Majoru Oakheart said:
Clever players should say "No? No beard...alright, that plan won't work...let me come up with another plan."
This right here, this is bad. It's a fundamental way of DMing that I don't think you understand. When player's ideas are shot down, they get frustrated, when players get frustrated the game slows down and is generally less fun, when the game slows down and is less fun you inevitably wind up at "What do I need to roll to pass this thing".
Player's plans should not work 100% of the time is true. Player's should, however, be able to attempt 100% of their plans. Success or failure is independent of the attempt. As long as they were able to try, they feel in control of their destiny. What you propose is taking their destiny under your control, until they guess the thing you want them to guess to progress the story. Saying yes to player questions is just a short cut to getting them to attempt a plan.
This beard example is lifted straight out of my experience with the LMoP adventure and my current group. They had defeated the rogue wizard and now wanted to impersonate him. The warlock, a bearded half elf, asked if the wizard had a beard. It does not matter to me what that wizard looks like. Like, 0% care factor. So the answer is yes, the wizard had a beard. I had no idea at the time why this question was relavent to the Warlock, but I knew the answer would spur him forward. The Warlock then attempts to impersonate the wizard via Charisma (Perform) checks to progress the plot. He greets the targets and tries to earn a surprise round through subterfuge. It fails ultimately, but that's not the point. The point is the PCs came up with a plan, executed it, and we moved on from investigation to action. This is your main job as a DM, to keep the plot moving.
The opposite of in control is not necessarily "no control" or "out of control" in this context. When a player makes a decision and that decision impacts the plot they feel empowered and empowered players are happy players and happy players make for good games. They control their fate when they make the plan, weather it succeeds or fails. Asking them to conform to your plan means they are not empowered to control their fate.
Majoru Oakheart said:
I let players take any action that makes sense given the situation at hand. If I describe a room filled with lasers and cameras guarding the gem they want to steal and one of the players says "I just walk up and take it." the plan will fail, 100% of the time. They came up with a dumb plan. That isn't about deviating from "my idea of overcoming the obstacle". It's that there are solutions that would work and solutions that obviously won't work. Coming up with one of the poor plans and expecting me to say yes to it is dumb.
This is still a game and there will be right and wrong solutions to problems. The game is in figuring out the right solutions based on the information you have. And in searching for the information if you don't have enough.
I want the players to win. But I want them to have to work for it. Saying yes to everything they say does not make them work for it.
That is a pretty dumb plan (also, have more faith in your players ability to come up with good plans), but that does not mean he shouldn't be able to do that. Maybe he thinks he can outrun security, or erase the tapes, or some other plan to deal with the fallout of triggering alarms. Maybe he fails to get the gem and the story takes a turn, maybe he gets the gem but has to flee town, maybe his plan for "I have the gem, now what" is clever. The point is, it's his character, and he wants to trip the alarms, so trip the alarms. If this situation were real, is there some invisible force saying "no you can't do that because it's dumb" to a person? No, that person sets off the alarms and deals with the choice he made.
The game is not in figuring out the "right" solution, but in fact figuring out "any" solution to obstacles and problems. Again, not all plans have 100% success rate, but all plans should be able to be attempted by the players.
Saying yes to everything is a SHORTCUT to move from "how do we do this?" to "We are doing this" to "well that worked" or "that didn't work, lets try this instead".
Also this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eItmed4PQdk
Majoru Oakheart said:
I love to reward out of the box thinking. But once again, it needs to fit the situation at hand and work within the physical laws of the universe, established fact and the facts that I established in advance of the game session starting. You can't just say "I make a 20 diplomacy check to convince the army to leave. You didn't expect me to do that, did you? So it's out of the box thinking and it should be rewarded. The whole army leaves. You have to say yes to me!"
Convincing the army to leave isn't an available option even if it's an out of the box answer. The army is evil, they have goals that they want to accomplish. A player's plan doesn't trump the motivations of the NPCs. They might be able to find the right leverage to use on the leader of the army to convince him to leave...but that requires work. More than just saying "This is my plan!"
Ok, first of all, this is a strawman. Unless this actually happened in one of your games you are exaggerating to make a point, and again that point seems to be "do it my way". Secondly, why isn't convincing the army to leave via diplomacy a solution? That in fact is the exact solution to preventing war, isn't it? "Hey we have an army and want your stuff" "well what if we give you some stuff in exchange for other stuff" "no we just take your stuff with our army" "ah, but if you get stuff with out your army you can use that army other places" (Roll diplomacy) "you make good point pink skin, we will take our orc army to next village and you trade us weapons for shines".
It's fine to require effort to achieve a goal. "They might be able to find the right leverage to use on the leader of the army to convince him to leave...but that requires work. More than just saying 'This is my plan!'" is in direct opposition to "they can't use diplomacy to make the army leave". If their "plan" is to get the army to leave peacefully, you set obstacles to that goal and plot points towards that end and eventually they win the day by finding the leverage they need to succeed. The point of the narative and the diplomacy check is to A) Have the party focused on a goal and 2) make progress towards that goal with the outcome of the check.
Even if it were impossible to make the army leave, in atempting to do so and failing the party can achieve both A) and 2). Their goal is to make the army leave. Their diplomacy, while not effective in making the army leave, might provide clues or information on the army's leaders and motivations to eventually meet goal A).
Majoru Oakheart said:
They knew that the NPC in question wasn't acting of his own free will. Everyone they spoke to said that he'd never hang himself and that he was acting strangely lately. It was foreshadowing the succubus that they'd meet later. They don't know WHAT caused the strange behavior in the man, but they do know something did.
This sort of foreshadowing is used in TV all the time. The bad guy appears to be working for some mysterious organization but before the heroes can figure out what it is, the man is killed, leaving the trail cold...for now. Then the show can bring back the organization again in the future and slowly reveal more information about it. But not before the heroes go on a number of other adventurers.
The point is that the information required to solve a problem isn't always available immediately. Sometimes you need to be patient and wait until you have enough information to solve the problem.
The player in question just has 0 patience and gets angry when anyone asks him to be patient.
Foreshadowing in TV is for the viewers. There are no viewers to your game. Foreshadowing in game is for the PLAYERS, which means they need the hint at the knowledge to come. In TV the succubus would be lurking somewhere, and while the characters may not have seen it, the viewer most certainly did, hinting at a showdown to come later.
You are describing a problem, irritated player who wants his character to be relevant, and I am giving you the solution, let him play his character how he wants to play him. Don't say "you can't do that" or "that doesn't work", say "why are you doing that" and "here's what happens when you do that". The group needs more information, so you are in an investigation scene. How do the players investigate? If you ask him what he wants to do and he says "what do I have to roll to solve this" that is a problem. If you ask him what he wants to do and he says "literally anything else" then he has some idea of how he would like the story to go and you should roll with it. If you respond enough times with "that won't work" or "that's not possible" then he gets frustrated.
I'll say it again: Saying "Yes" is a SHORTCUT to get from "what are we doing here?" to "how do we do this?" to "lets do this and win the day" which is ultimately what you should want as a DM. This is the last time I'll try and convince you putting your PCs on exclusive logic trains is bad. I've said what I came to say, take it or leave it I guess.
