@CreamCloud0 mentioned how it didn't sound like things the GM was obligated to tell you back in
524, but this shows the other side of the problem caused by even a single player not onboard with the gameplay. Specifically "explain in detail why our plan failed even if there are elements we shouldn't be capable of knowing" with an implied
[or you are guilty of bad behavior as a GM till proven otherwise]. Ironically this only exacerbates the problem from the GM's standpoint as the players start making quantum actions based on unknowable stuff & stuff the PCs have no reason to intuit like how a villager turned them in for coin how the villagers were afraid of $reason or whatever.
Elements who shouldn’t be capable of knowing? The characters? The players? Both?
It’s a game. There are players. If you want the players to make choices that matter, then you have to give them the chance to do so.
The GM is free to handle the situation however he likes. He can do so in a way that the players are aware, or he can do so in a way that they’re not.
Why do that? Why keep stuff like that from the players?
Exactly. And this leads us back to somewhere near the beginning of the thread where players were talking about wanting perfect information to make game decisions despite their character having no possible way to know or taking no actions in the fiction to secure that information.
And then this leads us back to the real reason to provide players that information. Because no GM can provide all the relevant information that the character in the fiction would possess. The GM’s narration is incomplete.
Providing the players with relevant mechanical information is a way to bridge that gap.
It’s not about acquiescing to those pesky, over-demanding players.
Exactly. The more of this I’m reading the more it looks like utterly unreasonable player expectations and when those aren’t met, it’s claims of MMI.
As the player in question, I’ll ask you to mind your manners. If you’re going to speak about me in such a way, at least have the courtesy and social fortitude to @ me. I’ve not resorted to calling those who disagree with me unreasonable or anything like that.
I’m critiquing the system and practices that I think can contribute to this.
Also, I can assure you, I’m far from an unreasonable player. And I’m also the GM for my group about 90% of the time… so it’s not like my view os that of a player only.
Maybe you should consider what is the difference between railroad, main character syndrome and mother may i. If only one of those isn't accepted even though all are derogatory then why is that?
Oh I don’t care which of these labels people use. Call a game what you want, I’ll discuss based on the merits of the argument rather than how friendly the label may or may not be.
I thibk Mother May I and Railroading have some things in common for sure. Main Character Syndrome is something else, I think, and seems to have been evoked in this thread as more of a “oh yeah, well we can do that, too” kind of thing.
Yea, I'm struggling to see the difference between railroading and mother may I in
@hawkeyefan's example.
In the example he didn't have to ask permission to use his ability. He brought it up and the DM said yes. The complaint really seems to be that the DM didn't give them any chance to avoid the encounter. I'm not getting why this is being called mother may I?
Because I used the ability in an attempt to avoid the fight. And then that didn’t happen. And before
@overgeeked or anyone else says that I’m just a sore sport or an unreasonable player, I’ll add that it’s not that my move didn’t work. It’s that it seemingly worked, but then the result was the same as if it hadn’t, with no other chance to try and avoid the fight. No indication it wouldn’t be enough, no chance to make rolls or gather new information.
Me: Mother May I avoid the battle with the Duke’s men?
GM: Nope!