« Home | who do you design for? » | Spore Gameplay Video » | No Game Design is an Island » | Game Design Challenge: Conflict Resolution meets G... » | What's your Alignment? » | Narrative RPGs and Advancement » | Trials, Triumphs & Trivialities #184: The Skotos A... » | The World is Darkening » | Character Tiles » | The next person to post here »

How many In Game Resources do you want?

The gamist portion of a RPG boils down to resource management. You have a limited number of resources that you can bring to bear to get what you want. The GM (if applicable) and your fellow players also have these resources.

Resource examples:
D&D: Hit Points, Spell Slots, Attack Bonus, Damage Bonus, Defense Bonus, Skills, etc...
PTA: Card Draws (Fan Mail, Traits)
Capes: Debt, Story Tokens, Inspirations
DitV: Dice (Stats, Relationships, Traits, equipment)

How many different types of resources do you like to manage?
What influences this for you?
i.e. do you want more or fewer resource types when you are playing:
A game with lots of Player Narrative Control?
A game with lots of GM Narrative Control?
A Limited Run Game?
A Long Term Game?
Does Genre have an effect on your desire?
Do you think in these terms at all?

I am looking forward to your thoughts on this.

How do you feel about Neel K's The Court of the Empress? Although you earn points, you're not "managing" them- they're an indication of succesful play.

I think traditionally we've seen rpg gamist play focus on resource management because it forms a quanifiable set of "tokens" to replace the loss of board/mini's that happened as gamism moved away from wargaming.

I bet as we see more development from both the LARP side and people researching boardgame play, we'll see more socially oriented gamist play develop, though it'll be a good while before that happens.

I don't agree that resource management is 'gamist.' It certainly isn't in Primetime Adventures.

However, I like having lots of stuff to manipulate and fiddle with in play in just about any kind of roleplaying. That's one of the things about Galactic that I'm really happy with.

The phrase "The gamist portion of a RPG" makes me scowl a little. If I squint, I can see what you mean, but still.

Gamism aside, I think your questions are interesting. I'm a bad candidate to answer them, since they would all be some variation of "it depends." I like well-designed games that achieve their design goals and I can also enjoy very crappily designed games that just suck, when I play them in the spirit of fun cooperation with cool people.

The precise qualities of a game don't generally turn me off at face value, in terms of actual play.

You just like scowling, John.

Hmm. In computer games, I disliked Warcraft (the original, not the MMO) because I found it hard to manage all the resources in real time; but I love Civilization, which has far more resource management but is turn-based and so plays at my speed.

In tabletop games, I'm inclined to say I like fewer resources when I have lots of narrative control and when I'm playing a limited run game, because in both cases that lets me focus more on the game as a whole and pay attention to everyone's contributions. If the game is long-term and directed more by a game master than by player input, then I feel I have more time to deal with resources, and also dealing with resources is a greater part of my game input.

I have to agree with Phil on this one (scary thought isn't it?). The more long term the game is the more interested I get in resource management, whereas in limited run games I tend to concentrate less on that and more on other aspects - like the other players, character development, story development, etc. Although this is probably influenced by the fact that most of the shorter games I play have more player directed narrative or are really character driven, whereas the long term games I play tend to be more GM driven.

First, after talking with John, I want to correct my usage of the word Gamist and simply remove it from the topic.

Responses:
Bankuei - That game is very interesting, but each player has two "resources" - The favor being asked for and the players own speaking/persuading ability. There are no actual in game resources to manage.

Matt: Agreed. Having reviewed "gamist" it was inappropriate. PTA is a game with a single resource (card draws - either from fan mail/budget or traits). I also note that it heavy on the narration (which fits my pre-existing notion.)

John: I absolutely agree with it depends, but the purpose of this thread (for me) is to define those "depends." For me, I agree with Phil.

My list looks like:
*Short Term - fewer resources
*Long Term - More resources
*Strong Narrative element - fewer resources
*Strong Wargaming element - more resources.
*Strong Character Creation Mechanics - more choice (but not necessarily more resources)
*Limited Character Createion Mechanics - not really interested to be honest.

Post a Comment