http://archive.is/ZAzCY Well, there you have it. Now if you

>>54417976
No

>>54417976
no

>>54418011
>>54418000
>>54417999
See, you can say that to ME, but if you say it to a player you are now considered an oppressive shitlord.

>>54418045
No

>>54417976

Literally the very same article says the opposite of that.

>Saying yes doesn’t mean giving the players everything they want. This rule has risen in various gaming spaces as Say Yes or Roll the Dice. This particular version lets GMs say yes until the players get to a point where failure has some interesting meaning beyond “no”.

>>54418045
No?

>>54418045
>if you say it to a player you are now considered an oppressive shitlord.
They are not, that is all that matters.

>>54417976
>"Saying yes doesn’t mean giving the players everything they want."

If some clickbait writer on the internet said it then it must be what everyone else thinks! I'd better save this as evidence to prove I'm the real victim in future arguments since this shows how much more dumb everyone else is

>>54417976
are you okay?

File: Cyberbully.png (32KB, 480x314px)

32KB, 480x314px

>>54417976
Either say that crits do nothing outside of combat before the game begins, like every gm I have ever played with have, or just say that a nat20 is up to the DM's interpretation. If your player don't like it, they don't have to play with you.

Problem solved in 5 seconds.

Come on, /tg/, is your shit posting game this weak?

>>54417976
http://geekandsundry.com/the-4-best-improv-rules-to-improve-your-dd-game/

Honestly, they seem like basic but functional tips for a new GM.

I mean the whole 'No one knows you've made a mistake until you admit it' is a core of being a veteran GM. You just roll with any mistakes you've made rather than delaying everything because you said the wrong name for an NPC or described something differently than planned.

Same with the 'Yes, And'. I do that all the time, listening to my players ideas when they talk about the game and going 'That's honestly better than the actual thing, I'm using that'. It's the entire reason an NPC ended up a Sidereal in an Exalted game, as I used the same merchant a couple of times in a city when they were looking for stuff and they started to suspect he was actually a sid in disguise.

>>54418187
The point is to not give click-bait articles views, numbnuts.

>>54417976
>Now if you say "no" to a player, you are a shit DM.
Um, that's bullshit. I'm fairly certain I've told the players "no" more than a few times and I'd still consider myself a halfway decent GM. Not "great", but decent.

I see where they're trying to go with this, but I don't necessarily like how they're phrasing it.

Every DM is going to run into problems with invisible walls and locked progression, and distinguishing the difference to players. There are areas where you don't want them to go, and areas that you DO want them to go but you don't want to make it trivially easy. Sometimes the only way the players can distinguish the difference is by trying plans and failing- but it's frustrating as hell when they get persistent with something you aren't asking for a plan to overcome in the first place, and equally frustrating when they give up on the ways in that you've thought out. When you've wasted three of four hours available just trying to start the actual adventure as you envisioned it, that was a shit session.

Saying 'yes' to anything *vaguely reasonable* that goes even vaguely in the right direction is one of your safety valves to that problem, and improvising how maybe your invisible wall ISN'T one is the other.

Maybe you're bitching at me right now because I'm making presumptions that players are always supposed to 'win' the game, but if the only reason they are 'losing' is that they can't READ YOUR MIND, then maybe you're the one who has fucked up here.

The natural 20 thing is not even in that article, so I'm not sure where you're getting that.

>>54418159
since when are outside-of-combat-rolls not pass/fail? where did this shitty 'i rolled a 20 so i did it so good i defy any laws of reality' or 'haha you rolled a 1 that means you tripped and died or sucked his dick' meme come from

>>54418326
>where did this shitty 'i rolled a 20 so i did it so good i defy any laws of reality' or 'haha you rolled a 1 that means you tripped and died or sucked his dick' meme come from
/tg/ summerposters, in all honesty.

>>54418326
>since when are outside-of-combat-rolls not pass/fail?

It's not even an article about that, as best as I can so much as 'If there isn't a good reason for a roll, just let them do it'. Not going 'Roll diplomacy for every minor conversation' or 'Roll athletics to climb the ladder out of combat'

>>54418377
There's kind of just a phase people go through getting into the hobby where they think things like some nat 20 throwing everything off course, a luchadore, a lizard man who acts like an upstanding knight, sir bearington, or whatever cliche shit is a lot more original. At this point all that stuff just feels like it gets in the way of having a real fucking campaign, but I get that it's kind of fun when you don't know any better

>>54418303
One trick I use is to present each situation without a clear solution; create the problem consider any precautions the antagonists might anticipate and just let the players figure out a way around it.

A good example of this was in an AoR game, the PC's needed to get some data from a library on Drall, which the Empire fortified to hell and back the Empire quite literally had a sith-made crystal ball to see the future and knew the PC's were coming before they did (I think it was 4 inf platoons, 4 heavy weapons teams, 2 AT-AAs and 3 TIE Bombers) The Empire had the whole site locked down and were prepared for them to try and use their ship to clear the area. Now while I figured they migt head for the city and raise an angry mob to get in and turn the whole thing into a mass combat encounter. They decided to sneak in instead. So I ran with it, They nearly TPK'd in the process but they got the data.

How bad can /tg/ be at Dming?
for once, the article is right.
You shouldn't go ina linear path allowing only what do you want to.
You should let players do whatever they want, and roll and change the story with their consequences.
You will need a LOT more improvising and quick thinking, buit the game will expand and flow not only from a fixed Gm vision, but from a collective effort from all the players.
Of course, if your player simply do incredibly stupid things, they will suffer the realistic consequences for their actions.

>>54417976
You miss understand this is about when your player says i want to jump of a cliff and turn in to a gold fish instead of saying no that's stupid saying YES, AND you fall to your death and die.

>>54417976
the article didn't say that, and if you somehow manged to interpret it that way then yeah you probably are a shit DM

>>54421082
No that's a bad idea because the players won't actually be having fun, they'll just think they are.

>>54417976
>Saying yes doesn’t mean giving the players everything they want.
Have you tried reading the article before posting abouy it, anon?

>>54417976
This isn't the worst advice assuming your not autistic or retarded... I have found a great way to curb some players wanting to do stupid shit is to say yes, but... or your welcome to try but... then they get to die to their dice rather then rocks from the sky gods.

>>54418076
So in essence, a GM shouldn't just say no.

Well.

Duh.

This is why I say "You can certainly try". They will fail. But they can try.

>>54417976
>what is "No, but..."?

>>54418085
>They are not, that is all that matters.
This.

If a lunatic considers me a desklamp, that doesn't actually change anything.

>>54421305
>No that's a bad idea because the players won't actually be having fun, they'll just think they are.
I'll screencap this for future references, you just reached a whole new level of autism

Who cares. Do what you want as a DM because it's not vidya gaymes, you don't really have to follow the official rules.

File: faggot detected.jpg (74KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 900x900px

>>54417976

>>54418276
maybe he's shilling?

File: 5pH8xnG.jpg (14KB, 502x417px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 502x417px

>>54421305

>>54421305
this is a sample of this weaponized autism people keep talking about, right?

This is stupid. We're not playing "pass the story" at my table.

File: Girls.jpg (77KB, 600x536px)

77KB, 600x536px

>>54421305
>No that's a bad idea because the players won't actually be having fun, they'll just think they are
Please never DM

>>54421082
>You should let players attempt whatever they want, and roll and change the story with their consequences.
FTFY
Also, anons that read it or are paying attention seem to be agreeing with the article, just not with OP's idiocy.

>>54421305

I am a literal autist who goes to a shrink every month to get help with autism. While I am there I see low functioning autists who can't live without help and can't communicate at all.

You sir, are the most autistic person I have ever seen.

>>54421614
>>54421577
>>54421537
>>54421443

>muh fun is ~subjective~

MMM I SURE DO LOVE EATING THIS SHIT TWINKIE

BUT ANON WHY ARE YOU EATING SHIT

BECAUSE ITS FUN, STOP OPPRESSING MEEEE

File: 1468305895896.png (264KB, 680x863px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 680x863px

>>54421713

>>54421305
I'm sorry, what?

>>54417976
no

>>54421305
Im sure what he means to say is that players will be having less fun than they could be.

>>54422313
>>54421766
I appreciate you ignorant idiots have been rendered braindead by vidya and critical role so let me explain

BUT ITS FUN means nothing. It is the response bad players give when called out about their bad habits picked up from e-celebs. It doesn't matter if your atrophied brain gets a good feel when you and your screeching roastie friends roll LE EPIC NATTY TWENNY, your personal endorphin release dysfunction likely caused by fetal alcohol syndrome does not make permissive roleplaying good.

>>54422459

So why will the players not be having fun and instead think they are?

>>54422459
Gorsh I wish a was a steely-eyes clay-man like you who didn't somatically experience happiness!

>>54421305
Never change /tg/

>>54421391
>I have found a great way to curb some players wanting to do stupid shit is to say yes, but... or your welcome to try but
Ah that is how I tell players "no" I just tell them ahead of time what the most likely outcome is. unless it's something where they are being ridiculous, like them trying to use an item they don't have.

with one exception, goes back to my AoR game the PC's were in a strong dark side nexus and were seeing traumatizing visions (which were requiring fear checks). when this one player received his he tried to say his character would pass it off as "eh, whatever", had myself and 2 other players explain to him that "no, unless his character is clinically insane, he's going to have fears and anxieties and having those shoved in his face is going to be upsetting for him".

>>54421431
I've always preferred "Yes, but..." and "No, and..."

>>54418326
nat 1 has grounds in an actual ruling somewhere, at least, just nothing D&D
cyberpunk 2020, a game published in the 90s, is a 1d10 roll over system where 1 is always a failure, with a ~50%-60% chance to really fuck things up
this applies to skills and combat both.
of course, a 50%-60% chance to critically fail after rolling a 1 on 1d10 is roughly equivalent to the 5% chance to roll a 1 on 1d20

in the same system, rolling a 10 just means you roll another 1d10 and add that. no, there aren't any other effects.

conversely, i can't think of any system off-hand that has the nat 20 meme baked in where it's always an overwhelming success.
other systems will usually have ways to 'botch' a roll or do exceptionally well, they tend to be pretty rare and are dependant on factors other than the raw dice roll.

>>54417976
>players getting to do what they want on a nat20
That's not what they said.

Shit bait 2/10

File: A BOMB.jpg (29KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 800x600px

>>54421305
This just in: fun things are, in fact, not actually fun!

>>54421305
>Fake fun

>>54422459
and here I was thinking your post >>54421305
was just heavy-handed sarcasm that no one picked-up on. You sir, are not autistic, to accuse you of that would be an insult to autists everywhere, you are just a pretentious twit so far up your own ass that all you can see is teeth.

>>54421305
What did he mean by this?

>>54423501
>falling this hard for obvious bait

>>54418297
The thing is, instead of just saying no when the player wants to roll to seduce a lich to try to grapple a huge dragon, it would be more interesting to have him try it and punish him horribly intead.

File: 1int.jpg (16KB, 222x227px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 222x227px

>>54422459
>calls other people /v/-tards
>posts infamous /v/ argument

>>54423732
>to seduce a lich to try to grapple a huge dragon

>the lich is visibly disturbed, and starts patting at its boney forehead with a cloth, even though it cannot sweat

>>54418303
I don't even plan the adventure anymore, its a waste of time. I just create the scenario and the actors in it, emphasize a certain situation as the central point of the adventure, let the players do whatever they want and improvise everything on the spot. My players don't know that, of course and everyone's been enjoying the sessions a lot more, including myself since I avoid the past frustrations of spending days planning a script just so the players avoidit completely.

>>54423732
>The thing is, instead of just saying no when the player wants to roll to seduce a lich to try to grapple a huge dragon, it would be more interesting to have him try it and punish him horribly intead.
I wouldn't say "no" there, I would've informed them that their character would most likely die a horrible death if they proceeded with this plan, wait to see if the other players intervene to stop him, and if the player then proceeds anyway, I show no mercy.

OH! I remember a time I said "no" to a player and I felt justified for it.

Party was assaulting a Hutt hideout on a derelict world, and one of the Players had built this munchkin character that got his shit pushed in in the previous session, that character tried to ditch the rest of the party by taking their only ship and possibly the only working ship in the entire system and leaving while everyone else was in the base (because he refused to join them). I effectively told him "no" by having the NPC crew literally mutiny against him on the grounds that they wren't about to leave while 3/4 of the command crew was still planet side. going so far as sabotaging their own Hyperdrive to prevent him from leaving without the other PCs. I still feel justified in that because honestly if I had let him leave the other players would be stuck on a planet with no ship and no means of communication with the greater galaxy, in a system no one goes to or has any reason to go to. THAT'S NOT FUN FOR ANYONE AND YOU KNOW IT I mean the player was upset but given the choice I'd rather have one player upset with me than three of them mad at me.

File: IMG_1604.jpg (128KB, 1280x719px)

128KB, 1280x719px

>>54421713

>>54423731
are you sure it's bait?
because I've been on the internet long enough to know not to assume such things.

>>54424237
>d&d 4e.jpg

>>54417976
>Now if you say "no" to a player, you are a shit DM
Note that this article doesn't promote the idea that you should allow your players to knock the sun out of the sky with a well placed kick. It's merely saying that when the players do something unexpected you should roll with it, which you should. I mean, holy fuck, I thought this was fundamental fucking GMing. Like, I'm sure every single RPG book I own says exactly that in the first chapter.

>>54421577
No, weaponized autism is shit like /pol/ identifying that Antifa bike-lock guy. This is just regular old shitposting.

>>54417976
Stop baiting. It's specifically drawing from improv, where "yes, and..." is a standard tip for keeping a scene going.

>>54421305
I know what you mean anon. Lolzrandumb idiocy is "fun" but its it's like potato chips it doesn't fill you up, it's shallow and unfulfilling. Whereas a campaign where the players can do what they want but actually RP and make a good story, is more fulfilling.

>ONE guy writes ONE article about an unorthadox way to play pnps that he finds fun, and wants to spread the method around for other groups who might have fun using it.
>In OP's mind: EVERY RPG GAMER THAT IS NOT ME IS A DROOLING RETARD AND THEY'RE RUINING MY HOBBYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>54423501
>You sir, are not autistic, to accuse you of that would be an insult to autists
Bearded reddo user detected. Please go back to fucking your heifer hipster girlfriend and playing D&D Next and leave us alone.

>>54428019
>an unorthadox way to play pnps
What?

File: 1460ff071104cd3.jpg (45KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 500x375px

>>54421305

>>54417976
Don't be retarded. Apply a little of that 3rd grade level reading comprehension, why don't you. The point is dynamism. You just don't want a situation in which NOTHING happens. Failure is still very much an option, but it shouldn't start and end with "no." You're the DM the fact that the world is real and has consequences and reactionary potential is in fact YOUR responsibility to act out. Don't be a lazy stubborn shit and just sit on your ass waiting for the players to do things the one specific way you intended them to, do a little work. Actually DM for once.

>>54421089

TWENTY

TWO

WISDOM

File: not real fun.png (173KB, 1678x1048px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 1678x1048px

>>54421305
Capped

File: 1445260770293.png (41KB, 608x878px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 608x878px

>>54421305
I have an actual autistic GM and he is fucking leagues better than you.

He may not always like what happens in game but he has enough awareness to referee the situation and hold the game together. I as a player don't always like the responses to my actions but I have enough awareness to deal.
The games can be tense but we all have enough lenience with each other to tough it out and ultimately the games are really satisfying. By the end we have something that was built by all of us bouncing off each other, sometimes succeeding, sometimes failing but always giving each other a chance to try.

I have another GM that hates when the players run off his rails. He likes his story lines and DMPCs but he has enough self-awareness to get that he really shouldn't be GMing, at least not yet.

>>54417976
>getting mad about Say Yes or Roll
For what purpose? If you want to say No just set the DC appropriately (read: impossibly) high. If the DC isn't impossibly high, why can't the character attempt it?

Scared it will disrupt the fantasy novel you wrote before the players even rolled their characters?

>>54417976
My favorite words ever
>"You can try"
Not nearly everything you attempt to do will be successful. Some things might even be just flat out possible. But you're not there to dictate to the players what they "can" or "cannot" do. They must figure that out themselves.

>>54431186
In many cases, you don't need a random element to determine what happens next. Calling for a roll at all is superfluous in those cases.

The random element is there to resolve situations which the GM is uncertain of, not for trying to enact a foregone conclusion.

>>54432443
>you don't need a random element to determine what happens next
This is true, but it's still better then to say "you try, but no matter what the stone door won't budge" rather than "no, you don't do that."

File: rIkmjTN.jpg (77KB, 680x738px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 680x738px

>>54421305

>>54417976
Anyone who says that saying no is bad has clearly only played with a group of close friends who all want exactly the same thing from the game.

>>54434838
I mean, I don't agree with the guy, but all those people calling him out on it clearly can't have been here long.

>>54435830
>has clearly only played with a group of close friends
Why would you ever play with anyone else? Seriously. If you're friends don't share this hobby, then find another one. If you don't have any friends, then make that your priority.

I mean, fuck. I'd rather die than subject myself to joining a group of strangers at my LGS or, worse, online.

>>54435944
I do play with my friends, they just don't mesh perfectly like this "never say no" method requires. Two get really into the game and roleplay everything, one thinks they're nerds and is just looking to make the next teegee maymay, and the fourth treats it like a video game and plays every character as a stat sheet. I have three distinct ways my friends want the DMing to go, I can't please them all with every event, so sometimes I have to say no.

>>54436027
>I can't please them all
No one said that.

>>54436056
I kind of figured you'd follow that to its logical conclusion given my situation, but I guess I have to spell it out.

Let's say the roleplayers are talking to a quest guy with some bodyguards, they're holding an in character conversation about payment when memelord butts in with some LOLRANDUMB shit and borks the entire situation and gets himself killed or jailed. Now he's out of the game rerolling, and the party has to deal with the consequences. When I could just tell him no and now the roleplayers get to keep roleplaying and he can do his stupid shit during the next proper combat.

>>54436444
The former situation is honestly preferable to the latter.

>>54417976
My mouth says 'Yes', my body says 'No'. These players are literally raping me, send help

>>54436527
In what way?

>>54436605
What your mouth says is what determines consent, anon. It's not rape if you say yes.

>>54436614
Because you give the players authority over how their character acts. That is always valuable, even if, or rather especially when, the consequences of their actions affect the other players. That creates tension and drama.

>>54436652
It creates tension between the players not the characters because that character is a non-factor now. Literally all that is accomplished is that everyone else needs to drop what they want to do and find something else.

>>54436822
>It creates tension between the players
If you're playing with literal children, yes.

>>54436837
I was just told that tension was a reason to let the retard be a retard, so my response is that doing that would only upset the other players who keep having their plans derailed by him. I give every player their time to do what they like.

>>54436962
And my response is that your player would only be upset if they're immature man-children. The reason to play an RPG over, say, a video game is that your options are limitless. Whatever you want to do in a given situation you can try, and a good GM let you act on it and try to react to it.

>>54437085
So you would not get upset if someone kept intentionally screwing with everything you tried to do in-game because they thought it was funny?

>>54437147
No.

>>54437201
Clearly you are a saint, ascended over us mere mortals then. Thank you for blessing me with your words.

>>54437246
>Clearly you are a saint
No.

>>54432443
But which situations should the GM be certain of?

>>54437322
I'm the guy who has been arguing against him for the last couple of posts, but there certainly are situations where the actions the player describes should be impossible for the character to perform. For example, in a modern era criminal drama setting, one player out of the blue states that he wants to kicks a building so hard that it crumbles to the ground.

Now, I've never been in a session where a players wants to do something even remotely as absurd.as that, but still, clearly it's an action that shouldn't yield results. As a GM it would then be easy to say "No, you don't do that because it's stupid", but the better approach would be to say "Ok, you've clearly been doing a lot of drugs recently since you think this is possible. You kick the brick wall as hard as you can and you break your foot. You fall to the ground and scream in pain."

>>54436837
>>54437085
>>54437201
>>54437278

You can be annoyed at people sabotaging things you enjoy doing without being a child, and if you honestly can't comprehend that then you have some weird combination of selflessness and lack of empathy.

>>54437583
If anything I lack selflessness. Empathy I have plenty, sympathy on the other hand I have none of.

>>54437639
Well unless you're a hypocrite, you've implied you 1. Don't mind if other people sabotage things you enjoy (which seems selfless). 2. Think only children could be upset at having their fun ruined when playing a game ostensibly for the sake of having fun (which seems to show a complete lack of understanding for how people feel aka empathy)

>>54437763
>1. Don't mind if other people sabotage things you enjoy
I enjoy it when players enjoy do unexpected things, I'm also the forever GM of my group.

>2. Think only children could be upset at having their fun ruined
Yes.

>>54417976

This is pretty much correct and all good advice.

The only time you should be saying "no" as a DM is if the player is trying to do something that is literally impossible.

Which does happen, so I'm a little dissapointed they didn't mention that.

But the very basic mechanism of TTRPG is a player suggesting an action and the DM explaining the reaction. Only when the action is actually impossible should the DM say "wait you can't do that."

If the player is trying to do something disruptively stupid: "I spit on the King!" you should go more the "Yes, but you know that will probably start a fight that won't end well for you, do you do it anyways?" and if they go for it then you dish up the consequences. If that behavior is too disruptive or malicious, you need to get rid of the player.

>>54437841
Oooh, you just don't see a problem with players ruining each other's evening because you can stay out of that, all while you think adults don't deserve to have fun. Got it, your a sociopath.

File: 1442519931508.png (246KB, 550x535px)

246KB, 550x535px

>>54421305
What did you mean by this?

File: 1475400682039.jpg (58KB, 728x426px)

58KB, 728x426px

>>54421305

File: WHtNyw.gif (2MB, 380x216px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 380x216px

>>54422459

As someone who's gotten into roleplaying first, and now is part of a legit improv theatre group, fuck yeah improv rules are useful for roleplaying.

There is a lot of overlap between the two, and learning improv has not only improved(heh) my GMing attitude, but also my attitude as a player.
I've realized that my character horribly failing and getting into predicaments isn't the thing to avoid, so long as that failure contributes to the story.
That's the key - a good sense of narrative, being willing to roll with punches, and even low-key cooperating with the GM (in that "motherfucker I know EXACTLY where this is going and I'm gonna help you make it happen" way) in order to make the game more fun, and the narrative roll on.

>>54433916
> it's still better then to say "you try, but no matter what the stone door won't budge" rather than "no, you don't do that."
That's more or less what I was trying to say.

Usually, unless somehow the player doing the thing would seriously violate roleplaying etiquette or endanger relations at the table (i.e. "I stab the questgiver and take his pants off lmfao"), you can just let it resolve. In the case of an impossible action you can say something like "it is apparent that slashing the steel door will not cause significant damage to it; it's a case of metal on metal- your sword will break before the door does".

>>54437322
>But which situations should the GM be certain of?
The short answer is to use your discretion. Take into account factors like tone, power-level, setting, the situation's stress level, time constraints, the PCs' capabilities, physics, and so on. If it's a task that you really cannot imagine the PC failing to accomplish given what you know (such as an experienced mechanic restoring a vehicle to working order with excess time and access to all the necessary tools and materials, or an accomplished burglar opening a locked door), then there's probably no reason to bother rolling.

There are also situations that are just common sense, like if you go up to someone in their sleep, put a gun to their head and pull the trigger. You want a stealth roll or something to see if the victim wakes up, but once you pass that it's pretty clear what's supposed to happen next. Unless the guy's some kind of superhero, or you're running a three stooges campaign, he's dead.

>>54417976
Stop getting so triggered over an article by some random website that has no bearing on your game you thin skinned bitch

>>54443928
Besides he completely misrepresents the article.

Gotta step up that bait game, OP