RPG Talk: I'll Allow It

I've been in two types of gaming environments: Those where the GM is a stickler for the rules and you can't do anything cool because it would impugn verisimilitude, and those where the GM allows any idea that sounds cool. Guess which one I prefer?

Of course, this is not as cut and dried as all that. You could allow ANY attempt, but make the difficulty number so high, it's really like saying no. The player in such circumstances may well not even make the attempt. This implies that "allowing" something that's a little bit outside the rules also requires the attempt is made "easier" than it would normally be. But if you allow everything, and everything is subsequently easier than the rules would admit, you're essentially stripping risk from the game. The paradox: By letting players make things more exciting in the moment, you're really making the game less exciting overall. Well, that's as maybe.

What you allow should really be a function of what you want to REWARD in the game, and this will depend on its genre, setting, and particular group of players. Superhero, pulp and hi-octane action games SHOULD allow "cool" moments where one uses their powers "creatively", or a crazy action beat is made easier to achieve, because that pushes the genre. Comic books and Indiana Jones movies aren't full of failures (but not lacking in them either). When the hero jumps for the rope collapsing rope bridge and hangs on during an entire fight, somehow, that's what the genre calls for. And often, it's true, such games will have mechanics that make the "allowance" for the GM (Hero Points of some kind that players can spend to make improbable actions more probable, deadly situations more survivable, and environments more interesting and useful.

But they don't always. And even when they do, that may not be your problem.

Whether it's you or the system that is accepting a player's premise (what you're asked to allow), the allowance should be seen as an encouragement to think in that way, and is therefore a tool to improve the players' understanding of what constitutes good gaming in any particular setting. For example, if your players are fallen into the dull combat rhythm of "I hit/shoot it", giving players who try something more strategic or spectacular bonuses to succeed will encourage more of that. If they still fail, try and still reward them by making their action change the situation enough that other PCs could take advantage, or at least making the failure entertaining. If it's a horror game and you DON'T want to reward fighting, reward players who craft interesting reasons why their character isn't killed by the monster, allowing stupidity, clumsiness and cowardice to save them in the moment, but put them into new danger. If it's a subtle spy or conspiracy game, allow them to make up details about clues and insert their conclusions into your game canon. You're teaching them how to play those games.

But beyond that, you're teaching them to play, PERIOD. So if they're too violent, allow interpersonal relations to work more effectively than weapons. If they're sociopaths, make it easier and more rewarding to save bystanders than to ignore them. If they meta-game too much, allow players to get away with pure role-playing moments that put the group at risk, and reward them with plot advancement. And there's the opposite, of course, which is making things harder if they're not conducive to good gaming. Punish the violent psychopaths, the meta-gamers, the lazy fighters, the party splitters, the time-wasting interactors, and the min/maxers if they're disruptive at your table. But then reward those who play well by allowing them to do more than they should.

Most games have a reward system built-in - whether experience point or gifted Hero Points - which push genre emulation and "good play". These systems decide/propose what should be IMPORTANT to the PCs in any given game. That said, I think it's only part of the incentive. "Allowing" a player's premise and making it affordable incentivizes the behavior BEFORE and DURING the game, rather than after the fact. And ultimately, it always pushes players to think more creatively, which makes for more entertaining and memorable games for everyone. If it doesn't fit the genre or setting, by all means, say no, but perhaps offer an alternative that DOES fit, nudging players closer to what's required.

So you said "yes" to something. It's just a game. What does a GM have to lose?