In my years of gaming, I've run my fair share of games.  The longest standing, most successful game I ever involved myself with was my own – a Sabbat war pack game in the Vampire: the Masquerade (V:tM) setting.  Not to toot my own horn, but I've had some pretty great ideas for stories.  I've had players stand before me and demand vehemently to know how my methods worked, and how certain events fell together.  I've had players joke fondly of things that happened in my game nearly a decade later.  Despite this, the strongest asset I bring to a game I run is my willingness to let players achieve their goals.  Every player I've run for has named this as the primary reason they enjoy my games more.  I know that when I play games on rPol.net, the games that lose my interest are the ones where the GM tells me “no” too many times.  The following is a description of the methods I've developed.  I do this in hopes of inspiring others to try telling players “yes” more.

Here are two GM's I played with to use as examples to illustrate points.  I'll not use names for anonymity:

GM-N:  GM-N is a great friend of mine, the longest standing friend I still care about.  He's an honest and generous person, and a strong type-A personality.  His organization skills surpass mine easily, and his stories were amazing.  I can still remember the time I found I had an evil twin plotting to destroy me from at least 15 years ago.  GM-N didn't like it when players didn't follow his intended path, however, and complications with how he ran his game inevitably sent each to an early grave.

GM-Y:  GM-Y was one of the first GM's I ever played with, and the one that got me seriously hooked.  I joined his game as a late add to an establish party.  On my first session, the group had decided to completely ignore the main story to hunt wyverns based on some random information pertaining to a bounty.  GM-Y laughed and rolled with it, and the session turned out to be quite fun.  The group literally never went back to the original story, and GM-Y just kept chugging along joking and smiling.  If this sets a tone for how he ran his game, I'll also mention he's still my favorite GM and the one I think about when I make many of my decisions.

These sections describe various topics pertaining to a "yes" driven game.  In each of these areas, I've made mistakes and had to learn to improve:

Winning is Awesome
When I think, “Do I like to win or lose?” the answer comes easy.  GM-N had a massive problem with this.  Being a type-A personality, he liked to win more than he could ever admit to himself.  He would claim that he wanted to make the game a “fun challenge.”  In the last game I played with him, the players sat in a circle around him and asked the question, “Who are you making it fun for?”  In one game, we had an item that carried a huge supply of resurrection spells, but we lost a level every time we came back.   GM-N used this tool as an excuse to kill us over and over again.  Sometimes we just got crushed by immensely powerful foes, and others he just killed us out of jest.  The common belief within the group that this was actually his way of getting more wins in.  Frequent death was a common occurrence in all of GM-N's games.

The problem is, when the GM “wins” the players lose.  If a group consists of 1 GM and 4 players, this means that 80% of the people involved in the game lose.  That's unfair.  The GM cannot lose if the GM doesn't want to.  Really the point is, why does the GM even win if the players lose?  Roleplaying games are a collaborative effort among all involved to write a story better than any one person can tell.  If the players win, they further their efforts, and the story improves.  When the story improves, the GM also wins.  Sure, player death happens.  Player death also feeds the story. Further, difficulty is an important element in a good game, but when a GM crosses over that fine line into excess the game suffers.

Loot is Awesome
When I get some powerful item that enhances my character, I feel awesome.  In one of GM-Y's sessions, we found a secret cove with a series of powerful items, one of each that seemed to fit each character perfectly.  My item was a bow with special arrows affixed to the side, each of a different color.  I had no idea what the arrows did, and I was so happy to have it.  In fact, we were all so pleased with our items we didn't give GM-Y guff for putting such an unlikely thing into the game.  In one of GM-N's games, I once went 8 levels (out of 20) without receiving a single piece of gear.  I just kept getting more gold, more gold, more gold.  Well, when we finally get out of these mountains we can finally find civilization and spend our gold, right?  When we finally reached a town, it was too meager to carry items powerful enough to properly enhance our characters.  Boy oh boy was that a fun session.

I look for ways to use items to feed the game.  In the first game I ran on rPol, the setting included powerful artifacts that could literally ascend mortals to godhood.  I wanted the players to assume that the long game was to procure one or more of these items.  Instead, I gave them one right near the beginning and made the story about how to properly unlock the item's most powerful ability.  By doing this, I not only hooked the players, I gave myself a great tool to create antagonistic situations.  Doing these things can make for opportunity to implement fun challenges that players actually enjoy.  I felt like if I was a player in that game, I would like it if from time to time, we got attacked because we had something so grand that everyone would want it if they knew I had it.

Some games don't have obvious loot like magic shields or boots that grant flying.  Most of the games I ran were V:tM(a modern times setting), which doesn't really lend much to equipment-related awards.  I can give them weapons that are hard to come by that will give them an edge against certain categories of enemies, but usually that doesn't quite cut it.  So I'll reward my players with valuable information, powerful allies, maybe a drop on an enemy for an easy power play.  I feel that if I can't wrap my head around a game system well enough to find ways to regularly award my players with “loot” I'd rather not run that system.

Players Cannot Read Minds
Whenever I'm writing out plot for my games, I can't help but picture what I think my characters will do in response.  Sometimes they do exactly that, others they would do something a little different, and at times they would do things completely contrary to what I'd pictured.  This would send GM-N into a fit.  There were many times where I thought I had a great idea, but because it didn't fit GM-N's vision, he'd just shut it down.  I didn't like it.  One time, another player and I pulled an unexpected stunt that allowed us to capture an NPC who had knowledge valuable to us.  Later that session, a coordinated attack fell on my character's head from which I had no chance of escape.  Most of my experience with V:tM is as GM, so this was the only character I've ever had a chance to play for that game, and that's how he died.  How does that feed the story?

When I'm the GM, I have the world at my fingertips, and my players get exactly one piece of that world.  If they get one over on me, they deserve praise.  I encourage them to do so.  The more they keep me on my toes, the more events that take place in ways better than what I come can up with by myself.  This lies at the very core of the collaborative story telling idea.  If one particular player does something clever, I'll try to come up with a way to award that character for the extra effort.  When the other players see that award, it encourages them to find their own clever ways to seek similar reward, which further feeds the story.  This also gave me a way to jog the game along if I had need for a little filler.

When I found the bow I previously mentioned from GM-Y's game, myself and another player found the cove on accident while carrying on doing silly things.  GM-Y told us that if we hadn't done that , he would have let us leave without the items.  The most important thing to note here is that I knew GM-Y well enough to know if we had missed those items, he wouldn't have admonished us for it, even though he probably put a lot of work into them.   In my games, players accidentally pass over important events all the time.  Instead of punishing players for missing out on things, I award them for the things they did catch on to.  When the players do something so sideways I never would have predicted it in a million years, I remember that first session of GM-Y's game and try to find a way to keep the game fun.

Every Player Matters
I failed miserably with this in the first game I ran.  By the end of it, I had some players who held considerable power, others who told me they just felt irrelevant, and some who died as a result of my controlling behavior.  That was just bad.  This is an area where GM-Y also failed.  He would put these little pranks into the game, with subtle hints to avoid them.  My friend (who introduced me to the game) and I didn't really ever fall for this.  The other players were pretty unintelligent people, so they walked into every prank face first.  At the time, I had a great time laughing at those players, but I now realize how unfair it was for GM-Y to purposely include mechanics that made the game more fun for some at the expense of others.

In every game I run, there are characters I like more than others for this or that reason.  It's important for me to remember not to allow this bias to dictate how I treat my players.  In the introduction I mentioned my most successful game.  One of my players drove me up the wall.  All he wanted to do was power game, and run around killing things.  Normally my V:tM games will see combat roughly once every two months.  I don't like to power game, I like to pay attention to the nuances of my character, such as how he talks, or how his parents treated him and how that shaped who he is.  Every other player I had saw it this way.  The power gamer had his character basically just act like how he normally would, except with super powers.

Remembering my first game, I decided to make sure the game would be fun for every character which led to my decision to build the game around a Sabbat war pack, which would more easily facilitate a more combat heavy game.  This game instead had a combat scene about once every other session.  The other players wound up enjoying the difference, and I was still able to leave them plenty of space to get their roleplaying in.  Further because I stepped into territories unfamiliar, I got outsmarted more often, and the game went great for it.  I can honestly say that that game wouldn't have shone over my others if I hadn't made that switch.  This was also the power gamer's first roleplaying experience, and by not allowing my biases to dictate my actions, I was able to deliver a great first game to him.  Gone the other way, I could have ruined roleplaying for him.

By the end portions of that game, the players had earned so many rewards that I started to lose control of the game.  This is the type of thing that would make GM-N's butthole pucker right up.  He would have shut it down before it got to that point.  Why, then, Mr. GM-N, do you still love to tell stories about your many accomplishments within that game, even 8-10 years later?  When the game got so out of hand, I noticed the players had a blast, so I had a blast.  It also took them about 2 years of weekly play to reach that level of power, so the sense of accomplishment lasted to the point that those players still tell me that that game is their favorite.

In any game, there will a bell curve that exists with the players.  I'll have a small amount of weak players and a small amount of strong players.  Keeping the weak players engaged can present obstacles.  In the above example I kept the weak player involved by throwing in a mechanic before the start, but I don't always get that lucky.  Sometimes the problem can present itself later on, after things are rolling.  This is where my plan to throw in mini-quests for loot also functions to give a struggling player to find more fun with the game.  The mini-quest could pertain to his background.  The important thing to remember is that if this character is in a group, the mission should be fun and rewarding for all.  If the need for a mini-quest has more to do with motivation than balance of wealth I just go with more loot for everyone.  Also if I do this, I have to try to find time to do stuff like this for the other players so they don't feel left out.

In my first game, I paid too much attention to the strong players, allowing the weak players to get left in the dust.  This is a clear mistake to see from an outside perspective.  The flip side of the coin is putting too much effort into the weak players so that the strong players get bored.  I have to keep in mind that the strong players are likely doing the most to drive the game, so I have to keep them motivated.  Another thing that I might forget if I'm not careful is to give time to the players in the middle of the bell curve.  These are the bulk of my players and I must remember not to lump them into a bunch in my mind.  They are individually important, and they deserve my attention just as much.

Is There Such Thing as Saying “Yes” Too Much?
There is absolutely such thing as saying "yes" too much.  If I were in a game where I'm playing exactly my human self, I'm going to die if I jump off a 10 story building no matter what.  Letting some players go too far can hurt the game for others.  One time, I had a player depicting a vampire who was turned as a child.  Another player thought it would be funny to hold him down and vomit blood all over his head in front of the group.  Keep in mind that these are evil vampires.  I can say I'm in no hurry to walk into a crip neighborhood, hold one down, and start puking on him in front of his crip buddies.  That's an extreme example, but ridiculous actions just can't be allowed.

Luckily for us on rPol.net, there's many great ways to mediate this while minimizing a feeling of punishment.  In my table top games, I ran for whichever of my friends decided to show up.  Here, I can be much pickier.  Through careful use of my RTJ process, I can weed out players that I think will hurt the game before it starts.  Even if one sneaks past my radar, I can remove the player if it comes to it.  I still hate telling these players “no,” but I have to realize that if I have a caustic player, I'm telling one person “no” for the good of all the others.

There's also such thing as too much loot.  When players get too much loot, it stops feeling special.  The main thing here is to make sure that loot is properly earned, to give that sense of accomplishment.    When I mentioned earlier that I like to give players loot for going the extra mile, that doesn't mean you necessarily have to do that every time.  If you do, the characters may get so lost conducting strange menial tasks that the story grinds to a halt.  Player A finds an opportunity to sneak away from a moderate sized gathering and searches an off-limits section of the scene.  I may or may not drop an ancient manuscript on a bookshelf within the area of that search.  Player B goes and starts flipping beds in an area of no apparent importance.  He finds bedbugs.  Player C pokes a dragon with his sword until it wakes.  He is dead.  I do keep careful track of how long it's been since I've given my players loot, so I don't leave anyone dried out for too long, even if I have to shoe horn some manner of “mini mission” in to even things out.  This is also useful to prevent loading up one to the point where others feel weak.

There will also be situations where my answer must be a hard "no."  Often this is for reasons I can't yet divulge to my players.  I put my foot down.  Just because I want my players to overcome my challenges doesn't mean I can let them push me over.  Sure I want my players to out do me, but I'm not going to make it easy either.  To mediate this, I try to approach each situation as if "yes" is my automatic answer.  Then I think about why I would say "no."  Depending on which side makes more sense, I make a ruling.  I feel that by approaching from the side of wanting to say "yes" first, however, I can better keep my mind open to the players' ideas.

Conclusion:
These were the main topics I came up with.  By no means do I think I'm the best GM that ever walked the Earth, but I think I'm far above average, chiefly because I say “yes” so much.  I would also like to say a little something about GM-N.  I've been pretty harsh talking about him, but this is because I've used him to represent bad examples.  There are many reasons why I kept joining his games.  When we did manage to go along with the story, those were the best stories of any games I played.  He would have these crazy mini stories that would come together into some interlocking major theme that would span a year or more.  This would often lead into a meatier story.  I'd never see it coming, and my pants would never wash clean afterwards.

I hope this information proves helpful.  I hope by writing this article, I can inspire GM's and aspiring GM's to take more time to think about how they can play alongside their players, rather than against them.  Of course, each GM won't have the same exact style, as each has his or her own distinct personality.  Take my advice with a grain of salt, and don't hesitate to look for ways to change it to better suit your own ways.
This message was last edited by the player at 00:06, Mon 30 Oct 2017.

A good post hoppa. I agree with a lot of what you said and your talk about loot reminded me that it's about time I give my regular group some loot so thanks for that hah.

I think a great quality for a GM to have is their ability to adapt to players decisions and follow the party. If the party wants to go do x but you planned out y then I'm sure you can figure out how to make x work; it's what the players want and who knows it might make the story you have in mind way more interesting when you figure out how to link it together.

I think I've found my main flaw as a GM; I say "no" too often.

Hoppa - that was a really thought provoking post.  I've read bits and pieces about GM'ing so some of your post isn't new to me but I do think the way you've constructed 'yes' as a GM position is very easy to relate to.  I do think it is fairly well known advice that a GM is part of the game with the players, not trying to 'beat' them although I think you've captured this essence really well, so thank you.

Something that you have touched on I think is player agency.  As a player I don't want to be so powerful and rich I neither want to create stories nor can be in peril.  However, I think it's important that players feel they are part of a story, that their actions have consequences (good and bad) and that they are rewarded or accomplish something.  Taking the plot in a different direction, being involved and having some kind of reward all are part of this.

Barry, personally I feel that no matter how powerful you make the group, you should be able to come over the top with a good challenge.  Even if a game goes on so long that this is no longer possible, and the game ends, the game ends with the players being able to claim that they reached near god-like power.  I didn't mention this in the article, however, and based on your comment I'll probably add a paragraph explaining about this.  Thanks for mentioning that, since I think I'd meant to include some information to that effect and forgot.  Incidentally, if any of you have any ideas that might help expand/improve the article, let me know, I appreciate all the feedback I've received as well as any other I might in the future.

Adviser had a good point too, about trying to tie an alternate story line back into the main story.  This is a prime example of something that will force a GM into a less comfortable position, which will up his/her game, which will make the whole experience better.  Again, I'm not the "end all be all" of this subject, but I fully believe the more I can force myself out of my comfort zone the better.  This also leaves more wiggle room for my players to outsmart me.

Also for Liz, I asked Adviser to leave this an open thread to allow for questions in addition to suggestions or anything else others might like to post.  Feel free to pick my brain on more specific topics if you like.  That is the point of this forum, right?
This message was last edited by the player at 02:24, Sat 28 Oct 2017.

I agree with you to a point there Barry, in the sense that you've touched on a couple of topics with that comment whether intentional or not that I think are very broad ranging and can become problems if not paid attention to:

First, player agency is definitely very important, players need to feel like their actions have consequences and that they can effect the world around them, which hoppa did indeed talk about.

Second, players that for whatever reason aren't making decisions, going out and doing things, etc. This has many possible explanations.

>One is, as you pointed out, players might feel that they've reached an 'end game' state where they feel 'well I have all the cool stuff I could ever want and can do whatever I want, not much else to do now'. hoppa correctly points out that as a GM you usually have the power to create something to challenge players in that position whether it's an invading empire challenging this perfecting kingdom they've built or a god that takes issue with the party trying to muscle in on the pantheon and so on. I say usually because it's also entirely possible that within the bounds of some systems it is a downright chore to do that and the GM can say 'I think that's enough, we'll move on to a new campaign'.

>Another is that some players just aren't decision makers, they will sit back and stay in the background a good deal of the time, and that's not necessarily a bad thing as long as there are a couple of players who are the take charge kind to keep things moving. If all the players are just sitting there saying 'well what do you think we should do?' to each other, then they'll never get anywhere.

>The last one I'll touch on is maybe the players are feeling down about the game for any number of reasons, some might even be completely unrelated to the game itself. If you're not enthusiastic about the game you're not going to do much in it.

I think this point is exceptionally prevalent in pbp games.  Quite a few games come to halts waiting for someone else to post.  I find this tends to crop up in freeform and sandbox games more often, especially if they are GM-lite.  A lot of games often descend into scenes between a couple of people and if someone has a couple of days out things grind to a halt.

Roleplaying is a social contract but on here we don't know each other and are often at different sides of the planet.  Pbp suits people (like me) who would never be able to get a few hours a week to have a face to face / live game.  As a consequence 'good manners' waiting for others can stall games.

As a player, I try and give people a couple of days to post so I can be inclusive (no one wants to wake up and find there have been pages of posts you have been excluded from by two characters in your scene).  However, I think good player advice is to just 'do something' and not be afraid to move on if you're waiting.

I'd be interested in some GM point of views here....

From my perspective I think there are a couple of things I'd do;

1) Set posting expectations - remember that the game is for everyone, not just once a month or once every half hour posters.
2) Not be afraid to NPC a PC to move on or 'shadow' NPC them
3) (The most important) Set the pace and agenda.  If the players are floundering at making a decision or waiting for something to happen, give them something to react to and bounce off

Thoughts?

Advisor: I've put this post in its own thread since it deals with a different topic. Responses to this should go in there.
This message was last edited by the GM at 19:32, Sat 28 Oct 2017.

Lots of good points. Even if you’re mildly aware of some already, it’s nice to have them said out loud as a reminder.
It’s also good to acknowledge the limits of some of the points (saying yes too much, etc.).
I wish I had something to add or ask, but not much is coming to mind.

Perhaps if you wanted, you could provide (general) examples of when to say yes, but also when to say no.
It might help newer GM’s see the balancing point. Newer GM’s could also give examples of yes/no choices they’re not sure about, for input.

Some examples off the top of my head (feel free to disagree):
When to say yes:
-They want to go to some place in town you didn’t originally envision, like a thief hideout.
-They want to pull out an item they didn’t mention previously, but makes sense for them to have.

When to say no:
-Something that would seriously conflict with the setting you’ve made.
-Something overpowered or too good to be true.

Can ask yourself when deciding yes/no "would this hurt anything?"
Can also try to look at it from the player's point of view, how much they'd like something, and then weigh it against your perspective as GM.


Seems like Advisor just split the conversation into another thread, I’ll follow up there…
I was going to say, I think some of the points made are sort of separate from the “say yes more” advice.

Actually Window Watcher, I'm preparing to launch my first game in maybe like 5 years, so I feel like writing this helped me reestablish my own GM'ing mindset.  Thank you for your suggestion.  I'd made some changes based on Barry's comment to the "Saying 'yes' too much thread."  I'm not sure if you read the earlier iteration or the later.  Before I make any further changes, I'd like to I clarify this.  I would like to keep the article from getting too long winded.  Also if you feel that more examples would still help, and you can think of one or more spots through the article where better examples might help, I'd have a clearer picture of what direction to go.

I've avoided certain topics because I thought they wouldn't lend directly enough to this subject, and maybe fall under the lines of "story writing ideas" or something like that.  I actually started to write a few sections then trashed them for that reason.  The whole "how to deal with less task oriented players" was one of those things.  Now that Advisor has mentioned it, however, I've changed my mind and I intend to add a paragraph or so to the "Every Player is Equal" section.

I'll restate that I'm by no means the foremost expert on GM'ing games.  If any of you feel that you have something you could add directly to the article that you would like to write out, I'll take a look at it.  If I like it, I'll paraphrase it or quote it directly.  I can then add some sort of bibliography section to give credit to contributors.

Sorry for the delayed response:

I admit my idea of "provide examples" was just my attempt at adding something, and not just saying "nice post, I agree."

Agreed that it shouldn't be too long winded, and the topics at least somewhat connected. (That was part of why I was like "maybe we should make a quick list...")

Yes is definitely something some GMs need to say more often.

But one should not be afraid to say no, too.

I think the three answers a GM can best give to requests are:

1) Yes.  For all the reasons listed already.

2) Yes, but... For those times when the player's got a great idea, but it is possibly too much for your game, or crosses a line somewhere.

3) No, but... This is also a useful response, for when players have something good (a back story, or a great idea) that's mixed with something bad.  Or if not bad, something outside the scope of your game.  For example, a character might have a great character backstory filled with all kinds of good hooks that you as a GM can use, but they are trying to play a drow or angel or something that doesn't fit into or is too powerful for your game.

I've presided over games where I went too far in one direction or another, and so I can say it's easy to find yourself in a place you didn't want to get to.  Saying yes when it furthers the story, and no when it does not, seems to work best for me.  As with all advice, your mileage may vary.

And sometimes you have to say no, period.  I think that as long as you are clear on what you are firm on, and what's up for discussion, you shouldn't have conflict over saying no.

I just thought i would piggy back on this.  Ever since my very first game as ST till now, the most important thing i have learned (and only very recently i embarrassingly admit) was that the game is a collaborative effort, and that in order for anyone to have fun, everyone needs to have fun.  And that everyone (usually) has much more fun with YES! than with NO!.

I think coming across dungeon worlds, and learning about how they have a player driven style of Storytelling, meaning the ST makes a move in response to the players move (for anyone that doesnt know) has really helped my ability to ST alot.  Especially here in PBP, i find that by empowering the players with the ability to create facts for the gameverse on their own, (which i will sometimes adjust afterwards) really helps the players tell the stories that they are envisioning for their characters.

Just recently i had some players inside of a building, outside of which are a bunch of vigilantes firebombing the place.  One unfortunate player discovered this by poking his head out the door.  One of the other characters asked me, is the fire extinguisher near the door blocked by fire?  I replied, i dont know? is it?  And by letting the players take the lead and describe what they want to have happen, i can come behind and describe what actually happens, using their information as a guide for the story.

I have found that letting the players take the lead (Which can be a chore.  Some players are not used to/have a difficult time driving even their own characters story) it makes the players feel like they are in control of the story, rather than just passengers in my story.  I used to come up with intricate and specific storylines.  These always went off the rails when player A decided that he was just going to do something completely different from what i imagined he would do.  This in turn led to me trying to shoehorn everyone back onto my story rails, which in turn led to the players refusing or getting upset about not having any control over their characters.

This of course has to be tempered with actual storytelling on my part.  But now, i create my stories through "bubbles".  I create thought bubbles of important events i want to have happen in my story.  Then, as the game begins unfolding, however the players have chosen to take the game, i simply have to figure out how to connect back to my original plot bubble.  This often happens in very unique, exciting and unforeseen ways.  Two NPC characters that i created for a minor appearance, never to be seen from again, have risen to be major characters in the story.  Something i never would have imagined would be the case.

I have found that this also takes so much of the creative workload off of my shoulders.  Because i dont usually have scripted interactions or paths of play, characters who like to investigate for clues even when i didnt create anything for them, can always find something with good rolls.  I almost always turn things back onto the players.  "I rolled 5 successes on my investigation roll! What do i find?!"  "I dont know player A, what important clue do you find?"  "Hmm, ok well using my medical background i decipher that the writing from the killer is shaky on the ends of his messages, this leads me to believe that he has a serious underlying medical condition.  If he is receiving treatment he must be going to one of the local hospitals for regular care!  We can start looking for him there! "Why yes player A, that is exactly what i was(nt) thinking!  Great work finding those clues!  And now we know something personal about our killer that i didnt create, the players feel like they have uncovered some secret weakness about the killer using their skills and played their characters the way they wanted to.  Fun for everyone.

All of this is great advice, and "yes" is the tool you should try and use most often.

There are only two things I'm going to add. First knowing when to say no is important. I had a GM who I stopped playing with because he said yes to everything. Basically, if I gave him a half good reason to do so, I ended up with everything I wanted way too early in the game. It became boring, as I knew that anything I tried would succeed. That was not fun, since there were no real challenges.

Second I wish to give credit to this next piece of advice to Matt Mercer. The statement "You can certainly try." That statement has changed the way I have run games since I started watching Critical Role. Allow the players to try anything. It gives them the freedom, but they have to live with the consequences. Jump off of a 1000 foot cliff and when you see rocks below turn yourself into a goldfish. Splat. Make a deal with a goddess of death and turn your rogue into a paladin. Great!

Let them try things but keep the consequences realistic. "I don't care if you rolled a Nat 20 Your character can't phase himself through a wall just because you think you can. You do break through a portion, but take 20 damage doing so..."

That's a very good point. As a GM you can warn and drop hints but you shouldn't stop someone from doing something that their character can attempt to do; as long as you have appropriate consequences that is.

There's also the key GM warning sign that you need to learn to whip out of 'are you sure?' keep it in your back pocket for when the players are trying something that probably (if they had all the information) would actually be quite stupid or a waste of time). Some players will sensibly take this as a warning that what they're doing might not be conducive to their characters' good health ... while others will blunder forward regardless but at least you can feel good that you gave them a warning.

Sidenote: Also if you're cruel use that question when the players are making sensible and/or obvious decisions just to really throw them off.

Lol. 'You can try' and 'Are you sure' are stock responses of mine.

Many of my games are sandboxy and less regimented than D&D, so I make a stock warning at the start of the game that says effectively: this game is not levelled with foes artificially matched to your skills. As in  the real world, you may meet foes who are much more powerful than you, and you must decide when to fight and when to run.

Alas, there is always that one player who doesn't think the warning applies to him. Such a player will end up rolling a new character or storming out of the game in a huff.

I recall one player in particular. I'd warned him subtly and less subtly IC and then rather directly OOC that a certain gang boss was out of his league. The PCs were supposed to skirmish with his goons, but this One Guy decided he and the other PCs were going to take down the entire gang in one night!

Well, I couldn't have him bring the whole party to a sticky end, so he had to go...
He left in a huff.

I'm glad others are talking more about "no" examples.  I didn't want to get into that side of things too much, since my main hope was to get GM's who aren't yet used to letting players do what they want to reconsider how they do things.  Of course, I do agree that "no" is just as important as "yes" depending on the context.

In reply to Ike (msg # 15):

Ike, I like that you warn the players up front that they can come across foes that are simply too powerful. This also opens up the idea that running away from a fight is a viable (and sometimes necessary) option.

In your case, with several direct warnings I think the message should've come across. However, in other cases I think it can be difficult to convey subtle hints when the only form of communication is text. Even NPCs directly telling the party their foe is too strong can be unconvincing. After all, in many stories 'someone tells the heroes that the bad guy is too strong to be defeated, after which the heroes go and defeat the bad guy.'

I can imagine that as a GM it isn't nice to tell the party "no". Especially when it comes to their agency. Do you GMs use other methods of saying "no"? Such as convincing the party that what they're up against is out of their league, or even preventing them from reaching it?

• For example, by comparing the bad guy IC to other foes the party has previously faced.
  Written in a letter the group finds, or told by an important NPC: "The bad guy has defeated 6 trolls without even breaking a sweat." While the party almost died facing 2 trolls.
  
• Or do you put up "invisible walls" that prevent, or make it very difficult, for the party to reach such foe?
  On their way to the bad guy, the party is intercepted by a group of the bad guy's minions. These minions prove to be almost more than the party can handle.

What is your experience with such, or different, methods? Would you advise it, or is a direct "no" or OOC explanation clearer?

There are many ways to suggest to players that they're getting into deep water, and usually a gradual ramp up is better than a precipice. If the PCs are finding it increasingly difficult to defeat minions of the bad guy, they should get the picture sooner or later.

This could be viewed as 'diminishing yeses' as the PCs get close to a powerful foe.

Using rumours about the bad guy's reputation is also useful - better than the precipice - facing the bad guy with no idea if they can beat him or not, until they start losing hit points like there's a hole in their character sheet.

However, even that can work if the players are experienced enough, have a rapport with the GM and if the GM gives them an escape route they can recognize.

OOC warnings should be a last resort IMO; it jolts players out of the game reality - like 'author intrusion' in a novel. I only used OOC in the above example because That Guy couldn't take a hint, was dragging the whole team into his delusion, and was in danger of derailing the game.

I think in a situation like Ike outlined, it should be fairly easy for the players to realize that they were doing it wrong.  I imagine it somewhat like the Crazy 88 in Kill Bill.  They just keep coming, and coming, and the players watch their characters being slowly bled out...  Directly confronting the gang is a large no-no, especially if they are at the height of their power, and you're in their home.

Sun Tsu said to always give your enemies a golden bridge.  That doesn't mean your enemies will take it.  Which leads to another of Sun Tsu's advice, paraphrased: Never interrupt an enemy while they're making a mistake. :D

The Bride in Kill Bill could have fled out the front doors of the place, but she did not, and while she did win, she did get fairly sliced up.  And she could have been killed at any time during that fight.  Gogo Yubari almost got her... That's the essence of a good fight.

I think it's a good idea to always give your players some impression of doubt that they will succeed.  Always leave an escape route.  Give them the impression that the opponents they face are their equal.  Allow uncertainty to flow on both sides of a conflict.

You should end up with players who hesitate and consider the consequences of starting a fight, before the fight starts.  Which leads to another Sun Tzu gem: Win first and then go to battle, do not battle and then try to win.  Again paraphrased.

I've been noodling over a pair of threads:  The "NO" game, and The "MAYBE"* Game

But I've been distracted by work and lack of sleep...  as I'm most definitely not a "Yes" GM*.


* Though I'm liking the "You Can Try" line.  Being a stronk "Maybe"er myself.




That depends on the style of game you're running.  There are certainly styles (The "NO" Game) that lend themselves fabulously to the precipice.

Even my "Maybe" style tosses out precipices occasionally (but not without at least one IC warning).


I go back and forth on this one.  I use OOC warnings in games like I use salt in cooking, lightly and to taste.  But sometimes someone just really does need a clue-by-four upside the head to see where they are going.




Every GM should read Sun Tzu's Art of War and Machiavelli's The Prince.  Even if they don't use anything from the works, it's good to know so it doesn't get used against them!

Yes!  Those are two excellent books to read, evileeyore. :)  For the reason you laid out and many more.

I have copies of both on my bookshelf.

I find that "Yes" games lead to a lot of fun for the players, but stifle my enjoyment as a GM somewhat. I prefer the "Maybe" game. As it allows the players the options, but leaves it up to chance, yet also allows me the freedom to alter that chance a bit if it's detracting from the story.. That said I do run my games as if it's a band preforming on stage. The players are the band, and I'm the audience, set designer, manager, noise police, etc...

Hehe.  The way I see it, the roleplaying game is a play, the players the characters on stage, and I the director.

I have an idea of the story and how it should go, but the players are mostly unscripted and so, who knows what will happen?  I can let the players do their thing, and only intervene when it starts to become unwieldy, but I can only exercise that so often before the players get mad and walk off the stage.

And that is the first thing every GM should learn.

In reply to A Voice in the Dark (msg # 24):

On the flip side, the players should understand that they can only abuse the GM so often before they get up and walk away from the table.

Nope. The GM never leaves the table.
It's the GM's table.
The GM shows errant players the door, instead.
And keeps doing so until s/he has only decent players left.
Then the game continues in peace and harmony. :)

Good opening topic.

I was somewhat surprised to see that this was about saying "Yes," and yet there was no mention of saying "Yes, and...."

"Yes, and..." is about not just accepting an idea as presented, but adding on to it. Not moderating it, or turning it back on a player, but actually improving the idea. That concept is embodied in some of the examples people have given here, but I think it's important to realize that that's the real key. When it's presented as just saying "Yes," people tend (as we see in the later posts here) to edge away from that, as they think of ideas that they don't dare say "Yes" to, for the sake of something they want to keep intact about their games. Is that what some of you here feel?

There's a topic that this thread has prompted that I think needs its own thread, but which has a lot to do with why GMs have trouble taking a "Yes, and..." approach. That topic is "failure."

The issue arises because GMs are given the impression that saying "Yes" means that the characters always succeed, because they feel (and maybe have experienced) that players will only ask for things that make their own characters better and more successful. GMs are concerned that players will not feel challenged, and will feel they can go anywhere or do anything in a game. Is that how some of you feel about it?

One aspect of that is that saying "Yes, and..." to a course of action doesn't have to mean that the action succeeds or is beneficial. It's common and fair for an action by a character to require a roll:

"Can I swing my sword at him?"/"I swing my sword at him!"
"Yes, and he reacts as quickly as he can? Roll to see if you're too fast for him!"

The roll can generally succeed or fail, or somewhere in a range of outcomes. That's not saying "Yes, but..." that's saying "Yes, and..." while working within the framework of the game. That doesn't mean every action has to engage the rules - the rules aren't the laws of physics - but that just because one is in a "Yes, and..." mindset doesn't mean actions never engage the rules.

Another aspect of this is what "failure" looks like. Very, very often in discussions of what goes on in games, "failure" means "character death," or something that might as well be equivalent, like capture and imprisonment. It's common for games to have mechanics to know when a character is dead, and ways for the game to edge a character toward that, so it's a handy default. Lots of games have ways to make death fairly easy to cope with either by some kind of ressurection or by easy replacement of characters.

But there are other ways for characters to fail than just death. These can be tricky to implement in the moment, but some forethought (and collaboration with players) can see one through it. For instance, we see here examples of players poking dragons or taking on huge gangs. It's not very plausible that the characters would by successful at those actions, and very plausible for those actions to lead directly to messy death. But what if the players were not successful but also didn't die? Even in games that strive for realism, such an outcome can be plausible, at least in one's own game.

Every situation is different of course, but dragons, for instance, love to play with their food and also have long term plans involving minions. A dragon might knock a character around for a minute, and then offer the character an opportunity. The dragon needs an emissary or an infiltrator and has a job for the character. The dragon imagines it can always eat the character later when they're no longer useful, but in the meantime, the adventure goes in a new direction. The character has failed, but failed more interestingly than just being slaughtered.

A criminal gang might just be capriciously lethal, or, like a dragon, might have plans that a defeated enemy could help with in exchange for not being killed. Or there might be factions within the gang that see a better purpose for the character than just a messy death scene. Or another gang or the authorities might show up - which doesn't necessarily let the character off the hook, depending on their relationship with those groups. Again, the character has failed, but is still alive.

How to handle that is not always easy to see, and in that case, it's okay to pause the game and say "You can absolutely do what you intend to do, but failure is a distinct possibility, and I'm not sure what it should look like. What do you think?" Maybe they think that death or capture would be appropriate, in which case have at it. Or they might have in mind something more like a narrow escape with horrific injuries, or some other set-back.

If they don't see a way to lose, and in fact don't think that they should lose, it's still not necessary to say "No." Pause the game and talk about it. Just come to that conversation with the hope of being able to say "Yes, and..." rather than something else.

This is an ongoing discussion. None of the above is the last word. If you disagree with what you understand me to say, I hope you'll ask me what I mean.

Some good points there, Centauri - food for thought. :)

Yeah, definitely good input for fresh-faced GMs and harrowed ones alike.

In reply to Ike (msg # 26):

No, sometimes the GM has to walk away.  I've run games for people in places where I have no control over.  Conventions.  Friend's homes.  Acquaintence's homes.

Sometimes you don't have A troublesome player, sometimes the whole table is such.  And whether you believe them to be the problem, or perhaps stop to consider that it could be you, that is one of those times where it might be that you get up and walk away.

That post is nearly 5 years old bud...

In reply to Sir Swindle (msg # 31):

Yes, it is.

In reply to Sir Swindle (msg # 31):

Good advice is still good even after five years.

It doesn't have to be a "yes" game, but you really want to avoid a "no" game.

There's few things less fun than a game where no matter what you try, you lose.

In reply to Fugitive (msg # 34):

Very accurate.

Similar advice I was once given is "be a fan of your players (and their characters)." Part of it just feeds into helping them be their best. Having a positive attitude about things is probably good for the game overall too. Might take conscious effort at times.
Players having a similar outlook towards their GM might be good too.
(Of course there's going to be situations where a player/character/GM is just not good though.)