Search results

No GM ever manages to do the best possible thing every time. The thing is just -- when you say something that you later realize you could've done more elegantly or while preserving more player choice while still keeping it exciting -- to note it and realize it and see if you can't do it better...

Makes sense. I'd suggest it's kind of a harmless nudge made necessary only by the players' sort of training. But I think I understand what you meant.

Then the possibility of retroactive action suggests it's not a nudge I'm not exactly clear--I don't mean to be difficult I am just trying to get a handle on how you're GMing this-- Presumably if the players ceased to care and weren't having fun, they would walk out themselves. The only thing...

2 questions should sort this out: 1. After you announced that the players had no new ideas after racking their brains for hours and then went on to do something else, if the players went "Ok, wait, rewind, I want to go back and check under the floorboards, would you let them?" 2. Do you think...

I did not and, of course, would not under any circumstances ever do that, ever. I merely isolated the mistake for clarity's sake. Then I misunderstood your scene. You appeared to be saying that in a given case you would say "Ok you do this for several hours, think of no ideas and then go do...

We are miscommunicating if you think whether something is "common" or not makes it a choker. Chokers are common. And fine. When you skip over a large period of time where the players _could_ have taken actions (I look under the desk--fruitlessly, I interrogate the butler--fruitlessly, I scrape...

Incorrect: In the scenario you narrated you TOLD them they examined the situation and didn't have any new ideas. That affects them. I am NOT saying you should't have done this. I AM saying this is a choker. Do you understand the difference? You have to impose some kind of restriction or...

Nudging. "Nudging: The PCs "should" take some action, notice some clue, make some choice, etc. They aren't doing it. Someone or something comes along and points them in the "right" direction." They aren't realizing the scene isn't going anywhere (or they're not supposed to even go anywhere) so...

You misunderstand. If the players understand the kind of game they're in that would never happen. Here is the post, it is long but its thorough and has a decent history of RPG people reading it and saying "Yeah that makes sense": " Chokers And Chandlers "Let's see what this thing does." The...

Speaking as somebody who gets to watch it up close and personal every week on account of Mandy's condition--I don't think it is too different, especially for surgeons. There are guys who have surgeries more than one a day, are barely familiar with the patient's case and then, hours later, on to...

It isn't. It is a choker, however--a technique that makes a game less sandboxy. If you have a question about what that means, there's a link up there. I am not agreeing with Hussar that your game "isn't a sandbox" I am explaining in more detail what that term means.

When the players can't go ":):):):) all your hooks" and do something else it is _less_ of a sandbox but not necessarily not a sandbox.. For example this: " "Over the course of the afternoon, you wrack your brains to come up with a new lead or a new angle on the problem, but nothing comes to...

Jobs where you have to deal with or consider people in bulk rather than slowly and individually carry that danger.

I don't think it's ever fair to say "I think you're missing out" in the face of someone else's preference. It is fair to ask them about their ideas and emotions and why they think they prefer that thing, but "I think you're missing out" is sort of cutting off your curiosity right when it...

Depends what the player wants/likes. If we assume a traditional player, in both cases the PC is removed from play (dies or "becomes an NPC" as Gygax so often put it in this sort of situation) and the end result is basically the same for them -- be frustrated, roll a new one. If we assume a...

Effective or not, it's still a character with not only accumulated gear and ability, but also one with a name and a personality. And contra some interpretations of the now-disproven original GNS theory, you can care about "beating" scenarios AND what your character is like AND the direction of...

Saerlorn: I addressed that situation in an earlier comment. Which is why I phrased it as a "usually". Vincent Baker has said that in Apoc World the ideal is to eventually write the character out in a satisfactory way. Inerdude: I think you trying to shoehorn this into GNS language means...

It's pretty simple: It's not money, it's not really about "character health" or hit points", death-as-stake is based on a simple assumption: If you are playing with a character, you like that character and you would like to continue playing with that character. And if you have made some...

Fair enough.

You miss my point: you lose that character (which is a way of playing the game) not the whole game. This is still a significant loss. If that's all they care about then they're not terribly attached to the PC to begin with. I'd also suggest this is a bad practice if it discourages a playstyle...