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

[pemerton]

At which point isn't that generally how most people GM?

Not as far as I can tell. Many GMs, at least judging from what I read on these boards, exercise very strong control over fictional content and fictional position, even if the players have expressed a wish that it be something else.

This has come up in the recent "rule zero" thread, as I noted upthread in this thread.

 

[hawkeyefan]

To distill my thoughts on the matter since i started the thread:

Yes" in the context of asking things of the GM does not preclude the rules "saying no", or the milieu or social contract or even other players to some degree. "Can I play a cyborg pixie Jedi who is the secret heir to the interdimensional hegemony?" should be answered with a "yes" so long as the agreed upon game -- rules, milieu, and contract -- allow for it.

When it comes to.actions in the game world, especially those that ask of the GM, the answer should be "yes" as long as otherwise there is no inherent systemic requirement built into the rules. "Can I sneak past the guard when he makes his next round?" Should be a "yes" without having to get permission from the dice. "Can I convince the king to help us defeat the dragon?" similarly should be a "yes" but it isn't a "no" for the king to require some oath of fealty. I suppose for some that qualifies as a "yes but" and so I guess I am okay with that.

However, if the player is actually asking something of the system rather than the GM, the rules should answer the question. "Can I jump across this pit?" is answered by the jumping rules, for example. Similarly "can I kill the dragon?" is answered by the combat rules.

By the way, I want to thank everyone who engaged in the discussion in good faith, even if I disagree with you. These discussions help me figure out my own feelings on a subject and that's why I start them.

Would it be good to summarize it this way?

“Whenever the answer is left up to the GM rather than some other means of resolution, the answer is yes.”

 

[Baron Opal II]

Part of the answer could be that players role in this is not to ask what they can do, but to say what they do.

Player "I become more powerful than Jo!"
GM ...

What must GM say here? To me the player declaration seems to lack specifics... but it seems like ambiguous or elusive cases could turn up.

GM: "How do you do that?"

To me, the "Always Yes" premise would be intended to specifically, if not blatantly, open up many narrative possibilities. The continuing presences of game mechanical rules informs the players and GM how the narrative can be achieved.

Last week in my D&D game, my players are exploring a deep well / mineshaft*. There is a giant ant colony somewhere, and the characters are seeing giant ants walking up and down the well. One of the players said "I want to lasso some ants and make bug shoes. I'll strap them to my feet and, since I'm a monk, just hold a plank as they walk up and down the well." These are 2-3 level characters.

Okay... Wow, wildly creative, and I love it. But, I said "how are you going to do that?" They weren't really able to come up with any real plan. Especially since the idea was the ants would go where the PCs wanted not not just hitch a ride on the ants. But, there is now an amazing plan, and as soon as the druid in the party can clearly speak to animals**, and they also have an expert weaver and a smith, I can see them making at least a harness once their characters go up a level or two.

So, to me, this is more of a "Always Yes, but How?", to develop the initial premise.


*Modified from Iseldec's Well, by the inestimable Dyson Logos.
**Which might be next session, come to think of it. The druid gained a level.

 

[Bagpuss]

Not as far as I can tell. Many GMs, at least judging from what I read on these boards, exercise very strong control over fictional content and fictional position, even if the players have expressed a wish that it be something else.

This has come up in the recent "rule zero" thread, as I noted upthread in this thread.

But that would be generally saying no because of the setting.

 

[Reynard]

I don't follow the contrast between the final and second-to-final paragraph.

Why is sneaking past the guard not handled by the sneaking rules, or convincing the king not handled by the convincing rules? Are you assuming that the game doesn't have those sorts of rules?

In those situations the rules (that I am assuming, based on 5E) tell the GM that they are allowed to just decide, which means "say yes" in this hypothetical. But there are places where the rules don't just "let" the GM decide. That's the difference I am talking about.

 

[Reynard]

Not really the the Ranger ability "Hide in Plain Sight" is a minute, not a few hours. But please continue to ignore the main point of my post to pick apart one little example, that has very little to do with the main question.

You original post was an interesting thought experiment from the title

"GMing: What If We Say "Yes" To Everything?" to the premise in your post "Yes" to literally everything the players asked or wanted to do. No GM control through dice rolls or negotiation, just narrated the results of the PCs' choices and successful actions?

But since then you've back-tracked saying the game can still say no, even if the GM doesn't due to something like it is built into the rules, setting or milieu.

At which point isn't that generally how most people GM? I'm not seeing the reason to discuss "Why don't we try carrying on playing as normal?" Your original post had legs (we are on page 16), I'm think you should be making a stronger case for it rather than saying you can still say no, using the rules or setting.

Your original post at least let us consider should the boundary at where we say no, should be moved, or why we might say no in order to make for a better or more interesting game. It being watered down doesn't really leave much for discussion.

Perhaps normally we would say no to magic in a cyberpunk setting because it would drastically alter the game, but because someone said yes we have the Shadowrun setting. Maybe there are things as GM's we might say no out of reflex but if we say yes we will open up something different and new.

Conversely I'm very much of the camp that we don't say no enough in D&D. We allow stuff because it is in the PHB and players expect it, but I think the game becomes more interesting when we say no to things like divine magic, it totally changes the game, but that would be a different but related topic.

Stick to your guns and argue for Yes to everything, even if it is game breaking, it will produce more interesting ideas, than "Yes but...".

Although in actual play I think "Yes but..." is much more interesting than just "Yes" or "No", but there is also room for a "No, but...".

I think I understand the disconnect: I am not making an argument or pushing an agenda. I am discussing a hypothetical, and allowing that discussion to impact my thinking on the subject.

 

[FrogReaver]

In those situations the rules (that I am assuming, based on 5E) tell the GM that they are allowed to just decide, which means "say yes" in this hypothetical. But there are places where the rules don't just "let" the GM decide. That's the difference I am talking about.

The 5e rules don’t tell the GM to decide like that. They say to determine whether what the player wants to do is certain success, certain failure or whether success and failure are uncertain (based on the fictional position). That’s not the same as a decision by fiat to always decide yes (not relying on fictional position).

 

[TwoSix]

Would it be good to summarize it this way?

“Whenever the answer is left up to the GM rather than some other means of resolution, the answer is yes.”

I can understand that summary. But, since the GM is generally the arbiter of when to throw the situation into a mechanical resolution, it doesn't seem like a major restriction.

To me, I find it more appealing to reframe the OP as "When does the GM normally say No? If we know why a GM says No, what would happen if the GM stopped doing that for those cases?"

 

[Reynard]

The 5e rules don’t tell the GM to decide like that. They say to determine whether what the player wants to do is certain success, certain failure or whether success and failure are uncertain (based on the fictional position). That’s not the same as a decision by fiat to always decide yes (not relying on fictional position).

Yes. It is a GM decision. And in this discussion about this hypothetical playstyle, the whole point is that when the GM gets to decides, they say "Yes." That's the thing we're trying to determine what that looks like in play.

 

[OptionalRule]

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?

Why are we speculating? If you want that, go run that game.