|
Post by kaitoujuliet on Aug 6, 2012 14:06:00 GMT -8
I was going to post this on the latest episode discussion thread, and then I thought it might do better as its own topic in a more general forum. I actually went and transcribed the quote that set me off on this topic. It's from episode 69 of the Actual People, Actual Play podcast, starting at roughly 5:40, where they talk about starting a game of Star Wars Saga Edition. I don't know the hosts' names (sorry! I've only heard a couple of episodes), so I've just labeled them A and B for now. I bolded the statements that strike me as particularly interesting. So ... thoughts? Agree? Disagree? I can't say I think they're 100% wrong, in the sense that it's possible to play the game this way and the ruleset doesn't specifically discourage it. (But then, to reference another recent lively discussion, the ruleset of Savage Worlds doesn't specifically discourage handing out bennies in a sexist manner.) I also think they're selling D20 short--and even though they pick on D20 specifically, I've heard this same sort of comment about all so-called "traditional" systems, which include GURPS and Hero. It also seems to me this has the potential to become a self-fulfilling prophecy, which I think would be a shame.
|
|
|
Post by henryhankovitch on Aug 6, 2012 15:23:11 GMT -8
There are two mechanical elements of 3E/D20 that I think detract from its usefulness in fantasy-world roleplaying. The first is the meteoric power increase in the game. A D20 character can go from getting his butt kicked by household pets, to a demigod looking for other demigods to kick in the nuts. This is an arc that (I contend) doesn't actually exist in almost any fantasy setting or genre. Sure, callow youths go out, gain experience, discover power, acquire swag; but at the end of the day you still have a more reasonable envelope of their abilities within the world. A character from Lord of the Rings is never going to turn himself into the comic-book Superman, no matter how many orcs he kills. The second element is what I call "Inspector Gadget magic." Magic in D20 is neither mysterious, nor generalized, nor particularly esoteric. It consists of a wide array of extremely specific and completely reliable tools. Need a horse? Cast your Summon Horse spell. This creates a world where the supernatural becomes commonplace and contemptible. Magic is only feared if you can't find any bigger magic. I don't think either of these design elements prevent you from roleplaying, or "ruin the system," or whatever. But I believe they create a world with a very bizarre metaphysics, which is hostile to the sort of narrative that most of us want to create. Aragorn doesn't fit in D20; nor do Conan, Fafhrd, Tyrion Lannister, the Black Company, the element-benders from Avatar, Vlad Taltos, or damn near anyone else in fantasy media.
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Aug 7, 2012 0:09:39 GMT -8
The system only matters if the players around the tabletop rely on the system (and not the GM). The more distance the players have from one another, the more the rules as written functions as reigns on player input to standardize an experience. Like a cookie cutter - imply what you will from that. I think I am channeling Stu's emphasis on context below, but I break with him on the nonsensical comment of RAW vs. house rule. Yes, house rules are “ rules” but these rules are manufactured at the table rather than RAW published by the publisher. The conversation involved with house rules makes allot of sense actually and delineates the important difference of house rules from RAW. This engagement is an indelible part of the game’s social nature. If RPGs are an engrossing, long running, shared activity between players, they should not ultimately be a fest of RAW. Player conversations and dialogues, like any memorable, reasonable and fair engaging discourse, will tailor the way the game is played. Not to be abstruse, I am referring to the rules negotiation at the table rather than the fictitious play-acting dialogues that occur over headsets of WoW guild players. As with any group dynamic, the RPGs group bonding process is Storming, Norming, Forming in that order. If there is no group dynamic by definition there is no group engagement; no player engrossment and no expectation of player engrossment. RPGs can be a passive play experience left to RAW systems, die rolls and meta-game jargon and play relegated to just playing my character at a distance of a 10’ barge pole. However, prior to initiating cookie cutter systems that imitate video game code into the design, RPGs were not about being passive or competitive. It's all about context "Does system matter?" to me, is not the same question as "can I have fun role-playing in any system?" If you're just looking for a fun time, sure, you can play just about anything, and with the right players, it will be fun. Once you get into the minutia of role-playing: the sort of story you want the tell, the flavor, the PCs' world view, then system starts to matter quite a bit. By the end of the discussion, we were deep into the nitty gritty of role-playing, so that question would have a different answer. The RAW vs. house-ruled discussion, to me, is kind of nonsensical. "All systems can be tweaked, house-ruled and twisted to do anything, so, no, system doesn't matter." ... but if you have to make huge tweaks to RAW, doesn't that mean it *does* matter? Otherwise, just start with a blank piece of paper and house-rule as needed
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Aug 7, 2012 3:27:32 GMT -8
Does it all not depend, ultimately, on the context in which the game occurs. If we accept that different groups RP in different ways and if what you do as RP is fun then 'rock on' . . . Surely how you RP as a group determines the final answer to the question. For some yes for others no: no one interpretation is right or wrong because there are too many 'confounding variables' in the question . . . It's a good question but no single answer will resolve it. I would suggest forumites be very specific in placing the context of their answers to the original question to avoid misunderstandings . . .
|
|
HyveMynd
Supporter
Dirty hippie, PbtA, Fate, & Cortex Prime <3er
Posts: 2,273
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, Cortex Plus, Fate, Ubiquity
Currently Playing: Monsterhearts 2
Currently Running: The Sprawl
Favorite Species of Monkey: None
|
Post by HyveMynd on Aug 7, 2012 5:47:07 GMT -8
Does system matter? Absolutely. Whether we consciously notice it or not, rules and mechanics affect the tone, feel, and flavor of the game. Yes, you can use Savage Worlds to play any setting, but it will always feel like Savage Worlds. I could reskin Hollow Earth Expedition or Cosmic Patrol to play a Tolkien-esque fantasy game, but they'll never feel like D&D because they're not d20 systems. Unless you give the rules of a system a complete overhaul (such as removing the Wild Die, taking away Style Points, or changing how damage works) all of the existing mechanics in a system will give the game a specific flavor, regardless of what genre of game you're playing.
This even happens when you have two games based on nearly identical systems. JiB mentioned Apocalypse World at the start of S8E7, which spawned Monsterhearts. The first is meant to be a gritty and dangerous post-apocalyptic game while the latter allows you to play True Blood. Both games use the same basic mechanics, but Monsterhearts introduced a "game currency" players gain by having their PCs engage in romantic relationships. That one mechanical change completely changes the feel of the game.
It was mentioned in a previous season, but Exalted and the new World of Darkness are very close system-wise, but the slight differences between them make them vastly different games.
So yes. System matters. And yes, with enough work you can hack any system to work with any genre or type of game. But if there's a system out there that already captures the tone, feel, and flavor of game you want to run, why not save yourself some time and just use that one? Unless you get off on modifying game systems, which I do on occasion. ;D
|
|
|
Post by kaitoujuliet on Aug 7, 2012 8:06:24 GMT -8
See, I'm still of the opinion that tone and flavor are really minor differences between systems. Sure, having a system that lends itself to the tone you're going for is nice, but as a limitation it can IMO generally be overcome. I propose this scenario as a thought experiment: Let's say you have a story in mind that you are really fired up about running--you know, one of those awesome campaign ideas that takes over your brain and refuses to let go. You know that Game System A would be perfect for running this story, as it has rules that are tailored to the exact things you want in the campaign. But you can't get your hands on a copy of System A for some reason. Either it's obscure and long out of print, or it's ridiculously expensive, or your players hate it, or whatever. However, you do have a copy of Game System B, which isn't perfect but could get the job done. Do you run the story under System B, or do you regretfully scrap the whole idea because you can't get System A? (No cheating and saying you'd just download an illegal PDF of System A. That's sidestepping the question! ;D ) If the answer is "it depends," how far from perfect would System B have to be before you would give up on the idea? Or for that matter, what if there is no perfect system for the story you've dreamed up, but several that could handle different parts of it? Would you switch systems during the game, or would you stick with one throughout? And I absolutely reject the idea that D20 systems are only suitable for playing stories of constant violence perpetrated by shallow murderhobos with no background that anyone cares about. As far as I'm concerned, things like the deadliness of the system and possibility of exploding dice are just variations on a theme, nuances of flavor under the basic heading of adventure games. I think you can play just about any adventure storyline with just about any system that focuses on adventures, with enough work. I also think you can add just about any interpersonal subplot to any "traditional" adventure-game system if you don't mind freeforming a lot of it--and I don't think freeforming is a bad thing either. I do concede, however, that if you don't want your plotline to have any adventuring aspect, then a "traditional" game may not be the best choice of system.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Aug 7, 2012 9:08:17 GMT -8
See, I'm still of the opinion that tone and flavor are really minor differences between systems. Sure, having a system that lends itself to the tone you're going for is nice, but as a limitation it can IMO generally be overcome. I propose this scenario as a thought experiment: Let's say you have a story in mind that you are really fired up about running--you know, one of those awesome campaign ideas that takes over your brain and refuses to let go. You know that Game System A would be perfect for running this story, as it has rules that are tailored to the exact things you want in the campaign. But you can't get your hands on a copy of System A for some reason. Either it's obscure and long out of print, or it's ridiculously expensive, or your players hate it, or whatever. However, you do have a copy of Game System B, which isn't perfect but could get the job done. Do you run the story under System B, or do you regretfully scrap the whole idea because you can't get System A? (No cheating and saying you'd just download an illegal PDF of System A. That's sidestepping the question! ;D ) If the answer is "it depends," how far from perfect would System B have to be before you would give up on the idea? Or for that matter, what if there is no perfect system for the story you've dreamed up, but several that could handle different parts of it? Would you switch systems during the game, or would you stick with one throughout? And I absolutely reject the idea that D20 systems are only suitable for playing stories of constant violence perpetrated by shallow murderhobos with no background that anyone cares about. As far as I'm concerned, things like the deadliness of the system and possibility of exploding dice are just variations on a theme, nuances of flavor under the basic heading of adventure games. I think you can play just about any adventure storyline with just about any system that focuses on adventures, with enough work. I also think you can add just about any interpersonal subplot to any "traditional" adventure-game system if you don't mind freeforming a lot of it--and I don't think freeforming is a bad thing either. I do concede, however, that if you don't want your plotline to have any adventuring aspect, then a "traditional" game may not be the best choice of system. I tend to agree with your summation of your thought experiment. I also agree that most systems can be adapted . . . Chaosium BRP was really just early Runequest pared down, it was then tweaked to suit other flavours of game giving rise to Stormbringer and Cthulhu etc. d20 has proven particularly robust through the OGL in producing a slew of various favoured games . . . Not all murderfests either . . . Though poor game design/adapatation is the fault of the designers not the underlying system being tweaked. It also depends on what you mean by system . . . just the Die roll mechanics or do you include the adjudicating fluff eg: Cthulhu's use of sanity . . . Etc
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Aug 7, 2012 9:16:16 GMT -8
I'm going to put some specifics here:
Let's say I'm running a fantasy murder mystery in a dangerous would where honor is everything and death is quick. The party has been tasked to discover the murderer and bring evidence to their lord, who will dispatch justice. This is a dangerous world where a stray accusation means a knife in the gut and a painful death from slowly bleeding to death, or failing that, infection.
I want the party to proceed with caution, to thoroughly investigate and build a case before leveling their accusation.
I could run this game in several systems.
Let's say System B is DnD4e: I could run it in DnD4e, but I would have to either modify or ditch the healing surge rules, otherwise it won't have the grit. I would also have to either keep the PC levels very low or house rule the damage/hit points math to make combat quicker and scarier.
Let's say System A is Savage Worlds: I could run it in Savage Worlds, certainly the healing rules are gritty enough. You can definitely one-shot someone on a lucky roll. I think there are even disease rules (which I can use for an infection).
So, yes, I could run the game in either system. If I *really* wanted to run the game and SW was out of print, I could do it in DnD4e.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Aug 7, 2012 10:53:32 GMT -8
I'm going to put some specifics here: Let's say I'm running a fantasy murder mystery in a dangerous would where honor is everything and death is quick. The party has been tasked to discover the murderer and bring evidence to their lord, who will dispatch justice. This is a dangerous world where a stray accusation means a knife in the gut and a painful death from slowly bleeding to death, or failing that, infection. I want the party to proceed with caution, to thoroughly investigate and build a case before leveling their accusation. I could run this game in several systems. Let's say System B is DnD4e: I could run it in DnD4e, but I would have to either modify or ditch the healing surge rules, otherwise it won't have the grit. I would also have to either keep the PC levels very low or house rule the damage/hit points math to make combat quicker and scarier. Let's say System A is Savage Worlds: I could run it in Savage Worlds, certainly the healing rules are gritty enough. You can definitely one-shot someone on a lucky roll. I think there are even disease rules (which I can use for an infection). So, yes, I could run the game in either system. If I *really* wanted to run the game and SW was out of print, I could do it in DnD4e. Which comes back to my earlier point about context and specifics . . . So yes I'd agree with that . . . But note that SW is designed by default to be cross genre and tweakable whereas DnD4e isn't and house ruling can easily break the math . . . Which again only matters depending on your desired outcome (context). ie breaking the math to make it more deadly would be a desired outcome in this specific hypothetical.
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Aug 7, 2012 11:23:37 GMT -8
I'm going to put some specifics here: Let's say I'm running a fantasy murder mystery in a dangerous would where honor is everything and death is quick. The party has been tasked to discover the murderer and bring evidence to their lord, who will dispatch justice. This is a dangerous world where a stray accusation means a knife in the gut and a painful death from slowly bleeding to death, or failing that, infection. I want the party to proceed with caution, to thoroughly investigate and build a case before leveling their accusation. I could run this game in several systems. Let's say System B is DnD4e: I could run it in DnD4e, but I would have to either modify or ditch the healing surge rules, otherwise it won't have the grit. I would also have to either keep the PC levels very low or house rule the damage/hit points math to make combat quicker and scarier. Let's say System A is Savage Worlds: I could run it in Savage Worlds, certainly the healing rules are gritty enough. You can definitely one-shot someone on a lucky roll. I think there are even disease rules (which I can use for an infection). So, yes, I could run the game in either system. If I *really* wanted to run the game and SW was out of print, I could do it in DnD4e. Stu, you're right. Your assertion that house ruling is basically creating a system specific to the game wanting to play is a bulletproof argument. If you had the home-ruled system already published RAW off the shelf, why not use that? (i.e. conveniently avoid creating a game already in existence.) And , yes, very much unlike the old chestnut of “ RPG’s are Monopoly play acted in character,” the role-playing games hobby/players should recognise tinkering with rules by players is part of the game – very much unlike other games. Each and every table is a different experience, regardless the system touted “balance.” This essential recognition acknowledges the role playing game is a negotiation between all players, and therefore system matters less than does players. If everyone wants to play X system, then that restriction should not stop a game from enjoying the experience the players want from it. Games like Monopoly, where RAW are codified and sacrosanct systems of play, cannot translate play into a Lovecraftian shared fantasy for example, whereas any RPG can given the accepted practice of house ruling. The new wave (new school, whatever) tends to argue against this premise – that the game should be a communal activity separate from system – and forget that even the old games had modules showcasing everything from aliens in a fantasy setting (Expedition to the Barrier Peaks) to murder mysteries (The Assassin's Knot) very early on in the hobby in systems that are today mischaracterized by system rather than by GM-player product, and declared non-conducive to such play. This broad brush on game characterization according to systems (rather than specific to GMs), as if all systems were fancy board games, paints everyone who plays into a caricature that more often than not does a disservice to the hobby.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Aug 7, 2012 12:02:18 GMT -8
The new wave (new school, whatever) tends to argue against this premise – that the game should be a communal activity separate from system – and forget that even the old games had modules showcasing everything from aliens in a fantasy setting (Expedition to the Barrier Peaks) to murder mysteries (The Assassin's Knot) very early on in the hobby in systems that are today mischaracterized by system rather than by GM-player product, and declared non-conducive to such play. . Don't forget the original Ravenloft
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Aug 7, 2012 12:39:33 GMT -8
System matters in as much as the players want it to matter. You can play a game without any game system at all such that all decisions are made by communal understanding of the participants. You can play a game in which the system dictates every decision and every adjudication. Both have their selling points and their problems. Most game systems fall somewhere in between.
Game systems give us basically two things:
1. A common method for adjudicating the outcome of an action.
2. A common framework in which to draw the game that we're creating.
How much do those things dictate what game we can or should play? Depends on how much we want it to.
A game system informs the decisions we make by flavoring the resolutions of actions. If you shoot someone with a crossbow in a d20 construct it's going to have a very different resolution than if you shoot someone with a crossbow in GURPS, which is still going to be very different than if you shoot someone with a crossbow in real life. The quasi-reality of the game is informed by the nature of that resolution and from that the decisions that players make are also informed by that quasi-reality. As Stu pointed out on the cast, when guns come out in GURPS people start changing their mind about being belligerent.
However, all of that said, the characters are HEROES. Why? Because we want to be heroic in the games we play even if that game is a gritty street level game the characters rightfully want to be a cut above everyone else.
Just a few thoughts that probably don't amount to anything,
JiB
|
|
HyveMynd
Supporter
Dirty hippie, PbtA, Fate, & Cortex Prime <3er
Posts: 2,273
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, Cortex Plus, Fate, Ubiquity
Currently Playing: Monsterhearts 2
Currently Running: The Sprawl
Favorite Species of Monkey: None
|
Post by HyveMynd on Aug 7, 2012 21:36:24 GMT -8
However, all of that said, the characters are HEROES. I'll dispute that a bit. Not everyone wants to play as heroes. I mean, lots of people probably do, but some people (like myself) just want a chance to play interesting characters regardless of whether they would be considered "heroic" or not. I know I'm in the minority here, but I always cringe a little bit when I hear the phrase "because the PCs are heroes" mentioned on the cast. But that's a bit off topic. I do agree that all RPG systems fall somewhere on a gradient with complete freeform play being on one end, and extreme simulationist games with lots of rules being on the other. Both have benefits and drawbacks, but I don't think there are any pen & paper systems that are exclusively one or the other. Video and PC RPGs might be an example of the one extreme. While arguable not simulationist, the player can't modify any of the rules, and there's no human DM to make allowances for specific circumstances. You're either allowed to do something or you're not based on the programming, regardless of what would make sense given the current situation. Fiasco comes to mind as a very freeform game (that some people say is not a "real" RPG), but there are still set rules the players follow for resolving scenes. I tend to think that a completely freeform game would be like little kids playing make believe; lots of arguments about what happens when, to whom, and what the effect of that action is. It's comically almost like the extreme examples of the D&D 3.x alignment axis; extreme law or extreme chaos. I tend to think that neither work very well. So, I'm in the same camp as Stu and JiB. The rules of a system flavor action resolution. While you can play any type of game using any system, certain game/system combinations just work better than others or require less modification. Now, to answer kaitoujuliet's question, I have to ask another. Does system B allow me to approximate the tone and feel of the story I want to tell? If yes, then I'd run the game in system B even though it's not exactly what I wanted. If no, then the game gets scrapped. Sometimes it far better to not attempt a thing rather than to do it badly.
|
|
willh
Journeyman Douchebag
Posts: 220
|
Post by willh on Aug 8, 2012 5:17:23 GMT -8
However, all of that said, the characters are HEROES. I'll dispute that a bit. Not everyone wants to play as heroes. I mean, lots of people probably do, but some people (like myself) just want a chance to play interesting characters regardless of whether they would be considered "heroic" or not. I know I'm in the minority here, but I always cringe a little bit when I hear the phrase "because the PCs are heroes" mentioned on the cast. But that's a bit off topic. A hero is someone who does great deeds, not necessarily noble deeds.
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Aug 8, 2012 6:13:15 GMT -8
I don't mean that they're GOOD or NOBLE just that they're more important to the story and at the end of the day probably a bit more able than average.
JiB
|
|