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

[RPGPundit]

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.

If he says he has that kind of pistol, does he suddenly have it?
If so, you're letting player's define the game content, and you're literally not allowed to say "no" to them, which gets us back to the whole real meaning of the Monarda law, the one you're cleverly trying to reinterpret here.

If not, if you as the GM already know he has a plain old pistol, he's going to miss.
So at that point your choices are to humour the Player like he was a retarded child for the next 10 minutes, letting him "go through all his options" when in fact you know none of them are of any use, or just tell him "no, sorry, you're out of fucking range", and move on to things that are more mutually productive.

RPGPundit

[RPGPundit]

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.

Yup, you're right, my law doesn't forbid it.  I would make a corollary of GM advice strongly advising against it in most regular circumstances, but I would certainly NOT make a RULE that forbids the GM from it.

RPGPundit

[The Yann Waters]

If he says he has that kind of pistol, does he suddenly have it?

Not unless the character has some power which allows him to create such weapons. And as said, the player already knows whether he can score a hit with an ordinary pistol. There's nothing wrong about answering "Could I hit him?" with "Nope, he's already out of range." The option of firing is still there if the player insists; it's just, well, daft.

[Christmas Ape]

Grim? Quick tip for you. Pundit is not interested in admitting the rule says anything other than the overblown strawman bullshit he's decided it does in Magic Pundit Land.

This is a long road to nowhere, and no, there are no allies along the way. Just empty skulls, screaming their unfounded rage into the bleakness of eternity.

[The Yann Waters]

Pundit is not interested in admitting the rule says anything other than the overblown strawman bullshit he's decided it does in Magic Pundit Land.

I have trouble believing someone could be that bull-headed. It's like listening to someone insist that Magic: the Gathering is a philosophical storytelling game about the responsibilities which come with sorcerous power. Sure, someone might play it like that, but the description doesn't really bear any resemblance to the game known to the rest of the world.

[Christmas Ape]

I have trouble believing someone could be that bull-headed. It's like listening to someone insist that Magic: the Gathering is a philosophical storytelling game about the responsibilities which come with sorcerous power. Sure, someone might play it like that, but the description doesn't really bear any resemblance to the game known to the rest of the world.

You can have all the trouble in the world believing it, but it's true. I don't know if it's born from a bull-headed stubborn streak, a genuine inability to comprehend words, or an online persona that simply cannot bear the strain of being forced to admit it got something wrong, but that's the case. You could have R. S. B. herself show up and explain it in precise English, with charts and diagrams and all the visual aids you could imagine, and it'd still be "Your law is about players asking for magic weapons appearing in their pockets, your game is unreadable and unplayable, and you're a cunt".

It doesn't have to be true, or well-considered, or even the product of rational sapient thought. It just has to be set in opposition to games he doesn't like.

[RPGPundit]

You could have R. S. B. herself show up and explain it in precise English,

Borgstrom writing in precise english??? Now who's living in a fantasy world?
Borgstrom couldn't write in coherent precise English if her life depended on it.

RPGPundit

[James McMurray]

Yes it does. It obliges GMs to give control of the scene over to the players.

Bullshit. Unless you can provide a quote to the contrary. What the law does is give the players control of their actions. Not "I shoot him and he dies" but "I shoot at him."

Do you still not have a valid response to something that the law would allow? Keeping in mind that the law says nothing about granting players control over the world, only over their actions.

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.

Perhaps this is the problem then. Pundit's players are constantly begging him for stupid stuff. If that's the case, you definitely have to say no eventually. It takes maturity and sensibility (at least common sense) to use a rule that asks for work on both sides of the screen.

I can't picture it happening though (the ten minute hand holding). Maybe I'm just lucky with my players, but "How?" followed by either them realizing it won't work or me saying "roll the dice" never takes anywhere near that much time.

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.

Excellent hyperbole (i.e. lie). Nobody has said anything about emotional outbursts other than you. Hmmm... I wonder why that might be. LOL

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.

Ah the good old straw man maneuver. Unless you can prove that "you can try, but you're out of range" will degenerate into 20 minutes of mollycoddling this is just one more of the myriad examples of your BS.

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.

LOL LOL LOL!!! You're just using the Monarda Law yourself, but couching it in terms of No. If you weren't, then you wouldn't allow them to take that shot. LOL

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.

Again, where does the Law say anything about lying to them? It says they can try. Some GMs don't believe in "range finder eyeballs" and won't tell the player the exact range. Others are fine with that because it helps move the game faster (or whatever). The Monarda Law doesn't say anything about which of those stances you should take.

Borgstrom writing in precise english??? Now who's living in a fantasy world?
Borgstrom couldn't write in coherent precise English if her life depended on it.

That's odd. It seems the law being bitched about is pretty straightforward. Perhaps she can't write in English you understand but you have a pathological blind spot when it comes to these things.

[James McMurray]

I have trouble believing someone could be that bull-headed. It's like listening to someone insist that Magic: the Gathering is a philosophical storytelling game about the responsibilities which come with sorcerous power. Sure, someone might play it like that, but the description doesn't really bear any resemblance to the game known to the rest of the world.

You've been here long enough to make 493 posts and not realized this yet? I tell myself it's because his persona won't allow it, because he annoys me and I don't like to feel sorry for people that annoy me. If he really is the Pundit persona as a person he's a sad little kid who needs a hug, which would make me feel bad for him. So I perhaps delude myself.

[RPGPundit]

LOL LOL LOL!!! You're just using the Monarda Law yourself, but couching it in terms of No. If you weren't, then you wouldn't allow them to take that shot. LOL

No, I'm using the version you guys use of the Monarda Law, which is to say nothing at all.  I'm not even that because the ONE thing you guys avoid doing in your monarda law is actually saying the word "no". You say and do everything else, including things that end up with the exact same fucking result, only take up more time and energy because you feel you aren't allowed to say "no" because Borgstrom and her fashionista fanboys said that's what's cool this season.

If the real "monarda law" were like this, it wouldn't have anything important to say meriting its existence in the first place.

RPGPundit

[James McMurray]

But your no is not a hard and fast no. You said yourself that if the player said he was still going to do it you'd let him. That's not a no, that's a yes hiding behind a no.

Personally I've never met Borgstrom. I was following my own version of her "Law" long before I came here, and probably long before Nobilis existed (presuming it came out after the early 80s). I have never met any fashionista boys, nor would I even know what one was if I did.

I also assume that was either a general "you" or your reading comprehension skills are failing again, as I've said that I wouldn't follow Monards or Monard is a Moron religiously. I lean toward Monarda whenever possible, and if someone wants to try something incredibly ludicrous I'll try to figure out why, but if some situation I can't think of but you apparently have oodles of in mind were to arise, I'd say No in a heartbeat.

And on that note, I'd still love an example of something that requires one to say no. Or even an example where saying "How?" ... "Ok, you know that won't work but can try anyway" or "ok, roll," requires "so much time and energy."

I also wonder, had the Monarda Law been phrased differently and appeared in the Amber book, would you have it tattooed on your ass next to "Dworkin Enter Here ->"?

[RPGPundit]

I also assume that was either a general "you" or your reading comprehension skills are failing again,

My you's are often general "yous".

I also wonder, had the Monarda Law been phrased differently and appeared in the Amber book, would you have it tattooed on your ass next to "Dworkin Enter Here ->"?

Its a meaningless question, since nothing that stupid would ever have appeared in the Amber book.  Most of Erick's advice in there is way closer in tone to my "Rebecca Borgstrom is a Moron Law".

RPGPundit

[James McMurray]

Yep, straight over the head, as expected.