This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Tokens and Realism

Started by Hieronymous Rex, December 19, 2009, 01:38:07 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Hieronymous Rex

Many games use some form of "token", under the names of Fate Point (in FATE), Action Point (in some D20 games), and Ability Pool (in Gumshoe).

However, these usually have only a tenuous justification. Sometimes they're entirely metagame. However, one could, conceivably, create a system where a token represents greater skill with some degree of realism.

There are 2 major problems to resolve to do this:

1. When do tokens recover?

The 2 most reasonable times I can think of would be after a "coffee break" (5-10 minute rest) or after a "good night's sleep" (8 hours).

2. What scope of action can a token be spent on?

Commonly, a Action Point (or similar resource) can be spent on a single attack, or a single lock to pick, or possibly on a single sword to forge. The question is, since these actions take widely varying amounts of time, if you can spend an action point on an attack, why not an entire fight?



Any help would be welcome.

Halfjack

If you want the tokens to be part of the simulation rather than external to it (that is, reflecting some "real" element rather than a kind of story allotment) then it seems to me they will have to reflect an actual, depletable resource. Given that, endurance springs to mind as a likely token basis. You should be able to drive something interesting out of that or another real resource.
One author of Diaspora: hard science-fiction role-playing withe FATE and Deluge, a system-free post-apocalyptic setting.
The inevitable blog.

arminius

Or, a slightly different twist, the tokens could be "stress". The system could be made more complicated from there by providing other ways to lose & recover "stress points". (Such as, getting out of a major scrape will earn points back.)

As for "why not an entire fight", it's up to you. Personally I think you need to see it as reaching for inner reserves, which comes in the middle of a fight as you try to focus, and could be lost at any point. If you'd like you could say that once you "activate" a "token", it remains in effect until it's cancelled by a bad roll, or possibly until an enemy unnerves you in some way.

Kyle Aaron

I've used simply "effort", which is fatigue points and/or actual injury. How many times have you heard someone say, "I put the extra effort in and it worked... but now I'm really tired," or even "I could do it, but I might do myself an injury."

I've tried that in game systems, most recently in GAMERS. PCs end up stumbling around exhausted from their big efforts, making it harder for them to make new efforts :D
The Viking Hat GM
Conflict, the adventure game of modern warfare
Wastrel Wednesdays, livestream with Dungeondelver

flyingmice

Quote from: Halfjack;350330If you want the tokens to be part of the simulation rather than external to it (that is, reflecting some "real" element rather than a kind of story allotment) then it seems to me they will have to reflect an actual, depletable resource. Given that, endurance springs to mind as a likely token basis. You should be able to drive something interesting out of that or another real resource.

In my Cold Space games, the tokens could be LUCK, which is an attribute and varies from person to person. That would be an instance of what you are talking about, Halfjack - a depletable resource, but not metagame. Part of the simulation.

-clash
clash bowley * Flying Mice Games - an Imprint of Better Mousetrap Games
Flying Mice home page: http://jalan.flyingmice.com/flyingmice.html
Currently Designing: StarCluster 4 - Wavefront Empire
Last Releases: SC4 - Dark Orbital, SC4 - Out of the Ruins,  SC4 - Sabre & World
Blog: I FLY BY NIGHT

LordVreeg

I don't use them myself as they seem to be an ingredient to metagaming, which is on the opposing side of a continuum with immersion.

That being said, they are cool and cinematic, as well as sort of a 'get-out-of-jail-free' card.  I'd normally keep them on a per day basic to keep them straight.
Currently running 1 live groups and two online group in my 30+ year old campaign setting.  
http://celtricia.pbworks.com/
Setting of the Year, 08 Campaign Builders Guild awards.
\'Orbis non sufficit\'

My current Collegium Arcana online game, a test for any ruleset.

jibbajibba

The James Bond 007 RPG which was one of the first to adopt a mechanic of this type with hero points let you win then when you had a critical success and you could spend them to either improve a skill check by a degree for each one spent, or tweak the environment in your favour (the guard's uniform is a perfect fit, there is a harpoon gun sitting on the rack next to the SCUBA tanks). So basically it is a meta game thing but it stems from a mix of player/PC luck/Skill and recovers at a rate determined by these factors but also fromt eh rate at which the PCs act. PCs that do lots of stuff roll more and so can gain more HPs
No longer living in Singapore
Method Actor-92% :Tactician-75% :Storyteller-67%:
Specialist-67% :Power Gamer-42% :Butt-Kicker-33% :
Casual Gamer-8%


GAMERS Profile
Jibbajibba
9AA788 -- Age 45 -- Academia 1 term, civilian 4 terms -- $15,000

Cult&Hist-1 (Anthropology); Computing-1; Admin-1; Research-1;
Diplomacy-1; Speech-2; Writing-1; Deceit-1;
Brawl-1 (martial Arts); Wrestling-1; Edged-1;

ConanMK

Physical fatigue has already been mentioned.

Mental fatigue and/or sanity might be another option.

Hey, you could even use marbles for your sanity tokens. :D

Halfjack

Actually the idea of sanity as a limited pool that you voluntarily surrender (tokens) for advantage could make for a brilliant game in some genres. That's a cool idea -- thank you.
One author of Diaspora: hard science-fiction role-playing withe FATE and Deluge, a system-free post-apocalyptic setting.
The inevitable blog.

StormBringer

#9
Personally, I wouldn't get too tied up with minimizing the amount of metagame aspects to the detriment of actual play.  There will always be some sort of metagame mechanic in play, and keeping these to a reasonable number is a worthwhile design goal for a certain style of play.  

Nobilis
, for example, features play that can be described as 'metaphysical', in that characters represent certain facets of reality itself, and much of the action revolves around 'miracles' and beyond superhuman feats.  Limiting metagame mechanics in that kind of game would actually go against the style of play.  On the other end of the spectrum, 'luck' points in RQ would be very jarring.

Between the two is a large expanse of game mechanics and play styles that accommodate various degrees of tokens with predictably varying degrees of success.

EDIT:
Let me address this part specifically.
Quote from: Hieronymous Rex;3502492. What scope of action can a token be spent on?

Commonly, a Action Point (or similar resource) can be spent on a single attack, or a single lock to pick, or possibly on a single sword to forge. The question is, since these actions take widely varying amounts of time, if you can spend an action point on an attack, why not an entire fight?
Skills themselves take a broad range of time to complete.  One way to consider the breadth of the action is to think about the stakes, and what is involved in that action.  Hence, forging a sword is necessarily an extended process, starting with selecting the proper materials, to tempering the finished blade.  Hence, any step in that process could lead to failure, and more than one 'action point' would be required.  On the other hand, the blade can be melted down again to start over if a problem arises.  Primarily, however, the forging of a sword isn't critical to physical survival in the same way as wielding that sword in battle.  The whole sequence of attacks leading to victory (or defeat!) can be seen as a similar series of steps, and an action point would be spent on each, as each step has the possibility of completing the sequence, either in the player's favour or against.

Hence, the delimiting factor would best be seen as the impact on drama.  Forge a sword, don't forge a sword; in the end you can acquire one by other means, even if you are shooting for a superior quality weapon.  Down in the trenches, however, when the goblin's breath is hot and foul on your face, and the only thing standing between your character and evisceration is that action point, the currency is a good deal more valuable.
If you read the above post, you owe me $20 for tutoring fees

\'Let them call me rebel, and welcome, I have no concern for it, but I should suffer the misery of devils, were I to make a whore of my soul.\'
- Thomas Paine
\'Everything doesn\'t need

Kyle Aaron

#10
Quote from: LordVreeg;350532I don't use them myself as they seem to be an ingredient to metagaming, which is on the opposing side of a continuum with immersion.
That's true, but less so when it's fatigue or injury. I mean sure, anytime you ask a player to make a decision based on dice or numbers, that takes you to the metagaming side of things, makes everything a bit less real. "I have to roll 6+ on 2d6... but if I spend the extra fatigue..." etc. But "action points" are inherently abstract, fatigue or injury less so.

But some metagaming is the price we pay to make it all a game, instead of putting on leotards and doing improv theatre. So it's not entirely a bad thing. Yes, it's a bad thing when it's all metagaming. But that's just another reminder that we play roleplaying games, and both the roleplaying and the game part are important and fun.
The Viking Hat GM
Conflict, the adventure game of modern warfare
Wastrel Wednesdays, livestream with Dungeondelver

LordVreeg

#11
Quote from: kYLE A
Quote from: Originally Posted by LordVreegI don't use them myself as they seem to be an ingredient to metagaming, which is on the opposing side of a continuum with immersion.

That's true, but less so when it's fatigue or injury. I mean sure, anytime you ask a player to make a decision based on dice or numbers, that takes you to the metagaming side of things, makes everything a bit less real. "I have to roll 6+ on 2d6... but if I spend the extra fatigue..." etc. But "action points" are inherently abstract, fatigue or injury less so.

But some metagaming is the price we pay to make it all a game, instead of putting on leotards and doing improv theatre. So it's not entirely a bad thing. Yes, it's a bad thing when it's all metagaming. But that's just another reminder that we play roleplaying games, and both the roleplaying and the game part are important and fun.

Well, yes, when taken to the obvious extreme for the sake of an argument.

But there is a major distinction here in this portion of metagaming...
What magnifies the metagaming is when a mechanic allows you to 'change reality', instead of dealing with what 'reality' (i.e., the dice or the GM) have dealt you.
your comment here, ""I have to roll 6+ on 2d6... but if I spend the extra fatigue..."   displays this perfectly.  The choice to expend a 'reality-altering' resource breaks the immersion more fully than if a player has to always worry about the ramification of their actions.

I'm not saying it might not make certain games more fun and more cinematic or epic.  Just that it impedes immersion as a penalty for said possible benefits.
Currently running 1 live groups and two online group in my 30+ year old campaign setting.  
http://celtricia.pbworks.com/
Setting of the Year, 08 Campaign Builders Guild awards.
\'Orbis non sufficit\'

My current Collegium Arcana online game, a test for any ruleset.

tellius

Quote from: LordVreeg;350632Well, yes, when taken to the obvious extreme for the sake of an argument.

But there is a major distinction here in this portion of metagaming...
What magnifies the metagaming is when a mechanic allows you to 'change reality', instead of dealing with what 'reality' (i.e., the dice or the GM) have dealt you.
your comment here, ""I have to roll 6+ on 2d6... but if I spend the extra fatigue..."   displays this perfectly.  The choice to expend a 'reality-altering' resource breaks the immersion more fully than if a player has to always worry about the ramification of their actions.

I am not sure that I agree there. In reality, if you have a difficult and complex task in front of you, you are by nature going to take more care and effort. In the case of Kyle's example of "spend extra fatigue", I read that as I want my character to take the extra effort (aware that there is going to be a penalty, in this case fatigue) to ensure success.

'Reality-altering' is to my mind something that effects the outcome post-roll. The situation where your dice roll showed you have failed and you spend a point to make it a success, in essence altering an event that occurred in game play.

LordVreeg

I think I can agree with part of this, at least to a large degree.  Most of my issue with the reality-altering is the post-effect use...but as you say, if you have a certain amount of extra effort you can put into stuff BEFORE a roll, I have less issue with that.
Currently running 1 live groups and two online group in my 30+ year old campaign setting.  
http://celtricia.pbworks.com/
Setting of the Year, 08 Campaign Builders Guild awards.
\'Orbis non sufficit\'

My current Collegium Arcana online game, a test for any ruleset.

Kyle Aaron

Post-roll can work, too.
"You feel yourself slipping..."
"I leap up and grab the ledge!"
"If you do that, you'll be tired afterwards."
"Fine."

"You're falling behind in the race, keep going like this and you'll lose."
"I push harder!"
"If you do that, you might strain yourself."
"Doesn't matter, I have six months to my next race anyway."

"The project is near its due date and you're behind, at this rate you'll be a week behind."
"Okay I make everyone stay back for two hours' overtime every night for the next two weeks."
"They'll be exhausted and might hate you."
"That's the price I pay for success."

etc

LordVreeg, I think you're wrapped up with the idea that once the dice are rolled, that's that, the event is over. But in fact the event isn't over until the GM describes the results - nothing happens until the GM says it's happened. So we have,

1. skill/attribute use
2. dice roll
3. GM-described result

The "extra effort" can come before or after (2) so long as you regard (3) as the final step; if you regard (2) as the final step, then you get what you've described, the "post-effect" use.
The Viking Hat GM
Conflict, the adventure game of modern warfare
Wastrel Wednesdays, livestream with Dungeondelver