In honour of Grimgent, here's a new gaming Law from the Pundit.
The "The Goggles Do Nothing" Law
Anytime you already know that a possible GM-player interaction regarding a PC's desired action will lead to nothing, don't bother with it. You're only wasting your time, the player's, and everyone else's. If you, as the GM, already realize that a particular plan can NOT work, then simply tell that to the player, instead of trying to create the "placebo" of giving the player the illusion that his intended action would somehow have a chance of succeeding.
Discuss.
RPGPundit
ps. for the full scoop on how all this came about, see today's blog entry (http://www.xanga.com/RPGpundit/548259497/item.html).
Sounds good to me. Sort of a subset of the more general "Treat your players with respect and honesty" principle.
Quote from: RPGPunditIf you, as the GM, already realize that a particular plan can NOT work, then simply tell that to the player, instead of trying to create the "placebo" of giving the player the illusion that his intended action would somehow have a chance of succeeding.
And this is inconsistent with Monarda... how, exactly? The characters are always supposed to know what they are capable of, after all, so players will also be aware that any unwise plans haven't got a chance of working out.
Quote from: RPGPunditIn honour of Grimgent, here's a new gaming Law from the Pundit.
The "The Goggles Do Nothing" Law
Anytime you already know that a possible GM-player interaction regarding a PC's desired action will lead to nothing, don't bother with it. You're only wasting your time, the player's, and everyone else's. If you, as the GM, already realize that a particular plan can NOT work, then simply tell that to the player, instead of trying to create the "placebo" of giving the player the illusion that his intended action would somehow have a chance of succeeding.
I actually like that law, with some provisos:
Assuming we're dealing with a situation where it's perfectly obvious to the GM that a particular plan will not work, the GM still needs to ask himself two questions:
1: Is it obvious to the players that it won't work?
2: SHOULD it be obvious to the players that it won't work?
If the answer to 1 is "yes", then you just have to tell the player in question to stop fooling around, because they know what they're asking for isn't possible. If the answer to 1 is "no", it gets more complicated.
A lot of the time, the answer to "2" is probably "yes". The PCs are inhabitants of the campaign world, they live it and breathe it, they are competent members of their respective professions, they aren't (with exceptions) idiots. If, say, there's no Moon in the sky in your campaign world, it's perfectly understandable that players can sometimes forget it, and a-OK to say "Sorry, you can't navigate by moonlight because this world has no Moon."
At the same time, there's occasions when the answer to "2" is "no". For example, when it comes to negotiations with NPCs, player characters won't necessarily know when an NPC will say "no, absolutely not, there's no way I am going to agree to that" (especially if they neglected IC to do research and intelligence-gathering beforehand). I'm not going to say "Well, you talk to the guy and he says no. Try again."
In general, if the players' actions are going to fail because of IC secrets they aren't aware of, I let the action proceed because in the course of failing the PCs will almost always pick up that something unusual is happening and follow it up. (I suppose this is covered by the "comes to nothing" clause in the law, but the rest of the law seems to imply that there's nothing to gain from failure, which isn't always the case.)
If, on the other hand, they'll fail because of IC information they would IC know, I just tell them.
Quote from: GrimGentAnd this is inconsistent with Monarda... how, exactly? The characters are always supposed to know what they are capable of, after all, so players will also be aware that any unwise plans haven't got a chance of working out.
Lets have an experiment.
THIS Sunday I am running MY Serenity campaign with 4 mature players. And during the entire 3 hours I will not use the WORDS "NO" ever.
If any player, as their character, wishes to attempt any action (no matter how trivial, plot-killing, diabolical, stupid or un-fun) I will allow them a chance to take that option.
I bet you the following week, not one of the bastards will turn up!
(I changed my Signature, hopefully people will understand.)
QuoteAnd this is inconsistent with Monarda... how, exactly?
Could we seriously give Nobilis and Monarda a break for a while?
I think we were talking about something a few weeks back when I gave the example of a player who wants to try leaping across the chasm. The GM tells him the chasm is 1/2 mile wide, and it's not possible. The player wants to try anyway. The options were:
1) Let them try, and then everyone has a laugh as they fall to their death.
or
2) The GM says No. Not even just "No that's not successful". "No, you can't do that. You're character doesn't attempt it."
#1 completely breaks my suspension of disbelief / immersion / virtual experience as another player. Maybe it's funny for a moment, but if I want funny, there are better games than an RPG.
I'm firmly in support of #2.
Quote from: StuartCould we seriously give Nobilis and Monarda a break for a while?
If Pundit will, then yes. He's free to enjoy his little delusions about the game, naturally enough, but spreading his misconceptions as facts without even the slightest idea of how it's supposed to play out is still seriously annoying.
Quote from: StuartI'm firmly in support of #2.
I'm not. I'd tell the player that the character
will die if he jumps. I wouldn't stop him if he nevertheless went ahead with it despite the warnings, for some unfathomable reason. It's his suicide.
Nobody mentioned Monarda or Nobilis in this thread before you. I've only mentioned it asking you not to derail this thread with more Nobilis discussion. We'v had *so much* of that lately. Surely you can refrain from mentioning them in this thread. Just discuss what the topic is about, bitch about Pundit singling you out, whatever...
Quote from: StuartI think we were talking about something a few weeks back when I gave the example of a player who wants to try leaping across the chasm. The GM tells him the chasm is 1/2 mile wide, and it's not possible. The player wants to try anyway. The options were:
1) Let them try, and then everyone has a laugh as they fall to their death.
or
2) The GM says No. Not even just "No that's not successful". "No, you can't do that. You're character doesn't attempt it."
#1 completely breaks my suspension of disbelief / immersion / virtual experience as another player. Maybe it's funny for a moment, but if I want funny, there are better games than an RPG.
I'm firmly in support of #2.
How does "Invisible magic forces prevent you from approaching the chasm with the intention of jumping into it" harm suspension of disbelief less than "With a running start and all the confidence in the world, you leap into the open space, crossing what seems like a remarkable distance. However, you can't jump half a mile, and begin a less-dignified freefall towards the rocks below"?
I'm not arguing your preference, I'm just...totally confused.
Quote from: StuartNobody mentioned Monarda or Nobilis in this thread before you.
...Except that, you know, the whole thread is based on Pundit's criticism of the principle in another thread. Still, for the sake of convenience, I'll limit myself to the discussion here.
Quote from: StuartNobody mentioned Monarda or Nobilis in this thread before you. I've only mentioned it asking you not to derail this thread with more Nobilis discussion. We'v had *so much* of that lately. Surely you can refrain from mentioning them in this thread. Just discuss what the topic is about, bitch about Pundit singling you out, whatever...
Not by saying the words, no. But I can't think of a way that this law isn't intended as a direct refutation of the Monardo Law. It's linked to in a discussion about Nobilis, it's aimed at the poster most vocal in defense of Nobilis, and it's in direct opposition to what Pundit has told himself Monardo is about. It's like talking about "Armor Class" and "3rd-level spells" and "mind flayers" then claiming you're not talking about D&D.
Quote from: Christmas ApeHow does "Invisible magic forces prevent you from approaching the chasm with the intention of jumping into it" harm suspension of disbelief less than "With a running start and all the confidence in the world, you leap into the open space, crossing what seems like a remarkable distance. However, you can't jump half a mile, and begin a less-dignified freefall towards the rocks below"?
I'm not arguing your preference, I'm just...totally confused.
*bzzt* Wrong.
You're trying to map IC effects to an entirely OOC decision.
Just because the players or the GM decide something won't happen does not automatically mean there has to be some ingame reflection of that decision.
Should I somehow go out of my way to reflect in my Rainbow Six game that the players and I decided not to include giant purple werewolves?
Some things really are just ridiculous, and I see no reason why I should be forced to recognize them in my game if I don't feel like it.
QuoteI'm not. I'd tell the player that the character will die if he jumps. I wouldn't stop him if he nevertheless went ahead with it despite the warnings, for some unfathomable reason. It's his suicide.
Keep in mind we're talking about a generic RPG now... not a favourite one in particular...
The problem with this, (and it does happen for some groups when a player decides to kill his character so he can bring in a new one he's decided he'd like better) is that:
* It's in no way realistic.
* It wastes everyone's time.
* It makes the game worse for the other players.
I guess it depends on whether you see the players guiding the actions of believable characters in a fictional world... or if the players are like demons as seen in the movie Fallen (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119099/) who control the person, but are NOT restricted by any normal rules of human behaviour.
Quote from: Christmas ApeBut I can't think of a way that this law isn't intended as a direct refutation of the Monardo Law.
Well ... what do you think of the law on its own merits? If we leave the Monarda conversation in the Monarda threads (of which ... yeah ... there are plenty), I think that the Goggles law makes good sense. Don't mislead people into thinking that they've got a chance at something. If they don't have a chance of convincing you, and the conversation's not going to be fun or productive, just tell them that they don't have a chance and move on. Seems honest and helpful to me.
Quote from: J ArcaneShould I somehow go out of my way to reflect in my Rainbow Six game that the players and I decided not to include giant purple werewolves?
There's a more accurate comparison: is a PC allowed to shoot himself in that game?
Quote from: Stuart(and it doesn happen for some groups when a player decides to kill his character so he can bring in a new one he's decided he'd like better)
Why not just say that the character retires or vanishes in the middle of the night or moves to Australia without telling one and is never heard of again? But if a player intentionally wants to kill off his PC, I would never prevent it with a swift veto. It's possible that the game features a willpower or cowardice check which might prevent it, but I'm not going to use GM fiat to stop someone from deliberating harming his character.
Quote from: GrimGentThere's a more accurate comparison: is a PC allowed to shoot himself in that game?
If there's a direct IC reason for his character to do so, say he's torn apart with grief over accidentally taking out a hostage in the last misison, and it's roleplayed well enoguh to be believeable, then yes.
If he's just being a fuckstick and doing it for shits and giggles or for disruptive purposes, or just sheer boredom, I tell him no, and to stop beign a fuckstick, and begin pondering that either I have a problem player, or I'm a problem GM, because I'm not engaging my players well enough that they aren't going off the deep end and trying silly shit just to find some amusement.
Of course, I rarely play in groups rendered so dysfunctional that they'd expect to get away with that kind of behavior, so I suspect this is getting to be one of those "theory not practice" sorts of discussions I hate so much.
I think anytime the player wants their character to stop acting like a believable person by any remote stretch of imagination, and start running them like a possessed person controlled by a demon... the GM needs to step in to bring them back to playing the game everyone sat down to play.
If they don't that can spoil the fun for the other players at the table. Why? Because the quality of their "story" and "virtual experience" is greatly diminished if the Paladin suddenly jumps off a cliff and kills himself, or the Cleric suddenly jumps up in the Tavern and starts hitting people with his mace.
If those things happen in a game, they should be shocking and point to a major storyline involving possession.
The GM's job is to play referee, an that means saying "No" to things that are out of scope.
Please keep in mind that whatever you and your gaming group might do (or not do) is not the same as ALL gaming groups, and certainly not the same as "In Case of Emergency" advice to give to new gamers.
Quote from: GrimGentThere's a more accurate comparison: is a PC allowed to shoot himself in that game?
If the player is like that I want to know if he doesn't like his character for some reason. If yes, I allow him a more diginified option of retiring that character. If the answer is no, then he's just being an ass and I send him on his merry way and don't invite him back.
Character suicides for valid in game reasons (though rare indeed) is another topic than random acts of self-death. Occasionally I feel the need to remind such players that they don't earn XP for themselves...
Quote from: TonyLBDon't mislead people into thinking that they've got a chance at something.
Of course. And the important thing to remember is that
no one is arguing for anything else.
Quote from: SpikeOccasionally I feel the need to remind such players that they don't earn XP for themselves...
Hmm. Now, if reincarnation exists in the setting, and you could somehow keep the XP from past lives, that definitely has potential...
QuoteOf course, I rarely play in groups rendered so dysfunctional that they'd expect to get away with that kind of behavior, so I suspect this is getting to be one of those "theory not practice" sorts of discussions I hate so much.
As an aside: My interest in this is *specifically* for GM advice to give to new players, who may be very young and from experience encounter more of the "doing it for shits and giggles or for disruptive purposes" type behaviour.
Quote from: TonyLBWell ... what do you think of the law on its own merits? If we leave the Monarda conversation in the Monarda threads (of which ... yeah ... there are plenty), I think that the Goggles law makes good sense. Don't mislead people into thinking that they've got a chance at something. If they don't have a chance of convincing you, and the conversation's not going to be fun or productive, just tell them that they don't have a chance and move on. Seems honest and helpful to me.
This is the second time in one day I'm agreeing with TonyLB on something.
Not only that, but in another thread, I even say Tony and Pundit half agree on something.
Hold me, I'm scared.
Quote from: J Arcane*bzzt* Wrong.
You're trying to map IC effects to an entirely OOC decision.
Just because the players or the GM decide something won't happen does not automatically mean there has to be some ingame reflection of that decision.
That's how my group rolls, dawg. If the player declares an action, initiation is assumed; the GM doesn't come in until resolution and impact.
YMMV, but if a player tells me "I'm gonna take a running start and leap the chasm!" my response is "You'll die". If he says "Yep!", I presume he's got himself an IC reason, and he falls and dies. Then he sits out and considers another character, possibly one with better survival instincts.
QuoteShould I somehow go out of my way to reflect in my Rainbow Six game that the players and I decided not to include giant purple werewolves?
Besides the fact we're comparing apples and car stereos here, proving a negative is exceedingly hard. Especially since I can't think of anything that
has giant purple werewolves off the top of my head.
QuoteSome things really are just ridiculous, and I see no reason why I should be forced to recognize them in my game if I don't feel like it.
Huh.
My players have never presented me with an IC course of action so ridiculous that I flat out had to veto the attempt. At least not in the past decade, anyhow. Maybe that's the problem?
Quote from: GrimGentOf course. And the important thing to remember is that no one is arguing for anything else.
Well, you're generating an awful lot of passionate argument, given that you don't actually disagree with the premise of the thread.
So what's up with that? You have to argue with Pundit just because he's Pundit? Please. That's giving him more personal cred than he deserves, by a damn sight. My advice is this: Argue with him when he's wrong, agree with him when he's right, and don't let him bait you into getting the two confused.
Quote from: StuartAs an aside: My interest in this is *specifically* for GM advice to give to new players, who may be very young and from experience encounter more of the "doing it for shits and giggles or for disruptive purposes" type behaviour.
In which case I think the encouragement towards indulging every stupid thing a player tries to do is absolutely abominable, and liable to create more and more problems over time.
Quote from: TonyLBWell, you're generating an awful lot of passionate argument, given that you don't actually disagree with the premise of the thread.
What I disagree with is his curious notion that this premise is somehow incompatible with the principle-which-shall-go-unnamed-for-now. Well... At least the principle as written, that is. His reinterpretation of it is another matter altogether.
Quote from: TonyLBWell ... what do you think of the law on its own merits? If we leave the Monarda conversation in the Monarda threads (of which ... yeah ... there are plenty), I think that the Goggles law makes good sense. Don't mislead people into thinking that they've got a chance at something. If they don't have a chance of convincing you, and the conversation's not going to be fun or productive, just tell them that they don't have a chance and move on. Seems honest and helpful to me.
I've been puzzling over this, actually, and on reflection I have to engage in something I
despise; I'm gonna have to ask for a definitional clarification on a simple and obvious word.
What do we mean by "nothing"? What circumstances would give us a player having their character take a pointless action? I think I need examples in this case; some plans don't work because there's something the players don't know, and some plans don't work because the plan is retarded. If it's the first, PC information gathering - even through trial and error - isn't "nothing". If it's the second, it's some good advice wrapped up in yet another absolute.
Quote from: GrimGentHmm. Now, if reincarnation exists in the setting, and you could somehow keep the XP from past lives, that definitely has potential...
Good point, Grim, and I've seen a few systems that account for that. I still wouldn't give them xp for killing themselves randomly, however. heroically and dramatically? All for it. Almost never see it, but it's cooler than a polar bear's belly when it happens.
Quote from: GrimGentWhat I disagree with is his curious notion that this premise is somehow incompatible with the principle-which-shall-go-unnamed-for-now. Well... At least the principle as written, that is. His reinterpretation of it is another matter altogether.
Yeah, y'know ... I think that argument might be better made in one of the other threads, don't you?
Here and now, in this thread, what you're doing is railing against a
perfectly reasonable guideline for honesty and forthrightness, just because you're riled about entirely different discussions that happened earlier.
Quote from: TonyLBHere and now, in this thread, what you're doing is railing against a perfectly reasonable guideline for honesty and forthrightness, just because you're riled about entirely different discussions that happened earlier.
Whether it's entirely different is a tad questionable... But the players do have the right to know everything that their characters would know, and to base their actions on that knowledge. It's another one of those axioms which I would consider simply common sense.
I can get behind this one. I generally refuse to play 20 questions with a player. When they start asking all kinds of minute questions about the situation to see if they can pull off some cockamamie scheme I'll cut through it and ask directly "What are you hoping to achieve here?" Then depending on what it is, I'll either tell them that it's impossible or that it works, or you need to make such and such rolls. Impossible is a rarity, because usually such schemes aren't thought out very well and can lead to hilarious results. :)
Not a good rule, unless you don't have time or lives to waste.
Or unless you're playing an indie game with a focused objective. Since I don't think the Pundit is into those sorts of games, the rule is pointless.
If a player wants to take a step in a direction that's not fun, by all means, the GM should hammer him into submission.
However, if the character wants to do something stupid or pointless (a dead end), I think the GM should indulge.
Really dumb players ask, "What would happen if I did this?"
The correct answer is, "Do it and find out"
An optional answer is, "Who is your character asking?" The GM knows stuff in the world by virtue of running it. The player can ask the GM anything he wants. The GM doesn't have to (and probably shouldn't answer) plot critical things.
The character, on the other hand, can't ask the GM anything. They can only ask other NPCs. And different NPCs know different things, or the same thing from different angles. Each NPC also has the ability, no, the DUTY to exploit the information they gain simply by knowing what questions a PC asks them.
If you're trying to run a mystery, or a horror scenario, how are you supposed to indulge false leads and dead ends with this law in place?
One of the things I've not seen discussed here is how does the group deal with these things, only how the GM should.
What I mean by this is, I might answer differently if you had a group that was used to having these kinds of things happen and had all done it one time or another and didn't mind wasting the ten minutes.
Now these are all going to be group by group decisions. If you have a group where this is rare and frowned upon, you would probably take the goggles approach. But if you're in a group where people, even in the middle of a serious game, do something out of left field, and everyone is cool with the ensuing (waste?) of ten minutes becuase they've all done it, then you might not.
Does that make any sense at all?
Yes. I'd put this in the GM advice section, and let them choose whether to call a foul, or allow play to continue. If they call foul and EVERYONE at the table boos, then that's their cue to pause for a moment and consider whether the game would be better if they called the foul, or kept play going.
Quote from: StuartI think anytime the player wants their character to stop acting like a believable person by any remote stretch of imagination, and start running them like a possessed person controlled by a demon... the GM needs to step in to bring them back to playing the game everyone sat down to play.
If they don't that can spoil the fun for the other players at the table. Why? Because the quality of their "story" and "virtual experience" is greatly diminished if the Paladin suddenly jumps off a cliff and kills himself, or the Cleric suddenly jumps up in the Tavern and starts hitting people with his mace.
If those things happen in a game, they should be shocking and point to a major storyline involving possession.
The GM's job is to play referee, an that means saying "No" to things that are out of scope.
Please keep in mind that whatever you and your gaming group might do (or not do) is not the same as ALL gaming groups, and certainly not the same as "In Case of Emergency" advice to give to new gamers.
Hey, common sense. I dig that.
Quote from: RPGPunditThe "The Goggles Do Nothing" Law
Anytime you already know that a possible GM-player interaction regarding a PC's desired action will lead to nothing, don't bother with it. You're only wasting your time, the player's, and everyone else's. If you, as the GM, already realize that a particular plan can NOT work, then simply tell that to the player, instead of trying to create the "placebo" of giving the player the illusion that his intended action would somehow have a chance of succeeding.
Sounds good. That's what I try to do. I think sometimes in the heat of the moment it's possible to forget this and stonewall players, so it's good to remind oneself.
I'd never follow this as a all-the-time rule. If the character has no way to know it won't work, I'm not going to tell the player. If the character does know, I'll happily tell the player, because I know the world and the player only knows what he's seen of it, so it's impossible for him to know everything about the world that his character knows, meaning lots of things that seem reasonable to the player would be preposterous to the character..
QuoteI think we were talking about something a few weeks back when I gave the example of a player who wants to try leaping across the chasm. The GM tells him the chasm is 1/2 mile wide, and it's not possible. The player wants to try anyway. The options were:
1) Let them try, and then everyone has a laugh as they fall to their death.
or
2) The GM says No. Not even just "No that's not successful". "No, you can't do that. You're character doesn't attempt it."
If you tell him it's impossible and he'll die but the player wants to try anyway there's something serious going on. Either the player is sick of that character and wants to die, has been trained to believe (by you or others) that GMs won't let PCs die, or something. At this point, rather than saying "you try and die" or "no, you can't try" you should probably be saying "why do you still want to do it when you know you'll die?"
Gaming advice:
All absolute gaming advice is flawed.
Quote from: SettembriniGaming advice:
All absolute gaming advice is flawed.
Absolutely!
Quote from: droogAbsolutely!
Damn.
Beaten to the punch.
(http://users.adelphia.net/~getjeffrey/Private/Moe_Curly.jpg)
Quote from: droog(http://users.adelphia.net/~getjeffrey/Private/Moe_Curly.jpg)
Oh, a wiseguy, eh?
Nyuk nyuk nyuk!
Shoulda worn the goggles....
Quote from: droogNyuk nyuk nyuk!
Shoulda worn the goggles....
(http://www.ufomind.com/area51/desertrat/1996/dr33/stooges.jpg)
Ya think those'll save ya, huh?
Long, long ago, when I first tried to run a game at a con, I wish I'd known of this rule and used it.
I see this as best used when time is of the essence, such as a convention game and recommend it for them most of all.
Quote from: rumbleIf you're trying to run a mystery, or a horror scenario, how are you supposed to indulge false leads and dead ends with this law in place?
Dead Ends and False Leads actually DO lead somewhere,
in those kinds of games. That is to say, they serve a purpose.
I'm talking about indulging the players in attempting things that serve NO purpose.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPunditDead Ends and False Leads actually DO lead somewhere, in those kinds of games. That is to say, they serve a purpose.
I'm talking about indulging the players in attempting things that serve NO purpose.
What I find odd about these discussions is the underlying assumption that the players in general are in the habit of suggesting absolutely pointless things. Perhaps it's just a matter of being very lucky when it comes to putting together a group, but I've always taken it for granted that my players have something particular in mind during play, some actual purpose for their characters to pursue, and that completely ignoring that would be equivalent to staying home to beat your head against the wall when you've already made plans to go out and have fun with your friends. And even if they do temporarily drift away from any concerns which really
should require their attention, it's easy enough to drop little hints along the way so as to remind them of what's going on elsewhere while they are loitering, or to link whatever it is that they are doing to those events more directly.
This advice should be redundant with a really good group. There will be an unstated understanding of what is, and is not, acceptable, and furthermore a good group would mean nobody is interested in random, nonsensical actions. Unless of course, that's the whole point of your game.