|
Post by ericfromnj on Aug 15, 2012 13:14:40 GMT -8
...I could be Steve Harris....
actually come to think of it the genre of music would be the system and the instruments would be the different mechanics. In 3.x terms your fighter has his feats, your wizard his arcane magic, and your thief has his skills that are totally overshadowed by the magic (thief probably plays the triangle).
I don't know what the heck has me hooked on this band/gaming system thing...
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Aug 15, 2012 15:09:31 GMT -8
I don't know what the heck has me hooked on this band/gaming system thing... Cause we all love analogies . . , if you consider each system as a band then I'd guess d20 is either Pink Floyd, Jethro Tull or Fairport Convention: radical at the beginning, established with up and downs and so many line up changes it's hard to remember who (if any) original members remain (Ian Anderson in Jethro Tull, Nick Mason in Pink Floyd). Savage Worlds would be The Ramones and World of Darkness (old and new) Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds . . .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2012 4:49:04 GMT -8
I’m kind of new on the forum, but a long time listener to the podcast. As a system nerd I’m getting really excited with these kinds of topics, so I’m jumping right in to give my view in this matter. In my opinion, system matters a lot. I’m kind of an Indie/Hippie –game fan boy and as such I’ve played and read a lot of games that really strives to invoke a special tone or feeling in the game by their rules. The more general systems out there, d2o, SW, BRP, and GURPS etc. can do a lot of things ok, but they don’t do anything great. I’ve been in many games when we have used (in my opinion) a bad system for what we wanted the game to be. Still we had a lot of fun with it, or should I say despite all the flaws of the system we had fun. If we had played a game more suited to what we wanted we might not had have more fun, but It would have been easier to reach this level of fun. The system would have made less resistance to us having fun. If you have a campaign or adventure in mind, as a GM you should ask yourself: What is the focus of the game we are going to play. Which aspects of game play do I want the rules to handle well (h2h-combat, social, space fights, etc.). And then you ask: How do I want my players to behave? If you can find a game that handles both the rule aspect and have an in game mechanic to reward the desired behavior from the players, then you are good. The best reward systems out there are (IMO) Beliefs/Instincts/Goal/Traits – Fate/Persona/Deeds in Burning Wheel/Mouse Guard and Keys - XP in The Shadow of Yesterday/Solar System/Lady Blackbird and Fallout in Dogs in the Vineyard. It's a shame this post was ignored so heavily. You're absolutely right. If a system isn't doing what you want it to, find one that does. There are hundreds, likely thousands of game systems out there. Not all are winners, but many are brilliant. On a side note, how are Shadow of Yesterday and Solar System? I haven't heard much about those two.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Aug 16, 2012 6:18:39 GMT -8
I’m kind of new on the forum, but a long time listener to the podcast. As a system nerd I’m getting really excited with these kinds of topics, so I’m jumping right in to give my view in this matter. In my opinion, system matters a lot. I’m kind of an Indie/Hippie –game fan boy and as such I’ve played and read a lot of games that really strives to invoke a special tone or feeling in the game by their rules. The more general systems out there, d2o, SW, BRP, and GURPS etc. can do a lot of things ok, but they don’t do anything great. I’ve been in many games when we have used (in my opinion) a bad system for what we wanted the game to be. Still we had a lot of fun with it, or should I say despite all the flaws of the system we had fun. If we had played a game more suited to what we wanted we might not had have more fun, but It would have been easier to reach this level of fun. The system would have made less resistance to us having fun. If you have a campaign or adventure in mind, as a GM you should ask yourself: What is the focus of the game we are going to play. Which aspects of game play do I want the rules to handle well (h2h-combat, social, space fights, etc.). And then you ask: How do I want my players to behave? If you can find a game that handles both the rule aspect and have an in game mechanic to reward the desired behavior from the players, then you are good. The best reward systems out there are (IMO) Beliefs/Instincts/Goal/Traits – Fate/Persona/Deeds in Burning Wheel/Mouse Guard and Keys - XP in The Shadow of Yesterday/Solar System/Lady Blackbird and Fallout in Dogs in the Vineyard. It's a shame this post was ignored so heavily. You're absolutely right. If a system isn't doing what you want it to, find one that does. There are hundreds, likely thousands of game systems out there. Not all are winners, but many are brilliant. On a side note, how are Shadow of Yesterday and Solar System? I haven't heard much about those two. It wasn't ignored at all . . . The author made his point as to his opinion quite clearly and concisely - and that is far from being a criticism. The other posts have generated more debate because either a) the author has no opinion and has offered observations that require analysis, debate and possible explanation or b) the author has offered an explanation that not only includes the authors conclusions but the nitty gritty of their rationale. Debate can only really happen if you give something that can be properly mauled and mulled over by the reader . . . As an analogy think of a research report - you have the abstract (like the post you quote) and then the report which includes method, data, analysis, interpretation and conclusions . . . Researchers like that because they can get into the mind of the author and understand his/her conclusions before critiquing it. So my question is what is it about, say, mouse guard as a RPG with a particular flavour and within a certain genre that makes it 'matter' . . . Why not just take the fluff and roll d6 with rules on the fly and a mature, collaborative, group of players?? . . .
|
|
|
Post by ericfromnj on Aug 16, 2012 7:11:16 GMT -8
So my question is what is it about, say, mouse guard as a RPG with a particular flavour and within a certain genre that makes it 'matter' . . . Why not just take the fluff and roll d6 with rules on the fly and a mature, collaborative, group of players?? . . . I would reply, but I have never played Mouse Guard. Wait, I think I just did reply, and badly but not answering anything.
|
|
|
Post by ericfromnj on Aug 16, 2012 7:14:31 GMT -8
Honestly, I think Stu's example in the podcast about how a GURPs group (gritty and deadly system) would react to people with weapons versus say a Savage Worlds game (heroic and pulpy) shows how system matters.
I think he may have used D&D as an example, but whether or not to start a fight and how that fight would be role played are very different depending on the system.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Aug 16, 2012 7:41:58 GMT -8
Honestly, I think Stu's example in the podcast about how a GURPs group (gritty and deadly system) would react to people with weapons versus say a Savage Worlds game (heroic and pulpy) shows how system matters. I think he may have used D&D as an example, but whether or not to start a fight and how that fight would be role played are very different depending on the system. Or the group and that it's particular dynamic . . . Which is my personal contention 'that the relevance of system varies from group to group because of what each groups participants brings to their particular gaming table' (yep - social construction theory thru and thru and unashamedly so) . . . Compared to say CreativeCowboy who disputes the importance of system as the issues that some people attribute to the mechanics of system are, in his opinion, actually products of the GM as arbiter of conflict resolution (that's a very simplified paraphrasing, but I think it gives an insight into his perspective) . . .
|
|
|
Post by kaitoujuliet on Aug 16, 2012 7:49:27 GMT -8
Honestly, I think Stu's example in the podcast about how a GURPs group (gritty and deadly system) would react to people with weapons versus say a Savage Worlds game (heroic and pulpy) shows how system matters. 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.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Aug 16, 2012 8:16:33 GMT -8
Honestly, I think Stu's example in the podcast about how a GURPs group (gritty and deadly system) would react to people with weapons versus say a Savage Worlds game (heroic and pulpy) shows how system matters. 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. Which implies the system as such is in fact neutral. Is that applicable to all systems then . . . If so then system doesn't really matter because if you can adapt one you can adapt all . . . Just because a systems origins are within a certain flavour or genre that doesn't mean it is it's best or only implementation.
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Aug 16, 2012 8:24:41 GMT -8
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.
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Aug 16, 2012 8:27:18 GMT -8
Compared to say CreativeCowboy who disputes the importance of system as the issues that some people attribute to the mechanics of system are, in his opinion, actually products of the GM as arbiter of conflict resolution (that's a very simplified paraphrasing, but I think it gives an insight into his perspective) . . . I approve. I think the players need to know each other to know the system so your perspective on system is complementary to my view: a game from the formation of a syndicate/system. The GM suffers a disadvantage in rulings and the players may lack trust without your perspective. Storming, norming, forming... Look at the people lining up to play GURPS for the first time with Stu as an example; Tappy's Cosplay; and CADave's Top Secret in Disneyland as further examples.
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Aug 16, 2012 8:29:51 GMT -8
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. But it is YOUR genius that brings it together, Stu. The GM is the system, and it can improve as the GM improves - adding rules from other systems or creating them wholesale.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Aug 16, 2012 8:38:08 GMT -8
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. But it is YOUR genius that brings it together, Stu. The GM is the system, and it can improve as the GM improves - adding rules from other systems or creating them wholesale. Yep I'd totally agree with that . . . The best system can be turned to a steaming pile of regurgitated dog vomit (with a little flag on top) by a bad GM and/or shite Players . . . The worst system can shine in the right hands (except maybe Fatal - fuck Fatal in its metrically measured anal circumference) . . .
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Aug 16, 2012 8:50:40 GMT -8
Both HERO and GURPS strive to be "universal," and as a result both book sets (HERO especially so) contain an enormous amount of optional/advanced rules to dial in the system to fit the type of game you're trying to run.
Savage Worlds is also well-known for containing "setting rules" that modify the system to fit certain settings. Many setting books have a whole section devoted to modifying the game to fit certain feels.
Realms of Cthulhu is a perfect example. It provides almost a toolkit to modify the feel from "that's it, I'm babbling and rocking back and forth in my own feces -- does anyone have a cyanide pill?" to "wait a second, you said Cthulhu's outside? Gimme a sec, I gotta get my BIG gun."
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Aug 16, 2012 8:59:33 GMT -8
I will never agree that the GM is the system.
The system is the collection of rules.
The GM is the judge, the arbiter and the gatekeeper, if you like.
You could even make the argument that the GM is *part* of the system.
But to call the GM "the system" is to redefine the word "system."
I have a pet peeve about redefining words (probably from my journalism school days). If we constantly redefine words to make our point, our point will get lost in a muddle of ad hoc definitions.
|
|