4e / GSL Rule "Yes"

[Wormwood]

Originally Posted by Scribble

9 year old dude... 9 year old son.

Seriously the quote isn't about letting the players have all control. It's about not imediately saying no simply because the player thought of it, and you didn't. It's about the game being a group effort, and not an adversarial game.

This. Oh so very this.

[Henry]

I rather liked James Wyatt's story about his son improvising. It showed he'd really sparked something in his son, something that will be a memory for both of them (James especially) for a very long time.

There's an even better and more appropriate example in that same section, about players asking if there's a Wizard's guild in town, and the opportunities it generates. By stopping for a second, thinking whether there's any harm in a Wizard Guild actually being available or not, and if no direct harm, allowing for it, you've just added something more three-dimensional to your game, you've added a place that players are interested in where there are NPCs, story hooks, and plenty of new ideas to inject. Remember it does say, "As often as possible", which means that it's not a "get out of jail free" card as some might interpret it.


What I do know is that one of the best Game Masters I've ever met uses the technique, and that's good enough for me.

[BryonD]

Originally Posted by Scribble

9 year old dude... 9 year old son.

Seriously the quote isn't about letting the players have all control. It's about not imediately saying no simply because the player thought of it, and you didn't. It's about the game being a group effort, and not an adversarial game.

My daughter is ten now. And I've been running little games for her for a few years now. In a game with her, I'd be all over this kind of thing.

But playing with my adult group is a vastly different thing.

I certainly wouldn't say no because I "didn't think of it". Hell, that is some the the very best stuff. But saying no is a hell of a long way from being adversarial. In the games we play creating serious challenges that must be honestly overcome is the DM's duty to the group effort. Letting them off to easy is adversarial to the experience of acheivement and acomplsihment.

Now, I certainly say "yes, you can certainly try" to the great majority of suggestions. I think the expectations I described above on my player's parts is a part of that. But if there is a reason to say "no", I say "no" in a heartbeat. But honestly, I think different types of games are being described. A juvenile game such as the James Wyatt example is very different than an adult game. So the degree to which the rule applies needs to vary as well. I'd be shocked if James plays that way with his on-going adult games. (One-off or intentionally silly games are a completely different matter of course)

So on the one hand the rule kinda shocks me as being so extremely obvious that any remotely decent DM should be familiar with the concept. It really goes without saying. But also, understanding degree is very important. If you just want to kick in the door and to hell with consistency, lets kill things and take their stuff, then by all means, say yes to everything. If you want a more engaging story, with action as just a part along the way, then "yes, but you must make this roll" and an appropriate supply of "no" are key elements of good DMing.

[BryonD]

Originally Posted by Henry

I rather liked James Wyatt's story about his son improvising. It showed he'd really sparked something in his son, something that will be a memory for both of them (James especially) for a very long time.

My daughter would literally run around the house yelling "YES!!!" when she gained a level. THAT is fun. I'll remember that longer than most of the events in my adult game. But the family thing is a big part of that.

[jensun]

Originally Posted by BryonD

If you just want to kick in the door and to hell with consistency, lets kill things and take their stuff, then by all means, say yes to everything. If you want a more engaging story, with action as just a part along the way, then "yes, but you must make this roll" and an appropriate supply of "no" are key elements of good DMing.

Personally I find my game is likely to be more enjoyable if the preponderance of it involves things my players think are interesting and fun rather than things I think they will think are interesting and fun.

Also, this issue has nothing whatsoever to do with "hack and slash" versus "narrative" play. Its to do with treating the game as a co-operative undertaking between friends where everyone gets to be involved versus something which the players passively experience.

[Celebrim]

"It's more of an issue with players purposefully asking dumb things they know won't fly, but ask it anyways just in case."

I've also seen players (fortunately I wasn't the DM) who say dumb things as part of a negotiation meta/subgame where the idea is to wear down the DM into granting you some comprimise position.

I think you can't really have a blanket 'say "no"' or 'say "yes"' policy. There are times when either is appropriate.

Times to say, "Yes."

1) You didn't plan for the PC's actions.
2) The PC's clearly want a change of direction.
3) The PC wants to do something that is extremely unlikely, but not impossible AND the PC is aware of the risk.
4) There is a chance that it will be fun and memorable for the whole group (DM included).

Times to say, "No."

1) The player is clearly trying to solve a problem or puzzle by manipulating the DM directly rather than the NPCs/environment.
2) The player is showboating at the expense of other player's screen time.
3) The player is a PC-DM who doesn't want to share in the story creation, but rather he wants to have you sit back and validate his awesomeness.

Maybe I've been lucky, but I've seen more players (either as DM or fellow player) that badger and bully DM's than I've seen DM's that bully players.

Anyway, even when you are saying 'No', you can make it sound more like, 'Yes'. The players can always try. They can always find something. They can usually have a slim chance of success.

[Punnuendo]

Originally Posted by jensun

Personally I find my game is likely to be more enjoyable if the preponderance of it involves things my players think are interesting and fun rather than things I think they will think are interesting and fun.

Also, this issue has nothing whatsoever to do with "hack and slash" versus "narrative" play. Its to do with treating the game as a co-operative undertaking between friends where everyone gets to be involved versus something which the players passively experience.

Indeed. Actually, I think the argument can just as easily run the other way. A steady supply of "no" and "yes, make this roll" suits an adversarial hack and slash game quite well. Meanwhile a "yes" answer to ideas and plot hooks can create an very fun and engaging narrative experience.

Even more than a blanket "yes" however, is the "consider/yes" and the "yes, but". Here a GM takes a second to look at how they can allow the cool thing (or with really good players the bad thing) the player wants for their character and weave it into the overall narrative. Now you are creating a story, not just playing a game.

[Wormwood]

Originally Posted by jensun

Personally I find my game is likely to be more enjoyable if the preponderance of it involves things my players think are interesting and fun rather than things I think they will think are interesting and fun.

Also, this issue has nothing whatsoever to do with "hack and slash" versus "narrative" play. Its to do with treating the game as a co-operative undertaking between friends where everyone gets to be involved versus something which the players passively experience.

In the past ~30 years, I've played many of the methods advocated in this thread.

The "yes/collaborative" paradigm has deepened my enjoyment of RPGs much more than my prior "character building/restriction-based" stance.

ps. Your post agrees with my experience 100%.

[jensun]

Originally Posted by Kid Cthulhu

Even more than a blanket "yes" however, is the "consider/yes" and the "yes, but". Here a GM takes a second to look at how they can allow the cool thing (or with really good players the bad thing) the player wants for their character and weave it into the overall narrative. Now you are creating a story, not just playing a game.

This I agree with 100%.

"Yes but" or "Yes and" I try to make my standard responses both during character creation and at the table.

Of course it helps having players at the table I have gamed with a long time, who I trust and who I socialise with beyond just gaming.

[Mark]

Originally Posted by Kid Cthulhu

Indeed. Actually, I think the argument can just as easily run the other way. A steady supply of "no" and "yes, make this roll" suits an adversarial hack and slash game quite well. Meanwhile a "yes" answer to ideas and plot hooks can create an very fun and engaging narrative experience.

Even more than a blanket "yes" however, is the "consider/yes" and the "yes, but". Here a GM takes a second to look at how they can allow the cool thing (or with really good players the bad thing) the player wants for their character and weave it into the overall narrative. Now you are creating a story, not just playing a game.

I think this cleaves closest to my own GMing philosophy over the years. But to be clear, not that everything is conditional (in case some might mistake what you are describing), rather that all things are layered and nuanced to give many more opportunities and options during game play. A straight "yes" answer often might seem fun in the short term because an immediate desire is fulfilled but in the long term it gets old.

[Mallus]

Originally Posted by BryonD

In the games we play creating serious challenges that must be honestly overcome is the DM's duty to the group effort. Letting them off to easy is adversarial to the experience of achievement and accomplishment.

Why do you assume saying 'yes' to players means a reduction in the level of difficultly?

There are plenty of things a player might ask for, not all of them are the easy way out (like things that help involve/engage them in the campaign).

[Mark]

Originally Posted by Mallus

Why do you assume saying 'yes' to players means a reduction in the level of difficultly?

There are plenty of things a player might ask for, not all of them are the easy way out (like things that help involve/engage them in the campaign).

You're not talking about something akin to old school DM Wish-Twisting (tm), are you?

[keterys]

I'd let it come up an awful lot more than my players give me the opportunity. I think it'll take a long time to kick all the improvisation tires, honestly.

[Mallus]

Originally Posted by Mark

You're not talking about something akin to old school DM Wish-Twisting (tm), are you?

Absolutely not.

I'm talking about sharing narrative control, asking for player input beyond 'what does your character do next?', letting them build/determine parts of the game world, and at the very least allowing them a free hand in determining where the campaign will go. Basically, any situation where the players affect the game world outside of their character's action.

Some people seem to be operating under the notion that players will only ask for some kind of unfair advantage. That saying 'yes' means letting the players cheat. I'm trying to dispel that (which not to say that some players won't ask for exactly that).

[Mark]

Originally Posted by Mallus

Basically, any situation where the players affect the game world outside of their character's action.

Expand on that thought, please. I've always found that most RPGs play very well having the players affect the game world through their characters. Sometimes, some meta-game suggestions prior to the campaign are solicited or proffered, about the types of adventures (dungeon crawls, outdoor hunts, puzzle oriented, etc.) or the tone of the campaign (political, hack-n-slash, zeros-to-heroes, etc.), but otherwise in-game and in-character or through their characters, more accurately.

[Punnuendo]

One example I can think of is during a Spirit of the Century game I was running. One of the player's was playing a super scientist. One of the recurring villains I was using was also a super scientist, albeit a mad one.

Anyway, after the first time said antagonist showed up in the story, the player asked if the villain had attended the same university he had. Originally, I'd intended him to have been trained by a secret cabal for their purposes, and almost said "no". Then I thought about it for a minute and thought of some of the wonderful ways the two characters could play off each other and take advantage of things they knew about each other and ended up allowing it.

That plot line ended up becoming a focus of several sessions of the game. (Almost half of the small amount we actually got to play.)

[Crazy Jerome]

I don't know how long we have been "saying yes", but it was well before it was called that. However, it doesn't come up that much in play. We pretty much take the attitude that if the players are having to ask a lot, we didn't cover something that should have already been covered. Not in a rules sense, but rather the spirit of the campaign.

Also, while I don't mind running a game where players assert narrative control (e.g. Burning Wheel), most of the group prefers that we not run D&D that way. So if the player asks if there is a mage guild in town, the decision I make is solely on the nature of the campaign, not some "cool" idea that the player has.

We don't modify the campaign, on the fly, instantly, for some idea the player just got--because the players specifically do not want the world to be so mallable that it changes based on questons they ask.

Part of the fun of being a clever explorer is knowing which questions to ask, and you can't get that fun if the thing you are asking questions about is changing during the process.

Now, the campaign does get modified quite a bit, based on their interests. There may very well be a mage guild three towns over, and they might be willing to open a branch office in this town here. Or there might, in fact, be a mage guild here now. If the players are really focused on mage guilds, you can bet there will be mage guilds in the campaign.

You might say we have "delayed say yes". The players can shape future events massively by saying what they want--char pregen, but also campaign direction. They can often manipulate the sandbox to get what they want, sooner or later, if they are willing to pursue it.

[jensun]

Originally Posted by Mark

Expand on that thought, please. I've always found that most RPGs play very well having the players affect the game world through their characters. Sometimes, some meta-game suggestions prior to the campaign are solicited or proffered, about the types of adventures (dungeon crawls, outdoor hunts, puzzle oriented, etc.) or the tone of the campaign (political, hack-n-slash, zeros-to-heroes, etc.), but otherwise in-game and in-character or through their characters, more accurately.

I dont know for cerrtain what he meant but I think it gels with some of the things we do in our game. Some examples:

1. Each player effectively makes the decisions about the society, culture and morality of their chosen race. If two players choose the same race then they can come from the same area and collaborate or from two different cultures of the same race.

2. Players get to define the position of their class in the game. In particular Clerics get to decide on the beliefs and practices of their faiths, Wizards on any college they belong to etc.

3. Players get to create interesting npc's, both helpful ones and enemies. This is not just an option, it is expected they will do so. I ask a set of questions about each character before each game and one is always about who the important people around them are.

4. Players get to add content in game. If a player asks if the can meet with a contact of the local thieves guild I will say yes and then get them to describe him and include some complication, twist or conflict.

5. Players get to set scenes they are interested in being part of. Between sessions I will actively solicit ideas from them about what they want to see in the next session.

If you are interested in this sort of stuff I highly recommend picking up Burning Wheel, Prime Time Adevntures and Spirit of the Century. Even if you never play them some of the concepts they introduce can and will change your game for the better.

[Celebrim]

Originally Posted by Crazy Jerome

Also, while I don't mind running a game where players assert narrative control (e.g. Burning Wheel), most of the group prefers that we not run D&D that way. So if the player asks if there is a mage guild in town, the decision I make is solely on the nature of the campaign, not some "cool" idea that the player has.

We don't modify the campaign, on the fly, instantly, for some idea the player just got--because the players specifically do not want the world to be so mallable that it changes based on questons they ask.

Part of the fun of being a clever explorer is knowing which questions to ask, and you can't get that fun if the thing you are asking questions about is changing during the process.

Expanding on that, alot of the time when a player asks for or about something, the question that they ask is really standing for some other implicit question.

For example, if the player asks, "Is their a mage guild in town?", the real implicit question is usually, "Is their a wizard around I can talk to?" The answer to the question, "Is their a mage guild in town?" is almost certainly going to ultimately be, "No." But the answer to the question, "Is there a wizard around?" is almost certainly going to ultimately be, "Yes" So one of the ways I try to, 'Say "Yes"' is to try to answer the big question by addressing the actual need. Most of the time, you don't need a 'Wizard Guild', you just need a wizard.

Initially though both questions are going to be answered with one or both of the following:

a) Make a knowledge check.
b) You don't know, "Why don't you ask someone."

The single biggest mistake a new player can make at my table is trying to interact with me rather than my environment. I admit to not being very mallable. If you try to manipulate me, you'll get immediate resistance. But if you try to manipulate the game environment, I find that fun and will be much more accomodating. I'm perfectly willing to assume that its a big big world and there are lots of things in the gray areas that I haven't detailed but which can be filled in as needed. What I won't believe and am not willing to assume is that there is anything that the PC's may need or want or think that they need convienently located nearby all the time.

I should note that I wouldn't want to be a player in such a world either.

Likewise, while I may rely on the player's to help me fill in the details when they request things I haven't anticipated, I won't rely on them to fill in the big, obvious things that would stand out. The reason that there is almost certainly not a Wizard's Guild in the town is that such a big, imposing, exotic feature would have been something I designed the town around and would have been mentioned centrally already.

But while the average player who says, "Is there a Wizard's Guild in town?" means only, "I need to find a wizard. Don't they hang out in guilds?", occasionally you'll find players whose question is not so innocent. These are the players that are asking, if not demanding, that not only be some wizard of some sort be available but that incredibly powerful wizards be made available for them in large numbers. These are the same sort that will argue with you that because of X, said wizards ought to do Y for them and that you are bad DM for not seeing that. Indeed, if you don't make a vertible army of tame wizards available to them in the first place, then you are bad DM running an antogonistic and unrealistic campaign. How dare the DM say 'No' to such a reasonable request! You are ruining the players fun!

If you read the 1st edition D&D, Gygax pretty much tells you to treat every request or question of this nature as inherently hostile and adversarial. I think that goes to far, and fosters the worst sort of player vs. DM dynamic of sterotypical 1st edition D&D. But I think 4e goes too far the other way. It is not reasonable to assume that there must be any item you'd want in the wagon of every travelling peddler. It is not reasonable to assume that every town has a wizard guild just because it would be conveinent for the PC (or they think that it would). You don't have to say 'Yes' to everything, and you can easily ruin a game by saying 'Yes' to everything just as you can ruin one by saying 'No'.

[Celebrim]

Originally Posted by jensun

I dont know for cerrtain what he meant but I think it gels with some of the things we do in our game. Some examples:

1. Each player effectively makes the decisions about the society, culture and morality of their chosen race. If two players choose the same race then they can come from the same area and collaborate or from two different cultures of the same race.

2. Players get to define the position of their class in the game. In particular Clerics get to decide on the beliefs and practices of their faiths, Wizards on any college they belong to etc.

3. Players get to create interesting npc's, both helpful ones and enemies. This is not just an option, it is expected they will do so. I ask a set of questions about each character before each game and one is always about who the important people around them are.

4. Players get to add content in game. If a player asks if the can meet with a contact of the local thieves guild I will say yes and then get them to describe him and include some complication, twist or conflict.

5. Players get to set scenes they are interested in being part of. Between sessions I will actively solicit ideas from them about what they want to see in the next session.

If you are interested in this sort of stuff I highly recommend picking up Burning Wheel, Prime Time Adevntures and Spirit of the Century. Even if you never play them some of the concepts they introduce can and will change your game for the better.

Some of those things are not like the other.

#1: Very often before starting a campaign, I think up some big 'campaign secrets' - surprises which are to be revealed in play. Too much input by the players over the nature of the cosmology risks invalidating the campaigns big reveals. Frankly, I wouldn't play in a campaign without big reveals of this sort. It's one of the best parts of playing RPG's. I want the DM to invent something I didn't imagine and wow me with it. If I wanted to have sufficient narrative control to think up the campaign world's cosmology, I'd also want to run the game from behind the DM's screen.

#2: On the other hand, this isn't about the game world's background so much as the player's background. For example, I've always embarassed wide open polytheism - my campaign world has '1000 gods' (actually, the exact count is something I'd treat as campaign secret) - precisely to allow virtually any sort of deity to be created on the fly as needed. If the player had a deity concept in mind, I'd be very open to including it provided it fit with the larger cosmology (certain concepts are inherently male and female, for example). Likewise, the wizarding world is very diverse and virtually any sort of wizarding background could be made to fit - from was educated in a massive college, to was the sole apprentice of a wild illiterate mage from barbarian lands where mages must hide their profession or be burned at the stack. Where I'd have to draw the line though is with a character concept that invalidates the rest of the world - deity of the one true god, member of the world's sole wizarding school, graduate of Hogwart's, etc.

#3: And this is about as dymetrically opposed to #1 as you can be. Where as item #1 was all about the big cosmology of the world, this is all about intimate details of the characters lives. I've insisted on this for about 20 years now. I want the players to create as many interesting hooks as possible for their character. I might veto big unimaginative and arrogant claims ('I'm the King's long lost heir!') in favor of smaller more reasonable claims, ('I'm the illegitimate son of a promenent noble.', 'My father is the Harbormaster of a major seaport', 'My mother is the village wise woman', etc.) but on the whole I'm perfectly willing to let my players run wild and sketch out a dozen or more relatives, friends, mentors and enemies before the game starts. These sorts of ideas are easily incorporated into just about any setting and so long as you gently redirect big ego driven ideas they never interfere with the game and indeed enhance it.

#4: Why in Hades would you want that as a player???? If I wanted to just make up the appearance of prominent NPC's, I WOULDN'T EVEN NEED TO PLAY D&D. I could do that by myself. What's a DM for if not to hold information you don't have and more importantly don't want to have because having it would reduce your enjoyment of the game. If I'm going to meet the head of the local theives guild, part of the fun - indeed maybe most of the fun - is not knowing what he's going to be like. Most of the fun of being a player is discovering things you wouldn't have thought up on your own. When I put down the DM's screen it's so I don't have imagine every blasted NPC but instead can sit back and be entertained by a DM with a good imagination.

#5: Again, what's the fun in knowing what is going to happen? The best part of the game is when you suddenly figure out that what you first thought was going on, isn't actually what is going on. The best part of being a player is the same as the best part of being a reader - the twist, the big reveal, the secrets. A campaign without secrets is just dull. I'm perfectly willing to head off in directions that the player's through there actions hint that they want to go, but as far as preparing particular scenes - sometimes even when I'm the DM I don't know exactly what is going to happen.