I've been plugging away at Song of Ethera (see [URL=http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=13729]Core Mechanics[/URL] and [URL=http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=13611]Preliminary Notes[/URL]), and there's one problem I've run into that I'm not sure how to resolve.

The resolution system doesn't have failure encoded. It has "Yes, and"; "Yes"; and "Yes, but". I did this because I want good ideas to automatically succeed. The problem is that at the moment, there's no way of establishing if something is a good idea.

My first thought was to give the GM some veto power to declare when the use of a specialization is ridiculous or makes no sense, but that's what would probably happen anyway. And it doesn't allow for times when the idea really is good but the GM just doesn't like it.

The latest idea, which I'm semi-happy with, is to give everyone some number of veto points. When someone wants to use a specialization, the GM can challenge that usage. The GM and player both bid a number of veto points, and whoever bids more wins. (I should probably get Universalis and read it.)

Is there another, better way to manage this kind of thing?

Making the assignment of credibility explicit with some kind of coinage is definitely a good idea. Your presumtion is that all ideas are good, but you want the ability to balance each players desires. Even though you will be bidding points agains each other (and I would allow and encourage players to bid against each other in addition to player against GM), I would cast the points in a positive light, i.e. don't call them veto points.

Definitely have a look at Universalis. Uni is a nice very concise system that addresses distribution of credibility and IIEE with a clever conflict resolution system that plays back into the distribution of credibility (and one of these days I'll play it and see it in action).

Frank