Rule "Yes"

[Wormwood]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.