Saying "No" : comments.
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
|
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
| 14 |
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
What I am talking about is a good "no." I'm not saying "player cannot build a nuclear bomb in Dogs is a bad decision."
What I am saying is that this kind of "no" has a place in functional play. Everyone seems to think that the player who does this is a giant turd. They aren't.
When I play any game, but especially a new system, I'm going to poke around and see what the constraints are. "Can I flip up over the ledge and shoot him twice in the eyes?" "No, this is a gritty detective drama." Another example would be "Can I use Cooking to smash him over the head with a frying pan?" "Uh... no..."
These are not bad "no"s, but also the player isn't being a dick for poking around at the system and setting.
What I'm trying to figure out is the dividing line.
yrs--
--Ben
(no subject)
> for poking around at the system and setting.
See, I flat out disagree. I think the player is being a dick or the GM is encouraging actions outside the scope of the game. To me, this looks like the GM and player aren't on the same page. Why would you want to flip over the ledge and shoot him in a gritty detective drama? Why would you suspect that that's even worth asking about?
Let me paraphrase some Dan Quinn: Old Minds think, "What can we do to stop bad things from happening?" New Minds think, "What can we do to make cool stuff happen?" Why go for negative reinforcement when you can simply encourage people to come up with neat stuff that IS within the scope of the game? The world will not be saved by Old Minds with new programs, but by New Minds with NO PROGRAMS. "No," is a program. Never say "never" again.
(no subject)
Of course the GM and player aren't on the same page. Duh! Think about the lumpley principle for a second. If all the players of the game were on the same page, why would you bother playing? You wouldn't need to negotiate the SIS at all.
I'm sorry, dude, but you're just wrong about this. The language does not contain wrong words wrong enough to describe your wrongness. What I am describing *must* be a part of functional play (or maybe very stealthy dysfunctional play) because what I am describing goes on all the time in any RPG I've ever played in. And I have had a lot of fun -- not despite it, but because of it.
Yet another example: Every single Riddle of Steel game I've ever played has players constantly saying "Can I use this SA? How about this one?" If the GM said "yes" to all of those, the game would be pointless. All SAs would be firing all the time, so it would just become "what do you want to do." The GM (where, by GM, I mean "person who says no") needs to limit people so that the SAs are all that more special when they *do* happen.
I think you're on this trip right now that every word spoken by a player is a gospel contribution to the game. That's great... for improv comedy. Role-playing games have blocking rules, and have them for a reason. I think it is an important statement you are going for, but it is also a wrong one.
yrs--
--Ben
P.S. You should put your Polaris comments on my Polaris post, so I can reference them later.
(no subject)