Let's Talk About Character Resources To Power Abilities

[TwoSix]

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.

Of course, that shouldn’t even be a question.

It’s the presence or absence of the fictional space that matters, not the relative freedom to make assertions about the fictional space.

 

[RenleyRenfield]

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 am gonna say that there is some unfair pushback here... You asked, I have questions. I think they are fair questions, especially when we step away from limiting our considering to the only games you are playing on a consistent basis.

Not looking for a clap back, just looking to continue with the interesting premise of the thread...

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!

And I am adding this too... unfair. Especially when there are posts to the effect of 'skills are rough'. Like, there are many other games that also address those considerations. So let's talk about it, and that may take us outside the games or styles of play we typically like. Never know where ya will find your next fav game

Not looking for a clap back, just looking to continue with the interesting premise of the thread...

..............

I mean that only to say, it appeared to me, and stated several times by several people - that they wanted to explore gaming concepts and function. So my questions are to aid with objective analysis (set aside what you typically like and consider all the other0 And that I think is so valid and useful!

I have a lot of questions out there in my past few posts, are talking to what also @Campbell is saying.
What works and in what game? What does that not work in other games?
Why limit to only a handful of systems, why not try others to see more stuff that might work?
Does every sit down a game have to have the same elements? Sometimes all combat, sometimes all narrative, sometime 50/50 sometimes... and on and on.

The question of this thread is one where I only suggesting to take a step back, consider what various game elements do - such as Resources or Limited-use Abilities and so on.

And if the 99.9% use of those is just for combat, then that's ok to acknowledge and consider. Makes easier to discuss for its use, balance, fun factor, engagement, if it works as well as other features.

The creator of Draw Steel has several videos on exactly this! He goes into depth on game mechanics and what evolution of ideas he went through = purely on the combat side only. He made a wargame aspect of his rpg, and because he was earnest in what he wanted and what he was actually doing (monster fighting game) he and his team made a great rpg!

Consider my past questions all the same reason = What are the goals, what are the areas of use, and why the emphasis? why soooo much emphasis?

This was never about what anyone must like. If it feels that way then its some other scar from some other place. At no point is the advocation for people to stop playing a way, or to like what others like. Someone took a VERY wrongheaded assumption and ran with it...

 

[Reynard]

I am gonna say that there is some unfair pushback here... You asked, I have questions. I think they are fair questions, especially when we step away from limiting our considering to the only games you are playing on a consistent basis.

Not looking for a clap back, just looking to continue with the interesting premise of the thread...


And I am adding this too... unfair. Especially when there are posts to the effect of 'skills are rough'. Like, there are many other games that also address those considerations. So let's talk about it, and that may take us outside the games or styles of play we typically like. Never know where ya will find your next fav game

Not looking for a clap back, just looking to continue with the interesting premise of the thread...

..............

I mean that only to say, it appeared to me, and stated several times by several people - that they wanted to explore gaming concepts and function. So my questions are to aid with objective analysis (set aside what you typically like and consider all the other0 And that I think is so valid and useful!

I have a lot of questions out there in my past few posts, are talking to what also @Campbell is saying.
What works and in what game? What does that not work in other games?
Why limit to only a handful of systems, why not try others to see more stuff that might work?
Does every sit down a game have to have the same elements? Sometimes all combat, sometimes all narrative, sometime 50/50 sometimes... and on and on.

The question of this thread is one where I only suggesting to take a step back, consider what various game elements do - such as Resources or Limited-use Abilities and so on.

And if the 99.9% use of those is just for combat, then that's ok to acknowledge and consider. Makes easier to discuss for its use, balance, fun factor, engagement, if it works as well as other features.

The creator of Draw Steel has several videos on exactly this! He goes into depth on game mechanics and what evolution of ideas he went through = purely on the combat side only. He made a wargame aspect of his rpg, and because he was earnest in what he wanted and what he was actually doing (monster fighting game) he and his team made a great rpg!

Consider my past questions all the same reason = What are the goals, what are the areas of use, and why the emphasis? why soooo much emphasis?

This was never about what anyone must like. If it feels that way then its some other scar from some other place. At no point is the advocation for people to stop playing a way, or to like what others like. Someone took a VERY wrongheaded assumption and ran with it...

I am not sure why you interpret people offering the opinions as "unfair pushback." No one was trying to silence you.

 

[RenleyRenfield]

I am not sure why you interpret people offering the opinions as "unfair pushback." No one was trying to silence you.

By pushback I mean, it felt like instead of engaging with the questions, it turned into: "stop talking to me about stuff I don't like."

It would be way cool to see what some more ideas are around the questions I asked.
(if needed) I can offer up examples from various RPGs if it helps. Dune, and L5R 5e and Cypher have some neat ways to consider the game side of things, and how well they merge with any give aspect of roleplaying/combat.

I am not sure why you interpret people offering the opinions as "unfair pushback." No one was trying to silence you.

Also I think the mod's note above pretty well shows there were comments to the effect of someone telling me to stop giving opinion, so.... not a bit deal but it sure lent in a big way to a little silencing feels...

 

[Staffan]

I would include both of those in the "refresh after encounter" category. Or, perhaps more accurately, they all belong in a supercategory of "encounter-based resources". The important distinction, in my opinion, is that it avoids the metagame strategizing of wondering if something should be saved for a "more important" encounter later on.

In the overall resource management scheme, I agree. They are fairly distinct within the encounter itself though, as build-and-spend tends to enforce a particular rhythm in the encounter.

To some degree, I believe 13th age does the same via hp thresholds on crowd control spells and the escalation die, which makes player attacks more likely to be successful in later rounds. It means you generally want to open up with some low-stakes attacks and save the good stuff for later.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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

Okay… I meant more like in the sense of game mechanics. Like gameplay. In several recent threads you‘Ve kind of argued that player portrayal of character is more important than that kind of stuff.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Okay… I meant more like in the sense of game mechanics. Like gameplay. In several recent threads you‘Ve kind of argued that player portrayal of character is more important than that kind of stuff.

Not more important. Separate from.

To use the "5 Int Genius" example, I've argued that all Int does is apply a modifier to dice rolls when players declare actions that, according to the rules (including GM judgment) rely on Int. How the player chooses to explain/narrate/represent the 5 Int should be entirely up to them, as long as they comply with that rule when the dice get rolled, the modifier gets added.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Not more important. Separate from.

To use the "5 Int Genius" example, I've argued that all Int does is apply a modifier to dice rolls when players declare actions that, according to the rules (including GM judgment) rely on Int. How the player chooses to explain/narrate/represent the 5 Int should be entirely up to them, as long as they comply with that rule when the dice get rolled, the modifier gets added.

See, I don't really buy into that. I don't believe the mechanics are the top priority, and nothing else matters all that much so long as they are followed (which is how I read what you're saying here). That was my single biggest issue with D&D 4e; they kept telling you to change the fiction to make the mechanics make more sense when there's a dispute. I want the opposite. If the mechanics don't fit the situation at hand, I say change the mechanics.

 

[Scribe]

See, I don't really buy into that. I don't believe the mechanics are the top priority, and nothing else matters all that much so long as they are followed (which is how I read what you're saying here). That was my single biggest issue with D&D 4e; they kept telling you to change the fiction to make the mechanics make more sense when there's a dispute. I want the opposite. If the mechanics don't fit the situation at hand, I say change the mechanics.

Why change anything, we have DMs for a reason. Make the call, move on and getting the game rolling.

 

[Bill Zebub]

See, I don't really buy into that. I don't believe the mechanics are the top priority, and nothing else matters all that much so long as they are followed (which is how I read what you're saying here). That was my single biggest issue with D&D 4e; they kept telling you to change the fiction to make the mechanics make more sense when there's a dispute. I want the opposite. If the mechanics don't fit the situation at hand, I say change the mechanics.

I don't understand. If there's no rule that defines how Int 5 has to be presented, then how is there a disconnect between roleplaying and mechanics if somebody interprets it in a surprising way?

I get that in your opinion a 5 Int has a certain meaning, but that makes the disconnect between your expectations and the player's, not between the roleplaying and the rules.

In other words, maybe it just bugs you, and you don't want that at your table because it interferes with your conception of how things should be. That's fine. But I think you're interpreting your own opinion as objective, as something that's defined by the game.