Quote from: JRR;565825Sounds like Schrodinger's dog.

He pushed the roll, so the character took longer trying to listen, giving the dog time to advance.

And if two people listen, one makes his check and the other pushes and fails, is the dog in two places at once?

Quote from: Ladybird;565835He pushed the roll, so the character took longer trying to listen, giving the dog time to advance.

So what did "pushing" the roll do?

Because in my game the dog arrives in x rounds (or xd6, or whatever).

What it sounds like is "the dog will arrive in 6 rounds unless the player 'pushes' their roll in which case it shows up now and I'll hand wave some BS as to why" which is putting story think ahead of the  milieu.

If the player wants to listen really hard and wait around that's totally fine. If the GM is changing game elements based on some "but the player really wants it" is story game BS and will lead to crappy games.

I'm going to need another non-time-based example (like a task that is either pass-fail at that moment, no subsequent retries). Because at the most charitable "pushing it" in this example is just another separate task roll at a later time period. Or, it's seen as Schrodinger's kitty-cat, forever in 'quantum potential' and only as valid as when the succeeding roll observes it.

Perhaps give an example of "pushing it" for a skill in combat where rounds are clearly delineated. If pushing it is a separate and later task roll then it'd occur in another round. If it's a weird "Schrodinger's reroll," then it'd occur within the same round. That would help clarify any questions I have for this mechanic.

Quote from: RPGPundit;565731One of the two FATE games I ran (Starblazer) had consequences. And I don't see how those have fuck all to do with negotiating the stakes; they're just a type of damage mechanic, they're what the DM decides happens to you when you take enough damage.

Ummm, no. Not as written. They're alternatives to taking damage. Instead of ticking a box on the appropriate Stress track, you earn a temporary negative Aspect called a Consequence. Whether the GM or the player decides on the Aspect is irrelevant; it's still negotiating stakes.

Quote from: Piestrio;565857So what did "pushing" the roll do?

Because in my game the dog arrives in x rounds (or xd6, or whatever).

What it sounds like is "the dog will arrive in 6 rounds unless the player 'pushes' their roll in which case it shows up now and I'll hand wave some BS as to why" which is putting story think ahead of the  milieu.

If the player wants to listen really hard and wait around that's totally fine. If the GM is changing game elements based on some "but the player really wants it" is story game BS and will lead to crappy games.

You might rule that pushing the roll means the character spends more time listening and trying to identify the noise outside, giving the dog time to arrive. The barking grows louder and closer as the unlucky PC realizes with dread that the bloodthirsty mutt is headed his way...

I don't know. Could work, maybe. I'm not a fan of metagamey stuff, but I'll reserve judgement until I've at least read the rules.

Quote from: RPGPundit;565767If that's how it actually plays, then I wouldn't have any problem with it.  I think this might in fact be a case of the person doing the publicity fucking up in terms of how they were describing things.

RPGPundit

The person doing the publicity might be a big fan of Forge stuff like Conflict Resolution and so was hyping it up as if it were.  

Similar thing happened with The One Ring.  People were hyping how it was so much like WFRP3, and the authors and publishers were trying to walk that back, because there's not a lot in common other than they both have Narrative influences in different ways.

Quote from: RPGPundit;565767If that's how it actually plays, then I wouldn't have any problem with it.  I think this might in fact be a case of the person doing the publicity fucking up in terms of how they were describing things.

RPGPundit

No, that's exactly how it was described. It's just you and your ignorance reading something into it that wasn't there.

Quote from: JRR;565825Sounds like Schrodinger's dog.

There were six dogs on the loose, smart arse.

Always amazes me how people interpret things in the way it serves their agenda.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;565934No, that's exactly how it was described. It's just you and your ignorance reading something into it that wasn't there.

+1

This reminds me a lot about the creation of Mongoose Traveller. The grognards were up in arms and read everything in the negative. After it came out, some grognards stayed in their holes. Most saw that they had done a great job of revitalising the game and it still felt and played like Traveller (granted there are faults with the system).

I would think that 'pushing' is a rule that can very easily be ignored, if you so wish. I don't think it's something that's dependent on other rules and so entwined with them that removing it would break the game.

Essentially it is a gimmick; if one wants to be assinine about it. But then so are lots of rules. It's a gimmick that exists not to simulate the reality of dogs and the distance to them of a potential listener, but to simulate the tension within the ensuing drama. What's wrong with that? Nothing, of course.

Quote from: Stainless;565789That's how one of the designers played it and was exactly how I interpreted their description of it from the seminar the previous day. It works well. The main issue will be with inexperienced Keepers giving either trivial or too extreme consequences for pushing the roll. It will need good Keepers advice and examples.

The big problem I would have with this setup would be if the GM is FORCED to let players "push", and MUST have some dire consequence.  What happens if he just wants to say "no"?

RPGPundit

Quote from: The Butcher;565901Ummm, no. Not as written. They're alternatives to taking damage. Instead of ticking a box on the appropriate Stress track, you earn a temporary negative Aspect called a Consequence. Whether the GM or the player decides on the Aspect is irrelevant; it's still negotiating stakes.

The way it works is that you take damage; and when you choose to take a consequence you are erasing a certain number of ticks (depending on the level of the consequence) from the stress track.  

I don't see how it can be "negotiating stakes" if its the GM that decides exactly what the consequence is.  If you're really defining "negotiating stakes" as "the player is free to decide whether to be Taken Out by too much stress, or accept an unknown consequence totally determined by the GM" as a "negotiation"?

Also, as I mentioned, not all versions of Fate use this damage system.

RPGPundit

Quote from: The Butcher;565908You might rule that pushing the roll means the character spends more time listening and trying to identify the noise outside, giving the dog time to arrive. The barking grows louder and closer as the unlucky PC realizes with dread that the bloodthirsty mutt is headed his way...

Except there, what happens if the PC "succeeds" at his push? Do the dogs magically retreat again?  This does seem like a fairly tricky mechanic that depends on a narrative rather than emulative universe.

Now, if it works in the sense that: "the Dogs are 60m away when the PC failed his first check to hear them and after that the PC can choose to "push" it by checking every increment as they get 20m closer, meaning that whether he succeeds or fails the subsequent checks, they'll still be closer", that'd be ok from an emulative point of view.  Of course, it would really mean that its not so much "pushing" it as "being allowed additional checks every x increment of time/distance/whatever".
On the other hand, if it works like: "the dogs are 60m away when the PC failed his first check, and after that the PC can choose to "push" it in which case if he fails again they'll be 10m from him and closing but if he succeeds they'll actually still be 60m away", that takes a bit more explaining as to how its not fucking with the concept of a virtual world.

I think this mechanic might be possible without wrecking things like emulation and immersion, but it will depend a tremendous amount on how its actually presented and what are the rules and limits for it.  The big problem I see with it is the idea that "if the PC makes the "push" then everything is still OK, but if he fails the "push" then everything is much more fucked up", because there its essentially saying that the PC's roll of the dice creates reality, rather than it being the GM who creates reality.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;566165I think this mechanic might be possible without wrecking things like emulation and immersion, but it will depend a tremendous amount on how its actually presented and what are the rules and limits for it.  The big problem I see with it is the idea that "if the PC makes the "push" then everything is still OK, but if he fails the "push" then everything is much more fucked up", because there its essentially saying that the PC's roll of the dice creates reality, rather than it being the GM who creates reality.

Yeah. Taking the push should raise a complication. Failing the push should make it worse.