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

[pemerton]

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 get this.

Rolemaster is as traditional a RPG as they come. Players can make moves in RM other than just asking the GM stuff.

Traveller was published in 1977. Players can make moves in Traveller other than just asking the GM stuff.

The most canonical player move in either game is to *say what action their PC performs.

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).

Traveller and Rolemaster don't use exactly the same form of action resolution no matter what is happening in the fiction. But they do have mechanics for resolving non-combat actions that are not just the GM decides, perhaps by calling for a check.

Anyway, it seems to me that the answer to your question is what @Old Fezziwig posted not far upthread: a game in which there is a large amount of "GM decides" and in which the GM always decides in favour of what the players ask for in respect of their PCs will be a game of free-form, collaborative storytelling, punctuated by <whatever sort of stuff is not resolved like this> - primarily combat, at least judging from your posts.

 

[Reynard]

I don't get this.

Rolemaster is as traditional a RPG as they come. Players can make moves in RM other than just asking the GM stuff.

Traveller was published in 1977. Players can make moves in Traveller other than just asking the GM stuff.

The most canonical player move in either game is to *say what action their PC performs.

Which is literally "asking the GM stuff". A player cannot do anything in a traditional RPG without going through the GM. I am not sure what is confusing about that.

Traveller and Rolemaster don't use exactly the same form of action resolution no matter what is happening in the fiction. But they do have mechanics for resolving non-combat actions that are not just the GM decides, perhaps by calling for a check.

Lots of games do. As I stated, even different versions of D&D do that differently, with some relying more on GM fiat than others. This is all taken into account.

Anyway, it seems to me that the answer to your question is what @Old Fezziwig posted not far upthread: a game in which there is a large amount of "GM decides" and in which the GM always decides in favour of what the players ask for in respect of their PCs will be a game of free-form, collaborative storytelling, punctuated by <whatever sort of stuff is not resolved like this> - primarily combat, at least judging from your posts.

I agree.

 

[cranberry]

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?

Assuming the GM sets the difficulty appropriately, it should be fine. Player: "I want to flap my arms and fly away". GM: OK, just role a 35 on a d20". Player: But that's impossible". GM: Yes. ***

After a while, the players would start getting a hint.

Otherwise, it sounds very similar to a sandbox.

*** I once asked if I could implore my patron to intervene (Warlock). He told me to roll 5 d20's, and if I got all 20's, my patron would intervene. I did manage to roll 2 twenties...

 

[Swarmkeeper]

…
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.)
…

Nonsensical? I’m not so sure.

IME, if the players at our 5e table are asking the DM questions, then the DM has not done a sufficient job describing the environment. If the DM does a sufficient job describing the environment, then the players can simply make action declarations for what their PC is attempting to accomplish in the scene and how they’re going about it. Then the DM adjudicates accordingly. No questions needed in the conversation.

That said, do players sometimes ask me clarifying questions during play? Of course. But it signifies to me that I could strive to do a little better in setting the scene for them to interact with.

 

[Reynard]

Nonsensical? I’m not so sure.

IME, if the players at our 5e table are asking the DM questions, then the DM has not done a sufficient job describing the environment. If the DM does a sufficient job describing the environment, then the players can simply make action declarations for what their PC is attempting to accomplish in the scene and how they’re going about it. Then the DM adjudicates accordingly. No questions needed in the conversation.

That said, do players sometimes ask me clarifying questions during play? Of course. But it signifies to me that I could strive to do a little better in setting the scene for them to interact with.

This seems like a lot of wasted effort and very long and probably boring preamble. Players, IMO, should be primed to ask questions.

GM: You enter a large room that looks like it might have once been a library, but all the furnishing are covered in dust sheets and the shelves are bare.
Players: a bunch of questions asking for details.

That's much more efficient, if you ask me.

Of course, this wasn't really what I was talking about. I was referring to questions as actions.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

This seems like a lot of wasted effort and very long and probably boring preamble. Players, IMO, should be primed to ask questions.

Not really. Just give the players a few important details about the scene, so they have something for their PCs to interact with. Not unlike what you’ve done here (although I’d be inclined to give a bit more detail as to what “furnishings” are present):

GM: You enter a large room that looks like it might have once been a library, but all the furnishing are covered in dust sheets and the shelves are bare.
Players: a bunch of questions asking for details.

That's much more efficient, if you ask me.

Of course, this wasn't really what I was talking about. I was referring to questions as actions.

Why can’t the players simply state the action their PC is attempting? Maybe it’s semantics at this point but, at our table anyway, we prefer the player say something to the effect of “Vargh peers under the sheet covering the chair in the corner to see if anything lies beneath” versus “Can Vargh peek under the sheet covering the chair in the corner?”

So yeah, that’s the answer to the OP. Players can have their PC attempt anything they want in the fiction - and no one needs to ask if they can - I, as DM, am never going to say “no, your PC can’t try that”.

 

[Reynard]

So yeah, that’s the answer to the OP. Players can have their PC attempt anything they want in the fiction - and no one needs to ask if they can - I, as DM, am never going to say “no, your PC can’t try that”.

That's not the hypothetical of the thread. This wasn't about permission to try. It was about permission to do. It was about the GM always saying "yes" (and as an evolution, the system sometimes saying "roll").

So it isn't "I look under the tarp. What do I see?"

It is, "Can my character find a grand piano built by my great grandfather under the tarp?" because presumably this moves the story forward for that character. And the answer must be "Yes."

 

[Swarmkeeper]

That's not the hypothetical of the thread. This wasn't about permission to try. It was about permission to do. It was about the GM always saying "yes" (and as an evolution, the system sometimes saying "roll").

So it isn't "I look under the tarp. What do I see?"

It is, "Can my character find a grand piano built by my great grandfather under the tarp?" because presumably this moves the story forward for that character. And the answer must be "Yes."

Ah, I see. Appreciate the clarification/redirect.

Maybe I’m being overly literal here but… in such a game questions would simply not be necessary. The piano is there if the player wants it to be and declares it to be so.

I suppose such a game would require a great deal of buy-in from the onset for what is appropriate and, hence, a great deal of trust going forward that each player is only going to propose ideas that work for the shared story. In fact, in such a game, a GM may be completely unnecessary.

 

[Reynard]

Ah, I see. Appreciate the clarification/redirect.

Maybe I’m being overly literal here but… in such a game questions would simply not be necessary. The piano is there if the player wants it to be and declares it to be so.

Right. The question exists because of framing: the GM saying yes. This is only because I was presupposing a traditional RPG with a GM who usually has full authorial control. I don't wantbto eliminate the GM because I am still assuming the GM frames scenes and does other GM stuff, but effectively you are right.

I suppose such a game would require a great deal of buy-in from the onset for what is appropriate and, hence, a great deal of trust going forward that each player is only going to propose ideas that work for the shared story. In fact, in such a game, a GM may be completely unnecessary.

Yes. One thing that came up early is the realization that the agreed upon boundaries of the game -- rules, setting and milieu -- would have to be respected by all.

 

[FrogReaver]

That's not the hypothetical of the thread. This wasn't about permission to try. It was about permission to do. It was about the GM always saying "yes" (and as an evolution, the system sometimes saying "roll").

So it isn't "I look under the tarp. What do I see?"

It is, "Can my character find a grand piano built by my great grandfather under the tarp?" because presumably this moves the story forward for that character. And the answer must be "Yes."

This part sounds more like an expected change in player side behavior, with nothing in the thought experiment that could possibly be driving this change. I don’t understand how just changing the GM side could possibly cause the player to start changing his declaration as you envision here