As a DM, what is your default answer to player requests?

[Janx]

Railroading is, to me, when your players arrive at the same destination regardless of the choices they make (someone on these very boards said this once, and I made a note of it). Saying, "no, there's no shortcut" isn't railroading unless the intent is to make the players arrive at a certain destination. Railroading is based on intent, in my opinion. If I always say no because you always try to break genre expectations, cannot grasp the setting, are always looking for something that'd solve all of your issues, etc., I'm not railroading by fairly saying "no."

We're forking a bit down RR street, but your RR definitions makes me think of something.

I think of RR as a negative GM behavior, primarly actively thwarting valid player choices for the sole purpose of getting a specific outcome(s).

That might be defined as the "Micro" definition of railroading. In the active situation, negating player's valid attempts to do something, so they HAVE to do what you planned.

In the Macro-level view, this appears as "your players arrive at the same destination regardless of the choices they make"

I see "No" as being a powerful tool for the RRGM at the Micro level. "No, there's no airduct to escape from this room."
"No, that doesn't work."
"No, he has more friends that show up"

Even "Yes" can be twisted to a "No" as in "Yes, you start to climb the rough wall. However, one rock is loose and it falls out in your hand, and you fall down..."

 

[JamesonCourage]

We're forking a bit down RR street, but your RR definitions makes me think of something.

I think of RR as a negative GM behavior, primarly actively thwarting valid player choices for the sole purpose of getting a specific outcome(s).

That might be defined as the "Micro" definition of railroading. In the active situation, negating player's valid attempts to do something, so they HAVE to do what you planned.

In the Macro-level view, this appears as "your players arrive at the same destination regardless of the choices they make"

I see "No" as being a powerful tool for the RRGM at the Micro level. "No, there's no airduct to escape from this room."
"No, that doesn't work."
"No, he has more friends that show up"

Even "Yes" can be twisted to a "No" as in "Yes, you start to climb the rough wall. However, one rock is loose and it falls out in your hand, and you fall down..."

I've got no real disagreements with this statement. Certainly "no" is more useful than "yes" to someone who wants to railroad. However, if someone wants to railroad, they can definitely do it while saying "yes." It comes back to trusting the people you play with. Hussar trusts his players, and that's good. If you trust your GM, then trust him to say "no", too.

Just my thoughts on it. As always, play what you like

 

[Rogue Agent]

It sounds so hip to say, "I'm a DM who says 'Yes!' to his players." The fact is that my answer is now, and always will be, entirely dependent upon the actual request. I don't want to say "yes" by reflex. That wouldn't be doing my job because players should NOT always get what they want.

I think the important word in the subject is "default".

I default to "yes" and it takes some reason for me to make it into a "no".

This seems preferable to me than defaulting to "no" and needing to find some reason for a "yes". If for no other reason than the fact that the player asking for it is already a reason to say yes.

See, when players say "I want to do X", they're saying "I think it would be fun to do X". When you understand that the question is always, "Can I have fun, please?" why would you ever want to default to "no"?

To put it another way: My default approach is to try to figure out how to let the players do the things they want to do. That's not always possible. Sometimes compromise is necessary. Sometimes there will be consequences.

 

[FireLance]

I think the important word in the subject is "default".

I default to "yes" and it takes some reason for me to make it into a "no".

This seems preferable to me than defaulting to "no" and needing to find some reason for a "yes". If for no other reason than the fact that the player asking for it is already a reason to say yes.

Exactly. This is the approach I take, too.

It basically boils down to: when a player approaches you with a request, is your first question, "Why?" or "Why not?"

 

[Jhaelen]

What is you “default” answer to player requests?

Is it “yes”, “yes but”, “maybe,” “no but”, just “no?” or something else? Is your answer very system dependent?

I don't have a default answer - except if it's a default question

If the request is about something I've presented (well in advance) as a campaign rule, my default answer is No. The time to ask for changing campaign rules is over. Still, if the campaign has been running for a long time, I may revisit some of the rules to check if they're still required.

Regarding everything else I probably fall into the 'Yes, but' camp, if the player is making a convincing point or has an intriguing idea. I also reserve the right to revise my decision if things don't appear to work as expected.

 

[Mallus]

I'm hip, baby.

Enjoy your PBR and American Spirits.

Actually, I could go for a PBR right about now. And an American... damn it, I quit.

When they ask to be able to do something outrageous I'll want to know why - if they're just looking for an "I-win" button I'm naturally gonna think they're just being lazy goofs and refuse.

My experience is experienced players don't usually look for "I-win" buttons. They're self-defeating, they rob the situation of challenge. However, there is a lingering and absolutely traditional tradition of DM's treating most, if not all, player requests as exactly that.

There's a difference between trying to be accomodating by reflex (trying to say "yes") and trying to be open-minded by reflex (still saying "no" but willing to entertain arguments and alternatives that you CAN say "yes" to).

For me I'm not sure the difference is meaningful. I'm both accommodating and open-minded... but I still say "no" from time to time, and I always try to stay mindful of providing a challenge (however, how often I succeed is open to debate)...

 

[Desdichado]

I don't believe in having a default. It depends on the reasonableness of the request. They all get analyzed (even if so briefly as to seem instantaneous) on their own merits.

That said, with my current group, I'm a lot more likely to say yes than anything else.

 

[Gryph]

My prefered response is Yes and consequence. I try to give them a meaningful description of the consequence, it at all possible for the game situation, so they can decide if they want to follow through with the request.

 

[RithTheAwakener]

My favorite response is "Yes", followed closely by "You can try!" It tends to remind the player that what they want (or want to do) might not go as they plan and to consider their actions carefully.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Depends upon what hat I'm wearing, appropriate for the nature of the request:

Most of the time, I'm wearing my "neutral referee" hat. My default then is in the "due consideration" camp. That could take a split second or much longer. Usually, it takes a few seconds. I might have to ask for clarification. So it is not so much "mabye" in the middle between "yes" and "no" as exactly neutral between "yes" and "no". That's the intent, anyway. I'm sure that the collective questions of a given group of players is going to bias me towards yes or no over time.

Also, a lot of the questions I get from the current group are not so much decision points as ways of asking for more information about the situation. But these players tend to couch these questions in decision point terms. "Can I make the leap across the bridge," is often best answered for them not with, "You can try," but with more clarify about the situation. They already know that they can try.

Then sometimes I'm wearing my "equal screen time for everyone" director hat. I'm very conservative here, and protective of the wall flowers, and likely to say "no" unless the request implies that multiple players will be engaged, in which case I'll lean heavily towards "yes".

Finally, sometimes I'm wearing my "protector of the campaign feel" hat. My default here is to always restate the question and then throw the question back on the players to decide. "Can I do X?" is answered with, "Do you want to live in a world where you can do X, and the opponents can to?" The players could go either way, but they are nearly always happy with the answer.