Saying No at the Gaming Table

[Robert M]

I orginally posted this over at I would knife fight a man.

Vincent suggested that I post it here, so here goes!

I recently I have been modifying D&D for our gaming group. Most of what I am trying on I have discussed on Story Boards. I am not sure exactly what I am trying to accomplish.

I do know that I started down my current path the day I read in Exalted that 2 point stunts occurred when the Player included the environment in his description of his character's action. And that the player didn't have to ask the GM for permission to modify, add or otherwise affect the environment within reason.

I didn't have to ask the GM if there was a rock over there that I could pick up and throw at the big baddie. What!??!!! I could just do it? Wow!

Several months later I have learned about this wide world of things like Narration Rights, Shared Imagined Space, etc... And I have concluded that I want some of that. I don't want to be solely responsible for formulating the plot of our games. I don't want to justify why I won't allow such and such in my game. I don't want to say, but my game is about Duty, or being good, or your character wouldn't do that. I don't want to say No any longer.

I want to say Yes. So I have ported in some SOTC into D&D. I have looked long and hard at conflict resolution (or whatever you want to call it). I any trying out different elements to put more power in the player's hands, and less of it in mine.

I have just started this, so I don't have a large amount of experience with it to say Yes! This is a great idea! Or No, this didn't work out so well.

What I do have is this little snippet from my last game.

Carcajou is a shifter (Eberron race) ranger who has a Wolf (named Mulk) for an animal companion. They are attacked by creatures that causes a creature that fails their will saving throw to fly into a mindless rage and attack the nearest person, friend or foe. Mulk is the only one who fails his saving throw, and he attacks a fellow party member.

My friend who plays Carcajou turns to me and says that he wants to use his characters Animal Empathy to calm Mulk down. Animal Empathy basically lets you make a diplomacy roll to affect an animal's mood. By the rules, Mulk could not be talked down from his mindless rage. In the past I would have let my friend try, but he would have failed automatically, and neither him nor I would have been very happy.

Instead I let him try. I told him it was going to be difficult, so he spent a hero point (fate point) to Invoke Mulk's Aspect Devoted to Carcajou, he spent another one to invoke Carcajou's Aspect Bestial, and got a +10 to the roll. I had set up a range of possibilities ranging from no effect to attacks Carcajou only to they are locked in a stare down to total success. He got the stare down result, and they spent the whole combat with their gazes locked in a tense battle of will.

And it was Awesome! My friend got to use a rarely used class ability, he got to save the party from Mulk, he got to save himself from an awful choice. The rest of the group had to find a way to struggle through the encounter without their strongest fighter. It forged a stronger link between Carcajou and his animal companion. It rewarded my friend for his creativity. And I got to say Yes!

That's what I want more of in my games.

So now my questions/food for general thought.  For this discussion I want to define "GM as adversary" as a GM who says no to things that don't fit his plot/concept/genre, or to things that the rules say no to, or to things he thinks will break the game.  "GM not as adversary" would then mean a GM who says Yes to these ideas/suggestions/player desires.

Is GM not as adversary a better roleplaying experience? If so why? For everyone?

What enables GM not as adversary Play? What hinders it?

When you find yourself saying No to a player idea, why? Is there a way to say Yes?

Are you afraid of Player abuse? Is there a way to solve this problem, if it is one? (you know besides kicking them out of the group, etc...)

Thanks for any input!

-Robert

[Nev the Deranged]

I don't have anything to add just yet, but I am interested in following this thread. Just so I'm clear on this, are you using SotC rules with the Eberron setting, or using D&D with some Aspects and such grafted on?

That scene sounds awesome, by the way. Good job!

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Robert,

Welcome, and thanks for posting.

Is GM not as adversary a better roleplaying experience? If so why? For everyone?

The key here is to distinguish between adversary and adversity. The former is a real person, a foe, an opponent. The concept of GM as adversary pits the GM as a person against the players as people. It's actually functional in many circumstances, specifically tournament competitions in which there's also a layer of competition against other teams. Making it functional in a single-group, lower-competition context is not well developed in role-playing history. The best older example is probably the game Tunnels & Trolls. Rune represents a recent attempt which works for some groups. Examples of recent success stories from this community include The Great Ork Gods, Beasthunters, and (in my view) 1001 Nights. You will find, in these latter games, a lot of adversary-style play which does not necessarily rely on a single GM, or at least not a single GM as sole adversary to everyone else.

None of that has anything to do, necessarily, with adversity, which is a fictional phenomenon, the problem that a character faces with which they must cope. Adversity always has consequences. Adversity is desired in all role-playing; people want their characters to face problems and situations and dangers. Without adversity, play is dead boring. Although the presence of adversity can be paced (play doesn't have to be slam-slam-always-danger), it must be present as a feature, whether slow or fast, quiet or loud, and whose absence always portends its presence. You'll find that most games produced by people active at the Forge are tremendously adversity-oriented, no matter how cooperative or nice or consensual they may be in terms of the real people's interactions.

My first point to you is that if you do not want to play as an adversary, and if you change the routines and techniques of your game to achieve that, then do not make the mistake of removing adversity as well. In your example, if you had thought to yourself, "gee, Mulk going apeshit is no fun, I guess I better make him resist successfully," then you would have ended up with a dead-ball, boring situation, just another fight, blah blah. Fortunately you did not make that error in this case, and I suggest acknowledging your good judgment and remembering to hang onto it for the future.

What enables GM not as adversary Play? What hinders it?

One thing you might consider very, very carefully is the relationship of this technique (saying Yes) to the textual rules of the game. In this particular case, you saw a rule that apparently disallowed the tactic suggested by the player. This puts you in an interesting position - for a moment, right there, you actually become the game designer and decide whether the first (author) game designers had really done a good job with this rule. Frankly, in this case, I don't think they did. As we have discussed here at the Forge, at length, the D&D3.0/3.5 rules for skills are not very useful in terms of adversity - it is not clear when and how they relate to, for instance, saving throws, or magic, or any number of things, and as you just discovered, many times this discrepancy is solved by saying "they don't count."

Back to the point of saying, "I'm changing that rule," that's an important step during play. I want to emphasize that it is not the same as ignoring rules on a case-by-case basis "because they aren't fun" in a freewheeling, improvisational way. If you do that, you'll spin into a very bad, un-fun mode of play, in which you will constantly have to decide whether the rule is fun or not, at every single moment. It's exhausting and puts too much responsibility for the fun of play on you. Instead, this is saying, "I'm revising the game, period," in a far more judgmental, yet far more concrete way. Instead of doing it this or that way, whenever, in a one-time-only any-old-way fashion, you should be as critical and reflective as possible about it.

Ultimately, the lesson is not to say "I can make the rules whatever I want," but rather to say, "I would prefer to play a game with well-developed and reliable rules."

When you find yourself saying No to a player idea, why? Is there a way to say Yes?

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking, here. I think you're basically saying what you'd like to be asking yourself during play. If that's so ... well, assuming that's so, then I will try to paraphrase it and see what you think:

"There's no need to shut down adversity. When the player seeks adversity, give it to them!"

Are you afraid of Player abuse? Is there a way to solve this problem, if it is one? (you know besides kicking them out of the group, etc...)

Ah, the "abuse" fear ... tell you what - to make sense of this question and to arrive at some useful answers, we are going to need a very concrete example of the kind of problem you're calling "abuse." Not something you merely imagine and scare yourself with, but something which has happened and made you or others miserable in the past. Describe that, in regard to this very question you're asking, and then we'll see.

Best, Ron

[Robert M]

I will answer Nev first.

I have taken the Aspects system from Spirit of the Century and overlaid it on top of D&D.  So we are using D&D 3.5 more or less intact, but with Aspects thrown in.  Eberron has action points, so I renamed them Hero Points and they do everything they did in Eberron (stabilize while dying, power certain feats, etc...) but they no longer add a d6 to a roll.  Instead you must Invoke an Aspect to add a +5 to roll.  They also can be used to make a Declaration, etc... just like they can in SotC.  Villains, scenes, magical items, etc.. also have Aspects which can be Invoked.  Scenes, setting, NPCs, PCs and so on can be Tagged.  The only rule I have thus far is if it is covered in D&D, then that rule governs.  So a PC can't Tag a NPC with "tripped", but has to use D&D rules for tripping.  But a character can make a Wilderness Lore check to tag a campsite with "Easily Defended" and then Invoke that Aspect if trouble comes. 

Which gets to my poor choice of Key Words in my initial post.

I am fully on board with the GM as adversity role.  I understand what Ron described as GM as adversary.  That isn't what I am trying to do away with in my gaming.  It's not relevant to our gaming, as we aren't role playing in that way.

What I was trying to describe is a state where I, as GM, say No, you can't try that.  As an example from my role playing:

The PCs are sloshing their way through the Mournlands.  They need to make camp.  The PCs say, "We look for an easily defensive spot."  I say describe it to me.  They say it has one way in or out.  I say ok.  I have an encounter planned for that evening.  I run it.  The easily defended camp site is used in my description of the scene, but in no way gives the characters a tactical edge.  It has no game relevance.  That was 6 months ago.

This weekend.  The PCs need to make camp.  I ask them if they would like to try to find an easily defended spot.  I have to prod them because they have no trust in me that this will be relevant (re:what happen six months ago.)   They say sure!  I have them roll Wilderness Lore.  I have decided on a scale of failure to success before they roll.  They roll a success.  They now have a campsite tagged with "Easily Defended."  They can Invoke this tag to get a +5 on a roll.

In the first I feel I said No to their idea because I had an encounter to provide them, and it was going to happen regardless.  In the second, I said Yes you can try that.  You might succeed or not, but it won't be due to my fiat.  And if you succeed you will rewarded for creating a character that can succeed at this, for coming up with a good idea, for being creative, for whatever. 

I don't mean by GM not as Adversary that I will Yes to whatever they want to accomplish.  I mean it as in, Yes, I will reward you for your trying/creativity/character abilities whatever.  I will let you try and not predispose myself to the outcome I want (which, ironically leads to gaming I don't want).

Fortunately you did not make that error in this case, and I suggest acknowledging your good judgment and remembering to hang onto it for the future.

Thank you.  That is exactly the experience I want to hang on to. 

I want to emphasize that it is not the same as ignoring rules on a case-by-case basis "because they aren't fun" in a freewheeling, improvisational way. If you do that, you'll spin into a very bad, un-fun mode of play, in which you will constantly have to decide whether the rule is fun or not, at every single moment.

Coincidentally, a shit storm has manifested over the Clyde Podcast and the concept of Brain Damage.  Over at Knife Fight there is much debate, and I read the transcript of the interview.  Given that context, I think I know exactly what you mean in this quote.  I am trying very hard to make clear and concise rules to govern these situations.  I feel by using an already proven system that I can point the other players in the direction of, these things will not be decided by GM fiat.  Rather they will have the power to decide how to use Aspects, and in time, once they are comfortable with the system, to give suggestions for failure and success.  It will then be in hands to establish difficulty.

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking, here. I think you're basically saying what you'd like to be asking yourself during play. If that's so ... well, assuming that's so, then I will try to paraphrase it and see what you think:

"There's no need to shut down adversity. When the player seeks adversity, give it to them!

Yes I am trying to come up with a mantra to overcome those moments when I feel myself falling into the same old behavior pattern.  But in this case I think the mantra is more-

"There's no need to shut down creativity.  When the player is creative, let them try it!"

But that is really just the beginning.  It's more along the lines of letting the Players Create as well.  But even more than just that.  It's to encourage and reward them for Creating.  So that we can create together. 

It's about the fact that Carcajou and Mulk have a connection that is not quantified by D&D.  How can I, as GM, let this relationship manifest itself in a way that makes for entertaining role playing and encourages such relationships/character traits/player ideas in the future.

Describe that, in regard to this very question you're asking, and then we'll see.

I don't, currently, have one of these in my back pocket. (Listen to me, already anticipating the worse.)

What I do have is an example of the exact opposite.  As a part of my re-envisioning of D&D, I consolidated the skill list, and told the players they could now have cross class skills as class skills if they had a good role playing reason for having it.  I am nervous that one of the players, who leans towards "power gaming" would take advantage of this.  (I'll just leave it Nebulous like that, as I am willing to admit that this is likely an irrational fear.)

He did ask if he could therefore add a skill to his class skill list.  He did so for two different skills.  Both times I replied, "If you can conjure up a good roleplaying reason for the skill, then sure!"  Both times he demurred and responded that he couldn't.  The second time I got the impression that I had to give him permission to take the skill.  He could not accept the responsibility to decide for himself.  As though his "power gaming" is fine if the GM blesses it.  But if he has to make that value judgment himself, he cannot bring himself to do it.

I will let you know how this experiment continues to play itself out.

Thank you for the feedback!

-Robert

[Andrew Cooper]

Robert,

Awesome.  I did something like this and it really worked out well for my D&D game.  I'm glad to see that it seems to be working for you too.  I'm following this thread with some interest since I've had similar experiences.

One technique I've employed to improve my D&D games is to do away with making rolls be about success vs. failure when failure would be boring.  If failure is boring I make the roll be about success vs. success with complications.  For example, in one game the party was attempting to track a young dragon.  The ranger rolled to track the beast.  Now failure would be boring in this situation.  I want the party to find the dragon.  The players want to find the dragon.  Not finding the dragon would suck monkey balls.  So, I told them that if the ranger succeeds then they find the dragon and the group gets to set up up the battlefield (tactical advantage).  If the ranger fails the roll then they find the dragon and I set up the battlefield (tactical disadvantage).

It's a nifty technique not really found in the D&D rules anywhere.  You may already be doing this but I thought I'd put it out there.

[Nev the Deranged]

Thanks! That was exactly the right depth-of-reply I was looking for.  It actually sounds like you've put together a version of D&D that I would enjoy myself. There are a lot of neat things I liked about D&D back when I played it, but I always fell into situations where the rules prevented me from being awesome or using an idea that, in the game fiction, made all kinds of sense. Once I even sat in on a game run by Dave Kenzer (of Kenzer & Co.), playing an Elven Ranger who was supposed to be the local guide for the party. Only I had no "area knowledge", no "wilderness lore", apparently knew nothing of the history of the goblin incursions into my homelands... oh, yeah, and I literally couldn't hit the broad side of a Warg from ten feet away. Plus, every time I tried to do something not on my skill list, I was told outright that it would not work. I haven't played D&D since then, despite having earlier rolled up what I felt was a really sweet character (I was playing someone else's char that night), because I just didn't trust the game to let me DO anything. Not only did this lead to me eschewing D&D from that point on, but I "broke up" with my gaming group at the time, even though it was the Knights of the Dinner Table crew and I felt like an "insider" there. My distaste for the game was that strong.

Whew... sorry. I guess I'd been holding that in a long time. My point is that if we'd been using your variant, I think I might still be hanging with those guys. Not sure what the results of that would be, but at the very least, I would have enjoyed the game.

Um... now back to your regularly scheduled discussion. (sheepish grin).

[Andrew Cooper]

Dave played with the Knights of the Dinner Table... heh.  That is scary, funny and cool all at the same time.

[Callan S.]

What enables GM not as adversary Play? What hinders it?

One thing you might consider very, very carefully is the relationship of this technique (saying Yes) to the textual rules of the game. In this particular case, you saw a rule that apparently disallowed the tactic suggested by the player. This puts you in an interesting position - for a moment, right there, you actually become the game designer and decide whether the first (author) game designers had really done a good job with this rule.

I'd actually put it that the player became a game designer for a moment. Then the GM followed and became a designer for a moment too. And the player did not suggest a tactic - he suggested a rule. It's a considerable difference - which I have trouble describing how much here in just one sentence. He was obviously not interested in asking what rules were there, nor was he interested in just getting his way. So he suggested some sort of adversity, hinting toward a dice roll. It was a mini design conference.

There's alot of 'what can the GM do?' direction in this thread. When the example is of the GM doing absolutely nothing, in terms of initiating the events in the AP account. Sure he followed the players lead, but that's not actually doing something when contrasted against actually initiating something.

In summery, Robert, you might be seeing this as a GM task - a job the GM is in charge of. But I'd say he can't be in charge of it - you can't initiate for them.

Also I'd actually say that powergamer you mentioned entered into design mode, but only declined the design you offered 'make up a good roleplay reason'. I'd note it as a disinterest in designing. And I think you have a genuine concern actually in relation to this - if you had said something which slipped over the boarder from 'design conference' to 'a rule I'm supporting in play', he'd use it as the latter. Cause it makes sense to in terms of tactical play - and any wish wash about not being good gaming would be missplaced - that only really has a place at the design stage.

Damn, I had a thread about design phase and run phase a few years ago. Doubt I can find a link though.

[Marco]

I'll give you my take on your questions more as advice than as "answers."

Is GM not as adversary a better roleplaying experience? If so why? For everyone?

It is for me. Ron's notes are bang-on. It's not about the presence of challenge so much as the intention. The GM gloating about a TPK would put me off. The GM running a game with a TPK because of, say, player choices is entirely another thing.

What enables GM not as adversary Play? What hinders it?

A million things "enable it" (and it might be different for each group, same with hindering it). It's a mind-set or an attitude.

Tip: Run 'situation'
Think of your game-prep as situation rather than 'challenge' or 'my story.' In this case you, as the GM, are no longer responsible for making things "hard" or even "fair"--you're responsible for simply judging what's most-likely in terms of outcome. This means you have to construct your situations with some attention to fairness and fun but beyond that, you don't need to be an adversary any longer. You're just the referee.

(Note: you don't have to be dogmatic about this--if the game is becoming un-fun you can choose to make decisions in a way that leads to fun. I advise informing the group if/when you do this what you are thinking meta-game).

Tip: Combats and puzzles don't have to be hard to be fun
One of the more liberating experiences for me was realizing that tough characters getting to be 'tough' (i.e. getting to kick ass) was rewarding for the players. This doesn't mean every fight should be a pushover but it meant that not every battle had to be life-and-death balanced either. If the characters were tough customers then possibly even the whole game could be statistically slanted moderately heavily in their favor and it could still be fun (this is best for groups that are not hunting for a vicious challenge, of course).

Tip: For some people, acting in character is a reward
Having a "battle" where a teenager argues with her mom and gets grounded (by parental fiat) may not be 'balanced' or 'fair' and could be considered adversarial but I've seen situations where that sort of thing is cool, funny, or even moving. There's no adversarial relationship to this, even in the 'argument' (it could also be roleplaying a date between two PCs where the GM is barely involved at all). If these are your guys (and, IME, most players enjoy this to some degree then as a GM you can create a few 'exposition scenes' here and there where the character gets asked an interesting question or gets to make an unfettered judgment and there's no 'enemy' in sight.

When you find yourself saying No to a player idea, why? Is there a way to say Yes?

I play with people I respect and get along with (we're not saints--but I have no incredibly manipulative players in the game). I also play, as a traditional GM, in the role of final-rules-arbiter (i.e. in my role, although I solicit input, eventually I--or another traditional GM--is expected to be able to make the final call on a rules or game question). As such, I say "No" when I think the answer should be 'no.'

I'd have said "yes" in your situation and might not even have made it that difficult to achieve (it sounds like it cost a lot to calm the other enraged PC).

I have said 'No' when:
1. An NPC was asked to do something I didn't think the NPC would do and there were no social mechanics in play.
2. When the tactical situation that I am envisioning does not allow an action--usually due to misunderstanding, at which point I draw a map and we re-state intentions and re-do the action (i.e. I don't hold the PC to a now-meaningless action due to a communication failure).
3. When asked about a resource I definitively feel would *not* exist (as opposed to a chance where I state the percentages, allow discussion to raise/lower, and roll on the table)

I certainly could say 'yes' to any of these--however, if I'm saying 'no' there's a reason--I'm happy to discuss it with the players--and if someone got upset or annoyed during the game, I'd likely stop and talk it through. I don't say "no" just to say "no" and I don't say "no" just because I want some specific outcome: in this forum I have an AP thread where there's an example of an entire game that almost ended in un-wanted anti-climax on one dice roll. I didn't want the roll to be made--because I wanted a more charged ending (which we got, albeit also very unexpectedly) and there was an NPC involved who *could* have been ruled (by me as the GM, within the rules) exempt from social manipulation--however: I let the roll stand after discussing with the players, setting the difficulty, and rolling on the table.

I did that because I'd rather risk the whole game than shut down a character with a lot of currency spent on social skills--and because I thought it was a fair shot and deserved a chance. So it takes a lot to say 'no' and it's usually based on as fair an appraisal of the situation as I can muster.

Are you afraid of Player abuse? Is there a way to solve this problem, if it is one? (you know besides kicking them out of the group, etc...)

I have a long-time friend with whom I used to spar as both a GM and a player. I wouldn't consider this "abuse" but maybe "ruleslawyering" or even old fashioned "power-struggle." If that qualifies, my solution there was two fold:
1. I asked the player to trust that I was being fair (and I am scrupulously fair--I don't manipulate things behind the scenes for specific outcomes. I'm above board with the group and do things like roll dice in plain sight and reveal roll numbers and behind-the-curtain facts as necessary. I also work to construct situations that are, for example, death-resistant so that some unacceptable outcomes are really, really unlikely). So he trusts me.

2. I pointed out to him that the behavior wasn't fun for me and I wouldn't keep coming back for it. It was done in a pretty mature way and he understood what I was saying ("I have to have fun too--and arguing about power-construction isn't fun for me"). So he's mindful that even if he doesn't always agree with what's going on, there has to be good-faith negotiations all around or game will end.

Growing up helped a lot too--I can't deny that--but you don't need to kick people out (in fact, being ready to walk yourself is often more powerful--and I don't mean as a tactic, I'd be friends with this guy no matter what happened in a game--but I mean as a statement of 'man, this isn't working for me').

-Marco

[Noclue]

Yes I am trying to come up with a mantra to overcome those moments when I feel myself falling into the same old behavior pattern. 

I love this quote from Dogs in the Vinyard:

"Every moment of play, roll dice or say yes"