I'll add another aspect that may play into the aversion toward saying "no," and it hinges on how many people approach RPGs like a drama exercise instead of a game.
A number of campaigns I've played in (or even run) were hinged around players succeeding. To get to the next planned encounter, you must pass the current obstacle. If the players fail, then the plot gets derailed. This is largely a function of the GM's approach to designing the game like a story instead of a situation.
Of course, being told 'no' doesn't necessarily mean automatic and total failure, but it can still feel like a barrier to being able to progress the game master's plot. It disrupts the railroad.
Accounting for no means leaving the railroad behind during campaign design.
I’m down with the idea that constraints are good for creativity. I put constraints and consequences in games all the time … but it’s rarely just a “no”. But I’m also rarely a “yes” unless it’s something simple and not really a decision.
I like “let’s see what happens after you do that” or “it may not be obvious to you as a player but your character feels the small container of lighter fluid won’t be enough to cover the great old one …. What do you do?”
I'm very in favour of utalising "no" more. Always getting what you want *is* boring. To be pedantic about lotr though, the answer given in text to "can a hobbit kill a nazgul" is a "yes, but" with the but being "you need a special ancient sword and help from a cool woman"
That’s definitely a good aspect of any GMing! I think a direct no can still be really interesting though, not something to encounter lots but something that can make a game feel real.
Completely agree that hard no’s are an important tool in the GM’s arsenal.
I believe the common nod to improv acting as a way ttrpgs should be played is a damaging one. Improv is not the same as playing a ttrpg game, the purpose if improv is to keep the scene moving at any cost, not to communally tell a fulfilling story/ react within the limitations of a world.
I think you are correct to comment on the confrontational aspect - I think that is a big deal for a lot of GM’s.
I’m not sure I would pin the improv quadrant on anything other than wanting to bring improv energy to table tops and that being a simple model for successful early improv. I agree that it’s problematic for table top. In improv, “No” is a problem because there is no other way forward. It creates a real obstruction to the purpose of improv, which is to entertain an audience through clever comedy. A hard stop is as jarring as a heckler, and it breaks the rhythm for the performers and the audience. Tabletop however is all about friction, constraints, and problems. No is as you say a powerful tool for constructing the kinds of situations that make the game fun. I can remember multiple instances of Brennen Lee Mulligan saying “No” with his full chest, and he’s an improvisor’s improvisor.
> The need for ‘yes’ / ‘yes, and’ / ‘yes, but’ / ‘no, but’ comes from the hero’s journey and in some senses, the colonial roots of D&D’s wargaming heritage
Completely agree that hard no’s are an important tool in the GM’s arsenal.
I believe the common nod to improv acting as a way ttrpgs should be played is a damaging one. Improv is not the same as playing a ttrpg game, the purpose if improv is to keep the scene moving at any cost, not to communally tell a fulfilling story/ react within the limitations of a world.
I think you are correct to comment on the confrontational aspect - I think that is a big deal for a lot of GM’s.
It's like my parents used to say: "No means no" 😳
I say that to my girls. They may not like it now, but they will later (at least that is what I tell myself.)
Yesterday, I had my first session for Tales from Trinity City.
One of my players has Shurkien to throw, and asked — can I throw four of them at the punks in front of them.
I said, you don’t have the skill, you throw with disadvantage.
He asked, if I throw less, can I throw normally.
I said, no, you don’t have marksmanship: Ninja Star skill, so you throw at disadvantage if you throw more than 1.
There was silence for 30 seconds.
He said, to hell with it, I’m rolling.
Four punks got hit.
You’re right, no adds to the fun, because it adds drama, which is the reason we play!
Drama, fun, and friction!
It made me remember of Heracles dilema. Zeuz never told him whether he is mortal or not. And even then, he risked his life.
I wonder if sometimes instead of just a "no", or the alternatives ("yes", "yes, but", etc) we could also say "who knows?" (when makes sense).
It leaves the question as an open possibility.
Who knows is definitely another good response! But I still think ‘no’ is really undervalued, the greatest tool of creation is the knife and all that!
I'll add another aspect that may play into the aversion toward saying "no," and it hinges on how many people approach RPGs like a drama exercise instead of a game.
A number of campaigns I've played in (or even run) were hinged around players succeeding. To get to the next planned encounter, you must pass the current obstacle. If the players fail, then the plot gets derailed. This is largely a function of the GM's approach to designing the game like a story instead of a situation.
Of course, being told 'no' doesn't necessarily mean automatic and total failure, but it can still feel like a barrier to being able to progress the game master's plot. It disrupts the railroad.
Accounting for no means leaving the railroad behind during campaign design.
This is a good insight!
Never quite encountered an article about no that is as good as this one. Definitely worth the read. Probably worth reading a second time. Great job.
I’m down with the idea that constraints are good for creativity. I put constraints and consequences in games all the time … but it’s rarely just a “no”. But I’m also rarely a “yes” unless it’s something simple and not really a decision.
I like “let’s see what happens after you do that” or “it may not be obvious to you as a player but your character feels the small container of lighter fluid won’t be enough to cover the great old one …. What do you do?”
I'm very in favour of utalising "no" more. Always getting what you want *is* boring. To be pedantic about lotr though, the answer given in text to "can a hobbit kill a nazgul" is a "yes, but" with the but being "you need a special ancient sword and help from a cool woman"
I find a more interesting approach is not "No", but add a cost or requirement. And of course there is an element of risk.
Want to scale that cliff? Not a chance, unless you have climbing gear.
Want to hunt a werewolf? You know they are only hurt by magic weapons.
Want to speak with the King? Better have an impressive gift, and bribe his chief of state.
That’s definitely a good aspect of any GMing! I think a direct no can still be really interesting though, not something to encounter lots but something that can make a game feel real.
True. Playing with children especially, sometimes they need to know.
"No, you cannot leap from street level to the Baron's airship just by trying really hard."
Yes, yes and yes to the concept of this post! 😉.
Completely agree that hard no’s are an important tool in the GM’s arsenal.
I believe the common nod to improv acting as a way ttrpgs should be played is a damaging one. Improv is not the same as playing a ttrpg game, the purpose if improv is to keep the scene moving at any cost, not to communally tell a fulfilling story/ react within the limitations of a world.
I think you are correct to comment on the confrontational aspect - I think that is a big deal for a lot of GM’s.
Also, the dice roll can say "no" :-).
Definitely! I think it’s useful in a mechanical and non-mechanical context!
I’m not sure I would pin the improv quadrant on anything other than wanting to bring improv energy to table tops and that being a simple model for successful early improv. I agree that it’s problematic for table top. In improv, “No” is a problem because there is no other way forward. It creates a real obstruction to the purpose of improv, which is to entertain an audience through clever comedy. A hard stop is as jarring as a heckler, and it breaks the rhythm for the performers and the audience. Tabletop however is all about friction, constraints, and problems. No is as you say a powerful tool for constructing the kinds of situations that make the game fun. I can remember multiple instances of Brennen Lee Mulligan saying “No” with his full chest, and he’s an improvisor’s improvisor.
Love this. Limits. Archetypes are archetypes because they’re archetypes.
> The need for ‘yes’ / ‘yes, and’ / ‘yes, but’ / ‘no, but’ comes from the hero’s journey and in some senses, the colonial roots of D&D’s wargaming heritage
okay this feels like a huge stretch
Yes, yes and yes to the concept of this post! 😉.
Completely agree that hard no’s are an important tool in the GM’s arsenal.
I believe the common nod to improv acting as a way ttrpgs should be played is a damaging one. Improv is not the same as playing a ttrpg game, the purpose if improv is to keep the scene moving at any cost, not to communally tell a fulfilling story/ react within the limitations of a world.
I think you are correct to comment on the confrontational aspect - I think that is a big deal for a lot of GM’s.