Quote from: DavetheLost;927580Having a character who stays home on the farm because they are a farmer and do not want to be an adventurer can be valid roleplaying. I have had characters retire from active play to become farmers before. Having a player whose characters always and only want to stay home and farm while the rest of the group want high adventure is what is problematic.

Even worse is when the stay-at-home character is left behind by the group at the player's choice and then decides that he is bored so his character is going to shoot holes in the hyperdrive of the starship the rest of the group is planning on making their escape in as soon as they get back from the adventure. That one got the clown permanently disinvited. Sitting out and spoiling your own fun is fine. Getting bored of sitting out and deciding to spoil everybody else's fun is dickery.

At that point, it's clear they never really wanted to play, they just wanted to be the center of attention.

Quote from: CRKrueger;927538I have seen players get sidetracked off the "Mercenary/Adventuring Life", that actually happens a bit in Warhammer, where you have characters whose career is literally Trader, and the Advanced Career exit they are shooting for is Merchant.  That's always been the thing with Warhammer, it's kind of implied by the Career system that you don't actually throw away your old life and hit the road as an adventurer til you die or retire.

I actually like the idea of a merchant as a PC hero type. I find the "adventurer as entrepreneur" view I take broadens the possible roles and character types viable in "adventuring." I find merchants especially adaptable in this regard. Even when it comes to trade of mundane items and commodities. If through exploration, the merchant is able to find one place where he can acquire a particular good much cheaper than other places, and another place where it fetches a much higher price than the norm, and is able to find some means for transporting the good while minimizing cost, the potential for profit is quite huge. Knowledge, exploration, magical means of transport, and of course gold are his crack-cocaine. I think such a character can have a far greater appreciation of the broader range of magic items out there in the world and can have an agenda that is both complex (in terms of complex strings of transactions) yet clear (= for profit), and I think that does a lot to drive both role play and adventure.

QuoteThe implication is that, kind of like CoC, you have a "Day Job" you're doing and adventuring is sort of a side thing.

The "barbell" strategy. Or the Master of Two Worlds.

QuoteBut, if the entire group decides they want to settle down and take the manor a Baron offers them instead of Gold, then I'll pull out Harnmanor or ACKS and they'll get to build it, defend it, interact with the serfs, deliver the taxes, tithes and scutage to the Baron...and probably get ordered to troubleshoot some things in between.

But...if that means no one is following up on all the clues and information the PCs have about potential threats...those threats are going to do what they were always going to do, the world may become worse as a result of the PCs change of pace.  Not out of vindictiveness, just out of the world being played properly.

And that is the essence of the anti-adventure as I understand it. These things can be totally interesting. But they're usually painful. In the longer run, refusing the call is generally the less viable path. But less viable doesn't necessarily mean nonviable. I'm fine going this route if that's what the whole group wants to do. My main thing is I'm not going to run a split group. The odd man out's going to have to make a new character appropriate to what everyone else is doing. He can still keep the other character in the campaign's background, and play that character again when it's appropriate to what the group is doing. It's not unusual for players to have 2 or 3 characters each. This helps avoid Scooby-Do parties where the party goes everywhere together without any apparent reason for doing so.

The last character I actually had a chance to play was a halfling puppeteer. His weapons were a dagger and a sling and he sucked with both of them. He tagged along with a party of adventurers because he thought they would provide some good stories to tell. Not your usual PC adventurer but great fun to play. The thing is, when adventure called he answered. I could easilly have said "I have no useful adventuring skills at all. No way am I leaving the pub," but that would have been boring to play. I didn't mind that in many ways he was not a spotlight character, as most frequently a GM I get plenty of spotlight time.

Quote from: CRKrueger;927485Hmm.  I don't think I've ever seen a player refuse an adventuring opportunity so they could stay home on the farm.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;927498I have seen it a handful of times (or at least variations of this idea like starting a salt empire). In some cases though, it was because the player legitimately wanted to farm (or mine salt). i've also seen players use it either simply to be difficult, or to convey their displeasure to the GM. Haven't seen the latter two in a long time though.

Ive seen it and heard others mention it too. Players who would rather be running a merchant business. In fact that was the first question one player asked me about 5e... quote "Can you run your own business?"

Quote from: Omega;927648Ive seen it and heard others mention it too. Players who would rather be running a merchant business. In fact that was the first question one player asked me about 5e... quote "Can you run your own business?"

There's more than enough examples of that in fantasy litterature, so I don't see it as anything weird:).

May I suggest that this tangent of stay-at-home character and Campbellian paradigms take up residence in its own thread? I regret contributing to the digression, especially since the original topic was generating some interesting discussion on its own.

I wonder what people think of the "spiritual attributes" approach popularized by The Riddle of Steel (and a few other mid-2000s games)--where you don't have a pool of bonus points but rather always get a bonus on actions related to one of your character's values. It sort of eliminates the artificial resource management element of hero points but I don't think I've seen a very appealing implementation.

Quote from: AsenRG;927653There's more than enough examples of that in fantasy litterature, so I don't see it as anything weird:).

Agreed and the one time I played the Mechwarrior RPG my character ended up doing more trading than battling. Id hit on a really good trade circuit of systems and was raking in the cash.

Arminius, I like "spiritual atributes" more than hero points. And there are a bunch of games that do it pretty well, I think: Vampire's Willpower, Pendragon's Passions, Unknown Armies' Obsession, etc.

Ultimately though, with either technique (hero pts or "spiritual" atributes) I think it works better when they are designed in a way that makes them central/fundamental to the game in some way. That's the case of the games I cited in the above paragraph. In this case they tend to have some relation to the game setting/themes, be it concrete or abstract: Vampire's Willpower is fundamental to the theme of struggling against the beast, while Pendragon's Passions define what's really important to your character in a way coherent with the arthurian sagas.

What bothers me is when these kind of mechanics are inserted as an afterthought just to alleviate poor choices or "give another chance" to bad rolls, with little explanation or coherence to the remaining framework and premise. This is the case of your traditional "hero points" as seen from Shadowrun "Edge/Karma Pool" to D&D 5e "inspiration". I think this is the source of the bitterness these kind of mechanics receive in some parts.

Of course, there are exceptions. I don't like Fate, for example, even if the fate points are central to the system.

Quote from: Omega;927737Agreed and the one time I played the Mechwarrior RPG my character ended up doing more trading than battling. Id hit on a really good trade circuit of systems and was raking in the cash.

That's the way:)!

Quote from: Itachi;927748Arminius, I like "spiritual atributes" more than hero points. And there are a bunch of games that do it pretty well, I think: Vampire's Willpower, Pendragon's Passions, Unknown Armies' Obsession, etc.

Ultimately though, with either technique (hero pts or "spiritual" atributes) I think it works better when they are designed in a way that makes them central/fundamental to the game in some way. That's the case of the games I cited in the above paragraph. In this case they tend to have some relation to the game setting/themes, be it concrete or abstract: Vampire's Willpower is fundamental to the theme of struggling against the beast, while Pendragon's Passions define what's really important to your character in a way coherent with the arthurian sagas.

What bothers me is when these kind of mechanics are inserted as an afterthought just to alleviate poor choices or "give another chance" to bad rolls, with little explanation or coherence to the remaining framework and premise. This is the case of your traditional "hero points" as seen from Shadowrun "Edge/Karma Pool" to D&D 5e "inspiration". I think this is the source of the bitterness these kind of mechanics receive in some parts.

Of course, there are exceptions. I don't like Fate, for example, even if the fate points are central to the system.

Pendragon and Unknown Armies are probably the best example for such mechanics, indeed!
I'd argue the Willpower in Vampire felt more as an afterthought and should be with your other group of examples, though;).

In Beyond the Wall player characters are explicitly defined as being heroes and exceptional individuals. PCs and only PCs get Fortune Points, which serve to emulate the way fortune always favors the protagonists in the sort of coming of age fantasy the BTW is designed to model. I have no quibble with fortune points in this game as they are genre appropriate. Likewise I would have no problem with them in a larger than life adventure pulp game.

I would not want to see them in a gritty noir game, nor do I think they would fit a horror game like Call of Cthulhu. I think in many games they are inserted into the design as another way of putting the game in "safe mode", reducing the risk of PCs failing at anything or being seriously hurt. They feel artificial in many genres.

One game that plays a twist on them is Pirates & Dragons, from Cakebread & Walton, there they are called "doubloons" but the twist is that one of them is secretly marked with the Black Spot. When the doubloon with the Black Spot is spent the action it was spent on becomes an absolute and utter failure, a fumble at the very least. It is a nice way to keep players from pressing their luck too far and too often.

Quote from: Arminius;927736I wonder what people think of the "spiritual attributes" approach popularized by The Riddle of Steel (and a few other mid-2000s games)--where you don't have a pool of bonus points but rather always get a bonus on actions related to one of your character's values. It sort of eliminates the artificial resource management element of hero points but I don't think I've seen a very appealing implementation.

Meh.

I mean, for specific things it makes sense. Fear of heights? Okay, you get a penalty in high places. Which also incentivizes you to stay out of high places. You still can go up in high places, but will probably only do so as a last resort, if something is that important. I like that.

But for something like "Love of cheese" where whenever cheese is at stake, I get bonuses to acquire cheese, or penalties if I ignore the cheese calling... if this is at odds with my characters other motives--or face it, what I want as a player at that moment, those penalties for not putting everything on hold for cheese is going to be a major bummer. So to avoid the potential major bummers, I begin having my character avoid cheese... The mechanics effectively have set the incentives at odds with the character. So this stuff gets bat shit crazy real fast if you don't keep it on a short, short leash.

On the other hand, one of the things I get from "hero points" is coloring outside the lines. I mean, getting 1 attack every single round, Or 2, or 3, Or whatever the normal rules dictate for a character of my speed and/or skill.. to me, this makes combat feel too mechanical. But if I can get an extra attack once in a while (or negate someone else's through a "lucky dodge" that the rules don't normally allow for), that breaks up the monotony, makes the game feel more alive. Yet another bonus/penalty (due to yet another attribute) is not only dull and cumbersome, but it's one more thing to game the system rather than play the adventure.

Not a big fan of the Riddle of Steel Spiritual Attributes (SAs), namely due to implementation.  You don't really get experience directly, you raise SAs and then convert those points to XPs.  So if you don't play to your SAs, you don't advance. You can even get rid of them for new Passions.

So, this is what can happen...
First Encounter - Our hero is passing by an alley and sees several ruffians accosting a young maiden.  One of his SAs, let's say Drive: Protect the Innocent comes into play.  Normally getting outnumbered in TRoS is even a worse idea than in RQ6.  However, with the bonus from SAs, he defeats the ruffians.  His Drive is high enough that he turns it in for exp and it drops to zero, or he even decides to change it to something else.

Second Encounter - Our same hero is passing by the same alley and sees the same several ruffians accosting a different young maiden.  Because he decided to increase some skills, he apparently doesn't care about defending the innocent anymore, so can't rely on his SA.  He goes in anyway, is outnumbered, and gets cut down like a dog, luckily dying before he can see what the ruffians do with the maiden. (probably share the contents of the Hero's purse with her as she's the bait ).

Not really my thing.

Yes, the ability to switch SAs was bad. I don't even think it was laid out as clearly as you make it, giving the impression one could change SAs moment-to-moment. I suppose fans of the game would say that switching the SA can only happen if you reach closure on the issue represented by the SA. Like if your SA was "find and kill the six-fingered man who killed my father", you can cash it in or change it once you get revenge. Or if your SA is "kill de Maynes, who killed my best friend", but when you have the chance, you instinctively stay your hand (because something tells you he's secretly your half-brother), then that, too, will allow you to cash in the SA.

Maybe this was explained somewhere else but I came away with the impression that players were supposed to police themselves and refrain from using the mechanics to their advantage, something I've never cared for.

Quote from: Arminius;927803Yes, the ability to switch SAs was bad. I don't even think it was laid out as clearly as you make it, giving the impression one could change SAs moment-to-moment. I suppose fans of the game would say that switching the SA can only happen if you reach closure on the issue represented by the SA. Like if your SA was "find and kill the six-fingered man who killed my father", you can cash it in or change it once you get revenge. Or if your SA is "kill de Maynes, who killed my best friend", but when you have the chance, you instinctively stay your hand (because something tells you he's secretly your half-brother), then that, too, will allow you to cash in the SA.

Maybe this was explained somewhere else but I came away with the impression that players were supposed to police themselves and refrain from using the mechanics to their advantage, something I've never cared for.

Actually switching them was more involved, I think you had to spend 3 SAs to do it.  But you could buy down one, so it was at Zero, thus unable to provide any benefit.

I'm sure it worked ok if you went at roleplaying completely from a 3rd person Storytelling perspective, there has to be some reason why the game was a Forge Darling for a while and it sure wasn't the ARMA-simulation combat system .

The combat system also seemed strange--IIRC the rules implied that if you chose a given maneuver in one round, you should be constrained in which maneuvers you could use in the next. And the system really would only work if that were the case (because some maneuvers were so clearly superior). But I couldn't find anything that spelled out what was allowed, so it came across as another "police yourself" system. Anyway, another digression.