This all happened at the York D&D Meetup, about 20 people were in attendance.  I recently got tired of developing my own system so I made sure to come out to have some fun DMing.  I was well-prepared to run an adventure called Gorgoldand's Gauntlet (author pointed out the link, it's legitimately available and was originally part of a Dungeon Magazine freebie disc) with a few small modifications, most importantly including Paizo Goblins.

Explicit Rules Variants:
Epic 6th Level rules (low-powered D&D).  Since this was a 1st-level module, that cap wasn't really "in play."  But prior experience with the rule indicates it works as intended (keeping the game in the low-power end while maintaining character growth).
Conviction (players each have 5 action points for re-rolling a die.
Players Roll All The Dice (as written, which gives the players a slight edge on defense) - this variant means that any d20 roll is done on the player side.  All of the DM's rolls are converted to static numbers, all static ACs / DCs on the players side are converted into die rolls.

Implicit Rules Differences:
I left the rules alone.  I didn't look at any stat blocks or target DCs throughout the event.  While I have run the adventure before, I'm no stats-library, so I ballparked, using this method, for calculating DCs for all action resolution.  Damage was done "normally", but again, ballparked based on a general experience with D&D

The game ran extremely well; while I'd prepared a board and we had tokens to indicate position, the players spent their time looking at each other and me, talking about the puzzles, and interacting with the goblins (which I voiced like characters from the movie Labyrinth).  Each action resolved quickly and I made sure not to force rolls that didn't have any consequences.

One player was less engaged than the others, and I think the rules were one of the reasons (he seemed like more of a "come for the hanging-out rather than the game" kind of player, which is fine).  He picked a half-orc fighter, and while he was engaged and interested during other situations - and even with other events in combat - on his own turn, "walk up to enemy, roll attack, roll damage" was done with a sigh.  This stuck out for me because everything else in the adventure (intimidating goblins, working on puzzles) I seemed to have the whole group, but combat was a downer, despite being fast.  I think he wanted to do some things that were more creative with his combat, but as it was there wasn't much sense in lowering his odds of success by doing special manouevres when he could thwack away with strong odds.

I'm aware of the idea of making each roll have stakes of +2/-2, but I doubt having that option available would have done much good because he was up against low-level opponents that were killable in 1 hit.  I'm also concerned that given the fact he had an advantage to hit, he could easily have set constantly-favorable stakes without much concern that he would roll low enough to miss.

So my question is: What techniques can you strap onto a system like D&D to specifically allow players to raise the stakes?

Hm.  Combat specific, an obvious answer is, "Let him try to kill more than one with a single hit."  I've often wondered what D&D (and the D20 system in general) would look like if you swung it something like this.

Yeah, you can try to do one thing and roll 1d20 to do it.  Or you can try two things and roll 2d10 for each.  Or three at 3d8 (okay, yeah, imperfect math), four at 4d6 (again) or five at 5d4.  Now your badass with the high modifier might still miss the goblins if he's trying to clearcut five of them with one swing.

-G.

Hmm...Take all the feats. Allow everyone to use any feat they want. Tack on penalties. Apply those penalties to the roll if the feat is used.

No idea how that would work, but it's been hanging around my head for making D&D combat more interesting.

I'm hesitant about messing around with the mechanics in any way that would cascade through the system, because re-writing a PHB is something I've done before and dno't wish on anyone.  I'd rather have something more along the lines of

At any time, a player can choose to make a 'raise' before rolling their d20s.  The terms of the raise are up to the player, but the GM can either accept ("Call") or decide "no bet."

For example: "I attack the goblin, raise you a decapitation frightening his buddies against me falling prone."  "Call."

"I attack the goblin, raise you 2d6 damage against 2d6 damage" "Call."

I really like the way your thinking here, it sounds really simple, but still quite fun!  Also it helps get the players to act up, or create interesting events on their own, which is also a nice part of the idea.

My only question is would the die roll be modified any, would their be a -5 to try to decapitate or would the standard role still be used?

-scott

I would prefer to leave modifiers to the actual underlying rules, and simply decline raises that were too favorable.  So if the fighter has a 95% chance of hitting the goblin, the raise could be

"OK, if I hit, I decapitate the goblin and his friends are frightened.  If I miss, I'm on the ground grappled by 5 goblins and I take 2d6 damage."

That, actually, sounds better and is somewhat like the resolution rules I'm currently using for my own RPG.

I ran this by one of my regulars via e-mail, he suggested that if a player does this, they can't use Conviction (action points) to influence the roll.  He probably has a point there.

A few years ago, I tried cooking up some rule mods for D&D that represented an attempt to respond to the precise problem you're facing.  I was starting to get interested in games like wushu and octaNe, but some of my players were pretty attached to the D&D mechanics.  My mods are below.  They didn't play quite like I hoped - we fell back into regular D&D combat pretty quickly - but that may have been due to a lack of enforcement and/or will to really change our style of play.  But reading back over the mods a second ago, they're riddled with serious design problems (this is really my only attempt ever to modify a game).  Anyway, hope they're useful.

GENERAL COMBAT MODIFICATIONS
Rationale
1) D&D combat as we play it has too much of a “war-gamey” feel.  Combat isn’t visually dramatic, and I think that much of this stems from our limited use of space and physical objects in the game world.  I’d like to make combat more cinematic.

New Combat Rules
1) Maps are not precise indicators of space.  In combat, gridlines do not indicate a specific unit of space – gridlines only serve as guidelines.  Generally, movement rates are to be ignored.  If a PC wants to do something really unreasonable, the DM can make a final movement ruling.
2) There are no attacks of opportunity.  At all.  Ever.
a. Attacks of opportunity strongly discourage characters from moving during combat – it usually doesn’t make sense to disengage or move anywhere near a monster’s area.  This makes combat aesthetically boring.  Instead of moving around, players move next to a monster, stay there, and keep rolling dice until someone keels over.  Let’s get rid of attacks of opportunity.  Period.
2) Players are not to receive negative “to hit” modifiers for doing something out of the ordinary during combat, such as bashing a goblin’s head into the bar (unless the intended action is really crazy).  Damage for these kinds of attacks is per DM discretion.
a. If the player has a skill applicable to the proposed action, the player can make a skill check to increase the chances of that action being successful.
i. If the player succeeds in making the skill roll, add the amount that the player has succeeded by to the “to hit” roll.
ii. If the player fails in making the skill roll, the player’s “to hit” will only be affected by a skill role of 1.  In this case, the DM will determine something bad that happens to the player.
b. Example: Jake the Snake jumps off a bar and flying-dropkicks an evil looking gnome.  Jake’s a big dude, so if Jake succeeds, the DM tells Jake to roll 1d8 and add Jake’s strength modifier.
c. Another example: Flip, the thief, wants to swing on a chandelier to kick a kobold in the face.  Flip has acrobatics, and the DM agrees that this is an applicable skill.  Flip succeeds in the skill check by 5.  Then, Flip gets to add 5 to his “to hit” roll.  Flip’s swinging pretty fast, so if Flip succeeds, the DM tells Flip to roll 1d8 and add Flip’s strength modifier.
3) Players can use physical objects during combat that the DM has not described…so long as it is arguable that the object would exist.
a. Example: Zork, a crazy rogue, is fighting a drunk in the Dragonsmead Inn. Zork’s dagger is sheathed, and it would take a turn to draw it.  So, Zork says, “I pick up a barstool and hit the drunk in the face with it.”  Because it is arguable that a barstool would be readily available in the Inn, Zork is allowed to do this.  If this encounter had taken place in the woods, it would be much less arguable that the barstool is readily available.  In this latter situation, the DM would not let Zork proceed with his patented barstool attack.

MORE SPECIFIC COMBAT MODIFICATIONS
Rationale
1) Combat is too abstract as is – it’s too easy to get into abstract die rolling for long periods of time.  I think this is a function of both the basic d20 combat resolution mechanic, and the fact that players and monsters often have a crapload of hit points.  We need combat that’s more inspiring and cinematic.
2) Combat is not gritty enough as is – there’s almost no threat of danger in D&D combat.  So, there’s an incentive to move into the square next to a monster and simply try to bash the shit out of him.  It would be much cooler to, say, sneak above the pit beast and drop some acid on his head.  But again, non-threatening combat doesn’t encourage this type of conflict resolution.
3) Combat is too slow as is – I get really bored adding and subtracting numbers for long periods of time, especially when I’m drunk.  This is especially bad for a DM who needs to keep track of lots of different monsters.
4) I like the Fading Suns mechanic where a good “to hit” roll translates into a higher potential to screw somebody up.  D&D doesn’t have anything like this (except for critical successes, which are ridiculously rare).

New Combat Rules
(A=Attacker; D=Defender; AC=armor class; PC=player character; NPC=DM run character)
1) A states exactly how she’s attacking D
2) A rolls a d20 as usual, adds relevant bonuses, and compares the final roll to D’s AC.
3) If A’s final roll is greater or equal to D’s AC, A hits and rolls damage.
a. If the final roll is between 0 and 3 greater than D’s AC, damage is rolled as usual.
i. DM describes the outcome of the attack.
b. If the final roll is 4 or more than D’s AC, A has scored a critical hit.
i. A rolls double damage.
ii. DM describes outcome of the attack, which must put D in a precarious position.  This position will result in modifiers until at least the end of the round when others engage D in any way.
iii. If A has really good damage rolls (say, at least 75% of maximum or so), D is maimed/hurt badly at DM discretion.
4) If A’s final roll is less than D’s AC, A misses.
a. If the final roll is between 1 and 3 less than D’s AC, it’s just a normal miss.
i. DM describes the outcome of the attack.
b. If A’s final roll is more than 4 less than D’s AC, A has scored a critical miss.
i. If an NPC is attacking, PC describes how she responds to the attack (ie “I duck” or “I step aside, and the orc flies by”).  DM then describes/affirms what happens to A, who is then put in a precarious position, and applies modifiers to A for at least the rest of the round.
ii. If a PC is attacking and NPC, DM describes what happens.  PC is put in a precarious position with modifiers for at least the rest of the round.

Examples
Bush, a Paladin, is engaged in an epic battle with a stinking orc.
1) Bush attacks the orc with his holy sword.  First, Bush says, “I’m slashing at the orc’s sword arm.”  Second, Bush rolls and succeeds by 2.  Third, Bush rolls normal damage, and the DM says, “You slash at the orc’s arm, but the orc manages to block the blow with his shoulder before your swing gets all the way around.  You see a red spot quickly forming on the orc’s shoulder.”
2) Bush attacks the orc with his holy sword.  First, Bush says, “I’m poking my holy sword into the orc’s flabby tummy.”  Second, Bush rolls and succeeds by 5.  This is a critical success!  Third, Bush rolls double damage, and the DM says, “You poke at the orc’s flabby tummy, and get him right in his orcish belly button.  The orc doubles over in sudden pain from this direct hit.  For the rest of this round, everybody gets +2 to hit the stinking orc.”
3) Bush attacks the orc with his holy sword.  First, Bush says, “I’m thrusting straight at that stinking orc’s kneecap.”  Second, Bush rolls and fails by 2.  Third, the DM says “You miss his kneecap, Bush.”
4) Bush attacks the orc with his holy sword.  First, Bush says, “I’m thrusting straight at that stinking orc’s kneecap.”  Second, Bush rolls and fails by 5.  This is a critical miss!  Third, the DM says, “The orc jumps back with catlike quickness, and Bush overextends himself and falls to one knee.  Bush gets -2 to his AC through the end of the round.”
5) The stinking orc attacks Bush with a rusty axe.  First, the DM says, “The orc lunges at Bush with his rusty axe.”  The DM rolls and fails by 5.  This is a critical miss!  Bush says, “I deftly step aside and the orc goes flying by me.”  The DM affirms and says, “The orc is off balance from his wild lunge and his AC is -2 until the end of the round.”  The DM then repositions the orc on the map to reflect the orc’s new location.

INSTANT DEATH SAVING THROWS
Rationale
1) Sometimes characters die really suddenly, and it sucks.  When that nasty critical from an ogre takes you from 20 hit points to -15 in one shot, it makes you want to cry.  That’s because your favorite character is now dead.
2) Sudden death is usually boring.  It’s little more than “SPLAT!”  Where’s the drama?
3) These new rules are pretty deadly.  The aim is to make players think twice about always getting into direct, non-strategic/non-interesting combat.  The aim isn’t to kill players left and right.

Instant Death Saving Throw Rules
1) If a character will die from the result of a single action (ie pretty much anything but bleeding to death when unconscious), that character gets an instant death saving throw.
2) The DM determines what type of saving throw is proper (reflex, will, or fortitude).
3) The player rolls against a difficulty class of 12.
a. If the player fails, the player’s character dies.  Sorry.
b. If the player succeeds, the player’s character survives.
i. But the DM gets to put the character in a dramatic, near-death position.  Hey, at least the character’s still alive.
4) This rule also applies to important NPC’s or villains.

Example
Thumper the barbarian is fighting a doppelganger spy on a flying ship.  The ship is flying hundreds of meters above the legendary Sea of Fire, and a fall would obviously result in instant death.  Thumper has backed the doppelganger against the railing of the flying ship.  Attempting to push the doppelganger over the edge, Thumper charges at the doppelganger, but fails by 5.  It’s a critical miss!  The DM diabolically smiles and tells Thumper that the doppelganger steps aside, and Thumper goes hurtling over the railing.  Thumper gets to roll an instant death saving throw using her reflex save.  With her reflex modifier added in, Thumper gets exactly a 12.  The DM says, “Thumper, as you went headfirst over the railing, you managed to stick out your hand and grab the railing with your fingertips.  You are now dangling precariously over the side of the flying ship.  The sea of fire is licking at your boot soles.  Who’s next this round?  Oh it’s the doppelganger, great!”

EXPERIENCE POINTS
Rationale
We’ve historically been terrible at awarding experience points for much besides killing monsters.  This encourages lots of killing and not enough creativity.  It also encourages characters to be built as killing machines, which isn’t necessarily my favorite thing either (see the misbegotten adventures of Flapjack Panchismo).

Experience Points Rule
Experience points are not awarded specifically for fighting.  They are awarded instead for overcoming a challenge.  The number of experience points awarded is exactly the same for every possible method of overcoming any given challenge.

Examples
1) Party A kills 10 orcs.  The party receives 10 orcs worth of experience points.
2) Party B sneaks by 10 orcs.  The party receives 10 orcs worth of experience points.
3) Party C tricks 10 orcs and makes them go somewhere else so the party can pass unscathed.  The party receives 10 orcs worth of experience points.

I would love to see more AP in detail of your sessions using this variant.  The link to the Epic 6th level appears broken.

For combat and "more feats/less magic" I suggest checking out Iron Heroes from Monte Cook.

Another issue to deal with in D&D is the "turtling up" of "we rest for day once we feel we've had it".  The system is built around encounters of EL = total of character levels in party per day (thus the assumption in a 4 character part of the same level, 4 encounters of that level).  I suggest if players face fewer encounters, since their day is less risky, they should receive a reduction in earned XP.  I think you need to do things to D&D to make it a "reward risk" system to get "real heroism" without making players "working against the system" by avoiding risks.

PS - joined indie rpg toronto recently, hope to cross paths!

I can't edit my post above, the old thread was merged so the new location is

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=200045

Valvorik - welcome to the group; I've only been in indierpg for a bit, but if you want to hook up for some E6 action, drop me a line ryanstoughton(ahem)hotmail.com

Ryan, I want to read the entire post, but first: kudos on the "Epic 6" version.  I have been dicking around with a Level 12 Cap version of D&D for about a year now--nothing as simple or effective as yours.  But I can imagine how much fun it would be to play: none of the wacky high-end complications, and characters who are powerful yet not laughably so.

Congratulations on an excellent idea and what looks like a very satisfying implementation in play.

(Also: welcome to the Forge for all the new people, etc. etc.)

THanks for the kind words - they're a salve after some of the places E6 got crossposted.

Anyway, I ran the raise mechanic by some of my other players (still no game until at least next week, depending on scheduling).  They like the idea; some say they will use it to get around the mechanics they hate, i.e. "I raise you grappling my opponent at the end of the swing against me getting knocked back down the stairs."  That skips the tedium of the grappling rules... or it knocks the player down the stairs.  Win-win.

Part of what I like about Epic 6th, if I'm getting it right, is that it allows a believable setting obeying its rules which "feels" more like a traditional fantasy setting.  A battlefield with a fireball now and again is nasty but one with meteor swarms is just silly (as in why would anyone ever put a bunch of soldiers in one place then).  If you want to run a Malazan/Black/Company/LOTR etc. feeling game it's all much easier with no need to explain "why the 16th level wizard hasn't already dealt with this problem".

Is it still a "dungeon" heavy game as run?

Ryan, thanks for coordinates, I will e-mail you.

I wouldn't say it's a dungeon-heavy game, but there is the occasional dungeon.  My style in GMing comes more from TV and movies than from wargames or board games, and I find the pacing of any complex with more than 5-10 real "rooms" to be pretty disastrous.

For those who mentioned interest in E6, it is available in rtf form at EN World:

http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3632040&postcount=49

Ran the first weekly session with E6 and the new house rules last night.    Players were Mr. and Mrs. Q (brand new to roleplaying), Rob (Valvorik from these boards), Remi (veteran D&D and near-freeform player), and Sandy (local D&D meetup organizer).  Rob I met for the first time in person, I work with Mr. Q, I've met Sandy before at meetups, and Remi's my Brotha By Anotha Motha and 10 year veteran of my games.

The plan was to have players make 3rd level characters, and then start from there if there was any time that day.  I planned on having players level to first, doing a bit of roleplaying, levelling to second, doing a bit of roleplaying, and so on.  That plan went out the window very early on.

Again, D&D ran like an indie rpg - almost.  This time it stalled on introducing new roleplayers to D&D's lengthy character creation process.  I scrapped the idea of making 3rd level characters since it would take too long, and I was able to insert some gaming in between the character creation steps.  The players jammed off of each other's situations really well.

That last bit was a huge success; the first rolls of the game for each character were stakes-setting, basically from the Dogs in the Vineyard character creation rules.  Each player had a different background, but then I asked them to set some stakes and a situation they could win or lose based on that background.  I gave them a few minutes to think about the situation while I helped another player.  All the stake-setting situations the players came up with were excellent, and I hope set the tone of the campaign as one where the players have real input on the consequences of their actions (and even the setting).  In fact, I may use stake-setting to kick off each session - but I won't force it if we're drawing a blank. 

As usual, Conviction was used well and helped share the spotlight. 
As expected, the Death Flag meant I could throw a serious challenge at the players without worrying that I was consigning a new player to another hour and a half of character creation.
As hoped, Raising the Stakes was used, although it wasn't part of combat (which is something I want to encourage).
E6 really wasn't a factor because we had first level characters.

I can see 1000 views on this thread, so I'll update again.

Second weekly session; 3 players this time (the Qs are sick) Sandy, Rob and Remi.  This time, D&D ran like an indie rpg with no qualifier.

At the beginning of the session we did some "between the games" stake-setting.  This included: Rob and Sandy jockeyed over whether they should trust the city guards after seeing some corruption, and then rolled Knowledge checks to determine which one was actually right (their suggestion, I went with it).  Sandy also barely squeaked by a swindle that he did against a powerful NPC, managing to steal a trivial item but making a serious enemy.

Then I told them that the Aagen family, which the players are connected to, had seven living members (parents and 3 teenage boys, 2 younger girls).  I told them that on a particular day in early spring, they will all be killed by assassins - except per the players' stake-setting.  We established that they would get a tip-off.

Remi jumped in, saying he wanted to hook up with the assassins the night before, and bluff them by saying he was sent as "extra muscle".  He managed to pull it off by spending some Conviction, but couldn't convince the assassins that he was trustworthy to act as a guard while they slept the night before.  Between some lucky rolls and raising the stakes Remi pulled it off, killing 4 assassins and saving 3 family members (the three boys).

Sandy created another situation where the carriage carrying the girls was diverted down a dark alley.  His character went in first and he set stakes based on finding the assassins or thinking the path was clear.  He rolled a twenty and decided to try for combat against the 2 assassins, which he won by a very small margin (using all his Conviction, and saving the 2 girls)

Rob, playing a cleric, put everything into identifying assassins trying to poison the sacrament at Church on that day (this was all his idea, worked great).  If he failed he was going to also be poisoned.  Rob also succeeded the first try, the assassins were discovered, and the family saved.

After that, we fast forwarded to the hottest day of the summer in the city; some strangely co-ordinated rioting was starting to happen, and the players intervened.  They could tell something was up but besides knocking out a few thugs and saving a few shopkeepers and local monuments there hasn't been a lot.  One nice thing was that this all occurred in Five Angels Square, which was invented by Sandy during the previous session (not by name) - that was the location of the near food riot.

So basically I had to run a few mooks and then our time was up.  Two and a half hour session all told, Rob and Sandy both mentioned how much they liked the campaign, Remi's got a whole vision for his character as a budding (counter?)assassin and all in all it was a total breeze to DM.

Rob from above speaking - yes the game is very cool to play in.  Watching the other players posit situations and stakes has been very fun and given 'shared authorship' around the table in way I would never have thought possible in a d20 campaign.

Ryan's a very 'say yes' DM.  His use of stakes has been a very nice way for a GM to draw players into populating the complications in a setting to be player-character-based in a way different than "beliefs" or "relationships" - though the assassin scene was more about "elaborating on and then resolving" the complication the GM positied.  So it's been both a way of players authoring content and an "alternative conflict resolution" method.  Lastly, it's been a way of sharing screen time which is something Ryan seems to be very conscious of ensuring.

I think the mixed "d20 resolution" and "more staked resolution" has made for more "story rich" play while still keeping some "woo hah, rolled a critical" fun.  Would be interesting to see what Terence and Lisa would say (the QQ's) but I think it's also probably a less intimidating/more intuitive introduction for people less familiar with the system or any system.

I've also been thinking "this so needs a relationship map"!

I'm doing an r-map of locations in place of a physical map on the back end.  I try to keep track of any places the characters have mentioned and then include them in the web.  Sort of a "map of the sets" if my campaign was a TV series.

The pdfs for E6 and Raising the stakes are available for free at the E6 wiki, esix.pbwiki.com 

J A Dettman, who did the layout for me, did a fantastic job.

That site might contain spoilers for my campaign.

Is it just me, or is that "epic 6th level" link at the top not working anymore?  I'd like to look at these rules, but the link to EnWorld tells me "No such thread".

You're right, the link is broken (they consolidated threads and I can't edit an old post here)

Here's the newest thread

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=202109&page=1

The pdfs of Raising the Stakes and E6 are available at

http://esix.pbwiki.com