As a DM, what is your default answer to player requests?

[Dice4Hire]

Well, the real question, is, of course, do ou follow the "DM always says yes to players fallacy?"

No, I do not. I can say yes, or no, or anything in between, but players ask for the oddest things, and I sometimes do it when I am a player also.

So no, I do not always say yes, but I try to be fair about it.

Whether I am or not, ask my players.

 

[Mort]

I don't have a default answer - in my experience, the questions players ask and the situations which prompt them are too varied for stock answers.

It's not a question of "stock answer," it's a question of leaning in a certain direction and in my experience most DMs do.

And players notice and know this. I bet if you asked - most players could tell you their DMs usual response to a "non-standard" request, regardless of what that "non-standard" request is, and certainly whether it will lean positive or negative.


[edited for (hopefuly) more clarity]

 

[Mort]

I do think that this is too broad.

Well I wrote the question, so no surprise I mostly disagree. People have tendencies and that's where this is going.

Though looking at the responses, perhaps I should have separated character generation and actual gameplay. The answers so far really show people are much more likely to say no during generation than actual play. Then again sometimes it's easier for people to interpret the question themselves, and that way give an answer more suited to how the actually believe.

If you're asking if I subscribe to the "yes, and" or "say yes or roll the dice" philosophies, then no, I don't. I wrote a section in my RPG book in the Running a Game chapter called "Saying No". I think it's important, and I say no often.

However, I say yes to many/most things. It's not because I'm a GM who has the outlook of "say yes" for my game. It's because most of the time, my players have plausible* requests.

* Plausible: this is subject to my judgment, and it must fit the genre, feel, theme, concept, and internal consistency of the setting I'm using. I'm willing to take player input in case I forgot something, but I'm the one who makes the call, and I've got no problem saying, "no, you cannot invent gunpowder," "no, there's no easy method of getting in the castle," or any other variation of "no, that's not an option."

As always, play what you like

Both "reasonable" and "plausable" can be very broad terms and that's the point. If you draw the line pretty low you're going to say yes a lot more than no, if you draw the line high (as in it's got to meet pretty strict criteria to be plausible etc.) then you might say "no" a lot more than "yes," either way there is a line - and I don't think it's too broad a question to ask where a person's is.

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

With my current group, "yes". Without a moment's hesitation.

DM's know.

 

[Mort]

Well, the real question, is, of course, do ou follow the "DM always says yes to players fallacy?"

No, I do not. I can say yes, or no, or anything in between, but players ask for the oddest things, and I sometimes do it when I am a player also.

So no, I do not always say yes, but I try to be fair about it.

Whether I am or not, ask my players.

There is a massive difference between "try to say yes" and "always say yes."

I think "try to say yes," simply means listening to your players and making sure their requests are not simply tossed in favor of some DM whim or direction. It tends to mean that the DM is taking the players needs and wants into account as well as his own. And it does not (or at least should not) mean the DM is unwilling to say no.

Whereas "always say yes," is likey silly, over-exagerated and is unlikely to actually result in a positive game experience for the DM or the players (though I will say, If you conducted and experiment and always said yes to any non-standard request for a while, players will likely have a lot more fun than if you always said no to any non-standard request).

 

[JamesonCourage]

Both "reasonable" and "plausable" can be very broad terms and that's the point. If you draw the line pretty low you're going to say yes a lot more than no, if you draw the line high (as in it's got to meet pretty strict criteria to be plausible etc.) then you might say "no" a lot more than "yes," either way there is a line - and I don't think it's too broad a question to ask where a person's is.

Well, you're now essentially asking me how tight my campaign setting is, which seems like a different question (though related). Because really, like I said in the "Giving Narrative Control" thread, it's different depending on the game. I'll have a much different attitude when the group is playing superheroes in a Mutants and Masterminds game than when we play my fantasy RPG. I'll adapt it to the setting, really. And the mechanics.

Mutants and Masterminds has mechanics on warping reality to some degree (for both the players and the GM). It's a game that embraces that style more, so I let that naturally extend to the game when we play. If a player wants something that is minorly convenient, then sure, it doesn't make a big different, and it fits the genre well enough. If it's majorly convenient, they can spend a Hero Point on it. If I want to majorly inconvenience them, I can use my GM Fiat on it.

So, whether or not I "say yes" or "say no" is not just dependent on my setting, but also the game. In my superhero game, the bar is lower on plausibility. In my fantasy game, it's higher. Does that help answer your question? Is the "bar on plausibility" what you're going for?

If it is, I still stick to "it depends".

There is a massive difference between "try to say yes" and "always say yes."

I think "try to say yes," simply means listening to your players and making sure their requests are not simply tossed in favor of some DM whim or direction.

See, this was my problem with the "Giving Narrative Control" thread, too. People's definitions are just too broad for me, I guess. In that thread, some people implied narrative control could be as simple as asking, "is there a shortcut?", as it would cause the GM to make a concrete ruling one way or another. That's not narrative control in my opinion, and not offhandedly discarding player input based on your whim is not "trying to say yes" in my opinion.

I mean, if that's the case, then I "try to say yes." I never completely disregard my players wants just because I can and what I say goes. I do it for other reasons

It tends to mean that the DM is taking the players needs and wants into account as well as his own. And it does not (or at least should not) mean the DM is unwilling to say no.

Yeah, I don't equate a style that doesn't utter the mantra "try to say yes" with railroading, but it sounds like others might.

Whereas "always say yes," is likey silly, over-exagerated and is unlikely to actually result in a positive game experience for the DM or the players (though I will say, If you conducted and experiment and always said yes to any non-standard request for a while, players will likely have a lot more fun than if you always said no to any non-standard request).

Not my group. Once it was realized, the substance of the world and setting would be destroyed, and immersion would be lost, which is a substantial portion of our fun. Then again, I guess it depends on our definitions of "non-standard request", too. As always, play what you like

 

[aj3ai]

I think 'convince me...' should always be the default reply.

 

[Mort]

I think 'convince me...' should always be the default reply.

Isn't that setting the default to high?

I mean if every or nearly every player request is met with a DM "why should I" - wouldn't the players eventually just stop asking - and is this a good thing?

 

[Mort]

Well, you're now essentially asking me how tight my campaign setting is, which seems like a different question (though related). Because really, like I said in the "Giving Narrative Control" thread, it's different depending on the game. I'll have a much different attitude when the group is playing superheroes in a Mutants and Masterminds game than when we play my fantasy RPG. I'll adapt it to the setting, really. And the mechanics.

Mutants and Masterminds has mechanics on warping reality to some degree (for both the players and the GM). It's a game that embraces that style more, so I let that naturally extend to the game when we play. If a player wants something that is minorly convenient, then sure, it doesn't make a big different, and it fits the genre well enough. If it's majorly convenient, they can spend a Hero Point on it. If I want to majorly inconvenience them, I can use my GM Fiat on it.

So, whether or not I "say yes" or "say no" is not just dependent on my setting, but also the game. In my superhero game, the bar is lower on plausibility. In my fantasy game, it's higher. Does that help answer your question? Is the "bar on plausibility" what you're going for?

If it is, I still stick to "it depends". [/quote]

I certainly see the position, it's easier to see different styles for different games.


What about high vs. low level D&D btw? As D&D gets high level it tends to approach a supehero game in no small measure (this is in fact what some people have a problem with and why the like to keep it low level, and why E6 (is that the right game?) is a popular option for some people).

See, this was my problem with the "Giving Narrative Control" thread, too. People's definitions are just too broad for me, I guess. In that thread, some people implied narrative control could be as simple as asking, "is there a shortcut?", as it would cause the GM to make a concrete ruling one way or another. That's not narrative control in my opinion, and not offhandedly discarding player input based on your whim is not "trying to say yes" in my opinion.

In a topic like this, I like broad or open ended questions. It gives people room to manuever and express widely variant view points, with the opportunity to pin down specifics within the thread.

I certainly can narrow down when necessary, but for this I prefer to narrow down within the thread as it exposes me to as many views as possible.

Yeah, I don't equate a style that doesn't utter the mantra "try to say yes" with railroading, but it sounds like others might.

I honestly cannot see how trying to say yes could be equated with railroading. By definition you are trying to let the players explore options. Always saying no, on the other hand, seems to very easily track with railroading as essentially you are saying no to anything "not on the direct path."

Not my group. Once it was realized, the substance of the world and setting would be destroyed, and immersion would be lost, which is a substantial portion of our fun. Then again, I guess it depends on our definitions of "non-standard request", too. As always, play what you like

Are we talking meta stuff here? From your responses here and in other threads, you seem to take requests, as long as they are from the context and viewpoint of the character instead of the player, pretty liberaly.

 

[aj3ai]

Isn't that setting the default to high?

I mean if every or nearly every player request is met with a DM "why should I" - wouldn't the players eventually just stop asking - and is this a good thing?

That depends on how much convincing is needed, surely?
If the request is sensible it won't take much convincing at all, if it's ridiculous, they'd have to be very persuasive.