Quote from: PakaOkay, let's go through that as it might happen at the table.

The Player: I want the killer to reveal themselves.

GM:  THat isn't going to happen, what are you going to do to try tom ake it happen?

Player: I am going to investigate X, Y and Z, try to find a clue.

How is "That isn't going to happen" any different from saying "NO"?
Or is it just the word "no" that you guys are all pissed off about because daddy wouldn't let you have a tonka truck or mommy wouldn't let you eat ice cream or a bad stranger touched you in the park?

I mean, shit, if this is really just an obsession with a single fucking word, then its really reached new depths of the truely dysfunctional...

Or are you really trying to suggest that the radical fucking innovation here is the concept of "what are you going to do to try to make it happen?"

Because really, if that's the case, what you're saying is that you guys are radical innovators because you assume your players are either fucking retards or whiny bitches that will throw a hissy fit if you don't spoonfeed them over toward something they actually could do?

That's just sad.

You see, in my gaming group at least, I say "no", and my players automatically know, without me having to engage in the fucking pop psychology or fondling their fucking nipples that said "no" implies "try something else"; and not just "I'm an asshole".

But of course, that's the problem with just about all Forge theory, isn't it? It was created by a group of guys who were anally raped by a gang of Storyteller Swine with GM-fiat and GM-PCs and Designer-metaplot, and now as a sad traumatized reaction you guys all go into spasms at the merest thought of an empowered GM, all because fucking White Wolf was bad for you... that's a little like eating one spoilt apple and deciding never to eat solid food again.

RPGPundit

Just say yes or roll the dice has nothing at all to do with GM power it has to do with getting the game to where it matters and not concentrating on rolling dice for conflicts that don't matter worth a damn.

Thass all it is.

Easy.

It has nothing to do with taking the power out of the GM's hands.

And if there was a game somewhere that did try to take the power out of the GM's hands, why is that a big deal?

There's no one way to play these games, there's tons of ways and sometimes different ways are fun.

I never said anything about not saying no.

There are clearly things that a player could attempt and in doing so would be crapping the bed.  Trying to fly around and use eyebeams in a historical western or whatever.

You are taking just say yes or roll the dice and turning it into something you can rant about.

If you are interested in looking for something to rant about, go find it.

Quote from: RPGPunditdo you think the GM has a right to say an outright no to his player's demands as he sees fit?

I'll say it. Yes a GM can say no to a player, but for me a no is a zero contribution to game, and is so a waste of time. If a player asks for something and I say no, than that situation is dead when maybe it doesn't have to be. Maybe if I'm using my head and the players like it enough to follow along, I can spin what seems to be a ludicrous request into a full on adventure. Hell if it's a bad idea or too hard to achieve and the players follow it, ignoring whatever warnings or outs I provide until they all get killed, that's not my fault, at least they decided to follow something they thought would be fun. I can TPK a party for a dumb-ass idea and sleep at night, especially if I worked my ass off to make even that situation fun in the attempting.

Quote from: RPGPunditOr are you really trying to suggest that the radical fucking innovation here is the concept of "what are you going to do to try to make it happen?"
Because really, if that's the case, what you're saying is that you guys are radical innovators because you assume your players are either fucking retards or whiny bitches that will throw a hissy fit if you don't spoonfeed them over toward something they actually could do?

That I have little argument with. I've tried reading GNS theory and to this day, even with a reread, there are ideas that have spoonfed, cluestick vibe to it. As if what is being written down really is something that has never occurred to anyone before, ever.

Quote from: GabrielPundit, I believe there's a rule somewhere in Amber that says something akin to, "Unless you have a specific reason for not letting a character do something, then let them do it."  I believe it's either the same rule or one in the same section which says something like "when in doubt, let the player's succeed."  And, now that we've all been kind of discussing this for a while, I understand why you don't see this as something contrary to what you're saying about the GM saying "NO."

I believe there is. Amber is utterly FILLED with excellent GM-advice.

But its just that, advice. Its not taken to mean a leash you hang around a GM's neck. The GM can take it or leave it.

Whereas on the other hand, the way the Forgeites take the "say yes or roll the dice" thing, at least judging from the posts all of you are making here, is one where you believe that in at least some circumstances the GM should be literally prohibited from saying no.

QuoteThe key difference in what all of us are saying is that you seem to basically assume that players will be the problem element of a group, not the GM.  

No, I think both can be problematic.  White-Wolf swine, for example, are all about creating problematic GMs. Fucking glory hounds that reduce the players to cheerleaders with utterly no ability to influence the world or the precious metaplot, they are reduced to watching impotently while the GM plays out the little story sent to him by the game designers and all the important NPCs do things.

I assume that the problem in a group will be when there is too much deviation from the traditional division of GM and Player authorities.  A GM robbing players of their role in the gaming group is just as bad as the players robbing the GM of his role in the gaming group.

QuoteYou seem to be thinking that we're talking about swinging the power pendulum all the way over to the player side, and we're not.  I think we're all saying that the GM still has authority over the game and has the right to refuse stupid things.

Yes, but you think the players should be able to FORCE the GM to be unable to say no to "reasonable" things. And that's where the real problem is.
Im glad you're not so extremist to think that the player should be allowed to have a jetpack in the wild west just because he feels like it, but the real problem is when the players think that it would be reasonable that he should get to "say yes or roll the dice" about something and the GM doesn't.

QuoteNow that I think about the whole thing, I don't even think you're talking about players not having any narrative (or directorial or whatever you want to call it) over the world.  After all, in Amber a player character can walk to another shadow and dictate to the GM exactly what the world is and shape it to his or her desires.  If that isn't player power, I don't know what is.

Sure, its player power within the context of the player's role (as in, what is relevant to HIS character).  A good GM should allow for quite a bit of leeway there.
What should not be allowed is for the player to start dictating the GM's role in the game. For the sake of the game, the buck must stop at the GM.

QuoteSo, what we're all really talking about is when it all goes wrong.  If the GM is being stupid, what recourse does the game give?  If the player is being a jackass, what options does the GM have?  This assumes that the various participants aren't being jackasses on purpose, but are misinterpreting their power balance in the game.

Right. And to me the best possible recourse is the appeal to the the traditional divisions of player/gm roles and the traditions of "good customs" of GM and player behaviour.

RPGPundit

Quote from: PakaI never said anything about not saying no.

There are clearly things that a player could attempt and in doing so would be crapping the bed.  Trying to fly around and use eyebeams in a historical western or whatever.

You are taking just say yes or roll the dice and turning it into something you can rant about.

If you are interested in looking for something to rant about, go find it.

And yet I notice you still haven't answered the question.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditAnd yet I notice you still haven't answered the question.

RPGPundit

And you haven't answered my question nor have you commented on me calling you out on making up bullshit that suits your rant about what Narrative play is about.

I'm not meeting you halfway until you meet me.

The way people keep defending the oft-quoted line, they are diluting it's absoluteness. If it isn't absolute anymore, it's pointless to discuss it, as clearly, the absoluteness is the thing that is so laughable.

Is it absolute, or not?

If not, discussion ends here.

I'll quote the relevant text:

Quote from: Vincent BakerDrive play toward conflict

Every moment of play, roll dice or say yes. If nothing's at stake, say yes to the players, whatever they're doing. Just plain go along with them. If they ask for information, give it to them. If they have their characters go somewhere, they're there. If they want it, it's theirs.

Sooner or later — sooner, because your town's pregnant with crisis — they'll have their characters do something that someone else won't like. Bang!  Something's at stake. Launch the conflict and roll the dice.

Roll dice or say yes. Roll dice or say yes. Roll dice or say yes.

Also, here's some text about GMing Conflicts:

Quote from: Vincent Baker— As GM, you get to help establish stakes. If your player says "what's at stake is this" you can say "no, I don't dig that, how about what's at stake is this instead?" Not only can you, you should. This is an important duty you have as GM and you shouldn't abdicate it.

Make of that what you will.

Quote from: RPGPunditThat's all fine and good; and what if the finding of the cattle killer is something you judge should be absolutely impossible at this stage of the game, no matter how bad the player wants it?

What then?

RPGPundit

All right, let's break this down a bit.

1. You are running a game in which the point is to find the cattle-killer. In this case, why are you saying 'No'? Isn't there some way for the players to be moving towards that goal? If not, why is this the point of the game?

2. You are running a game in which the cattle-killer is irrelevant. You could block, saying 'No' or whatever combination of words achieves the same purpose. You could also riff off the players attempts and throw them some new conflict. There are multiple choices, depending on your style (individual and group).

3. You are running a game in which you have carefully plotted the point at which the PCs will find the catle-killer (related to 1.). Something has gone wrong with your railroad. Say 'No'.

In combination with the text quoted above, it should be pretty clear that (a) this is a technique for pacing conflict; (b) it does not require to check your head at the door; (c) it is for a specific game (and style) and should be handled with care in other circumstances.

Quote from: droogAll right, let's break this down a bit.

1. You are running a game in which the point is to find the cattle-killer. In this case, why are you saying 'No'? Isn't there some way for the players to be moving towards that goal? If not, why is this the point of the game?

2. You are running a game in which the cattle-killer is irrelevant. You could block, saying 'No' or whatever combination of words achieves the same purpose. You could also riff off the players attempts and throw them some new conflict. There are multiple choices, depending on your style (individual and group).

3. You are running a game in which you have carefully plotted the point at which the PCs will find the catle-killer (related to 1.). Something has gone wrong with your railroad. Say 'No'.

In combination with the text quoted above, it should be pretty clear that (a) this is a technique for pacing conflict; (b) it does not require to check your head at the door; (c) it is for a specific game (and style) and should be handled with care in other circumstances.

You and I are operating from totally different bases of how a game is GMed.

Consider: what if the cattle killer's identity may or may not be relevant to the game, but it is simply not logical for the PCs to be capable of identifying the cattle killer at this moment, because they lack the necessary information/connections to do so?

That's the point. You seem to presume that an RPG is run from the point of view that there is a "story" in place, that you are either trying to lead the characters to, or the "cattle rustler" is a totally irrelevant aspect of the story, or if not you are "railroading" to keep them from it until some pre-arranged moment.
But what if story is secondary to emulation? Why should the GM fuck up the entire emulation of the world only because some player really wants to be able to find the cattle rustler now, even though the reality of the setting doesn't allow it?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditYou and I are operating from totally different bases of how a game is GMed.
...................................
But what if story is secondary to emulation? Why should the GM fuck up the entire emulation of the world only because some player really wants to be able to find the cattle rustler now, even though the reality of the setting doesn't allow it?

You've answered your own question. 'Say yes or roll the dice' is a narrativist tool. If what you're doing is simulating a world, the principle may not apply. On the other hand, it might, but caveat emptor. I said this already.

Quote from: meit is for a specific game (and style) and should be handled with care in other circumstances

So how do I apply "say yes or roll the dice" to a player asking "Can I locate a 10MT hydrogen bomb in the Orc King's treasure vault?" :rolleyes:

Quote from: YamoSo how do I apply "say yes or roll the dice" to a player asking "Can I locate a 10MT hydrogen bomb in the Orc King's treasure vault?" :rolleyes:

Do you want me to post the text that covers this again?

Quote from: YamoSo how do I apply "say yes or roll the dice" to a player asking "Can I locate a 10MT hydrogen bomb in the Orc King's treasure vault?" :rolleyes:

The -no- you are looking for is here.

Quote from: Vincent Baker— As GM, you get to help establish stakes. If your player says "what's at stake is this" you can say "no, I don't dig that, how about what's at stake is this instead?" Not only can you, you should. This is an important duty you have as GM and you shouldn't abdicate it.