From the @DND_Advleague Twitter:
@DnD_AdvLeague: "Yes, and": How Improv Makes you a Better DM
What's the most epic improved scene you've been involved with in #dnd?
http://t.co/XrjfbHfXyE
I don't consider myself a Yes And DM. Philosophically. That said, it's an excellent practice that can (and does) take your game to awesome places.
Read and discuss.
I think Improv might be related to Embracing Chaos a subject discussed on the Being Everything else show.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ug5AOhfM644
Here's my anecdote.
In the season 1 Finale of Pirate World, the party had been cornered on land (in a bayou) by a hostile armada/blockade. They needed to take the final piece of the stone map (they just acquired) and assemble it with the other parts to locate their treasure. I had massive ship combat on deck as well as chase scenes and complications in my prep.
"Screw this," the bastards collectively threw up their hands and cried.
They decided to steal a flying gunship from overwhelming security forces instead. This gunship was window dressing, btw. Sort of a looming menace to show the bayou was occupied militarily.
Anyway, they decided to do a fairly complex takeover. So I madly scrambled up some warforged battlebot defenders and we ran a sort of moving combat encounter through ship decks. They split the party, messed with the engines, converted some of the battle forged to their own side and only suffered 1 PC fatality.
It was still a firing season finale. And all my prep went to the circular file. Couldn't have done if I were hostile to player input and desire - or if I were otherwise interested in protecting my prep. Know when to hold em. Know when to fold em.
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
I think "Yes and" is useful in moderation. I definitely disagree with always saying "Yes, and".
In the example provided - that the killer loved the victim - I would consider that a borderline example. I would use it if it seemed more fun. But if I felt my original motive for the killing was more fun, I'd stick with it.
You have to use your judgment on a case by case basis.
Orethalion wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Alright, let's leave Iserith out of it for a sec. He hasn't posted anything in this thread and I'm specifically linking to an AL article as my source and as the framework for discussion.
As a technique, (not a Playstyle), I think Yes And is about collaboration, but not necessarily limited to creation. So like in the article where the player makes up something about the murder victim, or in your example where the player names the city and invents a mentor - those are concrete examples of player creation. And you could use Yes And to build off those creations.
Now my example is a bit different. Because it's about saying yes to a radical change of course. And then adding an And that makes that course change worth doing & fun. You want to steal a flying gunboat - Yes that's metal. And that thing is chock full of medieval terminators, some of which you can convert.
So I think we're talking about a technique here - not a Playstyle - wherein a DM chooses to run with a player offering (whether that offering is a world-building-creation, a narrative contrivance, or a change in "script.") I never intended Pirate World to be Sky Pirate World. But when they went that direction, saying Yes made for a better time.
I've always done most of my DMing in an improv fashion (I've even had players say "How did he know we were going to ..." when I was just making it up as I went).
So for most sessions I have a list of combat encounters that the group may come across based on the typical creatures/NPCs in the area, an idea of what's happening and a rough idea of locale and power centers. I rarely have "boxed text" prepared and many of my NPCs just come from my "big list of NPCs" that I keep as a handy reference.
As far as the whole "Yes and..." sometimes my players have really good ideas but oftentimes it's more fun to subvert what they think they know. So the villain loved the victim? Maybe the villain is really a murderous sociopath who loved the victim in the same way that I "love" an old pair of comfortable shoes. I'll miss my shoes when they're finally no more use to me, but I won't have any regrets about throwing them away when they fall apart. Or ... the villain really was framed, by someone who knows how truly evil he is, that the villain's plans are far reaching and deadly and framing them was the only way to stop them.
Or any other number of possibilities. Take the player's ideas, and see where they lead. Sometimes the player is absolutely correct, sometimes the venerated elder the player made up is secretly the leader of the local death cult.
Tony_Vargas wrote:
Well, I hadn't statted the gunship at all - it was window dressing. And when I improv-Ed it, I didn't have time to do encounters per guidelines. So I winged it altogether.
Re collaborative world building. There's a sliding scale of tolerance there. Players make choices about race, class, background, bonds etc. And for the most part, we make adjustments to the world to accomodate those choices. So when I have a rogue player in a thief guild, I try to find out if they have something specific in mind (and use that) or find something I've already done up and move it into a more prominent position.
My point though (and again, I don't consider myself a Yes And DM) is that I get more mileage out of this as a technique than I do as a Playstyle or philosophy. Where I already have stuff established, that stuff tends to have the right of way. But where I dont, I also don't mind if they fill in details - that often helps me identify what they're interested in pursuing. And for me, my players' interest in my game takes priority over fidelity to 'cannon.'
Tldr - technique, not overriding modus operandi
bawylie wrote:
True. But let's examine that impulse to railroad - it seems like a desire to stick to script. Maybe combined with a fear of handling the unknown or performing without a net. And probably a little bit of wanting to not trash the hours of prep we've put in.
For a lot of us - veteran DMs and old hats - we have an easier time throwing out hands up and going with the flow. For people who are maybe less experienced, who don't know what to do, I think it's important to be willing to do a few things:
1.) Let go & allow the game to go off rails/script
2.) Accept player collaboration as a source of inspiration (and don't feel threatened by their interest)
3.) Accept that lacking control IS part of DM-ing
4.) Learn that improvisation is a tool and that the only way to get better at it is to do it.
Natch, the extent to which each DM needs to internalize these points varies. And even for some old hats, why would or should we be hostile to player collaboration at all? I know I'm instinctively suspicious of players I don't know. But I'm kind of a bastard, so...
Anyway, yeah, every good game has elements of improv. Yes And is an improv technique that addresses the source of inspiration and also collaboration. It specifically asks DMs to accept player offerings to some extent and then to Add onto them. It's not the end of DM skill or the way all games ought to be, but it's a tool that has a purpose and needs a name and should see use, from time to time, as required.
Ok, as a professional actor, I would like to clarify that "Yes, and..." is an improvisational acting technique that exists completely independently of roleplaying games, so it doesn't really make sense to call it a playstyle when the origins of the technique have nothing to do with playing D&D. The technique doesn't literally mean saying "yes, and" to everything, the point is that when one of your fellow actors suggests something, or the scene takes an unexpected turn, you agree (because if you don't, you're blocking and preventing the action of the scene from continuting) and you add on (in order to help steer the direction of the action, and to give your fellow actors something to work off of). It is a useful tool in RPGs like D&D, and yes, most DM's use it in every session, whether or not they are aware they are doing so. The thing is, by being aware of it, you can use it (or not use it - it's not appropriate 100% of the time, although it is generally preferable to blocking) intentionally, and to better effect. Hope that helps clear things up.
Improv is fun, but in my experience I notice that npcs become hackneyed.
Mind_Flayer_Monk wrote:
bawylie wrote:
I've tried the "yes, and" approach to gaming (as far as the DM/Player cooperation in world building) but my players prefer if I make it all up and they play around in it. The idea that they could decide whether there is an assassin's guild is so foriegn to them they can't handle it.
That said I do a fair amount of improv though. I generally make a skeleton of what I want to do, including dungeons and then pitch the adventure. 90% of the time the players go along with the pitch. When they don't, the dungeon that was full of undead and led by a lich becomes the assassin's guild hideout led by a shadowdancer/assassin. Refluffing is the best tool in my box.
Skeleton Horror
Level 3 Undead
Hp. 25 AC. 13 Prof. +2
Claws +4 melee (1d6+2 slashing damage)
becomes
Guild Thief
Level 3 Humanoid
Hp. 25 AC. 13 Prof. +2
Shortsword +4 melee (1d6+2 piercing damage)
Huzzah!
I think there is a distinction to be made. The DM explains the environment, and the players can either"
1) Interact with the environment in the manner expected by the DM
2) Interact with the environment in a manner not expected by the DM
3) Change the description of the environment and interact with the newly changed environment.
I think that most people that balk at "Yes, and..." are concerned about 3), they are concerned players may create something that doesn't fit or doesn't belong in the story, and they will feel forced to "Yes, and..." at that point.
At the other end, if you insist on 1), it leads to a railroad of a game. I leads to DMs not only creating obstacles, but insisting on a specific solution.
I interpret the article as encouraging DMs to be more flexible, so they can allow 2) to happen and not feel they are 'losing control' of the storyline. Thanks to this site, I am becoming more comfortable (and a fan) of limited 3). That doesn't mean the player can decide there is a secret door, or that a floating gunship just happens to be somewhere it isn't. But I am much more open to the players adding to the environment and story in smaller ways.
bawylie wrote:
As DM, I just listen to my players, and when they come up with good ideas, I roll with them and play off of their ideas. Often, I put them in situations where they discuss plans and possible actions and from what they say, I add features or events. Of course, I let them think that everything that happened was predetermined so they feel more like they are "winning," but really the "winning" comes from making interesting choices that add to our collective adventure together.
Yes, I love creating and changing things as we play and working with the players to play off their choices, wishes and desires.
I've never had any more than overly-elaborate maps, and some vague worldbuilding.
Of course, I always did six shots before the session started, and it ended when I passed out or threw up.
bawylie wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
Qmark wrote:
Mind_Flayer_Monk wrote:
Rhenny wrote:
CCS wrote:
Would the opposite of Yes, and...
be But you said... ?
Mind_Flayer_Monk wrote:
Mind_Flayer_Monk wrote:
CCS wrote:
One of the hardest things to learn as a DM is to referee yourself.
If you don't like something, the temptation is to make it not happen at all.
Refereeing yourself is partly handicapping your desire - you only dislike it a little, then give it a chance of failing rather than a 100% chance of not working. Restrain your urge to just stop something you don't want, when you really don't want to stop it that much (and someone else does want it).
Of course, like some people go to the extreme of stopping anything they dislike, the other extreme being to say yes to everything. And really that's just saying no to yourself. This isn't crazy hard to grasp - some things you don't want to happen. To just say yes to them is to say utterly say no to what you want.
The game comes down to the DM, in many cases, if the DM is not an improvisational, descriptive, extemporaneous individual, the game, will not reach its fruition.
I believe "Yes and" works as a backdrop, so you can take hints as a DM from the players, but it will not always be an immediate effect. Even players appreciate limits, and if they get the notion they can start to run away with the story, then things can get silly pretty fast. So in that sense a full-on "Yes and" approach takes a certain level of maturity. I equate it the same as other RPGs like the Amber diceless RPG. Only a small subset of the player base will be able to use it and succeed.
"Yes, and" is illogical.
"No, and", aka, NAND is the fundemental operation in all modern logic gates.
You wouldn't have that computer you are using to read this without the bounty that is NAND.
Could you imagine a YAND operator? Seriously?
YAND is too indecisive, It would imply both relaties exist simultaneously!
The system would just freeze, melt down, implode and become a smoking ruin.
Then where would you be?
Alone in a dark room with no MMO boss fights, that's where.
You'd have to settle for paper and pencil games, by candle light.
You'd have to invite friends over and speak to them in person.
They'd eat your chips and drink your beer.
You'd have to let them make choices and be willing to just let it go.
You'd have to say things like "Yes, and" just to appease them.
