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

[pemerton]

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.

I think the above quote relates to the below quote:

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?

Who gets to decide what is consistent with, or follows from, the fictional position? As per @hawkeyefan's point, if the GM is making those decisions not having regard to any goal of play but just based on maintaining their own aesthetic, then I think we have an approach to GMing that is different from what the OP was suggesting. (At least if I've made sense of the OP.)

 

[Older Beholder]

I think the idea could work, although, in my mind the GM saying yes means...
Yes you can try, you would still need to make a dice roll to succeed in a lot of cases. But yes, you can always try.

It's something I've tried to encourage in my players (unsuccessfully); don't ask if you can do something, or if something will work, just tell me what your character does.

The idea of a GM always saying yes certainly sounds better than a DM that always says no, which feels unfortunately more common in my experience.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think the above quote relates to the below quote:

Who gets to decide what is consistent with, or follows from, the fictional position? As per @hawkeyefan's point, if the GM is making those decisions not having regard to any goal of play but just based on maintaining their own aesthetic, then I think we have an approach to GMing that is different from what the OP was suggesting. (At least if I've made sense of the OP.)

In the opening session for the Band of Blades game I mentioned, the first mission was for the PCs to blow up a bridge to cut off the undead hordes and buy the Legion some time to retreat. The squad for the mission consisted of an Officer, a Heavy, a Medic, and a Sniper.

The bridge led to a town that had been heavily damaged in a previous offensive. No detailed map was provided. The player of the Sniper character asked if there was high ground of some sort where he could take an overwatch position for the bridge.

I said yes, and introduced a church tower that would serve as a good post. We used a Fortune Roll to see how intact it was, and that roll was a 6, so the tower was structurally sound and was well situated to the bridge.

Could I have said no? Sure. But why would I do that? I mean… the game has a Sniper playbook… why not let them do what they’re meant to do? Did it give the players an advantage? Yes. Did it remove any and all danger from the mission? No, not at all. I wouldn’t be much of a GM if I couldn’t still threaten a squad that manages to position their sniper well.

 

[pemerton]

The player of the Sniper character asked if there was high ground of some sort where he could take an overwatch position for the bridge.

I said yes, and introduced a church tower that would serve as a good post. We used a Fortune Roll to see how intact it was, and that roll was a 6, so the tower was structurally sound and was well situated to the bridge.

Could I have said no? Sure. But why would I do that? I mean… the game has a Sniper playbook… why not let them do what they’re meant to do? Did it give the players an advantage? Yes. Did it remove any and all danger from the mission? No, not at all. I wouldn’t be much of a GM if I couldn’t still threaten a squad that manages to position their sniper well.

In Burning Wheel, or a similarly-structured "say 'yes' or roll the dice" game, the decision heuristic would be along the following lines:

*Is there anything at stake in looking for the high ground/overwatch position? This would depend on at least two factors: (i) what is the current state of the fiction - eg does looking for the high ground imply leaving the rest of the band, and does that have meaningful implications? (ii) does the sniper have a relevant Belief, Instinct or similar (eg Instinct Always take the high ground or Belief I will be the overwatch!) that makes this meaningful the character?

*If the answer to the above is "no", then say "yes" as you did.

*If the answer to the above is "yes", then call for an appropriate check to find the position (eg Perception) - depending on further context of play and character priorities, it could be done as an initial test to identify the ground, linking to a test to actually establish a position (eg that could be a test on Tactics with Stealthy FoRKed in). A failure on the Perception test could be narrated in different ways - maybe there's no high ground (so the PC has to stay with the band) or maybe the character sees the high ground but it's hard to get to, or has a zombie guarding it, or something else fitting and cool.​

So between your actual example, the easily-sketched way it would play in BW, how we might imagine it playing out in Apocalypse World (the PC looking for high ground would be Reading a Situation), how it would work if playing The Punisher in Marvel Heroic RP (ie establishing an Overwatch Asset, by testing against the Doom Pool augmented by any appropriate Scene Distinction). etc - we can see pretty easily how the OP idea works out in actual RPGs that don't just assume GM narration in accordance with GM aesthetic priorities.

 

[Reynard]

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.

We aren't talking about rule sets, though. We are talking about a methodology of running the game.

EDIT: I responded kind of knee jerk before reading your follow up posts. Mea culpa. See the next post for a more thoughtful, less irritable response.

 

[Reynard]

In Burning Wheel, or a similarly-structured "say 'yes' or roll the dice" game, the decision heuristic would be along the following lines:

*Is there anything at stake in looking for the high ground/overwatch position? This would depend on at least two factors: (i) what is the current state of the fiction - eg does looking for the high ground imply leaving the rest of the band, and does that have meaningful implications? (ii) does the sniper have a relevant Belief, Instinct or similar (eg Instinct Always take the high ground or Belief I will be the overwatch!) that makes this meaningful the character?​

​

*If the answer to the above is "no", then say "yes" as you did.​

​

*If the answer to the above is "yes", then call for an appropriate check to find the position (eg Perception) - depending on further context of play and character priorities, it could be done as an initial test to identify the ground, linking to a test to actually establish a position (eg that could be a test on Tactics with Stealthy FoRKed in). A failure on the Perception test could be narrated in different ways - maybe there's no high ground (so the PC has to stay with the band) or maybe the character sees the high ground but it's hard to get to, or has a zombie guarding it, or something else fitting and cool.​

So between your actual example, the easily-sketched way it would play in BW, how we might imagine it playing out in Apocalypse World (the PC looking for high ground would be Reading a Situation), how it would work if playing The Punisher in Marvel Heroic RP (ie establishing an Overwatch Asset, by testing against the Doom Pool augmented by any appropriate Scene Distinction). etc - we can see pretty easily how the OP idea works out in actual RPGs that don't just assume GM narration in accordance with GM aesthetic priorities.

I honestly appreciate the explanation by way of games that you believe work in a way compatible with what I originally proposed and later more clearly defined.

I guess I might quibble with the idea that any time there are measurable stakes we should roll the dice, and only automatically "say yes" if there aren't measurable stakes. I think you can say yes without dice even if the action ups the stakes or changes the game state noticeably. But that's really me quibbling with the specific game rules. I, personally I mean, would just use rules that align better with my preferences regarding what is an ask of the GM, versus an ask of the rules.

One thing I think is relevant here is how we define the GM's role in the game in question. I have been assuming a pretty traditional GM authority, and that has colored my perspective on the thing. A game that takes that authority out of the GM's hands and gives it overvto either the rules or distributes it amongst the other participants changes the thought experiment significantly, I think.

 

[aramis erak]

Always «Yes», Never «Yes, but»/«Yes, and» is not what you're trying to claw back to, Reynard. It's far less controlled. Given that invoking the ruleset is almost always a «Yes, but» narration attempt, so it precludes the GM calling for a mechanical resolution.

And framing any but the first scene? A «yes, and»... always. It's always either a consequence or a pat acceptance followed by moving onward to frame a new scene...

So in a pure yes GMing, only the non-GM players can invoke the rules and frame scenes.

Plus, in sequentibus, narratur ad normam narration isn't required by the original question, so even staying on theme is only so long as it amuses all to stay in theme.

Clawing it back to using rules? it renders it an oxymoronic request. One cannot GM without performing «yes, and» nor «yes, but»... at least not and retain the two most basic functions: consequences and scene framing.

 

[Reynard]

Always «Yes», Never «Yes, but»/«Yes, and» is not what you're trying to claw back to, Reynard. It's far less controlled. Given that invoking the ruleset is almost always a «Yes, but» narration attempt, so it precludes the GM calling for a mechanical resolution.

And framing any but the first scene? A «yes, and»... always. It's always either a consequence or a pat acceptance followed by moving onward to frame a new scene...

So in a pure yes GMing, only the non-GM players can invoke the rules and frame scenes.

Plus, in sequentibus, narratur ad normam narration isn't required by the original question, so even staying on theme is only so long as it amuses all to stay in theme.

Clawing it back to using rules? it renders it an oxymoronic request. One cannot GM without performing «yes, and» nor «yes, but»... at least not and retain the two most basic functions: consequences and scene framing.

I'm not sure what you mean by "clawing back." As a reminder, the intent here was a discussion about a possibility, not a statement of intention. The whole point was to talk about it, in order to determine its viability and, more broadly, learn something about how we GM.

 

[pemerton]

We aren't talking about rule sets, though. We are talking about a methodology of running the game.

I guess I might quibble with the idea that any time there are measurable stakes we should roll the dice, and only automatically "say yes" if there aren't measurable stakes. I think you can say yes without dice even if the action ups the stakes or changes the game state noticeably. But that's really me quibbling with the specific game rules. I, personally I mean, would just use rules that align better with my preferences regarding what is an ask of the GM, versus an ask of the rules.

I'm still trying to work out exactly what methodology for running a game you have in mind. I know of multiple in the general neighbourhood, as per the post you're replying to, @hawkeyefan's post, etc.

If you don't use the Burning Wheel approach to calling for rolls - ie roll when something meaningful is at stake - then some alternative is needed. It could be "if you do it, you do it" as per Apocalypse World or Dungeon World, but that's a demanding approach for the designer (not the GM, assuming the designer has done their job properly).

As best I can tell, you are working with some intuitive notion of action declarations that are resolved mechanically (eg jumping, combat) versus action declarations that are resolved by GM's free narration (talking to people, sneaking around, etc). But I'm not sure where, or why, you're drawing those boundaries.

One thing I think is relevant here is how we define the GM's role in the game in question. I have been assuming a pretty traditional GM authority, and that has colored my perspective on the thing. A game that takes that authority out of the GM's hands and gives it overvto either the rules or distributes it amongst the other participants changes the thought experiment significantly, I think.

Well Apocalypse World assumes a mainstream approach to the GM's role in establishing the shared fiction. So does Burning Wheel, really. As per what I posted just above, I think you are making assumptions about action resolution rather than GM authority. I mean, Rolemaster is completely traditional/mainstream in how it allocates GM authority, but it still doesn't adhere to your boundary about action resolution (it has mechanical rules for resolving social interaction, and even for resolving the sneaking stuff although they're a lot more wobbly) - so the boundary that you seem to be drawing would not have been intuitive to me even 30 years ago (when most of my RPG play was RM).

 

[aramis erak]

I'm not sure what you mean by "clawing back." As a reminder, the intent here was a discussion about a possibility, not a statement of intention. The whole point was to talk about it, in order to determine its viability and, more broadly, learn something about how we GM.

It is, logically, elimination of the GM role as a contributor. Once you add invoking the rules, you've crossed the stated question's bounds.