Quote from: HombreLoboDomesticado;564969It certainly gave PCs a better chance at dodging, no matter the confusion regarding exactly when and how often it was allowed.

Gotta love that "common sense" thing people keep talking about.

Quote from: CRKrueger;564965Ok, but the player is still choosing whether to Fail or "Succeed in an Interesting (in the Chinese fashion) Way".  They are making the choice as a player choosing to take the GM's offer to advance the story in a different way.  "Conflict Resolution Lite" is not Task Resolution (the method of the previous 30 years of CoC).

You're still slightly out from how it works in play. Let me give you an example.

Your character is sneaking through a graveyard at night, trying to find out why bodies keep disappearing. The GM tells you that you hear a twig snap somewhere off to the left. You swing your flashlight round, trying to catch a glimpse of who or what made the noise, so the GM asks you to make a spot hidden. You roll and fail.

At this stage, you decide that you're willing to go all out, and run at speed through the dark towards the noise, your little flashlight waving around. The GM decides that this entitles you to push the roll, only if you're willing to take the risk that running through a dark graveyard involves. Sure, you say, and roll again.

The dice hate you and you fail hard. The GM says that you stumble over a broken gravestone and go tumbling. Your flashlight goes flying, and you only have the moonlight overhead now. The GM tells you that something you can't see is breathing heavily and moving in your direction.

At no point in this is the player setting stakes. He or she is simply throwing caution to the wind through role-playing.

I get the impression that you haven't quite got the right end of these rules from the summaries you've seen. I run games online every now and then. Would you be interested in a 7th ed game at some stage? It would be my pleasure.

Scott, pardon my ignorance but are you actually someone employed at Chaosium or involved in the development of 7th edition CoC in any way?

RPGPundit

Quote from: Scott Dorward;564932Out of interest, where are you getting your information from? I know Paul and Mike, and neither of them had anything to do with the Forge or favour that style of play. You obviously know something I don't.

"negotiating the stakes" is a concept directly born from storygaming that bears no relation to how regular RPGs are run.

RPGPundit

Quote from: The Butcher;564964Sheesh. Don't tell Pundit or he might suddenly "realize" that FATE isn't really a RPG.

FATE does not involve any inherent "negotiation of stakes" in its task resolution.

I've run two campaigns using FATE at this point (one still ongoing), and not once did any of my players ever get to negotiate with me as to what would happen if they succeed vs. what would happen if they fail a roll.

RPGPundit

This 'negotiate the stakes' shit sounds like... shit. I don't want shit in my game. Nope, not buying it.

Quote from: RPGPundit;565009FATE does not involve any inherent "negotiation of stakes" in its task resolution.

Then you're not using Consequences.

Glad your houserules are working for you, but FATE as written uses conflict resolution and definitely includes negotiating stakes.

Quote from: RPGPundit;564998Scott, pardon my ignorance but are you actually someone employed at Chaosium or involved in the development of 7th edition CoC in any way?

A playtester, I believe.

Pushed rolls.

I already do this for important rolls but it is my decision not the players. A player might try to approach a problem from a different angle (for instance using a disguise to get past a bouncer rather than fast talk if the fast talk failed). or if the roll is close I might say you could try sneaking a bit closer with the associated risks and try again

Do we really need a rule to do this surely that is just being an experienced keeper and  perhaps made a note as an option but to make it a rule that a player can ask for?

Seems to me this will be manipulated to try and reduce the luck expenditure of a roll. (fail a roll by too much then take the risk and reroll so you can spend less luck succeeding.. You can threaten what you like for the second roll, I'll be using luck so there is no risk to me.)

Luck

I would much rather the investigators played a story rather then play resource management. When will you use the points?

The balance for using luck in this way is luck stat goes down so you fail more luck rolls. Only in my games I hardly ever use luck rolls

If I am to use this new mechanic it would seem that I would have to start using luck a lot more to create some negative aspect to using your points to enhance dice rolls.

This is a game changer for me and forcing me to roll dice more in order to keep balance from my minimalist approach.

It would be nice if luck was optional but as the author states

Quote"The only issue I see with making parts of the new rules optional is that they are integrated rather than modular; remove connections and luck spends no longer work, remove luck spends and there's no way of breaking ties, remove half and fifth skill values and levels of success become unwieldy, remove levels of success and combat won't work, and so on."

So it's all or nothing.

I have to start rolling more if I want to use nearly any part of the new rules and drastically altering the game my group plays.

If the new rules go through then that is fine I am more than happy to continue playing an earlier edition

Quote from: RPGPundit;564998Scott, pardon my ignorance but are you actually someone employed at Chaosium or involved in the development of 7th edition CoC in any way?

No, I don't work for Chaosium. As Jadrax mentioned, I've been playtesting the new rules for a few years, including using them to run games at conventions.

Also Paul Fricker is a friend of mine, and we game together fairly regularly. I know Mike fairly well too.

Quote from: RPGPundit;565008"negotiating the stakes" is a concept directly born from storygaming that bears no relation to how regular RPGs are run.

There is no negotiation of stakes in 7th edition.

It's interesting that The Butcher mentioned Consequences from FATE. The fallout from failing a Pushed roll works in a similar way, except not as abstracted.

Quote from: RPGPundit;564998Scott, pardon my ignorance but are you actually someone employed at Chaosium or involved in the development of 7th edition CoC in any way?

RPGPundit

Scott is in fact one of the champion GMs on the UK con scene and usual runs plenty of games throughout the conventions that get often get over-subscribed. His game sign-up sheets are filled once they go onto the sign-up boards within seconds.

Quote from: corban;565129Pushed rolls.

I already do this for important rolls but it is my decision not the players. A player might try to approach a problem from a different angle (for instance using a disguise to get past a bouncer rather than fast talk if the fast talk failed). or if the roll is close I might say you could try sneaking a bit closer with the associated risks and try again

I definitely see this as something that a player should be able to ask for, but only before they roll the dice (And I meant ask for with a reasonable explanation, not get automatically because they want it); have their character intentionally take a needless risk in order to roll twice and take the most preferable result, but they could fail anyway and they'll suffer consequences for taking the risk whatever happens. Any trying again after they fail the first time, like you said, is up to the GM, and would have it's own risks.

So, say, I'm making my XP rolls, and let's say this represents my character doing night classes in a science. I could roll as normal, and this represents them having an average work/life/study balance, trying to cram everything in. Or I could push it, roll twice, but that represents them concentrating so much on the learning that their relationship and their job suffers; succeed or fail, we'll have to deal with the consequences of that. Is a few extra percentage points worth their marriage? I'd say no; remember, that character has to go on existing in the game world after you're done with them.

Or let's say I'm being rushed by some gribbly monster, and I've got a gun (And have passed all my fear checks, etc). I could pop off a shot and then run, roll once, and that's that. Or I could wait until the monster gets closer, roll twice because I've had more time to aim, but that thing is going to get a bonus to hit me because I took a needless risk... if I miss, I'm fucked, and it's my own fault.

I really like making risk / reward calculations. This doesn't break character immersion for me, because it's a decision the character would have to take in the game world. Books or relationship, shoot or scoot, unsafe or safe.

I'm not keen on the luck mechanic, though. BRP already has a pretty good luck mechanic. It's called rolling the dice.

Quote from: CRKrueger;563915Because sales aren't the point, overwriting the older styles of play with the newer narrative styles is the point.

then don't buy it... wow, that's simple... you have 6.5 versions to play with already. You sound like Kevin Sembiedia

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;564064What else could they do with a new edition of the game? Reprint the same stuff they have for seventh time? Is that worth bothering with?

Extraordinary how this board has less of a problem with FATE than these proposed changes.

I'm not sure about the whole connections thing, but so what? I have CoC5th edition if I need to play the game old school.

Also backwards compatibility isn't king: it's part of the design of the product (apparently, how effective it will be is another matter). If it were king there would be no point putting out a 7th edition.

I swear, some people would rather see a company go belly up then change.