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.