Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Crimson Longinus" data-source="post: 9514250" data-attributes="member: 7025508">Well, I don't think that is a problem I have. If you do, then obviously you should do something about it. But the implication here is that GM deciding certain things makes players unhappy. It generally doesn't.Is it though? Because every actual example of the GM saying no is met by criticism by the same couple of people.Do we all agree? I'm not quite sure that [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] does.So it still really isn't about exploits or bad faith play. (Or it could, but that's not the point I've desperately been trying to get across.) It is that if we accept it as axiomatic that it is bad form for the GM to block player lore suggestions, then, in absent of other constrains it becomes valid gameplay strategy to use such suggestions to gain an advantage. And that is not bad faith play, that is just how the game now works. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but It changes the decision landscape of the game significantly, and not in the direction I would like in a game that is net designed to handle it.A lot of things can be used for railroading. Like I said, having a no myth (or low myth because someone will nitpick this again) setting is the most powerful tool for railroading I know. Yet it doesn't need to be used for that and often isn't.That you suggest that it comes with a drawback tells to me that you actually do see it as different. Why there is no cost or sacrifice for knowing a tavern? Because one is mostly about flavour and another is about gaining an advantage.Now another way these are different, and which I think is significant (I've been trying to tell you this in several posts) is that we are not just dealing with situational one-off with this divine intervention here. We are establishing a new tool in the toolbox of the players, one which they quite reasonably would expect to be able to be used again. And as this tool has no practical limit, it is super useful and applicable to all sort of situations. The limit is just the GM setting cost do high than the players are not willing to pay it (but isn't that just anothe way for saying "no"?) But I don't want the gameplay to become this sort of "<s>mother</s> Odin may I," where the players bargain with the GM-god to get things done.I think you might find that this would apply to more things, if you were more willing to listen more and argue less. Well not with that attitude! But people actually constantly solve mysteries in RPGs. Then they did not actually "work it out" they invented it. That is not solving a mystery.</blockquote>

Verification