In Honour of Grimgent:RPGPundit's "The Goggles Do Nothing" Law of Game-MasteringOver at
theRPGsite, I've gotten into an extensive debate with the Swine; apparently, they've decided to make what we could only optimistically hope is their last stand on that site over the subject of my hatred of R. Borgstrom's Nobilis game, and her writing in general.
Though really, I'm guessing it'll be far from their last stand. I've whupped their asses over and over again, but they never seem to tire of it. They always come back for more, like the good little gang of masochists they are. Trying and trying over and over again at something I know and they must certainly know
by now is doomed to failure.
Speaking of which, that's the nature of the fight we're having. The Monarda Law, which I've written a counter-law for (the
"Rebecca Borgstrom is a Moron Law"), essentially states that a GM is forbidden from EVER saying "no" to his players.
Of course, this is so unplayable as to be utterly absurd, and is evidence of the hole in Borgstrom's head.
However, most of the Nobilis Swine try to reinterpret this law as meaning "you can say absolutely anything to your players, other than the literal word formed by the letters "n-o", including anything that essentially means no".
Which makes the law absolutely meaningless.
GrimGent, over on theRPGsite, has a very particular interpretation, his own little attempt to make the law palatable and useable and to defend it from, oh, reality. In his parallel universe's version of things, the Monarda Law means "you have to let your players explore every possible action they want to take, you can't just say no "no that wouldn't work" to them; you must instead ask them "how would you do this", or "yes, but.." or "well, you could TRY"". The idea is again based on some kind alternative 60s-hippie child-education principle, that somehow kids will best learn if they are allowed to "explore their mistakes", that even if the teacher knows that 2+2 definitely doesn't equal 5, she should let the children "explore" their answer, and reason it out, rather than just saying "no, sorry, its 4" and going on. Because to do the latter would somehow "stymie the child's creativity" and "hurt the child's self-esteem".
Of course, I would say this is a king-rat stupid fucking idea even for children, put forth by a gang of marxist ruffians who wanted to destroy civilization. But its even more stupid when you consider that in RPGs, we're
talking about fucking adults here. There's no reason to allow adults to explore their fucking mistakes, if you know that what they're trying to do is doomed to failure. Its just a stupid idea, that wastes time, and
gives your players faulty ideas about the world. And THAT; dear reader, is the true "cardinal sin" of the Game Master, not saying no to them as Beccky Borgstrom alleges in her stupid Monarda Law.
So in honour of both Borgstrom and Grimgent, I have decided its time for a new addition to RPGPundit's laws of no-nonsense game mastering.
The law is, basically this:
The "The Goggles Do Nothing" LawAnytime you already know that a possible GM-player interaction regarding a PC's desired action will lead to nothing, don't bother with it. You're only wasting your time, the player's, and everyone else's. If you, as the GM, already realize that a particular plan can NOT work, then simply tell that to the player, instead of trying to create the "placebo" of giving the player the illusion that his intended action would somehow have a chance of succeeding.There you go.
The Law's title is, of course, inspired by the famous quip in the Simpsons, where Ranier Wolfcastle is given a pair of plastic protective-goggles to protect against a rushing flood of acid. Naturally, and obviously to anyone who saw the onrushing
river of acid, the "goggles" were only a useless placebo. Unfortunately, Wolfcastle only realizes this at the last second as he's being swept away by the current of acid, screaming "Arrgh, the Goggles do Nothing!" in his typical Arnie-accent.
Its the same with players. If you, as a GM, insist on trying to "let them try" every single hairbrained idea a player has, because Borgstrom or some other second-rate game writer has told you so, you are only engaging in useless busywork that slows down the whole process of the game. If you have to spend ten or twenty minutes spoonfeeding and handholding your players every time that they think up an idea you already realize as GM is doomed to failure, you are only taking up ten or twenty minutes of their lives and yours for no meaningful end. And what's worse, you are telling them that they can't trust you with presenting them an accurate vision of their Player Character's perception of the world.
PCs depend on the GM to be their senses, the way the GM describes the world and their perception of the world is the only thing they've got. So if the player is trying to shoot at something that the GM knows is too far out of range for him to possibly hit it, but the GM spends 15 minutes letting the Player "work it through" himself, all that does is tell the player that the GM can't be trusted to tell the player that his PC realizes a shot wouldn't hit. The GM is reducing the player's PC to an idiot. For you see, thinking up an idiotic thought doesn't make one an idiot, its following through on that thought before/instead of being able to reason that it would not work, that's what makes one an idiot. And that's exactly what GrimGent's little scheme does to players. If you aren't going to use something like the Monarda Law to actually allow the players to define reality (which sucks for all kinds of other reasons), then using the Monarda Law at all, especially how GrimGent implies one should use it, only results in a smokescreen that turns your players into idiots because you fail in your duty as a GM to tell the players what they are or are not capable of doing.
Your player's aren't idiots, nor are they children, much less the sensitive spoilt children that Borgstrom or Grimgent would like you to think they are. They're grown-ups, they can handle being told "no". It will usually, in my experience, push them to try another idea. Possibly a better one than the first idiocy that might spring to mind. Or, at the very least, it will lead the players to move on with things, rather than lingering, stuck in a moment, trying to accomplish something that you know they can't possibly accomplish.
So there you are, trust your players enough to say "no" to them.
I guess to some this sounds pretty radical, but its really just what great GMs have been doing for the last 30+ years. It'll certainly get you further than Borgstrom's pathetic mollycoddling philosophies, or Grimgent's poorly-thought-out interpretations thereof.
RPGPundit
Currently Smoking: Reina De La Vega Corona (cigar)
(originally posted November 17, 2006)
Comments (20)
I've never played nobilis, but I could see something like that working [i]if[/i] it went something like this:
"I want to make the galaxy spin like a top."
"The galaxy is spinning like a top. Congratulations. You've just killed 10,000,000,000,000 intelligences. Also, the explosion of matter and energy will wipe out everything created by the big bang. Your character is now the most reviled deity in existence and will spend the next billion years under the most horrible tortures imaginable while everyone else cleans up this mess."
*Pause*
"Continue to try to jerk the game around and I'm kicking you out of the game. One billion years later, everything is exactly as it was. Congratulations the rest of you, have a million XP. Now, where were we?"
Technically, that is a 'Yes, but...' :D
Sure; its also pointless.
True. I was mostly being sarcastic. Imagine me saying that while smirking.
Heh: I had forgotten about this little rant. I don't suppose it would do any good to remind you that the principle of "never saying 'no'" is an elementary piece of GMing advice which in no way overrides the actual mechanics of the game, so that "making the entire galaxy spin like a top" or other similar feats would only be possible if the character already possesses the necessary power to do that? As mentioned many times over, it only applies to attempted actions which the PCs by all rights should be capable of, but which the GM might not want to allow because they threaten his precious plot. Essentially, it guarantees everyone's right to have their efforts resolved by the rules so that the warrior of the group won't suddenly be told: "No, sorry, you suddenly forget all about your military training and can't even remember which way to hold a sword, 'cause I'm not going to let that NPC you just attacked die before he has the chance to make this glorious hour-long speech I wrote last night..."
Falling back on the boogeyman of the autocratic GM is pretty pathetic, Grimgent.
That's no boogeyman when it's what the advice is meant to accomplish, Pundit: to help the GM avoid the trap of only caring about his own entertainment at the expense of everyone else. "If you want to make sure that you do not slip and accidentally place your established story over the fun of the players in the game", if you don't wish to bend the rules so that players could never slaughter GMPCs by the dozen and make a hash of your carefully orchestrated plotline through some scheme that you never expected, if you allow the characters to actually do all that they can instead of only what you had in mind, then "never saying 'no'" should help. If you don't, well, then don't. But you may soon find yourself without players if that's not what they wanted out of the game.
Except that the problem described above is a function of BAD GMing, it is not solved by creating a PUNITIVE rule that PUNISHES ALL GMs, good or bad.
Its solved by training GMs to be better GMs (like Amber does) and not by stripping them of their authority (like Nobilis does).
Adhering to the principle doesn't punish anyone. It simply encourages the GM to play by the rules of the game instead of arbitrarily deciding when the PCs lose the abilities on their character sheets just so that he can have his little story hour. The value of that lesson applies every bit as much to Amber as it does to Nobilis, if not more so, considering how far the former relies on the good judgment of the GM.
I mean, that bit about making the galaxy spin faster? That's easy enough... if your PC happens to be Spin's Regal or somehow possess vast power over celestial bodies (and even then the consequences are going to come and bite you in the backside much like in Narf's example). Otherwise the very first thing that any GM is going to ask will be how he intends to make that happen: pulling off a feat on that scale will require quite a bit more than just a player who thinks that it would be "cool". For the fairly straight-forward solution of moving the heavens by hand (and keeping the mythic perspective admittedly helps here), the PC might have to travel to the galactic hub, to a shrine that's sacred to the stars, and there muster enough fabled strength to send the great wheel of the galaxy spinning. Of course, the journey from Earth would be long and hazardous, particularly if the immense Aaron's Serpents who revere the stars as their long-lost elder siblings learned about this planned disruption of their peace...
Now, why would the players go to all that trouble unless they had something interesting in mind?
(Of course, it's also always possible that you launch a campaign about DC superheroes fighting a good fight against villainy of every kind, only to have the new guy who plays Superman decide that he's going to start the first session by destroying the world. There's no real solution to that beyond the tried and true adage: "Don't play with jackasses.")
Your answer is a bullshit lie, and you know it. If the whole reason of the stupid motherfucking law was to "Make GMs follow the rules", then you would just have a law that says "The GM has to follow the letter of the rules", not "The GM can NEVER SAY NO to his players".
Besides which, even if it was the case, it would be asinine, for so many reasons:
1. The GMs word is law. What should stop a GM from acting like a fucktard isn't rules, but good GMing, and the understanding that if you're a fucktard, you won't be GMing anyone for very long.
2. Any GM who will break the rules by themselves, will also break both the rules and the stupid motherfucking "extra rule" you claim is there to make him follow the rules.
3. Any GM that wouldn't break the rules, wouldn't need such a rule, and will only end up finding himself unnecessarily hindered by this rule.
Why don't you just admit it? The rule is created because its fashionable in this day and age to empower primmadonna players to get whatever they want RIGHT NOW and to disempower GMs at every opportunity, all based on very flawed, very retarded social theory (ie. that "hierarchy" is bad, and that giving power to the collective couldn't possibly result in a greedy member of that collective abusing that power to the detriment of the whole, because he'd "only be harming himself in the long term" so he could never possibly not be thinking of the long term and only of immediate short term self-gratification).
There is NO way to defend a rule that essentially says "The GM can't say no to the players", which is why you tried to re-interpret it back then. And even then, your reinterpretation is pointless, as are all reinterpretations of Borgstrom's crapulence: either they continue to have the problem of damaging the social structure of the group, or they become so meaningless as to do nothing at all.
We've rehashed this whole debate often enough in the past, you know. The Monarda Law isn't "The GM can NEVER SAY NO to his players," but rather "If the GM wishes to avoid railroading, he should NEVER SAY NO when the players ask whether their characters can pursue some in-game action." It doesn't grant instant gratification. It doesn't guarantee success. It never promises that there won't be a catch which will leave the PCs in more serious trouble even if they do succeed. It's only intended to ensure that the players have access to all the proper mechanics which apply to the current situation of their characters, so that the GM won't unexpectedly claim that the difficulty level is too high for them because right now four plus four equals five.
There are certainly things that the PCs couldn't or shouldn't do, but they should fail to go through with those either because success really is beyond their current abilities or because they change their minds after assessing the risks involved and the consequences which would follow, not because the GM doesn't want them to do so.
...And just for the sake of comparison, a little reminder of something from D&D 4e DMG:
"Saying Yes
One of the cornerstones of improvisational theater technique is called “Yes, and...” It’s based on the idea that an actor takes whatever the other actor gives and builds on that.
That’s your job as well. As often as possible, take what the players give you and build on it. If they do something unexpected, run with it. Take it and weave it back into your story without railroading them into a fixed plotline."
The fact that with 4e D&D has gone to shit doesn't really help make your cause any less crapulent. You hate the idea that the GM is the absolute authority of the game: just admit it.
The GM still remains the final arbitrator even in Nobilis, of course: after all, if the players wish to have their characters give the galaxy a little spin, it's that one person who in the ends decides how feasible their approach to the problem is. As said before, the set-up is all quite traditional at heart. But the Monarda Law is based on the idea that everyone will enjoy the course of the sessions more when the GM neither plays any favourites nor wants the PCs to fail, but instead presents a dynamic setting which adapts to all actions. That degree of unpredictability which drawing inspiration from the group's actions brings into play is especially vital because the game in other respects lacks the random factor.
Again, bullshit, a ridiculous stretch of logic and definitions to try to make an ugly rule seem more palatable. You want GMs to draw inspiration from their player's unexpected actions? That's great. That's very good GM advice.
That in no way negates the idea that if you as a GM see them wanting to do something that is impossible in the context of the setting, or the emulation, or that you know is beyond the abilities of their characters, you should not be in any way bound to alter the laws of the reality of the game or the game world to suit players' whims, which is in fact what that stupid law comes down to.
IF your claim of what the Borgstrom law comes down to is true, then it makes the "law" utterly meaningless, and utterly useless.
...Except that, as I apparently have to repeat again, "never saying 'no" has nothing to do with "altering the laws of the reality of the game": quite the opposite, in fact, since the principle discourages the GM from constantly breaking those laws solely for the sake of the story that he wants to tell. The mechanics themselves already determine what the characters can and cannot accomplish. Why not let those do their job instead of declaring that the PCs couldn't, say, force a flimsy wooden door open even with a nuke because you don't want them to go that way? Aren't the limitless possibilities for having your character do whatever you want supposed to be one of the major advantages that tabletop gaming holds over CRPGs?
It's GM advice, pure and simple, for readers who might be completely new to roleplaying. It explicitly doesn't render the actual rules of the game irrelevant: by the book, the players can't invent evidence while investigating a murder mystery, decide that someone else falls madly in love with them without all the hassle of courtship, or spontaneously develop the power to fly if a wall blocks their way. The players always make the decisions for their PCs, as the GM does for all the NPCs of the same caliber; but whatever they achieve, they achieve through the abilities of their characters. There are no "narrative rights" to rearrange at will the world beyond those abilities, no "drama points" to spend on rewriting the plot.
Honestly, we've been through all this before. In terms of the group dynamics during play, Nobilis is as conventional as D&D.
And again, you're full of shit. If it was about the PCs being able to break down a door they should be able to break down, YOU DON'T NEED A RULE TO TELL YOU THAT. All you need is GOOD GMing.
This rule exists to tie a GM's hands.
If I'm right, the stupid "law" makes the Players the ultimate arbitrers of the game, instead of the GM, in violation of the Landmarks.
But let's say, again, that you are right (and you're not, but let's say): then AT BEST the rule makes the game mechanics the ultimate arbitrer instead of the GM, disempowering the GM and violating the landmarks of play anyways.
So EITHER way, the monarda law makes Nobilis something VERY outside the mainstream, and VERY different than D&D or than the regular way people assume RPGs are supposed to work.
The players announce what they want their characters to do; the GM sets the difficulty level for the action; the players attempt to beat that target number; the GM describes the consequences. That's how it works in Nobilis, as in just about all the other RPGs out there.
However, the rules for Aspect determine the appropriate difficulty levels for physical, mental and social feats. For example, could any regular Joe off the street kick in that door? That's difficulty 0, which generally doesn't even slow down the likes of Nobles. Would it require the strength of a world-class athlete? Difficulty 2. And if it's even remotely conceivable, no matter how unlikely, that the strongest man who ever lived could break some heavily fortified gate? Difficulty 4, for the peak of human potential. Beyond that, we are talking about purely superhuman effort, up to difficulty 9, representing the kind of force that can shatter the world and move the heavens.
The GM sets the difficulty for PC actions, as said. But if he insists that opening the front door or shopping for groceries qualifies as an impossible challenge, well, you know that something is wrong. As long as your relevant attribute remains equal to or higher than that difficulty level, the action is considered simple, and you can pull it off effortlessly. When the difficulty level exceeds your attribute by four, the action is considered hard, and you must exhaust yourself in order to succeed. Nearly everything in the game takes place somewhere between those two extremes, except for those rare occasions when the characters push themselves even further at the cost of severe injuries.
So you see, this same scale governs all the imaginable stunts of the body and the mind, even when they are exaggerated to epic proportions (and Noble Aspect is all about ordinary human ability turned up to 11: it doesn't grant the power to fly, or read minds, or transmute lead into gold). You want to turn the galaxy? Difficulty 9, since that can hardly be described as anything less than a fabled feat of strength. But you need a good grip on the whole thing first, just as you would with any old cartwheel, and getting to the right place for that might be a saga for the ages in itself...
And now you've de-evolved into giving game previews in an effort to shill the game.. Of course, that's the only reason you were here from the beginning, so its par for the course, really.
Hey, I have to use concrete examples, since I've never noticed any evidence that you'd actually know something about the system.