Quote from: Phillip;653077Do you propose that a person in our real world never has opportunity to decide whether to invest an extra effort?

I don't think anyone is saying that's not possible.

What they are saying is that real world people don't have access to a meta-world stack of points that they decide to use. And that normal in-game resolutions systems should contain the concept of extra effort in their success chance (often express as a chance of success against the odds, or critical successes) as well as a complete failure to apply that extra effort correctly (represented as skill fumbles).

That the one-way direction of Plot and Hero points, and the complete meta-game control of them that is the objection.

That people can't see the differences is... what it is.

Quote from: jhkim;652998While I understand preference to spend points before the roll, in practice I find most players find it very dissatisfying to spend points and fail anyway, or spend points and not need them.  Also, it tends to slow the game down as players consider whether to spend on a given roll.  I find it is both faster and more satisfying to players to give out fewer points, but have them spent after the roll so they always count.

Different people like to get their "game" in role-playing games in different ways!

Quote from: gleichman;653080I don't think anyone is saying that's not possible.

What they are saying is that real world people don't have access to a meta-world stack of points that they decide to use. And that normal in-game resolutions systems should contain the concept of extra effort in their success chance (often express as a chance of success against the odds, or critical successes) as well as a complete failure to apply that extra effort correctly (represented as skill fumbles).

That the one-way direction of Plot and Hero points, and the complete meta-game control of them that is the objection.

That people can't see the differences is... what it is.

But if you had a mechanic called  "Extra effort" and it equal to 1 per level + will power bonus and recovered at a rate of Will power bonus per day; and it had the effect of allowing you get "advantage" in D&D Next terms...... that would be a mechanic almost identical to hero points except it doesn't use a stack of poker chips instead it uses a number drawn on the character sheet.

Certainly in my heartbreaker a hero point (renamed Dog Chips for the Stront mod) gives you a reroll and the second roll counts whatever so you can try and fail very easily.

Quote from: jibbajibba;653088But if you had a mechanic called  "Extra effort" and it equal to 1 per level + will power bonus and recovered at a rate of Will power bonus per day; and it had the effect of allowing you get "advantage" in D&D Next terms...... that would be a mechanic almost identical to hero points except it doesn't use a stack of poker chips instead it uses a number drawn on the character sheet.

Correct and it wouldn't be a meta-game mechanic.

However, I still wouldn't like it on the grounds of realism (yes I know I'm the only person worried about such things) as I don't people can control the results of their 'extra effort' and that it's as likely to backfire as it is to help.

It is however a different objection and is based more upon the settings I like than the mechanic itself. I do however object to the D&D Next advantage mechanic for other reasons

I'm very demanding.

Quote from: Phillip;653077Is "skill or stat" never used for what we're talking about here? Is that a definitional thing nobody thought worth mentioning?

If so, then what defines "skill or stat" as a different thing from this?

Do you propose that a person in our real world never has opportunity to decide whether to invest an extra effort?

Yep - what Gleichman said.
There's lots of variations: a set number, an arbitrary number rolled randomly, a level-based figure, spending XP, taking damage, or equal to an attribute.

I don't know that willpower is best defined as a resource. I mean, there are cases where grandmothers have shifted cars (cracking some vertebrae in the process), but I don't think even Olympic athletes tap into the same reserves reliably. I'd rather give someone a morale bonus on their Strength check if the situation demands.

Grounding hero points in a in-game interpretation does make them less metagame, but is likely to raise all sorts of questions as to whether a task can reasonably be boosted, and by how much; problems with cases where dice rolls represent 'external' factors beyond PC control - particular 'critical failures'  being too easily rerolled , characters tiring very quickly and then fluffing 'important' rolls.

QuoteDo you propose that in our imaginary magical worlds people must never have such opportunity?

I've never been a fan of the 'just because there are fireballs there's no such thing as physics' school of thought, either.

Quote from: gleichman;653090I do however object to the D&D Next advantage mechanic for other reasons

Do go on...

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;653124Do go on...

There's currently a thread on the subject where I posted.

The short version is that I'm no fan of dice mechanics where the odds are not clear, and that having a built-in re-roll is often vast overkill that removes the option of small but meaningful modifiers. Lastly that it's applied to something as highly random as a D20 roll makes it all worse.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;653124I've never been a fan of the 'just because there are fireballs there's no such thing as physics' school of thought, either.

I do not see that the "school" follows from having a resource other than fireballs to manage. For that matter, just what it is supposed to mean is obscure!

Vast implausibilities are acceptable, but smaller ones are not?

Realistically, people do not conjure fireballs; realistically, people do survive getting shot at. If magic can accomplish the former, why not the latter?

Quote from: Phillip;653192I do not see that the "school" follows from having a resource other than fireballs to manage. For that matter, just what it is supposed to mean is obscure!

Vast implausibilities are acceptable, but smaller ones are not?

Realistically, people do not conjure fireballs; realistically, people do survive getting shot at. If magic can accomplish the former, why not the latter?

Magic most likely can allow someone to survive being shot.That's not  a problem.

The magic vs physics thing is more about 'There are fireballs so normal humans can leap 100' without magic'


And the 'normal person lifting a car' is a largely a myth.

You might get a small adrenaline boost but nothing superhuman like actually lifting a car.

It is based on people not accurately assessing the facts and physics involved and then the story grows when it is told.

Quote from: Bill;653207Magic most likely can allow someone to survive being shot.That's not  a problem.

The magic vs physics thing is more about 'There are fireballs so normal humans can leap 100' without magic'

In which game?

Quote from: Phillip;653212In which game?

It was not a specific example; it was a manner of expressing a concept.

Most game systems have running speeds and leaping distances that are not realistic.

Fireballs existing does not provide an explanation for that.



I am not trying to argue, it just drives me crazy when I hear the 'Magic exists so anything else is ok' thing

Quote from: Bill;653218I am not trying to argue, it just drives me crazy when I hear the 'Magic exists so anything else is ok' thing

Trouble is, I'm not hearing that except from people who very vaguely suggest that someone else somewhere has once upon a time said it.

That is not contributing anything worthwhile to the discussion, I think.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;651183I'm against giving narrative control to players since -apart from the immersion issue - they have a vested interest in a particular PC. Give a monkey a wish and the world would be filled with bananas. Its more interesting to have events go in unexpected directions.
I wouldn't go as far as to say that systems using luck points are broken in general, although, I can think of specific games that over-use the mechanic excessively - Savage Worlds since I don't think the game would work without them (bennies are needed for soaking). Perhaps DC Heroes.

Edit: You could maybe put down WEG Star Wars/D6 System as a bit broken too, since task difficulties can be so high you need to spend character points to pass them with a low stat.

I agree that bennies are pretty damn important in Savage Worlds...but the funny thing is that the most use bennies got in my longest running Savage Worlds game flies exactly counter to one point in your opening line: The team leader would constantly use Common Bond to keep a steady flow of bennies going out to the PCs and NPCs on his team. Literally, he gave away at LEAST as many bennies as he spent on himself.

Games such as D&D do give players wishes, in the more traditional and flexible sense as well as in the functional sense of spells and enchanted gewgaws.

The market has spoken as to whether most RPGers find this more or less interesting than having only mundane capabilities.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;653070OK, partly based on how much they feel like winning today?

In as much as anything representing willpower or effort means that.

QuoteIts not completely ad hoc. I mean, you may run out of points, or you may succeed anyway without spending any. Still, the chance of a character succeeding depends a lot on if they're using their points - that's the point - while every other un-modified roll in the game is based on rules which give, for the most part, odds based on in-game reality, without player input.

Again, that would be a specific game your describing, not a general application. for example, Dying Earth is essentially a dice pool system, but one that's managed as an exhaustible  series of re-rolls available based upon a character's attribute score ( a character with 8 strength can reroll 8 times before exhausting themselves).

Quote from: gleichman;653080I don't think anyone is saying that's not possible.

What they are saying is that real world people don't have access to a meta-world stack of points that they decide to use. And that normal in-game resolutions systems should contain the concept of extra effort in their success chance (often express as a chance of success against the odds, or critical successes) as well as a complete failure to apply that extra effort correctly (represented as skill fumbles).

In the real world people don't have set scores of attributes or know their odds beforehand when attempting a task. However, in the real world people do make the decision to put extra effort into a task, whereas a random roll where the GM determines the results afterwards and then says "okay you put effort into this because you rolled high" isn't even remotely more realistic. You're basically championing a mechanic and conflating it with "realism", when its anything but. In fact random roll mechanics are highly unrealistic.

QuoteThat the one-way direction of Plot and Hero points, and the complete meta-game control of them that is the objection.

That people can't see the differences is... what it is.

I'm guessing you don't know many games that use these or the varied approaches to it. While its admirable to want a system that contains no meta-gaming, you don't seem to be able to comprehend the difference between a metagame mechanic and a mechanic that doesn't fit your incredible narrow Hero-system worship.