damianmagecraft
Initiate Douchebag
Posts: 4
Preferred Game Systems: Palladium, Savage Worlds, Cortex, AD&D2e
Currently Running: Palladium Fantasy, Savage Rifts, AMP year 1, Dresden Files
Favorite Species of Monkey: Mandrill
|
Post by damianmagecraft on Dec 21, 2016 20:29:13 GMT -8
There are tons of advice threads, podcasts, etc... out there about the "Yes; but" philosophy. Which is a good way to approach most GMing situations. However; sometimes a situation will occur where the GM is just forced to put his/her foot down and say NO this is a line you cannot cross. The problem is (unfortunately) that the newer crops of players and GMs are not being informed of this; and in some cases are being outright told that a "good gm" will NEVER say NO. How about a show dealing with those (hopefully very rare) situations And why a GM might find they need to say NO.
|
|
|
Post by lowkeyoh on Dec 21, 2016 23:56:27 GMT -8
If it's possible, plausible, and or fun or any combination of that, I feel like saying yes is right thing to do.
However, some times the answer to a question is honestly no. I just moved my GURPS semimonthly game to online ava we switched to D&D5e because my players really got into some APs and wanted the D&D experience. A played pm'd me after and wanted his orcish paladin to be a vampire secretly.
No.
That doesn't work with the group, with the game, and with the story set forth in season one.
However, I told him we should brain storm a vampire like curse or disease that's unique to orcs. We came up with some ideas, but nothing stuck so we eventually dropped it.
However you bet your boots vampires are going to show up eventually.
The reason saying yes is important it's because it empowers the players. You are rewarding them for being engaged in the game. Some times the answer honestly is no, but rewarding that engagement is still important.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2016 0:58:32 GMT -8
I don't find "yes, and" to be a very important thing to role playing. It makes sense given an improv type scenario, which sometimes crop up in game. One example is naming unimportant NPC's. If I want to meet with an NPC whose creation exists solely because I wanted to interact with them, I'll just rattle off a name. If the GM has one already he can correct me, but most likely he doesn't. I've even gone so far as to drop hints about their personality (which is less of a hint and more a part of the system in some games).
"I'm gonna go down to the tavern and see if Crazy Ol' Max is down there. He's always good for a ghost story or two." The GM can tell me he isn't there if it would hurt the plot in some way. If not he might as well run with it over generic bartender #254. It allows the players to have a sense of ownership and removes some of the load off a GM, so why not allow it?
Where 'No' comes into play is more often in character generation or establishing the setting. If this is a game about the fate of a border village in the Lion lands, than you should probably play a lion samurai. There is usually some room for the rules to be bent, but I'll know when to say no when I see it. "You want to play a spider clan ninja... uh, no."
In game, it usually isn't the GM's job to tell the players no. While you can advise, ultimately the end decision is up to the player. Saying no to a players ideas has its own ramifications. Anyone who has every played at a table where the GM was waiting for you to discover their solution knows just how quickly that brings a game to a screeching halt. So in that reguard, know that a 'No' kills momentum. You can have an action game full of failure, but not one full of no. If you do have to shut your players down, I find it is best to do so openly instead of wasting time. "No, there is nothing more to find in this room.", is much better than wasting a half an hour or longer while the GM lets the players flail.
The best thing about 'Yes, And' is that it establishes the means for a back and forth. What it avoids is players floundering about. It's sort of a shell game, slipping the clue under whatever cup the player selects to lift. Otherwise we'd be waiting while they went cup by cup till they could find the right one (which can take a long time in a world where your options aren't a, b, c, or d).
One of my remedies for this is to assume that things on the character's sheet are always true. This cuts away the distinction between active and passive. I can always tell someone they know they are being lied to, even if they chose not to ask for a sense motive. Their character is always skilled in that arena, not just when the player asks. This follows from Gumshoe's advice about using investigative skills and that core clues should always be given. Thus if I don't want to move the evidence as per 'Yes, And', I can always find a way to jumpstart someone onto the right path with information they didn't ask for, but would have.
As my games aren't hardcore mysteries, I usually don't need to give them a 'right' path. Whatever way they decide to approach the problem at hand is usually good enough. I don't come up with solutions usually, just obstacles. I know what the party wants, they tell me how they are going to get it. Injecting dead ends into that by telling them 'No' very often isn't part of my playbook. It's been my experiance that your players only have 1-2 decent ideas. If you shut them down, you'll have to spoon feed them your correct answer or what for the twice a day that the clock is right.
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Dec 22, 2016 7:29:05 GMT -8
I'm pretty sure we've talked about exceptions to "yes, and" in the recent past, but we can certainly do it again.
But briefly, a game where the GM always says yes is ultimately going to become a boring game. Players do sometimes come up with bad ideas, and it's certainly not the GM's responsibility to make the unlikely or ill-advised suddenly brilliant.
"Yes, and" and it's relative "No, but" are great ways to keep the narrative moving, but there are times when it's okay to let the narrative stall out a bit. It allows the players to take a moment and really work a problem, go back over old clues and events, piece things together.
|
|
sbloyd
Supporter
WHAT! A human in a Precursor service vehicle?!
Posts: 2,762
Preferred Game Systems: Storyteller; Dresden; Mage
Favorite Species of Monkey: Goddamnit, Curious George is a CHIMP not a monkey! Stop teaching my daughter improper classification!
|
Post by sbloyd on Dec 22, 2016 7:59:02 GMT -8
The thing about Yes And is that it helps to be a friendly reminder to curb the stereotypical "I designed one specific way to solve this, and you're going to fail until you figure it out" behaviour.
|
|
damianmagecraft
Initiate Douchebag
Posts: 4
Preferred Game Systems: Palladium, Savage Worlds, Cortex, AD&D2e
Currently Running: Palladium Fantasy, Savage Rifts, AMP year 1, Dresden Files
Favorite Species of Monkey: Mandrill
|
Post by damianmagecraft on Dec 22, 2016 10:18:36 GMT -8
The thing about Yes And is that it helps to be a friendly reminder to curb the stereotypical "I designed one specific way to solve this, and you're going to fail until you figure it out" behaviour. I am not saying that "Yes And" should be ignored or is a bad way to run. (in fact I tend to default to it as my preferred answer to players) I am saying that the over emphasis of its use is leading to an attitude of "the GM is never allowed to say NO" entitlement in players. This typically only ever comes up at character creation. As an example I had a player recently tell me in no uncertain terms that I had no choice but to allow his obscenely overpowered obviously genre inappropriate character build because rule book K allowed it to be made. (We were only using Books A, B, C & D) And because the GM is (these are his exact words mind you) "not allowed to tell a player NO." As a player of 40 years experience (and 35 years of that behind the screen) I know that is an absolute load of bovine fecal matter. Were that player an isolated incident I would not be suggesting this as a topic for discussion. Unfortunately it is not... I have seen this attitude crop up more and more frequently over the last 15 years of the hobby. And sadly a lot of newer GMs are buying into it and then wondering why and when they lost control of their games.
|
|
|
Post by lowkeyoh on Dec 22, 2016 10:45:40 GMT -8
I had a player recently tell me in no uncertain terms that I had no choice but to allow his obscenely overpowered obviously genre inappropriate character build because rule book K allowed it to be made. (We were only using Books A, B, C & D) And because the GM is (these are his exact words mind you) "not allowed to tell a player NO." Allow it and then murder him. I'm not usually a vindictive GM, but if a player tried to tell me what is and is not allowed in my game, then it's time to remind him how everything works. Or just kick him to the curb. Doesn't seem like that great of a loss
|
|
damianmagecraft
Initiate Douchebag
Posts: 4
Preferred Game Systems: Palladium, Savage Worlds, Cortex, AD&D2e
Currently Running: Palladium Fantasy, Savage Rifts, AMP year 1, Dresden Files
Favorite Species of Monkey: Mandrill
|
Post by damianmagecraft on Dec 22, 2016 11:40:34 GMT -8
I had a player recently tell me in no uncertain terms that I had no choice but to allow his obscenely overpowered obviously genre inappropriate character build because rule book K allowed it to be made. (We were only using Books A, B, C & D) And because the GM is (these are his exact words mind you) "not allowed to tell a player NO." Allow it and then murder him. I'm not usually a vindictive GM, but if a player tried to tell me what is and is not allowed in my game, then it's time to remind him how everything works. Or just kick him to the curb. Doesn't seem like that great of a loss Oh, he was taken to task in just as plain and emphatic a language as my ex-sailor, ex-trucker, ex-stevedore mouth could muster. He even tried to pull the "I will walk and take the rest of the table with me" threat as well... That one didn't work out too well for him. I run a table of ten players with an even longer wait list; no one would back his play.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2016 22:39:10 GMT -8
Allow it and then murder him. I'm not usually a vindictive GM, but if a player tried to tell me what is and is not allowed in my game, then it's time to remind him how everything works. Or just kick him to the curb. Doesn't seem like that great of a loss Oh, he was taken to task in just as plain and emphatic a language as my ex-sailor, ex-trucker, ex-stevedore mouth could muster. He even tried to pull the "I will walk and take the rest of the table with me" threat as well... That one didn't work out too well for him. I run a table of ten players with an even longer wait list; no one would back his play. Seems less of a failure of 'Yes, And' and more of a failure to understand social dynamics. It's also a structural problem of games like Pathfinder which try to market to players with power creep. You might find that kind of player becomes more scarce once you hop off the D&D(traditional) train.
|
|
damianmagecraft
Initiate Douchebag
Posts: 4
Preferred Game Systems: Palladium, Savage Worlds, Cortex, AD&D2e
Currently Running: Palladium Fantasy, Savage Rifts, AMP year 1, Dresden Files
Favorite Species of Monkey: Mandrill
|
Post by damianmagecraft on Dec 23, 2016 0:27:33 GMT -8
Oh, he was taken to task in just as plain and emphatic a language as my ex-sailor, ex-trucker, ex-stevedore mouth could muster. He even tried to pull the "I will walk and take the rest of the table with me" threat as well... That one didn't work out too well for him. I run a table of ten players with an even longer wait list; no one would back his play. Seems less of a failure of 'Yes, And' and more of a failure to understand social dynamics. It's also a structural problem of games like Pathfinder which try to market to players with power creep. You might find that kind of player becomes more scarce once you hop off the D&D(traditional) train. I do not view it as a failure of "yes; and" but a result of the over emphasis of it and an under emphasis of the fact that yes it is ok for a GM to tell a player NO. That player actually believed his own nonsense that the GM is not allowed to say no. Even cited all the usual blogs, podcasts, etc... to back his stance.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2016 0:52:12 GMT -8
Seems less of a failure of 'Yes, And' and more of a failure to understand social dynamics. It's also a structural problem of games like Pathfinder which try to market to players with power creep. You might find that kind of player becomes more scarce once you hop off the D&D(traditional) train. I do not view it as a failure of "yes; and" but a result of the over emphasis of it and an under emphasis of the fact that yes it is ok for a GM to tell a player NO. That player actually believed his own nonsense that the GM is not allowed to say no. Even cited all the usual blogs, podcasts, etc... to back his stance. The problem is that what is okay for players and GM's to do cannot be dictated by outsiders. That is established by social dynamics. Simple things like supply and demand come into play. Unless you have another GM who is willing to step in and run a game the way you want, you have to put up with the current guy. He's the only guy with the nuclear weapon that is walking away. The players can unite (and perhaps call Captain Planet) in order to pull the same stunt. The problem is that everyone would need to agree to do it. Thus the problem with your player is not a podcast he listened to, but a lack of understanding that everyone wasn't going to jump ship so that he could try to coerce you. Everyone else looked at the possibility of you walking away and decided it wasn't worth the risk or they didn't agree with the player. It could say outright in the Base Book of the game that the player has a right to use anything present. That doesn't mean shit when the GM decides to change it. It doesn't matter if the hosts of Happy Jacks or Fear the Boot support your position. They aren't at your table, running your game. The gaming police aren't going to show up to put an end to your 'facist' ways. As a player, this guy had almost no power. He tried to pull a power play and got shown his place. This would be like New Zealand trying to force the United States to give up its nukes. They have no power with which to negotiate and it is not going to happen. In conclusions: We don't need to tell most sane people not to be insane. Telling insane people not to be insane is a waste of time and energy. You have an issue of maturity on your hands, and that can't be fixed by Happy Jacks.
|
|
maxinstuff
Supporter
Posts: 1,939
Preferred Game Systems: DCC RPG, Shadowrun 5e, Savage Worlds, GURPS 4e, HERO 6e, Mongoose Traveller
Favorite Species of Monkey: Proboscis
|
Post by maxinstuff on Dec 23, 2016 3:33:30 GMT -8
<IronicSingleWordAnswer>
No.
</IronicSingleWordAnswer>
|
|
|
Post by Probie Tim on Dec 23, 2016 8:05:43 GMT -8
The thing about Yes And is that it helps to be a friendly reminder to curb the stereotypical "I designed one specific way to solve this, and you're going to fail until you figure it out" behaviour. This is exactly correct.
|
|
|
Post by lowkeyoh on Dec 23, 2016 10:24:19 GMT -8
The thing about Yes And is that it helps to be a friendly reminder to curb the stereotypical "I designed one specific way to solve this, and you're going to fail until you figure it out" behaviour. This is exactly correct. I also find that it's helpful to add detail and color to the world. The question 'does he have any tattoos or visible markings' is one that adds details and can even possibly open the game up for plot hooks later, all because you said yes. Yes leads to more story, and more story is better than less story. But less story is better than bad story, which is, no you can't be a furry fox vampire lich
|
|
|
Post by Probie Tim on Dec 23, 2016 11:17:44 GMT -8
I also find that it's helpful to add detail and color to the world. The question 'does he have any tattoos or visible markings' is one that adds details and can even possibly open the game up for plot hooks later, all because you said yes. Yup, yup, exactly.
|
|