Borgstrom is still a Moron, but this thread is about my Law

[RPGPundit]

The threat of death, by itself, is not all that valuable.  The threat of losing things/investments or having things turned against them is much more significant.

But the key to me is that the players shouldn't be the ones to choose what's "at stake".  That's the GM's job.

RPGPundit

[The Yann Waters]

But the key to me is that the players shouldn't be the ones to choose what's "at stake".  That's the GM's job.

But they should get to choose what is important to their characters; and since threats against those things are exactly what often spurs the PCs to action, the players have already had their say in the matter.

[RPGPundit]

But they should get to choose what is important to their characters; and since threats against those things are exactly what often spurs the PCs to action, the players have already had their say in the matter.

Exactly. After that they don't get to pick and choose.  After all, its more significant if what you're risking is not necessarily what you want, when you want it.  That's the problem I have with this stupid concept of players controlling the "stakes".

RPGPundit

[Mystery Man]

This whole monarda law thing seems pretty pie in the sky.

I'd rather just say "go right ahead" or "gimme a roll" and let characters suffer the consequences than toy around with this "yes...but" crap. As long as one is consistent I just don't see the need for it.

Suffering is good for the soul.

[The Yann Waters]

Suffering is good for the soul.

The suffering of the character, yes. The suffering of the player in the hands of a pixelbitching GM, not so much.

[Mystery Man]

The suffering of the character, yes. The suffering of the player in the hands of a pixelbitching GM, not so much.

I agree, those GM's usually find themselves in a game of one fast enough though.  I editing my posting ever so slightly.

[Ian Absentia]

This whole monarda law thing seems pretty pie in the sky.

Yes, but all GM advice is pretty pie-in-the-sky.  It's like raising a child -- you read up on all sorts of different theories about what should work, then in practice everything goes out the window.  Different people, and different combinations of people, demand flexible approaches.  Neither the Monarda Law or RPGPundit's I Insist on Being a Jackass Law are inherently better or worse than the other, they mere work differently for different play groups and combinations of play styles.

!i!

[RPGPundit]

The suffering of the character, yes. The suffering of the player in the hands of a pixelbitching GM, not so much.

How fortunate that ABSOLUTELY NO ONE is arguing for that, then.

RPGPundit

[Mystery Man]

Yes, but all GM advice is pretty pie-in-the-sky.  It's like raising a child -- you read up on all sorts of different theories about what should work, then in practice everything goes out the window.  Different people, and different combinations of people, demand flexible approaches.  Neither the Monarda Law or RPGPundit's I Insist on Being a Jackass Law are inherently better or worse than the other, they mere work differently for different play groups and combinations of play styles.

!i!

"Absorb what is useful, Discard what is not, Add what is uniquely your own" - Bruce Lee

[The Yann Waters]

How fortunate that ABSOLUTELY NO ONE is arguing for that, then.

Technically, any argument against Monarda is also an argument for pixelbitching and the GM attitude of "There's only one possible solution to any situation. I know what it is. You don't. Now.... guess."

[David R]

Exactly. After that they don't get to pick and choose.  After all, its more significant if what you're risking is not necessarily what you want, when you want it.  That's the problem I have with this stupid concept of players controlling the "stakes".

RPGPundit

Okay your last few post on this subject (okay everyone elses too) have been pretty interesting and not to mention clarifies a lot of stuff from your original post. I too have a problem with this stakes concept. Or rather who decides what is at stake. I've read some pretty interesting observations on the subject from both Marco and Tony LB -  I'll try to post them soon.

Another thing, I kind of get where you are going with your objection to the term adventure game on the other thread. One of the problems with your law is that as written it ignores all nuance of the GM/player dynamic and seems a perfect fit for the so called adventure games or at the very least some folks perception of what adventure games are and the kind of gamers who play them.

Regards,
David R

[Mystery Man]

Technically, any argument against Monarda is also an argument for pixelbitching and the GM attitude of "There's only one possible solution to any situation. I know what it is. You don't. Now.... guess."

I invoke Bruce again...

"Any technique, however worthy and desirable, becomes a disease when the mind is obsessed with it."

[RPGPundit]

Technically, any argument against Monarda is also an argument for pixelbitching and the GM attitude of "There's only one possible solution to any situation. I know what it is. You don't. Now.... guess."

That's patently absurd.

RPGPundit

[The Yann Waters]

That's patently absurd.

How so? That's specifically what Monarda is intended to discourage: being stuck with a single predetermined course of action instead of letting the players come up with their own plans for solving a situation. For instance, if the characters have uncovered an assassination plot, it's the difference between having the opportunity to consider all the different possible ways of preventing it, and having to meet up with a specific NPC at a specific time in a specific location because the GM has a "cool encounter" all planned out (and nothing the players might try could possibly turn out to be as successful or entertaining, of course).

[TonyLB]

How so? That's specifically what Monarda is intended to discourage: being stuck with a single predetermined course of action instead of letting the players come up with their own plans for solving a situation.

But that doesn't mean that the only reason to reject the Monarda law is in order to embrace that precise dysfunction.  There are plenty of other reasons to reject it.  You could think that it's addressing an important issue in a way that creates too many bad side-effects.  You could think that it doesn't do a good job of fixing the problem it's trying to address.  Lots of reasons.