So I have been role-playing with the same group for a while now, and though it has been fun, I have noticed a recurring problem; our GM is very quick to say no.

Here a three examples from last session alone:

-I wanted to use athletics instead of coordination to quickly smash a data pad on the ground, to which he immediately said no.

-I wanted to use a triumph generated on a check to find jobs on cloud city to have there be a cook position available, as cooking is my character's former job and passion, to which he said no. Keep in mind I was looking to potentially retire the character here, as he is an ughnaught and it would make sense to have him stay with his kind on cloud city, but I would only have done that if he could have been a cook--but our GM still said no.

-I wanted I gamble in the casinos on cloud city as I had just bought the gambler spec--to which the GM said no as he wanted to get on with he main story.

I could list even more examples. Keep in mind I have nothing against said GM as a person, and he is a very good GM on other regards. But how can I give him constructive criticism in his area, and explain how this is a 'yes, and' system with references from the rulebooks?

Hell I wouldn't have called for a check to break a datapad, I'd just let you do that. A roll seems silly.

I have no idea why he'd say no to the second option.

I could see not wanting gambling at the time, but we did a casino night one night's session and it was fun, so maybe no, not now, but we'll do a casino night/scenario next week.

I don't like to second guess other GM's as until you speak to them you truly never know the logic of why something happened in a game the way it did. As such I generally respect a GM's no even if I wouldn't have ruled that way in the same situation. After all the book recommends Yes and .... but it also happens to say the GM's word is final.

Thus the solution I would go with is simply sit down with the GM and let him know how frustrating you find his constant nos to be. That's really all you can do. You could bring up the "yes and" stuff but I don't picture that going anywhere positive. Instead of trying to make the GM game a certain way by "rules lawyering" him with what the book says you're better off just letting him know how the way he runs his game makes you feel. If he isn't willing to change his GM style because you're not enjoying it as much then the book route is going to hit a brick wall too.

Smashing a datapad: If you were in structured time and had to do it as an action, possibly in order to prevent anyone from learning what was on the datapad, I'd call for a check to see exactly how thoroughly it was broken. Other than that I can't imagine a single reason why I would ever waste time on a roll for something so trivial.

No cooking jobs: I'm stumped. I don't see why this would be a thing at all.

No gambling: This one I can understand - if the GM wants the adventure to keep moving at a steady pace you don't want to get bogged down in lots of extra-curricular activities. I can understand why you'd want to go gambling with your new spec, and I might have considered giving you a quick roll or two to illustrate an evening spent at the tables, but any sort of more in-depth casino scene could easily derail that evening's session and leave everyone else around the table with nothing to do but watch you roll dice.

Aside from the rule book, really just sit down and be calm and open about the situation. One on one might be better to address it and in person as well, due to the potential for misunderstanding with text-based forms of communication.

"Recently when we've been playing, a lot of player ideas are met with a response of no. We know you have an awesome story planned for us and we are excited to experience it. However, this is supposed to be a cooperative story we're all telling and at the moment it feels a little one-sided. Is it possible you could allow some of the ideas the players come up with, even if it is different from your plan? This is, of course, within reason."

All taken from the Edge of the Empire Core Rule Book

Page 8 under "The Game Master" has some good stuff on the role of the Game Master in the game, just be wary that your GM, if feeling personally slighted by your constructive criticism, might use the last few sentences against you (they talk about the GM rulings being final).

Pages 27-28 talk about the narrative uses of the Destiny Point, further showing that yes, the players should usually be able to do things they want to do.

Page 287 starts the chapter on The Game Master and has a great few sentences in there: "GM and player cooperation creates the best environment for an entertaining game. Great ideas from any of the participants should not be overlooked."

Page 288 has a great little boxed section called "Fun First, Rules Second!"

Pages 315-316 further show through the Destiny Point rules that it's not just the GM's story but a story told by everyone participating; everyone should have moments to add to the story.

I would advise against trying to quote the rulebook for support on this point.

Firstly, the GM's word IS law, no matter what the rulebook says. The Golden Rule works just as much for GMs who say "no" as those who say "yes."

Secondly, trying to prove this particular point by using "the rules" is very likely to backfire and turn the game into "nothing happens unless you can show me a rule that says you can do it." For a GM who already says "no" to a lot of pointless stuff (and he DOES seem to do that, based on the examples given), this could potentially even cripple or kill the campaign.

I agree with the idea of talking to him, openly and honestly. I agree with the idea of making your feelings known. But I would strongly recommend couching this conversation in terms of opinion and human emotion, rather than rules and "what the publishers intended." If your GM can't be budged from his current position, perhaps you should offer to run the next game and lead by example instead.

^ I mostly agree with Steve-O's comments. I only provided book references because they were requested. I know I as a GM would prefer the players just come and talk to me about it personally before going into rule book quoting, though either way I would take it into consideration.

Thanks a bunch for these suggestions. I agree, it's probably not a great idea to use rules for justification. So I will just tell him that constantly saying no is pretty frustrating and probably not going to be the greatest option.

Just FYI, don't interpret the examples given as me trying to second guess every GM decision, just a few things among many more that K personally found annoying.

Steve’s right — were it me, I would phrase my comments along the lines of the way the responses make me feel, like somehow I’m playing the game wrong or something.

So long as you keep it entirely at the “feelings” level, and you keep any apparent blame on yourself, you’re much more likely to get a sympathetic response from the other party.

The first one, I don't know why it was even bothered to be tested but I fully support a GM calling for a very specific check on key things. If you don't some skills never get used and become afterthoughts.

The second one, really might be on you, judging by the limited info you gave us. If you were looking to start a new character, did the GM know this before hand? If he didn't did you bring it up when he said "no" as the reason why you thought this would be a good ending point for your current character? If the GM didn't know any of this I could see how he might think it was a waste of a triumph and/or time. If he did, while I would never say to argue with your GM, it might have been a good time to emphasize just how much you want this character to have a chance to end his story and for you to make a new character. Side question, what did you use the triumph for?

Like everyone else, I completely get the "no" on the third one. If I were you, I would have asked "if not now, could I get to gamble at some point in the story."

You cannot do it all the time, but sometimes you should demand a justification immediately, even if it means halting the game. Especially if you can make a good justification for your view. The smashing the datapad is a good example. If you say:'I am smashing the datapad to the ground with all the force of my body', that is not a Coordination check. If it is:'I toss the datapad into the disintigrator from across the room' that is.

The second example is the example I am really talking about tho. If you are planning on retiring the character, and you see a good way to do that, then the GM should have to come up with a very good reason to shoot it down, and if he cant, you should call him on that. To the point of 'I gather everyone around me and set off my thermal detonator' sort of calling him. On the other hand 'I dont want to take the rest of our game session for you to make your new character and then integrate him into the group. I want to actually have the whole group play' is a perfectly fine justification.

The last example is a good case of 'Ask the GM after'. I can very easily see it just being that roll playing some gambling could have been very boring and frustrating for the GM. He is there to have fun too.

As for the idea of quoting the rulebook to try to force him to your point of view, I think that is a bad idea. If you did it to me, I would get pissed off and simply say: 'That rule no longer applies in my game'. If the issue was pressed further, I would simply say that my game no longer exists. Problem solved. Happy? I have actually done that one before. As a matter of fact, it was why I stopped running 4e D&D.

-I wanted to use athletics instead of coordination to quickly smash a data pad on the ground, to which he immediately said no.

Okay, that's just lunacy. Why roll at all? I mean if it were an armored MacGuffin or something out of the ordinary, yeah I could see that. But just busting an iPad? Just dropping it might have done the trick.

How to solve this problem? No idea - although I would be seriously tempted to F with the GM. He calls for a climbing roll to get up a cliff? Try and use Survival to find a path up. He asks for a hide roll to hide in a warehouse? Say "I want to use athletics to pry open a crate so I can stash myself in there."

This is passive aggressive. Don't do this. It would however, be fun.

-I wanted to use a triumph generated on a check to find jobs on cloud city to have there be a cook position available, as cooking is my character's former job and passion, to which he said no.

Okay, this guy is just a sh*tty GM. Seriously, what justification does he have for that? It's not derailing the game, it's building a plot off a characters backstory, this is a win all around.

-I wanted I gamble in the casinos on cloud city as I had just bought the gambler spec--to which the GM said no as he wanted to get on with he main story.

Okay, question for you. Does the GM give the players time to do things on their own, outside of the story. When I GM, even though I have an adventure all written out, I'll usually lead the session off with some "away from the plot" time, where the player can go shopping, go decompress at the beach, look up old love interests, do research on Backstory Specific Stuff or otherwise behave like real life people with real lives.

Or is your GM the sort who from the second the books come out of the bag to the time the very last Cheetos are being cleaned up is all "STORY! STORY! STORY! DO THIS THING I WROTE! NO DEVIATION ALLOWED! STORY! STORY!"

If it's the second, if he's all business from the first dice roll, you might talk to him about some character goals. "Hey man, I was hoping to see if I can hang out in Mos Eisley, comb the underworld for leads on my kidnapped father. Do you we can get some time away from the main story arc?"

If he's the first, then I stand by my statement that he's a sh*tty GM.

Okay--the examples I gave were, again, just small things that have built up to to lead to frustration, not major problems to be analyzed and picked apart. I will, however, just quickly explain them so you all can fully understand the situations

First one: there were multiple people trying to pick up this data pad before I could get to it, which is what called for the roll.

Second one: We have been running this edge campaign for a while, so this is my first ever character. He is, therefore, rather sloppily put together from a mechanical standpoint (though he is narratively very fun to play). I have now played edge for years, so I've learned a lot about how to make good characters; thus, it has long been a consideration of mine to retire the character. At the laid out juncture, we had just finished a 10+ session adventure that has totals dozens of hours of play, so it seemed an opportune time to end this character's run. We were on cloud city where I was surrounded by fellow Ughnaughts, I had just brought my obligation down, and I could potentially find a job as a cook here providing closure. I'm not sure, though, if the GM knew my intentions fully, but I do think I explained myself. Regardless, he didn't let me use the triumph that way. I think he really didn't thin it through, but this is the one that really irked me.

Third one: I understand that he was justified on this one, though it would have been nice to get to use my new spec.

In response to Desslok, this GM really isn't a bad GM. He makes mistakes as we all do, so the intention of my post was to figure out how to make him even better. But to specifically respond to what you asked, he is not a strict 'stick to the story' GM, though he has been getting stricter. I think this is because we did practically nothing to advance the plot in quite a few sessions, so I think he is slightly overcompensating for that.

At this point, I think I know to just explain my personal beef with this way he has been handling certain things, and that it would be more fun for me if he did 'yes, and' more often. If you all have anything more to add to that, comments are appreciated.

1) Do your gm like listening to podcasts?

2) Do you want to gm the next game?

1) He does not have the time to listen to podcasts most of the time, as he is very busy.

2) I am actually GMing a group with most of the people from the campaign he is GMing, including him, so I'm perfectly fine with him being the GM of this one.

I am going to swim upstream a bit and say that I think you should talk to your GM about all the "no's" he gave you.

If you are on Cloud City and bought into a gambling spec (and provided there is no urgency in the plot at that time) then he should always say "yes" to such a request. There is absolutely no reason to railroad the adventure into "keeping the story movie" he is the GM and should provide you with the urgency to want to keep the story moving (I reckon you didn't request to go gambling midway through a chase or a shooting). For all I care he could make the gambling session a plot point around which things pertaining to the story happen.

It is extremely easy to reskin an encounter or plot point in this system.

I would say absolutely yes to the two last ones. I see no reason to say no to anything the players would find intresting or make them exighted. To hell with the adventure, the job or mission if the players find other things more enjoyable! I don't even know why you had to roll to smash the data-pad. Was it an armored version?...

Ok, if you are a GM for these guys too, just show him how you would do it and have fun with it! Be careful about how you do it if you do decide to confront him about it though!

The other GM in our group is kind of like that. Partly it's because he honed his skills back in the "antagonistic" days, where GMs were practically trying to kill off the PCs, and PCs were always trying to outthink and "win" vs the GM. So it's a defensive reflex. The other reason is when he's overwhelmed with requests and/or just plain tired.

First one: there were multiple people trying to pick up this data pad before I could get to it, which is what called for the roll.

Personally I would have allowed what you're asking for, but to play devil's advocate on this one: I don't know how often your players have their PCs try to one-up each other. I don't mind a little PC rivalry, so if it was once in a blue moon where there's a situation like everyone was trying to smash the datapad, then I'd be plenty flexible, because it could be amusing. But if I had to face a constant contest between PCs to move the story along it would get irritating ("I loot the stormtroopers", "No, I loot them faster!"). I'd probably at some point just bypass the whole thing and say something like "somebody smashed it, I don't care who, and...everybody roll Vigilance..."

About the datapad: The full situation was I was insulted by a guy who we were stuck with on a starship, so my buddy swiped his datapad. Someone else noticed and told the guy, who then demanded the datapad back. So, my buddy threw it on the ground and I was going to smash it before anyone else could get to it.

I quickly realized that my buddy and I were being huge jerks, so I ended up not even doing the roll, but still. I was more irked about the fact that my GM wouldn't let me use athletics, since he seemed to be trying to make me use a skill that I'm bad at just because I was bad at it. But again, that's just my interpretation of his intentions. I don't know what his motivations were behind the decision.

I guess I'll just try my best to say yes and be accommodating towards the GM when the roles are swapped, and see if he enjoys that method as a player.

Oh no, I GM that used the dreaded n-word to prevent his players from running rough-shod over him and to keep the story moving.

Truly, you are the victim here, OP. You poor beleaguered player...

Now, now - mind the snark. Those werent that unreasonable of a request. Okay, Item Two was perhaps expressed to the GM poorly, that the player wanted to move his character in that direction, but Point One - if you can justify the skill for a task, you can use it - is pretty baked into the engine's DNA. Point Three, a gambler in Space Las Vegas? Hell, as a GM I would go out of my way to make sure there was some gambling! That's be like sending an Outlaw Tech to the Garbage Planet of Junkeion and telling them "No, I don't have space in the story for you to go to a junk yard!"

Yuzzum, it sounds like you just need to have a heart to heart with your GM, away from the table (go buy him a beer at a local pub one weeknight or something). Express your concerns, tell him your frustrations and say here is what I invision for the game. If he's at all reasonable, that should sort matters out.

Now, now - mind the snark. Those werent that unreasonable of a request. Okay, Item Two was perhaps expressed to the GM poorly, that the player wanted to move his character in that direction, but Point One - if you can justify the skill for a task, you can use it - is pretty baked into the engine's DNA. Point Three, a gambler in Space Las Vegas? Hell, as a GM I would go out of my way to make sure there was some gambling! That's be like sending an Outlaw Tech to the Garbage Planet of Junkeion and telling them "No, I don't have space in the story for you to go to a junk yard!"

Ok, show of hands. Who else "heard" that in John Oliver's voice?

That's be like sending an Outlaw Tech to the Garbage Planet of Junkeion and telling them "No, I don't have space in the story for you to go to a junk yard!"

Ok, show of hands. Who else "heard" that in John Oliver's voice?

Win.

Now, now - mind the snark. Those werent that unreasonable of a request. Okay, Item Two was perhaps expressed to the GM poorly, that the player wanted to move his character in that direction, but Point One - if you can justify the skill for a task, you can use it - is pretty baked into the engine's DNA. Point Three, a gambler in Space Las Vegas? Hell, as a GM I would go out of my way to make sure there was some gambling! That's be like sending an Outlaw Tech to the Garbage Planet of Junkeion and telling them "No, I don't have space in the story for you to go to a junk yard!"

You want to go point-by-point on why this needs snark? Fine.

-I wanted to use athletics instead of coordination to quickly smash a data pad on the ground, to which he immediately said no.

Well the OP later admits he was doing this out of spite and being a tool. Pay attention, there's a pattern here...

-I wanted to use a triumph generated on a check to find jobs on cloud city to have there be a cook position available, as cooking is my character's former job and passion, to which he said no. Keep in mind I was looking to potentially retire the character here, as he is an ughnaught and it would make sense to have him stay with his kind on cloud city, but I would only have done that if he could have been a cook--but our GM still said no.

Wow, intentionally vague much? Possible/probable scenario:

Player : "I use Skulduggery to open a lock" *rolls*

Player: " Oh wow, I got a triumph. I want to use it to find a job on Cloud City"

GM: "No, that has nothing to do with the skulduggery check and derails the plot."

Player: *starts petulant thread on forums*

Substitute any other action that has nothing to do with job hunting and this 'no' makes perfect sense, even in the face of "I was looking to retire ..." While not impossible, there are few rolls where that would be an appropriate use of a triumph.

-I wanted I gamble in the casinos on cloud city as I had just bought the gambler spec--to which the GM said no as he wanted to get on with he [sic] main story.

Does this even bear discussion? "I wanna gamble" is the one of the classic time wastes players try to pull in basically every RPG system, possibly second only to whores. Good on the GM for shutting it down before it happens.

So you've got a player basically 1) being obnoxious to NPCs (or maybe a PC, OP isn't clear), 2) potentially twisting rules 3) trying waste party time and getting in the way of narrative progress. Pattern.

Once again a player trying to use some imagined expectation that the GM is required to say "Yes, and..." as an excuse to violate Wheaton's rule .

I could list even more examples.

And if these are the best ones he's got, the problem here sure ain't the GM... maybe the snark will point out he should examine his own behavior before starting passive-aggressive threads tearing down his GM.

Ok, show of hands. Who else "heard" that in John Oliver's voice?

Well, I didnt until just now. . . . .

Wow, intentionally vague much? Possible/probable scenario:

Player: "I use Skulduggery to open a lock"

*rolls*

Player: "Oh wow, I got a triumph. I want to use it to find a job on Cloud City"

GM: "No, that has nothing to do with the skulduggery check and derails the plot."

Player: *starts petulant thread on forums*

Well, depends - he did say that he was looking for a job (presumably some kind of streetwise, I assume?) and came up with the triumph. If he was scouring the job notices on Space Craigslist, it's not unreasonable to come up with a "Hey! They're hiring chiefs at Cafe Le Swank!" result.

But yeah, I agree. If he was shooting at someone or something not streetwise, looking for job related (say, your picking a lock or shooting someone) you shouldn't be able to spin the triumph into something that doesn't make sense, story-wise.

Mind you, if I was looking to retire the character, I would approach the GM, tell him my intent and if he could work an appropriate climax and exit into the story and not rely on a roll. But there's no reason that the player couldn't jump on random happenstance.

Does this even bear discussion? "I wanna gamble" is the one of the classic time wastes players try to pull in basically every RPG system, possibly second only to whores.

It really depends on the circumstances, doesn't it? If there's nothing time senstive going on, if there's no pressing need, of course he's going to try and get into a card game. That's kind of the entire point of having a career called "Gambler", after all. If the GM didnt want the player occasionally wasting time playing Sabbacc, he should have disallowed the archetype.

Now if the party was balls-deep into the plot, with half an hour to save the princess before a bomb goes off or something, yeah - that's not the time to go gambling. But if they had just arrived, if there was nothing happening at the moment that demanded the party's attention, why not?

Dude--why are you being so snarky and aggressive? The purpose of this topic was to get comments on how I can give my GM constructive criticism on something that has been annoying me for a while. I have said this multiple times, and I'll say it again; My examples aren't huge things that have had me in tears or anything, they're just little things that, when combined with previous experiences, make me feel that there is a problem.

Passive aggressive threads? Again, MY GM IS NOT BAD! He is a very good friend, and I just wanted advice on how to give him constructive criticism. I find it rich that you accuse ME of being aggressive, when you're the one a) taking time out of your day to tear someone down just because they had the nerve to ask about how to give effective advice and b) attacking someone you don't even know and assuming they are an obnoxious, rule bending player! For the record, the check with the triumph was a check that was explicitly to see what kind of jobs were available, not a skullduggery check as you so ignorantly assumed. Also, as others have pointed out, when you are on cloud city, just bought the gambler spec, just finished the adventure, and so there was no real adventure going on, is it not fair to ask if you could gamble?

Look--you are probably a great guy, but I don't appreciate your ignorant, assuming attacks. Please bring them elsewhere.