Say Yes, but Get There Quick
Please your players, reward roleplaying and creativity, and keep game pace moving along by saying yes to player plans, actions, and ideas.
This is a classic tip mentioned in Roleplaying Tips Issue #303, Roll Dice Or Say Yes and I’ve seen various wise websites post this advice over the years as well.
There are a couple of nuances to saying yes I’d like to talk about today. Some game masters might be worried their players will take advantage of them. Others could be concerned their games might not be challenging enough if everything is always working out in the players’ favour.
Be Reasonable
You don’t need to agree to everything. Make sure a yes answer makes sense, doesn’t ruin your plans, or derails the campaign.
Making sense: If the situation doesn’t make sense to you, pause and hash things out. If only one player or part of the group is up to speed with the discussion, make sure you have agreement from everyone, where applicable, before saying yes. A forceful player might be trying to drive something through and take advantage of your good nature, while leaving his friends in the dust. It also has to be consistent with previous rulings or game details, and not break sense of disbelief.
Ruining plans: Always assume your plans are moot in their first contact with the PCs. However, sometimes saying no can rescue a lot of prep work, or corral precious game time that might otherwise be wasted pursuing unproductive ends for the party. This is general advice, as sandbox play, improv GMing, and other factors might put zero importance on your plans. However, I won’t hesitate to say no if I think it’s best for the game and the group, and I take that stewardship role seriously.
Campaign derailment: Sometimes saying no saves the PCs’ bacon, and you should say no using the same criteria you employ to fudge dice rolls behind the screen to help the PCs out (if you fudge rolls, that is). I won’t say no just to protect a villain’s bad tactics, or to pursue some specific end-scene or encounter set-up I think would be cool.
This is a major point, actually, so let’s pause on it for a sec. You will have great ideas, expectations, and visions tied to specific outcomes, decisions, or set-ups during the game. Perhaps you want the PCs to use a specific entrance to trigger a magnificent cascade of events, or you want the villain to escape, or you imagine how great it would be if the characters offended the Great Druid because you have a killer side-plot idea.
Your ideas will often be great. And it will be tough letting them go. But you must. Please do use the GMing tools in your toolbelt to influence or guide the PCs towards desired results, but you can’t control the characters or the players. If the players feel that, no matter what they do, consequences and events are preordained, they’ll lose interest or get rowly.
This is age-old advice, but in our moments of inspiration, we all still fall prey. For example, something that angers me as a player is when a certain type of encounter will trigger regardless of our actions, but the GM sets up the illusion that we have a choice. The group will talk about our choices, make plans, wrestle over tactics, and then, regardless and unbeknownst to us, the result is inevitable. In that case, I prefer the GM to just let us know. Roleplaying aside, it would have saved so much game time, saved us a lot of energy, and made that bit of gameplay meaningful.
Giving control over to your group is tough. Many authors say how tough it is to give up a phrase or section they are proud of or excited about, but if it doesn’t serve the book, it must be cut. Stephen King mentions this. He cuts 10% from his first draft. Then he’ll cut another 10%. It’s painful, but it must be done.
So, say yes even if it means postponing or averting your desires or cool ideas.
Say yes, but
Another tactic is to allow success but with a condition or string attached. This can be abused, so be careful, as too many uses of “yes, but” cancels the positive effects of saying yes at all.
An ideal condition or string generates interesting tactical considerations for the PCs. It validates the players’ idea or request, but gives them something extra to mull over or factor in.
“Yes, your plan will work, but you might not have enough time after crossing the chasm to get your rope and pitons back.”
On rare occasions, you can create dilemmas where all choices are yes, but each has a downside and there’s no clear winner. This can generate excellent roleplaying and party discussion, but I caution that you use this rarely unless difficult choices is the theme of your game.
Say yes, but get there quick
Now we come to the main point of this post. My GMing advice is, if you’re going to say yes, then figure this out right away and get to yes quickly.
This is a skill you might need to learn. It took me a few tries at it, because you need to think ahead a bit, first to determine if the likely outcome is yes, and second, what trouble could lie behind that answer. If the coast is clear, then you will serve your players and the game better by getting to yes fast.
This often applies to situations where you are going to say yes anyway, so why bother saying no to a bunch of player ideas somewhat arbitrarily until the magic moment arrives when you give an idea your approval? Why make the players pitch ten ideas to you, and then you choose idea eleven.
We are critical, analytical creatures. We can find a problem with anything. We can especially find holes in PC plans and ideas, because we’re all working with a limited set of information. We’re not actually there, in the game world, trying to do things. So, GMs can always find reasons why something might not work and poke a hole in a plan or idea.
“Can we jump the chasm?”
“No, it’s too wide.”
“Can we find a narrow point up or down along the chasm and jump it?”
“No, the chasm is too long.”
“Can we tie a rope and climb across?”
“No, this side is barren, there’s nothing to tie a rope to.”
“Can we climb down this side and then up the other?”
“No, the chasm is too deep. And there’s lava at the bottom.”
The GM senses now the PCs are running out of options. He better say yes soon, else the PCs will be stuck.
“Is there a tree on the other side? Can we attach a rope to an arrow, embed it in the tree, and while two of us hold the rope the others climb across. Then, we carry over a second rope, so the last two can just swing across the chasm?”
“Yes.”
Sometimes problem solving is fun. But a scene like the above, which I have actually GM’d, is painful. I should have just said yes to the first request. I knew the PCs had to cross anyway, so why not just let them cross with the first reasonable idea?
Say yes and add friction
You might have legitimate concerns over letting poor ideas slip through or of sending signals that the easy train has just come to town. Mitigate this, carefully, with friction before saying yes:
- Ask for additional explanation or details. “Talk me through this, and try not to leave out any details.”
- “Yes, but…”
- “There are a couple things that might cause your ideas to fall flat – this thing and that thing – what can you do to solve those problems?”
- “Are you sure that’s what you want to do? Double-dog, no dice fudging, no take-backs, you’re ready to do this thing?”
- “Thanks for the run-down on your plan, Frank. The group is all agreed then that’s what you’re all going to do? Great, let’s start. From the top, Bill, tell me how the group executes the plan.” (This one is evil, and catches players who aren’t paying attention.)
As cautioned before, adding friction can counteract the benefits of saying yes to keep the game flowing along well. It also cancels somewhat the benefits of getting to yes fast. Adding a little friction helps generate extra challenge or hesitation, when needed though, so it’s a valuable tool in your toolbox.
Is this the hill you want to die on?
A friend at work told me his wife once asked him in the middle of a heated discussion whether this was the hill he wanted to die on. Now that’s funny. It’s also a wise temperature check. Ultimately, the point of this tip is to not waste time squabbling over details or issues when you’re going to say yes anyway. It’s also about saying yes often because it’s too easy to find holes in any reasonable idea or plan, just as in real life, but that doesn’t meant something wouldn’t work or isn’t available or isn’t possible.
So, say yes. Get there fast. And if you find yourself balking or arguing over trivial details, ask yourself, is this the hill you want to die on? Is this the issue you want to ruin game pacing, momentum, fun, or progress on?
Discover more from Campaign Mastery
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
June 1st, 2009 at 7:40 am
I find it’s important to remember that the DM’s job is not to kill the PCs (although many players may disagree). So what if they want to do something outrageous or stupid. My feeling is let them try. If it means that the PCs will have fun and it will avoid an unnecessary argument or fight, than say yes, set the DC a little bit higher than normal, and let them make the roll.
I’ve been doing this a lot and it’s fostered a lot of creativity. Now that my PCs know I’m going to let them try crazy things they’re more likely to be creative and it’s made for a lot of very memorable encounters. And for the record, they tend to flub the roll more than they make it so most of the time it doesn’t affect my plans anyway.
June 1st, 2009 at 10:19 am
I’ve been making a more concerted effort to do this with my D&D 4e game. The 4e rules are so precise and technical that there’s a sort of implicit “no” throughout. For example, my players have thunderwave and other push powers and are always trying to push one monster into another, push a monster into the wall for extra damage, push a monster such that he ricochets and bounces forward instead of back, etc. By the rules, none of this is even remotely possible: a push has a very specific and clearly defined effect.
So my general strategy now is either to say “Yes, because of the unusual circumstances,” or else “Yes, but you’ll need to make a check, and if you fail…” Adding such a cost/risk puts the decision back in the player’s hands. Sometimes it’s worth it to them to attempt the check and sometimes it’s not — but at least the DM isn’t totally denying a player idea.
It’s hard because I’m very worried about game balance and “unintended consequences.” But after 20 sessions I think I am finally comfortable enough with the rules to judge this sort of benefit/risk trade-off.
June 1st, 2009 at 11:12 pm
Excellant post, Johnn. I agree 99.95% (with a small margin of error)! I have only said “no” once in the last 20 years of gaming, and even that “no” was a “yes, but it doesn’t have the intended effect”. My players know that they can attempt just about anything (like the time one cast “blade barrier” down the throat of a purple worm, and that I will then do my best to honestly arbitrate the results of their actions. However, they also know that I won’t kill a PC unless he’s doing something stupid – in which csae, all bets are off. Even then, in most of the genres that I run (High level fantasy, superhero, pulp) death doesn’t have to mean forever – but it can be darned inconvenient.
That tiny little fraction that doesn’t agree is the one that replies, “no, because…. but….” and is reserved for situations in which the proposal has already been ruled out by the information given. I assume that the character would know that this is not a viable choice, under the circumstances. To take your example, either the Lava at the bottom gets mentioned up front (or I would tell the players that they could not see the bottom), or (when they get there) there might be a way across – anything from a stone bridge arching over the lava to a flying carpet service that charges by the square centimeter of carpet used. Under any other circumstance, there IS no lava – even if I had written down that there WAS. The challenge then is to explain where it’s gone…
One of my players has taken to using the expression “That’s our plan, tell us where it goes wrong” (after spending some time making those plans in earshot of the GM). This practice gives you time to think about the consequences of the plan as it is being hatched by the players, BEFORE the PCs try to implement it. If you encourage your players to do their thinking out loud (without penalty), you buy yourself so much lead time that you don’t have to rush your decisions.
June 2nd, 2009 at 1:46 am
I have some cautions about this. In principle yes. Say yes as much as you can, whenever you can. Use no for devastation only.
BUT, inexperienced players can run away with things, and one must be prepared to gently curtail this. Reminding them that they can do anything is useful, but not always adequate, I have exposed the world to players again and again in entirely other ways than they had anticipated. I know that players feel trapped into “the plot”, or alternatively are not sure that they are “on plot” at all. Either thing isn’t good, I’m not the greatest GM in the world so it happens to me. Having said this, this is nothing as revealing as telling players what the alternative paths could have been. I’m lucky, I run my worlds fully in my head, I can look around and see what is going on at any time, and thus, as I did one rainy afternoon, for five or six hours, I can discuss with players how the campaign might have gone differently, how they were free to do anything they wanted to do, within the constraints of the physics of the world, such as abandon their “task”, masters, friends and the world. They might have done anything, AND THE WORLD WOULD NOT HAVE ENDED, if they had just realised I could say yes to going east instead of west.
What they had wanted me to say yes to was the ability to inherently understand tech in a high fantasy world, without study or preparation or experience of it. The computer said no.
Friday Jones’s last blog post..Nationals
June 3rd, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Sometimes my players are a little too clever for their own good and I have to say “no” or throw the campaign away. I’ve been very thankful a couple times as a player when the DM has said “no” to one of my hairbrained ideas.
That said, saying “yes” can certainly lead to some memorable situations. The door to one particular dungeon was trapped; the party hadn’t searched it for traps, but had assumed it was and stoneshaped their way around it. I could have said “no” to their way of avoiding the door quite easily, but instead took the opportunity to have one of the bad guys use mind control in the midst of a battle to get one of the PCs to go through the trapped door. He ended up getting hit by the trap twice in the middle of a tough combat rather than dealing with the trap on its own with no distractions.
June 4th, 2009 at 11:12 am
You hit on a good point in the “campaign derailment” section. Often GMs say no because they have a specific idea in their head of how they want the situation to go. It’s sad to throw that away but sometimes you have to. The general criteria I use is that if the players solution makes sense I need to allow it, even if it isn’t as cool as what was in my head. To give them credit, sometimes they come up with stuff cooler than what I thought of!
Nicholas’s last blog post..4 Epic Campaign Premises for Badass PCs
June 8th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Great Tips. I am very open but sometimes quite tight with a straight yes. I require most plans that veer from “logical” expectations to have their execution described by the players as if it were going be in a book to have any chance of success for which a i give them a bonus depending on how good it was giving them a better, fair or even superior chance of success.
This really gets my players thinking and in to the game. Love it.
November 5th, 2009 at 8:05 am
Hi, this is a great site, and very well thought out and well written.
Best Regards and Best of Luck
December 8th, 2009 at 8:31 am
It can be even better to avoid being in the situation of having to say no in the first place :
I very often add comments to players planning sessions prefaced with the words “Your character(s) know(s) that [insert information tidbit here]. ” This directs their plans somewhat (allowing you to mentally prepare better for the encounter), and allows them to plan for pitfalls their characters should know/think about. This is especially true when the *characters* are supposed to be more intelligent/better educated than the *players*. It cuts down on “Damn the GM mouse-trapped us” comments and keeps those creative juices bubbling along nicely.
February 22nd, 2011 at 6:32 am
This was so timely I ended up copying it straight into my campaign file (I use a novel writer software that let’s me keep notes in an indexed format). My players love that I prepare so much, but I fear that without a lot of “yes” the campaign would feel like plot on rails.
October 2nd, 2013 at 4:55 pm
Great lesson. I was having a reception (in-game) and one of the pc’s asked if a certain npc was there. I said ‘no’. but on reflection there was no good reason for that npc not to have been there; I should have said ‘yes,’ and the player would have been happier and gotten a fun scene and some fun interaction.
October 2nd, 2013 at 5:10 pm
I’m currently of the opinion that you should never say just “no” or “yes” – that you should always say “no, but” or “yes, but” – or “yes, and”. Gameplay is like a dialogue between two people, and a flat declarative is like a stop sign in the flow of that dialogue.
November 14th, 2014 at 1:07 am
[…] little time to make up your mind. As Johnn Four wrote for Campaign Mastery some years back, “Say Yes, but Get There Quick.” The trick to being able to make a reasoned snap judgment is two-fold; (1) Know what is […]
November 20th, 2015 at 3:09 am
[…] the ultimate reason that Johnn advised GM’s to strong>’Say Yes‘ back in 2009. Imagine for a moment that you were a fan approaching the head writer of a TV […]
July 13th, 2016 at 7:40 pm
This article, and many of the reader contributions above, have now been translated into French for those who are more comfortable in that language! http://ptgptb.fr/dites-oui-mais-n-y-passez-pas-des-heures
Mike Bourke recently posted..A Heart Of Shiny Magic: Spell Storage Solutions Pt 2