DarkLightHitomi:
Players cause problems like this precisely because they don't face appropriate consequences that reinforce the nature of the narrative world as a living breathing world and not simply a gameboard with cardboard pieces that never act real.
Players cause problems like this precisely because they don't understand or agree with the game the GM wants to run or the expectations the GM has.
"Teaching them a lesson" is just teaching them that "the GM always wins". And for some, all that will do is up the anti.
icosahedron152:
Guys, IMO there is a distinct difference between 'pounding' and 'fate'.
From the GM's side of the screen, yes. From the Player's perspective? Sometimes they are identical.
That's why I keep saying "Have the talk". Ignoring the talk and going straigth to punishment mode rarely works.
quote:
Pounding is where some Player doesn't share his pretzels with the GM, or his PC argues with the GMPC, so the GM makes sure that every monster from that point on targets that PC first. Not fair.
No, pounding is where the Player has the Character take actions they expect to succeed and having those actions fail despite every expectation for success. And for this to keep happening, over and over.
quote:
Fate is where the PC snatches the Arkenstone from under Smaug's head and says "Yeah? Watcha gonna do about it, lizard?" The GM then describes a pair of smoking boots. Fair and logical.
Sure, if the PC isn't expected to be capable of taking Smaug. I've played games where
that is not the expectation.
quote:
In a good game, you need expectations of reality.
False. In a good game you need the Player's and GM's expectations to line up. Nothing more, nothing less.
"Consequences", "reality", "verisimilitude", "consistency", etc. These are not required for a 'good' game. They are only required for genres that are built upon those words.