GMing: What If We Say "Yes" To Everything?

[Reynard]

Just a thought experiment:

What if for a new campaign or just a one shot, the GM said "Yes" to literally everything the players asked or wanted to do. Not "Yes, but," but just "yes, you can do/be/use that."

Normally, the GM hedges, using die rolls or negotiation to craft play and control pacing, and sometimes to maintain a level of control over the world and the characters. What would a game look like where the GM gave up even a hint of control and just narrated the results of the PCs' choices and successful actions?

 

[KYRON45]

Things would run smoothly and the players would never take advantage. There would be no hijinks or chaos at all.

 

[Committed Hero]

It's hard to picture a game in which a GM wouldn't have to control how NPCs react to the party. The test would come when a player contradicts what the GM plans in such an instance,

 

[TwoSix]

A game where the DM lacks the power to enforce any sort of resolution method is essentially GM-less. The GM is now in the position of simply framing aesthetic color.

 

[Reynard]

It's hard to picture a game in which a GM wouldn't have to control how NPCs react to the party.

I did not say that. I said that the answer is "yes."

 

[Reynard]

A game where the DM lacks the power to enforce any sort of resolution method is essentially GM-less. The GM is now in the position of simply framing aesthetic color.

I don't think that is true. Saying "yes" doesn't mean the GM has no input. It means that the world reacts to waht the PCs succeed at, rather than just what they try.

 

[aco175]

Guardrails are there for a reason, and taking them off generally leads to OSHA showing up.

It could be a good time to let the 'DM' just play a PC in the game since everything is a yes. Not the dreaded DMNPC, but just another PC and he would be more like another player since everyone is now right.

It is also like all the threads where we want to build a city or world or campaign with each person contributing something and everything is allowed. I find those threads quickly becoming something not for me.

 

[TwoSix]

I don't think that is true. Saying "yes" doesn't mean the GM has no input. It means that the world reacts to waht the PCs succeed at, rather than just what they try.

I didn't say they didn't have input. But if the DM always says yes, they can't, definitionally, enforce boundaries. As such, any input they have is "aesthetic color".

 

[GMMichael]

I don't think that is true. Saying "yes" doesn't mean the GM has no input. It means that the world reacts to waht the PCs succeed at, rather than just what they try.

This reads to me as, "the GM says 'roll' to everything." That's significantly different than the Original Premise.

 

[FrogReaver]

Just a thought experiment:

What if for a new campaign or just a one shot, the GM said "Yes" to literally everything the players asked or wanted to do. Not "Yes, but," but just "yes, you can do/be/use that."

Normally, the GM hedges, using die rolls or negotiation to craft play and control pacing, and sometimes to maintain a level of control over the world and the characters. What would a game look like where the GM gave up even a hint of control and just narrated the results of the PCs' choices and successful actions?

What do you mean by saying yes? Do you mean player succeeds. Do you mean always give auto success or a die roll to anything the player wants to attempt, at a DC the player has a chance of beating?

Maybe something else?