We didn't end up playing Power Grid this weekend. We did play Rock Band (RB2 coming out 9/14 for Xbox!), but mostly we played Ticket to Ride and San Juan.

San Juan. I won, but I'm not sure I like it. It seems like a pointless debasement of Puerto Rico. OTOH, it's a leaner meaner PR with excellent decisions for what to cut and what to keep. It was not easy for the first-timer to pick up, however.

Ticket to Ride was awesome. I lost (3rd out of 4 players), but I see a lot of potential for different strategies to try. Plus little plastic trains! Nice art direction through and through.

On another topic, I had to give a spiel today on identity in virtual worlds, and some of the research (hi Sox) on Second Life included the phrase "It's not a game. I don't ask for do-over [if I do something wrong]."

Which got me thinking...I'm used to going back to the last save point in computer RPGs, and in fact timely saves are a key gaming skill. But only once in a serious pen-and-paper RPG (a couple times in goofy ones like Paranoia) have I ever seen a "do-over" happen.

Survey? Do you tabletop gamers expect computer-like do-overs while playing D&D or similar? Or is it more "like real life" and you always deal with the consequences of your actions?

Do you have notes you can share on your SL thing, Raq? Or is it confidentially worky stuff?

But only once in a serious pen-and-paper RPG (a couple times in goofy ones like Paranoia) have I ever seen a "do-over" happen.

I've seen someone, say, allowed to reroll healing if they get 1s, and if a character dies, the sequence of events is often examined closely for rules or abilities or favours that might have been overlooked. I've never seen someone ask to do an action over because their chosen action didn't work out so well.

Frankly, my initial reaction would be "It's a game. You don't get do-overs." You don't get do-overs in chess, or Bridge, or Ticket to Ride either, if you're playing halfway seriously. I think video games are the anomaly, not PnP.

Survey? Do you tabletop gamers expect computer-like do-overs while playing D&D or similar? Or is it more "like real life" and you always deal with the consequences of your actions?

Suffer the consequences. The only exception is when a player has said something in-character but hasn't quite understood the circumstances which would be clear as day to the character.

Our crew has what we call the "thought bubble" rule. There's about a 10 second takeback period for dumbass statements or actions that your character does, where you can claim that whatever you did was just a cartoon-style "thought bubble", and I'll generally let you off with a merciless mocking, rather than a well-deserved death.

Given the kind of general dumbassery our crew's prone to, it's kind of a lifesaver.

Our crew has what we call the "thought bubble" rule. There's about a 10 second takeback period for dumbass statements or actions that your character does, where you can claim that whatever you did was just a cartoon-style "thought bubble", and I'll generally let you off with a merciless mocking, rather than a well-deserved death.

Oh man, we need this. It's like the old "I haven't taken my hand off the piece yet."

Do you have notes you can share on your SL thing, Raq?

I can totally share it, but I don't really have notes as such, just a whole lot of data points that I use extemporaneously. However, my goal is an actual paper so as I write stuff down I'm happy to share.

You don't get do-overs in chess, or Bridge, or Ticket to Ride either

All good points. I wonder if I'm comparing PnP and computer games without including other games because of the whole role-play aspect? And why would that matter?

Survey? Do you tabletop gamers expect computer-like do-overs while playing D&D or similar? Or is it more "like real life" and you always deal with the consequences of your actions?

For the most part: Suffer The Consequences!

Though, as Pete pointed out, I will occasionally allow a ret-con if it's a situation where the player didn't fully understand something that the character would have. I've also done ret-cons if it turns out we misinterpreted the rules of an action (assuming it's not too long ago [I have had players who came back to me after, like, three sessions with a "Remember when I did that thing that didn't work out so well and it led us to this course of action and ultimately to where we are now? Well, you read the rules wrong and we should re-do it from there." "No. In the future we'll do it right, but it's far too late to change now. Sorry." "whine whine piss and moan bitch bitch" "Or, a cow could fall from space and strike you dead. I have that power." "Fine."])

But 98% of the time it's "Sorry you're a 'tard, but this is how it goes. When you throw a grenade straight up, it won't necessarily detonate before it comes straight back down. Now pick up your legs and crawl to safety ya wuss."

Our crew has what we call the "thought bubble" rule.

We had something like that for a while, but I had to start being harshly arbitrary in regard to one player who would abuse it. He would say he was going to do the most ludicrously stupid shit that would inevitably get the entire team killed, stubbornly refuse to budge when the other players were shouting "No, you fool! We'll all die!" and then say "I was just kidding!" when it was obvious it wasn't going to work.

We moved on to a signal if you were not talking "in character". We'd put a hand on our head. It was understood that if you didn't have your hand on your head when you spoke, it was assumed to be "in character" and consequences could be suffered.

And why would that matter?

Pulling an answer out of my ass, because role play is conceived as a narrative as opposed to as a series of discrete moves, so the desire for "do-over" is more strongly tied to the player's overall subjective experience of the game and not just to "I should've made a different choice with my bishop 5 moves back". (For non-expert players, that is. The really good ones really *do* see the overall story of a game much more clearly than, say, I would. But we're in heavy digression-land now.)

Incidentally, the way the whole "not a game" thing is used is the number one thing that drives me bugshit in SL education research/work (which is the only place I encounter SL -- it's just not my thing in my free time).

because role play is conceived as a narrative as opposed to as a series of discrete moves, so the desire for "do-over" is more strongly tied to the player's overall subjective experience of the game

not an ass-answer at all.

We moved on to a signal if you were not talking "in character". We'd put a hand on our head. It was understood that if you didn't have your hand on your head when you spoke, it was assumed to be "in character" and consequences could be suffered.

I did a LARP one time where to speak out of character, you had to make moose antlers with your hands.