D&D General Ginni D Yes, And

[Oofta]

My main problem with this criticism is that it presupposes bad faith players. If the only way to criticize "yes, and" is to presume bad faith, then as Ginny D herself said, you don't need new tools, you need new players.


Again though, this is presuming bad-faith players. A tool for dealing with bad-faith behavior is only fantastic up until your players stop being little poops and start being reasonable adults. It becomes a lot less fantastic after that...and no tool can truly make a player choose to engage in good faith.


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.

I don't think saying no means bad intentions on the part of the player. It just means they have different expectations of the game than the DM and, oftentimes, the rest of the group. I'm perfectly fine with bending the rules and improvised actions, but there are still limits to what can be done. I try to do "no, but what you can do is ...", but sometimes that's just not possible.

Some players just have very unique take on what their PCs can do, one that doesn't really fit the tone of the game being played.

 

[DarkCrisis]

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.

What if the King was just a King and not a horrible monster? Suddenly making him into a monster that makes the heroes look good is changing the story to insulate them from their wild actions. Or to go back to the original example "Ha ha thats amusing, I'll allow it."

Again, my way is not the end all be all. I don't like making Good King Randall into Xanthar the Evil Doppleganger simply because one of the PCs didn't like the way the discussion was going. Other DMs are of course more than welcome to do as they will. No one is arguing that.

 

[Vaalingrade]

What if the King was just a King and not a horrible monster?

Please stop.

The literal first option I propose in the post is the king being a king and the guards trying to kill the perpetrator for it.

What more am I even supposed to do after actually addressing that possibility and placing it first in the list of possibilities? Should I go back and bold it? Put an asterisk and add 'this is the right and correct way'? Just plain not include possibilities because there's the right and correct way even though wouldn't use it?

 

[DarkCrisis]

Please stop.

The literal first option I propose in the post is the king being a king and the guards trying to kill the perpetrator for it.

What more am I even supposed to do after actually addressing that possibility and placing it first in the list of possibilities? Should I go back and bold it? Put an asterisk and add 'this is the right and correct way'? Just plain not include possibilities because there's the right and correct way even though wouldn't use it?

Sorry, I was speaking in general and just continuing the discussion. I wasnt trying to act like you were in error or something.

 

[Vaalingrade]

If you want to have that discussion then:

Why not have the king be a king and have the guards attack?

Because I'm playing a game with my friends for fun and that result is likely to either derail or just plain end the game or the fun. What are the outcomes of 'king is king'?

- the offender is killed or imprisoned and the rest of the party let it happen, which can cause metasocial problems at the table on top of adding the usual problems of replacing a character.

- The whole party is killed trying to help their friend -- game over

- the whole or part of the party is imprisoned. Now you have to either find a way to parole them into a mission or do a prison break, which is also illegal and 'realistically' will get the party killed. Plus the wasted time playing through it.

- the party escapes in whole or in part. Now they're fugitives and that has to be a thing I'm supposed to care.

None of these appeal to me, so there's no positive outcome for me to have the 'king be a king' if a PC stabs them.

If pressed into this situation, I'd rather pick a result that leads to a more interesting story regardless of my original plans and that's not a problem because the players don't even know what those plans were, so who is to say if anything changed?

Look, my world is literally from a novel I wrote and I don't mind altering things for the fun of the game. Things will exist there because they amuse and delight my players or don't because they discomfort or annoy my players. When we're playing, it's our game, not my world.

 

[MGibster]

I do appreciate Ginny's disclaimer about good faith players as it's an important thing to remember. We often hear arguments predicated on players acting in bad faith as a criticism of a particular rule or custom, but it's the bad faith player that's truly the problem you need to take care of.

 

[Steampunkette]

Again though, this is presuming bad-faith players. A tool for dealing with bad-faith behavior is only fantastic up until your players stop being little poops and start being reasonable adults. It becomes a lot less fantastic after that...and no tool can truly make a player choose to engage in good faith.

... yes... and?

The point wasn't "Here is the only valid way to use this function and it relies on good faith players" it was "Here's a way I've used this function to curtail specific ridiculous behaviors at the table"

Just me saying that building consequences and situation-shifters into good and bad rolls off the same four statement prefixes is also useful, rather than leaving these four wonderful statement-starters to the planning phase of actions.

 

[Zaukrie]

Finally watched it. Great advice. I'd have to question the motives of anyone questioning this video.

I actually think it is a good video for new players to watch also......because it helps them understand why rulings are what they are sometimes.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Trying to stab the king is very much to me a ‘play stupid games, win stupid prizes’ situation, don’t be surprised when there are logical consequences to your actions and it bites you in the ass.

 

[MGibster]

Why not have the king be a king and have the guards attack?

Because I'm playing a game with my friends for fun and that result is likely to either derail or just plain end the game or the fun. What are the outcomes of 'king is king'?

One of the most difficult things about discussing good gaming practices is that it's all so high situational. Why did the player decide to have their character attack the king? Was it just for the lulz? On occasion I've had campaigns derailed because of behavior that didn't make any sense, so I might just pause the game to ask the player why their character was attacking the king. What did they want or expect to happen?