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
