>=0)

This sounds a lot like Jonathan Tweet’s fabulous Kirk rule — and like Jonathan’s rule, it’s a good approach.

And I agree that there are times when it’s best to leave mechanics out of the picture — depending on your group’s play style, this could definitely be one of them.

Interesting. As a GM and a player (GMs love me for this) I don’t regard a “failed” dice roll as a failure in the strictest sense of the word. Rather I look on it as ‘something went wrong’, I might be “the fastest draw in the West but there is always someone faster” kinda thing. Hope that makes sense.

It is an ego cushion, but there is a logic behind it, no matter how good you are at something, there is always the chance of failure.

This is what makes rolling the dice so much fun (and why the idea of diceless gaming doesn’t really appeal to me), I don’t know for 100% that what I’m doing is going to be a success and the times I remember most fondly are times when I’ve made a result by the skin of my dice despite overwhelming odds, huge modifiers and a sceptical GM.

In a similar vein as a GM and player I take PC death as something that happens.

I do trust the GM and my fellow gamers to protect my back so to speak, but if it is a characters time to die then so be it, I just hope that’ll it be a bit more heroic than getting hit by a car.

As a GM I ensure that any character that dies does so heroically and dramatically. With the chasm example I might be harsh if this was at the end of the adventure, after all how many times has someone fallen to their death just before doing battle with the evil lord?

This is both cinematic and real, adding to the tension reminding the PCs that success is never assured and yes, they could all die.

I think the “gee lets try something else to save him” approach has to be called on merit frankly (No pun intended!), PCs should have as many chances to be saved as is logical and fair but certainly the sequence should be finite otherwise the whole thing becomes slightly absurd, turning it into a game of “keep up” with the PC as the ball!

“But semantically, “Yes, but…” is just fine. Make sure what follows the “but…” is a realistic assessment of the situation, and then let the player give it a shot”.

Personally Martin I really hate discussing game mechanics in game, I can appreciate the POV of talking the player through it but… for whatever reason I find it breaks the flow of the action, and there is always the danger of losing players interest through number crunching. As a GM I might give an average modifier for the entire sequence to allow PCs to gauge the likelihood of its success but otherwise I let PC common sense dictate whether or not they should try it… whilst making sceptical faces >=0)

But semantically, “Yes, but…” is just fine. Make sure what follows the “but…” is a realistic assessment of the situation, and then let the player give it a shot.

(And great comments so far — this is a fun topic to consider, even though it’s a hoary old chestnut as far as GMing advice goes.)

Your second play by play assumes a desire for cinematic fantasy. Just because all play is fiction (and in one sense, any fiction is fantasy), doesn’t mean that all play must have the same degree of fantasy.

I also have to say that in my experience, this kind of “gee lets try something else to save him” actually damages the game as people stretch reality more and more to try and save a character. Far better to accept that the character failed (and possibly died).

I have often pointed out that many game situations are “roll until you fail,” often tracking and climbing situations. But the opposite, “roll until you succeed,” is also possible, and just as harmfull.

Now if the rules structure is clear, there might be several opportunities to salvage a failed roll, but it’s best if the sequence is clear, and also finite.

Frank

PC1: “I can’t believe the rope broke. I try to jump it.”

GM: “You can’t, it’s too far.”

This is much better:

PC1: “I can’t believe the rope broke. I try to jump it.”

GM: There will be X modifiers and you need to make these rolls… Ready to go?”

PC1 makes his first two rolls to jump, nimbly make his way to spring off a nearby foot hold and botches the landing. As he begins to fall into the sprawling abyss…

PC2: “I reach out and grab him and make a
strength test to hold him!”

GM: “Agility check on you to see if you catch him and strength check on you both!”

Bounding off a side cropping in the wall after jumping the chasm, PC1 makes a daring leap and starts to fall short. PC2 reaches out and grabs him and as he catches, PC3 grabs onto PC2′s ankles as they all work together to pull each other to the top. PC1 now owes PC2 and 3 a trip to the fridge to get a soda and another slice of pizza so they can chill and take a break. They can now talk in between bites about how cool that was and how PC1 almost bought it.

Regards,
Walt

If a character gets mangled by a couple of goodyear tires, he shouldn’t become angry at the DM for not explaining what COULD happen.

Now that I think about it, I use the exact same tone when I say, “You don’t find any traps…” I wonder why that is.

“No” answers can be valuable if you’re trying to reinforce an atmosphere of hopelessness or other non-heroic atmosphere. “Yes” is great for heroic fantasy, but a judicious “no” can reinforce the feeling of authenticity in darker settings.

Make sure that you’re not saying no to eliminate player input. However, a “no” can be valuable when you’re eliminating choices and subplots. When you’re getting close to the big climax, it can be important for plot and pacing to avoid spinning out new subplots and side missions.

As the GM, you need to stay a little distant from their request. Don’t make judgement calls like “That’s the dumbest thing I’ve EVER heard!” or “No way would your character do THAT!”

Rather it’s your job as the GM to lay out the unbiased facts: “OK, you can roll under the car with x difficulty, remember if you fail that roll by a certain amount you’re likely to get run over and take some damage. If you make it under then there’s a roll of y to grab on and hang on as the car accelerates. Every so often you’ll need to roll z to keep holding on. Remember you’ll be subject to the possibility of damage as you’re dragged along.”

Remind them of consequences, but don’t rule it out. It’s their call to decide if they’ll risk all that.

For me I stopped using the words yes and no altogether and just go straight to the game mechanics. Want to lift a car in a modern game? Okay – you have no modifiers and must roll 10 natural 20s in a row. Make all of the first five but fail any of the second five and the car will land on your character most likely crushing him or her. The damage will be a d% times a d%.

If a player actually succeeded I’d explain the result, and the dice rolls, as divine intervention.

The reason I go straight to the mechanics is because with one group I realized that even when a no was reasonable some players would then spend the time trying to convince me how it was plausible for his or her character to do something. Like with the car example I would probably be told the old story of how in desperate situations mothers have lifted cars off of their newborn babies because of their incredible love for the child.

Do I think it is an urban legend? Yes, but now I have to argue with the player why I won’t let an attempt be made. Going straight to the mechanics I can just say “In game terms, those women rolled 10 natural 20s on a d20 all in a roll.”

I didn’t tell the player that I think that his or her logic is stupid, I just gave them an option that actually confirms what they see as the real argument: “My character can do anything I can think of.” All I’m doing is adding the caveat of “Yes, but your character is not guaranteed a success. Just the chance.”