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

[Reynard]

Part of what leads to my possible misunderstanding is that if player is asserting, what is GM saying yes to?

Well, I admit that in my initial setup for this the player is asking permission -- because I am talking about traditional games where authorial control belongs to the GM. In practical terms, if the answer is always Yes, then I agree, it stops being asking for permission and becomes asserting facts in the fiction. The nuances of that, though, doesn't really interest me. there's a iceberg of theory and jargon under that discussion that I personally just do not care about and don't enjoy engaging in.

That is not to say it is a bad discussion to have. I just don't care for it.

in the end I feel like we have answered the hypothetical pretty well: it turns a traditional, GM centered game into a more narrative, shared authorial control game. The rest is just details about when to roll dice.

 

[DEFCON 1]

A doubt I have is that this borders on a "no true scotsman" argument. Or, perhaps more acutely, what is the importance of "DM always says yes" given players are expected to self-regulate so that no instance could arise in which "no" would ever seem justified?

Good question, and I would say it's because to me there are two different types of 'No' we are talking about. There's the 'No' from the DM who just shoots down a choice or an idea because it is logically impossible to accomplish within the confines of the physics and fiction of the game world... and the 'No' that results from a failed die roll.

A failed die roll is usually a 'No' response to some choice being made.

"Do I hear anything meaningful inside the cave?" (die roll) "No, you only hear the wind."
"I wish to convince the guard to let me into the shop." (die roll) "Sorry, the guard says the shop is closed and you may not enter."
"Can I take that purse off of the highborn gentleman without being noticed?" (die roll) "Unfortunately, the coins in the purse jangle as you try and he looks down at you just as you were trying to swipe it."

These are all scenarios and choices a player can make in which a 'No' via a die roll is a justified result, and there was no self-regulation needed or required of the player... because the choices and questions they were making were all legitimately possible. But because the choice was possible... this particular game paradigm just says that it's always accomplished (whether we say it's because every die roll just happened to succeed, or because the DM skipped the die roll altogether and went straight to the positive outcome result because they "said Yes".)

Basically, you play D&D like you always would, except that any time a die roll would have been asked for in response to a choice you made... the "die roll" just happened to succeed each and every time.

My comment on "self-regulation" was only needed to counteract the idea some other have made which was that they believed that all players would intentionally ask to do the impossible because they knew they could "get away with it" in this particular game paradigm and thus break the game. But I believe that's not the case-- that there would be some players who could "self-regulate" and not "do the impossible" all the time because the game without the DM telling them 'No' allowed them to.

 

[LepcisMagna]

Basically, you play D&D like you always would, except that any time a die roll would have been asked for in response to a choice you made... the "die roll" just happened to succeed each and every time.

I think all this accomplishes is removing the rules from the game (at which point it doesn't matter if you're playing D&D, Traveller, or Call of Cthulhu). Though it does bring up an interesting question about systems with different degrees of success (Warhammer, Star Wars, or Pathfinder come to mind): does "yes" in those systems mean the "best possible success" or just a modest success? How could we allow for this distinction without bias? Perhaps...we could roll dice?

Though I'm not sure anyone is arguing that there isn't some group somewhere that could make this work. I'm arguing, at least, that self-regulation in such a system would be necessary not because there exist some magical set of players who have the exact same concept of the game world as each other, but because there are players who don't - the whole "good people do not need laws to act responsibly" thing. Just one (even unintentionally) is enough to throw off the balance in a game as described here (just one is enough to throw off games with rules).

 

[DEFCON 1]

I think all this accomplishes is removing the rules from the game (at which point it doesn't matter if you're playing D&D, Traveller, or Call of Cthulhu). Though it does bring up an interesting question about systems with different degrees of success (Warhammer, Star Wars, or Pathfinder come to mind): does "yes" in those systems mean the "best possible success" or just a modest success? How could we allow for this distinction without bias? Perhaps...we could roll dice?

Though I'm not sure anyone is arguing that there isn't some group somewhere that could make this work. I'm arguing, at least, that self-regulation in such a system would be necessary not because there exist some magical set of players who have the exact same concept of the game world as each other, but because there are players who don't - the whole "good people do not need laws to act responsibly" thing. Just one (even unintentionally) is enough to throw off the balance in a game as described here (just one is enough to throw off games with rules).

Sure, but that's why this was merely a thought experiment, rather than an actual game being brought to market. Which is why the question of "could this game work" is less necessary and interesting a conversation for this thread than "if this game DID work, what would happen?"

I agree with you and mentioned it in an earlier post... the market for this type of game paradigm is most likely exceedingly small. Most players wouldn't enjoy it, or wouldn't even get it. But that's fine. This game isn't real anyway, so it doesn't matter that the audience that would play it as it was intended would be very small. But the size of the audience shouldn't impact the discussion of how the game would work if we all assumed for the sake of the argument that it did.

 

[LepcisMagna]

I guess my point of disagreement is that there wouldn't be a product in the first place - if all potential actions are successes, there aren't any rules. That means with a perfect group of players, you'll end up with a collaborative story (as mentioned previously) where the GM is unnecessary (if we include Reynard's suggestion alongside this). If we split out Reynard's suggestion of allowing players to add things to the setting, you just end up with a story on easy mode (since you literally can't fail).

 

[Reynard]

I guess my point of disagreement is that there wouldn't be a product in the first place - if all potential actions are successes, there aren't any rules. That means with a perfect group of players, you'll end up with a collaborative story (as mentioned previously) where the GM is unnecessary (if we include Reynard's suggestion alongside this). If we split out Reynard's suggestion of allowing players to add things to the setting, you just end up with a story on easy mode (since you literally can't fail).

I really don't agree with anything in this post.

Just because actions always succeed doesn't mean the PCs don't have to pick the right actions, relative to the nature of the adventure being told. And there are many rules beyond action resolution. Finally, players presumably WANT there to be a game and will play in a way that makes sure it is fun and engaging.

Stories emerge from play, even in this hypothetical. No one has ever suggested in this thread that it was GM story time.

 

[LepcisMagna]

So, we're taking both versions of the hypothetical here: players can suggest anything they want by asking ("is there a musket under that tarp?") and any situation which would ordinarily call for a dice roll just succeeds instead ("I hit the troll" or "I jump the gap"). In that situation, there is no mechanism in place to resolve disagreements between players, and the GM is really just playing another character (i.e. all the NPCs in the world), but with less authorial control ("can that NPC actually be my long-lost uncle?"). Once again, I see that as in no way distinct from simply a collaborative story - and there's nothing wrong with that, it's just closer to improv than a game. I do think either version of the hypothetical by itself also leads to this same conclusion, but with more steps.

Just because actions always succeed doesn't mean the PCs don't have to pick the right actions, relative to the nature of the adventure being told.

I presume that when you're talking about actions which succeed but are not correct to you mean something along the lines of: "I shoot the troll." "It regenerates." "I shoot the troll with a fire arrow." "It dies."
I would imagine such situations would often prove either simplistic (as in this example), but could just as easily become a maddening exercise of trying to guess what the GM wants you to do to proceed (I'm reminded of the secret doors of Tomb of Horrors, though how the GM would tell you that you failed in such a situation also seems contradictory to the premise).
If you're instead referring to social interactions (e.g. asking the king for his finest steeds or deducing a mystery), we're once again at the point of not needing rules any more (either we're ignoring the ones from the book or we're building a collaborative story which doesn't require them beyond a social contract).

And there are many rules beyond action resolution.

Let's say I'm a player in your group who enjoys rules and would like to ensure we are following them while playing the game, because that is fun for me. What would be a couple examples of rules beyond action resolution (which aren't included in your original proposal of allowing the players to be/do/have anything) I might bring up?

Stories emerge from play, even in this hypothetical. No one has ever suggested in this thread that it was GM story time.

Right, and it's a question of how disagreements in how the story should proceed that's at issue - disagreements being a light word here, since traditionally it's often just the GM saying "roll to find out," though of course disagreements between players are also possible (as are unintentional changes, like the musket example from before).

 

[Reynard]

In that situation, there is no mechanism in place to resolve disagreements between players, and the GM is really just playing another character (i.e. all the NPCs in the world), but with less authorial control ("can that NPC actually be my long-lost uncle?").

This does not track for me at all. The GM does a lot more than play the NPCs. Some adventures don't even have NPCs.

Once again, I see that as in no way distinct from simply a collaborative story - and there's nothing wrong with that, it's just closer to improv than a game. I do think either version of the hypothetical by itself also leads to this same conclusion, but with more steps.

I think you are taking a pretty limited view of what play can be.

I presume that when you're talking about actions which succeed but are not correct to you mean something along the lines of: "I shoot the troll." "It regenerates." "I shoot the troll with a fire arrow." "It dies."

I was thinking something more along the lines of a puzzle, where the players still have to figure out how to solve it.

Let's say I'm a player in your group who enjoys rules and would like to ensure we are following them while playing the game, because that is fun for me. What would be a couple examples of rules beyond action resolution (which aren't included in your original proposal of allowing the players to be/do/have anything) I might bring up?

It is important to remember that I am not suggesting bypassing the games rules. I am suggesting the Gm "Say yes" anytime the player asks something OF THE GM, rather than of the rules. What that constitutes depends entirely on the ruleset. I would tell a player who is interested in engaging with the game rules to play a system and style that makes that happen.

Right, and it's a question of how disagreements in how the story should proceed that's at issue - disagreements being a light word here, since traditionally it's often just the GM saying "roll to find out," though of course disagreements between players are also possible (as are unintentional changes, like the musket example from before).

GMs have a thousand methods of bouncing off player choices. Good GMs do, anyway. Sometimes we roll to find out, sometimes we make stuff up on the spot, sometimes we steal from the players, etc...

 

[FrogReaver]

Sure, but that's why this was merely a thought experiment, rather than an actual game being brought to market. Which is why the question of "could this game work" is less necessary and interesting a conversation for this thread than "if this game DID work, what would happen?"

I agree with you and mentioned it in an earlier post... the market for this type of game paradigm is most likely exceedingly small. Most players wouldn't enjoy it, or wouldn't even get it. But that's fine. This game isn't real anyway, so it doesn't matter that the audience that would play it as it was intended would be very small. But the size of the audience shouldn't impact the discussion of how the game would work if we all assumed for the sake of the argument that it did.

I don’t agree with assuming it works in all situations. I do agree with examining subcases where it works and also ones where it doesn’t.

The answer to the question, ‘what would happen if we always said yes’, may be that it breaks the game in some way or makes a terrible experience unless pie in the sky conditions are met. Or it may not be. But we can’t just assume either way.

 

[LepcisMagna]

With the caveat that all this assumes both interpretations of the hypothetical are implemented:

This does not track for me at all. The GM does a lot more than play the NPCs. Some adventures don't even have NPCs.

I only mentioned NPCs (which includes monsters) because that seems to be the place that GMs would retain the greatest authorial control in the world.

I think you are taking a pretty limited view of what play can be.

Not at all, I'm just drawing a line between "game" and "play" (after all, there are improv games). But on the scale of "miniatures wargame" to "improvisational theater," accepting both versions of the hypothetical puts you very, very close to the latter rather quickly.

I was thinking something more along the lines of a puzzle, where the players still have to figure out how to solve it.

Ah, like an enemy who has a specific weakness you must figure out how to exploit in order to defeat it! Or a door that only opens if you push on it the right way! More seriously, though, the trouble I would run into here is how the GM would tell the players they failed (or present any puzzle with a predetermined solution) if they aren't allowed to say no.
It seems to me the most likely thing that will happen if you come across a door you don't know how to open will be the question: "I try [x]: does that open the door?" To which the only answer is, of course: "Yes." Alternately, I suppose, you'd could be equally likely to have the rogue say "I look for a way to open the door." They roll to Find Traps/Open Locks and, of course, they succeed.

It is important to remember that I am not suggesting bypassing the games rules. I am suggesting the Gm "Say yes" anytime the player asks something OF THE GM, rather than of the rules. What that constitutes depends entirely on the ruleset. I would tell a player who is interested in engaging with the game rules to play a system and style that makes that happen.

If we're not bypassing the game rules, it should be easy for you to choose two or three specific game rules from any system which wouldn't be effectively ignored by both assuming all chances of failure are nonexistent and always saying yes to player suggestions.

GMs have a thousand methods of bouncing off player choices. Good GMs do, anyway. Sometimes we roll to find out, sometimes we make stuff up on the spot, sometimes we steal from the players, etc...

But the roll will always be a success, so we can't do that, and the players can also make up whatever they want. The hypothetical is exactly what is removing those options.