Quote from: Gabriel2;775569I don't know how common it is, but I've definitely encountered people who get off on the idea of making others play things they don't really want to.

Humans sure do find some weird ways to try to entertain themselves.

Quote from: Harshael;775213I'm seeing the "yes, and" style encouraged more and more often of late. True automatic "yes" to a degree I wouldn't have thought reasonable.

I don't really think that "yes, and" or "yes, but" are meant to be "yes, whatever you want" but more "sure you can do that, and that will result in this" or "yes you can do that, but then this consequence happens".

"Yes, and" or "Yes, but" are improv theater techniques, because in improve saying no or contradicting someone just shuts down the scene and then nothing happens. Instead the idea is to build upon their idea. That doesn't mean automatic success, but it does mean that you can outline requirements for success. "Can I kill the orc?" "yes, but you'll need to beat his armor class on a to hit roll" for example. Or "I want to draw my sword and kill the king while he's not suspecting it!" "Yes, but his guards are going to close in to protect him! Roll initiative."

This is an alternative to "I want to kill the king!" "He has too many guards, you can't". It may not seem like a big difference, but it is because instead of being told no, the player is told sure you can do that or try to do that, but if you do, here's the consequences of that. Go ahead. Try if you want.

Personally, I find "Ask How" to be more powerful than "say yes".
"Can I kill the king?" "How?"
"Can I sneak past the guards?" "How?"
"Can I steal the treasure?" "How?"
Then, based on that, it's just assessing difficulty.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;775590"Yes, and" or "Yes, but" are improv theater techniques

Key Point - Narrative Storytelling Technique

Quote from: Doctor Jest;775590This is an alternative to "I want to kill the king!" "He has too many guards, you can't". It may not seem like a big difference, but it is because instead of being told no, the player is told sure you can do that or try to do that, but if you do, here's the consequences of that. Go ahead. Try if you want.

False dichotomy.  There's a difference between...

Having your character do whatever he wants, accepting the consequences.
and
There never being a simple "No", which is what really happens in games that put "Yes, and" or "No, but" into place mechanically.

Quote from: CRKrueger;775595Key Point - Narrative Storytelling Technique

Appropriated by Narrative Storytelling folks, and they interpret it in a different way.

QuoteHaving your character do whatever he wants, accepting the consequences.
and
There never being a simple "No", which is what really happens in games that put "Yes, and" or "No, but" into place mechanically.

I don't remember anyone stating that this was implemented mechanically.

I don't think that's a part of the game that should be mechanized. However, as a basic concept the whole "build on the players' ideas rather than shut them down" has a lot of merit, but like all good things, it's to be used responsibly. Ultimately the GM's job is to exercise judgment in the game world, and mechanizing that judgment is going to lead to unintended consequences. That's not a problem with the concept, it's a problem of taking a handy guideline and making it into a rigid rule.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;775598... as a basic concept the whole "build on the players' ideas rather than shut them down" has a lot of merit, but like all good things, it's to be used responsibly.

Yes. Some ideas can and should be built on. Others just need a "No." Part of being a good player or a good GM is being able to figure out and accept which ideas are which.

Quote from: Ravenswing;775318I announce what I'm playing, when and where.  Those who buy in to the above get along just fine.  Those who can't handle one or more of the above elements find other groups in which to play.[/COLOR]

This is pretty much the right way to do it.

In my experience a lot of issues with backseat DMing is when the GM promises one thing, and then delivers something completely other.

Fr example, on of the campaigns I played in a few years ago was sold as 'Sandbox play' and was actually the most rail-roady game you can imagine.

A great many backseat GM's have no desire whatsoever to actually run a game. These are the types that I really enjoy declining to run games for.

Quote from: jadrax;775643This is pretty much the right way to do it.

In my experience a lot of issues with backseat DMing is when the GM promises one thing, and then delivers something completely other.

Fr example, on of the campaigns I played in a few years ago was sold as 'Sandbox play' and was actually the most rail-roady game you can imagine.

Once again, my perfect example is a Robotech game I played in.

The GM had never seen the series.  He just had the RPG book, and that was his ONLY exposure to the franchise, which immediately crippled him in terms of understanding it.  He quickly determined that the Veritechs and Destroids were munchkin, so he removed them from the game.  Yes, his version of Robotech lacked any mecha.

I think he wanted to run something like RECON meets The Road Warrior, but he didn't tell anyone about this.  He just told everyone he was going to run a Robotech campaign.  I made up a Veritech Fighter Pilot.  There were two other players.  Three of us had seen Robotech.  One had not, and he played a non-mecha oriented Military Specialist.  

Anyway, the GM's set up was that we were all in a jeep wandering around the wastelands of the Zentraedi bombardment.  Our adventures consisted of hunting down and killing tech bandits with standard 1960s/70s military technology.  The only player who enjoyed this was the guy who was playing the Military Specialist.

The rest of us hung on hoping the mechs would be included later in the campaign.  The GM hinted that if we leveled up a bit then we would get our machines.  However, since we were only getting 150 XP per session split 4 ways, there wasn't much hope of that ever happening.  The GM chided us for our munchkin fantasies of wanting to pilot mechs in a Robotech campaign.  I wonder what he would have thought if we had truly explained the concept of Minmei to him?

Sadly, it still wasn't the worst game I've ever played.

Quote from: Bren;775607Yes. Some ideas can and should be built on. Others just need a "No." Part of being a good player or a good GM is being able to figure out and accept which ideas are which.

The most important time to know when say "no" is when a whiny self-entitled ass who always needs to "win" wants to join the game. This eliminates the vast majority of the other times where it's necessary.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;775680The most important time to know when say "no" is when a whiny self-entitled ass who always needs to "win" wants to join the game. This eliminates the vast majority of the other times where it's necessary.

The vast majority of problems between players and GMs in an RPG can be avoided by being moderately clear about what the game is we are trying to play and by just not playing with some people. And by realizing and accepting that for some other people, you (plural, inclusive) are the person they shouldn't be playing with.

In Summary:

"Your medieval motley crew comes upon the orc camp"

"I activate my orbital satellite laser to vaporize them!"

"Yes, but you didn't invent your orbital satellite laser yet, so it is currently not operational. Perhaps an illusory remote device with a shiny red button?"

"Or you could've said 'no' already, fucker."
---------------

Relearning the GM's power of 'NO'.

Quote from: robiswrong;775202If a guy has a list of requirements that long, he should run his own damn game.

He should be actively encouraged to run his own game.

The first problem is that reffing a game is painted as something incredibly difficult.

It isn't.  Make some fun shit up, run a game, make mistakes, make more fun shit up, run more games, repeat until fun.

Second problem is the notion that "all games must be all things to all people."

They don't.  "This is my D&D game.  There are many games like it, but this one is mine."

Third -- Gary Gygax lived in a pathetic shithole of a town of 5000 people and found between ten and 15 players for Greyhawk.  If he can find players anyone can.

Quote from: Old Geezer;775809Third -- Gary Gygax lived in a pathetic shithole of a town of 5000 people and found between ten and 15 players for Greyhawk.  If he can find players anyone can.

I grew up in the 60s and 70s and I was a teenager in the Midwest. If you didn't want to get drunk, there wasn't that much cool shit to do back then. Not like all those cool Generation X-boxes and Why-Fis the kids have these days for playing World of Warcrap and such.

But yeah, being a GM is not some arcane rocket surgery or brain science. If we (me and my friends) figured it out on our own, then others can too.

Quote from: Bren;775702The vast majority of problems between players and GMs in an RPG can be avoided by being moderately clear about what the game is we are trying to play and by just not playing with some people. And by realizing and accepting that for some other people, you (plural, inclusive) are the person they shouldn't be playing with.

In a hobby where everything boils down to face-to-face communication, it's a matter of enduring astonishment to me how many tabletop gamers suck at it, don't want to do it and will pull all manner of nasty, manipulative, cruel stunts to avoid having to do it.