Does there exist an intersection between "no, but" and "yes, but"?

edited February 2017 in Story Games
I mean, something that may stand in for both, or even something that sits in between as a value in the spectrum of "no, but" and "yes, but." Is there even a spectrum between these concepts?

Comments

  • Can something be between "yes" and "no"? For sure.

    Me: "I beat the orc to death. (I am an awful person.)"
    You: "Well, you beat the orc into a coma--you do not kill him--but your alignment changes to Evil."

    Is that yes or no?
  • I feel like those are covered by "no, but."

    COnsider this:

    I was thinking more semantically, like, instead of "no, but" or "yes, but" you got something closer to a "not exactly." Which I guess could be equivalent to adding a 'technically' yes or no.

    "I jump. Do I make it over the cliff?"

    Technically, yes. Sort of like, "yes, but", but I feel like it narrows down your options for the "but" part). "Technically, yes, you made it. But there is an angry goat waiting for you at the other side." Doesn't seem like a fair answer, but "Tecnically, yes, your feet touch the ground at the other side, but you land hard at the edge, and it crumbles under you."

    Technically, no. Sort of like, "no, but", but does it narrow down your options? "Tecnically, no, you didn't make it. But you are able to grab on to the edge, and you're holding on for dear life."

    Is there a subtle difference between "Tecnically, yes/no" and "no, but" and "yes, but"?
  • edited February 2017
    The way I see it, the Yes/No and the And/But refer to different things.
    Yes/No = Did I succeed in the intended task? This is your "technical" answer.
    And/But = Did anything else happen that was not part of the intended task?

    The full range of options, of course, is:
    • Yes And
    • Yes
    • Yes But
    • No But
    • No
    • No And
  • I suppose, in that context, there could be a "Maybe" in the context of "It is not appropriate to resolve that action yet" either due to fictional positioning, or because of pending a mechanical result

    "Like, can I cut down the enemy general?" "Maybe, but you have to get to him first" (positioning) or "Maybe, roll me your sword skill, but either way, you'll likely be injured in the fight!" (mechanical result)
  • The way I see it, the Yes/No and the And/But refer to different things.
    Yes/No = Did I succeed in the intended task? This is your "technical" answer.
    And/But = Did anything else happen that was not part of the intended task?

    The full range of options, of course, is: Yes And
    Yes
    Yes But
    No But
    No
    No And

    That makes more sense to me. I think that the "technically" maybe can act as a prompt to add color to the answer?
  • I suppose, in that context, there could be a "Maybe" in the context of "It is not appropriate to resolve that action yet" either due to fictional positioning, or because of pending a mechanical result
    I really like this. Formalizing when "maybe" is appropriate, and not yes or no, is the trick.
  • This reminds me of the Otherkind Dice overview (http://www.lumpley.com/archive/148.html) and the note there about the choice of using 1-2/3-4/5-6 vs 1-3/4-6. In that instance, Vincent does specify a middle category for accomplishing your goal of "the character makes progress toward the accomplishment, but doesn't achieve it outright."
  • In Archipelago that middle ground is taken by "Perhaps" and "Help is needed."
  • I think there are many, many possibilities for blurring those categories. It's not just a question of "yes/no/but/and" (which are simplifications), but of all kinds of nuance in resolution.

    Consider that you are answering some form of question with the "yes" or "no" involved here. Well, what is that question? Is it crystal-clear, or is it somewhat ambiguous?

    Let's say I want to stop a fight between Jake and Judy, because I'm afraid they'll hurt each other, and I care for them both. I yell, but they don't listen. I have a high-powered taser, and I run up and try to zap Jake (who's on top of Judy right now). He sees me coming at the very last minute and tries to grab it with one hand.

    What are we resolving? Is it my attempt to zap him, or my intent to stop the fight?

    Either can be the case, depending on the game. What if we mix the two?

    Choose:
    * You zap Jake, sending him into spasms.
    * Jake and Judy stop fighting.

    Which one is "yes, but", and which is "no, and"? It's already getting a little more complex.

    Now, what if add some other possible outcomes? Here are some possibilities off the top of my head:

    "Not yet, but you can try again." You don't succeed, and Jake gets Judy's arm in a nasty, twisted position. Do you want to try again?

    "You can succeed, but only if you..." ... get hurt/hurt someone yourself/get someone to help you/are willing to do something you didn't want to do (draw on Dark Side magic/summon a spirit/call the cops/set off the alarm/admit to Jake that you're carrying his child).

    What about just details of the scene, though? Lots can happen, and things can follow your intentions and yet go entirely unlike the way you wanted them to.

    What if you zap Jake, knocking him unconscious, and stop the fight... just as your mom walks in to the room?

    What if you zap him and stop the fight... and then we find out that you killed him/wiped his memory?

    What if you zapping Jake sets off an alarm, triggering a door to come slamming down on Judy's arm?

    What if you zap him only to find out that it wasn't Judy at all, but an alien in disguise?

    Some of these are clearly "yes, but"; we could do the same for "no"-type outcomes. But there's still a lot of (potential fruitful) ambiguity in what exactly your intention was - was it just to zap him, was it to stop them fighting, was it to make sure neither of them was hurt at all, or something else?

    What if the outcome is that, yes, you manage to zap him and stop the fight... but it's another player who gets to narrate how you do it? Is that a "yes, but", or something else? Even if that player narrates something good for your character?

    What about "No, you don't zap him and you don't stop the fight... because the floor collapses and you all fall into a cave complex under the house?" Or even, "No, you don't zap him... because you wake up, realizing it was all a dream?"

    How about, "Instead of resolving your action, we fade to black, switching to another scene"?

    Some of these are silly, but I think there's a large scope which shorthands like "no, but" try to simplify, but in any particular situation we can have room for various interpretations and outcomes which might not fit cleanly into those categories.

    It can definitely be fun to explore.




  • Annalise does this thing where the spotlight player and GM (a role that rotates per scene) determine two stakes, orthogonal to each other, but then they can add more stakes on top of that.

    You can have 2-4, even 6 separate conflicts on the table.

    Each stake gets its own die for resolution. The spotlight player rolls a d6 per conflict and assigns them to conflicts. I can't remember the specifics, but basically the 1-6 range represents the gamut of possibilities from totally for the player to totally against the player.

    In that alone, you get a set of "yes," "yes, but," "no, but," and "no" results.

    But the combination of them as a whole is a sort of in-between thing. You're rarely getting all the things you want. You're picking which will go your way and which will not.

    Then the players mess with those dice and results, pushing them this way and that, even rerolling a die. Is that a "perhaps" outcome?
  • Yes, that's straight out of Otherkind/Otherkind dice. I've used that in a variety of games, and it can lead to fantastic situations and outcomes. However, it generally (though not always) tends to fall into the "no, but" or "yes, and" camps, in my experience, albeit with a much more nuanced or complex "but" or "and". Psi*Run is another example of that.

    That kind of thing can be used for all kinds of nuanced play, I think, though. Some of those outcomes become hard to classify, if you're working from this framework!

    (And let's not forget that the difference between "but" and "and" isn't always crystal clear.)
  • edited February 2017
    I think there are many, many possibilities for blurring those categories. It's not just a question of "yes/no/but/and" (which are simplifications), but of all kinds of nuance in resolution.
    Agreed. I like handing off interpretive control:
    Yes, Yes But, Yes And = Player interprets
    No, No But, No And = GM interprets

  • The other way around is very interesting, too (giving the "opposition" a way to mitigate or twist your "success"). I believe Trollbabe works this way, for example.
  • Yeah, trollbabe has the GM narrate successes and the player narrate failure.

    Failure that results in the Trollbabe being incapacitated is actually narrated by the GM, though, unless the player decides to re-roll for narration rights and wins.
  • edited February 2017
    The other way around is very interesting, too
    Yeah, actually, in the first draft of DayTrippers it was the other way around. In playtesting I found that the opposite was more in line with traditional Players' expectations and made for more unpredictabilty (which I found desirable).

    I toyed with the idea of switching it mid-game, but that seemed like an overly complicated mechanic.

  • Maybe
    I see what you did! :D
Sign In or Register to comment.