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

Good point, Grim, and I've seen a few systems that account for that. I still wouldn't give them xp for killing themselves randomly, however.  heroically and dramatically? All for it.  Almost never see it, but it's cooler than a polar bear's belly when it happens.

Quote from: GrimGentWhat 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.

Yeah, y'know ... I think that argument might be better made in one of the other threads, don't you?

Here and now, in this thread, what you're doing is railing against a perfectly reasonable guideline for honesty and forthrightness, just because you're riled about entirely different discussions that happened earlier.

Quote from: TonyLBHere and now, in this thread, what you're doing is railing against a perfectly reasonable guideline for honesty and forthrightness, just because you're riled about entirely different discussions that happened earlier.

Whether it's entirely different is a tad questionable... But the players do have the right to know everything that their characters would know, and to base their actions on that knowledge. It's another one of those axioms which I would consider simply common sense.

I can get behind this one.  I generally refuse to play 20 questions with a player.  When they start asking all kinds of minute questions about the situation to see if they can pull off some cockamamie scheme I'll cut through it and ask directly "What are you hoping to achieve here?"  Then depending on what it is, I'll either tell them that it's impossible or that it works, or you need to make such and such rolls.  Impossible is a rarity, because usually such schemes aren't thought out very well and can lead to hilarious results.  

Not a good rule, unless you don't have time or lives to waste.

Or unless you're playing an indie game with a focused objective. Since I don't think the Pundit is into those sorts of games, the rule is pointless.

If a player wants to take a step in a direction that's not fun, by all means, the GM should hammer him into submission.

However, if the character wants to do something stupid or pointless (a dead end), I think the GM should indulge.

Really dumb players ask, "What would happen if I did this?"

The correct answer is, "Do it and find out"

An optional answer is, "Who is your character asking?"  The GM knows stuff in the world by virtue of running it. The player can ask the GM anything he wants. The GM doesn't have to (and probably shouldn't answer) plot critical things.

The character, on the other hand, can't ask the GM anything. They can only ask other NPCs. And different NPCs know different things, or the same thing from different angles. Each NPC also has the ability, no, the DUTY to exploit the information they gain simply by knowing what questions a PC asks them.

If you're trying to run a mystery, or a horror scenario, how are you supposed to indulge false leads and dead ends with this law in place?

One of the things I've not seen discussed here is how does the group deal with these things, only how the GM should.

What I mean by this is, I might answer differently if you had a group that was used to having these kinds of things happen and had all done it one time or another and didn't mind wasting the ten minutes.

Now these are all going to be group by group decisions. If you have a group where this is rare and frowned upon, you would probably take the goggles approach.  But if you're in a group where people, even in the middle of a serious game, do something out of left field, and everyone is cool with the ensuing (waste?) of ten minutes becuase they've all done it, then you might not.

Does that make any sense at all?

Yes.  I'd put this in the GM advice section, and let them choose whether to call a foul, or allow play to continue.  If they call foul and EVERYONE at the table boos, then that's their cue to pause for a moment and consider whether the game would be better if they called the foul, or kept play going.

Quote from: StuartI 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.

Hey, common sense.  I dig that.

Quote from: RPGPunditThe "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.

Sounds good. That's what I try to do. I think sometimes in the heat of the moment it's possible to forget this and stonewall players, so it's good to remind oneself.

I'd never follow this as a all-the-time rule. If the character has no way to know it won't work, I'm not going to tell the player. If the character does know, I'll happily tell the player, because I know the world and the player only knows what he's seen of it, so it's impossible for him to know everything about the world that his character knows, meaning lots of things that seem reasonable to the player would be preposterous to the character..

QuoteI 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."

If you tell him it's impossible and he'll die but the player wants to try anyway there's something serious going on. Either the player is sick of that character and wants to die, has been trained to believe (by you or others) that GMs won't let PCs die, or something. At this point, rather than saying "you try and die" or "no, you can't try" you should probably be saying "why do you still want to do it when you know you'll die?"

Gaming advice:
All absolute gaming advice is flawed.

Quote from: SettembriniGaming advice:
All absolute gaming advice is flawed.

Absolutely!

Quote from: droogAbsolutely!

Damn.

Beaten to the punch.

Quote from: droog

Oh, a wiseguy, eh?