Rule "Yes"

[Henry]

Expand on that thought, please. I've always found that most RPGs play very well having the players affect the game world through their characters.

Expanding on that, alot of the time when a player asks for or about something, the question that they ask is really standing for some other implicit question.

For example, if the player asks, "Is their a mage guild in town?", the real implicit question is usually, "Is their a wizard around I can talk to?"...

You don't have to say 'Yes' to everything, and you can easily ruin a game by saying 'Yes' to everything just as you can ruin one by saying 'No'.

I'll give a more explicit example.

In a D&D game I played in over 15 years ago, I was playing a swashbuckler type character in a DM-original game world. I asked if I could design some of the details of the city I came from; he gave the go-ahead, and I envisioned a cross between a renaissance port city / early-enlightenment type city, with a city guard inspired by the Muskateers, with a more fantasy feel, complete with major stores, points of interest, etc. He took it, made some changes to what I'd given him, let me know the parts that he changed that my character WOULD have known (there's a statute of a horse in the bazaar, not a gorgon, that sort of thing) and we ran with it.

I helped the DM create a part of his world, and when we visited the city, I knew more about it than the other players did, just as if my character had actually grown up there.

I'm not saying every player has that kind of dedication or sheer nerdiness, but it applies in a lesser extent, too. If the player wanted to shop for a "fiery-tempered coal-black destrier that made most people afraid of it," so he could tame it and basically ride a mortal hell-horse that scared most everyone but him, then I say let him find it. Give him the (reasonably doable) checks to tame the thing, and let him have fun with the occasional peasant that gets too close and gets his ear nipped or such. The player gets his "moment of cool", and you've added something to the game other than "No, you don't find such a horse. You do find a serviceable steed, and get moving on." or the more punitive, "No, all this town has is a broken down nag that the children laugh at when you ride through town." Who is either of those helping? No one at the table, in my opinion.

So, the "Wizard's Guild" example comes back to, "Yes, AND" the characters have a connection to the town that they didn't have before, you have an example of a non-combat experience you can expand on, and your game world has a half-dozen or so new NPCs that you never thought of before now. Win-win all around, in my opinion.

 

[Ruzak]

It definitely depends on the player. I have two quiet players to whom I say yes to anything "outside the rules" they may attempt, which is not that often. My other player is always trying all kinds of ridiculous stuff, and so rule 0 comes into play more often for him.

 

[pemerton]

Also, was the rule of yes the one in the 4e book that had the example of the DM being told what to do? Because that was like the worst argument ever for that rule

I've been wondering where all the outrage was at this example in a D&D core rulebook of a player adopting director's stance.

Frankly, I think that more director's stance is probably necessary to make 4e work. For example, for a player to be able to sensibly narrate the use of a power like Come and Get It (Hypersmurf has posted some clever examples in various threads), or Tumbling past a gelatinous cube, then the player has to be able to specify elements of the gameworld other than her PC.

I've always found that most RPGs play very well having the players affect the game world through their characters. Sometimes, some meta-game suggestions prior to the campaign are solicited or proffered, about the types of adventures (dungeon crawls, outdoor hunts, puzzle oriented, etc.) or the tone of the campaign (political, hack-n-slash, zeros-to-heroes, etc.), but otherwise in-game and in-character or through their characters, more accurately.

Well, one of Hypersmurf's example narrations of Come and Get It is "The sun reflects of my blade, dazzling the first of the two goblins in the tree. As he falls, his companion reaches out to grab him and overbalances also. They land at my feet and I carve them with my sword." This requires the player to be able to narrate the gameworld independently of her PC's actions. Another example Hypersmurf has given is "I pull on the rug the wizard is standing on. She stumbles, trips and lands at my feet. I carve her with my sword." Again, this requires the player to be able to narrate the gameworld (including the existence of a rug).

But honestly, I think different types of games are being described. A juvenile game such as the James Wyatt example is very different than an adult game. So the degree to which the rule applies needs to vary as well. I'd be shocked if James plays that way with his on-going adult games. (One-off or intentionally silly games are a completely different matter of course)

So on the one hand the rule kinda shocks me as being so extremely obvious that any remotely decent DM should be familiar with the concept. It really goes without saying. But also, understanding degree is very important. If you just want to kick in the door and to hell with consistency, lets kill things and take their stuff, then by all means, say yes to everything. If you want a more engaging story, with action as just a part along the way, then "yes, but you must make this roll" and an appropriate supply of "no" are key elements of good DMing.

The notion that there is an inherent juvenility to a player adopting director's stance is a little odd. Likewise the notion that it's better suited to kick-in-the-door play. Most games which embrace the players adoption of director's stance as central to the game (some examples have been given upthread - I'd add HeroWars and The Dying Earth to the list) are aimed at something quite different from kick-in-the-door play.

Also, how would you react to a player wanting to detail say, the beliefs and structure of his church, the organisation of the Wizards Guild he is a member of, the smugglers in the city he used to work for or his old mercenary company?

That sort of stuff is bread and butter to our group.

The majority of in game problems would be solved by three very simple things:

1. Talking about the game you want to play beforehand
2. Creating the characters together, not just mechanics but story
3. Playing with people you would choose to socialise with away from the gaming table

Also, this issue has nothing whatsoever to do with "hack and slash" versus "narrative" play. Its to do with treating the game as a co-operative undertaking between friends where everyone gets to be involved versus something which the players passively experience.

I agree with all of this.

Why in Hades would you want that as a player???? If I wanted to just make up the appearance of prominent NPC's, I WOULDN'T EVEN NEED TO PLAY D&D. I could do that by myself.

<snip>

Again, what's the fun in knowing what is going to happen?

The fact that a player gets to introduce a gameworld element that is not her PC, nor the result of her PC's action, doesn't mean she knows what's going to happen. That won't be known until play actually occurs. What it does mean is that the player gets to shape the thematic or aesthetic content of the game.

When I put down the DM's screen it's so I don't have imagine every blasted NPC but instead can sit back and be entertained by a DM with a good imagination.

Fair enough. That's a different approach to the game.

 

[jensun]

Some of those things are not like the other.

Of course not however they all touch on the same issue, the ability of the player to have input into the game.

Its a difference in play style. As a player, you want to be entertained by the GM and to have input into the game only through your character.

This would be exceptionally dull to my group. We are all GM's, we have all played together for a long time, we socialise with each other outside of gaming, we are explicit about what we want the game to be about before we start and we all trust each other. Player suggestions are not treated as some sort of underhand way to squeeze an unfair advantage from the GM but as part of the collaborative process of play.

My players want input into the game and I give it to them. They dont want to be passive receivers of what I think they will enjoy. They actively want to be part of creating the game. The idea of GM as the source of all entertainment and power is about as far from our playstyle as you can get.

This doesnt mean you cannot have game secrets. You can. Some of them will only be known to the GM, some perhaps only known to one or two players. In general however we dont do much in the way of "lonely fun."

It also doesnt mean that what is going to happen is decided in advance. A player saying "I want to meet with the head of the thieves guild next session" in no way tells you whats going to happen in that scene.

 

[buzz]

Something I'd like to point out is that any discussion of "Say Yes" needs to be predicated on the assumption of another rule being in play: "Don't be a dick." The issue of a player who wants their PC to dual-wield repeating crossbows or to avoid challenges by narrating their own easy victory is not a "Say Yes" issue. That's a "Being a dick" issue. You can't even talk about "Say yes" if that kind of stuff still needs to be resolved.

Second, here's the actual passage from the DMG, p.28:

Saying Yes
One of the cornerstones of improvisational theater technique is called “Yes, and . . .” It’s based on the idea that an actor takes whatever the other actor gives and builds on that.

That’s your job as well. As often as possible, take what the players give you and build on it. If they do something unexpected, run with it. Take it and weave it back into your story without railroading them into a fixed plotline.

FWIW, this is somewhat different from Vincent Baker's "Roll the dice or say yes" (the usual source credited for the concept).

Drive Play Toward Conflict

Every moment of play, roll dice or say yes. If nothing’s at stake, say yes to the players, whatever they’re doing. Just plain go along with them. If they ask for information, give it to them. If they have their characters go somewhere, they’re there. If they want it, it’s theirs. Sooner or later—sooner, because your town’s pregnant with crisis—they’ll have their characters do something that someone else won’t like. Bang! Something’s at stake. Launch the conflict and roll the dice. Roll dice or say yes. Roll dice or say yes. Roll dice or say yes.

So, they serve slightly different purposes, given the different focus of D&D vs. DitV. However, in both cases, they're encouraging you the get to the good stuff and give players appropriate input that invests them in the situation.

In the context of D&D's more traditional setup, I think this passage from Spirit of the Century better conveys how "Say yes" works in terms of die rolls:

Before you – the GM – call for a die roll, it is critically important that you stop and do two things:

1. Imagine Success
2. Imagine Failure

It sounds simple, but it can make a critical difference. Success is usually the easy part, but failure can be bit trickier. You want to make sure that both outcomes are interesting , though interesting certainly doesn’t need to mean good.

If you cannot come up with a way to handle either outcome, you need to rethink the situation.

It’s as simple as that, because there are few things more frustrating to a player than making a skill roll and getting told that it nets them no new knowledge, no suggested course of action, no new development for the story, and so on.

So, whenever you call for a roll, be absolutely certain you understand entails. If one or the other branch does not suggest a course of action, then calling for a roll is probably a bad idea.

It doesn't obviate saying "no"; saying "no" is still a valuable tool in the DM's arsenal. But the point is to focus on what's interesting and moves the game forward. You err on the side of "yes" because "yes" is positive and collaborative, while "no" is too often exclusionary and obstructionist.

 

[Mark]

"The sun reflects of my blade, dazzling the first of the two goblins in the tree. As he falls, his companion reaches out to grab him and overbalances also. They land at my feet and I carve them with my sword." This requires the player to be able to narrate the gameworld independently of her PC's actions.

(. . .)


"I pull on the rug the wizard is standing on. She stumbles, trips and lands at my feet. I carve her with my sword." Again, this requires the player to be able to narrate the gameworld (including the existence of a rug).

While possible in a game such as Toon (and perhaps some others), in any game of D&D I have DMed these scenarios would not be enacted by a player. The actions might be described but the consequences that result from actions are the province of the DM. The above appear to be a player railroading their own story through the game to the exclusion of any potential damaging outcome. There are ways to avoid risky situations in-game but not by dominating the narrative.

 

[jensun]

While possible in a game such as Toon (and perhaps some others), in any game of D&D I have DMed these scenarios would not be enacted by a player. The actions might be described but the consequences that result from actions are the province of the DM. The above appear to be a player railroading their own story through the game to the exclusion of any potential damaging outcome. There are ways to avoid risky situations in-game but not by dominating the narrative.

The power being discussed, Come and Get It, allows you to pull the targets closer to you.

Assuming it succeeds how is having the player narrate the imagery of the effect "railroading their own story".

 

[Mark]

The power being discussed, Come and Get It, allows you to pull the targets closer to you.

Assuming it succeeds how is having the player narrate the imagery of the effect "railroading their own story".

He narrates beyond pulling them toward him. In both examples the target(s) becomes helpless and seemingly killed at their feet. That's overreaching to say the least.

Where is this power being discussed? Without the details on the wording of this power, I cannot really refute you, but it seems to be a power that allows a lot more than the standard D&D rules would allow. Please quote the details of the actual power.

(. . .) treating the game as a co-operative undertaking between friends where everyone gets to be involved versus something which the players passively experience.

IME, D&D has always had a middle ground assumption where the players' province is the actions of their characters and the province of the consequences is that of the DM. That is a "co-operative undertaking between friends where everyone gets to be involved" but not the one you seem to enjoy where the players also control the consequences to their actions through narrative. That would be a different game than what I have played all these years, though it might be fun.

 

[jensun]

He narrates beyond pulling them toward him. In both examples the target(s) becomes helpless and seemingly killed at their feet. That's overreaching to say the least.

Where is this power being discussed? Without the details on the wording of this power, I cannot really refute you, but it seems to be a power that allows a lot more than the standard D&D rules would allow. Please quote the details of the actual power.

4e PHB, pg 80.

Targets creatures up to 3 squares away from you, pulls them 2 and lets you attack them if they end up adjacent to you.

The only bit I mgiht quibble about with the descriptions given is the second one seems to leave the enemy prone. The enemies in the first example would fall out of the tree and, IIRC, falling leaves you prone.

Carving them up is a simple reference to the attack.

 

[jensun]

IME, D&D has always had a middle ground assumption where the players' province is the actions of their characters and the province of the consequences is that of the DM. That is a "co-operative undertaking between friends where everyone gets to be involved" but not the one you seem to enjoy where the players also control the consequences to their actions through narrative. That would be a different game than what I have played all these years, though it might be fun.

Nothing about what has been suggested has indicated that players control the consequences of their actions. Some indie games do this, some go much further into GM'less play and much stronger levels of player narrative control.

Thats not what I have been talking about.

The Come and Get It example is the classic. The power has a particular rffect. When it works it does what it does, no real fluff is provided for why it does it. As a GM I can tell the players what happens or they can describe it for themselves.

The mechanical effect is the same and the consequence isnt determined by the player, its determined by the dice.