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

[Mort]

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.

If you think the request is sensible, why should it need any convincing at all?

Or is this merely a difference in definition? Such that if it's purely reasonable, it's not a request it's merely the player stating his action?

 

[aj3ai]

I think its a matter of definition.
As the DM I'd think the majority of decisions the players make are run past you. Whether its a conscious thing or not, almost everything they do has to 'convince you' in some way. The purely reasonable requests just bypass that conscious thought process.

 

[BryonD]

Whatever strikes me as having the most long term cool and fun.

I guess you could say I start with "yes". But I'm not at all hesitant to say "no".

 

[w_earle_wheeler]

Honestly, my natural default answer is NO.

However, several years ago I put up a sticky note on the inside of my DM screen that reads "Say YES" and it works.

I still say NO on occasion, but I try to give out just enough NO that when I give a YES it seems more... important?

 

[Mallus]

It sounds so hip to say, "I'm a DM who says 'Yes!' to his players."

In my case, it wasn't the "hip" answer. It was the honest and practical answer based on the practical experience running games for a specific group of friends over the last 6-7 years.

Also, nothing relating to RPGs is ever hip !

...not about giving away the store.

You're assuming the player only ask for the store. What if they asked for something else ie, not merely for simple material advantages?

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Also, nothing relating to RPGs is ever hip !

I'm hip, baby.

You're assuming the player only ask for the store. What if they asked for something else ie, not merely for simple material advantages?

Hence the qualifier in my statement. It DEPENDS on what it is specifically they are asking. I'm not going to lean toward saying either yes OR no. When they ask for silly things when I'm trying to keep the mood serious the answer will be no. When they ask to be able to do something outrageous I'll want to know why - if they're just looking for an "I-win" button I'm naturally gonna think they're just being lazy goofs and refuse. If they're genuinely trying to be creative and looking for alternate solutions because their usual options have dried up then it's quite different.

I have often quoted Mr. Spock when it comes to describing my philosophy about granting players what they want or ask for:
"After a time, you may find that having is not so pleasing a thing, after all, as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true."

There's a difference between trying to be accomodating by reflex (trying to say "yes") and trying to be open-minded by reflex (still saying "no" but willing to entertain arguments and alternatives that you CAN say "yes" to).

 

[El Mahdi]

I won't say I never say "No". There are times when a request is so absurd or so out of bounds that "No" is just the only answer possible. But I will say I very very rarely say "No".

But I also just as rarely give a straight unequivocal "Yes".

Most of the time the answer is "Yes, but...here's how it will work..."

In deciding how to adjudicate requests, I always try to fulfill at least the spirit of what the player wants, I don't try to screw with them on it (unless the situation specifically calls for it), and I try to give them at least a chance of success.

 

[The Shaman]

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.

The questions I get are passed through the prism of the genre, the setting, and the rules of the game, not some personal predisposition to say yes or no.

 

[Janx]

It's always funny about what people don't see as "not a concern"

If a player asks for something totally stupid, incompatible, game breaking, most GMs will say No.

Because of this, those kind of requests aren't a concern. The answer is inherently obvious. If the player asks if he may carve out your kidney and sell it on the internet under your mom's name*, you will of course say "No."
*because it would be painful, deadly and is a federal crime that could put your mom in jail, not your player.

Once you eliminate the part where the answer is so obvious, what remains is the area that does matter. Namely, the part where you really have to make a decision.

If we're in a space ship, and I ask if there's an air duct in this room, you've got to answer it. It's not unreasonable that an airduct might exist in this room. Will it be people sized? Alien sized?

If the bad guy just took off across town, and you obviously want to catch him, you might ask if there's a shortcut. and the GM has to answer that. If the city map is complex, the player may have a valid point that a shortcut might exist and he might know of it better than the NPC.

Personally, my gut reaction is to default to No, until I give the matter some thought.

Nobody ever had the players goof up the game by saying "No." That's not really true, but it's a logic trap to get into.

And 9/10 RailRoad GMs say "No" to keep the train on the tracks. Saying "Yes" usually opens up paths that allow your PCs to escape, so "No." is a pretty powerful tool.

Before I answer, I try to consider where the question is really going. If Yes would be a pretty likely answer (most space ships do have airducts) then I'll have to say Yes or roll for it if it's not so probable. If it "breaks" the challenge, i chalk that up to my mistake for not planning on that detail.

if "Yes" is something that isn't pretty likely, but not impossible, I might say no, or roll a pretty low probabilty check. I justify "No" in that case of why complicate the situation by adding something that probably isn't here anyway.

For some things where I said "No." I might add them later. So the current room doesn't have an airduct, but the adjacent room does (perhaps relying on natural air movement).

 

[JamesonCourage]

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

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).

D&D, to me, will never, ever be the superhero genre, and I will never treat it as such. But that's just me, and people who treat it as such aren't wrong. Just a play style difference.

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.

I just see the definitions so broad as to be... not very useful. But I also like narrow definitions, for the most part. As a writer, I feel that each word is charged with a certain feel or meaning, and that combining them in different ways (ideally) produces clear and eloquent thoughts.

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."

Yep, that's the thought process I was saying exactly. Some people, if they don't get the input they want, think it's railroading.

Railroading is, to me, when your players arrive at the same destination regardless of the choices they make (someone on these very boards said this once, and I made a note of it). Saying, "no, there's no shortcut" isn't railroading unless the intent is to make the players arrive at a certain destination. Railroading is based on intent, in my opinion. If I always say no because you always try to break genre expectations, cannot grasp the setting, are always looking for something that'd solve all of your issues, etc., I'm not railroading by fairly saying "no."

The Shaman likes to call the GM the referee, I think because of these issues. I prefer to say GM, but being an arbiter or judge is massively important. It's about making an "objective" decision as GM.

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.

Definitely meta, as that's a player request. Something in-game I'd consider a PC request. You might consider that a subset of player request, but for all intents and purposes, I certainly don't. As always, play what you like