Elephant in the room: rogue and fighter dailies.

[pemerton]

For the first decade and a half of RPG history, games were about the GM describing a situation, players making descriptions about what their characters do and the GM using the system to determine the results when they are in question and then describing the new situation that arises.

I believe that the James Bond RPG, from the early 80s, had Action Points. So players in that game make decisions based not just on the GM's description of a situation, but on their knowledege of their access to a metagame resource.

In Tunnels and Troll, PCs have a luck state. What does that respresent in the gameworld?

And in D&D, PCs have hit points, and these play a big role in player decision-making. What do hp correspond to in the gameworld? A lot of them, especially at higher levels, correspond to luck and divine favour, which is not anything that the GM is describing to the players.

If a player ends up making decisions not based on the described situation, but based on a robust mechanical framework, they might be doing something different than the games that started the hobby.

<snip>

They're based off of an artificial resource mechanic with no consistent explanation in the fiction other than you have to describe it after the fact and not describe the situation before the fact.

<snip>

As the use of the power necessitates the situation that allows for its setup, you can't use the currently described situation to explain how it happens. You essentially use the power and retcon the situation to fit.

Hit points seem to fit this description pretty well. According to Gygax in the AD&D DMG, so do saving throws - you can't describe the niche into which the chained fighter ducked, for example, until you know that s/he made a save against the dragon's breath.

There are a lot of modern game designs that have departed from the circuit of described changing situations model that dominated the hobby's early years. And if you make that the definition of a game centred around playing a role, it would be easy to conclude that games that don't do that don't fit the definition.

But you would have to ignore the central place of hit points and saving throws in classic D&D. The games that a meta-free are the austere simulationist games like Traveller, Runequest and (slightly less austere) Rolemaster.

You are faced with a situation where your character would like to trip someone, but because either you don't have an ability that lets you do so or have already expended it, you can't.

GM: "He steps onto the foot wide rock bridge and draws his sword. 'Today you die and tomorrow the king!"
Player: "Pride comes before a FALL!' I trip him!"
GM: "I'm sorry, but you already used "trip" on the guards, remember?"
Player: "So instead of going with a description you gave, I should make decisions based on which of these power cards aren't turned over yet because I can still use them?"
GM: "Yes."

It's a caricature, but I think it's still illustrative.

But what's it illustrate, other than that someone doesn't get the game?

Compare:

GM: The orc swings at you viciously with its axe!

Player: I duck like I did before, so it just grazes me.

GM: You can't - you're out of hit points! It cleaves your skull in two!

Player: So instead of going with a description you gave, I have to make decisions based on how much of this numerical resource I have left on my character sheet?

GM: Yes.​

Note that in RQ, which uses a simulationist rather than a metagame dodge mechanic, the player's response would make perfect sense.

Martial encounters and dailies extend the D&D tradition of mixing meta into its "passive" abilities (hp, saves) into the active sphere (attacks, other manoeuvres/checks).

When you use a disassociated mechanic, you must alter an aspect of the world around the character in order for your character to do what he's about to do.

You don't have to alter it. You don't even really have to declare it, any more than in AD&D most players would describe the opening, in the minute of attacking and parrying, that actually lets them make an attack roll. It's implicit in using the power, just as the opening is implicit in making an attack roll in AD&D.

 

[Obryn]

You're exaggerating what he said. He didn't claim that a game that uses disassociated mechanics isn't an RPG. He said that you aren't roleplaying when you use a disassociated mechanic.

Skip up a paragraph.

If you're interested in playing a roleplaying game, then you want the mechanical decisions you're making as a player to be associated with the decisions your character is making

Boldface mine. At least, formatting-wise.

-O

 

[Hypersmurf]

GM: "He steps onto the foot wide rock bridge and draws his sword. 'Today you die and tomorrow the king!"
Player: "Pride comes before a FALL!' I trip him!"

Scenario 1:
GM: "Are you expending a metagame resource to influence the narrative to permit a chance of success?"
Player: "Yes! I have a Trip daily!"
GM: "Okay, roll a d20."

Scenario 1a:
Player: "18!"
GM: "You drop to one knee; your other foot scythes his legs from under him, and he topples off the ledge to his doom!"

Scenario 1b:
Player: "Uh. 3."
GM: "You drop to one knee; your other foot slams into his shin, but his balance is unaffected. He snorts contemptuously and raises his sword to strike..."

Scenario 2:
GM: "Are you expending a metagame resource to influence the narrative to permit a chance of success?"
Player: "Oh. No. I already used my Trip daily."
GM: "You drop to one knee; your other foot slams into his shin, but his balance is unaffected. He snorts contemptuously and raises his sword to strike..."

-----

The use of the Daily Power raised the possibility of successfully taking advantage of the opponent's position, weakness, distraction, balance, etc from zero to non-zero. It's a metagame narrative influence effect.

But even once you've used the resource to generate the opportunity, you still might fail to capitalise on that opportunity... and the cinematic result of failure (after spending the power) is the same as the result of failure (because you never spent the power).

An alternative way to present the table-talk:

GM: "He steps onto the foot wide rock bridge and draws his sword. 'Today you die and tomorrow the king!"
Player: "Foot-wide bridge, huh? How well-balanced does he look? Easy to trip?"
GM: "Depends. Are you spending a Trip Daily? Then yeah, you figure he might be toppled if you hit him right. If not, then no - his footing looks pretty solid."

-Hyp.

 

[Obryn]

If a player ends up making decisions not based on the described situation, but based on a robust mechanical framework, they might be doing something different than the games that started the hobby.

Not precisely. Pemerton noted some great early late 70's/early 80's examples. I'd add Marvel Superheroes (the FASERIP version), with its Karma mechanics. Heck; I'd be tempted to add "D&D's XP system" which has driven more decision-making than all daily powers ever.

They're based off of an artificial resource mechanic with no consistent explanation in the fiction other than you have to describe it after the fact and not describe the situation before the fact.

Which leads to the (IMO) absurd situation I mentioned in my post. Where the entire game - from system to world to other characters - is identical, but only a bit of incidental background fiction with magic mumbo-jumbo changes a mechanic from dissociated to non-.

-O

 

[nnms]

An alternative way to present the table-talk:

GM: "He steps onto the foot wide rock bridge and draws his sword. 'Today you die and tomorrow the king!"
Player: "Foot-wide bridge, huh? How well-balanced does he look? Easy to trip?"
GM: "Depends. Are you spending a Trip Daily? Then yeah, you figure he might be toppled if you hit him right. If not, then no - his footing looks pretty solid."

-Hyp.

So it pretty much a matter of whether or not you want a meta resource you can spend to alter the situation.

When I'm playing Fate and games like it, I do. When I'm playing a D&D like game, i don't.

 

[Hypersmurf]

So it pretty much a matter of whether or not you want a meta resource you can spend to alter the situation.

Exactly. The answer to "Martial Dailies don't make sense!" is "Sure they do - they represent a meta-resource".

That answer might not be to everyone's taste, but it's better for people to acknowledge "I find meta-resources distasteful in D&D" than to claim "My Fighter forgets how to Trip people, but remembers again if he goes to sleep!"

The second is not only a misrepresentation of the mechanic, but it's also unproductive towards understanding the core issue under dispute. Once the mechanic is properly understood, arguments against its inclusion carry more weight.

-Hyp.

 

[nnms]

Not precisely. Pemerton noted some great early late 70's/early 80's examples. I'd add Marvel Superheroes (the FASERIP version), with its Karma mechanics. Heck; I'd be tempted to add "D&D's XP system" which has driven more decision-making than all daily powers ever.

Definitely, there are examples. As I said, I dislike the narrow definition of RPG and am okay with a largely broad one.

That said, there is a mode of play that prioritizes staying inside the circuit of description that accesses the system when needed and while even 0D&D has meta mechanics, I think that mode of play still might be the best description of what was going on.

 

[Mark CMG]

So it pretty much a matter of whether or not you want a meta resource you can spend to alter the situation.

Yup, seems he's too sturdy to trip if you've used your Trip daily today except for someone who switches with you who hasn't used it, until he does that day, except for the person on the other side who hasn't used it that day, until he does. The sturdiness of the opponent fluctuates to account for the number of times the attackers have attempted to trip him that day. They can all return tomorrow to try again, once each. That's how a Trip daily works, if I am understanding it correctly, and it simply needs to be described in such a way as to account for the way the mechanics function.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Yup, seems he's too sturdy to trip if you've used your Trip daily today except for someone who switches with you who hasn't used it...

The situation has changed. Adjust the narrative to account for it.

... and it simply needs to be described in such a way as to account for the way the mechanics function.

There's no point in describing it in a way that doesn't.

We've always done that. "I chop his head off!" is a narrative declaration that might fail to account for rolling lousy attack and damage. So we adjust the narrative to account for the mechanics.

Likewise, we adjust our narrative to explain why Fighter A can't Trip him, Fighter B might Trip him but fails, and Fighter C might Trip him and succeeds.

-Hyp.

 

[Siberys]

It's not as if the guy stands stock still while a bunch of people move up to try and trip him. By the time it gets to someone else's turn, the circumstances have changed - maybe he stumbled, maybe he shifted his footing, maybe the PC just landed a more solid blow. This isn't rocket surgery, people.