Realism vs. Believability and the Design of HPs, Powers and Other Things

shidaku said:

I will strive to enunciate more clearly.

There are three primary segments to the game. Combat. Exploration. Social.

Click to expand...

I'd counter that there is one over-riding focus of the game:
Playing the role of a particular individual.

The three segments you offer are quite real and all fit within that focus. But if a fixation on balancing those three segments overrides the original purpose then you start getting into the territory where people are unsatisfied because the experience becomes to close to be a board game with carefully balanced functional tokens. You can still talk in funny voices as you move the tokens around, but if the tokens put functional balance over being the person it doesn't really matter.

In the end, both in fiction and in the real world, not every character is going to contribute equally in every scenario. If you want everyone to always contribute then you are proactively undermining the effort to create a great experience of feeling like you are inside the scenario. It is perfectly understandable how equity of contribution (no call for perfect equity, I understand) would be appealing in its own right. But don't tell us we should give up something much more important just to gain that and we should call it a good thing.

To much equity is expressly wrong for role playing as I see it.

You are welcome to completely reject my goals. And for all I know you are having 100 times the fun I am. But don't tell me you are doing the same thing as me and at the same time advocate undermining the core principles of what I'm doing.

shidaku said:

I'm not asking for every class to be good at everything, but a system that encourages players to not be involved in parts of the game because their class has no features for it is just bad design.

Click to expand...

It's bad design when you're attempting to design a game that lets everyone meaningfully contribute mechanically in every scene or encounter. That's not a goal I want forced on me, though. I'm do want it to be an option, however. Probably even the assumption.

shidaku said:

There are three primary segments to the game. Combat. Exploration. Social.

Through choices later, players may choose to become more or less capable in these three areas, usually by sacrificing some aspect of another area.

Click to expand...

I agree, I think. This is essentially what I mean: that I want the choice, as a player making my character, to hyper-specialize, but at the cost of breadth. Maybe I want to be amazingly social, but lose a lot on the combat and exploration front. I want the system to end up supporting me in that goal. Playing a "face" character with little combat ability can be a lot of fun, even if it means you're more likely to get killed. I've seen it, and I've done it.

But, that doesn't mean I want that as the base assumption in 5e. Make each class just about balanced in their breadth, sure. Then, give options for hyper-specialization, increasing depth at the cost of breadth. Make sure its clear that this is exactly what's happening, too, and how that'll shift the party dynamic. Someone who loses out on the social and exploration front to be better at combat might somewhat outshine other PCs in combat (in his area), for example. Give the option for it to happen in the game, but be very clear what you're doing, and how it will affect things. As always, play what you like

BryonD said:

I'd counter that there is one over-riding focus of the game:
Playing the role of a particular individual.

Click to expand...

As I said, the base elements of race, class, themes, backgrounds would provide you with the ability to participate in all aspects of the game to some degree. However, beyond that point or if you went really in-depth in your character creation, you could focus yourself on one aspect.

A realistic humanoid character is going to have more skills than simply "swinging a sword" and even that ability will translate into some other skills that are useful outside of combat. Playing a guy who can only swing a sword, which obviously should be an option, does not really do well for generating a believable character.

The three segments you offer are quite real and all fit within that focus. But if a fixation on balancing those three segments overrides the original purpose then you start getting into the territory where people are unsatisfied because the experience becomes to close to be a board game with carefully balanced functional tokens. You can still talk in funny voices as you move the tokens around, but if the tokens put functional balance over being the person it doesn't really matter.

Click to expand...

I'm not interested in balance in these areas. I'm fine with X class having more combat ability and Y class having more social ability. Of course NO class should have 100% in all three areas, but at the end of the day if the group builds a diverse party, they should roughly be able to cover all the bases. That could come in the form of a party that is 100/0/0, 0/100/0, 0/0/100, or it could come in a form of 50/20/30, 20/35/45, 10/10/80.

IMO, as a default, no class should be 100/0/0 or 0/100/0 or 0/0/100. There should be some base spread to give players some ability to partake of all parts of the game, and allow levels of customization to adjust those numbers.

In the end, both in fiction and in the real world, not every character is going to contribute equally in every scenario. If you want everyone to always contribute then you are proactively undermining the effort to create a great experience of feeling like you are inside the scenario. It is perfectly understandable how equity of contribution (no call for perfect equity, I understand) would be appealing in its own right. But don't tell us we should give up something much more important just to gain that and we should call it a good thing.

To much equity is expressly wrong for role playing as I see it.

You are welcome to completely reject my goals. And for all I know you are having 100 times the fun I am. But don't tell me you are doing the same thing as me and at the same time advocate undermining the core principles of what I'm doing.

Click to expand...

As I said, I'm NOT suggesting every character gets to participate equally in all aspects, that's unrealistic. I'm just saying that every character should have some default ability to participate. No class should say to players "If you play this class, you can't play 1/3rd of the game." In a typical dungeon for example, the mage is the go-to guy for dealing with magical impediments(knowledge: arcana/use magic device), the fighter is the guy who'll keep you from getting lost or tell you what stone to hit to bring the place down(dungeoneering), the rogue will help you avoid dying to hidden stuff(find/disable traps) and the cleric will help you know if the glowing gem you just found is actually a portal to hell or just a glowing rock(knowledge: religion). Each character is skilled in a different area, but over the course of the dungeon, all of them were able to bring something useful to the table besides combat ability.

shidaku said:

As I said, I'm NOT suggesting every character gets to participate equally in all aspects, that's unrealistic. I'm just saying that every character should have some default ability to participate.

Click to expand...

If this goal undermines the character archetypes in any way, then I am against it.

I'm ok with the rogue having ALL of the spotlight some of the time.

I'm ok with the wizard having ALL of the spotlight some of the time.

If the game starts being built around the idea of "we need to change this so the rogue player doesn't get bored" then, IMO, the game is likely to fail.

Engagement in play is not driven by personal moment to moment active participation. Engagement in play is driven by great stories and really caring about what is happening.

If what you are asking for works out on its own (and I agree that quite frequently it does) then awesome. But what I'm reading in your posts is an advocacy for using that as an important design consideration.

I'm opposed to that.

BryonD said:

If this goal undermines the character archetypes in any way, then I am against it.

I'm ok with the rogue having ALL of the spotlight some of the time.

I'm ok with the wizard having ALL of the spotlight some of the time.

Click to expand...

I'm fine with that as long as they're getting the spotlight because of their actions in the campaign. I don't feel the game should force a class into the spotlight at certain times. It should be player skill and initiative that gets them in the spotlight. Sure, there will be times when only the rogue can unlock a door, only the wizard can use a magical portal to save the party, that's totally understandable. But in the bigger picture, the fighter had to use his dungeonering to guide the party, the cleric had to ward off the evil spirits, the rogue had to unlock the door and the wizard had to use the magical device. Each one got their moment in the sun. I think a design that would set up say, an entire dungeon crawl where only the wizard is useful is just as bad as making something so generic anyone can do it.

If the game starts being built around the idea of "we need to change this so the rogue player doesn't get bored" then, IMO, the game is likely to fail.

Engagement in play is not driven by personal moment to moment active participation. Engagement in play is driven by great stories and really caring about what is happening.

Click to expand...

Yes, but what drives people to "care"? If you run all over the world seeking adventure and treasure, but the world is designed in such a way so that your class does little to nothing, why should you care? Great stories are filled with each member getting their own moment. Gimli may not have been the best at running across the plains, but he did keep the party from getting lost in Moria(to an extent). Gimli cares because he feels involved and gets to take part in things. Sam however, often feels like he's just tagging along, and expresses it, because his moments of participation are few.

Players who don't get to play, don't care.

If what you are asking for works out on its own (and I agree that quite frequently it does) then awesome. But what I'm reading in your posts is an advocacy for using that as an important design consideration.

I'm opposed to that.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that ensuring player participation at most times is an important design consideration for every game.

Returning to hit points...

I'd much rather focus on, "Does modeling HPs this way create a fun game experience I'd like to play or run" than "Does modeling HPs this way break a sense of realism"...

Call it a functional view of HPs.

I like 1e's long-term recovery - it's a central characteristic of 1e games and drives the sorts of adventures you have in that system. I also like 4e's much faster recovery - again, because of the game experience it provides.

To me, that's a lot more important than how many sword-swings a pixie can take before getting killed.

-O

shidaku said:

Yes, but what drives people to "care"? If you run all over the world seeking adventure and treasure, but the world is designed in such a way so that your class does little to nothing, why should you care? Great stories are filled with each member getting their own moment. Gimli may not have been the best at running across the plains, but he did keep the party from getting lost in Moria(to an extent). Gimli cares because he feels involved and gets to take part in things. Sam however, often feels like he's just tagging along, and expresses it, because his moments of participation are few.

Click to expand...

Now you are turning to straw man arguments.
"Little to nothing" isn't even a meaningful effort of addressing the point.

Players who don't get to play, don't care.

Click to expand...

You just quoted elements of LotRs. Did you enjoy it? Did you care?
How much did *YOU* play. I'm betting you didn't get to.

As I said before, the reality (without rigging the system) is that there *IS* a routine level of involvement from everyone. But there are also down times. But if the story and game are quality then the players, even those who are off screen, remain highly engaged because they have all the perks of a great movie PLUS their alter egos are directly invested.

I'd consider losing interest in an RPG a worse indictment of the session in question than I would call opening a laptop in a theater an indictment of the movie.

I'm pretty sure that ensuring player participation at most times is an important design consideration for every game.

Click to expand...

If this goal undermines the character archetypes in any way, then I am against it.

shidaku said:

Sam however, often feels like he's just tagging along, and expresses it, because his moments of participation are few.

Players who don't get to play, don't care.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't think I'd agree with Sam feeling that way. Pippin and Merry, yes. They both express those feelings, yet both are eventually crucial at their points in the story. Any time Sam feels that way, it's because he lacks confidence and is modest. Anyone reading the story can see that he's a lot more significant than his own self-image tells him.

The question, for me, is, should the rules tell a player that his character WILL be Pippin or Merry, not because you want to be that character, but, because the choices you made at character generation means that anyone who chooses this particular class will always be Pippin or Merry?

Because that's what role specialization means. If you specialize what a given class can do, then that class will always do that thing and nothing else. So, anyone who chooses that class is forced by the mechanics to follow one specific, pre-defined path.

Or, do you go with what JamesonCourage brings up and have classes with broad bases and the option to specialize? Me, I see this as a much better option. You can play whatever you want to play and the mechanics are not telling you to ride the pines because you're just not tall enough for this ride.

BryonD said:

If this goal undermines the character archetypes in any way, then I am against it.

Click to expand...

You keep repeating this mantra, but no matter how you look at it, there's no universal agreement on what defines a character archetype.