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

[Obryn]

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 (and of course, Floyd will ignore any opportunities to sneak the blade past the chain - to score a critical hit, in game terms - because he's not actually trying to kill Ezrix). It is a fact that Sir Ezrix has better aim now, after returning from his third campaign against the orcs, than he did when he was a green recruit. These are simple truths of the world.

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.

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?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

In an associated system you are playing a pawn using the rules of physics that match to the game engine. Associated systems tell you there is literally nothing out there other than that which is specifically modelled by the game engine. This is where the "Fighter can fight all day at top efficiency" idea comes from. Although there are magical effects that fatigue a character in 3.X, general fatigue from hard work does not exist. Therefore the characters don't experience it. Therefore fighters can fight all day (as is a common argument for fighters in the fighter vs wizard debate).

This is not strictly true. 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.

It's not so much the case that there is nothing in the system unless it is modeled by the game engine. It's more that only the rules of physics can reasonably be codified. And even then, the rulebook only bothers to list the common situations that are likely to come up for professional adventurers. Maybe they changed it in 4E, but the older edition DMGs really emphasized how the DM is supposed to control all of that other stuff, in whatever way makes sense for the situation at hand. Even the Next playtest has the guideline to require ability checks for anything reasonable-yet-uncertain.

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. You know the big alignment debate, over whether enforced alignment helps or hinders roleplaying? It's kind of like that, but to an even greater extent. If you get points for being selfless, then you wind up with players acting selfless, not because it's true to the character, but so they get the points.

Any codified system can be solved, so unless you want players to "optimize their roleplaying", you must leave the roleplaying mechanics un-codified.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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 want the game to be internally consistent. Internal consistency is much more important than verisimilitude.

You present a degenerate case that doesn't actually show up during gameplay. The rules, being finite in quantity, are mostly designed to cover the situations that are most likely to occur. They could add a rule - say, any attack against an unarmored target is automatically a critical hit - but it's something that would come up maybe once over the course of a campaign. Would it be worth adding that rule? It's debatable.

Even then, the unarmored warrior who can take twenty crossbow bolts without slowing down is still within genre, though it tends to show up in more high-fantasy works. Keep in mind that, by the time you get a character with that many hit points, you have clerics who are literally returning the dead to life, as a matter of scope for how ridiculous your world is.

 

[Neonchameleon]

This is not strictly true. There are general fatigue rules, at least in 3.X, which cover the effects of strenuous labor over time.

Having just searched the SRD, this isn't true. There are the conditions Fatigued and Exhausted. There are also things that can trigger Fatigued (and fatigued twice is exhausted). The mundane ones are sleeping in armour, running long distance too much, and cold, heat, or starvation. (Oddly enough swimming by the RAW doesn't).

And that you can house rule to make things work isn't enough to cover the gap in the rules.

It's not so much the case that there is nothing in the system unless it is modeled by the game engine. It's more that only the rules of physics can reasonably be codified.

This isn't true. Codifying the physics is generally not terribly reasonable (see hit points for details) and other rules can reasonably be codified although it's technically more challenging (see below).

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. Yo u know the big alignment debate, over whether enforced alignment helps or hinders roleplaying? It's kind of like that, but to an even greater extent. If you get points for being selfless, then you wind up with players acting selfless, not because it's true to the character, but so they get the points. Any codified system can be solved, so unless you want players to "optimize their roleplaying", you must leave the roleplaying mechanics un-codified.

You're talking about alignment mechanics as if they are a good example of ... anything. And they aren't. Good personality mechanics assume two things.
1: They can be solved.
2: Playing in line with the solution leads to a more interesting game and to "Optimised roleplaying" that's almost indistinguishable from character driven roleplaying.

Let's take some actual games here rather than some straw games. The obvious first game is Fate Core and its Aspects system. The aspects are five descriptive statements that reflect the character - and in order to gain a bonus Fate Point you need to act in line with your aspects in such a way that it harms or impedes your character. You could only ever gain a bonus from acting selflessly if your character had Selfless (or Generous to a fault or whatever) as an aspect - and it lead to your character being put in a pickle. If your character has Steals Candy from Babies as an aspect then you get absolutely nothing out of acting selflessly, but you gain a Fate Point when you get in trouble for stealing candy from babies. (Note: Not when you steal candy from babies - but when the GM puts you in a spot because of it).

So as you can see you do not get a bonus for acting selflessly in Fate unless acting selflessly is a part of your character. You are acting selflessly because the way you have set up the character encourages you to do so to fish for Fate Points. So unless you care enough about motivation that rules that encourage the greatest power gamer on the planet to roleplay the character almost the way an intense character-roleplayer would is a bad thing then I don't see the problem here.

Now for our second game we're going to take Smallville. In Smallville the most powerful move you can make is Challenging your values or Challenging your relationships with people you care about but you can't do that often because it weakens you for the rest of the session - and you need to be using those values straight most of the time to roll them. So how do you optimise that? You create a ed up and twisted character with enough angst to satisfy any drama major who over the course of the season finds that their understanding of themselves, of other people, and of reality is wrong. And then play that to the hilt, tangling with, feuding with, helping, and learning about the other PCs. If tangled up bundles of angst and misunderstanding are what you want then this is playing the game perfectly. If not you shouldn't be playing Smallville at all.

For our third we're using Monsterhearts. The key thing about Monsterhearts is that all the moves you start off with are bad and likely to blow up in your face. You're a teenager who never mind not understanding the world doesn't understand themselves. How do you gain experience? Of your four stats, one will be highlighted by the GM and one by one of your fellow players. And you can gain 1XP/scene for using one of those stats. But using the moves based on those stats is likely to send you on a highway to hell because the moves are generally counterproductive unless you completely nail the roll. Also each monster type is pointed in a certain direction by their monstrous moves - and being monsters the way they are pointed is nowhere good, from the werewolf turning into an unstoppable wolf man to the vampire toying with their victims. So how do you optimise using the Monsterhearts personality mechanics? Take the game on a highway to hell, crashing and burning in the way the other players think would be the most entertaining, and using the abilities your being a monster gives you to further enhance the melodrama as you try to drag yourself out of the mess you are busy making. Or to make it even worse. (On a tangent, Monsterhearts and the rest of the Apocalypse World based games are entirely without disassociated mechanics - making D&D 3.X look positively disassociated by comparison).

So your case only appears to hold water if you have only ever seen games with bad personality mechanics like alignment. Yes, less is more. But none at all is nothing at all (which admittedly is an improvement on alignment).

(Yes, I know I simplified all three games madly).

 

[herrozerro]

I find it interesting that the mechanics of a game of d20 like probabilities is known to the characters but a game that utilizes fate points, karma, bennie, etc.. suddenly it's not a part of the world.

I'd make the argument that games with those mechanics are not less disassociated then some of the posters here whom at some point made the statement that PCs know their HP and other stats.

In a game with Fate points, karma, bennies, etc. its a matter of the world that people know that sometimes you get an extremely lucky break sometimes.

 

[Obryn]

I find it interesting that the mechanics of a game of d20 like probabilities is known to the characters but a game that utilizes fate points, karma, bennie, etc.. suddenly it's not a part of the world.

I'd make the argument that games with those mechanics are not less disassociated then some of the posters here whom at some point made the statement that PCs know their HP and other stats.

In a game with Fate points, karma, bennies, etc. its a matter of the world that people know that sometimes you get an extremely lucky break sometimes.

I'd say further that if you can narratively justify Fighters taking dozens of sword blows and knowing it, by turning that into a known fact of the game universe, you can similarly narratively justify encounter powers. YMMV.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Having just searched the SRD, this isn't true. There are the conditions Fatigued and Exhausted. There are also things that can trigger Fatigued (and fatigued twice is exhausted). The mundane ones are sleeping in armour, running long distance too much, and cold, heat, or starvation. (Oddly enough swimming by the RAW doesn't).

"Here is what it means to be fatigued. Here is what it means to be exhausted. Here are some guidelines for some things that cause fatigue and exhaustion." Those are rules.

It's not a house rule that the DM covers all situations that aren't explicitly codified. That's just what it means to be the DM. The DMG is always very clear about that point.

Let's take some actual games here rather than some straw games. The obvious first game is Fate Core and its Aspects system. The aspects are five descriptive statements that reflect the character - and in order to gain a bonus Fate Point you need to act in line with your aspects in such a way that it harms or impedes your character. You could only ever gain a bonus from acting selflessly if your character had Selfless (or Generous to a fault or whatever) as an aspect - and it lead to your character being put in a pickle. If your character has Steals Candy from Babies as an aspect then you get absolutely nothing out of acting selflessly, but you gain a Fate Point when you get in trouble for stealing candy from babies. (Note: Not when you steal candy from babies - but when the GM puts you in a spot because of it).

And you hold this up as some sort of ideal of associated play? Your evil character, who steals candy from babies, knows that getting in trouble from doing such a thing is linked to the later ability to consciously manipulate fate in order to succeed in a battle to the death? That, if you don't get in trouble from stealing candy, that you won't later have the ability to alter probabilities?

Do you honestly not see the problem with this?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

In a game with Fate points, karma, bennies, etc. its a matter of the world that people know that sometimes you get an extremely lucky break sometimes.

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.

I mean, you could totally create a game like that, where you have a fairy or a genie or a magic item or something that allows the character to explicitly invoke its abilities, but that's not the way it's presented in existing games that utilize such mechanics. It's always luck, or fate, or other things that the character can't control and/or isn't aware of.

 

[Neonchameleon]

And you hold this up as some sort of ideal of associated play? Your evil character, who steals candy from babies, knows that getting in trouble from doing such a thing is linked to the later ability to consciously manipulate fate in order to succeed in a battle to the death? That, if you don't get in trouble from stealing candy, that you won't later have the ability to alter probabilities?

Do you honestly not see the problem with this?

The only problem I see is with the new straw man you have created. Will you stop that please?

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.

What they know is that the better they feel the more able they are to see opportunities and exploit them. And that stealing candy from babies makes them feel good in all the right ways. So they like stealing candy from babies. Is this something you find a problem? Because I don't find it one.

 

[Nagol]

The only problem I see is with the new straw man you have created. Will you stop that please?

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.

What they know is that the better they feel the more able they are to see opportunities and exploit them. And that stealing candy from babies makes them feel good in all the right ways. So they like stealing candy from babies. Is this something you find a problem? Because I don't find it one.

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