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

[The Yann Waters]

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.

And ultimately the GM is the arbiter of just what those options are, yes, but he shouldn't be arbitrary about what is allowed and what isn't. The players choose their actions, while the GM decides the outcome: that's the way it always works. Monarda or no Monarda, they don't get to contradict the GM or rewrite everything into something more pleasant.

[RPGPundit]

In general, I trust my players enough to expect them to refrain from random stupidity...

In general I trust my players' maturity enough to think that they won't have an existential crisis or break down crying if I say "no" to them. Apparently you and Borgstrom don't.  You think your players are sensitive children.

RPGPundit

[RPGPundit]

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."

And if you, the fucking "hollyhock god", KNOW that joe can't make that shot because he's already out of range, what the fuck is the effective difference?

I'll tell you.
In MY game, I tell my player, "no, you're out of range"; he doesn't take the shot, and we move on to more interesting possibilities.
In YOUR game, you spend 20 minutes mollycoddling the player, asking him "ok, HOW do you do the shot", and "well that's a very clever idea, but...", until he gets bored and you end up with exactly the same result he would in my scenario.

RPGPundit

[The Yann Waters]

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

And also several paragraphs of advice on contingency plans and involving the players... The title is a convenient mnemonic, and serves to drive home the point that there are always more fruitful alternatives to "no" when you are tempted to block some perfectly legitimate attempt.

[RPGPundit]

And ultimately the GM is the arbiter of just what those options are, yes, but he shouldn't be arbitrary about what is allowed and what isn't. The players choose their actions, while the GM decides the outcome: that's the way it always works. Monarda or no Monarda, they don't get to contradict the GM or rewrite everything into something more pleasant.

Sure, in the "joe" scenario the player can, right after I've told him "NO, you can't shoot Von Scumm, he's out of range", shoot anyways. He'll miss, because he's out of fucking range, but he can do it anyways.

I don't see the point of lying to him and telling Joey he's a very special boy who can try if he thinks he can hard enough and maybe with a little bit of fairy dust he'll make it through, when in fact I know Joey's an idiot and he's never going to hit Von Scumm, because he's out of fucking range.

So your version of the Monarda Law is really the "The Goggles Do Nothing" Law of gaming.  Its a useless placebo that has no significant effects.

RPGPundit

[RPGPundit]

And also several paragraphs of advice on contingency plans and involving the players... The title is a convenient mnemonic, and serves to drive home the point that there are always more fruitful alternatives to "no" when you are tempted to block some perfectly legitimate attempt.

No, the title is:

The Monarda Law
Never say "No"

RPGPundit

[The Yann Waters]

In general I trust my players' maturity enough to think that they won't have an existential crisis or break down crying if I say "no" to them. Apparently you and Borgstrom don't.  You think your players are sensitive children.

What I mean is that they don't say things like "Can I beat my head against the wall until I pass out?" or "Can I teleport to Narnia?" As a rule, reasonable actions don't require that "no". (And just for the record, yes, I would allow a character to start beating his head against the wall. The player could then expect his PC to spend quite a while at the psychiatric ward of the local hospital.)

[The Yann Waters]

No, the title is:

The Monarda Law
Never say "No"

And I'm yet to see a legit example of a situation where you have say that, in response to an acceptable in-game action.

[The Yann Waters]

You'd end up with three or four hours worth of hand-holding letting the players walk the road-to-nowhere every fucking session!

A road to nowhere is something that could easily provide a session's worth of entertainment, and possibly useful allies in the game. Why do you think that wouldn't amount to anything?

[The Yann Waters]

Sure, in the "joe" scenario the player can, right after I've told him "NO, you can't shoot Von Scumm, he's out of range", shoot anyways. He'll miss, because he's out of fucking range, but he can do it anyways.

That depends on the velocity of the submarine and the power of the gun. For example, Joe might be packing a futuristic hypertech pistol which fires miniature suns at the speed of light... Besides, in Nobilis you can just perform a miracle of Aspect and shoot across entire oceans even with a regular handgun.

[Blackleaf]

"A road to nowhere is something that could easily provide a session's worth of entertainment, and possibly useful allies in the game. Why do you think that wouldn't amount to anything?"

:unicorn:

[The Yann Waters]

:unicorn:

I was thinking more along the lines of the roads which lead to the Lands Beyond and the primal chaos outside Creation, but sure, there might be unicorns somewhere in there.

[RPGPundit]

Brand new off the presses, here is my new Gaming Law,
the RPGPundit's "The Goggles Do Nothing" Law. Its dedicated to you, GrimGent...

RPGPundit

[Warthur]

That's patently absurd.

Pixelbitching is directly against the Monarda law, but is perfectly consistent with your law. Maybe your law doesn't encourage pixelbitching, but it certainly doesn't discount it.

[The Yann Waters]

Why would Joe even attempt to fire an ordinary gun if he knows that the submarine is out of its range, though? And of course the GM tells him what that range is, as long as the character has some inkling of what it might be. If the GM has already stated that von Skumm has vanished out of sight, then the villain has, without any chance of negotiations, and the player must take that into account when deciding what to do next.