Quote from: ConanMK;350572Hey, you could even use marbles for your sanity tokens.

:hatsoff:

Quote from: Halfjack;350592Actually the idea of sanity as a limited pool that you voluntarily surrender (tokens) for advantage could make for a brilliant game in some genres. That's a cool idea -- thank you.

Most welcome, I'm glad you found it inspiring.

In a related note, another concept you could use tokens for is your humanity. In Vampire the Masquerade, your Humanity was a finite and depleting resource over the course of the game. That could be ripe for token use in any game where fading humanity is a theme be it anything from vampires to cyborgs that might slowly loose the qualities that once made them human.

You know Kyle, I do have to say I love your flair for the expository.  You get a lot of data in a minimal amount of words.

I'm not going to day you are wrong in any way, as your examples are crystal clear in how you run a game.  And they sound like they'd be great in a game, which I'm sure is true.

But your explanation and examples have a major discrepancy which is at the heart of the problem.  Did you note your explanatory declaration has three lines, but all of your examples have four?  This is because this:

Quote from: Kyle1. skill/attribute use
2. dice roll
3. GM-described result

does NOT describe this:

Quote from: KyleThe project is near its due date and you're behind, at this rate you'll be a week behind."
"Okay I make everyone stay back for two hours' overtime every night for the next two weeks."
"They'll be exhausted and might hate you."
"That's the price I pay for success."

A better algorhythmic might be
1. skill/attribute use
2. dice roll
3. Initial GM-described result
4. Possible Player 'token' intervention
5. GM penalty to possible Player 'token' intervention
6. PLayer decision
7. Final GM-Desrcibed result

The difference is that post-roll allows some level of do-over, the altering of reality, whereas pre-roll it affect sthe out come but there is still only one roll>resolution.  
Perhaps we could say that the initial failed roll is a view into the 'ongoing event', but it is still allowing the players to adjust an outcome after a roll.  It's a fine, cinematic mechanic, and one that might be very needed in a lethal system.  

 But it allows for a post-roll, reality adjustment, and that is my problem with it.

I wouldn't say that the initial GM response is a description of a result. It's just a description of what might happen. GMs do this all the time, a player wants their character to do something and asks what they'll have to roll to do it, or how they can improve the chances, and so on.

Using "extra effort" to boost a dice roll result after the dice roll is not a "post-effect action to alter the effect" anymore than is rolling to dodge only after the other guy has rolled to hit and succeeded. Which is done in RuneQuest, GURPS, and a whole swag of other games.

And yes, lots of players have a problem with that, too. "But I hit, how does the orc get to dodge?" They have less of a problem when it's "the orc hits, I get to dodge, right?"

The "extra effort" aspect of this particular kind of "token" might mean that it'd be prohibited by the GM in certain circumstances, for example if you are jumping a chasm and fall short, the extra effort could only have come in the push-off from the ground on the other side, it can't come now while you're in the air inches from safety. This I think might go some way to addressing your concerns about how metagamey it feels.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;350951And yes, lots of players have a problem with that, too. "But I hit, how does the orc get to dodge?" They have less of a problem when it's "the orc hits, I get to dodge, right?"

I am going to say that is a separate problem.  Dodge, parry, feint, and all those should simply give static bonuses, not a separate roll in combat.  I mean, do characters that don't take 'dodge' simply stand around getting stabbed in the face when they are fighting?

Unless you wanted to write a system with an intricate mini-game centered around blow-by-blow combat.

Quote from: StormBringer;350958I mean, do characters that don't take 'dodge' simply stand around getting stabbed in the face when they are fighting?

Well, presumably they try to dodge but fail

The issue with static bonuses is that you get times when no matter what the PC is going to get hit. Players tend to get upset about that. "What, don't I even get a roll?"
"You could roll but you would certainly fail."
Players like to have a chance even if it's one in a million.

Quote from: StormbringerUnless you wanted to write a system with an intricate mini-game centered around blow-by-blow combat.

You do realise GURPS has 1 second combat rounds, don't you? And the Martial Arts expansion allows you to target finger joints and the brachial artery?

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;350963Well, presumably they try to dodge but fail

The issue with static bonuses is that you get times when no matter what the PC is going to get hit. Players tend to get upset about that. "What, don't I even get a roll?"
"You could roll but you would certainly fail."
Players like to have a chance even if it's one in a million.

I dunno, I think players would get used to it.  They don't seem to have a huge problem getting hit with their armour just one plus short, or doing a few points of damage less than it takes to drop an opponent.  It turns them into another static bonus to track, which has its own drawbacks.  However, there is less angst then the bad guys turning their hit into a miss, as you mention.

QuoteYou do realise GURPS has 1 second combat rounds, don't you? And the Martial Arts expansion allows you to target finger joints and the brachial artery?

GURPS has a lot of things.  

Kyle + Stormy
Stop it.  This is far too civilized for this site, seeing as we are actually making sense and seeing where the differences are in our preferences and our games.  I actually think we might be seeing how are GM preferences work into our rulesets...

Lord help me, where is Seanchai or AM to scream at us for how out of touch with all the cool kids?

If it makes you feel better, Vreeg, I actually think every other play and GMing style is wrong and stupid and not much fun.

It's just that I'm patient in explaining the brilliance of my own styles, since after all, if you're the sort to buy into something wrong and stupid, you need things explained to you in clear and simple language.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;351027If it makes you feel better, Vreeg, I actually think every other play and GMing style is wrong and stupid and not much fun.

It's just that I'm patient in explaining the brilliance of my own styles, since after all, if you're the sort to buy into something wrong and stupid, you need things explained to you in clear and simple language.

As though your opinion makes a difference.  I play 35million games a week.  Mainstream games.