TheRPGSite

Talkin' 'bout Fate Points, Style Points, Bennies, Luck, etc. And how to use them in ways that don't break immersion.

When incorporating this mechanic into my personal designs I like to follow two rules:

1. Neither invite nor allow the player to add elements to the narrative that his character cannot directly control.

2. Never allow mechanics to rewrite game history.


In my homebrew, players can spend a point to add a die to a trait/skill check before it is rolled. This may represent them taking advantage of some tactical element, some untapped (available) resource, or just a combination of inspiration and desperation. No "oh yeah, just remembered I stashed that atomic disintegrator in my suit pocket..."

For me, rule #2 forbids rerolls. One might argue that a reroll is just a roundabout way of applying a modifier. Yeah, nah.

A third thing to consider is that these points exist to help the PCs show off at times, get through rough spots more often, and -- primarily -- to reward desired roleplay behaviors. So make sure you have a clear vision for your game and keep the reward structure consistant with that vision.

Any thoughts or angry rants appreciated. :D

Often overlooked, the Dangerous Journeys RPGs included a lot of elements of narrative manipulation. It's Joss point system was pretty flexible. Just when this sort of thing was becoming popular, I already had a lot of experience using it and had a pretty clear idea of where it works well and where it doesn't.

Consider first an example of Joss use given in the DJ rules. A party has been captured by natives, placed in a cage, to be eaten upon the completion of some tribal ritual. Seeing no way out, the players decide to use Joss to get out. After some negotiation to determine how many Joss points is reasonable for such a hopeless situation, the GM arrives at a number: 2 from each player, and they can get out. But two of the players in the group only have one Joss point left. So the narrative is affected thusly, a sudden mudslide occurs, ripping through the ritual site, busting open the cage, freeing the PCs. But the two who only had one Joss to spend are swept away in the mud and now have to be rescued by the rest of the party.

Seems pretty neat. Seems to really expand the possible turns a story could take.

But the reality is that my players would always use their joss prior to getting into a situation like that. A stitch in time, so to speak. So I found the reality is it actually closed off possible twists and turns in the story rather than opening them.

The heart of the problem is when the player earns the points, they belong to the player. They will always serve the ends of the player. Not necessarily the story. Even when they're used as a carrot--do good stuff for the story and you can have one--the player can still find ways to benefit the story while seemingly working against their own best interest but don't really put the player out any. In other words, the system is completely game-able.

Over time, I did find a handful of things that I could allow Joss to do that I felt genuinely improved play while avoiding the pit-falls.

1) In Combat or Critical Situations - I allow bennies to give the character an extra action, however the action must logically fit spatially and temporally with everything else. So you can't take an extra full move. But an additional sword strike that takes a split second and doesn't require movement to reach a new enemy can certainly be added to a 3-second round, for example. Further, this action may be used as if it were a "held" action; pending a speed check, it can be used to interrupt another action just announced.
2) Outside of Combat - Any single skill check automatically succeeds.
3) At any time - Automatically avoid any source of harm--an attack in combat, a trap, even a bolt of lightning from on high.

This gives heroes a little extra oomph while making the game seem less "mechanical" without sending the game spiraling into absurdity.

Quote from: Harg of the City Afar;926535Talkin' 'bout Fate Points, Style Points, Bennies, Luck, etc. And how to use them in ways that don't break immersion.

When incorporating this mechanic into my personal designs I like to follow two rules:

1. Neither invite nor allow the player to add elements to the narrative that his character cannot directly control.

2. Never allow mechanics to rewrite game history.


In my homebrew, players can spend a point to add a die to a trait/skill check before it is rolled. This may represent them taking advantage of some tactical element, some untapped (available) resource, or just a combination of inspiration and desperation. No "oh yeah, just remembered I stashed that atomic disintegrator in my suit pocket..."

For me, rule #2 forbids rerolls. One might argue that a reroll is just a roundabout way of applying a modifier. Yeah, nah.

A third thing to consider is that these points exist to help the PCs show off at times, get through rough spots more often, and -- primarily -- to reward desired roleplay behaviors. So make sure you have a clear vision for your game and keep the reward structure consistant with that vision.

Any thoughts or angry rants appreciated. :D

Agree generally.  I don't think in all cases retroactive action is bad, it depends upon the nature of the resource and the element of choice.  Take for example WFRP1.  Fate Points can be used for one thing only, to escape death.  They represent a tangible force in the setting: the Destiny of the character to be useful to the gods in their battle vs. Chaos.  The gods think you might someday be a Mover and Shaker so they might step in now and again to see that you aren't brained by Goblin417. Since they only allow you to escape the death of the character, there is no OOC choice as to whether they are used or not.  So the player has zero effect on the character or the setting through the Fate Point mechanic, it is a completely In-Setting mechanic.

The standard Luck Point, that allows rerolls, is definitely an OOC mechanic, as the player is the one invoking the Luck.  Invoking the mechanic really is a type of 3rd person conversation with the GM about the character, "We know my character is "Lucky", I'm making use of that Luck."

I can usually stomach games which give small amount of these points, as in that case, they usually are reserved to prevent death, so they end up effectively being similar to WFRP Fate points.

But, to me the nature of the OOC choice is probably more important than the retroactive nature.  For example, if I had Luck Points like you describe them, and had to declare them beforehand, they would have to work in such a way that it could relate to the character's choice, stamina, effort, will, fatigue, etc. determining why I get to be better now, and why I know I can't keep doing that forever.

Some settings of course, it's a completely IC conscious choice.  Like Spawn's ability to pull from his finite pool of demonic power, or an Amberite or a priest of the goddess of Luck.

Quote from: CRKrueger;926542For example, if I had Luck Points like you describe them, and had to declare them beforehand, they would have to work in such a way that it could relate to the character's choice, stamina, effort, will, fatigue, etc. determining why I get to be better now, and why I know I can't keep doing that forever.

That's reasonable. Of course, a rules-light game has to abstract these things. For my pulp game I'd pitch it like this:

"As a pulp adventurer you rarely work in pristine "lab" conditions, rather you ply your trade out in the raw and tumultuous field, where you scramble and scrap through one incredible circumstance after another, often influenced by forces you can hardly understand. So your normal skill checks reflect some rough-and-ready, seat-of-your-pants kind of efforts. But -- when you dig deep -- you can tap into an inner reserve of will and resourcefulness and show the world what you're really made of! Naturally, this kind of effort isn't perpetually sustainable; it comes in bursts, so you can't overdo it. But you know your mettle, and when light fades and darkness falls, when the world goes topsy-turvy and your back's against the wall -- you know, with fate's blessing, you can dig deep!"

Quote from: Lunamancer;926540The heart of the problem is when the player earns the points, they belong to the player. They will always serve the ends of the player. Not necessarily the story. Even when they're used as a carrot--do good stuff for the story and you can have one--the player can still find ways to benefit the story while seemingly working against their own best interest but don't really put the player out any. In other words, the system is completely game-able.

Nice post!

Regarding the above point, though -- "serving the story" is not the behavior you want to incentivize. You want the player to be driven by their character's motivations and to selfishly pursue their goals. This is where story is born.

With anything that can alter what happened/is happening we tend to agree that it should be used before the event is set where possible.

Example turning an attack into a miss. Play the fate point before the damage is resolved, or to lessen damage taken. IE: What looked like a sure hit was dodged out of the way at the last second. Or you rolled with the blow to absorb some of the impact and werent cut as deeply as would have otherwise.

Im also ok with using fate points to make plausible things happen. The mudslide example used in the post above I'd be ok with if it was established beforehand that the village was situated near where such a precarious terrain feature existed, or that there had been heavy rains before or even during the use of the fate point. Id also be fine with using the point to notice something that can help them escape. Like a dropped knife just in reach no one noticed till now. Or a bone they can use to open the cage. Etc.

I usually don't use these, but the times I have that have worked ok for our tastes, are where there is something explicit in the game world that they represent.

Example: A powerful/expensive magic protection spell which can influence events, such as a curse or blessing. It can effect one die roll every so often in game-world time, say once per month, week or day, or simply once per casting. It usually involves either sliding a die-roll up or down a point, or a few points, or re-rolling a good or bad result, or rolling twice and taking the best result.

Variation: A sufficiently devout/obedient member of a religion can get blessed by a priest and/or the application of a blessed concoction or element (e.g. special holy water) which confers one or more blessing instances as above.

Variation: There is an in-game-world explicit spirit which is attached to one or more characters, which follows them around and has limited abilities to influence events or mental states through either explicit subtle spell-like abilities (suggestion spell, give notion spell, influence spell, minor telekinesis, minor illusion, etc) or possibly just the same bless/curse effect mentioned before. The spirit's choice is chosen by the GM.

Varation: As the spirit version above, but the player chooses. This may represent the PC's spirit's subconscious view, or the players may actually represent attached spirits to the PCs rather than the PCs themselves.

Variation: There are some sort of unseen spirits or something which go about orchestrating some things, which may be at odds with each other on some or most issues, and are using the PCs and others as pawns/tools for their purposes.

Or the apathy version, where the players and GM don't care and/or don't know and/or don't care to know, and just use whatever luck rules without knowing or caring there's a weird meta-game effect going on. Maybe the GM has a rationale the players have no way to know, or not.

In general there seems to be little problem with any of these as long as the players agree... although I think sometimes the GM says what they intend, and the players may grunt OK but actually not really like it, resent it, and/or lose enthusiasm in the game partly because of it.

I think it helps if the system supports it, also.  For example, in Mythras, you don't compare attack/defense rolls in a Zero Sum win or lose Opposed Test.  Instead you compare Success Levels. Critical, Succeed, Fail, Fumble and if there is a difference in level, you generate Special Effects, like Trip, Disarm, etc.  One of my players balked at that, claiming it was retroactive, since you were rolling first and then saying what you chose to do after.  I explained it's different - think of it as an opening.  When you're choosing Special Effects, the roll hasn't happened, the roll is still in progress - you executed your combat attack or defense with such skill that you created a split second Opening, one you can exploit to try a particular move.  It's not time travel, it's time dilation, you're just slowing the system down a sec to have the player choose that split second exploit.  

With a system like that, it's easy to then do the same thing with things like Luck and Passions because you're in that mindset of "not rewriting, but zooming in to finer detail".  True, they are not the same thing, especially when you are allowing rerolls, but it's easier to rationalize.

I've always had mixed feelings about these things... tending toward hostility when I experienced them in Savage Worlds... but not minding them so much as as an in-game thing in WFRP.
 
I don't think they belong in horror games like Kult or Call of Cthulhu (fuck 7e!) but I am fine with the way they're implemented in Dungeon Crawl Classics, where Luck is a real substance to be gained and lost but still needs to be applied BEFORE the effort is made (and using up all your Luck leaves you open to random mishap).

I wouldn't mind some system of 'strain'... functioning like Spellburn in DCC... where the PC takes on some form of damage to put out extra effort and get a bonus to a roll. Decreasing the temptation to use it on every little thing.

I'll never use them retroactively or to alter things outside the PC.

I really like the way FFG Star Wars gives advantage/disadvantage from dice rolls that then affect the narrative situation mechanically. I think it is genre appropriate for Star Wars. I don't think I would like it nearly as much in a Call of Cthulhu game.

I don't mind players having a very few fate chips in some games. I don't want them to have so many that the dice and GM matter less because "I spend a fate chip" is a constant refrain. Five or six per player in a 2-4 hour session feels like about double what it should be. Even though that's what my favorite rules set that uses fate points gives out.  Maybe the designers run a tougher game than I do, with many more dice rolls to spend those points on.

I play in a fairly narrative style and encourage player input and participation, so I allow #1 in the OP as a matter of course. #2 I don't like, once the dice are rolled deal with the result. Use points to nudge a roll up or down before you see the number rolled. You pays your money and you takes your chances.

I get the impression that Harg and I have very different GMing styles...

Quote from: Harg of the City Afar;926535Any thoughts or angry rants appreciated. :D

I'm not trying to be snarky, but if these fate points can't do anything to alter the setting/past, then couldn't these points be handled by some sort of in-universe mechanism. Be it potions, magic rings, favors from a genie, ablative armor, etc. Something like Harry Potter's liquid luck. Actual in-game items carried and earned by the characters that can be used as a one-time bonus when the player feels a bit extra is required.

The advantage, as I see it, would be that it is easier to explain their limitation and gives the GM a bit more control as to when and how these items are handed out to the players. It would also be framed more positively. "Here's an item that can do this cool thing." rather than "here's a point that can't be used to do all these cool things." (If that makes sense).

Quote from: hedgehobbit;926860I'm not trying to be snarky, but if these fate points can't do anything to alter the setting/past, then couldn't these points be handled by some sort of in-universe mechanism. Be it potions, magic rings, favors from a genie, ablative armor, etc. Something like Harry Potter's liquid luck. Actual in-game items carried and earned by the characters that can be used as a one-time bonus when the player feels a bit extra is required.

The advantage, as I see it, would be that it is easier to explain their limitation and gives the GM a bit more control as to when and how these items are handed out to the players. It would also be framed more positively. "Here's an item that can do this cool thing." rather than "here's a point that can't be used to do all these cool things." (If that makes sense).

I think this line in my post serves to answer the question:
"This gives heroes a little extra oomph while making the game seem less "mechanical" without sending the game spiraling into absurdity."

With how I use them, they may indeed be thought of as part of the character's ability set. It's not like there's any good way to quantify luck or passion. I still get to hand out Joss as I choose. But bottom line, coloring outside the lines every now and then enhances the feel of the game.

Quote from: hedgehobbit;926860... (If that makes sense).

It makes perfect sense and is - in fact - an excellent suggestion!

In every game I have tried with these kinds of mechanics, it swiftly pulls everyone out of character and worse people begin to game the meta-system instead of playing their characters. Play should be its own reward!  Luck comes into play with a roll of the dice. If you have some sort of luck spell or power, then increase the odds of success. These kinds of a points/doohickeys are a symptom of a larger problem. Some people want to play a game where game-bits are the ultimate prize instead of in-setting rewards. Games that are insufficient at supporting character power increases toss these mechanics in to make the characters more "heroic" and succeed more often. Worse, it rewards this weird ADD in players who want to push ever forward without creative thinking, risk or forethought. Instead of being challenged by the conundrum of the moment, they instead want to spend a "I'm not engaged point" and "get out of problem free". What's the rush? If you're bored, not engaged or stuck DO SOMETHING. It is truly one of the things I'm enjoying about C&C/Old School is getting back to playing and growing within the context of the adventure/campaign and not as much on the doohickeys.

Quote from: DavetheLost;926650I don't mind players having a very few fate chips in some games. I don't want them to have so many that the dice and GM matter less because "I spend a fate chip" is a constant refrain. Five or six per player in a 2-4 hour session feels like about double what it should be. Even though that's what my favorite rules set that uses fate points gives out.  Maybe the designers run a tougher game than I do, with many more dice rolls to spend those points on.

It depends on the game, but I often feel this way. I feel like it is less intrusive if there are fewer points to spend - even if those points are more powerful and/or immersion-breaking. That is, if I as a player have six points which each provide a +2 bonus, then I'll be thinking with each roll "Should I spend a fate point with this?".

If I only have one point which is for emergency only, then I think about it less. Usually I'll just forget about it unless there is a major emergency when I consider all options.

I'm less concerned about the thinking process as it is being spent, since that is rare compared to thinking about whether to spend it.

Quote from: jhkim;926892It depends on the game, but I often feel this way. I feel like it is less intrusive if there are fewer points to spend - even if those points are more powerful and/or immersion-breaking. That is, if I as a player have six points which each provide a +2 bonus, then I'll be thinking with each roll "Should I spend a fate point with this?".

If I only have one point which is for emergency only, then I think about it less. Usually I'll just forget about it unless there is a major emergency when I consider all options.

I'm less concerned about the thinking process as it is being spent, since that is rare compared to thinking about whether to spend it.

Yeah, that's important.   If the decision is an OOC metapool point that can't easily be rationalized IC, and can potentially be used to augment any roll, then every time you do anything, there's a good chance your mind will bounce back OOC to consider the metapoint angle and it can become very distracting.

Which is why games that are structured to always have that decision front and center, because the metapoint angle is built into the core mechanics of resolution are basically anathema to roleplaying as far as I'm concerned.  Or, I should say, First person IC roleplaying.  Because to some Third Person OOC decisions are "roleplaying" as well. :rolleyes:

Quote from: jhkim;926892It depends on the game, but I often feel this way.

Me too. I'm often left a little curious how play test game went and how other people play.

QuoteI feel like it is less intrusive if there are fewer points to spend - even if those points are more powerful and/or immersion-breaking. That is, if I as a player have six points which each provide a +2 bonus, then I'll be thinking with each roll "Should I spend a fate point with this?".

If I only have one point which is for emergency only, then I think about it less. Usually I'll just forget about it unless there is a major emergency when I consider all options.

I'm less concerned about the thinking process as it is being spent, since that is rare compared to thinking about whether to spend it.

That's a really good point.

Quote from: jhkim;926892I'm less concerned about the thinking process as it is being spent, since that is rare compared to thinking about whether to spend it.

Quote from: CRKrueger;926895If the decision is an OOC metapool point that can't easily be rationalized IC, and can potentially be used to augment any roll, then every time you do anything, there's a good chance your mind will bounce back OOC to consider the metapoint angle and it can become very distracting.

Nicely observed. Makes me consider the merit of spending the point/adding the modifier after the dice are rolled. At the time you are rolling dice you are already making contact with the system; a little extra "system friction" for a chance to forestall disaster wouldn't bother most players.

Beyond the Wall gives 2, 3, or 5 Fortune Points, depending on race and class, per adventure. They can be used to help a friend providing a bonus on their skill roll even if you don't have the skill, re-roll a failed roll, or stabilize at zero hit points and not die. All three uses are genre apropriate to the coming of age fantasy that BTW models, and with a maximum of 5 per adventure rather than per session they don't get used often.

Certainly I like the per adventure rather than per play session model. Per play session tends to result in a lot of chips being spent in the tail end of the session because they will all refresh next time so why not? To me this breaks roleplaying and any sense of immersion.

Quote from: Harg of the City Afar;926554Nice post!

Regarding the above point, though -- "serving the story" is not the behavior you want to incentivize. You want the player to be driven by their character's motivations and to selfishly pursue their goals. This is where story is born.

Well put!

I generally find these kinds of "hero points" or whatever to be inoffensive as long as they are directly tied to the character or make sense for the character within the setting.  WFRP's fate point is a good example.  Even invoking or compelling FATE character aspects, specifically, and removed from the other fluff of that game and other functions of FATE points, are essentially an IC mechanic.  Used in this way, they are not dissimilar to Pendragon or Mythras Passions.  These types of IC Hero Points can actually enhance IC play, in my experience.

I generally have a problem with "re-roll, get a bonus to, or atomically succeed at  anything points" - because they are not specifically tied to a character in a meaningful way.  SW bennies are like this.
The "change the setting details points" found in many games are strongly story-gamey and break IC play. Fortunately, these types of points are easy to ignore as they are generally not integral to the system.
Party hero point pools as a collective resource are right out - for my style of play anyway.

Really appreciate all the feedback on this topic, guys!

Quote from: Madprofessor;926927I generally have a problem with "re-roll, get a bonus to, or atomically succeed at  anything points" - because they are not specifically tied to a character in a meaningful way.

How would you feel about "feats" or "stunts" tailored to the character, somehow related to their motivations/aspirations, and then powered with "fate" points?

e.g. "You are good, very good at what you do, but when you really shine is when you tap into the passions that drive you."


(I'm not overly familiar with FATE or Mythras, by the way, so forgive my ignorance if that is how they work.)

Quote from: Harg of the City Afar;926936Really appreciate all the feedback on this topic, guys!



How would you feel about "feats" or "stunts" tailored to the character, somehow related to their motivations/aspirations, and then powered with "fate" points?

e.g. "You are good, very good at what you do, but when you really shine is when you tap into the passions that drive you."


(I'm not overly familiar with FATE or Mythras, by the way, so forgive my ignorance if that is how they work.)

In the right setting, if they are tied to something specific about the character so as not to break IC immersion, then yeah, they can be a fantastic mechanic that enhance rather than detract from IC play, IMO.

...and off subject, Mythras/RQ6 is worth checking out.

Quote from: DavetheLost;926921Certainly I like the per adventure rather than per play session model. Per play session tends to result in a lot of chips being spent in the tail end of the session because they will all refresh next time so why not? To me this breaks roleplaying and any sense of immersion.

How many sessions on average would you expect an adventure to last, i.e. how many sessions until a refresh?

Usually about 3-4 sessions. With most characters getting 3 Fortune Points for that adventure. A better economy for me than One Dice where the PCs each got 5 points each session that could be used for a lot more things including direct plot intervention. In a rules light game it really made too much of the game about playing your fate points effectively.

Quote from: CRKrueger;926895Which is why games that are structured to always have that decision front and center, because the metapoint angle is built into the core mechanics of resolution are basically anathema to roleplaying as far as I'm concerned.  Or, I should say, First person IC roleplaying.  Because to some Third Person OOC decisions are "roleplaying" as well. :rolleyes:

By the literal meaning of the term, you probably have the right of it. But claims of 'not roleplaying' have a long and very ugly history in the hobby, so I suggest another way of making the distinction unless another term for the overarching hobby becomes standard. :) I'm partial to rgfa's old "Actor/Author" division, myself.

Quote from: CRKrueger;926895Which is why games that are structured to always have that decision front and center, because the metapoint angle is built into the core mechanics of resolution are basically anathema to roleplaying as far as I'm concerned.  Or, I should say, First person IC roleplaying.  Because to some Third Person OOC decisions are "roleplaying" as well. :rolleyes:

I dislike third person roleplaying intensely and find it to be a major source of issues within the game as most (but not all) people look at the characters as game pieces when they do this.

A lot of players are uncomfortable with first person roleplaying and what I found works is stress that first person roleplaying is not "acting". It can be if you want but it not required. All that required is that you speak or describe as if your there as your character. If you want to adopt a different personality or use a funny voice that fine but don't sweat it if that not your thing.

My daughter feels that her first person role playing is subpar because her characters basically act like she would in that situation. She is very engaged with the setting, speaks in first person, she just doesn't adopt a radically different persona. As a GM I don't care if you do a different voice or personality. If you are engaging with the game as if you were there, that is what I most want.

Third person role playing seems more like moving game pieces to me too. I also find that it leads to playing the mechanics more than playing the campaign. My daughter also feels uncomfortable because she doesn't always know which dice to roll when. My GMing response to this is "Tell me what you want to try to do, and I'll tell you what to roll to see what happens." I have had players coming from a 3.5 and later background respond to old school rules light games by saying "I love this game. You can do anything in it."  The idea that you can't try something unless you have the right mechanical widget on your character sheet is really foreign to me. I don't see why the Fighter can't attempt to pick a lock, or the Magic User try to track the orcs through the forest. They may have a vanishingly small chance of success, but they can still try. Just like I could try to pilot an airliner.

Quote from: DavetheLost;927071My daughter feels that her first person role playing is subpar because her characters basically act like she would in that situation.

This is something I noticed that all my children automatically do. I refer to it as "escapist" play. I know that we as old timers try to emphasis that a player's character should have his or her own personality and goals, but I find this to be a hindrance to a starting player. It's one of the reason I dislike 5e as it puts too much emphasis on these types of ideas. As I see it, a player only has a few months or years where they can truly lose themselves in the game. Forcing them to cut that time short by introducing all sorts of character-based personality mechanics deprives them of that experience.

The difference between:

"You are in a dungeon, what do you do?" and
"Conan is in a dungeon, what would he do?"

Quote from: Lunamancer;926540Often overlooked, the Dangerous Journeys RPGs included a lot of elements of narrative manipulation. It's Joss point system was pretty flexible. Just when this sort of thing was becoming popular, I already had a lot of experience using it and had a pretty clear idea of where it works well and where it doesn't.

Well, if we really want to open a can of worms, let's talk about how D&D Hit Points are supposed to be a meta-mechanic reflecting luck as physical ability to withstand a hit. Hit points are an abstact meta-mechanic you spend to avoid being affected by a wound.

Now we can do the standard argument about how healing magic works if hit point loss doesn't reflect wounds. :)

But moving on to real discussion...

Quote from: jhkim;926892It depends on the game, but I often feel this way. I feel like it is less intrusive if there are fewer points to spend - even if those points are more powerful and/or immersion-breaking. That is, if I as a player have six points which each provide a +2 bonus, then I'll be thinking with each roll "Should I spend a fate point with this?".

If I only have one point which is for emergency only, then I think about it less. Usually I'll just forget about it unless there is a major emergency when I consider all options.

I'm less concerned about the thinking process as it is being spent, since that is rare compared to thinking about whether to spend it.

Less is definitely more with meta-mechanics. You don't want them to overshadow the core mechanic.

Quote from: DavetheLost;926921Certainly I like the per adventure rather than per play session model. Per play session tends to result in a lot of chips being spent in the tail end of the session because they will all refresh next time so why not? To me this breaks roleplaying and any sense of immersion.

Interesting. I don't usually find this to be the case. I find players more prone to sitting on chips at the end than making sure they always end a session having spent them all. Not doubting you, just giving my experience.

I don't have strong feelings on the issue, but I would consider "per adventure" more meta than "per session". Session lengths tend to be more standardized in a particular group. Whether two hours or six hours, groups tend to run to the same session length every time they meet. An adventure is a more abstract narrative measurement making it more meta to my way of thinking. You refresh Whammy Points after every three hours of play is a concrete measure. You get two Whammy Points every time an adventure comes to a close is more abstract.

Quote from: estar;927056I dislike third person roleplaying intensely and find it to be a major source of issues within the game as most (but not all) people look at the characters as game pieces when they do this.

On a tangent, this is my biggest issue with minis. I'm not completely against using them, but I notice they make players a lot more likely to think of their character as that little dude they push around the table rather than themselves. The more limiting mechanics minis typically bring into play usually make this even worse.

QuoteA lot of players are uncomfortable with first person roleplaying and what I found works is stress that first person roleplaying is not "acting". It can be if you want but it not required. All that required is that you speak or describe as if your there as your character. If you want to adopt a different personality or use a funny voice that fine but don't sweat it if that not your thing.

Quote from: DavetheLost;927071My daughter feels that her first person role playing is subpar because her characters basically act like she would in that situation. She is very engaged with the setting, speaks in first person, she just doesn't adopt a radically different persona. As a GM I don't care if you do a different voice or personality. If you are engaging with the game as if you were there, that is what I most want.

I've acted on and off in my life, and it's interesting to see how what people think of acting differs from what I learned about acting. Keep in mind, acting is one of those things where there isn't one way to go about it, but this is the way I learned.

In preparing for a role in acting, it's a good idea to start with yourself. Think about yourself as having had the background of your character and doing the things he does in the play. Sure, you can layer on a fake accent and physical mannerisms later, but you want to start with something of yourself. That way you are more likely to bring something fresh to the role rather just being another guy playing Hamlet.

Moving this idea over to roleplaying, Dave's daughter is more likely to do something fresh and interesting at the table than some guy that decides he is going to play a dwarf, complete with cliche Scottish accent, a crusty demeanor, and a love of beer and gold.

I'm not trying to crap on the guy playing the dwarf. Playing a broad cliche can be a lot of fun in a game, and fun is ultimately what it is about. My point is that Dave's daughter's approach of starting from "This character is me in this situation" is actually an entirely valid approach to doing real, fancy pants, drama school acting.

It's often pointed out that D&D started by drawing on a rich, diverse range of fantastic works only for later D&D to only be influenced by D&D. Having people play themselves in a game is a lot more interesting than having them just play the same generic archetypes over and over. It's a good way to keep the game fresh. It's a shame she feels there is something wrong with what she is doing.

Quote from: hedgehobbit;927081This is something I noticed that all my children automatically do. I refer to it as "escapist" play. I know that we as old timers try to emphasis that a player's character should have his or her own personality and goals, but I find this to be a hindrance to a starting player. It's one of the reason I dislike 5e as it puts too much emphasis on these types of ideas. As I see it, a player only has a few months or years where they can truly lose themselves in the game. Forcing them to cut that time short by introducing all sorts of character-based personality mechanics deprives them of that experience.

The difference between:

"You are in a dungeon, what do you do?" and
"Conan is in a dungeon, what would he do?"

I spent two hours making my last post as I was doing other things while writing it, but that is exactly what I am trying to get at.

Quote from: hedgehobbit;927081It's one of the reason I dislike 5e as it puts too much emphasis on these types of ideas. As I see it, a player only has a few months or years where they can truly lose themselves in the game. Forcing them to cut that time short by introducing all sorts of character-based personality mechanics deprives them of that experience.

The difference between:

"You are in a dungeon, what do you do?" and
"Conan is in a dungeon, what would he do?"

Interesting perspective that I hadn't considered. Thanks.

Quote from: Harg of the City Afar;926548That's reasonable. Of course, a rules-light game has to abstract these things. For my pulp game I'd pitch it like this:

"As a pulp adventurer you rarely work in pristine "lab" conditions, rather you ply your trade out in the raw and tumultuous field, where you scramble and scrap through one incredible circumstance after another, often influenced by forces you can hardly understand. So your normal skill checks reflect some rough-and-ready, seat-of-your-pants kind of efforts. But -- when you dig deep -- you can tap into an inner reserve of will and resourcefulness and show the world what you're really made of! Naturally, this kind of effort isn't perpetually sustainable; it comes in bursts, so you can't overdo it. But you know your mettle, and when light fades and darkness falls, when the world goes topsy-turvy and your back's against the wall -- you know, with fate's blessing, you can dig deep!"

That's always been my approach to Luck, Fate and other points.
It's also why I don't mind it if they allow re-rolling. It's the same time-zooming, a skilled character can see that what he was doing was going to go badly, so he attempts to reverse that.

Quote from: DavetheLost;926959Usually about 3-4 sessions. With most characters getting 3 Fortune Points for that adventure. A better economy for me than One Dice where the PCs each got 5 points each session that could be used for a lot more things including direct plot intervention. In a rules light game it really made too much of the game about playing your fate points effectively.

This is interesting. My experience tends to be similar in that refreshing points every session seems to make running out of points only an occasional thing for most characters and an almost never, ever happens for others.

One follow up question, is your assumption here that Fortune Points are earned like experience points or character points in WEG D6 Star Wars rather than refreshed in the way that hit points, spell points, or power (POW) in BRP and Runequest refresh. Or to ask it another way, if a PC spends 1 FP do they get it back after the adventure, session, or what have you is completed or do they have to earn new FPs?

Quote from: Baulderstone;927086Well, if we really want to open a can of worms, let's talk about how D&D Hit Points are supposed to be a meta-mechanic reflecting luck as physical ability to withstand a hit. Hit points are an abstact meta-mechanic you spend to avoid being affected by a wound.

Spend isn't the right word. Neither the character nor the player can choose whether or not to take hit point damage or take something instead of hit point damage so you don't "spend" hit points.

Quote from: Baulderstone;927086I don't have strong feelings on the issue, but I would consider "per adventure" more meta than "per session". Session lengths tend to be more standardized in a particular group. Whether two hours or six hours, groups tend to run to the same session length every time they meet. An adventure is a more abstract narrative measurement making it more meta to my way of thinking. You refresh Whammy Points after every three hours of play is a concrete measure. You get two Whammy Points every time an adventure comes to a close is more abstract.

I don't think the point was necessarily how meta the refresh or replenishment interval is but the differences in effect from the length of interval and the rate of refresh or replenishment.

However every three hours of play is definitely a metamechanic with respect to the game world or setting as it has no relationship to time or events in game only to time out of game. Whereas tying things to an "adventure" is meta with respect to an in-character, first person "what I do" perspective. Which may not be meta with respect to the game rules if the game is fairly narrative in design.

Quote from: hedgehobbit;927081This is something I noticed that all my children automatically do. I refer to it as "escapist" play. I know that we as old timers try to emphasis that a player's character should have his or her own personality and goals, but I find this to be a hindrance to a starting player. It's one of the reason I dislike 5e as it puts too much emphasis on these types of ideas. As I see it, a player only has a few months or years where they can truly lose themselves in the game. Forcing them to cut that time short by introducing all sorts of character-based personality mechanics deprives them of that experience.

The difference between:

"You are in a dungeon, what do you do?" and
"Conan is in a dungeon, what would he do?"

I have noticed this with 5e as well.  For some players, all of the front-loaded background stuff, which is fun in chargen, ends up as a constraint.   It is simpler and more spontaneous (again, for some players) to start with a sheet with some stats, and develop personality and motivations, etc as a course of play by reacting to events and "discovering" their own characters as they make decisions - if that makes sense.

Other players, I think, respond well to the pre-designed character role that the backgrounds define.  It gives them a clearer picture of who they are and what to do. In the future, if I were to run 5e again (which I probably won't), I would allow players to choose whether they pre-rolled their character backgrounds or left it blank.

Quote from: Bren;927098One follow up question, is your assumption here that Fortune Points are earned like experience points or character points in WEG D6 Star Wars rather than refreshed in the way that hit points, spell points, or power (POW) in BRP and Runequest refresh. Or to ask it another way, if a PC spends 1 FP do they get it back after the adventure, session, or what have you is completed or do they have to earn new FPs?

Generally the refresh is similar to hit point recovery. It is very rarely possible to regain a point during an adventure through exemplary play and truly heroic deeds, but that is very rare, and not going to happen if I even suspect the heroic deed is motivated by wanting to earn a Fortune Point for it.

They get back the ones they spend for next adventure, but the number they have potentially available never increases. So a tenth level character will have the same three per adventure that he had at first level.

I am running a fairly narrative campaign, so tying the refresh rate to an in game narrative event makes much more sense to me than tying it to an out of game world event.

Quote from: Bren;927098One follow up question, is your assumption here that Fortune Points are earned like experience points or character points in WEG D6 Star Wars rather than refreshed in the way that hit points, spell points, or power (POW) in BRP and Runequest refresh. Or to ask it another way, if a PC spends 1 FP do they get it back after the adventure, session, or what have you is completed or do they have to earn new FPs?

The most fun I've had with Luck Points was in a MRQ2: Vikings historical game where we got our 2 or 3 Luck points at start, and there was no refresh unless by earning points;).

Generally I agree with the OP's two rules. Those make a good deal of sense and get around some of the stuff that bothers me. The only exception of course would be if the points represent some kind of reality/time altering mana/science or something.

Personally I prefer these things to be keyed to an actual thing in the world as well (like your character literally has luck or something) but I've also learned to overlook them in games I like.

One important question is what the out-of-character point-spending is for. In my games,

One is for risk-taking. If players get thoroughly tied up in their characters, then often it doesn't make sense for the characters to go into deadly danger and sometimes die. If they were playing their characters more as real people, the characters might well just try to go somewhere and live a largely stable life. This is good role-playing, but bad for gaming. On the other hand, many players just ignore that their characters should really put survival high on their priority, and treat the PC like a game-piece to explore with. If they die, they just roll up a new character. That's just a different side of the same coin. Having points for survival can help make a moderate path, though sometimes it can just feed more into the latter.  

(For survival, an in-character resource like a magical luck charm would typically be better for getting into character, but sometimes that doesn't fit with the background.)

Another one is for over-planning. When going into deadly danger, it often makes sense for the characters to spend a few hours planning - but realistic planning can make for slow game sessions. So I often do allow limited rewriting of history, so that players can just assume "We'll plan well" and later on say "We should have had some iron spikes."

EDITED TO ADD: Likewise, some players do little to no planning, and need no encouragement to go charging in. It depends on the group.

Something that other games like is point-spending so the players have more of a feeling of being in control and awesome, but this is something I prefer to do through in-character mechanics.

Quote from: jhkim;927276One important question is what the out-of-character point-spending is for. In my games,

One is for risk-taking. If players get thoroughly tied up in their characters, then often it doesn't make sense for the characters to go into deadly danger and sometimes die. If they were playing their characters more as real people, the characters might well just try to go somewhere and live a largely stable life. This is good role-playing, but bad for gaming.

No, it's not. Not unless you assume all people have the same reaction to danger...and this is, by and large, not true.
There are extreme sports. There are people who practice them, and people who would never even think of trying. The former are PCs, the latter are...well, everyone else, I don't know a suitable word in English:).
But assuming that the "everyone else" group is the only "real people" group is, putting it simply, provably wrong;).

QuoteAnother one is for over-planning. When going into deadly danger, it often makes sense for the characters to spend a few hours planning - but realistic planning can make for slow game sessions. So I often do allow limited rewriting of history, so that players can just assume "We'll plan well" and later on say "We should have had some iron spikes."

I've tried it. It seems an elegant solution, but my players hated it just as much as I did, if not more.

Quote from: DavetheLost;927104Generally the refresh is similar to hit point recovery.

Thanks. That is helpful.

That is similar to how I am running Honor+Intrigue. One doesn’t* permanently increase your Fortune Points in H+I, but according to the rules you can get additional FPs for trying to do swashbuckling stuff, for the GM invoking certain Flaws, etc. Mostly I forget or ignore awarding more FPs during play and since I've mostly refreshed FPs per session, players don't usually run out of FPs. I'm still struggling with a different way of handling the FPs.

Per adventure sounds nice, but some of my ‘adventures’ are up to 15 or more sessions in length, and may include interludes or tangents that aren’t directly related to the original adventure concept. A (very) few adventures are only 1 session long. So where I draw the line for the end of one adventure and the beginning of another is a bit arbitary and usually something I end up doing after the fact or if the number of sessions in the current ‘adventure’ is in the double digits. In this case I may divide what was originally one concept or situation into multiple adventures with multiple scenes.

QuoteI am running a fairly narrative campaign, so tying the refresh rate to an in game narrative event makes much more sense to me than tying it to an out of game world event.

Yes, I can certainly see that.


* Generally but not strictly true. One can increase the number of Fortune Points available by increasing the Quality that determines available FPs or if the GM allows the player to add certain boons or remove certain flaws.

Quote from: jhkim;927276Another one is for over-planning. When going into deadly danger, it often makes sense for the characters to spend a few hours planning - but realistic planning can make for slow game sessions. So I often do allow limited rewriting of history, so that players can just assume "We'll plan well" and later on say "We should have had some iron spikes."

I have certainly seen this a lot. Which can be exacerbated by the situation where no one in the group really wants to be in charge so they all sort of wait for someone to step up and start the planning or choose a course of action.

QuoteLikewise, some players do little to no planning, and need no encouragement to go charging in.

I’ve seen this too. In my experience a happy medium is fairly rare.

Quote from: AsenRG;927249The most fun I've had with Luck Points was in a MRQ2: Vikings historical game where we got our 2 or 3 Luck points at start, and there was no refresh unless by earning points;).

Yep, Vikings make their own Luck through deeds, glory and reputation.

If my Conan game ever winds down, I think I'm going to combine MRQ2:Vikings with Mythic Iceland in Mythras, and set it earlier in the Dark Ages to pull in some Yggdrasil/Keltia (I love those games even though the system gives me fits at times).

Quote from: jhkim;927276One important question is what the out-of-character point-spending is for. In my games,

One is for risk-taking. If players get thoroughly tied up in their characters, then often it doesn't make sense for the characters to go into deadly danger and sometimes die. If they were playing their characters more as real people, the characters might well just try to go somewhere and live a largely stable life. This is good role-playing, but bad for gaming. On the other hand, many players just ignore that their characters should really put survival high on their priority, and treat the PC like a game-piece to explore with. If they die, they just roll up a new character. That's just a different side of the same coin. Having points for survival can help make a moderate path, though sometimes it can just feed more into the latter.  

In the real world there are plenty of people who risk their necks in "adventurous" situations. Some for fun, others because it is their job. They could choose to stay home and lead a largely safe and stable life, but they don't. So it is not just limited to PCs in RPGs.

I have gamed with the flip side. Players who role up characters who never make it past Refusing the Call on Campbell's Hero's Journey. The worst will create "realistic" characters with no adventuring skills, then refuse to involve the character in adventures because the character has no adventuring skills and would stay home in safety. Occasionally I have become so frustrated by this behavior that I have taken the offending players gently by the throat and politely screamed at them: Why the fuck are you playing an RPG?

Quote from: CRKrueger;927333Yep, Vikings make their own Luck through deeds, glory and reputation.

If my Conan game ever winds down, I think I'm going to combine MRQ2:Vikings with Mythic Iceland in Mythras, and set it earlier in the Dark Ages to pull in some Yggdrasil/Keltia (I love those games even though the system gives me fits at times).

I assume you mean Yggdrasil/Keltia's system(s) and not Mythras? You had me confused for a moment:).

And I totally agree about the Vikings.
I can humbly add that I'd gained the most Luck points in the party for deeds on the battlefield, despite having the relatively lowest weapon skills and only two actions per round;). Then again, I had more strength and size, and the best armour. It was my wedding present, too:D!

Quote from: DavetheLost;927343I have gamed with the flip side. Players who role up characters who never make it past Refusing the Call on Campbell's Hero's Journey. The worst will create "realistic" characters with no adventuring skills, then refuse to involve the character in adventures because the character has no adventuring skills and would stay home in safety. Occasionally I have become so frustrated by this behavior that I have taken the offending players gently by the throat and politely screamed at them: Why the fuck are you playing an RPG?

:)

It's possible someone has lost track of that important question, while following the path of "realism" in character generation. (Some games have you roll or select backgrounds in a way that suggests you could literally be any person in the setting, from a green grocer to sign painter.) But (!) others may conceive of characters who have the right stuff; they just aren't looking for trouble. They're either trying to preserve the status quo (a sheriff) or they've got a duty (a knight or secret agent). I don't know Campbell that well but I would suppose in fiction it's a lot easier to "answer the call" when the author tailors it to you. In RPG terms I think this means the players of those characters either have to conspire with the GM to frame their adventure, or they have to expect the GM/setting to toss things in their direction. Being sheriff of Peoria is one thing; being sheriff of Dodge or Tombstone is another.

Quote from: Arminius;927435:)

It's possible someone has lost track of that important question, while following the path of "realism" in character generation. (Some games have you roll or select backgrounds in a way that suggests you could literally be any person in the setting, from a green grocer to sign painter.) But (!) others may conceive of characters who have the right stuff; they just aren't looking for trouble. They're either trying to preserve the status quo (a sheriff) or they've got a duty (a knight or secret agent). I don't know Campbell that well but I would suppose in fiction it's a lot easier to "answer the call" when the author tailors it to you. In RPG terms I think this means the players of those characters either have to conspire with the GM to frame their adventure, or they have to expect the GM/setting to toss things in their direction. Being sheriff of Peoria is one thing; being sheriff of Dodge or Tombstone is another.

Meh... my answer from the boring GM thread actually handles this. It's typical in the hero's journey that the hero refuses the call initially before ultimately taking it up. And it's unfortunate that's not the default position in RPGs. When Luke Skywalker refuses the call, he rambles on and on about all the things he has to do and how is he going to explain this to his uncle, and he's in for it as it is. Great. Now the GM knows what's important to Luke and what's holding him back from getting involved in the adventure. And boom, just like that, his family is killed by the same empire the GM was trying to coax him into fighting in the first place.

This didn't require GMs and players to conspire. It didn't require a pre-game discussion about expectations. It didn't require the GM to lay out "Hey, this is what the campaign's about, build your characters accordingly." It simply requires the GM knows his craft. Some old-school modules actually have a section for "If players balk at the hook." A good GM, for one, has a back-up plan. Maybe it's because I've always done it, it's hard for me to imagine a half-way decent GM who hasn't given some thought to what if the players don't jump at the hook. Now a truly great GM takes that a step further and sets up the Call to Adventure in such a way that the player is put on the spot to either accept or give a compelling reason to refuse. Once the reason is verbalized, just like Luke did, this tells the GM exactly how to get the PC involved in the adventure.

One thing about Joseph Campbell's work that's so far been overlooked here is that he does consider, both in life and in myths, the possibility the call goes unanswered. "Refusal of the summons converts the adventure into its negative. Walled in boredom, hard work, or 'culture,' the subject loses the power of significant affirmative action and becomes a victim to be saved. His flowering world becomes a wasteland of dry stones and his life feels meaningless--even though, like King Minos, he may through titanic effort succeed in building an empire of renown. Whatever house he builds, it will be a house of death: a labyrinth of cyclopean walls to hide from him his Minotaur. All he can do is create new problems for himself and await the gradual approach of his disintegration."

It's pretty easy to apply this to the RPG. You don't want to investigate the murder of so-and-so? Okay, murderer is still on the loose, kills some other NPC the next night. And the next. Sooner or later, he might kill someone you do care about. Maybe the guy who fixes your armor or whatever. Maybe the townsfolk will become restless and on edge, not trusting anyone, which puts a damper on your stable life. Maybe you witness one of the murders and the townsfolk demand to know why you didn't do anything to stop it. Eventually, one of the PCs will be attacked. If you're not answering the call because you prefer "realistic" roleplay, then I guess it wouldn't be "realistic" for anyone else to answer it either, so the problem just keeps growing and growing.

We can imagine if Luke hadn't ultimately answered the call. If they traced the droid to his home, you know the empire was looking for him next. He'd have no choice but come face to face with them. It's just a matter of on what terms. We might also imagine that if he had brought R2 to Obi-Wan as soon as seeing Leia's message and then not hesitated to go to Alderaan, maybe the Empire would have been tipped off sooner as to where the droids are and not have killed Luke's family to begin with.

Finally, regarding commentary on risk-taking and realism, I take the view of PCs being "adventurers as entrepreneurs." Entrepreneurs operate in unknowns and ambiguity finding opportunities to gain against risk. They are not necessarily (not the really successful ones, anyway) risk-junkies. Entrepreneurs typically go with the "barbell" strategy. One foot in a stable, albeit relatively meager, life; the other foot in something risky but with huge up-side potential. Surely there is nothing unrealistic about wanting the best of both worlds. (Incidentally, one of the very last stages of the hero's journey Campbell calls "Master of the Two Worlds.")

Not sure if you're disagreeing or elaborating on what I wrote. You're focusing on the second possibility I raised, but the examples you give are so extreme that players may balk at such "in your face" active GMing unless they're anticipating it and have bought into it.

A fantastic (pun intended) example of the hero refusing but ultimately accepting the call to adventure is Bilbo Baggins. When he first encounters Gandalf the Wizard he tells him "No adventures here, thank you. Nasty uncomfortable things, make one late for supper." Then Thorin and Company show up on his doorstep and again he tells them they have the wrong Hobbit for the job. But as we all know, ultimately he goes dashing without so much as a pocket handkerchief to join them.

Luke requires a little more pushing, and the sharp cutting of the ties that bind him to home, but ultimately he too accepts the call to adventure.

Initially refusing the call to adventure can be a fine thing in an RPG. Perhaps the plot hook the GM is dangling isn't intersting to the player, perhaps the character has no motivation to upset the status quo of his life. The GM and player need to work to present more tempting plot hooks or find convincing motivation.

Where it becomes a problem is when a player and character consistently refuse every permutation of the call to adventure. It is fine in real life to lead a mundane existance free of adventure, Indeed for many this is the preferable state of affairs. However in an RPG the general tacit or explicit assumption is that people want their characters to be involved in adventures, or at least not to role play going to a mundane job, doing housework, puttering in the garden on the weekend.

I have seen players who refuse every call to adventure then become frustrated that nothing is happening with their character in the game and that the other players have moved on without them. At this point it becomes neccessary to step outside of imersion for a moment to tell them that if they don't actively play the game they will end up watching from the sidelines as a natural consequence of this choice. I have no problem with someone who really just wants to go along for the ride, as long as they make it clear that is what they want. It is much better than the person who chooses not to engage, then gets frustrated at not being engaged and starts actively sabotaging the game.

Quote from: Arminius;927446Not sure if you're disagreeing or elaborating on what I wrote. You're focusing on the second possibility I raised, but the examples you give are so extreme that players may balk at such "in your face" active GMing unless they're anticipating it and have bought into it.

This is where I have to insist you be very specific what you're talking about.

Are we talking about players who balk citing "My character wouldn't do this!"? Or are we talking about players who just refuse to play no matter how suited the adventure is for their characters? Because I don't think I've ever seen the latter case, and in any event there are a number of safeguards against it. For one, if your character can't get along with the party, your character is out of the party and effectively out of the game. I'm not running an entire session for a split party. Even failing that, if you're not going to play, you're not a player, and you're kicked out of the game. Pretty simple.

So let's talk about the guy whose character doesn't fit the hook. Fine. Balking is exactly what I have planned for. As I describe my technique, I've set up the "call" so now your in a spot to explain yourself. Here's where I find out what is important to your character. Now I present my backup hook framed in terms of what is important to your character. It's possible for the player to balk yet again if I missed something or failed to properly clarify the character's motive. I may have to think on my feet, but I get another chance repeating the process and presenting now a third hook with a clarified view of what fits the character.

If the player continues balking, no matter the hook, sooner or later I'm going to catch the player in a contradiction, at which point the "I'm just playing my character" is revealed as bullshit and I handle it the same as I handle a player who balks with no good reason. You're out of the game.

Either way, the player will eventually take the hook are be discovered as a trouble player, and the game moves on.

Quote from: DavetheLost;927447Initially refusing the call to adventure can be a fine thing in an RPG. Perhaps the plot hook the GM is dangling isn't intersting to the player, perhaps the character has no motivation to upset the status quo of his life. The GM and player need to work to present more tempting plot hooks or find convincing motivation.

I'm a big believer in providing multiple plot hooks for multiple types of adventures (a mystery hook, a combat hook, an exploration hook, etc). However, if most of the players decide to follow one particular plot hook, then all the players must participate. Either that or the disinterested player needs to sit out the session. You can't allow one player to control the party through the threat of a veto.

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

I've seen players choose Hook A, B, C or D, but that's not refusing the call, that's deciding what call they want to follow.
I've seen a group prefer more city-based adventure, as opposed to Indiana Jonesing it, but that's not "Refusing the Call" that's refusing a certain adventure...which is why you have more than one available.

Pulling a Luke on someone seems like you're breaking out The Bucket and giving them a swing until they correct their behavior.  To use that, the player would have to be recalcitrant to a level I've never seen.

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.

 ...uke on someone seems like you're breaking out The Bucket and giving them a swing until they correct their behavior.  To use that, the player would have to be recalcitrant to a level I've never seen.

I 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.

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.

I have seen it with two specific players. Both of whom got a reputation for doing it among the local GMs. Eventually we just stopped inviting them to games.

Pulling a Luke on them would have required more engagement with the character and game setting than they were putting forth. So we gave the players The Bucket and never mind the characters. Like I said, why are you playing an RPG if you aren't going to actually play?

Refusing the call and then accepting it is fine. Refusing call A but accepting call B is fine. Refusing all calls then bitching that nothing is happenning gets you The Bucket!

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.

I've seen players choose Hook A, B, C or D, but that's not refusing the call, that's deciding what call they want to follow.
I've seen a group prefer more city-based adventure, as opposed to Indiana Jonesing it, but that's not "Refusing the Call" that's refusing a certain adventure...which is why you have more than one available.

Pulling a Luke on someone seems like you're breaking out The Bucket and giving them a swing until they correct their behavior.  To use that, the player would have to be recalcitrant to a level I've never seen.

In all my years of GMing, I have had one PC who refused to adventure.  The player was in acting school (very much a wanna be) and he made a character who was "not the adventurous type."  He stuck to his guns and played in character, ignoring all hooks, to the annoyance of the group - who ended up leaving him behind.  That didn't solve it though as the player demanded spotlight time and a chance to show his acting skills.  After a couple of sessions I was going to ask him to leave the group, but instead decided to invent a railroad tailored to his character.  It worked.  However, the player remained a problem being hyper-focused on his character's personality to the detriment of the adventure and hogging spotlight from other players.  The guy just had poor social skills and couldn't see that the object was to have fun playing a game.  We never invited him back.

In short, my experience is that adventuring recalcitrance is not a real problem within RPGs, nor is it an inherent flaw in the IC simulationist approach to gaming.  It happens very rarely. If it does come up, it is most likely to simply be an issue with someone not fitting into the social dynamics of the group.

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.

I've seen players choose Hook A, B, C or D, but that's not refusing the call, that's deciding what call they want to follow.
I've seen a group prefer more city-based adventure, as opposed to Indiana Jonesing it, but that's not "Refusing the Call" that's refusing a certain adventure...which is why you have more than one available.

Pulling a Luke on someone seems like you're breaking out The Bucket and giving them a swing until they correct their behavior.  To use that, the player would have to be recalcitrant to a level I've never seen.

Alas, I've seen that more than once. But those players all fall in two categories.
First category had nothing in mind for what they want to do, but just decided to run from all adventure. I just left them behind and made it clear I don't give a flying fuck about their spotlight time, the game is going to follow those people that are actually doing something. Of course, I checked periodically to see whether they had some ideas.
To date, only one had both refused all suggestions for adventures and had no ideas of his own, no goals for his character, and so forth. He's, how to put it, continually disinvited:).

The second category also refused my suggestions, but actually had an idea for what their characters wanted to do. Moreover, all of them have had very plausible ideas and clear goals. It just so happened that my "standard suggestions" weren't among the things that interested them IC.
As one of them put it, "while I'd like to chase the Missing Golden Bra of the Goddess of Perkiness*, my character has other priorities".
Truth to tell, players who have clear goals for their characters are actually my favourite kind;). I keep playing with some of those people.


*Yes, Gronan, I'm borrowing your example, because I don't remember what the refused adventure in question was.

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.

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

Quote from: CRKrueger;927333If my Conan game ever winds down...

I am totally off track here, but is this your RQ6/Mythras game, or are you running another system?  I am always interested in people's Hyborian Age games.

Quote...Yggdrasil/Keltia (I love those games even though the system gives me fits at times).

Still off track, but there seems to be very little info on these games out there and I can't hardly imagine more interesting settings.  Somebody should start a thread and teach me about these games.

Sorry for the digression.

Quote from: Madprofessor;927541I am totally off track here, but is this your RQ6/Mythras game, or are you running another system?  I am always interested in people's Hyborian Age games.



Still off track, but there seems to be very little info on these games out there and I can't hardly imagine more interesting settings.  Somebody should start a thread and teach me about these games.

Sorry for the digression.

I answered the Conan question here. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?35476-Mythras-Conan&p=927548&viewfull=1#post927548)

Quote from: CRKrueger;927550I answered the Conan question here. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?35476-Mythras-Conan&p=927548&viewfull=1#post927548)

Right, my memory is not a keen as it once was.

Quote from: Madprofessor;927555Right, my memory is not a keen as it once was.

No, I mean I JUST answered it by making a new thread. :D

Having a player refuse dangerous adventuring to stay at the farm pursuing personal goals in a narrative/drama-focused game like Sagas of the Icelanders is totally valid.

Having a player refuse adventuring in a adventuring-focused game like D&D or The One Ring ? Yeah, that sounds disruptive and potentially harmful to the group. Luckly, I never had a player like this.

Quote from: Itachi;927561Having a player refuse dangerous adventuring to stay at the farm pursuing personal goals in a narrative/drama-focused game like Sagas of the Icelanders is totally valid.

Having a player refuse adventuring in a adventuring-focused game like D&D or The One Ring ? Yeah, that sounds disruptive and potentially harmful to the group. Luckly, I never had a player like this.

Staying at home and pursuing personal goals like "seduce and marry the sathrap's daughter"  is totally a valid adventuring goal if you ask me:p!
Especially since other people have been impaled or merely beheaded for trying the same thing, depending on whether the sathrap suspected they might have managed to actually see her face before being captured...:D
And doubly so when succeeding on this leads to or prevents a war;).

Having 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.

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 :D).

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 :D.

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.

In my experience in rules sets with the expectation that players will police themselves, some number won't. Designing rules for self-policing players just encourages the munchkins.

Quote from: CRKrueger;927786Not 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 :D).

Not really my thing.

I call shenanigans on that, with TRoS damage tables, these wouldn't be the same ruffians:D!

Quote from: Arminius;927820The 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.

The question is, where did you get that impression from? Because having run and played TRoS, I don't remember the rules implying any such thing, and the manoeuvres are things you can do every round;)!

It's been a long time since I looked at the rules. I remember an example of combat, though, that said something roughly like "since he just made a slash from right to left, he now can only guard in the lower left quadrant". This made sense but wasn't enforced by the rules afaict. It was frustrating as well because a system like that would be very interesting (and has been implemented in Swashbuckler (by Jim Dietz) and--I think--Spellbound Kingdoms.) Without that constraint, the choice of maneuver isn't as interesting. I think you choose maneuvers in secret, right? Then you basically have an NxN strategy matrix ("normal form" in Game Theory) and when I looked at the options in one example, most or all of them were dominated. So in that example at least it was always obvious which maneuver each combatant would choose.

Quote from: Arminius;927885It's been a long time since I looked at the rules. I remember an example of combat, though, that said something roughly like "since he just made a slash from right to left, he now can only guard in the lower left quadrant".

Sorry, don't remember that example:). I guess it would be down to the GM to award a dice penalty to the defence.

QuoteThis made sense but wasn't enforced by the rules afaict.

It makes sense, but I don't see how to make a game based around it. I mean, what you can or can't defend from the lower left quadrant depends on your weapon, details of your stance, the way you move (and I don't mean speed, equal speed with different ways of moving can lead to different results), the line your weapon is in, distance and a host of other factors...

QuoteIt was frustrating as well because a system like that would be very interesting (and has been implemented in Swashbuckler (by Jim Dietz) and--I think--Spellbound Kingdoms.)

I own, but don't remember Swaschbuckling. But Spellbound Kingdoms doesn't have such things, it just has manoeuvres schemes. You can go from the one you have executed to one of the nearest ones.

QuoteWithout that constraint, the choice of maneuver isn't as interesting. I think you choose maneuvers in secret, right? Then you basically have an NxN strategy matrix ("normal form" in Game Theory) and when I looked at the options in one example, most or all of them were dominated. So in that example at least it was always obvious which maneuver each combatant would choose.

Yes, there are right and wrong manoeuvres to choose. But the "wrong" ones are "right" in other situations, so it's not "obvious" in the sense of "repeat the same every round";).

Spellbound Kingdoms may not have the detail, but the graphs of move options should have the effect of complicating your choice based not only on what looks good to do now, but how it sets you up for the future. Same deal with Swashbuckler (note, 2e offers more weapons). Add this to the simultaneous selection of maneuvers, at least in Swashbuckler, and you have quite an interesting dueling system in principle. In TRoS my impression was that selecting a maneuver is rather trivial, even if it may differ from round to round, and I didn't get the impression that it rewarded planning your next move or that it fostered a contest of strategy and counter-strategy.

Quote from: Arminius;928067Spellbound Kingdoms may not have the detail, but the graphs of move options should have the effect of complicating your choice based not only on what looks good to do now, but how it sets you up for the future. Same deal with Swashbuckler (note, 2e offers more weapons). Add this to the simultaneous selection of maneuvers, at least in Swashbuckler, and you have quite an interesting dueling system in principle. In TRoS my impression was that selecting a maneuver is rather trivial, even if it may differ from round to round, and I didn't get the impression that it rewarded planning your next move or that it fostered a contest of strategy and counter-strategy.

I should dig out my copy of Swaschbuckler, not that I think of it:).
For Spellbound Kingdoms, my impression was that this varied by style, with some styles allowing a simple alternating of two options, while others were harder to set up. I really wonder whether I'd ever get to play that one, though, mostly because my group doesn't dig the setting, for various reasons, although we all agree it's obviously lovingly crafted!

But I assure you, you're very wrong about TRoS lacking planning. Especially when you're fighting at a material disadvantage, like a strong enemy with decent armour, not planning how to set up your next move would be nothing short of suicidal;). At the same time, the right planning can win even otherwise hopeless battles.

Perhaps you could give your best detailed example in another thread. I can see how a game might reward some planning without necessarily encouraging the sort of chess-like duel of stratagems that I felt was promised in TRoS--or at any rate the sort I'd hope to see in a dueling combat system.

Quote from: hedgehobbit;927081This is something I noticed that all my children automatically do. I refer to it as "escapist" play. I know that we as old timers try to emphasis that a player's character should have his or her own personality and goals, but I find this to be a hindrance to a starting player. It's one of the reason I dislike 5e as it puts too much emphasis on these types of ideas. As I see it, a player only has a few months or years where they can truly lose themselves in the game. Forcing them to cut that time short by introducing all sorts of character-based personality mechanics deprives them of that experience.

The difference between:

"You are in a dungeon, what do you do?" and
"Conan is in a dungeon, what would he do?"

I have a relatively limited experience running games where kids are involved, only a few times with teenagers and only once with an actual pre-adolescent, but from that experience I found that randomly-generated backgrounds brings out the roleplaying pretty well.

Reading Spellbound Kingdoms reminded me of this thread:).
Mood and Inspirations are an in-setting thing.
They have major, pronounced effects that are known to people in the setting. In fact, trying to avoid or control such effects is what has contributed quite a bit to shaping the setting as it is.
And since the required measures are drastic to say the least, the revolt against them is the other major driving force in the setting;).

Quote from: Arminius;928161Perhaps you could give your best detailed example in another thread. I can see how a game might reward some planning without necessarily encouraging the sort of chess-like duel of stratagems that I felt was promised in TRoS--or at any rate the sort I'd hope to see in a dueling combat system.

We'll see if and when such a thread appears. Problem is, I've written at length about it on TBP, but I can't find it.