|
Post by Kainguru on Aug 17, 2012 1:50:16 GMT -8
I'll amend my system-band analogy: d20 is The Grateful Dead cause Jerry G and GG have a passing resemblance and they're both dead (buy probably not gratefully)
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Aug 17, 2012 3:14:44 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Aug 17, 2012 5:51:22 GMT -8
Around my second or third year of college, I began designing my own RPG. I showed it to a friend of mine, and he said, "this looks a lot like GURPS (from what I've heard)". I went out and bought it, paged through it, and realized it was not only similar to what I was designing, but in many aspects more elegant. And it was already finished. So I abandoned my work and started playing GURPS. *Could* I have designed a good game? Maybe. But as it was, I didn't want to design an RPG, I wanted to play a certain kind of RPG that in my experience didn't exist (until I found GURPS). I started to create a game in the dim and distant antiquity of time. Mine was a percentile based system. You would have liked that armor was damage reduction. Interestingly the math involved would have given a Hero fan pause. The most notable thing about the system (imo) was that all weapons did a percentage of the target's health. Different weapons had different damage modifiers against different kinds of armor. The game also made a distinction between hard armor, semi-hard armor and soft armor. (Plate = Hard, Maille = Semi-Hard and Untreated Leather = Soft). Weapons had different modifiers for different armor types. So whether you were fighting with a dagger or a poleaxe you still roled percentile dice for damage. The basic weapon modifier for a poleaxe was higher than the basic weapon modifier for a dagger. The calculation ended up looking like this damage = die roll + (weapon modifier - damage reduction) damage reduction being a composite of armor and magical protections The weapon modifier was a composite of the base weapon modifier + the weapon's modifier vs the armor type + any magical enhancements. The reason for this was a fundamental belief on my part that one dagger through the ribs will kill you just as easily as a broadsword through the ribs. As you can see it could get to be a real juggling act in a hurry. JiB
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Aug 17, 2012 6:19:47 GMT -8
Around my second or third year of college, I began designing my own RPG. I showed it to a friend of mine, and he said, "this looks a lot like GURPS (from what I've heard)". I went out and bought it, paged through it, and realized it was not only similar to what I was designing, but in many aspects more elegant. And it was already finished. So I abandoned my work and started playing GURPS. *Could* I have designed a good game? Maybe. But as it was, I didn't want to design an RPG, I wanted to play a certain kind of RPG that in my experience didn't exist (until I found GURPS). I started to create a game in the dim and distant antiquity of time. Mine was a percentile based system. You would have liked that armor was damage reduction. Interestingly the math involved would have given a Hero fan pause. The most notable thing about the system (imo) was that all weapons did a percentage of the target's health. Different weapons had different damage modifiers against different kinds of armor. The game also made a distinction between hard armor, semi-hard armor and soft armor. (Plate = Hard, Maille = Semi-Hard and Untreated Leather = Soft). Weapons had different modifiers for different armor types. So whether you were fighting with a dagger or a poleaxe you still roled percentile dice for damage. The basic weapon modifier for a poleaxe was higher than the basic weapon modifier for a dagger. The calculation ended up looking like this damage = die roll + (weapon modifier - damage reduction) damage reduction being a composite of armor and magical protections The weapon modifier was a composite of the base weapon modifier + the weapon's modifier vs the armor type + any magical enhancements. The reason for this was a fundamental belief on my part that one dagger through the ribs will kill you just as easily as a broadsword through the ribs. As you can see it could get to be a real juggling act in a hurry. JiB And Top Secret hand to hand was easy? (ie: it's not as complicated as some systems)
|
|
|
Post by kaitoujuliet on Aug 17, 2012 7:37:44 GMT -8
Except (as I said in a previous post) that GURPS doesn't have to be gritty and deadly. There are even official GURPS supplements with optional rules specifically designed to move GURPS in the direction of heroic and pulpy. Many of the optional rules of which you speak are in the basic books themselves. That's one of its selling points as a "universal" system: it has a lot of modularity and can be modified to fit various flavors. Given the fact that GURPS is modular and that official options do exist to customize it for various flavors of play, I submit that you can't truly characterize it as "gritty, deadly, and realistic." What this says to me instead is that you prefer to play GURPS in the gritty, deadly, and realistic flavor. Which is fine, but you can't then go on to make generalizations about how "a group of GURPS players" will react at the possibility of getting into combat, because it depends on what flavor of GURPS that group has chosen to use.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Aug 17, 2012 7:42:07 GMT -8
Except (as I said in a previous post) that GURPS doesn't have to be gritty and deadly. There are even official GURPS supplements with optional rules specifically designed to move GURPS in the direction of heroic and pulpy. Many of the optional rules of which you speak are in the basic books themselves. That's one of its selling points as a "universal" system: it has a lot of modularity and can be modified to fit various flavors. Given the fact that GURPS is modular and that official options do exist to customize it for various flavors of play, I submit that you can't truly characterize it as "gritty, deadly, and realistic." What this says to me instead is that you prefer to play GURPS in the gritty, deadly, and realistic flavor. Which is fine, but you can't then go on to make generalizations about how "a group of GURPS players" will react at the possibility of getting into combat, because it depends on what flavor of GURPS that group has chosen to use. Aha . . . Yes, exactly . . . Group (dynamic) trumps System . . . Thank you double plus good
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Aug 17, 2012 8:01:30 GMT -8
.. because it depends on what flavor of GURPS that group has chosen to use. True. Plus Stu is not required to stay with a GURP " System" for making adjustments to his game. He could use his personally created additions, or modifications, or steal design ideas from other games that add up to make playing with Stu a singularly unique experience and very unlike a video game, which is a system unto itself due to what the GM creates as rulings at the table. Stu's " If.. Then.. this" statements would be from him, his game, and he being GM at that point in time.
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Aug 17, 2012 9:05:00 GMT -8
And Top Secret hand to hand was easy? (ie: it's not as complicated as some systems) The gripe that most people had with Top Secret was the chart reference to chart reference to chart reference to that other chart to go back to the original chart and start all over again three or four times. I never liked charts so when I was running games that had charts I would figure out the mathematical relationships so I could calculate it on the fly. (I dislike having to go reference the books or the game material during game play it's just a thing with me.) When I was designing my own game, I wanted everything to be relational so it's all just figuring out what applies and then doing the math, but lots of people bow up at doing math. JiB
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Aug 17, 2012 9:20:55 GMT -8
And Top Secret hand to hand was easy? (ie: it's not as complicated as some systems) The gripe that most people had with Top Secret was the chart reference to chart reference to chart reference to that other chart to go back to the original chart and start all over again three or four times. I never liked charts so when I was running games that had charts I would figure out the mathematical relationships so I could calculate it on the fly. (I dislike having to go reference the books or the game material during game play it's just a thing with me.) When I was designing my own game, I wanted everything to be relational so it's all just figuring out what applies and then doing the math, but lots of people bow up at doing math. JiB Funny thing, I remember working out the mathematical progression of the combat charts for AD&D 1e in high school so I could reproduce them on the fly . . . It was why I didn't like thac0 because I knew that it actually broke the original math (a progression of six 20's before proceeding to 21 if I remember correctly, which greatly improved the odds at lower levels of being effective . . . At least you have a 1 in 20 chance of getting a 20 without modifiers/bonuses/magic).
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Aug 17, 2012 11:21:39 GMT -8
Funny thing, I remember working out the mathematical progression of the combat charts for AD&D 1e in high school so I could reproduce them on the fly . . . It was why I didn't like thac0 because I knew that it actually broke the original math (a progression of six 20's before proceeding to 21 if I remember correctly, which greatly improved the odds at lower levels of being effective . . . At least you have a 1 in 20 chance of getting a 20 without modifiers/bonuses/magic). *nod*nod*nod* The first time I saw thac0 I shook my head stepped back looked at it again and said, "This makes it easier how exactly?" JiB
|
|
|
Post by ericfromnj on Aug 19, 2012 16:19:20 GMT -8
Given the fact that GURPS is modular and that official options do exist to customize it for various flavors of play, I submit that you can't truly characterize it as "gritty, deadly, and realistic." What this says to me instead is that you prefer to play GURPS in the gritty, deadly, and realistic flavor. Which is fine, but you can't then go on to make generalizations about how "a group of GURPS players" will react at the possibility of getting into combat, because it depends on what flavor of GURPS that group has chosen to use. Aha . . . Yes, exactly . . . Group (dynamic) trumps System . . . Thank you double plus good See, I don't agree with this because with a modular system you are building your own system out of the elements provided, but it is still the system. Your GM and players all interact and interpret said system, but for example you don't use the pieces to build a grim gritty campaign if you are trying to emulate My Little Pony. And the system will train how the players react to a situation. If the system is highly lethal, yeah you may have a group that charges in all the time, but when they roll up their 20th character they start changing their tactics or changing their system because the system doesn't fit with their style, one or the other has to change.
|
|
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 19, 2012 18:32:00 GMT -8
To answer the question both creativecowboy and kaitoujuliet posed: if you've changed 90% of a game's RAW to fit your group's tastes and playstyle, then by all means keep playing it. But you can't tell me that system doesn't matter in this case. If the system didn't matter, you wouldn't have felt the need to change anything about the system, because... well... it wouldn't have affected your game at all. Um, no. You're putting words in my mouth. I have never said (or believed) that systems never need modifying, and I honestly don't see where you get the idea that I did. What I said is that if a system doesn't exactly fit the story you have in mind, it's generally a fairly minor and overcome-able issue, at least within the framework of adventure stories. (If you want to do something that's not an adventure story, then you will probably need to find a system that's more tightly focused.) House rules are part of the method for overcoming any mismatch between system and story; the skill of the GM, the goodwill of the players, and the willingness to improvise are other ingredients. Sorry for the late reply kaitoujuliet. I certainly didn't mean to put words in anyone's mouth or claim they were saying X when they were really saying Y. I think I misunderstood when you were saying. But I think my point still stands. For the people who contend that system doesn't matter, I pose the following: If system doesn't matter, and if you can run any type, genre, flavor, and/or tone of game in any system, there is never a need to modify that system. If system doesn't matter, then the "color" a system gives to the resolution of actions taken within that system is non-existant. If system doesn't matter, unless a specific rule is broken - meaning that it mechanically does not work - there is never a reason to tweak, modify, or change it. Note that I do not mean "does not work for the type of game being played", I mean "does not work" full stop. I'd argue that almost all modifications to a system are the result of someone saying, "Nah, that doesn't feel right." For example, let's say we're playing a 'realistic' hardboiled detective game inspired by James Ellroy's novels. The system we're using (whatever it is) gives PCs a very high capacity for taking damage, so that even an average character has to be shot 4 or 5 times before they die. The rules are not "broken" in a mechanical sense; they work just fine. But the "flavor" of those mechanics don't fit the type of story we are telling. The rules are "broken" in a tone sense. On a whim I watched Big Trouble in Little China last night. There's a lot of great ideas for a game in there. Ones that you could use in any system. But to really capture the tone of that story, you need a system that allows the characters to be slightly over the top. I'm sure Call of Cthulhu has rules for martial arts. But do the mechanics of that system lend themselves to wire-fu? I wouldn't think so. You could run it in World of Darkness, but even then, because of the way the dice mechanics work, the characters are limited to pretty 'realistic' actions. I agree with ericfromnj, if you're dealing with a modular, universal system like GURPS that was designed to have modular pieces, all of those pieces are still "the system". It's like LEGO - you can build whatever you want with the pieces in a LEGO set (including what the instructions tell you to build), and you can mix them with other LEGO products as you see fit. Don't like the Castle line? Take it out and the things still work. Mix the Space and City lines together to make "SpaceCity" if you want. You're choosing what elements of a modular product you want to use, based on your personal tastes. But they're all still LEGO. They were all designed to work together. If you add some K'Nex pieces to your LEGO bin, things get weird. They don't work together, because they were not designed to work together. The same holds true for universal, modular RPG systems. Adding or removing pieces of a modular system can change the tone or feel of a game. But running the same type of game in two different modular systems is still going to feel different. The mechanics of a game flavor that game.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Aug 20, 2012 0:35:09 GMT -8
Aha . . . Yes, exactly . . . Group (dynamic) trumps System . . . Thank you double plus good See, I don't agree with this because with a modular system you are building your own system out of the elements provided, but it is still the system. Your GM and players all interact and interpret said system, but for example you don't use the pieces to build a grim gritty campaign if you are trying to emulate My Little Pony. And the system will train how the players react to a situation. If the system is highly lethal, yeah you may have a group that charges in all the time, but when they roll up their 20th character they start changing their tactics or changing their system because the system doesn't fit with their style, one or the other has to change. But I'm not saying no system just that the group dynamic trumps the system. Which bits do choose in a modular system? The group dynamic determines this not the system modules. The intention of module may be to provide a flavour but whether that works depends on the group and we know of stories where a group has bastardised a modular mechanic to provide a desired outcome for that group that may it may not have been the original intent of the system design. A low system group of mature Players with a consensus mindset could Probably produce any RP experience as desired without ever lifting a rule book or rolling dice. The group matters, this wouldn't work for some groups that prefer mechanics purely . . . Like the players that enjoy the purely tactical nature of 4e combat and not much else (not a criticism just an observation that these people play different to say myself)
|
|
|
Post by ericfromnj on Aug 20, 2012 0:59:40 GMT -8
I think we are having a chicken and egg debate here....
absolutely the group dynamic trumps the system in terms that the group will choose the system, but my point of contention this entire time has been that the system absolutely does matter because what system you are using will color how that group plays. Normally this can be a moot point because the group will choose a system that will allow them to play in a style that they will want to play. Still, the fact that they have to make a choice of what system best fits their group goes back to what my point of debate is from the beginning:
System matters.
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Aug 20, 2012 1:06:52 GMT -8
Whether you know it or not, Hyvemynd, you have just enslaved us all, brick by brick, to one sacrosanct set of regularly interacting or interdependent group of [insert branded LEGO or D&D] items or another forming a unified whole. Um, no. You're putting words in my mouth. I have never said (or believed) that systems never need modifying, and I honestly don't see where you get the idea that I did. What I said is that if a system doesn't exactly fit the story you have in mind, it's generally a fairly minor and overcome-able issue, at least within the framework of adventure stories. (If you want to do something that's not an adventure story, then you will probably need to find a system that's more tightly focused.) House rules are part of the method for overcoming any mismatch between system and story; the skill of the GM, the goodwill of the players, and the willingness to improvise are other ingredients. Sorry for the late reply kaitoujuliet. I certainly didn't mean to put words in anyone's mouth or claim they were saying X when they were really saying Y. I think I misunderstood when you were saying. But I think my point still stands. For the people who contend that system doesn't matter, I pose the following: If system doesn't matter, and if you can run any type, genre, flavor, and/or tone of game in any system, there is never a need to modify that system. I will debate that handily amongst a table full of creative people playing with their imaginations and with difficulty with video drones. Need… from whose perspective? That opens up a marketing discussion about creating consumer needs from wants so I will only acknowledge that the need is set to a certain pre-conceived notion wrapped up in the word system. Like Bernays said, a lie gets repeated often enough and people tend think along its lines of reasoning looking for a pattern in chaos – a manipulation tactic we all use called framing in confirmation bias. The players (and why do I feel the necessity to constantly remind role-players that the GM is a player too?) may want to tinker, having nothing to do with the wholiness of the game (what designers term a system). I would like to implement Thousand Suns 12 degree rule to damage in my AD&D game. Do I need too? I need to! But truthfully, I want to and strongly feel my want, like a screaming kid in a cereal store. But if I only had access to TSR products in 1979 and wanted less charts and armour damage soak in my AD&D 1e, I could create the game tools I wanted to modify the mechanic same as Stu, innovating from the tools provided and either rejecting or innovating (or both) upon the thoughts presented in the guidebook. If, like Stu, I found a game that had already done what I wanted and was more convenient for me than spending my nights slaving away making tools, then I can adopt the best pieces of that game and incorporate it into my AD&D 1e. I could take the wheel and make a cog if I wanted. This is a DIY (do-it-yourself) mindset I have seen a dramatic shift away from, perhaps because I left the hobby in the mid 80’s and then returned in 2003 – sort of like noticing my children grow after being away from them versus watching the process occur little by little in front of my eyes everyday I guess. I suspect a conscious or unconscious business system involved in this perception management after years of manipulating the consumer for my clients… Your mileage will vary. But, truly, I come not to praise Caesar but to bury him… Once the ball is rolling, it is hard not to use the word “system” to describe everything about a game. I mean, where does the system end and the player input begin? Is player input, innovating on pre-packaged “systems” during play wrong? I mean if only systems can be wrong/bad then is that the message disseminated to and permeating the hobby? I suppose that would add up to quite a library of XYZ systems (what players might call games) in a short period of time. Should wise, thoughtful players innovate on a game system with great reverence and trepidation, only when a systematized game is broken/needs? Maybe all the players with that need are playing it wrong since the system was play tested and no problem with the “system” was found… by professionals no less. That should lead to quite a rules lawyer Q&A. If The Internet were not invented, it would have to be just to contain all that Q&A. Is the analogy of “system improvement,” verisimilar to buying a new fine-running automobile, driving it home and putting it up on blocks to tinker with the engine; something that should only be done by “authorized” professionals? If the auto does not work, just buy another. That is what we do eventually. And those meddling players are the culprits of bad playing when systems do not need professional care. Now, STFU and play the system! Sadly ironic that, no? A good GM (system, I say) would not go about running RPGs that way though rules lawyers try to run tables that way. I believe what I believe to be what I believe, and what I believe I believe to be what I believe. I am hearing a systems riff in that marketing communications. See, I don't agree with this because with a modular system you are building your own system out of the elements provided, but it is still the system. I will counter with three representative pictures and a question: 1 - GURPS…. 2 - Toon…. 3 - OSR….. Can we call these pictures of systems, too? Are they “systematic?” These tools work together, were forged from a design and the toolsets assembled and composed. They are meant to produce different results, just as the systems argument touts. Each set is “ right for the job” or wrong for it. They could be used modularly in a single system/construction: building, training and excavating. They certainly have distinctive flavours in these pictures, and I think we can agree they evoke clever pictograms of the different games. But do they represent systems I wonder? The question is: are you permitted to interchange the tools sets in a game/system? And if so, then, does a system matter. If the system matters, they choose one picture. If the system does not matter – or the system is created through interaction at the table – then create a collage from the three pictures, or even add some of your own pictures. There are many instances where plagiarism has not occurred because the author has innovated. We would not say The Sword of Shannara is a copy of The Lord Of The Rings despite similarities, right? Terry Brooks is as legitimate an author as is Tolkien, without comment on comparisons. I see the similarity in RPGs play with GM Fiat for one example - quite separate from administering bennies. System is a system that is a system that can be any system so long as it is a system and remains to be a system. Well, if the GM is a tool then he or she cannot be the system. They are a system’s administer. Maybe even a clever bureaucrat in training. If system doesn't matter, then the "color" a system gives to the resolution of actions taken within that system is non-existant. If system doesn't matter, unless a specific rule is broken - meaning that it mechanically does not work - there is never a reason to tweak, modify, or change it. Note that I do not mean "does not work for the type of game being played", I mean "does not work" full stop. …. The rules are not "broken" in a mechanical sense; they work just fine. But the "flavor" of those mechanics don't fit the type of story we are telling. The rules are "broken" in a tone sense. I read a conflict here in system versus mechanics. A system works but its mechanics do not meet the player’s want for tone…. But you’re saying the mechanics and system are the same thing, right – inseparable but interchangeable in a LEGO analogy of system? Can a GM swap out individual tools, like in a tool belt, without having to exchange and accept whole new tool belts? Should “un-professional” players be allowed to tinker with a designer’s system, like some redneck with a front yard full of cars on blocks, that would be the RAW analogy? Do GMs have to accept everything from a game if its system (I say tools but then the question lacks sense) works and needs no fixing? Is that a want or a need at that point? Creating needs from wants is clever business marketing when you think about it. I guess we all better have the right game system then if we are not going to innovate on a system and are not a designer. And we better have access to an FLGS. And cash. I agree with ericfromnj, if you're dealing with a modular, universal system like GURPS that was designed to have modular pieces, all of those pieces are still "the system". It's like LEGO - you can build whatever you want with the pieces in a LEGO set (including what the instructions tell you to build), and you can mix them with other LEGO products as you see fit. Don't like the Castle line? Take it out and the things still work. Mix the Space and City lines together to make "SpaceCity" if you want. You're choosing what elements of a modular product you want to use, based on your personal tastes. But they're all still LEGO. They were all designed to work together. If you add some K'Nex pieces to your LEGO bin, things get weird. They don't work together, because they were not designed to work together. I like your analogy using LEGO, Hyvemynd, and I had initially thought of using it myself but I realized that argument of sticking to one brand would lead me to becoming a product cheerleader and have little to do with playing the game at the table. I do not need a commitment to LEGO to build the sort of mud and stone constructions I could mine from my own field so to speak – and a wealth of games, LEGO and others, showing off their tools would be helpful to cultivating my field. So I actually appreciated my argument by thinking about LEGO blocks, and discarded the analogy of patented rubrics. The same holds true for universal, modular RPG systems. Adding or removing pieces of a modular system can change the tone or feel of a game. But running the same type of game in two different modular systems is still going to feel different. The mechanics of a game flavor that game. Mechanics…systems…. tools… I believe, what I believe to be what I believe to be brilliant Kool Aid! The GM uses tools prominent in published games to construct his or her own system, with the complicit agreement of the other players at the table. The system is what it is at the table, either as a administration of RAW or as a complete seat of the pants thing and all points between. This may involve using a variety of mechanics or just one. Vancian magic does not have to be in your D&D game, for example. Fantasy Flight Games’ Midnight D20 magic mechanics is one example. My gaming table is another.
|
|