Game vs. Story

[BigFreekinGoblinoid]

injecting some on-topic levity:

http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=616

 

[Hussar]

Psst. Resource management.

Psst 2. Constraints on hero point usage.

I can appreciate that Hong. And, I hope that no one thinks that I am saying that heropoints are wrongbadfun or anything like that. I think they are an excellent mechanic. A nice mix between DM's fiat and still retaining random chance.

However, it doesn't change the fact that you are retconning results. In some cases, you are removing any chance of failure, even after you have failed in your action, and replacing it with success.

Let me try another tack then. What is the purpose of Hero Points? IMO, one of the functions of Hero Points is to mitigate the effects of bad luck. To put it another way, hero points are a mechanic by which the player can override the roll of the dice in order to continue playing. Is that a fair characterization?

If it is, how is it vastly different than the DM lowering damage by a couple of points to drop you to -8 hp?

 

[hong]

I can appreciate that Hong. And, I hope that no one thinks that I am saying that heropoints are wrongbadfun or anything like that. I think they are an excellent mechanic. A nice mix between DM's fiat and still retaining random chance.

However, it doesn't change the fact that you are retconning results.

You conflate "result" in the sense of seeing the outcome of an abstract algorithm/recipe involving random chance, and "result" in the sense of applying that outcome to the in-game reality of the campaign.

Hero points, and similar techniques, exist in between the two. No retconning happens in the sense of changing an event within the in-game reality, because at the moment the hero point is applied, that in-game reality has yet to be resolved.

Let me try another tack then. What is the purpose of Hero Points? IMO, one of the functions of Hero Points is to mitigate the effects of bad luck. To put it another way, hero points are a mechanic by which the player can override the roll of the dice in order to continue playing. Is that a fair characterization?

If it is, how is it vastly different than the DM lowering damage by a couple of points to drop you to -8 hp?

Because it's the _player_ deciding to reduce the damage, not the DM. Further, hero points typically exist within a PREDEFINED framework that tells you what you can do with them: succeed on a save, attack, whatever. You can't just change any old roll if you have a point handy. Finally, if you use a hero point to change this roll, you can't use it to change the next roll. Resource management, just like using up hit points, spells, 1/day abilities, or whatever.

Hero points are a method of variability reduction, yes. However, variability reduction is not synonymous with "fudging".

 

[Odhanan]

Me and my friends are playing a game that depicts actual events as they occur - as such, these events do not constitute a "story".

The "story" comes from the events of the game once they have been played and are told to someone who wasn't at the game table.

 

[Hussar]

You conflate "result" in the sense of seeing the outcome of an abstract algorithm/recipe involving random chance, and "result" in the sense of applying that outcome to the in-game reality of the campaign.

Hero points, and similar techniques, exist in between the two. No retconning happens in the sense of changing an event within the in-game reality, because at the moment the hero point is applied, that in-game reality has yet to be resolved.

I understand what you mean, but, that's a pretty fine line. Since Hero Points are applied after the resolution of the action, you are changing an event within the in-game reality. Or, I suppose, you could say that no even is ever resolved until a player decides not to use a Hero Point, but, that's essentially the same thing.

Because it's the _player_ deciding to reduce the damage, not the DM. Further, hero points typically exist within a PREDEFINED framework that tells you what you can do with them: succeed on a save, attack, whatever. You can't just change any old roll if you have a point handy. Finally, if you use a hero point to change this roll, you can't use it to change the next roll. Resource management, just like using up hit points, spells, 1/day abilities, or whatever.

Hero points are a method of variability reduction, yes. However, variability reduction is not synonymous with "fudging".

While I agree that it is perhaps not identical to fudging, mostly because it is a codified system, it is resulting in the same thing. Whether it's the DM changing the roll or the player changing the roll, the fact of the matter is that the roll has been changed. Who does it is pretty immaterial. The fact that you can only do it so many times doesn't really enter into it either, since, at the time when you use an Action Point, you have one to use. Yes, I cannot change infinite results, but, as I said before, I can still change results.

If there is a spectrum of absolute adherence to the dice on one end and free form on the other, I would put hero points and the like closer to the free form end of the scale.

IMO, Hero Points are simply codified fudging. It becomes more palatable because its codified and probably doubly so since it is the players doing it and not the DM. However, its still, at the end of the day, overruling events dictated by the dice.

 

[hong]

I understand what you mean, but, that's a pretty fine line.

Nonsense.

Since Hero Points are applied after the resolution of the action,

Ah. Clearly this is some new use of the phrase "resolution" that I was previously unaware of.

you are changing an event within the in-game reality.

Which part of "at the moment the hero point is applied, that in-game reality has yet to be resolved" did you have trouble understanding?

The situation in-game is NOT YET resolved after the roll is done. There is an opportunity for people to look at the dice outcome and decide whether or not to modify it. I suppose, for the benefit of the hideously pedantic, every die roll could be followed by a formal process whereby the DM says out loud "does anybody want to change this result?"; that might make clearer the difference between the die roll and the in-game result. But such a process would just be boring and slow down gameplay, for no benefit other than to clarify things for pedants.

Or, I suppose, you could say that no even is ever resolved until a player decides not to use a Hero Point, but, that's essentially the same thing.

Exactly. And strangely enough, people manage to decide whether to use a hero point without having to be asked explicitly. Well, people with functioning cognitive abilities anyway.

While I agree that it is perhaps not identical to fudging, mostly because it is a codified system,

Tautology is.

it is resulting in the same thing. Whether it's the DM changing the roll or the player changing the roll, the fact of the matter is that the roll has been changed. Who does it is pretty immaterial.

Get back to me when a player uses a hero point to increase a monster's attack roll by 20.

The fact that you can only do it so many times doesn't really enter into it either, since, at the time when you use an Action Point, you have one to use.

By this argument, spells are not resources since you can only cast them one at a time. Are we having fun yet?

Yes, I cannot change infinite results, but, as I said before, I can still change results.

The process by which the result is changed is the point.

If there is a spectrum of absolute adherence to the dice on one end

I detect an unhealthy obsession with dice.

and free form on the other, I would put hero points and the like closer to the free form end of the scale.

Because having a codified framework dictating how many hero points are available and their conditions of use, is freeform. This is clearly a new meaning of the term "freeform" that I was previously unaware of.

IMO, Hero Points are simply codified fudging.

Oxymorons are.

It becomes more palatable because its codified and probably doubly so since it is the players doing it and not the DM. However, its still, at the end of the day, overruling events dictated by the dice.

Nobody cares about dice. Well, except for those who are obsessed with them.

 

[Hussar]

Which part of "at the moment the hero point is applied, that in-game reality has yet to be resolved" did you have trouble understanding?

The situation in-game is NOT YET resolved after the roll is done. There is an opportunity for people to look at the dice outcome and decide whether or not to modify it. I suppose, for the benefit of the hideously pedantic, every die roll could be followed by a formal process whereby the DM says out loud "does anybody want to change this result?"; that might make clearer the difference between the die roll and the in-game result. But such a process would just be boring and slow down gameplay, for no benefit other than to clarify things for pedants.

Yes, it is resolved. The DM says, "You missed." That's a resolved action. The player then retcons the action by applying a Hero Point and hits. How is that difficult to understand.

Once the DM has adjudicated the result of any action, that action is resolved. Anything which changes that adjudication AFTER THE FACT, is fudging in one form or other.

By this argument, spells are not resources since you can only cast them one at a time. Are we having fun yet?

You can get as snarky as you like, but, please don't put words in my mouth. I never said it wasn't a resource. However, finite resource or not is irrelavent. It doesn't matter that I can only change X results a day. I am still changing the results.

Because having a codified framework dictating how many hero points are available and their conditions of use, is freeform. This is clearly a new meaning of the term "freeform" that I was previously unaware of.

No, retconning the results of an action is freeform.

The only point I am talking about here is at the time when someone at the table changes the results of a die roll. When those results are known and then changed, that's fudging. I fail to understand why this is such a difficult concept.

The problem I think here is that you are defining fudging as cheating. I don't. I define fudging as changing the results of an action after the results are known.

For the third time now, I think its a good idea. I think that Hero Points are a good idea because it helps to save PC's from entirely arbitrary death. It reduces the threat facing PC's by allowing players to alter the results of die rolls after the fact. It's a mulligan. Great. But, to pretend that it's something other than that is disingenuous.

 

[hong]

Yes, it is resolved. The DM says, "You missed." That's a resolved action.

No, in the presence of hero points that's imprecise terminology. Not that it generally makes any difference, except when pedants get involved.

The player then retcons the action by applying a Hero Point and hits. How is that difficult to understand.

It is of course difficult to understand if one has the process back to front. When one actually realises what is going on, there is no difficulty at all.

Once the DM has adjudicated the result of any action, that action is resolved.

And that adjudication, in the presence of hero points, happens after people have decided whether or not to use those points. 99.9% of the time people don't decide to use those points and so the process is usually skimmed over, but that doesn't change the fact that the underlying algorithm whereby a die roll is mapped to an in-game result is different.

Anything which changes that adjudication AFTER THE FACT, is fudging in one form or other.

Thankfully, nobody has done anything after the fact. Well, unless one is wilfully misunderstanding the place of hero points in the rules framework.

You can get as snarky as you like, but, please don't put words in my mouth.

It's called "deductive reasoning", oh sensitive one. If you don't like it, don't make stupid statements.

I never said it wasn't a resource. However, finite resource or not is irrelavent.

Unfortunately, we do not get to unilaterally declare irrelevant those points that demonstrate our argument to be fatuous.

It doesn't matter that I can only change X results a day. I am still changing the results.

Which part of "the process by which the result is changed is the point" did we fail to understand?

No, retconning the results of an action is freeform.

Which part of "no retconning happens in the sense of changing an event within the in-game reality" did we fail to understand?

The only point I am talking about here is at the time when someone at the table changes the results of a die roll. When those results are known and then changed, that's fudging. I fail to understand why this is such a difficult concept.

Nobody said it was a difficult concept. The salient point is why you keep insisting on it.

The problem I think here is that you are defining fudging as cheating. I don't.

Ah, definitional wars are such fun.

I define fudging as changing the results of an action after the results are known.

And I should care about how you define words exactly as you want them to mean... why?

For the third time now, I think its a good idea. I think that Hero Points are a good idea because it helps to save PC's from entirely arbitrary death. It reduces the threat facing PC's by allowing players to alter the results of die rolls after the fact. It's a mulligan. Great.

And are we having fun arguing with ourselves?

But, to pretend that it's something other than that is disingenuous.

No, it's a muleheaded refusal to see the difference.

 

[Hussar]

No, in the presence of hero points that's imprecise terminology. Not that it generally makes any difference, except when pedants get involved.

I understand now. Because we have a mechanic for fudging it's no longer fudging. That makes perfect sense.

Put it another way.

Bob rolls an attack and misses by 2. The DM decides, because he's a nice guy, to give Bob a break and tells Bob he can roll a d6 and add it to his attack. If he hits, then fine, he hits.

In case 2, the decision to add hero points to the game was made some time ago and it's a mechanic of the game. Bob rolls an attack and misses by two. He knows he missed because the DM told him so. He burns a Hero Point and rolls a d6. If he hits, then fine, he hits.

Why is the first one fudging and the second one not?

 

[hong]

I understand now. Because we have a mechanic for fudging it's no longer fudging. That makes perfect sense.

By George, he's got it.

Put it another way.

Bob rolls an attack and misses by 2. The DM decides, because he's a nice guy, to give Bob a break and tells Bob he can roll a d6 and add it to his attack. If he hits, then fine, he hits.

In case 2, the decision to add hero points to the game was made some time ago and it's a mechanic of the game. Bob rolls an attack and misses by two. He knows he missed because the DM told him so. He burns a Hero Point and rolls a d6. If he hits, then fine, he hits.

Why is the first one fudging and the second one not?

1. Because it's not the DM's decision as to whether Bob gets the d6 or not. The DM doesn't have to be a nice guy, or have a "story" in mind.

2. Because if Bob has no more hero points, he can't get the d6, no matter what the DM or Bob wants.

3. Suppose it was a damage roll instead; if the hero point rules state that you can't add the d6 to damage, then again, he can't do it.

4. Because the rule says d6, so Bob gets d6; as opposed to d4, 2d6, +20 or whatever else the DM might have come up with on the spur of the moment. You need at least +7 to hit the monster with a super AC? Well, too bad; you're only getting d6.

Is this clear, or do you want me to explain it all over again?