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

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.