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

[FrogReaver]

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.

There’s still the GM element of setting the DC. So I don’t think those things can be siloed in quite the way desired. If the GM sets the DC and that results in a no then it’s not just the system saying no.

 

[Gorgon Zee]

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.

That is not the premise of this thread. If you re-read it, they specifically say that the GM gives up any hint of control including "using die rolls or negotiation to craft play"

 

[FrogReaver]

That is not the premise of this thread. If you re-read it, they specifically say that the GM gives up any hint of control including "using die rolls or negotiation to craft play"

I think that part was redacted not long after it started and has been extremely consistent since.

But IMO if that isn’t included as part of saying yes to everything it’s hard to see a major change from how things currently are to this proposed change.

 

[pemerton]

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.

OK, I think I've worked it out, thanks.

I think that part was redacted not long after it started and has been extremely consistent since.

But IMO if that isn’t included as part of saying yes to everything it’s hard to see a major change from how things currently are to this proposed change.

Well, "how things currently are" is different in different RPGs and at different tables.

What I've taken from the other post I'm replying to, is that we're talking about the GM incorporating rather than rejecting player contributions to fictional position.

This has been the focus of discussion for the last many pages of the rule zero thread: D&D General - A glimpse at WoTC's current view of Rule 0 And a lot of posters have objected to this suggestion.

But anyway, if I've now understood it, I can report from my experience that it's a straightforward and functional approach.

 

[Reynard]

The title of the thread is "What if we say 'yes' to everything?". 'Everything' is pretty cut and dried: it means everything, no matter how ludicrous; which means there ain't no middle ground left to exclude due to its never having been included in the first place.

Had the thread been something more like "What if we say 'yes' a lot more often?" then there'd be all kinds of middle ground we could talk/argue over.

You might have to read the first post instead of just the title in order to get the gist of the discussion.

And then, since it is a discussion and a thought experiment, you might have to keep reading to understand how the concept evolves with multiple inputs over time.

You might even have to consider making a contribution to the discussion in order to really understand and participate in it.

 

[Reynard]

That is not the premise of this thread. If you re-read it, they specifically say that the GM gives up any hint of control including "using die rolls or negotiation to craft play"

I think that part was redacted not long after it started and has been extremely consistent since.

But IMO if that isn’t included as part of saying yes to everything it’s hard to see a major change from how things currently are to this proposed change.

Yes,Parr of the evolving discussion is that since we are still playing a game, we still need to follow the rules. However, if the game (like D&D) gives the GM enough narrative authority to "Say Yes" then they should, and the rules she be used to resolve those Yeses.

In some cases, "no" or something like it is built into the rules, setting or milieu, and so it is not the GM saying "no" in the context of this thread. "Can I fly to 10000 feet and drop a penny on the bad guy" is not a valid question outside of a superhero game, so the GM isn't bound to "Say Yes." Or to use a less ridiculous example, if a player says they want to hide in plain sight with no concealment or special ability in 5E, the GM is not not saying Yes to point at the rule and reminding the player how hiding works.

 

[Wolfpack48]

You might have to read the first post instead of just the title in order to get the gist of the discussion.

And then, since it is a discussion and a thought experiment, you might have to keep reading to understand how the concept evolves with multiple inputs over time.

You might even have to consider making a contribution to the discussion in order to really understand and participate in it.

Reynard, when you say in your OP...

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.

...You lead people to believe that using die rolls and the rules aren't allowed. Your original thought experiment post is misleading. You've since clarified, but you shouldn't be surprised by people's reactions based on your initial description.

 

[Bagpuss]

Yes,Parr of the evolving discussion is that since we are still playing a game, we still need to follow the rules. However, if the game (like D&D) gives the GM enough narrative authority to "Say Yes" then they should, and the rules she be used to resolve those Yeses.

In some cases, "no" or something like it is built into the rules, setting or milieu, and so it is not the GM saying "no" in the context of this thread.

Then I am failing to see the goal of this thread, the general way most people play RPGs is unless the "rules, setting or milieu" say no, the GM generally says "Yes you can try" and then either uses rules or judge to adjudicate the outcomes of a players actions.

They will often give advice if the player is unfamiliar with the rules and doesn't realise their character can't jump across the 20 ft chasm, with phrases like "Are you sure you want to do that?", but most GM's I know very rarely say no to something unless it is impossible due to the rules or the setting.

No you can't do magic in Cyberpunk, if you wanted to do that we would be playing Shadowrun. Yes you can be an "elf" if you really want, but all you are is a human that has had a body sculpt to have pointy ears.

"Can I fly to 10000 feet and drop a penny on the bad guy" is not a valid question outside of a superhero game, so the GM isn't bound to "Say Yes."

Well in D&D assuming they have wings or access to fly spell, then that seems something you could say "yes, you can try" to. You might want to consider trouble breathing by rapidly climbing to that altitude (See page 110 of DMG) or just ignore it depending on the style of game you are playing. Also at a fly speed of only 60ft, it is probably not something they will be able to achieve in a normal combat. But maybe the player has found some loophole, combining other spells and abilities to go much faster. It isn't the sort of thing you would just say to "No" out of hand .

Or to use a less ridiculous example, if a player says they want to hide in plain sight with no concealment or special ability in 5E, the GM is not not saying Yes to point at the rule and reminding the player how hiding works.

See to me the 10th level Ranger ability "Hide in Plain Sight" isn't needed to hide in plain sight by taking the time to camouflage yourself anyone can do it if they take the time and aren't being observed. Just the ranger gets +10 bonus to stealth checks when they do. So that's something I would say yes to within the rules.

 

[clearstream]

What I've taken from the other post I'm replying to, is that we're talking about the GM incorporating rather than rejecting player contributions to fictional position.

This has been the focus of discussion for the last many pages of the rule zero thread: D&D General - A glimpse at WoTC's current view of Rule 0 And a lot of posters have objected to this suggestion.

But anyway, if I've now understood it, I can report from my experience that it's a straightforward and functional approach.

The halfling who wanted to fly example and the like remain focused on the player contributing acts for their character, and the GM saying yes or follow the rules. A rule in some game texts goes something like this "Players describe what their characters do." A broad rule like that seems to narrow player contributions to fiction to things their characters do.

Say a player wanted to propose a consequence for some action, a theme for some location, a motive for some enemy? In game texts that didn't feature a rule of the sort indicated above (I mean silence on the matter, not other rules extending it) "say yes or follow the rules" would be open to a wider range of contributions.

We're assuming the halfling who wanted to fly example operates falls within the scope of extant rules rather than silence. The assumed game text contains rules for flying, their presence implies that flight is only possible through appeal to them, and the halfling has no current means to do that.

An overriding "say yes or follow the rules" principle has a powerful effect where the rules are silent. Yet past debates like the one you reference evidence that said silence is divided up (e.g. @Bagpuss's "setting" and "milieu") and ruled over by equally powerful exogenous rules (unspoken norms and house rules). If one imagines stack-ranking those on the basis of how strongly participants have them in force for themselves, then I suspect that at different tables the "say yes" override will wind up inserted at different places.

A group could improve their situation by choosing a text that contains rules they like and doesn't contain rules they don't like, but I suspect it's straightforward- and functional-ness still rests on their having shared the appropriate norms.

 

[clearstream]

Then I am failing to see the goal of this thread, the general way most people play RPGs is unless the "rules, setting or milieu" say no...

This is a wonderful example of the kinds of "silence... divided up and ruled over" that I had in mind in my post immediately above.

The OP (as modified) would say something quite powerful relating to at least those last two - "setting or milieu". It's "say yes or follow the rules" not "say yes or follow GM's sense of setting or milieu". Or if you like, it's "say yes, or follow the rules or players' sense of setting or milieu".