-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*

I think you missed that the check was for a job hunt. So a Triumph there for the job of a type the character wants (assuming the check is also a net success) is totally legit.

So I would have ruled differently at my table, given the information presented. It seems like there's a disconnect at the Session Zero level - clearly the GM expects everyone to stay on the train and choo-choo on through his story. There's nothing wrong with that if that's what everyone wants. However, it seems like you're trying to go off script and that's not sitting right. I'm not convinced this can be successfully and quickly fixed in-game, it seems to warrant a quick side-chat before the next session.

It's definitely a good tactic for a GM to present challenges that can't be solved with the PC's exemplary skills, but rewarding a player for coming up with a clever solution to a problem is also a good tactic that should be encouraged.

Finally, if a player is trying to build the story, I see little reason to deny it unless it is completely bonkers. If it messes with my story, GOOD! The way I have fun is by collaborating at the table. But that's our idea of fun and not everyone's - so it pays to make sure everyone expects the same thing.

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...

... You don`t sound like a no-man at all!

He said your game was fun though. Lighten up

Aaaaannnnd this is why I hate second guessing another GM without first talking to them.

So a Triumph there for the job of a type the character wants (assuming the check is also a net success) is totally legit.

Who needs a success?

"Guys? I have good news and bad news. The bad news is that we'll need to come up with another way to pay back Zorba the Hutt that half million credits. The good news is my interview at Cafe Le Swank is next week!"

-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*

I think you missed that the check was for a job hunt. So a Triumph there for the job of a type the character wants (assuming the check is also a net success) is totally legit.

Yup, mea culpa on this one, I misread that. I read this sentence as the triumph was used to find jobs, not the check. If the check to find a job was allowed and appropriate, who gives a crap what the job is.

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.

I'm snarky and aggressive because I'm f*cking tired of the complaints about GMs saying 'no'.

GM's should say no when it's appropriate. End of line. The concept that the GM is somehow obliged to say 'Yes and' instead of 'No' to anything by RAW or culture or spirit or style or any other reason is BS.

The crux of your OP is that the GM says 'no' and then explained several good reasons for the GM to say no. So yeah, I'm going to aggressive attack any complaint or post or whatever you want to call it that supports undermining the GM's ability to handle a game however they see fit. Whatever else you say, the facts remain:

• The title of the thread you started is "GM keeps saying no"
• You called 'saying no' a problem
• You spent 80% of the OP describing 'problems' with a GM saying no.

The meaning and intent of this thread is perfectly clear. And just because you say it's not complaining, or even not intending to complain, doesn't mean you aren't (A classic analogy is provided. No disrespect).

Giving constructive criticism in the game is no different than doing anywhere else in life.

Aaaaannnnd this is why I hate second guessing another GM without first talking to them.

Exactly.

If a GM says no, then they did it for a reason. "Yes, and..." be damned.

The Coordination roll bothers me. My PC has a pretty good Coordination score, and gets a boost die from Stalker, so I have to keep reminding my GM that the skill exists because he defaults to asking for Athletics rolls for everything. (In his defense we only play once a month or less often and play other systems too so remembering every skill each time we play isn't easy.) But I'll admit that Coordination, by its description, is pretty narrow. It's used for situations that require balance and/or flexibility. Unless you had an unstable floor or the datapad was in a location that required you to contort yourself to reach it, I can't see the skill applying. I'd have suggested Athletics for grabbing it, and some kind of attack roll to destroy it (Brawl or maybe Melee as an improvised weapon) if a roll was needed at all for either action.

I know I'm nit-picking and this is a slight hijack but it still irked me a bit.

Dude, if you hate the idea that it is more fun for the players when the GM says 'yes, and' instead of 'no', fine. You're entitled to your opinion. I guess I just don't understand why you are so viciously attacking me. Im not saying the GM should never say no, but in the situations described, I thought it would have been more fun had he said yes. This doesnt apways apply, but here I feel it did.

Yes, most of the OP was spent describing frustrations, but that really was just to give context. And no, giving criticism is not always the same. Here, I was kindly informed that the best way to go about it was to not use the rules, but rather just give my own experiences and frustrations. I really didn't want this to turn into complaining about the GM, but rather how to improve an already good one. Please stop trying to tell me my intentions.

I'd just chat with your GM outside of session about stuff you'd like to do with your PC during session so they can try and incorporate it.

Good idea. I'll just tell him everything, and how I'd prefer he do it next time. Role-playing is about having fun, so if saying yes more often would be more fun for more players, I think it'd be a good idea in this instance. End of story.

Dude, if you hate the idea that it is more fun for the players when the GM says 'yes, and' instead of 'no', fine. You're entitled to your opinion. I guess I just don't understand why you are so viciously attacking me. Im not saying the GM should never say no, but in the situations described, I thought it would have been more fun had he said yes. This doesnt apways apply, but here I feel it did.

Yes, most of the OP was spent describing frustrations, but that really was just to give context. And no, giving criticism is not always the same. Here, I was kindly informed that the best way to go about it was to not use the rules, but rather just give my own experiences and frustrations. I really didn't want this to turn into complaining about the GM, but rather how to improve an already good one. Please stop trying to tell me my intentions.

More fun for the players does not mean more fun for the GM, and the GM is also there to have fun. Some times the GM should say no. Spending half the game session at the gambling tables could be extremely boring for the GM

Dude, if you hate the idea that it is more fun for the players when the GM says 'yes, and' instead of 'no', fine.

The problem is that idea is treated as if it is a truth when it really is not. It's just one way to game. One of many. But when a person comes in and ask how he can make his GM bend to his players will irrespective of what the GM may be thinking and feeling you're going to ultimately rub some people the wrong way. And to be honest your initially post did come off as asking for people to tell you how to make your GM behave a certain way.

I understand. I think there is a good middle ground between letting the players do what they want and sticking to the story without leeway. Perhaps I lean too much one way, I admit that. But I Just hope you all realize that some people do lean too far the other way as well.

I understand. I think there is a good middle ground between letting the players do what they want and sticking to the story without leeway. Perhaps I lean too much one way, I admit that. But I Just hope you all realize that some people do lean too far the other way as well.

Well sure some do lean too far the other way. But that isn't an inherently bad thing. Some groups work amazingly well that way.

True. So I guess to each group their own. Whatever works best for each party.

If you're not complaining because you claim you're not complaining, then I'm not attacking you because I say I'm not attacking you. Everything I've said isn't an attack or complaint because I said so.

Not a very convincing argument, is it?

My advice to you, whether you see it as advice or an attack, stands as it has in my previous posts: look at your *own* behavior first. Look at your 'problem' through the lens of your GM's perspective. GM's typically *hate* to say no to players. Maybe your GM already *is* saying yes as much as he possibly can, so why is it that it's not as much as you'd like? Can you you modify your behavior to enable the GM to be more permissive? Is your play dominating the time and action at the table, or is everyone getting equal roughly equal time in the spotlight? Are you consistently helping move the story along or are you playing 'in character' regardless of what helps the plot.

If you change your behavior to work with your GM to build the plot as much as you think your GM is supposed to work with you, you'll very likely some change. If, after multiple sessions with your modified play style, you think you're GM *still* needs to be more permissive then any criticism will go over *way* better because you've already shown you're trying to work with them.

I expect when/if you start trying to facilitate *everyone* at the table having fun, including the GM, instead of expecting the GM to cater your entertainment, you'll see substantial change. Or you can ask "Why should I change, he's the one with the problem".

These points are similar, if not identical to, those made by Kael and Korjick above. Take them however you want.

Oh, and if you want me to

Please stop trying to tell me my intentions.

Maybe you should stop grossly misrepresenting anything I say:

Dude, if you hate the idea that it is more fun for the players when the GM says 'yes, and' instead of 'no', fine.

I've never said I hate this, or anything even remotely like it. I hate the idea that something is fun to players? Bantha please. The only post I have that's even remotely close is:

I'm snarky and aggressive because I'm f*cking tired of the complaints about GMs saying 'no'.

GM's should say no when it's appropriate. End of line. The concept that the GM is somehow obliged to say 'Yes and' instead of 'No' to anything by RAW or culture or spirit or style or any other reason is BS.

And that's a hell of a stretch to what you claim my opinion is. Straight up fabricating this crap isn't going help make your point.

Although to be fair - coming from someone who has no skin in this game - you did kind of lead off with a pretty rough post. The points may have been valid, but the tone was extremely 'in your face'.

Although to be fair - coming from someone who has no skin in this game - you did kind of lead off with a pretty rough post. The points may have been valid, but the tone was extremely 'in your face'.

He did choose the moniker "LethalDose"...

At first I thought Lethaldose WAS the GM in this guy's game. THEN he would have had a reason to be this pedantic, rude and harsh. Now? Not so much.

Wait--it's a stretch to interpret you saying the concept that GMs should say 'yes and' instead of no is bs as you hating that concept? Gee, I wonder how I made that mistake.

Look, whatever works for you works for you. If it's more fun for your party for the GM to say no, great, that's what works well for you. But here, I know myself and others in the party have had less fun due to the GM not saying yes and more often. That's not to say I don't want everyone at the table to have fun; I hope everyone has the most fun possible, which is why I wanted to get advice on how to address this.

I understand you disagree, and that's fine, run things at your table the way you like. Just please stop with your aggressive, vicious attacks. You're kind of coming across as a total jerk.

Although to be fair - coming from someone who has no skin in this game - you did kind of lead off with a pretty rough post. The points may have been valid, but the tone was extremely 'in your face'.

Okay, well, counter-point:

I don't care.

I don't care if other users think my tone is too harsh and I don't care if they disagree with me.

I've tried on these forums to be diplomatic and gently make points. In response, I've been insulted, slandered, harassed (publicly and via PM), and mocked. I've had individual users try to get mobs to report me in attempts to get me banned.

So I'm done being nice. There's no reason to avoid belligerence if I'll be met immediately with belligerence. I'll express my viewpoint as I see fit in the language of this forum.

Wait--it's a stretch to interpret you saying the concept that GMs should say 'yes and' instead of no is bs as you hating that concept? Gee, I wonder how I made that mistake.

Look, whatever works for you works for you. If it's more fun for your party for the GM to say no, great, that's what works well for you. But here, I know myself and others in the party have had less fun due to the GM not saying yes and more often. That's not to say I don't want everyone at the table to have fun; I hope everyone has the most fun possible, which is why I wanted to get advice on how to address this.

I understand you disagree, and that's fine, run things at your table the way you like. Just please stop with your aggressive, vicious attacks. You're kind of coming across as a total jerk.

I gave you the advice you asked for. You've decided to continue to whine about attacks. Your problem, not mine.

Are those really your experiences? I am surprised to hear this to be honest...

I also wonder if anyone else has those experiences on these boards? I don't recognize this to be honest, sure there is the heated argument every now and then but on the whole I have not been to this place you are now aluding to.

Either way, I think if multiple people harrassed you like that (I am unaware of the numbers, reasons or otherwise) and your response is to do the same to others then you deserve all the stink you get.

Edit: Plus, of course, on top of all that, you are wrong in your argument here to begin with.

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?

Just jumping in here while tensions are high to offer my pov as GM...

1 - As GM I try to avoid the players telling me what skill they want to roll. I make the player tell me the ACTION they want their character to perform FIRST. Then I as the GM tell them the necessary skill. If they do not like it they have 2 seconds to explain why they should use the other skill. So If I were your GM I may have called for Coordination also because the owner of the datapad may have been going for it also. If they player was really fighting me on it I would say Agility and ranks in Athletics then.

2 - If you had explained to me as you did in post #13 then I would have allowed it as GM. But maybe had it take effect at the end of the session so you could still participate in that nights session instead of going off and rolling a new character distracting from the game.

3 - I would trust that my GM would give me those opportunities as they came. But sounds like your GM could be a bit more forth coming with reasons in general.

As everyone else has said it simply sounds like a communication issue on both sides. So go communicate!

It looks like one of headache posters may be trying to respond.

Hey DanteRotterdam, as per recommendations of this forum's moderators, YOU ARE STILL ON IGNORE.

You're staying there. I'm sure I'm not missing anything of substance.