Cheating, Action Points, and Second Wind

[The Little Raven]

I think drama points that allow control of the narrative like what you described are a great idea.

Adventure! had a "Dramatic Editing" system which allowed players to alter plot details as long as they didn't directly contradict anything already stated. You could even get around death if your played your cards right.

 

[marune]

Actually I had thought that they might also be a possible way to balance characters as well (weaker characters get more drama points or while more powerful characters get fewer).

What kind of balance are you talking about here ?

 

[apoptosis]

What kind of balance are you talking about here ?

Well say historically wizards have been more powerful than fighters. Which basically means that they have the ability to impact the narrative to a greater extent than fighters.

One option is to make magic riskier more difficult to use, weaker etc.

Another option is to make the fighter more powerful and have greater impact outside of combat (feats, abilities etc.).

Another option would be to give a larger amount of dramatic points to the fighter (actually to the player but amounts to the same thing). This would allow characters to have different levels of power but still similar ability to impact the narrative (the ability to impact the narrative relatively equally).

Example (be wary, my examples always basically stink).

A wizard wanting to know something could cast a divination (say clairvoyance or whatever) spell to find out what treasure lies inside the temple. A fighter could use a dramatic point to say that he knows this old hermit at the end of town that he once rescued that used to be a servant in the temple and once snuck into the treasure room and knows whats in there.

Basically use dramatic points to even the playing field. The fighter is still quite a death dealer in one-on-one combat (his shtick) but now has the ability to affect the narrative outside of his specialty.

Say a wizard could basically beat the fighter in a fight, well with some dramatic points the fighter could equalize the scenario (they are fighting on what once was holy ground and magic is far less effective).

Requires a different approach to gaming in some ways (classically defined meta-gaming is no longer a bad thing as it is party of the game)

I am sure someone else could come up with much better examples and mechanics for this.

 

[Professor Phobos]

Expanding a die roll's scope beyond the task level in D&D is changing the rules.

Nah, the rules not only allow for, but expect, nay, demand some good ol' human discretion.

 

[buzz]

Nah, the rules not only allow for, but expect, nay, demand some good ol' human discretion.

It's got nothing to do with issues of human discretion. Nowhere in the text is there any mention of declaring intent, setting stakes, and resolving said intent. D&D task resolution is intent-agnostic. If you are adding these elements and expanding the scope of resolution to include them, you are drifting/house-ruling. There is no expectation built into the game that you will do this; if there were, the rules would explicitly work in this manner. On the contrary, the rules assume that you are not doing this, i.e., that you are playing the game as-written. It's the only assumption that is safe for the text to make.

Honestly, it drives me batty how ingrained has become the idea that "Rule 0"/"Golden Rule" is this inherent technique that applies to all RPGs by default, no matter what the actual text says. As I mention upthread, this is simply a byproduct of the fact that so many RPGs just plain don't do what they advertise, and thus ignoring their mechanics is typically the only way to get an enjoyable play experience out of them.

A likewise pervasive, frustrating assumption is that there's some immutable body of GM techniques that RPGs supposedly assume we "just know" despite never once mentioning them in their text.

I don't mean to seem like I'm jumping on you, Prof. I'm just trying to say "human discretion" does not necessitate "Rule 0"/"Golden Rule". I've ditched the latter from my gaming vocabulary entirely, and I can tell you, my enjoyment of the hobby has increased dramatically as a result.

 

[Professor Phobos]

this is simply a byproduct of the fact that so many RPGs just plain don't do what they advertise, and thus ignoring their mechanics is typically the only way to get an enjoyable play experience out of them.

See, I'll never be able to understand this philosophy. I find games that give me leeway on things very liberating. I like the "GM's Choice" part of a table. In fact, I like it so much, I'd rather have a list of some examples to get me going and no table in the first place. Not only have I found that rigid rulesets meant to "cover all situations" inevitably fail at that task, but it strips all the fun out of a game. I like it when players come up with something new, or when I have an idea I can't represent mechanically but want to introduce anyway.

Perhaps most importantly, I like putting the mechanics aside when I don't feel they'd add anything to the game. Like skipping a battle- D&D rules, if strictly adhered to, wouldn't allow that. Players might get unlucky! They might use up some of their precious resources! And so on. Note that skipping some battles, or ignoring the mechanics sometimes, or whatever, is a far cry from doing this all the time. When I want a fight, I'll use the rules for a fight...

Just talking about stakes and die rolls. "I stab the barbarian" is one thing, we have damage rules.

But "I try to deal a mortal wound to the barbarian- but not enough to kill him outright" is another. There the player is trying to set a cap on how much damage he'll do; enough to bring down but not enough to kill. How do you resolve that? As far as I know, the rules say nothing about it, but it seems like a reasonable enough request to me, so I'd wave my hands and "poof!" an arbitrary, whimsical ruling would cover it. Probably add to the barbarians AC as a result of the PC holding back from every possible strike, or something.

I don't mean to seem like I'm jumping on you, Prof. I'm just trying to say "human discretion" does not necessitate "Rule 0"/"Golden Rule". I've ditched the latter from my gaming vocabulary entirely, and I can tell you, my enjoyment of the hobby has increased dramatically as a result.

That's fair enough, but I can safely say you'd drive me screaming away from your game. Do you ever introduce new monsters? Plot device spells, entities or artifacts?

Take your average peasant girl gifted with a divine vision, who must be protected against Ye Olde Foule Culte. Are there rules for that? No, not really, it's just a plot device...

 

[Fenes]

I have to once again point out that by the RAW, death is a time and money sink in D&D, not something permanent.

In order to make death mean something, you have to fudge the rules - by the rules, death is (apart from TPKs) just a forced period of inactivity until your character gets raised or resurrected.

If death in your campaign is permanent, then you are already fudging the rules. By the book, D&D death is easy to recover from.

 

[marune]

I have to once again point out that by the RAW, death is a time and money sink in D&D, not something permanent.

In order to make death mean something, you have to fudge the rules - by the rules, death is (apart from TPKs) just a forced period of inactivity until your character gets raised or resurrected.

If death in your campaign is permanent, then you are already fudging the rules. By the book, D&D death is easy to recover from.

Death is easy to recover from because it's easy to die too in D&D.

I suppose 4E will change that a bit, but not drastically, something along : not so easy to recover, but less likely to die.

Both are fine for D&D IMHO even if I prefer RPGs where the decision (to die) lie in the hands of the player.

 

[Raloc]

I said it above, but Rule 0/"Golden Rule", IIRC, doesn't actually appear in the 3.5 rules. DMG p.18 does sort of point in that direction, though.

I guess you're right. I seem to remember it definitely appearing in 2e at the least. In any case, most people I play with started in 2e and understand the reasoning and have no problem with it.

I suppose some people might feel cheated if the DM were making judgements that they felt were arbitrary or unfair. Action points seem like a good way to remedy this (though personally I feel they should be more focused on the wacky outside the box solutions that mostly aren't accounted for by the rules, than simple dice bolstering).

 

[buzz]

See, I'll never be able to understand this philosophy. I find games that give me leeway on things very liberating. I like the "GM's Choice" part of a table. In fact, I like it so much, I'd rather have a list of some examples to get me going and no table in the first place. Not only have I found that rigid rulesets meant to "cover all situations" inevitably fail at that task, but it strips all the fun out of a game. I like it when players come up with something new, or when I have an idea I can't represent mechanically but want to introduce anyway.

What I'm talking about doesn't preclude this, though.

Perhaps most importantly, I like putting the mechanics aside when I don't feel they'd add anything to the game. Like skipping a battle- D&D rules, if strictly adhered to, wouldn't allow that.

Well, are you talking about avoiding a battle, or declaring an outcome without playing it out?

One of the things that I love about games like Burning Wheel and The Shadow of yesterday is that the level of mechanical detail you use is proportional to the importance of a conflict. If there's no conflict, you don't need to go to the system at all. If it's basic, you use a simple roll. If it''s important, you break out the multi-step, detailed mechanics.

But "I try to deal a mortal wound to the barbarian- but not enough to kill him outright" is another. There the player is trying to set a cap on how much damage he'll do; enough to bring down but not enough to kill. How do you resolve that?

Nonlethal damage.

That's fair enough, but I can safely say you'd drive me screaming away from your game. Do you ever introduce new monsters? Plot device spells, entities or artifacts?

Take your average peasant girl gifted with a divine vision, who must be protected against Ye Olde Foule Culte. Are there rules for that? No, not really, it's just a plot device...

Of course I do stuff like this (though easy on the plot devices).

We may be talking past each other. When I talk about "Rule 0"/"Golden Rule", I'm not talking about the GM being creative; I'm talking about stuff like this:

GM: "Okay, roll a d20."
Player: "What am I rolling? A skill check?"
GM: "No, just roll a d20, and don't roll a 1."
Player: "What happens if I roll a 1?"
GM: "Something bad."

or...

GM: "The wounded peasant manages to get out some dying words, he says..."
Player: "Wait. I'm a cleric; why can't I just heal him? Then he can tell us everything."
GM: "You're, uh, not able to get off your spell in time."
Player: "But, it's just a standard action!"
GM: "Too bad."

or the kind of stuff mentioned in the first post of this other thread.

I.e., I'm talking about, during play, when it's obviously a situation where a rule should apply, or where there are no rules, or a rule is being used inconsistently and the GM is deliberately manipulating things to get the outcome they want, regardless of what the text says. "Rule 0"/"Golden Rule" says that this is good GM'ing, because the GM is doing what is "good for the story". I'm saying that this is horsepucky.