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

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

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?

It works out fine. I ran a con game doing this -- deciding in the moment to just roll with the crazy stuff the chaos monsters who showed up wanted to do -- and it was a blast.

I don't think it will be comfortable for all personalities, though.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Saying "yes" to anything possible might work for some tables, but others would miss a sense of challenge if anything possible was an automatic success. In fact, I think most tables would miss that sense of challenge.

This kind of game would require players agreeing to a social compact that they want to have a game that's fun for everyone. And I think most people who've played in god-mode on a videogame for more than five minutes realize that challenge is a big part of that.

 

[Baron Opal II]

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?

It would look a lot like the Amber game I ran back in the day. The PCs were, by definition, greater than nearly any NPC. Through character creation they defined their own strengths and limitations. They just had to describe how to evade or mitigate the obstacles in their way. I found it incredibly fatiguing; it was difficult to adjudicate some situations in a way that appeared fair when abilities and obstacles were relatively balanced.

However, people had a good time with it.

 

[Bagpuss]

You are still playing a game, with whatever the game's action resolution rules are. What I am talking about is whenever there is a question a player asks OF THE GM, the Gm answers with "Yes." Not "autosucceed."

Oh so while the GM says "Yes but"

which you said wasn't allowed in your original post, in fact you called out using dice rolls (ie skill checks and the like) a blocking method the GM might use and shouldn't be used in the "Yes" only method.

 

[Bagpuss]

By the rules of the game in question.

So my point about 7th Sea still stands at least.

 

[Bagpuss]

I am honestly not sure where the disconnect is, which means I am not communicating myself well. I'll try again.

"Can I convince the guard to leave his post for a few minutes by suggesting the girl he likes wants to talk to him?"
Yes.

See to me in this example the flat "Yes" rather than "You can try" in this instance implies an automatic success at convincing the guard. Hence the no challenge, the player just needs to come up with some request.

"Can I meet the king?" - "Yes"

"Can I assassinate the king and take power?" - "Yes"

"Can I rule comfortably without being challenged for the rest of my natural life?" - "Yes"

I think that is where the disconnect is coming.

It isn't "Can I meet the King?" - "Yes, but it depends on a persuasion roll to get past his chancellor."

Or "Can I assassinate the King and take power?" - "Yes but the palace guards will attempt to stop you."

You specifically ruled out "Yes but" in your original post.

 

[DEFCON 1]

This kind of thing absolutely can work if you have players who are fine with not being concerned about "winning".

A player in this sort of game would have to be willing to throw up their own personal roadblocks to create their own drama, rather than the typical drama of the DM throwing roadblocks up in front for the player to try and get around. "Why wouldn't the player just ask 'Can I jump this 100 foot crevasse'?" as though this is that person's way of breaking the idea of this game. The answer of course is a player who is wanting to play in this sort of game wouldn't actually ask that question in the first place. They know their PC can't jump a 100 foot crevasse, so they wouldn't be so crass as to actually ask the question, thinking that the DM HAS to say Yes to it.

"Can I get past this puzzle?"

A player who was willingly playing in this type of game wouldn't ask that question. Because it defeats the purpose of playing this sort of game. The player who agreed to play in this style of game would actually do everything they would normally to solve this puzzle because handwaving their way past it defeats the purpose of playing in the first place.

We as players are all more than capable of creating our own dramatic situations if we want to... none of us HAVE to rely on dice to do it. Now of course those players who prefer the dice game moreso than the improvisation of creative expression would not want to play in this type of game... and that's fine. But at the end of the day I think this type of game would basically be more of your typical indy improv game RPG because it's no longer about the dice or cards or mechanics, it's about the players creating the drama themselves.

 

[Bagpuss]

This kind of thing absolutely can work if you have players who are fine with not being concerned about "winning".

You'll be surprised how tempting it is to win.

A player who was willing playing in this type of game wouldn't ask that question. Because it defeats the purpose of playing this sort of game.

Unfortunately that temptation is always there, and is very easy to fall into.

But at the end of the day I think this type of game would basically be more of your typical indy improv game RPG because it's no longer about the dice or cards or mechanics, it's about the players creating the drama themselves.

I've played highly improv RPGs and even they have some mechanics so you aren't just saying "Yes" all the time.

 

[DEFCON 1]

See to me in this example the flat "Yes" rather than "You can try" in this instance implies an automatic success at convincing the guard. Hence the no challenge, the player just needs to come up with some request.

I think is exactly where the challenge actually is... coming up with ideas and requests that create the story without just "jumping ahead" by asking for everything the player would want.

If the players wants to assassinate the King... in this type of game they wouldn't want to just say "Can we stand in front of the King? "Yes." "We stab the King and no one stops us and we get away scot-free." "Okay." Because that makes for a less-than-interesting story than the players all working together to create a narrative that takes them throughout the city and into the castle and getting an audience and then planning their way to kill the King and get away scot-free. The act of creation is what is the actual juice of the game, not the succeeding part.

The succeeding part is already known. They know they are going to win. So how do they make that drama up to that success be the coolest it can be? It's really no different than playing like Ten Candles or C'thulu, where everyone knows they are dying at the end of the game, so the entire point is making their last moments on this earth as interesting and as dramatic as they can be.

 

[DEFCON 1]

You'll be surprised how tempting it is to win.

Unfortunately that temptation is always there, and is very easy to fall into.

Meh... sure, some players might be tempted. But there are plenty for whom it's not about the winning, it's about the story getting to the eventual win.

Like I said above... a game like Ten Candles is one where you know you are dying at the end of the game and you go into it accepting that fate. So the fun is make the journey to that inevitability as interesting and as dramatic as possible for yourself and the other players, even knowing you cannot change the ending.

Some players are good with that contract... others aren't. And that's fine. No biggie. Gaming takes all types!