I'd like some of you to notice something. This JamesV is not a 'Forgie'. He's just a guy who roleplays who has found something useful to him.

Back in the Stone Age, I used to read Dragon and find bits of advice in there that were useful to me. Sometimes I'd come across something that would make me review my whole approach. Sometimes I'd read stuff I thought was blindingly obvious.

Talking about a technique somebody has discovered is not 'Forge Theorists' invading your space; it's just part of the natural dissemination of ideas. What it does mean is that games like BW and DitV are having an impact, and that is in turn reflecting back on the internet. People who discover something like to talk about it.

QuoteI consider this a nice piece of advice for reactive players, paraphrased from other sources:
"If things are going too slow, have some thug burst into the scene looking for trouble".

This is always bad advice, as it is implausible and therefore killing any suspension of disbelief. For Star Wars it might work, but then even there it is stretching the suspension of disbelief.

Quote from: SpikeSee, now if you feel there is this much confusion about the Monarda Law in the Online Community of Gamers, despite the much discussion and argument from people in the know, like yourself...

That has nothing to do with my personal feelings. You only have to take a look at the kind of spurious "examples" of the Law proposed in various threads on these forums, about players claiming the "right" to discover nuclear bombs in medieval treasuries and to play ninjas in ancient Rome and whatnot, and it becomes instantly obvious that someone somewhere must have gotten her wires crossed because what is under debate is not anything even remotely like Nob.

Honestly, there's a clear contradiction between preserving the traditional power structure in the gaming group and opposing techniques such as this.
"The GM controls the setting and the players control their characters?" No. What discarding the principle of "saying 'yes'" without a second thought will lead to is this: "The players control their characters (but only when the GM allows it) and the GM controls the setting (as well as the PCs whenever he feels like it)."

Quote from: JimBobOz"Say "yes" or roll the dice" works well if all your players are active, and imaginative.

But that is the only time when it's actually supposed to take effect. Nothing about it advises the GM against throwing all the challenges he wants at those reactive players, after all.

Quote from: SettembriniThis is always bad advice, as it is implausible and therefore killing any suspension of disbelief. For Star Wars it might work, but then even there it is stretching the suspension of disbelief.

Suspension of disbeleif is a personal thing, and I think that people busting in and blazing away may not be ungraspable at all if the situation supports it.

In the sorts of games I normally run, by mid game, it's fairly normal that someone is gunning for them. Using the "screw it, ninjas attack" rule does not typically cause me any mental contortions.

Quote from: droogI'd like some of you to notice something. This JamesV is not a 'Forgie'. He's just a guy who roleplays who has found something useful to him.

*snip middle*

Talking about a technique somebody has discovered is not 'Forge Theorists' invading your space; it's just part of the natural dissemination of ideas. What it does mean is that games like BW and DitV are having an impact, and that is in turn reflecting back on the internet. People who discover something like to talk about it.

I must admit I do have an account at the Forge, it's incredibly old, and definitely of a under 10 post count. I visited the place years ago to see if it was for me and it definitely wasn't. I also want to say that while I do own BW, but it isn't where my understanding for this idea comes from, and I thought maybe explaining it can help elucidate my position:

I've always been an improvising GM. My notes are sparse and my NPC statblocks are almost shamefully brief. All I have are a headful of ideas, a consistent setting, a fairly quick wit, and my dice. While I did a good job of it, fun was had and no one complained, there were times I did say no. I learned that in saying it, I had to work my mind harder to figure out where next to take in game situations. I was realizing that denial is usually a dead-end in my games.

Then I spent two years as a member of my university's improvisational comedy group. Aside from a good deal of laughs, I learned about improvised scenes and the pitfall of 'denial'. In a scene it's frowned upon for a participant to deny, by ignoring or drastically changing, some fact that another person established earlier. It can undermine the other person's persona, and even the believability of the scene to the point where it forces the denier to have to re-establish everything. It takes the flow of action and events, brings them to a screetching halt and starts it all over from scratch.

It was in learning this that its applicition at the table became very apparent. Why force myself to be responsible for everything that happens in game, when I can mine the ideas of the other players, fix them to suit both mine and their needs, and integrate them into the events of the game? I didn't have to take everything at face value. I was the GM, it was my world and I was intent on maintaining what was established, but I could still put a positive version the idea out there for the other players to run with if they wanted. I think my GMing has become smoother since, and though it's not been without complaints (I've been running games off and on for 8 years now some failures are inevitable) it's also been more fun, and even less work for me.

Quote from: JamesVThen I spent two years as a member of my university's improvisational comedy group. Aside from a good deal of laughs, I learned about improvised scenes and the pitfall of 'denial'. In a scene it's frowned upon for a participant to deny, by ignoring or drastically changing, some fact that another person established earlier. It can undermine the other person's persona, and even the believability of the scene to the point where it forces the denier to have to re-establish everything. It takes the flow of action and events, brings them to a screetching halt and starts it all over from scratch.

Another way of talking about the phenomenon of denial, is the equally venerated improvisation tradition of saying "yes, and..." or "yes, but..." to another's offer of factual information.  In other words, you can make me your grandma, but you can't tell me how I'm going to behave as your grandma.  In a game situation, this sort of GM attitude works very well with character behavior, if not the surroundings of the character, as "I now have a +5 eggbeater," or "That evil giganto sloth is now my friend."

Of course, this assumes characters who are actively involved in the game, but GMs can deal with that by presenting their own offers of information, which will prompt the players to act, which will force the GM to act, etc.

Hi!
  I'm new here. I started playing D&D like 25 years ago, but haven't been playing it much lately (Mostly playing my game and Blood of Heroes).
  To be clear, I don't think that D&D is old and busted, but I also don't see Forge Theory as an affront to those good times we all had and are still having (including some of the more staunch Forge-ites).
  And I do see how a simple house rule of "Roll or say Yes" would be very useful in an Adventure Game.
  Maybe a better way to say it might have been, "How much does it matter? Spend that much effort on it!"
  Does it matter if the player wants to find a torch in an empty or abandoned room in a dungeon? If it does, have them roll based on how hard it is to find or how likely there is to be one. If it doesn't, say yes and get back to what does matter. That is not a case of plaers usurping GM powers, it is a case o the GM making decisions, just like they always have. But applying a metagame filter to the situation to match their own priorities.
  And to keep this relevant, there is a Landmark that supports this rule theory indirectly:

Quote5. Conflicts do arise in gaming groups; these conflicts are usually the product of social interaction between the players and not a problem with the rules themselves. The solution to these problems is not to "Narrow the rules", but to broaden the playstyle of a group to accomodate what the complaining players are missing. Thus, it is a Landmark that all correct gaming theories, if they deal with "player dis-satisfaction" at all, must focus the nature of that dissatisfaction on the rules ONLY to suggest that a given rules-set is too narrow; and even then only because it is a symptom of an interpersonal social conflict within a group.

Which basically means, if the player wants something that they should not be asking for, its not the fault of the rules. I mean, there is nothing stopping our A-Bomb player from asking for an A-Bomb if "roll or say yes" is not in effect.
  The origin of the quote is ditv, and I have played several sessions. There really hasn't been much problem with people acting out of character or making outlandish demands of the game or setting. It pretty much played like Wild West D&D (or Boot hill if you remember that turkey, lol). We played our chars, the GM played the world and it was fun. It was great because we didn't have to roll for piddly stuff. If the GM wanted a roll, we knew we were on the right track. Also, to clarify, the way most of the games play out, it feels task oriented. And pretty much plays out like D&D does. I say I wanna kill the Steward, then we roll a bunch of dice, describe HOW your character plans to accomplish this, futz around with some numbers and then find out if it happens or not. I can't say that my experiences with D&D were all that different, I want to kill that minotaur, explain how I wanna do it, roll some dice, futz around with some numbers, then find ot if it happens or not.
  I think its great that there is a place where we can talk theory besides the Forge, and I hope I did't step on any toes. But, I did want to point out that when a good idea comes around, just tweak it to match your game, you don't have to accept it all or nothing. Take the parts you like, discard the rest. In this case, I took it whole cloth, but I haven't been so generous with other forge theories. I hope that helps clear up my views and maybe even gets others to look at this idea in another light...

Quote from: JamesVIt's a dumb idea because it doesn't apply to everyone? Now that's a dumb idea. It's simply a piece of advice that is more than applicable when handling player requests or actions. So you might not need it for every situation, but it's there when you need it.

It's stupid because it claims to be universal, but doesn't work for reactive players. So if you follow it, and not all of your players are active, you'll get a mess of a game session.

Quote from: JamesVI consider this a nice piece of advice for reactive players, paraphrased from other sources:
"If things are going too slow, have some thug burst into the scene looking for trouble".

Are you saying this is a bad idea because it ignores all of the active players?

Nope, because your advice specified who it was to be applied to. Your advice didn't claim to be universal.

Anyone can toss out some little saying as a tool to use. Knowing which tool to use when is the more important thing.

Quote from: JimBobOzAny saying or GM guideline that ignores what many gamers are actually like is a stupid one. It'd be as smart as me saying, "feed them all cheetos."

I find that an excellent piece of GM'ing advice.  The cheeto part.  Just to be clear.

Say Yes... or roll the dice

GM: Ok, what are your characters doing?
Player 1: I go to the church and talk to the elders.
GM: Yes, good.
Player 2: I go to the market and talk to the towns folk.
GM: Yes, excellent.
Player 3: I go to the destroyed cavalry outpost and get a gattling gun. No wait -- 3 gattling guns so we can each have one.  And lots of ammo.
Player 1: Thanks.
Player 2: Cool.
GM: aaaaaaaaaggggghhhhhhhh..... (hits head on table)
Player 1: Uh...
GM: aaaaaaaagggggghhhhhhhh.... (starts rolling handfuls of dice rapidly and repeatedly)
Player 3: What the hell?! What's he doing?
Player 2: Oh man -- you better change what your character is doing - FAST!
GM: AAAAAAAGGGGGHHHHH!!!!! (dice roll violently across table and onto floor)
Player 3: Uh, ok, ok -- I uh, stare off into the sunset
GM:  AAAA-- (dice rolling stops)
Player 2: Keep going!
Player 3: And um, think about...
Player 1: say your childhood
Player 3: Yeah, he thinks about his childhood
GM: His troubled and tormented childhood?
Player 3: Sure, yeah, that's right
GM: Yes, that's great.  So let's continue --
Players: "Wow is that the time?" "Gee, I think I forgot to make a phonecall."  "What? Hold on, I'll be right there!"

Just for the record:

The 'advice' about  having thugs break down a door during slow moments? That belongs to the detective writers of the 1950's. Hammet or someone like that, it's how he'd keep his plots moving.

And, depending on the game, it can work wonders.  Or it can be completely out of wack with what has been happening. Like some much else it's application that matters.

Stuart, I love you and want to have your babies.

RPGPundit

For Stuart, for daring to dream of shit that isn't even possible among reasonable human beings. You're the wind beneath my wings. :melodramatic:

Say No GMs, it's your world.

GM: Ok, what are your characters doing? Remember you're damned souls in Hell.
Player 1: I go to the Basilica of Beelzebul and talk to the Dark Acolytes.
GM: No. You have no power to do that.
Player 2: hmmm. I go to the Chambers of the Damned Sinners and talk to the lost souls there?
GM: Sorry. For the sin of participating in my game you're neck deep in my bullshit. You have to let yourself run free in my world, not yours!
Player 3: I give the remains of my soul to the Dark Lord Lucifer in exchange for the power to also join in tormenting souls!
Player 1: Yes! *crosses fingers*
Player 2: Cool.
GM: Nope, not happening. He doesn't share his power.
Player 1: Uh... ca
GM: Don't even ask.
Player 3: What the fuck?! What's he doing?
Player 2: Oh man -- you better agree with his sense of emulation!
Player 3: Uh, ok, ok -- I sit around and lament my situation.
GM: Yes, keep going.
Player 2: So, we're in hell.
Player 3: Yup join in my lamenting.
Player 1: Yeah, I wanna have a bad time too!
Player 3: Yeah, soon I get get tortured by demons for the sins I commited while I was alive!
GM: Brilliant. This is exciting and fitting to my setting!
Player 3: Sure, yeah. Any chance of escape?
GM: Duh, of course not, remember 'Abandon all hope Ye who enter'?
Players: Wow, this is just like the real thing. This is so much better than excitement and adventure.

Quote from: JimBobOzIt's stupid because it claims to be universal, but doesn't work for reactive players. So if you follow it, and not all of your players are active, you'll get a mess of a game session.

Have you played Dogs with reactive players?  I have.  The game still works, and Say yes or roll the dice still works, too.