The Delta Theory of Meaningfulness

[kyoryu]

Instead, I think you'd want to use them in a much more narratively driven game. You don't play a card to hit an orc, you play a card to outright defeat the orc, and the question is then if it's worth the resource cost. Maybe you can negotiate or sneak past for a lower cost, but with knock-on complications because the orc is still around. You might have an entire quest for getting a card capable of defeating a dragon or something. You'd also need some sort of mechanic for hand refreshing, something like you can redraw your discard pile any time you rest, but you lose access to the highest card until you can recover in a safe area.

This is more or less how storium.com works. You get a number of cards, either strengths or weaknesses. The GM sets up obstacles, with a number of cards to resolve them. If an obstacle gets more strength cards than weakness ones, it is resolved in a good way, otherwise it is resolved in a bad way.

Each player's cards refresh when they use them all. (I think there are some bonus cards you can get that are more like 'one time things' that don't fall into that bucket).

[Vahnavoi]

Unless there is some limitation on the resource itself? Card dumping in a "reshuffle" game is often a clear easy choice. Card dumping when your Fate deck is a trim 30 cards is a very impactful choice. Maybe in this system randomly remove one card from the pool each refresh until a sufficient rest occurs? Still don't like the idea for fantasy RPG, but maybe that makes it a bit more palatable to some.

- M

I'm not sure what you're asking of me. I'm already talking about a limitation - namely limiting what actions cards can be used on, so a player can't refresh their hand by, for example, repeatedly trying to open the same door. There are innumerable other ways to limit them, but I'm chiefly interested in limitations based on what the cards are supposed to stand for: consequential game moves. As noted, equivalent rules already exist for dice-based games.

---

The problem with this is that you are (once again) discussing RPG systems by introducing concepts from non-RPG games, and typically exclusively PvP games.

And? You think rolling dice to decide an outcome was invented by or for tabletop roleplaying? Complex games, such as roleplaying games, are constructed from mixing and matching elements from other games. This includes D&D and every tabletop game following in its footsteps. D&D itself is an outgrowth of adversarial wargaming and the position of a dungeon master evolved from the position of umpire in Kriegspiel type of wargame.

So if you think looking at the wider field of games for knowledge, inspiration, mechanics etc. is a problem rather than actively searching for a solution, you make mockery of game design and every discussion about it.

When there is no referee, perfect knowledge games work great. Chess, checkers, etc. But the second you have a GM running a RPG, perfect knowledge goes out the window for the players (but not for the GM). Which is what I spoke about before. Even your response supports my problem. The GM will have to "rig" things to make this work. The GM has to decide which rolls are significant, and which are not. That very choice represents an impact to how the game itself will be played.

What about this is supposed to be about cards or perfect information? A game master, in their role as scenario designer, "rigs" the game just as much when they select the odds for die rolls. You aren't describing some unique, insurmountable problem to playing with cards - you are describing a basic game design task that has to be carried out regardless of format of number generation.

And... IMO, incorrectly focuses said game only on what the GM considers "important", and away from what the players may. It also may unfairly penalize or reward PCs based on build choices. If the GM thinks that perception and social skills are "unimportant" and thus don't require rolls/cards, then PCs who focus on such things may well feel cheated ("I spent 5 points on spot, but the GM never has me roll it, and just tells the entire party what we see").

Again, what of this is supposed to be about cards or perfect information? Every single supposedly negative effect mentioned here can happen in a dice-based game - and already happened when, for example, 5th edition D&D was designed.

The kind of system that would utilize this sort of card/hand mechanic would basically require focus purely on a "same level" basis, and most of the time that "same level" would be "combat encounters" (or some kind of "life and death" situation).

So sure. If you're the kind of GM who runs adventures via narration to the players and "ok. You encounter X, roll initiative", then this system will work perfectly. But if you want to have a more descriptive game, with more choices for PCs, and where information perceived/learned/gathered informs their choices and *those choices* then lead to encounters/conflicts, such a system will not work well at all. I lean heavily towards the latter sytle of game running.

You are pulling all of that from your posterior. We're talking about number generation. Nothing restricts number generation by cards to combat, just like nothing restricts dice rolls to that. Ditto for "life and death" situations. What you say almost makes sense if you think of the idea only in context of swapping dice for cards in contemporary D&D, but even then it's a strawman largely built on doubling down on existing fixations of the system while ignoring any other take.

I disagree. Your own post says that the way to make it work is to force a bunch of things we might normally use rolls to determine to be determined by GM fiat instead. That's absolutely 100% about trivializing all of that "other stuff" in the game. And it's not surprising really. I commented on this earlier. Not all things we roll dice for in a game session have equal weight and import. So, to make this work, you have to make each card expenditure of a given value card of equal value (otherwise, you will get players tossing low cards at low impact actions). But to do that, your propsed method is "just don't roll for anything not important". To me, that trivializes a good portion of the game. RPGs are about roleplaying. They are not exclusively combat/encounter simulators. But your solution kinda requires the latter approach.

This is a complete non-sequitur. You completely forgot that dice-based games have rules to prevent frivolous rolling. What I'm talking about is equivalent to that, not this strawman you built. Furthermore, even contemporary D&D in its own instructions says that there being a die roll at all is subject to dungeon master's authority. Get it? Die rolls don't exist to eliminate fiat, they exist by fiat, to randomly pick from a selection also existing by fiat.

None of that means players have no choice in what's important - they have as much choice as the game designers and game masters are willing to give them. It's an active game desing concern that effects all games, regardless of how they generate numbers.

If there's a strategy players would be inclined to choose that makes a game tedious & boring, a straightforward solution is to not give them that choice. Nothing limits this principle to non-combat options in a way that inherently favors combat. If you swap dice for cards in contemporary D&D, it might, but only because the system is already fixated on combat at the expense of other things. Even then, swapping dice for cards does not in any way restrict a dungeon master from designing a scenario that has less combat in it and instead focuses on carefully managing non-combat skills. In a non-combat game, the same principle would instead just keep a player from burning cards on tasks that don't move the game forward - trying to pick the same lock over and over serves as an apt example here too.

Whatever the subject matter of a game is, the actual point stands: determinism and perfect information do not necessarily yield perfect play in practice. You did nothing to refute that.

[Mordar]

I'm not sure what you're asking of me. I'm already talking about a limitation - namely limiting what actions cards can be used on, so a player can't refresh their hand by, for example, repeatedly trying to open the same door. There are innumerable other ways to limit them, but I'm chiefly interested in limitations based on what the cards are supposed to stand for: consequential game moves. As noted, equivalent rules already exist for dice-based games.

Nothing specifically being asked of you...just rumination on what could support the system if used to swap for dice in a specific game like D&D. With a really good social contract, no modifications would be necessary...but even then I think some gamepersonship could still come into play. Things like deciding to hold off on consequential game moves that don't have a directly opposed target, or can be reexplored at a later time without undue penalty (say, for instance, trying to translate that strange note on the map we found last session, or appraising that gem from the last monster's pocket, or using a spell with a variable impact or duration that isn't damage), until you need an opportunity to cycle cards.

It seems to me there was a seemingly very cool game published back in the mid 90s that had a card-based resolution system similar to this conversation as the preferred option (but also with traditional dice based resolutions systems as options) - also had a lot of troupe-centric elements. Was called "The Everlasting", and I think they got a pair of books out before they vanished like so many other indie efforts back then. Somebody else grabbed it a decade later and did a few more books I think. A quick review says that might have been random draws from the deck, but I really think there was a choice-of-cards option...

- M

[NichG]

I wonder how the discussion on cards would be different if we didn't assume a generous refresh mechanic at all. If you're out of cards, you just automatically fail any checks you would normally have to make. You can always choose not to spend a card on a check. Players each get 20 cards every short rest. NPCs/DM-controlled characters always just take 10.

Edit: Thinking about it for more than a moment, 'cripplingly punishing for martials' I think is the answer, if we're talking D&D.

[icefractal]

For reasons unrelated to agency, I'm not a fan of any mechanics that make rolling (or drawing cards, if that replaces rolling) something that must have a possible downside, or that the GM has to approve and ration.

Sometimes you just want to see if a character can do something, or how well they can do it. Even if there aren't big stakes and it isn't vital to the plot, I might still want to know, and have that answer be driven by the character's stats in the same way it would otherwise be, rather than just hand-waved.

And related to which, I don't like it when a system draws a hard line between "this is a Challenge™ where the full mechanics apply" and "this isn't". Mainly for "feel" reasons - I want climbing a tree to be handled the same way whether it's plot-significant or not, because I want to feel like I'm doing things within a fictional world more so than co-writing a story. But also because setting a clear line like that can dissuade probing / scouting tactics if they end up being just as risky as going in fully (which, TBF, might be a good thing if your goal is to get straight to the action ASAP).

[KorvinStarmast]

I want climbing a tree to be handled the same way

Please, stop it.
No two trees are the same.
I began climbing trees when I was 5 years old. I was up in one last week trimming branches so that they would not hang out over the street. I am north of 60.

No Two Trees Are The Same.
Using trees as a "skill system" example is an utter, abject failure.

[icefractal]

No two fights are the same either, but yet, we manage to represent them with the same rules. To be clear, by "the same" I don't mean that all trees have the same difficulty, but - for example - climbing the same tree should be handled the same way whether it occurs during a fight or not, whether it's important to the plot or not, and whether failing has extra risk or not.

[KorvinStarmast]

To be clear, by "the same" I don't mean that all trees have the same difficulty, but - for example - climbing the same tree should be handled the same way whether it occurs during a fight or not, whether it's important to the plot or not, and whether failing has extra risk or not.

Thanks for clearing that up. And that does make sense.

[kyoryu]

IDK.. It's important to understand that different players and groups may have different preferences regarding the degree of influence of decisions made. Some prefer more linear or story-driven games, while others prefer greater freedom of choice and influence on the world around them. Game engines such as Hexcrawl typically offer greater freedom and decision-making, which can be attractive to those who value deep interaction with the game world and a variety of possible story paths.

Just as a note, most "storygames" and "narrative games" lean heavily into player agency. It's only the plot-based, "traditional" games that really curtail player agency/delta in that way. In a lot of ways, storygames and narrative games are a reaction to that style of play.

[Mordar]

Just as a note, most "storygames" and "narrative games" lean heavily into player agency. It's only the plot-based, "traditional" games that really curtail player agency/delta in that way. In a lot of ways, storygames and narrative games are a reaction to that style of play.

At risk of derailing, this always flummoxes me. I haven't felt my agency curtailed *by outside forces* in any of the "traditional" games I have played. I'm curious as to what is meant here...that the social contract "forces" acceptance of the "rescue the prince, slay the queen and save the day" adventure chain when what my character really wants to do is set up a small turnip farm? (Waves wands and intones "Reductio ad absurdumium!"). I never could quite get to "rules = reduced agency".

- M

[NichG]

I think there's a high risk of talking past each-other with this terminology.

There are tables where the GM wants to tell their story, regardless of the system.
There are systems designed to help players collaboratively tell a story.

Both could be called 'story-driven games'. They're not the same thing.

[kyoryu]

At risk of derailing, this always flummoxes me. I haven't felt my agency curtailed *by outside forces* in any of the "traditional" games I have played. I'm curious as to what is meant here...that the social contract "forces" acceptance of the "rescue the prince, slay the queen and save the day" adventure chain when what my character really wants to do is set up a small turnip farm? (Waves wands and intones "Reductio ad absurdumium!"). I never could quite get to "rules = reduced agency".

- M

It's not inherently at oddds with "traditional" game systems. I've run higher-agency games for decades using traditional game systems.

It is at odds with the heavily pre-scripted adventure path style of gaming that was heavily dominant in the 90s (and is still common today)

[Easy e]

It is also really hard to write a module commercially that is NOT the "heavily pre-scripted adventure path" approach.

Not saying it can't be done, and no one has done it; it is just a lot harder.

[gbaji]

Instead, I think you'd want to use them in a much more narratively driven game. You don't play a card to hit an orc, you play a card to outright defeat the orc, and the question is then if it's worth the resource cost. Maybe you can negotiate or sneak past for a lower cost, but with knock-on complications because the orc is still around. You might have an entire quest for getting a card capable of defeating a dragon or something. You'd also need some sort of mechanic for hand refreshing, something like you can redraw your discard pile any time you rest, but you lose access to the highest card until you can recover in a safe area.

Right. You can absolutely use a mechanism like this for some very well structured narrative style games. Basically, you set up a specific number of "obstacles" and "objectives" in a scenario, and the players have a specific number of cards to use to try to navigate them. That kind of game can work, but you absolutely are sacrificing a ton of the granularity that many games (and players) tend to like in many RPGs.

I've played in games that are purely narrative in nature as well. No die rolls at all. Just improv style collective storytelling. They are fun, for a session here and there, but not much for continuity based gaming (which most folks also tend to want to do). Blending those can work, but you are committing to a very "mechanics-lite" type of game.

And? You think rolling dice to decide an outcome was invented by or for tabletop roleplaying? Complex games, such as roleplaying games, are constructed from mixing and matching elements from other games. This includes D&D and every tabletop game following in its footsteps. D&D itself is an outgrowth of adversarial wargaming and the position of a dungeon master evolved from the position of umpire in Kriegspiel type of wargame.

Yes. We took simple war games, where each chit represented a unit of some kind, and maybe had 2-3 "stats" on it, and we ran a battle with a whole map full of them, to each player playing one "unit" which was a single character, with dozens of stats on the sheet, and then invented a boatload of rules to manage all of those stats, abilities, skills, weapons, armor, spells, etc.

Sure. We can toss all of that out and go back to simple resolution methods if we want. But we are "tossing all that out". When the only resolution decision is "did I hit or miss with this unit?", you could use some kind of "fixed deck of cards" for your mechanical resolution methogology if you want (and it would be some interesting strategy actually). That works in a wargame. It does not work in a RPG. The moment you introduce elements into the game that have different weight to the overall result (but that people care about anyway), you have to have a system to manage that. With a single hand of cards, each card has the same value (relative to the number printed on it), but the actions you are resolving do not. That breaks the system.

So if you think looking at the wider field of games for knowledge, inspiration, mechanics etc. is a problem rather than actively searching for a solution, you make mockery of game design and every discussion about it.

Honestly? What makes a mockery of "game design" is insisting that game design differences don't result in differences in how they are played, or how people want to play them, or strategies used in those game, and yeah... what resolution machanics work well in those different game designs.

I'm actually pointing at very specific game desgin elements in RPGs, and discussing how changing the resolution methodolog might affect that, and how it would affect play of such a game, and how it would affect scenario design as well. I don't think anything I've posted is a "mockery". What I'm doing is (at least IMO) good game analysis. Not every game is the same. Ergo, not every rule idea will work equally well.

What about this is supposed to be about cards or perfect information? A game master, in their role as scenario designer, "rigs" the game just as much when they select the odds for die rolls. You aren't describing some unique, insurmountable problem to playing with cards - you are describing a basic game design task that has to be carried out regardless of format of number generation.

Again, what of this is supposed to be about cards or perfect information? Every single supposedly negative effect mentioned here can happen in a dice-based game - and already happened when, for example, 5th edition D&D was designed.

Huh? I"m confused. I was making a distinctin between a game like Chess and a game like D&D. Yes. In D&D, the GM sets and knows what the difficulty is for each thing in the game. But the players do not. This is in sharp contrast to a game like chess, or checkers, where the players have perfect knowledge. Both players see the same board, and thus nothing is hidden.

Even in games where some knowledge is hidden (like say poker), you know exactly how many of each value of card are in the deck, and both players have the same amount of information (they see the same number of cards, even if their specific view is different). These are radcially different game concepts than the player/GM dynamic in a RPG.

You are pulling all of that from your posterior. We're talking about number generation. Nothing restricts number generation by cards to combat, just like nothing restricts dice rolls to that. Ditto for "life and death" situations. What you say almost makes sense if you think of the idea only in context of swapping dice for cards in contemporary D&D, but even then it's a strawman largely built on doubling down on existing fixations of the system while ignoring any other take.

Great! Give me an example of how you'd design a RPG in which fixed card hands would be used (as proposed), but where the GM would not have to significantly reduce the number of resolution attempts just to "things that matter". Then, for fun, tell me exactly what criteria the GM will be using to determine what "things that matter" are.

Whether that is "combat" or "life and death" (or something else) is irrelevant. It will always have to be "just a small set of critical things that the GM has decided are important for resolving the scenario". Otherwise, we're not really playing a game.

And. As I've stated numerous times, you *can* run and play a game like that. But it's not going to be the kind of game that most RPG players actually want to play. We can also discuss why that is, if you wish. But just insisting that it isn't true, over and over, isn't terribly helpful.

This is a complete non-sequitur. You completely forgot that dice-based games have rules to prevent frivolous rolling. What I'm talking about is equivalent to that, not this strawman you built. Furthermore, even contemporary D&D in its own instructions says that there being a die roll at all is subject to dungeon master's authority. Get it? Die rolls don't exist to eliminate fiat, they exist by fiat, to randomly pick from a selection also existing by fiat.

Dice based games like yahtzee? Sure. You only get to roll dice when it's time to roll dice. That's the point of such games. That's not what we're discussing here though.

The point of RPGs is that the players are playing characters, and are free to do anything with those characters that they want, within the constrants of the game setting itself. If I want to have my character decide to juggle chainsaws, just because I feel like it, I should be able to do it. Even if that's not a "plot element" to be resolved in the GM's scenario. If I decide to go "off script" and run around picking pockets in town, or set up a high stakes gambling session, or challenge some random person to a footrace, I should be free to do those things with my character, and the game rules/mechanics need to be able to handle those PC choices. This is not a strawman, it's literally what makes a roleplaying game a roleplaying game.

The only way to make the kind of fixed card hand mechanism work as written, requires effectively disallowing players from doing any of those things. Or, as some have suggested, just not allowing cards to be used (always take 10, always succeed, handwave outcoomes, etc). But that requires that the GM only allow those cards to be used on a smallish set of things the GM has decided they can be used for.

None of that means players have no choice in what's important - they have as much choice as the game designers and game masters are willing to give them. It's an active game desing concern that effects all games, regardless of how they generate numbers.

Sure. But... as I just pointed out, why on earth pick a resolution mechanic that severely restricts those choices? Die rolling doesn't, because dice have no memory. That's the whole point of using dice. Intentionally using a mechanism that does have a memory creates massive problems in a RPG.

As I've said repeatedly, the only way to prevent players from gaming the system is to place strict restrictions on when the cards can be played. And that, in turn, places massive restrictions on all free choices the PCs can actually make in the game itself. It becomes a severe form of railroading.

If there's a strategy players would be inclined to choose that makes a game tedious & boring, a straightforward solution is to not give them that choice.

The issue isn't about something being tedious or boring. The issue is that players tend to want to do things that aren't part of the GM's adventure script. That's certainly not "tedious or boring" to them, since they're the ones who want to do those things. Maybe... and this may be a crazy idea here...let the players do what they want to do? If that includes "spurious chainsaw juggling", then so be it. If they want to search the bushes for bad guys, let them do it.

But, having allowed the players to do what they want, when they want, you can't enforce the "you have one specific set of cards to use to resolve all of the challenges in my scenario" anymore. So yeah... the better approach is "don't use a game mechanic that restricts player agency arbitrarily". And the reallity is that "random determination of each and every action" allows for any action/attempt the players want to do, at any time, with zero restrictions needed. Anything based on non-random, or "select from a set" resolution methods introduce problems. And those problems ultimately can themselves only be resolved by restricting player choices.

Which, sure, works fine if we're playing a board game. Or card game. Or dice game. it does *not* work well with a roleplaying game though.

Whatever the subject matter of a game is, the actual point stands: determinism and perfect information do not necessarily yield perfect play in practice. You did nothing to refute that.

Well, who's pulling out the strawman now?

I will totally own up to not refuting something that is utterly unreleated to the point I'm making.

"perfect play" tends to only matter in strategy type games. In RPGs, the focus tends to be on "fun play" instead. Very few players approach RPGs as a "what's the most cost effective way to <achieve the scennario objecitves>". Most players are more like "Hey. this is what I want to do with my character. And oh... look, the GM has placed some interesting things in the game world for me to do too!". Heaven forbid we let the players... play.

For reasons unrelated to agency, I'm not a fan of any mechanics that make rolling (or drawing cards, if that replaces rolling) something that must have a possible downside, or that the GM has to approve and ration.

Sometimes you just want to see if a character can do something, or how well they can do it. Even if there aren't big stakes and it isn't vital to the plot, I might still want to know, and have that answer be driven by the character's stats in the same way it would otherwise be, rather than just hand-waved.

Exactly. My players are constantly doing things "unrelated to the plot" of my adventure. Rogue characters sometimes decide to pick pockets out of the blue. The trade focused guy may decide to barter for the cost of a meal at the Inn for some reason. See "juggling chainsaws" example above. The players are roleplaying their characters. This means that they want to do things while playing. And quite often those "other things" have nothing to do with the adventure they are on. Someone decides, out of the blue, to try to seduce a fellow tavern guest. Someone decides, out of the blue, to see if they can spy on some random group of people.

And, as I pointed out earlier, even if these thigsn aren't super significant, you still have to use the same mechanics to resolve them that you'd use for things that are. Otherwise, you are telling your players which things actually are significant. So... I can figure out which building the bad guys are in, by walking around town, going to each building and saying "I sneak inside to see what's in there", and the GM handwaves each away with "Nothing interesting", but then when he says "Ok. What card value are you playing"... now I know this is "plot relevant".

I can literally think of a dozen different and really obnoxious ways to totally game such a card system as a player. I don't want to play that way, and I don't want my players feeling that this is how they should play. As I said above, if we're doing very very simple narrative style play with a super simplistic "spend your resources wisely" style game system? I can see it. But that's "barely" what I'd call a RPG. The moment we introduce the concept that other things exist in the game seting other than the GMs plot? We need to allow the PCs to do things with the "whole rest of the world". So yeah. Random rolls work well for this.

And related to which, I don't like it when a system draws a hard line between "this is a Challenge™ where the full mechanics apply" and "this isn't". Mainly for "feel" reasons - I want climbing a tree to be handled the same way whether it's plot-significant or not, because I want to feel like I'm doing things within a fictional world more so than co-writing a story. But also because setting a clear line like that can dissuade probing / scouting tactics if they end up being just as risky as going in fully (which, TBF, might be a good thing if your goal is to get straight to the action ASAP).

Yup. I kinda highlighted a flaw with failing to do this, just above. Even if the GM is just handwaving stuff away (one of the proposals mentioned in this thread), that very method also allows for players to game the system.

Um... And it can be abused in other ways too. What exactly is "trivial"? So... your scenario doesn't include any players deciding to "play games at the casino and bankrupt the house and take over", so... if I decide to do that, I just automatically succeed? Automatically fail? Or I can try it? Which does the GM do? If I can attempt it, and use a card, then I can use stuff like this to dump cards.

Sure we can maybe push back on absurd things. But what if they are reasonable things, but should also entaill "reasonable risk"? IMO, if a PC decides they want to break into the local bank and steal some cash, they can try to do that. It's their choice. There are risks and rewards. And I'm going to want to use a resolution methodology for that which is consistent to the one I use for everything else in my game. So, where is the point at which the GM decides "this is trivial"? So if I'm using my hide/sneak to break into a bank, that's important, but if I'm using it to sneak past old man johnson to visit with his daughter, it's not?

It's the same skills. Just use the same methodology to resovlve them. Let the risks/rewards sort themselves out.

[Vahnavoi]

With a single hand of cards, each card has the same value (relative to the number printed on it), but the actions you are resolving do not. That breaks the system.

This is the second time you've expressed this idea. You don't seem to realize it comes from nowhere. We're talking of a method of number generation - just like any given result of a die roll might lead to a different total based on which action and hence which modifiers are appended to it, nothing stops a number on a card from being used the same way and the same card hence having multiple totals it can achieve. Nothing about doing so "breaks the system". It just means a player has to think and choose between different uses of the same card - a basic principle in card games, co-operative ones included. Nothing you say, anywhere, adequately explains why this would not work in a roleplaying game.

Well, who's pulling out the strawman now?

I will totally own up to not refuting something that is utterly unreleated to the point I'm making.

"perfect play" tends to only matter in strategy type games. In RPGs, the focus tends to be on "fun play" instead. Very few players approach RPGs as a "what's the most cost effective way to <achieve the scennario objecitves>". Most players are more like "Hey. this is what I want to do with my character. And oh... look, the GM has placed some interesting things in the game world for me to do too!". Heaven forbid we let the players... play.

You once again miss the point and start arguing about something unrelated. People can, and regularly do, play perfect information games for "fun". That includes "fun" of the sort "hey there are some interesting in this game, what happens if I do this?" for the exact reason I already explained: theoretical perfect information and determinism don't necessarily yield perfect play. That depends on game complexity, and complexity class for open cards is open ended. In other words, it's possible to set up a game scenario so complex that the best way to figure out how it would end is just to play through it. And you know what trait would help in setting that up? Having multiple possible actions of different values for each card. Yes, the very same trait you claim would "break the system" would in fact help make a system that has qualities you deem fit for a roleplaying game.

That's how badly you are off.

The rest is you failing to grasp the difference between "a game master shouldn't allow tedious & boring strategies that only exist to secure a card refresh" and "a game master shouldn't allow players to do anything of their own volition, ever".

[Mordar]

This is the second time you've expressed this idea. You don't seem to realize it comes from nowhere. We're talking of a method of number generation - just like any given result of a die roll might lead to a different total based on which action and hence which modifiers are appended to it, nothing stops a number on a card from being used the same way and the same card hence having multiple totals it can achieve. Nothing about doing so "breaks the system". It just means a player has to think and choose between different uses of the same card - a basic principle in card games, co-operative ones included. Nothing you say, anywhere, adequately explains why this would not work in a roleplaying game.

I read this point as "using the 1-card on a save-or-die equivalent" versus "using the 1-card on a search of the bathroom for a hidden gun" versus "using the 1-card on a search to find the bathroom during a dinner party". Same card (the "1"), three different potentially legitimate options, three radically different risk/reward profiles for the card, even if your save bonus, search bonus, and knowledge: residential interior architecture are all exactly the same, or hugely different. It isn't the final resolution number that matters, it is the impact of that lowest possible addition + base score on the game/character that matters.

The rest is you failing to grasp the difference between "a game master shouldn't allow tedious & boring strategies that only exist to secure a card refresh" and "a game master shouldn't allow players to do anything of their own volition, ever".

But without going to the extreme pole, what if I am good at "gaming" the system with legitimate and relevant skill uses that allow me to refresh cards so often that I am nearly never forced to play the low value cards in a high leverage situation? Am I beardy for gaming the system? Am I blocked from attempting the actions? Is this an accepted weakness/trade off? Or do we only apply it in games where we rely on character skill trivializing 90ish percent of the actions most D20 games require rolls (by category, not by frequency)?

Optimally, what is the GM using in this system? Also cards? Do we ever get the opportunity for clever opposed card use sub-systems?

- M

[Vahnavoi]

I read this point as "using the 1-card on a save-or-die equivalent" versus "using the 1-card on a search of the bathroom for a hidden gun" versus "using the 1-card on a search to find the bathroom during a dinner party". Same card (the "1"), three different potentially legitimate options, three radically different risk/reward profiles for the card, even if your save bonus, search bonus, and knowledge: residential interior architecture are all exactly the same, or hugely different. It isn't the final resolution number that matters, it is the impact of that lowest possible addition + base score on the game/character that matters.

No-one's confused or arguing against that. The out-of-nowhere argument is gbaji's addition that this is somehow unacceptable and that in order to use open cards, each card would need to only have uses of equal value. But there's nothing pathological about a card's value being dependent on the context it's played in.

But without going to the extreme pole, what if I am good at "gaming" the system with legitimate and relevant skill uses that allow me to refresh cards so often that I am nearly never forced to play the low value cards in a high leverage situation?

You are falling in the trap where you don't realize that what you describe as being "good at gaming the system" is just being good at playing a game. This isn't pathological. The entire point of my response to gbaji's "perfect play" tangent was that it makes no sense to fear this - somebody playing well - before-the-fact.

Consider: when picking between new games, do you usually go "wait, we shouldn't pick that game, one of us might be so good at it that they just win!" ? Doubly so if you're playing co-op and them winning would also mean you winning?

Am I beardy for gaming the system?

No. Again: the complexity class for open cards is open ended. If a player gets good at solving some subset of scenarios, it is in principle always possible to make a harder scenario where they can't do so well. The practical limit is not set by the system, it's set by intelligence and skill of the scenario designer. That was the point of comparing Tic Tac Toe and Chess. They are both positional deterministic perfect information games played on a grid. The former can be played perfectly by a child, the latter might not be able to be played perfectly by any human.

Alternatively, consider the field of Chess puzzles: does the fact that some people are very good at solving such puzzles mean that one should never be used as a game obstacle in a roleplaying game?

Am I blocked from attempting the actions?

Do these actions fit the earlier quote about tedious & boring optimal play? If yes, then yes - because by having that attempt blocked, you have to think of something else, and now the game's more likely to be interesting again for you also. Effectively, we take a puzzle you already solved & change it a bit so now it's a new one with a new solution.

But if not, then not - you aren't doing anything wrong, you are playing the game as it was meant to be played and being good at it. Consider: why would the individual actions in this scenario even stand out to a game master as something unusual?

Is this an accepted weakness/trade off?

It's an acceptable trade-off - emphasis on free choice by players and player strategy, at the cost of independent random events and the possibility of even the perfect strategy losing some % of the time.

Or do we only apply it in games where we rely on character skill trivializing 90ish percent of the actions most D20 games require rolls (by category, not by frequency)?

There is no reason to limit application for such reasons. Consider: your question is akin to asking "do we limit application of black paint to fences that are already part black?" The answer is no - the prior quality of the system isn't determinant, the quality after the change is. You paint a fence black if it's better as black - you toss d20s away from an d20 game and replace them with cards if you get a new, interesting game that way.

Optimally, what is the GM using in this system? Also cards? Do we ever get the opportunity for clever opposed card use sub-systems?

- M

It is impossible to answer "optimally" anything. I've been presuming that game master plays cards in the same manner as players for sake of simplicity, but there's innumerable other ways to set this up. NichG, above, suggested a different version where game master's character always play 10. As a quick comparison between just these two:

When game master also plays open cards, they always have a choice of game strategy, and the players can see which choices and even force the game master's hand somewhat. One aspect of this that I already noted is that a game master has capability to adjust game difficulty on the fly by changing how they play their cards.

When a game master always plays 10, this makes them considerably more passive during play, and difficulty of game scenario is set more firmly during scenario design phase.

Other changes also happen because the ranges of numbers on the game master's side now have a different floor and ceiling, but these are hard to figure out without actually playing.

[KorvinStarmast]

You once again miss the point and start arguing about something unrelated. People can, and regularly do, play perfect information games for "fun". .

I think that Pandemic (board game) is one such. It's co-op.

[Mordar]

Spoiler: Condensing

Show

No-one's confused or arguing against that. The out-of-nowhere argument is gbaji's addition that this is somehow unacceptable and that in order to use open cards, each card would need to only have uses of equal value. But there's nothing pathological about a card's value being dependent on the context it's played in.



You are falling in the trap where you don't realize that what you describe as being "good at gaming the system" is just being good at playing a game. This isn't pathological. The entire point of my response to gbaji's "perfect play" tangent was that it makes no sense to fear this - somebody playing well - before-the-fact.

Consider: when picking between new games, do you usually go "wait, we shouldn't pick that game, one of us might be so good at it that they just win!" ? Doubly so if you're playing co-op and them winning would also mean you winning?



No. Again: the complexity class for open cards is open ended. If a player gets good at solving some subset of scenarios, it is in principle always possible to make a harder scenario where they can't do so well. The practical limit is not set by the system, it's set by intelligence and skill of the scenario designer. That was the point of comparing Tic Tac Toe and Chess. They are both positional deterministic perfect information games played on a grid. The former can be played perfectly by a child, the latter might not be able to be played perfectly by any human.

Alternatively, consider the field of Chess puzzles: does the fact that some people are very good at solving such puzzles mean that one should never be used as a game obstacle in a roleplaying game?



Do these actions fit the earlier quote about tedious & boring optimal play? If yes, then yes - because by having that attempt blocked, you have to think of something else, and now the game's more likely to be interesting again for you also. Effectively, we take a puzzle you already solved & change it a bit so now it's a new one with a new solution.

But if not, then not - you aren't doing anything wrong, you are playing the game as it was meant to be played and being good at it. Consider: why would the individual actions in this scenario even stand out to a game master as something unusual?



It's an acceptable trade-off - emphasis on free choice by players and player strategy, at the cost of independent random events and the possibility of even the perfect strategy losing some % of the time.



There is no reason to limit application for such reasons. Consider: your question is akin to asking "do we limit application of black paint to fences that are already part black?" The answer is no - the prior quality of the system isn't determinant, the quality after the change is. You paint a fence black if it's better as black - you toss d20s away from an d20 game and replace them with cards if you get a new, interesting game that way.



It is impossible to answer "optimally" anything. I've been presuming that game master plays cards in the same manner as players for sake of simplicity, but there's innumerable other ways to set this up. NichG, above, suggested a different version where game master's character always play 10. As a quick comparison between just these two:

When game master also plays open cards, they always have a choice of game strategy, and the players can see which choices and even force the game master's hand somewhat. One aspect of this that I already noted is that a game master has capability to adjust game difficulty on the fly by changing how they play their cards.

When a game master always plays 10, this makes them considerably more passive during play, and difficulty of game scenario is set more firmly during scenario design phase.

Other changes also happen because the ranges of numbers on the game master's side now have a different floor and ceiling, but these are hard to figure out without actually playing.

No thought that anything I was proposing was pathological or otherwise negative on its face - just confirming the intent. If the proposed game system is one where cycling cards is considered acceptable according to Hoyle that establishes the perception of the game.

"Optimally" was not intended in the "how do I maximize the effect of this to benefit X", rather, what would *your* preference be for how the GM manages resolution, particularly since they would have something better approaching "perfect" knowledge. You responded with same sub-system for both PCs and GMs. This is the information I wanted, so communication occurred.

I think the "play 10" rule is perhaps good for mooks, while open cards for leaders and above...but that does create the "problem" of mooks always succeeding/failing certain actions against certain characters. If acceptable, I think the mook/non-mook distinction can be valuable.

- M

[gbaji]

This is the second time you've expressed this idea.

At least that many times....

You don't seem to realize it comes from nowhere.

Please don't tell me where my own statements come from. This is not from "nowhere". It comes from a very clearly described set of gaming concepts, which I've already explained (at least twice now!).

Ignoring what I wrote, and then just dismissing it as "coming from nowhere" is not very productive. If you disagree with the clear and well written explanations I've arleady given, then please feel free to do so.

We're talking of a method of number generation - just like any given result of a die roll might lead to a different total based on which action and hence which modifiers are appended to it, nothing stops a number on a card from being used the same way and the same card hence having multiple totals it can achieve. Nothing about doing so "breaks the system". It just means a player has to think and choose between different uses of the same card - a basic principle in card games, co-operative ones included. Nothing you say, anywhere, adequately explains why this would not work in a roleplaying game.

From a game perspective, there is a radical difference between randomly generating a result each time, and picking a number from a predefined set.

The largest difference between those two is in exactly the fact that the player is "picking" the number to use each time, from that set. This introduces an entire new "mini-game" involving the choice of when to use any given numbered card that the player has in their hand. Yes. The player "has to think and choose" which number to play. But... and this is critically important the player also gets to think and choose a number to play. This creates a layer of strategy in the playing of the cards, that does not exist when randomly generating numbers.

This creates a problem in a RPG, because not everything you are using the cards for are of equal weight/effect in the game itself. Most strategy/card games avoid this problem by either not having different weight outcomes *or* limiting when the players may play cards. If I'm playing a trick taking card game, when I choose to play a low or high card in suit, or when I choose to play trump, or not, is based on my guess as to other players hands, and what they may be forced to play in response. We may even say that the value of each trick may vary (cause they do in some games), but I'm both allowed and required to play one and only one card in each hand, and the rules as to what card(s) I must play must be followed. That's how the game restricts play to make it work. Most trick taking cards games do not work if you allow players to play any card they want, instead of requiring them to play in suit (and some go further and require playing a higher card if you can take the suit, and even requiring trump be played if possible, higher trump if possible, etc).

The problem a RPG creates is that the players can play cards "between hands" in many cases. There is nothing preventing my character from attempting to use a skill at any given time, and since each use of a skill requires a resolution, that should require playing a card. Also, the outcome of some resolutions are significantly different. There's a massive difference between whether I make or do not make a sense motive skill attempt versus making a save against a deadly poison. I fail one, and maybe don't get confirmation about an NPC that I already suspect anyway. I fail the other, and my character maybe dies. So the "strategy" becomes about using your low cards on things that aren't important, and saving up a number of high cards for use when doing something that is important (like the big fight with the bbeg).

The only way to solve that problem is to restrict the card play in the RPG in the same way you'd restrict it in any other card game. But, as I and several other posters have pointed out, this can significantly impair player agency. RPGs are supposed to be free flowing and open ended. PCs are supposed to be allowed to do anything they want to (try to) do. If I want to try to seduce the bar wench, I can try to do that. If I decide to pick that merchant's pocket, I can try to do that. If I want to sneak into the back room of the inn and steal some of their higher quality ale that they're hoading, I can do that. If I want to try to run a three card monte game on the street, I can do that. There are endless number of things I may choose to have my character do at any given time, and many/most of them require some sort of skill roll to determine if they succeed. Every single one of those things can be "gamed" if you are using the "pick from a hand of cards" method of resolution.


It's also just a really poor way to simulate outcomes like this anyway. I mean, even setting aside the game theory stuff. The idea that I may choose to do poorly in my attempt to pick this lock, that means I"m going to be better at hitting people with my sword in the fight that happens afterwards, is just... strange. A methodology like this works if we assume that the player has a fixed set of resources that are being expended in some single specific way. But that's usually defined as "in game" resources. So if I have a fixed amount of "stuff", and can use that "stuff" to do things, then I may choose how much "stuff" I use. I could see something like this used in a cyber type game, to simulate hacking. You have a specific set of resources/tools to use in each "session", and you expend them along the way (perhaps even in this case with your various hacking skills determining which types and number of cards are in your hand when you start the attempt).

Heck. I could see this method used for a number of "one session" type events. You start a battle, and draw a hand of cards, which you use for that battle. You sneak into the castle and draw a set of cards to use for that attempt to sneak. It's still a bit squirrely, but as long as the entire set of cards are used to represent a pool of "how good are you at doing this one specific thing you are doing right now?" resources, I suppose it would work. Maybe (honestly can also be gamed quite a bit too).

But as a full replacement for just rolling dice in a RPG? Not seeing that at all. Again, because the moment the same set of cards are used to determine if you can pick that lock, or spot that enemy hiding in the shadows, or bluff someone, or resist poision, or hit an opponent in battle, you are mixing and matching up too many different things. I could maybe see the logic of saying that if you save your energy during one part of the fight, you may have more later (which could be abstracted as a single "battle deck" for a single fight). But I see no logic to explain why doing poorly at sneaking up to the gate and then bluffing the guard at the door, makes you statistically better at fighting him and his friends later. Yet... that's exactly what this system would do. Worse, it would effectively make players make choices, not based on what makes sense in the game, but based on what makes sense based on their current set of cards.

And I'm still struggling to see how this at all resolves things "better" than just rolling dice. We've already discussed the idea of using some kind of "karma" points, to give characters a "save my bacon" type effect, used just when really needed. I think that's a great idea, if folks are worried about "one bad die roll kills my character" type situations. I just don't think that the whole "play cards from a hand" mechanic is needed to solve that problem, and it introduces a massive set of additional problems if used.

You once again miss the point and start arguing about something unrelated. People can, and regularly do, play perfect information games for "fun". That includes "fun" of the sort "hey there are some interesting in this game, what happens if I do this?"

The "fun" in strategy games is almost exclusively about it being "fun" when you do well with your strategy though. No one moves a piece on a chess board because "My horsey wants to hang out with your queen" (well, maybe very young kids do). And sure. I can absolutely put point cards into my opponents winning tricks in a card game "for fun", but I"m pretty sure that's not going to make my partners game "fun" for them.

for the exact reason I already explained: theoretical perfect information and determinism don't necessarily yield perfect play. That depends on game complexity, and complexity class for open cards is open ended. In other words, it's possible to set up a game scenario so complex that the best way to figure out how it would end is just to play through it. And you know what trait would help in setting that up? Having multiple possible actions of different values for each card. Yes, the very same trait you claim would "break the system" would in fact help make a system that has qualities you deem fit for a roleplaying game.

Only if our actual objective is to make "gaming the cards" more of a game than actually playing the RPG itself. You are correct that if "playing my cards correctly" is the objective of the game, and we reward players for doing that well, then this method opens up all sorts of additional strategies. But those strategies "break" the game if it's about "immersion in the RPG setting itself". Flushing my low cards on unimportant side tasks is absolutely a winning strategy in the mini-game we've invented here. But that also totally breaks the actual game we're all playing. Again. It make zero sense that me failing at a minor task now makes me better at an important one later on. And sure, if that's the rules we're using in the game, then that becomes the strategy for winning.

I'm just saying that this isn't what *should* be the "winning strategy" at all. But now it is. I find that to be a problem.

That's how badly you are off.

I'm not really seeing it. It feels more to me like you are "off" in terms of what you think a RPG game actually is. Or maybe we're just using our terminology differently. Hard to tell. I really does feel like you and I are placing completely different weight on completely different things when it comes to what we think makes "a good RPG". That may simply be an unresolvable difference.

The rest is you failing to grasp the difference between "a game master shouldn't allow tedious & boring strategies that only exist to secure a card refresh" and "a game master shouldn't allow players to do anything of their own volition, ever".

I'm not failing to grasp that you keep saying this. I've responded to this exact point (again, multiple times). I suspect the first problem is that what you label "tedious and boring" is exactly the things I'm saying make a RPG a RPG in the first place. The second problem is that you have yet to describe exactly what you would define as "tedious and boring". And how would you, as the GM, prevent players from taking those actions, or at least prevent them from using any of the existing game mechanics for resolving those actions?

You say those are two different things, but I can't see any way to achieve the first without also running afoul of the second. What do you do if the player wants to "do something of their own volition" that you (the GM) judge to be "tedious and boring"? Cause I can sit here all day long listing things that I and other players do all the time with our characters in the game, that I"m reasonably certain you would have to either label as "tedious and boring" and disallow *or* allow us to do (which brings us to the "flush low cards" problem).

I've listed off numerous actions PCs might take at any time, in any RPG session in this and previous posts. Please let me know which you would label as "tedious and boring", and would disallow and which you would allow.

[warty goblin]

Card cycling is not a hard problem to solve at a basic level, because at its core it's just spell slots. So just have your hand refresh on a rest or some equivalent mechanic. If you run out, you can only do stuff that's under your passive skill level for whatever it is. Which seems limiting, but is fundamentally just equivalent to not being able to cast Magic Missile if you don't have any first level + spells left, or being out of mana in a mana based system. It just uses the same fundamental resource mechanic for every interaction. If more granularity is required, you can pretty easily have decks for physical, mental and magical cards, which allows for easy character differentiation as well.

[Mordar]

Card cycling is not a hard problem to solve at a basic level, because at its core it's just spell slots. So just have your hand refresh on a rest or some equivalent mechanic. If you run out, you can only do stuff that's under your passive skill level for whatever it is. Which seems limiting, but is fundamentally just equivalent to not being able to cast Magic Missile if you don't have any first level + spells left, or being out of mana in a mana based system. It just uses the same fundamental resource mechanic for every interaction. If more granularity is required, you can pretty easily have decks for physical, mental and magical cards, which allows for easy character differentiation as well.

Not hard to solve, but does merit significant consideration. Listening for the guards, swinging a club, sneaking along a passageway - these aren't things that should be as limited as a magic spell slot. Spell slots are limits on magic because of the potency of magic, so it is a bit of a hard sell for me to limit basic actions in the same fashion, particularly in a d20 system.

However, a "bonus card" system would probably benefit from this quite a bit...you get X cards to use between long rests, you can use a single card to add its value to a d20 roll (decide after the roll is made). Once used it is discarded and your "hand" does not refresh until a long rest. Maintains full action agency, lets you have an method to try to offset "bad roll oops I died!" or "cinematic character moment, oops I sucked instead!". Doesn't eliminate chance, but provides heroes with a bit more control. Also opens some good special ability options (like adding extra cards, or being able to claw back a discard, or giving someone else a bonus when they use a card...etc).

- M

[kyoryu]

Card cycling is not a hard problem to solve at a basic level, because at its core it's just spell slots. So just have your hand refresh on a rest or some equivalent mechanic. If you run out, you can only do stuff that's under your passive skill level for whatever it is. Which seems limiting, but is fundamentally just equivalent to not being able to cast Magic Missile if you don't have any first level + spells left, or being out of mana in a mana based system. It just uses the same fundamental resource mechanic for every interaction. If more granularity is required, you can pretty easily have decks for physical, mental and magical cards, which allows for easy character differentiation as well.

I think that most presumptions are basically "cards refresh when you run out". Having them not refresh, and having them always represent capabilities above baseline definitely is a solution - making sure that you can't just "burn" cards on inconsequential actions is another solution (either by prohibition or making sure that no actions are "inconsequential")

Using cards on things you care less about should be intended gameplay. The boring extreme of this is "always burn every bad card on an inconsequential action so I always have all of my good cards available for things I care about". That should be avoided - you can't necessarily prevent every weird strategy, but you can prevent obvious situations where there's a blatantly obvious and essentially free degenerate strategy to bypass the intended game mechanics.

[gbaji]

Not hard to solve, but does merit significant consideration. Listening for the guards, swinging a club, sneaking along a passageway - these aren't things that should be as limited as a magic spell slot. Spell slots are limits on magic because of the potency of magic, so it is a bit of a hard sell for me to limit basic actions in the same fashion, particularly in a d20 system.

Well, and having the cards only refresh on a long rest (or similar) puts some character types in an odd situation. Do I use my out of combat skills to try to do "difficult things" (ie: that can't just be a "you take 20 and succeed"), knowing that this means that when/if (let's face it, it's usually "when") I get into combat, I'll get pasted. It puts a real damper on running skill based characters, since one character doing the scouting/sneaking/pilfering/whatever is usually enough for the party's needs, but it's not like that character disappears into a bubble of safety when a combat situation comes along. Some events will happen that you "Must engage in", and the PCs will want to (need to?) use cards for those situations. Heck. Would you even have the option of not using a card for a combat action attempt? Which also creates problems if we can't refresh the cards when we run out, since some combats may very well last long enough to run everyone out of cards. Heck. A fighter with high skill and ability to attack multiple times a round usuing a full attack is now burning through cards super fast (with diminishing returns, so maybe he should just not do that?).

I suppose I could play my own devil's advocate here and observe that you could so something like this, but you'd basically have to build the entire game system around this mechanic. And in that game, we could propose that this works since each character gets a fixed number of "significant things they can attempt to do per time period", so it is maybe well balanced as well. But IMO, you can't just replace rolling a D20 in an existing game, with a set of cards with the numbers one thorugh twenty on them and call it a day.

There's also the question of "what are we really doing here anyway?". Remember that this started with a question about how to resolve "one bad die roll at a critical time, screws my character" issues. Moving all the way to "completely rebuild our own game system to resolve everything by using a fixed set of per-rest resources" is so far far far beyond that requirement, tbat I feel like we've lost the point here. And anything less than such significant modifications to the games we are playing now, (again IMO) creates more problems than the one we're trying to solve in the first place.

Most games already have "per time period" feats/abilities/spells that the characters get to use. There's already the concept that the numerical values on the sheets for attempts to do various things is the "normal level of activity available to everyone" without expending any special resources, with those other things being exceptional things they can do above and beyond that. Replacing the normal stuff with similar rules as is used for the exceptional stuff, seems (again) like we've gone off into the weeds. And let's not forget that this proposal was in response to the "how do you avoid card flushing and resetting of hands" problem if we just use the cards exactly as replacements for die rolling. Which.... yeah. Puts us back into "we're not really playing the same game anymore" territory.

Possible to do something like this? Sure. Is it worth doing? Probably not. Not when there are much easier solutions to the actual problem we started out trying to solve.

However, a "bonus card" system would probably benefit from this quite a bit...you get X cards to use between long rests, you can use a single card to add its value to a d20 roll (decide after the roll is made). Once used it is discarded and your "hand" does not refresh until a long rest. Maintains full action agency, lets you have an method to try to offset "bad roll oops I died!" or "cinematic character moment, oops I sucked instead!". Doesn't eliminate chance, but provides heroes with a bit more control. Also opens some good special ability options (like adding extra cards, or being able to claw back a discard, or giving someone else a bonus when they use a card...etc).

Yeah. I think stuff like that can work fine. I think I'd still caution against just dropping this into an existing system though (without some serious thought). As I said above, most systems already grant "per time period" abilities/feats/spells/whatever. Those things already represent things you can do "above and beyond" the norm. You'd have to be especially careful if there are classes in the game you are playing that already have "per time" abilities that allow them to do things like reroll things, or get big bonuses with specific sets of skills, etc.

But yeah. It's something that could be implemented. And I suppose it depends on how "swingy" the normal action resolution system is already. If "one bad die roll really screws you" is something that happens regularly, then maybe you'll need a decent quantity of "save my bacon" stuff available. Um... Honestly, I'd look at reducing whatever is causing that in the game instead, but that's just me. But this can be very game system and setting (and sometimes just GMing style) dependent.


For me personally? If I wanted to implement some kind of safety net system to avoid the "I rolled poorly and died" situation, I'd be focusing just on that, and trying to avoid affecting any other game play elements. I'd implement something that was much much more rare than a hand of cards. I mentioned something like karma/luck points. You get like 3 maximum you can bank. You get one upon successful completion of an entire adventure. These are absolute "get out of jail free" cards, but you only want to use them in exactly the "I'm going to die if I don't" situations. Something like that would have minimal impact on the overall play of the game, allow for "save my bacon" situations, but still have a decent "herioc feel" to it (the gods smile on you as a result of your past deeds). Also, something this rare/limited would not take over the entire rest of the game system, but work as an adjuct to it.

Suppose it entirely depends on how often this sort of situation comes up. But, as I mentioned above, if this is happening in your game so often that you feel the need to hand a handful of cards for each PC to use each rest period, then maybe there are other problems with the encounter balance in your game that you should consider addressing first. The PCs should be able to handle the events in your game by using just the stuff on their character sheets (and perhaps a bit of ingenuity as well). If they are coming up short all the time, there are better ways to solve that then "we'll just make the PCS more powerful/capable".

[Darth Credence]

There's also the question of "what are we really doing here anyway?". Remember that this started with a question about how to resolve "one bad die roll at a critical time, screws my character" issues. Moving all the way to "completely rebuild our own game system to resolve everything by using a fixed set of per-rest resources" is so far far far beyond that requirement, tbat I feel like we've lost the point here. And anything less than such significant modifications to the games we are playing now, (again IMO) creates more problems than the one we're trying to solve in the first place.

Remember as well that the idea of the cards started as 'you can eliminate the randomness and make the process of rolling a meaningful choice by making the player have to select when to use high rolls and when to use low'. It was not initially intended as an actual plan, just a way to get people to think about whether or not they really want to eliminate the randomness. That it immediately started to be disassembled to figure out how it could be exploited, and the discussion turned to how it is basically a different game that people would be playing to manipulate the decks certainly says something about how much randomness people want in their game, and how much "Delta" people really want or need.

The "Why Hexcrawls?" thread got me thinking about this subject, and I decided to write it down to formalize my thoughts and in case it's useful to anyone.
Delta in this case refers to amount of difference, as in - "How differently will things go in the game as a result of this choice?"

For me, that's the main factor in how meaningful / important something feels. Not everything in a game needs maximum delta! For example, a game with a linear plot has very little delta in that area, but that doesn't mean it won't be fun anyway. But it does mean that a scene like "discussion about which route to take, that's IC supposed to be intense and meaningful" isn't going to hit very well for me if I know that we're getting to the same destination in the same condition regardless.

That's where the thread started. Talking about how choices that have an impact make the game more meaningful. Changing rolling - which is not a choice at all, just luck of the dice - to cards where the player chooses each card knowing that it will impact future card availability greatly increases how differently things will go, and it is clear to the players that it will do so. They have to decide when they should use their nat 20 - for a difficult check, or to crit? Or their 1 - bite the bullet and accept a miss in combat, or fail at a skill check or a save? Can you arrange for advantage often enough that you can burn the bad cards that way, and is it worth it to change other tactics to get advantage to do so? All of these are choices and the player can tell how those choices affect the rest of the game because it is right in front of them.

[Mordar]

Remember as well that the idea of the cards started as 'you can eliminate the randomness and make the process of rolling a meaningful choice by making the player have to select when to use high rolls and when to use low'. It was not initially intended as an actual plan, just a way to get people to think about whether or not they really want to eliminate the randomness. That it immediately started to be disassembled to figure out how it could be exploited, and the discussion turned to how it is basically a different game that people would be playing to manipulate the decks certainly says something about how much randomness people want in their game, and how much "Delta" people really want or need.

From my perspective, at least, not so much "how it could be exploited" to instead something more like "what are the consequences of this design decision that will work contrary to its intent and/or significantly alter the experience in an unpleasant way". Particularly since I do not see the inclusion of uncertainty or chance changing the meaningfulness of player choice. [So clearly, I 100% do not want to eliminate chance in games like this...but I agree with minor ways to mitigate impact of chance in select circumstances].

That's where the thread started. Talking about how choices that have an impact make the game more meaningful. Changing rolling - which is not a choice at all, just luck of the dice - to cards where the player chooses each card knowing that it will impact future card availability greatly increases how differently things will go, and it is clear to the players that it will do so. They have to decide when they should use their nat 20 - for a difficult check, or to crit? Or their 1 - bite the bullet and accept a miss in combat, or fail at a skill check or a save? Can you arrange for advantage often enough that you can burn the bad cards that way, and is it worth it to change other tactics to get advantage to do so? All of these are choices and the player can tell how those choices affect the rest of the game because it is right in front of them.

The meaningful choice isn't "do I roll the die or don't I?", though. The meaningful choice is generally "do I attempt this action that may succeed or may fail?". The result of the die roll doesn't make the choice more or less meaningful. It just confirms the outcome. Swapping dice out and cards in does add a new gamist choice...but doesn't alter the really meaningful choices made in the game. In a reactive sense there isn't as much immediate choice...it isn't "do I choose to be in the dragon's breath weapon and try to save against the damage, or don't I?" But it is "I choose to come on this adventure so I accept that this is a potential pitfall of that choice" moment.

This is not pejorative: A fixed card-based resolution system is much more aligned (to me) with collaborative storytelling.

Inclusion of chance (via whatever method - dice rolling, card drawing (not selecting), rochambeau, whatever) is more of a game experience. Including rules that allow mitigation of chance provides opportunity for both player and character skill to have a greater influence on the outcome and supports meaningful choice.

- M

[Darth Credence]

From my perspective, at least, not so much "how it could be exploited" to instead something more like "what are the consequences of this design decision that will work contrary to its intent and/or significantly alter the experience in an unpleasant way". Particularly since I do not see the inclusion of uncertainty or chance changing the meaningfulness of player choice. [So clearly, I 100% do not want to eliminate chance in games like this...but I agree with minor ways to mitigate impact of chance in select circumstances].



The meaningful choice isn't "do I roll the die or don't I?", though. The meaningful choice is generally "do I attempt this action that may succeed or may fail?". The result of the die roll doesn't make the choice more or less meaningful. It just confirms the outcome. Swapping dice out and cards in does add a new gamist choice...but doesn't alter the really meaningful choices made in the game. In a reactive sense there isn't as much immediate choice...it isn't "do I choose to be in the dragon's breath weapon and try to save against the damage, or don't I?" But it is "I choose to come on this adventure so I accept that this is a potential pitfall of that choice" moment.

This is not pejorative: A fixed card-based resolution system is much more aligned (to me) with collaborative storytelling.

Inclusion of chance (via whatever method - dice rolling, card drawing (not selecting), rochambeau, whatever) is more of a game experience. Including rules that allow mitigation of chance provides opportunity for both player and character skill to have a greater influence on the outcome and supports meaningful choice.

- M

The meaningful choice with cards is, "What card do I use now, knowing that it will be a card I cannot use later?" This, to me, absolutely is a meaningful choice that fits that original topic, and the reason I introduced the idea in the first place. The question was "How differently will things go in the game as a result of this choice?", and by the third post that had been expanded to "informed delta", about whether the player could predict that there would be a change, could see it in retrospect, or just there were changes but you have no way of knowing that.

If someone wants a choice they can predict (NichG called that the most meaningful), cards in place of dice do something there. You have a choice - what card do I play now. You should have a good idea of some results of that choice - the outcome of the current action. There are some others that you can predict, that you may be wrong or right about - perhaps you know that this leaves you with only two low cards, so you are likely to fail in the future, or perhaps that was your first card spent and you think it won't be a big deal, because it was the 12, and why would you need that card later, or whatever. They know the choice made, know that not having a card they need later could be tied directly back to the choice here and now. Maybe they used their nat 20 to crit an orc so it dies in one shot, to take away any possibility of the orc responding, and so didn't have a high enough card to make a save or ability check later; maybe they used their nat 1 there, and the orc got another shot and did a few HP of damage, but someone else killed it with their next shot, and the character now passes that later save and has more net HP (but, their party member used a card, and that was part of a choice, too).

Now, I personally feel that narrative choices are what are more important here, but it was also established early that things like character creation was a source of delta, so I think that eliminating the randomness and making it a choice would also count. If anyone is purely interested in the choice that comes from a narrative, not choice in general, then the cards/dice talk is meaningless. That could be what you mean by "meaningful" above, just the narrative choices. But if so, then is the choice to use reckless attack, or the bonus damage/attack penalty of sharpshooter, also meaningless? If they are, OK. If they aren't, though, then neither are the cards, because they serve a similar function - choosing to take a penalty in one place in exchange for a bonus elsewhere.

[Mordar]

The meaningful choice with cards is, "What card do I use now, knowing that it will be a card I cannot use later?" This, to me, absolutely is a meaningful choice that fits that original topic, and the reason I introduced the idea in the first place. The question was "How differently will things go in the game as a result of this choice?", and by the third post that had been expanded to "informed delta", about whether the player could predict that there would be a change, could see it in retrospect, or just there were changes but you have no way of knowing that.

I agree that which card to play in this situation is a meaningful choice - I would choose to use "meaningful game choice" just to differentiate it from a "meaningful narrative choice". I believe those to be tertiary in the current (and past) RPGs that I prefer, and recognize that is my own baggage.

If someone wants a choice they can predict (NichG called that the most meaningful), cards in place of dice do something there. You have a choice - what card do I play now. You should have a good idea of some results of that choice - the outcome of the current action. There are some others that you can predict, that you may be wrong or right about - perhaps you know that this leaves you with only two low cards, so you are likely to fail in the future, or perhaps that was your first card spent and you think it won't be a big deal, because it was the 12, and why would you need that card later, or whatever. They know the choice made, know that not having a card they need later could be tied directly back to the choice here and now. Maybe they used their nat 20 to crit an orc so it dies in one shot, to take away any possibility of the orc responding, and so didn't have a high enough card to make a save or ability check later; maybe they used their nat 1 there, and the orc got another shot and did a few HP of damage, but someone else killed it with their next shot, and the character now passes that later save and has more net HP (but, their party member used a card, and that was part of a choice, too).

I don't think I disagree with anything here. I just don't like the system from an RPG standpoint, but as a fan of many card games and a reasonable number of board games, I find it compelling and fun in those cases.

Now, I personally feel that narrative choices are what are more important here, but it was also established early that things like character creation was a source of delta, so I think that eliminating the randomness and making it a choice would also count. If anyone is purely interested in the choice that comes from a narrative, not choice in general, then the cards/dice talk is meaningless. That could be what you mean by "meaningful" above, just the narrative choices. But if so, then is the choice to use reckless attack, or the bonus damage/attack penalty of sharpshooter, also meaningless? If they are, OK. If they aren't, though, then neither are the cards, because they serve a similar function - choosing to take a penalty in one place in exchange for a bonus elsewhere.

I think the value/impact of choice at character creation varies a lot depending on the specific game. With games like D&D on one side and, say, Vampire or Marvel Super Heroes (particularly FASERIP) on the other, you have games where character creation is just a starting point that might make some paths easier and some paths harder to follow...and on the other, even after years of regular play your character is really just a minor modification of how they started out.

I think that meaningfulness is probably a spectrum, for me. Typically I'd view the spectrum (for games like D&D) as: In-game narrative choices >> character development choices (leveling) >> character generation choices > in-game system choices.

In-game system choices would be which card to play, do I use a limited or consumable resource on this action, do I make a gamist adjustment to gain a bonus on this roll kinds of things.

I think it is clear that all of these choices have an impact on the success or failure of an in-game narrative choice, and thus gain meaningful-by-association credit...but to mean it isn't nearly the same value as the in-game narrative choice ("do I sneak past the dragon, engage in conversation, or try to split it in half?").

- M

[icefractal]

I was thinking about this, and for me it comes down to micro-delta vs macro-delta.

Consider a game with a linear story where everyone has to play literally the same build. I'd call that low-delta.

But then let's say that one build is a high-level Warblade. So within combat there's quite a bit of meaningful decisions round to round. I think I would still consider that game fairly low delta, or at least not providing what I look for from a high-delta game.

Not that micro-delta is bad! It's just not enough by itself, IMO

[kyoryu]

Not that micro-delta is bad! It's just not enough by itself, IMO

It's not for me either, but it clearly is for some people.

The key here I think is really knowing where players want/expect/need to have delta, as not all players have the same expectation. I have little interest in build choices and delta from them, but high interest in "narrative choice delta" (which sounds kinda like you). Others really don't care about narrative choice delta, but really do care about the micro-stuff.