Quote from: Christmas ApeBut I can't think of a way that this law isn't intended as a direct refutation of the Monardo Law.

Well ... what do you think of the law on its own merits?  If we leave the Monarda conversation in the Monarda threads (of which ... yeah ... there are plenty), I think that the Goggles law makes good sense.  Don't mislead people into thinking that they've got a chance at something.  If they don't have a chance of convincing you, and the conversation's not going to be fun or productive, just tell them that they don't have a chance and move on.  Seems honest and helpful to me.

Quote from: J ArcaneShould 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?

There's a more accurate comparison: is a PC allowed to shoot himself in that game?

Quote from: Stuart(and it doesn 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)

Why not just say that the character retires or vanishes in the middle of the night or moves to Australia without telling one and is never heard of again? But if a player intentionally wants to kill off his PC, I would never prevent it with a swift veto. It's possible that the game features a willpower or cowardice check which might prevent it, but I'm not going to use GM fiat to stop someone from deliberating harming his character.

Quote from: GrimGentThere's a more accurate comparison: is a PC allowed to shoot himself in that game?

If there's a direct IC reason for his character to do so, say he's torn apart with grief over accidentally taking out a hostage in the last misison, and it's roleplayed well enoguh to be believeable, then yes.

If he's just being a fuckstick and doing it for shits and giggles or for disruptive purposes, or just sheer boredom, I tell him no, and to stop beign a fuckstick, and begin pondering that either I have a problem player, or I'm a problem GM, because I'm not engaging my players well enough that they aren't going off the deep end and trying silly shit just to find some amusement.

Of course, I rarely play in groups rendered so dysfunctional that they'd expect to get away with that kind of behavior, so I suspect this is getting to be one of those "theory not practice" sorts of discussions I hate so much.

I think anytime the player wants their character to stop acting like a believable person by any remote stretch of imagination, and start running them like a possessed person controlled by a demon... the GM needs to step in to bring them back to playing the game everyone sat down to play.  

If they don't that can spoil the fun for the other players at the table.  Why?  Because the quality of their "story" and "virtual experience" is greatly diminished if the Paladin suddenly jumps off a cliff and kills himself, or the Cleric suddenly jumps up in the Tavern and starts hitting people with his mace.

If those things happen in a game, they should be shocking and point to a major storyline involving possession.

The GM's job is to play referee, an that means saying "No" to things that are out of scope.

Please keep in mind that whatever you and your gaming group might do (or not do) is not the same as ALL gaming groups, and certainly not the same as "In Case of Emergency" advice to give to new gamers.

Quote from: GrimGentThere's a more accurate comparison: is a PC allowed to shoot himself in that game?

If the player is like that I want to know if he doesn't like his character for some reason. If yes, I allow him a more diginified option of retiring that character. If the answer is no, then he's just being an ass and I send him on his merry way and don't invite him back.

Character suicides for valid in game reasons (though rare indeed) is another topic than random acts of self-death. Occasionally I feel the need to remind such players that they don't earn XP for themselves...

Quote from: TonyLBDon't mislead people into thinking that they've got a chance at something.

Of course. And the important thing to remember is that no one is arguing for anything else.

Quote from: SpikeOccasionally I feel the need to remind such players that they don't earn XP for themselves...

Hmm. Now, if reincarnation exists in the setting, and you could somehow keep the XP from past lives, that definitely has potential...

QuoteOf course, I rarely play in groups rendered so dysfunctional that they'd expect to get away with that kind of behavior, so I suspect this is getting to be one of those "theory not practice" sorts of discussions I hate so much.

As an aside: My interest in this is *specifically* for GM advice to give to new players, who may be very young and from experience encounter more of the "doing it for shits and giggles or for disruptive purposes" type behaviour.

Quote from: TonyLBWell ... what do you think of the law on its own merits?  If we leave the Monarda conversation in the Monarda threads (of which ... yeah ... there are plenty), I think that the Goggles law makes good sense.  Don't mislead people into thinking that they've got a chance at something.  If they don't have a chance of convincing you, and the conversation's not going to be fun or productive, just tell them that they don't have a chance and move on.  Seems honest and helpful to me.

This is the second time in one day I'm agreeing with TonyLB on something.

Not only that, but in another thread, I even say Tony and Pundit half agree on something.

Hold me, I'm scared.

Quote from: J Arcane*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.

That's how my group rolls, dawg. If the player declares an action, initiation is assumed; the GM doesn't come in until resolution and impact.
YMMV, but if a player tells me "I'm gonna take a running start and leap the chasm!" my response is "You'll die". If he says "Yep!", I presume he's got himself an IC reason, and he falls and dies. Then he sits out and considers another character, possibly one with better survival instincts.

QuoteShould 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?

Besides the fact we're comparing apples and car stereos here, proving a negative is exceedingly hard. Especially since I can't think of anything that has giant purple werewolves off the top of my head.

QuoteSome 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.

Huh.

My players have never presented me with an IC course of action so ridiculous that I flat out had to veto the attempt. At least not in the past decade, anyhow. Maybe that's the problem?

Quote from: GrimGentOf course. And the important thing to remember is that no one is arguing for anything else.

Well, you're generating an awful lot of passionate argument, given that you don't actually disagree with the premise of the thread.

So what's up with that?  You have to argue with Pundit just because he's Pundit?  Please.  That's giving him more personal cred than he deserves, by a damn sight.  My advice is this:  Argue with him when he's wrong, agree with him when he's right, and don't let him bait you into getting the two confused.

Quote from: StuartAs an aside: My interest in this is *specifically* for GM advice to give to new players, who may be very young and from experience encounter more of the "doing it for shits and giggles or for disruptive purposes" type behaviour.

In which case I think the encouragement towards indulging every stupid thing a player tries to do is absolutely abominable, and liable to create more and more problems over time.

Quote from: TonyLBWell, you're generating an awful lot of passionate argument, given that you don't actually disagree with the premise of the thread.

What I disagree with is his curious notion that this premise is somehow incompatible with the principle-which-shall-go-unnamed-for-now. Well... At least the principle as written, that is. His reinterpretation of it is another matter altogether.

Quote from: TonyLBWell ... what do you think of the law on its own merits?  If we leave the Monarda conversation in the Monarda threads (of which ... yeah ... there are plenty), I think that the Goggles law makes good sense.  Don't mislead people into thinking that they've got a chance at something.  If they don't have a chance of convincing you, and the conversation's not going to be fun or productive, just tell them that they don't have a chance and move on.  Seems honest and helpful to me.

I've been puzzling over this, actually, and on reflection I have to engage in something I despise; I'm gonna have to ask for a definitional clarification on a simple and obvious word.

What do we mean by "nothing"? What circumstances would give us a player having their character take a pointless action? I think I need examples in this case; some plans don't work because there's something the players don't know, and some plans don't work because the plan is retarded. If it's the first, PC information gathering - even through trial and error - isn't "nothing". If it's the second, it's some good advice wrapped up in yet another absolute.