As a GM I know that I can advance the plot by answering by acknowledging what the players want and either upping the stakes, or by placing something in their path to obstruct them.
As an example:
Player: "I need to get into the building fast if I'm going to save the Senator. Can I see a window?"
A typical 'Yes, And' response might be something like:
"You head round the building looking, and yes there is one. More importantly there’s a rope hanging from it and you can see someone pulling themselves through. They have a rifle."
A typical 'Yes, But' response might be something like:
"You head round the building looking, and yes there is one. Its open too, and looks an easy climb but there's a guard patrolling below it"
Occasionally I'll give a 'No' response but I try to avoid it. Even if it involves changing the plot, or having things mysteriously appear (like windows where there are none on the map) I try to go with Yes Variants if it advances the plot.
Obviously the 'Yes, And' response leads to a far faster game, with players ripping through plot very fast - but it can lead to tension. The 'Yes, But' response leads to a slower game, but it still moves the game forward, and it introduces challenges.
'Yes, But' definitely works far better if it suggests courses of action. I've heard 'Yes, But' used as a substitute for 'No' far too often.
The question is what experience have other GMs had with the two 'Yes' responses. I quite like string a few 'Yes, And's together to get some pace, each one either escalating the stakes or suggesting time constraints. It adds more impact to the inevitable 'Yes, But' when they feel things need to happen fast and there is a lot at stake. Suddenly they have a lot vested in overcoming the challenge. However the problem with too many 'Yes, And' answers seems to be a loss of challenge.
I like "Yes, but" much much more. It really stress the importance of the situation which is why I say yes at all, right? Occassional "yes, and" isn't bad, but it is somewhat easier for me to work with the "but..." part.
__________________ In nomine Ordinis! & La vérité vaincra!
_______________________________ Currently playing: Qin: The Warring States Currently GMing: Star Wars Saga, Esoterrorists
However the problem with too many 'Yes, And' answers seems to be a loss of challenge.
The "and" part of 'Yes, And'' answers don't have to help the person asking the question. The distinction, as I see it, between "and" and "but" is that "yes, but" is essentially saying "yes you could do that, but here are a few reasons why you shouldn't." Your "yes, and" example is a good one, since it adds complication, but it doesn't need to include the free dangling rope.
Also, don't be afraid of giving just plain "yes" answers. "Is there a window?" "Yes, there's a second story window."
Some things that sounds like "yes, but" are probably actually "yes, and"s. Something that doesn't discourage the PCs from doing something, but adds a complication, is just fine.
__________________
"Lady, I'm your WORST NIGHTMARE--a pumpkin with a gun."
-Mervyn Pumpkinhead
Sandman #66
Your "yes, and" example is a good one, since it adds complication, but it doesn't need to include the free dangling rope.
I prefer to think of it as an escalation. i.e. Something which doesn't stop them doing what they hoped to do but raises the stakes. (the 'Yes, And')
Whilst I view anything which slows them down, or temporarily stops them doing what they planned as a complication. (the 'Yes, But')
And anything which stops them dead as a block. (the 'No')
Of course all of these could be phrased differently so as not to use the 'Yes, And' Yes, But and 'No'. For that matter you could use 'No, But' to mean yes.
e.g. 'No windows, but you do find an open door round the far side'
Maybe one way to think of it is "yes, but" can lead to the reply "oh, nevermind" which if done WILL cause a halt or at least a hiccup in the story, negating both the original player's idea AND your idea that followed the but. And for a sufficiently "unreasonable" condition after the but, you have what is in effect a No, and for a sufficiently unobjectionable condition after the but, you have an effective Yes, and. It's the in-between cases that make "yes, but" interesting. You might find the player's idea objectionable, and therefore want a concession from the player, or you have an idea that the player might find objectionable, and you want to propose the idea while giving them an out, or you want to probe how much your player is willing to pay to get what they wanted.
I prefer to think of it as an escalation. i.e. Something which doesn't stop them doing what they hoped to do but raises the stakes. (the 'Yes, And') Whilst I view anything which slows them down, or temporarily stops them doing what they planned as a complication. (the 'Yes, But') And anything which stops them dead as a block. (the 'No')
Nice summary!
Quote:
Of course all of these could be phrased differently so as not to use the 'Yes, And' Yes, But and 'No'. For that matter you could use 'No, But' to mean yes. e.g. 'No windows, but you do find an open door round the far side'
I think there's a difference here. In play, we see a character as skillful when their successes arise from their own inherent capabilities, and when their failures are due to uncontrollable external factors. Conversely, a character is seen to be incompetent when their failures arise from their own inherent qualities, and their success is due to uncontrollable external factors.
So a skillful gunfighter might win a fight because he's faster on the draw than the other guy, and might lose a fight because the bad guy brought twenty extra thugs with him. A dude might win when the other guy's gun jams, and he'll lose because he fumbles and drops his gun at a critical moment.
So a "no, but" answer is a good way of describing how someone who isn't skillful succeeds, and a "yes, but" answer is a good way of throwing obstacles in the way of someone who is competent, because in neither case do you erode the characterization of the character.
-*-*-*-
There's also "no, and" answers: "No, you don't find a window, and furthermore some guards spot you, and start chasing after you!" Obviously, this is a way of escalating, but the interesting thing about this is that "no, and" answers are also a useful way of changing the nature of a conflict -- in this case, it changes from stealth to running. Used badly, they suck, because it's railroading.
Used well, they are really cool, because they escalate, and at the same time allow shifting the conflict to terms that are more favorable for the characters. Skillful players will often set up questions that demand "No, and" answers, because they heighten the tension and bring the scene closer to resolution at the same time.
So a "no, but" answer is a good way of describing how someone who isn't skillful succeeds, and a "yes, but" answer is a good way of throwing obstacles in the way of someone who is competent, because in neither case do you erode the characterization of the character.
I hadn't considered this - but it makes perfect sense. I'll try and keep it in mind because it adds a lot of flavour and reinforces who the characters are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neel Krishnaswami
There's also "no, and" answers: "No, you don't find a window, and furthermore some guards spot you, and start chasing after you!" Obviously, this is a way of escalating, but the interesting thing about this is that "no, and" answers are also a useful way of changing the nature of a conflict -- in this case, it changes from stealth to running. Used badly, they suck, because it's railroading.
I wouldn't consider this railroading because the players still have a choice. They could fight the guards, they could run. In fact if you left it at "some guards spot you" they still have the chance to try to bluff the guards, bribe them or anything else. In fact its nice because it can be both a twist (changing the nature of play) and an escalation - and used intelligently it doesn't railroad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neel Krishnaswami
because they heighten the tension and bring the scene closer to resolution at the same time.
And could quite naturally lead into the next scene.
But, However, Nevertheless, Regardless, and similar words are what are called "negation words". The reason they negate is because as soon as you hear them you hear "ignore everything I said until I said the negation word, because what I really meant was (second half of sentence)".
You can still set limits with "Yes, and," and by acknowledging their idea even if you don't like it, you make them feel accepted instead of rejected.
__________________
Elitism isn't as bad as people want it to be.
Join the Grognard side, it's easier on your wallet . . . and mental health.
Last edited by Zhaleskra; 04-14-2008 at 09:44 AM..
Reason: Changed special characters so whole sentence shows
YES there is a window, AND there is an escalation.
YES there is a window, BUT there is a complication.
NO there is not a window, AND there is a complication.
NO there is not a window, BUT there is an escalation.
Negative conjunctions don't actually mean to ignore the first half of the sentence. Rather, they subtract from the first half. When you see "yes, but," it means you're getting your "yes." You're getting less than a full "yes," though, because of the "but." Similarly, when you see "no, but," you're getting a "no." There is no window. It is not a full "no," though, because you are getting a consolation prize from the "but."
__________________
"Sometimes I just like a clearly Good Knight to slay the clearly Evil Dragon and rescue the goodamn Damsel In Distress. Simplicity is beautiful." -- Wields-Rulebook-Heavily
Linear Mode
