the things table top can't seem to get right

[kyoryu]

I think it's more like randomness for the sake of randomness. Some people like getting random scores.

There's a big emphasis in early D&D on "play the hand you're dealt". A lot of player skill in that version is about making the most of what you get (stats/items/etc.) rather than building the perfect combo.

It also works better in early D&D since stats aren't generally *as* important, and if you're playing Open Table, you've probably got a bunch of characters anyway. Getting *a* character with crappy stats is more tolerable if it's not the only character you're ever going to play in that campaign.

[Takewo]

There's a big emphasis in early D&D on "play the hand you're dealt". A lot of player skill in that version is about making the most of what you get (stats/items/etc.) rather than building the perfect combo.

It also works better in early D&D since stats aren't generally *as* important, and if you're playing Open Table, you've probably got a bunch of characters anyway. Getting *a* character with crappy stats is more tolerable if it's not the only character you're ever going to play in that campaign.

Sounds legit.

[hymer]

There's a big emphasis in early D&D on "play the hand you're dealt". A lot of player skill in that version is about making the most of what you get (stats/items/etc.) rather than building the perfect combo.

It also works better in early D&D since stats aren't generally *as* important, and if you're playing Open Table, you've probably got a bunch of characters anyway. Getting *a* character with crappy stats is more tolerable if it's not the only character you're ever going to play in that campaign.

When characters have a life expectancy of one and three quarters sessions, it's also a lot less galling to get low numbers than when you expect to be playing your PC for the coming two and half years.

[BigKahuna]

There's a big emphasis in early D&D on "play the hand you're dealt". A lot of player skill in that version is about making the most of what you get (stats/items/etc.) rather than building the perfect combo.

I think this is the big reason I've switched to a more "old-school" style of DM-ing in my games.

For the first 3 or 4 years that I played D&D, I played and ran games in the more modern style. This included: using point-buys, the general understanding that PCs weren't meant to die unless they did something incredibly stupid, fudging dice rolls, and abstracting rules that required extra work (like encumbrance).

However, the most fun I ever had in that time was when I played with a DM who had been brought up on the older style of playing. Playing with him, and being forced to use all of the rules that I had previously ignored, really made me understand why those rules are in the game and how they can make adventuring seem more challenging.

Recently, I've started a new Pathfinder campaign where I've embraced that style of gaming as a DM. I've cut out everything but the CRB classes and spells (as the extra Pathfinder books tend to massively increase the power of the PCs), and I make my players roll 3d6 for character creation. In fact, one of the guys at my table even rolls 3d6 in order.

In addition to this, I've also embraced randomness as a GM. I've done some light prep work on the setting (I'm drawing a map in hexographer, and I've laid out a political map of the region they are in), but apart from that I show up with no idea what is going to happen in the session and we just see where it takes us. However, I always use proper stat blocks for any NPCs or monsters they encounter (as the d20pfsrd means I can quickly bring up a stat block if they decide to pick a fight with someone), and I don't hide my dice rolls from the players. The players joke that the game sometimes seems like it is taking a while to render as I scramble for character names or NPC stats, but generally it hasn't slowed down the game at all. In fact, the game feels vey much like improvisational theatre that we aren't inflicting on a paying audience.

Having played a very loose sandbox game in this style for about 3 months now (with 3 TPKs and the party barely scraping to level 2), I've got to say that I think other gamers should give it a go. Playing the hand you are dealt at character creation leads to great role-playing opportunities that you don't get when you create a heavily optimised character with point buy.

Your character isn't a big hero who just seems better than other people and, at level 1, every encounter could spell death. It also forces you to get outside of your comfort zone as a player (and as a GM). If you don't roll stats that let you play the classes you traditionally favour, then you get to try playing someone completely outside your wheelhouse. It might not always work out, but you can come up with some pretty unconventional characters in this manner.

[Knaight]

But like so many other mathematical problems, supplementing the humans with technology makes the bookkeeping easier. The humans don't need to know moment-to-moment how many pounds of items a character is wearing and carrying - what we need to know is whether that character is at light, medium, heavy or maximum load, in order to apply the appropriate penalties. The computer can therefore perform the necessary calculation and spit out the answer.

The humans still need to enter it into the computer, they need to have exact weights defined, so on and so forth. Plus, these games are designed to have people directly do the math, and if that slows down the game it's a game design problem.

[Cluedrew]

Just remembered this from earlier in the thread:

-Noncombat conflict
It's rare to even find a half decent set of rules for chase scenes, let alone something that isn't action. On top of that, very few games are made well for a game that isn't at some level about fighting things. Then you get into things like tool use in these conflicts, and it's rare to even see a decent attempt.

Now I have seen games that do a good job at noncombat things, but they seem to be out-shadowed by the games for which noncombat is an afterthought. Even then almost all of the good solutions still seem to be rules-light, even compared to combat in the same system. Which is not a bad thing (not a good one either) but it is an interesting trend.

Especially in social conflict, in my experience even the games that try to do a good job here rarely achieve more than "good enough". I'm not actually surprised that encoding human behaviour an enormously difficult task. Still most social combat systems seem to either get in the way or make me wonder why we have rules for this.

[kyoryu]

When characters have a life expectancy of one and three quarters sessions, it's also a lot less galling to get low numbers than when you expect to be playing your PC for the coming two and half years.

That's incredibly inaccurate. While some characters may die quickly, others live for a very, very long time.

I've seen characters in campaigns that have lasted 20+ years.

I think this is the big reason I've switched to a more "old-school" style of DM-ing in my games.

It's a great style. It's not the *only* style, but the main point is to use the rules that support and enhance the style of gaming that you're involved in.

[goto124]

Wouldn't a 'killer-no-holds-barred' game result in a more video gamey style of playing where roleplaying is minimized because your characters won't last beyond 3 sessions anyway? I personally would get rather comedic and stop taking things so seriously. A valid playstyle I thoroughly enjoy -my default style, in fact, just not one I typically associate with the term 'roleplaying'.

@Cluedrew Probably because most of us humans have an innate understanding of a type of situation we engage in every day for our entire lives (even if online), while a majority of these same people do not have the same level of understanding on physical combat.

[kyoryu]

I think that's two statements/questions, actually.

1) If you have a playstyle where players die quickly, does the game turn comedic?

It certainly can. Look at Paranoia.

2) Old-school games were about super lethality where character lifespan was three sessions.

Disagree. Heavily. Death *happened*, and was always a possibility, which is why you tried you damnedest to avoid it.

[2D8HP]

Wouldn't a 'killer-no-holds-barred' game result in a more video gamey style of playing where roleplaying is minimized because your characters won't last beyond 3 sessions anyway? I personally would get rather comedic and stop taking things so seriously. A valid playstyle I thoroughly enjoy -my default style, in fact, just not one I typically associate with the term 'roleplaying'.

While I've never actually played much in the way of modern video games, IIRC how we played in "Ye olden times" (late 70's to mid 80's) yeah you pretty much nailed it.

[goto124]

I think that's two statements/questions, actually.

1) If you have a playstyle where players die quickly, does the game turn comedic?

It certainly can. Look at Paranoia.

2) Old-school games were about super lethality where character lifespan was three sessions.

Disagree. Heavily. Death *happened*, and was always a possibility, which is why you tried you damnedest to avoid it.

1) I think a GM who does that will soon have no more players

2) I remember playing a game where I did my very best to survive (and stats were more or less randomly generated). Roleplay was even more out of the window, since survival was a thousand times more important than 'sticking to character', and the only viable playstyle was 'paranoid'. I quit the game after a while because I couldn't do anything that was actually fun in there.

[hymer]

That's incredibly inaccurate. While some characters may die quickly, others live for a very, very long time.

I've seen characters in campaigns that have lasted 20+ years.

I think you're missing my point. I'm not saying the play style is bad because you can never get close to a character. I'm not saying it's bad at all (though my personal preference runs in a different direction).
If you don't expect a given character to last, you don't invest with them from the beginning. Part of the game you describe is accepting a high risk. You only invest with them after they've survived their formative sessions, at which point you've come to terms with whatever stats they have.

[Lacco]

2) I remember playing a game where I did my very best to survive (and stats were more or less randomly generated). Roleplay was even more out of the window, since survival was a thousand times more important than 'sticking to character', and the only viable playstyle was 'paranoid'. I quit the game after a while because I couldn't do anything that was actually fun in there.

I remember the "Lethal games" discussion . And I still think it's possible to roleplay also in these conditions.

I think you're missing my point. I'm not saying the play style is bad because you can never get close to a character. I'm not saying it's bad at all (though my personal preference runs in a different direction).
If you don't expect a given character to last, you don't invest with them from the beginning. Part of the game you describe is accepting a high risk. You only invest with them after they've survived their formative sessions, at which point you've come to terms with whatever stats they have.

If Playground has taught me anything at all, it's approaching every playstile with interest and open mind - because my personal preferences have turned upside down once I have tried out some advice that was posted here.

Thanks to few of the people who post here, I am already thinking of playing D&D, which is something that I haven't done since I found out that there are non-d20 systems. And that's quite a feat...

So, look at it like this: you have maybe one or two sessions to play with a character. He dies then (most probably) - won't you roleplay him to the fullest?

Because what I have seen in my games - and what irked me for some reasons - was that players tend to play it too safe. Most of my players, when asked about it, told me they wanted to play heroes, epic stories, dangerous combats, etc. When I presented them with an opportunity, they played it safe - ignored the epic battle/showdown. Why? Because they knew that if they play it safe, their characters don't die.

I then ran a one-shot with completely discardable characters and it was 100% more heroic - why? The players were the same. The game rules were the same.

So, next time - when a GM presents you with a narrow bridge and 400 orcs chasing your party through it, hopefully one of you will stop and stand his ground there. I know I'd make it worthwhile to the player who would - and even would think about saving him. But the best part - what is more heroic than disregarding your own life in a dire situation like that?

And before you ask - I have never had a TPK in my gaming history.

[Tanarii]

Wouldn't a 'killer-no-holds-barred' game result in a more video gamey style of playing where roleplaying is minimized because your characters won't last beyond 3 sessions anyway? I personally would get rather comedic and stop taking things so seriously. A valid playstyle I thoroughly enjoy -my default style, in fact, just not one I typically associate with the term 'roleplaying'.

Well, supposedly the entirety of D&D was taking the piss out of all the genres it was stealing from, and was intentionally comedic-ish. To a relatively large degree. Also, most of the initial characters who had names were just the players name in reverse. But you have to remember, they were war gamers basically scaling down from units to individual characters, so in-depth characters at start of play wouldn't make much sense. You were just playing a basic soldier from the unit, or the chaplain, etc. (Talking about oD&D and Gygax and Arneson's original campaigns here.)

And roleplaying means something very different now. OG roleplaying meant 'making decisions as a player for your character in-game.' Personally I define it now as: making in-character decisions as a player for your character in-game. If you pay close attention, you'll note even my definition is a pretty huge difference, despite being one word different. And my definition of roleplaying isn't very common, it's far closer to the original than most folks. For a lot of people, they mean storytelling time when they say roleplaying.

That said, no I don't find that a high lethality campaign using more modern rules has caused a comedic death spiral. Instead I find players focus on staying alive. Like, really focus on it. They don't assume they'll live.

Of course, 5e (or any other post-1e edition) is a hell of a lot more survivable than 1e or BECMI even when run as combat-as-war, with no expectation of the DM saving your ass from yourself or your heroics. And second, the players knew it was going to be a dangerous campaign from the get go specifically as an exception to the normal more 'modern' style of play. I strongly suspect both of those would change how the players perceive the campaign compared to an original 1e game.

[Doorhandle]

So I've been reading some old threads in different forums and noticed that there seem to be some things that just don't work very well in gaming. I'm talking about those things that are in the rules but you either a) never played with or b) tried a few times, then all agreed to never talk about again. So let's talk about some of them:

- encumbrance rules: I'll defend encumbrance rules, but it's only when I want to be a bit of a troll. Basically, the GM never thinks about them and the players don't want to be bothered with any more arduous arithmetic than they are already burdened with. They only seem to come up when the GM wants to mess with his players for not bringing an army of manservants.

- Rolling for stats: now I'm fully aware that old school players didn't even know what cheating was, and were never bitter about anyone outshining their characters, and that far from blaming the GM for their character's untimely demise, they simply thanked them for the privilege of being at their table, but us sub forty types have issues with having the dice tell us what we're supposed to play, and having Jeff roll so many 18s every time we play.

- food and water: yeah, we have a thread up on this one. It's painfully apparent that nobody enjoys bookkeeping as much as I do. Le sigh.

Is there a game that handles one of these well? Can you think of some I've missed? Have I inadvertently insulted your family's honor? Let me know!

I personally think inventory with D&D groups would be handled better if there was a group inventory shared by the party and put somewhere everyone could see it. Sort of like in Brick-Quest, where there is a small chest per character; you can carry as much lego stuff as fits into the chest.

[hymer]

I remember the "Lethal games" discussion . And I still think it's possible to roleplay also in these conditions.

I've seen that difference in my games, too. Having PCs being more expendable certainly makes them act differently, no doubt. Whether it's a good difference varies from group to group.
I can't help thinking that standing on the bridge to await certain, heroic doom is a lot less impressive and memorable for a character you know you'll never play again than it is for a character you know and love. You're writing the poignant end to a story, and the poignancy is directly related to how you relate to the character.

[goto124]

I personally define roleplaying as 'making decisions your character would make, that you the player would not make when presented with a similiar situation'. I use this definition after hearing about players deliberately making non-optimal choices because their characters would've made those choices, they can't help it.

It is a restrictive definition though...

[Lacco]

I personally define roleplaying as 'making decisions your character would make, that you the player would not make when presented with a similiar situation'. I use this definition after hearing about players deliberately making non-optimal choices because their characters would've made those choices, they can't help it.

It is a restrictive definition though...

I think we should discuss the roleplaying definitions elsewhere... still: I agree with both your definition and your view of it. However, it's not the only definition of roleplaying (or better - it's not the only definition of "good" roleplaying).

I think it's too narrow, for one purpose - and fits only one specific point of view.
I have played with groups, where a non-optimal, but character-focused choice was applauded.
I have played with players who intentionally sabotage their dice pools/target numbers, because "well, he would be tired, wouldn't he?".

So - check with the group. There are groups where anything sub-optimal is considered lacking. There are groups, where players place their own penalties on their characters for the sake of roleplaying. And there are groups, which just want to have fun - or want to have "unfun" (grimdark, anyone?) . "Good roleplaying" may differ from group to group.

EDIT: to original topic:

Encumbrance rules - the best ones were "see this picture - if you are similarly burdened, you are in this encumbrance class".

Rolling for stats - good if you get several PCs, bad if you get only one. I prefer build points (Shadowrun) and priority selection (makes you choose in the beginning...good exercise for games that are about difficult choices).

Food and water - I feel your pain, grimsly. I'm still in love with ADOM, where my most-advanced fighter died while attacked by werejackals (who called forth further jackals up until he was drowning in them) - he died of starvation as they fought for whole day... . I'm big fan of fatigue/starvation/dehydration rules, but have yet to find sufficiently well-working system.

[Earthwalker]

Well, yes. But I'd argue that for *any* mechanic in a game. Whether you use randomly rolled stats, a stat array, point buy, or whatever should be made with an eye towards what type of game you're running and the impact on overall gameplay.

But any statement of "X is good! Y is bad!" should be taken with an extreme grain of salt, except for obvious extreme outliers.

What you are saying here is true. I think the point I was circling but not making was this.

If you are looking for systems that do encumbrance (for example) well, what are you expecting from that system. What do you want encumbrance rules to add to your game. That might make it easier to find a system that has a "good" encumbrance system.

Erm when I say you, I mean a general you I aren't calling on just Kyoryu

[nedz]

That's incredibly inaccurate. While some characters may die quickly, others live for a very, very long time.

I've seen characters in campaigns that have lasted 20+ years.

Old school quote
There are Old Characters and there are Bold characters, but there are very few Old and Bold characters.

[Winter_Wolf]

I always play with encumbrance, prefer rolled stats, and if we never deal with food/water/rations, it's only because no one else wants to. But truly these things work more easily in computer games because of the bookkeeping and additional maths.

My big issue with encumbrance is that it's so often interpreted as weight. Has anyone ever tried walking around with full hiking kit and a few things you've randomly picked up? Just a full hiker's pack where you've neglected to strap and clip every bit of weight redistribution harness? Tried carrying an actual ten foot pole? I know some people have. Taking things that are even similar to ten foot poles down a corridor is a hassle (life lessons from home renovation, yay!) when you're not worrying about slipping on muck or getting shanked by a kobold. And they're not exactly the heaviest of things, even metal pipes.

[goto124]

My big issue with encumbrance is that it's so often interpreted as weight.

Nooooooooo! The encumbrance system is now even more of an encumbrance upon the players! D:

[Max_Killjoy]

I personally define roleplaying as 'making decisions your character would make, that you the player would not make when presented with a similiar situation'. I use this definition after hearing about players deliberately making non-optimal choices because their characters would've made those choices, they can't help it.

It is a restrictive definition though...

The problem with that definition is that I've seen players who deliberately make repeated sub-optimal decisions with characters who should know better, because they've gotten the idea in their head that struggle and failure are the marks of good story and roleplaying.

[Jay R]

Is there a game that handles one of these well?

You have confused "things done poorly" with "things I don't like". Most games with "rolling for stats" do it reasonably well. People don't complain about how it's done, they complain about doing it at all.

Having a randomly created character, instead of one you spent a lot of time and effort creating, is so much better for roleplay!

It's not a randomly created character. It's a character I build out of randomly created stats. The dice decided one of my earliest characters had high DEX, average INT, and low strength. I decided that he was a neutral hobbit thief, that he was falsely accused of a crime and had to flee his homeland, that his name was Robin Banks, what weapons and other equipment he carried, that he was only willing to steal from people who deserved it, etc.

Two of my early characters were both wizards, based on the dice. But Endora was very different from Morgan. She was a talker; he was dour. She was young and idealistic; he was middle-aged and cynical.

If you don't want to play that way, that's fine. But calling it a "randomly created character" is an unfair over-simplification.

Weapon/equipment breakage

I tell my players before character design that if the party includes somebody with bowyer/fletcher skills, they won't have to track numbers of arrows. If somebody has hunting & somebody has fishing, they won't have to track food in the wilderness. Cuts down a lot of annoyance.

[goto124]

The problem with that definition is that I've seen players who deliberately make repeated sub-optimal decisions with characters who should know better, because they've gotten the idea in their head that struggle and failure are the marks of good story and roleplaying.

Yeah, when I came up with the definition my thought process went:

"What is the difference between making an optimal choice because I the player would make that choice to maximize performance, and making the same optimal choice because the character would make that choice to maximize performance?"

Making nothing but sub-optimal choices for entire sessions doesn't work outside comedic campaigns. Though, I find that I have the opposite problem - I don't dare to make sub-optimal choices, I don't want my character to suffer, or to face the OOC consequences of pissing off my fellow players because I led their characters into a dead end, or such. When I play, the players and GM are having fun, managing to roleplay, while I feel like I'm not actually doing anything - but if I actually try to do something, I somehow end up making a highly upsetting decision that cuts down on everyone's fun.

My first rule in gaming is "don't be a disruptive jerk". I do my best to avoid struggle and failure, and get very very upset and cry for weeks IRL when it does happen. I felt this is decreasing the amount of fun that I am having, leading to me cutting out my Mary Sues and trying to replace them with new characters. Only one of them worked so far - a wannabe knight, but because he plays along and avoids trouble in whatever game he's in, with most of my roleplaying in how he presents himself (which doesn't actually change his/my choices). I can't bring myself to put flaws in my characters, which is why character generation has been slow for me.

Or I could continue playing single-player games and watching other people's games. It's worked well for me.

I tell my players before character design that if the party includes somebody with bowyer/fletcher skills, they won't have to track numbers of arrows. If somebody has hunting & somebody has fishing, they won't have to track food in the wilderness. Cuts down a lot of annoyance.

Bookkeeping: Not for tabletop?

[Max_Killjoy]

Yeah, when I came up with the definition my thought process went:

"What is the difference between making an optimal choice because I the player would make that choice to maximize performance, and making the same optimal choice because the character would make that choice to maximize performance?"

Making nothing but sub-optimal choices for entire sessions doesn't work outside comedic campaigns. Though, I find that I have the opposite problem - I don't dare to make sub-optimal choices, I don't want my character to suffer, or to face the OOC consequences of pissing off my fellow players because I led their characters into a dead end, or such. When I play, the players and GM are having fun, managing to roleplay, while I feel like I'm not actually doing anything - but if I actually try to do something, I somehow end up making a highly upsetting decision that cuts down on everyone's fun.

My first rule in gaming is "don't be a disruptive jerk". I do my best to avoid struggle and failure, and get very very upset and cry for weeks IRL when it does happen. I'm starting to feel this is decreasing the amount of fun that I am having, now if only I knew how to fix it.

Or I could continue playing single-player games and watching other people's games. It's worked well for me.

There's a difference between trying to get it right and things not working out (natural failure, can't be avoided entirely even by the most awesome) and failing for the sake of failure (deliberate failure, can be avoided by anyone).

I don't know the specifics of your situation, but from the outside, if your gaming group is getting that upset over situations where you and your character are trying to do your best and it doesn't work out, then maybe the source of "unfun" isn't you or your character.

[grimsly]

You've missed a few. While there's at least one game that gets all of these right, they're horribly outnumbered by the ones that screw it up in some way.

-Noncombat conflict
It's rare to even find a half decent set of rules for chase scenes, let alone something that isn't action. On top of that, very few games are made well for a game that isn't at some level about fighting things. Then you get into things like tool use in these conflicts, and it's rare to even see a decent attempt.

-Vehicle rules
It's one thing when a fantasy game is sloppy about this, but it happens all the time in modern and even futuristic settings. A normally rules light game suddenly turns into a horrible bloat of crunch (d6 Space), a normally rules heavy game suddenly decides to dial up the weight yet further until it gets out of control (GURPS Vehicles), or they turn into decoration which does jack-all.

You want a game that is the same level of crunch for vehicles as for everything else? Well, you can check Icar. Mind you, I'm not saying the vehicle system is simple, I'm just saying the rest of the game is just as complicated. Also, it not only has no rules for nonrandom stats, it has random character traits as well! Having a narcoleptic cyber-monk on a team with a kleptomaniac with power over Wi-Fi currents and some dude with mild depression over how ordinary he is is the sort of experience no amount of time or counseling can make you forget...

Start here: http://blogofholding.com/?series=mornard

There's some good stuff on dragonsfoot.org, and the old grognardia blog, as well.

Thank you for the link, I love a good game blog.

Moving away from the encumbrance / rations/randomness problem, another thing that turn based rpgs don't do well is formation combat. This can be fixed eg by having a single movement phase in the initiative order where everyone in the formation moves, but the RAW usually has everyone move individually which removes the advantages of a close formation eg that the enemy can't get inside it.

You know what else puts the brakes on combat formations? Fire breathing dragons. Just putting it out there.

The humans still need to enter it into the computer, they need to have exact weights defined, so on and so forth. Plus, these games are designed to have people directly do the math, and if that slows down the game it's a game design problem.

I think the main reason I don't do encumbrance is because I majored in math, and it actively pains me to hear people complain about having to add and subtract decimals.

The problem with that definition is that I've seen players who deliberately make repeated sub-optimal decisions with characters who should know better, because they've gotten the idea in their head that struggle and failure are the marks of good story and roleplaying.

Yes, because characters who actively decide to go fight horrific monsters for a living have no interest in doing it well.

I suppose I ought to come clean about this thread, I'm building a game, and I have this idea of trying to fix these sorts of issues. I don't expect the game to be great, it's more a proof of concept sort of thing.

Anyway, the whole "playing your character= playing badly" is something I'm trying to circumvent by tying character motivations into advancement, thus tricking power gamers into role-playing, and tricking thespians into not sucking.

Also, anybody else ever tried to play as:

- sidekicks: this is an awesome story idea, we'll focus on everyone else's characters and I'll just be there to help. Team spirit!... How come I never do anything?

[goto124]

There's a difference between trying to get it right and things not working out (natural failure, can't be avoided entirely even by the most awesome) and failing for the sake of failure (deliberate failure, can be avoided by anyone).

Is it important to invoke deliberate failure when roleplaying? Or should I just stop taking things so personally when I make a decision that results in natural failure?

- sidekicks: this is an awesome story idea, we'll focus on everyone else's characters and I'll just be there to help. Team spirit!... How come I never do anything?

I think I have accidentally done this. I need character concepts that I'm actually willing to play out, instead of cutting back in fear of 'pissing off other players'.

[Max_Killjoy]

Is it important to invoke deliberate failure when roleplaying? Or should I just stop taking things so personally when I make a decision that results in natural failure?

No, it's not important to fail deliberately -- that's the sort of fail it's important to avoid.

Don't beat yourself up if, in playing the game, natural failure occurs. Just learn from it and move on. If it's bugging you later, see if you can strike up a friendly conversation about what could have been done differently.

[Earthwalker]

[snip]
I suppose I ought to come clean about this thread, I'm building a game, and I have this idea of trying to fix these sorts of issues. I don't expect the game to be great, it's more a proof of concept sort of thing.
[snip]

May I ask what you are wanting to achieve with rules for
Encumbrance
Rolling for Stats
Tracking of resources (food / water)
What do you want to add to the feel of the game or how do you want the above rules to limit the scope of the game?

Anyway, the whole "playing your character= playing badly" is something I'm trying to circumvent by tying character motivations into advancement, thus tricking power gamers into role-playing, and tricking thespians into not sucking.

Sometimes playing your character means you have different ideas on what is optimal. Say there is character, a young knight and she is desperately in love with a young beau.
An encounter happens involving the knights true love. The knight sees that her most optimal choice is to protect her true love. The rest of the group is interested in survival and the elimination of the bad guys.
As the knight dives in front of a crossbow bolt intended for her intended that’s a stupid choice. The knight is hurting the groups effectiveness for some NPC, worst of all an NPC that isn’t even helping in the fight !!
Clearly the optimal choice (from a group perspective) is to let the NPC eat as many crossbow bolts as possible it’s not like they are helping in the fight.