23?. Whenever a player says, "Can I . . .?" the answer is yes. Page 42 them. This applies for actions out of combat as well. It may not work in the way the player expected -- and to keep things interesting it probably shouldn't -- but letting your players think creatively almost always adds to the fun quotient.
Edit: Also, great thread. Thanks for starting it, Hengeyokai.
But surely you have encountered situations in which players were bored or disengaged with what the DM was offering, or made choices that the DM couldn't decide how to make interesting.
Of course, but I think you are still thinking that I'm saying that players should have no control at all when I'm saying that they should have have influence with the DM - i.e. the player looks for what they expect and the DM decides if it is there. Limits provide very interesting roleplay.
Not universally. They can also be needlessly frustrating.
For example here is how I understand your game sessions to work so far:
DM: There is a monster at the door!
Player: I grab a wand from under the sink and blast it!
(or)
Player: I grab some planks of wood and nail it shut!
Either way the situation is resolved by instant expectation - the player creates the planks or the wand and the monster is dealt with with little thought.
I don't know how you can say it was with little thought. Why did it occur to the player that there would be a wand or planks handy? Even if I never learn the answer to that, it's clear that they were imagining the setting their characters were in, and seeing things that made sense to them to be there. I can probably come up with reasons why those things are true, and if I can't I can ask them.
Why was there a monster at the door? Why did I think that they'd enjoy dealing with it in the ways I'd imagined? I haven't lost anything because of how they dealt with it. There's no reason to believe their situation is anything close to resolved, but even if it is what they've done is allowed us to move on to another situation that they are more interested in dealing with.
D&D players aren't serving themselves if they cut through ever single situation, and when they realize this (as they shortly will) they'll collaborate in ways that challenge themselves.
Now here is how a game might go in the same situation with a DM who isn't afraid to say no:
DM: There is a monster at the door!
Player 1: I search for a weapon or something to block the door.
DM: The room is bare except for a small square table. (This is true to his notes)
Why? It's clear that the DM had an expectation here, and tried to make sure that the encounter would go a specific way. That's likely to lead to further blocking.
Player 1: I grab the table and wedge the end under the handle
Why didn't the player have to ask if the table was light enough to be moved? Maybe it's bolted down. Maybe it involves stone or a lot of metal or sharp edges. The player doesn't know. Is it in the DM's notes? Or is the DM going to go with the PC's expectation?
That's in the DM's notes? Or did the DM just decide in favor of the player? Since that's what you're saying a player would do anyway, why not just let them do it?
Player 1: I shunt the table forward and try to wedge it against the door!
DM: How do you do that?
Player 1: I turn it upside-down and prop it against the door and wedge it so it sticks.
Wait, wedging at table against a door requires an explanation, but the dagger thing doesn't? I get that this is just a quick example, but I really don't think it would happen that way.
DM: You seem to have stopped it for now and the monster curses.
And so does the DM, probably. He had notes, he'd clearly planned something to happen here, and the PCs shut it down. What if the opening for the whole adventure hinged, in the DM's notes, on the creature getting through that door? Why didn't the PCs want to participate in what the DM had planned? What if he found out what they wanted to participate in, and just gave them that?
Now, you see, it looks like the DM is dictating, but he didn't even think about how the players might use the table or what kind of lock the door might have until the player mentioned it and it became a latch on this side.
What very often happens is that a "DM who isn't afraid to say no" will say it much more than in your example, and will carefully weigh the information they give, stretching their notes (or their imagination) to find ways why the characters' plans won't work. The DM in this scenario was clearly also not afraid to say "Yes, and..." (if implicitly) to some of the players' ideas, but in another situation, a DM who doesn't default to "Yes, and..." is likely to shut down a clever player idea. Don't decide where to draw the line, work with the players to find out where they want the line.
As I've said, when I first got into collaborative mode with my players, they walked pretty easily through that first session. This was due in part to me setting up challenges they weren't really interested in. Now, they take part in determining the challenges, so I know they're interested in participating and not short circuiting them. Or, I let them short circuit them. What's it to me?
and it means that the players have to work with what is available to them at the time to get what they want instead of instantly having it.
You're railing against the worst case of something I don't think you've given a fair shake. I've given "not afraid to say no" DMing a fair shake, and even non-worst-cases have severe issues.
Heng, with your wand and planks example you are leaving out the Dm prompting details, like "Where did you get the planks and nails? "Do you think you can seal the door before the monster gets in? Will that hold out the monster? What other ways are there in and out of the room?"
The wand would make me say "Why is there a wand under the sink? What does it do? Does it have anything to do with the monster at the door?"
Yes, follow-up questions are appropriate, as long as they aren't taken as accusative, or as necessary for the players established detail to be effective.
Your longer example is actually a lot like what Centauri is talking about, asking the players questions and such. The difference is if my notes didn't say there was a table in the room and a player said "I want to push a table up against the door" I'd probably let them, cause, well, it's a table.
If they said "I transform into a flying unicorn and teleport out of the room," then it might lead to more of a discussion. But allowing the players to make decisions and add to the story is, I feel, always good.
Yes, at a certain point, there are player declarations that a DM won't be sure how to deal with, and more discussion is warranted.
I suspect my play style is actually closer to yours than Centauri's, but my playstyle now is much closer to Centauri's than it was in years past, and I and my players are have a lot more fun because of that.
Glad to hear it. I don't even play the exact way I advocate. Part of that is habit, partly it's quicker to establish something and rely on the players' good will to go along. But once "Yes, and..." is the guiding principle, and the players' brains are put to the task of helping make the game they want to play, a lot of amazing things can happen. A lot of new games are built on this principle. I can't claim to have invented it.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
I personally don't like the idea of giving the player's control over parts of the universe. I tend to agree more with the OP, but that's not to say I don't believe that the players can't add input. For my group at least, we all seem to really enjoy the concept of piecing a puzzle together and completing a challenge based on what they are given. Like how my group used the bodies of recently killed goblins to lure some giant serpents to their doom, or using a rope from a bridge they destroyed to lasso a troll. I find that if I leave my descriptions a bit vague despite the important details it allows them to add their own stuff to use it as they please. However, they still go through the "DM may I" simply as a rule for all of them, so no one point become too overpowered. The last thing I would like to happen is for one person to be overpowered and ruin even just one battle, because I think it might make us lose interest. This especially lies true with Player to player conflicts. Too many times have I seen another player pull out some bullshit and really anger the other. It all lies on your players. So while I believe Centauri's methods might work and allow for some fun RP, it does bring some risk that I just not willing to take.
I think some groups might expect the DM to do the work and enjoy it. I for one am a fan of working within the lines to get what I want. A great sense of achievement can come from it. Likewise, I know plenty of creative players who don't liked to be bogged down by the DMs command and have great ideas that they want ot try out, but the DMs story doesn't allow it.
I for one am a fan of working within the lines to get what I want. A great sense of achievement can come from it.
It's the same with the approach Centauri advocates. The constraint is the existing fiction. That's how consistency and challenge is maintained. "Yes, and" requires all persons at the table to do it, not just the DM. That means respecting previously established details and working within those bounds.
The only real difference in approach is that, in the one he (and I) advocate, your ability to change the fictional world is not limited to your character's ability to do those things.
No amount of tips, tricks, or gimmicks will ever be better than simply talking directly to your fellow players to resolve your issues. Reduce DM Prep & Increase Player Engagement:Don't Prep the Plot | Structure First, Story Last | Collaborative Roleplay | "Yes, and..." | Prep Tips Games I'm Running on Roll20: Island of the Frog | Vanguard of Dis | Star*Juice | Tesseract | The Crucible | Fimbulvetr | The Delve | Draj, City of the Moon Follow me on Twitter:@is3rith
For my group at least, we all seem to really enjoy the concept of piecing a puzzle together and completing a challenge based on what they are given. Like how my group used the bodies of recently killed goblins to lure some giant serpents to their doom, or using a rope from a bridge they destroyed to lasso a troll. I find that if I leave my descriptions a bit vague despite the important details it allows them to add their own stuff to use it as they please.
Collaboration and even narrative control doesn't mean this can't, doesn't, or won't happen. If players like that sort of thing, as mine do, then they'll do it even if the DM would let them do just about anyone else. But it's the players finding their own preferred limits of creativity, not the DM.
However, they still go through the "DM may I" simply as a rule for all of them, so no one point become too overpowered. The last thing I would like to happen is for one person to be overpowered and ruin even just one battle, because I think it might make us lose interest.
Look carefully at this: what does it mean to "ruin" a battle? Creatively find something that short circuits it? What if you accidentally left all the necessary pieces in place for the players to win a battle without a fight? Would you then say no, just to stop them? Would you risk shutting down their creativity just to make sure the battle plays out a certain way.
I don't think you would. You mentioned lassoing a troll. You didn't have to let them be able to retrieve that rope, or to lasso the troll, or to have lassoing the troll be an effective tactic. Yet you did. I imagine the players had to ask permission at every step, but you let them do it.
This especially lies true with Player to player conflicts. Too many times have I seen another player pull out some bullshit and really anger the other.
Player-to-player conflicts are their own thing, and not an indictment of any particular approach. They do indicate very low levels of trust at the table, though, which makes any approach, even the assumed one, harder.
I think some groups might expect the DM to do the work and enjoy it.
There's no "I think" about it. Of course they do, and the game supports them in that way of thinking. But that way of thinking has some serious issues with it.
A great sense of achievement can come from it. Likewise, I know plenty of creative players who don't liked to be bogged down by the DMs command and have great ideas that they want ot try out, but the DMs story doesn't allow it.
We all know players like that. "Yes, and..." was ensconced in 4e for a reason, and it was to acknowledge that there are 3 to 5 other creative brains at your table, and that playing gatekeeper to their ideas is not the way to encourage their creativity.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
Maybe I'm getting the wrong idea here, but it seems to me that "collaborating" is giving players some creative control over the game. In the sense that they can create objects, enemies, or npcs appropriotely based on the environment. Is this right or is there more to it?
As for the risk, I see it as one player ruining something all the other players were enjoying, and perhaps disbanding the group. Simply due to how seldom we play, one bad experience could mean the end to it entirely if we lose interest.
Maybe I'm getting the wrong idea here, but it seems to me that "collaborating" is giving players some creative control over the game. In the sense that they can create objects, enemies, or npcs appropriotely based on the environment. Is this right or is there more to it?
This is correct at its most basic level. However, it should be noted that you have to work within the established fiction because "Yes and..." means you're building from what has come before. You cannot contradict existing fiction, only build from it. If the DM says there is a door, Player A cannot now say there is no door. If Player A says that his character hears the sounds of orcs ahead, provided this does not contradict existing fiction, then there are orcs ahead. The DM and other players must build upon that detail.
As for the risk, I see it as one player ruining something all the other players were enjoying, and perhaps disbanding the group. Simply due to how seldom we play, one bad experience could mean the end to it entirely if we lose interest.
This sounds more like an out-of-game problem than an in-game problem. If someone is ruining the game, it's not their character doing it - it's them. This would be dealt with by an out-of-game conversation.
No amount of tips, tricks, or gimmicks will ever be better than simply talking directly to your fellow players to resolve your issues. Reduce DM Prep & Increase Player Engagement:Don't Prep the Plot | Structure First, Story Last | Collaborative Roleplay | "Yes, and..." | Prep Tips Games I'm Running on Roll20: Island of the Frog | Vanguard of Dis | Star*Juice | Tesseract | The Crucible | Fimbulvetr | The Delve | Draj, City of the Moon Follow me on Twitter:@is3rith
As I see it, "Collaboration" seems to be evolutionary. One would have to build into it due to how it involves a lot of trust and understanding of the plot and storytelling. Definetly not something I feel comfortable with given the current state of the group.
As I see it, "Collaboration" seems to be evolutionary. One would have to build into it due to how it involves a lot of trust and understanding of the plot and storytelling. Definetly not something I feel comfortable with given the current state of the group.
That's understandable. It should be noted that trust is earned best by accepting ideas and adding onto them. When people see their ideas being used, they'll want to use the ideas of others, too. Trust builds very quickly in this scenario. Sure, there may be some hiccups at the beginning, but your game in the long run is much improved, at least in my experience.
I'd add that in this style, there isn't a plot or story, so there is no concern about needing to have a grasp of it beforehand to make it work. A story is what you produce by playing, not before playing.
No amount of tips, tricks, or gimmicks will ever be better than simply talking directly to your fellow players to resolve your issues. Reduce DM Prep & Increase Player Engagement:Don't Prep the Plot | Structure First, Story Last | Collaborative Roleplay | "Yes, and..." | Prep Tips Games I'm Running on Roll20: Island of the Frog | Vanguard of Dis | Star*Juice | Tesseract | The Crucible | Fimbulvetr | The Delve | Draj, City of the Moon Follow me on Twitter:@is3rith
