GMing: "getting Even" vs "getting it right"

[SweeneyTodd]

I figured I'd chime in over here, as well, since the discussion's going very differently.

I like "make them pay", with the (very large) caveat that I'm talking about "pay" as in "pay for beer", not as in "pay for your crimes". I think it's possible to, say, modify the system so that if you're using Plot Points to step on somebody else's niche, it costs extra. Preferably a lot extra, as in it's rarely an attractive option. If they spent the same amount of points to, say, help that other PC solve the challenge (which is better as far as spotlight and niche protection go), they'd get more more "oomph" for the cost.

I guess part of the issue is that while I'm saying "charge em", I'm really talking about fixing the rule.

As a firm and fast rule, punishing a player in-game for anything, even something that bugs me, is something I'm so firmly against that it's hard for me to not use Eric's grandma-unfriendly words in condemning it.

 

[swrushing]

Now if the knowledge then unbalances the proposed encounter in such a way that it becomes no fun for anyone then as a DM you have to say that. "Sorry I can't allow you to even spend the points on the roll (that way none are wasted) as the whole point of this scenario is to see if you guys can find another way to make this thingy work and all the clues to do it are somewhere on this station."

I know what you are saying but, come on, isn't having your Gm drop out of game and person tom person explain how you are supposed to be playing and how you are supposed to be solving the puzzle and telling you no to choices otherwise legit because it messes with these a real downer, cutting the fun, maybe a sign of poor scenario design or bad rules and something you DONT want to happen?

it would be like reading a mystery novel in which after page 130 there was an insert saying "now, stop folliwng the lady in red cuz she is a ruse this time, pay attention to the items on the mantlepiece cuz thats how you are supposed to be solving this."

Seems to me, i would much prefer fixing the rules so i don't have to now and again step out of game and explain to my players how they should be going about things or tell them no to things just like things they have been told yes to before just because its going the wrong way in this session.

I can design scenarios and write rules that don't require me to shepherd "out of character" the **players** thru the scenario.

So can you, i imagine.


Seriously, for real, not just for internet BBS fussin', if a Gm stopped the game, gave you the lines you quoted above and told you no to doing what you had done several times before on those grounds, would that be a gaming moment that brings you here going "wow, what a great GM i had and a great scenario too!!!" or would that be more likely to bring you here posting "What a poorly designed scenario or maybe just a crappy GM"

 

[swrushing]

I figured I'd chime in over here, as well, since the discussion's going very differently.

yeah, after a bit, i posted this to four different forums, some with exact cut-n-paste of text, so i could see how the different communities came at the issue.

its been very different too between the boards.

and also, YES i agree, if the choice of approaching the solution was for jayne to say "i help kaylee" i have no real issue with it. I will usually allow a pc to spend plots to assist someone else's die roll if they are workin' together, even though the RAW seem to want you to have a feat for that. (then again, the RAW won't let Mal repair the engine in out of gas, so i part company with them in other places too.)

 

[KRT]

I know what you are saying but, come on, isn't having your Gm drop out of game and person to person explain how you are supposed to be playing and how you are supposed to be solving the puzzle and telling you no to choices otherwise legit because it messes with these a real downer, cutting the fun, maybe a sign of poor scenario design or bad rules and something you DONT want to happen?

[/b]

I agree that you do not want this to happen but realistically there will be times when a player pull some obscure rule out of the bag and viola has the solution. If you can fly with it and essentially dump the whole scenario and wing an adventure then thats probably the prefered way to go. However there are times when you might want to rule that the alien technology is beyond having an amateur solve it with a lucky roll. I only suggested dropping out of game because when it comes down to rulings many players won't let it drop because their focus is general too intense on trying to accomplish the thing right in front of them rather than looking at the big picture in terms of playing the game.

my take on this thread is that the DM has designed himself into a corner. How does he now best get out. Sure he should never get there in the first place, but it will happen to everyone, no matter how good a DM you think you are.

 

[swrushing]

my take on this thread is that the DM has designed himself into a corner. How does he now best get out. Sure he should never get there in the first place, but it will happen to everyone, no matter how good a DM you think you are.

Sorry but with two and a half decades of GMing, I have never had to step out of character and tell my players what to do as you suggest. part of Gming is rolling with the surprises and moving along. It might be a clumsy roll along and not up to your usual "when prepared" standards but I don't accept that its a given that a Gm will have to resort to out-of-character orders to keep his game running.

I would chalk such as you describe as inevitable as a number one with a bullet entry in the "bad GMing" playbook. it is likely it would result in me leaving on the spot or more likely finishing the session and then bowing out of the game.

YMMV