I'm not talking about "OOC metagaming" or something. I'm talking about players having their characters want to make innovations that are completely "realistic", and not necessarily violating the internal logic of the setting's physics or something, but that would not be sensible for a completely different factor: Culture.
People tend to forget how conditioning culture really is. Gamers tend to be more "tech/science" as nerds, and so they want to imagine that some clever innovator could have come up with a battery in the middle ages, or the steam engine, or any number of other little innovations or ideas or even battle strategies or political techniques that have no actual physical or technological reason why they couldn't exist. What they forget is that the battery was definitely actually invented back in the Classical era, and the steam engine might have been. They ended up being ignored as toys, because the culture couldn't apply them.
This can translate to fantasy methods too: in another thread someone pointed out that having a "flying carpet air force" in a fantasy world would not be as simple as just having a bunch of guys on flying carpets: you'd need logistics, training, all kinds of infrastructure for it to really happen. But I would go a step beyond that: you'd need a culture that allows it.
Culture can create all kinds of absurd barriers to innovations.
So how do you deal with players that are breaking not the emulation of the setting, but the emulation of the setting's zeitgeist?
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;415890So how do you deal with players that are breaking not the emulation of the setting, but the emulation of the setting's zeitgeist?
RPGPundit
I say something to the extent of "no, that really wouldn't fit the setting" for this or that reason, and then I explain why. Works every time.
That one is simple in my group.
I've got a player whose hobby is history and ancient cultures - she is very well-read.
When we did the Sword & Sorcery/BANESTORM thing I said to one player : "They haven't got the raw materials or tools for what you're trying to do. " When that player protested...my 'researcher player' just said"ED's right, it wouldn't make sense for that to be doable. "
...anbd we continued to game.
Think this might all go back to using the phrases :
"What's Plausible?"
What's Likely?"
If your players trust you to be reasonable , they will back down when they realize they're pushhing at the seams of plausibility.
- Ed C.
I don't have the confidence to simply say, "No, that's not possible." I do interrogate my players about why the character thought of it. I won't accept ass-pull retcons of characters meant only to justify the innovations. I don't accept pseudo-historical anecdotes adapted to the characters (such as the utterly false claim that Christoforo Colombo determined the world was spherical as a child watching ships pull into port). Then, if I am convinced it is (or at least could be) an organic thought of the character I will let the effort to enact the plan begin. It is not impossible to implement the necessary cultural changes, but it will likely take a life-time and be filled with risks and rejection, and leave the character no time to do all the types of things the player originally wanted that character to do. It doesn't happen often and when it has, none of the innovators have had the fortitude to actually implement the change
Does it add to the game?
If so, then let's explore the idea. If not, let's drop the idea.
Seems like a lot of great inventions have to be invented numerous times before the catch on.
Depending on the circumstances I'd maybe let the player make a go of it but throw all sorts of resistance at him as far as obtaining resources and getting anyone else to care.
Psuedo-Renaissance settings like WFRP or Cadwallon are full of wacky inventions that come and go. In those sorts of scenarios I'd be ok even if it was just some strange thought implanted during a dream by a chaotic imp. Could be lots of dark-comic fun as the PC tries to build something he doesn't really understand.
If he were playing a Napoleonic naval officer who came up with a cool new maneuver during a battle... I'd have him face the consequences.
I generally just say "No, your barbarian would not know how to create an irrigation system to help these peasants" or whatever similar issue would crop up.
Quote from: danbuter;415952I generally just say "No, your barbarian would not know how to create an irrigation system to help these peasants" or whatever similar issue would crop up.
But it might be fun watching him try and accidentally end up flooding the town...
Quote from: Spinachcat;415942Does it add to the game?
If so, then let's explore the idea. If not, let's drop the idea.
That's more or less how I handle it too.
Any game I run will be chock full of anachronisms because I (as GM) like to throw whatever I think is fun into a setting as well. My D&D campaign probably has as many Victorian influences as it does medieval.
In general protecting the setting integrity or purity of the genre can be the quickest way to suffocate the life out of a campaign. I should know, I've made that mistake often enough.
That said certain games, like for instance Pendragon, require stricter genre emulation while other games, say Gamma World, are much more forgiving.
I guess what I am saying in that the "does this add to the game" criteria works better for Gamma World than Pendragon so the decision of what kind of game to run depends on the sort of players you have.
As a GM Personally I am much more sympathetic to players "inventing" something than to the insistence that that given the existence of flying magic there MUST be a thousand-year tradition of aerial bicycle cavalry which in turn means that there may be no use of castles in my fantasy setting.
I remember an article or two in The Dragon about why medieval-style castles would need a makeover in a fantasy setting with flying monsters and magic if they were going to stand up in a fantasy battle.
It always seemed like all the more excuse to build elaborate underground structures... of course, there are also burrowing monsters to worry about.
Quote from: Simlasa;415981I remember an article or two in The Dragon about why medieval-style castles would need a makeover in a fantasy setting with flying monsters and magic if they were going to stand up in a fantasy battle.
It always seemed like all the more excuse to build elaborate underground structures... of course, there are also burrowing monsters to worry about.
This is exactly the kind of thing that has been harshing my mellow for like two decades now.
P.S. Dungeons are their own excuse.
I ran into something like this recently with my soon-to-be released Stormrift game. One of my players just couldn't wrap his head around an advanced alien culture whose warrior class had a complete disdain for ranged weapons of any type (which initially put them at a disadvantage against the cowardly humans with their dishonorable firearms). I tried to point out that it was a cultural thing. They COULD develop advanced weaponry but there was no honor to be gained outside of hand to hand combat. Was it the Chinese or the japanese who invented gunpowder long before anyone thought to weaponize it?
Pete
If the subject is something they couldn't possibly know,well,
listen...(faux mull)...VETO
:p
(I am a good "listener" though...)
It is not a big deal.
I just find it amusing when the Intelligence 1 Yardie comes up with a plan that is so complex it baffles the Intelligence 4 Chemist.
Quote from: Professort Zoot;415937I don't have the confidence to simply say, "No, that's not possible." I do interrogate my players about why the character thought of it. I won't accept ass-pull retcons of characters meant only to justify the innovations. I don't accept pseudo-historical anecdotes adapted to the characters (such as the utterly false claim that Christoforo Colombo determined the world was spherical as a child watching ships pull into port).
Hah! I suppose you were playing an historical game when this happened, but if not, I know what I would have done: let the player make this "discovery" and then have it turn out that YOUR game world IS flat, in fact, and have them fall off the edge ending up shipwrecked in some other plane.
Shit, I'd have been seriously tempted to do that even in an historical game.
RPGPundit
I always let my players come up with technology and strategy in my fantasy games. I used to jokingly call this one guy's 8th level Eldritch Knight "Archimedes." I don't see anything wrong with odd technology and magic in fantasy as long as my NPC's can do it as well.
And to a lot of my players, coming up with stuff is a part of the game. Like the new King Arthur movie, when you have to beat a horde of infantry with a smaller force, the only way to do it is to lead them through a maze of clever traps.
My biggest problem player always tries to build new technology in my science fiction game. As a general rule, I'll let hand built crap from engineering characters gain as much as a +20% bonus, if they can get the best and most expensive parts. That isn't usually enough for the guy, he always wants to come up with something that bypasses the game world.
"I want to make EMP missiles."
"You mean nukes?"
"No, something with a battery that makes a pulse that turns off armor."
"Well, if something like that worked well, then that's what everyone would use and it would be normal. Sorry, but they are too advanced for that."
"Waaaaaaaaa"
"Ok, EMP missiles do 60% normal damage. When a suit has taken as many points of EMP damage as it has armor, it shuts down."
"Waaaaaaa ok"
Quote from: RPGPundit;416210Hah! I suppose you were playing an historical game when this happened, but if not, I know what I would have done: let the player make this "discovery" and then have it turn out that YOUR game world IS flat, in fact, and have them fall off the edge ending up shipwrecked in some other plane.
Shit, I'd have been seriously tempted to do that even in an historical game.
RPGPundit
I've done this kind of thing from time to time (though not so spectacularly as falling off the edge of the world!) and it has usually proven a solid approach. (Usually it's less that I'm dealing with "PC wants to invent gunpowder" than "PC is overthinking the "science.") My goal is less to smack down a PC than to give a gentle reminder that when I'm running a game, it's about exploring a strange world, not about making assumptions about a familiar one.
I think, especially for fantasy, it's a tricky balance to strike between rewarding clever or knowledgeable players and maintaining a sense of the uncanny in the world. I don't have a systematic way to figure out this balance, but over the years it seems like you develop an intuition for it if you try.
Its simple, reward it if its really clever, and not just OOC cheating.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;416416Its simple, reward it if its really clever, and not just OOC cheating.
RPGPundit
It's the simplicity that makes it tricky - obviously these are the two positions that I want to reward and dismiss respectively, but I think it's an aspect of good GMing to present the adventures and the world in a way that already encourages creativity and discourages meta-game bullshit before the decision point of "is the GM just going to say 'what's this, Pete, your birthday? fuck no you can't do that.' " even comes up.
In my Warhammer game the response usually goes like this.
Inquisitor: Clearly your thoughts are heretical. Burn him!
Quote from: kryyst;416491In my Warhammer game the response usually goes like this.
Inquisitor: Clearly your thoughts are heretical. Burn him!
Man, I love the simplicity of WFRP sometimes.
RPGPundit