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

[RenleyRenfield]

To me, always saying Yes as a GM implies the player can override GM inputs.
...
I realize this is not how you see Always Yes, and you likely think my view here is absurd, and that's ok. Maybe this can illuminate why people on this thread don't agree with one another - we mean different things when we say Always Say Yes. An in-depth discussion here requires that we first agree what Always Yes actually means.

Ok, sure. Let's talk about that.

If we know there are assumptions here, let's address them.

Does "GM always say Yes, permit players to override GM rulings/inputs" ?

IMHO, Here is why it should not imply such.
- Rules still apply. So rolls are still made. dice can still be used to adjudicate

ok done.

but less dismissive answer is =

There is a an underlying fear that GMs are to be controlling of players. Like, the distrust to the degree that GMs worry when they don't have a leash to keep players on, or a rule stick to beat down their requests with.

Trust.

So we are in fear of breaking trust in a game. And this can happen - regardless of GM always say yes.

I "trust" that my players will embrace drama in the game, even if that means embracing failure. This is framed as a way to show their competence and ability at what they can overcome, how badass they are.

My players crave failure, complications, and backstabbing = because it give them righteous glory in whatever they defeat.

I'll be honest, "Always say Yes" has brought more incredible stories to the table, any system, because now players know that they have someone, the GM, who is such a big fan, that they will say Yes, and go with the coolest resolution to the event at hand. Thus they, of their own volition, take on more, risk more, suffer greater losses.

...

TL/DR
"Reveal a Harsh Truth" = A player that "overrides GM inputs" is telling that GM "I'm not having fun, please hear what is fun for me"....

 

[RenleyRenfield]

Can I ask you to pose an example of a GM saying NO in this kind of situation?
What would the GM be saying NO to?
That might clarify what you mean when you say Always Yes.

Fair question.

That really makes me think for a moment on how to phrase... hmmm....

 

[Starfox]

I'm sleepless and in a chatty mood, so I'll go off on a tangent. One fault I find with myself as a gamemaster is that I am too willing to give the player's hints about what I consider a reasonable angle of attack against a problem that comes up.

Example: The PCs are escorting a carriage carrying a foreign dignitary. The soldiers are not looking for the dignitary, this event is to foreshadow a future spy encounter.

GM: You come to a road block. A number of soldiers are blocking the road, and wagons and carts have formed a que, waiting to be inspected. You hear a soldier say "no-one hiding in this load" when poking their spear into a hay wagon.​

​

PCs discuss among themselves how to confront this, but there is no consensus and starts to waste time. They ask no questions of the GM.​

​

GM: One of you is a recognized knight and could likely just bully your way past these soldiers with a decent Command roll.​

By not allowing the players to figure this out for themselves, I am lessening their agency. Sure, they can (and often do) not accept my proposed resolution, but even so I feel I am pushing them. This situation has become less common, as my players have learnt to use knowledge skills to analyze situations. If I gave the above hint after a decent History check, I can't find any fault.

This is not literally saying either No or Yes, but I feel it is kind of similar to a No situation in that I am removing player agency, by pointing out the intimidation option I am discouraging my players from just attacking the roadblock which some player might have found more fulfilling.

Both the intimidate and attack options can have consequences. The first can annoy others in the que the PCs are passing by. The second might make them wanted men even if they do win the fight.

 

[pemerton]

Naw, I just being brief. HP, and a few rounds of combat changes nothing there.

But what if the PC loses the fight? Then the GM won't be saying "yes" to the player's description of their action!

Does GM say yes all the time ruin stuff? = not in any way.

I guess I'm not really following the principle being articulated here. Is it just "say 'yes' or roll the dice"? In which case, as I posted upthread, I'm very familiar with it: my Burning Wheel and Torchbearer experience is pretty good.

But if it's not that, then I'm a bit lost.

 

[clearstream]

Fair question.

That really makes me think for a moment on how to phrase... hmmm....

Seems quite straightforward. From the premise

Rules still apply. So rolls are still made. dice can still be used to adjudicate​

"No" would look like this

PL: "I start throwing bigger rocks up the hill, and make a full on landslide to carry them away."​

​

GM: "No, you can't make a landslide to carry them away" (No roll called for, flat out can't do it)​

​

As I think others have observed, the principle would seem to be

"Every moment of play, roll dice or say yes"​

​

Quoting from Dogs in the Vineyard p91, 2004, albeit "roll dice" here could be understood as "apply the rules" seeing as it would also cover constraints imposed by the rules. Consider

PL: "I want to fly up to that peak" (picture here a halfling character lacking magical or other means for flight)​

​

GM: "Yes, that will be possible if you can find some magical or other means for flight."​

​

I suppose is how it would go (and as you already illustrated up thread.)

 

[Gorgon Zee]

Seems quite straightforward. From the premise

Rules still apply. So rolls are still made. dice can still be used to adjudicate​

...

​

As I think others have observed, the principle would seem to be

"Every moment of play, roll dice or say yes"​

Since traditional games have the basic principle that if there is any doubt as to the result of an action, you roll dice, this doesn't seem much of a difference -- and because the GM sets the difficulty, the GM can use that effectively to say yes or no.

So if rolls can override a player's statement, then the GM can say no.

 

[RenleyRenfield]

Seems quite straightforward. From the premise

...​

​

I suppose is how it would go (and as you already illustrated up thread.)

Yeah, I think you pointed out what I was thinking.

There is a part of an RPG which is "let the rules and dice tell you how it resolved." Which is to say, if the player wants to do something, then you say "Yes" and let them interact with the rule that guides them on how to do it. (Skill rolls, attack rolls, etc)

Then there is this other part which is Narrative play. This comes into play with The Fiction. And that is "all the things described by the GM in the scene."
Meaning that a player assuming an outdoor attack on a roadside might have a hill side to the path which has rocks the orcs can slip and fall on = seems reasonable, even if the GM never mentioned a hill or rocks, it fits The Fiction and so there is no reason to say no.

The fear then comes in with the halfling saying "I fly up the hill", and there is no Fiction to indicate the halfling can fly in any way. I think this is actually a straw man argument. Personally, I have never ever had a player, so egregiously, dictate their character doing something that has no reason or rule or ability to back it up. And I run both PBTA and Cortex, where a player can define a power's use in pretty much any way they can imagine - and it still never happened.

But let's assume it did happen, and let's assume the GM still wanted to say Yes to everything. I would fall back to Blades in the Dark concepts of Flashbacks or such and say "Yes, ok. Tell us how, when you were back in town, you stole a scroll of flight. Who was it stolen from and how did you get away with it?" That both makes the character sound like a awesome sneaky halfling which backs up their Fiction. And it keeps play going in an interesting way. I can even say "Make a Stealth roll to see if they know you stole it, even though you clearly got away. There is a chance they will remember that slight, or send a bounty on you."
= Remember GMs - a failed roll does not always mean they didn't do the thing - it can also mean there are consequence's that follow their fumbled success!!!

So yeah, even in situation where player goes off the rails, a GM can easily bring it back to the functional game and nothing is ruined, and the scene is more fun for it.

Saying "No" would be to turn the GM into the dice, turn them into the Rules. And that's not what "Rulings not Rules" means IMHO. Saying No tends to come up most often when a player wants to declare something in the Fiction as true, and the GM saying No. As my example above shows, there is not often if ever a good reason to do that (plus the straw man that this is even a meaningful issue at all. players tend not to just disregard the Fiction utterly).

And I can even think of many times where the player's idea and suggestion is far better than what the dice and rules can create, so sometimes its even good to say Yes to the player saying "I kill the orc" with no roll or damage. The way they accept the GM response of "You are tired and here are 5 more orcs." to become a fun assassin's creed style chase = worth it over init+tohit+damage rolls. (again in some cases). Saying No in that case is saying "No I don't like your direction with the scene and events, stop doing that and just roll the limited options the rules and dice allow." =

But what if the PC loses the fight? Then the GM won't be saying "yes" to the player's description of their action!

I guess I'm not really following the principle being articulated here. Is it just "say 'yes' or roll the dice"? In which case, as I posted upthread, I'm very familiar with it: my Burning Wheel and Torchbearer experience is pretty good.

But if it's not that, then I'm a bit lost.

See above. Plus what clearstream said... that may help? otherwise I dunno either

..
By not allowing the players to figure this out for themselves, I am lessening their agency. ...

Yes a tangent. No not really to do with saying Yes in any way I can see. But regardless - I don't think you should eat yourself up for this. I think at some point, ore often or less = all GMs do this.

It can be helpful, players would rather get a hint or offering that get stuck or blindsided. So that's cool.
It can be helpful to keep pacing going and prevent players from going in circles that accomplish nothing. So that's good
It can be helpful to guide players into competent actions based on their character they may not be thinking of, especially new players. So that's fun.

Taking agency away is telling them "this is your only option" and "I am telling you how your character acts, you must accept it and go from there." It does not sound like you are doing that.

Also, between me and clearstream and my comments above, is your example of "saying no" answered?

 

[Gorgon Zee]

Examples of GM's saying no to the player's request to sneak into the wizard's tower:

"You are spotted. Roll initiative"
"The wizard has an alarm spell. You fail to sneak in"
"The wizard has a lookout familiar with the aspect watchful and so spots you"
"Roll skill vs the lookout familiar's skill <rolls> You fail"
"Let me roll secretly because there is opposition. <rolls> you fail"
"<Rolls dice behind screen>. You fail"

Narrative or Rule-based -- either way the GM is saying no

 

[clearstream]

Examples of GM's saying no to the player's request to sneak into the wizard's tower:

"You are spotted. Roll initiative"
"The wizard has an alarm spell. You fail to sneak in"
"The wizard has a lookout familiar with the aspect watchful and so spots you"
"Roll skill vs the lookout familiar's skill <rolls> You fail"
"Let me roll secretly because there is opposition. <rolls> you fail"
"<Rolls dice behind screen>. You fail"

Narrative or Rule-based -- either way the GM is saying no

To my reading so far, in this thread those would form examples of following the rules, so aren't counted as no. Assuming the last case to be following an undisclosed procedure.

 

[clearstream]

Yeah, I think you pointed out what I was thinking.

There is a part of an RPG which is "let the rules and dice tell you how it resolved." Which is to say, if the player wants to do something, then you say "Yes" and let them interact with the rule that guides them on how to do it. (Skill rolls, attack rolls, etc)

Then there is this other part which is Narrative play. This comes into play with The Fiction. And that is "all the things described by the GM in the scene."
Meaning that a player assuming an outdoor attack on a roadside might have a hill side to the path which has rocks the orcs can slip and fall on = seems reasonable, even if the GM never mentioned a hill or rocks, it fits The Fiction and so there is no reason to say no.

The fear then comes in with the halfling saying "I fly up the hill", and there is no Fiction to indicate the halfling can fly in any way. I think this is actually a straw man argument. Personally, I have never ever had a player, so egregiously, dictate their character doing something that has no reason or rule or ability to back it up. And I run both PBTA and Cortex, where a player can define a power's use in pretty much any way they can imagine - and it still never happened.

But let's assume it did happen, and let's assume the GM still wanted to say Yes to everything. I would fall back to Blades in the Dark concepts of Flashbacks or such and say "Yes, ok. Tell us how, when you were back in town, you stole a scroll of flight. Who was it stolen from and how did you get away with it?" That both makes the character sound like a awesome sneaky halfling which backs up their Fiction. And it keeps play going in an interesting way. I can even say "Make a Stealth roll to see if they know you stole it, even though you clearly got away. There is a chance they will remember that slight, or send a bounty on you."
= Remember GMs - a failed roll does not always mean they didn't do the thing - it can also mean there are consequence's that follow their fumbled success!!!

So yeah, even in situation where player goes off the rails, a GM can easily bring it back to the functional game and nothing is ruined, and the scene is more fun for it.

Saying "No" would be to turn the GM into the dice, turn them into the Rules. And that's not what "Rulings not Rules" means IMHO. Saying No tends to come up most often when a player wants to declare something in the Fiction as true, and the GM saying No. As my example above shows, there is not often if ever a good reason to do that (plus the straw man that this is even a meaningful issue at all. players tend not to just disregard the Fiction utterly).

And I can even think of many times where the player's idea and suggestion is far better than what the dice and rules can create, so sometimes its even good to say Yes to the player saying "I kill the orc" with no roll or damage. The way they accept the GM response of "You are tired and here are 5 more orcs." to become a fun assassin's creed style chase = worth it over init+tohit+damage rolls. (again in some cases). Saying No in that case is saying "No I don't like your direction with the scene and events, stop doing that and just roll the limited options the rules and dice allow." =


See above. Plus what clearstream said... that may help? otherwise I dunno either



Yes a tangent. No not really to do with saying Yes in any way I can see. But regardless - I don't think you should eat yourself up for this. I think at some point, ore often or less = all GMs do this.

It can be helpful, players would rather get a hint or offering that get stuck or blindsided. So that's cool.
It can be helpful to keep pacing going and prevent players from going in circles that accomplish nothing. So that's good
It can be helpful to guide players into competent actions based on their character they may not be thinking of, especially new players. So that's fun.

Taking agency away is telling them "this is your only option" and "I am telling you how your character acts, you must accept it and go from there." It does not sound like you are doing that.

Also, between me and clearstream and my comments above, is your example of "saying no" answered?

My flight example was intended to illustrate a constraint defined in the rules. I'm willing to conjecture that for any such example I can manufacture a circumvention, but that would seem to amount to saying it's just "say yes" rules be damned... which was ruled out up thread.