Saying No

[jeregenest]

Recently we had a scene that ran sort of like this:
Player: So I’m creating a cult dedicated to Chuck Norris that will change the world!
Me: What?!? Sputter…you can’t do that the Cabal doesn’t like cults!
Everyone else: Laughter and needling Jere.


I wish I could give you a listen, we actually recorded it but the cd I had it on seems not to work on my work computer, maybe when I get home.

First there is the problem in my not being all that clear in what I said. Part of this is a problem with any rich setting, not everyone is on board with what it means. And to be honest the secrecy part is one this particular game has not always come to grip with all that well.

And second there is the whole issue of my saying no.

A big trend in certain corridors of gaming has been the concept of never saying no to a player. Nobilis, being Nobilis, even gave it a flowery name. The argument, and it’s a darn good argument, is that the explicit blocking of players tends not to be a good form of interaction. It sets up unnecessary power dynamics and makes folks feel bad. And there are better ways to do it, ways of saying yes: “Yes,” “ How,” “You Can Try,” and “Yes, but . . . . ”

This idea has been taken further in places, bringing up the concept of acceptance, blocking and offering.

The problem of this style for immersion players is that there is no “vermisitude checking”, no check against the established basis of the universe beyond social contract. Which is why these play tools tend to be more popular amongst games that are setting light, low-preparation.

That said, I do prefer it when a gamemaster accepts the base fact and then riffs off of that, so why didn’t I do that in this case? And is this problematic of the current game I’m running?

The first issue and I think this is a dozy, is I have a tendency to think “If it’s on the wiki everyone should know it.” This is patently false. There is a lot of stuff on the wiki and very little of it should be understood by all the players. I’ve started pointing out specific wiki pages I think people should be aware of and this hopefully will help. Beyond that there is my own problem of being rough on folks in my verbal side, and this probably came out in that moment. I can claim I was frustrated by the microphone I bought not working but that’s a poor excuse.

Beyond that lies the whole question of established worlds. Let us just leave it at I like them and I see nothing but good about them. The question isn’t should they be used, the question is, are they being used properly.

Comments

[jeffwik.livejournal.com]

Everyone else: Laughter and needling Jere.

Aw, we weren't trying to make you feel bad.

In all honesty I don't think anyone thought the Cult of Chuck Norris was a good idea the way it was initally described (ie kind of silly), although the basic premise of what the player was trying to do wasn't a bad basic premise. It led to some good discussion, albeit discussion in which a couple of parties were a little defensive.

I do worry that not everyone is on the same page in re the gameworld, but that's a problem only increased interaction with the gameworld (that is, actual play) will solve.

[jeffwik.livejournal.com]

Frex, and this is something only faintly related to your post, the crystal skull. When I recovered it in 2005, it was in a storage facility in Mexico City, placed there by unknown hands for unknown reasons. Despite the skull's status as a veritable font of power, these unknown actors chose to squirrel it away in a location that required a lot of power to counterbalance the skull's output and thus conceal it, instead of doing what would seem to me like the logical thing and actually using the skull, Doctor-Destiny-with-Dream's-Ruby style, to enact some kind of working.

Now, this might be a) a mystery with a legitimate in-game solution which you have already addressed in your internal notes, a fiendish plot of Fu Manchu; b) a mystery with a legitimate in-game solution you haven't decided what is yet; c) a miscommunication between me and you as to the nature of the facility at which I found the skull, the nature of the unknown actors, or the skull's utility when I'm not holding it, or all three, which makes my supposition that the rational thing to do when you have a crystal skull is the kind of thing my character does with a crystal skull; or d) a bit of nothing inasmuch as you'd thought the full ramifications of the Secret Mexican Skull Warehouse were fully grokked by all parties concerned back when I retrieved the skull.

[jeregenest.livejournal.com]

Its a mystery with a legitimate in-game solution that has been partially laid out by me if you ever decide to follow up on it.

The intent was to lay out some idea that stuff has gone horribly wrong in mexico since you guys did the Cortes curse.

[heron61.livejournal.com]

A big trend in certain corridors of gaming has been the concept of never saying no to a player. Nobilis, being Nobilis, even gave it a flowery name. The argument, and it’s a darn good argument, is that the explicit blocking of players tends not to be a good form of interaction. It sets up unnecessary power dynamics and makes folks feel bad. And there are better ways to do it, ways of saying yes: “Yes,” “ How,” “You Can Try,” and “Yes, but . . . . ”

We tried this a bit and it's both massively non-immersive and generally a terrible idea if people want their campaign to have any degree of consistency or coherence. The problem is with not explicitly saying no that doing so is either a lie or occasionally the player will succeed at what they want to do. The first is dishonest, and the 2nd can be disastrous. The only time I can see it working is in something like Amber or Nobilis where PCs have vast god-like powers. With more limited PCs, saying no is absolutely necessary. I don't see this as GM power as much as the GM acting as the inherent power of the game world - IOW, "you can't change the laws of physics" (which of course should always be said in a thick Scottish accent :)

Of course, I'm a highly immersive setting-focused player, YMMV.

[bruceb.livejournal.com]

To me, the sensible stance is "avoid saying no if you can work out a way to say yes, in whole or in part". Unfortunately, a lot of fandoms get etiquette blind spots, and conditional statements are often troublesome to people who can't accept nuance or ambiguity in their communication. So "avoid" becomes "shun at all costs" and fetishistic behavior ensues. I agree very strongly about the merits of verisimilitude checking.

[head58.livejournal.com]

I totally worked myself into a bind in the NEB game when Kevin asked "Are there dinosaurs on the island?" and I, off the cuff, had Simian Rex say "No" and then the next week really REALLY wanted to have a bunch of Nazi apes with shotguns riding on dinosaurs come over the crest of the volcano and attack the group but couldn't without either retconning the answer or coming up with a MASSIVELY convoluted reason why they were there but someone who'd grown up on the island didn't know it (and I did work it out, but it was as I said massively convoluted. It involved hollow earths and the labyrinth and really opend more cans of worms than I wanted to pursue just for the sake of a few apes mounted on T-Rexes).

Thus I have learned my lesson and will no longer say "no". As long as it involves dinosaurs.

[shiffer.livejournal.com]

Couldn't you have just said that Simian Rex lied?

[head58.livejournal.com]

Sir! He is an ape of the highest character, even back in his days of villainy! To suggest such a thing is unthinkable!

But yeah, I suppose he could have, but had no reason to.

[mneme]

"Oh, is -that- what a dinosaur is? I thought it was a small flightless bird."

Saying No is OK

[(Anonymous)]

It may not reflect well on my usual gaming partners, but in nearly every game I've been involved in, there have been at least a couple of players who just had to push the envelope to see what they could get away with. Knowing how to say "no" without making the player feel that its pointless to try anything is something of an art. It's also something that I have some personal button about, so I make an effort not to be oversensitive as a player. (Don't worry - you didn't actually hit any of them). On the other hand, if the GM can't say no, the results are usually not good.

My personal feeling is that it depends on the reason for the "No". If it's being said because saying "yes" would unbalance things horribly, or because whatever is being proposed is wildly in conflict with the overall nature of the game world, then it needs to be said. If its being said for no better reason than because the GM has decided what the plot is, and wants the players to go there like good little wind-up toys, then it's a problem. Creating a story jointly is one thing. Playing out a script that you have no say in, and don't even get to see ahead of time is an entirely different beast.

The other thing that can make a huge difference to me in the reasonableness of a "No" is the amount of thought involved. Did the GM take time to understand what I was trying to do, and why I thought it should work? And if after that he still thinks the idea is unreasonable, can he give me some clue why it wouldn't work, beyond he doesn't feel like it working.

That said, the real problem I saw with the "Chuck Norris" discussion is that I don't think you and Emily were communicating entirely successfully. I may be wrong here, but I came away with the impression that you were saying that doing a massive, obvious magical effect would attract attention and piss people off. If she had come back and said "No, that's wasn't what I meant. I'm going to do this subtly, exploiting my understanding of symbols and how to manipulate them, but not using a ton of power to make it happen over night. I'm willing to spend five or ten years doing it gradually", would that have worked? My feeling is that it should, but I don't think that distinction came across successfully to her.

I do also think that overall the "no" might have gone down better if she'd had a chance to lay the whole idea out. I'm guessing she felt that you were just shooting it down with much of it still unheard.

Kathryn

[chrislehrich.livejournal.com]

My take on saying "No" is laid out in Shadows in the Fog, not only in the "how to GM" bits but also throughout the game structure. In some ways it's a game that, from a GM perspective, is about weaving around this question.

Basically my feeling is that a GM should always have the right to say no, but should if at all possible never exercise it. But the players should have the right, in some ways, to force the GM into a corner about things. No isn't just no.

For example, if in a STF game, so the theory goes, some player says, "I use my magic whatsit to blow up the Tower of London," your immediate response is, "Yeah, right, shut up." Now if the guy says, "No, I'm quite serious," then the response should really be, "I don't like the sound of this -- it sounds like a really, really problematic idea. But go ahead and convince me." And if, when the guy finishes his pitch, the entire group is saying, "Yup, that's a good one, wild but valid," then you're on very thin ice if you say no. If on the other hand the group is saying, "Yeah, whatever," I think you have every right to say, "This just seems way out of line. Could you rethink it for a bit? I mean, the Tower isn't going anywhere. Maybe we could talk out of game?" What you're really trying to find out, see, is whether (a) the guy is dicking around and doesn't get the game, (b) the guy has a great idea that you're too defensive (of the game, of the world, of the plot, etc.) to see, (c) something in middle, or (d) the whole group is not getting at all what you have in mind and there is some really serious miscommunication here. I see saying "no" as a response to one of these situations, most of the time. The problem really comes when someone has a sort of good idea that maybe could, with work, become a type B, but because it's not yet viable and sounds a lot like a type A you say "no" straight off. I want the rest of the group involved here: I want them to help the ones that have potential turn into B and to help me to identify the ones that are rotten A's to the core.

Something like that.