That isn't how puzzles work. A puzzle has a solution. That is what makes it a puzzle.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
GMing: What If We Say "Yes" To Everything?
- Thread starter Reynard
- Start date
FrogReaver
The most respectful and polite poster ever
Can I solve this puzzle by doing X?
FrogReaver
The most respectful and polite poster ever
So the DM says no to the players puzzle solution - got it.
It’s a thought experiment. What do you think happens?
FrogReaver
The most respectful and polite poster ever
Doesn’t matter what I think.
Why?
FrogReaver
The most respectful and polite poster ever
Why does it?
You know what, on second thought, you’re right.
This seems like an overly negative framing.
"Door Puzzle: the door can be opened by positioning the dragon claw in the socket and putting the rings in the following order: bear, eagle, whale."
I'm not sure what the GM would say "no" to.
In an attempt to actually drag this back on topic:
The reason I am presenting the thought experiment is because I am curious if a game would ultimately turn out better or worse (for obviously subjective definitions of those terms) with a "yes" attitude. I think @Umbran and others are correct in suggesting it depends a lot on whether the players are asking those questions in good faith, but I would like to start with the assumption that they are. Because why would you play with people that aren't operating in good faith, regardless of anything else?
When it comes to saying "yes" to character based stuff -- both mechanically and "fluff" wise -- I think that is easy and beneficial. I am not particularly precious about a setting or even verisimilitude most of them time, so if someone wants to play a weird species or a destined hero or whatever, i am game. Why not?
I imagine in play I would ask a lot of clarifying questions and try and get the questions from players down to actions in the world. Here I am more concerned about consistency with the tone and genre at play. "Can I jump that 30' chasm?" is not the same level of "good faith" in high level heroic fantasy than it is in grounded real world cop drama.
The reason I am presenting the thought experiment is because I am curious if a game would ultimately turn out better or worse (for obviously subjective definitions of those terms) with a "yes" attitude. I think @Umbran and others are correct in suggesting it depends a lot on whether the players are asking those questions in good faith, but I would like to start with the assumption that they are. Because why would you play with people that aren't operating in good faith, regardless of anything else?
When it comes to saying "yes" to character based stuff -- both mechanically and "fluff" wise -- I think that is easy and beneficial. I am not particularly precious about a setting or even verisimilitude most of them time, so if someone wants to play a weird species or a destined hero or whatever, i am game. Why not?
I imagine in play I would ask a lot of clarifying questions and try and get the questions from players down to actions in the world. Here I am more concerned about consistency with the tone and genre at play. "Can I jump that 30' chasm?" is not the same level of "good faith" in high level heroic fantasy than it is in grounded real world cop drama.
