Oh, geez. I'm awful at improv. Have trouble thinking on my feet. I'm a schemer.

Then let your players help you and say things like "what do you think?" and "you tell me!"... Work with your players

Btw. how do you handle narrative dice if you can`t improv?

Oh, geez. I'm awful at improv. Have trouble thinking on my feet. I'm a schemer.

It's a skill like any other - I had to read up myself! The book that helped me make the transition is Play Unsafe by Graham Walmsley.

But I digress....

Btw. how do you handle narrative dice if you can`t improv?

Very carefully.

Seriously, it's not the easiest, but we're new at this game.

I let my player tell me what they want to do. What they want to use triumphs and advantages on. That's where maybe shines.

It's rather easy to use despair and the like.

Make improv aides and tools, like lists of npc names and such, maybe names of Cantinas or encounters you have planed and are easy to throw in most places. It is easir to improvise around something

Make improv aids, like lists of npc names and such, maybe names of Cantinas or encounters you have planed and are easy to throw in most places. It is easir to improvise around something

I prepare for everything!

Make improv aids, like lists of npc names and such, maybe names of Cantinas or encounters you have planed and are easy to throw in most places. It is easir to improvise around something

This is exactly what I do! That's what I meant by schemer! I have about a dozen minion groups, nemeses, shops, catinas, etc...

I prepare for everything!

I'm not sure I really understand "yes, and"

It's an improv thing

I'm so glad someone *else* said this, because yes, it's an Improv thing. And it seems to be a *fundamental* Improv 'thing'.

But here's the problem.

It's not an EotE thing.

The game is absolutely a cooperative narrative. But that is not the same as a fully improv performance, and saying "no" to occassional for good reason isn't antithetical to a cooperative narrative process.

At no point (at least none I'm aware of, and I've gone through the book) is EotE described as a 'yes and' system, despite claims to the contrary by the OP. Now, GroggyGolem did an excellent job on the front page of this thread pointing out some very relevant passages. I would add 'When the party goes off the rails" (p 293). The passage describes how GMs can handle the situation of the same name. GMs may either scrap everything and go with it, or do what's needed to bring the plot back "on rails". And it states:

"Neither approach is wrong, unless the players become unhappy with the outcome."

This requires the GM to use their judgement to keep everyone happy, both the players and themselves. The GM isn't omniscient, again we're not mind-readers, but the GM does have the best idea about what's going on. Sometimes the GM may judge the best way to keep the fun is to say "no".

And it's not as simple as Rodian would posit:

It should never be players vs gm! In those cases you don`t have a good game to start with!

In a good game, where everyonoe is playing fair, you should always "yes and..." for the best possible roleplaying game experience. Everyone is telling the story!

If players are being douchebags and are not playing fair, fulfilling their part of the unwritten contract of contributing to the fun and not trying to break the game,

of course the gm should say NO loud and clear, but I feel that is besides the point!

"Yes and..." only applies when everyone is playing fair!

There are times, other than unruly players, where saying "no" is in everyone's best interest. If the GM knows the players are interested in the story, but they try to use a Triumph or Destiny in a way that would horridly derail things and take forever or bizarre, difficult story telling to get back on track, 'no' is a better solution.

And back to my previous point, it's a judgement call!! Sometimes the GM is wrong, but that doesn't mean the solution is "the GM needs to say 'yes' more". That's an asinine and ignores hundreds of solutions where it just causes problems.

And because the GM has a way better handle on the story and plot and what's planned and all the points above, I can't comprehend how a player can presume to know better than the GM on how to handle any situation.

Also everything J37 said above.

This is where we disagree on what makes a good game, LD

And because the GM has a way better handle on the story and plot and what's planned and all the points above, I can't comprehend how a player can presume to know better than the GM on how to handle any situation.

Also, Rodian, I daresay that's hardly improv if you've planned it all out. Even if you leave space for new ideas.

And because the GM has a way better handle on the story and plot and what's planned and all the points above, I can't comprehend how a player can presume to know better than the GM on how to handle any situation.

This, right here, is important. I want my players to have fun and have awesome stories to tell, but as GM you have all the information. The dice throw curve balls, but you've got the bat to take care of them. If I say "No", my players know it's for a reason. They are more than welcome to ask why, but there is a reason

Also, Rodian, I daresay that's hardly improv if you've planned it all out. Even if you leave space for new ideas.

In terms of theatrical improv, most improv artists have some standard bits in their repertoire, allowing them to take some of the pressure off of themselves for a bit.

Or do we REALLY believe that all of the jokes on Whose Line Is It Anyway? were thought up right on the spot?

As someone who used to be a GM exclusively in various RPGs (mostly I'm just a player these days) I agree with LethalDose 100%. There are times when you just have to say no. Actually, you need to say it often. You're not an antagonist (although you control the antagonists, as well as NPC allies and neutral parties) and you're not competing with the players. But neither are you (usually) helping them. You're challenging them, giving them problems to overcome.

I think of the GM as a force of nature as it relates to the game world. You are the laws of physics, you determine consequences. You use your judgement to decide what happens. You have narrative control over the game. It's almost like you are the one person who can see through a magic periscope into an imaginary world that you have to describe to everyone.

EotE has mechanics to give players some narrative control at times, so it allows people to peek into that periscope now and then. But it doesn't go beyond that. The GM should collaborate with players on a macroscopic level, asking players what their characters' goals and motivations are and what kind of game they want to play, and work with that. But this isn't a total improv performance where people take turns controlling the story. Not completely anyway. The GM is going to be the main driver.

A player doesn't have to be a jerk for a GM to be justified in saying no, either. Not only is the GM interpreting the rules as written to decide what is and isn't permissible as a player action, but often the rules explicitly say it's up to the GM to decide on a particular point. For as much as the rules encourage player involvement in the narrative, they also lean on the GM more often than most games to make the call rather than following something mandated by the game designers. Just look at the FFG Developer Answered Questions thread and see how many times the answer to a question includes something saying that it's the GM's call.

@Nytwyng: Well... Thank you for destroying my childhood. I am now sad.

I did, in fact, think everything on Whose Line was off the top of their heads.

I'm not sure I really understand "yes, and"

It's an improv thing

I'm so glad someone *else* said this, because yes, it's an Improv thing. And it seems to be a *fundamental* Improv 'thing'.

But here's the problem.

It's not an EotE thing.

Let's be clear, it's not just this system - it's many and most roleplaying games that fall into this category. I'm of the mind that, like you, thinks gaming is not equivalent to improv. We're just adding some tools to the gm toolbox that is hopefully full of tools but never full.

If players can't change the outcome of the story or the story itself, then what is the point of playing? Couldn't they just listen to a story being read to them? They should have choices and be able to affect what is going on, not trying to make trouble or break the game of course, but they should feel that their choices and their characters are the story in a very real sense. And if improv isn't a part of Edge of the Empire, then what is the deal with rolling obligation in the beginning of the session to affect the story, letting narrative dice affect the story and letting players take narrative control with destiny point and to to a degree their choices and actions?

To me that is what makes this game so fun, but that is just me and my opinion I guess.

As long as you are having fun, I guess you are doing it right.

Of course gm's can say no Sometimes and have a lot of power in the story and game world, more than the players. But saying yes more than no enriches my game at least and I still create most of the world and the premiss for what the story can be, often based on character backgrounds, obligations and motivations.

Don't confuse saying it's not all inprov with saying there's no choice. And not just A or B either.

Playing by ear =/= Improv

Don't confuse saying it's not all inprov with saying there's no choice. And not just A or B either.

Playing by ear =/= Improv

Exactly. What RodianClone consistently presents is a classic false dichotomy. A GM that can say 'no' does not eliminate player agency.

Here's the difference between improv and EotE (and pretty much every other RPG I've run/played)...

GM: You're passing by the front of a building when a squad of Stormtroopers spot you and aim their weapons at you. Their leader demands that you halt.

EotE Player: I run into the building and try to hide, can I make a stealth check?

Improv Player: I run into the building and find out that the building is a water maintenance facility. I open a hatch into the sewer system and vanish into it, too quick for the Stormtroopers to find me.

Now, if the GM agreed to the stealth roll, and player rolled a Triumph, the GM may allow the player to propose that the building is indeed a water maintenance facility, and might allow him to enter the sewers through a hatch. But that's contingent on the GM allowing the stealth roll in the first place (after all the building might be locked, or the player may have to first outrun the troopers before getting a chance to hide). It also depends on the result of those dice, and finally the GM may decide that having a sewer system makes no sense in that area and gives the player an alternative to use and/or allow him to come up with something else.

I'm just clarifying what I mean when I say this isn't improv, I hope this makes sense.

A GM that can say 'no' does not eliminate player agency.

I think we can do better, though.

"Why would your character do that?"

and

"ಠ_ಠ"

are perfectly acceptable answers to idiotic behavior. If someone is just there to disrupt the game, perhaps they should be packing. If they're there to use their creative mind to mutually create a story, perhaps there is room for flexibility? Elimination is not equivalent to limiting, true, but they feel pretty similar to a player. There is a certain freedom to being able to jump in front of every zig and every zag because one prepped one's tools as well as one's story.

I incourage my players to come up with things like the water maintenance facility example. That doesn't mean they don't have to roll once or twice to get to the sewer or me saying "flip a point" if it's unlikely.

LD, I have said time and again that you can say NO at times, but I am more in the Yes camp. And of course gm's no doesn't take away all player choices, it just limits it a bit and makes the game more boring in my opinion if no is used more than yes and is the go-to answer for the gm.

I was in the gm-power camp with no in front for many years too. I get the thought behind it, it is how I learned gaming almost 20 years ago, from a very no-heavy gm. The power of no was good, it felt safe... years later I discovered a much scaryer, but also a much stronger power, the power of YES. And it made all my games so much better!...

Here's the difference between improv and EotE (and pretty much every other RPG I've run/played)...

GM: You're passing by the front of a building when a squad of Stormtroopers spot you and aim their weapons at you. Their leader demands that you halt.

EotE Player: I run into the building and try to hide, can I make a stealth check?

Improv Player: I run into the building and find out that the building is a water maintenance facility. I open a hatch into the sewer system and vanish into it, too quick for the Stormtroopers to find me.

Now, if the GM agreed to the stealth roll, and player rolled a Triumph, the GM may allow the player to propose that the building is indeed a water maintenance facility, and might allow him to enter the sewers through a hatch. But that's contingent on the GM allowing the stealth roll in the first place (after all the building might be locked, or the player may have to first outrun the troopers before getting a chance to hide). It also depends on the result of those dice, and finally the GM may decide that having a sewer system makes no sense in that area and gives the player an alternative to use and/or allow him to come up with something else.

I'm just clarifying what I mean when I say this isn't improv, I hope this makes sense.

I don't feel that's a fair portrayal of an improv player, I think that's just someone narrating ahead of their die rolls. A GM is completely empowered to allow it or say, "whoa, hold up, that'll be a 3 difficulty Stealth check to get past 'I run into the building'" - we're all telling the story here, the GM is there to make rulings on such things and should be calling for checks as appropriate. But let's not go overboard...

Here's the difference between improv and EotE (and pretty much every other RPG I've run/played)...

GM: You're passing by the front of a building when a squad of Stormtroopers spot you and aim their weapons at you. Their leader demands that you halt.

EotE Player: I run into the building and try to hide, can I make a stealth check?

Improv Player: I run into the building and find out that the building is a water maintenance facility. I open a hatch into the sewer system and vanish into it, too quick for the Stormtroopers to find me.

Now, if the GM agreed to the stealth roll, and player rolled a Triumph, the GM may allow the player to propose that the building is indeed a water maintenance facility, and might allow him to enter the sewers through a hatch. But that's contingent on the GM allowing the stealth roll in the first place (after all the building might be locked, or the player may have to first outrun the troopers before getting a chance to hide). It also depends on the result of those dice, and finally the GM may decide that having a sewer system makes no sense in that area and gives the player an alternative to use and/or allow him to come up with something else.

I'm just clarifying what I mean when I say this isn't improv, I hope this makes sense.

Here's the problem what this sentiment. Edge of the Empire encourages action like your Improv Player above used. For instance...

Improv Player: I run into the building and (flips Destiny Point) find out that the building is a water maintenance facility. I open a hatch into the sewer system and vanish into it, too quick for the Stormtroopers to find me.

GM: Make an Average Stealth check. Take a boost die for using the environment.

I Sometimes give boost dice for Cool narrative descriptions of actions and in rare cases an auto-success

Late to the party but my two cents:

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.

I have run into players (and I am not saying you fit this description) who try to mask beefing up certain stats and ignoring others by ensuring they never ever roll using the neglected stat. Even if the situation warranted it as a particular check. While I agree that if your roll is 1 green die in something your not always going to use that particular skill I always believe at some point those character flaws need to be explored. We have had some great table laughs when characters fail at things they are really bad at. I try to reserve this for situations where the overall impact of a failure isn't going to ruin the night. Not getting both sides of the example I could easily see where a GM could see a character throwing a datapad to the floor and then the check being made to stomp on it quickly, possibly before it comes to a full stop, while other people are scrambling for it and saying yeah this is hand eye coordination I am going with a coordination check. If in the answer back from my player the reasoning is "I am better at athletics can I use that?", then my answer is no. If they had said wait I am going to use my burly mass to charge through the grasping hands and bull the other pcs, npcs to the side I would have said sure roll it. I only point this out because you specifically say it seemed like he was trying to make you use a skill you were bad at. At my table the player tells me what they are doing and I assign the skill and roll. If they disagree they get one shot, usually signaled by me saying "okay convince me how you use that skill in this situation" then it's a clear yes or no.

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.

My caution here, which I am guilty of myself, is expecting another gm to gm the way I do. My group has two people who run games and often I find my disagreements with the GM are less about what he is doing and more that I want to play a character in game run by my clone. I want him to rule the same way I would, to find certain side stories or sandbox ideas engaging. I often find I have to remind myself to be grateful that I get to be a player and remember that I am part of his game rather than expect him to be an extension or opportunity to play like I were a character in my game. Different folks gm differently and I have found undercutting or questioning the other GM openly in the group to cause a lot of hurt feelings. Some of our players prefer my style and some prefer his style so having this discussion as a whole turns it into a heated debate. It is always better for us to talk offline and agree on how we both will call things.

In a good game, where everyonoe is playing fair, you should always "yes and..." for the best possible roleplaying game experience. Everyone is telling the story! [exception only made for players acting in an unfair matter]

I have said time and again that you can say NO at times, but I am more in the Yes camp. And of course gm's no doesn't take away all player choices, it just limits it a bit and makes the game more boring in my opinion if no is used more than yes and is the go-to answer for the gm.

You have time and time again completely different things. You keep changing your story. One time it's "Always yes, unless douchbags" other times, including here, its "Mostly Yes, at GMs discretion." You even explicitly disagreed with me above when I said there are reasons other than "douchebags" to say no.

It's whatever suits your argument. I would say choose a position and stop the condescension, but it's pointless to try to discuss it further.

PS I would get reported so fast for stating "Say no to players being douchebags" in this forum because it would be interpreted as calling players douchebags and I wasn't making nearly enough effort to be their dancing chimp. Enjoy your position on the privileged end of the community's double-standard.

I have run into players (and I am not saying you fit this description) who try to mask beefing up certain stats and ignoring others by ensuring they never ever roll using the neglected stat. Even if the situation warranted it as a particular check.

Yeah, this. Players that intentionally take dumps stats and then try to weasel out of using them when appropriate can be a serious pain.

*waits for anti-player accusations*