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

[Reynard]

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

Do you know how a thought experiment works?

 

[OptionalRule]

Do you know how a thought experiment works?

Edit: For some reason, the forums are hiding the quote to the post I'm replyign to, making this look like a random reply. The quote is someone replying to me "Do you know how a thought experiment works?"

You're not Einstien theory-crafting on general relativity.

A thought experiment is typically used to explore concepts and theories too difficult or costly to actually try out. I don't run a "Thought Experiment" on picking up a pencil from my desk.

It's a forum, so discussing things is clearly in bounds. Asking why not try it out is also clearly in bounds for something so accessible and certinly not justification of such a condesending reply.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

What I’m saying is that if a GM is supposed to decide whether something succeeds, fails or is uncertain based on the fictional position then determining something fails because of the fictional position is the rules saying no, not the GM saying no.

 

[Reynard]

What I’m saying is that if a GM is supposed to decide whether something succeeds, fails or is uncertain based on the fictional position then determining something fails because of the fictional position is the rules saying no, not the GM saying no.

I don't agree with that assessment, but I see how you got there.

 

[FrogReaver]

Edit: For some reason, the forums are hiding the quote to the post I'm replyign to, making this look like a random reply. The quote is someone replying to me "Do you know how a thought experiment works?"

You're not Einstien theory-crafting on general relativity.

A thought experiment is typically used to explore concepts and theories too difficult or costly to actually try out. I don't run a "Thought Experiment" on picking up a pencil from my desk.

It's a forum, so discussing things is clearly in bounds. Asking why not try it out is also clearly in bounds for something so accessible and certinly not justification of such a condesending reply.

Tis what happens when you are blocked

 

[FrogReaver]

I don't agree with that assessment, but I see how you got there.

Okay. If you don’t want to talk about why you see it differently I get that and will drop it if that’s where you are, but i would like to try and understand why you view this so differently.

It seems to hinge on the notion that the rules telling the GM to decide something means the GM can decide anyway he desires. And perhaps some rules might mean exactly that, but I think most rules telling the GM to decide tend to indicate at least implicitly that he take the fictional position into account to make that decision. So a compelling question might be, If a rule does this explicitly do you agree that just saying yes without considering the fictional position wouldn’t be playing by the rules?

 

[Reynard]

Okay. If you don’t want to talk about why you see it differently I get that and will drop it if that’s where you are, but i would like to try and understand why you view this so differently.

I was acknowledging the validity of your point of view.

It seems to hinge on the notion that the rules telling the GM to decide something means the GM can decide anyway he desires. And perhaps some rules might mean exactly that, but I think most rules telling the GM to decide tend to indicate at least implicitly that he take the fictional position into account to make that decision. So a compelling question might be, If a rule does this explicitly do you agree that just saying yes without considering the fictional position wouldn’t be playing by the rules?

Again, I am sort of drawing a line (fuzzy at is) between where the player is asking something of the GM, versus something of the rules. "Can I jump this chasm?" is asking something of the rules. 'Can I talk the king into helping us defeat the dragon?" is asking something of the GM -- usually: it is possible that a module demands a specific skill check DC for this, but that's why it is "fuzzy".

I don't think, in an RPG, the GM can make ANY ruling without considering fictional positioning.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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?"

Sure! I’m curious to see what thoughts people may actually have about that instead of continuing to discuss some idea that wasn’t really being proposed.

I just started running a campaign of Band of Blades… it’s a dark-fantasy military take on the Forged in the Dark system. It’s got strong elements of tactics and strategy, and there are strong elements of skilled play. The goal of play is to get the Legion to Skydagger Keep across dangerous country while being harried by hordes of undead. The players accumulate points as they go which will determine the outcome of their stand at Skydagger. This game can be won or lost.

And yet it still has a very strong leaning toward saying yes or rolling the dice. Probably not quite as much as Blades in the Dark, but certainly more than what’s typical in D&D.

And yet that ability for the players to contribute to the fiction… of the GM sayibg yes to their ideas… doesn’t compromise the element of skilled play. Or at least, it hasn’t so far… though, we’re only one session in!

I think that the goals of play are what matter most. If those indicate some need to say no, then it makes sense. If they don’t… if saying no is just the GM’s way of maintaining their own aesthetic (“no, there are no drow in this world… I hate drow”), that has nothing much to do with the goal of play.

 

[pemerton]

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.

Sorry, I hadn't realised this was a D&D thread.

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.

Again, what RPGs are we talking about? There are plenty of RPGs that don't follow the rubric you've stated. Even D&D doesn't really follow it for combat.

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?"

This seems to go straight back to the discussion in the "rule zero" thread!

Do you know how a thought experiment works?

Why are we doing a thought experiment, though, instead of talking about the actual play of the actual RPGs that (as best I can work out your proposal) actually work like you're suggesting?

Then we can draw on empirical fact rather than imagination and conjecture!

 

[pemerton]

A thought experiment is typically used to explore concepts and theories too difficult or costly to actually try out. I don't run a "Thought Experiment" on picking up a pencil from my desk.

I would add - a thought experiment, if it's not just to be a work of imaginative fiction, also needs to involve constraints on, and rule-governed, extrapolation.

In this case, there are actually RPGs that work more-or-less as the OP suggests (assuming I'm making some approximate sense of the OP). So we don't need to imagine - we can look at the actual play of these games. I mean, there are multiple posters in this thread - I'm one of them, but not the only one by any means - who regularly play those RPGs.