Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jhaelen" data-source="post: 6962796" data-attributes="member: 46713">I won't claim that my interpretation of the recommendation to say "yes" is the (only) correct one, but I have a different view:First of all, the recommendation isn't just to say "yes"; it's to say "yes, but..." or "yes, and...".Second, a good DM won't say "yes" all the time, but will know when to say "yes" and when not.As I recall it, the original scope of the recommendation was to prevent a session from grinding to a halt because of a bad roll. So, instead of saying "Sorry, you fail." you say "Well, you don't know exactly how you managed to do it, but you barely succeed. Unfortunately, you also ... <insert inconvenient complication>".You can extend the recommendation to say "yes" to cover situations that don't actually require or allow a roll in order to reward a player having a really clever idea. I.e. you allow the idea to succeed because you feel that it will improve the game to ignore the actual rules in a particular, sufficiently dramatic situation.To recap, the recommendation to say "yes" is intended to be applied if it results in a more satisfying and interesting game.Now, what you're suggesting is going a step farther: Instead of ignoring the rules in a very specific, single instance during a game session, you suggest ignoring the rules to allow a general exception that can be applied in an unlimited number of future situations.The question you should ask yourself is whether you believe that this will improve your game in the long run.So, let's imagine you have a player with a single-class Fighter character. Now the player has the idea that his character should be able to cast a magic missile spell at will, because he made up a background story of his character being a failed apprentice, that inexplicably only ever succeeded in mastering this one spell. Naturally, the player suggests he should be able to do so without taking an appropriate feat or *gasp* multi-class.Do you feel that this is a scenario that will improve your game?Now, let's assume you're kind of impressed with the player's well-written back-story and want to reward him somehow. So, you're inclined to say "yes".That _could_ be fine in theory, but you should take great care to make sure the player won't be able to exploit it unduly.There's actually two very good reasons for that: 1) It wouldn't be fair to the other players who don't ask you to bend the rules to make their characters more powerful.2) It might actually imbalance the game, especially if you carelessly follow the player's original suggestion.So, what you might do is to say "yes, and...": E.g. you tell the player that his character can _attempt_ to cast a magic missile spell if under considerable stress, without any guarantee that it will actually work, and even if if does, there's likely to be some repercussions.I.e. you're using the player's suggestion to turn a potentially overpowered and boring constant benefit into an opportunity to improve your game in a sufficiently dramatic situation.As a concluding remark, I'd like to point out that there are RPG systems that allow the players a share in controlling the game world. But these systems have actual rules that define when and how players may take control, so you're playing the game as intended. Pathfinder, however isn't one of these systems.</blockquote>

Verification