|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Feb 3, 2015 12:59:53 GMT -5
Do you allow "do overs" aka retconning by your players? Why or why not? I recently saw a thread [B/X] Torchbearer hacks for D&D which advocates a system of "do overs" which is stated as: I interpret this as, "Oh, something bad just happened!" so the players says "Hey ref, I always do such and such" and the ref allows the player to after the fact change his actions. Personally, I don't like it. Now I have no problem with the players telling me up front, "unless we tell you otherwise we will be doing the following at each door" or whatever standard action(s) they identify up front. As long as the tell me up front. But changing the actions after the fact, based on the consequences of doing or not doing something is just not right in my view. YMMV  What say you?  |
|
|
|
Post by Mr Darke on Feb 4, 2015 17:56:54 GMT -5
No, I can't say I like it either. I will retroactively fix a mistake or misruling but never a player action unless they have a real good reason.
|
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Feb 4, 2015 18:22:23 GMT -5
Admin Pete, I agree with Mr Darke, that just seems really wrong to me. I also will fix a mistake or a misruling, but only if it is beneficial. I do not think it feels right to "fix" something in such a way that it hurts PCs. Just feels mean. I will retro-"hurt" NPCs!
|
|
|
|
Post by Necromancer on Feb 5, 2015 7:03:16 GMT -5
No, I can't say I like that. Narrative control or not, to me that sounds like "oh, I did something and failed, now I wanna do it again but differently". Telling the ref "in case of X I always do Y, unless I say otherwise" is completely different, and I wouldn't have any problems with that. In the case of misruling, I'd try to fix it as smoothly as possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Semi-Retired Gamer on Feb 5, 2015 7:16:19 GMT -5
No, I can't say I like it either. I will retroactively fix a mistake or misruling but never a player action unless they have a real good reason. My thoughts also! |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Feb 8, 2015 22:28:55 GMT -5
Yeah, I go back and fix my mistakes if they hurt the players. But if I make a mistake that helped the players I only correct it going forward.
|
|
|
|
Post by makofan on Feb 9, 2015 10:49:03 GMT -5
As DM, I only retcon my mistakes or misunderstandings, and it is almost always in favour of the players. That being said, sometimes someone will state something and the rest of the party will do plan B, and I will let the person abort his original idea
|
|
|
|
Post by Von on Feb 11, 2015 3:03:34 GMT -5
In the event of honest confusion I am prepared to allow a backsie. Given that I run with new players more often than not, these things are bound to happen from time to time and there's no sense in being an authoritarian prat and ruining D&D for them with churlishness. I will explain, once the heat of the moment has cooled, that this luxury will not be encouraged forever and that we'll all be more careful to avoid the need for it in future.
If I'm running for a group of veterans who know how to code-shift between in- and out-of-character speech and who are reasonably experienced in the rules and generic conventions of the game I'm much less forgiving. In such games reaching for the dice has an air of peril about it since it's known by all concerned that they are lethal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Feb 11, 2015 12:54:29 GMT -5
In the event of honest confusion I am prepared to allow a backsie. Given that I run with new players more often than not, these things are bound to happen from time to time and there's no sense in being an authoritarian prat and ruining D&D for them with churlishness. I will explain, once the heat of the moment has cooled, that this luxury will not be encouraged forever and that we'll all be more careful to avoid the need for it in future. If I'm running for a group of veterans who know how to code-shift between in- and out-of-character speech and who are reasonably experienced in the rules and generic conventions of the game I'm much less forgiving. In such games reaching for the dice has an air of peril about it since it's known by all concerned that they are lethal. Great advice, there is a difference in the way you ref for veteran players and first timers. With first timers, I have been known to TPK them(once) and then back up and have them try it again(once), making it clear that this first one is a one time training exercise to let them get a good picture of how things work. I tell them to think on their feet, you don't have time to agonize over decisions, so size things up quickly and make a decision. Hopefully we never come across like that! |
|
|
|
Post by Von on Feb 12, 2015 2:38:03 GMT -5
Consider it a general caution rather than a personal admonition, o Perilous one. After all I don't know you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Feb 12, 2015 8:22:24 GMT -5
Consider it a general caution rather than a personal admonition, o Perilous one. After all I don't know you. I took it as a general caution! Players can always vote with their feet if they are not having fun with you! |
|
|
|
Post by merias on Feb 12, 2015 14:53:17 GMT -5
I also allow do-overs for mistakes on my part as a ref, but never for bad results where there are no mistakes. I agree with the distinction over player experience. When my kids were younger and I was playing with them, I would not be afraid to fudge die rolls to get a 'fun' outcome for them, so that avoided the issue of a redo altogether, and also kept the action moving forward.
|
|
|
|
Post by ffilz on Feb 13, 2015 17:02:41 GMT -5
Hmm, I think that is somewhat a misinterpretation of Burning Wheel/Torchbearer instincts. The player is still obligated to remember them, though the use to activate them immediately after an action is almost true.
A better thing would be to encourage what we did in the old days of having a "standard operating procedure" for opening doors and such. The players would document the SOP to the GM, and then say "We open the door following SOP". Then all those checks you do every time would be done.
I allow some limited amount of do-over if there has been a big misunderstanding that is my fault, or if we have misapplied the rules in a way that has a significant impact, but otherwise, I think for good flow of play, retconning should be avoided.
Frank
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Feb 13, 2015 17:21:36 GMT -5
Hmm, I think that is somewhat a misinterpretation of Burning Wheel/Torchbearer instincts. The player is still obligated to remember them, though the use to activate them immediately after an action is almost true. A better thing would be to encourage what we did in the old days of having a "standard operating procedure" for opening doors and such. The players would document the SOP to the GM, and then say "We open the door following SOP". Then all those checks you do every time would be done. I allow some limited amount of do-over if there has been a big misunderstanding that is my fault, or if we have misapplied the rules in a way that has a significant impact, but otherwise, I think for good flow of play, retconning should be avoided. Frank Hey Frank, it sounds like you do the same thing that I do. As far as the instincts, I have no firsthand info and was going by the thread I referenced. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2015 1:48:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by hedgehobbit on Mar 16, 2015 10:50:05 GMT -5
An Instinct is essentially an “if/then” statement for the character’s behavior. “If surprised, I draw my sword.” The player is allowed to program these actions and reactions into his character. Therefore, he can be assured that his character will react within certain parameters whether the player explicitly states it or not at. This text seems to imply that it happens regardless of whether or not the player remembers he has that particular instinct. But, I still don't understand what would be the difference between "If surprised, I draw my sword" and a regular game where something happens and the player says, "I draw my sword" unless the DM was going act strange as in: DM: "The wall bursts open and a giant cockroach begins to crawl in to the room!" Player: "I attack it before it gets all the way inside" DM: "Since you didn't actually say you were drawing your sword, you are attacking it with your fists" I once played with a guy that when confronted with that sort of thing would say: "I breath in. Then I breath out. And would keep saying that over and over and over and over. It was pretty effective. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2015 11:40:37 GMT -5
I am pretty sure that is exactly the kind of scenario which the mechanic is intended to prevent. You have correctly identified its purpose, so far as I understand it.
|
|
|
|
Post by ffilz on Mar 16, 2015 12:44:22 GMT -5
There are several ways an instinct works.
In the case of the giant cockroach bursting in, the draw sword instinct allows the character to draw a sword BEFORE engaging the Fight! mechanics (Fight! is Burning Wheel's combat mechanics). It basically negates some of the effects of surprise (though Burning Wheel doesn't have actual surprise mechanics).
The player is responsible for remembering to activate his instinct (though the other players and even GM are encouraged to remind the player).
An instinct allows a certain level of "do-over" in that as the players and GM are having the verbal back and forth leading up to a die roll to resolve the mechanics, the player can invoke his instinct. Once the dice hit the table though, the instinct can't be invoked as a do-over. In my first comment on instincts I wasn't taking the time to get my head back into Burning Wheel mode, so slightly misstated my understanding.
An instinct MIGHT be invoked to adjust the results of a failure - but that would probably be an invocation of the instinct to get the PC into more trouble.
On the other hand, the GM saying "Since you didn't actually say you were drawing your sword, you are attacking it with your fists" is really a dick move in any game system. Usually a GM will ask "attacking with what?" or assume you attack with your primary weapon.
Frank
|
|
