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.