Ok, big question here...
At what point does a RPG stop working for you? In other words, at what point does RPG Brand X mean less fun than RPG Brand Y.
I look back on my own decision in switching from D&D 2nd to D&D 3rd and it just seemed like a no brainer because D&D 3 did things the way I imagined they should be done without breaking anything I really loved.
Is that the core litmus test or is there some other ephemeral quality that intrinsically makes RPG Brand X better than RPG Brand Y?
I ask the question because I recently came across another RPG which I also really like and does things more in line with the way I think things should work, but I'm conflicted because to do those things, the rules need to be more complicated.
I ask the question because I recently came across another RPG which I also really like and does things more in line with the way I think things should work, but I'm conflicted because to do those things, the rules need to be more complicated.
Give it a test run or two. I've picked up and dropped a lot of RPGs in my time. In the end, I just kind of slammed my head against D&D 3.5 so hard I can't un-learn it, so we end up playing that.
GURPS and Burning Wheel were two I gave up on for just that reason.
That and because GURPS isn't very realistic, and that's kind of what I wanted. My fault, GURPS.
I'm pretty much with Bluenose. Generally within each genre I'll have a favorite game system that I like to run or play in, so we switch whenever someone or all of us really want to try SciFi instead of fantasy or superheroes instead of postapocalyptic survivalism.
I have to admit to also occasionally getting seduced by a new game and/or setting when it comes out and looks really cool, and I just have to try it. It's not usually about the mechanics for me. I've come to the concluson long ago that all mechanical systems are going to have flaws, and that I or my fellow GMs will just have to work around them. What attracts me is the fluff, a cool new universe to explore and play in.
|
I'm pretty much with Bluenose. Generally within each genre I'll have a favorite game system that I like to run or play in, so we switch whenever someone or all of us really want to try SciFi instead of fantasy or superheroes instead of postapocalyptic survivalism.
I have to admit to also occasionally getting seduced by a new game and/or setting when it comes out and looks really cool, and I just have to try it. It's not usually about the mechanics for me. I've come to the concluson long ago that all mechanical systems are going to have flaws, and that I or my fellow GMs will just have to work around them. What attracts me is the fluff, a cool new universe to explore and play in.
This. Pretty much all of it.
I've been mentally musing on a setting that I'd like to run but many of its premises don't work well with Pathfinder's magic, which would require a heavy redesign to replace. This means that I'm better off finding/making a new system.
Also, I've never been a fan of class-based architectures. Not that class-less ones ever seem to work right either, but at least they're flexible.
I'm pretty much with Bluenose. Generally within each genre I'll have a favorite game system that I like to run or play in, so we switch whenever someone or all of us really want to try SciFi instead of fantasy or superheroes instead of postapocalyptic survivalism.
I have to admit to also occasionally getting seduced by a new game and/or setting when it comes out and looks really cool, and I just have to try it. It's not usually about the mechanics for me. I've come to the concluson long ago that all mechanical systems are going to have flaws, and that I or my fellow GMs will just have to work around them. What attracts me is the fluff, a cool new universe to explore and play in.
This. Pretty much all of it.
I've been mentally musing on a setting that I'd like to run but many of its premises don't work well with Pathfinder's magic, which would require a heavy redesign to replace. This means that I'm better off finding/making a new system.
Also, I've never been a fan of class-based architectures. Not that class-less ones ever seem to work right either, but at least they're flexible.
One thing I think really helps when playing classless games is to have everyone sit down and talk about what they want their character to do before they even touch the books. In general people become much more satisfied when their character works the way he ought to according to a preconceived notion instead of feeling like a jumbled-together box of mechanics.
Some background...
I first picked up the 3.0 Core Books back when I was sitting in on a friend's brother's 2E games; I was amazed at how many options there were compared to what my friend's game felt like (classic 4, good-aligned dungeon crawl). Once I picked up Tome and Blood and read the True Necromancer PrC write-up, I was hooked. At that age, all I wanted was the possibility of playing a spellcaster and controlling an skeleton (yeah, just bones) army. While I toyed with WoD games and Chaosium's line over the years, I never left 3E and moved seamlessly into 3.5 (and so did my wallet). During this period, tons of d20 products were being released and it felt like the system I loved had everything.
When 4E was announced, I heard that Tieflings had become part of the core race line-up; this alone made me get the core books. I only saw the good things at first, but then I started to notice how many things I'd have to houserule. They changed the basics of a game I came to love: undead minions, support for anti-hero/evil characters, necromantic spells, and so on. The great improvements 4E implemented were offset by all the content they removed that I considered "vital" to the game.
I was content to stay with 3.5 until I saw the Pathfinder Campaign Setting; the quality of artwork and the amount of information was the right balance and it was building on my favorite system.
Back to the question at hand, my support of a system depends on:
- frequency of new material (sorry WoD, we had some good times)
- wide variety of content (there really is a d20 pdf for everything)
- potential of mature/dark characters, supplements, etc. (sorry 4E, it's either the pre-teen customer-base or me)
- and most importantly, the possibility of non-combat gameplay
How could you leave me after all we've been through together?
Wasn't our time together special?
You never loved me you two timer.
Call me!
Rules, Rules, Rules...
Loved Rifts, but to many modifiers in to many books to look up all the time. Just took to long to look stuff up in NON-Hardback books.
Hardback is a selling point for D&D and now Pathfinder.
With Pathfinder having one main book, is also one of the reason i like the game so much. ((Rift Ultimate Ed had fewer magic spells than the original rifts core book (but listed the spell in another book by page number)... that was the final straw... trying to force me to buy another book for a core product is bad)).
..One book to bind them, One book to brink them all together, One book to rule them all..
PS.. Still on the Look out for a Simple Fantasy Board Game for under 25 dollars :) for kids, and newbies.
..One book to Rule them all, One book to Find them, One book to bring them all..
AND IN THE DARKNESS BIND THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
AND IN THE DARKNESS BIND THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!
..One book to Rule them all, One book to Find them, One book to bring them all..
In the land of Paizo where the gamers lie.
I find it's time to leave a system behind when no one in the group has made a character with a class/race/school/tribe/clan/tradition/template from the core rules or setting. With supplement bloat this bad, it's like you're playing a different game anyway. You're better off trying something new than trying to make a bunch of poorly play tested, power-crept aberrations that don't really make much sense together, or as serious character concepts themselves.
I ask the question because I recently came across another RPG which I also really like and does things more in line with the way I think things should work, but I'm conflicted because to do those things, the rules need to be more complicated.
What game are you considering?
I completely agree!
But for me it's all about creating and inhabiting alternate realities, I don't get rules-bound, they are just there for task resolution.
I like 'concepts', the rules just give me a mechanic/vehicle to deliver them.
Interestingly enough, the fluff has never been important to me. I can craft a story or a world easily enough, especially with the help of a group of players who are also role-players/story-writers. What I look for most in a new game is a set of mechanics that works for me. I'm typically a balance nut, and as such I tend to gravitate towards systems that are very balanced across the board, but that balance isn't always the same sort.I'm pretty much with Bluenose. Generally within each genre I'll have a favorite game system that I like to run or play in, so we switch whenever someone or all of us really want to try SciFi instead of fantasy or superheroes instead of postapocalyptic survivalism.
I have to admit to also occasionally getting seduced by a new game and/or setting when it comes out and looks really cool, and I just have to try it. It's not usually about the mechanics for me. I've come to the concluson long ago that all mechanical systems are going to have flaws, and that I or my fellow GMs will just have to work around them. What attracts me is the fluff, a cool new universe to explore and play in.
Unfortunately, I don't have the time right now to write and create worlds, so the fluff is really important to me. Let me clarify my position on mechanics a bit, on further reflection. It's not that the mechanics aren't important to me. A solid basic system is very important. It's just that I'm very used to both houseruling and winging it to overcome inadequacies in any system, so mediocre mechanics or mechanics that don't cover everything don't phase me much. What I do like mechanically in a system is flexibility and room for considerable GM discretion. I don't need a rule for everything. In fact the more the rules try to codify everything, the more I find to disagree with, in most cases. This is somewhat of a problem with PF, mollified by the supremacy of Rule Zero.
I don't "switch" RPG's I add new ones to my repetoire.
Very well said. And +1.
I ask the question because I recently came across another RPG which I also really like and does things more in line with the way I think things should work, but I'm conflicted because to do those things, the rules need to be more complicated.What game are you considering?
Fantasy Craft
While we're on the topic of non-mainstream RPGs, is anyone here familiar with the Fatalist system by Mad Hermit Games? It's gritty and a little nostalgic for veterans out there who enjoy a throwback to the labyrinthine rules of older editions.
|
I tend to find, and buy, RPGs based on the theme I'm looking to create around.
It's less about "switching", and more about trying to find settings and mechanics that best reflect what I want for a particular campaign.
Pathfinder for high and traditional fantasy
L5R for high-lethality combat with tons of social interaction
Song of Ice and Fire for low magic, political, medieval fantasy
Warhammer 40K RPG (all three) for a ton of reasons
Star Wars D6 for space opera
... etc
|
Some games and some variations of games do specific settings better then others. No one game system does them all well. It is one of the reasons I like Pathfinder. It only tries to do one thing. Yeah there maybe different locations with different "feels" to them but it is still the basic high fantasy game.
Fantasy Craft
I was familiar with Spycraft, and liked a number of their rules, but never liked d20 for modern settings. I'm glad they made a fantasy d20 game! I'll have to check that out.