Let's Talk About Character Resources To Power Abilities

[payn]

I think folks tend to interpret statement in the most extreme way, instead of just taking them as the statements of preference they are. I don't think we, as a discussion community, need to demand a disclaimer on every post. We know that the vast majority of the time, people are coming at any given subject from the standpoint of their opinions and preferences. Unless someone explicitly says "the onetrueway is" then we can safely assume "in my opinion" even if it isn't said.

On the other hand, its really not that hard to state your preference without saying anything that isnt is not real RP, a game, or just total BS.

 

[Umbran]

Did I ask for your experience or perspective? I think its rude to force your experience on people who have not asked about it.

Mod Note:
You are on an open internet discussion message board. If you aren't open to hearing other people's experiences or perspectives, then goodness gracious, are you in the wrong place!

Nobody here needs your permission to post their ideas, and it is not considered rude of them to do so. The only rude thing going on here is you taking someone to task as if you owned the place.

Please try to handle posts you aren't interested in with a greater measure of respect and aplomb - even simply ignoring it and not responding at all is perfectly acceptable.

 

[Campbell]

The point of starting with the bare minimum and then layering rules on top isn't to remove things we consider valuble. It's to find out what actually contributes to fun at the table for our particular group and the way they want to play. It's a design process that asks what does it add?

I also think it can be a useful exercise for us as roleplayers to really feel in our bones that we can have functional roleplay without any rules and then to understand that the rules add or should add value on top of that.

 

[Reynard]

The point of starting with the bare minimum and then layering rules on top isn't to remove things we consider valuble. It's to find out what actually contributes to fun at the table for our particular group and the way they want to play. It's a design process that asks what does it add?

I also think it can be a useful exercise for us as roleplayers to really feel in our bones that we can have functional roleplay without any rules and then to understand that the rules add or should add value on top of that.

I don't think you are wrong necessarily, but I think it presupposes that the main point is the Roleplaying, and the Game is secondary. I don't think that is necessarily true. I tend to think of the Game part being as important if not more important than the Roleplaying part. (Swap in "cooperative story generation" for "Roleplaying" as necessary.)

For me, it is always still a Game first -- we are there to play. So I agree that the specific systems should increase the fun of play, but I don't think they are necessarily in service to the Roleplaying aspect.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I don't think you are wrong necessarily, but I think it presupposes that the main point is the Roleplaying, and the Game is secondary. I don't think that is necessarily true. I tend to think of the Game part being as important if not more important than the Roleplaying part. (Swap in "cooperative story generation" for "Roleplaying" as necessary.)

For me, it is always still a Game first -- we are there to play. So I agree that the specific systems should increase the fun of play, but I don't think they are necessarily in service to the Roleplaying aspect.

I completely agree. And (slight thread derailment) one thing that drives me crazy in online discussions is the snooty attitude that the roleplaying...which seems to mean, for those people, some form of character acting...is the most important part, and that the purpose of game mechanics is to serve that role, and that anything else is a lesser form of RPGing. Backed up, nose in the air, by the 'proof' that the world 'roleplaying' is right there in the genre!

@#$% that noise.

It's a game, with roleplaying.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I completely agree. And (slight thread derailment) one thing that drives me crazy in online discussions is the snooty attitude that the roleplaying...which seems to mean, for those people, some form of character acting...is the most important part, and that the purpose of game mechanics is to serve that role, and that anything else is a lesser form of RPGing. Backed up, nose in the air, by the 'proof' that the world 'roleplaying' is right there in the genre!

@#$% that noise.

It's a game, with roleplaying.

That’s interesting to read. I would have thought your preference would be on the roleplaying based on recent discussions.

 

[TwoSix]

I don't think you are wrong necessarily, but I think it presupposes that the main point is the Roleplaying, and the Game is secondary. I don't think that is necessarily true. I tend to think of the Game part being as important if not more important than the Roleplaying part. (Swap in "cooperative story generation" for "Roleplaying" as necessary.)

For me, it is always still a Game first -- we are there to play. So I agree that the specific systems should increase the fun of play, but I don't think they are necessarily in service to the Roleplaying aspect.

Not sure I totally agree with this, though. I agree that the thespian/acting/portayal portion of the game shouldn't be elevated in importance over the more mechanical portions as a general rule.

But I think the core of an RPG, as opposed to something like a board game, is the conversation shaped around creating a shared fictional space. That conversation is then guided by the system and rules (and social contract), and the boundaries it imposes on how that conversation is shaped.

Skill checks, resources, combat, other forms of resolution method; all of those, at a zoomed-out level, exist to let the rules shape the flow of conversation and the declarations of what happens next in the fiction.

 

[Bill Zebub]

That’s interesting to read. I would have thought your preference would be on the roleplaying based on recent discussions.

I love the roleplaying. But it's a game, not serious business.

 

[Reynard]

Not sure I totally agree with this, though. I agree that the thespian/acting/portayal portion of the game shouldn't be elevated in importance over the more mechanical portions as a general rule.

But I think the core of an RPG, as opposed to something like a board game, is the conversation shaped around creating a shared fictional space. That conversation is then guided by the system and rules (and social contract), and the boundaries it imposes on how that conversation is shaped.

Skill checks, resources, combat, other forms of resolution method; all of those, at a zoomed-out level, exist to let the rules shape the flow of conversation and the declarations of what happens next in the fiction.

I don't disagree, but I think the degree to which that conversation shapes the fiction compared to the systems shaping the fiction varies between games, tables and individual gamers.

For example, it is totally valid to play a very crunchy game in a very constrained fiction-- for example, Sunless Citadel using 3E rules -- and still call it a roleplaying game.

 

[Kannik]

The name escapes me at the moment, but there's an Anime-influenced RPG that tracks a couple of resources, one of which is needed to inflict stress/damage/whathaveyou on an opponent. Except when you begin a scene, you have none of that resource.

Just to close the loop on this, the name of the game is Anima Prime.

(Note that I have not played it so can't opine on how well or not it runs in practice/at the table.)