I'll fix something a bit here

Know how to say, "Yes, but..."

Know how to say, "No"

No isn't a bad word in RPG-land

I'll fix something a bit here

Know how to say, "Yes, but..."

Know how to say, "No"

Know how to say "Yes, and.."

No is a bad word in RPG-land

I've never found it to be.

It's easy to say, there is no back and forth, the player understands that train of thought isn't going to work and tries a different approach.

I'll fix something a bit here

Know how to say, "Yes, but..."

Know how to say, "No"

No isn't a bad word in RPG-land

I'll fix something a bit here

Know how to say, "Yes, but..."

Know how to say, "No"

Know how to say "Yes, and.."

No is a bad word in RPG-land

I've never found it to be.

It's easy to say, there is no back and forth, the player understands that train of thought isn't going to work and tries a different approach.

Of course, the players have to play fair! "Yes and..." only applies if everyone is playing fair. But it`s fun to avoid "no" as much as possible, both for the GM and the players.

It took me many years to figure that out, but I`m happy I finally did

I would rather not spend the extra time doing linguistic gymnastics or play twenty questions when "no" conveys everything so very easily.

However "no" isn't used with glee.

Mostly it is used during character creation or times when someone is trying to use a spork to disarm a thermal detonator.

Or play twenty questions and get a clearer idea of what exactly the player is actually asking for. It might be that it's silly or imbalanced or inappropriate... or it could be he's not a super articulate person and is having trouble putting his idea into words and needs help with it.

Sure it could be... but, I prefer not to deal in hypotheticals.

If the person is new to the group: "Please play what is in the books"

If it's Billy "No Billy, you are not going to play Drow in Space, sorry."

Then again the very first session(for our group) is nothing but character creation and the 5Ws.

Sure it could be... but, I prefer not to deal in hypotheticals.

If the person is new to the group: "Please play what is in the books"

If it's Billy "No Billy, you are not going to play Drow in Space, sorry."

Then again the very first session(for our group) is nothing but character creation and the 5Ws.

You play a game about laser sword wielding space samurai with telekinesis, and guys in gorilla suits with lasers, but don't like to deal in hypotheticals?............

Know the player before you allow him to create his own.

Know the group because if you open up that option to one, others will expect the same option.

Know how to say no to something someone wants to add to their new creation that you think will cause more problems than fun.

Know how to say, "Yes, but..."

Pretty much a universal set of guidelines, IMO. I think the only other thing to add to it is to tell your player/s that the creation is a work in progress. If issues crop up later on, you may have to make adjustments. Your player has to accept this is a possibility. If you believe that this is going to be the source of any strife at that point, I'd probably avoid it...

I'll fix something a bit here

Know how to say, "Yes, but..."

Know how to say, "No"

No isn't a bad word in RPG-land

I think Fred covered that in his 3rd rule. I get the impression that 4 was implying there's room for compromise, too.

Saying 'no' is probably the most important thing a GM should learn. Knowing 'when' and 'how' to say it. Too much player entitlement will ruin a game.

I'm fortunate to have a long waiting list for my games and I can pick and choose the players I want. So no, you're not playing a Japanese samurai, a hobbit wizard or steampunk inventor in my Lord of the Rings games because those concepts don't exist there. I find if you explain WHY you are saying 'no' it helps to get everyone on board and gives a level playing field.

It's true that a GM who is a tyrant for no reason won't have any players. But it's equally true that entitled players will end up with no GM. We are the ones who put in all the work making our campaigns and it's not much to ask players choose something that fits. If you a vision for your game, then compromising that vision is a good way to make the GM pack it in sooner than later.

Saying 'no' is probably the most important thing a GM should learn. Knowing 'when' and 'how' to say it. Too much player entitlement will ruin a game.

I'm fortunate to have a long waiting list for my games and I can pick and choose the players I want. So no, you're not playing a Japanese samurai, a hobbit wizard or steampunk inventor in my Lord of the Rings games because those concepts don't exist there. I find if you explain WHY you are saying 'no' it helps to get everyone on board and gives a level playing field.

It's true that a GM who is a tyrant for no reason won't have any players. But it's equally true that entitled players will end up with no GM. We are the ones who put in all the work making our campaigns and it's not much to ask players choose something that fits. If you a vision for your game, then compromising that vision is a good way to make the GM pack it in sooner than later.

Very well said.

Sure it could be... but, I prefer not to deal in hypotheticals.

If the person is new to the group: "Please play what is in the books"

If it's Billy "No Billy, you are not going to play Drow in Space, sorry."

Then again the very first session(for our group) is nothing but character creation and the 5Ws.

Why?....

Btw, they already exist. They are called Chiss and you can find them in Enter the Unknown.

Sure it could be... but, I prefer not to deal in hypotheticals.

If the person is new to the group: "Please play what is in the books"

If it's Billy "No Billy, you are not going to play Drow in Space, sorry."

Then again the very first session(for our group) is nothing but character creation and the 5Ws.

You play a game about laser sword wielding space samurai with telekinesis, and guys in gorilla suits with lasers, but don't like to deal in hypotheticals?............

Please show me where

"Or play twenty questions and get a clearer idea of what exactly the player is actually asking for. It might be that it's silly or imbalanced or inappropriate... or it could be he's not a super articulate person and is having trouble putting his idea into words and needs help with it."

is about roleplaying. I'll wait.

Oh that's right it's not, it is a hypothetical situation.

Sure it could be... but, I prefer not to deal in hypotheticals.

If the person is new to the group: "Please play what is in the books"

If it's Billy "No Billy, you are not going to play Drow in Space, sorry."

Then again the very first session(for our group) is nothing but character creation and the 5Ws.

You play a game about laser sword wielding space samurai with telekinesis, and guys in gorilla suits with lasers, but don't like to deal in hypotheticals?............

Please show me where

"Or play twenty questions and get a clearer idea of what exactly the player is actually asking for. It might be that it's silly or imbalanced or inappropriate... or it could be he's not a super articulate person and is having trouble putting his idea into words and needs help with it."

is about roleplaying. I'll wait.

Oh that's right it's not, it is a hypothetical situation.

Dude you can do whatever you like at your table, but in a game where every roll of the dice is supposed to be followed by spontaneity and creativity by the PCs in interpreting the results, being so obtuse about PCs wanting to dream up their own species in a galaxy of tens of millions of inhabited worlds makes you a bonafide buzzkill imo.

Sure it could be... but, I prefer not to deal in hypotheticals.

If the person is new to the group: "Please play what is in the books"

If it's Billy "No Billy, you are not going to play Drow in Space, sorry."

Then again the very first session(for our group) is nothing but character creation and the 5Ws.

You play a game about laser sword wielding space samurai with telekinesis, and guys in gorilla suits with lasers, but don't like to deal in hypotheticals?............

Please show me where

"Or play twenty questions and get a clearer idea of what exactly the player is actually asking for. It might be that it's silly or imbalanced or inappropriate... or it could be he's not a super articulate person and is having trouble putting his idea into words and needs help with it."

is about roleplaying. I'll wait.

Oh that's right it's not, it is a hypothetical situation.

Dude you can do whatever you like at your table, but in a game where every roll of the dice is supposed to be followed by spontaneity and creativity by the PCs in interpreting the results, being so obtuse about PCs wanting to dream up their own species in a galaxy of tens of millions of inhabited worlds makes you a bonafide buzzkill imo.

I agree. Why kill the player`s creativity and fun? I love it when my players find or invent something about the game world that they really trigger on.

Of course they have to follow the rules, that`s a given! They can`t make Q from STNG or Dr Manhatten from Watchmen within the rules of this system.

They could however play a very powerful species like that, that has lost its power, is very young or for some reason injured or very weak if they wanted to.

I ran a dnd campaign with a player who was playing Death as a fallen angel/god who had lost his powers. The Raven Queen who was his ex-wife had taken it all. Why not?

Be creative and have fun.

"Yes, and..." is about the story and flavour of the game, not about breaking the rules or making something overpowered.

Sure it could be... but, I prefer not to deal in hypotheticals.

If the person is new to the group: "Please play what is in the books"

If it's Billy "No Billy, you are not going to play Drow in Space, sorry."

Then again the very first session(for our group) is nothing but character creation and the 5Ws.

Why?....

Btw, they already exist. They are called Chiss and you can find them in Enter the Unknown.

Live underground, different skin tone, wait does that mean duergar or svirfneblin are also Chiss?

Because I refuse to allow a player in this hobby(and at my table) who takes one thing and beats. it. into. the. ground.

If a player can't handle that, well friend, there are other tables to play at.

I think you might be talking about something completely different.

You don't like Drow or somesuch, and don't let your players play that kind of character because. Because it's overdone, or something? I don't have a clue as to what that has to do with Star Wars. (Incidentally, I don't like Star Wars-style Bounty Hunters (because they're overdone), and find minimal motivation to develop a Star Wars-style Bounty Hunter campaign, but I still had a Bounty Hunter PC.)

Players are not bad people out to cause grief for the GM like some kind of RPG **** Dastardly. Just immediately shooting down any slightly unusual idea that comes out of their mouth like they're ICBMs is unnesessary. At the very least the GM should be able to listen to the idea and consider it -- more than likely 60% of the concept is kosher, or at least a good base, and most of the things scrapped are due to actual impossibilities imposed by the rules than anything.

And yeah, most of that is hypothetical, but there are a lot of things people do in life that could hypothetically go anywhere (like yawning). If a GM really can't trust their players enough to just listen to a character concept, they must be the worst party in history.

Guess I should have used Snidely Whiplash as a simile instead...

Live underground, different skin tone, wait does that mean duergar or svirfneblin are also Chiss?

No, but Gamorreans are space-orcs

Live underground, different skin tone, wait does that mean duergar or svirfneblin are also Chiss?

No, but Gamorreans are space-orcs

More like space-porks!

Sorry, couldn't resist...

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/190220-new-species-balance/

He did a good job I think and shows how the whole concept can add to the game.

Live underground, different skin tone, wait does that mean duergar or svirfneblin are also Chiss?

No, but Gamorreans are space-orcs

More like space-porks!

Sorry, couldn't resist...

Dude, I forgive you! I almost made a Gamorrean character called Will Vibrospear who had an Obligation: Betrayal - Ripped off a guy named Frank Bacon. So...

This is spiraling quickly, isn't it?

It seems pretty clear that different tables have different views on it.

@RodianClone: You keep asking these open questions looking for responses, and then (either intentionally or not) seem to get pretty insulting to people that disagree with you with lines like:

I agree. Why kill the player`s creativity and fun?

If that's your position, then you have your answer to the the initial question in your OP/Title, and it sounds like you did even before you posted the original question. It's fairly disingenuous to invite community members to share their opinions if you're not going to argue with them about it.

Besides, if that's you're interpretation, fine, but you can't paint *every* case of saying "no" as "killing player creativity". If you don't believe players can be abusive of the "yes, and..." system and there's never a reason beyond "killing creativity" for a GM to say "no" then I envy you.

Despite the fact that you think :

GMs can improve game quality and experience by saying no to players. It's quite rude to use the unfair rhetoric you have (e.g. straw-manning his position as "killing player creativity") to belittle his opinion.

@2P51: Really?

Dude you can do whatever you like at your table, but in a game where every roll of the dice is supposed to be followed by spontaneity and creativity by the PCs in interpreting the results, being so obtuse about PCs wanting to dream up their own species in a galaxy of tens of millions of inhabited worlds makes you a bonafide buzzkill imo.

Everything above, plus he should be able to run his games and make rulings at his table however he wants. Nothing about that makes him a obtuse or a buzzkill.

Everything above, plus he should be able to run his games and make rulings at his table however he wants. Nothing about that makes him a obtuse or a buzzkill.

Never said he couldn't. Just said it sucks. Everything about his approach makes him an obtuse buzzkill imo. Obtuse meaning ignorant, and buzzkill meaning he who ruins people's fun for the sake of it.

The first two paragraphs, of the first CRB, in the section on selecting a species, use language like "billions of worlds" and "unlimited possibilities" as well as "the only limitation is imagination". This is what a PC reads and then Capt Party Pooper comes along with his Phasers set to "NO" and won't even have a conversation? Sorry you can think what you like LD, I stand by obtuse buzzkill, he is pouring a bucket of urine on his PC's heads for the sake of it, because the CRB is telling him the exact opposite.

Everything above, plus he should be able to run his games and make rulings at his table however he wants. Nothing about that makes him a obtuse or a buzzkill.

Never said he couldn't. Just said it sucks. Everything about his approach makes him an obtuse buzzkill imo. Obtuse meaning ignorant, and buzzkill meaning he who ruins people's fun for the sake of it.

The first two paragraphs, of the first CRB, in the section on selecting a species, use language like "billions of worlds" and "unlimited possibilities" as well as "the only limitation is imagination". This is what a PC reads and then Capt Party Pooper comes along with his Phasers set to "NO" and won't even have a conversation? Sorry you can think what you like LD, I stand by obtuse buzzkill, he is pouring a bucket of urine on his PC's heads for the sake of it, because the CRB is telling him the exact opposite.

Quoted for accuracy. I'm lumping myself in with Moon of Dalo because I've completely agreed with all of his points in the thread, and his approach appears to mirror mine.

I think this whole post is incredibly unfair for several reasons:

• It's full of rude and belittling name-calling (should be obvious)
• It massively misrepresents the opinions that MoD and I have presented here (no one ever stated "won't have a conversation", clearly stated "No isn't used with glee", etc)
• It passes extremely unfair judgement due to lack of evidence (No one here has sat at our tables, so how could you understand the results of his or my approach? How can you know the approach universally sucks?)
• It makes no attempt to consider the context (consideration of why, how, or when a player's species would be rejected)

Unfortunately this isn't a conversation, and hasn't been for sometime, so I'm out.

Everything above, plus he should be able to run his games and make rulings at his table however he wants. Nothing about that makes him a obtuse or a buzzkill.

Never said he couldn't. Just said it sucks. Everything about his approach makes him an obtuse buzzkill imo. Obtuse meaning ignorant, and buzzkill meaning he who ruins people's fun for the sake of it.

The first two paragraphs, of the first CRB, in the section on selecting a species, use language like "billions of worlds" and "unlimited possibilities" as well as "the only limitation is imagination". This is what a PC reads and then Capt Party Pooper comes along with his Phasers set to "NO" and won't even have a conversation? Sorry you can think what you like LD, I stand by obtuse buzzkill, he is pouring a bucket of urine on his PC's heads for the sake of it, because the CRB is telling him the exact opposite.

Ima an obtuse buzzkill who sucks, that's a new one.

Let me quote you something from the CRB under Recruiting Players pg.288

"...Gms and players should try to recruit others that they get along with and mesh well together. It's helpful if they enjoy similar play styles and have similar expectations about the game and how it will be played"

Everything above, plus he should be able to run his games and make rulings at his table however he wants. Nothing about that makes him a obtuse or a buzzkill.

Never said he couldn't. Just said it sucks. Everything about his approach makes him an obtuse buzzkill imo. Obtuse meaning ignorant, and buzzkill meaning he who ruins people's fun for the sake of it.

The first two paragraphs, of the first CRB, in the section on selecting a species, use language like "billions of worlds" and "unlimited possibilities" as well as "the only limitation is imagination". This is what a PC reads and then Capt Party Pooper comes along with his Phasers set to "NO" and won't even have a conversation? Sorry you can think what you like LD, I stand by obtuse buzzkill, he is pouring a bucket of urine on his PC's heads for the sake of it, because the CRB is telling him the exact opposite.

Quoted for accuracy. I'm lumping myself in with Moon of Dalo because I've completely agreed with all of his points in the thread, and his approach appears to mirror mine.

I think this whole post is incredibly unfair for several reasons:

• It's full of rude and belittling name-calling (should be obvious)
• It massively misrepresents the opinions that MoD and I have presented here (no one ever stated "won't have a conversation", clearly stated "No isn't used with glee", etc)
• It passes extremely unfair judgement due to lack of evidence (No one here has sat at our tables, so how could you understand the results of his or my approach? How can you know the approach universally sucks?)
• It makes no attempt to consider the context (consideration of why, how, or when a player's species would be rejected)

Unfortunately this isn't a conversation, and hasn't been for sometime, so I'm out.

Bye.