Let's Talk About Character Resources To Power Abilities

[dbm]

I loved recharge magic in th 3.x Unearthed Arcana

Interesting, I’ve not read that one previously.

There are some similar but opposite systems like ‘mana accumulation’. In the GURPS version of this, a spell needs a certain amount of mana and mana is aspected (think elements but other classifications can be used) and the caster makes skill rolls each round to accumulate power. Depending on your roll you might get exactly what you are looking for, a different type of mana, or none at all. When the mage has accumulated enough mana the spell is cast and if the mix of mana is not as originally intended the effect will vary from the caster’s absolute intent. I think this system came in via the GURPS implementation of Castle Falkenstein, so perhaps that system also had magic that worked like this?

Another interesting optional magic system in GURPS Thaumatology is ‘threshold-limited magic’. In this system, the power for spells is, again, not coming from the mage but from the environment. In this system, however, you keep a tally of all the magic that has been used in a location (within a reasonable time period - mana re-accumulates with time). The more mana is used in a location, the more risky magic becomes to use. And the interesting side effect of this is that all mages in an area are pulling from the same source. So this will create a group dynamic when there are multiple spell casters in a party, and NPCs also use the same power source so a conflict against a group with enemy spell casters is again a different kind of dynamic to ‘the norm’.

 

[Milieu]

I have never minded x/day (or long rest) abilities, but I do think it's perhaps more interesting to make them unlimited with a cost or a risk for overdoing it. What I do mind is when they make the tracking more complicated:
Barbarians get x rages/long rest, but get 1 back on a short rest, and at level 15 get an ability that refreshes all uses of it, 1/long rest, which is another resource to track, instead of just giving you more points.

Several abilities in 5.5e let you cast a spell without using a spell slot x/day, which is another resource to track. This also has interactions with the new version of the not casting two spells in a turn rule, which only applies to spells that use spell slots. So the first use of the day can be cast the same turn as another spell, which is more fiddly.

Fighters can have weapon mastery in x weapons at a time, but can swap one out per long rest, which means they functionally have mastery in the weapons they're using almost all of the time, except when they just found a cool magic axe or want to do something fun with an improvised weapon. But you're still supposed to track it because those edge cases might come up.

I don't think the juice is worth the squeeze in cases like that. I prefer more vigorous application of the KISS principle. If it's virtually unlimited, make it unlimited and eliminate the tracking. If it's not, keep the number of currencies to a minimum and have most class abilities draw from the same pool (or a small number of pools; I think it's fine if paladins have lay on hands points, smite points, and channel divinity points). Avoid currency conversions unless it's really cool (spending HP to push yourself is probably the only time it's really cool).

 

[Bill Zebub]

I keep thinking about this (supposed) relationship between resources and tactics/strategy.

The reason I don't like mechanics based primarily on resource attrition is that the decision-making is based on an unknown: should I spend this resource now, or save it for later? Which I suppose is a kind of strategy, but it's one based on meta-gaming, i.e. typical dungeon structure, the GM's tendencies, how much time is left in the session, etc. From the character's point of view, it is completely unknowable whether or not the resources are best used now or saved for later.

But it occurs to me that how resources drain, and how they are refreshed, is an important factor. I can think of a few different categories:

1. Ability-gating resources: points or dice that fuel abilities and refresh automatically (such as on a clock). E.g. mana, "3x/day" abilities, expertise dice, uses of rage or shapeshift, etc.
2. Resources that do drain automatically but don't refresh automatically. E.g., rations, water, torches.
3. Resources that reset after an encounter. E.g., per-encounter special abilities, or HP in some games (e.g., where 0 HP means "you've run out of luck and the next hit is gonna hurt")

It's really category 1 that I don't like, because it is the source of what I find to be uninteresting...if nearly ubiquitous...gameplay. And although I don't love per-encounter abilities, they don't have the same kind of "unknowability" flaw that Cat 1 has. (Or maybe it's just that by compressing the unknowability into a much shorter time-scale it's more tolerable?) And recently I've become enamored of systems where HP represent a kind of narrative ability to avoid taking damage. Category 2 is interesting to me because seeking resupply for those resources can become part of the adventure.

And maybe there's another category that would include "carrying capacity" (although I can't think of anything else in that category) which has a completely different consumption/replenishment model, because you can "use" it now, but then "un-use" it any time you need it back.

 

[TwoSix]

i'm so curious/puzzled by this.

I'll acknowledge that I can't yet think of a way to do it with absolutely no resources, but as I described in our earlier exchange with even just one resource ("health"?) I think you can do it.

Other examples: in Chess you have finite pieces, so those are your one resource. In Go you are capturing areas, so those are your one resource.

Is that your argument, that you need at least one resource? Or are you suggesting that more resources are needed (e.g. mana, uses per day of special abilities, arrows, rations, torches, expertise dice, etc.) to make RPGs tactical/strategic?

Some other time. I thought I was saying something fairly innocuous and trivial; since it seems to not be the case, I don't want to derail the thread in a discussion over semantics.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Some other time. I thought I was saying something fairly innocuous and trivial; since it seems to not be the case, I don't want to derail the thread in a discussion over semantics.

Ok. I really wasn't trying to debate semantics. I really just found the claim either...
1) Surprising, if it's the broader claim, that strategy/tactics depend on resource tracking
2) Uninteresting*, if it's the narrower claim, that at least one resource (e.g. HP) are needed

*Uninteresting because I don't think the OP was asking whether or not there should be any resources, but in general what do people think of resources.

 

[dbm]

The reason I don't like mechanics based primarily on resource attrition is that the decision-making is based on an unknown: should I spend this resource now, or save it for later? Which I suppose is a kind of strategy, but it's one based on meta-gaming, i.e. typical dungeon structure, the GM's tendencies, how much time is left in the session, etc. From the character's point of view, it is completely unknowable whether or not the resources are best used now or saved for later.

I don’t see it that way myself. I see this as an efficiency challenge, and that is a completely real-world consideration. For example: I have x fuel in the tank of my car and need to get from A to a vaguely defined B (since the end goal is not precisely known) - how do I balance speed versus time if I can’t guarantee that I can refuel en route? If I can give a real world example then I don’t think it is meta.

Dungeoneering or any form of exploration should be a scenario where the character doesn’t know how long the journey they are on is, and they don’t know what future challenges they will need to overcome. Consequently they should always be seeking to overcome their obstacles with the minimum resource consumption possible.

That is a diegetic consideration in my book.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I don’t see it that way myself. I see this as an efficiency challenge, and that is a completely real-world consideration. For example: I have x fuel in the tank of my car and need to get from A to a vaguely defined B (since the end goal is not precisely known) - how do I balance speed versus time if I can’t guarantee that I can refuel en route? If I can give a real world example then I don’t think it is meta.

Dungeoneering or any form of exploration should be a scenario where the character doesn’t know how long the journey they are on is, and they don’t know what future challenges they will need to overcome. Consequently they should always be seeking to overcome their obstacles with the minimum resource consumption possible.

That is a diegetic consideration in my book.

If I'm attacked by orcs in a dungeon, I'm not going to think, "I'd better hold back a little and not give this my full effort, because I need to save my special moves for the harder fight I'll probably encounter before I find a safe place to rest."

Or, at least, that's not the fiction I want to be imagining.

If we're talking about torches and water then, yeah, my character will be thinking about how to conserve those, and where to find more. But giving my best effort in a fight against scary monsters* in a dark place? That shouldn't be in question. YMMV.

EDIT: Look, I realize that this position is somewhat heretical. And I certainly don't play any RPGs that meet the ideals I'm espousing. But, as with my stance on skills, I'm trying to really push my thinking (and hopefully others?) on the question of what creates engagement in a game, what have we assumed or taken for granted for almost 50 years that maybe we shouldn't, what is different/special about RPGs, etc.

*And if the monsters aren't actually scary because we're level 8 and they're CR 2 and we know that we'll easily win...well, that's just exposing another game design flaw, imo. Or, at least, a style of gaming I'm trying to move away from.

 

[RenleyRenfield]

... But, as with my stance on skills, I'm trying to really push my thinking (and hopefully others?) on the question of what creates engagement in a game, what have we assumed or taken for granted for almost 50 years that maybe we shouldn't, what is different/special about RPGs, etc.

Yes! This is so worth the time and effort.
This is where my world of gaming resides very much.

And I think what also you said here, is the crux of the conversation: Are we creating engagement or are we just making gates to manage power levels vs storytelling.

Spell slots, mana points, spell levels, give up a reaction to do a second full action, spend action points, etc etc etc =
What are all these things doing?
If we take them out, did we actually lose anything?
Are these things of different values/purpose at different "ages" in gaming? (the day you first roelplayed, the fifth year you were roleplaying, the 20th year you were roleplaying, etc etc).


Here is a good way to start really truly understanding what is happening here =
- When was the last time you were unable to use a character ability or lost the use of a character ability and thought "now the game is MORE fun" ?

- When was the last time you spent/used up a resource in game and thought "Spending that really made the scene I roleplayed better!" (Asset like in Dune, or Plot Point like in Cortex, or Spell Slot like in D&D, Vitae in vampire, etc, etc)

 

[billd91]

Here is a good way to start really truly understanding what is happening here =
- When was the last time you were unable to use a character ability or lost the use of a character ability and thought "now the game is MORE fun" ?

Fun can be kind of a loaded term here. Sure, it's fun to have your big abilities available to use. But there are other levels of engagement with a game than just "fun" in the moment. There can also be immense satisfaction when you've managed to use your resources wisely so that you have a limited resource available at a clutch moment. Or even when you've lacked one of your prime power resources, but managed to overcome a challenge anyway through some less conventional means.

 

[dbm]

that's not the fiction I want to be imagining.

That is your right, of course.

If I'm attacked by orcs in a dungeon, I'm not going to think, "I'd better hold back a little and not give this my full effort, because I need to save my special moves for the harder fight I'll probably encounter before I find a safe place to rest."

It’s about the right tools for the job. If you have a lesser power which can take out orcs but not dragons and a bigger power that can take out dragons or below then surely you would pick the right tool for the fight with the orcs?

It’s not about soft balling what your character does, it’s about addressing the challenge you find with the tools you have in the most efficient way possible. That’s the way we get taught to approach things in real life - don’t eat all your snacks in the first five minutes of a full-day trip.

Even when I am playing pulp action games I employ this thinking. For games where any kind of attrition is assumed it seems essential to me.

That’s not to say a person should be parsimonious. The classic example is characters dying because they refuse to drink healing potions or use limited-charge devices. That is also a failure of optimisation.