Quote from: RPGPunditThe whole "say yes or roll the dice"; "fun now", shit... NARRATIVISM is nothing more, when it comes down to it, then the players' selfish demands that they get to protagonize exactly the way they want to, the idea that if something is happening with the story that they don't care for, they should be able to change reality to fit their wants; even if it goes against what the GM had planned.

So you're wrong.

No, you're wrong. Again, you don't fully understand these terms, or you're trying to score polemical points. 'Say yes or roll the dice' is nothing more or less than a method of cutting to the chase, of streamlining play. Fun Now is a manifesto that says nothing about your concerns at all.

Finally, you're confusing all sorts of things you've heard about designated authority in Forge games. Let's dissect a few games in detail to examine your claims. Pundits first.

QuoteFinally, you're confusing all sorts of things you've heard about designated authority in Forge games. Let's dissect a few games in detail to examine your claims. Pundits first.

That's the spirit, Droog!

Yeah Droog, I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Quote from: droogNo, you're wrong. Again, you don't fully understand these terms, or you're trying to score polemical points. 'Say yes or roll the dice' is nothing more or less than a method of cutting to the chase, of streamlining play.

No it isn't. "Say yes or no or roll the dice" would be.  "Say Yes or roll the dice" is a statement of ideological warfare that implicitly suggests the GM shouldn't have the power to be able to say an outright "NO" to his players' whims.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditNo it isn't. "Say yes or no or roll the dice" would be.  "Say Yes or roll the dice" is a statement of ideological warfare that implicitly suggests the GM shouldn't have the power to be able to say an outright "NO" to his players' whims.

I'm not sure if I'm agreeing or disputing you here, but from my collated dozen:

8. Consider Your Options.
When someone makes an attempt to alter 'your part' of the fiction - the world if you're the GM, your character if you're a player, you have choices. You can simply agree, or disagree; you can put it to the mechanics, you can modify what they've stated and give it back to them. Limiting your options in this case is silly; most advice to limit these options in a 'positive' way comes from a desire to keep the energy of the game high, or allow for trust between players above and beyond the basic average; those are good goals, but instead of using limits on yourself and others to achieve them, simply remember that your decisions will affect those things as well as the specific matter at hand.

Quote from: RPGPunditNo it isn't. "Say yes or no or roll the dice" would be.  "Say Yes or roll the dice" is a statement of ideological warfare that implicitly suggests the GM shouldn't have the power to be able to say an outright "NO" to his players' whims.

RPGPundit

I like "yes but...." better.

I'm the kind of GM that likes to give the players what they want as long as it won't ruin the fun for the rest of the group.

So I tend to run across a lot of times where I will let the player do something that is questionable, but give them a trade off for doing so.

now if "say yes, or roll the dice"  means strickly that if a player asks for something that I as the GM has only two choices:
Say yes and just let them have it willy nilly
or
Let them make a roll for it and go by the results

then I say it's pretty much denutting the GM without cause. The GM should have atleast the option of giving trade offs.

If the GM is forced to say yes all the time, or further runs the possibility of still being overruled when he rolls the dice (and perhaps fails), the game ends up with increasingly stupid and silly gameplay, since everyone's ideas are equal, and players can escalate all you want.

Player 1: "Oh yeah, well I decide the villian suddenly has to have a sex change operation!"

Player 2: "And *I* decide that s/he is in love with me!"

Coincidentally I think they are struggling with that sort of thing now...

Quote from: RPGPunditNo it isn't. "Say yes or no or roll the dice" would be.  "Say Yes or roll the dice" is a statement of ideological warfare that implicitly suggests the GM shouldn't have the power to be able to say an outright "NO" to his players' whims.

RPGPundit

Can you give a concrete example, please?

Because it really sounds like you have no idea how this works at the table.

As a GM, I don't say, "No," to the ideas the players put forth with my alpha dog GM growl, I say, "No," with the game's system, putting shit in their way and making them roll the dice in a conflict if they want something.

THis is quite different than someone walking into a game set in ancient Rome and wanting to play a ninja assassin.

Apples, over here.

Oranges, over there.

Quote from: McrowI like "yes but...." better.

That was always my philosophy running LARPs.
Saying an outright no, particularly to something that was clearly within a character's capabilities always struck me as a touch... stupid.  So you let them have things, but you create a hitch or a hook from it.

Interplay is good.

Dictatorial GMing leads to railroading and the dark side.

QuoteSaying an outright no, particularly to something that was clearly within a character's capabilities always struck me as a touch... stupid. So you let them have things, but you create a hitch or a hook from it.

There are some instances where this motto clashes with my (for lack of a better, less Swiney term) "Simulationist" streak.

A realistic (in the context of the fantastic) world is important to me. I don't want the cosmos to seem either benevolent or antagonistic to the actions of PCs.

For example, let's say that the PCs are rummaging through an orcish storeroom in the dungeon:

1. They're free to make use of any item that I have already established is there in my room description.

2. If they're looking for something I haven't mentioned, but that is at least somewhat likely to be present in an orcish storeroom, I'll assign a chance of it being present and roll the dice to find out for sure if it is. After all, even when a particular item is likely to be present in a given location, it isn't always so. This, I feel, enforces the illusion of a "real fantasy world" that may ultimately exist for the players' benefit, but definitely does not exist for the benefit of their PCs.

3. If they want something ridiculous, say a jet pack and an inflatable clown hammer, I'll simply say "No." Unless we're playing Toon.

Quote from: PakaCan you give a concrete example, please?

Because it really sounds like you have no idea how this works at the table.

As a GM, I don't say, "No," to the ideas the players put forth with my alpha dog GM growl, I say, "No," with the game's system, putting shit in their way and making them roll the dice in a conflict if they want something.

THis is quite different than someone walking into a game set in ancient Rome and wanting to play a ninja assassin.

Apples, over here.

Oranges, over there.

For starters, a lot of Narrativists would argue that it should be possible for a player to be a ninja assassin in ancient rome, because he wants to "create the story" that an asian assasin came from China and taught him everything he knows before conveniently dying, and as the player it should be his perogative to be able to able to do that.

But let's ignore that bit of lunacy for a moment, and assume that you would not be so drunk on the kool-aid that you would go for that kind of nonsense.

Let me put a simple question to you: should I, as the DM, have the right to say "No, that isn't allowed"?

Does "Say yes or roll the dice" mean "say yes or roll the dice" or doesn't it?
Answer the question, don't avoid, don't try to turn it back to being about me, just answer the fucking question.
You either think the DM should be allowed to say NO to his players about anything, the buck stopping with him, or you don't. You can't have it both ways.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditFor starters, a lot of Narrativists would argue that it should be possible for a player to be a ninja assassin in ancient rome, because he wants to "create the story" that an asian assasin came from China and taught him everything he knows before conveniently dying, and as the player it should be his perogative to be able to able to do that.

This statement is full of shit.

Give me a quote, text, data, something real other than your opinion of a group of people that you have built your reputation and internet cred screaming shit about.

Quote from: RPGPunditBut let's ignore that bit of lunacy for a moment, and assume that you would not be so drunk on the kool-aid that you would go for that kind of nonsense.

Let me put a simple question to you: should I, as the DM, have the right to say "No, that isn't allowed"?

Does "Say yes or roll the dice" mean "say yes or roll the dice" or doesn't it?
Answer the question, don't avoid, don't try to turn it back to being about me, just answer the fucking question.
You either think the DM should be allowed to say NO to his players about anything, the buck stopping with him, or you don't. You can't have it both ways.

This statement is NOT about before the game starts.  It is about play at the table after character generation has already gone down.

In Dogs in the Vineyard, a game you can't stop talking shit about on your blog, you play a paladin gunslinger of the Faith.  Thassit.  There is no ninja choice because there is no other choice.  There are choices within that restriction but that is all there is.

Now que the howling hordes saying that it is too restrictive, please.

Say, "Yes," or roll the dice is about conflicts in the game, not between players at the table.

You don't use Say, "Yes," and roll the dice when a player asks if they can take a steaming shit on the table nor do you use it if they ask if its alright if they borrow your car to smuggle drugs.

Are we clear?

I edited in a NOT that is pretty vital to the whole post.

Quote from: RPGPunditNo it isn't. "Say yes or no or roll the dice" would be.  "Say Yes or roll the dice" is a statement of ideological warfare that implicitly suggests the GM shouldn't have the power to be able to say an outright "NO" to his players' whims.

This is where you need to quote the relevant text.

Personally, I don't mind a bit of deconstruction, but if you're going to take that line I'm pretty sure we can find ideology in any cultural artifact existing. Bit of a red herring for our purposes, I think.

Quote from: PakaIn Dogs in the Vineyard, a game you can't stop talking shit about on your blog, you play a paladin gunslinger of the Faith.  Thassit.  There is no ninja choice because there is no other choice.  There are choices within that restriction but that is all there is.

Now que the howling hordes saying that it is too restrictive, please.

Say, "Yes," or roll the dice is about conflicts in the game, not between players at the table.

You don't use Say, "Yes," and roll the dice when a player asks if they can take a steaming shit on the table nor do you use it if they ask if its alright if they borrow your car to smuggle drugs.

Are we clear?

Let us ignore for the moment the bizzare fetish that Forge-ites have with uber-specified narrow mini-games. That, after all could be the subject of a whole other thread.

Let us ignore all the red herrings of your post.

What you're saying then, fundamentally, is that IN PLAY the GM is NOT allowed to say "no" to his players? Yes or no?

RPGPundit