>From: "frank_rafaelsen" <frank_rafaelsen_at_...>
>
>I know what you are saying, and I follow you quite a bit. But the old
>school GM in me is insisting that there should be good and bad
>choices.
>
>I'm not saying that a military victory is impossible, just probably
>not worth the sacrifice (see the idea of the holding war).
As I've said, I think this restriction is fine. That is, you're not saying, "You have to solve it X way!" you're saying, "You have to solve it some other way than this way." That is, taking away one of a theoretically infinite number of solutions is far from limiting that infinite group of solutions down to one or two.
The important thing is just to make sure that the players understand that they can have a strong hand in determining what sort of solution may work. Not the only hand, the Narrator is still in there. But that they will have an effect. Players get shut down on this when they can see the hand of the Narrator aiming on one or few plans.
For instance, recently somebody mentioned a "locked box" situation. Saying that they were frustrated, because they had tried a bunch of solutions to get out of the GM's puzzle, but none of them were working. The group was about to give up, when, apparently the GM had an epiphany, and let one of their solutions work.
This represents a fundamental difference in how you're approaching the game. Both valid. In one case you're saying, "This game is a challenge placed before the players to try to solve." In the other you say, "This game is a chance to make a fictional statement about values and such." In the example of the locked box, the players obviously were looking to play the latter sort of game.
So, too, are Frank's players, unless I miss my mark. They're not looking to figure out the one way that Frank has determined will win the situation. They instead want to figure out stuff about what their characters value, and what they'll do when the chips are down.
The "old school" method isn't always wrong. It's just wrong for these players in this case. Probably.
And, again, that doesn't mean you can't say X is wrong (or terribly difficult). Just don't say Y is the only right way. More importantly, make sure that they understand that there is no Y. Every X limit you put out there may start to seem like you're wanting them to find that Y. But if you make clear that's not the case, simply tell them as players that there is no set rout, you can make them understand that it's in part up to them to come up with the solution to the problem.
Mike
Powered by hypermail