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

[Reynard]

Looks more like the OP is talking past the OP

I see.

 

[Autumnal]

I presume this would also apply to Lords of Gossamer and Shadow, a successor game to Amber.

It does, and with a ton of examples and guidelines that show Jason Durall’s time with the original.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

I think we are talking past each other. I explicitly said the GM should say yes to everything unless some previously agreed upon aspect -- setting, rules or milieu -- dictates otherwise. You seem to be trying to interpret this as the players have to be careful not to ask anything that might motivate the GM to say "no" which is nowhere in my theoretical.

What I am interested in is what potentially happens over time if the GM always says "Yes." We -- collectively as a thread -- has instead focused on trying to define what saying yes means. Which is understandable, but not really what I'm interested in.

I'm having a hard time picturing what you expect to happen as a result of this. If the GM's saying "yes," unless a previously agreed upon aspect dictates that what happens is subject to fiat from setting or milieu (e.g., no jetpacks in Dark Sun) or the rules require a roll (e.g., using D&D, combat or something that triggers a skill check), why wouldn't this just play like D&D with a more genial/collegial default? It might push play towards the things that require dice rolls more quickly. Or it might fizzle out like a sandbox game I played in years ago, which was one session of a lot of aimless play. I have a buddy who's done something called "The Month of Yes" where he says "yes" to whatever his wife asks him (maybe other people, too, but I never tested it), and he had some good results/exposure to new things from that. Maybe that could happen here? But what you're describing just seems like a kinder D&D to me. I don't know that it'd be earthshatteringly different. It might be good for the soul.

 

[Reynard]

? But what you're describing just seems like a kinder D&D to me. I don't know that it'd be earthshatteringly different. It might be good for the soul.

That may be enough. I feel like we -- trad GMs -- lean into "No" or at least "Roll" too often and so the question I am asking is "What happens if we don't do that?" But not just "what happens in the session" but "what happens in the whole game?"

 

[Old Fezziwig]

That may be enough. I feel like we -- trad GMs -- lean into "No" or at least "Roll" too often and so the question I am asking is "What happens if we don't do that?" But not just "what happens in the session" but "what happens in the whole game?"

Right on, I'm picking that up. I think unless you're changing rules or introducing some sort of top-down idea of how you're going to call the game as GM (e.g., something like Say Yes or Roll the Dice, which I'm understanding as being distinct from what you're proposing), then the game's going to play how it always does over time.

 

[aramis erak]

I think you and @pemerton are talking about something different than I am.

I am not talking about shuffling around authority. I am talking about the GM saying yes whenever the game gives them the authority (as opposed to giving the rules or players authority). Again, I am talking about largely traditional RPGs like D&D and explicitly NOT talking about narrative or story games.

The distinction of asking something "OF the GM" is important to my conception of this, and I don't feel like others are addressing it. It goes beyond action declaration. In fact, in many games, player action declaration doesn't grant the GM authority, but instead relies on the rules. For some reason, though, we seem to be stuck talking about action resolution.

That still renders the GM role mostly meaningless.

And still provides no ability to get it back on track when players go off the reservation.

 

[clearstream]

unless a previously agreed upon aspect dictates that what happens is subject to fiat from setting or milieu (e.g., no jetpacks in Dark Sun)

I'd like to understand though, who decides that? If it's DM, then isn't DM going to say "no" to some contributions unless players self-regulate in accord with what DM thinks belongs in the milieu?

I'd predict that the play will go along fine with "yes" meaning essentially nothing, until a player asserts something that "goes off the reservation" as @aramis erak put it. Then DM will say "no".

I say this not to make an argument for DM deciding these things, but to point out that an absence of division of authority over elements or facets of fiction -- such as milieu -- can lead to inadvertant transgressions. While any division put in force -- written or unwritten -- will give someone the right to say "no". (But with the latter making arguments more possible on that score.)

 

[Bagpuss]

Maybe I should talk a little about how I actually think this might work at the table, as some have suggested.

For Session 0 stuff, this is easy: if a player asks to play a certain thing, the answer is Yes. Maybe that means there is no setting, milieu or even ruleset established at first and these requests define the game to be played. or maybe there are and the players are expected to paint within the lines. In either case, players get to play what they want and the GM says "Yes."

Okay so there seems no change here from normal play. If the GM wants to let the players build the world and play any character they like they can. If they don't want to say Yes to their mad cap ideas, then he can establish that they have to "paint between the lines" so if the world has no Dragonborn, they can't play a Dragonborn.

During regular moment to moment play, I imagine it looking something like this:
GM: You have arrived in town on the caravan. The foreman pays you for your work guarding it and sends you on your way to explore Threshold.
Player2: Can I have a cousin that lives in town, who will put us up and introduce us to important folks?
GM: Yes. ::rolls some dice:: Your cousin in a retired miller and a widow, who lives on the outskirts of town.
[later]

This is perhaps a significant change for some GM's, D&D traditionally doesn't give much narrative control to the players beyond their own characters actions. In fact it might be a significant change for some players, I can imagine there are a lot of players that wouldn't even think to ask the question, because they don't believe it is something players do.

However I think most GM's and players that have been exposed to more open player lead RPGs have likely already brought into their gaming style, including when they play D&D. I know I certainly have, and have seen it form a lot of other GM/players at the conventions I've been to over the years. But I can understand this might seem some new to a lot of more traditional D&D players.

GM: The sound coming from your cousin's millhouse is uncomfortably like rats, but bigger and very likely meaner.
Player2: I want to draw them out one at a time. I'll tie that hunk of stinky cheese to the end of my rope and toss it toward the hole in the wall where the sounds are coming from.
GM. Yes. Okay. You do that and within a few moments, a large, five eyed, nine legged rat thing starts to lumber out of the hole toward the cheese. [no roll needed]
Player 2: Gah! I pull the rope to get it to come fully out into the open.
GM: Yes. It does. [no roll needed]

Seems like normal play, player suggests something that seems likely it would work, GM decides it does.

Player1: I shoot it in the eye with my crossbow!
GM: Okay, roll to hit [the rules take over here] and then everyone roll initiative [signaling moving fully into the rules as control aspect of play].

That is a very simplistic example, of course, but I think it gets across my general meaning.

Again seems like normal play.

Now let me present a hypothetical what if instead of cheese the player tried to lure the rat out with a shinny gold coin? Rats are know to be greedy, they player wrongly assumes for money, rather than food. Does the GM just say yes to that and from now on in the game world rats have treasure hordes like dragons?

 

[pemerton]

I am talking about largely traditional RPGs like D&D and explicitly NOT talking about narrative or story games.

The distinction of asking something "OF the GM" is important to my conception of this, and I don't feel like others are addressing it. It goes beyond action declaration. In fact, in many games, player action declaration doesn't grant the GM authority, but instead relies on the rules. For some reason, though, we seem to be stuck talking about action resolution.

Maybe I should talk a little about how I actually think this might work at the table, as some have suggested.

<snip>

GM: The sound coming from your cousin's millhouse is uncomfortably like rats, but bigger and very likely meaner.
Player2: I want to draw them out one at a time. I'll tie that hunk of stinky cheese to the end of my rope and toss it toward the hole in the wall where the sounds are coming from.
GM. Yes. Okay. You do that and within a few moments, a large, five eyed, nine legged rat thing starts to lumber out of the hole toward the cheese. [no roll needed]
Player 2: Gah! I pull the rope to get it to come fully out into the open.
GM: Yes. It does. [no roll needed]
Player1: I shoot it in the eye with my crossbow!
GM: Okay, roll to hit [the rules take over here] and then everyone roll initiative [signaling moving fully into the rules as control aspect of play].

That is a very simplistic example, of course, but I think it gets across my general meaning.

I guess I don't really see how drawing out a giant rat with a hunk of cheese is not action resolution.

This is why, upthread, I posted that

As best I can tell, you are working with some intuitive notion of action declarations that are resolved mechanically (eg jumping, combat) versus action declarations that are resolved by GM's free narration (talking to people, sneaking around, etc). But I'm not sure where, or why, you're drawing those boundaries.

And I'm still not sure. In 5e D&D, for instance, why does drawing out the giant rat with a hunk of cheese not require a check (say, an INT (Nature), a WIS (Animal Handling), or a WIS (Survival) check)?

Is the idea that, in 5e D&D, the GM would allow any non-combat, non-jumping action to succeed?

I'm having a hard time picturing what you expect to happen as a result of this. If the GM's saying "yes," unless a previously agreed upon aspect dictates that what happens is subject to fiat from setting or milieu (e.g., no jetpacks in Dark Sun) or the rules require a roll (e.g., using D&D, combat or something that triggers a skill check), why wouldn't this just play like D&D with a more genial/collegial default? It might push play towards the things that require dice rolls more quickly.

This prompts me to ask the same question - what sort of action declarations trigger a skill check?

Because if drawing out giant rats with cheese doesn't, and if (as per one of @Reynard's posts upthread) persuading someone to do something doesn't, what non-combat action declaration does?

 

[aramis erak]

This is perhaps a significant change for some GM's, D&D traditionally doesn't give much narrative control to the players beyond their own characters actions.

D&D (and most other non-"storygame" aka "Traditional" RPGs) don't even go that far.
Most of the "No" in D&D GMing isn't even "off the reservation" play. It's narrating past the attempt, then failing the roll. I strongly encourage players to stop just before the point where an effect is expected, then go to the roll. And, from there, on a success, they or I can narrate the reasonable action.

Long ago (40 years or so), I realized that it was better to tell players to "Tell me what your character is attempting to do" instead of "Tell me what your character does." Less player dissatisfaction, because expectations are better managed.