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

[Committed Hero]

I did not say that. I said that the answer is "yes."

And a player immediately says she counteracts what the NPC does.

 

[overgeeked]

You don’t have to assume the player is out to cheat or power game or otherwise avoid any semblance of story to see how this would quickly devolve into the players just winning all the time.

Can I shoot the bad guy, yes. No attack roll.

Can I shoot the doomsday device out of his hand, yes. No need for all those rules about called shots.

 

[damiller]

*Strictly speaking role playing games are not uncut Improv. in that case then always "saying yes" isn't something you can do unless you build the setting every time you play the game. like every session. if I'm playing Star Wars there are tropes that the players are going to expect go along with Star Wars.

so if the premise is that we always say yes as a GM then to be consistent we have to do that every session from the beginning unless the players asked “can we continue this next session?”.

regardless for me improv works once you find the game. Then the rules of the game change: it's not a game anymore of "yes and". For roleplaying games, in general, that's already done by the game mechanics and/or the intellectual property my campaign is trying to emulate.

then for the game to work, we (my players and I) have to slip into “no but”, "no and", "yes but", as well as "yes and". the game is already been established it's our job now as players, the GM included, to play that game. games have rules. rules by their definition exclude Behavior. Take Monopoly (please) "do not pass go do not 200". Not all rules have to exclude behavior, as a teacher we were encouraged to write positive rules: things like "say please", "ask for help", or "jump in this area". but generally rules are exclusive and are about limiting behavior, in general.

anyway those are just my thoughts cuz I've been thinking about improv role-playing games and how after you have the yes and, I.E the setting, established you then have to slip into those other phrases in order to play the game otherwise you just endlessly create setting. the only problem with that is you never land on something to solve.

*Note: I have not read more than the first or second page before I wanted to comment because the thread title alone just brought something up that I have been thinking about, and I hope it is germane.

 

[Reynard]

You don’t have to assume the player is out to cheat or power game or otherwise avoid any semblance of story to see how this would quickly devolve into the players just winning all the time.

Can I shoot the bad guy, yes. No attack roll.

Can I shoot the doomsday device out of his hand, yes. No need for all those rules about called shots.

Again, saying yes doesn't necessarily mean there are never any die rolls. it depends on the game you are playing and what the player asks of the GM versus what the game engine itself handles.

I want to drill down on that difference a little. Some "questions" are really just pulling game engine levers. Most of combat in most traditional RPGs is that. "Can I attack the ogre" is a question but the resolution AFTER the answer of "yes" is up to the game engine (if we are talking about something like D&D). Stealth checks and "Can i sneak past the guard" are a little different because at least as far as 5E and some other versions of D&D are concerned, one of the primary resolution mechanisms in play IS in fact the GM just saying Yes. But, that doesn't mean you don't have situations in which the rules still determine the outcome. Hiding in combat in order to gain sneak attack, for example.

The other thing in RPGs with GMs, though, are the times when the player is asking something OF the GM. This is where the thought experiment says "always say Yes." "Can I play [some weird race or class]" is one such question OF the GM. So is "can I get an audience with the king?" Sometimes asking to affect the world is OF the GM ("can I convince the king to give me lands and title") and sometimes it is something mechanical ("a DC 30 Persuasion check is required to convince the king to grant you lands and title, with the DC reduced because the PC accomplished X, Y or Z things for the king.")

I don't want to dwell too much on players asking thigs that break the game or ruin the story or other such nonsense, because nobody wants to play with those people regardless of the degree to which the GM might say "Yes."

 

[overgeeked]

Again, saying yes doesn't necessarily mean there are never any die rolls. it depends on the game you are playing and what the player asks of the GM versus what the game engine itself handles.

There would be nothing left for the game engine to handle. That's the point.

Can I see anything in the dark room, yes. There goes any need for rules for perception.

Do that over the course of a game session and you'll find the only bits of the game engine you have left is only the stuff the players haven't asked about yet. Do that multiple sessions and you don't even have an FKR game.

I want to drill down on that difference a little. Some "questions" are really just pulling game engine levers. Most of combat in most traditional RPGs is that. "Can I attack the ogre" is a question but the resolution AFTER the answer of "yes" is up to the game engine (if we are talking about something like D&D). Stealth checks and "Can i sneak past the guard" are a little different because at least as far as 5E and some other versions of D&D are concerned, one of the primary resolution mechanisms in play IS in fact the GM just saying Yes. But, that doesn't mean you don't have situations in which the rules still determine the outcome. Hiding in combat in order to gain sneak attack, for example.

Can I hide to gain advantage on my next attack, yes. Now you don't need any rules for stealth.

The other thing in RPGs with GMs, though, are the times when the player is asking something OF the GM. This is where the thought experiment says "always say Yes." "Can I play [some weird race or class]" is one such question OF the GM. So is "can I get an audience with the king?" Sometimes asking to affect the world is OF the GM ("can I convince the king to give me lands and title") and sometimes it is something mechanical ("a DC 30 Persuasion check is required to convince the king to grant you lands and title, with the DC reduced because the PC accomplished X, Y or Z things for the king.")

Can I convince the king to give up his crown and make me king, yes. Now you don't need any rules for social encounters.

I don't want to dwell too much on players asking thigs that break the game or ruin the story or other such nonsense, because nobody wants to play with those people regardless of the degree to which the GM might say "Yes."

I get that, but this approach will do those things. It's intentionally overlooking the consequences to try to ignore what will logically follow from the basic premise. If you want to honestly examine the concept, intentionally overlooking the obvious consequences is a bad approach.

 

[Bagpuss]

Again, saying yes doesn't necessarily mean there are never any die rolls. it depends on the game you are playing and what the player asks of the GM versus what the game engine itself handles.

But you said...

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?

Your original thought experiment seemed to preclude dice rolls as a mechanic to avoid saying yes.

 

[BookTenTiger]

Let's say the game takes place where a dragon has captured the king and is demanding tribute or else it will eat the king.

In this scenario, the players could, I suppose, ask "Can we kill the dragon and save the king." Yes. Now go home and make room for players that actually want to play the game.

The point is that there is still an adventure, still obstacles and NPCs and puzzles. But when a player ask something of the GM -- "Is there anyone in the kingdom that knows more about the dragon?" -- the answer is always "yes." And because that is true, when the players ask something, they are telling the GM what kind of adventure they want to go on.

And this isn't going to work for a player who thinks it is their job to beat the GM's adventure. One of the first things were are told about RPGs is that there is no winning or losing, and yet there always seem to be players that absolutely must win, to the detriment of their own fun, even.

I remember having an issue with this when I was playing the Dresden RPG. It ran on the FATE system. It was a while back, so my memory isn't 100%, but there was a way to spend Action Points to add features / truths to the campaign world.

In the Dresden Files lore, undead can't cross moving water. In an early combat with zombies in a city, I spent an Action Point to say there was a fire hydrant nearby. Another character blasted it away, and the moving water really messed with the undead. That was super fun!

But in the next encounter with undead, I felt really torn about using the same strategy. Since we were still in a city, it made sense there'd be sources of water around: pipes and sprinkler systems and water tanks... And mechanically, I could spend Action Points to create another source of water.

But it felt cheap, so I didn't..

In that moment, my suspension of disbelief was shattered and I was totally pulled out of the game. As a player, I want to find advantages, make clever choices, and develop strong strategies. I want the feeling of overcoming the odds.

Having to hold back from asking questions or making choices because it would solve the problem too quickly takes me out of the game. If the system allows me to say "Can I kill the dragon and save the king?" then I want the system to support that, and not punish it.

 

[Reynard]

Can I hide to gain advantage on my next attack, yes. Now you don't need any rules for stealth.

You completely ignored the whole point. I don't know why you bothered to respond at all if you are going to do that.

 

[overgeeked]

You completely ignored the whole point. I don't know why you bothered to respond at all if you are going to do that.

Likewise.

You seem to think both saying yes to everything and robust mechanics would live side-by-side. Clearly I disagree with that. So, do the conversation a favor and provide a decently-sized example of play, as you see it, where both exist. Not one-off lines. Several connected action-reaction blocks.

 

[Reynard]

But you said...


Your original thought experiment seemed to preclude dice rolls as a mechanic to avoid saying yes.

What can I say, other than that one of the major reasons for discussing things is to get a clearer understanding of the thing for oneself.

In this context, the question of what "Yes" means as it relates to having game mechanics is important.