It's Okay To Say No

Many gamers advocate the creed “Say 'yes, and...' ”. This means, when you're running a game and a player wants his character to do something, you should always allow it. It is a good rule of thumb, as it empowers the players and builds a more interesting story.

However, as with many rules of thumb, it is not hard and fast. Here are three circumstances where it is okay for the you, as the GM, to say “No”.

THE ACTION IS IMPOSSIBLE

GM: “The mobster steps through the front door of the speakeasy carrying a tommy gun. He locks eyes on you, takes aim, and begins to unload. What do you do?”

Player: “I catch the bullets and throw them back at him.”

In the above example, the GM should look at that player and say “No, you can't.” The declared action shatters verisimilitude; unless that is the style of game everyone has agreed to play, such declarations should be disallowed.

It's not always quite so obvious, though. Sometimes the impossibility of an action is not a matter of violating the laws of physics, but instead is the result of the setting or the story. As another example:

GM: “The gleaming steel and glass of the corporate headquarters towers above you. The front entrance, usually open to the public, stands closed and locked; somehow, they have been tipped off that you were coming. What do you do?”

Player: “I hack into the building's network. I'm looking for the subroutine which controls the doors.”

If you have established that this corporation uses a wired network for security purposes, or the default assumption for the setting is that corporations use wired networks, the player will not be able to access it from outside. The declared action is clearly impossible and you should tell the player “No”.

Things get less clear if this security feature is not an established part of the setting. Is it fair to block your player's attempt to move forward? It depends.

If you had decided beforehand that the corporation uses a wired connection, then it is reasonable to mention this fact to the player when he declares his action. In the game, his character spends a moment looking for a way to carry out his intended course before discovering its impossibility, and play moves on. Reality is full of moments where someone, acting on imperfect information, attempts something that cannot succeed: the classic example of someone pushing on a door when they should have pulled.

If you're deciding on the spot that the corporation uses a wired connection, so the hacking attempt will fail, then you should instead let the action work. As GM, it is your job to establish obstacles for the players to overcome, not to dictate how they overcome those obstacles. If the players find a valid way to circumvent an obstacle, their plan is fair game. Let them try it and, if they succeed, there's always the next obstacle.

THE ACTION WILL DETRACT FROM THE FUN OF THE GROUP

I will demonstrate this point with a story from my personal experience.

The very first game I ran was a one-shot of Shadowrun. Of the six players, one was playing a social character, the group's Face. The party came up with a plan to infiltrate their target, a corporate building, by disguising themselves as employees, with the Face going in as the CEO. After getting past the front desk, they came across a patrolling drone, controlled remotely by a corporate rigger, which tried to stop them. The rigger, who also controlled all of the building's cameras, knew that the CEO was elsewhere so this group must be impostors.

The Face declared that he was going to talk the drone down, to convince its controller that he was the real CEO and that the other one was the impostor. As he had optimized his character, he rolled impossibly well so I let the action succeed. The party avoided the combat and managed to use the ensuing confusion to finish their mission and escape.

Of the six players, only the Face got to do much of anything that game. The other players, whose characters were built for combat, didn't find a single fight. They were, understandably, bored. Yet, if I had just declared that no amount of convincing would cause security to believe that their CEO was an impostor, every player at the table could have gotten involved in the game and had a good time.

Tabletop roleplaying is a group activity. One of the jobs of the GM is to make sure that every player at the table is enjoying him- or herself. If one player is performing actions that will spoil the fun for everyone else, even if those actions are valid within the context of the game, the GM has the authority to say “No”.

It is important, however, that you not completely lock one player out of the game. If, in the above example, I had declared that the Face could never convince anyone that the party was not a threat, then everyone else would probably have enjoyed several combats, but the player in control of the Face would never have gotten to have fun. The trick is to find the right balance, which is different for every group.

Of course, if one player is only ever able to have fun at the expense of the other players, there is a bigger problem at work and the group needs to sit down and have a discussion. But that is a different topic altogether.

THE GM IS NOT COMFORTABLE IMPROVISING

GM: “The shadows coalesce out of the mist, revealing a small town. A young man comes running up to you, tears in his eyes, and begs for your help. 'Orcs! They're razing everything!' ”

Player: “I shove him aside. Let them deal with their own problems. I bet they can't afford to pay us a reward, anyway.”

GM: “But all of my preparation is for this town...”

Some game masters come to the table with nary a note card of preparation. They craft the world, the story, and the characters on the fly, building around whatever actions the players take. Other GMs bring notes, but are equally capable of setting those notes aside when events in the game render them obsolete.

Yet not every GM is comfortable coming up with ideas on the spot. Whether they're running a pre-written adventure, or running from their own notes, they strive to bring to the table everything needed for a fun game.

Improvising is a skill worth having, and the best way to learn it is through practice; however, it's best to start small. Especially for someone who is new to GMing, it is difficult to improvise entire scenes and encounters from nothing. If the players try something that is going to completely circumvent everything you have planned, and you don't feel comfortable making up something new on the spot, you have two options.

The first is to cut the session short. If you have already played for a few hours, this is a good option; you can spend the time before your next session adapting your notes to the new circumstances in the game. However, if the session is just starting, you probably want to avoid ending it.

The second option is to tell the players “No”. Explain the circumstances to them, apologize, and ask them to play along with your planned adventure. The point of a game is to have fun and if given a choice between not playing at all or agreeing to play along, most players will choose the latter.

Remember, the GM is a part of the game and you should be able to enjoy yourself too. If being forced to set aside your notes and attempt to run the game from scratch will ruin your fun, you have the right to ask the players not to make you do so.

IN CLOSING

While you should typically try to be inclusive in your games, allowing the players to play in whatever manner they wish, there are circumstances where doing so will cause more harm than good. Whenever a given action will detract from the game's theme or tone, detract from the fun of the other players, or detract from your own fun as the GM, it is valid to deny that action.

Say “yes, and...” whenever you can, but retain the option to say “No” if you have to.