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.

There's also action points. Spend an action point and reroll.

Our GM's being a little lenient since we just started 4th edition. Last night I kept forgetting I got a +1 for being bloodied and if it made a difference and I remembered before the next player rolled he'd let me take it.

Well, yeah, alot of systems have "do-overs" built into the rules. As long as you pay for them somehow...action points, plot points, karma points...I got no problem with it.

And when somebody is unfamiliar with the rules and are giving themselves short shrift as a consequence, sure I'll let 'em re-roll.

If it's a matter of "I wanna do something unbelievably fucktarded", sorry ass-munch, you eat the damage.

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.

We have something similar to address suggestions from the rest of the party. As in:

Player 1: "Dude, ask him about the macguffin!"
Player 2 (or DM): "Hey, you aren't there."
Player 1: (puts both hands to forehead with forefingers extended and wiggles forefingers like antennae) "Dude, ask him about the macguffin!"

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

I would tend to agree, except I'm now wondering if it's just a more basic thing: Computers can manage take-backsies + computer games were originally largely outgrowths of D&D + computers can't manage DM judgment calls = unpredictable game encounters --> go back to last save.

And because many of the new PnP players I meet have a lot more experience with computer games, they bring the expectation for a do-over to the gaming table.

But here's another thought: I also know a few gamers who do PnP RPGs (and things like WoW) as an outlet for their real-life frustrations. They want to be the biggest baddest killers around, and mouth off to everyone in a way they can't in real life. Which, if the game is not designed for the PCs to be mouthy bullies, gets them into trouble. So, bewildered, they wonder why they are having to live with the consequences even in a game. (My answer is usually...it's a GAME. It really is a place to mouth off and suffer consequences, without losing your ability to pay rent.)

I agree on the technical side of take-backsies vs. judgement calls -- but even in a computer context, reverting to a save feels different from a ctrl-z, somehow. Probably somewhere in between, or some of both, or something.

My answer is usually...it's a GAME. It really is a place to mouth off and suffer consequences, without losing your ability to pay rent.

Dude, yeah? Play isn't practicing no consequences, it's practicing taking consequences.