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

[Reynard]

Likewise.

You seem to think both saying yes to everything and robust mechanics would live side-by-side. Clearly I disagree with that. So, do the conversation a favor and provide a decently-sized example of play, as you see it, where both exist. Not one-off lines. Several connected action-reaction blocks.

I'm sorry. I am not going to do a bunch of work for you, just to have you be snarky and disingenuous in your responses as you were upthread. I am a little taken aback that you seem to be demanding a dissertation from me when all you offer in return is dismissive one liners. Taken aback, but honestly not surprised.

 

[overgeeked]

You could just take an existing example of play and change it to show how you think it would given your premise. But sure.

 

[damiller]

Likewise.

You seem to think both saying yes to everything and robust mechanics would live side-by-side. Clearly I disagree with that. So, do the conversation a favor and provide a decently-sized example of play, as you see it, where both exist. Not one-off lines. Several connected action-reaction blocks.

I think it would go something like this:

Player: Can I kill the dragon with my sword?

GM: yes, roll your Str + Dex + Sword of power (+1 bajillion) the TN is 2 Bajillion.

Player: rolls 1.5 bajillion.

Player 2: Can I make the dragon fall in love with me.

GM: yes, roll your Cha + Dex + Necklace of Certain Beauty (+1 gadzillion) the TN is 1 tritillion

Player rolls 2 tritillion.

GM: The dragon loves you.

and on and on

Now

If the GM is supposed to just say yes to whatever the player states, then their is no GM. In fact their doesn't even need to be any other players. The player can just declare whatever they want to happen.

Player: I kill the Dragon with my sword of Power!

Other players: Golf Clap.

Another Player: I eat the dragon's head!

Other players: Golf Clap.

And so on.

If its the second case, as I said, why even have a GM?
If it is the first, the GM did not violate the Say yes to everything rule. They said yes. And let the players use the rules of the game to determine if it was successful.

Ergo, in my estimation - yes and success are not the same thing.

 

[Lanefan]

The responses so far seem to presuppose there is some sort of competition happening and therefore "Yes" is some kind of win button. I find that odd. Surely we play RPGs for more than just "beating" the GM.

"Yes" is a win button if the answer would otherwise have been in doubt, or have been "no".

I think at most tables the whole thing would degenerate to utter absurdity within minutes were this idea used...which makes it a great idea for a drunken one-off game (consider the idea yoinked for this purpose!) but hardly a recipe for anything the least bit long-lasting.

 

[Lanefan]

Saying "yes you can make the attempt" is not the same as saying "yes, you just succeed".

"Say yes to everything" means precisely "yes, you just succeed"; because the words "maybe" and "no" have just been excised from your GM vocabluary.

"Can I jump to the moon?"
"Yes."

I get the premise of the OP. As a DM i start saying no in session 0 otherwise my games would end up looking like a cross between Monty Python, Family Guy and some third ridiculous thing that finishes this thought.

And "say yes to everything" would end up any more serious than that??

 

[overgeeked]

Ergo, in my estimation - yes and success are not the same thing.

Depends entirely on how the player frames the question.

Can I sneak past the guards?

Can I kill the dragon with one shot?

Since “yes” is the only answer available to the referee, you’re trying to make a distinction that doesn’t make a difference.

 

[damiller]

Depends entirely on how the player frames the question.

Can I sneak past the guards?

Can I kill the dragon with one shot?

Since “yes” is the only answer available to the referee, you’re trying to make a distinction that doesn’t make a difference.

Not surprisingly I disagree with you.

 

[Bagpuss]

So I think it is more

What can I say, other than that one of the major reasons for discussing things is to get a clearer understanding of the thing for oneself.

In this context, the question of what "Yes" means as it relates to having game mechanics is important.

Well that's less saying Yes and more saying "You can try..." but that's what most GM's do anyway, so I'm not sure there is any change in approach there.

I think you mean say "Yes" to outlandish character concepts and stuff like that?

 

[overgeeked]

Not surprisingly I disagree with you.

Of course. I just don't see why.

Normally in RPGs the referee has three options when asked if the player can do something. Yes, no, and maybe. Maybe is the only response where the game mechanics come in. With both yes and no you skip the mechanics. Can I carry X, yes. Can I jump over the moon, yes. Neither refers to the game mechanics for that yes. Can I X, maybe...roll for it. To conflate the "always say yes" as detailed in the OP with "yes, but only if you roll for it" is to not actually engage with the topic.

 

[FrogReaver]

Of course. I just don't see why.

Normally in RPGs the referee has three options when asked if the player can do something. Yes, no, and maybe. Maybe is the only response where the game mechanics come in. With both yes and no you skip the mechanics. Can I carry X, yes. Can I jump over the moon, yes. Neither refers to the game mechanics for that yes. Can I X, maybe...roll for it. To conflate the "always say yes" as detailed in the OP with "yes, but only if you roll for it" is to not actually engage with the topic.

To be fair the OP seemed to lead in that direction but that was quickly corrected.

Saying yes in this threads context has been iterated and reiterated that it isbt about guaranteed success.