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

[One Horse Town]

I recal a business seminar i attended a few years ago. On the subject of managing your workload and thus preventing unecessary levels of stress they suggested that you say "no" more often and that saying "yes" to everything is not always helpful or desirous. Not only may you end up doing something you're not qualified to do, but you very well may cock it up, resulting in upsetting other people you work with, not to mention the added workload you can do without. If you say you can do the extra payroll that acounting asked you to do even though it's not your area, how do you say no to purchasing when they need a hand with buying?

[Mystery Man]

I have a sign on the door to my office with a picture of Fat Albert and the words "No! No! No!"

[The Yann Waters]

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.

Such as...? I understand that it might not suit the preferences of every group out there, but rejecting the principle as expressed in Nob only results in limiting the activities of the characters to what someone other than the players already had in mind for them. In effect, you'd be saying that something which logically should be possible now isn't solely because the GM says so, at which point the only consistent fact about the setting is that the GM can change it arbitrarily and at will. Whatever skills or powers the characters may have, they would only work when it won't affect the course of the plot except in the right and proper direction. That's what Monarda opposes: it's meant to allow the players to play their characters instead of listening to what the GM does with them.

[TonyLB]

Such as...?

Such as "It gets in the way of the GM understanding that they too have a right to express their creative vision, and sometimes that's going to involve saying 'No guys, we have a conflict here, and while I'm happy to resolve it in a way that gives you a sporting chance of getting what you want despite me, I am not happy to simply give you this particular thing, no matter how many 'But only if' contingencies I layer on it.' "

Saying "You must never say 'No'!" is an extreme.  Saying "You must always say 'No'!" is an extreme.  There's a lot of fertile ground between them.  When you say "Denying the Monarda Law is the same as affirming the opposite extreme" you're ignoring all of that middle ground.

Does that make sense?

[The Yann Waters]

Such as "It gets in the way of the GM understanding that they too have a right to express their creative vision, and sometimes that's going to involve saying 'No guys, we have a conflict here, and while I'm happy to resolve it in a way that gives you a sporting chance of getting what you want despite me, I am not happy to simply give you this particular thing, no matter how many 'But only if' contingencies I layer on it.' "

Again, so...? The principle has nothing to do with resolving conflicts, except in that it allows the PCs to deal with them in whatever manner the players choose. It doesn't obligate the GM to give anything to anyone. As I apparently have to repeat again, Monarda applies to the actions of the characters, not the wishes of the players.

[The Yann Waters]

...And since there doesn't seem to be an actual quote from the book in this thread yet, here's what it says.

A story needs, primarily, a beginning, several middles, and a handful of acceptable ends. In general, the PCs' first decisions in the story will come during or after the story opens -- their free will has no chance to interfere. Accordingly, you control how the story begins. However, you cannot control where it will go from there. Dictating the PCs' choices is the canonical sin of the Hollyhock God. It will sentence your soul to the ninth circle of Hell. Conditioning the players with arbitratry rewards and punishments, so that their characters will act as you like, is no better. Your players will have more fun if you're fair and impartial whenever possible.

...

If you wish to make sure that you do not slip and accidentally place your established story over the fun of the players in the game, a strict adherence to the Monarda Law shall save your soul from peril. Its application is simple. When a player asks you, "Can I do X?" -- where "I" means their character and "X" is some course of action -- use one of the four useful answers below.

"Yes", if their course of action seems innocuous or interesting.
"How?" if you don't see any way that they can do it.
"You can try!" if it seems possible but unlikely.
"Yes, but there's a catch", if you can think of a good catch.

Each of these adds enjoyment and possibilities to your game. Saying "no" rarely does.

[TonyLB]

Again, so...? The principle has nothing to do with resolving conflicts, except in that it allows the PCs to deal with them in whatever manner the players choose. It doesn't obligate the GM to give anything to anyone. As I apparently have to repeat again, Monarda applies to the actions of the characters, not the wishes of the players.

Yes, but it has implications on the way the GM can interact with the players.  I mean ... not even implications.  It says "You can't say 'No.' "

Sometimes, in some games, it's useful to say "No."  That whole "middle ground" thing.

You're saying that if I don't want to use the Monarda law then the only other alternative is that I'm a pixel-bitching GM who's expecting people to guess my secret solution.  That's simply not true.  There are more balanced play-styles that still benefit from giving the GM the ability to say "No" some times.

[The Yann Waters]

Sometimes, in some games, it's useful to say "No."  That whole "middle ground" thing.

In general, I trust my players enough to expect them to refrain from random stupidity... Would you mind providing an example of a situation where no other response would suffice? Preferrably something a little more sensible than Pundit's "Can I suddenly find out that I'm a half-Atlantean prince and breathe underwater?"

[TonyLB]

In general, I trust my players enough to expect them to refrain from random stupidity... Would you mind providing an example of a situation where no other response would suffice? Preferrably something a little more sensible than Pundit's "Can I suddenly find out that I'm a half-Atlantean prince and breathe underwater?"

There are reasons to say "No" other than that the stuff your players are spouting is random nonsense.  Again, you seem to be clinging to the extremes and denying the middle ground.

The GM is allowed to have a vision of the game, and to expect their creative input to have at least as much impact as the creative input of the other players.

Suppose Bob the GM wants his villain (Baron von Skumm) to escape.  Joe the player wants von Skumm to die.  Bob says "And then von Skumm gets into a one-man submarine and escapes into the ocean depths."  Joe says "No, instead I shoot him in the head and he dies."  In many games, it is legitimate for the GM to say "No, I'm not keen on just letting you say that he's dead.  How about we break out the dice, and see what happens?"

They have a conflict of vision, and they resolve that conflict (however conflicts get resolved).  That doesn't make the GM a pixel-bitching tyrant.  It makes him a participant.

[The Yann Waters]

Suppose Bob the GM wants his villain (Baron von Skumm) to escape.  Joe the player wants von Skumm to die.  Bob says "And then von Skumm gets into a one-man submarine and escapes into the ocean depths."  Joe says "No, instead I shoot him in the head and he dies."  In many games, it is legitimate for the GM to say "No, I'm not keen on just letting you say that he's dead.  How about we break out the dice, and see what happens?"

But Joe can't say that in Nob, either: his PC can always try to shoot von Skumm in the head, but he couldn't simply decide that someone dies. Even if the GM says "yes, you can try to do that", the system will then decide whether the attempt succeeds. As mentioned elsewhere quite a few times, all actions must lie within the knowledge given to the players and the abilities of the characters.

In a game which follows Monarda, Joe can try to fire that shot.
In a game which rejects Monarda, the GM says "No, you can't shoot him."

[TonyLB]

In a game which follows Monarda, Joe can try to fire that shot.
In a game which rejects Monarda, the GM says "No, you can't shoot him."

Seriously, man, you're misrepresenting this as a black-and-white break between extremes, and deliberately misreading me when I point out the productive grey realm in the middle.  You're coming across as a crazed fanatic ... "anything that is not Monarda is the suxxors!"

This is me, disassociating myself from that attitude.  Hope you have fun with it!

[The Yann Waters]

Seriously, man, you're misrepresenting this as a black-and-white break between extremes, and deliberately misreading me when I point out the productive grey realm in the middle.  You're coming across as a crazed fanatic ... "anything that is not Monarda is the suxxors!"

That's a simplification for the sake of the argument. Surely you can see the difference between allowing a PC to attempt something which by all rights he should be able to do, and stating outright that it cannot be even considered because the action would violate the Grand Plan? Frankly, that von Skumm can't be much of a villain if he cannot even defend himself without special help from the GM. For one thing, he might pit his piloting skills against the armed assailant so that the submarine vanishes into the murky depths before Joe gets him into the sights of the gun. That's too much to ask for?

Hmm. Come to think of it, that does come down to a clear black-and-white break. "Can Joe shoot at the escaping bad guy? Yes or no?" Whether that bullet then hits or misses, and what effects it might have on von Skumm or the submarine, are irrelevant factors in this and handled by the mechanics afterwards. If you solve the situation by rolling dice, you already are giving the player that chance.

"I shoot him in the head and he dies..." Tsk. That is spouting nonsense, in nearly every game I know.

[RPGPundit]

Again, so...? The principle has nothing to do with resolving conflicts, except in that it allows the PCs to deal with them in whatever manner the players choose. It doesn't obligate the GM to give anything to anyone. As I apparently have to repeat again, Monarda applies to the actions of the characters, not the wishes of the players.

Yes it does. It obliges GMs to give control of the scene over to the players.
That's not a good thing, precisely for the reason that One Horse Town detailed above: too many cooks spoil the broth.  You can't please everyone all the time, everyone can't all be the hero/protagonist all the time, and trying to give them everything on a fucking silver platter is just going to result in a stressed out GM and spoilt bored players.

Being allowed to say "no" to your players doesn't result in a tyrannical GM, it results in an effective GM doing what GMs are supposed to do in the game, namely explain options and set limits.

RPGPundit

[RPGPundit]

...And since there doesn't seem to be an actual quote from the book in this thread yet, here's what it says.

You forgot a very important part in that "..."

The Monarda Law
Never Say "No"

RPGPundit

[RPGPundit]

Yes, but it has implications on the way the GM can interact with the players.  I mean ... not even implications.  It says "You can't say 'No.' "

Sometimes, in some games, it's useful to say "No."  That whole "middle ground" thing.

You're saying that if I don't want to use the Monarda law then the only other alternative is that I'm a pixel-bitching GM who's expecting people to guess my secret solution.  That's simply not true.  There are more balanced play-styles that still benefit from giving the GM the ability to say "No" some times.

Starting with the fact that it doesn't mean you have to go through a 10-minute hand-holding session where you simply humour a player's whim even though you know there's no way in hell you'd let him do something, every fucking time he wants something stupid, which even in GrimGent's re-interpretation of the Monarda law is what would happen.
Every fucking time, because you can't just say "no" to something you know isn't going to happen.  You'd end up with three or four hours worth of hand-holding letting the players walk the road-to-nowhere every fucking session!

RPGPundit