iserith
Magic Wordsmith
If you think that there is separation between the player and the PC, then most of these issue go away.
What issues?
If you think that there is separation between the player and the PC, then most of these issue go away.
And that's my goal for a fun and exciting game!
I like it when I can take a bathroom break and when I get back my character sheet has defeated the BBEG.
To me those are both testing the charsacter examples.I think I've come up with the perfect example of challenging the character versus challenging the player, although it's not in-genre. Let's say that we are playing a game where the PCs are the bridge crew of an exploratory starship that often comes across new and exciting situations and sometimes does battle with aggressors, alien and otherwise. Let's also pretend that we're writing up the various actions that the crew can take in battle and we write up one for the Tactical Officer:
Shields!
When you take this action, you can reallocate the shields' strength between the Forward, Starboard-Bow, Starboard-Stern, Port-Bow, Port-Stern and Aft locations*. The total shield strength is equal to the Ship's current Shield Strength plus your passive Intelligence (Tactical Operations) and each location must receive at least one point.
Example: Wumbo has an Intelligence (Tactical Operations) of +6 and their Ship has a current Shield Strength of 10, meaning that the total shields' strength must add up to be 26. Anticipating an attack on the port side, they set Port-Bow and Port-Stern to 11 each, and assign only 1 point to the Forward, Starboard-Bow, Starboard-Stern and Aft sections.
OR
Shields!
When you take this action, you try to anticipate your attackers' most likely targets and reconfigure the ship's shields to prevent damage. Make an Intelligence (Tactical Operations) check against your opponents' highest passive Dexterity (Targeting Systems). On a success, the ship has resistance to damage until the beginning of your next turn. If you succeed by 5 or more, the ship is immune to damage until the beginning of your next turn.
—•—
Now obviously those are two different kinds of rules and you'd never intermix those rule styles. But both rules consume the same resource (a player's action on their turn). One challenges the player to anticipate the attack position. The other challenges the character — the player is under no obligation to figure out where to reallocate the shields, but we figure that the character does do a good job if they succeed at the skill check.
—•—
* Of course our theoretical starship game uses a hex-grid for combat, because anything else would be barbaric.
To me those are both testing the charsacter examples.
One is z resource allocation that directly accesses the PC traits. The other is a check based one with more success-fail than resource spend but it still directly utilizes the charscter stats.
In short, no matter which of those you choose "who the charascter is" will matter to the outcome. If you put in the ships tactical officer or the ships cargo loading guy - it matters - because direct changes likely occur with the switch.
In the first example, the player is allocating the shields for various locations. A player with better spatial/tactical awareness will do a better job than a player without those traits.
In the second example, the only thing the character is allocating the shields for various locations. The success of the allocation is based solely on the randomness of the dice roll.
In both cases, the player decides to take the action. But in the first example, the player also gets to determine the results.
I think I've come up with the perfect example of challenging the character versus challenging the player, although it's not in-genre. Let's say that we are playing a game where the PCs are the bridge crew of an exploratory starship that often comes across new and exciting situations and sometimes does battle with aggressors, alien and otherwise. Let's also pretend that we're writing up the various actions that the crew can take in battle and we write up one for the Tactical Officer:
Shields!
When you take this action, you can reallocate the shields' strength between the Forward, Starboard-Bow, Starboard-Stern, Port-Bow, Port-Stern and Aft locations*. The total shield strength is equal to the Ship's current Shield Strength plus your passive Intelligence (Tactical Operations) and each location must receive at least one point.
Example: Wumbo has an Intelligence (Tactical Operations) of +6 and their Ship has a current Shield Strength of 10, meaning that the total shields' strength must add up to be 26. Anticipating an attack on the port side, they set Port-Bow and Port-Stern to 11 each, and assign only 1 point to the Forward, Starboard-Bow, Starboard-Stern and Aft sections.
OR
Shields!
When you take this action, you try to anticipate your attackers' most likely targets and reconfigure the ship's shields to prevent damage. Make an Intelligence (Tactical Operations) check against your opponents' highest passive Dexterity (Targeting Systems). On a success, the ship has resistance to damage until the beginning of your next turn. If you succeed by 5 or more, the ship is immune to damage until the beginning of your next turn.
—•—
Now obviously those are two different kinds of rules and you'd never intermix those rule styles. But both rules consume the same resource (a player's action on their turn). One challenges the player to anticipate the attack position. The other challenges the character — the player is under no obligation to figure out where to reallocate the shields, but we figure that the character does do a good job if they succeed at the skill check.
—•—
* Of course our theoretical starship game uses a hex-grid for combat, because anything else would be barbaric.
Oh, hey, I've REPEATEDLY stated what works for me and mine and been very, very clear that I'm not in any way saying that it will work for you. I fully believe that folks should find a table that works for them and not try to proclaim any single way is better or not, regardless of how much it follows the advice of the game writers.
I think I've come up with the perfect example of challenging the character versus challenging the player, although it's not in-genre. Let's say that we are playing a game where the PCs are the bridge crew of an exploratory starship that often comes across new and exciting situations and sometimes does battle with aggressors, alien and otherwise. Let's also pretend that we're writing up the various actions that the crew can take in battle and we write up one for the Tactical Officer:
Shields!
When you take this action, you can reallocate the shields' strength between the Forward, Starboard-Bow, Starboard-Stern, Port-Bow, Port-Stern and Aft locations*. The total shield strength is equal to the Ship's current Shield Strength plus your passive Intelligence (Tactical Operations) and each location must receive at least one point.
Example: Wumbo has an Intelligence (Tactical Operations) of +6 and their Ship has a current Shield Strength of 10, meaning that the total shields' strength must add up to be 26. Anticipating an attack on the port side, they set Port-Bow and Port-Stern to 11 each, and assign only 1 point to the Forward, Starboard-Bow, Starboard-Stern and Aft sections.
OR
Shields!
When you take this action, you try to anticipate your attackers' most likely targets and reconfigure the ship's shields to prevent damage. Make an Intelligence (Tactical Operations) check against your opponents' highest passive Dexterity (Targeting Systems). On a success, the ship has resistance to damage until the beginning of your next turn. If you succeed by 5 or more, the ship is immune to damage until the beginning of your next turn.
—•—
Now obviously those are two different kinds of rules and you'd never intermix those rule styles. But both rules consume the same resource (a player's action on their turn). One challenges the player to anticipate the attack position. The other challenges the character — the player is under no obligation to figure out where to reallocate the shields, but we figure that the character does do a good job if they succeed at the skill check.
—•—
* Of course our theoretical starship game uses a hex-grid for combat, because anything else would be barbaric.
I've been reading that sentiment a lot lately
This needs to be a drinking game: Drink a mug of ale every time someone says something like "I'm just saying what I do; you do you."
What if what they say is: "Well you might as well be playing tic tac toe if you want to totally eliminate the roleplaying and just make it a mindless boardgame, you loser. But no offense meant. I'm just saying what I do; you do you."
Do you still have to drink? Or maybe it's not a matter of "have" to, more like you need to.