Is It OK?

[Sparky McDibben]

Hey y'all! I have my own opinions on this, but I wanted to kinda poll the community: When, if ever, is it acceptable for a GM to nullify player choices to get to a result the GM wants?

Interested in hearing edge cases, core gaming philosophy, etc. If you can spell out as many assumptions as possible that you're making, that would be appreciated!

[PhoenixPhyre]

If you have a result you need to happen, don't give the choice in the first place or only give the options that lead to the acceptable results. Giving an apparent choice and then negating it under the table isn't ok in my book.

There doesn't always need to be a choice. Sometimes things happen. It's best if those are transparent consequences of someone's actions and follow from the game rules and fiction. But transparent "at this point, X happens"(cutscene style, where the players know they can't interfere) is better than pretending they have a choice. But needs to be used sparingly.

[Keltest]

If you have a result you need to happen, don't give the choice in the first place or only give the options that lead to the acceptable results. Giving an apparent choice and then negating it under the table isn't ok in my book.

There doesn't always need to be a choice. Sometimes things happen. It's best if those are transparent consequences of someone's actions and follow from the game rules and fiction. But transparent "at this point, X happens"(cutscene style, where the players know they can't interfere) is better than pretending they have a choice. But needs to be used sparingly.

Agreed. If you dont want them to exercise their ability to choose, dont give it to them.

[False God]

If you have a result you need to happen, don't give the choice in the first place or only give the options that lead to the acceptable results. Giving an apparent choice and then negating it under the table isn't ok in my book.

There doesn't always need to be a choice. Sometimes things happen. It's best if those are transparent consequences of someone's actions and follow from the game rules and fiction. But transparent "at this point, X happens"(cutscene style, where the players know they can't interfere) is better than pretending they have a choice. But needs to be used sparingly.

Gonna echo this. If you don't want there to be a choice, don't give one.

----
There have been corner cases where a player will "make a choice" before I'm done setting up a scene or describing the situation, and then they get upset that I denied them that option when I finish describing what in front of them.

The choice never really existed, so it couldn't be made. The fact that the player jumped the gun is their problem, not mine.

[JNAProductions]

Echoing the general sentiment here. If there's no choice, don't give them a choice to start.

An example I used before is when the campaign is about two groups at war, and the intro session is the last negotiation before things break down into war.

In this case, the players should be told "No matter what you do, war is gonna break out. Doesn't matter how good your checks are, how convincing your arguments are, or anything else-war is gonna happen. Use this time to gather info, make allies, set yourselves up with a good reputation, but out of character, your stated goal of peace is not happening."

[OldTrees1]

Core Resolution Model:
Are the players (including the GM) okay with it?
Yes --> Then it is OK.
No --> Start talking like adults. There might be a solution (probably an adjacent solution) everyone can be okay with even if they are not okay with this solution.

Was there a solution everyone can be okay with?
Yes --> Do that instead.
No --> Hmm. Continue talking like adults. There are some mutually exclusive desires with no overlapping compromise. Honestly this should be rare enough that the option of playing different games is a reasonable solution that everyone can be okay with despite being sad about it.



More specific:
Different players (including those that are GMs) care about agency to different degrees. It is hard to boil it down to general advice without being far less accurate than learning your playgroup's positions.

For example I could assume I was part of the playgroup. That means my positions would inform some of the answers to the questions in the Core Resolution Model. When I do that, I end up with something similar to the other responses:
"Why offer agency that you would decide to revoke?" and
"Why would I let myself become so attached to one answer that I would be tempted to revoke agency I granted?"
"Could this at least be very very rare? Humans are fallible and mistakes can be tolerated."

[NichG]

Hey y'all! I have my own opinions on this, but I wanted to kinda poll the community: When, if ever, is it acceptable for a GM to nullify player choices to get to a result the GM wants?

Interested in hearing edge cases, core gaming philosophy, etc. If you can spell out as many assumptions as possible that you're making, that would be appreciated!

I guess as a fairly easy example, when the choice is an implicitly available one (rather than a given one) that violates a previous agreement the player has made with the table. E.g. if you have a table rule 'no PvP' which everyone agrees to in order to participate in the campaign and then later one player says 'I have my character X sneak up while Y's character is sleeping and kill them in their sleep', then yes that was a player choice, but its not one you explicitly made available or baited them into and its one they previously had agreed to not take.

Another example would be when the unexpressed meta consequences of that choice would be relevant to table-level agreements but only due to information not held by the player. So in this case, the table pre-agreed to things about what they wanted out of the campaign - 'we don't want TPKs no matter what' for example. A player says 'I'm going to just shove all the treasure in this room into my portable hole'. The GM happens to know that the treasure contains a bag of holding, but the players don't. So the GM stops the action and says 'okay, if you take that action, its almost certainly going to be a TPK, and we agreed to not have those - before you manage to sweep everything in, you stop and notice a particular bag that seems a bit bigger on the inside...' Depending on the strictness of the table-level rules, the player may not be permitted to continue their original action (but then this reduces to the first sort of example).

If we're not talking about pre-agreement sorts of scenarios, then I'd say outright 'no you can't do that' or 'no, you don't do that' isn't acceptable, but there are adjacent methods which would be acceptable. 'Are you sure you want to do that?' or 'I want to ask the group if they're okay with that' or 'You can do that, but if you do I'm not willing to run the scene' or even 'If you do that, I don't think I have a way to continue the campaign, so as long as we're all okay with that being the last action in the campaign, go ahead...' Effectively 'I'm not willing to continue running the game if your character does that' is the same as 'you don't do that' in outcome, but it does so in a way that respects the player's agency more than just seizing control or directly negating something the player says. That doesn't make it a reasonable call to make in response to any little thing, but at least it leads to a discussion and future agreements on acceptable behavior rather than just a 'yes I do, no you don't' kind of fight.

[Cluedrew]

I think one case hasn't been directly covered is a question with multiple reasonable choices but it turns out that someone picked an (in anyone else's mind) unreasonable one.

Ask them not to.

I mean, just ask, if the GM has nothing planned in that direction or that is going to really conflict with someone's character or anything else, just ask and maybe they original chooser can choose something else they like the look of. If that doesn't work, see OldTrees1's post.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think one case hasn't been directly covered is a question with multiple reasonable choices but it turns out that someone picked an (in anyone else's mind) unreasonable one.

Ask them not to.

I mean, just ask, if the GM has nothing planned in that direction or that is going to really conflict with someone's character or anything else, just ask and maybe they original chooser can choose something else they like the look of. If that doesn't work, see OldTrees1's post.

Yeah. Or if they are making a plan based on something that just won't work for OOC reasons. I had this come up--the party was involved in helping escort this artifact to a ritual site. The wizard said something OOC like "I want to make sure that will come back with us when it's done." That wasn't going to fly for a few reasons--
1) They're in a separate timeline and there's already one in their home timeline. BAD THINGS would happen if there was an additional one.
2) It's way out of scale for their campaign, and everyone knows it. For reference, the artifact is one of a pair that have been used in the past to move continents safely. One of the pair was used improperly and caused a cataclysm that shut off magic for 50 years, killed the gods and about 70% of the world's population.
3) It's established in-fiction that the artifacts have somewhat of a will of their own and tend to vanish once used, only to pop up again later elsewhere.

So I said as much. No issues, just being clear that that's not included in the possible options on what to do in this case.

[kyoryu]

Core Resolution Model:
Are the players (including the GM) okay with it?
Yes --> Then it is OK.
No --> Start talking like adults. There might be a solution (probably an adjacent solution) everyone can be okay with even if they are not okay with this solution.

Was there a solution everyone can be okay with?
Yes --> Do that instead.
No --> Hmm. Continue talking like adults. There are some mutually exclusive desires with no overlapping compromise. Honestly this should be rare enough that the option of playing different games is a reasonable solution that everyone can be okay with despite being sad about it.



More specific:
Different players (including those that are GMs) care about agency to different degrees. It is hard to boil it down to general advice without being far less accurate than learning your playgroup's positions.

For example I could assume I was part of the playgroup. That means my positions would inform some of the answers to the questions in the Core Resolution Model. When I do that, I end up with something similar to the other responses:
"Why offer agency that you would decide to revoke?" and
"Why would I let myself become so attached to one answer that I would be tempted to revoke agency I granted?"
"Could this at least be very very rare? Humans are fallible and mistakes can be tolerated."

Can we pin this? This is the answer. This is the only answer that matters.

[EccentricCircle]

So, in principle no, it is really frustrating for the player to have their action be meaningless.
However, there are ways and means. As GM you can have multiple choices eventually arrive at the same destination, so long as the path to get there has been meaningfully influenced by the players choices. Done well, the result will follow logically from the choice and they may nit even realise they could have gotten there down another path.

So basically don't have option a and option b both lead to result c, but if a and be lead to c and d, and then c and d lead to e and f, which both lead to g, that works.

Maybe you have a set piece planned, if the players don't stop the villain it will happen right away, if not, they force the villain onto the offensive, which leads to basically the same thing, but in a different context, and at a later time.
So long as in their minds they can draw a clear path from their actions to the results, and see causality there then they will have agency. Even if things are being rearramged a bit behind the scenes so that the GM still makes use of that stuff they prepped!

[Pauly]

Hey y'all! I have my own opinions on this, but I wanted to kinda poll the community: When, if ever, is it acceptable for a GM to nullify player choices to get to a result the GM wants?

Interested in hearing edge cases, core gaming philosophy, etc. If you can spell out as many assumptions as possible that you're making, that would be appreciated!

In a situation involving a genuine error then it’s OK. A comical example is the dreaded Gazebo. Essentially if something bad happens because of something the player misunderstands but the character wouldn’t have then it’s OK.
“I attack the ancient dragon”
SPLAT.
“Whoa, WTF?! Doesn’t “ancient” mean it’s like nearly dead from old age and really infirm”
“No it means its super powerful”.
“Ohhh, sorry guys”.

Anything involving PvP I will hard nerf (unless playing a system like Paranoia or Shadowrun where that stuff is expected). Letting PvP go unchecked is a recipe for a total party meltdown and destruction of real life relationships 3 or 4 sessions later.

Other than that I will let the chips fall where they may. If the players paint themselves into a corner then I’ll install a side door for them to get out and back adventuring. If they make some bad decisions and get TPKed, well next week we start a new campaign.

[elros]

I cannot think of a situation where a GM should overrule what a player decides. GMs should not design adventures that require players to make specific decisions.
That said, there are times when a GM could allow a player a "do-over," especially if there was forgotten information or a bad roll. Luck should be part of the game, but that has to be balanced against a fun game experience.

[Yora]

When for some reason, it really wouldn't work if a player is doing a certain thing, I think the only right way to deal with it is to tell the player that this will just not work for reasons about the prepared material, and that the character can not actually do the action on question. The player must make a different decision and the character do something else.
While this limits the player's freedom to decide what the character does, it still remains the player's choice what actually happens and what the character thinks, says, and does. It's not making character decisions for the player, and it also doesn't snatch away the outcome of a plan that the player already invested work in.

Just tell players "sorry, you reached one of the invisible fences". That's a bit disappointing for them for the next two minutes, but it doesn't interfere with the roles and responsibilities of everyone involved in the game.

[Mastikator]

I cannot think of a situation where a GM should overrule what a player decides. GMs should not design adventures that require players to make specific decisions.
That said, there are times when a GM could allow a player a "do-over," especially if there was forgotten information or a bad roll. Luck should be part of the game, but that has to be balanced against a fun game experience.

Hard disagree. I can and will deny certain player decisions in my games, like racial depending on campaign. Like character traits depending on theme. No anti-adventuring cowards in my heroic fantasy thank you very much (nor do I take kindly to PVPing or murderhoboing- if that's what your character would do make a new character).

To @OP, I have never run a game where cowardice is anything but a big flaw, and if cowardice translates into "yeah I'm not going into that dungeon", or "I'm not rescuing the villagers from the ogres", then you either make a new character that will go on the adventure the whole table signed up for. Or find a new table where that is OK.
I can't speak for other DMs though. And if cowardice is something you intend for your character to overcome then it's a fine and good flaw.

[Tvtyrant]

"my character attacks' Bill's character."
"My character begins to *insert sex crime, torture, etc."
"My character goes on a solo adventure on another continent."

[Lord Torath]

From my manifesto (heavily cribbed off of D+1's):

23. The DM is not required to allow a character to actually play out in the game *anything* that the player wants. What that means is that particularly if the player is about to do something the DM feels is either really stupid or openly disruptive, he should stop the game and get clarification or correction before proceeding. For example, if a character is about to kill an NPC for no reason, then rather than allow it to happen the DM should stop the player and find out what's going on. Determine the player's/character's motive. If the players response is unsatisfactory, he should DISALLOW the action from taking place at all and let play proceed from THAT point instead of proceeding from the point AFTER the disruptive act has been allowed to occur and trying to pick up the pieces. Communication flows both ways and the DM does not need to act as if players should be forbidden to ever know what goes on in a DM's mind or behind the DM shield. When a DM makes rulings there is no reason not to freely explain why he rules as he does unless there is in-game information involved that PCs should not be privy to. DMs should be capable of providing explanations for their rulings beyond, "because I said so."

I as a DM feel free to veto disruptive actions, and I will explain my reasoning unless doing so will spoil the adventure

[Vahnavoi]

Didn't we just have this thread? Because I'm pretty sure we just had this thread. (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?644299-Choo-Choo-yes-Is-railroading-REALLY-that-bad)

But hey. Let"s say you didn't find your answer in that thread. So let me try to summarize:

Shortly: a game master is most justified in negating a player choice to get the outcome they want, when their ability to do that does not stem from them simply being a game master.

At length: the rule you're probably thinking of when asking this question is "a game master has final say over game events".

That rule does not exist to do what you are asking about. That rule exists to establish game master as a referee figure: so that when other game rules either don't give a definitive answer or give contradictory or non-sensical answers, a named person at the table is empowered to make a ruling to cover that case so the game can move on.

So forget that rule and look at literally all the other rules of your game, and all the other roles besides rules referee that a game master has.

Firstly, as a game master, you are very likely also playing the opponent characters to player characters. The basic rules of your game very likely posit these opponent characters can do a number of things to interfere with player characters and their agendas, in a way no different from Chess, or Poker, or any other adversarial game.

Second, as a game master, you are very likely also part-time game designer or at minimum a scenario designer. You are responsible for thinking up boundaries and details of the game situation your players are going to deal with. Others have adviced you to not give your players choices you aren't willing to follow through, but it's equally important to follow the reverse: give your players choices you are willing to follow through. Plural form is important. If you only want one specific result, your entire question is just an attempt to justify railroading.

Don't confuse negating choices that are wildly out-of-bounds for what you are asking about. Forget everything you think you know of roleplaying games and imagine a game of soccer instead. It's a basic objective of the game to kick the ball into the opposing goal - if someone starts goofing off, throwing the ball with their hands, hitting it with bat, trying to hit their own side's goal or other players, the referee is perfectly justified to warn that guy (yellow card) and, if that warning is not heeded, order them out of the field (red card). That's not about enforcing the result the referee wants, it's about enforcing the rules everyone nominally agreed to when they sat down to play. If a referee is abusing their power to make those calls to get the result they want from the game, they are being a bad referee.

[KorvinStarmast]

This is such an open ended question that I doubt the value of the thread, but here's my thought that's different from a few of the others.

It is only "OK" when the players are about to actually break the game. This is IME quite rare, but it is also not impossible. Sometimes, the only choice is not to play.

Beyond that, Phoenix's point on an ounce of prevention being worth a ton of cure is pretty good advice.

[icefractal]

I think the OP needs to be more clear what's meant by "nullify player choices". Because I can think of at least five meanings that could apply, and the answer is different depending which one (and the circumstances, obviously).

1) Action Prohibition
Player: I stab the king!
GM: No you don't, your character doesn't do that.

2) Hard Negation
GM: The BBEG casts Teleport and he's gone.
Players: While under Dimensional Anchor, and standing next to a guy with Mage Slayer?
GM: Yeah, he just does. Power of plot!

3) Soft Negation
Player: I use Detect Evil
GM: (knowing that the BBEG doesn't actually have a way to block this) Um ... no evil detected.
GM: *makes mental note to later claim the BBEG always wears anti-divination charms*

4) Hard Meta Negation
Player: I'm going to make a really stealthy spy type.
GM: Ok.
GM: *makes anything important be guarded by un-bluffable guards with special senses that can't be snuck past*

5) Soft Meta Negation
GM: ... and so you'll need to seek out the reclusive sage Zagyg and convince him to translate this.
Player: Oh, no need, I actually know Ancient Thassilonian
GM: Huh ... well, you read it and it ... partially describes where the portal is, but it has some references to the 'Cycle of Stars' that the directions don't make sense without. You'll need to seek out the other reclusive sage ... Zyzag ... and convince him to show you the scrolls.


I made it obvious for the sake of example, but Soft Meta Negation can be pretty subtle - imagine that the GM never got as far as mentioning Zagyg, for instance. Another example would be something like:
Player: I hack into BastardCorp's database and see what they're up to.
GM: There's a warehouse near the docks that's not officially on the books but has a lot of expensive equipment being sent there, and a security contract with some heavy duty mercenaries.

Seems legit, right? But secretly, if the player hadn't hacked the database:
GM: One of your contacts sends you a message ... "There's something suspicious going on at this warehouse near the docks. Suddenly it's got heavy duty security and they're moving equipment in during the middle of the night. I saw a BastardCorp logo on one of the boxes, but it looked like it was supposed to be hidden."

So in fact hacking does nothing, it just gives you information that the GM was going to provide anyway. But it's entirely possible that the whole campaign happens without the players ever realizing that choice was false.

Soft Meta Negation can even be in the PCs' favor - for example, a situation where "Any reasonable plan by the PCs will succeed" or "Whoever the PCs decide is the murderer, is, as long as it makes sense". Many people wouldn't mind that, but it's still making the choice fake, IMO.

[elros]

Hard disagree. I can and will deny certain player decisions in my games, like racial depending on campaign. Like character traits depending on theme. No anti-adventuring cowards in my heroic fantasy thank you very much (nor do I take kindly to PVPing or murderhoboing- if that's what your character would do make a new character).
I agree with you- GMs should disallow characters that won’t fit the campaign. Whether it is min-max characters or other broken combos, a GM has to decide if that is allowed.
Also, some characters won’t work in some adventures, and the GM should set that straight from the beginning.

[Vahnavoi]

@Icefractal: you nominally described five different forms of negation without mentioning which of them, if any, is supposed to cover two of the most common ones:

Player: "I choose X."
Game master: "By basic rules of game, X is not possible. Choose something else."

And:

Player 1: "I choose X."
Player 2: "I choose Y, which trumps X."

In the latter case, Player 2 may be a game master, but is drawing from the same pool of options their players are.

[Easy e]

It depends what the definition of "is" is?

That quote completely shows my age!

[NichG]

I made it obvious for the sake of example, but Soft Meta Negation can be pretty subtle - imagine that the GM never got as far as mentioning Zagyg, for instance. Another example would be something like:
Player: I hack into BastardCorp's database and see what they're up to.
GM: There's a warehouse near the docks that's not officially on the books but has a lot of expensive equipment being sent there, and a security contract with some heavy duty mercenaries.

Seems legit, right? But secretly, if the player hadn't hacked the database:
GM: One of your contacts sends you a message ... "There's something suspicious going on at this warehouse near the docks. Suddenly it's got heavy duty security and they're moving equipment in during the middle of the night. I saw a BastardCorp logo on one of the boxes, but it looked like it was supposed to be hidden."

So in fact hacking does nothing, it just gives you information that the GM was going to provide anyway. But it's entirely possible that the whole campaign happens without the players ever realizing that choice was false.

This can get to the point where I would hesitate to even call it 'negation'. It's definitely something, and that something could result in negation in some cases, but...

For example, lets say a PC says 'I don't want our enemies scrying on our tactics discussions, so I'll cast Nondetection, False Terrain, etc whenever we're making plans', but the GM didn't have anyone attempting to scry on the party to begin with or any suggestion that there were such people. That's clearly (to me) not negation even though the player's action had no real consequences, much less the expected consequences.

So if you have something where its not like 'choose to hack the database or go have a training montage', but rather 'its Tuesday, what do you do?', then the fact that the player's database hack ends up being superfluous because someone outside the PCs was already going to be giving them that information independently seems fundamentally different than negation, even if it may still be an act of metagame control on the part of the GM. In order for the hack the database example to count as negation for me, it'd almost have to be the opposite example: the players decide 'we don't want anything to do with BastardCorp, so even if we see this gap in their firewall, we're passing on that hook' and then the contact pushes them 'Hey guys, BastardCorp is up to something at the docks...' E.g. active negation for me indicates that the GM is subverting intent, not just that some choices end up being more or less consequential.

I guess what I'm getting at is, not all acts of control or influence over the game are examples of negation of a player choice. Not even all things which result in a given action behaving as a non-action would necessarily be well-described as actively negating player choice. Without the intent element, you can definitely get murky cases where depending on the perspective no matter what the GM does (including nothing), it would be negation.

[KorvinStarmast]

*scratches head*
Trying to figure out why this thread isn't a dupe of this thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?644299-Choo-Choo-yes-Is-railroading-REALLY-that-bad/page13)
Is this one of those "that thread got me thinking about this subset of that larger set of things we were talking about " threads, or, did something come up during play recently? :smallconfused:

[Jay R]

Running a role-playing game is a complicated process, and no simple answer will always apply.

Relevant approaches from my Rules for DMs:


19. The players do not have the right to screw up the game. They do have the right to screw up your plot. Don’t confuse the two.

a. Do not give them a set of options that includes screwing up the game.

38. When the players come up with something you never considered, stop and think. This is the source of your absolute best, most perfect moments. It’s also where all scenario-destroying mistakes come from. Ask yourself which it is before you react.

a. “Scenario-ending" and "scenario-destroying" are not (necessarily) synonyms. You may have planned a major battle in front of the Black Gate. But a PC ending the quest by throwing the Ring into the Cracks of Doom could still be a satisfying, if abrupt, ending.

43. You will make mistakes – lots of them. A crucial skill to be a good DM is the ability to fix mistakes as quickly and seamlessly as possible.

a. This will sometimes involve admitting them. It will also sometimes involve keeping the players from ever seeing them.
b. In either case, the point is to make the game go forward, not to repair your ego.

Since the same answer won't always work, here are several specific examples.

1. Ideally, restricting their choice should occur in advance. If I don’t want them exploring the cave complex yet, then there shouldn’t be an entrance available to them.

2. Next best, when they start to do something you didn’t expect, is straightforward honesty. “Umm, I really didn’t expect you the attack the king. He is a source of lots of potential quests, and you’ll get more treasure, and more experience points, if you listen to him and work for him than if you attack him now. For one thing, you’ll lose; you really aren’t powerful enough for this.”

3. Make clear what your personal abilities are. “Hey, guys, I’m no good at running PvP. Could you all work together for this campaign?”

4. Tell them the real reason. “Guys, I have some ideas for adventures in the mountains, but I haven’t written them yet. Would you mind exploring the forest instead? Otherwise, it’s just going to be random encounters all evening.”

5. Explain the disconnect between their proposed action and your plans for the campaign. “I’m willing to spend my time and energy creating a world for you to be heroes in. I’m not willing to do it to provide a place for you to be villains. If you want to torch the village, then we need to find another GM, because I’m not comfortable running that kind of adventure.”

6. In a humorous vein, consider self-serving mendacity disguised as unselfish and brutal honesty:

“Guys, I designed this world, and I’m the only one who knows what your choices now will lead to. From where you are, the most obvious paths lead to:
A. a kobold village with copper pieces that would have been a fun adventure when you were first and second level,
B. A deadly swamp with quicksand and an Evil High Priest’s castle that will be a great adventure for you when you have about five more levels,
C. A city of Stone Giants that will make a great adventure for you in ten levels, and
D. A level-appropriate encounter with some really good loot, which could help you against an EHP and some giants.

Do whatever you want — you’re the PCs. But I recommend that you go east.”

(Then you have five levels’ time to design a swamp, and ten levels’ time to design a giant city.)

[No, I’ve never done this, and wouldn’t. I just think it’s funny.]

[icefractal]

@Icefractal: you nominally described five different forms of negation without mentioning which of them, if any, is supposed to cover two of the most common ones:I did say at least five, not that those are the complete set. But also, I wouldn't call either of those two "GM negation". Neither relies on being the GM, and the second one isn't even negation, it's just a response.

Like, if a person (who happened to be the GM), pulled out a gun and said "I'll shoot you unless you take that action back!" - that wouldn't be GM negation. It'd be a crime though. :smalltongue:



This can get to the point where I would hesitate to even call it 'negation'. It's definitely something, and that something could result in negation in some cases, but...It's true, the way I defined it is pretty broad, maybe too broad.

I think that maybe more usefully, it would apply when this is a pattern of behavior - there are nominally computers in the game which can be hacked and (IC) have important data on them, but in practice the GM will give out the plot-important information with or without hacking, and won't give out any knot-cutting information regardless of hacking.

Also, IME, it's really hard to avoid doing this sometimes in an improv-heavy game. So I wouldn't say it's something where a single instance is a problem.

[NichG]

It's true, the way I defined it is pretty broad, maybe too broad.

I think that maybe more usefully, it would apply when this is a pattern of behavior - there are nominally computers in the game which can be hacked and (IC) have important data on them, but in practice the GM will give out the plot-important information with or without hacking, and won't give out any knot-cutting information regardless of hacking.

Also, IME, it's really hard to avoid doing this sometimes in an improv-heavy game. So I wouldn't say it's something where a single instance is a problem.

I think it's clearer to me if one treats as separate things that involve violations or overrides over the degrees of freedom which different participants at the table are ostensibly given control over, versus situations where someone at the table makes a decision that goes against the sense of cooperation or fairness or mutual fun at the table. I don't have preferred terminology for either of those, but I think conflating them leads to less useful approaches when trying to negotiate or resolve the issue...

So for example, things where the GM (or even just 'the rest of the table') says 'Your character does X' or 'Your character doesn't do X' have to do with reneging on the explicit or implicit agreement that 'the player's character is for them to control'. This may come about because, among other possibilities, the player was using the things they have the right to control in a way that violates the culture of the table.

The GM could instead respond using things that are within their right to control in order (NPC actions, builds, etc) to bring about a different outcome. However, there will likewise usually be cultural expectations of the GM as to how and to what ends they should be using their control - maybe they're supposed to keep things fair according to some power scale or difficulty curve, or never build things in an adversarial way (trying to 'beat' the players versus representing a particular world), or always help players realize their ideas rather than thwart them, or whatever.

The reason I think its useful to keep these layers separate is that one is more about explicit boundaries and the form of acts which cross those boundaries, whereas the other is more about 'how people should act' in the given table culture. Both can vary table to table, but the latter is something where at a given table one can expect unresolved disagreement on those values to exist and persist and that's not necessarily a problem that benefits from being tied to absolute language, whereas the former generally needs to be set down more clearly. So you could have a table where one player is like 'in order to trust the GM, I need to have my character take risks and not be swatted down for it' while another player is like 'in order to feel my actions have meaning, I can't be protected from their negative consequences', and the GM can understand and try to accomodate both players even if their expectations are different.

So if those expectations have been trespassed in a way that bothers someone, rather than having a debate about whether all pre-agreements permit that trespass or not, its more important to understand why the people involved are upset and come to a soft compromise about it even if there's no table rule that says 'you have to'. But if there's a violation of a basic assumption of who gets to decide what, then not coming to a shared understanding about what everyone can assume is in their control means that its hard to actually think about how to act at the table at all.

[Pex]

When I DM, and as a player I want the DM to do this, is interfere to stop a player from being a donkey cavity. Do not steal from the party. Do not purposely harm another PC even if only as collateral damage. The usual bad behaviors. Another player's enjoyment of the game does not overrule mine and vice versa. If the DM refuses to stop such behavior then I'm not playing anymore. I'm done with that male bovine feces.

As a DM I add no evil acts. The PCs do not have to be saints, but I will outright not allow torture, killing of innocents. or other evil deeds. Players know this before play begins. That's not the same thing as while being a player a fellow player is playing an evil character. I may not like the player playing an evil character the DM allows it, but it can be played in a non-donkey cavity way I can get over it for the sake of the game. Even better if I don't notice the evil out of character. Definitely the DM should not allow a player to excuse donkey cavity behavior claiming chaotic neutral as a defense.

That said, the DM controls the world and the trees, the gods and the bees. He does not control the PCs.

[Sparky McDibben]

I as a DM feel free to veto disruptive actions, and I will explain my reasoning unless doing so will spoil the adventure

Can you explain what you mean by disruptive actions?


Didn't we just have this thread?

We did not. We did have a thread that discussed some portion of this behavior, but it also utilized like seven different definitions of one word and several different sub-conversations.

I'm trying to figure out the core philosophies and play style of folks who think this behavior is OK, and use that to see if I can identify traits of GM's I would not want to play with, or who would not enjoy having me at the table.


I think the OP needs to be more clear what's meant by "nullify player choices". Because I can think of at least five meanings that could apply, and the answer is different depending which one (and the circumstances, obviously).

Let's go through them!


1) Action Prohibition
Player: I stab the king!
GM: No you don't, your character doesn't do that.

Yep.


2) Hard Negation
GM: The BBEG casts Teleport and he's gone.
Players: While under Dimensional Anchor, and standing next to a guy with Mage Slayer?
GM: Yeah, he just does. Power of plot!

Yep.


3) Soft Negation
Player: I use Detect Evil
GM: (knowing that the BBEG doesn't actually have a way to block this) Um ... no evil detected.
GM: *makes mental note to later claim the BBEG always wears anti-divination charms*

Yep.


4) Hard Meta Negation
Player: I'm going to make a really stealthy spy type.
GM: Ok.
GM: *makes anything important be guarded by un-bluffable guards with special senses that can't be snuck past*

Yep.


5) Soft Meta Negation
GM: ... and so you'll need to seek out the reclusive sage Zagyg and convince him to translate this.
Player: Oh, no need, I actually know Ancient Thassilonian
GM: Huh ... well, you read it and it ... partially describes where the portal is, but it has some references to the 'Cycle of Stars' that the directions don't make sense without. You'll need to seek out the other reclusive sage ... Zyzag ... and convince him to show you the scrolls.

Eh, maybe. There's a lot of grey areas with this one.


*scratches head*
Trying to figure out why this thread isn't a dupe of this thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?644299-Choo-Choo-yes-Is-railroading-REALLY-that-bad/page13)
Is this one of those "that thread got me thinking about this subset of that larger set of things we were talking about " threads, or, did something come up during play recently? :smallconfused:

This is a, "that thread got me thinking about how to avoid unpleasant gaming experiences with people who would not enjoy having me at the table, and with whom I would not enjoy gaming." I'm trying to figure out the core philosophies and play style of folks who think this behavior is OK, and use that to see if I can identify traits of those GMs.

[Vahnavoi]

I did say at least five, not that those are the complete set. But also, I wouldn't call either of those two "GM negation". Neither relies on being the GM, and the second one isn't even negation, it's just a response.

1) Game master is primary person responsible for enforcing basic rules of a game. One of the most common reasons they are negating a choice a player made is because it's against said basic rules. Omitting this from under umbrella of "GM negation" is pretty glaring. You should, at minimum, consider if those things on your list can be done for this reason.

2) All five of your examples are described as being done in response to player action. Responses can and do negate choices all the time. Some games have specific rules about this. Go is pretty famous example: under rule of ko, a player is prohibited from making a play that would return the game to same state it was before their opponent's last turn. Under rule 8 or "super ko", a player is prohibited from making any play that would return the game to any state it has previously been in. Without Ko, basic rules of Go allow for plays that negate each other, potentially leading to unending games. Thinking of whether any of this applies to basic rules of a game is pretty relevant to giving good answers to the initial question: "When, if ever, is it acceptable for a GM to nullify player choices to get to a result the GM wants?"


Like, if a person (who happened to be the GM), pulled out a gun and said "I'll shoot you unless you take that action back!" - that wouldn't be GM negation. It'd be a crime though. :smalltongue:.

Don't confuse method of enforcement with what is being enforced. A game master pulling a gun to enforce a game decision is only a crime because a common game master is not empowered to threaten lethal force to enforce their rulings - that is, it being a crime is completely detached from the actual topic of discussion. For purposes of this discussion, you might as well imagine a game master who IS empowered to threaten lethal force - because once you do, it becomes apparent the function of said threat is exactly same as "I'll kick you out of the game unless you take that action back!". Classic, transparent attempt at negation. The actual question is when, if ever, it is acceptable. :smalltongue:]

[Lord Torath]

I as a DM feel free to veto disruptive actions, and I will explain my reasoning unless doing so will spoil the adventure
Can you explain what you mean by disruptive actions?
Jay R gaves some good examples:


2. Next best, when they start to do something you didn’t expect, is straightforward honesty. “Umm, I really didn’t expect you the attack the king. He is a source of lots of potential quests, and you’ll get more treasure, and more experience points, if you listen to him and work for him than if you attack him now. For one thing, you’ll lose; you really aren’t powerful enough for this.”

Actions that are taken to deliberately thwart party goals.
Actions that will hurt (not necessarily physically) another PC (I kill PC A's sister because PC A argued against my plan when we hit the bandit camp. I kill the NPC before he can reveal critical information about the sub-plot involving PC B.).
Actions that are taken for the purpose of griefing the party (I'm going to attack the NPC who's giving us plot critical information).

Such things call for an immediate halt to the action to discuss what that player wants out of the game compared to what the other players (including the DM) want.

[MoiMagnus]

So, when is it OK for me?


This choice is unacceptable. If the campaign has explicitly "no evil character", it's fair for the GM to prevent players from making evil acts. Even if the campaign doesn't have this restriction, it would be fair for the GM to ban evil acts that goes into sensible topics IRL. Even for non-evil acts, it would be fair for the GM to ban some topics that might make them or some players uncomfortable, like romance/seduction. Ideally the GM would go through those bans preemptively, but better late than never.
That's not the game we're playing. If you sign up for a murder mystery, you'd probably expect a "no" if you try to break the scenario apart by killing a key NPC when you're supposed to be the investigator and not the murderer. Some GMs might appreciate the challenge of having to deal with two murderers, but it's fine to say no. Obviously, not every application of this case is as clear as "we literally signed up for a murder mystery". Sometimes you have to read the social clue that the GM is giving you to understand that they have specific expectation on the kind of gameplay they want to give to your table.
Don't interrupt my cutscene! In the same way I don't like GMs playing "gotcha" and screwing on players because of some obvious mistakes, especially when the players didn't go full-on paranoiac in the interest of not bothering the remaining of the table with details, I don't like when Players play "gotcha" by interrupting a sequence of events that was crafted by the GM to be cool instead of being crafted to be perfect an foolproof.
Quantum. (So things that are determined a posteriori, like adding an amulet of protection against detect though to your BBEG retroactively). I'm fine with it as long as it goes both ways. If my character's bag is quantum enough, if it's fine for me to delay or change choices like spell selection as long as I don't abuse it, then I have no issue with the GM also making some retroactive changes as long as they don't abuse it.
It's practical. Actually, I'm mostly opposed to this reason. I put it in the list because I'm fine with partially negating the choice when it's practical, but the GM should value the partially-negated choice and try to make the best of it within the limit of this practicality. For example, if the GM plans that whatever the PC's choice, they'll end up allied with one faction and enemies with the other two, then I'd expect that factions to not just be clones with different colours, and the choices that leads to this situation to have some influence on "how much of an ally" is the allied faction and "how much of an enemy" the enemy factions are.

[Slipjig]

I'd say the big one is when a character is about to cross a Moral Event Horizon. Exactly what puts them over that line will vary from table to table, but I think the vast majority of table's have one, and having a player cross it may lead to players not wanting to participate anymore.

If a character is about to do something that will completely screw up your plot, it's okay to be up front about that and tell the players that your carefully plotted scenario is about to be blown up. Maybe allow the other PCs a chance to interfere (e.g. PC: "I shoot the hostage princess." DM: "[Pause, looks around] Anybody want to do something before I resolve that action?"). But if the entire party wants to shoot the hostage, roll with it, possibly with an invisible retcon (e.g. the "hostage" was a doppelganger anyway). Whatever fancy set pieces you have planned, you can find a way to work them in to a future game.

[kyoryu]

Quantum. (So things that are determined a posteriori, like adding an amulet of protection against detect though to your BBEG retroactively). I'm fine with it as long as it goes both ways. If my character's bag is quantum enough, if it's fine for me to delay or change choices like spell selection as long as I don't abuse it, then I have no issue with the GM also making some retroactive changes as long as they don't abuse it.

This one is interesting. Mostly because it touches on the simple fact that the characters should generally be more competent than the players, including the GM.

None of us live in this fictional world. Putting together your shopping list for a trip, or a list of defenses for a BBEG, is something we usually do in a fairly short period of time. OTOH, the characters have hours or days or weeks or years to figure this out. The chances that they'd just miss some critical thing is incredibly small. The chance we'd miss it.... pretty big.

So, I'm.... kinda okay with this? Depending on the situation and the level to which it is done, of course. There's a huge difference between "yes, of course, that was an obvious thing that should have been thought of" and "yes, of course I happened to have the one thing that would nullify this, but would be useless 99% of the time".


I'd say the big one is when a character is about to cross a Moral Event Horizon. Exactly what puts them over that line will vary from table to table, but I think the vast majority of table's have one, and having a player cross it may lead to players not wanting to participate anymore.

If a character is about to do something that will completely screw up your plot, it's okay to be up front about that and tell the players that your carefully plotted scenario is about to be blown up. Maybe allow the other PCs a chance to interfere (e.g. PC: "I shoot the hostage princess." DM: "[Pause, looks around] Anybody want to do something before I resolve that action?"). But if the entire party wants to shoot the hostage, roll with it, possibly with an invisible retcon (e.g. the "hostage" was a doppelganger anyway). Whatever fancy set pieces you have planned, you can find a way to work them in to a future game.

I think that's where you stop and clarify what kind of game is happening, and what the in-world results of said action will be, as well as leaving it open for that to be a group decision as to whether they want to play with that PC after the event, or if the PC should become an NPC and the player makes a new character.

[Vahnavoi]

... Quantum ...

Please, please, please stop abusing that word to mean something undecided. (http://smbc-comics.com/comic/prescriptive) It's bad and you should feel bad for doing so. (http://smbc-comics.com/comic/know-your-linguistic-philosophies) :smalltongue:

[LecternOfJasper]

Hey y'all! I have my own opinions on this, but I wanted to kinda poll the community: When, if ever, is it acceptable for a GM to nullify player choices to get to a result the GM wants?

Interested in hearing edge cases, core gaming philosophy, etc. If you can spell out as many assumptions as possible that you're making, that would be appreciated!

Anecdote: my players wanted to visit the factions from their backstories, with questions and answers. Their home bases happened to be on the other side of a rather peaceful country that covers a large section of the middle of the only landmass in play.

As I was describing how they were traveling through this country and how it was marginally more orderly and populous than the area they were in before, one of my players interjected, saying that their character would go around the edge of the empire I'm the wilder parts, as they were more likely to come across previously unknown lore and ruins there.

I, having had roughly half an hour to plan that week, told him that everything I had planned was through the middle, but I could whip something up the other way. The rest of the players debated and decided to go along with what I had planned as that was likely to be more interesting.

While they generally would have the option of choosing their route, they did not telegraph their choices far enough ahead for me to plan. Therefore, a brief meta discussion was helpful in resolving that in a way most people were fine with. And they found something unexpected anyways (as adventurers do) so it worked out.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'd say the big one is when a character is about to cross a Moral Event Horizon. Exactly what puts them over that line will vary from table to table, but I think the vast majority of table's have one, and having a player cross it may lead to players not wanting to participate anymore. This also fits into the DBAD issue as well as "being that guy/gal" - sometimes, you have to deal with it when someone 'goes there'. Time for a GM to call "time out" and the table has an OOC discussion.

If a character is about to do something that will completely screw up your plot, I usually advise GM's to "let it happen" since as GM you can always flex and make a few notes behind the screen, and then adapt to the new reality. (Yeah, the BBEG just got euchered, but his cousin has a crystal ball and saw it all happen, and she's angry!) Plots aren't as important as a lot of GMs think they are (yes, Alexandrian's advice to set up situations rather than plots is a pretty good approach).
While they generally would have the option of choosing their route, they did not telegraph their choices far enough ahead for me to plan. Therefore, a brief meta discussion was helpful in resolving that in a way most people were fine with. And they found something unexpected anyways (as adventurers do) so it worked out. Great example in that post, and well done to you all. :smallsmile:

[Catullus64]

Sometimes, if the lack of choice is an intended point of drama, it is appropriate for a DM to make it so that a player's choices didn't matter. But if that is your intent, you need to work doubly hard to make sure that the lack of choice is convincingly presented as a fact of the game world, not merely as your fiat.

One campaign involved the PCs defending a city under siege by the army of an evil sorcerer for about 5 sessions. I had resolved from the beginning that no matter what they did, the city would fall, to hammer home the point about how overwhelming is the power they face. Defeat one assault, another breaks through; foil one plot, another springs up in its place. They can't be everywhere at once, and they themselves are being pushed to the limit. But even then, I made sure their choices could secure minor or personal victories even if the overall battle was unwinnable.

[kyoryu]

One campaign involved the PCs defending a city under siege by the army of an evil sorcerer for about 5 sessions. I had resolved from the beginning that no matter what they did, the city would fall, to hammer home the point about how overwhelming is the power they face. Defeat one assault, another breaks through; foil one plot, another springs up in its place. They can't be everywhere at once, and they themselves are being pushed to the limit. But even then, I made sure their choices could secure minor or personal victories even if the overall battle was unwinnable.

Bolded for emphasis.

The stakes in every situation don't always have to involve total success. But players should have an idea of what is achievable, and the ability to at least claw out minor victories.

[NichG]

Sometimes, if the lack of choice is an intended point of drama, it is appropriate for a DM to make it so that a player's choices didn't matter. But if that is your intent, you need to work doubly hard to make sure that the lack of choice is convincingly presented as a fact of the game world, not merely as your fiat.

One campaign involved the PCs defending a city under siege by the army of an evil sorcerer for about 5 sessions. I had resolved from the beginning that no matter what they did, the city would fall, to hammer home the point about how overwhelming is the power they face. Defeat one assault, another breaks through; foil one plot, another springs up in its place. They can't be everywhere at once, and they themselves are being pushed to the limit. But even then, I made sure their choices could secure minor or personal victories even if the overall battle was unwinnable.

This example actually doesn't sit well with me. I don't tend to consider drama to be a good justification for anything. In this situation I'd probably be motivated as a player to abandon the direct defense of the city early and instead do something else.

It's fine if it's a situation where direct victory is practically speaking impossible. But it's not fine if it's both that and if the expectation is that the characters engage with it anyhow, and it's also not great if that 'impossible' is by fiat even if the characters find something that could actually logically work.

[kyoryu]

This example actually doesn't sit well with me. I don't tend to consider drama to be a good justification for anything. In this situation I'd probably be motivated as a player to abandon the direct defense of the city early and instead do something else.

It's fine if it's a situation where direct victory is practically speaking impossible. But it's not fine if it's both that and if the expectation is that the characters engage with it anyhow, and it's also not great if that 'impossible' is by fiat even if the characters find something that could actually logically work.

I feel they addressed that - there were smaller goals that were up for saving/losing.

Though in this case if it was a foregone conclusion, I'd want it to have a good in-world explanation - the invaders were just too strong/many, etc.

So it shouldn't be "defend the city, but you can't, HAHAHA" situation. It should be "the city is lost, but you can save the kids in the orphanage, maybe".

[KorvinStarmast]

This example actually doesn't sit well with me. It worked pretty well in War and XPs. Adventurers can't solve all of the world's problems, and yet they did (among other things) achieve a few things during the battle for Azure City ...

0. Slow down the Hobgoblin onslaught, which gave some soldiers a chance to flee when the fight looked to be lost.
1. Take out a bunch of enemy soldiers (Belkar among others) to aid in the defense of the city.
2. Save the Lord of the City from an assassin (Belkar)
3. Evacuate a bunch of citizens and the Lord of the City. (Elan, V, Durkon)
4. Deprive Xykon of his undead dragon steed. (Not that it really matters, since Xykon can fly)
5. Recover Roy's body and begin an insurrection. (Haley and Belkar)

[NichG]

I feel they addressed that - there were smaller goals that were up for saving/losing.

Though in this case if it was a foregone conclusion, I'd want it to have a good in-world explanation - the invaders were just too strong/many, etc.

So it shouldn't be "defend the city, but you can't, HAHAHA" situation. It should be "the city is lost, but you can save the kids in the orphanage, maybe".

Maybe another way for me to put it is, I think the problem is the assumption that the expected behavior is for the players to pursue those secondary goals, regardless of the scope of the goals. If I were a player in that game, my reaction would be to abandon the city and instead try to marshal a counter-attack on the aggressor's base, or even just do a 'we're refugees, now lets adventure somewhere else' line. But that comes down to a rejection of the GM's intended content, so its almost at the level of the ultimatum of 'I refuse to play'. If the scenario is making me have that kind of sense, but the GM thinks I should be excited about playing through it the way they imagined, that suggests more than just things at the level of characters deciding what to do IC - at that point something has broken down OOC, and probably should be addressed OOC.

Now it could be that the GM is just putting stuff there and it so happens that things have gotten to the point where the city is not salvageable, but 'lets escape the city and do something else' would be a perfectly fine thing from their view to run, in which case no problem. But the thing about the players doing this stuff over the course of five sessions, etc, suggested to me that they really intended the players to continue the unwinnable fight and be satisfied with the particular secondary victories they had envisioned. So that's part of what cues me in that if I just said 'this is unwinnable, lets leave', it'd probably annoy the GM rather than be seen as a legitimate course action in the face of the scenario presented. So it's better to actually discuss OOC.

Similarly for that scenario, it'd go a lot smoother if the GM had buy in from the players in advance about the style of the campaign, e.g. that sometimes there will be things that happen 'strictly for sake of drama' and there might be fights the party 'is supposed to lose' and things like that. Just like I'd want to know in advance that I'm signing up for a game of Ten Candles (which, for what it's worth, I would just not sign up for to start with), otherwise my inclination would be to Old Man Henderson and try to deconstruct the scenario; or if a GM tries to set up a 'the party is captured' scenario without prior buy-in, what usually happens is that the party will self-destruct and kill themselves or force their enemy to kill them before they'll allow the capture scenario to go through as intended.



It worked pretty well in War and XPs. Adventurers can't solve all of the world's problems, and yet they did (among other things) achieve a few things during the battle for Azure City ...

0. Slow down the Hobgoblin onslaught, which gave some soldiers a chance to flee when the fight looked to be lost.
1. Take out a bunch of enemy soldiers (Belkar among others) to aid in the defense of the city.
2. Save the Lord of the City from an assassin (Belkar)
3. Evacuate a bunch of citizens and the Lord of the City. (Elan, V, Durkon)
4. Deprive Xykon of his undead dragon steed. (Not that it really matters, since Xykon can fly)
5. Recover Roy's body and begin an insurrection. (Haley and Belkar)


Written media and gameplay demand different things. I'd read things I would never sign up to play. And other people would happily play things (or read things) I would never want to. That's the principle of getting buy-in ahead of time - the people who are positioned to enjoy it can enjoy it, and the people who would dislike it can do something else instead.

[Vahnavoi]

Games that are unwinnable by design are their own animal and have much less to do with the thread topic than it looks like on the surface.

Why? Because there can be, and often are, distinct ways to lose. For a game, considering, say, all end states where all characters are dead to be one outcome is a case of bad abstraction.

For simple illustration of principle, forget everything you think you know about roleplaying games and just imagine a classic videogame shooter: the basic objective is to kill aliens. You get a point for each alien killed. There is no end to them, new faster, stronger, more numerous aliens will appear to replace those you kill. This goes on until the opposition overcomes your skills and you die.

Just because you're doomed from the start, does not mean you have no choices or that what you do does not matter or that there is only one way that the game can go. On the contrary, changes in tactics and strategy very visibly alter length and scoring of games. This is what gives such games replay value.

[Quertus]

Hey y'all! I have my own opinions on this, but I wanted to kinda poll the community: When, if ever, is it acceptable for a GM to nullify player choices to get to a result the GM wants?

Interested in hearing edge cases, core gaming philosophy, etc. If you can spell out as many assumptions as possible that you're making, that would be appreciated!

Short answer: Never. That's called "railroading", and it's bad.

More Finessed answer: It depends on what you mean by some of those words, and why and how you are negating player choices.

Let's look at some common examples:

"I kill the kindergardener, and stick his head up on a pike."
"I attack / steal from <PC>."

Many tables, these stated actions will violate the table agreement. Or maybe just be triggering, or evoke a safe word desire for a "fade to black". @Oldtrees1 had the right of it here - deal with it like adults, and anyone can negate anyone (yes, the players can negate the GM) here.

Actually, that's such a good point, I'm going to repeat it: anyone can nullify the actions of anyone, regardless of who is GM. In fact, a similar sentiment has already been voiced (albeit in a different context):


I'm fine with it as long as it goes both ways.

And I think that's so right, I'm going to scrap what I was going to post, and focus on this. So, when is it acceptable for the players to nullify the choices of the GM? Here's a few examples:
When their choices violate the table agreement.
When their choices require a "fade to black" or represent some other hazard.
When their choices do not follow the rules.
When their choice cannot be made in character / requires metagaming.
When their choices are otherwise catastrophically detrimental to the enjoyment of the table.


Now, the "how" is as important as the "why". The "how" can take many forms. For example:
No.
If you do that, then...
What your character knows that you don't is...
Are you sure?
<Fade to Black>


So, when the player decides that their character creates gunpowder, the GM can say, "No, not only would your Fantasy character not know how, but by RAW it wouldn't work even if your character did have that knowledge". When the GM has the Cleric's deity order them to destroy the artifact, the player can respond, "I don't see how destroying the artifact won't lead to PvP, if it doesn't inherently qualify already. Are you sure you want to have the deity give that order?". When a PC decides to randomly murderhobo / "Leeroy Jenkins" an encounter the other PCs have carefully planned out and is integrated into months of their character arcs because "it's what my character would do", everyone should at least say, "are you sure? That would be very detrimental to our fun.". When the player declares that their character attacks the Gazebo, the correct response is, "What your character knows that you don't is... that a Gazebo is a building, not a monster."

Of course, we don't tell stories about all the times the GMs were smart enough to respond appropriately; we tell stories about the time the GM was too dumb to take the correct course of action.

So, the question is, is your goal to GM correctly, to have a fun game and happy players, or to be the idiot that people tell stories about your GMing incompetence for generations to come? My advice assumes the former; if your goal is the latter, that will, of course, alter what choices will best suit your needs.

@NichG - I've been struggling to parse and summarize your treatise on explicit vs implicit boundaries. I feel like you're saying that some boundaries ("what constitutes PvP"?) benefit from explicit definition; whereas others ("my character needs to suffer the negative consequences of their actions"?) are harmed by such. Is that a fair summary?

I feel like that would be a very important distinction... if I agreed with it. At present, I do not. I feel that *both* benefit from additional detail ("damage to property, even incidental damage, counts as PvP"; "negative consequences should be in the form of 'logical consequences', not in the form of narrative contrivance"), and *both* benefit from a level of "give" and the ability to discuss like adults ("does murdering someone taken as a prisoner or slave count as PvP?"; "what if the logical negative consequences of your actions violate other portions of the table agreement?")

Can you explain why you feel one is more suited to definition than the other (or how I've completely missed the point)?

[kyoryu]

Maybe another way for me to put it is, I think the problem is the assumption that the expected behavior is for the players to pursue those secondary goals, regardless of the scope of the goals. If I were a player in that game, my reaction would be to abandon the city and instead try to marshal a counter-attack on the aggressor's base, or even just do a 'we're refugees, now lets adventure somewhere else' line.


I think it makes sense for the GM to work with the players, understand what they value and what they don't, and present them with opportunities to pursue the things they care about.

IOW, no, I don't expect them to just do the GM's side quests. What I would hope is that they had developed enough of an attachment to things in the city to want to save them.


Now it could be that the GM is just putting stuff there and it so happens that things have gotten to the point where the city is not salvageable, but 'lets escape the city and do something else' would be a perfectly fine thing from their view to run, in which case no problem. But the thing about the players doing this stuff over the course of five sessions, etc, suggested to me that they really intended the players to continue the unwinnable fight and be satisfied with the particular secondary victories they had envisioned. So that's part of what cues me in that if I just said 'this is unwinnable, lets leave', it'd probably annoy the GM rather than be seen as a legitimate course action in the face of the scenario presented. So it's better to actually discuss OOC.

Sure. If I were running such a situation, I'd be very clear about the unwinnability of the situation and what can actually be accomplished (and not accomplished). I'm not going to ask players to keep fighting an unwinnable battle.


Similarly for that scenario, it'd go a lot smoother if the GM had buy in from the players in advance about the style of the campaign, e.g. that sometimes there will be things that happen 'strictly for sake of drama' and there might be fights the party 'is supposed to lose' and things like that.

Yes, but it's not just "for the sake of drama". Sometimes it's because "a giant ass army is coming down and they want to win and the good guys didn't get their army up there in time". IOW, using awful GDS terminology, it's not just for dramatism that you might have "not fairly balanced" situations, sometimes it's simulationism. Or even a combination of all of the above.

But, yeah, I'd agree that it's smart to point that out, and to align expectations, and further to be very clear in the particular situation if you as the GM see it as unwinnable, so the players don't get stuck in the "of course I should win this" mode.

It's not "oh, there's some people attacking the city." It's "the giant horde is attacking and will be here in a week. They outnumber the city ten to one. The city is lost. What you gonna do?" And if the answer is "abandon the city and everyone in it", so be it.

It sounds like you're objecting to the idea of:

a. an unwinnable battle
b. an expectation that the players continue to fight the unwinnable battle
c. (maybe) done for some kind of 'dramatic fulfillment'

None of that is what I'm talking about. Well, the unwinnable battle, maybe, but that's more of a world situation thing than anything. But I don't expect the players to continue to fight that, as that's kind of dumb. And if they don't wanna help rescue the orphans or help evacuate or do a delaying action to help out, that's fine, too. It may have consequences, but that's okay. All actions do.


Just like I'd want to know in advance that I'm signing up for a game of Ten Candles (which, for what it's worth, I would just not sign up for to start with), otherwise my inclination would be to Old Man Henderson and try to deconstruct the scenario; or if a GM tries to set up a 'the party is captured' scenario without prior buy-in, what usually happens is that the party will self-destruct and kill themselves or force their enemy to kill them before they'll allow the capture scenario to go through as intended.

Yeah, I don't see it as a 10 candles or "unavoidable capture" situation. Perhaps I'm being unclear in what I'm talking about?

[NichG]

@NichG - I've been struggling to parse and summarize your treatise on explicit vs implicit boundaries. I feel like you're saying that some boundaries ("what constitutes PvP"?) benefit from explicit definition; whereas others ("my character needs to suffer the negative consequences of their actions"?) are harmed by such. Is that a fair summary?

I feel like that would be a very important distinction... if I agreed with it. At present, I do not. I feel that *both* benefit from additional detail ("damage to property, even incidental damage, counts as PvP"; "negative consequences should be in the form of 'logical consequences', not in the form of narrative contrivance"), and *both* benefit from a level of "give" and the ability to discuss like adults ("does murdering someone taken as a prisoner or slave count as PvP?"; "what if the logical negative consequences of your actions violate other portions of the table agreement?")

Can you explain why you feel one is more suited to definition than the other (or how I've completely missed the point)?

Basically yes, some things benefit from explicit definition, but other things are harmed by it because they risk turning something which is more about explanation and coming to understanding into a word game, and just become someone is worse at that word game doesn't justify their feelings being ignored.

So e.g. lets say I'm unhappy in a certain campaign for whatever reason, and I'm talking about it with the GM. I may not be able to put into words exactly why I'm unhappy and exactly what the GM must and must not do in order for me to be happy. I'm going to try to come up with the best explanation and understanding of what led me to being unhappy that I can, and try to get the GM on the same page as me, but its a fundamentally moving, fuzzy target. If I for example say 'I'm unhappy because my character is based on doubling down on elemental damage and recently all enemies have been immune to my element of choice', then a good outcome is the GM saying something like 'okay, I understand, I'll keep it in mind and try to adjust, let me know if it still feels that way'. But if we get too formal/rules-y about it, the outcome might be something like the GM agreeing 'I will have at least 1 monster vulnerable to your element in every encounter' and then, say, making that monster irrelevant to the fight, or putting in a vulnerable monster but giving them an ally that casts an immunity buff on them ('I followed the letter of the agreement, you can't complain now'), etc. Or it might mean that the GM feels forced to add that specific vulnerable monster when there would be other ways to address the unhappiness. Or it might mean that when the campaign shifts and I realize that the real reason I'm unhappy is because the fights just drag on, and not being able to pop an enemy with my element just contributes to that, we've agreed on something that is just adding targets/length to each fight and now its hard to pivot or adjust.

That's why general vague standards like 'don't be a jerk to other players' can often be much more functional than specific lists of things that players are and aren't allowed to do, because they allow flexible enforcement that is responsive to the particular mood and taste and context of everyone involved. 'Don't be a jerk' means that if you have one player who is interested in playing through a segment where the rest of the party hazes their character and another player who doesn't even want a whiff of that coming towards their character, you can accomodate both, rather than being forced to do only one or the other.

On the other hand, things which have to do with planning and protocol do benefit from being more explicit, because it means that people other than the GM can assume responsibility for parts of the game and can act in accordance with that responsibility without having to constantly go back and forth about it. Something like 'this is how you roll attacks, go ahead and roll your attack and damage on your own and tell me the outcome' for example is a version of that principle. Something like 'your character is yours, and you can play them according to whatever motivations you want to give them (as long as you respect the fun of the rest of the table)' is kind of in that sphere. Because you're handing off the ability and right to make decisions to someone else, its hard for them to exercise that if those decisions might unexpectedly come under re-negotiation. That is to say, its a lot more awkward if someone says 'roll your attacks and tell me what happens', then you do it, then they say 'well wait a minute, why did you power attack for that much, shouldn't you have power attacked for 3 points less?'. It's not a disaster if sometimes that happens, but you lose the benefits of having handed off that control in the first place, and you undermine confidence of that person in their right to exercise that autonomy.

Maybe tl;dr - making something explicit is good if you want people to be able to use it as protective justification for autonomous decisions in the future. Focusing on understanding rather than formalization is good when you want flexibility and alignment of norms and goals. Using something explicit for normative purposes is brittle. Using something overly implicit for protocol leads to confusion and stuff getting bogged down.


I think it makes sense for the GM to work with the players, understand what they value and what they don't, and present them with opportunities to pursue the things they care about.

IOW, no, I don't expect them to just do the GM's side quests. What I would hope is that they had developed enough of an attachment to things in the city to want to save them.

Sure. If I were running such a situation, I'd be very clear about the unwinnability of the situation and what can actually be accomplished (and not accomplished). I'm not going to ask players to keep fighting an unwinnable battle.

Yes, but it's not just "for the sake of drama". Sometimes it's because "a giant ass army is coming down and they want to win and the good guys didn't get their army up there in time". IOW, using awful GDS terminology, it's not just for dramatism that you might have "not fairly balanced" situations, sometimes it's simulationism. Or even a combination of all of the above.

Well, in that post the poster did say they made it unwinnable in order to establish a point of drama. That motive matters because it then reflects on whether e.g. me choosing to bail on the city would be acceptable or if it would be a sucker-punch to the GM.



But, yeah, I'd agree that it's smart to point that out, and to align expectations, and further to be very clear in the particular situation if you as the GM see it as unwinnable, so the players don't get stuck in the "of course I should win this" mode.

It's not "oh, there's some people attacking the city." It's "the giant horde is attacking and will be here in a week. They outnumber the city ten to one. The city is lost. What you gonna do?" And if the answer is "abandon the city and everyone in it", so be it.

It sounds like you're objecting to the idea of:

a. an unwinnable battle
b. an expectation that the players continue to fight the unwinnable battle
c. (maybe) done for some kind of 'dramatic fulfillment'

None of that is what I'm talking about. Well, the unwinnable battle, maybe, but that's more of a world situation thing than anything. But I don't expect the players to continue to fight that, as that's kind of dumb. And if they don't wanna help rescue the orphans or help evacuate or do a delaying action to help out, that's fine, too. It may have consequences, but that's okay. All actions do.

Yeah, I don't see it as a 10 candles or "unavoidable capture" situation. Perhaps I'm being unclear in what I'm talking about?

I'm mostly objecting to (c) as a justification for other things. In particular the way (a) and (b) come into play is that 'I add an unwinnable battle to the campaign' as a vehicle to 'create dramatic fulfillment' only works if you can insist that the players engage with it. So IME, what can happen is that players who don't like the premise don't engage with the unwinnable battle, and the GM gets sour about the whole thing. I've had that happen several times in various forms.

An extreme example: I had a GM set up a campaign premise for L5R and tell us how we should take honor seriously and not just think about it like modern people, made an extremely honor-driven Akodo character in response, got placed in a 'secretly you're the child of the Scorpion clan, and they're going to ask you to go over to them' plotline the GM thought would be neat. My character just outright refused, and was killed via poison off-screen between sessions. Yes, that's a realistic consequence, but it violated the trust that the GM asked for when they said 'I want us to play a game with characters who really take honor seriously'. My next character in that campaign was a scorpion who didn't care at all about honor, but just wanted to ensure the security of the empire. They were made host of a summit between multiple clans as their intro, and when I found a mind-controlling force infiltrating the summit my response was 'lets burn down the estate and all the representatives we can't be sure haven't been controlled', which the GM absolutely hated and insisted 'my character wouldn't do that, it goes against the clan and its history and so on'.

So maybe the way I'd put it is, the cost of a GM putting things like unwinnable battles or drama generators into a campaign is that they sacrifice the right to object if the players decide not to care about the things that need to be cared about for that drama to actually land. It's like asking for players to put relatives in a character's backstory so you can use them as hostages - you can do that, but if you do it you can't complain if the player has their character say 'I don't like my family, go ahead and kill them'.

[KorvinStarmast]

Written media and gameplay demand different things. I'd read things I would never sign up to play. And other people would happily play things (or read things) I would never want to. That's the principle of getting buy-in ahead of time - the people who are positioned to enjoy it can enjoy it, and the people who would dislike it can do something else instead.
The wet blanket act is not a good look.

I've run a lot of D&D battles (mostly AD&D era) that were large fights that had the PCs in it doing their stuff. I say again that the PCs can't be all things to all people, but they can accomplish some objectives within the midst of something much bigger than they are. The DM's craft is in creating those limited objective that make for PC level success regardless of how the macro battle went (for good or ill) for the side that the PCs have chosen to support.
In a lot of cases I was rolling dice, with modifiers established ahead of time, every few turns to see how the larger battle was going. The battle's outcome was never pre determined, but was up to RNG and somewhat contingent upon what the PCs - their choices in some big battles had a macro impact. (one memorable case they did in fact find and kill the wizard whose army was assaulting their city).
And in other cases, it did not.

I suggest that you broaden your field of view. It's hella good fun.

[NichG]

The wet blanket act is not a good look.

I've run a lot of D&D battles (mostly AD&D era) that were large fights that had the PCs in it doing their stuff. I say again that the PCs can't be all things to all people, but they can accomplish some objectives within the midst of something much bigger than they are. The DM's craft is in creating those limited objective that make for PC level success regardless of how the macro battle went (for good or ill) for the side that the PCs have chosen to support.
In a lot of cases I was rolling dice, with modifiers established ahead of time, every few turns to see how the larger battle was going. The battle's outcome was never pre determined, but was up to RNG and somewhat contingent upon what the PCs - their choices in some big battles had a macro impact. (one memorable case they did in fact find and kill the wizard whose army was assaulting their city).
And in other cases, it did not.

I suggest that you broaden your field of view. It's hella good fun.

'Play my game and if you don't enjoy it that's a problem with you' isn't a particularly good look either. If you pitch your thing and people say 'nah, not interested', trying to shame or force them into doing it anyhow is pretty scummy.

[OldTrees1]

Written media and gameplay demand different things. I'd read things I would never sign up to play. And other people would happily play things (or read things) I would never want to. That's the principle of getting buy-in ahead of time - the people who are positioned to enjoy it can enjoy it, and the people who would dislike it can do something else instead.
The wet blanket act is not a good look.

I suggest that you broaden your field of view. It's hella good fun.


'Play my game and if you don't enjoy it that's a problem with you' isn't a particularly good look either. If you pitch your thing and people say 'nah, not interested', trying to shame or force them into doing it anyhow is pretty scummy.

Catullus64's example about creating a forced loss for drama is something that some players might enjoy and other players might not.
*(I am oversimplifying and being concise since the exact example is not the point)

NichG had a broad enough field of view that they can understand their own preferences clear enough to know they would not enjoy something like that example. It is not being a "wet blanket" to know your preferences and desire games be played by those that would enjoy them.

It sounds like KorvinStarmast would enjoy the drama of that situation or some like it. They were eager to communicate why they would enjoy it. Perhaps a bit too eager (see "wet blanket"). That is not the same as trying to shame or force people to play games they won't enjoy.

I think both of you can agree that Catullus64's example can be enjoyed by some players but is not universally appealing. Cases like this benefit from some means of coordinating so those that would enjoy the game are the ones playing the game and those that would not, are not.

[NichG]

Catullus64's example about creating a forced loss for drama is something that some players might enjoy and other players might not.
*(I am oversimplifying and being concise since the exact example is not the point)

NichG had a broad enough field of view that they can understand their own preferences clear enough to know they would not enjoy something like that example. It is not being a "wet blanket" to know your preferences and desire games be played by those that would enjoy them.

It sounds like KorvinStarmast would enjoy the drama of that situation or some like it. They were eager to communicate why they would enjoy it. Perhaps a bit too eager (see "wet blanket"). That is not the same as trying to shame or force people to play games they won't enjoy.

I think both of you can agree that Catullus64's example can be enjoyed by some players but is not universally appealing. Cases like this benefit from some means of coordinating so those that would enjoy the game are the ones playing the game and those that would not, are not.

I can agree to this.

[kyoryu]

I'm mostly objecting to (c) as a justification for other things. In particular the way (a) and (b) come into play is that 'I add an unwinnable battle to the campaign' as a vehicle to 'create dramatic fulfillment' only works if you can insist that the players engage with it. So IME, what can happen is that players who don't like the premise don't engage with the unwinnable battle, and the GM gets sour about the whole thing. I've had that happen several times in various forms.

Right, which is why that's not my motivation, or how I handle it.

If there's an unwinnable battle, it's not because I expect the players to engage with it and lose. It's because there's something in the world that just can't be defeated by hitting it straight on. It's not because I'm tailoring an experience and want a particular dramatic beat.

In the war example, I don't expect the players to do anything. Well, I kinda expect them to not get crushed by the oncoming war machine, and do something to avoid that, but beyond that is their problem.

If they choose to have some mitigations of the impact (assuming it actually is inevitable), then that's awesome. But it's not something they'll be coerced into doing. If they decide to do any of the things you mentioned, that's also fine.

My thing with unwinnable battles is simple - I don't presume that all battles should be winnable. I don't think it's my job as a GM to hand my players a series of tuned battles for them to defeat. It's my job to make a world that feels real, and to create a situation that can create an interesting story. Not everything can be sworded to victory. Some things have to be dealt with in other ways, or you'll need reinforcements, or any of a dozen other things.

So, on the one hand I agree with you - GMs putting their players through unwinnable things to create their idea of some story is mostly BS.

But the problem isn't the unwinnable battles, to me. It's "the GMs putting their players through" (it shouldn't be the GM's job to determine what the players do) and "to create their idea of some story" (the story is what happens. As a GM it's your job to create a situation that can lead to an interesting story, but I don't like running games where the GM determines the story).

[Easy e]

The usually answer applies. How do your players feel about it?

I find if you do some variations of "Yes, and" or "No, but" that is good enough for the vast majority of players and tables to negate/add-on to something so the GM can curve the results in a direction they intend.

However, as you can see on this board, some people feel very strongly about specific tactics and methods.

[Psyren]

If you have a result you need to happen, don't give the choice in the first place or only give the options that lead to the acceptable results. Giving an apparent choice and then negating it under the table isn't ok in my book.

This. But in some cases you may not realize there's a choice or you might have forgotten to plan for it (e.g. the "I detect evil the BBEG.") Though for most of those I'll also point out that often the player thinks their choice did something that it doesn't actually do - see 5e Detect Evil & Good for instance, which a lot of people think does something other than what it does.


I think the OP needs to be more clear what's meant by "nullify player choices". Because I can think of at least five meanings that could apply, and the answer is different depending which one (and the circumstances, obviously).

1) Action Prohibition
Player: I stab the king!
GM: No you don't, your character doesn't do that.

2) Hard Negation
GM: The BBEG casts Teleport and he's gone.
Players: While under Dimensional Anchor, and standing next to a guy with Mage Slayer?
GM: Yeah, he just does. Power of plot!

3) Soft Negation
Player: I use Detect Evil
GM: (knowing that the BBEG doesn't actually have a way to block this) Um ... no evil detected.
GM: *makes mental note to later claim the BBEG always wears anti-divination charms*

4) Hard Meta Negation
Player: I'm going to make a really stealthy spy type.
GM: Ok.
GM: *makes anything important be guarded by un-bluffable guards with special senses that can't be snuck past*

5) Soft Meta Negation
GM: ... and so you'll need to seek out the reclusive sage Zagyg and convince him to translate this.
Player: Oh, no need, I actually know Ancient Thassilonian
GM: Huh ... well, you read it and it ... partially describes where the portal is, but it has some references to the 'Cycle of Stars' that the directions don't make sense without. You'll need to seek out the other reclusive sage ... Zyzag ... and convince him to show you the scrolls.


I like this breakdown and would definitely avoid #4 and #5 as much as possible. #2 and #3 aren't always avoidable but they're easy to justify retroactively or between sessions. #1 I use a lot but my table tends to make a lot of joking statements.

[Quertus]

Basically yes, some things benefit from explicit definition, but other things are harmed by it because they risk turning something which is more about explanation and coming to understanding into a word game, and just become someone is worse at that word game doesn't justify their feelings being ignored.

So e.g. lets say I'm unhappy in a certain campaign for whatever reason, and I'm talking about it with the GM. I may not be able to put into words exactly why I'm unhappy and exactly what the GM must and must not do in order for me to be happy. I'm going to try to come up with the best explanation and understanding of what led me to being unhappy that I can, and try to get the GM on the same page as me, but its a fundamentally moving, fuzzy target. If I for example say 'I'm unhappy because my character is based on doubling down on elemental damage and recently all enemies have been immune to my element of choice', then a good outcome is the GM saying something like 'okay, I understand, I'll keep it in mind and try to adjust, let me know if it still feels that way'. But if we get too formal/rules-y about it, the outcome might be something like the GM agreeing 'I will have at least 1 monster vulnerable to your element in every encounter' and then, say, making that monster irrelevant to the fight, or putting in a vulnerable monster but giving them an ally that casts an immunity buff on them ('I followed the letter of the agreement, you can't complain now'), etc. Or it might mean that the GM feels forced to add that specific vulnerable monster when there would be other ways to address the unhappiness. Or it might mean that when the campaign shifts and I realize that the real reason I'm unhappy is because the fights just drag on, and not being able to pop an enemy with my element just contributes to that, we've agreed on something that is just adding targets/length to each fight and now its hard to pivot or adjust.

That's why general vague standards like 'don't be a jerk to other players' can often be much more functional than specific lists of things that players are and aren't allowed to do, because they allow flexible enforcement that is responsive to the particular mood and taste and context of everyone involved. 'Don't be a jerk' means that if you have one player who is interested in playing through a segment where the rest of the party hazes their character and another player who doesn't even want a whiff of that coming towards their character, you can accomodate both, rather than being forced to do only one or the other.

On the other hand, things which have to do with planning and protocol do benefit from being more explicit, because it means that people other than the GM can assume responsibility for parts of the game and can act in accordance with that responsibility without having to constantly go back and forth about it. Something like 'this is how you roll attacks, go ahead and roll your attack and damage on your own and tell me the outcome' for example is a version of that principle. Something like 'your character is yours, and you can play them according to whatever motivations you want to give them (as long as you respect the fun of the rest of the table)' is kind of in that sphere. Because you're handing off the ability and right to make decisions to someone else, its hard for them to exercise that if those decisions might unexpectedly come under re-negotiation. That is to say, its a lot more awkward if someone says 'roll your attacks and tell me what happens', then you do it, then they say 'well wait a minute, why did you power attack for that much, shouldn't you have power attacked for 3 points less?'. It's not a disaster if sometimes that happens, but you lose the benefits of having handed off that control in the first place, and you undermine confidence of that person in their right to exercise that autonomy.

Maybe tl;dr - making something explicit is good if you want people to be able to use it as protective justification for autonomous decisions in the future. Focusing on understanding rather than formalization is good when you want flexibility and alignment of norms and goals. Using something explicit for normative purposes is brittle. Using something overly implicit for protocol leads to confusion and stuff getting bogged down.

Hmmm... that's...

OK, so, on the one hand, my two rules are, what, "balance to the table (and the module)" and "don't be a ****". See, I'm totally not an impostor, I totally remember those things I say all the time. Darn Senility.

So I can totally get behind 'Don't be a jerk' as having value.

Which, I think, is to say, Mindset can matter more than Rules?

However

All the benevolence and good intentions in the world amount to very little when you're unintentionally toxic (as I know from IRL and games). If you just don't get it, I'm not a fan of anyone hiding behind "but I said, 'don't be a ****'" without being capable of articulating why and how their behavior is antithetical to the group's (or individual's) fun.

One of those other things that totally not an impostor me says is "people are idiots". Never underestimate the ability of people to pave the path to gaming (or other) Hell with their good intentions, and have no idea why you're upset.

IMO, it is incumbent upon the individual to develop the skills to convey what is troubling them. Similarly, it behooves the good-intentioned paver to listen carefully, to act as a "business analyst" to their customer, and to attempt actionable tests to see if a fun game can be had.

In short, yes, IMO, they should be capable of having a conversation about enemies immune to fire damage.

I usually think of it as The Ultimatum. Make them promise to do X. Then, if they fail, revisit the issue with "You promised to do X. You did Y. Can you see how X is not Y?". If you don't have the skills to define X well, you cannot level such an Ultimatum effectively.

Same thing here.

If you cannot communicate your needs effectively, you're just whining, saying "read my mind and give me what I want".

For example, it seems that your "doubling down on elemental damage" PC-player would be better served by communicating a desire for balanced contribution despite possessing only one means of contributing - a means which the GM has been nullifying. This could be solved by the GM including sufficient non-resistant enemies (what is "sufficient", and how obvious they need to be, being subject to testing and conversation), handing the PC a GM-pitty artifact (is Thor's Hammer gonna be a permanent part of gamer lexicon in this context?), opening other means of contribution ("talky bits", vehicle(s) powered by the PC's element, interesting terrain vulnerable to the PC's element), or even just an admission that "dude, the module contains nothing but Undead that are immune to your element; I think the best answer is the only options are for you to pick a new character, pick up a cohort/sidekick, or just accept that you aren't going to be able to contribute.".

In short, while I accept that instilling a mindset via a catchy phrase like 'Don't be a jerk' can be the most valuable approach, I do not cotton to that absolving individuals from the responsibility to engage in clear, adult communication about their issues. Which is what I fear / feel from your stance, or perhaps just from an all too common misapplication thereof.

[NichG]

Hmmm... that's...

OK, so, on the one hand, my two rules are, what, "balance to the table (and the module)" and "don't be a ****". See, I'm totally not an impostor, I totally remember those things I say all the time. Darn Senility.

So I can totally get behind 'Don't be a jerk' as having value.

Which, I think, is to say, Mindset can matter more than Rules?

However

All the benevolence and good intentions in the world amount to very little when you're unintentionally toxic (as I know from IRL and games). If you just don't get it, I'm not a fan of anyone hiding behind "but I said, 'don't be a ****'" without being capable of articulating why and how their behavior is antithetical to the group's (or individual's) fun.

One of those other things that totally not an impostor me says is "people are idiots". Never underestimate the ability of people to pave the path to gaming (or other) Hell with their good intentions, and have no idea why you're upset.

IMO, it is incumbent upon the individual to develop the skills to convey what is troubling them. Similarly, it behooves the good-intentioned paver to listen carefully, to act as a "business analyst" to their customer, and to attempt actionable tests to see if a fun game can be had.

In short, yes, IMO, they should be capable of having a conversation about enemies immune to fire damage.

I usually think of it as The Ultimatum. Make them promise to do X. Then, if they fail, revisit the issue with "You promised to do X. You did Y. Can you see how X is not Y?". If you don't have the skills to define X well, you cannot level such an Ultimatum effectively.

Same thing here.

If you cannot communicate your needs effectively, you're just whining, saying "read my mind and give me what I want".

For example, it seems that your "doubling down on elemental damage" PC-player would be better served by communicating a desire for balanced contribution despite possessing only one means of contributing - a means which the GM has been nullifying. This could be solved by the GM including sufficient non-resistant enemies (what is "sufficient", and how obvious they need to be, being subject to testing and conversation), handing the PC a GM-pitty artifact (is Thor's Hammer gonna be a permanent part of gamer lexicon in this context?), opening other means of contribution ("talky bits", vehicle(s) powered by the PC's element, interesting terrain vulnerable to the PC's element), or even just an admission that "dude, the module contains nothing but Undead that are immune to your element; I think the best answer is the only options are for you to pick a new character, pick up a cohort/sidekick, or just accept that you aren't going to be able to contribute.".

In short, while I accept that instilling a mindset via a catchy phrase like 'Don't be a jerk' can be the most valuable approach, I do not cotton to that absolving individuals from the responsibility to engage in clear, adult communication about their issues. Which is what I fear / feel from your stance, or perhaps just from an all too common misapplication thereof.

I think this is a difference between considering behaviors, versus considering values. Communication difficulties are a problem of course, but what I'd question in this case is the motivation of the person who is trying to put the responsibility on the unhappy person to express their unhappiness in a particular way. Is that person motivated to help the other person have fun, or are they just looking for an excuse to not care about that person's enjoyment?

So the point of the non-rules stuff is to say, this non-rules stuff is fundamentally about being on the same page in caring about each-others' concerns. If someone can't communicate well, the rules philosophy is 'just follow the letter of what they ask for, even if you can tell the spirit isn't aligned', whereas the values philosophy is 'I'm trying to have fun with them - I'll voluntarily choose take some responsibility for making that work, so when they misspeak or mis-identify their own needs, it's a priority for me to try to better understand what would actually make them happy'.

Or maybe another way to look at it is, lets say you've got a game and two people could take an action to prevent it from breaking down, but for whatever reason there's a good excuse why its one person's responsibility to be the one to do that. If that person doesn't do the responsible thing, do you say 'well, its their responsibility, so no fault of mine if the game breaks down', or do you say 'okay, they should have prevented this but since they didn't, I'll do it instead'? A rules-first approach means you might end up with the former ('well, it wasn't my job to prevent things from going wrong'), while a values-first approach means you should end up with the latter ('we all agreed that game should have these features, so I'll take actions which help game have those features even if it isn't my official responsibility').

Edit: Where a rules-first perspective is useful is for example when you need someone to take on a role that would put them in opposition to the agreed upon values or motives, but where there's something designed in to make that okay. So by having a specific rule permitting that deviation, you give them scope to know when they can leave some of those values behind temporarily. For example, you might have a culture where 'the GM should be a fan of the players and be happy when they succeed', but a rule that 'the GM should make decisions on behalf of individual NPCs from that NPC's stance, even if it would lead the party to fail'.

[Quertus]

I think this is a difference between considering behaviors, versus considering values. Communication difficulties are a problem of course, but what I'd question in this case is the motivation of the person who is trying to put the responsibility on the unhappy person to express their unhappiness in a particular way. Is that person motivated to help the other person have fun, or are they just looking for an excuse to not care about that person's enjoyment?

So the point of the non-rules stuff is to say, this non-rules stuff is fundamentally about being on the same page in caring about each-others' concerns. If someone can't communicate well, the rules philosophy is 'just follow the letter of what they ask for, even if you can tell the spirit isn't aligned', whereas the values philosophy is 'I'm trying to have fun with them - I'll voluntarily choose take some responsibility for making that work, so when they misspeak or mis-identify their own needs, it's a priority for me to try to better understand what would actually make them happy'.

Or maybe another way to look at it is, lets say you've got a game and two people could take an action to prevent it from breaking down, but for whatever reason there's a good excuse why its one person's responsibility to be the one to do that. If that person doesn't do the responsible thing, do you say 'well, its their responsibility, so no fault of mine if the game breaks down', or do you say 'okay, they should have prevented this but since they didn't, I'll do it instead'? A rules-first approach means you might end up with the former ('well, it wasn't my job to prevent things from going wrong'), while a values-first approach means you should end up with the latter ('we all agreed that game should have these features, so I'll take actions which help game have those features even if it isn't my official responsibility').

Edit: Where a rules-first perspective is useful is for example when you need someone to take on a role that would put them in opposition to the agreed upon values or motives, but where there's something designed in to make that okay. So by having a specific rule permitting that deviation, you give them scope to know when they can leave some of those values behind temporarily. For example, you might have a culture where 'the GM should be a fan of the players and be happy when they succeed', but a rule that 'the GM should make decisions on behalf of individual NPCs from that NPC's stance, even if it would lead the party to fail'.

Huh. Is it time for me to go home and rethink my life?

Hmmm...

Imma babble, 'cause I can't quite put this in a reasonable order.

For me, there's a bit of a hierarchy. At the top, there's just 2 rules:
Balance to the Table (and the module).
Don't be a ****.


No small part of the intent is to create much the same table culture you seem to want to make.

Another aid to that culture is some smaller rules:
Fun is everyone's responsibility (see below).
Only you know what you find fun; your fun is your responsibility to defend.


That is, it is everyone's responsibility to take action (say, initiate a "fade to black" scene) when one person needs it; anyone can scoop up the spider minis when they see that Bob suddenly discovers a previously unknown fear of spiders, etc. However, the individual shouldn't expect others to read their mind, and should be prepared to communicate what they find fun / unfun, should be prepared to defend their fun (call for a fade to black, ask "but if you do that...", etc).

That is, one should be able to rely on others to make reasonable accommodations to facilitate your enjoyment, but not rely exclusively on others - neither to create fun, nor to safeguard it.

I'm not sure if we're "violently disagreeing", or if we're trying to achieve the same ends through different means. And, if the latter, if there's any true disadvantage to my way, that should make me go home and rethink my life.

Or perhaps I'm just using my words differently, and you'd just rename some of my rules "culture" and call it a day.

Thoughts?

[NichG]

Huh. Is it time for me to go home and rethink my life?

Hmmm...

Imma babble, 'cause I can't quite put this in a reasonable order.

For me, there's a bit of a hierarchy. At the top, there's just 2 rules:
Balance to the Table (and the module).
Don't be a ****.


No small part of the intent is to create much the same table culture you seem to want to make.

Another aid to that culture is some smaller rules:
Fun is everyone's responsibility (see below).
Only you know what you find fun; your fun is your responsibility to defend.


That is, it is everyone's responsibility to take action (say, initiate a "fade to black" scene) when one person needs it; anyone can scoop up the spider minis when they see that Bob suddenly discovers a previously unknown fear of spiders, etc. However, the individual shouldn't expect others to read their mind, and should be prepared to communicate what they find fun / unfun, should be prepared to defend their fun (call for a fade to black, ask "but if you do that...", etc).

That is, one should be able to rely on others to make reasonable accommodations to facilitate your enjoyment, but not rely exclusively on others - neither to create fun, nor to safeguard it.

I'm not sure if we're "violently disagreeing", or if we're trying to achieve the same ends through different means. And, if the latter, if there's any true disadvantage to my way, that should make me go home and rethink my life.

Or perhaps I'm just using my words differently, and you'd just rename some of my rules "culture" and call it a day.

Thoughts?

I think I'm separating things into different categories that you're referring to under your use of the term 'rule'.

I'm using 'rule' to specifically refer to things that work via - let's not call it legalese exactly, but which operate according to words as written. "You can't have an AC more than 10 points higher than the next highest AC in the party", "The GM will not make encounters with CR more than 3 above the party level", "The GM will write down all monster and NPC stats before the start of session and will not change those values during play", etc. These can generally be evaluated objectively and independently of others in the group.

The other category of thing I would refer to as principles or values. Rather than describing the means, it describes the ends and leaves the means up to negotiation. "Everyone's fun is everyone's concern", "Respect each other's efforts and interests", "Make sure people don't feel overshadowed or useless". Often actually evaluating these requires discussion, negotiation, and compromise on the fly - if the value is 'be concerned with others' fun', it means that other people ultimately get to weigh in on whether your actions respect that value even if you think your actions do. Unlike with 'rules' there's not a point where you can say 'look, I can prove that I was permitted to do what I did'. They're often much more about degree and balancing considerations than 'rules' - not a binary followed/didn't follow, but more of a 'this is a touchstone to return to in order to resolve a disagreement or dispute'.

[Quertus]

I think I'm separating things into different categories that you're referring to under your use of the term 'rule'.

I'm using 'rule' to specifically refer to things that work via - let's not call it legalese exactly, but which operate according to words as written. "You can't have an AC more than 10 points higher than the next highest AC in the party", "The GM will not make encounters with CR more than 3 above the party level", "The GM will write down all monster and NPC stats before the start of session and will not change those values during play", etc. These can generally be evaluated objectively and independently of others in the group.

The other category of thing I would refer to as principles or values. Rather than describing the means, it describes the ends and leaves the means up to negotiation. "Everyone's fun is everyone's concern", "Respect each other's efforts and interests", "Make sure people don't feel overshadowed or useless". Often actually evaluating these requires discussion, negotiation, and compromise on the fly - if the value is 'be concerned with others' fun', it means that other people ultimately get to weigh in on whether your actions respect that value even if you think your actions do. Unlike with 'rules' there's not a point where you can say 'look, I can prove that I was permitted to do what I did'. They're often much more about degree and balancing considerations than 'rules' - not a binary followed/didn't follow, but more of a 'this is a touchstone to return to in order to resolve a disagreement or dispute'.

OK, I've pondered, and here's what I've got:

I think I'm accustomed to bouncing between a particle and a wave. Or, rather, I'm used to doing so with regard to Value -> Rule.

When I was first introduced to roller coasters, I didn't get the appeal. But I converted it from Value to Rule, to reverse engineer it. People who enjoyed roller coasters tended to put their arms up in the air and shout "Whee!". So I did so, with all the enthusiasm of... Raven? But, eventually, by emulating the behavior, I came to love roller coasters.

I attempt the same thing for Values.

If a player can't grok, "don't be a ****", I present them a simple rule to follow. Like, "when someone calls 'fade to black', you shut your pie hole right then and there". Most players / GMs can eventually learn, more or less, how to not be a ****, if you break it down into simple rules, and shame them with the clue-by-four, IMO.

So, I guess that, because I readily transition from "Values" to "Rules", and am accustomed to using rules to shore up people's (understandings of) values, I naturally look at things differently, for better and worse.