How do you go about saying "no" during games?
I've been having trouble to where my players introduce something that seems plausible and they've been using my agreeableness to make most encounters cakewalks that end in three turns or less. How do I go about saying "no" without making it seem as though I'm making them lose through DM fiat?
Other urls found in this thread:
Could you give some examples? Without knowing exactly where you're going wrong, it's difficult to pinpoint how best to address the issue.
Ask them how they think what they are asking would work, and what exactly they are imagining. Then tell them if it seems too good and ask if they can compromise with you on getting something that suits the game better.
Oooh boy. I think you might want to start with a discussion (with your players, I mean) of what kind of game they want to play, what kind of game you want to run, and whether a compromise that satisfies everyone is possible.
There might be a solution as simple as jus making stuff harder, but if you're worried about reactions then figuring out who expects what and who's willing to go with what might keep things from ever getting heated in the first place.
Also, maybe practice stiffening your spine on little things that aren't worth fussing over (for them).
One example that I recall was one fight where the group was fighting a giant vulture monster. One team member jumped on its back (IIRC, he used Jump or something to that effect) while the other beaned the creature with a morning star while another used a fishing line to tie it down.
Now at the time, they made their rolls, they set up the ambush well, and I figured that it couldn't move all that well considering one guy was on top of it, another had just smashed it in the beak, and a third was busy wrapping it up like a turkey, but this thing that I was building up towards for two sessions (that was attacking a nearby village btw) ended up being subdued in less than two rounds while they went through the effort of finishing it off.
What I want is to learn a way to say no without it seeming obvious that I want to prolong the fight, because I want to give them a hard fight that tests their skills but I also don't want to completely take away their victory either.
There is a middle ground between "I win at everything forever" and "don't even try". You could reward a clever plan, without it being solved in a single roll.
I'm just having trouble pulling it off honestly. Like in the example I wrote, how am I supposed to simultaneously reward the players for clever tactics that end the encounter quickly and prolong the fight so that they feel as though it was actually challenging?
Don't let it backfire like I did.
Had a big game with the group where they were going to be put on trial for trespassing a Forge World.
The night before one of the players was at my place and we got to talking about what was coming up, and going over the personalities of the "Judges" they'd be facing.
He was really getting into it and how he would respond to each of them and so on. It was going to be a complete Kangaroo Court, as the Tech-Priests judging them were already taken by a Genestealer Cult that wanted them dead, but he was having so much fun coming up with this stuff that I didn't want to shut him down.
Then the day finally arrived, we played through the massive session (from midday to 2am I think), finished the entire section of the campaign and within a day he spat the dummy about player choice and all sorts of crazy stuff, writing me a 10 page essay on how terrible I was.
I quickly checked how everyone else felt and they all thought that we did was really cool. The other friend basically hasn't talked to us since.
>What I want is to learn a way to say no without it seeming obvious that I want to prolong the fight, because I want to give them a hard fight that tests their skills but I also don't want to completely take away their victory either.
Yes... that's why I suggested taking time outside the game to discuss expectations.
Just one possible scenario that might emerge: players love solving problems outside the box but don't find having to work for victory. Ergo, GM needs to make things harder to exploit. I don't know why you're trying to do this with zero player input, dude.
You could just not have those kinds of actions work so well/so quickly? For instance, tying a giant monster down sounds like something that should take several rounds even under ideal conditions, let alone when it's struggling. And if they all succeeded in their checks, that means you're probably making the said checks too easy.
Then I'd suggest simply spending the time to look at the party's capabilities, and form reasonable counters to them, and know exactly what is and is not possible with what they have.
From the example given, for instance, fishing line has a weight limit, and that weight limit is around 20-30 pounds for high-end modern lines. Cooking twine tears at 26. Fishing line shouldn't have been able to restrict a bird large enough to be a recurring threat to a town.
Second, as a guy who raises chickens, I can tell you that birds flop and writhe and twist like a son of a bitch, and will definitely do it at the first sign of danger. Hell, my chickens will run, flap, twist, and nip even when they KNOW there's no danger, they just don't want to be touched. The instant that thing got whacked in the face, it would have tried to take off.
And staying on would be difficult as well: Feathers are very hard to hold on to: they're smooth, often dusty, and they dislodge quite easily.
I'd suggest that it's important to give any built-up threat the same benefit of the doubt that you give your players.
Wing it. One of them jumps on the back of the vulture thing, so tell him that it tries to shake him off; have that player roll a relevant check to stay on its back. If he fails, he gets thrown off, but the creature gave up its attack or movement to get rid of him. You can establish that their plan is possible, they just need to persevere. Or, if you really don't want them to succeed at tying it down, just say "Its razor sharp beak cuts your line apart like it was a flimsy cotton strand" or something. The PC's shouldn't have a complete and total understanding of an enemies capabilities, and it's more than fair to throw something at them that defies their expectations and forces them to adapt on the fly.
Just my two cents.
That seems fair. At the time I assumed that the player lying on top of it would've weighed it down since I thought that birds had fragile bones and wouldn't have been able to move with 200+ lbs. of weight on it. So I guess for my next encounter, I should figure out what it can do and whether it can counter what the party's trying to do? Also, what's a fair number of rolls for doing something like that, maybe 3 at base depending on how handily they pull off their plans?
The group enjoys long and difficult encounters but they also enjoy an encounter where it ends quickly due to smart thinking on the player's end, hence my confusion at how to balance that out.
>agreeableness
Be less agreeable
There's no hard-and-fast rule, but consider every action a character tries as, in essence, an attack. It can hit, or miss, but if it hits, like any attack, it should move the battle closer to completion.
If you don't think the vulture can take off with the person on its back, that's fine. But it can almost certainly still walk, and birds can bite things on their back. So maybe the player jumping on it forces the bird to stay in melee range, keeping the fight on the player's terms, rather than dealing with a foe that moves in 3 dimensions.
Maybe the fishing line doesn't hold it long, but it trips it up for a turn, stopping it from fleeing too far.
It's a constant balancing act.
>birds can bite things on their back.
They can? I always assumed that once something had your back, it was difficult to pull them off.
>It's a constant balancing act.
I think I'm understanding it.
>They can?
Yes, though it depends on the bird, and the exact spot on the back.But most birds can reach the middle of their own backs. It's how they clean themselves.
The bites would be somewhat weaker, since the neck can't exert the same amount of force while twisted on itself, but it can be done.
depends how long or flexible it's neck is
You need to work on your storytelling skills my man. Instead of saying "no", try "yes and".
Maybe there are other giant vulture monsters? A mad spell-caster breeding them for reasons? You have to make SOME room for spontaneity.
DM wise single creature combat encounters are generally bad for the same reason an encounter with a single trap is bad. They are almost always one-sided stomps that may seem underwhemling and effortless. Avoid them at all cost.
Just have something *different* attack the town.
Nothing in the game world exists until the players see it.
You have to move away from the binary pass/fail mechanic of D&D.
The
>Fail the DC of the check = big fuck up and I can go hard against them. In your example the vulture might get an extra attack on them, or tear apart their fishing line
>Equal the DC - They succeed but it isn't going to go perfectly for them. - The fishing line is wrapped around the creature, but oh shit its flying in the air and dragging them away with it.
>Beat the DC by 5. This is a proper success and the players get what they were aiming for from the action.
This way you encourage creativity but you create a constant slew of consequences for it as well.
You have to also have enough confidence to go outside of the established rules here. If the players are allowed to be creative you are as well.
In this case a passive warning or shrugs of "who knows" would be help to temper his expectations that not all appears as it should at this trail. He had his work out to have the trail his way, not the character's way which mus t be reactive to the corruption at hand.
I can't help but agree. Such maneauvers in the heat of the moment should be quite difficult to accomplish with high rolls. Hopefully its not been the case that they have been able to achieve such things as a replacement of their basic attack or as a :shudder: free action. That would definitely repress the difficulty of encounters.
>I can tell you that birds flop and writhe and twist like a son of a bitch, and will definitely do it at the first sign of danger
A very fine example where one's DMing gets enhanced by exploring and experiencing the world around you. Go out there and take it in!
>how to say No as GM
Here OP let me help you.
youtube.com
I never say no to players. I just keep a bullwhip on me and whip my players when they say something stupid.
>Instead of saying "no", try "yes and".
Improv makes the heart throb!
in RPGs it should really be "yes, but".
This is a pile of pure ass unless you are playing a PbtA or similar system.
The DM is well within his rights to say "No, fuck off, that doesn't work". The whole "Yes, and" rule has made so many new DMs turn themselves into a pathetic power fantasy enabler that turns every game they run into ass.
For the example you posted, I would try something like
> the monster lets out a shriek and breaks the bindings.
> it expended a lot of energy to do that, so it can't do anything else this round and...
> roll a die then pretend you care what it says
> the next two rounds, it'll have a penalty to attack rolls from muscle strain.
Yes, this. "No" is plenty good and plenty useful.
Not that it applies to the giant vulture, players should be encouraged to try things other than "I roll to attack".
>try to make thrilling zombie campaign
>players dig trench, lure zombies to trench, stand behind trench, zombies fall in trench
>all day long
You can't outsmart a group of people. What you can do is be a good GM.
Your vulture thing is able to grant specific wishes if freed. Or was a sorcerer in disguise. Or someone cursed in were form. Use it to create a new story arc.
>via 9gag.com
How many times do you have to replace a worn-out whip per session?
clever quick solution >>>>> artifically prolonged slugfest
>How do you go about saying "no" during games?
Most of the time, I don't have to. When I do say no, I almost always provide a reason, even if the reason is "that's just stupid." If this means that the players occasionally trivialize what was supposed to be a difficult through a clever plan, good on them, they deserve that victory. It's not like I'm going to make it easy for them to do that, though. They can try to tie up my bird boss, but it's not going to be easy and the bird is going to get a chance to escape every round. If it's supposed to be a really important fight and I feel that rendering my creature completely helpless through a single maneuver makes the encounter significantly less interesting or fun, then the boss might automatically break out of its bindings after a certain number of turns. It's not like my players weren't rewarded for their efforts, disabling a powerful enemy for several turns is still really good and, hey, maybe the boss sustained some other debilitation that will affect it for the rest of the encounter, like its wing got injured and it can't hover anymore.
Also, no matter what anyone says, "yes and"/"yes but" is great GMing tool. There is a clear and obvious middle ground between not allowing players to do anything outside the narrow range of options you thought of in advance and allowing players to circumvent all semblance of challenge by letting them do whatever they want.