Quote from: Claudius;289385Nope. It was an attempt to express the author's obvious and mad love for swords and medieval fencing in an RPG. I don't know where you get that it was an attempt to do D&D right. Just because the author implied he didn't like D&D? As I said hundreds and hundreds of times, D&D was not an influence on TROS (other than D&D being the first RPG ever, you know, D&D, by virtue of being the first RPG ever, has been an influence on all RPGs), the RPGs that inspired Jake to make TROS were Dzikie Pola (a Polish RPG) and Warhammer. Jake even told me once that his first intention was translating Dzikie Pola into English, but he ended up writing TROS instead.

The edition I had, first I think, had this big rant about how unrealistic D&D was and how TRoS fixed that.  He went on for ages about D&D, to the point I recall thinking "dude, tell me about your game, stop telling me about some other guy's game".

Quote from: Balbinus;290055The edition I had, first I think, had this big rant about how unrealistic D&D was and how TRoS fixed that.  He went on for ages about D&D, to the point I recall thinking "dude, tell me about your game, stop telling me about some other guy's game".

Yep. That was indeed tiresome.

Bill,
 

QuoteI am, I guess, a Universalist in my game design and approach to games.

Well, I think most games can be applied to most genres. But, I think there is an oddity in the ditv mechanics that make it less suitable for some genres over others.
  Fallout is the only way your character can killed.
  The game encourages you to risk Fallout, because it is only by rolling Fallout dice (and getting a 1) that your character can improve.
  There are 4 levels of conflict, Talking, Physical, but not fighting, Fighting, but not shooting and Shooting. If you get Fallout from a conflict where shooting was involved and your 2 highest Fallout dice add up to 20, you character is dead.

  That makes this game arbitrarily lethal, You can only get a 20 by escalating to Shooting, but if you do, your character could die. Even if you use good tactics, use your character's strengths, leverage your opponent's weaknesses, etc. So, it is not highly-lethal like GURPS or others. It is not tactical like D&D or others. It is arbitrarily lethal. With no concern towards character build efficiency or other tactical concerns.

  And this is on purpose, The idea is, you should not escalate to guns, unless you are fighting for something you are willing to die for. And that can easily apply to other genres (my example of Jedi for instance). But, I don't think this would work for say, a mercenary campaign. I mean, what are mercenaries willing to die for?

  Don't get me wrong, that campaign could be fun, but it would take extra work. Work that can be avoided by using another system. Does that make sense?

  I guess I brought it up because some of the ditv fanboys go gaga and try and apply this rules to every conceivable setting (like Firefly, I love firefly, but those characters aren't willing to die for much and none of them could agree what that thing is that they are willing to die for, you know?). And while some of the alternate settings have merit, a lot of them are just a clever play on words with no real campaign idea behind them.

  Anyways, if you have other mechanical questions about ditv, please feel free to let me know.

I should have said earlier, Pundy or whoever was responsible, thank you for taking this thread back out of Off Topic.

Quote from: dindenver;290106I guess I brought it up because some of the ditv fanboys go gaga and try and apply this rules to every conceivable setting

Personally, I've got no interest at all in hacking DitV. I like the setting just fine.

Quote from: droog;290168Personally, I've got no interest at all in hacking DitV. I like the setting just fine.

He is right though, some fans do immediately start moving it to new settings.

Personally, I think it's an error.  The setting fits the game's themes very well.

That said, there is a certain comic irony in members of the system matters crowd trying to run Traveller using Sorceror or Star Wars using Dogs...

Quote from: Balbinus;290171That said, there is a certain comic irony in members of the system matters crowd trying to run Traveller using Sorceror or Star Wars using Dogs...

Well...I think system matters, and I can see how some hacks might work. But as that guy found out, if you're going to do Traveller with Sorcerer, it's going to be a very different Traveller. In fact it's going to be Sorcerer with a Traveller backdrop. Which is fine for Sorcerer because it's made to be customised.

Quote from: Balbinus;290154I should have said earlier, Pundy or whoever was responsible, thank you for taking this thread back out of Off Topic.

Thanks go to Brett.

Quote from: droog;290176Well...I think system matters, and I can see how some hacks might work. But as that guy found out, if you're going to do Traveller with Sorcerer, it's going to be a very different Traveller. In fact it's going to be Sorcerer with a Traveller backdrop. Which is fine for Sorcerer because it's made to be customised.

I will say conditionally I disagree. System matters only to the group and what their prejudices are. Someone who enjoys the elements of DitV could easily play it in a Saturday cartoon setting...or DND in a sci-fi setting if that is what matters to them. It is these elements of the game that matter to the specific group and their playstyle, not to the setting.

Of course, that is all in a great big IMHO.

Quote from: droog;290176Well...I think system matters, and I can see how some hacks might work. But as that guy found out, if you're going to do Traveller with Sorcerer, it's going to be a very different Traveller. In fact it's going to be Sorcerer with a Traveller backdrop. Which is fine for Sorcerer because it's made to be customised.

I'm afraid I agree with every word.  Sorry to let the forum down.

Quote from: HinterWelt;290195I will say conditionally I disagree. System matters only to the group and what their prejudices are. Someone who enjoys the elements of DitV could easily play it in a Saturday cartoon setting...or DND in a sci-fi setting if that is what matters to them. It is these elements of the game that matter to the specific group and their playstyle, not to the setting.

Of course, that is all in a great big IMHO.

System matters means different things to different folks of course, like all theory terms really.

If by system matters one means that by examining system we can see what will be expressed at the table, ie that d&d is about killing things and taking stuff because that's what the rules cover (which isn't actually quite correct, but I digress), then decades of actual play experience have long since refuted that concept.

If it's simply that the choice of system can aid or hinder the actual play of a particular game idea, then I think that's true, but sufficiently obvious as to barely merit discussion.  I also think that while it matters, other things such as the people at the table, the venue and various other extraneous factors all matter more.  It's just of those things that matter, system is often the easiest to change.

You guys keep this up and Puckernuts is going to throw a spaz and shift the thread again.

Quote from: Balbinus;290209System matters means different things to different folks of course, like all theory terms really.

That was not my understanding. It was my understanding, and I was told this on the forge some time ago, that "System Matters" is about the system defining the setting through mechanical means. This was later expanded on to say that systems shoudl be played RAW or you play a different game. I am not saying this to be contentious but only to explain where my definition came from. If modern evolution of their System Matters theory has changed then I may well be more in line.

Quote from: Balbinus;290209If by system matters one means that by examining system we can see what will be expressed at the table, ie that d&d is about killing things and taking stuff because that's what the rules cover (which isn't actually quite correct, but I digress), then decades of actual play experience have long since refuted that concept.

If it's simply that the choice of system can aid or hinder the actual play of a particular game idea, then I think that's true, but sufficiently obvious as to barely merit discussion.  I also think that while it matters, other things such as the people at the table, the venue and various other extraneous factors all matter more.  It's just of those things that matter, system is often the easiest to change.

I would disagree, I think. A system can enable the a person or groups prejudices. For instance, "An anime game must have a means to fly through the air" is  a prejudice. The person who hold sit will look at the system as broken if it does not allow flight. This is what I have seen game designers and a segment of gamers who read rules make comments on.

My counter is to say that there are far more people IME, that have a "I love hit points! Let's play space DND!" because they enjoy the DND system. It is not the best fit by arcane and imperical measure and may require modification (adding space armor and weapons, etc.) but it supports the preferred style of the game.

This all said, I do agree with the later half of you post especially that system is the easiest target. Low hanging fruit and all that.

Quote from: droog;290214You guys keep this up and Puckernuts is going to throw a spaz and shift the thread again.

Good point although I do think we are talking regular game theory at this point;i.e. theory as applied to "regular" games. Also...we are int he theory subforum if that counts...or is this Forge theory and I don't know it...Oh, my, its full of Artha...

Edit: I reread the description. We're boned.

Quote from: droog;290176Well...I think system matters, and I can see how some hacks might work. But as that guy found out, if you're going to do Traveller with Sorcerer, it's going to be a very different Traveller. In fact it's going to be Sorcerer with a Traveller backdrop. Which is fine for Sorcerer because it's made to be customised.

Agree. But this has always been one of the criticisms of Forge games, right? That it's focus is too narrow. Personally I have never understood this. The game works on it's own terms, why do all games have to a utilitarian function (as far as hacking goes) ?

Regards,
David R