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

[aramis erak]

That is entirely different than not having the referee involved.

Referees, however, are optional.

 

[FrogReaver]

I wonder if people are envisioning things as much more complicated in this whole gametype scenario than they really need to?

What if we think of this entire thought experiment like this...

We are playing D&D. Same way we always play it. Everyone runs their characters the same way... everyone makes choices and decisions and queries with the same logical consistency as they always do (in other words, no player ever bothers asking "Can I jump to the moon?" because they know full well what the answer would be, which is 'no', because they know what the internal logic of the game world is).

So I liked your post and I think it frames the situation very well. I don’t agree with this part though. You are putting the cart before the horse. In original mode the player doesn’t ask because he knows the answer will be no. In new mode, that’s no longer a consideration as there’s no more no. Thus, the change in DMing to always say yes may very well lead to a change in how players play the game. That is, we can’t just assume they will play exactly the same regardless of whether the GM never says no.

 

[Umbran]

Mod Note:
Snarky meme with no content? Check.
Passive-aggressively doesn't actually tell us what is seen as problematic? Check.
Does nothing to de-escalate conflict or create clarity and understanding? Check.

Yellow card for Theory of Games!

If you aren't going to discuss in civil manner, take a break from the discussion.

 

[Reynard]

Referees, however, are optional.

Are they? I have never played FK, and have only ever heard about how it played from that Questing Beast video. It did not strike me that the referee was an optional part of that, though. I don't even know how that style of proto-RPG would work without the referee.

 

[Gorgon Zee]

"permission" here doesn't mean what you are interpreting it to mean.

I have no interest in playing the “my special definition of a common word is the only one I’ll consider valid” game. This is a common English word with a meaning that everyone else, for example, @pemerton and @Thomas Shey, seem to have no problem with. Permission means "the consent of a person in authority", which in our context means the GM allowing something, or, more succinctly, the GM saying "yes" to it, which is what this thread is about.

 

[DEFCON 1]

So I liked your post and I think it frames the situation very well. I don’t agree with this part though. You are putting the cart before the horse. In original mode the player doesn’t ask because he knows the answer will be no. In new mode, that’s no longer a consideration as there’s no more no. Thus, the change in DMing to always say yes may very well lead to a change in how players play the game. That is, we can’t just assume they will play exactly the same regardless of whether the GM never says no.

I get what you mean, but I would put forth the premise (as I did much earlier in the thread) that this particular type of DMing would only work with players who are willing to go along with it. In other words... player who wouldn't try and "game the system" by choosing to do impossible things since the "know" the DM won't stop them and they can get away with it. My middle paragraph in my last post was trying to cover that (but perhaps not fully or well enough.)

And this is why I think Reynard keeps hitting a wall in trying to advance their ideas to more detailed discussion... because it seems like most of the people responding here have it as just sort of a fait accompli that they fully expect or "already know" that players WON'T police themselves. That all player ARE going to try and get away with impossible things because they know the DM can't stop them. And if every poster just isn't willing to accept the other possibility, then there's really nothing left to discuss.

To really get at the heart of the discussion and move it forward... Reynard would need people to accept first and foremost (for the sake of argument / discussion if nothing else)... that the players at the table won't change their decision-making processes just because they no longer can "fail", and instead play as they always would. So if we assumed for the sake of this argument that players won't try and get away with murder because they "know they can"... how much or how little does the game change and how does the DM's decision-making processes change along with it?

(And let me also state that I am fully aware that I'm making this a black-and-white separation just for the sake of the discussion... a separation between players who won't try and get away with murder and those that absolutely will. And while fully acknowledging the very real grey area here in the discussion of things. Like the very real possibility of players not intentionally trying to get away with murder to start with, but over time they slowly move further and further in that direction because no roadblocks ever get put in their paths and they just continue to glide along that path without perhaps even realizing it. I acknowledge that possibility 100% as something probably could happen, even with players not trying to. But if we are all willing to acknowledge this very real possibility and just put it to the side for the sake of this discussion... perhaps Reynard's other hope for conversation about this thought experiment could come about?)

 

[Reynard]

I get what you mean, but I would put forth the premise (as I did much earlier in the thread) that this particular type of DMing would only work with players who are willing to go along with it. In other words... player who wouldn't try and "game the system" by choosing to do impossible things since the "know" the DM won't stop them and they can get away with it. My middle paragraph in my last post was trying to cover that (but perhaps not fully or well enough.)

And this is why I think Reynard keeps hitting a wall in trying to advance their ideas to more detailed discussion... because it seems like most of the people responding here have it as just sort of a fait accompli that they fully expect or "already know" that players WON'T police themselves. That all player ARE going to try and get away with impossible things because they know the DM can't stop them. And if every poster just isn't willing to accept the other possibility, then there's really nothing left to discuss.

To really get at the heart of the discussion and move it forward... Reynard would need people to accept first and foremost (for the sake of argument / discussion if nothing else)... that the players at the table won't change their decision-making processes just because they no longer can "fail", and instead play as they always would. So if we assumed for the sake of this argument that players won't try and get away with murder because they "know they can"... how much or how little does the game change and how does the DM's decision-making processes change along with it?

(And let me also state that I am fully aware that I'm making this a black-and-white separation just for the sake of the discussion... a separation between players who won't try and get away with murder and those that absolutely will. And while fully acknowledging the very real grey area here in the discussion of things. Like the very real possibility of players not intentionally trying to get away with murder to start with, but over time they slowly move further and further in that direction because no roadblocks ever get put in their paths and they just continue to glide along that path without perhaps even realizing it. I acknowledge that possibility 100% as something probably could happen, even with players not trying to. But if we are all willing to acknowledge this very real possibility and just put it to the side for the sake of this discussion... perhaps Reynard's other hope for conversation about this thought experiment could come about?)

I have actually done what I am.talking about in this thread in the short term: started with a literal blank slate and just said "Yes" to everything. There were only 3 of us (2 players) and we played a total of 8 hours.

 

[pemerton]

And this is why I think Reynard keeps hitting a wall in trying to advance their ideas to more detailed discussion... because it seems like most of the people responding here have it as just sort of a fait accompli that they fully expect or "already know" that players WON'T police themselves.

I see the thread quite differently. Multiple posters - including me - are trying to make sense of what @Reynard is suggesting, based on our actual play experience with various RPGs that appear to approximate in actuality what is being advanced by Reynard as a "thought experiment".

In my case, I am also trying to work out why (say) courtly intrigue is supposed to be different, in this context, from (say) exploring a dungeon or (say) fighting a combat.

I know why those things are different in classic D&D - classic D&D has rules for resolving dungeon exploration, and rules for resolving combat, but no rules for resolving courtly intrigue. Hence resolving courtly intrigue requires the GM to just make stuff up; and I can see that one approach to making stuff up is to say "yes" to whatever the players propose.

But @Reynard seems to be generalising this beyond D&D to some category of "traditional RPGs" that is pretty opaque to me, given that it doesn't even extend (as best I can tell) to Traveller or Rolemaster.

 

[clearstream]

I get what you mean, but I would put forth the premise (as I did much earlier in the thread) that this particular type of DMing would only work with players who are willing to go along with it. In other words... player who wouldn't try and "game the system" by choosing to do impossible things since the "know" the DM won't stop them and they can get away with it. My middle paragraph in my last post was trying to cover that (but perhaps not fully or well enough.)

A doubt I have is that this borders on a "no true scotsman" argument. Or, perhaps more acutely, what is the importance of "DM always says yes" given players are expected to self-regulate so that no instance could arise in which "no" would ever seem justified?

 

[Reynard]

I see the thread quite differently. Multiple posters - including me - are trying to make sense of what @Reynard is suggesting, based on our actual play experience with various RPGs that appear to approximate in actuality what is being advanced by Reynard as a "thought experiment".

In my case, I am also trying to work out why (say) courtly intrigue is supposed to be different, in this context, from (say) exploring a dungeon or (say) fighting a combat.

I know why those things are different in classic D&D - classic D&D has rules for resolving dungeon exploration, and rules for resolving combat, but no rules for resolving courtly intrigue. Hence resolving courtly intrigue requires the GM to just make stuff up; and I can see that one approach to making stuff up is to say "yes" to whatever the players propose.

But @Reynard seems to be generalising this beyond D&D to some category of "traditional RPGs" that is pretty opaque to me, given that it doesn't even extend (as best I can tell) to Traveller or Rolemaster.

You have a very specific set of expectations and assumptions, tied to your specific game preferences (Burning Wheel in particular) and you often seem to end up evangelizing those preferences as opposed to actually engaging the subject as presented. I don't mean this as a criticism, but as an explanation for why you appear to be flummoxed by pretty straight forward ideas. The concept, for example, that a system might deal with exploration and NPC interactions differently is not in any way novel. From what I have read of your actual play, it's more that that isn't how your preferred system does it, so you have seemingly forgotten that's how most older traditional games do it. I mean, is it odd to you that Traveller does ship combat differently than it does trading for goods?