POLL: Which of These 11 RPGs Have You Played in the Last Five Years ?
You should have had a selection where I could pick "None of the above".
I've been wanting to play Mouseguard and Dresden for awhile though.
Count me in for "None of the Above" as well. Most of these I haven't even heard of. Played Shadowrun, but not within the past 5 years.
Dresden's on my list of wants, though.
I wish I had included Cyberpunk 2020
The system is very nice. (hint hint)
For those familiar with d20, the resolution system will look vaguely familiar, roll a d10, add in your skill rating and your stat, and beat a target number.
Character creation is very simple, depending on the level of the game, the GM has the option of assigning points for stats which range from 1-10, or to roll dice.
.
Let's expand this list. Which other RPGs are relevant still/now ?
I have to say, of those games on your list, I've played most of them and dislike them to various extents.
The best one you've listed is Shadowrun (assuming 4e--don't play the previous editions, because the rules are disaster, though I'm sure people prefer the fluff).
I hate FATE with a burning passion--it is the enemy of character immersion. The whole system is specifically designed to create a feedback loop and influence you, the player to manipulate your character in a specific fashion. It's a disassociative paradise. Yes, I realize people like that kind of gaming and that's ok. But I hate it.
In fact, most of the games on your list (except Shadowrun and the few I haven't played) are like that, so I'm guessing you might just like games of that nature. If that's the case, then yeah, play any and all FATE games you can find (spirit of the century, for example), maybe take a look at Dogs in the Vineyard, and definitely consider Leverage the RPG.
Otherwise, my favorite RPGs are Savage Worlds and the World of Darkness games. Both "old" and "new" World of Darkness lines as well as White Wolf's other games like Exalted and Adventure are very well done--my personal preference is for new WoD and Adventure). Savage Worlds and WoD both of course have their flaws (Savage Worlds is great for action, kind of blah for everything else, while WoD is completely amazing until combat starts and then it's boring and over in one round more often than not).
Otherwise, Legend of the Five Rings and Shadowrun 4e would probably be next on my list. The One Ring is a great system, but I don't feel anything for Tolkein, so I thought it was too steeped in the lore for my tastes. I absolutely loathe d% and d100 based systems, but Unknown Armies is good enough to almost be worth it. I hate it, but everyone seems to cream themselves for Eclipse Phase.
Father Black, my shadowrunning Catholic priest FTW.
Just picked up Iron Kingdoms Core Rules (not d20 anymore), and it's fantastic. I can't wait to roll up a Gun Mage Trollkin Explorer.
I've played cyberpunk 2020.... In the last 5 years our group has run warhammer 1e, rifts, heroes unlimited, dead reign, 2e adnd, d20 future, 3.5...
I'll say I only look forward to pathfinder/2e/rifts/heroes unlimited/ninjas and superspies though... Like the 'theme of cyberpunk 2020' but not the mechanics... not a fan of 3.5/warhammer/d20 future at all mechanics wise.
I still consider the entire palladium and 2e systems relevant to me personally except for dead reign. Dead reign is a fantastically broken zombie apocalypse game by palladium. Thematically awesome, mechanically atrocious. We houseruled it back into playability and had a great time with it but I wouldnt be chomping at the bit to do another one.
None. I have tried several systems, and gave up and stuck to D&D rules (Pathfinder Fan now!)
I hate FATE with a burning passion--it is the enemy of character immersion. The whole system is specifically designed to create a feedback loop and influence you, the player to manipulate your character in a specific fashion. It's a disassociative paradise. Yes, I realize people like that kind of gaming and that's ok. But I hate it.
Huh odd, my table and I actually think the opposite and find ourselves more easily immersed and intuitive. I also find GMing it, it is easier to have the Players impact the world/have choices matter.
Huh odd, my table and I actually think the opposite and find ourselves more easily immersed and intuitive. I also find GMing it, it is easier to have the Players impact the world/have choices matter.
I hate FATE with a burning passion--it is the enemy of character immersion. The whole system is specifically designed to create a feedback loop and influence you, the player to manipulate your character in a specific fashion. It's a disassociative paradise. Yes, I realize people like that kind of gaming and that's ok. But I hate it.
It is easier to immerse in the setting but the FATE feedback loop literally makes it impossible to immerse in your character since FATE points are a completely out-of-character resource with no association whatsoever to the game world.
It is easier to feel like you're in a pulpy adventure game or in the Dresden Universe, but you can't feel like Harry Dresden or The Shadow or Indiana Jones because you are too busy directly manipulating the story about those characters instead of just being those characters.
GMing is easier when the PC's choices matter. However, when a player directly manipulates the world without using their character as an intermediary, character immersion (again, not setting immersion) dies.
Again, not a bad thing for everything, but nearly the worst thing for me.
Since 2008, I've played full campaigns of Pathfinder, D&D 3.5, and Amber Diceless Role-Playing.
I've played a few short sessions of GURPS (one three-session game set in 1987 where the PCs were a rock band that had to solve a mystery, and one two-session steampunk game.)
I played a three-session Call of Cthulhu game.
I've also played one-shots of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Fiasco!, and Paranoia.
I haven't even heard of some of the games on your list.
I have played Traveler, GURPs, CofC- not to mention Chivalry & Sorcery, Elric!, Empire of the Petal Throne, Fantasy Hero, Pendragon, Tunnels & trolls, Iron heroes, Supergame!, Champions, Runequest, )d&D, AD&D, 3.0. 3.5, 4th, Boot Hill, Fantasy Trip, Bunnies & Burrows, En Garde!, Gamma World, Metamorphosis Alpha, Jorune, Paranoia, Killer, Superhero44, Dangerous Journeys, and a bunch of others- but other than T&T (briefly) none of those in the last five years.
I haven't even heard of several of those in the poll.
I voted Dark Heresy, Traveller and Dresden Files. Alas, I had issues with all three. The first two had more RP assumption issues than rules issues (both games seem to be about playing incredibly greedy merchants and in both games the PCs other than myself tried to avoid plot hooks because of instead of making money the hooks were always D&D in space) and the latter... well I like FATE but I found neither Strands of FATE or Dresden Files to be a good "take" on FATE rules. I vastly prefer Spirit of the Century and Diaspora, the latter probably being the only sci-fi ruleset I could tolerate after playing it.
More than five years ago I've also done Shadowrun and Iron Kingdoms, although for the latter it's so similar to D&D I'm not sure why it's on the list, when there's no other d20 games on the list.
Shadowrun was a system that, despite playing, I never really learned.
Huh odd, my table and I actually think the opposite and find ourselves more easily immersed and intuitive. I also find GMing it, it is easier to have the Players impact the world/have choices matter.
I hate FATE with a burning passion--it is the enemy of character immersion. The whole system is specifically designed to create a feedback loop and influence you, the player to manipulate your character in a specific fashion. It's a disassociative paradise. Yes, I realize people like that kind of gaming and that's ok. But I hate it.
It is easier to immerse in the setting but the FATE feedback loop literally makes it impossible to immerse in your character since FATE points are a completely out-of-character resource with no association whatsoever to the game world.
It is easier to feel like you're in a pulpy adventure game or in the Dresden Universe, but you can't feel like Harry Dresden or The Shadow or Indiana Jones because you are too busy directly manipulating the story about those characters instead of just being those characters.
GMing is easier when the PC's choices matter. However, when a player directly manipulates the world without using their character as an intermediary, character immersion (again, not setting immersion) dies.
Again, not a bad thing for everything, but nearly the worst thing for me.
I guess my table has had a different experience, the utilization of FATE points seems to make things more focused on the characters and what they are doing. They make the choice where drama and failure occur. I do think that with SotC and Dresden suffered from the fact that they had too many aspects and FATE points. The later version of FATE really slims it down so FATE points are much more limited, meaning that you, as the player had to be involved in the drama to get mechanical impact. I also think that there is more player responsibility in evolving your character. If you don't adjust your aspects during play then, yes, you can hit that disconnect.
I guess I just don't see how FATE points get disconnected from your character when it is your character aspects (motivations and descriptors) that generate them and justify their use.
I do think FATE based systems make a paradigm shift in thinking about how we roleplay, because in FATE failing is not bad. This is because failure is interesting and FATE likes to reward the interesting actions. Our table found it hard at first to have your character choose to fail something.
(If I am coming across as argumentative, I apologize, not really trying to pick a fight; just trying to see where the feedback loop comes into play. The only real way I can see it is if someone gets real metagamey, but to be honest that can be an issue in any roleplaying setting.)
I guess my table has had a different experience, the utilization of FATE points seems to make things more focused on the characters and what they are doing.
I see this issue come up a lot when I talk about roleplaying, especially on other forums. I wish I knew how to instantly clear up the confusion, but I don't, so just bear with my explanation.
The very fact that you're talking about the players being focused on the characters and what they are doing is exactly what I'm talking about that creates distance between the player and character. That is the very thing that severs the immersion and creates "dissonance" for me.
I don't want to think about the character as separate from myself. I don't want to think about what they would do, I want to think about what I would do.
They make the choice where drama and failure occur.
And again, that's a problem--nobody in real life chooses to fail. Harry Dresden never decides, "ok, well, it'd be really cool if I failed now because I'm hot headed, and besides, it will fuel me later when it really counts!"
That kind of thinking is disassociative--it involves a choice that the character would never make, that is not associated with that character. Only the player would make that choice on behalf of their character, and only because it provides more fuel (FATE points) for later actions. The decision is steeped entirely in the metagame.
I do think that with SotC and Dresden suffered from the fact that they had too many aspects and FATE points. The later version of FATE really slims it down so FATE points are much more limited, meaning that you, as the player had to be involved in the drama to get mechanical impact. I also think that there is more player responsibility in evolving your character. If you don't adjust your aspects during play then, yes, you can hit that disconnect.
No, the disconnect for me and those I play with occurs because you, the player, have to be involved in the drama and adjust your aspects during play. The very thing you consider immersive is, well, the opposite of immersion.
See, you're getting immersed in the story, but I don't want that, I want to be immersed in the character. As soon as I think of my character as someone that is not me, I'm not immersed.
To me, the story is not something we're manipulating directly. We don't get together to tell a cool story together. We're not looking to play story-games.
We're getting together to, well, play the role of someone else. We want to be that other person in that other situation. We don't want to be conscious of that person as being someone else, we want to make decisions from their perspectives and interact in the world as if we were them.
The story for us is emergent--it emerges from what we do, but we don't purposefully build it in any way. The story happens later, after the game, when we talk about what happened.
I guess I just don't see how FATE points get disconnected from your character when it is your character aspects (motivations and descriptors) that generate them and justify their use.
But their use is based on metaconcerns (i.e. FATE points) not anything in character.
I do think FATE based systems make a paradigm shift in thinking about how we roleplay, because in FATE failing is not bad. This is because failure is interesting and FATE likes to reward the interesting actions. Our table found it hard at first to have your character choose to fail something.
It's a difficult paradigm shift because your character is not choosing you fail, you are choosing to fail.
On the one hand, I fully recognize that as long as someone is having fun, they're not playing wrong, but on the other, I have a hard time figuring out what FATE and other narrative storygames like it have in common with roleplaying.
(If I am coming across as argumentative, I apologize, not really trying to pick a fight; just trying to see where the feedback loop comes into play. The only real way I can see it is if someone gets real metagamey, but to be honest that can be an issue in any roleplaying setting.)
It's no problem, as I said, I'm used to people who like FATE being confused by my stand. I just hope you don't consider me rude for my answer.
Out of that list, just Shadowrun here.
Most of my gaming was in the 80s and 90s I've played Cthulhu, GURPS (lots of old character sheets), Traveller (the little box game where you can die in character creation). I have played a lot of games that are not on that list like Dr Who, BESM (2nd Ed), Amber, Twerps, V&V, Champions, DC Heroes and many more. I think D&D is the one that I have the most character sheets of. I think Champions is second and GURPS is third.
I guess my table has had a different experience, the utilization of FATE points seems to make things more focused on the characters and what they are doing.I see this issue come up a lot when I talk about roleplaying, especially on other forums. I wish I knew how to instantly clear up the confusion, but I don't, so just bear with my explanation.
The very fact that you're talking about the players being focused on the characters and what they are doing is exactly what I'm talking about that creates distance between the player and character. That is the very thing that severs the immersion and creates "dissonance" for me.
I don't want to think about the character as separate from myself. I don't want to think about what they would do, I want to think about what I would do.
They make the choice where drama and failure occur.And again, that's a problem--nobody in real life chooses to fail. Harry Dresden never decides, "ok, well, it'd be really cool if I failed now because I'm hot headed, and besides, it will fuel me later when it really counts!"
That kind of thinking is disassociative--it involves a choice that the character would never make, that is not associated with that character. Only the player would make that choice on behalf of their character, and only because it provides more fuel (FATE points) for later actions. The decision is steeped entirely in the metagame.
I do think that with SotC and Dresden suffered from the fact that they had too many aspects and FATE points. The later version of FATE really slims it down so FATE points are much more limited, meaning that you, as the player had to be involved in the drama to get mechanical impact. I also think that there is more player responsibility in evolving your character. If you don't adjust your aspects during play then, yes, you can hit that disconnect.No, the disconnect for me and those I play with occurs because...
Thanks for answering. I can see where you are coming from. I guess I just experience what you experience every time I level up my character or some such, like when I pick a feat, or put ranks in skills.
I don't see that distance because you give control to the player to direct their character. I think the words, "choosing to fail" is the wrong way to express it for the character. That is what the player is doing. It is the character choosing the "complicate option" based on their motivations.
For instance, I have a player who has a character that "Allen Irons Must Die" as an Aspect. They are in a situation where diplomacy is key, and there is Allen Irons at the bar, sipping a martini with a cocky smile. The player takes a compel and begins a hostile confrontation with Allen Irons. This is the harder and more destructive path in all likely hood. The Fail Option. However, this is the logical conclusion of this character. (He also has the aspect of "Violence Solves Everything.) The Player gets rewarded for playing his character....well in character with a FATE point...while the character pursues his motivation. (After this adventure, the Allen Irons Aspect changed based upon events that occurred in the Ballroom)
I think the FATE point mechanic can be really tricky to use and requires a certain kind of mindfulness that people would not want to engage in. For some players that mindfulness isn't as difficult. (Maybe it is because of my background in psychology and being a social worker, along with players of like backgrounds, that we take to this mindfulness easy.)
As for adjusting aspects between sessions based upon the events in the story, I don't see how that is different than when one picks a class, skills, or abilities when they level up. Except the Aspect is probably more flexible.
At the end of the day, I think FATE, like any RPG system, lends itself to certain play styles better than others.
Oh and, mplindustries, no rudeness for answering. No one is required to like what I like. Usually on forums I assume there are a ton of people like me who just lurk and read. When I discuss it is to learn something and to ensure a certain point of view gets shared with these other lurkers.
I guess I just experience what you experience every time I level up my character or some such, like when I pick a feat, or put ranks in skills.
And that's fine, because that stuff is done in between sessions.
For instance, I have a player who has a character that "Allen Irons Must Die" as an Aspect. They are in a situation where diplomacy is key, and there is Allen Irons at the bar, sipping a martini with a cocky smile. The player takes a compel and begins a hostile confrontation with Allen Irons. This is the harder and more destructive path in all likely hood. The Fail Option. However, this is the logical conclusion of this character. (He also has the aspect of "Violence Solves Everything.) The Player gets rewarded for playing his character....well in character with a FATE point...while the character pursues his motivation. (After this adventure, the Allen Irons Aspect changed based upon events that occurred in the Ballroom)
Just for reference, I understand how the system works--I've played it and I totally get it. I just don't like it. The compel thing is the worst to me. If my character wants Allen Irons to Die, I'm going to go after Allen Irons, FATE points or not. The meta-reward muddies the water for me and taints the motivation. I should want him to die because he deserves death, and I should pursue that because I want it to happen. Pursuing it should definitely not make me any better at handling other, totally unrelated situations later (i.e. I got a FATE point by hating on Allen Irons, so later, when I face off with some thugs in an alley, I'll be able to spend more resources to beat them).
I think the FATE point mechanic can be really tricky to use and requires a certain kind of mindfulness that people would not want to engage in. For some players that mindfulness isn't as difficult. (Maybe it is because of my background in psychology and being a social worker, along with players of like backgrounds, that we take to this mindfulness easy.)
Again, I don't think it's difficult, I just find it undesirable. My background in psychology doesn't make me like it any more--in fact, it may contribute to my dislike even more, since again, it's not really about character psychology at all, it's about player psychology.
I don't want to consider my character as someone separate from myself. I do not want a reward cycle to incentivize acting in character. Acting in character is the entire point for me, so bribing me to do it is just a distraction. I don't want to affect the story directly and have unrelated things I did earlier increase the likelihood of my success via meta-mechanics. I only want to interact with the world via the agency of my character and I want to do so as my character.
Heck, until I started reading gaming fora, even the idea of speaking in 3rd person at the roleplaying table was alien to me (and I would still find that very jarring if it were to ever happen at a game I was a part of).
At the end of the day, I think FATE, like any RPG system, lends itself to certain play styles better than others.
Absolutely. However, FATE is not just "better for another style." It is totally unsuitable for the playstyle I enjoy.
I guess I just experience what you experience every time I level up my character or some such, like when I pick a feat, or put ranks in skills.And that's fine, because that stuff is done in between sessions.
For instance, I have a player who has a character that "Allen Irons Must Die" as an Aspect. They are in a situation where diplomacy is key, and there is Allen Irons at the bar, sipping a martini with a cocky smile. The player takes a compel and begins a hostile confrontation with Allen Irons. This is the harder and more destructive path in all likely hood. The Fail Option. However, this is the logical conclusion of this character. (He also has the aspect of "Violence Solves Everything.) The Player gets rewarded for playing his character....well in character with a FATE point...while the character pursues his motivation. (After this adventure, the Allen Irons Aspect changed based upon events that occurred in the Ballroom)Just for reference, I understand how the system works--I've played it and I totally get it. I just don't like it. The compel thing is the worst to me. If my character wants Allen Irons to Die, I'm going to go after Allen Irons, FATE points or not. The meta-reward muddies the water for me and taints the motivation. I should want him to die because he deserves death, and I should pursue that because I want it to happen. Pursuing it should definitely not make me any better at handling other, totally unrelated situations later (i.e. I got a FATE point by hating on Allen Irons, so later, when I face off with some thugs in an alley, I'll be able to spend more resources to beat them).
I think the FATE point mechanic can be really tricky to use and requires a certain kind of mindfulness that people would not want to engage in. For some players that mindfulness isn't as difficult. (Maybe it is because of my background in psychology and being a social worker, along with players of like...
I really should stop posting from my phone, so I can break up these quotes better for you to read. My apologies in advance.
A couple of quick thoughts, but this will be my last post on this as I think we will just start going back and fourth. Thanks for the discussion (Feel free for the last word if you want it.)
1. Aspect changes, like the leveling up happens between sessions; I just don't see the difference
2. Your comment regarding FATE points. In Pathfinder, for instance, people get XP, treasure, hero points, magic items, etc., etc. for accomplishing certain objectives. FATE just narrows that down to a point. I don't see much difference between both of those either. Adventurers complicate their lives just by being, Adventurers. These are both game systems, inherent in a game system is a reward and punishment system. Pathfinder rewards system mastery, they do it through those aforementioned treasures. I would argue that FATE is attempting to award interactions (I think Pathfinder is as well, but I think System Mastery is still a priority). You can use that point for anything or nothing....same as the treasure or whatnot you get for beating an encounter in Pathfinder.
3. I wasn't attempting to apply that you didn't understand, my apologies if that was how it came off. I would agree with you, if the system is breaking your immersion than it is not using the appropriate carrot or stick and to stay with one that does. The Fluidity of a FATE character speaks very well to me. I like it. The Rigidity of the Class Abstraction in Pathfinder I find to be more jarring. (Not for me personally, I can keep that abstraction, but for people I play with. They see it more concrete and that seems like a common perception, so instead of screaming at the ocean to get off my beach; I ended up swimming with the tide for a bit.)
4. At our table we speak as our characters. Except for one person, but he is pretty shy, so getting him to talk is pretty awesome.
5. My players seem to enjoy the tagging system for that meta gaming success, for whatever reason tags and maneuvers seems to be the go to over FATE points on our table.
6. I phrased my not suitable line because I didn't want to put words in your mouth or imply anything. I would agree, use the game system that works best for your roleplaying needs. For whatever reason, what you find as flaws, I find as benefits that seem motivate my roleplaying than hindering it. (I think that was my only concern, I know that you were speaking from experience, but it felt like an overall indictment rather than an indictment from your perspective. Probably not your intention, but that was what motivated my response.)
7. At the end of the day, if we agreed on the system, I think you would find we would game together fine. As I too want a game that has me immersed in my character interacting with the world about him and I try to run games that encourage that.
By back and fourth, I think in a circle. Can't get the editing to work from my phone.
2. Your comment regarding FATE points. In Pathfinder, for instance, people get XP, treasure, hero points, magic items, etc., etc. for accomplishing certain objectives. FATE just narrows that down to a point.
XP is fairly abstract and I don't like Hero Points for the same reason I don't like FATE points, but treasure is pretty in-character, isn't it? It's not some kind of ephemeral meta-currency, it's just real stuff.
Adventurers complicate their lives just by being, Adventurers.
And that's the way I like it, rather than complicating their lives because they get some kind of meta-reward for doing so.
These are both game systems, inherent in a game system is a reward and punishment system.
I have to say that I completely disagree with this statement. Roleplaying games are not like MMOs or something where the gameplay itself is not compelling enough and they have to use a Pavlovian reward system to addict their playerbase with. For most players, simply roleplaying is its own reward.
I don't want the system trying to get me to act in a certain way, especially with disassociative meta-mechanics. I just want a system that models what my character is doing.
You can use that point for anything or nothing....same as the treasure or whatnot you get for beating an encounter in Pathfinder.
But that treasure is an actual in-game thing--this is not The One Ring where you have some kind of abstract "Treasure Score." In Pathfinder, you get an actual item you can use with a value, etc. It's something totally in-character and you can make in-character decisions about it.
FATE points, however, are totally disassociative--they're a metaconstruct. They are not something the character could ever interact with.
I would agree with you, if the system is breaking your immersion than it is not using the appropriate carrot or stick and to stay with one that does.
Just to clarify, I don't want a carrot or stick--the existence of that is one of the things I disliked about FATE.
The Rigidity of the Class Abstraction in Pathfinder I find to be more jarring.
Well, I honestly don't love Pathfinder. It's an ok game, but it's far from my favorite. I don't really like classes, and generally don't play games that have them.
5. My players seem to enjoy the tagging system for that meta gaming success, for whatever reason tags and maneuvers seems to be the go to over FATE points on our table.
I liked tagging as a pure game mechanic--it was a fun puzzle trying to tag things and all that. However, while fun, I wasn't really roleplaying as much as it was just trying to manipulate a game system.
And again, that's a problem--nobody in real life chooses to fail. Harry Dresden never decides, "ok, well, it'd be really cool if I failed now because I'm hot headed, and besides, it will fuel me later when it really counts!"Interestingly enough there IS such a mechanic in Cubicle 7's Dr. Who RPG. One example given is a player deciding that his character makes a mistake and winds up getting captured by the Cybermen she's fleeing from, getting some Story Points that can be used later at an opportune time.
Yes, a lot of "dirty hippy games" have mechanics like that in them. It's a trend in rpgs, or at least it was a few years ago.
It comes from a different perspective about what RPGs are about. To people who write/play/enjoy those games, they're out to tell a good story--that's the point of play. They want to do whatever necessary to make this group story they are co-creating to be awesome and so, naturally, the next step in game evolution in that direction are mechanics that directly manipulate the story and incentivize "drama creation," be that by acting on a negative character aspect, accepting a setback to fuel up for later, or what have you.