Recently in a game session our party achieved a great victory, destroying an enemy base by dropping a bomb on it. The group cheered and congratulated the player whose character had dropped the bomb, but he said afterwards, "I don't know why you congratulated me, all I did was spend a Hero Point to buy a success."
Now, this brings up an interesting point, and one I've seen come up in lots of games which have both dice and Hero Points (or Drama Dice, or whatever). Often players don't feel they've "earned" the victory unless they rolled it; if they spend Hero Points, it feels flat to them.
Why is leaving things up to the dice "earning" a victory, and making a sensible plan and spending Hero Points on it - Hero Points which you earned by good play in previous sessions - not earning it? Why is it more worthy to leave things up to the dice?
I certainly understand using dice in general, it's good to have uncertain outcomes. But to use Hero Points from time to time... why is that a fizzle?
Quote from: Kyle AaronI certainly understand using dice in general, it's good to have uncertain outcomes. But to use Hero Points from time to time... why is that a fizzle?
Maybe because it's not random like dice. There's no chance of failure. That's what my players say anyway...
Regards,
David R
I think David R nailed it. Using a hero point is using a resource. Accepting the consequences of a random roll is something different.
I've played in a few games like that and I hated using the points. To me, it felt like cheating and was acknowledging my failure. If I can't do it by the book without a hero point, then I wasn't up to the challenge.
Using hero points definitely took the fun out of victory for me.
I find that players -- particularly long time players -- mentally equate the rolling of a dice to action by their character.
That's why, I think, some players aren't satisfied by dodge or parry rules that don't involve the player rolling a dice in defense.
Maybe it is (sorta kinda) cheating ... or, at least, not playing the game that people unconsciously think they should be playing.
In a very real sense, the outcome of the climax in your scenario is decided not at the climax, but at the point where the player earns the hero point. After that you're in a world where non-random fiat by that player has power. There are plenty of things that can complicate that (loads of german board-games use mostly-non-random resource spending to make a game that is unresolved until the last moment) but that's the gist.
If your player feels that things should be unresolved until the final moment, but he swings into the final conflict with eight hero points, any one of which is sufficient to guarantee his victory if he chooses to use it, then using a hero point invalidates his sense that things should be unresolved. They were unresolved until he made that choice.
Does this link in with what David R. is saying about randomness? That, until the dice are rolled, the crisis is unresolved even if there is only one chance in a thousand that the dice will go against the players?
if it's something as easy as "spend a hero point, get a bomb dropped on the BBEG" then i'd feel kind of gypped. a "win" is just a gimme at that point.
OTOH, if (IIRC) it's like in eberron, where the action point or whatever it is gets you a +20 to your throw, it's just an assist. say you were in fierce negotiations to get said bomb dropped, and your DC was way high, like 30 or 35 (just grabbing numbers, here). even with a +20 it's not a sure thing, and . . .
i'm just running at the mouth (keyboard?) at this point. you get my drift
I think the best response is simply to handle such point systems in a fashion where they don't guarantee success, only up the odds.
IMO, this comes from looking at Hero Points from a meta game perspective - i.e. the player spends the points, or the player earns them. I see them as something different, as a character resource - the character spends them. The character cares about this being a success so passionately that he throws everything he has into it. If it's a character resource, then it becomes like his water bottle, or his ammo, or his arrows - a limited resource to be used in the best manner he can. That's fully understandable within the game world. Players don't feel gypped because their character managed to keep one bullet when the enemy is out of ammo!
-clash
I think it basically comes down to surprise. Without a surprise (or chance of a surprise) where's the thrill? That's also relevant to conflict resolution. I don't want to know the stakes really, let alone set them. I wanna be amazed and thrilled and surprised and shake my head wearily when we managed to get through in one piece.
Upping the odds is a good way to go.
But spending points to secure a success kind of robs gaming (IMO) of all the maybe(s)...
Maybe you'll get a crit with the last bullet in your gun.
Maybe the pc who has been playing the coward will do something courageuos but foolhardy buying the others some time.
Maybe you can actually pilot the ship to make one last pass while your gunner fires the decisive shot...
Can you dig it ? :D
Yeah, I like Hero Point type mechanics that involve rolling dice. At my table we use a d30 house rule. Once per session every participant can substitute a d30 roll for any other single die roll, prior to the roll being made with the normal die. So you can turn a d4 dagger or d4+1 magic missile into a d30 or d30+1. Or you can use it for initiative if you really need to go first, or to increase the chance of making a saving through, or to maybe confirm a crit.
But you can still roll a '1' and blow it. That happened a couple session ago with an overpowered magic missile. It did 2 points of damage.
Quote from: flyingmiceIMO, this comes from looking at Hero Points from a meta game perspective - i.e. the player spends the points, or the player earns them. I see them as something different, as a character resource - the character spends them. The character cares about this being a success so passionately that he throws everything he has into it. If it's a character resource, then it becomes like his water bottle, or his ammo, or his arrows - a limited resource to be used in the best manner he can. That's fully understandable within the game world. Players don't feel gypped because their character managed to keep one bullet when the enemy is out of ammo!
-clash
This is an interesting concidence for me since HinterWelt and I had a long discussion about it after playing Roma Imperious on Saturday. I had watched an earlier game of SotC (in which Moriarty was playing) and I saw the use of the Fate chips (IIRC). Two things struck me; one is a tangent, but the other is right on the lines of what Clash is getting at.
That is, it's very difficult, IMHO, to get people to see these meta-game aspects as character driven. In Hinter's Squirrel Attack!, which uses Iridium Lite, there are Kharma points - and it apparently drives a lot of discussion because it feels meta-gamey. In Roma Imperious, which uses Iridium Standard, there's a Luck attribute. This, apparently, doesn't rasie as many eyebrows - it's an attribute. It's something the player can say
about the character - hey, this guy is lucky/unlucky. From what Hinter told me, it gets used as such; fairly rarely and in certain circumstance.
And I think that all is driven by what Clash is saying. Is it a character driven mechanic, or is it a meta-game mechanic - and not in how it's written, necessarily, but in how it's implemented?
Or I could be wrong...
EDIT: I'm not saying anything specific about SotC as I did not, and have not, played it. It was only something that aprked my line of thought. So please forgive me if I'm not getting the use of Fate chips right; it was not meant as any comment on SotC.
Quote from: James J SkachThis is an interesting concidence for me since HinterWelt and I had a long discussion about it after playing Roma Imperious on Saturday. I had watched an earlier game of SotC (in which Moriarty was playing) and I saw the use of the Fate chips (IIRC). Two things struck me; one is a tangent, but the other is right on the lines of what Clash is getting at.
That is, it's very difficult, IMHO, to get people to see these meta-game aspects as character driven. In Hinter's Squirrel Attack!, which uses Iridium Lite, there are Kharma points - and it apparently drives a lot of discussion because it feels meta-gamey. In Roma Imperious, which uses Iridium Standard, there's a Luck attribute. This, apparently, doesn't rasie as many eyebrows - it's an attribute. It's something the player can say about the character - hey, this guy is lucky/unlucky. From what Hinter told me, it gets used as such; fairly rarely and in certain circumstance.
And I think that all is driven by what Clash is saying. Is it a character driven mechanic, or is it a meta-game mechanic - and not in how it's written, necessarily, but in how it's implemented?
Or I could be wrong...
EDIT: I'm not saying anything specific about SotC as I did not, and have not, played it. It was only something that aprked my line of thought. So please forgive me if I'm not getting the use of Fate chips right; it was not meant as any comment on SotC.
This is exactly what I meant, James! Exactly!
Thanks!
-clash
Don't thank me, thank Bill. It was our conversation that drilled it down for me.
OK...I'll take 1/2 credit :D
Quote from: James J SkachDon't thank me, thank Bill. It was our conversation that drilled it down for me.
OK...I'll take 1/2 credit :D
I already have "What Bill Said!" in my sig. On almost all issues we seem to see it the same way. You, I want to thank for explaining it so well. :D
-clash
Quote from: TonyLBMaybe it is (sorta kinda) cheating ... or, at least, not playing the game that people unconsciously think they should be playing.
In a very real sense, the outcome of the climax in your scenario is decided not at the climax, but at the point where the player earns the hero point. After that you're in a world where non-random fiat by that player has power. There are plenty of things that can complicate that (loads of german board-games use mostly-non-random resource spending to make a game that is unresolved until the last moment) but that's the gist.
If your player feels that things should be unresolved until the final moment, but he swings into the final conflict with eight hero points, any one of which is sufficient to guarantee his victory if he chooses to use it, then using a hero point invalidates his sense that things should be unresolved. They were unresolved until he made that choice.
Does this link in with what David R. is saying about randomness? That, until the dice are rolled, the crisis is unresolved even if there is only one chance in a thousand that the dice will go against the players?
I think this is part of it, in a way it's anticlimactic as you short circuit the final drama by a player declaration, albeit perhaps an earned in play player declaration.
As such the point of risk moves in time, from that final roll to some earlier event when you earned your drama points, an earlier event when quite likely the player didn't realise the impact it would later have.
So, instead of the big finale being a dramatic win/lose event it's a foregone event because of an earlier victory. It takes out the drama of the moment.
And the thing is, games ain't books, in a book or a film then of course the hero won't lose, but in a game he may and that is vital. Whether it be an rpg or a computer game, the real possibility of loss is intrinsic to certain forms of gaming drama (not all, and there are computer games you can't lose, but most I would say).
i think i like the mechanic better as in warhammer fate points, where you use it to nullify an unfavorable result. then if you save your points for the final confrontation or whatever, you've got some leeway if the BBEG rolls great.
but to basically "spend a point to win," yeah that would feel really cheap, even if the points were earned.