Player Enablement

[Kestrel]

"Consider Yes" reminds me of Dogs in the Vineyard. One of the main rules, if you want to call it a rule, is Roll Dice or Say Yes. In that game, you only roll dice if something is in conflict. Otherwise, the gm says yes.

Being a long time GM, I'm still finding it hard to do, but it goes a long way to helping the players feel invested, instead of stymied everytime they come with something to do on thier own.

 

[STARP_Social_Officer]

I've very lax with the rules if my players want to do something cool. Basically, in my view, "cool" transcends the rules.

 

[Oryan77]

If we as a group come to social contract before playing a game that we are playing type X(where X can be a genre,time period, etc.) and a player at character creation decides it would be fun to play a type Y character I feel I'm in my rights to say no.

I think some of you guys are overanalyzing what Sam500 is referring to when he says, "Consider yes".

I also try to be a "consider yes" type of DM. My best friend who got me into D&D was a "mostly no" DM. Sure, a players ideas or things he wants from the game might seem lame to the DM, but think of it from the players point of view.

My "No" DM never let me get away with any of my "clever" ideas. Sure, he may have thought it was lame, but I thought it was creative. If a player thinks outside of the box in hopes of getting the group out of a situation, allow it to work sometimes. Don't go out of your way just to thwart that players idea because you think it's dumb. I've learned that most of the things players do are dumb & would look extremely silly if we saw it being done in a movie. But I promise that if a player can get away with a "clever" plan to save the group, that player will remember that moment and he'll think you were a good DM that ran a fun game.

That doesn't mean you have to change your campaign to cater to a player in order to say "yes". If dolphin ninja skeletons aren't something you want players to play as, then common sense tells you that you don't need to consider yes. But if players are supposed to storm a temple and one of them says, "I ask the leader of the Elven tribe we became friends with if he can send a few of his warriors with us to help storm the tower"....consider saying yes so the players feel like the world is alive and they can influence things around them.

Saying no just because you don't want the raid to be easier for the PC's with NPC's helping them can make your world feel static and the players might not enjoy your world as much as they would if they could've said, "Remember that time we hired the elves to help us storm the temple!?! The BBEG never saw that coming!"

Or if a player wants something, consider giving it to him. I just did this last session. I don't give out many magical items in my game. I let a player start his new PC with a bag of holding. Then I ran a module that included a bag of holding as loot. Then a few sessions ago, another PC wanted a bag of holding to her extra gear in. I really hated the idea of a group finding THREE bags of holding when just 1 bag of holding is supposed to be a rare find in my campaign. But I knew it would make her really happy, it wasn't game breaking, and I charged her 1.5 times as much as it cost. Seeing her face light up at the next session when I told her she managed to find an NPC that could get her a bag of holding was worth it.

So say yes if it will make a player enjoy your game more. But still say no if it's going to turn your game into something you didn't want.

 

[Metus]

I'm a "consider no" DM. I rule in favor of the rules over myself or my players because I value objectivity and want things to be fair. Maybe not nice, but fair. The reason for that is primarily due to the way I enjoy playing - I want to know that the DM will be an arbitrator for the rules without actively trying to screw me over OR help me. I want to know that if I succeed, I have done so due to my tactics and skillset and decisions, and yes, perhaps some luck.

Handing things out willy-nilly and bending/breaking the rules to favor the PCs seems patronizing. I feel like I'm patronizing the players when I'm the DM, and I feel like I'm being patronized when I'm the player. I'm not a child, I don't need someone to hold my hand and protect me from bad outcomes. I want to earn my outcome, good or bad, and I want my players to do the same. I don't try to actively screw them over, but I never "enable" them either.

Or if a player wants something, consider giving it to him.

This is defintely a "consider no" decision for me. Who knows what kind of wackiness they could introduce. Perhaps they sold the bag of holding, perhaps they sold all three, received more money then they were supposed to have at their level, then purchased something unbalancing. Then I've enabled the players to unbalance the game and ruleset, and I consider myself to have failed as a DM.

 

[sam500]

This is defintely a "consider no" decision for me. Who knows what kind of wackiness they could introduce. Perhaps they sold the bag of holding, perhaps they sold all three, received more money then they were supposed to have at their level, then purchased something unbalancing. Then I've enabled the players to unbalance the game and ruleset, and I consider myself to have failed as a DM.

Wow.
I would not have fun in that type of game as a player.
Trying to do wacky things is what I'm all about when I play.

Or when I GM for that matter.
For instance, I'm running the "Shackled City" and...
One of my players is a bard with a huge bluff and diplomacy. His main method to fight is to calm his oponents and convnice them to come work for him in a bank he started as security. Each week he comes to game with expansions to his "blueprints". In effect he's making his own dungeon. This has brought on numerous fun roleplaying experiences.
Another player has refitted out the Church of Kord and installed Andre' the Giant from "The Princess Bride" as high priest. The new high priest hosts wrestling matches at the church every sunday.

I've never run into a rules balance issue I couldn't navigate with some creativity even with 10 players and a 38pt buy.

 

[Oryan77]

This is defintely a "consider no" decision for me. Who knows what kind of wackiness they could introduce.

Perhaps they sold the bag of holding,

Then they'll get half the amount that the item is worth (or maybe less).

perhaps they sold all three

When they receive half the amount per item, I have almost single handedly reduced the power level of the group in one fell swoop...I have no problem with that

received more money then they were supposed to have at their level,

NPC's should never pay full price or more for "used" equipment. And if an NPC is buying an item from PC's, it's most likely going to be an NPC that wants to resell it. So why would he give full price or more?

then purchased something unbalancing. Then I've enabled the players to unbalance the game and ruleset, and I consider myself to have failed as a DM.

You seem to be the kind of DM that wants a lot of control over his game, right? Then why does this seem like you don't have any control over your own game? If you don't want players to own something unbalancing, then don't let them buy it. Notice Sam500 said, "consider yes". That doesn't mean you can never say "no".

If anyone doesn't understand what "consider yes" means, then no wonder your a "no" DM....you've already said no to the "consider yes" suggestion without even realizing what it means. That's your problem

 

[sam500]

Remember the mantra is "Consider Yes", not "Definately Say Yes".
One could always say no, but instead of doing it out of hand.... consider yes first....

 

[Metus]

If you don't want players to own something unbalancing, then don't let them buy it.

Then I consider that screwing the players over, since if they're in a standard D&D world (Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk or whatnot) and in a large city (Waterdeep or Sharn or something) and I arbitrarily say I don't want them to have something, that's as bad as me "enabling" them and giving them what they want. So I'm having to stymie their efforts of purchase because I went overboard with item-giving. I'd rather just have it start out and remain balanced.

 

[Oryan77]

Then I consider that screwing the players over, since if they're in a standard D&D world (Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk or whatnot) and in a large city (Waterdeep or Sharn or something) and I arbitrarily say I don't want them to have something, that's as bad as me "enabling" them and giving them what they want. So I'm having to stymie their efforts of purchase because I went overboard with item-giving. I'd rather just have it start out and remain balanced.

You just said you're a "no" DM and now you're saying you can't say "no" when a player wants to buy something? Now you're saying you don't want to "screw" players over so you let them buy whatever they want? That's not a "consider no" DM and that's actually not even a "consider yes" DM....that's a "always yes" DM

Your critisizing of me for allowing a player to buy a bag of holding simply because she wanted one is unbalancing to you? You're confusing me. If a player has 4000 gold and wants to buy an item worth 2000 gold, and I sell that item to them for 3000 gold because the merchant had to make an effort to find one; you're worried that the PC will take that item, resell it for 1000 gold (half of it's actual worth), use their remaining 1000 gold (from the 4000 gold) plus the 1000 gold from the resell, and buy a "better" item with that 2000 gold? If they didn't do all of that they woulda had 4000 gold to use to buy a better item. That's exactly what you're saying and what you seem worried about as being "unbalancing"

 

[Metus]

You just said you're a "no" DM and now you're saying you can't say "no" when a player wants to buy something?

I probably should've clarified more on my take on sam500's point.

He stated that, "I'm noticing more and more GM's turning to the rules too much to decide what happens in game." I'm a "consider no" GM if it ever goes against the rules. I turn to the rules ALL the time, with my mission to have it as accurate and as balanced as possible.

There are rules governing magical items, which is item cost and caster level, the latter referenced by Andy Collins in MiC as to when players should receive an item, around about. As well, there are rules governing the wealth availability in cities (DMG pg. 137). "Anything having a price under that limit is most likely available... while exceptions are certainly possible, these exceptions are temporary." Moreover, there are wealth guidelines for players, as given on page 135 of the DMG.

What I am saying is that I am a "consider no" if it ever goes against the rules or the spirit of the rules, referencing sam500 as saying GMs turning to the rules "too much" to decide what happens in game. I decide all the time in accordance with the rules.

Now you're saying you don't want to "screw" players over so you let them buy whatever they want? That's not a "consider no" DM and that's actually not even a "consider yes" DM....that's a "always yes" DM

Correct. If they are a) in an appropriate-sized city as in accordance with the rules, and b) have the appropriate amount of wealth as governed by the character wealth level as per the rules, then yes. I think that the rules explicitly manage what the players can and cannot purchase by wealth availability both for the towns and for the characters themselves.

Your critisizing of me for allowing a player to buy a bag of holding simply because she wanted one is unbalancing to you?

I apologize if you took it as a criticism; a flaw of using a direct reference. I say if it works for you, go for it. I'm simply saying that if it breaks the wealth barrier as given to me by the DMG, then it is an always "consider no" for me, regardless of what the player wants.

You're confusing me. If a player has 4000 gold and wants to buy an item worth 2000 gold, and I sell that item to them for 3000 gold because the merchant had to make an effort to find one; you're worried that the PC will take that item, resell it for 1000 gold (half of it's actual worth), use their remaining 1000 gold (from the 4000 gold) plus the 1000 gold from the resell, and buy a "better" item with that 2000 gold? If they didn't do all of that they woulda had 4000 gold to use to buy a better item. That's exactly what you're saying and what you seem worried about as being "unbalancing"

First and foremost, I would be very, very wary about temporarily increasing the base cost of a price for almost anything, simply because the rules have given me a price, and I would need a good reason to change it.

That being said, what I took from your original post was, "I let a player start his new PC with a bag of holding." That's what concerned me. I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that the new PC was first level. The cheapest bag of holding is Type I (DMG pg. 248) given a price of 2,500 gp. What I would be an always "consider no" DM about is having a 1st level PC start with an item with a market value of 2,500 gp, which is almost the wealth amount he should have at 3rd level. If he decides to sell it for half, at 1,250 gp, then he has slightly more gp then he should have for his entire first level.