In honour of Grimgent, here's a new gaming Law from the Pundit.

The "The Goggles Do Nothing" Law
Anytime you already know that a possible GM-player interaction regarding a PC's desired action will lead to nothing, don't bother with it. You're only wasting your time, the player's, and everyone else's.  If you, as the GM, already realize that a particular plan can NOT work, then simply tell that to the player, instead of trying to create the "placebo" of giving the player the illusion that his intended action would somehow have a chance of succeeding.

Discuss.

RPGPundit

ps. for the full scoop on how all this came about, see today's blog entry.

Sounds good to me.  Sort of a subset of the more general "Treat your players with respect and honesty" principle.

Quote from: RPGPunditIf you, as the GM, already realize that a particular plan can NOT work, then simply tell that to the player, instead of trying to create the "placebo" of giving the player the illusion that his intended action would somehow have a chance of succeeding.

And this is inconsistent with Monarda... how, exactly? The characters are always supposed to know what they are capable of, after all, so players will also be aware that any unwise plans haven't got a chance of working out.

Quote from: RPGPunditIn honour of Grimgent, here's a new gaming Law from the Pundit.

The "The Goggles Do Nothing" Law
Anytime you already know that a possible GM-player interaction regarding a PC's desired action will lead to nothing, don't bother with it. You're only wasting your time, the player's, and everyone else's.  If you, as the GM, already realize that a particular plan can NOT work, then simply tell that to the player, instead of trying to create the "placebo" of giving the player the illusion that his intended action would somehow have a chance of succeeding.

I actually like that law, with some provisos:

Assuming we're dealing with a situation where it's perfectly obvious to the GM that a particular plan will not work, the GM still needs to ask himself two questions:

1: Is it obvious to the players that it won't work?
2: SHOULD it be obvious to the players that it won't work?

If the answer to 1 is "yes", then you just have to tell the player in question to stop fooling around, because they know what they're asking for isn't possible. If the answer to 1 is "no", it gets more complicated.

A lot of the time, the answer to "2" is probably "yes". The PCs are inhabitants of the campaign world, they live it and breathe it, they are competent members of their respective professions, they aren't (with exceptions) idiots. If, say, there's no Moon in the sky in your campaign world, it's perfectly understandable that players can sometimes forget it, and a-OK to say "Sorry, you can't navigate by moonlight because this world has no Moon."

At the same time, there's occasions when the answer to "2" is "no". For example, when it comes to negotiations with NPCs, player characters won't necessarily know when an NPC will say "no, absolutely not, there's no way I am going to agree to that" (especially if they neglected IC to do research and intelligence-gathering beforehand). I'm not going to say "Well, you talk to the guy and he says no. Try again."

In general, if the players' actions are going to fail because of IC secrets they aren't aware of, I let the action proceed because in the course of failing the PCs will almost always pick up that something unusual is happening and follow it up. (I suppose this is covered by the "comes to nothing" clause in the law, but the rest of the law seems to imply that there's nothing to gain from failure, which isn't always the case.)

If, on the other hand, they'll fail because of IC information they would IC know, I just tell them.

Quote from: GrimGentAnd this is inconsistent with Monarda... how, exactly? The characters are always supposed to know what they are capable of, after all, so players will also be aware that any unwise plans haven't got a chance of working out.

Lets have an experiment.

THIS Sunday I am running MY Serenity campaign with 4 mature players. And during the entire 3 hours I will not use the WORDS "NO" ever.

If any player, as their character, wishes to attempt any action (no matter how trivial, plot-killing, diabolical, stupid or un-fun) I will allow them a chance to take that option.

I bet you the following week, not one of the bastards will turn up!

(I changed my Signature, hopefully people will understand.)

QuoteAnd this is inconsistent with Monarda... how, exactly?

Could we seriously give Nobilis and Monarda a break for a while?

I think we were talking about something a few weeks back when I gave the example of a player who wants to try leaping across the chasm.  The GM tells him the chasm is 1/2 mile wide, and it's not possible.  The player wants to try anyway.  The options were:

1) Let them try, and then everyone has a laugh as they fall to their death.
or
2) The GM says No.  Not even just "No that's not successful".  "No, you can't do that. You're character doesn't attempt it."

#1 completely breaks my suspension of disbelief / immersion / virtual experience as another player.  Maybe it's funny for a moment, but if I want funny, there are better games than an RPG.

I'm firmly in support of #2.

Quote from: StuartCould we seriously give Nobilis and Monarda a break for a while?

If Pundit will, then yes. He's free to enjoy his little delusions about the game, naturally enough, but spreading his misconceptions as facts without even the slightest idea of how it's supposed to play out is still seriously annoying.

Quote from: StuartI'm firmly in support of #2.

I'm not. I'd tell the player that the character will die if he jumps. I wouldn't stop him if he nevertheless went ahead with it despite the warnings, for some unfathomable reason. It's his suicide.

Nobody mentioned Monarda or Nobilis in this thread before you.  I've only mentioned it asking you not to derail this thread with more Nobilis discussion.  We'v had *so much* of that lately.  Surely you can refrain from mentioning them in this thread.  Just discuss what the topic is about, bitch about Pundit singling you out, whatever...

Quote from: StuartI think we were talking about something a few weeks back when I gave the example of a player who wants to try leaping across the chasm.  The GM tells him the chasm is 1/2 mile wide, and it's not possible.  The player wants to try anyway.  The options were:

1) Let them try, and then everyone has a laugh as they fall to their death.
or
2) The GM says No.  Not even just "No that's not successful".  "No, you can't do that. You're character doesn't attempt it."

#1 completely breaks my suspension of disbelief / immersion / virtual experience as another player.  Maybe it's funny for a moment, but if I want funny, there are better games than an RPG.

I'm firmly in support of #2.

How does "Invisible magic forces prevent you from approaching the chasm with the intention of jumping into it" harm suspension of disbelief less than "With a running start and all the confidence in the world, you leap into the open space, crossing what seems like a remarkable distance. However, you can't jump half a mile, and begin a less-dignified freefall towards the rocks below"?

I'm not arguing your preference, I'm just...totally confused.

Quote from: StuartNobody mentioned Monarda or Nobilis in this thread before you.

...Except that, you know, the whole thread is based on Pundit's criticism of the principle in another thread. Still, for the sake of convenience, I'll limit myself to the discussion here.

Quote from: StuartNobody mentioned Monarda or Nobilis in this thread before you.  I've only mentioned it asking you not to derail this thread with more Nobilis discussion.  We'v had *so much* of that lately.  Surely you can refrain from mentioning them in this thread.  Just discuss what the topic is about, bitch about Pundit singling you out, whatever...

Not by saying the words, no. But I can't think of a way that this law isn't intended as a direct refutation of the Monardo Law. It's linked to in a discussion about Nobilis, it's aimed at the poster most vocal in defense of Nobilis, and it's in direct opposition to what Pundit has told himself Monardo is about. It's like talking about "Armor Class" and "3rd-level spells" and "mind flayers" then claiming you're not talking about D&D.

Quote from: Christmas ApeHow does "Invisible magic forces prevent you from approaching the chasm with the intention of jumping into it" harm suspension of disbelief less than "With a running start and all the confidence in the world, you leap into the open space, crossing what seems like a remarkable distance. However, you can't jump half a mile, and begin a less-dignified freefall towards the rocks below"?

I'm not arguing your preference, I'm just...totally confused.

*bzzt*  Wrong.  

You're trying to map IC effects to an entirely OOC decision.

Just because the players or the GM decide something won't happen does not automatically mean there has to be some ingame reflection of that decision.

Should I somehow go out of my way to reflect in my Rainbow Six game that the players and I decided not to include giant purple werewolves?

Some things really are just ridiculous, and I see no reason why I should be forced to recognize them in my game if I don't feel like it.

QuoteI'm not. I'd tell the player that the character will die if he jumps. I wouldn't stop him if he nevertheless went ahead with it despite the warnings, for some unfathomable reason. It's his suicide.

Keep in mind we're talking about a generic RPG now... not a favourite one in particular...

The problem with this, (and it does happen for some groups when a player decides to kill his character so he can bring in a new one he's decided he'd like better) is that:

* It's in no way realistic.
* It wastes everyone's time.
* It makes the game worse for the other players.

I guess it depends on whether you see the players guiding the actions of believable characters in a fictional world... or if the players are like demons as seen in the movie Fallen who control the person, but are NOT restricted by any normal rules of human behaviour.