This one struck me as really interesting. As a DM, I realize that distinction. I know that plans I have are not "canon" until they are explicitly included in the game, and sometimes I make radical changes to offscreen elements that I had going in my head. As a player, people get very attached to their backgrounds and it's much harder to be flexible in that way. There is some merit to the notion of linearity and consistency, but nonetheless this is an interesting issue to raise.TWO. Realise that your character does not exist outside of the things you have said.
Yep, that's a tough one for some people (probably most people). Important though.TEN. Embrace failure.
Well, I know you asked not to argue against it but...I believe we should round up all the PC's who want to steal from and/or assassinate their fellow PC's and only let them game with each other.
... and don't try to argue that my Lawful Good Paladin wouldn't instantly behead (or at least cut off a hand of) your lying, thieving character when caught red-handed.
Oddly enough, one of my groups back in the early 1980s went through exactly that scenario. The party thief went über-klepto and eventually tried to steal from "Sir Old Testament"...who meted out swift, permanent justice.... and don't try to argue that my Lawful Good Paladin wouldn't instantly behead (or at least cut off a hand of) your lying, thieving character when caught red-handed.
My point is that players who think it's fine for their character to steal from others should not be surprised when others think it's fine to punish them for their actions. More than once I've heard the "I didn't do much--only stole your favorite magic item. You killed my character. That's much worse!" argument and I don't buy it.Well, I know you asked not to argue against it but...
I think the inflexible, automatic Paladin can, at times, be just as disruptive to a game as the kleptomaniacal theif.
The Paladin, while he does have to be forthright and just and good and all that... it doesn't have to mean that he has to cut off the rogue's head, or hand, or finger, or anything.
This goes with the article's rule 3 (chopping off body parts is the severest form of negation) rule 4 (While the paladin's behavior is, to a degree, mandated, your hands aren't tied that tightly. What ELSE could your paladin do?) As well as rule 5.
They can't all be winners... This tip is less applicable as it gets into "how the game is actually played." In general, as a GM, I don't trust players making stuff up. Many are bad at it and turn the setting into a joke so every town has a clothing shop called Fromage run by 2 flaming stereotypes.The only small bit I have an issue with " Work out a level of agency with the GM so you can chip into wider descriptions, or just make assumptions and describe it and see if it sticks. " I don't want player agency in a game other than what the character does by her actions. I don't like player power outside of that. But that is a playstyle thing.
No, something's happened. There's tension now. Will the fighter try to punch anyway? Will he strike the monk? I'm interested to see how it plays out.THREE. Don’t try to stop things.
Negating another player’s actions is fairly useless play; it takes two possible story-changing elements and whacks them against each other so hard that neither of them works. For example, your fighter wants to punch some jerk, but your monk’s against it, so he grabs the fighter’s hand. In game terms, nothing’s happened. All you’ve done is waste time, and we don’t have infinite supplies of that.
Remind me never to play Paranoia with this guy.FIVE. Don’t harm other players.