D&D 5E I Am SO Over The "Rootless Vagabond" Archetype

[KarinsDad]

But that's not just it. Whether you realize it or not, you're adding connotation. Your word choice suggests a certain amount of moralizing about playstyle.

Is the mechanic slightly metagame? Sure, insofar as it is a chance of the players to choose some of the narrative direction through something other than the task resolution mechanics of the game. But you could have said, "That rule is a bit to metagame for my tastes". Instead, you said, "oops rule" which has the connotation of being the thing you do when you weren't careful enough to avoid a mistake. An "oops rule" is something you use to cover when you're sloppy.

But, this is baked into the system. It is something the GM and player can rely on, as much as you can rely on hit points in D&D (and in much the same manner, at that, from a player perspective). There's nothing sloppy about it.

You're free to not like it, and even say so. You're free to not use it. But the connotations you are bringing to the discussion are inaccurate, and unfair.

For me, the connotations are totally accurate and totally fair.

The game system has a hole. In that hole, PCs can easily die. So, the game system put in an "oops" rule to prevent that from happening. The rule is total metarule, not in character rule. The vast majority of other game systems do not have this rule because they do not have the hole. The PCs are not changing the outcome of what should happen to something else, the players are. They are doing it within the rules, but that does not make the rule any less of an "oops" rule.

The results of the players using this rule affect a totally different entity (i.e. an organization) that although the PCs are part of, the DM now has to come up with a narrative way as to how in this particular case, moving the damage to the organization adversely affects it. It also differs from 5E "oops" rules which tend to just affect one PC or a small group of PCs.


5E has "oops" rules. The Halfling Lucky rule. The Lucky feat. Many of the reaction abilities and spells. These are rules that change the outcome of the normal task resolution mechanics of the game and they typically do it when the PC is at a detriment. Not quite as sure fire as the rule you mentioned (where you implied that the players make the decision and things just work out in the short term), but still "oops" rules.

The rule you mentioned has differences in that it can more easily affect multiple PCs simultaneously, it directly affects outside entities, it is required or the game can suddenly end, and the implication is that it always works and any player can use it. But it also has similarities in that it is a limited resource, it comes into play when a PC or PCs are at a detriment, and is part of the normal rules.

So yes, there are some pretty significant style differences that you seem to be glossing over. But I use the same "oops" terminology for some 5E rules as well, but they are not quite as "OOPS" protecting as this rule is.

 

[Henrix]

How can we make organizations that characters WANT to join? That are useful, used, not abused, and attractive? That are not coercive?

Again, make the players do it.*

Let them be part of creating the organisation.

In particular if they all start out as members of it. Let them help deciding small things about it.

Don't make it just 'another thing the DM foists on us'.



If it is not part of the back story you can make it attractive to them. Make the guys be real friendly - after all they want the party on their side, don't they? Make it advantageous to them.
(Perhaps they have a bank so the PCs don't have to lug around tens of pounds of gold all the time.)

And when they are there let them help out by creating minor characters and stuff. It'll make them feel that the organisation is theirs.


Another route is to make the organisation live.
Give it a character sheet that the PCs manage.
Let the PCs' actions influence that sheet.
Give it a Resources stat - if it is high the chances are good they can get the PCs stuff they need. If it's low - "sorry guys, we're out of dried frog pills. If you can bring us some live Rana cani accipitris we might be able to help".


Make the players feel that it is something they are part of, that is theirs. That they are in fact members of.
Not something that is foisted upon them.

 

[prosfilaes]

But it also has similarities in that it is a limited resource, it comes into play when a PC or PCs are at a detriment, and is part of the normal rules.

Like HPs. It is no more and no less then a separate source of HPs that take effect in different ways.

 

[Umbran]

For me, the connotations are totally accurate and totally fair.

The game system has a hole. In that hole, PCs can easily die. So, the game system put in an "oops" rule to prevent that from happening. The rule is total metarule, not in character rule.

That it is a metarule has *nothing* to do with the Oops factor. Oops rules can be meta, or not. Separate the issues you have, please.

And no, the game system does not have a hole in it. Fate games specifically seek to be able to include long-term injuries and other consequences for failure than straight-up immediate death - like, broken bones, or burns that take longer to heal, or loss of face among important people - and this is how the system accomplishes it. Characters have short term stress boxes, and longer term Consequences. It isn't a patch to keep people dying - it is a desired feature, an alternative to the traditional forms consequence-free hit points and nasty short-term death spirals.

Atomic Robo has extended this, and added the Organization Consequences to allow impact on and narrative manipulation of some of the setting elements as well. Not because it is easy for characters to die otherwise - the basic structure is like other FATE games that don't have the Organizations, and characters don't die much in those. It is simply an added feature. This has the effect of allowing the PCs to occasionally evade short-term damage, and keep rolling in really tough times - simulating things that happen in the fiction on which the game is based! Instead of taking damage, they pay the price for it differently, as a long-term issue. Rather than patching a hole, it allows the GM to turn it up to 11 occasionally, and not just kill off characters.

So, I'm sorry, KD, but no, your characterization is inaccurate and unfair. I get that you don't like the meta nature. That's fine. But beyond that, you're off base.

 

[Joe Liker]

I'm pretty heavy-handed about forcing my players to participate in and interact with the game world. I always make them help me create some aspect of the lore, whether it be through a personal magic item, an organization they help create, or simply a formal system of bonus XP for setting and pursuing goals beyond leveling up and acquiring loot.

In this way, they have a stake in what's going on. They're not being told what to do, and they actually get rewarded for caring about the outcomes. Best of all, I'm still free to plot and manipulate all the glorious hooks they provide me with. It's win-win, and I never have to worry about whether they'll be interested in my story because it's not my story; it's theirs.

 

[Greg Benage]

I went through an anti-murderhobo phase, and now I'm more in a "PC backgrounds (including mine) are almost always lame/cliché/pastiche/irrelevant" phase. I'm much more interested in the way characters engage with the campaign's people, places and events in play, and that's as much my job as DM as it is the player's. In fact, these days, I'm pretty happy with "design in play" characters whose backgrounds start as a blank slate and get filled in during the course of the campaign.