Tony Vargas
Member

Tony Vargas - I'm going to disagree with you on this a bit. 4e was very up front about HP being just an abstraction. Unlike earlier editions, every single keyword became a damage type, including a number of pretty non-obvious ones like "Psychic Damage" and the like. Fear effects that caused damage. That sort of thing. 5e carries the same explicit damage types as well - psychic damage as a keyword, for example. Earlier editions were not quite so explicit about their damage types, outside of weapon damage type - bludgeoning, piercing, slashing.

Bedrockgames so I understand that you like to have death be a real threat and let the dice decide when it happens (so do I); but this apart, how do you reconcile death with the story that the now-dead PC was linked to, when it happens? Do you simply let the storyline that was linked to that PC exclusively, die with him or her? Tony Vargas you appear to suggest that death is frequent, but so is resurrection, so it's no big deal because PCs are brought back easily; or in the alternative, you use back up PC's. In the case of back-up PC's, how do you reconcile the story that the PC was linked to, with his disappearance from the game? Re: the ease to access of raise dead in D&D: I've done away with that spell, personally; but for the purposes of this discussion, let's disregard the situation where the PC dies but is brought back which is, in essence, equivalent to healing the PC.

...than OSR and Indie games. I only meant to convey that they are not somehow contained within and represent a narrowing of the basic experience of playing a role playing game. Difference of kind. Not a narrowing of experience.Absolutely. I don't get this idea that "different" = "narrower", or that "GM curated experience" = "caters to/generates a wide range of experiences". For instance: if player X wants to play Fate, and player Y wants to play Moldvay Basic, a game in which the GM curates Ideals/Bonds/Flaws for X, while rolling wandering monsters for Y, isn't giving either of them the experience they wanted. Perhaps it will still be fun, but it won't play much like Fate if the rest of the table is not doing the "aspect" thing; and the Moldvay Basic aspects will be tanked if most of the table is not playing with an eye to skilled dungeoneering. (In practice, I suspect that this game will turn into fairly traditional mid-to-late 80s D&D play, but perhaps that's just me!) EDIT: Tony Vargas: Campbell's "mainstream" is not just that mid-to-late 80s D&D; it would also include most GURPS and HERO play, I reckon, and - judging from when I used to hang out on the ICE boards - most RM/MERP/HARP play as well.

I keep thinking of the late scenes from Alfred Hitchcock's Notorious. Cary Grant is with Ingrid Bergman and they have to escape her Nazi husband who has been poisoning her. But they keep drawing out the scene even though we've also seen her husband and his Nazi cronies and we know that if they don't get a move on and get out of the house both of them are in deep trouble. So there's this massive tension and you wonder if they will escape in time or she will die of the poison.But isn't this a bit like Vincent Baker's example of Babe? We're pretty sure, aren't we, that Ingrid Bergman will survive - so what exactly is generating the suspense? That's not to object to the sorts of reveals (and cut scenes?) that you mention in your post, only to wonder more about how they're related to the generation of suspense. Another issue has to do with making a RPG work - which is what I was trying to get at with Tony Vargas upthread. If the players fail their check, and so they don't get out of the house and get found by the Nazis, how does this feed into the maintenance of suspense? How does the scope for paying further costs get introduced into the play of that game at that moment?

Tony Vargas, if you really think that skills in 3E/PF are capable of carrying the same heft in play as they do in Classic Traveller (where they are the whole of the PC sheet) then I guess there's no arguing it with you! To me it seems obvious that, in 3E/PF, the main way of resolving out-of-combat challenges is not the skill system but the magic system, with the skill system acting as something of a secondary framework. This is why I made the point that an INT 2 bruiser was also the one who was able to save the data: in Traveller it is quite feasible to have a INT 2 ex-nayy guy like this one who, as a result of the lifepath rolls, happens to have Computer-2 (in the backstory: he was passably competent in the Engineering section, but when transferred to bridge duties his limitatins became clear and he was mustered out). In D&D that role would be played by a spell-user, or (perhaps) a thief, but not by a fighter or barbarian. I'm not very familiar with D20 modern, but my understanding is that ...

@Aldarc and @Tony Vargas Just read the last page or so right quick (anymore my reading of EnWorld is extremely sporadic, quick, and bouncing around) and I just wanted to add something to clarify your discussion. I'm not a big fan of the term "fiat" to describe GMing in games like BitD, DW, etc. When we deploy the term "fiat" with respect to GMing in RPGs, we're typically talking about a game that affords a GM basically (or nearly) a full mandate, extraordinary latitude to make decisions about the mechanics and the fiction under the auspices of some very zoomed-out agenda like "whatever (the GM thinks) provides the most fun/tells the best story." So these decisions can either be somewhat arbitrary (under scrutiny) or feel arbitrary in the moment. Contrast this with games like the aforementioned BitD and DW where GMing is extremely (transparent and explicit) principle-and-premise-constrained. GMs who enjoy the former latitude will often struggle under the enforced discipline and directives of the latter (...

Lanefan, billd91 - Tony Vargas's reply makes the point that needs to be made aboout "realism" in a hit point paradigm. As far as narration of hp loss and zero hp is concerned - if you're narrating hp loss, and dropping to zero hp, in surgical detail, and then having your suspension of disbelief disrupted by the recovery that the game rules provide for, well, I would suggest changing your narration! As I posted upthread, as a former RM player/GM, and someone who was pretty familiar with the drfit from AD&D to RM, RQ etc in the 80s/early 90s, it remains very strange to see posters arguing for AC-&-hp combat on "realism" grounds, and to be distinguishing AD&D or 3E from 4e on that basis. Also, someone upthread (maybe Sadras) mentioned tinkering - the most trivial tinkering possible to a RPG is to change the short and extended rest durations in 4e or 5e. (I don't know how common it is with 5e; based on dicsussions on teese boards it was extremely common with 4e.)

...hand of resources" model and generalise it across all classes. And, as with hp, make the encounter rather than the expedition the focus for managing those resources. And so far from having "open" PC-build, the importance of class to PC building is reinforced, with each class having its own mostly unique set of abilities (powers, feats, etc) that favour the creation of recognisable archetypes, or - if one prefers - game pieces with clearly distinguished roles to perform. (Much like Gygax's apparent vision for character classes in his PHB and DMG.) This is why I find that particular line of attack on 4e from D&D players so weird. It would make sense coming from players of RM, RQ or similar games, because it is a reinforcement of all the core elements of D&D that those systems are built on recting. Whereas I can't make sense of D&D players posting as if D&D already answered to the concerns of "purist for system" RPGing up until 4e was published. Maybe this has some connection to Tony Vargas's idea of "backwards simulation". (There is one fearure of RM that is very close to 4e martial encounter powers: Adrenal Moves, especially in conjunction with rules for sustaining them, which I thin may frist have been in RMC IV. I remember discussing these as a precedent for martial encounter powers on ENworld back in 2008.)

To put an abrupt end to the "piling on" effect Tony Vargas describes above, we've been employing Angry's rules for Teamwork and Group Checks (http://theangrygm.com/tweaking-the-core-of-dd-5e/). It has worked out quite well in multiple campaigns. Working Together. When two or more characters work together to accomplish the same task, the character with the higher modifier leads the effort. The leader makes the appropriate ability check and enjoys a +2 bonus for one or two helpers or a +5 bonus for three or more helpers. Characters can only work together if it is task where such help is feasible and possible. In addition, a character can only help with a task if they would not be incapable of attempting the task on their own (due to a lack of Proficiency for instance). Group Checks. When several PCs are trying to accomplish something as a group, the GM can call for a group check. First, the GM determines whether the group will succeed if any member succeeds (such as with searching) or if the group will fail if any member fails (such as ...

... This style gives the player resources (generic ones, or ones that are particular to his/her PC build) that enable the player to make mechanical choices that will realise the concept. Come and Get It is the best known example from 4e. The "through death's eyes" move in Dungeon World is another example ("Name an NPC who will die. The GM will make your vision come true.") If the resources are very generic, this can become a free descriptor approach (like eg HeroQuest revised; and Cortex+ Heroic comes pretty close) where the descriptor is important for fictional positioning and narration of consequences, but has no bearing on prospects of success. (So eg being a knife fighter compared to an archer is relevant to permissible action declarations given context, but does not effect your likelihood of killing someone if an attack is declared.) 5e (like AD&D 2nd ed before it) eschews this approach for non-magic-users. The second approach is how 2nd ed AD&D seemed to do it, and is what Tony Vargas seems to have in mind when he talks about "GM empowerment". The GM manipulates framing, and possible outcomes, to ensure that the concept is realised. At the limits of this approach mechanics don't matter much, and the PC build is mostly a signal to the GM as to the desired manipulations. This is the exact antithesis of the "indie" approach. The third approach is the one that isn't working for the OP: you build your character according to concept, the GM applies the mechanics more-or-less at face value, and we find out whether or not your concept is mechanically viable. I think this can work in systems with a relatively high degree of "sim" in their DNA (eg RQ, RM, Burning Wheel) because those systems will try to reflect eg the fact that, in the real world, you can kill someone by stabbing them with a knife. In D&D, though, I think there is more scope for some concepts to be crowded out by eg the hp and damage dealing rules. This is another way in which D&D continues to suppor...

This is a well thought out and reasoned post.That's generous of you - thank you. The fact that we mostly have normal assumptions about gravity or use swords instead of spoons as weapons speaks volumes. The flipside to this is that we also have assumptions that defy all normal assumptions about gravity - eg dragons can fly, giants dan walk and run, etc. I would say we have certain tropes. These include martial artists who are just as dangerous with their bare hands as a dragon is with its bite. I think there is room in those tropes for a deadly knife thrower. (I agree with you (I think) and some other posters that the fighter vs rogue thing complicates matters. But I also agree with Tony Vargas that the fighter is advertised as the "weapon expert". The system has tensions that are a legacy of D&D class design from way back and aren't easily resolved. Light weapon fighting is one place where those tensions become quite evident.) Lastly, the fighter can do it at will all day. I am not saying the gap is huge, but it is not clearly in sorcerer's favor.I agree the "do it all day" doesn't run the sorcerer's way, but if the sorcerer can keep it up for five or six combat encounters then I would call that a draw. I think the advantages of "do it all day" tends to be exaggerated, as the real constraints are around hp recovery, table time and session planning, etc. (To put it in a more tendentious way: "do it all day" is white room theorising!)

I think there is value in having some choices be less powerful. Granted this is a fantasy game, but how many individuals on a battlefield ran around throwing daggers? Correct, probably none. Many knights had a dagger for finishing a kill. A rogue doing sneak attack damage is another matter and rules increase damage in this case substantially. <snip> Some limitations and differences are there for some sense of a model, however loose it may be. <snip> The idea that I imagine a really fast peasant with a dagger is fine. However, some level of absurdity might not be fun for others. As an aside, I can do something like with with a monk.I agree with Tony Vargas that this is an odd combination of claims. How many individuals on a battlefield ran around fighting dragons, armoured soldiers, etc using bare-handed martial arts? Yet 5e has monks, and you don't seem to have an issue with that. How many individuals on a battlefield defeated dragons, soldiers etc by stabbing them in the kidney while they were distracted fighting a knight? Yet not only does 5e have rogues with their sneak attack ability, but you seem to endorse that aspect of the game! If we can have monks fighting dragons, and alley knife-fighters going toe-to-toe with giants and dragons, why can't we have knife-throwers? The limitations you are arguing for appear to be quite arbitrary. (And if you really didn't like the knife-thrower feat, couldn't you just ignore it?) I wonder at which level are they out of hand? Is it at level 11 with three attacks? Now we see it is high level fighters only that we are super concerned with...and why should a fighter not have SOMETHING? ...

... of being a D&D spell caster. It seems to me that there are two main responses to these points (other than agreeing, as eg TwoSix seems to). One is to dispute their mechanical foundations eg to show that, in fact, the rules support a knife fighter whose mechanical effectiveness is comparable to a greatsword wielder, a warlock, a sorcerer, etc. I don't think anyone in this thread has tried this in a serious fashion. (I feel that showing that the sorcerer has enough spell points for "only" 5 or 6 powered-up encounters is proving the OP's point rather than refuting it!) The other is to show that it shouldn't matter to the player of the knife fighter, who [i]wants to do meaningful amounts of damage[i], that his/her typical expected damage is less than that of other fairly standard builds. I don't think this second response is hopeless, but I think it needs to be tackled head-on. Simply telling that player that s/he's wrong to want to do meaningful amounts of damage doesn't count. Tony Vargas is coming closest, I think (with his empasis on "GM empowerment"). As someone who is mostly a spectator in this thread, I'm finding the failure to fully engage with the OP's claims a bit frustrating, as the second response in particular has the prospect of being quite interesting in bringing out some deep considerations in RPG play and RPG design. EDIT: I wrote the above before reading Gadget's post. I read that post as making a point at least somewhat similar to mine.

After MUCH tinkering in various games (some wargames which were pretty widely played) I am of the opinion that this sort of 'build your own power' is not ever going to work. IME you have to have some neutral arbiter to look at it and decide if its borked or not. There's just too many ways to create subtly OP stuff this way, and players WILL find it ASAP! Again I look at HERO and the closest thing I can think think of is Power Frameworks configured to allow ultimate versatility. (They do put in campaign limits which I would translate in D&D to maximums on effects at given levels. ) Perhaps @Tony Vargas can think of more. Or perhaps since we are starting with 4e we can find those cases in advance? If twin strike was made along side dual strike perhaps twin strike might have had a ranger class feature to allow them only to focus on one enemy with both attacks once per encounter or something similar.

I in particular think Tony Vargas with his fondness for Hero Games would find this interesting ;)

I've DMd both. @masteraleph is correct. I also agree with Tony Vargas. Keep of the Shadowfell was awful. 4E was different to older versions of DnD, because it was organised around the encounter, rather than the adventuring day (or week). Thus adventures need to have exciting decisions during the encounter in 4E, in contrast to earlier editions that might have worked with boring encounters but exciting long-term planning. 4E has no long-term planning. This adventure was written by someone who hadn't worked that out yet. So it feels grindy, and railroady. It might have worked well in 2E, for example, because then the plotting back in the town could have worked. Both Reavers of Harkenwold (and the even better Madness at Gardmore Abbey) work perfectly with 4E, because the decision points are during encounters, rather than between them (or at the end of the day/week), so the structure of the game works with the adventure. In 4E an encounter IS a decision point (and many of the 'encounters' in Harkenwold and Madness are not best dealt with by combat); where...

@Tony Vargas Here I go with an ironic comment.... Putting all the powers in common buckets has a risk of robbing class specific flavors that are enabled by and encouraged by distinctly described spells for Arcane Bards, Arcane Swordmages and Arcane Warlocks and Arcane Sorcerors since to me flavor is core to actual feel, bunching them will make them all feel ahem "homogenous"

D&D 5 does a really good job of reducing “trap” options, and someone really has to go out of their way to make a character that actually negatively contributes to a group. (9 INT human Wizard with a dagger, and prestidigitation, mending, and light for cantrips, anyone? Even then, with point buy, he probably can’t help but have a 16 to STR or DEX!) Tony Vargas can say it's faint praise, but I see this as quite the important feature. It definitely wasn't true in 3.X/PF!

Tony Vargas - thanks for spelling out what I was fumbling at :)

The terms are adequate already. Completely redefining the long standing definitions in order to use the new definitions to attack other playstyles isn't helpful. Nor does it clear things up to call an apple an orange.Which terms? What "long standing definitions"? Where are these found? What makes you think you've got better cognitive access to them than I do? And following on from these questions . . . Except that it doesn't. Agency is another word that you are attempting to redefine for your personal needs in order to be dismissive of the traditional playstyle. The fact is, agency doesn't mean what you say it means. Agency is just the players being able to control the actions of their PCs, and without a true railroad(not your altered definition), agency is unfettered in both styles of play.According to Tony Vargas, the concept of "player agency" was invented at The Forge and means more-or-less what I use it to mean. I don't have my own independent recollection of the use of the term at The Forge - I'm more familiar with their notion of "protagonism", which has a similar (but maybe not identical) meaning. I've just gone to check The Forge Provisional Glossary, and found that it generally uses the word "control" rather than "agency" - but it defines force as The Technique of control over characters' thematically-significant decisions by anyone who is not the character's player. When Force is applied in a manner which disrupts the Social Contract, the result is Railroading. No definition is offered of "thematically-significant decision", but "theme" is defined as The point, message, or key emotional conclusion perceived by an audience member, about a fictional series of events. Now you insist that Agency is just the players being able to control the actions of their PCs. I don't di...

Reasonable enough. As you add more decisions points and complications and opportunities to affect that final die roll, you're also, presumably, making it less uncertain, and, you're adding drama & suspense to the intervening time, because what's going on bears on the final result and how that final result is coming about is unfolding. So, if loading stuff like that in between a declaration and a die roll that's "uncertain" (for the sake of suspense) can /add/ suspense, can't loading it in front of relative certainty (you know the hero isn't going to die, but not what bad stuff might happen shy of that) also add suspense? It seems like it should. And, IMX, a die roll, however uncertain can be a brief, anti-climactic affair, and so be contributing relatively little suspense. And of course, the cost of that uncertainty is toted up in dead heroes, anti-climaxes, de-railed stories, and the like. Oh, hey, I'm back to "cost" - that wasn't even intentional. Again, I am not too worried abou...

But if your source of suspense is just the uncertainty of the die roll, 'eventually' comes pretty quick... The suspension is resolved by the die roll, and much of the suspense is set by the stakes involved. But you are going to have things leading up to it naturally in play. It isn't like you are just rolling a series of dice and saying what happened. People are explaining what they want to do, asking what they see, NPCs are responding. There is a lot that will be going on prompting the die roll in the first place (and it might not be a single die roll---depends on the situation). In the James Bond movie stuff happens as they play the hand. You can 'RP' that stuff to stretch out the moment, but you're just stalling, nothing is going to make a difference, the die will fall where it will. Now, if the game is more than a die roll, if there's a series of decisions or complications or whatever, then the delay feels purposeful. It isn't just a delay. What the players are doing leading up ...

If he's not doing anything, why does he need the wall?I didn't say the monk is not doing anything. I asked what the monk is doing physically? From an article on the monk in a 1981 Dragon article ("He's got a lot to kick about", vol 53): The new special abilities and powers presume that the inner strength of monks flows from the mind - that it is a sort of psionic power. After all, no degree of skill or knowledge will let a human being fall an unlimited distance when within 8’ of a wall and take no damage when hitting bottom at terminal velocity. Oriental Adventures (pp 104-5) had two martial arts special maneouvres that allowed dealing an attack at a distance: One Finger: This skill requires long and difficult practice. It is said that the student first learns to push a heavy bell with the touch of a single finger. He concentrates then on touching it lighter and lighter while making the bell swing even more. Finally, he reaches the point where he can make the bell move without actual...

Like 5e did with Advantage and the Help action that, well, 'creates Advantage' for a buddy? ;)I was speaking more along the lines here of tactical combat. 5E Advantage/Disadvantage has undoubtedly been an effective mechanic for streamlining certain subsystems of play between 3E and 5E. It's also something fairly easy for GMs to apply as a general rule of thumb or eyeball gauge for when it applies as well as for new players to grasp. Advantage does, however, get kinda dull or rote when it becomes too ubiquitous in practice. I should look up again a fun example in "the Book of Hanz" of the Fate mechanics used by a roguish character for getting the drop on two guards because it highlights a lot of Fate's fiction first mindset and how it variously uses mechanics to emulate the desired fiction of the scene.

Problem is that brand of suspense lasts until the die stops. All suspense eventually gets closure. If the players are at a casino, you'll have building suspense as they win, until they place that final bet. If it is a single hand or something, well, sure, but the suspense also ends in a James Bond movie when the cards are laid on the table. There is plenty of room in an RPG for the suspense to build prior to that (particularly if players and/or NPCs are using dodgy means or trying to psyche each other out). If the situation is role-played, it won't just be a quick moment of the die roll. How long the suspense lasts is entirely dependent on what is going on. The suspense can last a long time if the player is moving down a mile long corridor filled with traps; it can also last a long time if the player gets news that someone he loves is about to be shot on the other side of town, and he needs to race their as quickly as possible before the tragedy unfolds.

Oh, the 're-inventing' argument is obvious and even compelling, it just doubles as an argument not to have psionics, at all. So, IDK, have them work nothing like spells. Instead of discrete effects, construct effects up from disciplines, like supernatural Legos, using power points to fuel each block. Or simply don't have "high level" disciplines, don't level-gate them, just learn more as you go, and pouring more power points into them brings them up to level-appropriate effectiveness. The Lego approach always sounds awesome in principle, but there are a couple of practical hurdles there, both in design and play. The more-power approach seems cleaner, simpler, more... 5E. (Also: incarnum magic.) It also seems like a perfect fit for some disciplines, such as telekinesis. Just brainstorming: Telekinetic Talent: Basically mage hand, but with open-ended actions available (attack, grapple, ready...). Augment: Spend psi points to increase hand's effective Strength score (and size?). Augment: Spend p...

For instance, if the first scene of the war movie is the old veteran telling a group of people about his experiences before they screen ripples & fades to his younger self, you /know/ he didn't die. He might very well have fallen off some cliffs and gotten shot, burned, blown up or whatever, but he didn't die. ;) As most fantasy RPGs have revival mechanics, this example doesn't quite cross over perfectly: the veteran might have died several times, in fact, and been revived each time. :)

Depending on the genre and the mode of storytelling, you can absolutely know. For instance, if the first scene of the war movie is the old veteran telling a group of people about his experiences before they screen ripples & fades to his younger self, you /know/ he didn't die. He might very well have fallen off some cliffs and gotten shot, burned, blown up or whatever, but he didn't die. ;) . I think this is less true than it used to be (in part because some of the suspense got lost as people became more familiar with these patterns). Even if the character is narrating, it doesn't mean he survives now. Just look at a film like Casino. Clearly not a war movie, but still one where that narrator survives lulls you into a false sense of security. I find when I watch movies these days, I am a lot less sure whether a character will survive. More importantly, I tend to find that more entertaining. I specifically seek out films where I think who survives will be less predictable. Not saying you...

Depending on the genre and the mode of storytelling, you can absolutely know. For instance, if the first scene of the war movie is the old veteran telling a group of people about his experiences before they screen ripples & fades to his younger self, you /know/ he didn't die. He might very well have fallen off some cliffs and gotten shot, burned, blown up or whatever, but he didn't die. ;) Neither am I. It looks like a 'price' could well be extracted in the process and contribute to the suspense, but not that it's the main point. And resource management in a pretty conventional aspect of RPGs. But I don't find the idea that it's uncertainty of the ultimate outcome that's the main point, too compelling, either. That’s literally what suspense is though. And if your goal is “more suspense in your games” I feel like you’d probably want to understand what it is before you try to put more in.

Meh. You prettymuch do know the protagonist will /survive/ in some sense. You don't know if he'll extricate himself from predicament, or if he'll miraculously survive the fall, or get rescued, or fall presumably to his death, only to show up later with some improable story ("From the lowest dungeon to the highest peak I fought with the Balrog of Morgoth... Until at last I threw down my enemy and smote his ruin upon the mountain side... ") that doesn't really adequately explained how he survived. ;P In a cliffhanger, you just come back later ("same bat-time, same bat-channel!"), in a movie you can cut to a different scene, or show the character's efforts in agonizing detail. In an RPG, what are you going to do, get a /reeeeallly/ tall dice tower? Resolution mechanics are not overly time-consuming - heck, some RPGs go out of their way to make 'em fast. I think that's what the point was, you put things in the way of the 'inevitable' resolution that, in turn, need to be dealt with, somehow...

Sure, like the Knightly Order of the Eye of Jet. I'm sure you've seen 'em around. Love casting Suggestion? Make their own Brilliant Energy katanas? Never heard of them.

I can't see any grouping, other than TTRPGs, that all those would fit in, and would have any value or meaning.They all tend to define the character in terms of mechanically-rated abilities to perform certain tasks. They all tend to approach resolution in a fairly granular, "Did my attempt to do that work?" fashion. (D&D hp-attrition combat is an exception, but (i) it tends not to be generalised by D&D players to other spheres of action, except in 4e - skill challenges - which seem to have been rather controversial, and (ii) every time some change is made or new thing added on to that system, it drifts it towards granularity and task-orientations - eg grapple rules, disarm rules, rules for facing and movement/positionin in combat, etc.) None makes *the scene* the unit of resolution (4e is an exception: see above for its controversy). And all assume that the GM is the principal deliverer of content for the fiction. (There are hints to the contrary in HERO - eg the Hunted disadvantage and similar ...

I tossed in the 2e S&P reference, just in case, since I barely glanced at it, having given up on 2e bloat by then. 3.0 was the main point. Ah, OK. I stopped buying 2e products a while before S&P showed up. The newest ones I have are various 'complete' books and the nonhumans book, etc. Everyone I played with considered the stuff coming after that to be basically crap.

Foul! The description only said that you /could/ draw on your inspiration in those thematically appropriate way. You could instead draw on the compassion you RP'd when negotiating with the beggar king to assassinate him later that evening, sure, but that doesn't make you dissociative (mechanically)... Sure it does. It is everything that 4e powers were accused of. The mechanical effects of the rule are divorced (dissociated) from narrative logic! Nothing could clearer. You know if there were some players'd just horde it until they drowned in one. So what? Wouldn't that be 'good RP' in the absence of any incentive? How would it be accomplished? The incentive is simply one side of a mechanical economy. It isn't about the player getting ahead, so it is hard to even call it an incentive. Neither the current ed of D&D nor Fate really lend themselves to casual play. Fate Accelerated, maybe, but FATE, with it's session 0 story-braiding (I don't know if that's fair, but it's hard to ...

there is a line between a price paid that's modeled in the system (you have so many slots/points/whatever, when do you use them?), and a price paid that's part of emerging story-line (this is the current situation, it could change/might not be what it seems, what do you do?). The former is part of the game, the latter is system-independentI don't think the latter is system-independent at all. Compare Manbearcat's example of DitV, where the system establishes a relationship with the PC's brother; or In a Wicked Age (that's on my mind befause I GMed a short session of it not too long ago) which establishes interlinked and conflicting "best interests" for each character (PC and NPC). For players to be able to 'buy victory' they have to have something to pay with. In the types of games lumpley is talking about, players create characters with multiple dramatic needs and progress towards fulfilling these needs, or not, is how costs are paid and what drives the arc of the story. <snip> The pla...

And it was fine until 40 years later, some nerds decided it was 'dissociated' because hit points /had always been all about physical damage/, when, in fact, on the grounds of (defense against) realism, hit points had 'always' (as of 1979) been about non-physical factors, as well or even instead. Let's not over-use the 4venger complaints about the identification of dissociated mechanics. The hit point arguments are far more about the degree of abstraction than whether or not the rules are disconnected from an in-character/in-setting perspective. Hit points that aren't strictly meat damage can still be understood from a character being increasingly tired out or weakened from blocking/dodging the attacks that would probably have killed less skilled/lucky/divinely-favored people.

Obviously, the PCs buy victory with the currency of limited resources: in D&D, spell slots; in FATE, FATE points; in Storyteller pools/tracks (BP, Willpower, Humanity)... Just to add to your list, players buy victory with a lot of non-mechanical currency as well. Trading in that favor they are owed. Accepting loss of face to the court to beg the king to intervene. Promising an open-ended favor to an honorable villain for him to withdraw his support from the irredeemably evil big bad. Sacrificing themselves to allow the ritual to be stopped and the world saved.

Foul! The description only said that you /could/ draw on your inspiration in those thematically appropriate way. You could instead draw on the compassion you RP'd when negotiating with the beggar king to assassinate him later that evening, sure, but that doesn't make you dissociative (mechanically)...That's my point. The source of inspiration is dissasociated from how that Inspiration is spent. This is discussed in Angry DM's article "11 Ways to Take the Suck Out of Inspiration in D&D." In particular check out the part Where the System Falls Apart: Where the System Falls Apart Now, there is this implicit connection between Inspiration, Personal Characteristics, and Background. They are presented together and sequentially and Backgrounds offer examples of each Personal Characteristic. Moreover, on PHB 125, it explicitly says that the DM typically awards Inspiration for portraying your Personal Characteristics. It also lists other ways the DM might award Inspiration, but it’s pretty str...

I feel like there was a 'forced march' rule somewhere that caused the loss of some % of hps...In 1st ed AD&D it could cause level loss - so you can get worse at fighting because you're tired from walking/running, but not because you got hit on the head with a mace? Or (more plausibly) hit point loss doesn't correspond to being hit on the head with a mace.

Since 3.0, if not 2e S&P, skill checks have been the main mechanical way of addressing non-combat challenges. They're often avoided, because they haven't always worked great, or because players realize they can couch actions to get success without checking the character's skill, but they do exist, FWIW. I think it is very trivially easy to see how 'skills', when implemented at all, in 'classic' D&D were of little significance, even in 2e where NWPs were at least presented as a possibility in the core books. 1. They were NEVER used to represent anything like a class or race ability, even when they obviously could have been (IE thieves, rangers, elves, etc.). 2. They were always optional systems (2e NWPs, 1e Secondary Skills, etc.). The one marginal exception was OA, where they ALMOST became a significant subsystem. 3. No implementation in classic D&D was actually mechanically viable in any sensible way. DSG, WSG, OA, and 2e PHB (etc.) implementations were mechanically unworkable in significa...