GMing: What If We Say "Yes" To Everything?

[Reynard]

This reads to me as, "the GM says 'roll' to everything." That's significantly different than the Original Premise.

I don't know how you got there from what I wrote.

 

[Reynard]

What do you mean by saying yes? Do you mean player succeeds. Do you mean always give auto success or a die roll to anything the player wants to attempt, at a DC the player has a chance of beating?

Maybe something else?

"Can I play a half giant, half pixie from Mars?"
Yes.

"Can I convince the king to make me a baron?"
Yes.

"Can I sneak up behind the dragon and steal that cool cup?"
Yes.

It is still a roleplaying game. Assume everything works as normal, except the answer to every "can I?" question is "Yes."

 

[GMMichael]

I don't know how you got there from what I wrote.

I don't think that is true. Saying "yes" doesn't mean the GM has no input. It means that the world reacts to waht the PCs succeed at, rather than just what they try.

Words like "succeed" and "try" imply that the GM is still asking for rolls. Or the PCs are making themselves roll.

"The GM always says yes" would go something like:

It means that the world reacts to what the PCs do, whatever that might be.

 

[TiQuinn]

Just a thought experiment:

What if for a new campaign or just a one shot, the GM said "Yes" to literally everything the players asked or wanted to do. Not "Yes, but," but just "yes, you can do/be/use that."

Normally, the GM hedges, using die rolls or negotiation to craft play and control pacing, and sometimes to maintain a level of control over the world and the characters. What would a game look like where the GM gave up even a hint of control and just narrated the results of the PCs' choices and successful actions?

Kind of feels like what we’re doing right now with our PbtA game. You can fail by roll, but a success is a success and whatever the player wanted to accomplish works. On the one hand, it’s fun because you definitely feel heroic for a time, but it is also decidedly non-tactical. Like, anything you want to try will work and I struggle with the lack of pushback at times. Also sometimes other players’ ideas will trend towards to ludicrous and can take me out of the narrative a bit.

In short, it’s fine but I’m yearning to play a bit less open ended game next.

 

[Umbran]

Just a thought experiment:

What if for a new campaign or just a one shot, the GM said "Yes" to literally everything the players asked or wanted to do. Not "Yes, but," but just "yes, you can do/be/use that."

Normally, the GM hedges, using die rolls or negotiation to craft play and control pacing, and sometimes to maintain a level of control over the world and the characters. What would a game look like where the GM gave up even a hint of control and just narrated the results of the PCs' choices and successful actions?

I think what it looks like would depend on what the players think of it all. Taking it as a chance to just go crazy will look radically different from them agreeing among themselves to take it seriously.

 

[Reynard]

Words like "succeed" and "try" imply that the GM is still asking for rolls. Or the PCs are making themselves roll.

"The GM always says yes" would go something like:

Maybe we are miscommunicating. See my follow up in post #12.

 

[CellarHeroes]

Nope.

My only real objection is that it takes the "game" out of the role-playing game.

 

[Reynard]

Nope.

My only real objection is that it takes the "game" out of the role-playing game.

How so?

 

[Deset Gled]

In some groups this could be fine.

In other groups?

The loudest player who asks the most questions has de facto the most control over the game.

 

[CellarHeroes]

How so?

What are the rules?