D&D 5E Can mundane classes have a resource which powers abilities?

[Neonchameleon]

My last Fate character had an aspect of "Weirdness Magnet" -- huh. Good to know I've been having badwrongfun playing wrong.

That was why I gave the Scarlet Witch exception as someone who does​ manipulate probabilites. Your character manipulated probabilities subconsciously because that is a thing that character did. This is not the general case.

 

[Nagol]

That was why I gave the Scarlet Witch exception as someone who does​ manipulate probabilites. Your character manipulated probabilities subconsciously because that is a thing that character did. This is not the general case.

No, the character in question was a passive recipient of all the weird things that could possibly happen both good and bad. He manipulated nothing either consciously nor unconsciously; he was just present. Unless what I thought was my character conception is also wrong?

 

[Neonchameleon]

No, the character in question was a passive recipient of all the weird things that could possibly happen both good and bad. He manipulated nothing either consciously nor unconsciously; he was just present. Unless what I thought was my character conception is also wrong?

What's your angle here? I said characters couldn't manipulate probability unless they were the Scarlet Witch in the post you were replying to - which was the only thing I said they couldn't do. The example I gave of stealing candy from babies was a different aspect. So I assumed that you were objecting to the idea that they couldn't manipulate probabilities. Apparently that wasn't it.

You were gaining the Fate Points through your character's aspects, and spending them through your character's aspects. How exactly do you think I'm accusing that specific aspect of being BadWrongFun if it's nothing to do with probability manipulation? I genuinely do not understand how I have offended you here.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

They don't know they can manipulate probabilities. Because they don't manipulate probabilities. You can not in Fate Core spend a Fate Point without invoking an aspect. And an aspect is generally a concrete thing. So unless you are playing someone like the Scarlet Witch you don't manipulate probabilities. You make use of your personal strengths and those of the environment.

Oh, okay. That's not as bad as I thought it was, then. I thought Fate points were generic things, like re-rolling checks or adding dice or whatnot. When I looked it up, the example I found specifically mentioned re-rolling a die after the check was made.

If it's something that really does make sense for the character to know about, then that's.... not something I have an opinion on. I still don't see what that has to do with D&D, though, because D&D is a system for representing objective physical realities.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Oh, okay. That's not as bad as I thought it was, then. I thought Fate points were generic things, like re-rolling checks or adding dice or whatnot. When I looked it up, the example I found specifically mentioned re-rolling a die after the check was made.

Fate Points are generic and disassociated - but they are gained and spent through aspects. What Fate Points are varies from character to character and is seen through their aspects. For a vampire it might be blood - while for a normal human it might be willpower. Or just confidence and luck in some abstract mix. You associate however much you as a player think you need to.

The using the Fate Points before or after the check has been made is the difference between Fortune in the Middle and Fortune at the End. In a Fortune In The Middle model you can see things going wrong while the pattern is still unfolding. Fortune In The Middle makes very little sense for a single gunshot, but in the case of a social interaction or even a six second combat round you can see things veering off course and you putting your foot in it before you've entirely failed the seduction or been disarmed. And the choice to reroll is "I don't like the way this is going - I'm going to try to dig myself out of the hole." You can only do it by invoking an aspect, which means that you need to declare how you are changing your approach to take advantage of something already present in the scene or some aspect of yourself .

 

[Neonchameleon]

If it's something that really does make sense for the character to know about, then that's.... not something I have an opinion on.

Few RPGs do things that make no sense at all. If it seems really weird, it's probably not doing quite what you think (and yes I make this mistake at times).

I still don't see what that has to do with D&D, though, because D&D is a system for representing objective physical realities.

Since when? Certainly not in 1e. Now it's possible to make the case that D&D 3.X in specific and uniquely among the D&D family was such a system. But your interpretation of hit points is out of line with Gygax's

AD&D 1e DMG, page 81
It is quite unreasonable to assume that as a character gains levels of ability in his or her class that a corresponding gain in actual ability to sustain physical damage takes place. It is preposterous to state such an assumption, for if we are to assume that a man is killed by a sword thrust which does 4 hit points of damage, we must similarly assume that a hero could, on the average, withstand five such thrusts before being slain! Why then the increase in hit points? Because these reflect both the actual physical ability of the character to withstand damage - as indicated by constitution bonuses- and a commensurate increase in such areas as skill in combat and similar life-or-death situations, the "sixth sense" which warns the individual of some otherwise unforeseen events, sheer luck, and the fantastic provisions of magical protections and/or divine protection. Therefore, constitution affects both actual ability to withstand physical punishment hit points (physique) and the immeasurable areas which involve the sixth sense and luck (fitness).

 

[LostSoul]

Which is fine, on some level. That makes sense that a character would know that sometimes you get lucky. The dissociated aspect is that a character can't control when they get lucky, while the player can.

If the game rules are the physical laws of the game world, why would you assume the character is unable to control luck in some fashion?

If the game rules aren't the physical laws of the game world, don't we run back into the "hockey button sludge" aspect that [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] brought up earlier?

(Which I understand him to be saying that all or most RPG mechanics that we think of as associated are not, because there's no one-to-one relationship between character decisions and player decisions. Not that I'm completely sold on that; a player can choose to have his character engage in melee and the character can also choose to engage in melee, and at that level of abstraction the decision is associated.)

 

[Neonchameleon]

Which I understand him to be saying that all or most RPG mechanics that we think of as associated are not, because there's no one-to-one relationship between character decisions and player decisions. Not that I'm completely sold on that; a player can choose to have his character engage in melee and the character can also choose to engage in melee, and at that level of abstraction the decision is associated.

And here I'm going to say that the only RPGs I'm aware of that fit the actual definition of associated are Apocalypse World and its children. Every single game with a skill system falls into the Hockey Button Sludge trap somewhere or another. Apocalypse World starts off with freeform roleplay and uses the mechanics largely for worldbuilding and conflict resolution.

Interestingly Apocalypse World has two different moves you use to shoot people. Go Aggro and Seize By Force. And which one you use depends on what you are trying to do - when you Go Aggro on someone you are using the approach that a weapon is a device for making someone change their mind. Covering fire is Going Aggro, as is trying to drive them back or persuade them to surrender. If you are taking the extra second to aim in order to line up the shot and ensure they die that's Seizing by Force. As is any other time where you don't really care if you get shot in retaliation or are boxed in with no cover and have to come out fighting. Seize is, understandably, the more dangerous move. But it's dangerous both to you and the enemy while most people try to keep their heads down and take potshots. That's an associated system; rather than rolling simply based on your gun skill you are rolling based on what you are trying to do with the gun. Information you have - and information that is very relevant to what you are actually doing.

 

[pemerton]

You're not playing a real person in real life, though. Sure, a real person would be worn down from taking repeated injuries, rather than getting tougher merely by surviving them.

Within the game world, which is the only world that our characters know, it is a fact that Sir Ezrix Doomhammer (while wearing a simple chain shirt) can survive ~20 strikes from the longsword which he hands to Floyd the courier in order to demonstrate his toughness

<snip>

Unless you want to narrate your Hit Points as plot armor, of which the character is entirely unaware, but that's on you if you consciously choose such an inconsistent model

There are general fatigue rules, at least in 3.X, which cover the effects of strenuous labor over time. I know the main book had rules for fatigue as a result of overland travel, at least. I know of at least one module where the PCs were supposed to play farmers for the day, and if you go through with it, you had to make something like a Fortitude check to resist becoming fatigued during the evening.

I am so confused now.

You want the game to be realistic, so instead of picking realistic rules, you take the game rules as they are and make them into a cartoon version of reality where Sir Snobby can - naked - stand and take twenty crossbow bolts without it slowing him down?

I'm with Obryn.

How does adopting a cartoonish conception of the ingame reality help suspension of disbelief? It seems a way to undermine it, from my point of view!

This applies to the account of hit points you put forward, plus the fact that farming would cause fatigue but fighting doesn't.

Hit points as "plot armour" is easy to narrate and not at all inconsistent.

When it comes to things like morale and inspiration, though, less really is more. If you codify something like that, then you get people playing the system rather than the game.

Morale and inspiration are pretty easy to introduce into a game.
[MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] has given examples in his post. Burning Wheel has Steel mechanics. And 4e has inspirational healing mechanics plus other "leader" powers.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

If the game rules aren't the physical laws of the game world, don't we run back into the "hockey button sludge" aspect that @Manbearcat brought up earlier?

(Which I understand him to be saying that all or most RPG mechanics that we think of as associated are not, because there's no one-to-one relationship between character decisions and player decisions. Not that I'm completely sold on that; a player can choose to have his character engage in melee and the character can also choose to engage in melee, and at that level of abstraction the decision is associated.)

As you say. Because of abstraction, I don't mind a bit of hockey button sludge. The one-to-one relationship between player and character decisions is not important to me, or to the definition of association.