Claiming that you can do whatever you want with any triumph, regardless of the circumstances of the roll (Skill and situation) that generated it is, at best, facile. First off, lets get away from believing that "Cooperative storytelling" is synonymous with "do whatever you want". If that were true, we would need to pay $60 for hundreds of pages of rules limiting whats allowed. Second, stop pretending that limitations reduce creativity or satisfaction. It's untrue, but I'll loop back to support this.

RE: using triumphs for whatever you want simply isn't supported in the rules.

• Triumph aren't destiny points, therefore you can't use them for deus ex machina/luck application.
• Every skill has suggested uses for triumphs. What would be the point of these listings if you *could* do whatever you want with these results.
• There is not a singne example I am aware of in any text that suggests the use of Triumph for a result unrelated to the roll, or provides such an example.
• A dice roll is used to resolve the results of an action and is clarified in the "Core Mechanic Section" (pp 9-10). The Triumph is a result of the action.

The allowed uses (or at the very least the suggested uses) of a triumph are listed on p 13:

"[in addition to critical hits] Triumphs may activate other potent effects as well, including effects above and beyond those triggered by advantage. These effects may be set by the GM, or they may be defined by the environment, a piece of equipment, or a special character ability. [see also p 205]"

The same language, stating THE GM decides what the parameters of the Triumph are, not the players, is repeated on p 23: "Otherwise, the GM may have other options for for using Triumph."

The closest you get is the 205 reference that states

"As always, the players and GMs may invent other ways to spend [symbols] depending on the specific circumstances of the encounter, and any option that the players and GM agree upon can be viable."

The GM always, repeat always has final say. Now if you allow 'anything goes' at your table, fine, but you absolute cannot claim that the RAW provide players have carte blanche to do whatever they please with Triumph as your typically oversimplistic statement would indicate:

"The triumphs and advantages do not have to directly be tied to the action."

It's vastly more accurate to state Triumph and Adv *should* be directly tied to the action, but individual GMs may choose to forgo this expectation as they see fit.

This is, frankly, the problem with the vast majority of your posts: sweeping, overly-simplistic statements without support or precedent. They aren't informed opinions, the posts don't have value, and simply don't bear any further response. Even though this is exactly what you've stated, with no qualification or condition, I'm sure you'll post this isn't what you meant. again. with another condescending emoticon, responding as if you were addressing a child.

Again though, it has to make sense in the current situation. Random off the wall ideas that don't pertain to what's going on can get out of hand if the players notice you allow just about anything to happen even if it's not pertaining to the situation.

This pretty much sums it up. Lots of people, and in my experience more mature players, will not find the "random crap" interpretations fun. As children we play make-believe without limits, but as we mature we seek games of increasing complexity and limitations, but if limitations reduced how rewarding these games, why do would we behave this way. The foundation of the statement is simply wrong.

Merely ignoring the circumstances (the skill and the situation) that generated a triumph requires no wit, no skill, and minimal creativity. The situation cannot provide any substantial satisfaction compared to finding an effective and potent use of a triumph in the face of adversity and limitations.

As my own buy-in with LD, as a great man has said many, many times:

"Restrictions breed creativity." - Mark Rosewater

As it is a creative game, restrictions can, in fact, increase the fun.

(Within reason, of course)

Per page 206 of the EotE Core Rulebook, a Triumph in combat can be used to, "Do something vital, such as shooting the controls to the nearby blast doors to seal them shut." I think that opens up the idea of a Triumph as the way for a player to invoke something really lucky or extraordinary. It's a pretty wide-open option. On the other hand, I do agree that it should be tied into the action being performed, after all in the example given the player is at least shooting something, which presumably is what they were doing when they rolled the Triumph.

Triumphs and advantages are most often tied to the action. That comes naturally in most cases I think. However, if one of my players has an awesome idea that ties into the situation or the story, does not directly tie into the action and gives them an advantage, I'll most often go for it. Triumphs are something big and special and you should be able to "break the rules" a little bit.

But you guys have some very good points. Creativity within some restrictions is absolutely a good thing.

I generally allow Advantages and Triumphs to affect the situation in a way that is favorable to the characters, and while it usually pertains to the roll at hand, it is not always so. I'd suggest that my fellow GMs listen to The Skill Monkey Podcast which is now concluded but remains an excellent collection of short, digestible tips about how to narrate creatively with the dice.

While I do feel the "I paid $60 for these rules, I'm going to use them, consornit!" mentality is warranted at times, I do and I like to suggest that groups throw out rules, on occasion, that detract from the ongoing story. Usually, however, we bend the narrative in a fun and interesting way to make the rules work, make sense, and we all have a good time doing it.

I generally allow Advantages and Triumphs to affect the situation in a way that is favorable to the characters, and while it usually pertains to the roll at hand, it is not always so. I'd suggest that my fellow GMs listen to The Skill Monkey Podcast which is now concluded but remains an excellent collection of short, digestible tips about how to narrate creatively with the dice.

While I do feel the "I paid $60 for these rules, I'm going to use them, consornit!" mentality is warranted at times, I do and I like to suggest that groups throw out rules, on occasion, that detract from the ongoing story. Usually, however, we bend the narrative in a fun and interesting way to make the rules work, make sense, and we all have a good time doing it.

This is all great, do whatever your table needs, ignore whatever rules you want, .

The purpose of my posts above is to point out what the rules *actually* state about a topic, because theres a difference between ignoring what the RAW state, and claiming the RAW state something else entirely.

I generally allow Advantages and Triumphs to affect the situation in a way that is favorable to the characters, and while it usually pertains to the roll at hand, it is not always so. I'd suggest that my fellow GMs listen to The Skill Monkey Podcast which is now concluded but remains an excellent collection of short, digestible tips about how to narrate creatively with the dice.

While I do feel the "I paid $60 for these rules, I'm going to use them, consornit!" mentality is warranted at times, I do and I like to suggest that groups throw out rules, on occasion, that detract from the ongoing story. Usually, however, we bend the narrative in a fun and interesting way to make the rules work, make sense, and we all have a good time doing it.

This is all great, do whatever your table needs, ignore whatever rules you want, .

The purpose of my posts above is to point out what the rules *actually* state about a topic, because theres a difference between ignoring what the RAW state, and claiming the RAW state something else entirely.

Yea, good stuff.

Bizarrely, this actually brought the thread back on topic: The rules cited above demonstrate the GM had gobs of power over how triumphs are used, but never mention an obligation or expectation of the GM to allow the PCs ideas. The closest that text comes is to say "any option that the players and can agree upon."

If the GM and players don't agree? Then its not viable. That's not 'Yes, and'. It's still RAW and it's still okay.

If the GM doesn't think finding a job as a line cook is 'vital', then oh well.

Bizarrely, this actually brought the thread back on topic: The rules cited above demonstrate the GM had gobs of power over how triumphs are used, but never mention an obligation or expectation of the GM to allow the PCs ideas. The closest that text comes is to say "any option that the players and can agree upon."

If the GM and players don't agree? Then its not viable. That's not 'Yes, and'. It's still RAW and it's still okay.

If the GM doesn't think finding a job as a line cook is 'vital', then oh well.

You are right

I still believe the GM could use the Yes-word a bit more for a better game and that the OP was in his right to ask for advice about it to avhieve a better game experience.

I still believe the GM could use the Yes-word a bit more for a better game and that the OP was in his right to ask for advice about it to avhieve a better game experience.

I can't agree with you in this particular case. I'm gonna pull up something I said near the beginning of this thread:

GM's typically *hate* to say no to players.

I still feel that way about many good GMs (Some GMs want to play "screw the party", they're @$$hats, not including them). I'm willing to give this guys GM the benefit of the doubt.

Now the reason I can't agree with you is that we got a lot of very relevant information about the situations presented in the OP after the fact in the author's responses. I think it sounds like this GM is probably saying 'Yes' about as much as he can without feeling run over by the players and things getting off track. If he's saying no, I'm willing to be bet that its not because he's not trying hard enough.

If *SOME*one (not saying anyone in particular) got upset about a gaming situation and felt like they were being treated unfairly, they could misrepresent the situations to portray the issue as a problem where none existed. That's why I recommended, in this case, the OP first evaluate their own behavior first.

And got banned for my trouble, but that's another story.

In general, I do agree that saying as yes as much as is reasonable improves the game, and acknowledge that the 'reasonable'

part will be subjectively different from table to table. The expectation that your GM should say yes to everything and anything a a player wants is idiotic.

tl;dr I can't agree that the GM here would improve their game by saying 'yes and' more frequently because the examples given were very appear to have been unfairly presented.

Just gonna jump in here since this thread is finally on topic,

I totally agree with you Lethal Dose.

"In general, I do agree that saying as yes as much as is reasonable improves the game, and acknowledge that the 'reasonable' part will be subjectively different from table to table. The expectation that your GM should say yes to everything and anything a a player wants is idiotic"

I think this sums it up perfectly. Yes and when it makes sense, but foot down when the player is being ridiculous. Was I being ridiculous in thinking there should have been cook jobs? Well, as you said, the idea of 'reasonable' will change from party to party. If my GM thought there being the exact position I wanted available available wasn't reasonable, even if I don't agree I have to honor his decision as he is the GM. Should I have started a thread essentially second guessing and criticizing my GM? Probably not. So while I will stress that I truely did start this topic because I wanted advice on how to handle this situation, my way of going about it was not the best way.

Sorry you got banned, dude. I hope it doesn't happen again.

I'm still going to live in maybe. It keeps my players thinking, honest and having fun.

But LD has the right idea. The fact he got temp-banned astounds me. Regardless, not the topic at hand.

Oh, and it's awesome that this went full circle.

Was I being ridiculous in thinking there should have been cook jobs?

No, not really - but that's my opinion, and as we've thoroughly demonstrated, we have quite a few differing opinions around here!

I don't inherently think it's bad to second-guess GM rulings as a thought exercise as long as the subtext isn't to point someone to a thread to "prove" they are wrong. We all get just a little bit better at this game and at gaming in general when we discuss and contemplate these scenarios.

Was I being ridiculous in thinking there should have been cook jobs?

You've asked so here you go:

Ridiculous? No. Being a pr*ck at the table and wasting everyone's time on a bit of minutia that should have been taken care of with a short exposition? Yes.

From the way you've drawn this out, the relentless begging the questions and attempts to justify a meaningless action leads me to believe you are a nightmare to GM for. You may be friends with your GM and all the folks in the game but from your post I don't get the impression you respect them much, at least not at the table.

I'm sure you're a nice guy but your posts show your likely a pain in the butt to GM for.

No, the cook job was a cool and creative idea that could, in many games, have been rewarded. But maybe you should have told your gm it was a PC retirement plan

I'm sorry you feel that way, FuriousGreg. Hey, maybe I was unfustified, which is exactly what I said after the sentence you responded to. I went on to say that regardless of whether I disagreed with the decision, I do respect it as he is the GM. The question wasn't really asking for more opinions, though I do appreciate them. It was more my way of saying that whether I'm right or wrong, the GM's word is final.

If I am a pain in the butt to deal with in games, I would appreciate it if I got this critique from others at the table rather than someone that I've never even met. I get that that's your opinion, and hey, maybe it's true, but I've played with the same group for years and never gotten this complaint.

Aside from the banter did you ever talk with your GM? You'll forgive me if I don't sort through all of this.

He was gone for the past few weeks, but I intend to speak about it to my GM tonight.

Was I being ridiculous in thinking there should have been cook jobs?

You've asked so here you go:

Ridiculous? No. Being a pr*ck at the table and wasting everyone's time on a bit of minutia that should have been taken care of with a short exposition? Yes.

Man, that seems a little harsh. I have yet to sit at a table that doesn't fiddlefart around a little....

Was I being ridiculous in thinking there should have been cook jobs?

You've asked so here you go:

Ridiculous? No. Being a pr*ck at the table and wasting everyone's time on a bit of minutia that should have been taken care of with a short exposition? Yes.

Man, that seems a little harsh. I have yet to sit at a table that doesn't fiddlefart around a little....

I agree.

And in a game about surviving, making money and getting jobs in the Outer Rim and the fringes of space, wanting to get a job on a space station doesn't sound all that crazy to me. Especially if it is done to retire the character from the game eventually. In a lot of EotE games that is a totally valid plan!... If it happens in the middle of a heist and comes out of nowhere, disrupting the game mid-action. Sure, if done wrong, without any explanation and timing it can end up being misunderstood for good reasons... You should have explained it was a retirement plan or meant for later so it didn't disrupt the game at hand.

I do agree that everyone should be on board and on the same page about what he game should be about. This should be made clear from or before character creation.

Maybe you could even play a colonist focused game as an entrepreneur with a cantina/restaurant if your gm(or another) is up for it in a later game.

Within the frames of the universe, genre and game focus(agreed upon rules included), I would incourage anyone to go for yes and.. always (as much as possible) in a narrative rpg... Sometimes maybe for a price, like flipping a point, taking on obligation or rolling difficult checks or something just story related.

Especially if it is done to retire the character from the game.

This is the part that's had me scratching my head from the beginning.

If it's just to determine the "epilogue" of a character's time in the game, then honestly who the kitten cares?!

It's not even worth rolling or asking the GM's permission. Just retire the character, and do your write up on your own time. Share if you feel like it at the next session.

It's something so irrelevant to the game that it's not worth creating any sort of awkward social situation because of it. Honestly, it'd be more of a legitimate (but no less absurd) issue if you'd decided to order a pizza for the group, and the GM making you roll to see if you could call a pizza shop, and when you failed, telling you that you had to order Chinese instead.

Especially if it is done to retire the character from the game.

This is the part that's had me scratching my head from the beginning.

If it's just to determine the "epilogue" of a character's time in the game, then honestly who the kitten cares?!

It's not even worth rolling or asking the GM's permission. Just retire the character, and do your write up on your own time. Share if you feel like it at the next session.

It's something so irrelevant to the game that it's not worth creating any sort of awkward social situation because of it. Honestly, it'd be more of a legitimate (but no less absurd) issue if you'd decided to order a pizza for the group, and the GM making you roll to see if you could call a pizza shop, and when you failed, telling you that you had to order Chinese instead.

Pak'pah Pie was a big deal in an important negotiation in our game last Sunday! A fail might have led to the Hutt liking chinese food instead...

But seriously, read what I said in context with the rest of my post.

Peace

Especially if it is done to retire the character from the game.

This is the part that's had me scratching my head from the beginning.

It makes more sense when you read that the OP hadn't told the GM about that plan to begin with, as evidenced here.

Now, I don't have a problem with TheTenaciousYuzzum (TTY, below). After his post at the top of this page, I don't doubt he has a handle on my position and understands why I've said what I've said and how I've said it. He can disagree with it, and that's fine. We're cool.

That being said, I don't think FuriousGreg's post is even remotely out of line.

Some of TTY's posts have come across as downright petulant. Those posts are still there, and Greg simply bothered to read them. Given the topic and the style of those posts it's very possible (and I would say very *likely*) that it's evidence of a certain attitude that would be a pain to manage at the table.

Greg's tone simply reflects the degree to which this attitude can be a hassle at the table. It's part of the reason I used a similar tone earlier in the thread. Now, I'm guessing he's not getting spam reported for that post, nor do I think he should. But if the individuals insistent on target me aren't also reporting that post, it serves as perfect evidence of the hypocrisy and targeting I've been talking about.

I think TTY's has a broader view of the situation now. I'm not sure he would, though, without that tone, but I see little reason to keep on him at this point.

Honestly, I don't want to call out TTY as a problem player, but some posts they gave seemed directed as though they were attempting to game posts supporting their opinion so they could point to those posts and say they were "right".

I am not saying that's true, but that's the feeling I got. I have totally had players try to do "gotcha" moments and try to use other opinions or RAWs that weren't properly defined before.

Like that ever works! >:[

I won't say one way or another how TTY is at the table, I don't know, just the feelings I got about all of this.

It's something so irrelevant to the game that it's not worth creating any sort of awkward social situation because of it.

It seems pretty important if it's happening live, in the session, which is what I believe the GM had a problem with in the first place. But yeah, nothin g that couldn't have been handled in 5 minutes outside game time.