TheRPGSite

Or I guess I could call this thread the inscruitible railroader.

It may seem like I am complaining about my DM, I'm not just describing a situation to illustrate a meta question.  

So if you do any improv games you will learn that just about the only rule is "don't block". Blocking is when someone starts a secean and you say no.  "So I was going to the store the other day and met a dragon" "no, that's stupid."  Blocking, don't do it.

I am currently in a group that has serious blocking issues.  We are figuring it out.  I am pretty sure that for the PCs the rule about blocking should be don't do it.  I don't know exactly what that means when you want to do plan A and some one else wants to do plan B but that's not my question.

I 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.  Also player agency.  

This whole situation makes sense inside the story.  Of course A, then B, then C, and now this impending Marrage D.  But inside the story X, Y, then Z also make sense.  All of which are bad.  So my character wants to block the Marrige to avoid XYZ. the DM isn't making me do this mission, but there are no other options offered.  

I've decided to do the side quest.  This seems to be the way the DMwants the story to go so I will be a good improv player and go with.  Totally meta, and Meta gaming is bad, but let's tell the story the DM is trying to tell.

A friend suggested it was like skiing.  I have 360 degrees of choice for direction, but only the down hill ones advance the story.  If I try to go up hill I am blocking and being a pill.  But I see a big tree in front of me and minor changes in direction don't seem to be steering me around it.   I can see a possible future where we ski straight into the tree, and the DM asks why we hit it, leaving us to scream "you were steering!"

That's the situation.  Please no advice on that.  This isn't a complain about the DM thread though it must seem like it up til now.  

The 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.

It'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.

How 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.     Does 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?


Hopefully I have made the question clear.  It may be one that doesn't have an answer beyond, good players and practice.

Quote from: Headless;877942A friend suggested it was like skiing.  I have 360 degrees of choice for direction, but only the down hill ones advance the story.  If I try to go up hill I am blocking and being a pill.

Worst analogy for GMing I've heard this month.
Sure, it might work for some styles, but presenting it like it's the only possible solution is a bit much.

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.

No, just no. It's not my role as a Referee to put trees in front of the skier. It's not my role as a Referee to make sure the snow is good and ensures an optimum ride. And it sure as hell isn't my job as a Referee to put the same tree in front of you so you could show skilled swerving!
It's my job as a Referee to see which track you want to start on, then when you see a tree, to figure out where the new direction would bring you. There might be other trees. There might be no more trees, but a stone, or a wolf, another skier, or a even a bear.

Of course, it's because in this analogy I'm Refereeing ski-running in Scandinavia, not skiing on resort in the Alps.

QuoteIt'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.

Depending on how you do that, you could do either. But more often than not, it's a "here's what happens when you try that", or "your barking leads to the following". They can figure out whether it worked or whether it was the right tree by themselves.

QuoteHow can we have our NPCs deceive them with out deceiving them as the DM?

Why shouldn't we deceive the PCs?

QuoteSend 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.

Why is that a problem?

QuoteDoes 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.

I'd say it makes sense for the characters to insist. The GM, hopefully, doesn't need you to do anything.

QuoteHow is he to tell me, and should I even be able to figure it out?

Show him this thread.

Quote from: AsenRG;877944Worst analogy for GMing I've heard this month.


No, just no. It's not my role as a Referee to put trees in front of the skier. It's not my role as a Referee to make sure the snow is good and ensures an optimum ride. And it sure as hell isn't my job as a Referee to put the same tree in front of you so you could show skilled swerving!
It's my job as a Referee to see which track you want to start on, then when you see a tree, to figure out where the new direction would bring you. There might be other trees. There might be no more trees, but a stone, or a wolf, another skier, or a even a bear.

Of course, it's because in this analogy I'm Refereeing ski-running in Scandinavia, not skiing on resort in the Alps.


Depending on how you do that, you could do either. But more often than not, it's a "here's what happens when you try that", or "your barking leads to the following". They can figure out whether it worked or whether it was the right tree by themselves.


Why shouldn't we deceive the PCs?

We should deceive the PCs as NPCs.  We can't deceive the PCs in our role as the universe, or their own senses.

Sorry you don't like my analogy. But since you are using it the DM can also say, you seem to be stuck in a rut and can't change direction now.

Quote from: Headless;877942Hopefully I have made the question clear.

Regrettably anything but. Your concepts are all over the place, and I have no idea what you're actually inquiring about.

Perhaps stating what you're trying to achieve might clear things up.

uh... What?

Ok. So the DM says "Your sister is marrying a half orc..." me objecting to that because it is out of character for the NPC would be me correcting the DM. Not this so called "blocking".

Now on the other hand if the DM then insists said sister is really doing this and I know its out of character then my character will start to suspect something is wrong and start investigating in game. That is also not "blocking" that is my character acting in in the game to something suspicious.

Or if a player says they were out shopping and met a dragon then it is up to the DM to either say. "No. It didnt happen." or act on it. Some DMs will. Some wont. It depends on what the DM knows of the location.

This is simmilar to the thread a few months ago about players creating things from thin air like the infamous shotgun discussion. For some the player "editing" events is ok. For others its a adamant "No."

As for the DM deceiving the players.

The DM is the players senses. This is especially true of things like illusions and other trickery. "You see a wall before you." is what the players see. If they fail to check to see that the wall is fake then that is the characters believing their senses.

Alternatively. A DM telling the players "There is a owlbear roaring down on you!" would be incorrect if it was an illusion without a sound component. "You see an owlbear silently charging at you." would be more accurate. And so on.

But as usual every table plays different. What works for one is poison to another.

And Welcome to the site!

What are your goals as a GM? What is the purpose of playing?

Are you playing to See What Happens? Or do you have a specific story line you want explored?

Are you a fan of the characters? Do you want them to succeed? Do you feel it's more paramount to challenge the Players? How do you challenge players vs. characters? As the GM are you The Adversary? A neutral judge?

What is drama in your opinion? How do you bring that into the game? I'm not talking about personal drama here, I'm speaking to in-game drama. Is it important?

How far does player agency go? How far do you see GM authority going? How do you communicate those boundaries at your table?

There are so many variations on approaches to both GMing and playing games. More paramount than the choices at any given moment is the Social Contract you have established with your group. What matters to all the participants? What's not working? Can you talk it out? Is there a deal breaker in there? If everyone understands the parameters, they can choose to accept them or find another game.

Based on what I understand thus far, I have a different idea how to GM a game. Doesn't mean you're wrong or I'm wrong. I am very clear to my players what kind of game I run, where those lines are, what they can expect from me, and what I expect from them. To me it's the difference between saying "we're playing tennis" and then having the players show up to a basketball game. There is no need to trick anyone. You simply keep looking until you find a group of people that clicks.

I have left many games that didn't jive with my personal tastes. I have also asked players to leave my games for the same reasons. It's not personal. But this is my primary hobby and my time is very important to me. I do not intend to waste it playing in games that are not fun to me.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with working this out ahead of time ESPECIALLY when forming a new group! It always surprises me how many assumptions gamers will make about how others play/GM. Be up front about it. Discuss it. Don't suffer in silence! Sure, these are games, but there is a huge variance in styles. Instead of assuming, just discuss it.

Quote from: Headless;877942Or I guess I could call this thread the inscruitible railroader.

It may seem like I am complaining about my DM, I'm not just describing a situation to illustrate a meta question.  

So if you do any improv games you will learn that just about the only rule is "don't block". Blocking is when someone starts a secean and you say no.  "So I was going to the store the other day and met a dragon" "no, that's stupid."  Blocking, don't do it.

I am currently in a group that has serious blocking issues.  We are figuring it out.  I am pretty sure that for the PCs the rule about blocking should be don't do it.  I don't know exactly what that means when you want to do plan A and some one else wants to do plan B but that's not my question.

I 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.  Also player agency.  

This whole situation makes sense inside the story.  Of course A, then B, then C, and now this impending Marrage D.  But inside the story X, Y, then Z also make sense.  All of which are bad.  So my character wants to block the Marrige to avoid XYZ. the DM isn't making me do this mission, but there are no other options offered.  

I've decided to do the side quest.  This seems to be the way the DMwants the story to go so I will be a good improv player and go with.  Totally meta, and Meta gaming is bad, but let's tell the story the DM is trying to tell.

A friend suggested it was like skiing.  I have 360 degrees of choice for direction, but only the down hill ones advance the story.  If I try to go up hill I am blocking and being a pill.  But I see a big tree in front of me and minor changes in direction don't seem to be steering me around it.   I can see a possible future where we ski straight into the tree, and the DM asks why we hit it, leaving us to scream "you were steering!"

That's the situation.  Please no advice on that.  This isn't a complain about the DM thread though it must seem like it up til now.  

The 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.

It'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.

How 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.     Does 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?


Hopefully I have made the question clear.  It may be one that doesn't have an answer beyond, good players and practice.

This does not sound like an RPG session I'd want to spend any time in. The players need to first learn what a tabletop RPG is and how they work, for one thing. Then decide if it is something they still want to game as a group in. If so, forget every weird play habit that was learned from previous sessions and start over fresh.

Do your games resemble a Voight-Kampff Test? It kinda sounds like it.

https://youtu.be/Umc9ezAyJv0

If so - you're doing it wrong.

Here a perfect example of what I am trying to get at, stolen from a different thread.

"...watched one of my 7th level parties escape what I thought for sure was an airtight deathtrap they had earned through poor choices. "

The 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.  

No one else needs to chime in about how we suck at role playing.

Quote from: Headless;878011Here a perfect example of what I am trying to get at, stolen from a different thread.

"...watched one of my 7th level parties escape what I thought for sure was an airtight deathtrap they had earned through poor choices. "

The 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.  

No one else needs to chime in about how we suck at role playing.

You should ask the person you quoted that from.

It seems that your question is "how do I ensure that negative consequences are the result of poor decisions or luck on the players part rather than poor refereeing on my part?" With a side of "I'm aware of this acting tool which improves improv. As gaming seems a lot like improv, how do I use it correctly?"

Is that correct?

A lot of good answers already. Let me just add...

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.

If they dodge the tree, then let them dodge that tree. You don't need to take away a victory to maintain some arbitrary level of challenge. There are always going to be more trees sooner or later. So wait until they get to the next tree.

QuoteIt'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.

Sure you don't want to lead the PCs around by the nose, but that doesn't mean that there is nothing you can do to clarify the situation.

• If I want to indicate that they should keep trying, I review options they mentioned but haven't tried and options that their character would know. That lets them know there are other things they can try. It's not necessary that all the options are good options, but listing options helps break the stuck feeling that players sometimes get.

• If there is no clue to fine here, I may say "You've thoroughly searched that room." If I'm really bored by their continued searching of an ordinary room I might say, "There's nothing else here." Sometimes breaking the 4th wall is better than everyone being frustrated and bored.

QuoteHow can we have our NPCs deceive them with out deceiving them as the DM?

It's possible you can't. There are two possibilities.
   1) Either the players are willing and able to act as if deceived because the character is fooled even though the player is not, in which case the NPCs can deceive the PCs without the GM necessarily deceiving the players. (Note that this depends on the people at the table being onboard with this style of play. Not everyone is.)
   2) Or the players aren't willing or able to have their PC act deceived when they, the player, are not. In which case the GM (through the NPCs etc.) must deceive the players.

QuoteDoes 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?

Like the previous question that depends on the style of play.
   1) The simplest solution if the GM is running some sort of story-type plot would be to break the 4th wall and just say, "Look people, I was planning on your characters going to free the princess from the evil wizard's tower. Can you get on board with that idea? Because if not, then I don't have anything to run tonight, so I guess we finish early."

   2) Another solution would be for the GM not to run story-type plots. That way if the players don't want their PCs to go rescue the princess the princess stays in the tower. That may mean that someone else tries and succeeds or tries and fails to rescue the princess with whatever repercussions that causes. It may mean that no one rescues the princess and in despair she finally agrees to marry the wizard who becomes the evil wizard-king ruler of the kingdom with whatever repercussions that causes.

Quote from: Headless;878011Here a perfect example of what I am trying to get at, stolen from a different thread.

"...watched one of my 7th level parties escape what I thought for sure was an airtight deathtrap they had earned through poor choices. "

The 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.  

No one else needs to chime in about how we suck at role playing.

Headless, I think we're still fishing for definitions.  What exactly do you mean by an "improv game?"  What you're describing sounds like improvisational theater, where everyone has to accept the most recent statement anyone else makes, as long as no statement explicitly and directly contradicts one someone else has made.

If that's the case -- quite aside from that it'd make for some hellishly different interactions the more players there are -- it doesn't sound like your 'DM' is anything more than Just Another Player, with no authority beyond creating NPCs and possibly being the first motivating factor behind new plot threads.  It does sound like your group has a much more adversarial relationship with your DMs than is usual.

As such, since I expect the overwhelming majority of us do more traditional styles, the degree to which our advice is useful would be limited.

How would we, as GMs, "know" that players have made poor choices?  How would we "know" that players were forced into those choices through poor information or lack of options?  We don't.  Not as an objective fact.  It's entirely our opinion ... and we can be wrong, mistaken, colored by our own prejudices or our first-person omniscient POVs, what have you.  (Never mind that many players feel that roleplaying is important, and that playing a low-IQ thug, a rabid hothead or someone with a code against killing should inform and shape your choices.)

Quote from: Headless;877946We should deceive the PCs as NPCs.  We can't deceive the PCs in our role as the universe, or their own senses.

Quite the opposite, I can, I do, and I will do so in the future:).
I can deceive PCs when playing NPCs. That's a no-brainer.
I can deceive the PCs as the world. In many settings, there are things that the people believe which are outright wrong.
Thus, if they ask me for a knowledge roll, I'm going to give them the erroneous information even on a success, because nobody in the world knows better. If we're playing in a game set on the Balkans in Antiquity, and they ask me how to get to India, I'm going to give them the map of Erathosthenes.

Spoiler

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e8/Mappa_di_Eratostene.jpg)

And I can deceive them as their own senses. That's why Sense rolls are made by the GM, in secret. Did you botch...or is it really closer than you thought?
Who knows? Are you going to be attempting that jump or not?

QuoteSorry you don't like my analogy.

It's your friend's analogy, right?

QuoteBut since you are using it the DM can also say, you seem to be stuck in a rut and can't change direction now.

Stuck in a rut as in, you're caught by habit? No, that's something I wouldn't recommend any GM to say, unless I accepted a Compel. I can and do act contrary to habits when I see it as useful.

Quote from: Headless;878011Here a perfect example of what I am trying to get at, stolen from a different thread.

"...watched one of my 7th level parties escape what I thought for sure was an airtight deathtrap they had earned through poor choices. "

The question is how to know as a DM whether they have earned the death trap through their poor choices.

If they escaped it, it obviously wasn't airtight.
And how do you know? Well, it's your job. That's why you're called the Referee;). Just be a honest Referee!
If, in your honest estimate, uninfluenced by OOC reasons, the PCs earned the deathtrap by their IC actions, then they did earn it. It's that simple.

QuoteOr been forced into it through lack of options/information.

I'm the Referee, not the Teammate. That's what PC are.
I'm not there to offer you all the options you might need. If you lack options, create them. If you lack information, check the one you have and/or find new data.
If you don't, it's on you.

Quote from: Headless;877942I've decided to do the side quest.  This seems to be the way the DMwants the story to go so I will be a good improv player and go with.  Totally meta, and Meta gaming is bad, but let's tell the story the DM is trying to tell.

We seem to have rather different understandings of the word "improv".  As I understand the term, improvisation in general means that you're making it up as you go along and, in the context of improv games in particular, a key characteristic is that none of the participants know how it will end.  (I have encountered improv games where someone has a random phrase which they must say and the scene/game ends when they say that phrase, but, even then, nobody knows the context in which the phrase will be uttered or how they'll get there until it happens.)

The DM having a story that he wants to tell is directly counter to those concepts.  If he's trying to tell a story that he worked out in advance, then he is not improvising.

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.

I disagree.  While that definitely is a way to run a game, it's not the way to do it.  When I GM, I take it as my job to tell the players, "Here's a snowy hill with a bunch of trees on it.", then let them find their own path through the trees, while the trees all stay right where they were to start with.  Because that's what trees normally do.

Whether the PCs end up hitting a tree, dodging away from one at the last minute, or never go anywhere near a tree doesn't particularly concern me because I'm not trying to tell a story, I'm just letting the situation develop naturally in response to the PCs' actions.

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.

Give them options.  Let them set their own course and attempt anything they can think of that might reasonably work.  Try to give them as much information as their characters would have available to them, but not necessarily anything their characters wouldn't know.  And if they end up in a bad spot, well, that's where their choices took them.  Whether they "earned" it or whether it was specifically "poor" choices that brought them there is something else that doesn't particularly concern me.

Quote from: Bren;8780191) Either the players are willing and able to act as if deceived because the character is fooled even though the player is not, in which case the NPCs can deceive the PCs without the GM necessarily deceiving the players. (Note that this depends on the people at the table being onboard with this style of play. Not everyone is.)
   2) Or the players aren't willing or able to have their PC act deceived when they, the player, are not. In which case the GM (through the NPCs etc.) must deceive the players.

In an earlier response the OP indicated that he's distinguishing "deceiving them as the DM" from "deceiving them as an NPC":

Quote from: Headless;877946We should deceive the PCs as NPCs.  We can't deceive the PCs in our role as the universe, or their own senses.

So, there again, if an NPC wants to deceive the PCs, play the NPC as deceptive and tell them what the NPC says to deceive them.  Whether the players believe it or not is ultimately their business.

It is important, though, that the players see the same distinction between "DM" and "NPCs" as you do.  I've seen a number of threads on various forums asserting that NPCs must never lie to the PCs, or that if they do, the GM should tell the players "the NPC is obviously lying to you", because to do otherwise would destroy the players' trust in the GM.  If your players don't see any difference between an NPC speaking to the PCs and the GM speaking to the players, then that could cause problems.

Quote from: Headless;877942Hopefully I have made the question clear.  It may be one that doesn't have an answer beyond, good players and practice.

Sorry, no.  I don't have any idea what you are asking.  

Quote from: Headless;878011Here a perfect example of what I am trying to get at, stolen from a different thread.

"...watched one of my 7th level parties escape what I thought for sure was an airtight deathtrap they had earned through poor choices. "

The 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.

There's no way anyone else can answer that question since none of us know what actually happened in the game to lead to that point.  Only the person who said that can answer those questions.

Quote from: nDervish;878139In an earlier response the OP indicated that he's distinguishing "deceiving them as the DM" from "deceiving them as an NPC"

True. But Unless we are talking about the GM fudging, I don't know what the GM lying to the players even means, other than having NPCs lie.

Asen used the example of giving the players/PCs an inaccurate map. But that isn't, in my view, lying to the players. That is the GM giving the players the information that their PC has. It's the same as telling a player "you hear nothing" when the PC's listen roll at the door has failed. That's not lying. That's giving the player the information their PC truly possesses.

I agree with the rest of what you said. I just don't know what the OP means by the DM lying.

Quote from: Bren;878166True. But Unless we are talking about the GM fudging, I don't know what the GM lying to the players even means, other than having NPCs lie.

Asen used the example of giving the players/PCs an inaccurate map. But that isn't, in my view, lying to the players. That is the GM giving the players the information that their PC has. It's the same as telling a player "you hear nothing" when the PC's listen roll at the door has failed. That's not lying. That's giving the player the information their PC truly possesses.

I agree with the rest of what you said. I just don't know what the OP means by the DM lying.

Well, I assumed that's what the OP means under "deceiving the players as the universe or about what they senses say". If he's not talking about that, he'd need to correct me:).

The other possibility is he says "Referee lying" if the Referee does the "moving bandit ambush" trick or similar, but I didn't think of that when replying;).

Thanks for your help. Many of your responses were quite insightful.  I think perhaps my philosophy back ground is polluting my question.  This might be a "What is the nature of knowledge" type thing. I didn't think so to start, if I did I wouldn't have posted it.


A couple of people mentioned "the talk."  I think that means laying out the assumptions so we are all playing the same game.  Easy to do when it's 'we are playing d&d 3.5 dungeon crawl, except no monks, and this one thing from path finder....." Much harder to do when it's.  'This is the way I communicate.'  

We 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.

Quote from: Headless;878207Thanks for your help. Many of your responses were quite insightful.  I think perhaps my philosophy back ground is polluting my question.  This might be a "What is the nature of knowledge" type thing. I didn't think so to start, if I did I wouldn't have posted it.

Wouldn't the answer to that also be a form of knowledge, and thus it should contain itself in an infinite loop:p?
And if anything, it looks like your improv background is being more of a problem in formulating your question.

All that said, can you at least confirm or deny whether I understood your previous statement that confounded Bren, or whether I've replied to something you didn't mean;)?

Quote from: nDervish;878139When I GM, I take it as my job to tell the players, "Here's a snowy hill with a bunch of trees on it.", then let them find their own path through the trees, while the trees all stay right where they were to start with.  Because that's what trees normally do.

Whether the PCs end up hitting a tree, dodging away from one at the last minute, or never go anywhere near a tree doesn't particularly concern me because I'm not trying to tell a story, I'm just letting the situation develop naturally in response to the PCs' actions.

Of course, most players are going to burn down the trees anyway. :)

Quote from: Tod13;878225Of course, most players are going to burn down the trees anyway. :)

But we need some light for the night ski.

It'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.

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.

Exactly.

Quote from: Headless;877942Or I guess I could call this thread the inscruitible railroader.

It may seem like I am complaining about my DM, I'm not just describing a situation to illustrate a meta question.  

So if you do any improv games you will learn that just about the only rule is "don't block". Blocking is when someone starts a secean and you say no.  "So I was going to the store the other day and met a dragon" "no, that's stupid."  Blocking, don't do it.

I am currently in a group that has serious blocking issues.  We are figuring it out.  I am pretty sure that for the PCs the rule about blocking should be don't do it.  I don't know exactly what that means when you want to do plan A and some one else wants to do plan B but that's not my question.

I 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.  Also player agency.  

This whole situation makes sense inside the story.  Of course A, then B, then C, and now this impending Marrage D.  But inside the story X, Y, then Z also make sense.  All of which are bad.  So my character wants to block the Marrige to avoid XYZ. the DM isn't making me do this mission, but there are no other options offered.  

I've decided to do the side quest.  This seems to be the way the DMwants the story to go so I will be a good improv player and go with.  Totally meta, and Meta gaming is bad, but let's tell the story the DM is trying to tell.

A friend suggested it was like skiing.  I have 360 degrees of choice for direction, but only the down hill ones advance the story.  If I try to go up hill I am blocking and being a pill.  But I see a big tree in front of me and minor changes in direction don't seem to be steering me around it.   I can see a possible future where we ski straight into the tree, and the DM asks why we hit it, leaving us to scream "you were steering!"

That's the situation.  Please no advice on that.  This isn't a complain about the DM thread though it must seem like it up til now.  

The 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.

It'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.

How 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.     Does 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?


Hopefully I have made the question clear.  It may be one that doesn't have an answer beyond, good players and practice.

OK,this is a great example of why I prefer role-playing games over storygames. My Players and their characters are not there to act out the story in my head, they are there to create the actions which will result in a story once the game has been played.

Quote from: Headless;877942OP

Try Roleplaying

Quote from: Baron Opal;878015It seems that your question is "how do I ensure that negative consequences are the result of poor decisions or luck on the players part rather than poor refereeing on my part?" With a side of "I'm aware of this acting tool which improves improv. As gaming seems a lot like improv, how do I use it correctly?"

Is that correct?

Yes.  You understand what I am asking.  100% perfect in both statements.  Now I will quibble.

In theatre improv games you can't block, it just ends it.  It makes it no fun.  It's also a power grab by the blocker, same as all those eye role characters from the poll also on the front page (which is missing the chaotic stupid option)

Role 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.  




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

Depends on the improve RP really. And I've done a-lot.

What you call blocking others refer to as powergaming or godmodding. Its near universally seen as a bad thing.

But it seems you are ascribing some things that are not powergaming to this.
And if theres a DM driving the RP then it isnt really improv anymore as the DM is calling the shots or overseeing. Or should be.

The main rules we work under in the improv groups I play with are.
Dont pose for someone elses character.
Dont pose unavoidable actions.
Dont abuse use of NPCs and the environment.
Dont ignore the agreed on setting.

Others have different views. But what else is new.

What is the role of the DM in your sessions and is there any actual game mechanics in use or is it pure improv?

Role-playing games are not improv.  The DM' s job includes selectively blocking things the players throw out there that do not fit the milieu.  

The DM is in charge of the game, so I am not sure how a player even could block him (assuming a traditional DM-players structure *).  The DM can have whatever they want happen whenever they want.  'Tis the game.

Here are the options you have:

1.  You showed up to either play the game or not.  The DM says this marriage must happen and you must do the quest to make it happen.  If you want to game, do the quest.

2.  Test the DM' s bounds and see what happens.  Make an impassioned plea to your sister not to marry the dude.  Purposefully fail the quest.  Come up with your own goals and pursue them.  DM might get pissed and refuse you doing what you want.  DM might hit a blank wall with no idea what to do next, effectively stonewalling the game.  DM might well with it and have a fun session.  The important part is to not wait for the DM to give you a quest, make your own.

3.  Have a frank discussion with the DM either one on one or with the group.

4.  Walk away from the game.

5.  Offer to DM yourself.

*  As a side note, a buddy and I sometimes play in a style that is similar to improv.  We each make a PC and share DMing duties.  Since we both have DM editorial authority, gentleman's agreement that we both must accept whatever the other throws out there and riff off it, no blocking the other DM.  If this is similar to how you are playing, it is not the traditional rpg structure, and advice will be significantly different.

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

The DM is in charge of the game, so I am not sure how a player even could block him (assuming a traditional DM-players structure *).  The DM can have whatever they want happen whenever they want.  'Tis the game.

It 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."

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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation_(magic)). 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.

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.

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 (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/38013/roleplaying-games/art-of-rulings-part-4-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 (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/36900/roleplaying-games/the-railroading-manifesto), 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. (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/36914/roleplaying-games/the-railroading-manifesto-part-3-penumbra-of-problems)

Quote from: Justin Alexander;879656There is no railroad-sandbox spectrum. The opposite of a railroad is not a sandbox. (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/36914/roleplaying-games/the-railroading-manifesto-part-3-penumbra-of-problems)

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.

Quote from: Headless;879618Do 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.

1: I am hearing impaired. It makes for very 'interesting' sessions as player and DM. But I and the players do not fret or obsess over any communications gaffes and to date I have never seen anyone freak over it. Even at conventions. When I sit down as a player I usually know about nothing about an adventure or campaign other than what may have been outlined beforehand. I dont know what is going to happen and I prefer it that way. So far so do all the players I've ever DMed for. If someone misunderstands something or a mistake was made then we pause and work it out, backtrack to fix it, or if possible RP around it as the situation and moods deem.

2: I have been to alot of new tables. Its never once been a problem. Why do you think it would be?

3: Games are more like diamonds. Very hard. But if hit in just the right spot. Can fall apart. That right spot is usually very hard to hit unless someone is deliberately trying.

X: Probably not the case here. But it allmost sounds like you are wanting second-guess the DM or all but read the DMs notes/module and know what all is coming so you can react perfectly to it?

Or are you just wanting to know the DMs style all up front?

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

There is a lot to be said for the process of becoming a mature gamer (player or GM).  It's a learning process, and you can always tell a player who has been around with a lot of GMs and knows how to communicate effectively.

Quote from: RPGPundit;880086There is a lot to be said for the process of becoming a mature gamer (player or GM).  It's a learning process, and you can always tell a player who has been around with a lot of GMs and knows how to communicate effectively.

Well, at least now we have an example of player skill that isn't in any way opposed or mutually exclusive with character skill:D!