Let's Talk About Character Resources To Power Abilities

[Reynard]

You can't just silo these systems into their own mini-games, or switch play modes going from one to the other.

Why not?

 

[Jacob Lewis]

Why not?

Serious question: Did the rest of the post not explain "why not" to you? Because when you pull one sentence out of context like that, it reads different than what was actually wrote. So I don't know if you're legitimately wanting another explanation or a clarification. But you're not giving me any context, or anything specific to respond to other than what I think I have already explained. Could you enlighten me about what you're really asking?

 

[Reynard]

Serious question: Did the rest of the post not explain "why not" to you? Because when you pull one sentence out of context like that, it reads different than what was actually wrote. So I don't know if you're legitimately wanting another explanation or a clarification. But you're not giving me any context, or anything specific to respond to other than what I think I have already explained. Could you enlighten me about what you're really asking?

The rest of your post was mostly about combat vs non combat detail and depth. That is a wholly different issue.

"Mini games" and "switching modes" allows a game to include elements that are important to play (or at least important to the designers) on their own merits. Forcing games to use the same mechanics for everything gaurantees that some of those elements are just not going to work. Overpowering "core mechanics" are not all they are cracked up to be. Would The One Ring benefit from having Journeys and Combat look the same? Of course not.

So, what I am really saying with "why not" is "I disagree" and "subsystems are a better way to design games."

 

[Jacob Lewis]

The rest of your post was mostly about combat vs non combat detail and depth. That is a wholly different issue.

Fair. I re-read it and realized I was heavy-handed with some of my word choices. Wires got crossed, too. I allowed myself to get rushed when I should've cooked it longer. I've amended my post, but I'll need to come back when I have more time to put better words together. Or at all.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I'd take that a step further.

In a lot of games, you'll make more decisions and roll more dice removing all hit points from opponents than you will dealing with anything else. You might spend an hour or longer in real time to resolve a fight that takes less than a minute in game time. But only spend a few seconds rolling once to conduct a diplomatic negotiation, find hidden doorways you don't even know exist, or scale a mountain.

These systems don't try very hard to make any experiences outside of combat more interesting or engaging for the players because, frankly, they put all their focus and energy to make sure combat is the most interesting and engaging part of their games. That's easier to sell than a rich, dynamic system about mountain climbing and rigorous negotiations at the table.

At best, we find games that try to find ways to make room for those less aggressive parts of the game to fill the spaces between the carnage and the violence. That's why "skills" were invented, but kept separate from the all other combat-related options, including those earned through training, experience, and aptitude. They call those "proficiencies" so you never accidentally mix the two.

A game that wanted to make these separate pillars equal might need to figure out how to merge these two buckets together. The trick, however, is making consequences and victories in one affect or influence the other. It can be difficult not to silo these systems into their own mini-games, or switch play modes going from one to the other. They don't need to be identical, but they should feel similar to each other, and maybe allow a smoother overlap.

Question: Did anyone figure out if/why gold coins matter to players?

Yeah, if you could make the non-combat parts of the game as mechanically important as combat, then the problem would be solved. And while I know some of those games are very popular with many people, I've never found them very appealing.

Also, some of the interesting, non-optimal choices are still combat-related, but they only apply in special circumstances and so aren't as beneficial was things that apply more generally. For example, I've always loved the "Mage Slayer" feat in D&D, but when I take it somehow I hardly ever get to use it. (With one truly memorable, spectacular exception when my level 3 paladin nearly one shot a level 8 Hag who had been masquerading as a harmless old lady, thanks to a crit divine smite...)

To give another plug for Shadowdark, it's magic system provides an elegant solution to Wizards getting to choose the most useful spells, while still being able to have some situational utility spells.