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

[Bagpuss]

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.​

Think there also needs to be a meaningful chance of success...

 

[Reynard]

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.

You seem to be trying to get me to take and/or a position I don't hold. In the context of this hypothetical and talking specifically about 5E, I maintain that the vast majority of what PCs might attempt outside of combat would be a "Yes" because in 5E, the GM is responsible for setting the difficulty and even determining whether there should be a roll at all.

Now this is a little in the weeds of running 5E philosophy, which I was trying avoid initially, but I do not think the "rule" you cited exists in any practical sense. There is no litmus test beyond the GM deciding whether to call for a roll or not. And as such, in this discussion, that means if it is up to the GM then no roll should be called for and the answer should be Yes.

 

[clearstream]

Think there also needs to be a meaningful chance of success...

That first quote is from the PHB. There's clarifying game text in the DMG

Is a D20 Test Warranted? If the task is trivial or impossible, don’t bother with a D20 Test. A character can move across an empty room or drink from a flask without making a Dexterity check, whereas no lucky die roll will allow a character with an ordinary bow to hit the moon with an arrow. Call for a D20 Test only if there’s a chance of both success and failure and if there are meaningful consequences for failure.​

​

Also perhaps of interest

​

Players shouldn’t just roll ability checks without context; they should tell you what their characters are trying to achieve, and make ability checks only if you ask them to.​

 

[Old Fezziwig]

You seem to be trying to get me to take and/or a position I don't hold. In the context of this hypothetical and talking specifically about 5E, I maintain that the vast majority of what PCs might attempt outside of combat would be a "Yes" because in 5E, the GM is responsible for setting the difficulty and even determining whether there should be a roll at all.

Now this is a little in the weeds of running 5E philosophy, which I was trying avoid initially, but I do not think the "rule" you cited exists in any practical sense. There is no litmus test beyond the GM deciding whether to call for a roll or not. And as such, in this discussion, that means if it is up to the GM then no roll should be called for and the answer should be Yes.

I'm just trying to figure out what's happening at the table. You're proposing a thought experiment, but the parameters are kind of fluid and unclear. I thought I had a grip on it before, but that doesn't seem to be the case now. Whether you actually hold these positions doesn't matter to me.

Based on what you're saying now, I think you're proposing a game that would look like D&D if someone wasn't paying close attention but would be kind of idiosyncratic on examination. I think saying yes to non-combat actions, depending on how universal that "yes" is, could end up penalizing spellcasters somewhat if their spells give the target a save (and you make targets save). It could make skill-based characters super effective (though why use skills at all in this case?). Ultimately, if there's no rigor to how and when rolls are called for (if they are), you may just end up with free-form collaborative storytelling combined with a light tactical combat game.

 

[Reynard]

I'm just trying to figure out what's happening at the table. You're proposing a thought experiment, but the parameters are kind of fluid and unclear. I thought I had a grip on it before, but that doesn't seem to be the case now. Whether you actually hold these positions doesn't matter to me.

Based on what you're saying now, I think you're proposing a game that would look like D&D if someone wasn't paying close attention but would be kind of idiosyncratic on examination. I think saying yes to non-combat actions, depending on how universal that "yes" is, could end up penalizing spellcasters somewhat if their spells give the target a save (and you make targets save). It could make skill-based characters super effective (though why use skills at all in this case?). Ultimately, if there's no rigor to how and when rolls are called for (if they are), you may just end up with free-form collaborative storytelling combined with a light tactical combat game.

Remember that the thought experiment is not specifically about 5E, and really doesn't overly concern system at all. The thought experiment is "what does an RPG game or campaign look like if the GM always says yes when posed a question by the players?"

It quickly devolved (IMO) into a discussion about skill checks, and we have had hundreds of fruitless threads like that here before.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

Remember that the thought experiment is not specifically about 5E, and really doesn't overly concern system at all. The thought experiment is "what does an RPG game or campaign look like if the GM always says yes when posed a question by the players?"

It quickly devolved (IMO) into a discussion about skill checks, and we have had hundreds of fruitless threads like that here before.

Previously, you said you were taking this from the view of D&D and other trad games, where the players don't have authorial control. This is fine, but are we not taking this thought experiment from that view for all its aspects? All RPGs aren't the same, and they would look drastically different if you apply this method. As far as skill checks, I don't care much about them as an example; it's just that they're kind of the primary non-combat roll in D&D, and your examples have explicitly passed them up in favor of saying "yes." If we're conceding that combat happens, then there is the question about what happens to the rest of the game and whether there would be any situation where a roll would be called for outside of combat. (And I concede that you've answered this in #242 (hence my answer in #244), but I don't think the conversation about checks is unreasonable.)

 

[Reynard]

Previously, you said you were taking this from the view of D&D and other trad games, where the players don't have authorial control. This is fine, but are we not taking this thought experiment from that view for all its aspects? All RPGs aren't the same, and they would look drastically different if you apply this method. As far as skill checks, I don't care much about them as an example; it's just that they're kind of the primary non-combat roll in D&D, and your examples have explicitly passed them up in favor of saying "yes." If we're conceding that combat happens, then there is the question about what happens to the rest of the game and whether there would be any situation where a roll would be called for outside of combat. (And I concede that you've answered this in #242 (hence my answer in #244), but I don't think the conversation about checks is unreasonable.)

Even different editions of D&D would look different under this rubric. 3E, for example, has much more rigid rules regarding mot skills and skill checks, so there are a lot more times when the players are asking the system rather than the GM. B/X would look different in another way, with its near complete lack of general skills (aside from the thief). Almost every question is asking something "of the GM" in that paradigm. I think most trad games exist somehwere on that spectrum, but we could certainly interrogate the specifics of how "always Yes" looks different in Shadowrun than it would using ICONS.

But, again, action resolution is only a piece of the discussion, and, to me, the least interesting piece. Of course, how much "not action resolution" there is depends on the type and scope of the campaign among other factors. A megadungeon crawl is nearly all action resolution, for example, while a game about courtly intrigue is much less so. The latter game benefits more (or at least is more impacted by) "always yes" I think.

 

[pemerton]

Ultimately, if there's no rigor to how and when rolls are called for (if they are), you may just end up with free-form collaborative storytelling combined with a light tactical combat game.

Yes, this is what I've been trying to get at for the past several pages.

Based on what you're saying now, I think you're proposing a game that would look like D&D if someone wasn't paying close attention but would be kind of idiosyncratic on examination. I think saying yes to non-combat actions, depending on how universal that "yes" is, could end up penalizing spellcasters somewhat if their spells give the target a save (and you make targets save). It could make skill-based characters super effective (though why use skills at all in this case?).

As you say, skills aren't needed! Whereas spells still grant the player some control over fictional position. This changes the balance between individual spells (eg Charm seems less useful, but Levitation still does it's thing), but it's not clear to me which way the overall balance tips between magic and non-magic, nor that the upshot would unbalance things outside the range that is already typical for 5e D&D.

 

[pemerton]

Remember that the thought experiment is not specifically about 5E, and really doesn't overly concern system at all. The thought experiment is "what does an RPG game or campaign look like if the GM always says yes when posed a question by the players?"

But when do the players even pose questions to the GM? That depends upon how a particular RPG's processes for framing and resolution work.

A megadungeon crawl is nearly all action resolution, for example, while a game about courtly intrigue is much less so.

I don't see why.

 

[Reynard]

But when do the players even pose questions to the GM? That depends upon how a particular RPG's processes for framing and resolution work.

Most RPGs us the same framing: it is a conversation between the participants. In this case, between the player(s) and the GM (which presents its own set of assumptions about the relationship, authorial control, etc...) The question of when players pose questions to the Gm is a nonsensical one: the only way for the players to, well, play is to pose questions to the GM, or to the rules through the GM. (Again, talking about traditional RPGs here; in other types of RPGs they may have to pose questions to the group or a randomizer like an Oracle.)

I don't see why.

I suppose you could say courtly intrigue is still dependent on "action resolution" so maybe that was a clumsy way of stating it. The kinds of questions the players ask and the tools at their disposal is usually very different between a megadungeon exploration and a courtly intrigue, though. Therefore, the balance between the Gm saying "yes" and the rules taking over are very likely different as well. Certainly that is the case for something like 5E. I suppose games that use the exact same form of action resolution no matter what is happening in the fiction would not present a distinction.

I have never played a game that does that successfully, and don't think i would want to. I want modes of play to change between the talky bits, fighty bits, and walky bits (but that is really neither here nor there).