Quote from: RPGPunditWhat you're saying then, fundamentally, is that IN PLAY the GM is NOT allowed to say "no" to his players? Yes or no?

RPGPundit

Give me an example of saying no as you see it.

Quote from: RPGPunditLet us ignore all the red herrings of your post.

No, let's not.

You wrote:

QuoteFor starters, a lot of Narrativists would argue that it should be possible for a player to be a ninja assassin in ancient rome, because he wants to "create the story" that an asian assasin came from China and taught him everything he knows before conveniently dying, and as the player it should be his perogative to be able to able to do that.

And I said it was full of shit.

Show me where anyone said that, don't just start ranting towards your next topic.  I will gladly talk about Say, "Yes," or roll the dice and I am attempting to by getting examples from ya but you don't get to engage in bullshit hyperbole and then stomp off to your next tantrum without owning up to your last post.

Quote from: PakaGive me an example of saying no as you see it.

What the fuck is this, the Clinton deposition?! Does it depend on what my meaning of "no" is?

Ask the Take Back The Night crowd: NO means NO.

Can your players ask for something in the game, and the GM say NO to it, or is he OBLIGED to "say yes or roll the dice?"
Its a very simple question.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditWhat the fuck is this, the Clinton deposition?! Does it depend on what my meaning of "no" is?

Ask the Take Back The Night crowd: NO means NO.

Can your players ask for something in the game, and the GM say NO to it, or is he OBLIGED to "say yes or roll the dice?"
Its a very simple question.

RPGPundit

It is a simple question.

Give me an example of where you would say no to your players at the table.

Not hyperbole.

Not Ron Edwards killed my puppy and peed on my D&D books.

An example where you would say no to your players at the table.

Can we communicate or do you want to just go back to your blog and rant?

Quote from: PakaGive me an example of where you would say no to your players at the table.

I'm not the Pundit, but I can give you an example:

When playing through a murder mystery plot and, immediately after the murder, one of the players wants the killer to reveal him/herself

Actually, the "Never say No" is just a stupid idea, which is an outcrop, or better artifact, of bad GM experiences.
In any emulating RPG, there is stuff that the GM knows which won't function. Say, in Traveller a PC wanted to modify his jump drive to J-7.
I'd say "No." and would tell him to let go off the dice.
Adventure RPGng always is about plausabilities and possibilites. If something is implausible I'd be dishonouring and devalueing the emulation if I allowed a roll for something implausible in the game world.

EDIT: The underlying idea, that players shopuld actually be able to affect the gameworld, is laudable. But I tell you thematic players a secret: We D&D, Traveller and Adventure Game GMs already know and do that since 1965. Go figure.

Quote from: SettembriniActually, the "Never say No" is just a stupid idea, which is an outcrop, or better artifact, of bad GM experiences.
In any emulating RPG, there is stuff that the GM knows which won't function. Say, in Traveller a PC wanted to modify his jump drive to J-7.
I'd say "No." and would tell him to let go off the dice.
Adventure RPGng always is about plausabilities and possibilites. If something is implausible I'd be dishonouring and devalueing the emulation if I allowed a roll for something implausible in the game world.

EDIT: The underlying idea, that players shopuld actually be able to affect the gameworld, is laudable. But I tell you thematic players a secret: We D&D, Traveller and Adventure Game GMs already know and do that since 1965. Go figure.

Dude, you're okay, and it seems to me you got a raw deal at the other place, but you also do not really know what you're talking about. Why people jump from a different distribution of authority straight to the dictatorship of the playerteriat is beyond me. It's like you don't think anybody who plays these games might be concerned with plausibility in their fiction.

In any case, 'say yes or roll the dice' is not about the separate issue of whether some kind of directorial authority is given to players. Broken down, it means this: you have a conflict or you do not. If you do not have a conflict, don't bother to roll. If you do have a conflict, engage the game's mechanics and have at it.

"I want to find out who's killing the cattle." Is this a conflict? Do you as GM want the player to find the information? If you do, why roll? (Dogs in the Vineyard, for example, assumes you want the town to be fully revealed ASAP, and let's remember that that's where the rule comes from).

If for some reason you do want the finding of the cattle-killer to be a conflict, roll the dice and abide by them. Simple as that.

If this is what you do always and already, bully for you. Quite a few people seem to have benefited from having the principle articulated, so maybe you should have got there first.

Quote from: droogIn any case, 'say yes or roll the dice' is not about the separate issue of whether some kind of directorial authority is given to players. Broken down, it means this: you have a conflict or you do not. If you do not have a conflict, don't bother to roll. If you do have a conflict, engage the game's mechanics and have at it.

This is a good explaination of why I like the concept of "yes or roll the dice". The statement is not about the players, but the GM. It's a guideline for GMs to decide on what's important to the game at the time and what isn't. A good GM shouldn't waste their player's time rolling for every little activity that comes along, you should keep events moving and let fate and the dice roll where it would actually lead to creating energy and tension at the table and in the game. In the end the Pundit's worry about this statement eroding GM control is unfounded, since the GM is in full control of how the information relates to what's going on.

As for Settimbrini's concern about emulation. The GM should exercise the prerogative to let the players attempt anything they choose. I mean it certainly helps me out in that player input helps me shape the situations they are in, and makes my life a lot easier. I unfortunately don't know much about Traveller, but if a player in my sci-fi game wanted a fancier star drive for their ship that wouldn't work for it, then the result will be in them finding out why, and laying for them a setting consistent hook to attempt to change the situation if they really want it. No guarantees of success or even survival, just a note of what it would take.

Here's how I'd handle the situation, if for instance the star drive is too big for the ship they have:

QuotePlayer: Captain Thomas wants to try and upgrade his star drive to a J-7.
GM: You ask around and you find out that J-7 drives are designed for larger ships than yours, like travel liners. Cost for one is 50 million credits.
Player: So if I stole one I could probably sell that baby on the black market and use the cash to buy myself an even bigger ship, huh?
GM: You can try.

As a matter of fact for me the statment this discussion is revolving around is slightly different. For me it's "Say yes, roll the dice, or you can try." Noes are dead in the water for a game, a yes, roll, or you can try at least keeps things moving.

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonI'm not the Pundit, but I can give you an example:

When playing through a murder mystery plot and, immediately after the murder, one of the players wants the killer to reveal him/herself

Okay, let's go through that as it might happen at the table.

The Player: I want the killer to reveal themselves.

GM:  THat isn't going to happen, what are you going to do to try tom ake it happen?

Player: I am going to investigate X, Y and Z, try to find a clue.

And we're off and playing.  Odds are, in that situation, I'd toss out some kind of clue that would get the game moving and engage the player but I'd damn well mark in my head that this player just isn't interested in this mystery in the least.

This doesn't mean I'd end it right there, especially if the other players were invested in it but I'd remember that this player wanted done with it and I'd push the pace a bit.

Quote from: RPGPunditCan your players ask for something in the game, and the GM say NO to it, or is he OBLIGED to "say yes or roll the dice?"
Its a very simple question.

I think this boils down to who you give the benefit of the doubt to.

See, when I started reading Pundit's blog, I constantly wondered "why does this guy like Amber?"  Then when I saw the Landmarks, I really wondered.  So, I bring up Amber not to say "it iz not RPG.  it iz teh suxxorz!"  I bring it up because, as far as I'm concerned, it's how to understand where Pundit is coming from with his Landmarks.  And since the Landmarks are supposed to serve as a guideline for discussion here, I think understanding them is a pretty good idea.

(Maybe even testing them against some cases and maybe tempering them a bit is a good idea.)

From this discussion and the Point Buy discussion in the main RPG forum, I've come to the conclusion that most of us are really on the same wavelength.  The difference is who we have a bias to at the table.

Pundit, I believe there's a rule somewhere in Amber that says something akin to, "Unless you have a specific reason for not letting a character do something, then let them do it."  I believe it's either the same rule or one in the same section which says something like "when in doubt, let the player's succeed."  And, now that we've all been kind of discussing this for a while, I understand why you don't see this as something contrary to what you're saying about the GM saying "NO."

The key difference in what all of us are saying is that you seem to basically assume that players will be the problem element of a group, not the GM.  You seem to be thinking that we're talking about swinging the power pendulum all the way over to the player side, and we're not.  I think we're all saying that the GM still has authority over the game and has the right to refuse stupid things.

Now that I think about the whole thing, I don't even think you're talking about players not having any narrative (or directorial or whatever you want to call it) over the world.  After all, in Amber a player character can walk to another shadow and dictate to the GM exactly what the world is and shape it to his or her desires.  If that isn't player power, I don't know what is.

So, what we're all really talking about is when it all goes wrong.  If the GM is being stupid, what recourse does the game give?  If the player is being a jackass, what options does the GM have?  This assumes that the various participants aren't being jackasses on purpose, but are misinterpreting their power balance in the game.

Quote from: PakaGM:  THat isn't going to happen, what are you going to do to try tom ake it happen?

How is that (the bit I highlighted) not "saying no"?

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonHow is that (the bit I highlighted) not "saying no"?

Why is it that simple? I have yet to see anyone here advocate that every situation is subject to instant success if the players demand it. Paka's choice doesn't preclude the guilty party from ever being discovered, it just makes the player aware that some work will be involved in doing so. It more than just 'no', it was, 'you can find out, but you'll have to try to do so'.

Quote from: droog"I want to find out who's killing the cattle." Is this a conflict? Do you as GM want the player to find the information? If you do, why roll? (Dogs in the Vineyard, for example, assumes you want the town to be fully revealed ASAP, and let's remember that that's where the rule comes from).

If for some reason you do want the finding of the cattle-killer to be a conflict, roll the dice and abide by them. Simple as that

That's all fine and good; and what if the finding of the cattle killer is something you judge should be absolutely impossible at this stage of the game, no matter how bad the player wants it?

What then?

RPGPundit

Quote from: JamesVThis is a good explaination of why I like the concept of "yes or roll the dice". The statement is not about the players, but the GM.

In the sense that its an absurd straightjacket on GM-behaviour, yes.

QuoteIt's a guideline for GMs to decide on what's important to the game at the time and what isn't.

It isn't couched in the language of a "guideline". Its couched in the language of a rule.
Fuck, in a certain Swine system, its put in the form of a LAW.

QuoteA good GM shouldn't waste their player's time rolling for every little activity that comes along, you should keep events moving and let fate and the dice roll where it would actually lead to creating energy and tension at the table and in the game.

I agree, everyone rational agrees with this.

What I can't seem to get a single one of you fuckers to do, however, is to answer the simple question of do you think the GM has a right to say an outright no to his player's demands as he sees fit?

Why are you guys all so scared to answer that question?

QuoteIn the end the Pundit's worry about this statement eroding GM control is unfounded, since the GM is in full control of how the information relates to what's going on.

Not if he's not allowed to say "no", he isn't.

QuoteAs for Settimbrini's concern about emulation. The GM should exercise the prerogative to let the players attempt anything they choose.

Why the fuck should he?
That's just a formula for creating either a player-run monstrosity of an inconsistent game (if the GM really does have to give them a CHANCE to do absolutely anything at all), or an utterly false sense of player empowerment (if the GM just pretends to but in fact does not).

Either way, this doesn't seem to be a way to use "theory" to "cure" dysfunctional groups; it seems to be a recipe for making groups far more dysfunctional than the worst evil GM-boogeyman run dictatorship could possibly be.

RPGPundit

Quote from: JamesVI have yet to see anyone here advocate that every situation is subject to instant success if the players demand it.

Ok, I must be missing something then.  What does "say 'Yes' or roll." actually mean then?