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.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

"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.

These are very strong opinions supporting non-factual ideas. If we believe there is no other way to accomplish any of these things, then how can we expect anything different to make a change? But let's make sure we're talking about the same things here because up to this point, we're both being somewhat vague with our explanations (or I'm not explaining my ideas too well).

When I wrote "mini-games" and "switching modes", I'm thinking specifically how something like D&D separates combat from the rest of the game. There are very few game mechanics that happen during combat, or as a result of one, that directly affects the mechanics of the game outside of combat. For example, characters do not get tired or wounded, they just have less hit points and uses for their spells and combat abilities. Those that do are largely ignored or have little actual effect on gameplay. It feels like playing two different games simultaneously.

Something else to consider... As a player, you spend a lot of time and effort for your character to swing a sword than to pick a lock on the door. Both require you to roll the d20, add modifiers, and check the target number to see if you succeed. But what happens next? If you're in combat, you roll some more dice, see how much of an impact you made, and maybe follow up with some additional moves or actions. With the lock, you either opened it or you don't. You can keep trying, or let someone else attempt it. But there's no real consequence or tension there. So why are we even bothering to roll dice for that?

I'm not suggesting picking a lock needs to be something more elaborate and interesting like combat. But if combat is intended to be the main course of the game, why include basic mechanics for non-combat stuff if it is only used as filler? Which brings us to this:

Would The One Ring benefit from having Journeys and Combat look the same? Of course not.

I'm not sure that you fully comprehend what The One Ring actually did/does. It expanded the non-combat game loop to make that the focus of the game, and then re-contextualized Combat as part of it. Combat became less about attrition and power for the heroes, and more about survival and progress of the journey itself. Unlike D&D, the consequences gained in combat can have a greater impact on characters as their Journey continues. D&D lets you fix most issues with a rest, usually without cost.

The thing about exceptions is they don't get to be exceptional by trying to follow everyone else.

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

It won't bother me if you agree or not. I'm not here to change minds. I am just hoping to open a few.