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

[Numidius]

There is prep in Dogs, yes, but not like a D&D module. You chart out details to engage the PCs, but also have to be ready to ditch it all if the players run off script. There's more prep than in, say, DW, but it's still not a heavily prepped game.

As I said to [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], if you're not adjudicating an action declaration, SYORTD is moot. You're talking about a different facet of play, here, namely finding out what's important to your players so you can use that to frame scenes. This, however, isn't the only way to introduce new fiction. New fiction (like the presence of a secret door not previously introduced) can be brought on through action declarations in DW, and should then be adjudicated using SYORTD as a maxim.


I don't follow. If the presence of a secret door is brought up in an action declaration and is minutia, then SYORTD says to say yes and move to a point that is important. If, however, it's not minutia, then call for a check and use the results for the action snowball. This is the exact kind of play that PbtA leverages to create meaningful moments in play.

Dismissing this argument, which showcases SYORTD and fiction introduction by saying that it would be universally trivial is just sidestepping by hand waving. If you can't imagine how the presense or absence of a secret door can be meaningful and impactful to play, okay, but it's pretty easy -- chases where being captured risks a PC goal; access to a resource a PC needs to accomplish a goal; as a shortcut that would allow a PC to rescue a hostage; etc, etc.

The systems that employ SYORTD do so in pursuit of creating dramatic story moments. The SY part is to move past trivial moments to get to the dranatic bits.

Any antagozing is on your side?

I disagree with you, but I've also been very clear as to where, why, and how, so you can engage my arguments, if you choose.

Fair enough. No offence meant or taken.

On DitV: agreed. Maybe is heavy for me.

On Dw: there is no check to make true a statement from the Pc. If you are talking about Spout Lore, as I said, the new content is brought by the Gm.

SYORTD and the dramatic bits: agreed.

 

[Numidius]

About the minutiae: I mean, I'm completely fine to let players describe whole sections of a dungeon, or entire new cities and their economic networks, or genealogy of gods, if they feel like it. For my part I try to mantain a sense of coherence in the setting and focus on the characters: I ask about religion to the cleric and traps to the thief. In my game no one ever played a Dwarf (sad but true), so anything related to dwarven society is on my side, I don't let them introduce new fiction about them.

But I don't allow new fiction to be introduced on their part regarding something already established, like Npc, enemies, mosters appearing, or secret doors to pop out of nothing.

 

[Numidius]

I tend to agree with [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] about this - as a general rule classic wargaming/dungeon-crawling D&D doesn't support "say 'yes' or roll the dice", because the GM is meant to have already mapped and "stocked" the dungeon and uses that to regulate what gets introduced into the fiction without being obliged to allow a die roll if s/he doesn't just want to say "yes". And even if you wanted to play classic D&D in that way, it doesn't have the mechanical framework to support it - there's no general system of calling for checks.

I can see how classic D&D combat can be played in a "say 'yes' or roll the dice" fashion, though, and think that's an interesting take on it.

4e D&D has two basic mechanical frameworks: combat, which in mechanical terms is highly structured; and non-combat, which in mechanical terms is very loose and based on either checks or skill challenges. (The skill descriptions in the PHB try to introduce some non-combat subsystems associated with particular skills, eg how much food can you get by foraging using your Nature skill, but as far as I can tell most successful 4e games ignore those subsystems as incompatible with the general spirit and best play of the game.)

Combat in 4e can have "say 'yes' or roll the dice" elements - eg if a player declares "I yell at the orc: surrender!" nothing obliges the GM to call for an Intimidate check as opposed to just have the orc surrender - but that isn't where it defaults to. Much more important for good 4e combat is framing rolls of the dice as an alternative to no - which requires good working intuitions around p 42, what are suitable trade-offs in terms of spending resources to generate consequences outside the formal "power" framework, etc.

Non-combat in 4e can very much be played in a "say 'yes' or roll the dice" fashion. (Once you ignore those poorly-conceived bit of the PHB skill descriptions, and instead focus on the DMG and DMG2 advice for non-combat resolution.) It works fairly well, but has much lower failure rates than (say) Burning Wheel which makes it much less gritty and less emotionally demanding on players.

Traveller I'll say something about below.

I think the comparison of Classic Traveller to Dungeon World is an interesting one, because Traveller also has "moves" that - when they occur in the fiction - mandate the deployment of particular resolution subsystems. For instance, if a player declares (as his/her PC), "I'm hanging out at the bars etc hoping to meet a patron" then the next step is (i) to knock off a week of game time, and (ii) to make a patron encounter check. Likewise, if a player declares that s/he (as his/her PC) is performing some tricky manoeuvre while wearing a vacc-suit, then the rules prescribe the check (modified by Vacc Suit expertise) that needs to be made to avoid encountering some sort of difficulty (eg the last time that happened in our game, an oxygen hose got snagged on a rocky protrusion).

I think there are some differences from DW that are worth noting. Most obviously, the Traveller subsystems are all quite different from one another (in probabilities, in structuring outcomes, etc); and when they trigger a need for judgement it almost always goes back to the referee rather than the player (eg the referee decides what sort of difficulty results on a failed manoeuvring-in-vacc-suit check, although in practice of course the whole table might get to have input into that decision).

Another difference is that many of the triggers are much less clearly specified (not always: when your activate your starship's jump drive is a pretty clear trigger), which means the referee has a bit more latitude in calling for checks - and this can allow the intrusion of a degree of "saying 'yes'" in lieu of calling for checks.

And then there are some domains of activity - most obviously procurement - which are clearly expected to be part of the game (it's full of price lists and expenses and ways to make money) but which don't say what happens (eg have no associated subsystem) if the referee is not just inclined to "say 'yes'" - eg there's no subsystem for being able to obtain fuel at a starport if supplies are running low and so it's not just freely available to those who can afford it. The system as written tends to assume the GM will just make something up to adjudicate this if necessary, which gets closer to some of the standard tools of early D&D refereeing. Another similarity in that respect is the existence of subsystems which sit on the cusp between genuine action resolution and GM scene-framing tools - like the person encounter rules, which state that a check should be made every day, but also at least imply that the GM might curate the making and outcome of at least some of those checks.

The lack of clear "say 'yes' or roll the dice" in Traveller was one of the things that led me to post a bit over a year ago that Classic Traveller is a dice driven game.

Thanks for the detailed response. Traveller is one of those games we had bought in the 80's but never really played back then.

Re: Say Yes or Roll
Seems like there a basic misunderstandig. To me SYOR regards only action declaration by players in the present situation, and in case the Gm does not agree, the table resorts to dice rolling to resolve it. Nothing to do with creating new fiction, new content, outside the range of Pc actions.
Infact if a game does not have a resolution system for content creation/narrative authority etc, which dice is one supposed to roll if doesn't say yes?
I don't get it.

So regarding OD&D, I mean Say Yes, in a typical encounter, after the situation is introduced by the Dm, the Pcs declare they don't want to enter combat and propose a different plan, the Dm can say yes or let them roll = resolve the encounter via combat. Simple as that; and since PX were gained via Gold and not number of encounters cleared like today, combat was a sort of last resort.

I hope I could explain myself properly

 

[innerdude]

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.

Because for nearly the entire history of RPGs, the authority to say "No" has been abused by far too many GMs, in far too many games, producing far too much un-fun, un-interesting, Mother-May-I? kinds of gameplay.

Heavy-handed, railroad-y, "My way or the highway," selfishly-motivated GM-ing has done more damage to the tabletop RPG hobby than literally anything else. No other single factor---including whatever "Edition War" you want to point a camera at---has had nearly as negative an impact. Period.

 

[Aldarc]

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.

Come now. It's not as if "Saying No" somehow represents an oppressed, pariah position in gaming. If it was really so unpopular as you woefully bemoan then there would be little need for a trifling handful of people to defend it. So "Saying No" has hardly become unpopular, given its continued hegemony in most games, but, rather, that some games outside of your self-imposed bubble have adopted other methods and modes of play and you find other ways foreign and perplexing. It may be to your benefit if you shifted your concern from "Why can't I say 'no' to players?" to "What is 'say yes or roll the dice' attempting to accomplish as an approach?"

In my own reading of Vincent Baker's "roll the dice or say yes" (his phrasing), the point is that stakes and risks should be in play with any given roll. If there are no stakes, there is no tension, so he advises GMs to go along with saying "yes" to the player-generated narrative to push the game towards interesting points of conflict, tension, and risk.

So it's possible that shift away from "Saying No" transpired when some people were not satisfied with playing all RPGs like puzzle-themed boardgames and instead wanted their RPGs centered around resolving points of player-pushed narrative tension, stakes, and conflict.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Because for nearly the entire history of RPGs, the authority to say "No" has been abused by far too many GMs, in far too many games, producing far too much un-fun, un-interesting, Mother-May-I? kinds of gameplay.

Heavy-handed, railroad-y, "My way or the highway," selfishly-motivated GM-ing has done more damage to the tabletop RPG hobby than literally anything else. No other single factor---including whatever "Edition War" you want to point a camera at---has had nearly as negative an impact. Period.

I am sorry but this is a ridiculous position. Yes, obviously, bad GMs exist. But there isn't a systemic problem of GMs abusing their authority. Perhaps when we were in grade school, this was something of a problem. I honestly can say I haven't had this issue the entire time I've played with other adults. I think people are projecting their own bad experiences onto posters here who are clearly stating to them: we don't have that problem. I have no issue with the alternative approaches being offered up here. They clearly answer a desire among many gamers. But this kind of thinking, that takes something as minor as a poorly run D&D campaign and paints it in terms more appropriate to society level oppression, I think is the very definition of hyperbole.

 

[Maxperson]

Because for nearly the entire history of RPGs, the authority to say "No" has been abused by far too many GMs, in far too many games, producing far too much un-fun, un-interesting, Mother-May-I? kinds of gameplay.

Bad DMs abuse all systems. So what. If you find a bad DM, leave the game and find a better one.

 

[Lanefan]

Because for nearly the entire history of RPGs, the authority to say "No" has been abused by far too many GMs, in far too many games, producing far too much un-fun, un-interesting, Mother-May-I? kinds of gameplay.

Depends on one's definition of "abused", maybe; or whether one sees a minority as "far too many" (which it probably is, but it's still the minority). It also depends on what importance the GM and-or players - particularly the players - put on internal consistency and-or logic within the setting.

Heavy-handed, railroad-y, "My way or the highway," selfishly-motivated GM-ing has done more damage to the tabletop RPG hobby than literally anything else. No other single factor---including whatever "Edition War" you want to point a camera at---has had nearly as negative an impact. Period.

I think you're a bit over the top on this one; never mind that it's just as true (if not more so) that good GMs have been more help to the tabletop RPG hobby than any other single factor, bar none.

Come now. It's not as if "Saying No" somehow represents an oppressed, pariah position in gaming.

Maybe, but my window on the greater gaming community these days is pretty much what I read in here - and saying no in these parts ain't so popular.

If it was really so unpopular as you woefully bemoan then there would be little need for a trifling handful of people to defend it. So "Saying No" has hardly become unpopular, given its continued hegemony in most games, but, rather, that some games outside of your self-imposed bubble have adopted other methods and modes of play and you find other ways foreign and perplexing. It may be to your benefit if you shifted your concern from "Why can't I say 'no' to players?" to "What is 'say yes or roll the dice' attempting to accomplish as an approach?"

In my own reading of Vincent Baker's "roll the dice or say yes" (his phrasing), the point is that stakes and risks should be in play with any given roll. If there are no stakes, there is no tension, so he advises GMs to go along with saying "yes" to the player-generated narrative to push the game towards interesting points of conflict, tension, and risk.

The only thing I see this approach accomplishing is the removal of some of the mystery from the game/setting. Many times the tension and sense of mystery is increased when the DM calls for rolls for no reason whatsoever in order to disguise the real roll when it happens...just as one example.

So it's possible that shift away from "Saying No" transpired when some people were not satisfied with playing all RPGs like puzzle-themed boardgames and instead wanted their RPGs centered around resolving points of player-pushed narrative tension, stakes, and conflict.

Which, taken to it's conclusion, means the players are each time setting both the problem (mystery) and its solution; and then hoping the dice co-operate and don't drag in too many complications. Isn't that like reading the end of a murder novel to find out whodunnit and then reading through the rest to see how things got there?

With a "puzzle", as you call it, the players via their PCs have to think to find a solution; and have to accept 'no' sometimes when their ideas don't (or can't) work. And by 'no' I don't mean 'no but something else happens', I mean a flat 'no, that doesn't work' or 'no, that's wrong'. The simplest example is where the party have to solve a riddle in order to move forward - they either get the right answer or they (perhaps repeatedly) don't.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Thanks for the detailed response. Traveller is one of those games we had bought in the 80's but never really played back then.

Re: Say Yes or Roll
Seems like there a basic misunderstandig. To me SYOR regards only action declaration by players in the present situation, and in case the Gm does not agree, the table resorts to dice rolling to resolve it. Nothing to do with creating new fiction, new content, outside the range of Pc actions.
Infact if a game does not have a resolution system for content creation/narrative authority etc, which dice is one supposed to roll if doesn't say yes?
I don't get it.

So regarding OD&D, I mean Say Yes, in a typical encounter, after the situation is introduced by the Dm, the Pcs declare they don't want to enter combat and propose a different plan, the Dm can say yes or let them roll = resolve the encounter via combat. Simple as that; and since PX were gained via Gold and not number of encounters cleared like today, combat was a sort of last resort.

I hope I could explain myself properly

Hmm. Some stuff to unpack, here.

Firstly, your characterization of SYORTD leaves out some important context, namely that if the GM doesn't say yes and instead goes to the mechanics, this still means that the player's action declaration comes true on a successful resolution of the mechanics. The GM cannot substitute a check for a different outcome as the Roll The Dice option, they must instead address the intent of the player's action faithfully. They must, if they roll the dice, fulfill the intent of the action declaration if the player is successful and thwart/complicate it if it isn't successful. Carrying this through to your OD&D example, your examples fails at SYORTD because the mechanics do not honor the action declaration. In this example, the player(s) declare that they wish to parley, the GM has denied that declaration (no say yes, no rolling the dice) and instead moved to combat, which is against the intent of the player(s). If this was SYORTD, then even if the GM did not say yes, the appropriate roll of the dice would be to determine if the parley attempt was successful, or, at least, opened for further play. If that check fails, then an appropriate resolution may indeed be the start of combat, as that definitely thwarts the intent of opening a parley.

I think you've internalized an incorrect formulation of SYORTD as it's meant to be applied. You're close, but you've not stepped all the way across the threshold. For example, you've said many times that DW doesn't allow players to insert new fictions through action declarations, and pointed to Spout Lore as an example. What I think you may miss is that when a player makes the Move to Spout Lore, the GM is obligated to provide new fiction according to the intent of the player on a success (or partial success). IE, the player prompts the GM on what new fiction they want, and the DM is required to provide it. If the player asks, for instance, if secret doors are common in this area and succeeds, it would be a poor GM reply to answer 'No' because that thwarts the player's clear intent to learn more about secret doors in the area. This isn't well expounded in the SRD materials, not sure about the actual book, but it goes with the GM's maxims for DW, namely, "leave blanks", "play to find out", "always speak true", and "let the players decide, sometimes." The point of DW is to build the game in play, and if you really think that only the GM has the authority to author or direct new fiction in play, then you're missing out on a core part of what makes PbtA games really work.

As I said before, I'm much more familiar with Blades. And you asked how it works there. Simply, the player declares an action and what 'stat' they're rolling for it and the GM assigns position and effect, or, more simply, how dangerous that action is and how effective a success can be. So, in Blades, a character can easily declare they're looking for a secret door to escape the guards closing in, and even choose Wreck as the method, deciding they're going to bash their way into the secret passage through brute force. As a GM, I could say that this is a desperate move -- ie, if it doesn't work, the guard will be here and they're already mad -- with limited effect because I've already described the alley as brick walled. The player then can choose to forgo this action as unwise and try something else, or roll, even choosing to Push for greater effect by spending Stress. On a success (a die pool based on the stat is rolled, highest value taken, 6 succeeds outright, 4-5 succeeds with cost, 1-3 fails), the player bashes through a secret door into a new passage and the fiction moves on. On a partial, the player maybe drops the loot in the impact, or takes a wound, or a guard is hot on his heels. On a fail, they may bounce off the wall because that secret door is actually in a very similar alley, just not this one, and the guards are now here (and still angry).

And, I see this working well in DW, as well. The player makes the same declaration, but makes the Move to Discern Reality to find the door. As a GM, you should honor this declaration by not refuting it on a success and saying 'no secret door here' but instead move the game forward by providing information on the door according to the questions asked. Then play can be a Defy Danger to open and leap through the door before the guards can arrive and play a tattoo with their clubs. There's nothing in DW that prohibits players from requesting specific outcomes or interests with their rolls, just that the GM must provide these results on a success. This actually moves the game from puzzling out the GM's plans to free-wheeling finding out as you play. I encourage you to try it.

Also, paging [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] for a sanity check on the above.

 

[innerdude]

I am sorry but this is a ridiculous position. Yes, obviously, bad GMs exist. But there isn't a systemic problem of GMs abusing their authority. Perhaps when we were in grade school, this was something of a problem. I honestly can say I haven't had this issue the entire time I've played with other adults. I think people are projecting their own bad experiences onto posters here who are clearly stating to them: we don't have that problem. I have no issue with the alternative approaches being offered up here. They clearly answer a desire among many gamers. But this kind of thinking, that takes something as minor as a poorly run D&D campaign and paints it in terms more appropriate to society level oppression, I think is the very definition of hyperbole.

It was definitely hyperbole. Purposefully hyperbolic.

And I'm not sure it's entirely untrue.

Look, I'm not equating bad GM-ing to any sort of actual social issue requiring philosophical examination or legal redress. But would anyone argue that the "jerk GM" isn't basically a foundational trope of the hobby? The most common narrative in all of RPG-dom goes something like this: "I left college/moved away and had to find a new game group. And it took 3 or 4 tries until I could find a GM who wasn't a jackass."

Or the converse, "My GM moved away and I had to find a new game group, and it took 3 or 4 tries until I could find a GM who wasn't a jackass." How many people on this board became GMs in the first place because they were tired of playing RPGs with jerks?

I can't think of a single other hobby that comes with it a near 100% probability that at some point, participants will be forced to experience emotional dysfunction, awkwardness, and pain. Why? Because even if it happens infrequently, too often the primary locus of control for the shared social dynamic---for close to 50 years now!---ends up in the hands of emotionally stunted misanthropes. In some ways, it's basically the Murphy's Law of the hobby---"No matter how bad your current GM is, the one in your next group will be worse."

And yes OF COURSE there's the flipside of good GMs. GMs who make the hobby a joy and pleasure, who have given us some of the best social, competitive, dramatic, euphoric moments of our lives.

But RPGs are unique as a hobby in this way. Model airplane fliers and hobby fisherman don't face this dynamic, and even in the off chance that they run into a jerk, leaving them behind is as simple as walking/boating 100 yards farther away and continuing to do what they've always done.

The thing is, I completely agree that a hard "No" has a place in GM-ing. It's crazy to think otherwise. In any organizational hierarchy, the final power/arbitration of decision making has to rest somewhere. And I completely agree that in the final analysis, that final power of arbitration should rest with the GM.

But man oh man, a hard "No" should be used infinitely more judiciously than it usually is.

Think of it this way---what would do the hobby a greater service in promoting it as a viable, fun leisure activity? Creating the "perfect" marketing campaign to promote the "perfect" version of D&D? Or magically waving a wand and turning every jerk GM into a true ambassador for the hobby?

If I'm railing on GMs who insist on using the "Hard No" in their games, I'm really railing on those who insist that it's one of the fundamental tenets of play.

Because there's objectively better ways to have games that are more fun than falling back to "GM's way or the highway."