Post by Admin Fawkes on Jun 29, 2016 1:44:56 GMT -4
No one wants a stranger deciding if and how their character will react to a situation or a conflict without their consent. Sometimes both players want to "win" what's at stake in the scene so badly that they may act in overpowered ways that ignore who they've said their characters are or what their characters' proclaimed strengths and weaknesses are. Players have at least two options. They may plan and agree upon how they will permit other players to overcome challenge situations between their characters in the "Out of Character/Planning" sections of the forum (some people like a surprise and easily write with just a handshake) while others like a rules framework as described below when starting out with strangers.
In an attempt to encourage authentic role-playing and simplify conflict resolution for interacting strangers and beginners/experienced gamers, this forum is suggesting players use (on a trial basis to start) a gaming mechanic where players begin each scene (thread) with an assigned "Action Point Total" (Generally 3 points for first years, and increasing as students reach higher grades). Whenever players wish to script an interaction with each other or the environment where success isn't guaranteed, the outcome will be decided by writing in a way that clearly indicates which main strategy from their "Character Application/Biography" they are using as they attempt to act (and in cases where it might be unclear or cause for debate, using hashtags like #sneaky+3 or #quick+1 at the end of their post).
The player who wants to oppose the suggested challenge has two choices. One option for the opposing player is to react as is appropriate for their corresponding character's strategy score (if it is lower, they describe how their character "loses/fails", and if it is higher or the same, how they "win/are unaffected").
For example, if a Gryffindor seeker tries to #quickly grab the golden snitch in a Quidditch match before the Slytherin seeker can, the Gryffindor player will likely succeed if his current score for the "quick" strategy on his character sheet is higher than the Slytherin's.
However, if they wish, the opposing player may spend one of their Action Points for that scene to call upon an already described feature of *either* of the interacting characters in conflict, or of the setting involved (for example, it might have said it was raining in a previous post in the thread, which would make the snitch wet and hard to snatch), to gain an additional +2 bonus in the score comparison. In this final case, if a feature of the opposing character (for example, their "biggest source of trouble" listed on their character sheet is "fear of thunder and lightning") is used against them, the opposing character gains another action point to use somewhere else in that scene. When players run out of action points for that scene, they can no longer use them to modify the outcome of their opposed strategy checks.
Obviously, when a new scene (thread) is started, the action points return to the total amount listed on their character sheet.
In an attempt to encourage authentic role-playing and simplify conflict resolution for interacting strangers and beginners/experienced gamers, this forum is suggesting players use (on a trial basis to start) a gaming mechanic where players begin each scene (thread) with an assigned "Action Point Total" (Generally 3 points for first years, and increasing as students reach higher grades). Whenever players wish to script an interaction with each other or the environment where success isn't guaranteed, the outcome will be decided by writing in a way that clearly indicates which main strategy from their "Character Application/Biography" they are using as they attempt to act (and in cases where it might be unclear or cause for debate, using hashtags like #sneaky+3 or #quick+1 at the end of their post).
The player who wants to oppose the suggested challenge has two choices. One option for the opposing player is to react as is appropriate for their corresponding character's strategy score (if it is lower, they describe how their character "loses/fails", and if it is higher or the same, how they "win/are unaffected").
For example, if a Gryffindor seeker tries to #quickly grab the golden snitch in a Quidditch match before the Slytherin seeker can, the Gryffindor player will likely succeed if his current score for the "quick" strategy on his character sheet is higher than the Slytherin's.
However, if they wish, the opposing player may spend one of their Action Points for that scene to call upon an already described feature of *either* of the interacting characters in conflict, or of the setting involved (for example, it might have said it was raining in a previous post in the thread, which would make the snitch wet and hard to snatch), to gain an additional +2 bonus in the score comparison. In this final case, if a feature of the opposing character (for example, their "biggest source of trouble" listed on their character sheet is "fear of thunder and lightning") is used against them, the opposing character gains another action point to use somewhere else in that scene. When players run out of action points for that scene, they can no longer use them to modify the outcome of their opposed strategy checks.
Obviously, when a new scene (thread) is started, the action points return to the total amount listed on their character sheet.