Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 5168811" data-attributes="member: 71699">I think you bring to this discussion a more nuanced idea of what 'yes' means than perhaps exists in the more egregious examples that irk me. I looked for a few examples, and they help illustrate your point.For instance, from Chris Perkins'Give your players space to enhance what you create, and when they try to  add to your campaign, embrace their ideas as if they were your own.  Just say yes.'Chris goes on to explain the benefits to his gameworld he feels he gained from this method. I'm not sure I could characterise Chris' 'say yes' approach as egregious.Or take Ameron'Let the PCs be heroicThis is a mixture of the “say yes” philosophy and the “rule of cool.” If the PC want to try something that’s a little outside of the rules and it makes sense for their character and makes sense for the moment, then I say let them try it.'Again, I'm not sure I could characterise that as not including a virtuous 'but'.Or another author - Mike (somebody) - criticising his DM'The latest hotness in DMing is the “Philosophy of Yes” where the DM encourages the players to be creative. For example during the skill challenges when suggesting using a skill he said “explain to me how you use it” and instead of working with it or accepting it and using a high DC, he said “no, you can’t do that.”'Mike talks about 'encouraging the players to be creative'. I wonder if that is what it really amounts to? Certainly arguments have become very sophisticated on the forums. A respondent to Mike bemoans that'It appears that [the no-saying DM] sees the game as a competition between your PCs and  his Monsters (or NPCs).  This makes him seem like he is out to get your  PCs and wants to “win” at all costs.  The best way to think about this  is to disbelieve it.  In many sports competitions it’s all about the  mental psych-out that some players hope to use against the other side –  it becomes an advantage by making the opposing players lose confidence  and falter.'Really? Maybe the chosen skill just didn't apply? I often rule a skill won't work for some purpose, that doesn't make my players think I'm out to get them or want to 'win' at all cost. If I truly wanted to win, I think my players would find there is no limit to how many uber-dragons I can create <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> However, my real point is that there is a recognised 'philosophy of yes' and I think this philosophy probably means different things to different people. Your version sounds kind of cool; but the version taken task with is not cool. I read the paper SkyOdin rather poorly summarised. He missed out elements such as playing to beat the game or feel better about yourself. Further, it misinterprets the study to say that it represents what people choose to do: rather it represents what people respond positively to. These things are not the same, and I think a point I have been trying to make is that people who want everything to go their way indeed miss out on things that they could enjoy greatly, if only they were open to them.Both the fiero and schadenfreude qualities described in the study contain negative as well as positive elements, and as the authors say 'People play games to change or structure their internal experiences.' In fact, the study contains very little to address the question of whether 'just tell me yes' gamers might exist, and whether they might be misguided.I think you are defending a position I am not arguing against (and vice versa, in all likelihood). Most people would surely agree there are 'bad sports' and that some of those are characterised by always wanting to win. Unfortunately, there is a cross-over between them and 'say yes' philosophy that I feel to be problematical. This wouldn't be the first time something that is good handled correctly can become a thorn in the side of good gaming.-vk</blockquote>

Verification