Honestly, This just reminded me that "Yes and..." is only one half of improve golden rules. The Second half is "No, But..." You need to be able to do both to throw out surprises.
There's even an example in the DMG: "Is a task so inappropriate or impossible - such as hitting the moon with an arrow - that it can’t work?" In this instance you should not allow a roll.
@@jakeand9020 but then you need a good solution if they get a nat 20. Something awesome that isn't hitting the moon. Killing a totally unnoticed assassin in the long grass maybe?
And the reverse is true: Is something so mundane or easy - such as opening a door - that necessitates a roll? Letting them roll means theres a chance of success and failure. Especially when what is considered "doable" and "impossible" varies between the DM, the person who knows and decides the rules of the land, and a player, someone who is essentially a tourist.
*Puts on old man hat* Back in my day, we didn't need to be told that some things were impossible. Also, hitting the moon is totally possible, depending on your level, build, magic items available, and Edition being played
A few ways to say no: 1. "You can try, but it seems really difficult." If the player rolls exceptionally well AND they are proficient in whatever skill they are using (especially if they have Expertise), give them a partial victory. 2. "What you are trying to do doesn't really work that way. Here's the purpose of the [spell/ability/skill] that you are referencing. Do you want to try a different approach?" This is a good tack to take with a newer player who may not understand the rules, or a VERY experienced player who is limit testing you as a DM. 3. "What you are suggesting will bring results that are unintended or abusive, so I'm going to make a more reasonable ruling." I had a player who is a physics teacher ask if he could use Creation to drop a wedge of Adamantine, a very dense metal, from a height of 450' (the rate at which something descends in a round is 500') onto an enemy. When I told him yes, he literally presented a Newtons-of-force calculation as to how much energy would be delivered at the point of the wedge, stating that it should absolutely obliterate anything it lands on. I told him that it does 20d6 of non-magical, bludgeoning fall damage, as per the rules. 4. "No, because it's silly, and you know it." I pretty much only say this to things like the "Peasant Railgun". It's been a REALLY long time since I've had to do this.
#4 is generally our groups approach, though we rarely have to do it b/c most of our players are seasoned and very good at the game. The types of players who know all about Holtzman shield bash, Portable arrow of Holding, Peasant Railgun, Pun-pun, etc, and have even come up with our own broken combos.. but we do those things for the stupid fun of 'hey look at this', not to actually play in a game. We know the difference between what you CAN do and what you SHOULD do, and only rarely does someone need to be reminded "HEY, 300 damage per round is a little excessive at level 2. dial it back a bit."
In my table I have the "Taboo rule", named after the party game. Player have to describe what they are doing without using the name of the skill they are using - leaning on your example: "I want to try to reason with them" rather than "I want to make a persuasion roll". Not having them asking for rolls allows me to adjust things without saying "no"
If you say "I want to try to reason with them", most of the GMS I've played with would be like "OK, go ahead" and wait for you to Roleplay. That doesn't say a "i want to make this roll", that says "I want to Roleplay this" Not saying that's a bad thing, just pointing it out.
I think my choice of skill (persuasion) for the example made you miss my broader point: Having players describe what they are trying to accomplish rather than asking for a roll: "I will search for tracks" instead of "Can I roll survival?" "Have I ever heard of Bwimb" instead of "Can I roll arcana?" "I will slowly crawl trying to go unnoticed" instead of "can I roll stealth" and… "can I reason with them" instead of "can I roll persuasion"
Judicious application of player's dice rolls goes a long way to circumventing conflict. There are so many times when you just do not need to randomize the result of something, and you can just tell your players what is or is not possible, because if they were there, they would know it. It's a *huge* factor in communication of the virtual space to your players, and DM's have to remember they are the window to this world. You can just look at the glazed, inhuman expression of the face of those cultists, or at the lack of presence in the eyes of a zombie, and tell there's no talking to them. When you make something subject to the dice results, you are suggesting to your players there is a chance, you are altering their perception of the imagined reality, and then disappointing them while simultaneously giving them hope that if they had just rolled higher, their idea might have worked (or you are wasting their time). An example of this I heard of was a player looking out a window of a four story building. They asked if it looked dangerous, the DM made them roll perception, and based on the result they jumped out the window, and died. The ability to tell when a fall is scary high, is pretty innate. Most of the time people get in trouble is because they mistakenly believe they wont fall, not because they look from a height and go "Nah, that's nothing. I'd be fine." But there's no way to simulate that sense of height and danger without a DM just giving you that information, and in my view it's better to do so as explicitly as possible, and that actually heightens the immersion and gives a players something solid to work with. It's okay to just give players information that would be obvious to their characters (the amount of unnecessary perception checks I see people make is crazy), this actually gives them the tools they need to make interesting choices. That window the Pc's have into the world is pretty narrow, you gotta make sure they get as much light shining through is possible. Tends to avoid you having to say "NO" at all, because they already understand the question is irrelevant.
Especially when playing with people who haven't played a lot with you before (or at all), there's also nothing wrong with stepping out of the scene to directly say "That won't work this time for this reason but it's a cool idea, keep it handy." Encouraging creativity and immersion later by sacrificing a little bit now is a good way to invest in a comfortable and well habituated gaming group.
I had a session just last week where the players (who I'm learning don't really enjoy combat) wanted to try to reason with some zombies. We're all new to the game, but I had heard the advice of "Yes, and", I tried to let them roll to convince the zombies to leave them alone. A similar situation to the one you described ensued, and my players got very frustrated. Everything turned out alright, and I've learned a ton about what my players want in the game, but it would have been so much easier for me to have someone roll a perception check so they'd know that there would be no reasoning with the monsters. This advice (that it's okay to say no, just find a fun way to do it), is super helpful. Thanks!
Just a suggestion: in a scenario like this you might first want to ask the players to do a skill check to see if their characters would have been aware in advance that a) this is a zombie and b) there is no hope of communication or negotiation with zombies. You can call for specific skills that would be relevant "Give me an arcana or religion check, your choice", but you could also leave it more open like "Pick a skill you think would apply here, and tell me why you think it would apply" and then set the DC depending on how applicable the skill is. For example, the grave cleric subclass is specifically focused on fighting against the undead, so a grave cleric rolling a religion check should probably have a low DC to know basic facts about a relatively common undead like a zombie. This kind of approach can give your players encouragement to think about who their character is, and how their history and experiences relate to the situations they're going into. It also helps to spotlight the characters who really should be the specialist on something. If specific characters in the party were built to be experts on a topic, they should get to feel like the experts, and like they've brought a crucial skill that's contributing to their party's success. (Also if something is squarely within a character's background, it's always within your rights as the DM to say "Your character would absolutely know this; don't bother rolling." If a character's backstory is that they come from a town that has ongoing issues with zombie attacks, it's fair to think that every kid who grew up there was educated specifically on what you should expect from a zombie. You can use/abuse this a little to help the party out if you see a risk they're about to get stuck trying to do something that isn't going to be fruitful by thinking up a reason to just declare that one of the characters would already know this.)
I feel like a rule I had growing up with my mom works really well in DnD: Laying out which rules/restrictions are 'negotiable' and which ones are 'non-negotiable', that way players still have the ability to input ideas and ask to do cool/crazy stuff, but there's also at least a handful of set rules that can keep things grounded to a degree and let the players remember what the general vibe of the campaign is (while also cutting down on OOC discussion time to give more time to active playing). Trying to say yes as much as possible while also not completely compromising the story you're telling is a tricky balance that takes a lot of communication to achieve.
It's more or less what you've already said, but I think it's good to think of it as a "No, but" to go alongside "Yes, and". A flat no can bring things grinding to a halt but some alternatives, like what you described, can keep things rolling, or switched to a different track. Unless it's something that they know is stupid like the peasant railgun, or trying to make a quiver full of Portable Hole/Bag of holding arrows. That's a no from me unless it's already a more comedy focused or one shot session.
"Yes, but" and "No, and" are also useful tools to keep momentum going. These are more the actions have consequences end of things, but they keep the story moving and still have your players choices matter. I don't use "No, and" very often. "Yes, but" leads to some of the most fun moments of play I've had as both a DM and a player
Much smaller scale of this when prepping my players characters in a brand new home-brew world one of them was a Tiefling and had wanted their backstory to be that they were ostracized for being a Tiefling but as the other players were making their characters, I realized the most human character in the party was a half-elf, so this would lean towards a more diverse world where the races were intermingling a lot, so a tiefling being ostracized didn't make too much sense here. So instead since they chose bloodhunter as their class, i suggested they be ostracized for effectively being a hemomancer and they liked that change and actually fit better towards what they wanted for their character. In general my players have worked with me so far and given me a lot of freedom to try things in regards to story beats I try for their characters, which is making my first time DMing feel much better and less stressful.
THANK YOU! I’ve been saying this forever. If you aren’t capable of doing this thing even with a maximum roll and all modifiers you could possibly apply, we just don’t need to roll it, you just can’t do it. You can’t jump to the moon no matter how high you roll. If your passive ____ is ungodly high, we don’t need to roll, you just get the info. I will look at the player and tell them “You can tell he is lying.”. You’re the first TH-camr that I can recall to call it out like this and I’m so thankful for it.
I’m glad you liked it! I’ve also seen this recently come up as a huge issue since OneD&D’s first playtest packet. Really, it’s about communicating with players prior to a roll. Since that’s not everybody’s style, I guess more people are rejecting it, but I do feel like it solves a lot of issues.
I think it's important to try to collaborate between all members of the table. Saying No isn't a problem unless it's used to stifle creativity in a collaborative way. No you cannot do the spear peasant meme. No you cannot choose to betray an NPC. Those statements are totally different.
If something doesn't fit into my internal logic of the world, I try to explain it to the players and then try to offer alternatives. Sometimes, something is just misread or misunderstood. If they are still set on doing the thing, I tell them straight up that if they can do it, so can other people in the world, especially if they are like level 3. That tends to snap them out of the antagonistic mindset of "wanting to win" and start thinking about the fact that their actions matter, do influence the world, and are, I can't stress enough, CANON to the world. If they really think it would be cool and are ok with potentially having to deal with an antagonist doing the same thing, then I allow it but I remind them that once it's in, it's in. I've only had 1 person complain afterward when an antagonist did the same to them. I told them that since we agreed it was in the world, it's staying and reminded them that this is what they wanted. That was when I was first starting to run games and hasn't been an issue since. I also make sure to be very clear that certain things are just a "no". When it takes away player agency and/or messes with the internal logic of a character, I tell them straight up that they can't make the roll. Sorry but the tyrannical king isn't just handing over his kingdom because you lectured him. Don't care if you somehow stack everything imaginable and somehow roll a 50. He isn't doing it. Just as much as I let them play their characters, they need to let me run mine as well. We're all playing together so we can all contribute. I have found that over the years, my group is very comfortable with voicing their sides of certain situations. Sometimes, I don't even have to say anything and another player will chime up to explain why they wouldn't want to come across that so they rather it not be allowed which is valid. We are a group collaborating with each other. Collaboration is about creating boundaries and limitations just as much as it is about compromising and adjusting.
A rolled 1 is the worst you could do at a thing. A 20, the best. If even a 20 could not get the job done, don't let them roll. Because allowing your players to roll is a promise made to them that their action matters. And you shouldn't make a promise you can't keep.
> fighter wants to do something ridiculous that everyone knows is a bad idea "The party has 30 seconds to talk the fighter out of it, afterwards they're going to attempt it."
As someone who gms and plays a lot of ttrpgs. Sometimes its important to establish a boundary early on about no. Sometimes its okay to say, "this is unacceptable" or I can't let you do that. I think a session 0 about what no looks like!
I've had players say to me "You're supposed to allow this, it's Rule of Cool, you're supposed to 'yes and'". I had to let them know that my system is "no but". You want to *challenge the good and noble, if inexperienced, king to single combat to take control of the kingdom*? No. But. He and his twelve high priests will meet you and your twelve strongest allies. What's that? The party can't find nine powerful NPCs who want to commit treason to support your half-literate pirate ass for government? That's crazy.
I've also learned the hard way not to call for rolls that aren't going to make a difference or be interesting. I really needed something to go a certain way so I kept calling for rolls. I've changed my approach since then. I liked the insight descriptions. Since the adventure in the example hinges on the snake cultists being mindless, I would have given those descriptions without a roll. The way I see it, any attempt to persuade will reveal the mindlessness of the cultists. I do a lot of auto success and auto fail (the dice are there if I'm not sure about the outcome and prepared to accept the consequences either way)
Hopefully, the players don't just dig their heals in. "Offer me solutions Offer me alternatives And I decline!" Next thing, the entire party is shouting "LEONARD BERNSTEIN" in unison and the campaign crumbles. Seriously, though, great video. As someone who has been playing since the BECMI and 1e days, but also has an extensive improv background, I find myself torn betwen competing influences, and this is a good reminder of the middle path.
I had a player with a book on undead and was trying to search for information on Vampires he rolled a 3 on his gather information check. I explained that when they looked in the book the pages on vampires were ripped out
Thank you, Victor! Unfortunately I will need to make another trip for the same personal matter next week, but thankfully I’ve got a few videos queued up (and working on these videos is a nice, relaxing distraction I’m looking forward to over the next week).
I rarely say no, but if there is some action my players want to take that highly deviates from general laws and/or reasonable possibility i will warn them of the potential consequences or difficulty of what they wanna attempt. Generally dissuades players from killing civilians for no reason, or trying to stealth in highly unreasonable situations for instance
There are definitely times to straight up say no and explain why without any slight of hand. The peasant railgun comes to mind haha Excellent video with some tools to tackle different ways of saying no in a productive way! Rather than asking for a different roll, I typically provide some additional insight based on how well the roll they asked to do went. A master of persuasion at the top of their game should realize that an entity isn't reacting as expected through the process of trying to persuade them. Someone well-versed in the arcane with a particular moment of clarity may realize with certainty that something has no presence in their field of study - perhaps to an odd degree. Primarily, I do this because I want my players in the habit of asking to do things the way they want to, rather than asking for roles I think are appropriate based on my knowledge of the situation. I think this can build a little more agency and let players show some more characterization through the specific way they do things. In the past I used to ask for rolls that made sense to me, but now I reserve that for reacting to consequences at times where I don't want to ask for a saving throw. I think it must be something I picked up from Paranoia.
Thank you for this topic. I did have a couple thoughts to add to this topic. Have an NPC tell your party what they are asking is impossible, instead of coming from the DM directly. This might alleviate the sting and make the situation seem more localized, instead of across the whole campaign. Also, if your party comes across a creature/group that is not capable of being reasoned with, have them display something your party will recognize is not common behavior. I.E. walking through a campfire without flinching or perhaps breaking their own bone without showing any sign of feeling. This would signal to the players that something is amiss with this particular entity or group.
I had a situation in a game (not D&D) where there were madness magic at work and a player tried to make sense of it. I did (I thought) my best to convey that this isn't meant to make sense in-game. I realised later that I maybe should have stepped out of the game to repeat that this pre-campaign campaign was about the first contact with the evil force of madness and destruction that is the main baddy of the setting. I don't think the game was right for him because that wasn't the only time he wanted to try something that didn't fit the setting. Thing about communicating in session 0 is that while you think you've come to an understanding, it isn't always so.
I would say "you can most certanly try" and at least in my game whenever I say that, everyone already knows that even 20 probably wont be enough to do it. I communicated that quite clearly in the past and when one of them once tryed to keep grabbing the end of the tail of a fleeing dragon I just said to him DC 35 (I tend to tell how much you need, if I do not give a number, I might be excited to find out what will happen because I am still deciding, I do not want to let them know how hard it is because that would give away important hidden information or because they will fail, I just want to know how much -> failing can be quite exciting, sometimes we all wish their roll would fail because it would be more fun or exciting, somatimes you can decide you will fail, like if someone is invading your mind you can just give in, but sometimes it is more fun if they have a chance not to fail but fail anyway). Player said to DC 35 "well, I can not roll that high" and I just said "I know", so he just had to suck it up, had a fun fall, then some other player while falling from the same dragon managed to kill the dragon I did not intend to get killed (he was just there to scare them for a potencial future campaign, something I could use for a "do you remember that thing" moment). That player would then die from a fall and the dragon falling on top of him, he just didn't have enough time to get another action for another spell, but I rulled he can roll if he can manage to speed-cast Dimension Door in time as an do or die exception, so he did it, was catapulted trough the door into the air on the other part of the town while ground shook from the dragon fall. He then went to the tavern to drink with a polar bear a bit shoched over the experience and demanding a statue in his honour. They know they might be told DC 35, but they also know, I will bend the rulles and the story if that is reasonable and fun when the time comes. I told them in advance, "I will kill you if I have to, I just dont want to and I will try to save you if I have a chance, but know not to abuse my trust, play like you want to survive, because if not you will be corrected". It happened once because one of my players started to understand my effort to keep them alive as a story shield and it started ruining the game mood with his "We can not die anyway, so why try to stay alive at all", so I told them exactly what I planed to do if they die so they would not think I was bluffing (I would give them an NPC, it was a doomed campaign with a tight story, everyone was expected to die anyway (yes, they knew from the start) so a new character was unlikely). Right now we are playing another doomed story -> they go somewhere that is relevant to one of their backgrounds, story happens, they all die, so they get to better develop their backstory for the main campaign, so they get to experience how some other character's backstory same as theirs is incorporated into the main story, like how one of them met his son, but he was not his son anymore. Son was explaining how he managed to get a family and his wife was pregnant, but he really want to go save his father (player knew he is dead, he died after all, but could not tell him that). It was touching. Also their faces when they learned they kind of by accident started a mini apocalipse with their doomed characters just before they died. Anyway, let them fail, but tell them in advance what are their chances (even if there are none), they might try anyway because they want to try anyway. It might be more important that they try because their characters would want that, than if they succeed, because then they can say "I tried my best, but it just wasn't enough". And if they might have to die, ask if they would be ok with it.
Most of the GMs I've ever had say no to a lot of stuff, anything they don't want in their campaign, or don't personally like the idea of.. and yes, it can cause some issues and on a few occasions has made me enjoy a session less. Personally when I'm running a game, I'll allow pretty much anything.. not because I'm a squid, but because I'm generally the most experienced gamer in the area, and I make sure my players know "Yes, you can do this. But so can I. And I'm not only more experienced with this than you, but I'm the GM and have infinite resources. If you don't abuse it, neither will I." It's what I like to call Mutually Assured Disjunction.
I come from my experience parenting: find a reason to say yes to your kids. as a parent there are plenty of times where you *need* to say no and mean it, if you say no to everything the children just try to push back all the time. If you say yes as much as possible (even if you link conditions like "yes but only after you've done your chores") then when you say no it means more.
At the same time though...if you, as the DM, approach your friend group and say "look guys, I'm honestly kind of tired of this campaign, I'm feeling some burnout, can we try something different?" and they say "No"...well they're not very good friends to begin with. One of the Geek Social fallacies is that you "can't say no to friends". The idea of the DM being this all subservient person who is there entirely to serve the players whims, sacrificing their own fun so the players can have fun is one of the things that drives people away from DMing and this video...kinda promotes that idea.
I tried to make it clear that this was from the perspective of the DM saying Yes or No to requests from the players. But like everything else, the fun of you and your fellow players should come first.
"then his eyes glow with a bit of faint magic and that recognition fade away" don't ever use magic as explanation for unredeemable cultist players don't hear this people are husk/gone, they hear "did you prepare dispel magic or restoration?"
If the party is down to spend a spell slot to bring a single cultist back from this state, maybe that deserves rewarding. Or you can rule that they won't work because the effect of whatever magic was acting upon them has already done its job in destroying the cultists' psyche.
I really hate when advice people give is something like "do X, Y, and/or Z I your game so your players learn to do/not do A, B, and/or C." They're not Pavlov's dog they're actual people who you are playing a game with. Just talk to them like a normal person and discuss what you want to do and what they want to do.
One bit of advice a seasoned DM hit me with when I got started was "Figure out an appropriate way to say, 'Not this time', because sooner or later, you'll find a way to make that player's plan work, and it'll be kickass when it happens." I think this ties well into what you were saying about learning your players' mentalities and strategies and adjusting accordingly.
Just like you, I think you should trade your “no” for information. The players’ creativity still pays off and the story advances. I think D&D is grounded in a different space than improv. Improv is about going beyond limits and creative barriers. D&D is about working within the limits of the rules and your resources. The challenge is about creatively overcoming those challenges within those limits
Knowing my players I totally believe they're going to start a killing spree and I'm the one trying to defuse that saying "No" (without actually saying it), so all this advice is helpful.
Really, you should *always* say no. "As you're sitting at the bar you see a mysterious old man from across the room pondering an orb." "I'd like to go over and talk to him." "No."
With the Cultist part, I've actually had a similar thing happen back in 3rd edition. The first time they asked I requested a Sense Motive (not sure if there's an equivalent in 5th edition, maybe just perception?) check, made the DC ridiculously low, and when they passed, told them 'you see little to no ability to reason within their eyes. You feel like your words will fall on deaf ears.' This tells them 'no you can't do that', but in a way that is IN CHARACTER and allows THEM to decide not to try. *EDIT: Should have waited lol, you already covered this a few minutes later* Though I have on occasion had players so intent on doing something that I've literally had to pause the game and say "That's not going to work, no matter how clever a plan you think you've come up with." Another one my group uses is "cut-scene." as a shorthand for 'The GM has decided this is going to happen for story purposes, please just let it play out.'
I've said no plenty of times, but not when a player insists on doing something "stupid". They are free to do what they want but not free of consequences.
I'm a new Pathfinder player who's still learning, and I find all your videos invaluable. I really want to be a better player and be someone who the other players truly want to have at the table because I help them to have more fun. Thank you so much for making these!
Is it beyond the pale to say that since I'm playing with my friends, and they ask for something or suggest an action that I as the DM find unreasonable that they just accept "no" as a reasonable response and move to the next option? Is our community so fragile that they can't be told no once in a while without it being couched and sugarcoated? "Players are skittish, gentle creatures." I guess so.
'a reasonable response' 'move to the next option' 'once in a while' ..all being key phrases here, that show you understand its not about extremes, but about keeping things moving in a collaborative way on a grander scale.
I agree with some of the sentiments of the video but I felt like a lot of these no and techniques are geared towards completely new players or children. That said if a DM allows for a roll they are allowing possible sussess.
Honestly, This just reminded me that "Yes and..." is only one half of improve golden rules. The Second half is "No, But..." You need to be able to do both to throw out surprises.
There's even an example in the DMG: "Is a task so inappropriate or impossible - such as hitting the moon with an arrow - that it can’t work?" In this instance you should not allow a roll.
I disagree, absolutely let them roll. Obviously they won't succeed, but if they don't roll, you'll never know how spectacularly they'll fail.
@@jakeand9020 but then you need a good solution if they get a nat 20. Something awesome that isn't hitting the moon. Killing a totally unnoticed assassin in the long grass maybe?
And the reverse is true: Is something so mundane or easy - such as opening a door - that necessitates a roll? Letting them roll means theres a chance of success and failure. Especially when what is considered "doable" and "impossible" varies between the DM, the person who knows and decides the rules of the land, and a player, someone who is essentially a tourist.
*Puts on old man hat*
Back in my day, we didn't need to be told that some things were impossible.
Also, hitting the moon is totally possible, depending on your level, build, magic items available, and Edition being played
@@jemal999 Hey don't look at me, it's in the DMG! 😆 So I guess in the case of 5e its not possible. 😂
A few ways to say no:
1. "You can try, but it seems really difficult." If the player rolls exceptionally well AND they are proficient in whatever skill they are using (especially if they have Expertise), give them a partial victory.
2. "What you are trying to do doesn't really work that way. Here's the purpose of the [spell/ability/skill] that you are referencing. Do you want to try a different approach?" This is a good tack to take with a newer player who may not understand the rules, or a VERY experienced player who is limit testing you as a DM.
3. "What you are suggesting will bring results that are unintended or abusive, so I'm going to make a more reasonable ruling." I had a player who is a physics teacher ask if he could use Creation to drop a wedge of Adamantine, a very dense metal, from a height of 450' (the rate at which something descends in a round is 500') onto an enemy. When I told him yes, he literally presented a Newtons-of-force calculation as to how much energy would be delivered at the point of the wedge, stating that it should absolutely obliterate anything it lands on. I told him that it does 20d6 of non-magical, bludgeoning fall damage, as per the rules.
4. "No, because it's silly, and you know it." I pretty much only say this to things like the "Peasant Railgun". It's been a REALLY long time since I've had to do this.
#4 is generally our groups approach, though we rarely have to do it b/c most of our players are seasoned and very good at the game. The types of players who know all about Holtzman shield bash, Portable arrow of Holding, Peasant Railgun, Pun-pun, etc, and have even come up with our own broken combos.. but we do those things for the stupid fun of 'hey look at this', not to actually play in a game. We know the difference between what you CAN do and what you SHOULD do, and only rarely does someone need to be reminded "HEY, 300 damage per round is a little excessive at level 2. dial it back a bit."
In my table I have the "Taboo rule", named after the party game. Player have to describe what they are doing without using the name of the skill they are using - leaning on your example: "I want to try to reason with them" rather than "I want to make a persuasion roll". Not having them asking for rolls allows me to adjust things without saying "no"
THIS IS SUCH A GOOD RULE. And SUCH a good way to put it, that name is perfect!
Thank you so much for this piece of wisdom that will be incorporated into my games
If you say "I want to try to reason with them", most of the GMS I've played with would be like "OK, go ahead" and wait for you to Roleplay.
That doesn't say a "i want to make this roll", that says "I want to Roleplay this"
Not saying that's a bad thing, just pointing it out.
I think my choice of skill (persuasion) for the example made you miss my broader point: Having players describe what they are trying to accomplish rather than asking for a roll:
"I will search for tracks" instead of "Can I roll survival?"
"Have I ever heard of Bwimb" instead of "Can I roll arcana?"
"I will slowly crawl trying to go unnoticed" instead of "can I roll stealth"
and… "can I reason with them" instead of "can I roll persuasion"
Judicious application of player's dice rolls goes a long way to circumventing conflict. There are so many times when you just do not need to randomize the result of something, and you can just tell your players what is or is not possible, because if they were there, they would know it. It's a *huge* factor in communication of the virtual space to your players, and DM's have to remember they are the window to this world. You can just look at the glazed, inhuman expression of the face of those cultists, or at the lack of presence in the eyes of a zombie, and tell there's no talking to them. When you make something subject to the dice results, you are suggesting to your players there is a chance, you are altering their perception of the imagined reality, and then disappointing them while simultaneously giving them hope that if they had just rolled higher, their idea might have worked (or you are wasting their time).
An example of this I heard of was a player looking out a window of a four story building. They asked if it looked dangerous, the DM made them roll perception, and based on the result they jumped out the window, and died. The ability to tell when a fall is scary high, is pretty innate. Most of the time people get in trouble is because they mistakenly believe they wont fall, not because they look from a height and go "Nah, that's nothing. I'd be fine." But there's no way to simulate that sense of height and danger without a DM just giving you that information, and in my view it's better to do so as explicitly as possible, and that actually heightens the immersion and gives a players something solid to work with.
It's okay to just give players information that would be obvious to their characters (the amount of unnecessary perception checks I see people make is crazy), this actually gives them the tools they need to make interesting choices. That window the Pc's have into the world is pretty narrow, you gotta make sure they get as much light shining through is possible. Tends to avoid you having to say "NO" at all, because they already understand the question is irrelevant.
Especially when playing with people who haven't played a lot with you before (or at all), there's also nothing wrong with stepping out of the scene to directly say "That won't work this time for this reason but it's a cool idea, keep it handy." Encouraging creativity and immersion later by sacrificing a little bit now is a good way to invest in a comfortable and well habituated gaming group.
Came here for advice on dealing with communication with coworkers. Total accident. Stayed for the dnd
I often feel like there's some overlap between "talking to children", "talking to players" and "talking to coworkers"
3:03 even if the joke was just for you, I still got a hefty chuckle from it. Many thanks
I had a session just last week where the players (who I'm learning don't really enjoy combat) wanted to try to reason with some zombies. We're all new to the game, but I had heard the advice of "Yes, and", I tried to let them roll to convince the zombies to leave them alone. A similar situation to the one you described ensued, and my players got very frustrated. Everything turned out alright, and I've learned a ton about what my players want in the game, but it would have been so much easier for me to have someone roll a perception check so they'd know that there would be no reasoning with the monsters.
This advice (that it's okay to say no, just find a fun way to do it), is super helpful. Thanks!
Just a suggestion: in a scenario like this you might first want to ask the players to do a skill check to see if their characters would have been aware in advance that a) this is a zombie and b) there is no hope of communication or negotiation with zombies. You can call for specific skills that would be relevant "Give me an arcana or religion check, your choice", but you could also leave it more open like "Pick a skill you think would apply here, and tell me why you think it would apply" and then set the DC depending on how applicable the skill is. For example, the grave cleric subclass is specifically focused on fighting against the undead, so a grave cleric rolling a religion check should probably have a low DC to know basic facts about a relatively common undead like a zombie. This kind of approach can give your players encouragement to think about who their character is, and how their history and experiences relate to the situations they're going into. It also helps to spotlight the characters who really should be the specialist on something. If specific characters in the party were built to be experts on a topic, they should get to feel like the experts, and like they've brought a crucial skill that's contributing to their party's success. (Also if something is squarely within a character's background, it's always within your rights as the DM to say "Your character would absolutely know this; don't bother rolling." If a character's backstory is that they come from a town that has ongoing issues with zombie attacks, it's fair to think that every kid who grew up there was educated specifically on what you should expect from a zombie. You can use/abuse this a little to help the party out if you see a risk they're about to get stuck trying to do something that isn't going to be fruitful by thinking up a reason to just declare that one of the characters would already know this.)
I feel like a rule I had growing up with my mom works really well in DnD: Laying out which rules/restrictions are 'negotiable' and which ones are 'non-negotiable', that way players still have the ability to input ideas and ask to do cool/crazy stuff, but there's also at least a handful of set rules that can keep things grounded to a degree and let the players remember what the general vibe of the campaign is (while also cutting down on OOC discussion time to give more time to active playing). Trying to say yes as much as possible while also not completely compromising the story you're telling is a tricky balance that takes a lot of communication to achieve.
It's more or less what you've already said, but I think it's good to think of it as a "No, but" to go alongside "Yes, and". A flat no can bring things grinding to a halt but some alternatives, like what you described, can keep things rolling, or switched to a different track.
Unless it's something that they know is stupid like the peasant railgun, or trying to make a quiver full of Portable Hole/Bag of holding arrows. That's a no from me unless it's already a more comedy focused or one shot session.
"Yes, but" and "No, and" are also useful tools to keep momentum going. These are more the actions have consequences end of things, but they keep the story moving and still have your players choices matter.
I don't use "No, and" very often. "Yes, but" leads to some of the most fun moments of play I've had as both a DM and a player
Much smaller scale of this when prepping my players characters in a brand new home-brew world one of them was a Tiefling and had wanted their backstory to be that they were ostracized for being a Tiefling but as the other players were making their characters, I realized the most human character in the party was a half-elf, so this would lean towards a more diverse world where the races were intermingling a lot, so a tiefling being ostracized didn't make too much sense here. So instead since they chose bloodhunter as their class, i suggested they be ostracized for effectively being a hemomancer and they liked that change and actually fit better towards what they wanted for their character. In general my players have worked with me so far and given me a lot of freedom to try things in regards to story beats I try for their characters, which is making my first time DMing feel much better and less stressful.
Sounds good :)
THANK YOU! I’ve been saying this forever. If you aren’t capable of doing this thing even with a maximum roll and all modifiers you could possibly apply, we just don’t need to roll it, you just can’t do it. You can’t jump to the moon no matter how high you roll. If your passive ____ is ungodly high, we don’t need to roll, you just get the info. I will look at the player and tell them “You can tell he is lying.”.
You’re the first TH-camr that I can recall to call it out like this and I’m so thankful for it.
I’m glad you liked it! I’ve also seen this recently come up as a huge issue since OneD&D’s first playtest packet. Really, it’s about communicating with players prior to a roll. Since that’s not everybody’s style, I guess more people are rejecting it, but I do feel like it solves a lot of issues.
I think it's important to try to collaborate between all members of the table. Saying No isn't a problem unless it's used to stifle creativity in a collaborative way.
No you cannot do the spear peasant meme.
No you cannot choose to betray an NPC.
Those statements are totally different.
If something doesn't fit into my internal logic of the world, I try to explain it to the players and then try to offer alternatives. Sometimes, something is just misread or misunderstood. If they are still set on doing the thing, I tell them straight up that if they can do it, so can other people in the world, especially if they are like level 3. That tends to snap them out of the antagonistic mindset of "wanting to win" and start thinking about the fact that their actions matter, do influence the world, and are, I can't stress enough, CANON to the world. If they really think it would be cool and are ok with potentially having to deal with an antagonist doing the same thing, then I allow it but I remind them that once it's in, it's in. I've only had 1 person complain afterward when an antagonist did the same to them. I told them that since we agreed it was in the world, it's staying and reminded them that this is what they wanted. That was when I was first starting to run games and hasn't been an issue since. I also make sure to be very clear that certain things are just a "no". When it takes away player agency and/or messes with the internal logic of a character, I tell them straight up that they can't make the roll. Sorry but the tyrannical king isn't just handing over his kingdom because you lectured him. Don't care if you somehow stack everything imaginable and somehow roll a 50. He isn't doing it. Just as much as I let them play their characters, they need to let me run mine as well. We're all playing together so we can all contribute. I have found that over the years, my group is very comfortable with voicing their sides of certain situations. Sometimes, I don't even have to say anything and another player will chime up to explain why they wouldn't want to come across that so they rather it not be allowed which is valid. We are a group collaborating with each other. Collaboration is about creating boundaries and limitations just as much as it is about compromising and adjusting.
After years of watching clips of David Mitchell I've learned that "no, but..." is just as good for improv as "yes, and..."
The best way I can condense this advice into a memable quote is, *Try to say "yes and," but when you can't, at least say "no, but."*
A rolled 1 is the worst you could do at a thing. A 20, the best. If even a 20 could not get the job done, don't let them roll.
Because allowing your players to roll is a promise made to them that their action matters. And you shouldn't make a promise you can't keep.
> fighter wants to do something ridiculous that everyone knows is a bad idea
"The party has 30 seconds to talk the fighter out of it, afterwards they're going to attempt it."
As someone who gms and plays a lot of ttrpgs. Sometimes its important to establish a boundary early on about no. Sometimes its okay to say, "this is unacceptable" or I can't let you do that. I think a session 0 about what no looks like!
I love the little dm screen you put in to show your in a scene
I've had players say to me "You're supposed to allow this, it's Rule of Cool, you're supposed to 'yes and'".
I had to let them know that my system is "no but".
You want to *challenge the good and noble, if inexperienced, king to single combat to take control of the kingdom*? No. But. He and his twelve high priests will meet you and your twelve strongest allies. What's that? The party can't find nine powerful NPCs who want to commit treason to support your half-literate pirate ass for government? That's crazy.
“You’re supposed to allow this” is such a buck-wild thing to say to your DM…
What you said, all of it.
I've also learned the hard way not to call for rolls that aren't going to make a difference or be interesting. I really needed something to go a certain way so I kept calling for rolls. I've changed my approach since then.
I liked the insight descriptions. Since the adventure in the example hinges on the snake cultists being mindless, I would have given those descriptions without a roll. The way I see it, any attempt to persuade will reveal the mindlessness of the cultists. I do a lot of auto success and auto fail (the dice are there if I'm not sure about the outcome and prepared to accept the consequences either way)
This is a good channel. I like Mike.
Hopefully, the players don't just dig their heals in.
"Offer me solutions
Offer me alternatives
And I decline!"
Next thing, the entire party is shouting "LEONARD BERNSTEIN" in unison and the campaign crumbles.
Seriously, though, great video. As someone who has been playing since the BECMI and 1e days, but also has an extensive improv background, I find myself torn betwen competing influences, and this is a good reminder of the middle path.
Great advice! Helps a ton, as always!
I had a player with a book on undead and was trying to search for information on Vampires he rolled a 3 on his gather information check. I explained that when they looked in the book the pages on vampires were ripped out
Welcome back, hope all is well
Thank you, Victor! Unfortunately I will need to make another trip for the same personal matter next week, but thankfully I’ve got a few videos queued up (and working on these videos is a nice, relaxing distraction I’m looking forward to over the next week).
I rarely say no, but if there is some action my players want to take that highly deviates from general laws and/or reasonable possibility i will warn them of the potential consequences or difficulty of what they wanna attempt. Generally dissuades players from killing civilians for no reason, or trying to stealth in highly unreasonable situations for instance
There are definitely times to straight up say no and explain why without any slight of hand. The peasant railgun comes to mind haha Excellent video with some tools to tackle different ways of saying no in a productive way!
Rather than asking for a different roll, I typically provide some additional insight based on how well the roll they asked to do went. A master of persuasion at the top of their game should realize that an entity isn't reacting as expected through the process of trying to persuade them. Someone well-versed in the arcane with a particular moment of clarity may realize with certainty that something has no presence in their field of study - perhaps to an odd degree.
Primarily, I do this because I want my players in the habit of asking to do things the way they want to, rather than asking for roles I think are appropriate based on my knowledge of the situation. I think this can build a little more agency and let players show some more characterization through the specific way they do things. In the past I used to ask for rolls that made sense to me, but now I reserve that for reacting to consequences at times where I don't want to ask for a saving throw. I think it must be something I picked up from Paranoia.
Thank you for this topic. I did have a couple thoughts to add to this topic.
Have an NPC tell your party what they are asking is impossible, instead of coming from the DM directly. This might alleviate the sting and make the situation seem more localized, instead of across the whole campaign.
Also, if your party comes across a creature/group that is not capable of being reasoned with, have them display something your party will recognize is not common behavior. I.E. walking through a campfire without flinching or perhaps breaking their own bone without showing any sign of feeling. This would signal to the players that something is amiss with this particular entity or group.
I had a situation in a game (not D&D) where there were madness magic at work and a player tried to make sense of it. I did (I thought) my best to convey that this isn't meant to make sense in-game. I realised later that I maybe should have stepped out of the game to repeat that this pre-campaign campaign was about the first contact with the evil force of madness and destruction that is the main baddy of the setting. I don't think the game was right for him because that wasn't the only time he wanted to try something that didn't fit the setting. Thing about communicating in session 0 is that while you think you've come to an understanding, it isn't always so.
I would say "you can most certanly try" and at least in my game whenever I say that, everyone already knows that even 20 probably wont be enough to do it.
I communicated that quite clearly in the past and when one of them once tryed to keep grabbing the end of the tail of a fleeing dragon I just said to him DC 35 (I tend to tell how much you need, if I do not give a number, I might be excited to find out what will happen because I am still deciding, I do not want to let them know how hard it is because that would give away important hidden information or because they will fail, I just want to know how much -> failing can be quite exciting, sometimes we all wish their roll would fail because it would be more fun or exciting, somatimes you can decide you will fail, like if someone is invading your mind you can just give in, but sometimes it is more fun if they have a chance not to fail but fail anyway).
Player said to DC 35 "well, I can not roll that high" and I just said "I know", so he just had to suck it up, had a fun fall, then some other player while falling from the same dragon managed to kill the dragon I did not intend to get killed (he was just there to scare them for a potencial future campaign, something I could use for a "do you remember that thing" moment). That player would then die from a fall and the dragon falling on top of him, he just didn't have enough time to get another action for another spell, but I rulled he can roll if he can manage to speed-cast Dimension Door in time as an do or die exception, so he did it, was catapulted trough the door into the air on the other part of the town while ground shook from the dragon fall. He then went to the tavern to drink with a polar bear a bit shoched over the experience and demanding a statue in his honour. They know they might be told DC 35, but they also know, I will bend the rulles and the story if that is reasonable and fun when the time comes. I told them in advance, "I will kill you if I have to, I just dont want to and I will try to save you if I have a chance, but know not to abuse my trust, play like you want to survive, because if not you will be corrected". It happened once because one of my players started to understand my effort to keep them alive as a story shield and it started ruining the game mood with his "We can not die anyway, so why try to stay alive at all", so I told them exactly what I planed to do if they die so they would not think I was bluffing (I would give them an NPC, it was a doomed campaign with a tight story, everyone was expected to die anyway (yes, they knew from the start) so a new character was unlikely). Right now we are playing another doomed story -> they go somewhere that is relevant to one of their backgrounds, story happens, they all die, so they get to better develop their backstory for the main campaign, so they get to experience how some other character's backstory same as theirs is incorporated into the main story, like how one of them met his son, but he was not his son anymore. Son was explaining how he managed to get a family and his wife was pregnant, but he really want to go save his father (player knew he is dead, he died after all, but could not tell him that). It was touching. Also their faces when they learned they kind of by accident started a mini apocalipse with their doomed characters just before they died.
Anyway, let them fail, but tell them in advance what are their chances (even if there are none), they might try anyway because they want to try anyway. It might be more important that they try because their characters would want that, than if they succeed, because then they can say "I tried my best, but it just wasn't enough". And if they might have to die, ask if they would be ok with it.
Most of the GMs I've ever had say no to a lot of stuff, anything they don't want in their campaign, or don't personally like the idea of.. and yes, it can cause some issues and on a few occasions has made me enjoy a session less.
Personally when I'm running a game, I'll allow pretty much anything.. not because I'm a squid, but because I'm generally the most experienced gamer in the area, and I make sure my players know "Yes, you can do this. But so can I. And I'm not only more experienced with this than you, but I'm the GM and have infinite resources. If you don't abuse it, neither will I."
It's what I like to call Mutually Assured Disjunction.
I come from my experience parenting: find a reason to say yes to your kids. as a parent there are plenty of times where you *need* to say no and mean it, if you say no to everything the children just try to push back all the time. If you say yes as much as possible (even if you link conditions like "yes but only after you've done your chores") then when you say no it means more.
Fun facts:
I GM for my kids
I have found myself using my GM voice for parenting moments ("Are you really sure you want to do that?")
I have players that ask for ridiculous bull crap. I use the "No but" method.
At the same time though...if you, as the DM, approach your friend group and say "look guys, I'm honestly kind of tired of this campaign, I'm feeling some burnout, can we try something different?" and they say "No"...well they're not very good friends to begin with. One of the Geek Social fallacies is that you "can't say no to friends". The idea of the DM being this all subservient person who is there entirely to serve the players whims, sacrificing their own fun so the players can have fun is one of the things that drives people away from DMing and this video...kinda promotes that idea.
I tried to make it clear that this was from the perspective of the DM saying Yes or No to requests from the players. But like everything else, the fun of you and your fellow players should come first.
Yesn't
"then his eyes glow with a bit of faint magic and that recognition fade away"
don't ever use magic as explanation for unredeemable cultist
players don't hear this people are husk/gone, they hear "did you prepare dispel magic or restoration?"
If the party is down to spend a spell slot to bring a single cultist back from this state, maybe that deserves rewarding. Or you can rule that they won't work because the effect of whatever magic was acting upon them has already done its job in destroying the cultists' psyche.
I really hate when advice people give is something like "do X, Y, and/or Z I your game so your players learn to do/not do A, B, and/or C."
They're not Pavlov's dog they're actual people who you are playing a game with. Just talk to them like a normal person and discuss what you want to do and what they want to do.
One bit of advice a seasoned DM hit me with when I got started was "Figure out an appropriate way to say, 'Not this time', because sooner or later, you'll find a way to make that player's plan work, and it'll be kickass when it happens."
I think this ties well into what you were saying about learning your players' mentalities and strategies and adjusting accordingly.
Just like you, I think you should trade your “no” for information. The players’ creativity still pays off and the story advances.
I think D&D is grounded in a different space than improv. Improv is about going beyond limits and creative barriers.
D&D is about working within the limits of the rules and your resources. The challenge is about creatively overcoming those challenges within those limits
Some very good points and suggestions in this video. the "how about an insight check?' redirect from your example is a very good idea
Knowing my players I totally believe they're going to start a killing spree and I'm the one trying to defuse that saying "No" (without actually saying it), so all this advice is helpful.
The protestant comment caught me so off guard i nearly choked lol
Great video, I think the term for this is "yes, and / no, but"
Really, you should *always* say no.
"As you're sitting at the bar you see a mysterious old man from across the room pondering an orb."
"I'd like to go over and talk to him."
"No."
Lol
I appreciate your protestant joke
Thank you!
With the Cultist part, I've actually had a similar thing happen back in 3rd edition. The first time they asked I requested a Sense Motive (not sure if there's an equivalent in 5th edition, maybe just perception?) check, made the DC ridiculously low, and when they passed, told them 'you see little to no ability to reason within their eyes. You feel like your words will fall on deaf ears.' This tells them 'no you can't do that', but in a way that is IN CHARACTER and allows THEM to decide not to try.
*EDIT: Should have waited lol, you already covered this a few minutes later*
Though I have on occasion had players so intent on doing something that I've literally had to pause the game and say "That's not going to work, no matter how clever a plan you think you've come up with."
Another one my group uses is "cut-scene." as a shorthand for 'The GM has decided this is going to happen for story purposes, please just let it play out.'
I've said no plenty of times, but not when a player insists on doing something "stupid". They are free to do what they want but not free of consequences.
Nailed it
Sometimes as a DM you have to say no
I'm a new Pathfinder player who's still learning, and I find all your videos invaluable. I really want to be a better player and be someone who the other players truly want to have at the table because I help them to have more fun. Thank you so much for making these!
I’m so glad they’re helpful!
Is it beyond the pale to say that since I'm playing with my friends, and they ask for something or suggest an action that I as the DM find unreasonable that they just accept "no" as a reasonable response and move to the next option? Is our community so fragile that they can't be told no once in a while without it being couched and sugarcoated?
"Players are skittish, gentle creatures."
I guess so.
'a reasonable response' 'move to the next option' 'once in a while'
..all being key phrases here, that show you understand its not about extremes, but about keeping things moving in a collaborative way on a grander scale.
I agree with some of the sentiments of the video but I felt like a lot of these no and techniques are geared towards completely new players or children.
That said if a DM allows for a roll they are allowing possible sussess.