How Do you Say "No" to your PCs

[D'karr]

No. N, O. No.

In Spanish - No.

In English - No.

In Russian - Nyet.

What part of NO was not clear to you?

 

[Vargo]

English - No
French - Non
German - Nein
Russian - Nyet
Japanese - Iie

The interesting part is to say all of them from west to east or east to west - there's a very subtle change between all of them, ending in something completely different.

 

[Mercule]

I run two types of games, casual and serious. The difference is the amount of work I put in and the amount of control I exert.

For a casual game, I use Greyhawk as a setting and I'm pretty easy-going. If someone finds something in a suppliment and wants to try it out, that's cool. House rules and variants are proposed to the group and voted on -- my vote only carries extra weight if there's a tie. I run modules or "standardized" adventures that aren't tailored to the characters too much. Minimal prep, minimal fuss. I only pull out the iron fist when it's a balance issue of some sort or if it's an idea I just can't stomach (eg. TWF ranger was out immediately).

Serious games are a completely different ball of wax. I use my 20 year old homebrew setting. I choose the rules and variants. I reserve the right to veto any concept. The adventures conform more to the PCs abilities. There is a coherent back-story. Etc. I do my best to make the "laws of physics" known, but they really aren't subject to discussion.

Regardless, any time I need to say "No", whether it's in a casual or serious game, I just say it. Even in the most casual of circumstances, the final answer comes down to, "Because you guys have given me the responsibility to make the game work for everyone. With the responsibility comes the power to ensure this happens."

 

[Coredump]

The players need to understand that while they take part in the world,the DM is *creating* it, making it come alive.

I liken it to writing a book, you need to write about material that you are comfortable with. If you normally write modern mysteries, you may have a hard time doing a story with magic and elves.

Even a science fiction author may specialize in space battles, and another in various race interactions. If William Gibson is creating a Cyberpunk-type world in a book, and his colleague asks him to "add in this exterestial race with 4 tentecles"; he will not be as good at it, will not be comfortable with it, and his story (or the DM's world) will suffer because of it.


It is the DM's responsibility to try and make it fun for the players also, and that includes allowing things they find fun, even if you don't 'like' what they are adding. But this does *not* extend to adding things that will not work well in your world. Personally, I would have a very tough time creating a living world that was at all believable and consistent, if it was very high magic. I just can't make it work. So I dont allow those types of additions.


.

 

[Buttercup]

Like Eric, I try to work with whatever they want, within the framework of the campaign world. But really, they haven't ever asked for anything unreasonable, so I haven't had a reason to say no.

 

[lord irial]

I'm blunt but try to be reasonable. I basically only say "no" if I feel that something is either unbalanced or doesn't fit with the flavor of the game I run. Anything else, I'm willing to at least discuss and consider, but my players respect me and the campaign enough to let no mean no.

 

[drnuncheon]

I mock them by laughing long and loud, thus: "AHAHAHA! AHAHAHAHAHA!! AHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!"

Then I make them fetch me a soda, and I beat them with a large stick. It's my game dammit. It's not like they're paying me for this.

J
what kind of person writes out maniacal laughter?

 

[Duvall]

With regards to various expansion books, I told my players early out that just because they buy a book doesn't mean I'll allow them to use anything out of it. I explained that I needed to worry about play balance for everyone's character. I also explained that I had a certain view of the world they played in and many things would probably not fit into that view and that was, by and large, a non-negotiable issue. I don't like having to buy another book just because a player wants to run variant class #23 and I don't like having a player use material that I don't own.

The last campaign I ran I told the players that they were allowed to use anything from the players handbook and that was it. Anything else that got into the game was because I introduced it, new spells, feats, etc. I would introduce these as options to a player when they went up levels. For instance when a Sorceror went up a level I might give him a list of alternate spells (culled from other books) that he could select from. Only he might ever see that list of alternate spells. Players ended up loving this as they didn't feel the need to keep up with the splat book "arms race" and it made their characters unique as only they had certain spells or abilities.

Yes, power gamers hate this, but I don't run that sort of campaign so its a moot point. It might seem draconian to some people, but my players enjoyed my campaign and that's the only important thing.

 

[mmu1]

Depends. If the player is asking for in-character reasons, or he brings up something that allows the story to develop in an interesting direction, I usually try to work it in... If it's something that'll purely let the character blow stuff up in new and better ways, I generally say no.

Occasionally I'll also simply ivoke DM's perogative and say no when something just rubs me the wrong way... If I know I'm going to be wincing every time I think about it for the next several months of sessions, I axe it.

 

[barsoomcore]

I'm with drnuncheon on the whole "stick" issue. I hit them with a stick. A large stick.

Or else I say "Yes." It confuses them. Then I hit them with the stick again.