I see.Looks more like the OP is talking past the OP![]()
I see.Looks more like the OP is talking past the OP![]()
It does, and with a ton of examples and guidelines that show Jason Durall’s time with the original.I presume this would also apply to Lords of Gossamer and Shadow, a successor game to Amber.
I'm having a hard time picturing what you expect to happen as a result of this. If the GM's saying "yes," unless a previously agreed upon aspect dictates that what happens is subject to fiat from setting or milieu (e.g., no jetpacks in Dark Sun) or the rules require a roll (e.g., using D&D, combat or something that triggers a skill check), why wouldn't this just play like D&D with a more genial/collegial default? It might push play towards the things that require dice rolls more quickly. Or it might fizzle out like a sandbox game I played in years ago, which was one session of a lot of aimless play. I have a buddy who's done something called "The Month of Yes" where he says "yes" to whatever his wife asks him (maybe other people, too, but I never tested it), and he had some good results/exposure to new things from that. Maybe that could happen here? But what you're describing just seems like a kinder D&D to me. I don't know that it'd be earthshatteringly different. It might be good for the soul.I think we are talking past each other. I explicitly said the GM should say yes to everything unless some previously agreed upon aspect -- setting, rules or milieu -- dictates otherwise. You seem to be trying to interpret this as the players have to be careful not to ask anything that might motivate the GM to say "no" which is nowhere in my theoretical.
What I am interested in is what potentially happens over time if the GM always says "Yes." We -- collectively as a thread -- has instead focused on trying to define what saying yes means. Which is understandable, but not really what I'm interested in.
That may be enough. I feel like we -- trad GMs -- lean into "No" or at least "Roll" too often and so the question I am asking is "What happens if we don't do that?" But not just "what happens in the session" but "what happens in the whole game?"? But what you're describing just seems like a kinder D&D to me. I don't know that it'd be earthshatteringly different. It might be good for the soul.
Right on, I'm picking that up. I think unless you're changing rules or introducing some sort of top-down idea of how you're going to call the game as GM (e.g., something like Say Yes or Roll the Dice, which I'm understanding as being distinct from what you're proposing), then the game's going to play how it always does over time.That may be enough. I feel like we -- trad GMs -- lean into "No" or at least "Roll" too often and so the question I am asking is "What happens if we don't do that?" But not just "what happens in the session" but "what happens in the whole game?"
That still renders the GM role mostly meaningless.I think you and @pemerton are talking about something different than I am.
I am not talking about shuffling around authority. I am talking about the GM saying yes whenever the game gives them the authority (as opposed to giving the rules or players authority). Again, I am talking about largely traditional RPGs like D&D and explicitly NOT talking about narrative or story games.
The distinction of asking something "OF the GM" is important to my conception of this, and I don't feel like others are addressing it. It goes beyond action declaration. In fact, in many games, player action declaration doesn't grant the GM authority, but instead relies on the rules. For some reason, though, we seem to be stuck talking about action resolution.
I'd like to understand though, who decides that? If it's DM, then isn't DM going to say "no" to some contributions unless players self-regulate in accord with what DM thinks belongs in the milieu?unless a previously agreed upon aspect dictates that what happens is subject to fiat from setting or milieu (e.g., no jetpacks in Dark Sun)
Maybe I should talk a little about how I actually think this might work at the table, as some have suggested.
For Session 0 stuff, this is easy: if a player asks to play a certain thing, the answer is Yes. Maybe that means there is no setting, milieu or even ruleset established at first and these requests define the game to be played. or maybe there are and the players are expected to paint within the lines. In either case, players get to play what they want and the GM says "Yes."
During regular moment to moment play, I imagine it looking something like this:
GM: You have arrived in town on the caravan. The foreman pays you for your work guarding it and sends you on your way to explore Threshold.
Player2: Can I have a cousin that lives in town, who will put us up and introduce us to important folks?
GM: Yes. ::rolls some dice:: Your cousin in a retired miller and a widow, who lives on the outskirts of town.
[later]
GM: The sound coming from your cousin's millhouse is uncomfortably like rats, but bigger and very likely meaner.
Player2: I want to draw them out one at a time. I'll tie that hunk of stinky cheese to the end of my rope and toss it toward the hole in the wall where the sounds are coming from.
GM. Yes. Okay. You do that and within a few moments, a large, five eyed, nine legged rat thing starts to lumber out of the hole toward the cheese. [no roll needed]
Player 2: Gah! I pull the rope to get it to come fully out into the open.
GM: Yes. It does. [no roll needed]
Player1: I shoot it in the eye with my crossbow!
GM: Okay, roll to hit [the rules take over here] and then everyone roll initiative [signaling moving fully into the rules as control aspect of play].
That is a very simplistic example, of course, but I think it gets across my general meaning.
I am talking about largely traditional RPGs like D&D and explicitly NOT talking about narrative or story games.
The distinction of asking something "OF the GM" is important to my conception of this, and I don't feel like others are addressing it. It goes beyond action declaration. In fact, in many games, player action declaration doesn't grant the GM authority, but instead relies on the rules. For some reason, though, we seem to be stuck talking about action resolution.
I guess I don't really see how drawing out a giant rat with a hunk of cheese is not action resolution.Maybe I should talk a little about how I actually think this might work at the table, as some have suggested.
<snip>
GM: The sound coming from your cousin's millhouse is uncomfortably like rats, but bigger and very likely meaner.
Player2: I want to draw them out one at a time. I'll tie that hunk of stinky cheese to the end of my rope and toss it toward the hole in the wall where the sounds are coming from.
GM. Yes. Okay. You do that and within a few moments, a large, five eyed, nine legged rat thing starts to lumber out of the hole toward the cheese. [no roll needed]
Player 2: Gah! I pull the rope to get it to come fully out into the open.
GM: Yes. It does. [no roll needed]
Player1: I shoot it in the eye with my crossbow!
GM: Okay, roll to hit [the rules take over here] and then everyone roll initiative [signaling moving fully into the rules as control aspect of play].
That is a very simplistic example, of course, but I think it gets across my general meaning.
And I'm still not sure. In 5e D&D, for instance, why does drawing out the giant rat with a hunk of cheese not require a check (say, an INT (Nature), a WIS (Animal Handling), or a WIS (Survival) check)?As best I can tell, you are working with some intuitive notion of action declarations that are resolved mechanically (eg jumping, combat) versus action declarations that are resolved by GM's free narration (talking to people, sneaking around, etc). But I'm not sure where, or why, you're drawing those boundaries.
This prompts me to ask the same question - what sort of action declarations trigger a skill check?I'm having a hard time picturing what you expect to happen as a result of this. If the GM's saying "yes," unless a previously agreed upon aspect dictates that what happens is subject to fiat from setting or milieu (e.g., no jetpacks in Dark Sun) or the rules require a roll (e.g., using D&D, combat or something that triggers a skill check), why wouldn't this just play like D&D with a more genial/collegial default? It might push play towards the things that require dice rolls more quickly.
D&D (and most other non-"storygame" aka "Traditional" RPGs) don't even go that far.This is perhaps a significant change for some GM's, D&D traditionally doesn't give much narrative control to the players beyond their own characters actions.