Themes in an adventure

I'm trying to identify the main themes of RPG adventures, and the practical challenges these involve for the characters.

>Combat
- Fighting enemies with varying tactics and skillset, offering a diverse spectrum of challenges within the framework of hitting stuff until it decides to stop being an issue.
- Managing healing and recovery times, provided magic doesn't knit together wounds within a matter of seconds.

>Exploration
- Clearing up terra incognita on the game map, involving rolls for correctly guessing which way is north every day.
- Surviving in the wild, involving rolls for finding shelter, finding water, hunting for meat and foraging for nuts, berries, roots and herbs.
- Resource and inventory space management, involving planning for the duration of journeys and finding the sweet spot between not starving and not being bogged down by cartloads of rations.
- Maneuvering through difficult terrain, involving rolls for climbing, swimming, and possibly jumping.
- Exploring more confined systems of tunnels and chambers (i.e. dungeons and caverns).

>Socialisation
- Haggling and bartering, both to get cheap consumables and to get a good price on found loot.
- Influencing other social situations in your favour. Preferably by roleplaying the interaction, but at the very least by selecting either an appeal to reason or an appeal to emotion, and indicating the attempted mode of communication (e.g. intimidation, convincing, deceipt, etc.)

Is there an aspect of RPG adventures I'm missing? Something you find particularly rewarding?

Coincidentally, should magic just be a means to an end, or does it deserve an entire category of its own, requiring the players to invest time and resources into the uncovering and learning of magical lore?

Interesting thread. What I always say is D&D is about Resource Management, Exploration, Encounter Resolution (not necessarily by combat) though that's a consideration on its mechanics and play and not campaigns as a whole; resource management is imo much, much more important from a player perspective than socialization, but it's not necessarily something that arises as a major narrative 'theme'. Imo you should change combat to something more general. Combat should be a last resort and the least rewarding option.

You're missing PC level progression, nonmechanical PC progress (world knowledge etc), good planning and clever problem solving.

I would agree that resource management as a game mechanic needs to be a part of almost every RPG. Dice rolls and random chance create some welcome suspense, but at the end of the day, players also need to have a sense of agency in order to feel rewarded.

Whenever I plan a game or campaign, I try to implement different point pools and discrete 'scales' of time management as clear, mechanical ways to indicate the less 'physical' resources available to the players. Everyone can track the servings of food or gallons of water in their packs, that's easy. What I need is for players to be aware of and on the same page about the need to manage their time and energy (i.e. physical fitness).

Generally are divided into four periods of activity: morning, midday, evening and night. These are gone through similar to combat rounds. I present the current situation and ask the players what they wish to do during the upcoming portion of the day, we determine what actually happens using the game mechanics (if necessary), and I describe the new situation. Rinse and repeat.

This may sound like kind of an autistic way of running a game. I'm inclined to agree that I'm probably somewhere on the spectrum.

But it really helps me keep my players on their toes about their management of time and energy. I usually try to present them with clear short-term goals, offering PC progression (there it is) as a reward. Part of this is giving them the sense that these discrete 'portions' of progression are part of 'winning the game'. I suppose you could say my players are fairly 'gamist'. In any case, this gives them a sense of urgency and a desire to spend their parts of the day as efficiently as possible in working towards their next goal.

>Contd.

>Contd.

At the same time, their energy and physical fitness are expended through different kinds of point pools, like wound points and fatigue points. This ties into time management, as any kind of activity during any part of the day will almost certainly cost at least one type of point. Almost anything costs fatigue points, and most tasks involving combat and the exploration of difficult and dangerous terrain can inflict wound points.

On the mechanical and practical side of things, I quite like using systems where these pools are small. If at all possible, I like giving my players actual, physical tokens representing their point pools. The actual feeling of giving and receiving tokens to and from the game master really drives the point home that their characters are expending and regaining something tangible, their physical well-being.

Again, this method is probably most effective with 'gamist' players. Still, I feel like it is sufficiently simple to grasp for narratively-oriented players. Handing in and receiving tokens can be done fairly quickly and easy, allowing them to shift their focus back to the narrative.

Magic should be a tool, for both the players and the DM.

It can be like a sword or a bow, the wizard's way of interacting with enemies.

It can be like a crowbar or a lockpick, used for a specific purpose to interact with the environment.

It can be like torches and rations, an essential resource to be managed.

And for the DM, it can be a tool for plot, an excuse for monsters and treasure.

I think the only thing to consider is to not have it be more than what non-magic gets. Like, if a thief is proficient in daggers, shortbow, leather armor, lockpicks, and other thieves tools, weigh the wizard's spells against that as a benchmark, and don't let him have spells that are equivalent to that and more (in case you go for a vancian-like system, possibly weigh it like a person carrying lots of consumable items).

Come to think of it, picking up on which of your players enjoys either the gamist or the narrative approach is almost the most important skill for a DM to have.

For some reason, people aren't necessarily sure about what they want, and feel put on the spot when asked the question directly. I'll still bluntly ask the question if I really can't get a read on one of my players. As a DM, I consider it a rewarding challenge to try and find out which 'reward buttons' to push without having my players find out this is something I actively attempt to do.

I kind of like combining rulesets that are pretty punishing about anything stronger than what you'd consider 'low-magic' with narratives and settings that have no qualms about dropping some 'high-magic' in front of you.

Then again, I have a bit of an obsession with narratives that put the characters in the role of unenlightened, 'wide-eyed' humans, facing a dauntingly unknown and dangerously unexplored world. This probably shapes my views about how to run games.

>I think the only thing to consider is to not have it be more than what non-magic gets
This is a good reason to make magic no (or only marginally) more powerful than skill defaulting. This kind of assumes you're using a skill-based system, but bear with me.

I tend to think of magic like a way of doing things without having to explain why or how your character does that thing. Additionally, I think it's very versatile. If you can will an open flame into existence, that has a ton of possible uses.

If a magic user gets to invest some of the 'value' of his character in developing a versatile spell (like Charm Person) similarly to the way non-magical characters need to invest in separate and discrete skills (like Diplomacy or Haggling) game balance needs to be preserved. It's only fair to allow non-magical characters to get similarly versatile with their skills.

I believe a fair balance is struck when non-magical skills allow you to perform their core function better than a spell-skill. However, they shouldn't restrict their usability to the core function. They should be able to allow you to perform similar, yet separate skills, although less effectively than a skill-spell.

An example:
>The Bluff skill allows you to convince people of untruths at 100% efficiency.
>The Charm Person spell makes people like you, easing your interactions with them. This could help you bluff them, but it could also help you in haggling or reasoning with them. Compared to their separate specific skills, these attempts function at 75% efficiency.
>Since Haggling can involve pulling the wool over someone's eyes, the Bluff skill can be used in order to haggle, but only at 50% efficiency.

I'm sure a ton of games codify this in their rules. I know GURPS does.

Here's how my tiering goes:

A spell that can replace a torch? Bandages? Glue? A long stick with a hook on the end? A sword? Sure, it's one of your known spells (so it's a "cost" in that you are not proficient in some other tool), you can probably cast it as an at-will cantrip.

A spell that does something that's beyond the scope of what's achievable with tools or does it so in a way that's far beyond mundane capabilities, or mimics the effects of something expensive? To summon something from nothing, build a wall instantly, blow up a door, or a troll, as if you had explosives, you'll have to offer something; either a lengthy ritual, something that's expensive enough, or some of your life (in case your system has HP, and you want wizard classes with less HP, give them mana or slots that act as a cushion for casting; the HP is "pre paid" so to say).

A spell that instantly teleports you across the continent? You better believe that shit is going to cost an arm, a leg, and possibly some ancient powerful oneshot magic scroll. Or like, finding Stargates or something so you can't cast it yourself.

Can magical characters recoup the 'character value' cost expended in 'life force' or limbs?

If so, do non-magical characters gain value at a similar rate? In which form? Better loot or faster level progression than magic users?

Or would you consider they fact that they can perform their 'lesser' abilities without having to pay more than some easily-regained fatigue points, standard actions or something similarly 'cheap' to be a sufficient balancing factor?

>Can magical characters recoup the 'character value' cost expended in 'life force' or limbs?

At the same rate as HP heals.

>If so, do non-magical characters gain value at a similar rate?

Yeah, they regain their HP which they can "spend" to... I guess to not die. But I also make non-magical "feats of strength" available that may cost stamina/HP.

As for value, I forgot to note a lot of balance checks involved, such as noting that "summon something" either costs permanent resources or goes poof at the latest date when you could have recovered the resource spent on it (health/mana/slots).

>Magic users regain the 'life force' spent while casting at the same rate as HP heals.
>Mundanes regain their HP which they can "spend" to... I guess to not die
Are they using the same pool of points, HP? That would be a little strange to me. If we take combat as an example, non-magical characters would need the same denomination of character value to survive (i.e. not to die instantly when they get hit).

Is it fair to give magic users the option of spending the very same denomination of points in order to produce, as an example, explosions that could end a fight before it even really begins, only to regain it at the same speed as the characters who had the privilege of taking hits while being five times less effective than a single fireball?

>But I also make non-magical "feats of strength" available that may cost stamina/HP.
Are these sufficiently different from spells to dispel the notion that everyone's a spellcaster, just with the serial numbers filed off?
And if they are different, how is game balance preserved?

>I forgot to note a lot of balance checks involved, such as noting that "summon something" either costs permanent resources...
To me, this sounds like a balanced price for especially versatile and powerful abilities. However, it's important to consider that this almost forces magic users to whittle away their own character value in order to use their most relevant abilities. While this is an entirely valid approach to balanced game mechanics, we should also keep narratively-focused players in mind. Would they respond positively or negatively to characters that, metaphorically speaking, burn brightly for a very short amount of time? I know that a certain sense of potential longevity really motivates me to invest in and empathize with a character.

To be honest, I'm not sure combat and social interaction are themes in the same way exploration is.

They're much more similar to magic in that they are means to an end.

Exploration is pretty powerful as a theme. It practically made games like the first Zelda.

>Is it fair to give magic users the option of spending the very same denomination of points in order to produce, as an example, explosions that could end a fight before it even really begins, only to regain it at the same speed as the characters who had the privilege of taking hits while being five times less effective than a single fireball?

It goes like this: depending on the flavor of the system, either wizards cast from HP (wounds, stamina, whatever), or cast from some resource (mana, slots, etc.) that they pay for with having less life/defense to begin with. A system could also use both for different types of magicians (Advanced Fighting Fantasy 2nd edition that I just played a few days ago, for example, has mana casting Wizards and HP casting sorcerers, with different spells available).

The mundane character doesn't know the spell Fireball, but he still has some form of special fighting ability (or maybe he specced into non-fighting abilities, who knows?). It may or may not be suited to taking out multiple foes; maybe he's good at fighting multiple foes and would take less resources to defeat them. Maybe he's only really good against single, large foes, and would take more resources to defeat them. Maybe his fighting does inherently require some resource; like arrows/bullets or maybe something more exotic. The wizard's expenditure could be situationally more worth it, and part of the fun is figuring when that situation arises.

>Are these sufficiently different from spells to dispel the notion that everyone's a spellcaster, just with the serial numbers filed off?
I guess you could look it that way; it's very free-form, but both of these feats and rituals would have to build on what the character otherwise can do; so while an oracle type wizard could use a ritual to peer into the future, since he has oracle type magic, a different character can't do that; but he could, idk, beat a machine at rail building, if his skill fits.

Do you prefer for spells to work like other skills? Should performing a spell require an attack roll or skill check, in your opinion?

Or should spells automatically succeed unless resisted?

If so, should a skill automatically succeed unless something is actively hampering the performer?

While having lunch I have realized I could express this differently. Please forgive me for my mental diarrhea.

You can break actions up into categories like so:

-Automatic. These are natural actions like blinking or breathing. You don't even need to think about doing these things and they can be done while doing other stuff. Possibly includes things like walking.

- Action cost. It still takes time to do usually, and if you keep doing it you could fatigue yourself, but overall, using these costs nothing. Example: sprinting, jumping, punching, searching, etc.
The "cost" is in doing something instead of something else.

- Equipment cost. These are like No Cost, but need some form of equipment to use that is not consumed. Swinging a sword, picking a lock, etc.
The opportunity cost is having to carry something with you (possibly having to carry something in your hand, if you want handedness to be important) instead of something else.

- Short term costs are things like the aforementioned hp/stamina/mana/etc., longer time spent making things (collecting herbs, brewing potions, sharpening stakes, resetting traps) etc. regenerating resources that you recoup just by not being dead. This still puts a limit on how much you can do on the short term, but they are safe to use long term.

- Long term costs are things that you don't regain over time normally. If you use a diamond to raise a fallen friend, that diamond is gone. You use TNT to blow a hole in the wall, the TNT is gone. If you need to sacrifice an arm and a leg for forbidden alchemy, they are gone. You can regain these resource but you'll have to go out and find a way to do so.

Some actions need multiple of these (you may need a silver dagger for a ritual sacrifice).

With that in mind, what spending character building resources (learning skills, proficiencies, spells, special attacks, whatever) do, is let you bridge the gap between these. A ritual that costs time (short term) can be used to create light as if lighting a torch (long term). Maybe a skilled thief can open locks without having a lockpick (Equipment->no cost).

Or to look at it another way, spending that character building resource lets you step up the effectiveness of your action type by one. Say if a monk buys "fast movement" he can no-cost move as fast as someone who uses an action to run fast.

Magic (or being supernaturally skilled) is just a very convenient explanation for bridging these gaps.

Depends on the theme of your game.

I like magic to be accessible and not just blow up in your face. Going from there, I also like unified mechanics, so ideally it'd work like skills; and rolling for everything is kinda stupid in non-comedic games imo, so yeah.

>rolling for everything is kinda stupid in non-comedic games
I agree, but that wasn't exactly what I meant.

It's just that I prefer magic to be inherently challenging, always carrying a risk of failure.

In that sense, it differs from mundane tasks that can fail without consequences. You could keep attempting these tasks without any penalty, so rolling checks would just be pointlessly passing the time in most cases.

Yeah, that's what I meant by theme of the game. Not every world will have magic that is that unstable.

In some worlds. by the same token, it could be possible to be like, really careful about casting a spell to have the same effect as taking long to use a skill.

Would it be sensible to allow a player to use any weapon or unarmed combat skill instead of Intimidation?

My players tend to get a bit standoffish when their brutish fighters fail at intimidating anyone because they chose not to invest in Charisma or social skills.

I'd allow them to base it on brawn, but being intimidating is as much a learned skill as being charming.

>Is there an aspect of RPG adventures I'm missing?
The party aspect in and off itself, and how they are supposed to interact, compliment and contrast with each other.
I find that runs into the problem with "magic" where it carries relatively little risk/reward.
For me, my go to examples are Shadowrun and Riddle of Steel.
In Shadowrun, a mage is a rare, and potentially terrifying opponent that can utterly ruin, or at least greatly diminish, a team, and so are targeted first and foremost of all opponents. Geek the Mage First is a real in-setting line due to their recognized power.
Riddle of Steel, however, has powerful magic, but much of it is indirect, requires time and resources, and pointedly is not superior to a skillfully wielded weapon and good armor in a confrontation. Magic can do things regular people can't, but it is not convenient, requiring time and resources, along with a chance of failure (and calamity) that scales the further you push your limits.

I mean, it can still be rewarding; you don't have to only have low powered spells that can only be cast with week long rituals. I just mean that I don't see the point in rolling for cantrips like, say, lighting your pipe with a small spark spell, or similarly slowly shaping a rock into a statue with a control earth spell or something.

Well, in RoS, you could do a lot of the classic shit, like clairvoyance, hexes with a suitable link, enriching or blighting a field, shit that did not have direct anti-personnel use, but had a lot of narrative/indirect power.
The point was if you wanted things done directly, right now, that was a shitton harder, and riskier, than taking your time. That said, small shit like what you mentioned could be rushed, and would have a backlash, but it would be like a bruise at absolute worst, which meant you would take shock penalties for a round or 2.