PDA

View Full Version : How to say no and get away with it



NichG
2012-07-17, 02:32 AM
So reading the 'bad player' 'bad DM' 'broken spells' etc threads, a clear common thread is that people don't like being told 'no, your idea doesn't work'. DMs don't like being told 'your encounter you designed doesn't work because I have a one-spell bypass' and players don't like being told 'your clever idea doesn't work because I didn't plan for it'.

Thus, aside from the actual design aspects of avoiding the need to say no, how you say no is really important.

My thought is the following:

As a DM, don't say 'No, that wouldn't work because ...'. Say 'Okay, you do that, and nothing seems to happen'. It may seem like explaining your thoughts would help get a player on the same page, but I think it actually tends to create more resentment - instead of 'this didn't work because of something in the game I didn't know about' its 'this didn't work because he decided it wouldn't work'. It turns the situation into an OOC negotiation rather than IC experimentation.

I'm curious what people's experiences are with this. As players, have you had situations where the DM saying no felt better or worse? Or where DMs effectively said 'no' in different ways? As DMs, have you done anything like this and noticed whether one way or another is better?

Edit: I realize there's going to be a lot of 'don't say no, say yes, but' responses. I'm more interested in the subset where for whatever reason the DM decides that 'no' is more appropriate.

SgtCarnage92
2012-07-17, 02:52 AM
It's an interesting take on it for sure. I could see it backfiring with certain types of players who will argue it to no end especially if it is supported by a certain interpretation of the rules. So with these types it only causes a larger OOC conflict that slows down the game. The "yes, but" approach works better in this case.

Totally Guy
2012-07-17, 03:44 AM
There are two parts to a player trying to do something in a game – the Task and the Intent.

Often players assume that both things are the same when in fact they are very different. The Task is the thing that you do in the game. The Intent is what you expect to follow from that and the reason why you’d do the Task.

A player with a character and the player who’s GMing can have an equal understanding of the Task but an unequal understanding of the Intent. And that’s where problems happen.

I try to understand both parts and I try to establish what should be rolled from it.

If the player has given me only an intent, “I set the ship on fire!” I will ask them “how?” They should explain to me what the character would do in order to bring it about.

If the player has given me only a task, “I’ll smash the bottle of whiskey and hit it with the firing mechanism of the gun.” I will ask them “why?” They should explain to me the desired outcome from the action.

If those two things align I can put a dice roll to it. Both of us are on the same page as to what success means.

If those things do not align I will ask for a revision of a task or the intent and the rest of the group can offer advice and suggestions, including me. No dice are touched until we have a common understanding of why we are rolling and what’s happening in the game.

Occasionally I get a player who will answer my question of “how?” with “with my survival skill”. I also say “no” to this response. I tell the player to tell me what the character is doing so that we can all imagine it.

Of course all this advice works for me because I have I particular preferred gaming style where I play the GM role to present a situation and find out what will happen. If I were prepping a story, it’s probably not so hot.

NichG
2012-07-17, 05:04 AM
So the specific example that set this off for me was a scenario someone posted about. The scenario was presented a bit too vaguely to argue the particulars, so let me rephrase it concretely.

There's a glowing symbol on a treasure chest containing something the party wants. Anyone approaching within 10ft of the symbol starts suffering strongly undesirable effects - lets say a save versus turning to stone or something like that. The party has identified the consequences of approaching the symbol without having been subjected to it, and is working out how to disarm the trap.

One player says 'I'll throw paint over it, that'll block the symbol and then we can open the chest without problem.' The DM knows (or decides) that the symbol's effect doesn't care about being covered. Whether or not this is the correct call to make is not relevant to this example, but lets assume for the sake of concreteness that the symbol's effect is able to ignore covering materials because of a pre-existing fact about this type of magic that the DM is aware of but the players are not, and that that fact is something the DM does not want to reveal because it says something about that magic that the players would not know and is of plot significance.

So, the DM has to say 'no' to that solution. The DM in question in the reference thread said 'No, that won't work' and got into an escalating argument with their player that left a bad taste in that player's mouth long after the fact. My thought is it'd be better (even if its less kind) to say 'okay, its now covered with paint; what do you do?', then simply run the scenario out. If someone asks 'hey, why didn't that work?' you shrug and say 'good question' rather than try to argue it. Turn it into a mystery to be explained rather than an OOC rules question.

Knaight
2012-07-17, 05:44 AM
DMs don't like being told 'your encounter you designed doesn't work because I have a one-spell bypass' and players don't like being told 'your clever idea doesn't work because I didn't plan for it'.

Both of these appear to be GM failures - the first is that their encounter fails because they built it poorly, with "saying no" as suggested being the enforcement of arbitrary rules to insure it stays as planned. The second of these is the GM telling a player that the player can't do something because the GM failed to plan for it, making it nothing more than a more general version of the first. What this reveals is that "saying no" is just a rationalization to railroad in these circumstances.


One player says 'I'll throw paint over it, that'll block the symbol and then we can open the chest without problem.' The DM knows (or decides) that the symbol's effect doesn't care about being covered. Whether or not this is the correct call to make is not relevant to this example, but lets assume for the sake of concreteness that the symbol's effect is able to ignore covering materials because of a pre-existing fact about this type of magic that the DM is aware of but the players are not, and that that fact is something the DM does not want to reveal because it says something about that magic that the players would not know and is of plot significance.

So, the DM has to say 'no' to that solution. The DM in question in the reference thread said 'No, that won't work' and got into an escalating argument with their player that left a bad taste in that player's mouth long after the fact. My thought is it'd be better (even if its less kind) to say 'okay, its now covered with paint; what do you do?', then simply run the scenario out. If someone asks 'hey, why didn't that work?' you shrug and say 'good question' rather than try to argue it. Turn it into a mystery to be explained rather than an OOC rules question.
This appears to be a completely different case. The plan doesn't work, and everyone should just move on. However, there is no reason to specifically use the procedure outlined in the first post, as handing everything in game is the assumption and simply refusing to say anything when asked out of game isn't constructive. "Okay, it's now covered with paint; what do you do?" becomes evasiveness if the transition to out of character rules has already happened. "The people who made this weren't complete morons, and as such took precautions to deal with extremely obvious countermeasures" on the other hand is an explanation that preserves whatever secrecy is needed (though why secrecy is needed here remains a question), and effectively refocuses towards the game.

Craft (Cheese)
2012-07-17, 06:08 AM
I'm a fan of "Say yes, or roll the dice." If the player potentially succeeding at what they're trying to do creates problems, that's a failure of the system, not a failure of the players or the DM. At worst I'll make up a mid-session house rule to stop things from completely falling apart but I don't like to do that.

NichG
2012-07-17, 06:28 AM
Both of these appear to be GM failures - the first is that their encounter fails because they built it poorly, with "saying no" as suggested being the enforcement of arbitrary rules to insure it stays as planned. The second of these is the GM telling a player that the player can't do something because the GM failed to plan for it, making it nothing more than a more general version of the first. What this reveals is that "saying no" is just a rationalization to railroad in these circumstances.


GMs fail, this is a fact of life. The point is that I think that when these things come up there's a way to fail 'gracefully', such that it doesn't become a negative experience for the table, and a way to fail catastrophically, where it becomes a big argument. My interest (at least in this thread) is geared towards ways that a GM can aim their failures in the graceful direction.

The problem with GM failure is not the ideological backbone, its that it messes up the fun of the players. If the GM can fail in a way that minimally messes up the fun of the players instead of a way that becomes an argument or fight, thats good for the whole table.



This appears to be a completely different case. The plan doesn't work, and everyone should just move on. However, there is no reason to specifically use the procedure outlined in the first post, as handing everything in game is the assumption and simply refusing to say anything when asked out of game isn't constructive. "Okay, it's now covered with paint; what do you do?" becomes evasiveness if the transition to out of character rules has already happened. "The people who made this weren't complete morons, and as such took precautions to deal with extremely obvious countermeasures" on the other hand is an explanation that preserves whatever secrecy is needed (though why secrecy is needed here remains a question), and effectively refocuses towards the game.

I actually think the "the people who made this weren't complete morons ..." answer is problematic, because it shows that the DM is defensively scrambling to justify things. It tells a perceptive player 'aha, found an oversight!', which naturally leads to further dialogue OOC with the DM, rather than dialogue between the players IC to figure out the scenario (or why the trick didn't work).

Gamer Girl
2012-07-17, 09:42 AM
As a DM I will never say 'no', players are free to try anything. The trick is free to try. The big problem is a lot of players do the 'auto success'.


The Automatic Success Problem: This is where, quite simply, the player takes control of the game and says what happens. It's a bad enough problem in an Old School game where the DM is totally in-control, but it's a disaster in the New School everyone is equal way of gaming(and the causal way of gaming too).

To use the example: The chest has a symbol on it that turns to stone anyone that approaches.

1.The Automatic Success Player: "I dump paint over the symbol, open the chest, loot the stuff in side and rule the world!"

2.The way I run a game. Player-"I carefully use mage hand to dump the paint on the symbol.'' (pause, wait) DM-"The symbol is now covered in paint." (confirms the action, waits for the player to act) Player-"I take a single step closer to the chest." (pause, wait) DM-"You feel the tingle as some of your hairs turn to stone.'' (describes effect) Player-"Woah, I quickly step back..it did not work."

Jay R
2012-07-17, 10:08 AM
Be right. Be fair. Be fun. Be happy.

1. Be right. Know the rules well enough that your ruling is usually right, and that they know it. That helps defend you when they don't know why you ruled the way you did.

2. Be fair. Your rulings should be even-handed, and known to be even-handed. When possible, bring in an effect they didn't think of that helps them. (That makes it more reasonable when an effect they didn't think of hurts them.)

3. Be fun. The enjoyment of the game as a whole needs to be greater than the sum of frustrations at all the steps that didn't work.

4. Be happy. As the DM, you need to be completely neutral. But as the only observer at the game, you should be sympathetic to the PCs. After solemnly disallowing a half dozen ideas, when they finally come up with one that does work, enjoy it. Give a big grin and say, "Hey, that's a great idea. Yes, the chest opens. Good job!"

Tyndmyr
2012-07-17, 10:13 AM
Well, it all starts with expectations. Set those as accurately as possible early on. This minimizes disappointment.

Then, when explaining why something is a no, give a brief explanation of why(this SHOULD be consistent with the expectations you've set), then suggest some alternate courses of action that might get the player where you think they want to go.

Vorr
2012-07-17, 11:24 AM
Be right. Be fair. Be fun. Be happy.



1.Be Right A DM should know the game rules. Though most games have events that come up that are outside the rules, so a good DM needs to be quick and flexible.

And the DM is always right. While there are crazy power tripping DMs(''Your attacks all don't work and the monster kills you all and I win 'cause I'm coller then you! Ha!") most of the time the DM knows more about the game events then the player.

To use a recent game example: The players encounter a large cat sitting on a chest in a clearing. Player 1 attempts a 'charm animal' to make the cat a pet. The spell fails. Obvious common sense would tell you that it's not 'just' a cat, despite the fact that it looks exactly like a cat. The player could just accept that...but no. Player starts a rant about 'why don't his spells ever work' and yells and screams and carries on. In his view when he casts a spell on the wrong creature the DM should stop, give that player all the game notes and crown him the king of all awesome players. But I'm the type of DM that says ''your spell does not effect the cat'' and not the other kind of DM that says ''Your spell does not work on the werecat, located on page 17 of the book and with your simple dumb spell you have unraveled the were mystery."

2.Fair I don't even know what fair is in the game. The games reality does not change. Wood burns in a fire, stone does not...that does not change.

3.Fun It's not a bad thing, unless your gonna say ''the only way the players can have fun is to mess with the DM'', then I'd disagree.

4.HappyDon't worry, be happy.

Synovia
2012-07-17, 11:35 AM
It's an interesting take on it for sure. I could see it backfiring with certain types of players who will argue it to no end especially if it is supported by a certain interpretation of the rules. So with these types it only causes a larger OOC conflict that slows down the game. The "yes, but" approach works better in this case.

Right, but its tough to argue when you don't know WHY it didn't work, and I think thats his point.

If you tell a player his spell basically fizzled (maybe its an antimagic field, or an enemies special ability, or whatever), hes left trying to figure out why, and in a time pressed situation (or battle) the character is usually going to try something else instead of trying to figure out why.

When you start just using DM Fiat to have things fail, your characters will look at everything as DM Fiat, and it begins to undermine the whole game. YOU need to have a reason something failed, but that doesn't mean it has to be made clear to the characters immediately.

BRC
2012-07-17, 12:01 PM
As a DM I will never say 'no', players are free to try anything. The trick is free to try. The big problem is a lot of players do the 'auto success'.


The Automatic Success Problem: This is where, quite simply, the player takes control of the game and says what happens. It's a bad enough problem in an Old School game where the DM is totally in-control, but it's a disaster in the New School everyone is equal way of gaming(and the causal way of gaming too).

To use the example: The chest has a symbol on it that turns to stone anyone that approaches.

1.The Automatic Success Player: "I dump paint over the symbol, open the chest, loot the stuff in side and rule the world!"

2.The way I run a game. Player-"I carefully use mage hand to dump the paint on the symbol.'' (pause, wait) DM-"The symbol is now covered in paint." (confirms the action, waits for the player to act) Player-"I take a single step closer to the chest." (pause, wait) DM-"You feel the tingle as some of your hairs turn to stone.'' (describes effect) Player-"Woah, I quickly step back..it did not work."
Of course, the opposite problem is DM stonewalling, where you reject legitimate solutions that seem "Too Easy" because you're waiting for them to either stumble upon the solution you cooked up but haven't told them about ("Well OBVIOUSLY the sorceror is supposed to say "Let us Pass" In Draconic, I mean, I mentioned theses were Draconic runes! How much more of a hint do they need?!"), or you are waiting for some undefined clever solution, or you just want them to step forward and take the saving throws.

kyoryu
2012-07-17, 02:36 PM
1) If there's even a sliver of a chance of something working, don't say no. Roll the dice. Tell the players the odds and let them decide if that's what they want to do.

2) There's two reasons to say no: If something just flat out doesn't make sense, or if it would make sense, but the players don't know enough. Make sure you disambiguate the two.

In the case of the cat, you might say something like "yeah, that's weird. It seems like it should work, and you can't think of any reason a regular cat wouldn't get pettified, but the magical energy seems to wash over him." Or, "yeah, you know what, I understand your point, but I'm going to make a ruling that exotic cats like this are unaffected as they don't count as 'regular' cats like the spell targets." What you want to do is make sure the player understands when you're houseruling, and when they just don't know something.

3) Don't say "no" because you wanted the encounter to be tough, or because you really need things to go a certain way. Just let it go, and adapt to the game. If you've really structured the game in such a way that there's only one acceptable outcome, then explain to the characters that it's going to take some time to figure out what happens next. Better yet, don't include encounters that have only one acceptable outcome. If the Duke can't get killed or it derails your game, don't put the Duke in a place where he can be killed.

erikun
2012-07-17, 02:57 PM
I generally find myself saying yes. It keeps the game moving, allows the players to influence the game, and keeps things interesting. Holding up the game at any specific point is generally boring, unless it's an open task and the players are discussing among themselves what they want to do.

Another way I generally say 'Yes' is by just setting up a mock roll. Have the player roll the dice, and unless they come up with an extremely low value, they succeed. (And if they roll exceptionally high, I'll give them a little something extra.)

If it is really something I don't see happening, then I'd ask the player to explain how it is suppose to work. I'll generally allow it if the logic seems sensible, or reject it (and state reasons for doing so) if not. I tend to have good groups who will speak up if they think I'm wrong, though, and I'm fine with going along with the wishes of the group when that happens.

valadil
2012-07-17, 03:30 PM
Agreed. I've always thought the "yes, and" mindset was a little too permissive. I prefer "yes, but" instead. I'll still take both over the GM talking you out of something before you even get to try.

NichG
2012-07-17, 05:05 PM
Any situation where a roll could be involved has sort of progressed beyond the 'no, because' point anyhow. It means that the DM and player have agreed that there's a mechanic of some sort that covers what the player is trying, and all thats left is for the character to do well enough at it.

I.e. the paint-over-the-symbol case, its not about whether or not the player rolls a high Disable Device check (and in fact, the player here is quite possibly trying to avoid having to do so by describing how they disable the trap). Its about whether what they're trying can or cannot work.

I guess the analogue would be the 'mysteriously immune' monster, the monster or NPC that just happens to be immune to death spells, petrification, whatnot. Players tend to react poorly to that, whereas if you said 'in my campaign all solo encounters have a boss monster template that makes them immune to SoDs' then it might go over better. I think this is because it tends to get overused a lot and also tends to be a game of Schroedinger's Immunity (huh, I didn't realize you could also be turned into salt and its a different immunity than turned to stone - he has that too!) so players get jaded about monsters being immune to their abilities and recognize when its happening. So that's a strike against the 'mysterious no' I suppose, or at least an indication you should be careful not to over-use it.

I do think that players getting jaded is a problem with this technique. Instead of creating bad feelings, you create cynicism. The answer is to make sure that any mysteries introduced by the 'no' have answers that are eventually discovered and possibly exploited by the party (even if you have to think of the answers during the week until the next session). For instance, the symbol goes through materials because its painted in Gorgon's Blood, which exists partially on the Ethereal. By using Gorgon's Blood as a component, one could make other magics with the same properties...

So long as there's a reward for going along with the 'no' and investigating it, it doesn't feel so much like the DM is just using it to shut you down and shut you up, it feels like the DM has a richer world than you anticipated. At least that's the theory...

Oracle_Hunter
2012-07-17, 05:35 PM
There are two parts to a player trying to do something in a game – the Task and the Intent.

* * * *

If those two things align I can put a dice roll to it. Both of us are on the same page as to what success means.

If those things do not align I will ask for a revision of a task or the intent and the rest of the group can offer advice and suggestions, including me. No dice are touched until we have a common understanding of why we are rolling and what’s happening in the game.
This is it exactly.

Aligning Player Expectations with Game Reality is supremely important and due to the vagaries of language and Player attention span even a well-spoken and diligent DM may end up with Players out of touch with Game Reality. Totally Guy's advice is proper due diligence for any competent DM before adjudicating an action that seems crazy or impossible to him. The answer will either permit the DM to come up with a proper roll or reveal information to the Player that will cause them to change their course of action. If the Player insists on trying something impossible then the DM shoild say "No, because..." instead of just no.

Often, the best thing a DM can say in response to Player action is "what are you trying to do?"

WarKitty
2012-07-17, 05:48 PM
I've also found that setting out certain understandings at the beginning helps deal with things. When I DM, I set out the 2-minute rule at the outset. If I have a dispute with a player, the player has 2 minutes to convince me to see their side. At the end of the 2 minutes, I make a decision that is final for the session. They can then try to convince me out of session, and if it works, I'll make it up to them somehow.

Keeping feedback channels open also helps. I've found players get less frustrated in-game if they know they can say afterwards "hey I felt like that last encounter was too tailored to match our weaknesses, it felt really unrealistic and unfair, can we not do that again?"

Knaight
2012-07-17, 07:02 PM
GMs fail, this is a fact of life. The point is that I think that when these things come up there's a way to fail 'gracefully', such that it doesn't become a negative experience for the table, and a way to fail catastrophically, where it becomes a big argument. My interest (at least in this thread) is geared towards ways that a GM can aim their failures in the graceful direction.
Sure, however railroading of any form is unlikely to be failing gracefully. At that point, the GM is much better off just saying "sorry, I didn't plan for this, give me ten minutes to work out ramifications" than doing so. If they can think on their feet consistently, that won't even be necessary.

Totally Guy
2012-07-18, 04:23 AM
I.e. the paint-over-the-symbol case, its not about whether or not the player rolls a high Disable Device check (and in fact, the player here is quite possibly trying to avoid having to do so by describing how they disable the trap). Its about whether what they're trying can or cannot work.

There's nothing wrong with calling it a test of a knowledge skill or brain stat.

"How do you know that will work? What does your character do to ascertain that?" Let the player's description inform what they roll.

On a success the player can expect the answer. On a failure you can describe the player's failed attempt. When I GM I will often talk about what failure will mean before we roll dice, but that's not for everyone.

When there is a conflict it's your job to highlight it and make it the focus of play. This takes practice, you've got to try to see where the expectations of you and the players diverge and put a dice roll between those things.


You mentioned that the player might be intending to avoid rolling any dice. Rolling dice and when to roll them is part of the game. Avoiding dice rolls when the rules would call for them is disengaging with the game part and when you aren’t interacting with the game the players are interacting with you while you have no support of the rules. I find this a disagreeable position to be in as it puts a pressure on me to do something I don't necessarily believe in. I use the game’s stance on when to roll dice so that I know when I’m making calls and when I’m rolling dice.

Vitruviansquid
2012-07-18, 04:25 AM
I've been caught in situations where I've had to say no to the players. I've resolved them by saying, "I didn't expect that at all. Give me some time to think about the ramifications of this," "This totally wouldn't work because XYZ," "this wouldn't work for reasons I can't disclose," and I've done what NichG recommended on multiple occasions too. I've even flat out told my players, "this is the dumbest idea I've ever heard!"

... and it's always been okay, because my players know that I'm a fair DM who doesn't try to persecute anyone and I, on my part, know that my players won't try to stage a coup in any of my games.

I think we are all entirely asking the wrong question here. If you've got players picking a fight with you over your saying no to their solutions, it's not because you said no, it's because they're spoiling for a fight in the first place. If someone wants a fight whether it's over ego, some other drama, or just because they're having a bad day, they're going to get that fight in one way or another.

Rallicus
2012-07-18, 09:13 AM
As someone already mentioned, it will be difficult to achieve when you have a player that constantly throws rules at you.

I can just imagine my resident rules player after I claimed nothing happened: "Oh, what did you roll? What was the save on that? I don't think that's how the rules say... hold on... yeah, check page 87."

I can't stand him. :smallsigh:

mucco
2012-07-18, 09:36 AM
As someone already mentioned, it will be difficult to achieve when you have a player that constantly throws rules at you.

I can just imagine my resident rules player after I claimed nothing happened: "Oh, what did you roll? What was the save on that? I don't think that's how the rules say... hold on... yeah, check page 87."

I can't stand him. :smallsigh:

That is when you bring out your bastard smile, look at him, and say "of course, I know very well that rule on page 87. Let me stress that, for reasons you do not necessarily know or remember, nothing happens."

If you do this, you want to be entirely justified in your doing though, so be careful.

Slipperychicken
2012-07-19, 09:18 AM
As someone already mentioned, it will be difficult to achieve when you have a player that constantly throws rules at you.

I can just imagine my resident rules player after I claimed nothing happened: "Oh, what did you roll? What was the save on that? I don't think that's how the rules say... hold on... yeah, check page 87."

I can't stand him. :smallsigh:

I assume you have told the player that he's playing in a specific rules system. That means all that system's rules, including the one on page 87, are considered to be the in-game laws of the universe unless otherwise specified. If you don't like a specific rule (if it makes your game not work), try to tell your players early on (This game will not use the rule on Page 87, because it makes my life difficult), preferably writing all exceptions down somewhere, so you don't ruin their expectations mid-game.

If you can't stand your game adhering to book full of rules on principle, try a system which has a lighter ruleset (or even no system at all. No complicated rules to forget there, and everything's determined Fiat anyway. No restrictions).

killem2
2012-07-19, 12:56 PM
I have always felt just saying NO outright robs the player of the thought they put into a solution. Just because they have a good idea doesn't mean it has to be rewarded with a yes, just an equal and opposite good RP response.

:durkon: : "I hold out a 10 foot pole into the open air above the strange ball filled pit."

:mitd: :"Your pole wooshes through the air."

:durkon: "Hmm, alright. Can I reach the outer wall?"

:mitd: :"With your pole or with your hand?"

:durkon: "The pole."

:mitd: :"Not quite, this pit appears to span about 30 feet across from the thin beam in front of you."

:durkon: "I want to throw the pole at the wall."

:mitd: :"Make an ranged attack roll please. (secret dc is 15)"

:durkon: "22"

:mitd: :"You notice your pole has inserted it self into a honeycomb shaped hole in the wall. In fact you notice that all of the wall is made up of these 1-1 and 1/2 inch wide honeycomb-like designs."


Imagine how friggin annoying it would be if everyone of those DM responses was pretty much No, Nothing Happens, I didn't do anything.

You could have said no to throwing the pole, because it wouldn't have done anything anyway, but it at least gives you an excuse to describe the room a bit further.

VanBuren
2012-07-19, 02:29 PM
I had my DM use the "No, because that's the worst idea I've ever heard" before.

Though in his defense, I had just cheekily suggested that we try and bypass a wall of magical ice by taking a magic rod we had just discovered that created ice, and reversing the polarity.

WarKitty
2012-07-19, 05:07 PM
I had my DM use the "No, because that's the worst idea I've ever heard" before.

Though in his defense, I had just cheekily suggested that we try and bypass a wall of magical ice by taking a magic rod we had just discovered that created ice, and reversing the polarity.

I have been on occasion known to ask "And what are you expecting that to do exactly?" Especially in response to questions like "Can I intimidate the poison gas trap?"

kyoryu
2012-07-19, 05:17 PM
Totally Guy's advice is proper due diligence for any competent DM before adjudicating an action that seems crazy or impossible to him. The answer will either permit the DM to come up with a proper roll or reveal information to the Player that will cause them to change their course of action.

And again, Burning Wheel wins the day with something they've codified which is advice generally applicable to any game.

I swear, that system is like 50% a good system and 50% THE BEST GM ADVICE EVAR.

NichG
2012-07-19, 05:18 PM
I like the 'It fails in an informative way' technique. It's along the lines of what I was asking for with this thread, so thanks!

VanBuren
2012-07-20, 02:07 PM
I have been on occasion known to ask "And what are you expecting that to do exactly?" Especially in response to questions like "Can I intimidate the poison gas trap?"

In this case, I insisted that this would cause the rod to absorb ice instead of produce it.

In actuality, the puzzle involved us using the ice rod to create various items to navigate through the chamber. At one point, one of my teammates created an ice sculpture of my character which came alive and attacked to which I simply sat back and watched as my copy clumsily duked it out with the party.

Sadly, I had to leave after one session because of work, so I've been written out. Was fun though.

WarKitty
2012-07-20, 02:36 PM
In this case, I insisted that this would cause the rod to absorb ice instead of produce it.

In actuality, the puzzle involved us using the ice rod to create various items to navigate through the chamber. At one point, one of my teammates created an ice sculpture of my character which came alive and attacked to which I simply sat back and watched as my copy clumsily duked it out with the party.

Sadly, I had to leave after one session because of work, so I've been written out. Was fun though.

In your case, my answer would have been "roll knowledge: metagame to see if you can."

I have also required players to fail intelligence/wisdom rolls to be allowed to proceed with particularly stupid plans. (Your high-int character thinks the best way to combat the dragon is to try to stab it in the nose?)

Theodoxus
2012-07-20, 05:04 PM
In my most current game, I've started giving Cut Scenes of why things are happening in game.

The first session started with the party being attacked as they were leaving their old academy to meet up with their benefactor for the first time. Coming from a secret society type place, they were of course concerned that some how, they were known.

That nagged through three sessions, until I wrote out in a Cut Scene how one of the officers of the academy was meeting in secret with another organization, trying to embarrass the benefactor.

The Players were able to garner some meta-knowledge that allowed them to see I wasn't just throwing stuff at them at random, and the PCs have an inkling that there's a traitor in their midst, but not sure who it is.

I've gone on to include more Cut Scenes, providing information on characters they haven't met, or background on ones they have. It's worked so far, and allowed the group to be more comfortable with the few times when 'no, that doesn't work' has come up. They've seen a bit of the meta world opened up and have a better grasp on where I'm coming from with the world.

Karoht
2012-07-20, 05:33 PM
There are plenty of times I've basically had a player come up with something to solve a problem. I know it won't work. I know I can point directly to the rules that support my position. I know that no matter how right I am, no matter if I cite real world physics OR game world physics OR hand them a spell description and read it word for word, I will STILL get an arguement that will slow my game down.

But if it's a clever enough something, sometimes, just sometimes, I'll let it work, with the explanation "Okay guys, thats not really what I was going for, but close enough."


IE-The paint on the rune example
Even if I had the spell description right there which stated it does not need line of sight or line of effect, and it acts as an aura in the room, I'm pretty sure my players would have started arguing that the paint is a perfectly viable way to shut it down. There are times where I would allow that solution, there are times I would not. Judgement call and all that jazz.


Anecdote:
One of my DM's had a rule that he kept hidden from us players.
"Never take the first offer, never accept the first solution presented."
He told us this the day he wrapped our last session together.
In retrospect, that did explain quite a few of the puzzles. Bob was almost always the first person to suggest a fix, his ideas pretty much never worked. And now we know why.

Stubbazubba
2012-07-20, 05:39 PM
I would never deny an action from the players, though if they seem sincerely hesitant about it I'll try and drop clues about whether I think it will work or not. Just saying, "That sounds like a good idea," after they've tossed it around for too long seems to get things moving. If, however, they try something, and it has no effect, and this seems to bother them, then I smile smugly and assure them that there is a legitimate and not made-up-on-the-spot reason it's not working, you just don't know it right now. This has always worked for me. If, however, that line comes up more than just occasionally, then I say your players are justified in feeling like they're being toyed with.

I also second the idea that any failure should be accompanied with a nice description; it gives them something for trying, even if it's not success. For instance, someone in my group recently stealthed into a clearing in a forest for fear that an ambush had been laid. Well, there wasn't one, but she did roll really, really well on her stealth check. So I described how a falcon flying overhead totally missed her, though the falcon could clearly see the field mice at her feet. When the falcon finally realized she was there, she did a double take and just about ran smack into a tree. This was useless to the player but it made most everyone laugh (I think the timing and situation helped, as reading it now isn't very entertaining). If someone fails to climb the wall, talk about how "one of your feet slips from its footing, and you feel your center of gravity pulling you down on that side. You slip, scrambling to catch another hand-hold, but only scratching up your arms before falling entirely, hitting the ground hard, knocking the breath from your lungs. For a moment, it's all you can do to try and force air into your lungs again before you're able to get up." That was a simple failed roll, but the player feels like they earned something with that description.

I will have to try the clarifying of Intent and Task thing more often, that sounds extremely useful. In the first game I GM'd, I often laughed at a player's suggested action, and would ask almost mockingly, "To do what?" Then it turned out he had a fairly reasonable idea behind it, it just wasn't clear to me. The Intent and Task designation just codifies this understanding.

Edit: Oh, yeah, about Cut Scenes. What is even more interesting sometimes is to run Vignettes; give the players NPC roles to play, give them just a simple motivation or goal in the scene, and then take about 30 minutes to have them role-play it out. You can generate a lot of anticipation, award extra XP to those who accomplish their NPC goals, and deliver some exposition and/or foreshadowing without boring your players.

NichG
2012-07-20, 06:53 PM
I like the way that cutscenes might help players go 'aha!' more often, when things suddenly click with something they saw in a cutscene or when something finally crops up. That said, I also like running games where players are encouraged to use their full faculties to figure out what the heck is going on, and figuring that out is part of the game (with rewards for doing it sooner than the plot reveals itself, and penalties for missing things until its too late), and cutscenes could interfere with that a bit.

I think I might try something where the PCs get 'prophethetic dreams', which are the cutscenes, so they can actually use the knowledge in character while still maintaining the dramatic aspect of the cutscene. I'll just plan around the dreams as a path by which information becomes available.