The DM who says yes too much

[Honest Tiefling]

I'm laying the blame on the players. Some groups really do work as a test of skill between DM and players, where they have a agreed upon ruleset and try to outsmart each other. This probably wouldn't work for most people.

The problem isn't the DM saying yes, the problem is that the players aren't using this to expand upon the setting, to make cool moments for the group or anything beneficial, but trying to oppose the DM. For instance, Lizard Druid guy mentioned above didn't seem like he wanted to be overpowered, but have some cool flavor while not being useless. If the view of the players is to break the game or to get one past the DM which isn't the sort of game the DM wants then I think some serious discussion needs to go on.

'Yes, but...' only works if the DM isn't swamped and doesn't have to constantly worry about the player's intentions, and most importantly, enjoys the extra work.

[Mordaedil]

Generally, I don't think DM's saying "yes" is a huge problem, as long as that "yes" means "you can try".

Players changing their cantrips because they aren't happy with their current ones should be shrugged off, that's minor stuff, kind of like a fighter changing his weapon of choice and it's between the DM and that player. If a specific player does this frequently, maybe some manner of halting should be put in place, but it's generally not worth getting stressed out over.

Meanwhile, if a player wants to leap a 20 foot gap between two buildings while somersaulting, then "you can try" really comes into effect and the DM can require a roll for that to pass. I think the rules otherwise are fairly clear on what goes and what does not.

[Kalashak]

Honestly, I don't think I've ever run into a DM who said no too often. Probably the worst experience I've had was with a group of new players who were very pushy to the first time DM, who usually caves if you pester him insistently enough. It was like dealing with rules lawyers who won't let anything go except they weren't even arguing from a rules pov, just...arguing a lot. Usually by picking up some aspect of their backstory and trying to convince the DM that it was relevant here and should give them some mechanical effect. It made running the game more stressful for the DM, and slowed the game down for everyone else. The constant concessions to them made it less fun for me, and if I ever voiced my opinion on it they would argue with me, which obviously made the game less fun for me. Eventually the game fell apart.
DMs need to reclaim the word no.

[Jay R]

The problem is having an answer you prefer to give before knowing what the question is.

Consider two players. One keeps making reasonable requests, and the other keeps asking for the absurd. Giving them both the same answer is unfair -- and giving inconsistent answers.

As a DM, I'm trying to run a self-consistent, rational world. When a player asks for something, the answer is "yes" if it makes sense within the mechanics of the world, and "no" if it does not fit within the mechanics of that world.

I prefer to say "yes" most of the time, but that statement is semantically equivalent to saying I prefer for my players to make reasonable requests.

If the player is getting too many "no" answers, that's because of the questions he's asking.

[Thinker]

But it's important to understand the original context of it.

A DMs job includes world design/mechanics selecting, and adjudicating actions.

Not saying no didn't have anything to do with what fits in the world vs what mechanical selections a player chooses to make when designing their characters. It was about adjudication.

The mantra to not say no, as opposed to "no, but ..." And "yes, and ..." or whatever the jargon is now, is supposed to apply to how you respond to a players declared actions during a session. Not to just shut them down and tell them things won't work. At the minimum give them alternatives.

I can agree with this. It's a mechanism to provide players options and to further encourage creative thinking while working within the framework the group agreed to in the beginning. You won't let a player jump off a cliff and fly, but you might allow a player to invent a glider, depending on resources and time.

Obviously that's just as much a load of nonsense as allowing players to make whatever mechanical choices they want. Some things won't work. And when the player asks if they can blah blah, the appropriate response is "there's no way that will work." And allowing it will break everyone's suspension of disbelief, even in a elf & magic game.

That said, what blah blah is varies heavily from table to table. I've seen a poster write about how they did a flying leap onto the back of a dragon, stabbed it with their daggers, and used them as handlebars to steer it. If you tried that last part in a game I was running I'd laugh, and then when I realized you were serious I'd laugh harder. But clearly it worked for that table.

It doesn't need to be said that players shouldn't be allowed to violate the rules, tone, or physical properties of the game. That's pretty self-intuitive.

[JeenLeen]

'Yes, but...' only works if the DM isn't swamped and doesn't have to constantly worry about the player's intentions, and most importantly, enjoys the extra work.

My usual DM has gotten to saying "yes... but my allowing it here doesn't mean it'll always work if you figure out something broken."

So he'd allow us something creative or cool, but if we tried to pull shenanigans with it later on, he'd be fine breaking internal consistency of the game to keep us from breaking the game itself.

[Mordaedil]

We have a player that often asks if he can play Chaotic Lawful, so "no" is definitely sometimes necessary.

[Jay R]

I have no control over how often I say “Yes” or “No”. That depends entirely on the questions, which depend entirely on the questioner.

No, Glen, you can’t buy a pistol. It’s a medieval world. Your character has never heard of a pistol

Yes, Rob, you can buy a sword.

No, Glen, you can’t buy a rifle, even described as a "crossbow without the bow, that throws pellets by burning gunpowder". There is no gunpowder in this world.

Yes, Rob, you can buy a bastard sword. This is a small village, though, and the local smith is better at horseshoes. You might want to wait until you get to a larger town.

No, Glen, you can’t buy a grenade. Explosives don’t exist.

Yes, Rob, you can buy a greatsword. The local smith said he's never made one before. I urge you to buy one in a large city.

Yes, Glen, you can ask the wizard for a magical rifle. He offers you a wand of magic missiles.


The player who keeps pushing for what doesn't exist will keep getting a "No".