Game Design

Nova

As for skills, perhaps you could still have the same kind of thing going? Some kind of abstract resource that is used up as the character uses said skill and regenerates over time. 

I would also be looking for a player-based reason for the amounts to wax and wane, though. For example, it would be good to have the resource regenerate over time if they are exploring a dungeon over the course of a week, but if the story would require them to storm a castle, I would imagine that they would use the same amount of resources they would in the dungeon crawl, but with less time to do it in.

Which would shift the whole nature of the game, because the players would be able to plan ahead moreso than in a random-based game.

MadassAlex

I think the easiest way to do this would be to have a "standard" regeneration rate for resources and then alter it for different types of scenarios. 

Nova

To toss out what I'm thinking;

- You could go with something you have, where you have a 'pool' of resources, e.g. determination/willpower/skill/what have you, and it regenerates over time, with the rate of regeneration being measured by the difficulty, complexity and number of the tasks at hand.

- Alternately, you could go with more of a success versus failure thing. For example, every time you succeed at an action, it becomes easier for you to succeed at the next related action- but if you fail at it, the consequences become exceedingly worse. That seems silly, though, as it encourages a string of successes with no loss.

- Similarly, alternately, you could make the skills go against the opposing person/object's opposing skill. For example, a 'HULK SMASH' skill would be checked against a wall's "Haha no" skill. Or a person's Diplomacy skill would be measured against an opponent's Hostility measure, and depending on the character- for example, their Presence/Charisma score, their accomplishments, their backup, etc- they could receive penalties or bonuses to their skill.

MadassAlex

I think the resource method is the only real way to represent modern tabletop game mechanics without dice rolls. Otherwise variables are set in stone, but having a resource allows one to allocate additional effort to a task in hopes of a better result. Basically, the resources replace the randomisation of dice rolls while still allowing variables to fluctuate according to context. 

Nova

Yeah, but the resource method sounds as annoying to implement as the dice rolls anyway.

MadassAlex

The only other option is to have fixed values for everything, though, which means that results will be preset depending on character builds. A resource allocation system might allow you to commit an extra ten stamina to an attack which nets you a bonus of ten to [whatever], with a fixed regeneration rate that indicates how many resources one can spend per turn without having a net loss. As always, I advocate keeping the values simple. 

In essence, the point is that you need to have player controlled influence over variables or it's predictable. 

Nova

Yeah, but I would take predictability over annoying mechanics any day.

Which is why I'm trying to think of a third option, but I'm kinda thinking of other things too, so.

ClockworkUniverse

>I say differentiate them more. Have a stamina bar, and you could say that bludgeoning weapons deal damage to that until it's empty, in which case they start damaging regular HP instead. Stamina could then be used as a cost resource for techniques



I thought about this at length, and I think I will do that, though I'm not sure I'll use the stamina bar exactly the same way you're thinking of, where it's more constantly in flux like Dark Souls, but more to track longterm exhaustion.

MadassAlex

^^ Predictability gets in the way of player agency, though. It also means that a particular character or team will always either defeat the minotaur or lose to it; there's no tension there because the scenario lacks unpredictability. And say you don't know you'll win, but you do. The feat would have its edge taken off by the fact that the game is constructed without much variance -- you were always going to win. 

Nova

Whereas annoyance gets in the way of... fun. It's the one biggest reason I hear against people playing games like Dungeons and Dragons; they want to play the game, they don't want to spend long amounts of time figuring out how much of X they can spend without compromising them if something else crops up, etc.

I already said that none of the situations I listed are desirable, even mine. That's why I'm looking for a third, one that isn't so simple as to have no room for variance but one that also doesn't annoy the players by taking them think of the game in abstract terms to be able to do it.

MadassAlex

The only thing I can think of along those grounds is LARPing, which is resource restrictive, or vidya, which defeats the purpose. The tabletop medium compromises its boundless potential with the requirement of abstraction. Just part of the parcel. 

Nova

Except not really. YOu just have to get really fluff-heavy, crunch-lite stuff.

From what I've heard, GURPS attempted to achieve something like this, but didn't get it.

Still, something which lumped the abstraction to the GM would probably fit, as the players could immerse themselves then. But then, would that be fun for the GM?

MadassAlex

The problem is still a restriction of player agency, though. Players like to feel as though they have a modicum of control and influence, and relegating all the abstraction to the GM top-loads the game while removing a core component of the player experience. 

Nova

In my experience, players like to feel like they are the best and stuff

bluh i'm kinda tired and don't know how to phrase my disagreement so i'm going to just go away