A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life

[Ovinomancer]

That's kinda the point. The "Say yes or roll the dice" method of play wouldn't have worked with that sort of game circumstance.

Sigh. The situation provided is an example of saying yes -- whatever option the players choose, the GM will say yes to it. Trying to apply a GM tool to how players make a hard choice doesn't work, ever. SYORTD applies after the players announce their choice.

 

[Imaculata]

At the beginning of the game I would draw 4 cards that the players could not see and keep them behind the screen, to use if a perfect moment arose, or if a card drawn for a 1 just didn't apply at all and one behind the screen did. The players loved it and the result was good or bad, and usually something interesting.

This bit is important I feel, and it is also how I run my random encounters. Just because the table says "dragon cave" or "wizard's tower", does not mean the players stumble upon this encounter right away when I roll it. I may keep the encounter for later, until a fitting moment arrives.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think you're confused by a few things, here. SYORTD is a tool used in games where the GM is discouraged from negating properly formed action declarations by players. Proper formed here means within the genre and theme of the game, so no finding a laser pistol in an Aurthurian Legends game. SYORTD then simply means that you allow the action (say yes) or that you use the game mechanics to determine the outcome (or roll the dice).

That said, here's my specific issues:

My point is that SayYesOrRoll is Not meant for New Content introduction by the players, but only for action declaration & resolution.
So, in DW, if a Pc says she wants to convince a big Npc to do something (for example), the Gm can't just say yes, but instead has to make the Pc roll Parley and follow the result of the check.

One, there's no requirement for SYORTD to not include fiction creation. The secret door example shows this. If a player declares the look for a secret door, in SYORTD they either find one (yes) or they get a test where a success means they find one (or roll the dice). This is an action declaration that includes fiction creation and SYORTD works swimmingly for it.

As for your DW example, you just say you can't say yes. But, you most definitely can, and that's perfectly within the rules. What you seem to be confusing is that GM advice for DW is to drive conflict, so unless the request is trivial you probably should involve the dice so the core game engine of generating chaos can work. But that's advice on when to ORTD, not to never SY.

In DW there's no roll to be made for new content intro by Pcs. The Gm decides and that's it.

Huh? Granted I play BitD, but this is wildly wrong.

(Of course DW tells the Gm to ask the players questions and build on the answers, but that's a completely different story)

Yes, this is different and not related to SYORTD.

On Od&d: no content intro by Pcs as well. If I'm playing B4-The Sunken Pyramid and encounter the spirit of Demetrius on floor level 2, the purpose is not just to kill him and gain PX. If I declare how I try to bring him on my side instead of fighting him, the Dm says Yes or we all Roll dice and enter the system resolution for the encounters (Combat...)

No, because here there's no SYORTD going on, there's a prescripted encounter where Yes is already approved if the players choose to parley. The GM can say no if the players choose an unscripted action, like, say, searching for a secret door where the map key says none exist. SYORTD is a universal GM tool, not one that works so long as the GM prep says it does. In fact, SYORTD really doesn't function in games with heavy GM prep or with prepared modules at all. It works very well in low/no myth games with fiction introduction by players. Which is no surprise, as this kind of game is where SYORTD came to maturity as a GM tool.

 

[Numidius]

Old D&D was and still is a combination of Say Yes, or Roll the Dice, or Say No.

I just don't understand why and how the idea of Saying No has become so unpopular.

The tendency I've seen in the last decade among "trad" Gms is the abuse of "No", sadly.
Be it in long ongoing campaign (Vampire, Warhammer2ed, the No being enforced by the use of UberNpc or your Sire curiously appearing to put you back on the rails), or in new games (various D20 spinoff, Gumshoe etc, to the point of not allowing even Pc backgrounds).

 

[Numidius]

I think you're confused by a few things, here. SYORTD is a tool used in games where the GM is discouraged from negating properly formed action declarations by players. Proper formed here means within the genre and theme of the gane, so no finding a laser pistol in an Aurthurian Legends game. SYORTD then simply means that you allow the action (say yes) or that you use the gane mechanics to determine the outcome (or roll the dice).

That said, here's my specific issues:


One, there's no requirement for SYORTD to not include fiction creation. The secret door example shows this. If a player declares the look for a secret door, in SYORTD they either find one (yes) or they get a test where a success means they find one (or roll the dice). This is an action declaration that includes fiction creation and SYORTD works swimmingly for it.

As for your DW example, you just say you can't say yes. But, you most definitely can, and that's perfectly within the rules. What you seem to be confusing is that GM advice for DW is to drive conflict, so unless the request is trivial you probably should involve tge dice so the cire gane engine of generating chaos can work. But that's advice on when to ORTD, not to never SY.

In DW there's no roll to be made for new content intro by Pcs. The Gm decides and that's it.

Yes, this is different and not related to SYORTD.

No, because here there's no SYORTD going on, there's a prescripted encounter where Yes is already approved if the players choose to parley. The GM can say no if the players choose an unscripted action, like, say, searching for a secret door where the map key says none exist. SYORTD is a universal GM tool, not one that works so long as the GM prep says it does. In fact, SYORTD really doesn't function in games with heavy GM prep or with prepared modules at all. It works very well in low/no myth games with fiction introduction by players. Which is no surprise, as this kind of game is where SYORTD came to maturity as a GM tool.

Actually SYOR was born, or heavily implemented, in a game with heavy Gm prep (DitV by V. Baker).

What I meant with Od&d is that the purpose was not to outright kill every creature in the dungeon, but to steal the loot (in simple words...), so thinking of plans outside combat was legit; in case Gm is not convinced s/he doesn't say No, instead dice are rolled for combat.

About DW: if the Move says When you do this, roll that, the Gm can't just Say Yes by Raw, s/he must let the Pc roll.

Since there are no dice to be rolled in DW for Content intro, SYORTD doesn't apply in this case (IMO)

 

[Maxperson]

Sigh. The situation provided is an example of saying yes -- whatever option the players choose, the GM will say yes to it. Trying to apply a GM tool to how players make a hard choice doesn't work, ever. SYORTD applies after the players announce their choice.

Did you read that example? The answer to the riddle was pre-decided and in the envelope. There was no ability to say yes to a wrong answer. The players would have announced their answer and then looked into the envelope to see if they were right or wrong. The DM wouldn't play into it, and neither would the dice.

 

[Numidius]

[MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION]

Why do you say I'm wrong about No dice for content intro in Dw?

How does it work in BitD? A game I'd like to play one o'these days

 

[Ovinomancer]

Actually SYOR was born, or heavily implemented, in a game with heavy Gm prep (DitV by V. Baker).

Never played it, but I've read it and there's absolutely no way I'd even get close to calling Dogs a heavy GM prep game. I'm curious if you'd care to expound why you say it is.

What I meant with Od&d is that the purpose was not to outright kill every creature in the dungeon, but to steal the loot (in simple words...), so thinking of plans outside combat was legit; in case Gm is not convinced s/he doesn't say No, instead dice are rolled for combat.

This is oddly formed. Your saying that only in cases where there is a possible fie present that SYORTD neans the GM outright allows your plan to succeed or combat ensues? That's not even close to what SYORTD means.

As an exercise, in an OD&D game, a player declares that they're going to find tge secret door into the guarded treasure room, bypassing the guards. The map key the GM prepared shows no secret door into the treasure room. How does this adjudicate?

My answers:
[/sblock] In OD&D, the action declaration fails; no secret door is found and no mechanics engaged (except for obfuscation). The answer is no.

In a SYORTD game, the DM can say yes, there is a secret door here, and set a new scene, or they can challenge the declaration by calling for a check. But, success on the check means the player intent is realized, while failure means it is thwarted in some way.[/sblock]

About DW: if the Move says When you do this, roll that, the Gm can't just Say Yes by Raw, s/he must let the Pc roll.

No, the GM can decide the result is trivial and say yes to the declaration without engaging the Move mechanics at all. You can always say yes.

Since there are no dice to be rolled in DW for Content intro, SYORTD doesn't apply in this case (IMO)

Again, you seem to have a strange seperation of action declaration and content introduction. It's legit in DW to search for a secret door, which introduces the fiction that a secret door is present. The GM must honor thus by either saying yes, or calling for a check. This is what SYORTD means -- it has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not an action declaration involves fiction introduction or not.

I find it really odd that you cheer for [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] but still maintain this thinking. It's antithetical to how he plays.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Did you read that example? The answer to the riddle was pre-decided and in the envelope. There was no ability to say yes to a wrong answer. The players would have announced their answer and then looked into the envelope to see if they were right or wrong. The DM wouldn't play into it, and neither would the dice.

Making a choice between alternatives doesn't engage with SYORTD at all. Your confusion here is, again, mistaking a GM tool for something the players have to engage to choose between alternatives.

The only way SYORTD would come into this is if the players make action declarations. Choosing between options isn't an action declaration. If the declared something other than choosing an option, then SYORTD would apply, and it would be a valid tool, here. Frex, if the players decided to mount an offense against the Gods of Fate instead of choosing, that could be handled by SYORTD or not. The answering a riddle, though, doesn't go there; it's orthogonal to SYORTD.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I guess my answer here in terms of the tea house and the sect is "OK, fine, its determined that the sect is NOT going to be found in the teahouse." Since the point of the game, IMHO is for interesting stuff to happen, then this particular teahouse, at least in the 'finding a sect' context is simply not going to even figure at all. So any decision I might make about it not having sect members, realistic or unrealistic, is going to have at most 2 seconds of table time, and probably none at all. I'm going to be going on to the place that DOES have the sect!

But that assumes a very binary set of possibilities: they are at the tea house, they are not at the tea house. All kinds of complications can arise in between. And I think a good GM will make sure that there are meaningful choices on the table. The very act of going around town asking about Bone Breaking Sect, might even trigger the sect to take an interest in the party. There could be real consequences for not finding them quickly. People might lie (sure I know where to find them, let me take you there). The GM knows, and the players don't, is useful for this kind of play. Not saying you can't do it another way. And I am not saying the other way is any kind of bad. I just think folks should genuinely try to understand why some of us might also enjoy this particular approach (because I can honestly tell you, it isn't because we like mother may I, or want to suffer under a GM who says 'no' all the time). So the conversation starts to feel very frustrating when we say, 'but we like it because X' and the response seems to be 'No you like it because Y and you refuse to see that A is a much better way to play the game'.