Saying No at the Gaming Table

[Robert M]

[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!"

	Logged

[Robert M]

quote]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.

[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.

	Logged

---------------------------------------------
JAGS (Just Another Gaming System)
a free, high-quality, universal system at:
http://www.jagsrpg.org
Just Released: JAGS Wonderland

[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"