GM Tips: Context is King

DM (as NPC): Goblins have been raiding farms throughout this area of late. We don't know where they're coming from. PC: What do I know of goblins and where they lurk in this area? Nature check or maybe Streetwise? DM: Sure. PC: Streetwise. I rolled a 3. DM: You don't know anything. What do you do from here? PC: We keep running into dead ends. This is the third NPC we've talked to. We can't succeed on any rolls either it seems. PC2: Let's go rob from the bartender, burn down the tavern, and fight town guard I guess. I'm seeing a lot of GMs of late obscuring information as a clunky form of in-game challenge or as a way of covering up their plot. As a result the games move at a sluggish pace as the players lack the context they need to decide and execute on a course of action. Oftentimes as a result, they "act out" in un-heroic ways, especially if your adventure starts off or takes place in a town. They're moving the game forward alright, but perhaps not in a way they really want to (and often not in the way the GM imagined or desired). In a sense, this behavior is an objection to the GM's approach. GMs, take note: In order for your players to take action and move the game forward, they need context . Context means the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed. Among all the other things you need to do as GM to run a successful game, you need to make sure they get that context. It cannot be obscured by your blocks (surly or cagey NPCs, manufactured dead-ends to protect your "all-important" plot, etc.) or hidden behind a skill check that may never be actually made or may never be achieved, Without context, it is harder to move the game forward and the game moving forward is more important than anything else. A game in which the pacing stalls is a game that doesn't last long. "More important than 'roleplaying' to figure out the information, Headhunter Jones?" Yes, but only because your question belies the fact that you don't know what "roleplaying" actually is. Roleplaying is just this one thing: making a decision your character might also make, given the situation. (When you think of "RP," you are probably thinking of in-character interaction or dramatic acting , which are only ways to communicate playing a role.) Therefore, in order to roleplay their characters appropriately, the players need context. The more you obscure it, the less roleplaying your game will have. Ironically, the GMs I see that crave, desire, and demand "roleplaying" from their players the most are also the ones who obscure information the most. They don't realize that their very approach is what is causing the problem. If you're one of those GMs, now you know. "But what about my plot, Headhunter Jones?" Indeed, what about it? Your super-secret plot is not more important than the game continuing to move forward. If the game falls apart because it is sluggish and boring, your plot is worthless anyway. Consider that the very purpose of a secret plot is to be unraveled by the PCs. If you don't share information and provide context, it will be ignored or your game will break down due to utter boredom long before anyone figures out the quest-giver was actually the villain or whatever. Consider also: Even if you give up the goods completely about your plot, does it mean the PCs win? No, it doesn't. It just means they have context in which to act and the outcome of actions are never guaranteed if you're using dice. There's also the school of thought that GMs should never prepare plots . But that's a preference, not a requirement. In any case, if you have a plot, secret or otherwise, you might consider telling your players directly that you do have a plot, that part of the challenge is uncovering it (make sure this is a legitimate in-game challenge and not just you being difficult and cagey), and that there is no other adventure outside of that plot. If they want that kind of game experience, they will agree to stick to the plot. If they don't, then they have the option of leaving rather than causing trouble in the game later. I'll leave you with some practical tips you can use in your game right now: Give information freely, generously even. If the legitimate in-game challenge is the acquisition of specific information, then frame it that way and do a skill challenge with level-appropriate complications and DCs (or whatever framework your game system prescribes). Be okay with whatever outcome occurs, even if it means spoiling your plot. If you are going to use skill checks or the like to reveal important information, the result of a skill check can never be "You don't know." If a roll is being made, then the information should be revealed no matter what. If the roll is successful, they get the information, no problem. If it is not successful, they get the information, but it costs them something (money, time, hit points, unwanted attention, or anything else appropriate to the situation). If you're not sure what that cost could be, ask your players what they're willing to pay. The upside to that is the cost comes with their inherent buy-in. A scene in which the PCs are interacting with an NPC to get information cannot be full of the GM blocking. Blocking - saying "No" or avoiding a subject - is a form of control in which the GM stymies the creation of new information in an effort to avoid vulnerability (say, protecting his plot). It's frustrating and boring and it's why your players get all stabby on your NPCs (and why you consequently make them higher level or surrounded by guards all the time). If the NPC has a reason to hide the information, then (as above) present the situation as a legitimate in-game challenge to be overcome with interaction and mechanics. If the NPC has no reason to hide the information, give it up. Quickly. Then move the game forward. If you're using a game with plots, be honest about what it means for the players when they avoid or go away from that plot. Many DMs will say "Yeah, do whatever you like!" and then anything that is not on that plot is made boring or punitive until the players get back on it. Don't be that guy. Tell the players where the adventure is and, if they want adventure, they will go there. Don't pretend to run a sandbox game when you're not actually doing that. What anecdotes do you have to share about running or playing in games where this has been a problem? Edit: Opening example modified as per the change mentioned downthread, based on feedback.

Discovering information is a long standing practice in RPGs. In your example the players gave up rather than trying to find other avenues of information. In order to figure out where the goblins are coming from the players can use tracking, inquiries of the local hunter in the town, rumors of where they may be coming from, divinations etc. If anything, the players in your example are not willing to work for the information and want it to be simply handed to them so they can then go kill the goblins. If that is the style of game the players want, the GM should accommodate that. However, that is not what everyone wants. - Gauss

Once again it seems like we disagree on something. In the example you listed, the player wanted to figure out if he knew where the goblins in the area were lurking, after rolling poorly the DM informed him that he was unaware of where the creatures were lurking. Instead of taking that lack of knowledge and either a) Asking more questions to perhaps narrow down the possibilities or b) going out to search in general, the players decide to do something completely random. In that case that is not a situation where the DM should have revealed more information or the like but a case where the PC's seem to be the type that want everything handed to them and and might be a little daft, but that last part is simply my opinion. I agree that a DM should prevent the story from becoming stagnant but the players also have a hand in that. I mean if it is becoming a common theme that your players can't be bothered to ask the most basic of questions or come up with alternate solutions than you as a DM need to either not put them in situations where they need to think or just find new players all together as the ones you have obviously don't fit well with your style. Now if you don't want to move your plot/story forward in an obvious way then you can still move the game forward with something else and have the players work back to it. This can lead to a new piece of information being discovered or a clue of some sort. Hell you could even do an entirely different quest or story arc if you will before coming back to it. Maybe while the party deals with this other small task the goblins strike again and leave behind a clue or you run into a small band of them and they have some piece of information on them that points you in the right direction. I also must say that I've been DMing for nearly 20 years now and in the last decade or so I have not run into the situations that you seem to list that your players react with. Players in my games don't go around attacking random NPC's or starting bar brawls or rob random people or anything like that unless the game is an evil aligned game and even then it isn't just random violence. Now maybe I have been really lucky these last years by somehow only finding a certain type of player, it is quite possible. However I just feel like some of the responsibility for such ridiculous actions resides on the players as well. And those GM's that continually run into these players either need to re-assess their style or start being far more picky with them. This kinda falls back into the discussion about having a session zero and as the DM/GM telling your players what kinds of games you like to run in order to find players that match your style. There are tons of DM's out there that are down with the players being crazy all the time so the players that want their characters to be maniacs should try and find them. Just like players that enjoy games that require some thinking or puzzle solving or the like should find DM's that enjoy those as well. As for not "preparing a plot" that seems rather impossible to do in the game as even if you let your players do as they please and base everything off of what they do there is still going to be a plot. Those monsters they fight are in an area for some reason (to hunt, a specific task, they live there, etc.). The only way you could get away with no plot is just compiling groups of monsters and arbitrarily placing them in your world. This would also apply to your towns and npc's. They tend to exist for a reason, so unless that reason is simply "because the players need them" there is going to be at least the most basic plot formed. Once again this is just another view that we completely disagree on, which seems to be a common theme between us lol. Is your way or my way considered to be the right way? Yes and no, it all comes down the style of the DM and what the players want from their game. If this has come across as preachy or me attempting to prove my way as being the right one then I apologize as that was not my intent.

Gauss said: Discovering information is a long standing practice in RPGs. In your example the players gave up rather than trying to find other avenues of information. In order to figure out where the goblins are coming from the players can use tracking, inquiries of the local hunter in the town, rumors of where they may be coming from, divinations etc. If anything, the players in your example are not willing to work for the information and want it to be simply handed to them so they can then go kill the goblins. If that is the style of game the players want, the GM should accommodate that. However, that is not what everyone wants. - Gauss If a given GM is having no problems with player retention, absenteeism, or the like and is still using the practices I caution against above, then this post does not apply to them. They have the buy-in of their players on that approach. That's what that group likes (or tolerates even if they don't like it). If the GM is having problems with player retention, absenteeism, or the like, this post offers a way to examine your game to see if it's not actually you that is causing the very issues you're hoping to avoid. Yes, discovering information is a long-standing practice in RPGs. That is exactly the process I am describing above, only I'm suggesting that it be a legitimate in-game challenge rather than the challenge of overcoming the GM's blocking . Player vs. game, not player vs. GM, which it frequently is in these sorts of interactions. I can imagine that if I expand my example, it could have been preceded by exactly what you're saying - tracking, inquiries among hunters, rumors on the street, or divinations - only those things didn't provide enough context to act either . You can set your watch by how fast that turns into the characters stealing and burning down taverns. It's so common as to be a D&D trope. It's not about players not wanting to "work" for the information they need to move the game forward. It's about the GM making them "work" for it in a way that is not engaging and is frequently met with out-of-game blocks rather than in-game challenges that can be resolved by playing the actual game. A blocking GM is making the challenge of the game himself rather than the game. Learn that GM's biases - love of in-character interaction, creative ideas, remembering some plot element from 3 weeks ago, or the ever-popular "realism and logic" - and you can learn how to win that game by playing to said biases. That's no longer playing the game - it's playing the GM, and it's the GM setting it up that way. The method I suggest obviates this issue and keeps the game moving forward.

That example should have played out without the need of dice. Headhunter Jones said: DM (as NPC): Goblins have been raiding farms throughout this area of late. We don't know where they're coming from. PC: What do I know of goblins and where they lurk in this area? Nature check or maybe Streetwise? DM: Sure. PC: Streetwise. I rolled a 3. DM: You don't know anything. What do you do from here? PCs: No idea. Let's go rob from the bartender, burn down the tavern, and fight town guard I guess. My Example DM (as NPC): Goblins have been raiding farms throughout this area of late. We don't know where they're coming from PC: What do I know of goblins and where they lurk in this area? Nature check or maybe Streetwise? DM: Think of who might know that is local. PC: Ah...My character goes down to the local market and asks around about any problems with goblins. DM (as NPC) : Well, I haven't had any problems but I heard hunter Smith had a run in with some recently. He is over by the bridge. I know what Jones is showing but just strip out the dice roll and make the pc have to interact to get the info. This is what you are meaning, right Jones?

Headhunter Jones, it was not the rest of your post I commented on, it was the example. In the example the players gave up at the first information setback rather than exploring other avenues. It is my belief that your example does not illustrate the rest of your post very well. - Gauss

Phisto Roboto said: Once again it seems like we disagree on something. In the example you listed, the player wanted to figure out if he knew where the goblins in the area were lurking, after rolling poorly the DM informed him that he was unaware of where the creatures were lurking. Instead of taking that lack of knowledge and either a) Asking more questions to perhaps narrow down the possibilities or b) going out to search in general, the players decide to do something completely random. In that case that is not a situation where the DM should have revealed more information or the like but a case where the PC's seem to be the type that want everything handed to them and and might be a little daft, but that last part is simply my opinion. It's important not to lose the greater point in the specifics of a short example. How it might have played out is the player fails the check, is given the information anyway, but it costs him something now or later. I agree that a DM should prevent the story from becoming stagnant but the players also have a hand in that. I mean if it is becoming a common theme that your players can't be bothered to ask the most basic of questions or come up with alternate solutions than you as a DM need to either not put them in situations where they need to think or just find new players all together as the ones you have obviously don't fit well with your style. Now if you don't want to move your plot/story forward in an obvious way then you can still move the game forward with something else and have the players work back to it. This can lead to a new piece of information being discovered or a clue of some sort. Hell you could even do an entirely different quest or story arc if you will before coming back to it. Maybe while the party deals with this other small task the goblins strike again and leave behind a clue or you run into a small band of them and they have some piece of information on them that points you in the right direction. Or you can just give them the information at a cost if they fail the check and all the side trekking needn't happen. Some call this "failing forward." I refer to it as "interesting failure." I also must say that I've been DMing for nearly 20 years now and in the last decade or so I have not run into the situations that you seem to list that your players react with. Players in my games don't go around attacking random NPC's or starting bar brawls or rob random people or anything like that unless the game is an evil aligned game and even then it isn't just random violence. Now maybe I have been really lucky these last years by somehow only finding a certain type of player, it is quite possible. However I just feel like some of the responsibility for such ridiculous actions resides on the players as well. And those GM's that continually run into these players either need to re-assess their style or start being far more picky with them. Please don't conflate what I observe in other games with what happens in my games. I too have been DMing for over 20 years and I have participated in games and observed games (lots on Roll20) that share striking similarities when it comes to the topics covered in the original post. The outcomes that arise from these situations are very similar. As I said above, the players getting bored, robbing, and pillaging is so common in games like D&D that it's a trope at this point. The DM responds with town guard, capture, imprisonment as the situation escalates. You can set your watch by it. This kinda falls back into the discussion about having a session zero and as the DM/GM telling your players what kinds of games you like to run in order to find players that match your style. There are tons of DM's out there that are down with the players being crazy all the time so the players that want their characters to be maniacs should try and find them. Just like players that enjoy games that require some thinking or puzzle solving or the like should find DM's that enjoy those as well. As I said above, games run better when the players offer their buy-in on a given approach. One hopes that the GM is capable of describing his approach prior to play, but this is rarely done (or done well) in my experience. As for not "preparing a plot" that seems rather impossible to do in the game as even if you let your players do as they please and base everything off of what they do there is still going to be a plot. Those monsters they fight are in an area for some reason (to hunt, a specific task, they live there, etc.). The only way you could get away with no plot is just compiling groups of monsters and arbitrarily placing them in your world. This would also apply to your towns and npc's. They tend to exist for a reason, so unless that reason is simply "because the players need them" there is going to be at least the most basic plot formed. You might like the article I posted above which discusses the terminology of RPGs. You're referring to a happening , which later becomes a story after game play is concluded. A plot is a very specific thing, though the definition is very much muddled in RPG circles (along with many other definitions and concepts). Story and plot are frequently conflated, for example. The article should clear that up for you and is a fun read. It also shows you how to prepare games without plots. The dirty secret, as the article describes, is that games without plots are less prep and easier to run. Your individual experience and preference may vary, of course. Once again this is just another view that we completely disagree on, which seems to be a common theme between us lol. Is your way or my way considered to be the right way? Yes and no, it all comes down the style of the DM and what the players want from their game. If this has come across as preachy or me attempting to prove my way as being the right one then I apologize as that was not my intent. A preference by definition cannot be objectively right or wrong. What I suggest is not that a given GM who does the things I am cautioning against is wrong, only that if he's having problems in his game, it might be the approach that is doing it. If the GM isn't having any problems in his game, then the advice doesn't apply.

And this is why you don't make opinion comments on opinion comments with veteran GMs. Fellas, I too have been DM'ing for [insert long time here] and agree with [generally acceptable point], but not so much with [generally acceptable point]. I can honestly say that you see players across the board - some with take a lack of information as a challenge to get more of of their GM, while others will not. And then, some with shrug their shoulders when you give them a vision detailing the direct route to an artifact, complete with flashing roadsigns, so that they can kill a stable boy. Knowing what you're players are looking for in a game, and providing them with the means to accomplish that has been what has been the most successful for me; regardless of what details I am obscuring or handing out to my players. You do what works.

Metroknight said: That example should have played out without the need of dice. My Example DM (as NPC): Goblins have been raiding farms throughout this area of late. We don't know where they're coming from PC: What do I know of goblins and where they lurk in this area? Nature check or maybe Streetwise? DM: Think of who might know that is local. PC: Ah...My character goes down to the local market and asks around about any problems with goblins. DM (as NPC) : Well, I haven't had any problems but I heard hunter Smith had a run in with some recently. He is over by the bridge. I know what Jones is showing but just strip out the dice roll and make the pc have to interact to get the info. This is what you are meaning, right Jones? That's one way. It's not one I would choose to employ because I am not fond of the "chain of NPCs" exposition. In any case, I agree there's probably no roll here unless we're in a skill challenge (if we're talking D&D 4e) or some other mechanical framework by which in-game challenges are resolved. If we're simply talking exposition to establish vital context, then that information shouldn't be hidden behind rolls. Or if it is hidden behind rolls, you get the information on a failure, but at a cost. I think it's important for the GM to consider whether the acquisition of information (or anything else in game) is appropriate for mechanics and frame the challenge accordingly for the players so they know there is something to gain and lose by engaging. The key takeaway is that if you're going to have interactions with no mechanics, you can't block as GM because then the game becomes a case of overcoming your blocks instead of playing the game. In my approach, there would be no roll. I would ask the player to tell me why his character would know about goblins and where they lurk in this area. After he has established that fiction e.g. "When I served as a scout in the last war, I passed through this area and fought goblins so I know something about them...", I would give over the information freely. This is a win-win situation: We've learned something new about that player's character (maybe the player himself did, too) and he gets the background information needed to move the game forward. The additional context the player established about his relationship to goblins may be useful later when the goblins are encountered. Perhaps the goblin chief was in the war too and that creates a special enmity between him and that PC.

Gauss said: Headhunter Jones, it was not the rest of your post I commented on, it was the example. In the example the players gave up at the first information setback rather than exploring other avenues. It is my belief that your example does not illustrate the rest of your post very well. - Gauss Going forward, please consider the example to be as follows if it helps: DM (as NPC): Goblins have been raiding farms throughout this area of late. We don't know where they're coming from. PC: What do I know of goblins and where they lurk in this area? Nature check or maybe Streetwise? DM: Sure. PC: Streetwise. I rolled a 3. DM: You don't know anything. What do you do from here? PC: We keep running into dead ends. This is the third NPC we've talked to. We can't succeed on any rolls either it seems. PC2: Let's go rob from the bartender, burn down the tavern, and fight town guard I guess. I stand by the greater point in the rest of the post, original example aside. Thanks for the feedback! Edit: This example has been put into the original thread now.

Headhunter Jones said: That's one way. It's not one I would choose to employ because I am not fond of the "chain of NPCs" exposition. In any case, I agree there's probably no roll here unless we're in a skill challenge (if we're talking D&D 4e) or some other mechanical framework by which in-game challenges are resolved. If we're simply talking exposition to establish vital context, then that information shouldn't be hidden behind rolls. Or if it is hidden behind rolls, you get the information on a failure, but at a cost. I think it's important for the GM to consider whether the acquisition of information (or anything else in game) is appropriate for mechanics and frame the challenge accordingly for the players so they know there is something to gain and lose by engaging. The key takeaway is that if you're going to have interactions with no mechanics, you can't block as GM because then the game becomes a case of overcoming your blocks instead of playing the game. In my approach, there would be no roll. I would ask the player to tell me why his character would know about goblins and where they lurk in this area. After he has established that fiction e.g. "When I served as a scout in the last war, I passed through this area and fought goblins so I know something about them...", I would give over the information freely. This is a win-win situation: We've learned something new about that player's character (maybe the player himself did, too) and he gets the background information needed to move the game forward. The additional context the player established about his relationship to goblins may be useful later when the goblins are encountered. Perhaps the goblin chief was in the war too and that creates a special enmity between him and that PC. Again, that's one way to do it - In the example you're providing here, it seems like you're looking for player driven development of a freeform narrative as the desired outcome to information, and demands creativity and some roleplaying from the player themselves - rather than the alternative of the "NPC Chain." I can see this working in some settings - but do you find that it opens up the door to players simply having inventive excuses for knowing a little bit about everything, rather than having to actually engage in the "discovery" process? In some systems - I would totally be on board with this, but I find if there is an established mechanic in play for skills (D&D, for example), I would be suspect of more "I know this, thus my character could probably know this" behavior. I have been fortunate enough that, in the recent campaign I finished, my players were often willing enough to remind themselves "I'm not here, I wouldn't know that" or "My character wouldn't do that, it's not something they would have knowledge in" - because of the standing developed PC they have. I suppose that could be a contrast between characters engaging in free form "discovery" vs discovery visa vie their established skills and knowledge base. An alternative might be an interaction when you provide characters the hook (Goblins have been doing x, at y, to z). and ask the players how they would like to find out more, resolve the task, etc. and allow party discussion where the characters as a group drive the necessary tasks to be taken, more than allowing a character to invent the knowledge, or simply handing it to them. This does, of course, depend entirely on the group, their expectations, and the content - and what providing that content achieves.

Shortland said: Again, that's one way to do it - In the example you're providing here, it seems like you're looking for player driven development of a freeform narrative as the desired outcome to information, and demands creativity and some roleplaying from the player themselves - rather than the alternative of the "NPC Chain." I can see this working in some settings - but do you find that it opens up the door to players simply having inventive excuses for knowing a little bit about everything, rather than having to actually engage in the "discovery" process? I view the fiction they create as part of the discovery process because we discover new things about the world and character when it occurs. As long as those things do not contradict existing fiction or agreements, then they are valid and true regardless of whether the GM or player said it. This is all just new context to build from for future scenes. As more context gets established, it gets easier and easier to move forward as the campaign progresses. In some systems - I would totally be on board with this, but I find if there is an established mechanic in play for skills (D&D, for example), I would be suspect of more "I know this, thus my character could probably know this" behavior. If the acquisition of information is the specific challenge the DM has framed - say, because the information is being actively obscured by some kind of opposition - then mechanics would come into play. Otherwise, there are no mechanics because there is no opposition or dramatic situation to be tested with mechanics. This is from a D&D 4e viewpoint. Previous editions handled this sort of thing differently. I don't currently play those editions. Where I do depart from D&D 4e on that score is that I don't ask for "roll to know" checks because failure isn't particularly interesting and not worth a roll in my view. I prefer Knowledge checks be framed in the context of "roll to do" e.g. "See these hexmarks right here? My knowledge of Arcana tells me if we follow them, we'll find the hag." Commit to the action, roll to see if you were right. Interesting failure is easy to see here. (In a pinch, I follow the "roll to know," but failure means knowing at a cost rather than not knowing.) I have been fortunate enough that, in the recent campaign I finished, my players were often willing enough to remind themselves "I'm not here, I wouldn't know that" or "My character wouldn't do that, it's not something they would have knowledge in" - because of the standing developed PC they have. I suppose that could be a contrast between characters engaging in free form "discovery" vs discovery visa vie their established skills and knowledge base. Emphasis mine here on your quote: We use both as described above. I would consider it unfortunate to hear "I wouldn't know that" or "My character wouldn't do that." Those don't tend to drive the game forward. I encourage the players to establish things they know as needed or imagine/invent reasons they can do something as opposed to reasons they can't . I suggest they keep their backstories very brief or not have one at all in order to maintain that flexibility. (Of course even a comprehensive backstory can't cover everything the PC did and knows in their past.)

Headhunter Jones said: DM (as NPC): Goblins have been raiding farms throughout this area of late. We don't know where they're coming from. PC: What do I know of goblins and where they lurk in this area? Nature check or maybe Streetwise? DM: Sure. PC: Streetwise. I rolled a 3. DM: You don't know anything. What do you do from here? PCs: No idea. Let's go rob from the bartender, burn down the tavern, and fight town guard I guess. Three years (in-game) later... DM (as NPC): Oh great overlords! Why have you done this? You have razed our towns and salted our fields! We merely ask why?! PCs: We couldn't find the goblins. I say if they players start going off the rails and doing evil acts, let them! Put up wanted posters around the kingdom. Let them become evil villains instead of crusading heroes. And all this time, that thing they were supposed to learn about and stop by finding the goblins has nobody around to prevent it from coming to pass...

Brian said: Headhunter Jones said: DM (as NPC): Goblins have been raiding farms throughout this area of late. We don't know where they're coming from. PC: What do I know of goblins and where they lurk in this area? Nature check or maybe Streetwise? DM: Sure. PC: Streetwise. I rolled a 3. DM: You don't know anything. What do you do from here? PCs: No idea. Let's go rob from the bartender, burn down the tavern, and fight town guard I guess. Three years (in-game) later... DM (as NPC): Oh great overlords! Why have you done this? You have razed our towns and salted our fields! We merely ask why?! PCs: We couldn't find the goblins. I say if they players start going off the rails and doing evil acts, let them! Put up wanted posters around the kingdom. Let them become evil villains instead of crusading heroes. And all this time, that thing they were supposed to learn about and stop by finding the goblins has nobody around to prevent it from coming to pass... Agreed. As a GM you always have a storyline that you plan out, but it's important to be flexible and match your players styles (especially online when you may/may not be used to the personalities at your table). If you plane a courageous campaign to fight off the evil Hutchins, and your players decide they want to be evil, you can use the same maps/general story line, but perhaps in the end it'll be them fighting FOR Hutchins.

Brian said: I say if they players start going off the rails and doing evil acts, let them! Put up wanted posters around the kingdom. Let them become evil villains instead of crusading heroes. And all this time, that thing they were supposed to learn about and stop by finding the goblins has nobody around to prevent it from coming to pass... That's all well and good, but as framed, Grand Theft D&D was not likely what the group had in mind when they sat down to play a game based on heroic fantasy action/adventure. Because it is such a departure from the core tenets of the game, if the theme is beating up town guard and burning down taverns, that's something the group needs to discuss and agree on prior to play. In my experience, players deciding to do these things while otherwise engaged in a standard heroic game is a symptom of frustration and boredom with the game not moving forward in an engaging way. Emile l. said: Agreed. As a GM you always have a storyline that you plan out, but it's important to be flexible and match your players styles (especially online when you may/may not be used to the personalities at your table). If you plane a courageous campaign to fight off the evil Hutchins, and your players decide they want to be evil, you can use the same maps/general story line, but perhaps in the end it'll be them fighting FOR Hutchins. Only some DMs plan storylines (aka plots). I otherwise agree - roll with your players' choices and fill their characters' lives with adventure. However, if Grand Theft D&D wasn't what you thought you were playing at the outset, you might consider examining your game's pacing and player agency to see if the decision of the players wasn't entirely based on rebelling against the DM's approach. It frequently is from what I see. Which leads me to some more advice to both players and DMs. Players: If your DM is doing some of the stuff mentioned in this thread and it's making the game slow and railroady (or generally un-fun), don't deal with the problem in-game. Stop the game and have a conversation with the DM. Express your frustration and boredom directly, player to DM, rather than act out and disrupt the game. It's not your characters' or NPCs' fault that the game is going nowhere. It's the approach being employed. Be direct, polite, and clear with your vision of the game and its pacing. If the DM doesn't agree to try a different tact, consider bowing out at the end of the session. DMs: If your players stop the session and talk to you about it not being so great, listen . It's easy to get offended about this stuff because it's "your" creation and people can get awfully attached to the things they create. Consider the alternative of silence (and later player turnover and absenteeism) or the total disruption of the game by players who act out. If the issue is the slow-drip of information and no action or tension, skip the exposition by way of flavorful (and pithy ) narration then get to the conflict. Give it a try and see if that improves the situation. At the end of the session, think about whether that level of pacing is something you'd want to continue and go from there. Bonus Tip: Start your sessions in media res . Capture the attention of the players and draw them in by starting in the middle of a tense scene. Give them enough context to make decisions in that scene and then see where it goes.

When ever i DM it sometimes depends on the amount of effort put into the RP for me. I usually have them give me an example of the question they ask before roll to set the modifier. for instance "Hey jerkface where's the goblins." Gets worse answers than "Excuse me good sir, we have been sent by *insert npc* to lay waste to the goblin scourge that has destroyed your village! Might you help us in our quest to purge these evils... by fire" which would get a higher modifier so the only way that it would fail is if they roll a 1. OFC there have been times where players have rolled consecutive 1's which at that point they deserve the ability to burn down the tavern and go on a rampage. But that's just my 2 cents haha.

Yes, that approach is "gaming the DM" to me which I touched on upthread. You prefer your players to engage in more in-character interaction or acting (because what you're describing is not actually "roleplaying" in and of itself) so you give them a bonus on the roll as incentive to do that. That's totally cool if it's what your group buys into and enjoys. It is, of course, a form of bias that clever players can use to game you instead of playing the actual game. I prefer to remain as neutral as possible, keep the DCs level-appropriate regardless of anything, and let the dice fall where they may. This is how you play to find out what happens (a full third of my GM agenda) rather than influence the course of the game in any particular direction. As well, some players simply aren't good at in-character interaction or acting, but are otherwise decent at making decisions their character would also make, given context (the definition of roleplaying). I don't think it's fair to penalize those players because they can't "act." Again, this is all fine if you and your group enjoy it. There's no wrong way to play as long as the group is having fun. In any case, it doesn't look like your examples would call for a roll since the situation as framed is not dramatic. (Just like my example in the beginning post.) The PCs just interact and get the information, no roll.

Headhunter Jones said: DM (as NPC): Goblins have been raiding farms throughout this area of late. We don't know where they're coming from. PC: What do I know of goblins and where they lurk in this area? Nature check or maybe Streetwise? DM: Sure. PC: Streetwise. I rolled a 3. DM: You don't know anything. What do you do from here? PC: We keep running into dead ends. This is the third NPC we've talked to. We can't succeed on any rolls either it seems. PC2: Let's go rob from the bartender, burn down the tavern, and fight town guard I guess. I really can't relate to this, can't even begin to comprehend to be honest. 2 minutes like this and I'm gone, as a player or a GM. Players asking point blank: "what do I know about this or that" then throwing a dice? GM answering point blank "you don't know anything" while it's clearly a threat that's been happening. I mean, wtf :) As for the RP/ROLL part, really depends on how you play as DM and who you play with, but I've always had some problems just going with "let the die roll" and I much rather have players make sure they play characters they "can" play (intellectually). By that I mean that some players are able to impersonate wide range of personalities very well, design a PC around one of these, then act it properly in game terms. Other players just can't do it. By just going the "let the die roll" option, I feel that you basically try to only simulate strict application of a PC stats, not what the player behind it does within the context of his PC. To me, that means you could just play solo DM and replace players with computers, be done with it!. For example, Someone playing a bard with 18 CHA, very well known and eloquent, but can't put 3 words together to role-play his character trying persuade a crowd of people, that's not gonna cut it for me and I much rather have this player be a ranger, quiet thief or any other class really and keep his PC within the limits of what he (personally) can do, while understanding and accepting what his PC can do (no CHA3 barbarian persuading either, context is key). Then based on that, roll some dice to confirm whether or not he can put the proper tone to whatever action he's doing if need be. All in all I feel it comes down to DMs finding players that suit him and players finding DMs that suit them. That's something a lot of people search for for a long time but after that, if they "click" with each other, who cares how everyone does it...

Emphasis mine here on your quote: We use both as described above. I would consider it unfortunate to hear "I wouldn't know that" or "My character wouldn't do that." Those don't tend to drive the game forward. I encourage the players to establish things they know as needed or imagine/invent reasons they can do something as opposed to reasons they can't . I suggest they keep their backstories very brief or not have one at all in order to maintain that flexibility. (Of course even a comprehensive backstory can't cover everything the PC did and knows in their past.) I was originally going to write a much longer post - but frankly, I don't feel I am in disagreement of your stance - just that my experience has for the majority been that players, when they have an established backstory (and not necessarily a biography), will police themselves on what is reasonable knowledge for them to have - though that in no way prevents them from exploring alternative avenues for resolving a task. Flexibility in both players and GMs is key here - and I will admit that I do occasionally have to remind players that there is always more than one way to solve a problem - though having a group minded party often helps to facilitate that for me. I do, however (emphasis mine) disagree that self imposed limitations - which make sense for the player character - are negative to game play and stagnating to the plot, though this has been my experience - and your mileage may vary. Very rarely do I have players (unless, of course, that is the tone of the game), who's characters would reasonably decide to raze the tavern and loot the corpses of villagers, upon being faced with a conundrum - so it is somewhat hard for me to swallow the example; more often, it just means they have to resort to other strategies to overcome that task. I don't necessarily believe that an "I don't know" equates to an "I can't" - nor should an unskilled player who invents a knowledge base to solve a problem trump the player in the party which might (visa vie established character narrative) have that knowledge. This is why I tend to favour having some (perhaps not a biography) established background for my players - because it allows them to frame the choices they make, rather than potentially reinventing a persona to suit the needs of a session. Of course, none of this is in the spirit of your original post, which was addressing the "roll to know" school of thought - which I agree is hampering to the progress of play; though simply handing out every detail also seems to detract from the role playing process, from my stand point.

G. said: I really can't relate to this, can't even begin to comprehend to be honest. 2 minutes like this and I'm gone, as a player or a GM. Players asking point blank: "what do I know about this or that" then throwing a dice? GM answering point blank "you don't know anything" while it's clearly a threat that's been happening. I mean, wtf :) It's very common. Also very common for the DM to be the one asking for that roll rather than the player pushing it. Maybe even more common in my experience. As for the RP/ROLL part, really depends on how you play as DM and who you play with, but I've always had some problems just going with "let the die roll" and I much rather have players make sure they play characters they "can" play (intellectually). By that I mean that some players are able to impersonate wide range of personalities very well, design a PC around one of these, then act it properly in game terms. Other players just can't do it. "Roleplaying" and "rolling" are different things, of course. As well, impersonation and acting aren't roleplaying in and of themselves. It's important to remember that. Every player can roleplay (making a decision their character would also make given context). Not every player can do impersonations or quality acting . This is an important distinction that I hope everyone reading this takes to heart. The game system will tell you when the mechanics come into play in any given in-game transaction. My belief is that many DMs ask for too many rolls, more than the system prescribes. Simply put, not every lie that falls out of some PC's mouth is a Bluff check. The situation needs to be dramatic for the mechanics to come into play. By just going the "let the die roll" option, I feel that you basically try to only simulate strict application of a PC stats, not what the player behind it does within the context of his PC. To me, that means you could just play solo DM and replace players with computers, be done with it!. In-game challenges are challenges to the character, not the player (outside of tactical choices that arise from mechanical interactions). The issue, I find, is that DMs don't know really think about whether something is a legitimate in-game challenge. In the original example, we have skill checks being made to gain information. That's a pretty standard transaction at a D&D table, but I submit that it is wholly unnecessary, harmful even. Rolls are meant to resolve conflict. What conflict is there in that scene as presented? None. So there's no roll. You interact, you share information, then move on to the next meaningful decision point (hopefully dramatic conflict because conflict is interesting and the game's mechanics can come into play). So while I agree with you that the simulation is overplayed, I think this is due to a problem of framing: The DM hasn't set forth the legitimate in-game challenge and is simply asking for skill checks based upon simulation of actions with no real mechanical framework to determine success or failure of the overall endeavor. For example, Someone playing a bard with 18 CHA, very well known and eloquent, but can't put 3 words together to role-play his character trying persuade a crowd of people, that's not gonna cut it for me and I much rather have this player be a ranger, quiet thief or any other class really and keep his PC within the limits of what he (personally) can do, while understanding and accepting what his PC can do (no CHA3 barbarian persuading either, context is key). Then based on that, roll some dice to confirm whether or not he can put the proper tone to whatever action he's doing if need be. Interestingly, you seem to deride simulation above, but then you seem to want players to adhere to it with regard to their ability scores. Characters' ability scores only matter when it comes to in-game mechanics based on those scores. You can engage in in-character interaction as if you're a genius with an INT 10, but when it comes time to make a Knowledge check to address a legitimate in-game challenge, you might have some difficulties. You can also play INT 20 as if you're dumb as a rock. When it comes to making a check based on INT 20, the character does surprisingly well - perhaps he just has the occasional savant-like insight into History or whatever. The player dictates how his character acts. He can choose to base that on his in-game statistics (and many frequently do) or choose not to. His statistics only determine his chances on how he resolves dramatic conflict during in-game challenges. That's the "game" part. All in all I feel it comes down to DMs finding players that suit him and players finding DMs that suit them. That's something a lot of people search for for a long time but after that, if they "click" with each other, who cares how everyone does it... Agreed, completely.

Shortland said: I was originally going to write a much longer post - but frankly, I don't feel I am in disagreement of your stance - just that my experience has for the majority been that players, when they have an established backstory (and not necessarily a biography), will police themselves on what is reasonable knowledge for them to have - though that in no way prevents them from exploring alternative avenues for resolving a task. Flexibility in both players and GMs is key here - and I will admit that I do occasionally have to remind players that there is always more than one way to solve a problem - though having a group minded party often helps to facilitate that for me. You're right - it doesn't actually prevent them from exploring different methods of task resolution. What it does give them, however, is a convenient excuse to say "No" to the DM or other players and point to some bit of fiction as their reasoning. This is anathema to groups like mine that practice the "Yes, and..." approach to gaming which is advocated in the D&D 4e DMG/DMG2. Such an approach encourages players and DMs to use their imaginations to come up with reasons they can do or know things without contradicting established fiction (such as a backstory). The more backstory you have, the harder it may be to do this. As well, backstories that are created individually go against the spirit of collaboration that RPGs are all about . With pick-up groups (whether I'm running or playing in them), backstories are frequently used as a shield to avoid putting their characters in more interesting positions in the game or going along with ideas they as players don't like. "My character wouldn't do that... because of my backstory." I'd rather they say "I don't want to do that because I, the player, don't think that will be very fun. How about something else?" While that doesn't jive with "Yes, and..." exactly, it's better than saying "No" and then pointing to some fictional construct as your reason why. "Yes" moves the game forward; "No" stops the game until a way to say "Yes" can be found, usually through debate or argument and eventual compromise or acquiescence. Oftentimes this is player conflict by proxy, not actual character conflict based on in-character motives. I think some believe this is "roleplaying." I submit it is not. It's just players arguing about which direction to go and using their characters' history and motivations as justification of their particular out-of-game viewpoint. I do, however (emphasis mine) disagree that self imposed limitations - which make sense for the player character - are negative to game play and stagnating to the plot, though this has been my experience - and your mileage may vary. Very rarely do I have players (unless, of course, that is the tone of the game), who's characters would reasonably decide to raze the tavern and loot the corpses of villagers, upon being faced with a conundrum - so it is somewhat hard for me to swallow the example; more often, it just means they have to resort to other strategies to overcome that task. I don't necessarily believe that an "I don't know" equates to an "I can't" - nor should an unskilled player who invents a knowledge base to solve a problem trump the player in the party which might (visa vie established character narrative) have that knowledge. This is why I tend to favour having some (perhaps not a biography) established background for my players - because it allows them to frame the choices they make, rather than potentially reinventing a persona to suit the needs of a session. I just want to respectfully point out here that what I'm suggesting is not about reinvention of a persona. That tends to be the argument made against what I'm suggesting (or "going against character" or "contradiction" etc.). I'm saying that when a course of action or the like is suggested, you look for a reason to say "Yes" so that the game moves forward. You can base that upon things in your backstory or you can make up new fiction that does not contradict what has already been established about the character or world. There is enough creative space in the context of a fantasy world to do this. No backstory can be so complete as to include every facet of the character's personality and history. Thus it is perfectly reasonable to keep adding to that backstory during play, if you will, so that you can both develop the character and keep the game moving forward. It's a beautiful thing in practice. Four hours in one of our games generates more depth to a character than most other games I've been in generates period. Of course, none of this is in the spirit of your original post, which was addressing the "roll to know" school of thought - which I agree is hampering to the progress of play; though simply handing out every detail also seems to detract from the role playing process, from my stand point. Yes, we're well off-topic now, but the conversation is engaging! To bring it back around, I look at it this way: Is the acquisition of information being framed as a legitimate in-game challenge? For example, is the information hidden or are the PCs' efforts to obtain said information being opposed by some outside force? Is there actual dramatic conflict, complications to be overcome, stakes to be won or lost? If so, then mechanics are going to come into play. If they do, success means getting that information at no cost. Failure means getting it with cost. If information is not hidden or the PCs' efforts are not being opposed, then my tact is to get them that information as quickly as possible by way of an in-character interaction scene to provide them with the context they need to make meaningful decisions. Then they have all they need to move the game forward.

Headhunter Jones , don't you feel that the "yes and..." approach is just some sort of "sure whatever, and..." kind of approach where you just don't really care whatever soandso said, you just want to move the story forward? I mean, that's a bit how it sounds like and seems like a way to just avoid conflict, remove GMs control, and pass it around or something. I might not understand this approach properly but when I play a PC, I want to play the character I am in the world of the GM and don't really want it to become some kind of "cooperative thinking" or something. If I think of something that's not supposed to be there, I don't really want the GM to tell me "Yes and...", I want him to tell me whatever the hell fits in his world, period :) Also, I think I much rather have PCs with good background, shaping the whys and hows as well as the limitations of their current personalities, then some vague idea that just magically develops as the game goes. Sure some people just make some random story just to give special abilities and whatnot to their characters but it's easy enough to filter them out. And finally, to be honest, that article about memories and back-story is kinda bull. The author starts by criticizing quite firmly the concept of back-stories, then proceeds to do EXACTLY that with his memory system, that is just a formatting style for back-stories. I'm "lucky" in that I do usually write back stories with these "block" of events that can shape how the PC will behave prior to the scenario, but he's just arguing semantics really. Sure you can't develop ALL the facets of a PCs life, but it's quite easy to give broad strokes and guidelines, with reasons why. It makes NO sense whatsoever to have the history of a character develop DURING a game, feels like ultra meta-gamey to me. GM: "...and so you arrive at the Elven court, home of the most powerful royal family in all the known world. As you enter the..." PC1: "..oh yea, and the queen, she's my cousin, totally hit that when we were younger, was awesome." PC2: "..oh yea, for sure, I totally remember that, that's when I learned to speak elf, good times!" GM "..yes...and..." I mean, really? I don't think so. The only way that works without issue is if you know the players and trust them 100%. ps: extreme for the fun of it of course, but you get the point :)

Rolls are meant to resolve conflict. What conflict is there in that scene as presented? None. So there's no roll. You interact, you share information, then move on to the next meaningful decision point (hopefully dramatic conflict because conflict is interesting and the game's mechanics can come into play). Bzzzt, wrong. Character reputation as well as their notoriety with the npc's they're interacting with creates social conflict. That is what the rolls are resolving. Whether the PC's are savvy enough to persuade the guard to spill the beans or whether they're good enough to keep from pissing someone off that might have been a valuable contact. That's your conflict.

HoneyBadger said: Bzzzt, wrong. Character reputation as well as their notoriety with the npc's they're interacting with creates social conflict. That is what the rolls are resolving. Whether the PC's are savvy enough to persuade the guard to spill the beans or whether they're good enough to keep from pissing someone off that might have been a valuable contact. That's your conflict. I'd like to respond to your post thoughtfully, but the snark it contains is not commensurate with the civil discussion thus far being conducted in this thread. If you'd like to revise, I'll be happy to respond to it. If not, I will have to ignore your comments in this thread so that the conversation continues on good footing. In the meantime, thank you for your comments and honest questions above, G. I'll give them my full attention. You might still not agree with the approach I'm discussing, but I'll be able to fully explain certain aspects of it to you. Post to soon follow.

Whatever... rofl. I made my point. You obviously can't rebut it so whatever. I win.

HoneyBadger said: Rolls are meant to resolve conflict. What conflict is there in that scene as presented? None. So there's no roll. You interact, you share information, then move on to the next meaningful decision point (hopefully dramatic conflict because conflict is interesting and the game's mechanics can come into play). Bzzzt, wrong. Character reputation as well as their notoriety with the npc's they're interacting with creates social conflict. That is what the rolls are resolving. Whether the PC's are savvy enough to persuade the guard to spill the beans or whether they're good enough to keep from pissing someone off that might have been a valuable contact. That's your conflict. I would add "are savy enough" in THAT moment for this specific context. This is what warrants a roll for me. You have the context, brought by characters' experience (background, reputation, etc) and the player's explanation of his actions, then you have the action itself, THIS specific action, with the roll (and various modifiers you decide depending on the created context) Very minor but I felt it was important. That said, it comes back to the original post really and I quite agree that here, a roll should not "obscure" progression completely. The guard for example, shouldn't just say "nope, dunno nuthing", especially if players provided context. He'd just maybe say something they already know, or make stuff up completely from vague rumours, but he'd say something, unless the questions are ultra specific and related to some uber secret, etc... If it's about goblins attacking the town, he'd say something, because it's logical for him to do so....But again, what GM would just say: "no, nothing whatsoever", as soon as there's a failed roll.

I think where people are losing some context is the meaning behind a DM when they say "No, you don't learn anything." or what have you. When they say that it is not like the NPC is just staring blankly at you (although they could be given the scenario) nor is it that your character just stares at the ground for minutes without blinking. They are trying to say that you do not learn anything of significance to the question that you just asked. So this can translate to not noticing anything special to discovering all the same stuff that you knew before. The DM tends to say "No you don't learn anything" as a way to concisely say. "You do not learn/find/discover anything new that is relevant to the action you just performed or question you just asked."

G. said: Headhunter Jones , don't you feel that the "yes and..." approach is just some sort of "sure whatever, and..." kind of approach where you just don't really care whatever soandso said, you just want to move the story forward? It's about moving the game forward. The story is a byproduct of play so it writes itself just by playing the game. Sometimes I think GMs get this backwards. The issue you raise is one of perception. Breaking it down, the "Yes" bit is about acknowledging that what the other person said is true and valid. Whatever it is they said is now a fact in the world, provided the declaration did not contradict established fiction and does not break any agreements. You have to care about what the other person said because what they said is now true in the world. You can't contradict it once it is established. The "and" part is you building on that established fiction in a way that doesn't negate what they said. So to answer your question, it's not something that is dismissive at all - it's inclusive . Advocates of this approach find, time and again, that including ideas from players and GMs during play is the fastest route to engagement and forward progress. This isn't so different from what GMs have been doing for years (especially as it pertains to backstory players establish before actual play). Perhaps the only notable distinction is that there is a responsibility on all to maintain consistency with what is established and that the GM isn't the only person who can say what is true in the context of the game world. I mean, that's a bit how it sounds like and seems like a way to just avoid conflict, remove GMs control, and pass it around or something. I might not understand this approach properly but when I play a PC, I want to play the character I am in the world of the GM and don't really want it to become some kind of "cooperative thinking" or something. If I think of something that's not supposed to be there, I don't really want the GM to tell me "Yes and...", I want him to tell me whatever the hell fits in his world, period :) "His" world is " our world" in the approach being advocated. Strict ownership over game constructs is removed and replaced with the requirement of being consistent with established fiction and previous agreements. The GM has more parity with the player, though certain roles are still maintained as appropriate to running the game. For some GMs, this might mean giving up some of the control they have which can be a scary prospect if they have something to protect. Interestingly enough, what they're protecting is often prep work (the "world," the plot, NPCs, etc.) which this approach greatly reduces the need for. It's perfectly reasonable to be concerned that something a player says might "ruin" what you have planned. So my response to that is don't plan so much and you'll care a lot less about your players "ruining" it. Less effort and more gaming is a good thing anyway, in my view. I'm not sure what you mean by "avoid conflict." If you mean it obviates conflict between players, then yes, it does because it builds trust and engagement. If you mean that it obviates conflict between characters, then no, it does not, but it does provide a clear path forward despite that conflict because the players buying in to this method agree that the game's continuance is paramount. If you mean that it obviates in-game conflict in the form of challenges, yes, that's possible; however, one should examine exactly why a player might opt to do that. After all, some might say being an adventurer is about getting into conflict and then getting out of it with your hindquarters intact and your backpack full of loot (or fame or whatever) rather than trying to avoid conflict. Otherwise that's a pretty boring movie, right? But let's say, fine, a player really does want to avoid a conflict that is being presented rather than engage with it: Is it worth forcing someone down a path they don't enjoy in a game they're ostensibly playing for entertainment and fun? I would say no. Any conflict that is not fun for the players has no place in any game I would run. Also, I think I much rather have PCs with good background, shaping the whys and hows as well as the limitations of their current personalities, then some vague idea that just magically develops as the game goes. Sure some people just make some random story just to give special abilities and whatnot to their characters but it's easy enough to filter them out. That's fair enough. I don't tell players they should never write backstories, only that they need to figure out what their backstory is actually accomplishing for them and how it might be used to say "Yes" during play rather than "No." If they need it to get a clear picture of their concept, then they should definitely write up whatever they need to do that. Where I dislike backstories is when they are used as an excuse to not engage with aspects of the game. It's cool to have creative constraints ("limitations"), but some might suggest true character development is about finding ways to get around those constraints without contradicting them rather than living strictly by them, especially if doing so means the game cannot move forward or if your participation in some aspect of the game is curtailed. It's about taking full control of your character , knowing it's a construct in the game you are playing and using that control to make things more interesting for everyone at the table. And finally, to be honest, that article about memories and back-story is kinda bull. The author starts by criticizing quite firmly the concept of back-stories, then proceeds to do EXACTLY that with his memory system, that is just a formatting style for back-stories. I'm "lucky" in that I do usually write back stories with these "block" of events that can shape how the PC will behave prior to the scenario, but he's just arguing semantics really. Sure you can't develop ALL the facets of a PCs life, but it's quite easy to give broad strokes and guidelines, with reasons why. It makes NO sense whatsoever to have the history of a character develop DURING a game, feels like ultra meta-gamey to me. I can't say I completely agree with everything the author of the referenced article says or his approach in general, but I agree with his general conclusions about the utility of backstories, especially as it relates to how they are traditionally written outside of collaboration with the group. That's certainly the traditional mode, but it does not follow the true spirit of RPGs in my opinion. As to developing the history of the character during play, think of it this way: You're not developing the history - you're just revealing it in a way that engages with what's happening around you. The history already exists even if it's not fully detailed, right? And you can't practically offer a backstory that covers every event in the life of even the simplest dirt-farmer-turned-adventurer. So instead, perhaps you've got a few broad strokes in your head or established in backstory, then during play if you are inspired by some event, NPC, or location, you can establish a connection to it in some way, then use that opportunity to explain why it matters to your character. "Orcs killed my family" is fine... "Those orcs right there killed my family - and now they're going to pay" is better. Since you're building from fiction being established by the DM or other players, by picking it up with "Yes" then building on it with "and" you are taking full control of your character to make the scene more interesting. You are also building on others' ideas which is a gift to them (people like seeing their ideas picked up and used) and engages them further in the game. I submit you can't remove the metagame from the game and trying to stamp it out is counterproductive. I say acknowledge it and channel it to make the game more interesting instead of fearing it and avoiding it. GM: "...and so you arrive at the Elven court, home of the most powerful royal family in all the known world. As you enter the..." PC1: "..oh yea, and the queen, she's my cousin, totally hit that when we were younger, was awesome." PC2: "..oh yea, for sure, I totally remember that, that's when I learned to speak elf, good times!" GM "..yes...and..." I mean, really? I don't think so. The only way that works without issue is if you know the players and trust them 100%. Trust is a precious commodity at gaming tables. More DMs than not, in my experience, run the game defensively, as if they have to shield themselves from the barbarians (players) at the gates. I don't do that. You get my trust automatically because I'm going to assume you're there to have a fun game, just like me. If you want to do something "crazy," I'm totally down with that! I'm there to play and see what happens, not control what happens. That is not what the GM does in my view. But let's talk about your example. It's not as crazy as it sounds. First things first: Do the PCs' declarations contradict existing fiction? If "yes," then they have to take that back. Do the PCs' declarations break any agreements made prior to play about theme, tone, "seriousness," or the like? If the answers to those questions is "no," then yes , that's his cousin, and she is pleased to see him after so many years. "What brings you to court, cousin? Ah, [PC2] how is your High Elven after all these years?" (She might be quiet about their special relationship for now. Or maybe not, perhaps that's totally cool in that society.) I might now be inclined to ask why he hasn't told anyone this was his cousin. There must be a very interesting reason for that. Was it his special relationship with her? Was that a scandal that he needed to keep hidden? How does that complication affect the tense negotiations (a legitimate in-game challenge) that follow in the next scene? All of the answers to these questions (and I have a ton more just off the top of my head) are absolute gifts to the DM if you choose to see them that way. The character and the world get developed simultaneously in a surprising way for everyone at the table, including the DM, with no real effort from anyone. All the GM had to do was say "Yes, and..." What will that mean going forward? Play to find out...

"His" world is "our world" in the approach being advocated. Strict ownership over game constructs is removed and replaced with the requirement of being consistent with established fiction and previous agreements. The GM has more parity with the player, though certain roles are still maintained as appropriate to running the game That's the main point where we differ (and that probably splits GMs and Players overall). To me, GMs and players are TOTALLY different entities. As a GM, unless the PC is a god-like being, he has no control, no say, whatsoever on the structure of the world, once the game is running, just like we, mere humans, don't. The only thing he can do, is play his role and try to make his mark (slightly altering the structure, depending on the power level) which ever way fits in his PC's context, period. I need the GM to be in complete control of the world around the PC, down to the very color of the street pavement, the perfume in the air and the rythm of ocean waves. It's HIS world, under complete dominance, and the PC is the pawn with free will fighting to make a life in it while shit happens all around him. That doesn't mean the GM directs the PCs, on the contrary, I love open sandbox sessions but he needs to own his stuff good and proper, as well as be ultra coherent about it. And if I start making shit up in the middle of a game, out of nowhere, he needs to put me square in my place, pronto :) Was about to go on about this and that but this can go on forever. We just have different styles of play and are not looking for the same thing, which is fair enough, to each his own. That said, yes, we all are here to have fun, but there are many probably 6.9 billion shades of fun on earth, some very much in conflict with each other and as I said before, that's why some GMs and some players spend years trying to find people to play with. Anyway, always good nerdy fun to argue about role-playing stuff. I think I get your view and while I don't share it, I have no doubt you have plenty of fun with whoever you play with! ++

Fascinating thread, I've thoroughly enjoyed reading it. I'm all on-board with the "Yes, and..." approach, but only within certain limits. For example, on another game-related message board, a guy posted about a player who has decided he wants to run a side-business, selling all the monster armor and weapons and junk the party acquires through adventuring. The GM's question to the forum was, should he allow this or shut it down? And if he allows it, how much should it impact the overall game? Because, after all, the game is about adventuring, not running a shop. I advised that he should work with the player so that he can follow his interest, but not to the overall distraction of the campaign. He can adjudicate that side-business stuff one-on-one, outside of the main game, if necessary. Don't squash the player's interest, because it's cool that he's getting into his character like that. But you can't let it de-rail the game for the other players either, who have absolutely no interest in such pursuits. G wrote: GM: "...and so you arrive at the Elven court, home of the most powerful royal family in all the known world. As you enter the..." PC1: "..oh yea, and the queen, she's my cousin, totally hit that when we were younger, was awesome." PC2: "..oh yea, for sure, I totally remember that, that's when I learned to speak elf, good times!" GM "..yes...and..." I mean, really? I don't think so. The only way that works without issue is if you know the players and trust them 100%. Right on, G... If a player tried to metagame my campaign with the above conversation, here's how it would go down at my table: GM: "...and so you arrive at the Elven court, home of the most powerful royal family in all the known world. As you enter the..." PC1: "..oh yea, and the queen, she's my cousin, totally hit that when we were younger, was awesome." PC2: "..oh yea, for sure, I totally remember that, that's when I learned to speak elf, good times!" GM: "Really? Are you making that claim right there in the court room?" (Note that I'm giving them a chance to walk it back. After all, players goof at the table all the time, myself included) PC1: "Yeah, it happened... In fact, I might try to get a piece of that action again, as long as we're here anyway". GM: "The Elven King shouts, 'Guards! Seize them!' " (Even if the PCs don't say this out loud, such a powerful ruler will certainly have court priests and mages stationed nearby, scrying and divining what these visitors are about. I still discount their claim, because it's my campaign world and I'm saying it didn't happen. But the PCs thoughts alone are enough to condemn them.) GM: "The next morning, as you peer out the barred window of your prison cell, you see the Elvish Royal Executioner sharpening the blade of a gigantic 2-handed axe in the courtyard below. He then places a melon on the chopping block, takes a mighty swing, and slices it in half, burying the blade a good 6 inches into the wood as well. Looking up, he notices you watching him from your cell window. He grins broadly and gives you the thumbs-up sign. By the way, did you happen to bring any blank character sheets with you today?" Anyway, that's how it would go down in my game. YMMV. I would never argue against anyone's right to play the game how they think best. That's the beauty of it all, to each their own.

The whole premise of this thread is really very alien to my GM style, and role-playing experience. I get "moving the game forward". But I have seen "players resort to burn it down because we are jacked off in lack of finding the adventure" to have happened to GMs I know or people I game with maybe twice in decades. Additionally, this thread seems to come from a position of this kind of mechanistic plot analysis Hint/Tip that suggests "so many D&D players do this it's a reliable trope." Okay, granted you're talking players who are echoes of the stereotypes of order of the stick and Knights of the dinner table. And to be a stereotype, there has to be some truth to those kind of tropes. But I am not really seeing that in my experience. I don't know if I'm not one of those GMs your tip applies to. I just don't see the narrow confines of the premise as something useful for a veteran GM who does this, nor for the fledgling GM who is likely not going to catch the game designer level terminology and plot / style vocabulary. I see people in my games, in my friend's games, have characters with a back story that fits them in the campaign. The player takes that character and goes off on bold adventurer with their fellows. In the quoted interaction, the player is saying "what do I know about goblins and attacks in the area." In game, Depends on Character memory via skill check, or who the PCs talk to, or who you have they talked to as a NPC character, or scrying or detect goblins spell or whatever. Quitting after three tries? Call them Lazy Players, or Players who are metagaming, who are not playing out the interaction. Is this 4e? I have at times played 4th ed as a player and trying to engage NPCs in roleplay, asking questions, GM as GM, and players in character say, "shut up, you are delaying." One key reason why I am so not fond of 4th. Who is Hiring them? That's the key that's missing here. Who is paying the characters in your example? That person should give them the orders, and info to set off, or say "cows have been stolen, day X, field Y." So you're saying that the GM is obstructing the plot. I get that. What i'm not getting is the whole point of "If you are doing this, whoever you are, out there, stop and here is why, pre-supposing that you as hypothetical GM are causing players to not move the game forward by making a background that makes them non-flexible to the 'yes, and...' paradigm." Seems to me, maybe I am missing it, here- like dealing with hack and slash players via a hypothetical Narrativist GM who sees the game as a giant plot with key points, which the players, not seeking a narrative and with low attention span, decide to go random and failing to act upon this GM's "Tease it out of me" plot, attack random NPCs for game effect. But that "Happens a lot" to some group of GMs. The GM says there have been attacks on the town. Who within the game world is telling them as a player character: "There are attacks." That's the failing here. It's not the GM being frustrated that players want to go on a town burning spree, but the player characters arrived without a character to tell them, "There's been attacks, and this is where they were" or "there's been a notice, seeking adventurers, and here, let's go read it." I think that's what is implied, but it's couched in this meta-game meta-plot analyzation style that's just a bit off to me.

Brett E. said: GM: "...and so you arrive at the Elven court, home of the most powerful royal family in all the known world. As you enter the..." PC1: "..oh yea, and the queen, she's my cousin, totally hit that when we were younger, was awesome." PC2: "..oh yea, for sure, I totally remember that, that's when I learned to speak elf, good times!" GM: "Really? Are you making that claim right there in the court room?" (Note that I'm giving them a chance to walk it back. After all, players goof at the table all the time, myself included) PC1: "Yeah, it happened... In fact, I might try to get a piece of that action again, as long as we're here anyway". GM: "The Elven King shouts, 'Guards! Seize them!' " (Even if the PCs don't say this out loud, such a powerful ruler will certainly have court priests and mages stationed nearby, scrying and divining what these visitors are about. I still discount their claim, because it's my campaign world and I'm saying it didn't happen. But the PCs thoughts alone are enough to condemn them.) GM: "The next morning, as you peer out the barred window of your prison cell, you see the Elvish Royal Executioner sharpening the blade of a gigantic 2-handed axe in the courtyard below. He then places a melon on the chopping block, takes a mighty swing, and slices it in half, burying the blade a good 6 inches into the wood as well. Looking up, he notices you watching him from your cell window. He grins broadly and gives you the thumbs-up sign. By the way, did you happen to bring any blank character sheets with you today?" Anyway, that's how it would go down in my game. YMMV. I would never argue against anyone's right to play the game how they think best. That's the beauty of it all, to each their own. I guess you sure showed them. I think it might have been more productive to just talk about it out-of-game rather than resort to in-game punishments. If a DM needs to resort to in-game consequences for the purposes of player behavior modification, then something has gone horribly wrong in my opinion. James J. said: The whole premise of this thread is really very alien to my GM style, and role-playing experience. I get "moving the game forward". But I have seen "players resort to burn it down because we are jacked off in lack of finding the adventure" to have happened to GMs I know or people I game with maybe twice in decades. Additionally, this thread seems to come from a position of this kind of mechanistic plot analysis Hint/Tip that suggests "so many D&D players do this it's a reliable trope." Okay, granted you're talking players who are echoes of the stereotypes of order of the stick and Knights of the dinner table. And to be a stereotype, there has to be some truth to those kind of tropes. But I am not really seeing that in my experience. I have seen it in person. I have seen it online in plenty of games on Roll20 (or shades of the same). If you read the forums of other sites, you can see it reported with regular frequency. The most common cause that I see is the GM running a boring game (blocking, bad pacing, lack of context) and so the players "act out." I don't know if I'm not one of those GMs your tip applies to. I just don't see the narrow confines of the premise as something useful for a veteran GM who does this, nor for the fledgling GM who is likely not going to catch the game designer level terminology and plot / style vocabulary. I think it is useful for a veteran GM who does this. Now he knows why he might be getting the results he's seeing. If that veteran GM isn't you, then carry on because this advice doesn't apply to you. I see people in my games, in my friend's games, have characters with a back story that fits them in the campaign. The player takes that character and goes off on bold adventurer with their fellows. In the quoted interaction, the player is saying "what do I know about goblins and attacks in the area." In game, Depends on Character memory via skill check, or who the PCs talk to, or who you have they talked to as a NPC character, or scrying or detect goblins spell or whatever. Why should a player have to ask the DM what his own character knows about things? I can understand a skill check (even though I think such a mechanic is dumb), but my solution as stated was to give the information on a success or a failure, with failure simply equating to cost rather than not getting the information. This keeps things moving forward and creates new fictional complications to overcome rather than "You don't know." Quitting after three tries? Call them Lazy Players, or Players who are metagaming, who are not playing out the interaction. Is this 4e? I have at times played 4th ed as a player and trying to engage NPCs in roleplay, asking questions, GM as GM, and players in character say, "shut up, you are delaying." One key reason why I am so not fond of 4th. This is not exclusive to any game system or any edition of D&D. (The issue you report about 4e is about the group, not the game.) As well, metagaming to move the game along is no vice. Metagaming is not a dirty word. You can't have a game without the metagame. "What do I know about goblins and attacks in the area" is a metagame question because it's the player asking a question of the GM and not the character declaring fiction in the context of the game - and that's the advice you gave. So you're advising the player use metagaming. That's cool by me, but seems to be a contradiction for you. Any sort of "DM May I?" or "20 Questions" you engage in with the GM exists in the metagame. If that's your approach - you're "metagaming." Unless you are operating under an incorrect definition of the metagame, that is. Oftentimes people only talk about metagaming in terms of players using it to their advantage like knowing that trolls are killed by fire without having run into trolls previously during actual play. But that's just one way of metagaming, not metagaming in and of itself. Since the "DM May I" or "20 Questions" approach is so very common, perhaps it's time everyone get comfortable with the fact that they're metagaming. My form of the metagame simply takes the exclusive control away from the GM and shares it with everyone. The players don't have to ask questions on the metagame level in my games. They can just declare fiction in-character, in-game, without disrupting the scene. They can do that because I have decided that I am not the sole arbiter of what is and isn't true in the game. They don't have to ask my permission. They can just act and know and do. The game moves forward. Who is Hiring them? That's the key that's missing here. Who is paying the characters in your example? Say it's nobody. They're just being heroes. Now what? That person should give them the orders, and info to set off, or say "cows have been stolen, day X, field Y." As long as the information is given freely and quickly so that the game moves forward, I'm with you. I'm not necessarily a fan of quest-givers, however. So you're saying that the GM is obstructing the plot. I get that. I'm saying the GM is blocking and slowing down or stopping forward progress in the game to a frustrating level. That game may or may not involve a plot. What i'm not getting is the whole point of "If you are doing this, whoever you are, out there, stop and here is why, pre-supposing that you as hypothetical GM are causing players to not move the game forward by making a background that makes them non-flexible to the 'yes, and...' paradigm." You may be mixing a few topics up in this bit above which is understandable as the conversation morphed over various posts. The GM obscuring context and the players making backgrounds antithetical to forward progress are different things with similar outcomes. Seems to me, maybe I am missing it, here- like dealing with hack and slash players via a hypothetical Narrativist GM who sees the game as a giant plot with key points, which the players, not seeking a narrative and with low attention span, decide to go random and failing to act upon this GM's "Tease it out of me" plot, attack random NPCs for game effect. But that "Happens a lot" to some group of GMs. The GM says there have been attacks on the town. Who within the game world is telling them as a player character: "There are attacks." That's the failing here. It's not the GM being frustrated that players want to go on a town burning spree, but the player characters arrived without a character to tell them, "There's been attacks, and this is where they were" or "there's been a notice, seeking adventurers, and here, let's go read it." I think that's what is implied, but it's couched in this meta-game meta-plot analyzation style that's just a bit off to me. Narrativist GMs don't use plots , presuming you're referring to GNS theory by using that word. Narrativist GMs use premises . That is not the same as a plot. Otherwise, you've restated my point: The failing is the GM not providing enough context for the players to make decisions and move the game forward. I elaborate on this by explaining why the GMs may be doing this (e.g. blocking to control the flow of information to suit their biases) and why they should re-examine their approach.

Brett E. said: GM: "...and so you arrive at the Elven court, home of the most powerful royal family in all the known world. As you enter the..." PC1: "..oh yea, and the queen, she's my cousin, totally hit that when we were younger, was awesome." PC2: "..oh yea, for sure, I totally remember that, that's when I learned to speak elf, good times!" GM: "Really? Are you making that claim right there in the court room?" (Note that I'm giving them a chance to walk it back. After all, players goof at the table all the time, myself included) PC1: "Yeah, it happened... In fact, I might try to get a piece of that action again, as long as we're here anyway". GM: "The Elven King shouts, 'Guards! Seize them!' " (Even if the PCs don't say this out loud, such a powerful ruler will certainly have court priests and mages stationed nearby, scrying and divining what these visitors are about. I still discount their claim, because it's my campaign world and I'm saying it didn't happen. But the PCs thoughts alone are enough to condemn them.) GM: "The next morning, as you peer out the barred window of your prison cell, you see the Elvish Royal Executioner sharpening the blade of a gigantic 2-handed axe in the courtyard below. He then places a melon on the chopping block, takes a mighty swing, and slices it in half, burying the blade a good 6 inches into the wood as well. Looking up, he notices you watching him from your cell window. He grins broadly and gives you the thumbs-up sign. By the way, did you happen to bring any blank character sheets with you today?" Anyway, that's how it would go down in my game. YMMV. I would never argue against anyone's right to play the game how they think best. That's the beauty of it all, to each their own. I think that your way of handling this situation is a tad bit extreme. To lock them up and apparently execute them for one character thinking about making a sexual advance on the Queen is kinda far fetched. On top of that you have manged to waste the time of your players and yourself by killing them off so easily as not only do they have to spend the time and create new characters but now you have to spend time thinking of new ways to introduce them to each other and/or the adventure. You could easily let this play out, the character attempting to seduce the Queen but to no avail. Such an attempt could then lead to a negative effect on the reason they were seeing the royal family and thus shifts the story in a different direction. There are many ways that this could happen that will keep the story going while dissuading players from making such statements in the future, or maybe they don't learn and they keep on doing it and it leads to some funny rp...who knows. It is certainly better than using such heavy handed GM tactics. Now Headhunter I know you will disagree with many of the things I said up here, so please keep in mind that Brett is obviously not a fan of the "yes, and" style of rp but the more traditional "DM may I" approach as you call it. Also while your response to him was mildly amusing to me in the fact that you "showed him" with your sarcasm I don't think it was conducive to this topic. You could have taken time as I have to offer suggestions as to alternative solutions or approaches he might have taken and where your view differs from his much like you did for James and many others. I feel it is remarks like that that are only working against your intent and twisting your words from a "helpful tips" stand point to that of "My way is better than your shitty way so you should totally do it my way." which I believe is/was not your intent. Once again though, I did find it humerous.

Phisto Roboto said: I think that your way of handling this situation is a tad bit extreme. To lock them up and apparently execute them for one character thinking about making a sexual advance on the Queen is kinda far fetched. On top of that you have manged to waste the time of your players and yourself by killing them off so easily as not only do they have to spend the time and create new characters but now you have to spend time thinking of new ways to introduce them to each other and/or the adventure. You could easily let this play out, the character attempting to seduce the Queen but to no avail. Such an attempt could then lead to a negative effect on the reason they were seeing the royal family and thus shifts the story in a different direction. There are many ways that this could happen that will keep the story going while dissuading players from making such statements in the future, or maybe they don't learn and they keep on doing it and it leads to some funny rp...who knows. It is certainly better than using such heavy handed GM tactics. Now Headhunter I know you will disagree with many of the things I said up here, so please keep in mind that Brett is obviously not a fan of the "yes, and" style of rp but the more traditional "DM may I" approach as you call it. Also while your response to him was mildly amusing to me in the fact that you "showed him" with your sarcasm I don't think it was conducive to this topic. You could have taken time as I have to offer suggestions as to alternative solutions or approaches he might have taken and where your view differs from his much like you did for James and many others. I feel it is remarks like that that are only working against your intent and twisting your words from a "helpful tips" stand point to that of "My way is better than your shitty way so you should totally do it my way." which I believe is/was not your intent. Once again though, I did find it humerous. What would be the point of "allowing" the PC to attempt to make the effort of seducing the Queen if you're just going to block? That's a waste of time in my opinion. You've already decided that you're going to say "No." This is a good example of the distinction I made earlier between the GM pretending to offer a challenge and then blocking and the GM presenting a legitimate in-game challenge to which he hasn't predetermined an outcome . Blocking is the ultimate heavy-handed GM tactic. It is fiat, plain and simple. I guess you sure showed them. I think it might have been more productive to just talk about it out-of-game rather than resort to in-game punishments. The bold part of my quote above is humor, not sarcasm. The italicized part is an alternative solution or approach.

Regarding the scene in the Elvish Court above, I was illustrating absurdity by being absurd myself. To be honest, that scene would never occur in my game to begin with because my players are not like that. And despite what some of you may think, I believe my players would tell you I am very liberal at letting them at least attempt whatever they like... Within reason . I simply disagree with the idea that the players can say anything they like and, as the DM, I must automatically try to weave it into the story. I mean, where does it end? Let's say the players are being chased by a horde of orcs who's lair they've invaded and were driven out from. Things look grim until, suddenly, one of the characters "remembers" that he knows a guy who lives in a small keep just over the next hill. If they can get to it in time, they'll be saved! Another example: Say the party is out of money but want to upgrade to better weapons and armor. Suddenly, one of them "remembers" he has a a rich uncle who willed him a small fortune on his deathbed, all they have to do is get to a bank and they can withdraw it. Problem solved! If that's how I'm going to run my game, then why do I even need to be there? A game like that doesn't need a GM, it just needs a stenographer. Anyway, as I said above, I would never deny anyone's right to play the game however they wish... There are just certain concepts that I don't see ever making their way into my own game. To each their own.

Both of those situations can be launching points for more intrigue and adventures. You don't have to take them at face value, you're free to add your own "yes, and" to them. "The party charges over the hill to see ahead of them a sign of their salvation. It's the back side of the keep owned by John Johnstersson. With a band of orcs in hot pursuit, they race around to the front gate, yelling to any guards that might be on the walls that they're in desperate need of help. Unfortunately, as they round the fort, they see the gates have been breached, and are lying shattered on the ground. The bodies of several dead guardsmen are scattered about, pierced by crude arrows, or with their limbs crudely hacked or torn off. Perhaps the party can use the entrance as a choke-point to slow down the pursuing orcs, but who knows what creatures might be inside the fort now?" "Robert Bobbington leads the party to the city bank. He walks inside, announces his name, and asks to make a withdrawal from his Uncle's accounts, as he is the legal inheritor given his uncle's untimely death last week. The teller blanches visibly, and asks Robert to wait a moment while she goes to get her manager. The manager walks up to Robert, and demands proof of his identity. If Robert is able to provide this, the manager is very apologetic, but replies that a man was in just two days ago, claiming to be Robert Bobbington, and also had all of the relevant supporting documentation and evidence to prove his claim. This impostor (unless you are the impostor!) withdrew everything from your rich uncle's account, purchased a horse and carriage, and left town out the North Gate with great haste." If you're playing an open-world campaign, comments like that are gifts from your players. They're the hooks that you get to use in order to build a mystery for them to solve. If you manage to successfully do this enough times, one of two things will happen - your players will stop trying to "PC fiat" themselves out of their problems, or they'll enjoy the foils you set up so much that they'll do it even more. In any event, you should be able to twist things so that it's never easy for them to accomplish what they want :)

Brett E. said: Regarding the scene in the Elvish Court above, I was illustrating absurdity by being absurd myself. To be honest, that scene would never occur in my game to begin with because my players are not like that. And despite what some of you may think, I believe my players would tell you I am very liberal at letting them at least attempt whatever they like... Within reason . You "let" them. I don't think the DM should put himself in the position of "letting" or "allowing" things. That suggests an unequal power dynamic in the group. Certainly the DM and players have different roles in order to facilitate game play, but to put people on different power levels is at the heart of many problematic outcomes in my experience. The game mechanics "let" or "allow" things. The DM simply adjudicates the mechanics fairly and collaborates on the outcome in my view. If the players have to play in such a way that they need the DM's approval to do things, they're playing the DM and not the game. If that's the dynamic your group is okay with (and many are it seems), cool, keep doing that. I simply disagree with the idea that the players can say anything they like and, as the DM, I must automatically try to weave it into the story.I mean, where does it end? This may be an unintentional strawman argument as nobody has taken the position you are criticizing. If you are referring to my position, "it ends" where it contradicts established fiction, breaks agreements, or crosses lines. You may also be conflating "story" with "plot" as story is a byproduct of play. You don't need to do anything in particular to produce a story in an RPG other than just play the game. If you have a plot , then yes, you would have to modify parts of the plot to accommodate player declarations. The easiest way to avoid having to do that is to never run games with a predetermined plot. This is not a criticism of DMs who prepare plots; it's simply an acknowledgement of what you'd need to do if player declarations contradicted elements of the plot that have not been established up to that point. Let's say the players are being chased by a horde of orcs who's lair they've invaded and were driven out from. Things look grim until, suddenly, one of the characters "remembers" that he knows a guy who lives in a small keep just over the next hill. If they can get to it in time, they'll be saved! "Yes, and if you can keep ahead of the orcs and make it to the keep, you can hole up and take a breather while figuring out what to do next. The orc raiding party behind you isn't big enough to assault this keep, though the horde may be. We'll run a skill challenge to see if you can make it to the keep in time. If you succeed, you'll make it, no problem. If you fail, you make it to the keep at a cost unless you think capture would be a cooler outcome. As we go, I'm going to ask some questions about the lord of this holdfast. He must be quite an interesting personality to be holding the line against the orcish horde - does he have a deal with them? Does he pay them tribute? Is he an orc-hating stalwart warrior that has never lost his keep to invaders? Let's play to find out what happens!" At that point, I would start presenting legitimate in-game challenges to overcome as part of the skill challenge. Perhaps "Long Distance Sprinting," "Orcish Battle Frenzy," and "Rapidly Lowering Portcullis" (among others) that the players could try to have their characters overcome through the use of actions and skills to resolve the conflict. Or I guess I could just say, "No, there's no keep over there." That seems like a lost opportunity for exciting game play to me, however. It also means that I shut down a player's otherwise cool idea. Another example: Say the party is out of money but want to upgrade to better weapons and armor. Suddenly, one of them "remembers" he has a a rich uncle who willed him a small fortune on his deathbed, all they have to do is get to a bank and they can withdraw it. Problem solved! "Yes, and your uncle's wealth may be in jeopardy! As you approach the building, you can hear a bell sounding over and over as well as shouts and screams. There on the steps outside the edifice you see a pitched battle between a masked man and three town guard. The town guard are losing badly as he expertly hacks his way through them. Several other masked men run out of the bank carrying sacks of gold. More town guard are coming, but they are a ways off down the street, much further from the bank than you are now. What do you do?" Say "Yes." Fill their lives with adventure. Play to find out what happens. Do that and watch your players' engagement with the game skyrocket. If that's how I'm going to run my game, then why do I even need to be there? A game like that doesn't need a GM, it just needs a stenographer. It needs a GM to be a fan of the characters, fill their lives with adventure, and play to find out what happens. It also needs a GM to fairly adjudicate the game mechanics to fit the player's choices without bias. Anyway, as I said above, I would never deny anyone's right to play the game however they wish... There are just certain concepts that I don't see ever making their way into my own game. To each their own. Agreed. I hope the above examples illustrate the approach I would take to the situations you described.

David A. said: Both of those situations can be launching points for more intrigue and adventures. You don't have to take them at face value, you're free to add your own "yes, and" to them. "The party charges over the hill to see ahead of them a sign of their salvation. It's the back side of the keep owned by John Johnstersson. With a band of orcs in hot pursuit, they race around to the front gate, yelling to any guards that might be on the walls that they're in desperate need of help. Unfortunately, as they round the fort, they see the gates have been breached, and are lying shattered on the ground. The bodies of several dead guardsmen are scattered about, pierced by crude arrows, or with their limbs crudely hacked or torn off. Perhaps the party can use the entrance as a choke-point to slow down the pursuing orcs, but who knows what creatures might be inside the fort now?" "Robert Bobbington leads the party to the city bank. He walks inside, announces his name, and asks to make a withdrawal from his Uncle's accounts, as he is the legal inheritor given his uncle's untimely death last week. The teller blanches visibly, and asks Robert to wait a moment while she goes to get her manager. The manager walks up to Robert, and demands proof of his identity. If Robert is able to provide this, the manager is very apologetic, but replies that a man was in just two days ago, claiming to be Robert Bobbington, and also had all of the relevant supporting documentation and evidence to prove his claim. This impostor (unless you are the impostor!) withdrew everything from your rich uncle's account, purchased a horse and carriage, and left town out the North Gate with great haste." If you're playing an open-world campaign, comments like that are gifts from your players. They're the hooks that you get to use in order to build a mystery for them to solve. If you manage to successfully do this enough times, one of two things will happen - your players will stop trying to "PC fiat" themselves out of their problems, or they'll enjoy the foils you set up so much that they'll do it even more. In any event, you should be able to twist things so that it's never easy for them to accomplish what they want :) Amazing post. I wish I could be ninja'd like this all the time! If you need any players for your games, please PM me.

Headhunter Jones said: What would be the point of "allowing" the PC to attempt to make the effort of seducing the Queen if you're just going to block? That's a waste of time in my opinion. You've already decided that you're going to say "No." This is a good example of the distinction I made earlier between the GM pretending to offer a challenge and then blocking and the GM presenting a legitimate in-game challenge to which he hasn't predetermined an outcome . Blocking is the ultimate heavy-handed GM tactic. It is fiat, plain and simple I am having a hard time understanding your stand point on this. I know we have greatly opposite views on DMing styles and I always enjoy our discussions on it as I tend to be able to see things from your side of the "fence" (I use that term for flourish and do not think there is some line or barrier that separates us). This however I can't. Are you suggesting that whenever a player attempts something there should be a chance for it to work? I am honestly having trouble understanding this concept. Like in your game can players potentially do anything they wish as long as it does not supersede established lore? If you could go into more detail I am very interested to know more. It just seems to me that in a game like that you really don't need a DM as the group is just playing a classic improv game where they just build on the story that Player A starts, although not one line at a time. Once again this isn't me trying to troll or the like, I am honestly curious as to how things would work if as a DM you never say no to a player. Do you set up such a low chance that it is virtually impossible for it to happen? If so is that not the same thing as blocking, you are merely putting out an illusion that it could work? So many questions lol...

Headhunter Jones said You "let" them. I don't think the DM should put himself in the position of "letting" or "allowing" things. That suggests an unequal power dynamic in the group. Certainly the DM and players have different roles in order to facilitate game play, but to put people on different power levels is at the heart of many problematic outcomes in my experience. The game mechanics "let" or "allow" things. The DM simply adjudicates the mechanics fairly and collaborates on the outcome in my view. If the players have to play in such a way that they need the DM's approval to do things, they're playing the DM and not the game. If that's the dynamic your group is okay with (and many are it seems), cool, keep doing that. Once again I am confused by what you say. A DM that adjudicates anything is in fact on a different "level" than the players as s/he has final say to what happens or how the rules are viewed. So to state that there is no difference in "power" between the two roles is a falsehood. The only way this would be true is if the DM is there literally to act as an interactive rulebook and even then it would be tricky as the DC's to any task is up to the DM's discretion as to what constitutes an easy, moderate or difficult task. So unless the players are voting on it each time they wish to make a check then yeah the DM holds power. And honestly if the DM is nothing more than an interactive rulebook then I am hard pressed to think of anyone that would want to do the job. Seems hella boring to me. I apologize for having two posts, I would have responded to this in the first had I seen it lol.

Phisto Roboto said: I am having a hard time understanding your stand point on this. I know we have greatly opposite views on DMing styles and I always enjoy our discussions on it as I tend to be able to see things from your side of the "fence" (I use that term for flourish and do not think there is some line or barrier that separates us). This however I can't. Are you suggesting that whenever a player attempts something there should be a chance for it to work? I am honestly having trouble understanding this concept. Like in your game can players potentially do anything they wish as long as it does not supersede established lore? If you could go into more detail I am very interested to know more. It just seems to me that in a game like that you really don't need a DM as the group is just playing a classic improv game where they just build on the story that Player A starts, although not one line at a time. Once again this isn't me trying to troll or the like, I am honestly curious as to how things would work if as a DM you never say no to a player. Do you set up such a low chance that it is virtually impossible for it to happen? If so is that not the same thing as blocking, you are merely putting out an illusion that it could work? So many questions lol... I'm always happy to answer honest questions! I'm breaking up your paragraph so that my responses make sense in context below. Are you suggesting that whenever a player attempts something there should be a chance for it to work? I am honestly having trouble understanding this concept. Like in your game can players potentially do anything they wish as long as it does not supersede established lore? If you could go into more detail I am very interested to know more. My answer here is "Yes" on all counts. The only decision I would need to make as DM is whether or not seducing the queen is a legitimate in-game challenge that requires mechanics or not. If it is, then I have to choose a mechanic appropriate to the game system to resolve it (perhaps a skill challenge) wherein both success and failure is interesting and moves the game forward. If it is not, then it just works. "Yes, and the queen is duly impressed and intrigued by your confidence. Burning passion is not something she sees in her everyday courtly life. She suggests you visit her later in the arboretum to see the roses in full bloom." Now my DM agenda tells me I have to fill the PC's life with adventure. Perhaps a rival for her affection and his goons comes to deal with him and we have a tense scene in a cool setting. It just seems to me that in a game like that you really don't need a DM as the group is just playing a classic improv game where they just build on the story that Player A starts, although not one line at a time. Some might suggest that improvisation in the framework of mechanics for conflict resolution is all that an RPG is. You need a GM in some games because the players and GM have different roles to make the game work. Do you set up such a low chance that it is virtually impossible for it to happen? If so is that not the same thing as blocking, you are merely putting out an illusion that it could work? No. I use level appropriate DCs, always, no matter what. You're right that doing otherwise is just blocking. That's why one of the first questions I ask DMs before I join their game is whether they use the appropriate DCs or if they just make them up based on their own biases. If they say the latter (or words to that effect), then I know I can game the DM and that my mechanical choices on my character sheet don't actually matter very much. The only thing that matters at that point is how well I can lobby and convince the DM to go along with my ideas.

Phisto Roboto said: Once again I am confused by what you say. A DM that adjudicates anything is in fact on a different "level" than the players as s/he has final say to what happens or how the rules are viewed. So to state that there is no difference in "power" between the two roles is a falsehood. The only way this would be true is if the DM is there literally to act as an interactive rulebook and even then it would be tricky as the DC's to any task is up to the DM's discretion as to what constitutes an easy, moderate or difficult task. So unless the players are voting on it each time they wish to make a check then yeah the DM holds power. And honestly if the DM is nothing more than an interactive rulebook then I am hard pressed to think of anyone that would want to do the job. Seems hella boring to me. I apologize for having two posts, I would have responded to this in the first had I seen it lol. Adjudication is a role not a power , and it's done by consent because everyone who agreed to play the game agreed to a set of rules. Those rules aren't really open to interpretation and breaking them requires the consent of everyone at the table. Do DMs unilaterally break rules when they feel like it? Sure they do. But I think this is bad. I follow the rules as closely as possible when I DM, and where I don't, I've made a mistake that I'm happy to correct if it is pointed out. Nobody's perfect. If I want to change or override a rule mid-game, I ask for the player's permission to do so. It's their game, too. The DCs to any task are left up to the game which (depending on the game) may allow some GM discretion. Going beyond that means you're overstepping your role as GM. I do believe the players should have say in how difficult a task is and that's easy to get from them if they are the one establishing fiction (as in the examples upthread). The joy of DMing for me comes from playing to find out what happens, seeing what story is produced by us simply playing the game and having fun. The rules and the players help facilitate that.

Phisto Roboto said: Headhunter Jones said: What would be the point of "allowing" the PC to attempt to make the effort of seducing the Queen if you're just going to block? That's a waste of time in my opinion. You've already decided that you're going to say "No." This is a good example of the distinction I made earlier between the GM pretending to offer a challenge and then blocking and the GM presenting a legitimate in-game challenge to which he hasn't predetermined an outcome . Blocking is the ultimate heavy-handed GM tactic. It is fiat, plain and simple I am having a hard time understanding your stand point on this. I know we have greatly opposite views on DMing styles and I always enjoy our discussions on it as I tend to be able to see things from your side of the "fence" (I use that term for flourish and do not think there is some line or barrier that separates us). This however I can't. Are you suggesting that whenever a player attempts something there should be a chance for it to work? I am honestly having trouble understanding this concept. Like in your game can players potentially do anything they wish as long as it does not supersede established lore? If you could go into more detail I am very interested to know more. It just seems to me that in a game like that you really don't need a DM as the group is just playing a classic improv game where they just build on the story that Player A starts, although not one line at a time. Once again this isn't me trying to troll or the like, I am honestly curious as to how things would work if as a DM you never say no to a player. Do you set up such a low chance that it is virtually impossible for it to happen? If so is that not the same thing as blocking, you are merely putting out an illusion that it could work? So many questions lol... I suspect that Headhunter Jones' issue with your approach is that it's a "yes, and you're dead." More interesting for you, and your players, is if they're confronted on the issue and given some choice in how to proceed. Rather than being jailed and executed immediately, maybe the Queen's current consort could challenge him to a duel to defend his lover's honour. Maybe the party is arrested and jailed, but rather than being executed, they are charged with navigating a labyrinth and disposing of the twisted creature that was a result of that incestuous pairing all those long years ago. Maybe the Queen really did hit that, and she's been pining away for him ever since, so she kidnaps him and tries to keep him confined as a lover for the rest of time. Ask yourself how you can accept the PC's statements, but still not give them what they want. Remember that thwarting them is always more fun than killing them, for both you and for your PCs.

David A. said: I suspect that Headhunter Jones' issue with your approach is that it's a "yes, and you're dead." More interesting for you, and your players, is if they're confronted on the issue and given some choice in how to proceed. Rather than being jailed and executed immediately, maybe the Queen's current consort could challenge him to a duel to defend his lover's honour. Maybe the party is arrested and jailed, but rather than being executed, they are charged with navigating a labyrinth and disposing of the twisted creature that was a result of that incestuous pairing all those long years ago. Maybe the Queen really did hit that, and she's been pining away for him ever since, so she kidnaps him and tries to keep him confined as a lover for the rest of time. Yes please! All great complications. In my view, a good player doesn't avoid conflict. He gets into it and then climbs his way out of it with a good story to tell. Ask yourself how you can accept the PC's statements, but still not give them what they want. Remember that thwarting them is always more fun than killing them, for both you and for your PCs. The key thing here is not to negate because the GM (in this approach) cannot contradict either. What he can do is fill their lives with adventure because that is the GM's role. If the players have stated their goal and intent clearly (e.g. seduce the queen), what fantastical challenges might stand in the way of that goal (e.g. vengeful rivals for her affection)? In fact, that's something you can ask your players directly. They may say "nothing," and that's just fine because whatever you throw at them won't be well-received anyway - so move on. But what you may find is that players will often put themselves in a lot hotter water than the GM might otherwise feel comfortable doing. I've seen that play out time and again. It's fantastic for framing challenges the players actually want to experience.

Man, you guys sure write a lot.... Don't you people have jobs? (don't get offended, that's a quote from the movie Caddyshack. Just trying to inject a bit of humor here) Headhunter Jones said: If you are referring to my position, "it ends" where it contradicts established fiction, breaks agreements, or crosses lines. This doesn't sound any different than what I currently do, so I guess there's no fundamental difference of opinion. Except that if a player claims he tapped the Elven queen back in the day, in the middle of her own royal court, he's still going to get his head chopped off...

Brett E. said: Man, you guys sure write a lot.... Don't you people have jobs? (don't get offended, that's a quote from the movie Caddyshack. Just trying to inject a bit of humor here) Headhunter Jones said: If you are referring to my position, "it ends" where it contradicts established fiction, breaks agreements, or crosses lines. This doesn't sound any different than what I currently do, so I guess there's no fundamental difference of opinion. Except that if a player claims he tapped the Elven queen back in the day, in the middle of her own royal court, he's still going to get his head chopped off... The difference is that in addition to the parameters above (bolded), it appears that you reserve the right to say "No" for any reason you like. Is that accurate? Having a character fiat-killed as a "consequence" is just an in-game "No" to a player idea really. Assuming we're talking about players who are making a legitimate declaration (aren't kidding, intentionally disrupting the game, etc.), for me the test is simple: Was there any previously established fiction that the queen or PC didn't engage in such a relationship? Was there any agreement that the game has a "serious" tone and this declaration violates that? Was there an agreement that certain controversial topics were not to be included in the game because it crosses a line for one or more players? If the answer is "yes" to any of those questions, then I would remind the player of this and ask him to retract or edit his declaration. If the answer is "no" to all of the questions, then I would simply say "Yes, and..." and play to find out what happens. A lot of GMs say "no" because it may invalidate their prep work (planned events, predetermined plot, vision of "my" world, the Big Reveal, etc.). Would that be your reasoning here?

You know in context to the example of the Queen being hit on she merely could be in love with the King and actually be faithful. That has nothing to do with planned events, predetermined plots, big reveals etc. While it does kinda fit into the "vision of my world" category it is more on the fact that it is just a character that you have introduced that is acting according to the vision you have of them. And if you think that is blocking or what have you then I am curious as to how your npc's are implemented. Sure I have seen the workings of your one shots but those are totally different than an established game.

Yes, it's a "vision of 'my' world" issue. To continue with the Queen example, if her love and faithfulness to the King were important to me as DM for some reason, I would establish them in the fiction right away. Once established, that fiction cannot be contradicted. A player that then showed up and inferred he was involved in an intimate relationship with the Queen would either be lying or confused in-character or blocking (contradicting existing fiction). If it was the latter it would have to be addressed before moving forward. A thing is established when you say it (or perhaps post it). If it exists only in your head or in your notes, then it may as well not exist in my view. Until it enters actual play or is otherwise established (say, in a campaign forum thread), then it's completely changeable. Whatever vision I have in my head is no reason to block the vision the player has. By accepting his offer and adding onto it (rather than blocking in favor of the ideas in my head or in my notes), I have engaged the player's assumptions and worked their idea immediately into the emerging narrative. He's much more likely to remember an NPC he just helped create, too. My experience is that they tend to want to see where that idea goes as play progresses - engagement. What's more, now I'm more engaged because I want to see where all this collaboration ends up. In my regular campaign, the players have just created some villains and the events of next session (this Thursday) and the complications that will occur. All I had to do was get out of their way. Now I have a pile of awesome content that comes with their inherent buy-in. I guess I have some maps and pogs to create!

"Once established, that fiction cannot be contradicted." The queen never lies? Or you as DM decide she's truthful and faithful. Until she's established as being a liar, no? But you decide that with what you said earlier was unequal fiat-like power. I can contradict myself as well as you can it seems, Dr. Jones. This whole thing is very polite and interesting, but I can see that I'm a relic if the old days, where the world is harder, and has consequences. If there is no sense of loss, if it is always "yes, and.." (I've played those, I like that, but don't prefer them, especially as campaigns) it needs a more than capable group of players steeped in the culture of co-op gaming, when that is relatively rare among the people i know. Good luck to all, there's something here for someone, but the GM school I come from the person in the GM chair sets up the game, the setting, and challenges. Let the players choose, and the world reacts. let the GM choose and the players react. that's where you get the plot twists from. Shared in the sense of making choices, but someone has to make the Big Bang for in to happen. Not necessarily to be God later, but the in game physics and chemistry, and well plot, based on resultants from player choices. Choose your own adventure with 4 to 6 players, but the GM writes the pages turned to. Ilike fiasco, I have set up new plot charts whatever they are called, for fiasco, but it ends up with many players ' characters dead, or outcast, so that's dramatic one shot cool but doesn't work for me as a longer campaign. but one shot cons, sure. Not a big fan of the "3.5 style GM is some guy, equal power" thing either. I ENJOY a good game where a competent GM has great, risky challenges and my character has to go through real in game adversity. Many times if you have 6 gods in the kitchen of Zeus, the soup they make is too many conflicting flavors.

James J. said: "Once established, that fiction cannot be contradicted." The queen never lies? Or you as DM decide she's truthful and faithful. Until she's established as being a liar, no? But you decide that with what you said earlier was unequal fiat-like power. I can contradict myself as well as you can it seems, Dr. Jones. The players have as much "power" to declare as the DM does. It just can't contradict. If it's established, by anyone, that the Queen never lies, then she never lies. That's just how she is. This whole thing is very polite and interesting, but I can see that I'm a relic if the old days, where the world is harder, and has consequences. If there is no sense of loss, if it is always "yes, and.." (I've played those, I like that, but don't prefer them, especially as campaigns) it needs a more than capable group of players steeped in the culture of co-op gaming, when that is relatively rare among the people i know. A game that employs the "Yes, and..." approach advocated in the D&D 4e DMG/DMG2 is just as deadly and challenging as any other game. It's just danger and challenge that the players had a hand in creating which means they are more engaged by it and less likely to avoid it. They're not just swallowing what the GM is dishing out. Good luck to all, there's something here for someone, but the GM school I come from the person in the GM chair sets up the game, the setting, and challenges. Let the players choose, and the world reacts. let the GM choose and the players react. that's where you get the plot twists from. Shared in the sense of making choices, but someone has to make the Big Bang for in to happen. Not necessarily to be God later, but the in game physics and chemistry, and well plot, based on resultants from player choices. Choose your own adventure with 4 to 6 players, but the GM writes the pages turned to. It sounds like my game except: (1) I don't write plots, (2) Anyone can create the Big Bang, and (3) the GM and players write the pages together. Ilike fiasco, I have set up new plot charts whatever they are called, for fiasco, but it ends up with many players ' characters dead, or outcast, so that's dramatic one shot cool but doesn't work for me as a longer campaign. but one shot cons, sure. In my experience, it works great for campaigns. You get all the drama, in-character interaction, and character development that games without this type of collaboration often lack. You also get consistent content that everyone is interested in. In the traditional mode, the DM creates and hopes the players will like it. I don't have to hope . It means less "work" for me for more engagement during play. Not a big fan of the "3.5 style GM is some guy, equal power" thing either. I ENJOY a good game where a competent GM has great, risky challenges and my character has to go through real in game adversity. Sounds like you'd enjoy a game like mine then. Though I don't play 3.5e anymore. Many times if you have 6 gods in the kitchen of Zeus, the soup they make is too many conflicting flavors. Only if they choose to do so. Contradiction makes for inconsistency; conflict makes for drama. The "Yes, and..." approach obviates contradiction and puts conflict with everyone's buy-in front and center.