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

[Reynard]

With the caveat that all this assumes both interpretations of the hypothetical are implemented:


I only mentioned NPCs (which includes monsters) because that seems to be the place that GMs would retain the greatest authorial control in the world.


Not at all, I'm just drawing a line between "game" and "play" (after all, there are improv games). But on the scale of "miniatures wargame" to "improvisational theater," accepting both versions of the hypothetical puts you very, very close to the latter rather quickly.


Ah, like an enemy who has a specific weakness you must figure out how to exploit in order to defeat it! Or a door that only opens if you push on it the right way! More seriously, though, the trouble I would run into here is how the GM would tell the players they failed (or present any puzzle with a predetermined solution) if they aren't allowed to say no.
It seems to me the most likely thing that will happen if you come across a door you don't know how to open will be the question: "I try [x]: does that open the door?" To which the only answer is, of course: "Yes." Alternately, I suppose, you'd could be equally likely to have the rogue say "I look for a way to open the door." They roll to Find Traps/Open Locks and, of course, they succeed.


If we're not bypassing the game rules, it should be easy for you to choose two or three specific game rules from any system which wouldn't be effectively ignored by both assuming all chances of failure are nonexistent and always saying yes to player suggestions.


But the roll will always be a success, so we can't do that, and the players can also make up whatever they want. The hypothetical is exactly what is removing those options.

I feel like you aren't really grasping what I mean by "Say yes" and how it relates to asking things of the GM versus asking things of the rules.

We are explicitly not talking about auto-success (anymore; that was a relatively quick realization in this relatively long discussion). If the answer comes from the GM ("can I play a half orc half unicorn?" "can I find a prybar in the pantry?" "can I have a connection to the royal courtier?") the answer is always "Yes." If the the answer comes from the rules ("can I hit the ogre with my bow?" "can I jump across this chasm?") then the dice do whatever their job is. Different systems have different capacities for these two things, ranging in broad categories including fighting, talking, exploring and so on. For example, 5E gives the GM a lot of latitude in determining whether a roll should be made in many instances, so I say that in 5E this method would result in a lot (but not all) "automatic successes" outside of combat that another game, like Rolemaster or Pathfinder, might not.

 

[LepcisMagna]

That's precisely why I prefaced my responses with a restatement or reassertion of the hypotheticals - the comment you mentioned not agreeing with anything about was directed at DEFCON 1's formulation of the hypothetical, not the one from the OP.

If we limit the hypothetical to just your version, my first comment (regarding matter-of-fact gameplay versus collaborative storytelling) remains.

 

[Reynard]

That's precisely why I prefaced my responses with a restatement or reassertion of the hypotheticals - the comment you mentioned not agreeing with anything about was directed at DEFCON 1's formulation of the hypothetical, not the one from the OP.

If we limit the hypothetical to just your version, my first comment (regarding matter-of-fact gameplay versus collaborative storytelling) remains.

Only because of the way you are defining "collaborative storytelling." Which is fine. You can define your terms any way you like. But to me, your comments suggest a too narrow definition of "game" and a too broad definition of "collaborative storytelling."

 

[LepcisMagna]

I am curious - what is your answer to your hypothetical?

 

[Reynard]

I am curious - what is your answer to your hypothetical?

We have explored it a bunch through this thread. I ultimately come down on it probably feeling a lot like most campaigns except with very competent PCs and fewer moments of the dice sending things sideways (for good or ill). Note that most of my games are already high improv and I tend to try and say "Yes" often anyway.

But I should note, since I am thinking of this in a way that includes "yes" to weird setting and character requests, the shape and tone of the campaign would be much more reliant on what the players wanted to make as opposed to leaning harder on my preferences and biases.

I have not figured out whether it would be sustainable over the long term, and don't think any amount of though exercising would provide that answer.

 

[Gorgon Zee]

We have explored it a bunch through this thread. I ultimately come down on it probably feeling a lot like most campaigns except with very competent PCs and fewer moments of the dice sending things sideways (for good or ill). Note that most of my games are already high improv and I tend to try and say "Yes" often anyway.

I think we have all converged on generally saying "yes" when the rules give the GM latitude to do so as being the normal way most people play when they have a group that trusts and works well together. I can't think of any time in the last few campaigns I've straight up said "no" to anything. It shouldn't affect "moments of dice sending things sideways" as the dice will be used whenever the rules indicate they need to be, same as if you didn't. Overly competent heroes have not been a problem for me, as if the rules take priority and you have good rules, this won't be an issue.

The few times I've considered refusing a player assertion, it's been over tone and genre. And if you don't have players you trust to keep tone, that will be an issue. I'm running a One Ring Moria campaign, and one player's reason to visit Moria was that they had an invite to Durin's Birthday party there, which is not actually possible. I was tempted to say no, but decided to go with it and now am working on a scenario involving long-dead ghosts at a birthday party.

I also had issues a few years back at a con game where I was running a classic horror (think Karloff and Lugosi) scenario, and on player kept making out-of-genre assertions and taking weird actions. For me, this is the biggest reason that, although in practice I follow this rule, I will reserve the right to say no: The rules might give no advice about playing Sir Loin of Beef, the Knight of Comedy, in my ongoing Pendragon game, but should someone attempt such a thing, I will say "no".

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think we have all converged on generally saying "yes" when the rules give the GM latitude to do so as being the normal way most people play when they have a group that trusts and works well together. I can't think of any time in the last few campaigns I've straight up said "no" to anything. It shouldn't affect "moments of dice sending things sideways" as the dice will be used whenever the rules indicate they need to be, same as if you didn't. Overly competent heroes have not been a problem for me, as if the rules take priority and you have good rules, this won't be an issue.

Though I should note that sometimes saying "Yes" when its really "Yes, but..." can come across as a little bit of a gotcha. For a lot of people "Yes, you can do that, but I'll apply this penalty to the roll and it has this failure state potentially" can just come across as a passive-aggressive way of saying "No."

I also had issues a few years back at a con game where I was running a classic horror (think Karloff and Lugosi) scenario, and on player kept making out-of-genre assertions and taking weird actions. For me, this is the biggest reason that, although in practice I follow this rule, I will reserve the right to say no: The rules might give no advice about playing Sir Loin of Beef, the Knight of Comedy, in my ongoing Pendragon game, but should someone attempt such a thing, I will say "no".

I'd argue the latter is more of a problem with tone mismatch between the player's expectation and yours, and is likely to keep being a problem, ability to say "no" or not. In that particular case you could just paper it over because it was a con game but I'd not expect that to work well in an ongoing home game.

 

[PvtTommyAtkins]

I got to participate in this as a player once. We had been playing RPGs all day and night and now it was the wee hours of the morning and some of the fellows had passed out already. A few of us too tired to really play anything proper basically just did a group narrative play- no dice and the DM/narrator said yes to everything. It was fun for about 15 min and then slogged on for another 15 because there was no challenge, risk or anything that really drove the story forward. Our characters were heroes of the day, but it felt hollow.

I compare this to a game when the GM never said "No" and le the dice fall where they may instead. The dice were on our side and on this little one shot we succeeded on every roll that was called for. It generated its own form of hilarity and fun and while it may seem that this was the same as the experience above, it was far better if only for the 'Risk' of failure that was present.

 

[FrogReaver]

But I should note, since I am thinking of this in a way that includes "yes" to weird setting and character requests, the shape and tone of the campaign would be much more reliant on what the players wanted to make as opposed to leaning harder on my preferences and biases.

One concern there is what if one player wants to play something that requires introduction of elements into the fiction that another player doesn’t want.

Or say in the d&d context, what if 1 person wants to play an ancient red dragon, but the rest want to start at level 3 and not deal with that insane imbalance.

Another is, as a player I like to know about the setting before making a character for it. In your case the setting isn’t being fleshed out till the players choose a character which I would find difficult to do without that setting info.

It’s not that it won’t ever work. Its that it won’t always work.

 

[FrogReaver]

I got to participate in this as a player once. We had been playing RPGs all day and night and now it was the wee hours of the morning and some of the fellows had passed out already. A few of us too tired to really play anything proper basically just did a group narrative play- no dice and the DM/narrator said yes to everything. It was fun for about 15 min and then slogged on for another 15 because there was no challenge, risk or anything that really drove the story forward. Our characters were heroes of the day, but it felt hollow.

I compare this to a game when the GM never said "No" and le the dice fall where they may instead. The dice were on our side and on this little one shot we succeeded on every roll that was called for. It generated its own form of hilarity and fun and while it may seem that this was the same as the experience above, it was far better if only for the 'Risk' of failure that was present.

I think this is a good distinction.