Quote from: rgrove0172;941642Oh for Christ's sake Black, give it a break. If you show up at a friend's house to play what was described as a space-opera adventure and discover 5 minutes in that your ship crashes and you will spend the whole night surviving on a pre-bronze age world with no advance tech you have a right to take a morale check. It might be fun, might be fair, but it aint what you went there for!

I said I would have let them burn the damned place but Im not going to wing an entire different adventure on the cuff when I had 4 hours of detailed mansion investigation planned. I doubt many GMs would, unless they don't plan anything to begin with. Yep, I know those guys are out there, I aint one.

I'm not there to "Play this specific Haunted House scenario".
I'm there to play my character in a world.

Burning the house down as the first thing you do isn't very smart.  Yay, you got rid of the ghost...maybe.  I'm sure that will fly to a jury, especially since all the overgrown foliage around the Haunted House caught fire and burned half of the Hollywood Hills.  Or whatever.

The point is, despite all your dismissiveness of Black Vulmea's criticisms, everything you've said does support the notion that the players are there to play "Mah Storeh" within a very narrow range of probabilities.

I had the impression the game was going to be an investigative game with a horror tone where each session would be focused on a particular premise, in this case a haunted house mystery not a Sandbox style and this was established beforehand. But in this case, the players intended "solution" short circuited that premise and rather than drop an evening of gaming, rgrove talked to them.

"Mah mah story" was the game for the evening, That was the way the game was pitched and set up. In this case, some wires were crossed as can happen and the talked it out. I didn't get sense he'd promised them an open world playstyle then pulled a switcheroo on them.

Quote from: CRKrueger;941797I'm not there to "Play this specific Haunted House scenario".
I'm there to play my character in a world.

Burning the house down as the first thing you do isn't very smart.  Yay, you got rid of the ghost...maybe.  I'm sure that will fly to a jury, especially since all the overgrown foliage around the Haunted House caught fire and burned half of the Hollywood Hills.  Or whatever.

The point is, despite all your dismissiveness of Black Vulmea's criticisms, everything you've said does support the notion that the players are there to play "Mah Storeh" within a very narrow range of probabilities.

Hmm, One Shot Mansion Mystery game - subtract Mystery in the Mansion = ... nothing

I don't call that narrow, its sort of assumed. Mayby YOU want to play your character in world but most of my players, and I for that matter, showed up to play a Mansion Mystery Scenario.

Hey guys! Lets play Star Trek! AWESOME - but your not Starfleet Officers in this one and you aren't on a ship, in fact your on a early twentieth century type world that hasn't been interfered with due to the prime directive. Your actually policeman there and there have been this rash of murders.....  Huh?

That's the point I was making - if by hook or crook the action takes the game out of its expected parameters it might be best to wrangle it back in or risk losing your player's interest.

Sure if the mansion had simply been the latest passing interest in a long and varied campaign I can see letting it burn and moving on but under the circumstances?

Quote from: rgrove0172;941802Hmm, One Shot Mansion Mystery game - subtract Mystery in the Mansion = ... nothing

I don't call that narrow, its sort of assumed. Mayby YOU want to play your character in world but most of my players, and I for that matter, showed up to play a Mansion Mystery Scenario.

Hey guys! Lets play Star Trek! AWESOME - but your not Starfleet Officers in this one and you aren't on a ship, in fact your on a early twentieth century type world that hasn't been interfered with due to the prime directive. Your actually policeman there and there have been this rash of murders.....  Huh?

That's the point I was making - if by hook or crook the action takes the game out of its expected parameters it might be best to wrangle it back in or risk losing your player's interest.

Sure if the mansion had simply been the latest passing interest in a long and varied campaign I can see letting it burn and moving on but under the circumstances?

Doubt you'll get the usual suspects to budge an inch, because budging an inch evidently requires giving up a pint of soul ichor.:-/

Quote from: Nexus;941800I had the impression the game was going to be an investigative game with a horror tone where each session would be focused on a particular premise, in this case a haunted house mystery not a Sandbox style and this was established beforehand. But in this case, the players intended "solution" short circuited that premise and rather than drop an evening of gaming, rgrove talked to them.

"Mah mah story" was the game for the evening, That was the way the game was pitched and set up. In this case, some wires were crossed as can happen and the talked it out. I didn't get sense he'd promised them an open world playstyle then pulled a switcheroo on them.

Exactly, as it was it was a one shot - perhaps I should have mentioned that but to me it doesn't make a difference. As I have been saying I believe most game settings come with certain expectations. When these aren't met you risk losing your participants.

I for one cant stand Superhero games - haven't had an interest since I gave up comic books in grade school. If I was invited to play in a game of gumshoe detectives for example and suddenly during play we were all granted powers by a chemical plant explosion or something I would be pretty bummed. Theres a good chance I would drop out. I think the GM has the same right. If he sets up a cool campaign involving a war setting and the players announce they don't want to take part in the war effort - he has the right to cancel the game or hedge the players to go along with the original plan. They got together to play his War campaign afterall, not randomly wander around some make believe world.

Quote from: cranebump;941807Doubt you'll get the usual suspects to budge an inch, because budging an inch evidently requires giving up a pint of soul ichor.:-/

Oh I don't expect anyone to budge from their stance, only to recognize mine as having value.

Honestly though its hard for me to imagine playing in some of these guys games the way they describe them. I say that respectfully with no condemnation. I simply assume at least a general plotline in any game. Im not sure I would be interested in playing otherwise. When someone asks info about a game Im running I cant imagine simply giving a vague description of the setting only with no hint at what is involved or the direction the action might take.

"Your soldiers in WWII in France looking for a shipment of Nazi stolen gold"
"Your investigators in New York in the 1930s trying to find a serial killer"
"Your the crew of an asteroid mining ship caught up in political intrigue during an uprising on Mars"
"Your a group of medieval era fantasy adventurers exploring dungeons and looking for treasure"

From what Im hearing these are already too limiting for some.

Quote from: rgrove0172;941808Exactly, as it was it was a one shot - perhaps I should have mentioned that but to me it doesn't make a difference. As I have been saying I believe most game settings come with certain expectations. When these aren't met you risk losing your participants.

I for one cant stand Superhero games - haven't had an interest since I gave up comic books in grade school. If I was invited to play in a game of gumshoe detectives for example and suddenly during play we were all granted powers by a chemical plant explosion or something I would be pretty bummed. Theres a good chance I would drop out. I think the GM has the same right. If he sets up a cool campaign involving a war setting and the players announce they don't want to take part in the war effort - he has the right to cancel the game or hedge the players to go along with the original plan. They got together to play his War campaign afterall, not randomly wander around some make believe world.

This pretty much how I feel too and how I handle my game pitches and set up: establishing the setting, genre, tone, etc before we begin. Not that I can;t be flexible and talk about fringe ideas and fit them into the premise or tweak that premise for if required. The folks that enjoy my games and that I like playing for aren;t going for the more VR world simulation style immersion.

Quote from: rgrove0172;941809Oh I don't expect anyone to budge from their stance, only to recognize mine as having value.

Honestly though its hard for me to imagine playing in some of these guys games the way they describe them. I say that respectfully with no condemnation. I simply assume at least a general plotline in any game. Im not sure I would be interested in playing otherwise. When someone asks info about a game Im running I cant imagine simply giving a vague description of the setting only with no hint at what is involved or the direction the action might take.

"Your soldiers in WWII in France looking for a shipment of Nazi stolen gold"
"Your investigators in New York in the 1930s trying to find a serial killer"
"Your the crew of an asteroid mining ship caught up in political intrigue during an uprising on Mars"
"Your a group of medieval era fantasy adventurers exploring dungeons and looking for treasure"

From what Im hearing these are already too limiting for some.

I think that, as a player, I should strive to proceed with good faith when it comes to what we're there to do, which is, in most cases, play together to find out what happens, rather than treat the GM scenario as something I can fuck up as completely as I can. So, I DO think it does a disservice to a GM who's prepared a one-shot to just look at the entire affair as a challenge to see how much I can fuck it up. I do think emphasizing that you've prepared a ONE SHOT does need to be more fully considered. The context IS different from your typical campaign. That said, I think it would be savvy, in the situation of the mansion, to ensure there were some baked in reasons for the players to value the mansion, as well. If you run with some sort of ethical subsystem, alignment can usually take care of that. If not, you might have to come up with something on the spot. Of course, players can rationalize anything, so there are no guarantees that anything's going to cure douche baggery.

I think "How well do you handle player improvisation?" may have been a better thread title.

* stations archers to cover the exits *
* sets thread on fire *

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;941853* stations archers to cover the exits *
* sets thread on fire *

What? :confused:

Quote from: One Horse Town;941338Reward clever role-play without altering the 'reality' of the situation.

This is the best approach.

Quote from: Nexus;941854What? :confused:

Not your post specifically, the last page or so.  This thread started confusingly, perhaps, but seems to have turned to crap.

Quote from: tenbones;941572Litterboxing

This is my favorite new gaming term for this week.

What does it mean?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;941860Not your post specifically, the last page or so.  This thread started confusingly, perhaps, but seems to have turned to crap.

Oh, okay. Its gotten a little contentious but not too "Its a nice day for a Red Wedding" levels yet particularly by the standards of these forums.