What is *worldbuilding* for?

[Ovinomancer]

Are you confused, or are you snarkily and passive-aggressively pointing out that they should have said "character" rather than "player"?

And then, the following, rhetorical question: Are you sure your approach is a good use of anyone's time?

I am confused. [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] had made it very clear that he separates the terms player and character precisely, and had held others to this standard. He had the opportunity to correct if he was mistaken but continued without doing so, even doubling down on the usage. Given his statements on usage, I'm trying to work with him. I'm doing my level best to engage [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] as he's indicated he wants to be engaged.

And rhetorical questions are rarely a good use of anyone's time.

 

[Tony Vargas]

So, now we've wandered into another tangent (If that) of world-building, and one, like pem I assume I must be in a tiny minority in caring about, because it never seems to be articulated or avowed - but, hey, it just was.

And that's the, I think very natural & nerdly, desire to "do it right." For all those times you screamed at the screen or threw book 4 of a trilogy across the room, because some hapless victim of author force or poetic licence just did something irredeemably stupid for the sake of the narrative, you can sit down at a TTRPG and make your character do the right, counter-genre/un-heroic/anti-climactic, thing.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The class imbalance arises because (absent rules variants that aren't the default for the system) a RM caster who uses a day's worth of spell points in a single encounter, or even a couple of encounters, will probably be mechanically more effective than a non-caster in the same circumstances.

Solutions that I have adopted include not using adders and even moreso not using PP multipliers; reducing the power of utility spells; and allowing all combatants access to the martial arts multiple attack options.

So, no, no comment on the larger points I was making in my prior posts. Shame.

For this, though, if this is your argument it's obvious and trivial -- if you cram all of daily refresh abilities into encounter refresh without doing any other work, it's obvious you will have balance issues period, much less between classes balanced on different paradigms. If you have all wizards in 1e, for instance, and you just move spell refresh from daily to encounter, you're going to generate balance issues within that game as it's not geared to deal with such usages (encounters will require foes in the hundreds in short order when it previously required 10 or less). This is aside from the issues of having a fighter in the party where you didn't smash his day's worth of attacks and damage into an encounter format. IE, the problem you're discussing is really incoherent daily to encounter shifting, and not something inherent in class balance, although that could occur. It's a point that's obvious, not profound.

 

[Sadras]

To use Gandalf as an example...do we know of any limits to what he can do and how often? Not really. His abilities are basically summarized in the word “wizard” and then beyond that are nebulously defined at best. So it’s not the best example.

and

LotR also more accurately likely has a magical fatigue system (or even a magical skills one) rather than a Vancian spells per day one, so I'm not sure if this satirical comparison is apt. If one sought to simulate magic in Middle Earth, D&D's magic system would probably be one of the last systems I would consider.

My point was we did see a little of what Gandalf could do, and he never brought that level of power everytime to every encounter. I still think his class was realised.

And [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] you make a good point regarding the Harry Potter/Gandalf comment.

I said maybe 200 pages ago or so in this thread that these conversations become more about “sides” than about actually examining anything, and I think that’s really run rampant in the discussion. It seems like people aren’t even willing to allow themselves to understand what someone else is saying if they’re perceived to be on the “other side”. Neither “side” is innocent of this, and I’ve been plenty guilty of it myself, but wow it seems to have really ramped up lately.

Guilty.

 

[Lanefan]

I tend to agree here, and this is a concern that fellow players at my table have raised. It's entailed in "how often do I get to be cool?" That, and how leveling systems tend to gate when players can actually play their character concept. But there are systems out there that permit more out-of-the-box playing of player character concepts, no?

This is only a problem if players insist on basing their character concepts and their definition of "cool" on the late-game or end-game result rather than on the process of getting there.

Sure, I can have a character concept of a heroic warrior married to the princess he rescued and to whom killing five frost giants is nothing more than a bracing before-breakfast workout; but much of the point - and fun - of play lies in the journey rather than the destination.

 

[Umbran]

And rhetorical questions are rarely a good use of anyone's time.

Clearly. Fine then, we'll make it simple - please stop with the snarkiness. Thanks.

 

[pemerton]

My mind raced to how this would be done in Fate. There are multiple subsystems and rule variations available in Fate, but I could see that "Webslingers" may be its own aspect as part of a powers package (see Venture City), but with "All Out of Web" as a trouble, such that the GM could potentially compel the character to be "out" of webslinging fluid or needing to refill in order to heighten the danger in a situation.

My Fate-fu is finite (unlike my alliteration-fu), but this reminds me of how Marvel Heroic handles it: there is a Webslinging power-set which includes swinging and grappling as features; and an Exhausted limit which the player can trigger for a buff or the GM can pay to trigger, shutting down the power-set.

I tend to agree here, and this is a concern that fellow players at my table have raised. It's entailed in "how often do I get to be cool?"

That's a nice way of putting it.

 

[Aldarc]

So what exactly don't you agree with? If I played Spiderman in FATE he would have Spiderman flaws as compels right? If I played him in say the old Marvel Superheroes game from TSR... no compels, right? I'm unclear on what exactly you don't agree with. In one instance the rules push/force me to playing through a Marvel Spiderman story while in the other I am playing Spiderman however I want to in the Marvel world.

I do mostly agree with your summation. My point of contention is how the Troubles/Compels are being characterized as hurdles for play. Troubles are self-selected to engender the play experiences the player wants for their character. So it seems unintuitive for how Fate works to say that Troubles are preventing a player from playing their character as they envision them. Why should a player be frustrated by Troubles they selected themselves?

Also, it kinda sounds - and here I do exaggerate - like you are depicting the other side as "I want to play Spider-Man but suffer none of the flaws or consequences. It's just as Uncle Ben said, 'With great power comes great...' You know what? Screw that, and give me back that symbiote suit. I was ways more powerful that way. It's a clear upgrade on the stats, and I don't have to reload my webs. Score."

This is only a problem if players insist on basing their character concepts and their definition of "cool" on the late-game or end-game result rather than on the process of getting there.

Sure, I can have a character concept of a heroic warrior married to the princess he rescued and to whom killing five frost giants is nothing more than a bracing before-breakfast workout; but much of the point - and fun - of play lies in the journey rather than the destination.

I don't think that the late/end game character is necessarily what my players have in mind here. Since we have been talking about Spider-Man, let's stick with that and superheroes for a second. If we were playing a supers game, they would likely have a basic power set in mind for playing Spider-Man. But the issue would be akin to leveling three levels as a mundane Peter Parker high school dork before getting your Spider-Man of "spider-sense" and maybe wall-crawling, but then having to wait another four levels before you unlock your web-slinging, and then another set of levels before you get your super physique. Sure, superheroes power-up/level, but most heroes start out with their set of powers realized. And most people wanting to a Spider-Man-esque character - maybe an off-brand character called the "The Bug" - would want to jump into that character concept right away rather than slog through months of play before they can play the character concept they had in mind. For some of my players in D&D 5E, they may have to wait until level 3 or later - depending on archetype features or sufficient multiclassing - before they get what they consider the core of their character concept realized. The "process of getting there" can come across as a begrudging tax rather than an exciting feature, and I don't think that this makes them bad players for wanting to play what they actually have in mind for their character as soon as possible and being disappointed with that "process." In contrast, there are other games where players can jump right in at "level 0" with their realized character concepts and basic suite of features for that concept.

 

[Maxperson]

Not sure if I agree here. If you are having these sort of compels in Fate, then it's because you as a player have selected these troubles as things you want to experience for your character. Plus, you have Fate points that allow you to resist these compels. But Fate wants to create interesting stories and not stories where everyone knows everything, makes every dramatically appropriate response, and suffer no flaws through their "mastery" of gaming the system.

But presumably, he wouldn't be playing Spiderman in Fate, because it rubs him the wrong way and he can't have the experience he wants. Your counter doesn't really counter his statement. Instead it just means that most people who play Fate are of the type that prefers the dramatic story.

 

[Maxperson]

And that's the, I think very natural & nerdly, desire to "do it right." For all those times you screamed at the screen or threw book 4 of a trilogy across the room, because some hapless victim of author force or poetic licence just did something irredeemably stupid for the sake of the narrative, you can sit down at a TTRPG and make your character do the right, counter-genre/un-heroic/anti-climactic, thing.

There was a game I played a few times in the '90s called, It Came From the Late Late Late Show. You basically played movie actors in a B movie. You were given various skills to use, had a fame score that you could use to stalk off of the set(roll under it and the director has to cave to your demands), and more. My favorite part of the game, though, was that you got extra points for being "appropriately stupid." In a slasher story: "I heard something outside of the house! You guys wait here, I'll go check it out!"