was living in and just start pilling junk up in front of the blade til it stopped.  The DM got quite upset and flat out wouldn't let us do that.  

Clearly we had different expectations.  I was trying to problem solve my way through the trap, he wanted me to roll dice to get through it.  If it does that to an oak table I am not going to risk my fragile halfling body on my chubby pie stealing fingers.  

It goes to the question about what the monsters eat.  In the trap example I don't understand what the "disarm traps" roll even is.  I love the solution of putting a MacDs on the third level.  It tells the players one of 2 things.  Either the DM doesn't want to worry about it, it's not that kind of game.  Or the wizard whose tower this is, is incredibly worried about it, so if you smash up the soda fountain all hell will break loose when the owl bear can't get his orange crush.

Back to the main subject of the thread.  I agree we are using the term "blocking" and some other terms differently from each other.

You didn't express your fishing pole example very well, sorry. I see your point now, although even if you had said on day 1 of the campaign that you always carry a fishing pole around with you, I think a reasonable GM could require you to make a roll to see if you still have it, unbroken, after a period of hard adventuring. Or make you roll when hit to see if it breaks, etc. In any case this isnt improv at all, quite the opposite, since it's building on established facts.

The axe example is bad GMing or modern "challenge the character not the player"; take your pick. I can only say that if I were GMing I'd ask for a disarm roll only for instances where (a) the character deserves a chance to see or know something that isn't obvious, due their expertise and skill, or (b) the task of physical manipulation of the trap mechanism is something whose success can't be determined by pure description. "I heap up a bunch of junk to keep the axe from falling" doesn't require a roll. "I weigh out a bag of sand and quickly swap it with the golden talisman on the pedestal" does require a roll.

Not sure what all this has to do with the original post's marriage plot.

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.  

In the example about the axe trap; that happened in a game.  I had a low level thief that wanted to see what was on the other side of a room.  I had previously discovered the trap, we had finished the dungeon and come back to the room.  We were playing 3.5 or something.  My disarm skill was low enough that I wasn't going to risk it.  So we got the tressle table.  Now if your notes say it pulverizes wood that's fair.  But a five or six foot section of 6" thick oak?  Ok, how many times can it do that?  When that didn't work I wanted to go back to the garbage room the carrion crawler was living in and just start pilling junk up in front of the blade til it stopped.  The DM got quite upset and flat out wouldn't let us do that.  

See, in this case you're right. Enough junk would stop it, especially if said junk has metal components, and I wasn't imagining a table 15 cm thick. In fact, you could just pile junk with rubble. The axe blade would dull and break, or you'd know where to find a +2 axe:).
My point was more "it doesn't have to be due to blocking - maybe your solution simply wasn't good enough".

QuoteClearly we had different expectations.  I was trying to problem solve my way through the trap, he wanted me to roll dice to get through it.  If it does that to an oak table I am not going to risk my fragile halfling body on my chubby pie stealing fingers.  

That's also reasonable.

QuoteIt goes to the question about what the monsters eat.  In the trap example I don't understand what the "disarm traps" roll even is.  I love the solution of putting a MacDs on the third level.  It tells the players one of 2 things.  Either the DM doesn't want to worry about it, it's not that kind of game.  Or the wizard whose tower this is, is incredibly worried about it, so if you smash up the soda fountain all hell will break loose when the owl bear can't get his orange crush.

So step one is to break up the soda fountain, and you'll find out;).

Well, that, or you can ask the GM. But seriously, who does that:p?
(The above sentence is almost guaranteed to contain irony).

QuoteBack to the main subject of the thread.  I agree we are using the term "blocking" and some other terms differently from each other.

So we're, what, different people with dissimilar backgrounds communicating via Internet:D?

Going back to the OP...

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.

Blocking.

As others have pointed out, you as a player have a choice: go on the quest, or accept the marriage. Now it could be your GM is forcing you to go on the quest but that's not clearly stated here. You--apparently--have a choice. Your agency is intact. If you just tell the GM "sorry, marriage didn't happen" then yes, you are blocking. It's a somewhat different matter if the GM says a priori the only way to stop the marriage is via the quest--if so you either have pixel-bitching or a fundamental disagreement about the workings of your world. Hard to say without far more detail than I probably care to hear. But the fact is that it's the GM's role to say "no" (even if by means of a look and a laugh), to ask "how?", and to assign modifiers. If you take all those away, then you have storygaming (in the current sense). That might work fine for you but it has its own pitfalls (such as descent into gonzo).

QuoteThe 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.

I think if you reflect on how an actual ski run or obstacle course works, you can see the problem with this premise. Not that actual GMs don't do this--it just happens to be bad GMing whether one is in the trad school or storygaming. In short: don't move the trees, but design your scenarios so that maneuvering through them is interesting in itself. Also, sometimes you hit a choke point where you can't avoid the challenge, or the challenge is such that it's coming toward you (or something you value), so you have to deal with it. Like the marriage thing, if you're that opposed to it then if all else fails just kill the groom, then accept the consequences. Unless of course the GM is trying to railroad you into the quest, which is his real purpose. I.e. the challenge he has in mind is one thing, but under false pretenses he gives the marriage as the challenge.