TheRPGSite

I remember a few weeks ago that someone mentioned in a thread they thought things that players received like action points in D&D and Drama die in Seventh sea that help the players out was a sign of a weak system design. That the system should be better balanced an not need these things/crutches.

It sort of bothered me since I love Drama/karma/luck dice/point mechanics that help characters do extraordinary acts and be heroic or mitigate horrible luck which I have seen all to often.

what be your opinion?

No, they are not. They just give players a slight edge over run-of-the-mill NPCs, which is perfectly fine (unless you want a dangerous, gritty game with high player death).

No they can be great for certain games. I think the problem is when they are just there because lots of other games use those sorts of things. If it makes sense and helps achieve the kind of feel the game is shooting for they can add a lot.

Im with Brendan on this one. They can be a good resource depending on your game premise. But adding it only because other games have it, dont make sense for me. I dont see it working in games with a more gritty and deadly premise, for example (like Runequest), while its cool for more cinematic or narrative goals.

Fate or luck points can work well if not handed out like candy. The trick with them is to be sparing, so they are only used in extremis.

Quote from: Artifacts of Amber;651153I remember a few weeks ago that someone mentioned in a thread they thought things that players received like action points in D&D and Drama die in Seventh sea that help the players out was a sign of a weak system design. That the system should be better balanced an not need these things/crutches.

That was likely me.

Yes, they generally suck. If used to override the game's resolution system, they are nothing more than an indication that the game's resolution system produces undesired results- the resolution system itself should be fixed.

If used to pass narrative control to the player, they force meta-game concerns directly into the middle of play and should be avoided for that reason alone (to say nothing of the fact that giving player narrative control is a very bad idea).

The closest I've seen to an acceptable use was TORG, where they at least represented a in-game ability of the character. But even here, there would have been better options and they failed to achieve their purpose in our short lived campaign.

Not at all. The dice don't understand that under certain circumstances a character might put more effort, more concentration or feel more motivated than in other circumstances. Without hero points, the odds of successfully kicking down a door in a burning building are the same whether you are trying to save the life of you daughter or her pet turtle.

Of course this a more romantic view of things. One could argue is just as solid regardless of who is behind it. In in the end it really comes down to taste.

Quote from: Soylent Green;651172Without hero points, the odds of successfully kicking down a door in a burning building are the same whether you are trying to save the life of you daughter or her pet turtle.

You don't need hero points for that. Just a good resolution system.

If you buy into the fact that more often than not they are a patch for the system, i see no reason why it should interfere with your enjoyment of the game - presuming of course, that's the kind of thing you like.

An example of this kind of mechanic that is actually quite intuitive but basically serves as an extra roll is d&d next's Advantage/Disadvantage system. If you're extra skilled at something or have a tactical advantage, you roll 2 dice and take the best result. Has the same effect as an action point or whatever, but at least has some intuitive feel to it.

No, the system could be 'strong' or 'weak' regardless.

Sometimes it's an elegant solution to ensuring a spread of outcomes without the GM 'fudging' that is the usual alternative when real assurance is desired. It's fundamentally the same as having a stock of excess "hit points" to spend rather than getting killed in a single blow.

Simply pushing things to probabilistic outliers, or making them absolutely certain always (not a frangible resource), are different results!

What's going on here is that some people privilege their preferred style of game as "good design" rather than as "my preferred style of game." It's as if all motorcycles could be categorized as bad design because they make poor kayaks! It can be damned good design if what you want happens to be a motorcycle.

Quote from: Soylent Green;651172Not at all. The dice don't understand that under certain circumstances a character might put more effort, more concentration or feel more motivated than in other circumstances. Without hero points, the odds of successfully kicking down a door in a burning building are the same whether you are trying to save the life of you daughter or her pet turtle.

I think a better solution for this is using emotional atributes like Passions, Instincts, Virtues, etc. to reflect the bonus the character gets for situations that really matter to them.

Games like Riddle of Steel, Pendragon and Unknown Armies use that for good effect, I think.

Quote from: Phillip;651179What's going on here is that some people privilege their preferred style of game as "good design" rather than as "my preferred style of game."

The language of moral relativism finds it way into everything, and leaving standards for nothing.

I'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.

Quote from: silva;651165I dont see it working in games with a more gritty and deadly premise, for example (like Runequest) . . .

But simply call 'em Power Points and there's no problem?

I've heard of clothes making the man, but my oh my what's in a word for some people!

A lot depends on the genre you are trying to emulate. WEG's d6 Star Wars benefits from the use of the Wild Die to emulate the feel of the Star Wars genre. Character Points and Force Points are self regulating in the context of the game.

However, the use of mook rules in D&D 4E crippled the game play by making a percentage of all the monsters you fight be balloons that pop on the first hit. Emulation fail for D&D, emulation win for console games.

Quote from: silva;651180I think a better solution for this is using emotional atributes like Passions, Instincts, Virtues, etc. to reflect the bonus the character gets for situations that really matter to them.

Games like Riddle of Steel, Pendragon and Unknown Armies use that for good effect, I think.

Yes and no. Sure it's more elegant to have direct mechanical support but it is also a little inflexible. It assumes you know everything that matters to your character at character generation and that changes to your character status are constantly updated mechanically (which in fairness Pendragon does). A pool of Hero Points makes this kind of choice a lot more flexible. Regardless of what is documented on the character sheet, who knows better than the player when something really matters to his character?

Didn't expect so many replies so fast.

I see most everyone's point and agree with most.

I can see it used as a way to shore up or fix a flawed system but what about systems that would work fine with out it but they add something. I think Seventh sea does that fairly well. It is the sort of system I use as well.

Also I like them as a tangible award for the players. I reward them for making my game fun and for not wasting time. Some BSing occurs with all social settings but games I try to focus the group and I sometimes give them as a reward for very focused play.

My players are all adults and not disruptive but everyone is human. some games need me to crack the whip as social director and sometimes give them a slice of pie for good. I don't mind doing this in game we never immerse ourselves so far we forget its a freaking game, played for fun.

I think they should be tied into the system, even a gritty one sometimes you win by the skin of your teeth and the dice just won't give you that win, so if spending some measurable limited resource gives you the good story why not?

I want "Power Points" in space opera or high fantasy or any other cinematic game where my PC is supposed to be the Big Damn Hero and quite usually save the day.

I don't even mind Fate Points in Warhammer where Sigmar watches over those who strive against the darkness threatening his Empire.

But they don't belong in gritty settings where life is cheap, even a hero's life.

Quote from: jeff37923;651185Emulation fail for D&D, emulation win for console games.

One hit one kill never happens in movies or books?

That's all the minion rules in 4e did. It allowed for those badass scenes we've seen in dozens of movies, read in thousands of comics and hundreds, if not thousands of books, where the hero cuts down a potentially tough enemy with one arrow, one sword stroke or one quick spell.

If its good enough for every other medium of heroic fiction, its good enough for D&D.

Here's the joke too. You can have minions in OD&D. Just give 1 HP per HD. You could have a 5 HP Ogre. He'd have the same AC, same attacks as a 30 HP ogre, but die in one good blow. There isn't much difference between a 1HP Ogre minion and a 5HP ogre.

Quote from: Artifacts of Amber;651153I remember a few weeks ago that someone mentioned in a thread they thought things that players received like action points in D&D and Drama die in Seventh sea that help the players out was a sign of a weak system design. That the system should be better balanced an not need these things/crutches.

It sort of bothered me since I love Drama/karma/luck dice/point mechanics that help characters do extraordinary acts and be heroic or mitigate horrible luck which I have seen all to often.

what be your opinion?

Short answer: No. They are totally alright.


Long answer: But not to "mitigate horrible luck". If horrible luck is a problem, the rules should be indeed better balanced.

It's alright to put active resources in your game, if you want players to spend them. You can make a game that relies completely on such resources, having no dice at all. But they are not a fix for other problems.

Quote from: Spinachcat;651189Here's the joke too. You can have minions in OD&D. Just give 1 HP per HD. You could have a 5 HP Ogre. He'd have the same AC, same attacks as a 30 HP ogre, but die in one good blow. There isn't much difference between a 1HP Ogre minion and a 5HP ogre.

Your 5 HP ogres come up naturally as tosses of the dice; IIRC, are no 30 HP ogres (even with d8 HD).

Quote from: 1of3;651194Long answer: But not to "mitigate horrible luck". If horrible luck is a problem, the rules should be indeed better balanced.

Meaning that an advantage must be perpetual rather than expendable? Why? Or is there some unclarity on the meaning of bad luck?

Quote from: gleichman;651171That was likely me.

Yes, they generally suck. If used to override the game's resolution system, they are nothing more than an indication that the game's resolution system produces undesired results- the resolution system itself should be fixed.

If used to pass narrative control to the player, they force meta-game concerns directly into the middle of play and should be avoided for that reason alone (to say nothing of the fact that giving player narrative control is a very bad idea).

The closest I've seen to an acceptable use was TORG, where they at least represented a in-game ability of the character. But even here, there would have been better options and they failed to achieve their purpose in our short lived campaign.

Quote from: Soylent Green;651172Without hero points, the odds of successfully kicking down a door in a burning building are the same whether you are trying to save the life of you daughter or her pet turtle.

Quote from: gleichman;651174You don't need hero points for that. Just a good resolution system.

(to steal from soylent green)So a situation where kicking down a steel door between you and loved one to save them. Should have different stats/target number/resolution than the exact same steel door with only your pet turtle to be saved? Isn't that very meta gamey? Isn't that passing narrative control to the player? Isn't that very arbitrary? Can you give an example of a game that gets it right?

Depends on the game. Some games use them fantastically, but many are, sadly, a patch on the system because the system doesn't work well for the genre the game is intending.

That doesn't mean I don't like them, but I'd prefer ways to internalize the mechanic to the player character, rather than a player resource.

That is ways the /pc/ can choose actions/reroll/whatever based on their motivation, faith, whatever.

See, in Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay they make sense.  Fate points let you survive a little longer.  If you're doing it right they're gone by the time the characters are tough enough to survive on their own.  It works well in the context.

Anyhow, I think they can work poorly and be tacked on without thought.  D&D hitpoints after first level fall into this category.

Savage worlds uses 'em but they're so fundamental to the design that I can't say they stink.  I just wish the game worked well enough without them.  It's borderline.  I want to like Savage Worlds but I just can't.

Still, it depends.  In GURPS you can buy extra lives and unkillable.  They make sense for some villains in a meta sense.  The Joker?   Wasn't he dead?  I guess not!  But then it makes more sense for supernatural stuff like vampires even if it can also account for the effects of bad writing.

Quote from: David Johansen;651205Anyhow, I think they can work poorly and be tacked on without thought.  D&D hitpoints after first level fall into this category.

In point of historical fact, no. Gygax made that change from Arneson's game for considered reasons, reasons that have been quite thoroughly presented.

What does "work poorly" mean in this case?

Quote from: Soylent Green;651186Yes and no. Sure it's more elegant to have direct mechanical support but it is also a little inflexible. It assumes you know everything that matters to your character at character generation and that changes to your character status are constantly updated mechanically (which in fairness Pendragon does). A pool of Hero Points makes this kind of choice a lot more flexible. Regardless of what is documented on the character sheet, who knows better than the player when something really matters to his character?

Well, nothing wrong with either approach, really. One is thematically linked to the game (Passions, Instincts, Virtues) and is more restricted in its uses, while the other is a a pure meta-game resource and is more versatile.

As I lean more on the thematic side of things (call me an "emulationist" if you will) I tend to prefer the former. But YMMV and all that.

Quote from: SilverlionThat doesn't mean I don't like them, but I'd prefer ways to internalize the mechanic to the player character, rather than a player resource.

THIS is how I prefer it too.

Quote from: Phillip;651197Your 5 HP ogres come up naturally as tosses of the dice; IIRC, are no 30 HP ogres (even with d8 HD).

In AD&D, ogres were 4HD+1 so using D8 you just need 29 out of 32 on the 4D8 dice to get a 30 HP ogre.

No count good.

Me play D2 System instead?

5 HP ogre still be BTB, though.

Just do not call me 'minion.'

Quote from: Ronin;651200(to steal from soylent green)So a situation where kicking down a steel door between you and loved one to save them. Should have different stats/target number/resolution than the exact same steel door with only your pet turtle to be saved? Isn't that very meta gamey? Isn't that passing narrative control to the player? Isn't that very arbitrary? Can you give an example of a game that gets it right?

I think it rather depends on the specific implementation of X Points that we're talking about.

IMO, points systems which are used for re-rolls are almost always a system patch. I used to view them as smoothing over the bumps and mitigating problematic rolls, but after running 50ish sessions of Savage Worlds I've come round to Gleichman's view that it would be better to just have a system that gives the results you want without needing them.

Points systems used for "extra effort" (so where you get to add something more to dice rolls which are important to you) can be a functional part of a design, if they're modelling something you want as a setting feature. Of course, if the underlying game is broken in some way, then functionally they end up being the same thing as re-roll tokens.

Quote from: Grymbok;651311I think it rather depends on the specific implementation of X Points that we're talking about.

Yeah it's not really enough to talk about them in a blanket way. I use two kinds of points of this sort, first is luck, which refreshes at the beginning of each game. It's not much, just enough to edge maybe one or two rolls over the top in the entire game. Nice to have but you won't be rocking any worlds with it.

Second are fate points which are a bit heavier, but they don't refresh. Each PC starts out with 3, more can be purchased at an very steep cost, most don't and rarely use them because they can backfire spectacularly. You can make that bowshot at the dragon's one weak point from three hundred meters away at night using them, but there's a one in three chance of a critical failure, which would probably mean the dragon turns, sees you, and decides to spend the rest of its existence trying to end yours.

It's a flavourful mix which gives legroom where needed without causing any imbalance.

Quote from: gleichman;651182The language of moral relativism finds it way into everything, and leaving standards for nothing.

Yeesh, I actually defended this queerbait many moons ago.

I beg forgiveness.

Mods, please reinstate Pseudo.

Quote from: Spinachcat;651189I want "Power Points" in space opera or high fantasy or any other cinematic game where my PC is supposed to be the Big Damn Hero and quite usually save the day.

I don't even mind Fate Points in Warhammer where Sigmar watches over those who strive against the darkness threatening his Empire.

But they don't belong in gritty settings where life is cheap, even a hero's life.

This.

I run a lot of pulp games - S&S, 1930s detectives, Hollow Earth, etc. For that I want points players can spend to give that cinematic action/pulpy feel.

I also run Call of Cthulhu. In CoC and similar games, it's a hard, hard world.

Quote from: gleichman;651174You don't need hero points for that. Just a good resolution system.

they are part of the resolution system; they are not separate.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;651329they are part of the resolution system; they are not separate.

For once, I agree with Ghost Whistler! :)

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;651329they are part of the resolution system; they are not separate.

What system do you have in mind when you say that?

Quote from: Claudius;651339For once, I agree with Ghost Whistler! :)

They all come around, in the end...

Quote from: Grymbok;651340What system do you have in mind when you say that?

Any system that uses them.

Individual systems may succeed integrating them better than others.

However what is also important is how they are earned. Karma is earned through being super and heroic. These points dont' represent a direct causal link between skill and enhanced result, but a more thematic approach. This is not appropriate for every rpg, but it is for some. Buffy for instance mitigates the physically weaker white hats by giving them more narrative power. In this way Xander isn't eaten by the vamps each week. Conversely Buffy herself just kicks ass because she's a Slayer.

The purpose of X points isn't to stop pc's failing. it's to stop them failing when it would suck for them to do so.

Any rpg system is going to have the potential for a really promising effort to fall flat on its face. I don't see how you can mitigate that.

Whether you use that as part of the story is another matter.

Quote from: FASERIP;651320Yeesh, I actually defended this queerbait many moons ago.

I beg forgiveness.

Mods, please reinstate Pseudo.

It's ok everybody makes mistakes. As for the subject at hand? Fate Points or whatever are fine because they give a bit of control to the player and/or encourage some chance taking on top of allowing the GM to set the tone of the game from gritty to over the top.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;651349Any system that uses them.

Individual systems may succeed integrating them better than others.

However what is also important is how they are earned. Karma is earned through being super and heroic. These points dont' represent a direct causal link between skill and enhanced result, but a more thematic approach. This is not appropriate for every rpg, but it is for some. Buffy for instance mitigates the physically weaker white hats by giving them more narrative power. In this way Xander isn't eaten by the vamps each week. Conversely Buffy herself just kicks ass because she's a Slayer.

The purpose of X points isn't to stop pc's failing. it's to stop them failing when it would suck for them to do so.

Any rpg system is going to have the potential for a really promising effort to fall flat on its face. I don't see how you can mitigate that.

Whether you use that as part of the story is another matter.

I just can't see "re-roll points" as being a part of a resolution system. They're just a do-over for when the resolution system produces results you don't like. And while you can't make it so that the system never does that, I think we can certainly try to aim for RPG systems which crap out less than three times per session per PC!

On the other hand, I do think that the "add extra to a roll" style of Drama Points can be considered part of the resolution system, in particular if the choice to use them is made before the dice are rolled.

That's why I asked the question.

Quote from: Marleycat;651354It's ok everybody makes mistakes. As for the subject at hand? Fate Points or whatever are fine because they give a bit of control to the player and/or encourage some chance taking on top of allowing the GM to set the tone of the game from gritty to over the top.

Based on my username, it should be clear I have some sympathy for Karma points.

I don't even play or like MSH anymore, but its reasons for including karma had nothing to do patching a system and everything to do with emulating source material.

A weak system? No.

A system designed to facilitate creating cooperative fiction over roleplaying? Yes.

These are merely tools to construct a somewhat different beast than a roleplaying game. Depending on the stated goals of such a game and what its attempting to emulate, these features can strengthen such a game considerably.

Quote from: Ronin;651200Isn't that very meta gamey? Isn't that passing narrative control to the player? Isn't that very arbitrary?

No.

Quote from: Ronin;651200Can you give an example of a game that gets it right?

The two I always use as examples of getting things right. The one people should know is HERO System.

In reply to the OP.

No, I do not think it is a sign of a weak system.

I am more concerened with how such things are implemeted.

They can be great or terrible.

No, this isn't necessarily a sign of a "weak system". It all depends on the context of the game and system.

Quote from: Marleycat;651354It's ok everybody makes mistakes. As for the subject at hand? Fate Points or whatever are fine because they give a bit of control to the player and/or encourage some chance taking on top of allowing the GM to set the tone of the game from gritty to over the top.

Ok, convince me that when players need more control, it's not the gm screwing up.

Have to admit I am biased.

I have usually reacted negatively as a player when the gm doles out bennies;etc...

As a gm, I don't really use stuff like that.

Quote from: Grymbok;651356I just can't see "re-roll points" as being a part of a resolution system. They're just a do-over for when the resolution system produces results you don't like. And while you can't make it so that the system never does that, I think we can certainly try to aim for RPG systems which crap out less than three times per session per PC!

On the other hand, I do think that the "add extra to a roll" style of Drama Points can be considered part of the resolution system, in particular if the choice to use them is made before the dice are rolled.

That's why I asked the question.

well they don't have to work that way.

I personally wouldn't use re rolls because that really does feel a bit like a 'rewind time'. Adding bonuses and dice - which doesn't necessarily guarantee success - is better and still maintains the possibility of failure.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;651428well they don't have to work that way.

I personally wouldn't use re rolls because that really does feel a bit like a 'rewind time'. Adding bonuses and dice - which doesn't necessarily guarantee success - is better and still maintains the possibility of failure.

For me, the difference isn't so much about the 'do over' or not nature of the mechanic but rather the relationship of the mechanic and how it is understood to work from an in-character POV.

A bennie or action point or whatever, has no meaning whatsoever to the character being played. It is a 4th wall mechanism that pulls you right out of first person roleplay every time you deal with it.

While perhaps not a 'weakness' in a strictly mechanical sense, such tools are antithetical to actually roleplaying a character ( unless that character is in fact a storyteller and not supposedly living the events happening in game.)

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;651428well they don't have to work that way.

I personally wouldn't use re rolls because that really does feel a bit like a 'rewind time'. Adding bonuses and dice - which doesn't necessarily guarantee success - is better and still maintains the possibility of failure.

Yeah, absolutely, they're very much different mechanics.

Marvel's Karma system I think is a nice design. It's been a long time (seriously, over twenty years) since I've played it, but my recollection is that the system works fine without it, so I'm comfortable not calling it a "system patch". You declare before rolling if you want to use Karma, and if you fail to meet the number you need then you spend Karma to up your total.

7th Sea's drama dice are another additive system, but because they're decide-after-rolling, it's drifting more in to "fixing a messy random number pool" territory. Fudge points in Fudge are about the same - you can spend them to improve a result by one level.

TORG's possibilities, IIRC, function about the same a 7th Sea drama dice, but are more tied in to the fiction.

Savage Worlds's bennies, on the other hand, are straight up re-rolls. And so feel the most like an attempt to fix a problem elsewhere in the system.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;651435For me, the difference isn't so much about the 'do over' or not nature of the mechanic but rather the relationship of the mechanic and how it is understood to work from an in-character POV.

A bennie or action point or whatever, has no meaning whatsoever to the character being played. It is a 4th wall mechanism that pulls you right out of first person roleplay every time you deal with it.

While perhaps not a 'weakness' in a strictly mechanical sense, such tools are antithetical to actually roleplaying a character ( unless that character is in fact a storyteller and not supposedly living the events happening in game.)

As I just touched on - in my opinion any system where you decide before rolling to spend the X point is something which is character relatable. That makes it the "this matters to me, I'm giving it my all" moment.

Spending after the roll feels more "gamey".

Quote from: Bill;651378Ok, convince me that when players need more control, it's not the gm screwing up.

Have to admit I am biased.

I have usually reacted negatively as a player when the gm doles out bennies;etc...

As a gm, I don't really use stuff like that.

Well it's not actually real control because when it gets down to it the GM is in utter control and if you don't like it you find another game but good GM's collaborate with their players by doing things like asking questions about how they see their character or what kinds of things they would like to do etc.

In my experience if you have some kind of stunt system or whatever it fosters a good kind of risk taking instead of "I use a ten foot pole" or such. But then again I prefer games like Deadlands, Fantasy Craft or Warhammer where there are some fate points or stunt system built into the system allowing for the points to unlock feat trees or use of metamagic (great way to limit it by the way). Not so much pure mulligans unless mutually agreed upon.

They are only signs of a weak system if you consider Green Mushrooms in Mario a sign of a weak game.

Quote from: Marleycat;651504Well it's not actually real control because when it gets down to it the GM is in utter control and if you don't like it you find another game but good GM's collaborate with their players by doing things like asking questions about how they see their character or what kinds of things they would like to do etc.

In my experience if you have some kind of stunt system or whatever it fosters a good kind of risk taking instead of "I use a ten foot pole" or such. But then again I prefer games like Deadlands, Fantasy Craft or Warhammer where there are some fate points or stunt system built into the system allowing for the points to unlock feat trees or use of metamagic (great way to limit it by the way). Not so much pure mulligans unless mutually agreed upon.

In reflection,

I think its not the actual bennies or stunts that bother me.

I think its the gm doling them out that I hate.

Quote from: Grymbok;651340What system do you have in mind when you say that?

FASERIP would be the prime example, where the game is actually a resource management system with dice rolls simply to give a character a bit of a break in certain circumstances.

Quote from: Grymbok;651446As I just touched on - in my opinion any system where you decide before rolling to spend the X point is something which is character relatable. That makes it the "this matters to me, I'm giving it my all" moment.

Spending after the roll feels more "gamey".

Yes,

I always require bidding before the roll. This represents the character putting effort into something, as opposed to magically fixing things after the fact.

Quote from: Bill;651511In reflection,

I think its not the actual bennies or stunts that bother me.

I think its the gm doling them out that I hate.

Heh, interestingly thats my position. Thats why in my adaptation of FASERIP I transferred the power over to the players, allowing them to "roll for motivation" whenever they feel its appropriate for their character. As a GM I can still give "Karma Awards" as I find appropriate to their actions, but a player need not wait around for the GM to pay attention or psychically intuit whats going on with their characters' mental states to gather the necessary resources.

I don't like Any type of point system used as a "carrot and a stick" by the GM, even (maybe especially) XP. I especially cannot get behind XP awards for "good roleplaying" by a GM.

Mechanical elements that maniplute the mood and flow of the game to a desired effect are a good thing.

Resource management is also an interesting element of many games.

To this end, action/fate style points are a very effective and functional element in mang games. I do agree that they just can't be naively slapped on and that reroll points are not my favored implementation.

Quote from: Bill;651511In reflection,

I think its not the actual bennies or stunts that bother me.

I think its the gm doling them out that I hate.

That, on the other hand, is a fair point. Mutants and Masterminds' method bugs me because it clearly favors players who share the GM's sense of style/humor. I've come to prefer methods that provide unambiguous methods of acquiring points and/or empower players to identify the events rewarding points.

Quote from: Bill;651511In reflection,

I think its not the actual bennies or stunts that bother me.

I think its the gm doling them out that I hate.

In James Bond which might have been one of the first systems to use them for minor narative control as well as improving success and reducing damage you earn them automatically when you made a rank 1 skill check so it also encouraged people to 'do'.

In my Heartbreaker you get a number at the start of the 'adventure' based on your Reputation. These get refreshed at the start of the next adventure (being defined as after a period of downtime - which my games rarely actually have :) )
The odd thing is that this means that low level characters that need them don't actually have many whereas higher level characters and those that 'do' more and so build up a rep get more.
I toyed with using them as a reward for usign the morality ruels I added at a players behest but dropped that idea in play as I felt it was unecessary.

Quote from: TristramEvans;651562Heh, interestingly thats my position. Thats why in my adaptation of FASERIP I transferred the power over to the players, allowing them to "roll for motivation" whenever they feel its appropriate for their character. As a GM I can still give "Karma Awards" as I find appropriate to their actions, but a player need not wait around for the GM to pay attention or psychically intuit whats going on with their characters' mental states to gather the necessary resources.

I don't like Any type of point system used as a "carrot and a stick" by the GM, even (maybe especially) XP. I especially cannot get behind XP awards for "good roleplaying" by a GM.

I detest with a passion, XP awards for "good roleplaying" by a GM.

Its one of the things that can actually make me angry :)

Quote from: jibbajibba;651578In James Bond which might have been one of the first systems to use them for minor narative control as well as improving success and reducing damage you earn them automatically when you made a rank 1 skill check so it also encouraged people to 'do'.

In my Heartbreaker you get a number at the start of the 'adventure' based on your Reputation. These get refreshed at the start of the next adventure (being defined as after a period of downtime - which my games rarely actually have :) )
The odd thing is that this means that low level characters that need them don't actually have many whereas higher level characters and those that 'do' more and so build up a rep get more.
I toyed with using them as a reward for usign the morality ruels I added at a players behest but dropped that idea in play as I felt it was unecessary.

Yea, I don't mind them as a resource, but I am very wary of 'good roleplay' 'Made a good joke' 'happened to do something the gm finds cool' 'played your alignment' etc... rewards.

Quote from: jibbajibba;651578In James Bond which might have been one of the first systems to use them for minor narative control as well as improving success and reducing damage you earn them automatically when you made a rank 1 skill check so it also encouraged people to 'do'.

In my Heartbreaker you get a number at the start of the 'adventure' based on your Reputation. These get refreshed at the start of the next adventure (being defined as after a period of downtime - which my games rarely actually have :) )
The odd thing is that this means that low level characters that need them don't actually have many whereas higher level characters and those that 'do' more and so build up a rep get more.
I toyed with using them as a reward for usign the morality ruels I added at a players behest but dropped that idea in play as I felt it was unecessary.

I am pretty okay with any method of the GM giving out karma points (the GM is human so I don't get bent out of shape if he doesn't hand me points but gives them to someone else). But I like that process to at least be connected to their reason for being in the game. I like the idea if them being tied to the morality of the system, particularly if they represent your good standing in the universe.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;651654I am pretty okay with any method of the GM giving out karma points (the GM is human so I don't get bent out of shape if he doesn't hand me points but gives them to someone else). But I like that process to at least be connected to their reason for being in the game. I like the idea if them being tied to the morality of the system, particularly if they represent your good standing in the universe.

For what its worth, I get bent out of shape when a gm gives ME a reward and not someone else. :)

Rewards that are doled out like doggie treats to players who do "kewl stuff" are fun for a one-off game but in campaign play they can end up reducing the whole game to players acting like performing monkeys trying to get a bananna.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;651666Rewards that are doled out like doggie treats to players who do "kewl stuff" are fun for a one-off game but in campaign play they can end up reducing the whole game to players acting like performing monkeys trying to get a bananna.

This isn't the only post, but I'm too lazy to quote last 2 pages:

This is more of a problem of "Playing the GM not the Game", rather than the reroll systems for the game.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;651349Any system that uses them.

Individual systems may succeed integrating them better than others.

However what is also important is how they are earned. Karma is earned through being super and heroic. These points dont' represent a direct causal link between skill and enhanced result, but a more thematic approach. This is not appropriate for every rpg, but it is for some. Buffy for instance mitigates the physically weaker white hats by giving them more narrative power. In this way Xander isn't eaten by the vamps each week. Conversely Buffy herself just kicks ass because she's a Slayer.

The purpose of X points isn't to stop pc's failing. it's to stop them failing when it would suck for them to do so.

Any rpg system is going to have the potential for a really promising effort to fall flat on its face. I don't see how you can mitigate that.

Whether you use that as part of the story is another matter.

The drama point mechanic in Buffy is brilliant, and helps the game emulate the source material. Buffy for me is proof that drama points are not necessarily the sign of a weak system.

There's lots of other examples of well implemented karma mechanics, but Buffy is just such a good example that when I opened the thread I just did a search to see who mentioned it first so I could quote them.

Quote from: Bill;651653Yea, I don't mind them as a resource, but I am very wary of 'good roleplay' 'Made a good joke' 'happened to do something the gm finds cool' 'played your alignment' etc... rewards.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of that either. Good play is its own reward, it doesn't require a benny on top.

I hate them.  I consider them nothing more than legalized cheating.  More entitlement for those who can't seem to deal with the fact that dice are random.

Quote from: JRR;651841I hate them.  I consider them nothing more than legalized cheating.  More entitlement for those who can't seem to deal with the fact that dice are random.

To me, they're legalized cheating as well. But unlike you, that's why I love them.

Quote from: JRR;651841I hate them.  I consider them nothing more than legalized cheating.  More entitlement for those who can't seem to deal with the fact that dice are random.

It's how you use the random factor.

Points are used well when they are part of a system and emulate something that the game is trying to capture. I think the way Tenra Bansho Zero, which I will likely never play and am not an anime fan (it confuses and frightens me, except Akira), uses such things is really simple and clever.

On the other hand Fate points leave me on the fence, the same with the blatantly narrativistic 'dramatic editing' mechanics that got shoehorned into Adventure! by whitewolf.

Karma points are elegant and appropriate. They are just another aspect of the game. It's simplistic to say they are for self entitled (I love the way that word has become nasty these days) players who can't handle the dice. You still have to earn the points, which is another aspect of roleplaying.

Quote from: Grymbok;651356I just can't see "re-roll points" as being a part of a resolution system. They're just a do-over for when the resolution system produces results you don't like.

Nice arbitrary-line drawing. Another toss of the dice simply extends the tail of the curve with a multiple-dice spread.

If there's no reason to do that 99% of the time, why waste the effort?

If people have fun choosing when to use a finite resource, why privilege an approach that reduces the game further toward one that does not require players?

Quote from: Exploderwizard;651363These are merely tools to construct a somewhat different beast than a roleplaying game.

What planet are you from? Ever hear of Dungeons & Dragons by Arneson & Gygax? If the original is "not a roleplaying game," then your definition is the problem!

Try Hit Points for a start. "Oh," you will no doubt say, "but I don't get to choose between saving my skin by spending the points, or else pushing up daisies sooner." I say, So What? Seriously, if it's such a bug up your butt, the GM can take the points out of your hands. Getting your panties in a wad over someone else handling the points himself is childishly petty.

Fine, then. How about casting spells, wiz? "Oh," you will no doubt say, "but that's different because it's magic." And Joss is not? Magic's only magic if it's expressed in a techno-gadget way popular among prepubescent males in the USA in the 1980s?

Quote from: Bill;651653Yea, I don't mind them as a resource, but I am very wary of 'good roleplay' 'Made a good joke' 'happened to do something the gm finds cool' 'played your alignment' etc... rewards.

I don't use 'em when I GM, but I don't get bent out of shape when another fellow does. I don't care enough about the few percentiles of the XP total it amounts to in those cases.

Quote from: Bill;651651I detest with a passion, XP awards for "good roleplaying" by a GM.

Its one of the things that can actually make me angry :)

I hate that also. I like when it's set up more like 4E's/FantasyCraft's action points or Warhammer's fate points something that is hardwired into the system itself not an extra bennie on top of the system.

Quote from: Phillip;651952What planet are you from? Ever hear of Dungeons & Dragons by Arneson & Gygax? If the original is "not a roleplaying game," then your definition is the problem!

Try Hit Points for a start. "Oh," you will no doubt say, "but I don't get to choose between saving my skin by spending the points, or else pushing up daisies sooner." I say, So What? Seriously, if it's such a bug up your butt, the GM can take the points out of your hands. Getting your panties in a wad over someone else handling the points himself is childishly petty.

Fine, then. How about casting spells, wiz? "Oh," you will no doubt say, "but that's different because it's magic." And Joss is not? Magic's only magic if it's expressed in a techno-gadget way popular among prepubescent males in the USA in the 1980s?

There's no bug. I just happen to know the difference between roleplaying and storygaming. They are both fun activities provided the players are good. There is no reason one cannot enjoy both of them without getting all purple in the face at the mere suggestion that there are differerences in how they feel in play.

Quote from: D-503;651790The drama point mechanic in Buffy is brilliant, and helps the game emulate the source material. Buffy for me is proof that drama points are not necessarily the sign of a weak system.

There's lots of other examples of well implemented karma mechanics, but Buffy is just such a good example that when I opened the thread I just did a search to see who mentioned it first so I could quote them.

Can you elaborate more on how it works? And welcome back here :)

Quote from: D-503;651792Yeah, I'm not a fan of that either. Good play is its own reward, it doesn't require a benny on top.

I agree. I don't give out XP or bennies or whatnot for roleplaying, ever.

I think it's ridiculous to use the term cheating regarding X points.

Quote from: Marleycat;651956I hate that also. I like when it's set up more like 4E's/FantasyCraft's action points or Warhammer's fate points something that is hardwired into the system itself not an extra bennie on top of the system.

Sounds right to me; I don't mind built in resources that are not metaplot related.

I don't like metaplot mechanics and resources at all though.

I am very biased against them.

I personally don't use them for metaplot rewards but for focusing on the game or even if someone makes me laugh.

That is a personal choice of what I want to encourage in the game. Might be meta but I think meta is a part of the game. We all take time out of our real lives to play a fake / made up game and if it makes my players happy, as players, to get an occasional bennie then I'm happy as well. Plus they use them in game when the dice hate them, which is also a factor. Its not as if they can escape all bad rolls since it is an limited resource. They also get to succeed in rolls importantt o the character ina role playing sense. One player only spends his to avoid harm in combat (he is kind of cowardly) and to avoid losing money on a job (being greedy) others may only use them to prvent actual death but willing to get hurt and roughed up.

Just a few thoughts and experiences.

d20 is some cruel ish. I hate what that die does while loving the wide side (natural 20).

Hero Points and Bennies & the rest are just counters to the "whiff factor" that happens in-game. If you can correct a miss with a hit, all the better.

All games can't be GURPS. I felt with that system, I could run as-is. Most others need help & the help is shapely. M&M wouldn't work without Hero Points.

See, I think Buffy's failing with drama points was they come back too easily. I had hoped early mentions of the Slayer getting DP back by having her friends helping her recover from heartbreak and similar /in setting/ methods would recharge them. Still mechanical but rewarded by actions taken by the characters, not the players.

Quote from: Grymbok;651356I just can't see "re-roll points" as being a part of a resolution system. They're just a do-over for when the resolution system produces results you don't like.

Eh, I don't see any difference between that and a "roll and keep" dice pool mechanic.

Quote from: TristramEvans;652804Eh, I don't see any difference between that and a "roll and keep" dice pool mechanic.

So what's a 'resolution system' supposed to do anyway...? If we answer that as something like it 'provide a fair chance of success for PCs and NPCs modelled on the circumstances' then rerolls from karma sit outside the main system.

Even games which are roll n' keep typically have the numbers of dice you roll and keep based off something non-arbitrary like a skill or stat, not whether you feel like winning a check today. Different intent, even if its the same mechanism.

Quote from: TristramEvans;652804Eh, I don't see any difference between that and a "roll and keep" dice pool mechanic.

Is the only difference how often you roll more dice?

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;652827Even games which are roll n' keep typically have the numbers of dice you roll and keep based off something non-arbitrary like a skill or stat, not whether you feel like winning a check today. Different intent, even if its the same mechanism.

You are a wise man.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;652827So what's a 'resolution system' supposed to do anyway...?

At its most basic, a resolution system in an RPG is there to avoid dissonance, the typical example being when kids are playing "Cowboys & Indians" (or "Star Wars" or "Commandos & terrorists" or whatever kids play these days when not wired to the TV or computer), and one says "I shoot you" and the other says "nuh uh, I was behind the pillar", and an argument ensues as the two contradictory perceptions of the shared imaginary environment come into conflict. The system provides a means to facilitate multiple views of an imaginary environment without contradiction. As secondary features, a system may also be an aid to creativity, an answer to an unknown, a guide for arbitration, and a means to provide randomization for the sake of verisimilitude.  

QuoteEven games which are roll n' keep typically have the numbers of dice you roll and keep based off something non-arbitrary like a skill or stat, not whether you feel like winning a check today. Different intent, even if its the same mechanism.

I think that's a gross over-simplification of the intent of multiple systems. I also would not like a game system that was based upon the premise, "the character feels like winning today". But that premise is not in anyway linked to any mechanic, and certainly does not describe any game I've played featuring re-roll mechanics. Maybe that's how Fate 3rd uses them? But that's not a universal description by any means.

I would note that most systems without such hero points don't have a representation of extra effort or concentration.  

A limited example of extra effort - for example - is Pushing in the Hero System, where a character spends extra endurance to increase their Strength or power.  This has no effect on skills, though - even though there is finite mental concentration and effort that can effect how different attempts turn out.  

One could argue that hero points are typically too powerful to realistically represent just extra concentration or effort.  However, systems are usually unrealistic anyway - deliberately so to represent larger-than-life heroes who can fight dragons and do otherwise impossible tasks.  

While 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.  

Quote from: Silverlion;652779See, I think Buffy's failing with drama points was they come back too easily. I had hoped early mentions of the Slayer getting DP back by having her friends helping her recover from heartbreak and similar /in setting/ methods would recharge them. Still mechanical but rewarded by actions taken by the characters, not the players.

Personally, from years of play of the Buffy system, I liked this.  I feel that many mechanical rewards for dramatic/personal activities makes them more mechanical rather than richer.  If tightly defined (i.e. "do X to gain a point for trait Y"), then they tend to make characters repeat the same actions over and over - making characterization duller rather than richer.  If loosely defined, then this can become simply pleasing the GM to get the points.  

We had plenty of heartbreak and drama in our Buffy campaigns without tying it to rewards.  I thought the system generally worked very well.

Quote from: gleichman;652899You are a wise man.

Thanks!

Quote from: TristramEvans;652982I think that's a gross over-simplification of the intent of multiple systems. I also would not like a game system that was based upon the premise, "the character feels like winning today". But that premise is not in anyway linked to any mechanic, and certainly does not describe any game I've played featuring re-roll mechanics. Maybe that's how Fate 3rd uses them? But that's not a universal description by any means.

OK, partly based on how much they feel like winning today?
Its 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.

So now that D&D 5E is a Roll and Keep system...your fighters' chance of, say,  breaking through a door is higher if they have "advantage" and an extra dice, but whether they have advantage is still based on the situation, not something meta like how many points they have left. (At least, I hope so. See what they end up with I guess).

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;652827Even games which are roll n' keep typically have the numbers of dice you roll and keep based off something non-arbitrary like a skill or stat, not whether you feel like winning a check today.

Is "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?

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

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  (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=26422)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.

Quote from: TristramEvans;653233In 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.

Word.

Quotea mechanic that doesn't fit your incredible narrow Hero-system worship.

No, Gleichman worships only at his own altar.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;653124I 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

Quote from: Bill;653207The 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.

This is a ridiculous excluded middle.  There are few games where a normal human can leap 100 feet or lift a car - whether they use hero points or not.  However, there are a ton of games that intentionally diverge from realism in less extreme ways in order to allow for larger-than-life heroes - like D&D, Savage Worlds, the Hero System, and so forth.  

I also don't like it if the system would allow a normal person to leap 100 feet.  The few cases where this can happen is rare cases of exploding die rolls like Torg or DC Heroes or others - one of the reasons I'm not fond of exploding die rolls.  

However, I am OK with a system that allows larger-than-life heroics like James Bond 007 or the Buffy RPG.  And when I suspend disbelief to accept that there is a character like James Bond, I can also accept that the character does have reserves that they tap into when they really need to do something.  Yes, it stretches reality - but in my experience no more so than hit points, knockback, or many other features from heroic systems.

Quote from: jhkim;653252This is a ridiculous excluded middle.  There are few games where a normal human can leap 100 feet or lift a car - whether they use hero points or not.  However, there are a ton of games that intentionally diverge from realism in less extreme ways in order to allow for larger-than-life heroes - like D&D, Savage Worlds, the Hero System, and so forth.  

I also don't like it if the system would allow a normal person to leap 100 feet.  The few cases where this can happen is rare cases of exploding die rolls like Torg or DC Heroes or others - one of the reasons I'm not fond of exploding die rolls.  

However, I am OK with a system that allows larger-than-life heroics like James Bond 007 or the Buffy RPG.  And when I suspend disbelief to accept that there is a character like James Bond, I can also accept that the character does have reserves that they tap into when they really need to do something.  Yes, it stretches reality - but in my experience no more so than hit points, knockback, or many other features from heroic systems.

For me it is all about the expectations the game sets in the beginning. I am fine with James Bond type heroics, if that is the game I am expecting to play. If you are playing Savage World, that is pretty much the assumptions. It is meant to be cinematic like that.

Quote from: jhkim;653252This is a ridiculous excluded middle.  There are few games where a normal human can leap 100 feet or lift a car - whether they use hero points or not.  However, there are a ton of games that intentionally diverge from realism in less extreme ways in order to allow for larger-than-life heroes - like D&D, Savage Worlds, the Hero System, and so forth.  

I also don't like it if the system would allow a normal person to leap 100 feet.  The few cases where this can happen is rare cases of exploding die rolls like Torg or DC Heroes or others - one of the reasons I'm not fond of exploding die rolls.  

However, I am OK with a system that allows larger-than-life heroics like James Bond 007 or the Buffy RPG.  And when I suspend disbelief to accept that there is a character like James Bond, I can also accept that the character does have reserves that they tap into when they really need to do something.  Yes, it stretches reality - but in my experience no more so than hit points, knockback, or many other features from heroic systems.

I always have trouble articulating my point here. It has nothing to do with settings allowing for heroic/superheroic characters.

The things that bug me are like this:

Character is in a burning building, and his clothing and equipment is unharmed, but he is wounded from the fire.

Character is undrwater, swimming in his platemail, shield, and greatsword.

But some people will say "But there are unicorns and wizards!"


Thats what I am talking about.

Quote from: TristramEvans;653233In 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.

The problem with "extra effort" is that a lot of what people do in RPGs is the kind of life-of-death stuff that would cause "real" people to put in extra effort. I totally get the line of thinking that says "OK my character would be trying really hard to kick this door down because his cat is behind if and the room's on fire". But how often do PCs kick down doors where they're not too bothered about the result? :)

As is true in many things, I think that FASERIP Marvel has one of the best implementations of this concept. You say what level of success you want, and pledge to use Karma to get there if needed. Then you roll the dice, and if you come up short, you add Karma to get you where you need to be. If you don't have enough Karma to get there, then all your Karma is used up and you fail anyway.

Now of course it's possible to have enough Karma that you can succeed no matter what you roll, so it likely doesn't pass the Gleichman barrier for 'not being metagaming'. But I think that for a lot of people it's a solution that would work well.

Quote from: BillCharacter is undrwater, swimming in his platemail, shield, and greatsword.

Goodbye, Beowulf?

Screw that. Goodbye clueless, tone deaf, anachronistic and utterly arbitrary dictates.

Quote from: Phillip;653220Trouble 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.

You see it a lot in fighter vs wizard arguments, in my experience. There are people who take the view that for D&D fighters to be competitive they must at level 20 be the Incredible Hulk (or similar). Since others prefer Fighters to exist at a more sort of "badass normal" level, this is where the "if there are fireballs then why can't Conan jump 50ft in the air" arguments tend to come in.

Quote from: Grymbok;653277You see it a lot in fighter vs wizard arguments, in my experience. There are people who take the view that for D&D fighters to be competitive they must at level 20 be the Incredible Hulk (or similar). Since others prefer Fighters to exist at a more sort of "badass normal" level, this is where the "if there are fireballs then why can't Conan jump 50ft in the air" arguments tend to come in.

Except that you are incoherently trying to have your cake even as you eat it.

Is "the Incredible Hulk (or similar)" the same as "badass normal," or are they different? Make up your mind one way or the other, and cut the weasel bait-and-switch crap.

Quote from: Bill;653267I always have trouble articulating my point here. It has nothing to do with settings allowing for heroic/superheroic characters.

The things that bug me are like this:

Character is in a burning building, and his clothing and equipment is unharmed, but he is wounded from the fire.

Character is undrwater, swimming in his platemail, shield, and greatsword.

But some people will say "But there are unicorns and wizards!"


Thats what I am talking about.

Offhand, those things would bug me too.  

All of these examples are irrelevant to the main topic of discussion, though, which is hero points and their variations.  The defense of these isn't "But there are unicorns and wizards".  The defense is instead "But there is James Bond and/or Tarzan and/or Legolas" - i.e. heroes who do incredible feats without magic.

Quote from: jhkim;653281All of these examples are irrelevant to the main topic of discussion, though, which is hero points and their variations.  The defense of these isn't "But there are unicorns and wizards".  The defense is instead "But there is James Bond and/or Tarzan and/or Legolas" - i.e. heroes who do incredible feats without magic.

All right! The question, then, is, does Our Hero know that he is trivially certain of accomplishing the feat in question (if that's the situation the hero points or whatever in fact produce)?

By "trivially certain," I mean to exclude the 1 in a million type of exception that we pretty routinely and widely exclude from our attention regardless of whether such a mechanism is in play. Different folks select different members for that set, but I have yet to see a game in which it is empty.

The problem that I keep addressing is the myopia of people who privilege their very personal selection, asserting that it must be some kind of universal (indeed multiversal!) standard.

Bringing that around to the popular (at least in these parts) criteria for distinguishing a "story game," we might say that in that context the player does not much give a fig what Our Hero thinks. What matters is that (A) the outcome matches expectations based on James Bond movies or such, and (B) the process is fun as a game.

Quote from: jhkim;653281The defense is instead "But there is James Bond and/or Tarzan and/or Legolas" - i.e. heroes who do incredible feats without magic.

Oddly enough I find it easy to represent these characters without Hero Points. Thus why would I suffer the extra mechanic and the meta-gaming downsides?

Really what this comes down to is that the proper defense for meta-gaming mechanics is the statement "I like meta-gaming mechanics if they have the following characteristics...", not the denial that they exist or are troublesome for some players.

All too often people fight against the truth, even when it really doesn't reflect badly upon them.

Quote from: TristramEvans;653233In the real world people don't have set scores of attributes or know their odds beforehand when attempting a task.

You might be surprised depending upon what we're talking about. Why are there such things as 'Errors' in baseball for example? And I know my chance of hitting a target of a certain size on the firing range to a level greater than that represented in many RPGs- that's why I go to the firing range.

But really that's all besides the point. Game design does not provide the odds because it thinks the players know the exact numbers, it provides the odds so that the action can be resolved.

After that simple fact, letting the players know the odds is a short and quick way to give them information. True the degree of accuracy of that information may exceed a real world input- but it's just about the only thing in an RPG that does. All other description in a table top game is of lesser resolution. Combined with the fact that the player may be running a character who's a much better judge of the reality he exists in, and providing the odds becomes an offsetting advantage for all the disadvantages facing the player.

Thus providing the odds (for players running capable PCs) enhances the final realism of the campaign, and better meets player expectation of skilled PC performance.

Quote from: TristramEvans;653233I'm guessing you don't know many games that use these or the varied approaches to it.

I'm guessing that you completely missed the extensive notes and house rules on Deadlands on my websites, and all the posts about Shadowrun I've made over the years. Or the post where I detailed our experiences with the then newly released James Bond game back when.

In short, don't make up lies about my history and claim it as a debate point. Either find out on your own or ask.

Quote from: Phillip;653285All right! The question, then, is, does Our Hero know that he is trivially certain of accomplishing the feat in question (if that's the situation the hero points or whatever in fact produce)?

I would say yes, the hero does know this.  

Obviously, lacking voice-over narration, there is no way to know exactly what James Bond really thinks.  However, he certainly acts as if he is confident in his ability to accomplish the amazing at just the right time, even though he sometimes fails.  I can think of a few cases of heroes who are always surprised at how well they succeed, but most cinematic heroes are not this way - certainly not James Bond.  

The real question about treating this is whether you use (1) high stat and skill levels plus hero points; or (2) even higher stat and skill levels.  

In the case of #1, the system helps emulate the genre feature where the hero still fails some of the time - but when they really need to succeed at just the right moment, they always do.  

In the case of #2, the system doesn't emulate this feature - but still portrays the hero as larger-than-life.  

Certainly there are tradeoffs - so it's a matter of taste which you prefer.  However, I don't agree that hero points are inherently out-of-character.  It is possible to spend hero points based on in-character logic of what actions the character really cares about - and further this logic emulates the particular confidence that cinematic heroes like James Bond generally show.

Quote from: gleichman;653299Thus providing the odds (for players running capable PCs) enhances the final realism of the campaign, and better meets player expectation of skilled PC performance.

See the emphasis there? "Realism" is judged by the outcomes the model produces, not by the process of role playing. Many people find the other aspect more important to their enjoyment.

Many Story Gamers would probably agree with your emphasis, but they might disagree that (A) what you accomplish in the first place is satisfactory, and (B) the means you use are not more cumbersome. To the latter point, I note that it seems very hard for you to explain in the forum what your methods are, whereas the "hero point" methods seem quite easily conveyed.

Quote from: jhkim;653304In the case of #1, the system helps emulate the genre feature where the hero still fails some of the time - but when they really need to succeed at just the right moment, they always do.

Or else, as with hit points, the frangibility of the advantage means that overcoming a tough situation leaves them especially vulnerable down the line -- and they know it!

When they pay the price, there's that cause and effect rather than just a random bit of bad luck.

Quote from: Phillip;653308See the emphasis there? "Realism" is judged by the outcomes the model produces, not by the process of role playing. Many people find the other aspect more important to their enjoyment.

Yes, that's fine. Just admit that the draw is a meta-game one (enjoyment of a specific type of role-playing) and all would be good.

What not to do- Claim it's required to simulate the genre or claim that the draw is not meta-game.

Quote from: Phillip;653308To the latter point, I note that it seems very hard for you to explain in the forum what your methods are, whereas the "hero point" methods seem quite easily conveyed.

No one has asked what my methods are, so I see no need to talk about them.

But you are correct. They would be harder to explain as they are emergent results rather than the invoked results of Hero Points. This has its own downsides in that it requires tighter rule design (which in turn often means more complex rules).

Quote from: Phillip;653279Except that you are incoherently trying to have your cake even as you eat it.

Is "the Incredible Hulk (or similar)" the same as "badass normal," or are they different? Make up your mind one way or the other, and cut the weasel bait-and-switch crap.

The Incredible Hulk can hold up a mountain and leap two miles at a time. He's not badass normal. Conan is.

So "why can't Conan jump 50ft in the air" is a "if there is magic then impossible things must be possible for everyone" argument.

But I suspect you're just trolling anyway, so have fun with that.

Quote from: Grymbok;653319The Incredible Hulk can hold up a mountain and leap two miles at a time. He's not badass normal. Conan is.

Then stick with that, instead of playing rhetorical sleight of hand to build a straw man that makes great kindling for a blaze that sheds more heat than light and creates a distracting smoke screen from what we are really talking about.

A thought - gleichman's "principles of good game design" in the other thread reminds me of the Dogme 95 manifesto in film making. His approach is not one I would choose to follow, just as I would generally prefer traditional films to Dogme ones. But it's interesting to have these things out there, and looking at these kind of "stripped down" approaches can produce good ideas and innovations in the more mainstream sector.

For myself, the other thread (and the fact I found it hard to fundamentally disagree with many of gleichman's manifesto points) has helped me work through some issues I've been having recently with Savage Worlds, and gave me a useful structure to help think about what properties I wanted from a replacement system.

Quote from: Phillip;653323Then stick with that, instead of playing rhetorical sleight of hand to build a straw man that makes great kindling for a blaze that sheds more heat than light and creates a distracting smoke screen from what we are really talking about.

I really wish I could understand what the hell you think I wrote in my previous post. I acknowledge that I posted in a hurry and it was less than clear, but you seem to be indulging in some serious Kremlinology in order to be maximally offended by it.

Quote from: Grymbok;653277You see it a lot in fighter vs wizard arguments, in my experience. There are people who take the view that for D&D fighters to be competitive they must at level 20 be the Incredible Hulk (or similar). Since others prefer Fighters to exist at a more sort of "badass normal" level, this is where the "if there are fireballs then why can't Conan jump 50ft in the air" arguments tend to come in.

I don't know which arguments you are talking about, but I suspect the more common arguments aren't over the Incredible Hulk, but rather over various ostensibly human characters in different media.  

For example, there are characters like Batman in most comic portrayals, or over-the-top martial arts heroes like the Bride in the Kill Bill movies, or action movies heroes like James Bond in later movies with stunts like leaping onto a moving bus or hanging onto the outside of a plane.  These characters are ostensibly human in the fiction, but are capable of feats far beyond what is human in reality.  

This is quite different from movies without CGI and/or stuntmen on wires, like James Bond of the early films (Sean Connery) or Bruce Willis in the original Die Hard.

Quote from: jhkim;653334I don't know which arguments you are talking about, but I suspect the more common arguments aren't over the Incredible Hulk, but rather over various ostensibly human characters in different media.  

For example, there are characters like Batman in most comic portrayals, or over-the-top martial arts heroes like the Bride in the Kill Bill movies, or action movies heroes like James Bond in later movies with stunts like leaping onto a moving bus or hanging onto the outside of a plane.  These characters are ostensibly human in the fiction, but are capable of feats far beyond what is human in reality.  

This is quite different from movies without CGI and/or stuntmen on wires, like James Bond of the early films (Sean Connery) or Bruce Willis in the original Die Hard.

I (foolishly) got in to a long thread about this on TBP once. There were definitely people who seemed to think that high level D&D fighters needed to be way beyond even cinematic human levels of competence. So that's where my memory of the whole "in a world with wizards it means that fighters must be able to leap tall buildings in a single bound" argument comes from. Obviously it may well be atypical. :)

Quote from: Grymbok;653341I (foolishly) got in to a long thread about this on TBP once. There were definitely people who seemed to think that high level D&D fighters needed to be way beyond even cinematic human levels of competence. So that's where my memory of the whole "in a world with wizards it means that fighters must be able to leap tall buildings in a single bound" argument comes from. Obviously it may well be atypical. :)

I can see where that comes from. I think it's the wrong approach, but yeah- I see where it comes from.

Quote from: Grymbok;653341Obviously it may well be atypical.

[insert Big Purple joke here]

Grymbok, the fundamental problem with your complaint was that it made a total hash of logic regardless of what revisionist Kool-aid you may have been fed.

As to the latter, however, from the very first publication of D&D, classed characters per se of any level -- never mind Fighter Lords -- have been by definition not normal men. They are fantastic figures just as much as Magic Users and Giants.

If revisionists have changed that in recent editions, it's a dubious accomplishment.

Quote from: Phillip;653355As to the latter, however, from the very first publication of D&D, classed characters per se of any level -- never mind Fighter Lords -- have been by definition not normal men. They are fantastic figures just as much as Magic Users and Giants.

They never came off that way to me, for the simple reason that nothing in the game or setting seemed real enough to allow it.

You can't have the fantastic without a believable mundane.

Quote from: Phillip;653355Grymbok, the fundamental problem with your complaint is that it makes a total hash of logic regardless of what revisionist Kool-aid you may have been fed.

As to the latter, however, from the very first publication of D&D, classed characters per se of any level -- never mind Fighter Lords -- have been by definition not normal men. They are fantastic figures just as much as Magic Users and Giants.

If revisionists have changed that in recent editions, it's a dubious accomplishment.

Well, much like "hit points aren't wounds", this is one of those things where for many players, their perception of the game has never lined up with the text. Yes, a high level fighter in D&D can survive a melee battle with a dragon. No-one's arguing against that. This is - in and of itself - plainly superhuman. However, that same high-level fighter cannot (unless he has a Belt of Giant Strength or similar) lift an elephant over his head.

Some people reconcile this by viewing high-level D&D fighters as possessing superhuman competence but not superhuman physical ability. This is my view, broadly, and is what I see as the Conan option.

Others take the view that actually high level fighters can/should be able to lift the elephant. This is the superhero fighter option.

There's a third way which seems contradictory to me, which is that the fighter is superhuman but still can't lift that elephant. That is to say, he's superhuman in the feats his HPs and combat charts allow him to do, but his STR may still be only 18 or less. I don't see the difference between this and Conan myself, but I've been assured in argument before that it is. And I think this is your view.

To be honest though these days, overall I'm more in the position that "scared of goblins" to "wrestling dragons" is too much of a power curve for a single PC. But that's a different debate.

However you slice that problem, though, the point is that the people who want to make their fighters even more superhuman are definitely not pressing a claim as to normal reality.

If they had been, then the line about "just because there are fireballs the laws of physics don't apply" would be simply irrelevant. In the actual event, it's also thoroughly incoherent; the rhetoricians on your team change horses in midstream!

Quote from: Phillip;653361However you slice that problem, though, the point is that the people who want to make their fighters even more superhuman are definitely not pressing a claim as to normal reality.

If they had been, then the line about "just because there are fireballs the laws of physics don't apply" would be simply irrelevant. In the actual event, it's also thoroughly incoherent; you change horses in midstream!

I still don't get the incoherence argument, but whatever. You do realise I'm not advancing this position, yeah? You said you'd never seen the "if there is magic then the laws of physics must be different for everyone" argument made, and I was just relating that I'd seen it in the fighter vs wizard debates over on TBP. If my summary of the position I don't agree with doesn't meet your standards for rigorous argument - I don't care. It's not my position anyway.

At this point I just wish I hadn't bothered to post in the first place!

Quote from: Grymbok;653359To be honest though these days, overall I'm more in the position that "scared of goblins" to "wrestling dragons" is too much of a power curve for a single PC. But that's a different debate.

I agree with this.

Quote from: gleichman;653311They would be harder to explain as they are emergent results rather than the invoked results of Hero Points. This has its own downsides in that it requires tighter rule design (which in turn often means more complex rules).

I think thats articulating the idea of what is being meant by a 'strong' or 'weak' system better, that the rules should directly give workable numbers so that the PCs don't have to use luck or willpower in order to survive or take down opponents.

Quote from: Phillip;653361However you slice that problem, though, the point is that the people who want to make their fighters even more superhuman are definitely not pressing a claim as to normal reality.

If they had been, then the line about "just because there are fireballs the laws of physics don't apply" would be simply irrelevant. In the actual event, it's also thoroughly incoherent; the rhetoricians on your team change horses in midstream!

Can we move on from this yet?
D&D has basically never had luck points or willpower points aside from Eberron or 4th Edition, and isn't particularly germane to the discussion, for a change.
Its always just let the dice fall where they may, followed by the occasional resurrection.

Quote from: gleichman;653299You might be surprised depending upon what we're talking about. Why are there such things as 'Errors' in baseball for example? And I know my chance of hitting a target of a certain size on the firing range to a level greater than that represented in many RPGs- that's why I go to the firing range.

Those examples have nothing to do with, nor explain attributes common in any RPG though. So its not really an argument.

QuoteBut really that's all besides the point. Game design does not provide the odds because it thinks the players know the exact numbers, it provides the odds so that the action can be resolved.

Then there's no reason to enshrine those mechanics as "realistic" when they obviously are not then, right?

QuoteI'm guessing that you completely missed the extensive notes and house rules on Deadlands on my websites, and all the posts about Shadowrun I've made over the years. Or the post where I detailed our experiences with the then newly released James Bond game back when. In short, don't make up lies about my history and claim it as a debate point. Either find out on your own or ask.

What I didn't miss was the multiple times in other threads where you've been unable/unwilling to back up a claim about manymany games you've laid criticism to, so not a merry-go-round I'm going to dance around again. Three random RPGs is not really "experienced" in the field of RPG systems, especially with the generalized comments you make about them.

Quote from: Grymbok;653274The problem with "extra effort" is that a lot of what people do in RPGs is the kind of life-of-death stuff that would cause "real" people to put in extra effort. I totally get the line of thinking that says "OK my character would be trying really hard to kick this door down because his cat is behind if and the room's on fire". But how often do PCs kick down doors where they're not too bothered about the result? :)

As is true in many things, I think that FASERIP Marvel has one of the best implementations of this concept. You say what level of success you want, and pledge to use Karma to get there if needed. Then you roll the dice, and if you come up short, you add Karma to get you where you need to be. If you don't have enough Karma to get there, then all your Karma is used up and you fail anyway.

Now of course it's possible to have enough Karma that you can succeed no matter what you roll, so it likely doesn't pass the Gleichman barrier for 'not being metagaming'. But I think that for a lot of people it's a solution that would work well.

I agree with all that, enthusiastically. FASERIP and Outlaws of the Water Margin are the two games that really excel IMO at the use of that mechanic.

Quote from: TristramEvans;653408Those examples have nothing to do with, nor explain attributes common in any RPG though. So its not really an argument.

I have never claimed that specific odds are realistic or unrealistic except in extreme cases, I do however claim that players knowing the odds produces more realistic outcomes for skilled PCs for the reasons noted.

Quote from: TristramEvans;653408What I didn't miss was the multiple times in other threads where you've been unable/unwilling to back up a claim about manymany games you've laid criticism to, so not a merry-go-round I'm going to dance around again.

The only merry-go-round I've seen here is people like yourself moving the goal posts after I soundly answer a point. Much like you just did here- to 'undefined claims by me' that don't even give me a chance to response because they are so vague.

You're one of the worse about that.

Quote from: gleichman;653412I have never claimed that specific odds are realistic or unrealistic except in extreme cases.

No, you've made the claims certain mechanics where more "realistic".

QuoteI do however claim that players knowing the odds produces more realistic outcomes for skilled PCs for the reasons noted.

Advocating one form of meta-gaming ("players know the odds beforehand"), doesn't really work when you use that as the main criticism (right or wrong) of other mechanics, however.

QuoteThe only merry-go-round I've seen here is people like yourself

Online posters?

Quotemoving the goal posts after I soundly answer a point.

What goalposts did I set and then move?

QuoteMuch like you just did here- to 'undefined claims by me' that don't even give me a chance to response because they are so vague. You're one of the worse about that.

If you say so.

Quote from: TristramEvans;653413No, you've made the claims certain mechanics where more "realistic".

Yes I have. The falling mechanics in RQ are more realistic than those in D&D, are those governing missile fire.

Only the most foolish would contest such things.

Quote from: TristramEvans;653413Advocating one form of meta-gaming ("players know the odds beforehand"), doesn't really work when you use that as the main criticism (right or wrong) of other mechanics, however.

Sure it does. Your statement is a bit like telling someone that the wheel is a poor model for a door and therefore one can't use it for a tire.

Deciding where and when to depend upon the meta-game is an important part of game design. Again, see Layers of Design (http://whitehall-paraindustries.blogspot.com/2009/01/elements-layers-of-design.html).

Quote from: TristramEvans;653413What goalposts did I set and then move?

First you claim that I clearly had no experience with Hero Point mechanics and that such experience was necessary to judge them (i.e. a goal point). Beside being silly in itself (one does not have to be bite by a snake to know it's not a good thing), it was untrue and after presenting proof (i.e. long standing links showing my experience with said systems)- you moved the goal post without even admitting my success at the previous one.

Very dishonest, and indication of a person not worth talking to. Which is why you've long been in my ignore list and why I say now stop overriding it and responding to you again for a while.

Hopefully at a future date, you'll grow up.

Quote from: gleichman;653415Yes I have. The falling mechanics in RQ are more realistic than those in D&D, are those governing missile fire. Only the most foolish would contest such things.

What was that about goal-post shifting? lol. Not even on topic for the thread.

QuoteSure it does. Your statement is a bit like telling someone that the wheel is a poor model for a door and therefore one can't use it for a tire.

No, that analogy doesn't work.

QuoteDeciding where and when to depend upon the meta-game is an important part of game design.

Not really.

QuoteFirst you claim that I clearly had no experience with Hero Point mechanics and that such experience was necessary to judge them (i.e. a goal point).

Actually I said this:

"I'm guessing you don't know many games that use these or the varied approaches to it."

It's only a few pages back, so no reason to lie.

QuoteBeside being silly in itself (one does not have to be bite by a snake to know it's not a good thing), it was untrue and after presenting proof (i.e. long standing links showing my experience with said systems)- you moved the goal post without even admitting my success at the previous one.

No, you brought up 3 systems that you claim to have experience with. This did not in anyway disputed my assertion, rather reinforced it.

QuoteVery dishonest, and indication of a person not worth talking to. Which is why you've long been in my ignore list and why I say now stop overriding it and responding to you again for a while. Hopefully at a future date, you'll grow up.

As I said earlier, the merry-go-round. :rotfl:

Quote from: Grymbok;653359There's a third way which seems contradictory to me, which is that the fighter is superhuman but still can't lift that elephant. That is to say, he's superhuman in the feats his HPs and combat charts allow him to do, but his STR may still be only 18 or less.

I think you are missing some of the nuance in this particular argument.  This is all coming down to perception of "realism" for a purely mundane person (the Fighter).

QuoteI don't see the difference between this and Conan myself, but I've been assured in argument before that it is. And I think this is your view.

There is no difference.  The argument for a non-superhuman Fighter is mostly one that would also disallow a lot of Conan-esque feats of competence.

The argument for this 3rd option is that Conan is already a supernaturally endowed combatant by virtue of doing things that aren't "realistically" accomplished by some mere mortal sword swinger, so your "Conan option" and this 3rd option are the same thing.  

It's just a matter that you see Conan as a fundamentally non-supernaturally endowed character and others fundamentally cannot buy into that notion, so they present the 3rd option of, "Yes you can be Conan-esque if you agree that Conan's eminently cheesy abilities are as superhuman as lifting an elephant."

Quote from: jhkim;652998I would note that most systems without such hero points don't have a representation of extra effort or concentration.  

A limited example of extra effort - for example - is Pushing in the Hero System, where a character spends extra endurance to increase their Strength or power.  This has no effect on skills, though - even though there is finite mental concentration and effort that can effect how different attempts turn out.  

I once bought Luck with 2 extra dice of Luck bought with Costs END and Costs x10 END.

JG

I didn't mind X points in Marvel, I didn't mind them in Buffy, I didn't mind them in D&D 3.5 when my GM implemented a home brew system for them in his game. I don't prefer systems with or without them, to be honest. All I prefer is that if they're implemented there are clear, precise rules for how they're given out (one per level is a method I like) and, more importantly, how they can be used.

I don't think they're a meta-rule or indicative of a "storygame" tendency or anything like that. At least not more so than taking ten on a roll is.

I'm surprised at how much people here will rail at people for not trusting the GM to make up rulings and modifiers on the fly that are good and fun, but don't seem to trust the GM to hand out special points.

You either trust your GM or you don't. Its the same issue.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;653742I'm surprised at how much people here will rail at people for not trusting the GM to make up rulings and modifiers on the fly that are good and fun, but don't seem to trust the GM to hand out special points.

You either trust your GM or you don't. Its the same issue.

Except that I am criticizing it from the PoV of the GM, not the player.

Quote from: TristramEvans;654089Except that I am criticizing it from the PoV of the GM, not the player.

That's fair. I was referring to the people who said they don't like playing in games where the GM hands out the bennies/etc.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;653742I'm surprised at how much people here will rail at people for not trusting the GM to make up rulings and modifiers on the fly that are good and fun, but don't seem to trust the GM to hand out special points.

You either trust your GM or you don't. Its the same issue.

I don't think this is a binary.  

To take a parallel outside of gaming, I could trust someone as a good friend to look out for me, but still not want to let him manage all my money (for example) because I think he's a bad financial planner.  

I'm often not fond of systems which call for the GM to decide how good each player's role-playing is, and judge (for example) whether given choices were in-character or out-of-character.  In a traditional RPG, role-playing is what the player's spend 100% of their time doing.  Having the GM second-guess them is a poor use of the GM's time and attention, in my experience both as a GM and as a player.

I am fine with the GM handing out Karma points, as I trust them to hand out XP. For me the bigger issue is what the karma points are supposed to reward. Some games have criteria that are more in line with karma points as a concept than others.

Quote from: jhkim;654279In a traditional RPG, role-playing is what the player's spend 100% of their time doing.  Having the GM second-guess them is a poor use of the GM's time and attention, in my experience both as a GM and as a player.

There are no systems in which a player spends 100% of their time roleplaying, if there were it would be called RPing not RPGing. If they have a character sheet in front of them and are rolling dice, welcome to metaland. Optimal 'GM as setting and rules' systems are perforce simple, otherwise the GM would be worn down too quickly, so you sacrifice depth for the variable factor that is the GM's ability.

Let me flip this on its head - do you trust your players to look after their corner, roll the dice straight and play according to the rules? If not, why are you playing with them?

And another sacred cow dies.

Quote from: The Traveller;654283There are no systems in which a player spends 100% of their time roleplaying, if there were it would be called RPing not RPGing. If they have a character sheet in front of them and are rolling dice, welcome to metaland. Optimal 'GM as setting and rules' systems are perforce simple, otherwise the GM would be worn down too quickly, so you sacrifice depth for the variable factor that is the GM's ability.

Let me flip this on its head - do you trust your players to look after their corner, roll the dice straight and play according to the rules? If not, why are you playing with them?

And another sacred cow dies.

By 100% role-playing, I don't mean that they are 100% acting and thinking in character - rather that nearly all of their time is looking at the game events from the point of view of their character.  The point was just to contrast with the GM, who is doing lots of other things during play, so only a fraction of their attention can be devoted to tracking how each player is role-playing.  

Yes, when I am GMing, I trust my players to roll the dice straight and play according to the rules.  I don't go checking whether they've added up their modifiers correctly and so forth.  

It's from this same principle that I don't try to second-guess how they play their character.  Hence, I mildly dislike systems that suggest I should monitor and judge each players actions for how good their role-playing is and dole out points accordingly.  No big deal - I'll just usually substitute the same reward for everyone.

Quote from: jhkim;654288Hence, I mildly dislike systems that suggest I should monitor and judge each players actions for how good their role-playing is and dole out points accordingly.  No big deal - I'll just usually substitute the same reward for everyone.

I agree with this. The problem with the GM uber alles viewpoint is that even a perfectly well meaning GM might come up with two different answers to the same question on two different nights depending on how much coffee they've had, how recently they've eaten, what movie they watched yesterday and so on. Roleplaying in particular is subjective in that way. It was less a response than a general broad comment to be honest.

Quote from: jhkim;654279I don't think this is a binary.  

To take a parallel outside of gaming, I could trust someone as a good friend to look out for me, but still not want to let him manage all my money (for example) because I think he's a bad financial planner.  

I'm often not fond of systems which call for the GM to decide how good each player's role-playing is, and judge (for example) whether given choices were in-character or out-of-character.  In a traditional RPG, role-playing is what the player's spend 100% of their time doing.  Having the GM second-guess them is a poor use of the GM's time and attention, in my experience both as a GM and as a player.

I particularly dislike "xp awards for good roleply"

Why?

Because I think the player should be allowed to roleplay as they desire. (Within the bounds of acceptable behavior and goodwill among the gaming group)

I do not think the GM should be deciding if a player is roleplaying their character "Correctly"

A player not roleplaying 'enough' is a different issue.

I am also not fond of xp awards for 'doing what the gm wants you to do, or doing what the gm thinks is cool, or for amusing the gm'

I do not mind group xp awards for characters acheiving a goal the players wanted to work toward.



To me, awarding a bennie or bonus xp for being the first player to crack a good joke at the table is like a gm giving a character a magic sword for fetching a mountain dew for the gm.

I totally give xp to players for bringing snacks to the session.

While this shouldn't be the lone (or even main) thing to get xp on, I think being entertaining is massively important in a pastime that is, fundamentally, about entertainment. Not everyone is or can be entertaining because it's more complicated than just quoting Monty Python (I wish more people realised that), but people who are make it really, really fun to be around. And I am happy to reward that because all of us are enjoying ourselves.

Of course, other people are free to do it as they wish.

Quote from: Bill;654387I particularly dislike "xp awards for good roleply"

Why?

Because I think the player should be allowed to roleplay as they desire. (Within the bounds of acceptable behavior and goodwill among the gaming group)

I do not think the GM should be deciding if a player is roleplaying their character "Correctly"

This should be a group thing, not a GM only thing.

For example if a player in a GURPS campaign takes disad points for cowardice then behaves bravely in the game constantly, it should be the entire group that notices this not just the GM.

"XP" in GURPS is awarded exclusively for roleplaying. Its all about playing the character you chose to create.

I tend to award the same character points to everyone in the group rather than grade individual players on thier roleplaying. Instead, awarded character points go to buying off ignored disadvantages bit by bit. So if a player takes a disad and ends up not really playing it, then it gets bought off from earned character points instead of the player being awarded less points.

Quote from: Bill;654387I particularly dislike "xp awards for good roleply"

Why?

Because I think the player should be allowed to roleplay as they desire. (Within the bounds of acceptable behavior and goodwill among the gaming group)

I do not think the GM should be deciding if a player is roleplaying their character "Correctly"

A player not roleplaying 'enough' is a different issue.

I am also not fond of xp awards for 'doing what the gm wants you to do, or doing what the gm thinks is cool, or for amusing the gm'

and yet you hate the idea of PCs not roleplaying social interactions in keeping with the DM's interpretation :)

Quote from: jibbajibba;654413and yet you hate the idea of PCs not roleplaying social interactions in keeping with the DM's interpretation :)

? No idea what you are referencing.


My players are free to roleplay as they desire with no meddling from me.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;654396This should be a group thing, not a GM only thing.

For example if a player in a GURPS campaign takes disad points for cowardice then behaves bravely in the game constantly, it should be the entire group that notices this not just the GM.

"XP" in GURPS is awarded exclusively for roleplaying. Its all about playing the character you chose to create.

I tend to award the same character points to everyone in the group rather than grade individual players on thier roleplaying. Instead, awarded character points go to buying off ignored disadvantages bit by bit. So if a player takes a disad and ends up not really playing it, then it gets bought off from earned character points instead of the player being awarded less points.

I don't want players telling each other how to roleplay correctly either.

I agree about no points for a disadvantage that is 'not effecting gameplay'

There's nothing inherent in karma, action points, or other "extra dice" mechanics that automatically imply a "weak system"; there are of course plenty of weak systems that do use these mechanics, but there are also tons that don't.  Similarly, there's quite a few systems that are really excellent and use these kinds of mechanics.

RPGPundit