Let's Talk About Character Resources To Power Abilities

[Bill Zebub]

That is your right, of course.

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?

Likewise that is your right.

If we are talking about a special one-use item (e.g., a very rare potion or scroll, or a little clay figurinine given to me by a wizard who said to smash it "in my hour of need") then I totally agree with you. That special item needs to be saved.

But if what we are talking about are my core abilities, whether that means hitting things with sharp objects or casting spells, then what your example that says to me, narratively, is that my character is calmly rational, weighing up the statistical probability of a band of orcs defeating the adventurers, and logically concluding that he only needs to exert 63% effort to defeat this particular foe.

And that's not how I want to imagine it.

 

[RenleyRenfield]

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.

Yes! This is 100% correct and certainly one of the aspects I am driving at there.

I think a lot of this gets into holistic game design, and we atomize it only to consider each item's individual weight on gameplay and playloops.

By that I mean, to support fun stuff like what @billd91 mentioned, the rest of the game rules and GM principles - some game systems do better than others for keeping characters 'functional' when these assets are spent. And that is likely where sometimes the rub comes in.

Let's look at how D&D knew it has a few interaction loops that were stalled, and altered it for this exact consideration: wizards and attacks.

D&D was so harsh about when and how many spells you got that it was at times not a very interactive character to be a caster, because once you spend your precious 1 to 3 attack spells, you were done - for like the whole day. The way spells came back used to be quite time consuming. So players held off, held back, did nothing - to be strategic in spell use. NOW... 5e has a generic 'magic attack' a spellcaster can use, to do at least a little thing, a simple attack - ever single round. And they expanded the use and function of cantrips. = these were 100% commented by D&D designers as "answer to the do nothing wizard" issue. And the game is better for it.

So yeah, there are all kinds of interlocking reasons for why a game may chose a way to use resources, and then even override their rule for base character interaction. Not to hyper focus on D&D, just a short example of how this is a thing that is noticed and thought about.

 

[Umbran]

You don't, IMO.

So, the game of Go has no tactics or strategy?

Or are you being so broad with "resource" that it covers everything trivially?

 

[Bill Zebub]

D&D was so harsh about when and how many spells you got that it was at times not a very interactive character to be a caster, because once you spend your precious 1 to 3 attack spells, you were done - for like the whole day. The way spells came back used to be quite time consuming. So players held off, held back, did nothing - to be strategic in spell use. NOW... 5e has a generic 'magic attack' a spellcaster can use, to do at least a little thing, a simple attack - ever single round. And they expanded the use and function of cantrips. = these were 100% commented by D&D designers as "answer to the do nothing wizard" issue. And the game is better for it.

I think that last bit is highly subjective. I disagree. I do agree that the original D&D experience for wizards was at times disappointing/frustrating, but I don't think the solution made it better, just "bad in a different way." Cantrips feel, to me, that they are just re-fluffed weapon attacks, and they take some of the "magic" out of magic.

 

[TwoSix]

So, the game of Go has no tactics or strategy?

Or are you being so broad with "resource" that it covers everything trivially?

Post 44.

 

[RenleyRenfield]

I think that last bit is highly subjective. I disagree. I do agree that the original D&D expereince for wizards was at times disappointing/frustrating, but I don't think the solution made it better, just "bad in a different way." Cantrips feel, to me, that they are just re-fluffed weapon attacks, and they take some of the "magic" out of magic.

Oh I very much agree with you. Don't mistake my post for what you must accept as fun. I was only giving an example of what an rpg did in response to the topic of this thread. My last two posts are really meant to be focused on the "ok, but why do rpgs do this thing they do?"

I personally don't find any edition of D&D or most OSR derivatives fun in any way at all, so I can't assume what others like or find fun at all

 

[Umbran]

Post 44.

So, trivially broad definition of "resource" it is, then.

 

[TwoSix]

So, trivially broad definition of "resource" it is, then.

Sure, why not?