LIMITING MECHANICS-an important part of game design-Celtricia/Guildschool

[LordVreeg]

Sometimes, an event during playing reminds me why I did something.  I thought I'd share a bit and use it to bring up/start a conversation about 'limiting mechanics'.

The event in question is a needed break from adventuring for My Igbarians group.  We game a very, very role-playing intense style, so much so that the 15th session of this group has netted almost (not quite) five days of 'in game' progress.  Adventuring is very much a means, not an end, to political and economic power, and teh players spare little to make sure they play out every ramification of that.

But they are finally going to have to take a break.  And the deciding factor is game mechanics, supporting the fluff.

Mechanic one--you can't just heal people magically day after day and have it take no toll on the body.  Lower power healing [note=Lowpower healing spells]  Apprentice Heal, Apprentice cure, Apprentice Aid, Apprentice Fortification, Apprentice Restoration, Novice Heal, Novice Heal, Novice Aid, Novice Fortification, Novice Restoration [/note]spells can only be used once per hawaak (8-day week) on a subject.  There are 10 different variations at a few different power levels that fall under this, and each variation can be used seperately, but after 5 intense days of playing, the 3 main combatents (George 'Canuck', the clawed Mysteriarch, Bard Cucino, and Squire Tusnus) have used every type available in the lower ranks, and are all down below 'damaged' (1/3 HP).  Most of th rest of the group is pretty close to this as well.  Yes, they could have some tougher (brother or patriarch-level) spells cast on them to get back functional, but as soon as they got banged up, they'd be back to ground zero.
Verdict--the group realized they need to slow down for the 3-4 days needed to make those spells effective again.  So the limiting mechanci did it's job and forced the players to slow down or spend a tone more reources.

Mechanic Two--Spell Point recovery/reclamation. Guildschool spells are cast my expending mana/spell points from various power sources, but the recovery rate is staggered depending how much of your total pool you have used.  If a character starts dipping deeper into their well, the recovery rate slows down once they have used more than half of a particular type.  The top 50% come back at a rate of 10% per hour, the bottom 50% come back at 3% per hour.  SO if a character has 20 spirit points and 10 fire points and cast a spell that costs 4 spirit and 3 fire, those points come back at (20*.1=2 per hour and 10*.1=1 per hour) 2 and 1 point per hour. But a spell was cast that cost 12 Spirit and 3 fire, the first 2 spirit points come back at a rate of (20*.03=.6 per hour) needing 3 hours.  
The Igbarians had a major battle with an Ograk Necromancer, his 6 (weak-ass) skeletal guards, 4 gnolls and 4 orcash.  Cyrial lit the wagon with unconsious Kiko on fire, and they group burnt off 90% of their spell points.
Verdict--The spell casters, healing and combat and other, all declared that they needs a few days to recover some spell points in the various Void-Borne Sources that they can access.  The point of this mechanic is to make sure that casters can be judicious and cast a lot during an adventrue, but when they really use this resource, it means time off..or they are useless.

In particular with a roleplaying instensive game, sometimes you have to place some 'stoplights' to make the players sit back and rest and recover.  I find it unnerving when recovery is never really needed.  I suppose I could have started rolling dice for sleep dprivataion and post-traumatic stress disorders, but the mechanuic in placde took care of the issue.  I don;t know if this will help anyone or provoke any discussion, but I kn ow that there are a number of system designers out there, and perhaps my experiences will help them to see limiting mechanics that their own game might need...before the players show them first... x.

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

I don't know if I'm the sort who should be responding to this, but I'm going to give it a go:

I can't say I actually like any mechanic that encourages characters to stop in the middle of the action (and I define the whole adventure as "the action").  My feeling of story demands that characters only stop when the story demands it, not the game mechanics.  Otherwise it feels weird to be playing a game and calling it a story.

[Snargash Moonclaw]

I'm surprised that training mechanics aren't included in this. Requiring training to actually advance in (at least most) skills when leveling up likewise forces characters to take a break and deal with whatever shortcomings/weaknesses/gaps they may have discovered in the course of the previous adventure(s). I've played in games where leveling up usually equates to at least a month, and sometimes as much as six months, of down-time to rest, regroup, reequip/supply, research (such as new spells) and train. Parties in these games often pooled resources for a shared "home base" for the entire group. (In Shadowrun this is pretty much mandatory, at least regarding safe-houses, regardless of whether party members live together or not.) This also derails the logical absurdity of instantaneous power-up when sufficient XP are achieved, even if this doesn't occur til after the adventure ends - that instead simply marks the transition from adventuring to training.

[LordVreeg]

I don't know if I'm the sort who should be responding to this, but I'm going to give it a go:

I can't say I actually like any mechanic that encourages characters to stop in the middle of the action (and I define the whole adventure as "the action").  My feeling of story demands that characters only stop when the story demands it, not the game mechanics.  Otherwise it feels weird to be playing a game and calling it a story.

The sort who should respond?  I missed the Scarlet Letter above SCMP, I think.

Good question.  I run story based games, and as such, I agree with you.  But often, PC's don't thinkj this way.  And when designing a story or a song, one needs the right amounts of rise and fall, of small climaxes and dips as well.

Also, it is a strategyu thing.  I am very into making my players think in the mid-and-long term.  Spells and their limits, healing's limits, many of the spells that can be cast, are all vased on clever logistical use.  Basically, if the players are not wise enough to take a breathe when they can, then to your point, when they are 'in medias', they won't have many resources that they could have had if they had been wiser.

Very good question, and you should ask as many as you feel.  If I am dopey enough to post it, feel free!

[LordVreeg]

I'm surprised that training mechanics aren't included in this. Requiring training to actually advance in (at least most) skills when leveling up likewise forces characters to take a break and deal with whatever shortcomings/weaknesses/gaps they may have discovered in the course of the previous adventure(s). I've played in games where leveling up usually equates to at least a month, and sometimes as much as six months, of down-time to rest, regroup, reequip/supply, research (such as new spells) and train. Parties in these games often pooled resources for a shared "home base" for the entire group. (In Shadowrun this is pretty much mandatory, at least regarding safe-houses, regardless of whether party members live together or not.) This also derails the logical absurdity of instantaneous power-up when sufficient XP are achieved, even if this doesn't occur til after the adventure ends - that instead simply marks the transition from adventuring to training.

Skill based game, S&M, not class based.  We keep track of levels in a dozen skills for beginning characters, and some of the older characters have levls in 30+ skills.  The incremental growth in leveling is small, as well.  In this type of system, one cannot take time out to level. We had 8 of our mini-level breaks alone last session.
One of the reasons I went skill based was the "*ding*, I have killed one more orc...I am now ready to take more damage, cast better spells, perform bardic skills, and everything else that I could not start being better at yesterday, because of kiling that orc" odf class based games.  So in a back-handed kind of way, thank you for bringing it up.  In guildschool you get better at a skill by using it, not by any other way.
I was also trying to create a system that would allow for a much lower power, without losing the thrill that players get when inproving.  Tons of little level breaks and much smaller progress makes happy players. while not having to ever get to anything close to the ridulousness of having PC's take as much damage as horses, or worse, dragons, and the power scale inherent in such systems.

Thanks for caring enough to bop in.

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

Good question.  I run story based games, and as such, I agree with you.  But often, PC's don't thinkj this way.  And when designing a story or a song, one needs the right amounts of rise and fall, of small climaxes and dips as well.

Also, it is a strategyu thing.  I am very into making my players think in the mid-and-long term.  Spells and their limits, healing's limits, many of the spells that can be cast, are all vased on clever logistical use.  Basically, if the players are not wise enough to take a breathe when they can, then to your point, when they are 'in medias', they won't have many resources that they could have had if they had been wiser.

Another personal thing about not liking running out of stuff is I'm not much of a tactics person.  My strategy can be summed up as "If it moves, hit it till it stops".

I must say one question that's crossed my mind is "What happens to a person who receives more than the allowed amount of healing?".  Because you make it sound like there are some interesting/horrible consequences.  I'm not fond of those mechanics either, but I do find them a little entertaining.

Skill based game, S&M, not class based.  We keep track of levels in a dozen skills for beginning characters, and some of the older characters have levls in 30+ skills.  The incremental growth in leveling is small, as well.  In this type of system, one cannot take time out to level. We had 8 of our mini-level breaks alone last session.
One of the reasons I went skill based was the "*ding*, I have killed one more orc...I am now ready to take more damage, cast better spells, perform bardic skills, and everything else that I could not start being better at yesterday, because of kiling that orc" odf class based games.  So in a back-handed kind of way, thank you for bringing it up.  In guildschool you get better at a skill by using it, not by any other way.

I like this sort of approach.  Never encountered it in a published system (at least, not one I haven't bought).

[Snargash Moonclaw]

I hadn't realize your "leveling" system was that incremental; my impression was of "character levels" at which they raise skills by a percentage according to the guild school they train the respective skills in.

Sound like you're progression might be more like GURPS (and much of Shadowrun/Mechwarrior = games originated by FASA) than I had realized: Character Point awards a generally 0-5 per *session* (2-3 being norm) which can then be spent on adding/raising traits (generic noun for all numeric descriptors, positive or negative - skills, attributes, advantages/disadvantages, etc.). Skills are described by skill levels which are linked to their controling attribute (e.g. "IQ+3). Learning a new skill costs 1 CP, increasing it once costs two and further increases 4 each. (Level is then the sum of attribute and modifier - if IQ is 12 when you raise the skill to IQ +3 then skill level = 15.) Anyway, this means that every session or two characters can increase a single skill by a point, add 1 point Perks, etc. (Individual Spells are individual skills - could learn a few new spells - 1 CP each, or increase level of known spells.) Attributes (since they effect levels of all skills controlled by it) cost much more - 10 or 20 for primary attributes,d 2-5 for secondary attributes (alone) derived from the values of related primaries. This means that they will have to save CP a while to make some other increases. Progression then is also very incremental for all traits, development is more of a continual process of "tons of little level breaks." I much prefer that over class levels.

I normally insist on training for most improvements in any system and although many skills, if used extensively enough, can increase without training due to OJT - I also generally require that half the points spent on skills (I'm referring to D&D usage here,) must be spent on skills that were used extensively. (Say, lock picking after someone had to pick the locks on nearly every door they found in the adventure.) Mentors, senseis, etc. are common for PCs, and those who train with one will need to visit hir periodically. Many of these teach/train within the context of an order or church. Khurorkh shyz'n are invariably related to the churches of one or more deities.

As usual we appear to by thinking along the same lines. . .

[LordVreeg]

[blockquote=SCMP]I must say one question that's crossed my mind is "What happens to a person who receives more than the allowed amount of healing?". Because you make it sound like there are some interesting/horrible consequences. I'm not fond of those mechanics either, but I do find them a little entertaining.[/blockquote]
The body rejects healing by lower level magic if it is used too much.  Higher power spells can override this, but spending restorative, life, and spirit spell poinst to use low power healing on someone who has already been healed recently by it is merely a waste.  I don't tell the PC's if they are doing it, I just tell them the spell failed.  So it is not as fun and horrible as it sounded.  

[note=Limiting Mechanic three]
In Guildschool, we also have a spell failure roll that must be made with every spell cast.  The fluff behind this is that the teype of concentration needed to channell the various Void-Borne power sources needed to cast is difficult and somewhat precise, and that every time there is a chance of failure.  The more difficult anc complicated the spell, the higher the chance of screwing it up.  
The Rules behind this are that every spell has a basic spell success modifier, easy spells have a + modifier, and the more power sources and more engery that has to be pulled through, the more difficult the spell is.
Spell success is also a sub skill of every type of spell point, and players are allowed to use their spell success skills from spririt and whatever the main ingredient of the spell, to simulate their experience and expertise with the type of spell being cast.  Players can also pour in extra spell points to increase their chances of success.
So magic is given this feel of expertise by the chance of failure, and the logistics of playing a character or NPC change when every caster has to worry about spell failure changes everything.  Guildschool is a very low-power system, and magic would be too much of a game-changer if it was 100% solid in working.  I have certainly had a few players slam their heads against the table when a spell fails at a critical time, but I like how this affects the drama of the story.[/note]


[blockquote=SCMP]I like this sort of approach. Never encountered it in a published system (at least, not one I haven't bought).[/blockquote]  Well, I am not the system scholar that S&M and some of our other stalawarts have shown themselves to be, but I was trying to create a system that rewarded people for their specific actions, and created the character that they were playing...in other words, if the dame bard keeps on running into combat and not using his bard skills or magic, he becomes a better fighter, his spell skills don't get better.  The only people getting better Hit Points are the characters getting hit.  
And it is hard to encounter it outside of my little game- :D world.  Glad you can appreciate it.

(PLayers can and very much do buy skill 'kits' to learn and improve skills.  It's not that they cannot learn to do things that they are not doing every day, but that they have to spend a lot of time practising and learning them.)

[snakefing]

OT: I have some questions on your spell failure.

To set the stage, I like the idea. But in the two systems I've played where you had to roll for spell success, it didn't really work as well as I would have liked. It turned out to be so hard to get even modestly reliable with your spells, that characters inevitably chose to focus on just one or two spells that they could do really well. Maybe a couple more that were worth trying in a situations where failure wasn't catastrophic.

So, the questions are:

How hard is it to raise a spell to the level of reliabilitiy (like, at least 60% success)? How many spells does a typical caster have this level of ability in?

What is the consequence of failure? Do you still use up the points? Just waste time? Have a chance of spell catastrophe? This greatly affects the ability of a character to just keep trying. (If there's no cost to failing, then even a spell with 25% success is reasonably reliable when you aren't rushed.)

Back on topic:
From a fluff standpoint, I've never really been a big fan of recharge/reload limiting mechanics. I don't really have an argument for why; just a personal preference I guess. But from a game standpoint, they do add some levels of tactics and strategy.

[snakefing]

Oh, and the only other system that I heard of that had anything like LV's system for experience in skills that you use was RuneQuest. There you had to use skills in a stress situation and then make a check to see if you improved. Obviously this is different in the way it works out, but vaguely similar in concept.

Most published games shy away from the amount of bookkeeping that Vreeg's system implies. But in this day and age, spread sheets and computer programs can easily be written to support that, so I don't really see it as being much of a hindrance.

[LordVreeg]

Falling behind here.  Glad for all the reponses....

S&M, yes, we are on similar pages, but I do diverge from GURPS as well, despite my affection for Steve and his systems.
I am a big fan of experience points.  Old-school, set in stone, you-get-this-many-for-this, experience points.  Because when you know [note=Limiting Mechanism Four] what is using a skill worth?  Fist off, you get 3 exp in a skill for failing an attempt.  Which is why we give experience in bunches after resolution.  "Melvin, You open the door, and a blade snicks out of a hole near the hinge and tries to rip open your armor.  Roll for protection, and Harold, take 3 in Basic Trap.".  Success in a skill is worth 15 exp + 1 exp per point under what you needed is rolled + difficulty bonus.  The difficulty bonus is simply the penalty squared.  So succeeding with a bonus or with no penalty gives you the basic amount, but for a -5% on a CC roll, that nets +25 EXP.  for -10%, it nets +100 EXP.  For -25%, it nets you +625 EXP[/note]  I don't like arbitrary style reward systems, as I feel they create a bad give-and-take dynamic when the players all know the DM is actually controlling their growth.  I had a GM on this site once tell me that he had gotten tired of the level the players were at and zipped them along a bit, which is heretical to me and my very-long term games.  It has a place, but the psychologist in me thinks that whole dynamic dilutes the accomplishment for the players and the whole game thereby.

Also, linked to this is the progression of CP's needed to move up levels.  In my estimation, it is a lot harder to go from level 10 to level 11 in a skill than it is to go from level 3 to level 4.  As PC's in the guildschool game get better, their growth in their primary, oldest skills slows down (the highest PC level is 12 in a skill for a 13 year old character) bur the ability to learn sub-skills and new skills gives a pyramid effect with upper level, more expereinces becoming experts in their chosen areas, but competent in many others.  The experience charts for level growth is here.
Again, I do not want to say anthing is 'better' than something else, as my stuff is built specifically for the long-term games.  But I have tried to gear my rules for that.

[Matt Larkin (author)]

TRoS uses a similar, if somewhat simpler system for improving skills. (Attributes are improved through a point pool similar to Shadowrun.)

[LordVreeg]

OT: I have some questions on your spell failure.

To set the stage, I like the idea. But in the two systems I've played where you had to roll for spell success, it didn't really work as well as I would have liked. It turned out to be so hard to get even modestly reliable with your spells, that characters inevitably chose to focus on just one or two spells that they could do really well. Maybe a couple more that were worth trying in a situations where failure wasn't catastrophic.

So, the questions are:

How hard is it to raise a spell to the level of reliabilitiy (like, at least 60% success)? How many spells does a typical caster have this level of ability in?

What is the consequence of failure? Do you still use up the points? Just waste time? Have a chance of spell catastrophe? This greatly affects the ability of a character to just keep trying. (If there's no cost to failing, then even a spell with 25% success is reasonably reliable when you aren't rushed.)

Back on topic:
From a fluff standpoint, I've never really been a big fan of recharge/reload limiting mechanics. I don't really have an argument for why; just a personal preference I guess. But from a game standpoint, they do add some levels of tactics and strategy.

As always, you have great questions as to how something is used.

SPells Success is set at 50%.  Cantrips generally have +15 TO 25% success, low level spells have +05% to +15% success, and it tubes from there.  Some more powerful spells (Say, Raise Dead) have up to -50% success.  Spell success is a sub skill of that type of spell point, with a .5 dropdown.  So an average starting mage will have maybe +10% to spell success, An average 5 session character maybe +15 to spell success, and an average 20 session character +20% spell success.  
This is also mitigated if a character decides to throw extra pretinent spell points at a spell, which always increases the success by 1% per extra point tossed into the spell.

Due to how deleterious this could be to a more powerfuls spell, most tougher spells cast outside of an adventure that are in danger of failing are cast using the Ritual Spell skill.

So even an average starting mage has some spells at better than 60% skill.  And the more powerful they become, the more routine lower level spells become.

And yes, the spell points are GONE with a failure, and there is a fumble chart...Never confuse me with a kind man.
 

[Nomadic]

I don't know how anyone could mistake a man in black leather as kind...

[LordVreeg]

[blockquote=SF, most understated and Wise]Most published games shy away from the amount of bookkeeping that Vreeg's system implies. But in this day and age, spread sheets and computer programs can easily be written to support that, so I don't really see it as being much of a hindrance. [/blockquote]

So succinct, yet so profound.

Yeah, there is always a playability vs. realism tug-of-war.  But this one has never been a problem.  Character creation takes a while longer, figuring out the EXP mods for every skill that a player may be interested in, but we have 100% laptop attendance.  SO during play, a lot of the derived stuff derives automatically.