I had this idea while discussing in a design thread on RPG.net.

Basically I looked at the common method that if someone thinks you have a chance of failure, you roll. This is kind of dreadful in a way, because the one way the rolling system is introduced to you, is when it's about to give you a chance of giving the shaft. On contact you either come out even (did what you said you wanted to do) or lose out. Rolling is all stick, no carrot.

So here's an idea - reverse the notion and challenges are made whenever some chance of success exists!

The player describes their character actions. If the GM spots a chance of suceeding above and beyond, doing more than than player described, the GM says he wants to initiate a challenge where if it passes, these extra things happen. The player may decline this roll if they really don't want any further effect. But basically this is a complete reversal - the roll is only introduced when it can further enable the characters actions, rather than always introduced as a potential cock block.

"But what if the player says he wanders up past the guards and cuts off the kings head!? How do I stop him?"

You just say no. Not in a passive aggressive, trying to hide behind dice rolls ("Oh, too bad you didn't get the difficulty of a million there....but you totally had a chance, I'm not just blocking you..."). You just say no. Dice rolls have never been a way of making sure the impossible doesn't happen. Only a no will do that. A roll gives a chance - unless your bullshitting with the difficulty range and narrated effect, in which case it's just hitting illusionism anyway.

Other than that, maybe there's something dreadful with it, but that could be found in playtest rather than conjecture.

Bit of a piss take on 'say yes or roll' with the name and it's probably better described as 'Say No, Okay, or Roll for more'. But ya gotta have a snazzy tag line these days!

Actually, come to think of it this is practically how most combat systems work - your roll gives you a chance to hit and damage, which you don't just narrate yourself doing. You say "I go to hit him" and then the dice roll can add onto that with actual damage. So the roll further empowers you. But in terms of diplomacy, the mechanism is actually completely reveresed "I talk with him this way in order to stop the war" "Okay, here's a chance of either doing exactly as you said or fucking up at that" "Oh, thanks, sounds fun"

I could see members of the "story games" crowd dropping dead from shock just at the mere thought of this...

It smacks of old school DM railroading..."No I don't want you to do it"..."I think it might work, but I want you to roll"..."No, I;m not going to let you automatically succeed no matter how good your character is meant to be"....etc.

"Say Yes, or roll the dice" is carrot and stick...where saying yes is all carrot...while rolling the dice is a chance of carrot or stick.

"Say No, or roll the dice" is more a case where saying no is all stick...while rolling the dice is still a chance of carrot or stick.

From the most fundamental level, it's a more negative style of play.

On the other hand, if players are prepped for this style of play, I could see it working. It's just another tool to add to the designer's toolkit.

Neat! That is all I have to contribute at this time.
Since these options (no, yes, roll) are explicitly on the table, with reasons given for why one might choose each of them, I'd say this is superior to the middle school method.

well not all systems are stick & carrot.  In some cases the roll indicates level of result. 

Ie. the higher you roll the more you know or farther you can jump or faster you can do something.  So there's reward and penalty that exists in a gray scale.

for example you may want to climb the ledge and based on a low roll you climb slowly, but a higher roll allows you to climb faster.  Only a truly abysmal roll would be a failure.  So really that's all carrot.

Another example would be needing a roll of a 10 to have baseline knowledge of a topic.  A roll of a 8 would still provide knowledge but less useful info or a 6 would only allow the player to recall rumors.  While a 12 or 14 would give more information.  If your character was built to know this stuff than really it's all carrot as you should hit baseline and have the chance to get higher.

I know some systems use a stark success/ failure over a discreet number.... like needing to roll a survival of 15 to stabilize someone in DnD... a roll of a 13 could mean a partial stabilize thus rewarding for decent work and allowing more time to find better stuff to completely stabilize.

Vulpinoid wrote: It smacks of old school DM railroading..."No I don't want you to do it"..."I think it might work, but I want you to roll"..."No, I;m not going to let you automatically succeed no matter how good your character is meant to be"....etc.

"I think it might work, but I want you to roll"

"Say No, or roll the dice" is more a case where saying no is all stick...while rolling the dice is still a chance of carrot or stick.

Most "redneck" gamers like me are simple and your response is really long...

...and while i see some advantage to your idea I believe that in your head the system functions functions very fluidly, but for an average play session with average player and average GM there might not be much improvement in the overall flow of the game.  Maybe because characters that are focused in one area of expertise are generally gonna succeed anyway and a player who wants to be sneaky or tough or smart will play their character that way.

Wouldn't this system mean that technically everyone can accomplish the same thing?  I might be misunderstanding.

But this does hanker back to an idea I had for my system... something called "essence".

When you build a character the player gets to name an essence.  This is what the character is about and what it does.  The essence could be complex depending on the build and the GM might have to be careful not to allow one that is too sweeping.  But generally the essence would say that this character is an expert in his narrow field and would be afforded the right never to fail any task in that field below his baseline knowledge in it.

I decided not to put the essence into the game because i figured that a character built to do something will generally not fail in it and even if he does, the GM can just ignore the failure and allocate some level of success anyway based on the purposes of the character build.

Did I miss something?  No, yes, or roll to get the icing?  How do you model the gray areas?

Let's say that as a traceur I can scale a sheer wall at a maximum of 13 feet.  It's the very best that I can do.  How would I handle that with your model?  If the GM says yes, then it's arbitrary because I know that I can't reach 13 feet every single time.  If he says no, then it's arbitrary because I know that a strong possibility exists that I can do it.  If he says, "Roll to see if you scale it perfectly and quickly" then the original problem comes up: there's always a chance I can't scale it on that attempt.
Now if we scale back the granularity, the above example can work to your model: either I can't make the climb at all (the wall is 14 feet), or I can (I will eventually make it up there, so the roll doesn't model an individual attempt, but rather how long it will take me to do it; the roll will be for the chance that I make it up there with perfect speed and form).
However, things get hairy once we delve into one of the most fundamental concepts of RPG gaming: combat.  A wall is passive; the variables won't change perceptibly.  With combat, there is no such thing that either I won't prevail, or I will eventually.  It's always a maybe.  How would you overcome this mechanical barrier?  Take note that I ask this without any sort of condescension.  I'm always looking for more efficient or more effective ways to design mechanics (your height advantage thread really got me thinking), so I'm genuinely interested in what you have to say.

This sounds like Amber with dice... If I had to guess combat would go something like this:

GM: The ork stabs at you, he's holding his sword overhead and stabbing down with powerful thrusts.
Player: I raise my staff above my head, its wood, so I guess it breaks, but that should let me block the thrust.
GM: Thats sounds cool. Roll your Fighting Good Ability.
Player: *rolls* I got three 12's.
GM: Mega-success, your staff breaks and you have an opportunity to use the broken ends as weapons and impale him while's he's still open to attack.
Player: I'll take it!

Let's say that as a traceur I can scale a sheer wall at a maximum of 13 feet.  It's the very best that I can do.  How would I handle that with your model?  If the GM says yes, then it's arbitrary because I know that I can't reach 13 feet every single time.  If he says no, then it's arbitrary because I know that a strong possibility exists that I can do it.

Now if we scale back the granularity, the above example can work to your model: either I can't make the climb at all (the wall is 14 feet), or I can (I will eventually make it up there, so the roll doesn't model an individual attempt, but rather how long it will take me to do it; the roll will be for the chance that I make it up there with perfect speed and form).
However, things get hairy once we delve into one of the most fundamental concepts of RPG gaming: combat.  A wall is passive; the variables won't change perceptibly.  With combat, there is no such thing that either I won't prevail, or I will eventually.  It's always a maybe.  How would you overcome this mechanical barrier?*snip*I'm always looking for more efficient or more effective ways to design mechanics (your height advantage thread really got me thinking), so I'm genuinely interested in what you have to say.

So what you are saying is that you would not implement this model with combat, but you would with other skills?  I have nothing against it - if the system plays well, it doesn't matter - I just wanted to know if you intend for this concept to apply to all challenges or just some.

masqueradeball wrote:
This sounds like Amber with dice... If I had to guess combat would go something like this:

GM: The ork stabs at you, he's holding his sword overhead and stabbing down with powerful thrusts.
Player: I raise my staff above my head, its wood, so I guess it breaks, but that should let me block the thrust.
GM: Thats sounds cool. Roll your Fighting Good Ability.
Player: *rolls* I got three 12's.
GM: Mega-success, your staff breaks and you have an opportunity to use the broken ends as weapons and impale him while's he's still open to attack.
Player: I'll take it!

So you arent rolling to see IF you get over the wall, but rolling to see HOW you get over the wall.  I like this general concept.  I think most situations fall into the categories-

a) impossible / ridiculous - example: scale a 1000ft glass wall with your bare hands
b) possible and inconsequential - climb a tree to get a better vantage point
c) possible, but it would suck to fail - cross the rickety bridge which is the only way towards your goal and if you fell you'd die.

a) and b), the GM says 'no' to rolling.  A) is you cant do it, and b) is yeah, whatever, you can climb a tree, its no biggie in the context of the situation.

c) the GM says, yeah, OK, this is kind of a climactic thing, but obviously the heroes arent going to be thwarted and go home, nor are they going to fall to their deaths.  So, they do get across, but at what cost?  Maybe they have to leave their heavy packs behind, or maybe the burly fighter reveals his secret fear of heights and has to be hand-held across, or maybe it just all goes just swimmingly... use the dice to decide.

On second thoughts, I reckon c) should read,

possible, but one alternative sucks (either success or failure sucks). 

An example of success resulting in suckage  would be one PC killing another PC.  Maybe the PCs have a good reason to be in physical conflict, but its not something most players would want to happen.  At any rate, the GM can decree this doesnt happen - you dont resolve IF a PC kills the other, but HOW the non-fatal combat resolves.

Ok, so there is also the situation -

d) possible, consequential,  any result is fine.  -  I think this type of situation is less frequent than the others.  I reckon most of the time, there is usually one alternative (success or failure) that is obviously better for the enjoyment of the players than the other, and usually that result is 'success'.  I have played far too many games where the action has been stymied by poor dice rolls that say 'you cant'. 

but I reckon these

stefoid wrote:
c) the GM says, yeah, OK, this is kind of a climactic thing, but obviously the heroes arent going to be thwarted and go home, nor are they going to fall to their deaths.  So, they do get across, but at what cost?  Maybe they have to leave their heavy packs behind, or maybe the burly fighter reveals his secret fear of heights and has to be hand-held across, or maybe it just all goes just swimmingly... use the dice to decide.

Ar wrote:

stefoid wrote:
c) the GM says, yeah, OK, this is kind of a climactic thing, but obviously the heroes arent going to be thwarted and go home, nor are they going to fall to their deaths.  So, they do get across, but at what cost?  Maybe they have to leave their heavy packs behind, or maybe the burly fighter reveals his secret fear of heights and has to be hand-held across, or maybe it just all goes just swimmingly... use the dice to decide.

Won't that idea spoil the element of danger?  I know that in many cases the GM is more invested in propelling the story along, so he trivializes the danger.  And that's perfectly acceptable practice in my opinion; in an RPG, the illusion of danger is just as effective as actual danger.  But if the players are aware of that, it can weaken the story. 

Stefoid, while your point on getting past that charade is the same one I'd make, you've gone on your own tangent with the idea of a cost. Which is fine for your own designs, of course. My idea is that you roll to gain, not to potentially lose. If we must use a tree climbing example (gah, it'll be arm wrestling next), the GM could say yes, or he could say yes and offer a roll for more, as it strikes him someone who climbs really well might be able to spot a birds nest with some eggs for the characters to eat (let's say it's a survival game - after all, why are we climbing trees?).

My idea is that you roll for more or not at all (say no without rolls).

Part of the problem I was trying to get around was how bringing up a die roll is either doing what you said to begin with, or losing something. So die rolls just aren't fun - you either come out even, or lose something. It's like playing snakes and ladders, but with no ladders, only snakes. Only the chance to inch forward, or slide way, way back.

To talk about your real cost method briefly, it falls right into that category.

If I may suggest, you can retro fit your idea of a cost instead into a chance at missing a benefit(ladder). So, you auto cross the river - the GM decides you could have a chance to impress that chick doing it. You roll...awww, no such luck! You get the ouch of missing out, but the dice only introduced a possibility of gain, rather than a possibility of loss. The dice are more fun to engage.

I think I get what your seeing with the idea of just passing, but at a chance of what is to the person who assigns it, a real cost. But do you want the players to also enjoy the bitter sweet idea of a real cost on the line? Or do you want them to enjoy losing a cost as much as they'd enjoy going down a snake - ie, not really? If the former, for the character there has to be a real cost, but for the player there has to be some real points gain, to make up for the loss AND then some more to make it an accomplishment.

Anyway, I'm going off topic a bit, but just trying to be encouraging! :)

stefoid wrote:
Surely youve been there 100 times before?   The player fumbles his 'cross the bridge' roll.  GM rolls on fumble table - "Oops you fell to your death, better start rolling up another character".  No of course not.  The GM mumbles something about 'trying again' with some fudged penalty or other and no matter how badly the player continues to roll, _eventually_  he gets his sorry arse across the bridge.  Why go through the tedious charade?  It doesnt create an illusion of danger, its just boring and meaningless.  Just say up front, well obviously you all get across the bridge alive, but at what cost?  And make the cost real:  You loose your pack, you drop your precious axe, you embarrass yourself horribly in front of the chick you are trying to impress...  And for chrisakes, do it using only one roll that actually counts, not a succession of fudged rolls because the dice dont come up with acceptable numbers.

Part of the problem I was trying to get around was how bringing up a die roll is either doing what you said to begin with, or losing something. So die rolls just aren't fun - you either come out even, or lose something.

The bits of this thread that seem to be wandering off from the original post are treading the ground that Otherkind dice have been playing in for the past few years.

They play with the way the story goes at least as much as they regulate success.

If you don't know Otherkind dice, the simple version of the premise follows.

1. You roll a bunch of dice.
2. You assign the die results across a variety of fields.
3. You look at the fields and see what happens.

Let's look at the bridge crossing scenario from a few posts back...and let's follow this up by saying that the Otherkind system you're playing with has 4 criteria...

Success (Low = Fail, High = Succeed),
Speed (Low = You do it slowly, High = You do it fast),
Sacrifice (Low = You lose something important, High = You don't lose anything)
Story (Low = The GM gets to add an unanticipated twist, High = You get to add an unanticipated twist)

...you basically roll 4 dice, you can add another die but you'll have to place another result into Sacrifice.  The higher the result in a category, the better the result in that category.

Since you're rolling a bunch of dice, there's a pretty good chance that one of them will roll high. You can choose to place this in the "success" category to make sure you get what you want (eg. crossing the rickety bridge), But then you'll end up with a bunch of lower dice that you have to allocate across the other areas...do you have to take the bridge slowly and carefully?...If you take things slow, does that mean archers will get more shots at you while crossing the bridge?...do you put down you're backpack on one side so that you can do it quickly?...what other twists might come up based on your die roll? How does this effect the scenario you are negotiating?

Do you take an extra die for a better chance at one good roll? What extra sacrifice will you have to make if you do this? Do you have to leave your armour behind as well as your backpack? What choices do you make, what's important to your character?

The you consider the options of what happens when all the dice roll badly. You don't succeed and you can't place a decent die anywhere. Do you take extra degrees of sacrifice just to get that successful roll to make it through to the next scene? Or do you make a suitably epic death scene where everything conspires against the character? It's a chance to really get creative.

There have been a few people playing with the way Otherkind dice work, altering the way that they vary difficulties, or simulating varying skill levels. The point I'm trying to make here is that the actual crossing of the bridge is pretty much guaranteed, but fun comes in those other choices you have to make when considering the crossing and allocating the die results.

I've deliberately used them this way in my recent games "FUBAR" and "Walkabout", Pulling out the dice isn't just an excuse to throw difficulties at the players, it's about making things interesting and giving them choices. The only way you get ahead in each of these games is by being active, stepping up and putting a risk on the line. Sometimes you succeed, sometimes you fail.

If the GM just says "Yes", then you won't get much out of the situation. You won't get a strategic advantage in the immediate scene, and you won't get closer to the climax of the story.

If the GM says "No", then it's because you haven't appropriately justified why your action has a chance of occurring. In each of these games you have to have a trait to risk if you want to accomplish something...if you don't have a "flying" trait, then there's no way you'll fly....on the other hand, if you do have a flying trait and you choose to fly, you'll have to risk that trait because there's a chance you'll get buffeted by winds, get caught in an updraft, or some other risk that simply wouldn't be appropriate if you stayed on the ground.

If you've got the trait and you take the risk, then that's where the dice come into play.

But then again, this style of game requires pro-active players.

This has probably derailed the topic enough...so I'll stop.

Vulpinoid wrote:
The bits of this thread that seem to be wandering off from the original post are treading the ground that Otherkind dice have been playing in for the past few years.

They play with the way the story goes at least as much as they regulate success.

If you don't know Otherkind dice, the simple version of the premise follows.

1. You roll a bunch of dice.
2. You assign the die results across a variety of fields.
3. You look at the fields and see what happens.

Callan wrote:
Stefoid, while your point on getting past that charade is the same one I'd make, you've gone on your own tangent with the idea of a cost. Which is fine for your own designs, of course. My idea is that you roll to gain, not to potentially lose. If we must use a tree climbing example (gah, it'll be arm wrestling next), the GM could say yes, or he could say yes and offer a roll for more, as it strikes him someone who climbs really well might be able to spot a birds nest with some eggs for the characters to eat (let's say it's a survival game - after all, why are we climbing trees?).

My idea is that you roll for more or not at all (say no without rolls).

Part of the problem I was trying to get around was how bringing up a die roll is either doing what you said to begin with, or losing something. So die rolls just aren't fun - you either come out even, or lose something. It's like playing snakes and ladders, but with no ladders, only snakes. Only the chance to inch forward, or slide way, way back.

To talk about your real cost method briefly, it falls right into that category.

If I may suggest, you can retro fit your idea of a cost instead into a chance at missing a benefit(ladder). So, you auto cross the river - the GM decides you could have a chance to impress that chick doing it. You roll...awww, no such luck! You get the ouch of missing out, but the dice only introduced a possibility of gain, rather than a possibility of loss. The dice are more fun to engage.

I think I get what your seeing with the idea of just passing, but at a chance of what is to the person who assigns it, a real cost. But do you want the players to also enjoy the bitter sweet idea of a real cost on the line? Or do you want them to enjoy losing a cost as much as they'd enjoy going down a snake - ie, not really? If the former, for the character there has to be a real cost, but for the player there has to be some real points gain, to make up for the loss AND then some more to make it an accomplishment.

Anyway, I'm going off topic a bit, but just trying to be encouraging! :)

stefoid wrote: ...start from a base position of loss and roll to see if it actually didnt turn out as badly as it could have?

Ar wrote:

stefoid wrote:
Surely youve been there 100 times before?   The player fumbles his 'cross the bridge' roll.  GM rolls on fumble table - "Oops you fell to your death, better start rolling up another character".  No of course not.  The GM mumbles something about 'trying again' with some fudged penalty or other and no matter how badly the player continues to roll, _eventually_  he gets his sorry arse across the bridge.  Why go through the tedious charade?  It doesnt create an illusion of danger, its just boring and meaningless.  Just say up front, well obviously you all get across the bridge alive, but at what cost?  And make the cost real:  You loose your pack, you drop your precious axe, you embarrass yourself horribly in front of the chick you are trying to impress...  And for chrisakes, do it using only one roll that actually counts, not a succession of fudged rolls because the dice dont come up with acceptable numbers.

Most of my GMing sessions have been improv (coming up with the story on the spot; I used to play about 4 days a week so it wasn't feasible to plan so much content in a timely manner).  If they fucked up, they died.  They cursed, and then they made a new character and continued to have fun.

Now, if you planned on having these deadly challenges beforehand and would rather have the characters prevail than plunge to their deaths, then it's only intelligent that you've already prepared a safety net rather than try to come up with some lame deus ex machina on the spot. 

Instead of designing dice to be a crutch for unskillful GMing or players that suck at crossing bridges, why not provide the GM the tools he needs to handle tough situations well?  Dungeons and Dragons does this: it's called the Dungeon Master's Guide.

Vulpinoid wrote:
The bits of this thread that seem to be wandering off from the original post are treading the ground that Otherkind dice have been playing in for the past few years.

They play with the way the story goes at least as much as they regulate success.

If you don't know Otherkind dice, the simple version of the premise follows.

1. You roll a bunch of dice.
2. You assign the die results across a variety of fields.
3. You look at the fields and see what happens.

Let's look at the bridge crossing scenario from a few posts back...and let's follow this up by saying that the Otherkind system you're playing with has 4 criteria...

Success (Low = Fail, High = Succeed),
Speed (Low = You do it slowly, High = You do it fast),
Sacrifice (Low = You lose something important, High = You don't lose anything)
Story (Low = The GM gets to add an unanticipated twist, High = You get to add an unanticipated twist)

...you basically roll 4 dice, you can add another die but you'll have to place another result into Sacrifice.  The higher the result in a category, the better the result in that category.

Since you're rolling a bunch of dice, there's a pretty good chance that one of them will roll high. You can choose to place this in the "success" category to make sure you get what you want (eg. crossing the rickety bridge), But then you'll end up with a bunch of lower dice that you have to allocate across the other areas...do you have to take the bridge slowly and carefully?...If you take things slow, does that mean archers will get more shots at you while crossing the bridge?...do you put down you're backpack on one side so that you can do it quickly?...what other twists might come up based on your die roll? How does this effect the scenario you are negotiating?

Do you take an extra die for a better chance at one good roll? What extra sacrifice will you have to make if you do this? Do you have to leave your armour behind as well as your backpack? What choices do you make, what's important to your character?

The you consider the options of what happens when all the dice roll badly. You don't succeed and you can't place a decent die anywhere. Do you take extra degrees of sacrifice just to get that successful roll to make it through to the next scene? Or do you make a suitably epic death scene where everything conspires against the character? It's a chance to really get creative.

There have been a few people playing with the way Otherkind dice work, altering the way that they vary difficulties, or simulating varying skill levels. The point I'm trying to make here is that the actual crossing of the bridge is pretty much guaranteed, but fun comes in those other choices you have to make when considering the crossing and allocating the die results.

I've deliberately used them this way in my recent games "FUBAR" and "Walkabout", Pulling out the dice isn't just an excuse to throw difficulties at the players, it's about making things interesting and giving them choices. The only way you get ahead in each of these games is by being active, stepping up and putting a risk on the line. Sometimes you succeed, sometimes you fail.

If the GM just says "Yes", then you won't get much out of the situation. You won't get a strategic advantage in the immediate scene, and you won't get closer to the climax of the story.

If the GM says "No", then it's because you haven't appropriately justified why your action has a chance of occurring. In each of these games you have to have a trait to risk if you want to accomplish something...if you don't have a "flying" trait, then there's no way you'll fly....on the other hand, if you do have a flying trait and you choose to fly, you'll have to risk that trait because there's a chance you'll get buffeted by winds, get caught in an updraft, or some other risk that simply wouldn't be appropriate if you stayed on the ground.

If you've got the trait and you take the risk, then that's where the dice come into play.

But then again, this style of game requires pro-active players.

This has probably derailed the topic enough...so I'll stop.

stefoid wrote:
Isnt the saftey net just a lame deus ex machina that you have prepared earlier? 

Well, clearly we dont see eye to eye, I dont see it as a crutch for unskilled GMing.  Quite the opposite, I see a skilled GM ensuring that the dice dont arbitrarily decide significant events that will leave the players feeling powerless and frustrated.

and how does do you resolve a situation that could cost the character?  start from a base position of loss and roll to see if it actually didnt turn out as badly as it could have?

Seems like it wouldnt work in practice.  "roll to see if you experience unexpected fortune" doesnt work for me.

Callan wrote:

and how does do you resolve a situation that could cost the character?  start from a base position of loss and roll to see if it actually didnt turn out as badly as it could have?

Well, for a start if your playing a traditional RPG, that's exactly how your already playing.
Player "I climb the cliff!"
GM "Here's a chance of falling down - now roll to see if the loss doesn't happen!"

But the main thing is, you and Michael aren't actually engaging the options. You have a choice of No or Yes/Yes with more, but instead of making your own choice, your trying to say it could cost the character.

It's like I'm offering you icecream or pizza and your saying 'but isn't there a chance of icecream rather than pizza? Or should we assume the worst one and roll to see if it doesn't happen? That seems a negative way to play!?'.

Here's my perspective, and it may not be getting at what you want, so take it as my opinion and nothing else.

Say Yes or Roll the Dice is all about giving the power to the players.  The players are the ones making all the decisions, they are the ones with the primary ability to influence the fiction.  For any specific detail they add, the GM can smile and nod, or he can interfere.  But he can't outright negate anything, so he tells them the outcome will ride on the results of rolling the dice.  Presumably, the game gives good guidelines to set difficulties so that if the GM tries to railroad through setting outrageous difficulties, its becomes rather obvious.

Say No or Roll the Dice (or Say Yes) looks like it reverses that.  The player tries to add something to the fiction, and the GM is given the explicit power (and implicit responsibility) to stomp on the players input.  If he says No, then he is outright negating what the player says.  If he says yes, now roll dice for more, then the roll dice is his way of hijacking the players addition to the story to try to make it his addition to the story. 

Of course, saying No can still be a useful part of any GM's toolkit.  But this just looks like a way to reinforce the idea that its the GM's story, and the players only contribute to it after being filtered through the GM.

How about Jonathan Tweet's "There Is No Try" method.

http://www.jonathantweet.com/jotgametry.html

^ now THAT'S an idea... *yoink*

Jay,

If he says yes, now roll dice for more, then the roll dice is his way of hijacking the players addition to the story to try to make it his addition to the story.

Of course, whether Kirk takes out his captors or gets led meekly around depends on the needs of the plot, not dice rolls.

Stefoid,

The bit that seems missing is between a) and b):  YES, you can attempt to climb the tree, but maybe something unlucky happens.

Callan wrote:
Stefoid,

The bit that seems missing is between a) and b):  YES, you can attempt to climb the tree, but maybe something unlucky happens.

Well, why is it 'missing'?

Or more to the point, do you find it fun somehow for that 'between bit' to be there?

Even if you do, this idea isn't about that type of fun, whatever it is. This mechanic is particularly attuned, as much a humans only space RPG doesn't have orcs in it, this mechanic doesn't have that 'surprise! A chance to fail' fun in it. It would eliminate that sort of fun as much as one might eliminate orcs from the game - simply as a design decision.

It's kind of off topic, but do you actually find that between bit fun, or atleast needed to support some other sort of fun? Or do you just intensely think it has to be there?

That should read 'doesnt necessarily imply failure'

Because otherwise there is no risk and hence no tension.  Without tension, everything is a bit limp.  Its like playing poker with match sticks.

Callan wrote:
Kalandri, uhh, I'm wondering if you had started a thread about an idea of yours, you'd like it if someone posted what you did about another idea entirely?

...if you're saying "Would you like it if someone posted something off-topic in your thread, and that off-topic thing was only of interest to that someone -- and not of interest to you" then my answer would be "I guess not?"

He's saying he thinks you had no place giving the idea referred to a thumbs up without actually taking the time to post about the original topic of the thread.

Personally I think it's a little snarky on his part to get irritated when someone is making comment on something that was directly related (food for thought as it were) to the original topic.

It lends some kind of credence to the idea which is being put forth. ("Ah, look, more people think this is interesting, should I consider it more deeply?")

I'm extremely undisciplined though, and it is his thread. And I am now very off topic. :)

So to make amends, Callan: I don't really think you're right about there being no risk when the risk is being stated. If the GM tells someone "that's going to be dangerous" you can view it as that sinking feeling you get when you're about to jump off a diving board . . .

Would it be better if the GM simply said "your stomach tightens as you consider drawing your weapon" . . . you're then not telling them that things are risky, rather that their character feels the tension.

Before we rush ahead with someone deciding what I'm saying, if someone says "Now THAT's an idea" it sounds a little like the threads original idea is perhaps not an idea.

I think I'm asking for a bit of 'what if I were in his shoes' sympathy on the matter, but if it looks all snark, hit the report button.

Back to the workbench: Mathew, the GM is introducing the risk and forcing the player to undertake it. This is significantly different from a player initiating a risk for himself. Narration doesn't count - it has to be a mechanical action and on the part of the player, because narration can only produce faux risk, not the actual real deal. Kirk isn't facing risk in a star trek episode, it's always faux risk. The guy at a casino with money on the table, he's facing real risk. The player needs to be the one to go to dice of his own volition. You can't make someone take a risk - that's just you forcing them to take a risk, not them being a risk taker.

With the mechanical option the player has to accept the extras roll or pass on the roll, the player who accepts the roll is doing so of his own volition. It's real gentle, I'll grant - merely the capacity to miss out on more.

Or if your refering to what I call faux risk and maybe you don't want to call it faux risk, okay, that's totally there. That feeling is there, or can be with a bit of flair from the GM and perhaps group members too. I fully grant that's entirely possible and even that lots of groups probably have it and enjoy it in their gaming on a regular basis. I mean, there are a million horror movies out there that make people flinch and feel tension every day, obviously.

To clarify

If the GM tells someone "that's going to be dangerous" you can view it as that sinking feeling you get when you're about to jump off a diving board . . .

So you're objecting to the GM placing risk in a character's path . . . which makes for pretty poor storytelling if the only way to get an element of risk is to go: "I'm tired of walking down the street. I'm going to rob that convenience store!"

Exaggerated, I know. Forgive the hyperbole. :)

The thing is, a player deciding to risk something is not any more or less valid a gameplay or narrative driver than a GM presenting risk. I'm not saying that the idea of players stepping up and making a decision to risk more than they would otherwise is a bad thing, and certainly having a mechanic that promotes this is arguably something worthwhile.

Risk means you can lose. If the GM is presenting you with a situation in which you are pretty much forced to take a risk, it may be big fat railroading, but it's no less a danger to your character. Funny thing, life sometimes gets in our faces and makes us take risks . . . why should a game be any different? (Plenty of reasons why, actually . . . :) )

Callan wrote:
Before we rush ahead with someone deciding what I'm saying, if someone says "Now THAT's an idea" it sounds a little like the threads original idea is perhaps not an idea.

So you're objecting to the GM placing risk in a character's path

. . . which makes for pretty poor storytelling if the only way to get an element of risk is to go: "I'm tired of walking down the street. I'm going to rob that convenience store!"

The thing is, a player deciding to risk something is not any more or less valid a gameplay or narrative driver than a GM presenting risk

Risk means you can lose. If the GM is presenting you with a situation in which you are pretty much forced to take a risk, it may be big fat railroading, but it's no less a danger to your character. Funny thing, life sometimes gets in our faces and makes us take risks . . . why should a game be any different?