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

[aramis erak]

I don't think that it necessarily pushes the game toward combat. It just eliminates the skill check gate to whatever the next step is. And if the GM is always saying yes, what that is depends a lot more on the players. So if the players want something besides combat, they need to do things that lead there.

That's sufficiently different from how D&D is typically played, and from how it's written, that it's essentially a different game.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

To be clear, what I am saying is that if the game gives the GM authority to decide whether a roll is necessary, then the GM should not require a roll and declare the action successful (say "yes"). This is the rats and cheese example. But if the game doesn't and has hard coded rules for determining success, those rules should be followed. This is the roll to hit.

In 5E, there aren't a lot of non-combat rules that don't default to the GM giving permission. The effects of spells probably qualify, though, being hard coded mini-rules.

I'd have to dig out my 5e books to know for sure (I'm sure they're more expansive), but the SRD, at least, says that ability/skill checks are called for when there's a chance of failure. That seems like pretty solid guidance for things. Admittedly, it then goes on to undercut that with a lot of "the GM might" in the rest of the text, but that's not an uncommon problem in RPG rules text.

 

[Reynard]

That's sufficiently different from how D&D is typically played, and from how it's written, that it's essentially a different game.

Sure. We aren't trying to preserve how "D&D is typically played" are we?

But lots of us run very improv heavy, player driven games, so I don't think the concept is alien to D&D. The real difference is the GM keeping their thumbs even farther ofvthe scale (to torture a metaphor).

 

[Reynard]

I'd have to dig out my 5e books to know for sure (I'm sure they're more expansive), but the SRD, at least, says that ability/skill checks are called for when there's a chance of failure. That seems like pretty solid guidance for things. Admittedly, it then goes on to undercut that with a lot of "the GM might" in the rest of the text, but that's not an uncommon problem in RPG rules text.

Sure but in 5E the GM determines that in 90% of circumstances.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

Sure but in 5E the GM determines that in 90% of circumstances.

Okay, sure. Are you saying that places where the GM would have to make a determination of the chance of failure would instead be places where the GM would say "yes"? My understanding was that this wasn't the case, but this seems like it would turn a lot of action declarations into successes. But if it is, under this rubric, what sort of action declarations are going to trigger dice rolls? Combat, certainly. It would seem like places where the rules required opposed rolls would need to trigger dice rolls as well. If players had the characters try to talk the king's stable master out of his finest horses, would that require a roll or would that be a "yes"? Would the players know this going in?

Edit: Fixed clarity issue. Players aren't talking to the stable master.

 

[Reynard]

If players had the characters try to talk the king's stable master out of his finest horses, would that require a roll or would that be a "yes"?

For the purposes of this exercise, yes, that would be an automatic "yes." The whole point, after all, is to think about how this would impact the game. The GM says yes, but still has to make it coherent. The consequences of "always yes" are the interesting part.

Would the players know this going in?

This is interesting. I never even considered that the players wouldn't know that this was the case. But now that you mention it, the players not know would inevitably result in a different game than if they were aware of their "power". I think the former case would end up resembling a "normal" game much more closely than the latter.

 

[FrogReaver]

For the purposes of this exercise, yes, that would be an automatic "yes." The whole point, after all, is to think about how this would impact the game. The GM says yes, but still has to make it coherent. The consequences of "always yes" are the interesting part.

This is interesting. I never even considered that the players wouldn't know that this was the case. But now that you mention it, the players not know would inevitably result in a different game than if they were aware of their "power". I think the former case would end up resembling a "normal" game much more closely than the latter.

I feel like you are all over the place on this. Early on I thought you shot down the notion that this was anything like auto success. That the DM wouldn’t say yes to the kings stable master giving away the finest horses. It was more of a ‘yes you can try that, how do you try it’, situation.

Now we are back to essentially granting auto success. I’m a bit frustrated at all the changes without any acknowledgment of them.

 

[clearstream]

I looked at the SRD, which says that the GM calls for an ability check or a skill check when a character attempts an action that has a chance of failure.

The current rule is

The DM and the rules often call for an ability check when a creature attempts something other than an attack that has a chance of meaningful failure. When the outcome is uncertain and narratively interesting, the dice determine the result.​

 

[Old Fezziwig]

The current rule is

The DM and the rules often call for an ability check when a creature attempts something other than an attack that has a chance of meaningful failure. When the outcome is uncertain and narratively interesting, the dice determine the result.​

For the purposes of this exercise, yes, that would be an automatic "yes." The whole point, after all, is to think about how this would impact the game. The GM says yes, but still has to make it coherent. The consequences of "always yes" are the interesting part.

Now that we have the current rule as written, I'll ask again: when would you call for a roll outside combat playing like this? I'm assuming your intention is not to say that none of the actions proposed by players have narratively interesting outcomes and all of the outcomes are certain, but that's kind of the end result.

 

[Reynard]

I feel like you are all over the place on this. Early on I thought you shot down the notion that this was anything like auto success. That the DM wouldn’t say yes to the kings stable master giving away the finest horses. It was more of a ‘yes you can try that, how do you try it’, situation.

Now we are back to essentially granting auto success. I’m a bit frustrated at all the changes without any acknowledgment of them.

I think you may be conflating some other posts with mine. I originally started out with the idea that there was essentially ONLY auto success, but then relatively quickly decided it made more sense to maintain the integrity of the game system in question when necessary. That was the difference between things the players ask of the GM, versus of the rules.

I did focus my thoughts more on D&D than I originally intended, in order to give more consistent answers to some questions posed to me. And I have changed my mind on a couple thing throughout this discussion. That's the whole point of having a discussion, isn't it?

I feel like you are expecting me to plant a flag and defend a position, as if this were a debate. This isn't that,at least not from my perspective, and never was.