New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 60

Thread: Is It OK?

  1. - Top - End - #1
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Gender
    Male

    Default Is It OK?

    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!

  2. - Top - End - #2
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Corvallis, OR
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Is It OK?

    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.
    Dawn of Hope: a 5e setting. http://wiki.admiralbenbo.org
    Rogue Equivalent Damage calculator, now prettier and more configurable!
    5e Monster Data Sheet--vital statistics for all 693 MM, Volo's, and now MToF monsters: Updated!
    NIH system 5e fork, very much WIP. Base github repo.
    NIH System PDF Up to date main-branch build version.

  3. - Top - End - #3
    Titan in the Playground
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Is It OK?

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre View Post
    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.
    “Evil is evil. Lesser, greater, middling, it's all the same. Proportions are negotiated, boundaries blurred. I'm not a pious hermit, I haven't done only good in my life. But if I'm to choose between one evil and another, then I prefer not to choose at all.”

  4. - Top - End - #4
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    Wyoming
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Is It OK?

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre View Post
    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.
    Last edited by False God; 2022-04-17 at 03:23 PM.
    Knowledge brings the sting of disillusionment, but the pain teaches perspective.
    "You know it's all fake right?"
    "...yeah, but it makes me feel better."

  5. - Top - End - #5
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    JNAProductions's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Avatar By Astral Seal!

    Default Re: Is It OK?

    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."
    I have a LOT of Homebrew!

    Spoiler: Former Avatars
    Show
    Spoiler: Avatar (Not In Use) By Linkele
    Show

    Spoiler: Individual Avatar Pics
    Show

  6. - Top - End - #6
    Titan in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2013

    Default Re: Is It OK?

    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."
    Last edited by OldTrees1; 2022-04-17 at 04:14 PM.

  7. - Top - End - #7
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2010

    Default Re: Is It OK?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky McDibben View Post
    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.

  8. - Top - End - #8
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2015

    Default Re: Is It OK?

    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.

  9. - Top - End - #9
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Corvallis, OR
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Is It OK?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cluedrew View Post
    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.
    Dawn of Hope: a 5e setting. http://wiki.admiralbenbo.org
    Rogue Equivalent Damage calculator, now prettier and more configurable!
    5e Monster Data Sheet--vital statistics for all 693 MM, Volo's, and now MToF monsters: Updated!
    NIH system 5e fork, very much WIP. Base github repo.
    NIH System PDF Up to date main-branch build version.

  10. - Top - End - #10
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2010

    Default Re: Is It OK?

    Quote Originally Posted by OldTrees1 View Post
    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.
    "Gosh 2D8HP, you are so very correct (and also good looking)"

  11. - Top - End - #11
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Is It OK?

    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!
    Time is but a pattern in the currents of causality,
    an ever changing present that determines our reality,
    the past we see as history, the future seed with prophecy,
    and all the time we think on time our time is passing constantly.
    Starlight and Steam RPG

  12. - Top - End - #12
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2016

    Default Re: Is It OK?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky McDibben View Post
    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.

  13. - Top - End - #13
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    elros's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2012

    Default Re: Is It OK?

    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.

  14. - Top - End - #14
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Yora's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Germany

    Default Re: Is It OK?

    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.
    We are not standing on the shoulders of giants, but on very tall tower of other dwarves.

    Spriggan's Den Heroic Fantasy Roleplaying

  15. - Top - End - #15
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Sweden
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Is It OK?

    Quote Originally Posted by elros View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Mastikator; 2022-04-18 at 09:04 AM.
    Black text is for sarcasm, also sincerity. You'll just have to read between the lines and infer from context like an animal

  16. - Top - End - #16
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Lizardfolk

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Is It OK?

    "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."
    Quote Originally Posted by The Glyphstone View Post
    Vibranium: If it was on the periodic table, its chemical symbol would be "Bs".

  17. - Top - End - #17
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Lord Torath's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Sharangar's Revenge
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Is It OK?

    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
    Warhammer 40,000 Campaign Skirmish Game: Warpstrike
    My Spelljammer stuff (including an orbit tracker), 2E AD&D spreadsheet, and Vault of the Drow maps are available in my Dropbox. Feel free to use or not use it as you see fit!
    Thri-Kreen Ranger/Psionicist by me, based off of Rich's A Monster for Every Season

  18. - Top - End - #18
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2020

    Default Re: Is It OK?

    Didn't we just have this thread? Because I'm pretty sure we just had this thread.

    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.

  19. - Top - End - #19
    Titan in the Playground
     
    KorvinStarmast's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Is It OK?

    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.
    Spoiler: Obligatory War Games, the Movie, reference
    Show
    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.
    Last edited by KorvinStarmast; 2022-04-18 at 02:03 PM.
    Avatar by linklele. How Teleport Works
    a. Malifice (paraphrased):
    Rulings are not 'House Rules.' Rulings are a DM doing what DMs are supposed to do.
    b. greenstone (paraphrased):
    Agency means that they {players} control their character's actions; you control the world's reactions to the character's actions.
    Gosh, 2D8HP, you are so very correct!
    Second known member of the Greyview Appreciation Society

  20. - Top - End - #20
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Oct 2007

    Default Re: Is It OK?

    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.
    Last edited by icefractal; 2022-04-18 at 02:18 PM.

  21. - Top - End - #21
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    elros's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2012

    Default Re: Is It OK?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mastikator View Post
    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.

  22. - Top - End - #22
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2020

    Default Re: Is It OK?

    @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.

  23. - Top - End - #23
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Wyoming

    Default Re: Is It OK?

    It depends what the definition of "is" is?

    That quote completely shows my age!
    *This Space Available*

  24. - Top - End - #24
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2010

    Default Re: Is It OK?

    Quote Originally Posted by icefractal View Post
    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.

  25. - Top - End - #25
    Titan in the Playground
     
    KorvinStarmast's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Is It OK?

    *scratches head*
    Trying to figure out why this thread isn't a dupe of this thread
    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?
    Last edited by KorvinStarmast; 2022-04-18 at 03:19 PM.
    Avatar by linklele. How Teleport Works
    a. Malifice (paraphrased):
    Rulings are not 'House Rules.' Rulings are a DM doing what DMs are supposed to do.
    b. greenstone (paraphrased):
    Agency means that they {players} control their character's actions; you control the world's reactions to the character's actions.
    Gosh, 2D8HP, you are so very correct!
    Second known member of the Greyview Appreciation Society

  26. - Top - End - #26
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Is It OK?

    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.]

  27. - Top - End - #27
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Oct 2007

    Default Re: Is It OK?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vahnavoi View Post
    @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.


    Quote Originally Posted by NichG
    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.
    Last edited by icefractal; 2022-04-18 at 04:00 PM.

  28. - Top - End - #28
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2010

    Default Re: Is It OK?

    Quote Originally Posted by icefractal View Post
    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.

  29. - Top - End - #29
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Pex's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Is It OK?

    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by OvisCaedo View Post
    Rules existing are a dire threat to the divine power of the DM.

  30. - Top - End - #30
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Is It OK?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Torath View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vahnavoi View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by icefractal View Post
    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!

    Quote Originally Posted by icefractal View Post
    1) Action Prohibition
    Player: I stab the king!
    GM: No you don't, your character doesn't do that.
    Yep.

    Quote Originally Posted by icefractal View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by icefractal View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by icefractal View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by icefractal View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by KorvinStarmast View Post
    *scratches head*
    Trying to figure out why this thread isn't a dupe of this thread
    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?
    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •