D&D General Ginni D Yes, And

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

My problem is, any time people give an example...it's always one like "player randomly declares 'I stab the king!'" or other such stuff. They don't use the ambiguous, "just a player doing a perfectly ordinary player stuff" examples. They essentially always resort to the presumption of bad faith on the part of the players.

But all that does is show that bad faith ruins games. Their argument falls down because it isn't a problem with "yes, and"; it's a problem with players playing in bad faith. Just as DMs playing in bad faith ruins "old school" styles of play, and I know for an absolute fact that you, specifically, have shown annoyance when others presume bad faith DMing with their examples meant to show flaws in a particular approach.

I have yet to see a single example--from anyone, in any thread--that doesn't rely on bad-faith players, but yet still shows a serious problem. And I'm fairly confident that any such example would be something addressed by one of the other modern tools of playing and running games, like Session Zero (where you outline the kind of game you're offering), the X-card/O-card, lines and veils, flags (the out-of-character version, specifically), etc. The seriousness of the issue is always rooted in the bad faith--hence why I responded as I did.

Would you like to offer an example that does not, in any way, presupposed bad faith on anyone's part, but which would still be a serious issue? And, as noted, keep in mind that good-faith play on the part of both the DM and the players should mean expressing concerns (like "I need a fast-paced game or I get bored and might act out" or "I'm offering an intrigue-heavy game, so wanton murder is going to have high, deleterious consequences" etc.)--not saying that literally all possible problems would always be spelled out weeks in advance, but absolute baseline expectations like "I get bored if I haven't done something dramatic in the last five minutes" absolutely should be on the docket during Session Zero, and anyone who fails to address stuff like that has the responsibility to do something about it and control their behavior until a solution is found.

 

[Oofta]

My problem is, any time people give an example...it's always one like "player randomly declares 'I stab the king!'" or other such stuff. They don't use the ambiguous, "just a player doing a perfectly ordinary player stuff" examples. They essentially always resort to the presumption of bad faith on the part of the players.

But all that does is show that bad faith ruins games. Their argument falls down because it isn't a problem with "yes, and"; it's a problem with players playing in bad faith. Just as DMs playing in bad faith ruins "old school" styles of play, and I know for an absolute fact that you, specifically, have shown annoyance when others presume bad faith DMing with their examples meant to show flaws in a particular approach.

I have yet to see a single example--from anyone, in any thread--that doesn't rely on bad-faith players, but yet still shows a serious problem. And I'm fairly confident that any such example would be something addressed by one of the other modern tools of playing and running games, like Session Zero (where you outline the kind of game you're offering), the X-card/O-card, lines and veils, flags (the out-of-character version, specifically), etc. The seriousness of the issue is always rooted in the bad faith--hence why I responded as I did.

Would you like to offer an example that does not, in any way, presupposed bad faith on anyone's part, but which would still be a serious issue? And, as noted, keep in mind that good-faith play on the part of both the DM and the players should mean expressing concerns (like "I need a fast-paced game or I get bored and might act out" or "I'm offering an intrigue-heavy game, so wanton murder is going to have high, deleterious consequences" etc.)--not saying that literally all possible problems would always be spelled out weeks in advance, but absolute baseline expectations like "I get bored if I haven't done something dramatic in the last five minutes" absolutely should be on the docket during Session Zero, and anyone who fails to address stuff like that has the responsibility to do something about it and control their behavior until a solution is found.

Specifics? Simply trying to accomplish far more than possible given a character's capabilities and exceeding even action movie physics is a common thing with one of my players. He has a tendency to come up with, shall I say "interesting" schemes. He's not doing it in bad faith.

In other cases it could be as simple as a misunderstanding of the presented scenario or campaign lore. Sometimes it's as simple as different understanding of the rules.

I run a very free form game and encourage thinking outside the box. Coloring outside the lines is fine, but there are still limits.