I am a proponent of “yes, and” but what do you do when a player proposes something that would contradict an important story element?
Background: I had an idea for a long-running campaign arc. I planted the story seeds and the hooks, and the players responded enthusiastically. Up to that point, I had been happily letting the players drive the story, but at this point they saw the rails and willingly threw themselves on them (with the understanding that they could collectively climb off at any point.)
So, the Situation: In the course of being on the rails, the PCs encounter a strange creature -- a Cthulhu-esque Far Realms tentacle thing, but small. Player A, reasserting his PC’s well-established naivety, says “OMG SO CUTE!” and tries to play with the creature. It wraps itself around his arm and tries to dissolve his flesh. The rest of the PCs are horrified, but the creature turns out to be harmless, its attacks completely ineffective.
After the session, Player B approached me and said “I want something bad to happen to the naive PC’s arm so that he stops being so reckless.”
I didn’t know what to say, because in “reality” the creature IS dangerous, but the PCs (through a seemingly unrelated series of events) have developed a resistance to the creature’s effects, and it’s this resistance that will make them uniquely positioned to be the big damn heroes and save everyone from the Cthulhu horrors. By honoring Player B’s request, I would be undermining an upcoming (and maximum important) plot point.
So, should I have said to Player B, “sorry, not gonna happen, because by throwing yourself on the rails, you have forfeited some amount of narrative agency?” Or, is this a player saying “I am tired of being on the rails” ?
I should mention that the players have expressed an interest in being surprised by the upcoming plot developments. In the past, we have played extended arcs where the players know what’s going on while their characters don’t, but that is not the situation this time.
Also, if we weren’t on the rails, would Player B’s request be a valid one? Is this an issue that the players should resolve amongst themselves? I really hate it when DMs are clearly on “I am the almighty god of this imaginary universe” power trips, so the idea of a player saying “hey DM, please smite a PC that isn’t mine” seems problematic.
I realize that there are actually multiple issues here, and I am looking for advice/perspective on all of them. Thanks!
Say, "No." If he wants to do something about the other character he needs to roleplay it.
Yes, and includes a right of way. That is, what's established is what's true. If it didn't hurt the arm, it didn't hurt the arm. Player can look for another way to impart that lesson.
Have the "harmless to the PC" creature hurt an innocent bystander nearby. Preferably one he/they care about.
Seems like that could help the player bring his character around quickly enough...
Player A was just playing to character (the naive part of the character's personality) and all sounds well there.
Player B on the other hand is completely out of line on their request...I would have automatically told them no since it is a direct, yet indirect attack on another player's character.
If Player B has a problem with Player A's character's naiveness, then that "discussion" needs to be done in character, not as an "out of character" attempt to personally take control of the campaign from you for that "moment" and "damage/"tear down" another player's character just because they do not agree with how the character is being played.
To be honest, I might have even hinted at a penalty/punishment for Player B's character for such a crude, blatant, and totally unwarranted attempt to cause harm to Player A's character! 
Some may consider my opinion/reaction to be a bit harsh, but reading through that just set me off in all the wrong ways! 
Sometimes "yes, and…" needs to be "no".
In this case, you could get the message across by having the player notice sometime later that the arm of their armour or clothing has been badly corroded.
I also like Chris Carlson's suggestion, especially if the player in question actually gives the little monster to an NPC. It will be a very harsh lesson, but hopefully valuable.
CCS wrote:
distal wrote:
(I may be missing something, because I am not clear what you mean by 'they are on the rails' etc.)
What you are describing doesn't sound like "Yes, and..." to me. His character is not doing something, nor is his character suggesting a plan or desire. This is a player saying he wants the DM to do something.... and something to harm another PC.
That said, you clearly have a player issue that should be addressed and resolved. Is the 'naive' PC annoying to other players? Does he know he is being annoying to this player? Is it slowing down play? etc etc. It seems like you and the rest of the players need to discuss this.
As iserith and Coredump00 have noted, this isn't about "Yes, and...", which does not allow for one player to suggest what happens to another player's character as a way to try to manipulate how that other player is playing the game. You can, however, respond to Player B is a "No, but tell me more..." way. That is, why does he think Player A's PC needs a lesson? Does he reall think Player A needs a lesson? If so, has he spoken to Player A about this, rather than try to move, manipulatively I think, behind his back by suggesting you penalize Player A's PC?
distal wrote:
Right it seems that there's a rift between how Player A is roleplaying his/her character and how Player B wants that character to be roleplayed. Has there been hiccups along the way between these players and their respective RP? As iserith said, I would approach Player B to have a discussion about why he feels there's a need to change the RP of Player A's character and why he believes that something bad happening to that character would somehow change Player A's RP to begin with. Frankly I doubt it would, even if you were to have something bad happen. Wouldn't it be just perfectly naive not to have anything change as a result?
Anyway I think having both players talk to each other like adults might be an even better solution. Let them voice their concerns and issues and see if they can come to some sort of mutual agreement. If that doesn't work then at least you know where you stand and so do the players. Passive Aggressively trying to change another player's RP via the DM by requesting something bad happen should pretty much never happen.
the "yes and" approach is great, but cannot be used all the time:
DM can I found a artifact power weapon at level 1? yes and... is not the proper response, to this question you say NO.
DM smite player or NPC X for me because REASON? yes and is not the proper response, to this question you say : deal with him yourself.
Yes and is when the player roleplay in game, not meta game out of game.
So if the player pray to a God and ask for an artifact, yes you knee down and pray, and .... nothing happen your god ignored you.
DM I want to go on an adventure to find myself a powerfull artifact. Yes you are about to go out of town to search for your artifact and an old men stop you and tell you about this mysterious cavern where even the most evil creature are somehow peacefull and docile. When the PC finally reach the end, they find the artifact but realized that if they remove the artefact a horde of CR 15+ monster will attack them and being level 1 they will die for sure.
And sometime, even roleplay you need to asnwer NO.
The player B say: I'm tired of Player A attitude so I take my big great sword and kill him, I have surprise so here my attack. Specially in AL, as a DM you need to stop this, since PVP is not tolerated in AL, and even in home game, PvP shouldbe avoided, there is other way to solve a problem.
Some general thoughts on improv and "Yes, and..." for those who might not be familiar with the idea:
Improvisational acting and D&D (and most RPGs in general) have a lot in common. Both are cooperative activities that require a group of people working together toward the same goals: to have a good time and to create an entertaining story. Those are the "win conditions" of D&D right on page 2 of the Basic Rules. Making use of improvisational techniques such as "Yes, and..." can help us get there quickly and easily by enabling us to set aside our egos and create together in a collaborative fashion. Through practice, one learns really quickly the basics of storytelling, how to listen to each other, how to work in a team, how to be spontaneous, how to add to each other's ideas, and how to be great listeners. With this as a foundation, a game of D&D can really sing. (In fact, learning this stuff is very applicable and useful to other aspects of life too!)
If there can be said to be a core concept of improv, it's "Yes, and..." There are other "rules" like being fun to play with, always acting in service to the narrative, and striving to make the other players look good. "Yes, and..." facilitates these things by allowing you to focus on supporting others. They in turn support you and, with everyone acting in service to the narrative, the story you produce as a result of play is typically a good one. (Plus, it's fun!)
So the basic idea is that anything someone says or does in the game is an "offer." Offers move the emergent narrative forward. When an offer is made, you say "Yes, and..." to it. Not literally, mind you - a game where everyone said "Yes, and..." repeatedly would be kind of silly. But what you do is accept the offer and build on it rather than say "no," ignore it, or waffle. If Lidda wants to try and sneak up on the gnolls, then you think about how you can build on that to make Lidda look good in a way that is consistent with your established characterization (which was also an offer at some point in the past). Later, when you want to kick in the door and throw caution to the wind, Lidda's player will build on that to make you look good. The process of making offers and accepting them and making new offers is the engine that drives improvisational storytelling.
When someone effectively says "No" to an offer, we call this "blocking." In that moment, the player who is blocking is not being fun to play with and, while the block is being resolved, we are not serving the narrative. The engine stalls. Blocking is almost always done out of fear and a desire for control. To build on the example from the original post, one character wants to touch the strange tentacle-thing and the other tries to stop him. The character may have a valid reason to do so, but in this moment, the narrative is on hold until this conflict is resolved. Now, some will say the conflict adds to the narrative, but in an improvisational sense it does not. It stalls play from moving forward until offers begin to be accepted again. And at most D&D tables, there is very little incentive to back down from a conflict like this except to get on with the damn game already (and often it escalates!) - so it's really an unproductive road to go down in many cases. With "Yes, and..." we instead support the player trying to interact with the strange tentacle thing - we say "Go there" instead of "Don't go there" - and then we see what happens next and build on it.
That's the basics of improv and "Yes, and..." As you can see, it's not a one-way street. It's both an obligation to accept the ideas of others and an expectation to be accepted by others. And round and round it goes, building trust between the players and creating engaging stories and play experiences as a result.
Sorxores wrote:
Plus, it is my undestanding that it covers the player saying what his character is doing, or his character suggesting a course of action for the party.... I have not heard of it covering a player telling the DM how to run the game.
Coredump00 wrote:
Yeah, "yes, and..." is a technique for improvisational acting (as in, the thing you do when you're rolepleaying), not a way to facilitate out-of character interaction. These things need to be discussed in session zero, or in subsequent out-of-character discussions if necessary, and it is important that people feel comfortable saying "no, I don't feel comfortable with [whatever] in the game" or "no, I'm not going to accept requests for specific magic items" or whatever. Those conflicts need to be settled beforehand, so that they don't become disruptive during play. To the OP: do not feel pressured to say "yes, and..." to a player who has made an out of character request for you to intervene in the actions of another player's character. And consider the possibility that these players might want different things from the game, which you may all need to hash out together.
@distal: Don't overthink it. Saying yes to your players is often the right way to go because it makes the game more fun for them but at times you need to say no. This is one of these times. You seem to have common sense, trust it! If you're being too tyranical, your players will let you know long before it turns into an actual dispute among friends.
distal wrote:
What happened in game happened.
However, the issue is the players wants you to give them something to help the character evolve away from risky behaviour.
There are plenty of future events you can throw in to facilitate this.
Thanks for the advice, everyone! It amuses me that the problem I had was very different from the problem I thought I had. 
I asked Player B about the motivations behind her request, and she explained that she felt like Player A wasn't respecting the tone of the scene. This had not occured to me, as I had no problem with Character A's naive reaction since it was fitting for the character. So far, our game has accomodated a wide range of tones, but the scene in question was definitely an ominous/serious one.
Humorously, in the days since I started this thread, Player A's character has been badly injured by the 'adult' creatures, and he has been talking about giving his characters some lasting scars as a result. I did not plan/force this outcome at all, but I am definitely going to use it as an opportunity to ask him to consider seriously how this experience might shape his character's outlook.
My helpful conversation with Player B brought up another question: in your game, is it considered rude or perfectly acceptable to question another player's choices during the game (e.g. "Do you really think that's what your character would do?")
distal wrote:
distal wrote:
distal wrote:
distal wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Thats just not he premise behind "yes, and..." Praying for an artifact means you are allowed to pray, it does not mean you get an artifact, not even a map to one. It means you are not blocked from praying, and the DM/players build on the story from there.
Its a tool for empowerment, not a tool for getting anything you want.
That said, I think a DM is well-advised to take that prayer seriously. It's a fictional statement of a player goal and that's a gift for the DM. Build adventures as obstacles to that goal or throw it somewhere in your module as a strong hook to follow that module's premise. Or offer it right now but with serious strings attached - immediate benefit in exchange for perilous (but fun and interesting) hardship later.
distal wrote:
Some people seem to think Yes...and means granting everything the players want on a silver platter. Um..... Nope, not even close.
The "and" is the important part of the equation. As a DM, it is not only your right, but your responsibility to use "and" to provide obstacles, challenges and complications.
To put it another way - think of Yes...and as the players casting the wish spell. Add whatever complication or wrinkle you want to the final outcome, with said complication being comparable to the greed of the request.
Player: I pray for an artifact.
DM: You are teleported to the throne room of Asmodeus. His ruby scepter clutched firmly in your hands. Asmodeus, appears extremely pleased to see you. "Welcome friend..... shall we begin?"
Player: The BBEG is actually a simpering coward.
DM: To your shock and amazement, the BBEG drops at your feet, grovelling and begging you to spare his life......
- Over the next few minutes you learn that the BBEG was not in fact, the brains behind this operation.... he was in thrall to the very demon he attempted to summon to defeat the PCs..... [ENTER new Villian/plot twist].
OR
- After the villians defeat, a power vaccuum was created within his forces.... Using this to his advantage, an even more insidious villian rises to claim rulership of his routed forces, and unites them under his ruthless leadership..... [rise of the underling plot twist]
OR
- A snivelling coward at heart, the BBEG fears taking on such mighty PCs directly - instead resorting to trickery and grovelling in order to earn their trust, before launching a surprise attack! While distracting the PCs with his grovelling, he secretly palms an object and feigns weakness.
ETC.
I have had a player who questioned the other players' characters' actions. "Hold on, would Dalin really do that here?" My answer is generally to remind the players that the characters do what they say they do and to play their own character, not someone else's.
bawylie wrote:
But questioning another character *is* playing your character. If your freind was about to do something stupid, or just 'unlike him', you would question that. "Hey, are you sure you want to go see your EX when your drunk?" "Hey, why are you picking a fight with that guy, thats not like you". "Why agree to take his money, you hate what he stands for."
Even as a player asking, it can make sense. We are trying to roleplay our characters.... they are often do not match our outlooks exactly, so we may make 'mistakes'. Sometimes an unusual action is intended, sometimes its an accident of not thinking it through all the way. Happens with writers all the time, they want to have the protagonist do something... but are reminded it doesn't really match their personality. Sometimes they do it anyway, sometimes they rethink it.
Coredump00 wrote:
iserith wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Devils-Advocate wrote:
distal wrote:
From what you said in your posts, it sounds like Player A was behaving appropriately in character, it also sounds like he's moving his character along fine without anyone meddling with him. I'd leave him to play his character's growth as he see's fit without applying outside pressures. If you're going to have Cthulu-esque things going on, he'll lose the naivette or his mind eventually either way. If Player B has a problem, but her character doesn't, then she needs to back up. If her character does, she needs to decide how her character would handle it.
That is, neither of you should be bugging him when it appears that everything is moving along swimmingly and he's creating interesting ingame situations. *shrugs* You didn't even have an issue until she started making noise about it. I'd follow your initial reactions to him and his character and not allow her to influence your interactions with other players' characters.