D&D General Ginni D Yes, And

[DarkCrisis]

Not really sure I understand your annoyance here. If the people at the table are having fun, and the DM and players were cooperative, what exactly is the problem? This frankly comes across as grumbling about someone else's badwrongfun.

Oh it totally is. I prefer a bit of realism to my D&D. More LotRs and less GotG.

A shopkeeper isn't just going to laugh off theft.

Heck I'd rather let a player jump off a tower to super backstab the dragon resting at the bottom then just handwave obviously illegal actions. Why use stealth when I can just put on a clown nose?

To each their own, though

 

[GMMichael]

The one that ramps up my anxiety is Mr. Tarrasque.

Inhale, my man.

He pumps his oxygen in. Like Armstrong. But to his credit: he doesn't cut the video after every sentence.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I think a lot of people don't really understand what the purpose of 'Yes, And' due to the fact that it's rarely properly explained.

Okay, so let me take you back to an experience that while not universal is super common especially to use pretend game aficionados:

"I hit you, you're dead!"
"No I'm not!"
"Yes you are!"
"MOOOOOOOM!"

One might recognize this as the reason we use dice to determine meaningful outcomes.

Well, that's also the point of Yes, And.

See, in improv there is by definition, no scripting. You don't know what kind of thing your partner(s) are going to add to the scene, you can only react. If they add something and you shut it down by saying 'no it's not', you're just clogging up the scene and forcing the other person to either reassert their part or come up with something new and abandon what they came up with for something else which isn't just rude and unprofessional for an improv crew, but also means that exchange just wasted the audience's time.

Yes, Anding in D&D is about taking what's given and not wasting everyone's time trying to assert control over the other player by starting and argument or trying to enforce one's authority on them.

None of this says that the action proposed succeeds or has a good outcome, or is an 'I win' button. It's 'let them try' and go from there. It's not getting into a 'not you don't' -- 'I get to choose what my character does' argument.

A player says 'I stab the king'? It's completely valid as a Yes, And to say 'yes, and the guards charge you' or 'yes, and the king convulses, his body contorting until he's revealed to have been a doppleganger', or 'yes, and there is a metallic clang, the king's eyes begin to glow and he says 'you should not have revealed that'. Or hey, sure 'yes, and because this kingdom work on Riddick rules you keep what you kill. Time to figure out your economic policy.'.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Why use stealth when I can just put on a clown nose?

Because we ruined clowns so hard that they're not funny anymore, they're scary.

 

[DarkCrisis]

I think a lot of people don't really understand what the purpose of 'Yes, And' due to the fact that it's rarely properly explained.

Okay, so let me take you back to an experience that while not universal is super common especially to use pretend game aficionados:

"I hit you, you're dead!"
"No I'm not!"
"Yes you are!"
"MOOOOOOOM!"

One might recognize this as the reason we use dice to determine meaningful outcomes.

Well, that's also the point of Yes, And.

See, in improv there is by definition, no scripting. You don't know what kind of thing your partner(s) are going to add to the scene, you can only react. If they add something and you shut it down by saying 'no it's not', you're just clogging up the scene and forcing the other person to either reassert their part or come up with something new and abandon what they came up with for something else which isn't just rude and unprofessional for an improv crew, but also means that exchange just wasted the audience's time.

Yes, Anding in D&D is about taking what's given and not wasting everyone's time trying to assert control over the other player by starting and argument or trying to enforce one's authority on them.

None of this says that the action proposed succeeds or has a good outcome, or is an 'I win' button. It's 'let them try' and go from there. It's not getting into a 'not you don't' -- 'I get to choose what my character does' argument.

A player says 'I stab the king'? It's completely valid as a Yes, And to say 'yes, and the guards charge you' or 'yes, and the king convulses, his body contorting until he's revealed to have been a doppleganger', or 'yes, and there is a metallic clang, the king's eyes begin to glow and he says 'you should not have revealed that'. Or hey, sure 'yes, and because this kingdom work on Riddick rules you keep what you kill. Time to figure out your economic policy.'.

What if the King wasn't a doppleganger? What if the "yes and" is "Yes and the guards attack and kill you for assaulting the king."

why does the world have to be altered for someones stupid action?

 

[Vaalingrade]

What if the King wasn't a doppleganger? What if the "yes and" is "Yes and the guards attack and kill you for assaulting the king."

why does the world have to be altered for someones stupid action?

I literally have 'the guards charge you' as an example.

Edit: it's the FIRST example.

 

[Distracted DM]

That is all of them, I think. Even Coville. The good ones (Like Ginni and Matt) don't try and convince you that they invented the ideas, though.

One thing that made Colville very good, in my eyes, is that he was quite clear about "this is what GMs have been doing for years," etc. with his advice- but he repackaged it in a very engaging way. His attitude and presentation are great. He would always take himself down a peg for concern of his own ego (which is great considering the cult of personality that formed around him).

 

[DarkCrisis]

I literally have 'the guards charge you' as an example.

Yeah, just saying as someone else used the doppleganger thing earlier. "Why not fundamentally change your plans/world to make sure there are no repercussions for a players actions?"

Which to me swings things heavily into "just telling a shared story" type of gaming instead of playing an actual game. But that's been discussed before and often. Which again is just "what do you and your players want/expect."

 

[Distracted DM]

I generally like Ginni D, but I found this video from her to be particularly good. Kudos.

This is the first Ginny Di video I've watched. I didn't know that so many people thought "Yes, and" was so thoroughly insisted on as GM advice. But she explains in the video that it is helpful for ?newer? GMs that only shut ideas down.

Good video!

 

[Vaalingrade]

Yeah, just saying as someone else used the doppleganger thing earlier. "Why not fundamentally change your plans/world to make sure there are no repercussions for a players actions?"

In what way is uncovering a terrifying infiltration of the government at the highest level that might go back decade or centuries 'no repercussions'?

Also, it's an example among many which started with the guards attacking of how a yes, and can be used to get on with it rather than invalidating the players' actions. It's not about changing the world even if it could be; it's about keeping things rolling.

I ignored promoting or detracting playstyles I don't like in that explanation; please give me the same consideration.