Quote from: gleichman;621197It's just another way of saying narrative control, i.e. overriding the listed skill ratings and the results of the dice.

Hero points aren't necessarily Narrative mechanics, nor are they necessarily metagame mechanics.

(See the recent discussion in the "Aspects" thread.)

A hero point mechanic may be what he's doing, but even so a well-done one could be useful.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;621198Hero points aren't necessarily Narrative mechanics, nor are they necessarily metagame mechanics.

They are as far as I'm concerned.

Quote from: gleichman;621200They are as far as I'm concerned.

It's a good thing you can't control reality, because in this case you're simply mistaken.

(And probably trolling me. )

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;621202It's a good thing you can't control reality, because in this case you're simply mistaken.

(And probably trolling me. )

I'm trolling no one, and the opinion is an honest one. Hero Points was perhaps the very first 'story based' gaming mechanic, and that's how the first games to use them (like for example the James Bond role-playing game) presented them.

I still remember the James Bond example they used, something like:

Bond: "You expect me to talk?"
Gold Finger: "No Mister Bond, I expect you to die"
Bond: "Well, you're forgetting one thing. If I fail to report, 008 replaces me"


So yes, narrative control. Any other opinion is revisionism.

Quote from: gleichman;621204Hero Points was perhaps the very first 'story based' gaming mechanic, and that's how the first games to use them (like for example the James Bond role-playing game) presented them.

And because that's how they did it back in the '70's, that's how they must always be? I disagree.

ICONS argues differently. Hero points can be wholly in-character, grounded, representing something real. (As much as RPG mechanics can approximate reality.)

I proffer Resolve as another example. Characters have skills, but they can put extra effort towards specific situations, and do better. This is a limited resource, as it is in reality, but it's possible.

Hero points can approximate real phenomenon.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;621205Hero points can approximate real phenomenon.

Weak excuses to justify using a narrative mechanic by another name. People don't decide to be brilliant on a whim in the real world- they only get to do that as authors of fiction.

Quote from: Ladybird;621146Nothing, inherently, about a "story game" makes it worse than a "role-playing game" It's just different, some people will like one, some will like the other. And that's fine. As long as everyone gets games they like, it's all good.

I COMPLETELY agree with this.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;621180I try my best to by not crazy, aha. (son by the way. little dudes asleep again, so I'm a bit less harried at the moment)

Though an interesting thing to me is. What exactly defines something as a narrative mechanic. I'm not asking like as a baiting or anything, but I'm curious where people draw the lines.

To me, it's a rule that basically requires you to constitute the game as some sort of fictional construct that is being composed, hence the misnomer of narrative, or story for that matter. Basically, it's a rule that requires you to look upon the verbal exchanges around the game table as building a 'story'. I.e. you are an author looking upon the fictional construct of the game world and your proxy, the character, instead of being your character in a game world which, through the suspension of disbelief and the process of role playing, is assumed to be real the time of the game.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;621180Obviously, not all metagame mechanics are narrative. I mean, there are a lot of metagame mechanics in 4e D&D, but I seriously doubt anyone would ever describe them as narrative.

Right. I'm fine with some amount of metagame mechanics. For instance, hero points in James Bond 007. What I am totally not okay with is narrative mechanics, that is, if say, suddenly hero points allowed you to rewind "scenes", or to pop up items and characters out of nowhere because 'this is all a story!' and so on.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;621180One way I could define it is if the rule attempts to enforce a narrative or story onto the game, but even then, that sounds like intent more than actual mechanics. Intent is weird though, because what could be intended to be used one way, someone else could pick up the game and use it another way.

Yes and no. Intent can be spelled out in the text and yet differ from the application of the rules. The example in uber-spades of that is the storytelling wanking of White Wolf versus the actually trad mechanics of WoD games and therefore, how actual, real gamers played them. And yet the intent in the rules themselves comes through nonetheless, and when there is a discrepency between what the rules do and what the players want out of their games, then the game just breaks down for them. See what I mean?

Quote from: gleichman;621206Weak excuses to justify using a narrative mechanic by another name. People don't decide to be brilliant on a whim in the real world- they only get to do that as authors of fiction.

:rolleyes: All mechanics are approximations. Hit points, levels, wounds, the dice themselves, whatever. They all only approximate reality, and then imprecisely (by deliberate design).

The rules of a game don't exactly model reality.

I find it hard to believe there exists a gamer that doesn't know this, understand this, and accept this.

The medium can't do any differently, so disregarding any game mechanic because it doesn't exactly model, in every single detail, the real world is... well, it's not a tenable position.

Plus, the notion of "extra effort" is actually realistic. People do choose to devote intense effort to some endeavors.

Seriously, you never had days (or hours, like after lunch) at work where you were just phoning it in? You gave 110% every single instant of the day, and could never chose, ever, to do it differently?

You never slacked off, or conversely tried to do better, by going the extra mile? Never? And furthermore claim no one ever could or has, ever?

I disbelieve. I think you're trying to win the argument, and are refusing to consider the real world.

Since you're wrong as to reality, and wrong as to how games model reality, your position is just wrong.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;621210:rolleyes: All mechanics are approximations.

Granting one the ability to control or influence the results of their character's actions beyond the decision to make the attempt is not an approximation of anything but Narrative Control enjoyed by authors and writers.

Nothing could be clearer to a honest and well informed observer.

Quote from: gleichman;621212Granting one the ability to control or influence the results of their character's actions beyond the decision to make the attempt is not an approximation of anything but Narrative Control enjoyed by authors and writers.

People do make extra efforts sometimes. Coaches give speeches for this very purpose all the time.

You're ignoring actual reality and the mechanics under discussion.

If that's the only way for you to try and win... your position is wrong.

D&D's Hit Points ARE Hero Points.  In D&D high level characters have a measurable amount of plot immunity.  I run GURPS and Rolemaster mostly so the distinction really stands out for me.  I lose lots of major villains to one shot kills.  To me this is acceptable.  Anyone can die at any time is best emphasized by allowing horrible criticals to affect favored npcs or even my wife's character.  I've actually had players beg me at the table to spare my wife's character.  But if I was playing D&D at anything past first level characters this simply wouldn't be a problem due to a built in story game mechanism.

Therefore D&D is not a Roleplaying Game?

No, story games are Roleplaying Games.  Roleplaying is something you do in a game.  Games take many forms.   I've seen people who could craft an immersive narrative while playing craps and I've seen people who can turn Fudge into a twinked out tactical exercise in rules lawyering.

The brilliance of D&D was that it managed to sit squarely in the center of things and could thus be most things to most people.  If D&D had been a game I liked it would have flopped.  Indeed most of the games I like have flopped repeatedly.  It wouldn't have flopped because I liked it, it would have flopped because not enough other people liked it.

What does this have to do with hate.  I'm an avowed, self confessed D&D hater.  Clash accused me of waging a one man war against D&D at one point and he's right.  I can't go very far without taking a cheap potshot against D&D.

So, I'm Monty Cook's badguy right?  No, not really, because I've come to accept that D&D needs to be D&D to succeed.  And if I want other games to flourish I either need a trillion dollars to flush down the toilet or I need D&D to succeed as the core entry point to the hobby.

It's all the people who are still off in their little corners screaming that if D&D would come over to their corner then it would become a mainstream hit and gamers would have to chase away potential lovers with a beaten up copy of GURPS.

The ugly thing is how much gaming's come to resemble politics...

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;621213People do make extra efforts sometimes. Coaches give speeches for this very purpose all the time.

I'm all for another character (NPC or PC) granting bonuses from leadership skill or the like*.

But a player deciding to grant himself bonuses? Please. You're reaching so far in front of the reality that you've grabbed your own backside.




*Edit: Actually that isn't really true. I refuse to use such bonuses in my games for reason unrelated to narrative control. Leadership rolls are confined solely to affecting NPC Morale and do not give bonuses.

Quote from: David Johansen;621214D&D's Hit Points ARE Hero Points.

They are if anything worst than Hero Points, but their mechanical use is different for the player isn't invoking them at his whim.

Quote from: gleichman;621215But a player deciding to grant himself bonuses? Please.

So, just to be clear... you, as a person, are utterly incapable of deciding where to put your best effort. You can't, at all, decide what to concentrate on and ignore, what to put casual effort towards and what to devote every bit of energy and ingenuity towards.

You walk to the curb with the exact same intensity that you run a 100-yard dash, because you simply can't do any different. And you think everyone on the planet is exactly the same as you?

They're not.

The rest of us make decisions about what to focus on all the time. We make choices every single day about what to pay attention to and what to slide on and what to completely ignore.

Seriously. This actually, really happens.

That you don't think it does (assuming you're being sincere here) is really odd. I can't imagine what its like for you to have nothing important, nothing interesting, nothing compelling, nothing that's especially motivating, nothing you deeply desire.

That's a horrible way to live. Where comes the joy in life, if you don't have a goal you are deeply committed to striving for and eventually achieve?

Where the valiant struggle? Where the painful introspection? Where the motivation to better yourself? Christ, what a flat and dispiriting existence that must be.

Thank God real people aren't like that.