So, I wanted to elicit opinions regarding the degree to which realism in mechanical effect can have a detrimental or positive effect on the game experience of the players.  

First, some background:
I've been working with a sort of mash-up game system that I initially put together in order to keep the feel of a favored setting of mine (Rhand, from Living Steel) while using mechanics that my long term, regular group would be able to grasp quickly.  Essentially, this meant taking the table-centric non-hp damage system from Living Steel/PCCS and bringing it into the skill and to-hit resolution system from d20, and using some aspects of Interlock (range-based difficulty to hit and opposed rolls in melee combat).  

The end result was a game which brought a heavy degree of realism  to the modern weapons combat, used hand to hand rules (which I pretty much wrote whole-hog, I'm not a Martial Artist, but I'm Level 2 in Modern Army Combatives, so I'm good with grappling) that made more sense than the standard d20 rules, and had a damage system that, once explained to the players, had a dual reaction:  Most of them said 'holy shit, I never want to get injured', and the former 18D/now-PA said 'yup, very realistic.  I never want to get hurt in this game either'.  

I'll caveat that I was aware of the nastiness of the damage system when I was transferring it, the idea is that it's near-realism would discourage frontal-assault combat and promote alternate solutions to situations; when the players would engage in combat, they had to either a)make sure they had overwhelming superiority and could win with minimal losses, or b)accept that they were going to lose some people, many of whom wouldn't be replaceable.  It was part of the feel that I was trying to generate for the game, that the human resource was one of the most valuable and difficult to replace.

As an additional note, if you're not familiar with Living Steel, while the combat system is pretty vicious, the heroic PC's (called Swords in the game) will pretty much be certain to have biological modifications that ensure that they are nearly impossible to kill through anything less than a wound that destroys their brain or heart; most other wounds will heal (although it stops short of regenerating limbs, traumatic amputation is a realistic threat).  But actual PC mortality wasn't a direct concern to me.

I generated a working copy, had a short print run made of it (just lulu, nothing serious investment-wise) and playtested it here with my group.  Being the compiler (I hesitate to use author) and the person fully invested in it, my group here really liked it, had no problem understanding the system, and overall had a great time playing the game.  I got some good feedback, made some changes, etc.

I also sent a couple copies up to my friends in Michigan who I grew up as a gamer with, and the response was much different.  They found the game hard to understand, cumbersome to resolve, and overall confusing.  The feedback I got back was along the lines of 'why don't you just write this all up in your Jesterpunk stuff?' (my kitbashed homeruled CP2020), which pretty much was saying they didn't like the whole idea of the new system.

So, what I'm trying to feel out is whether making the combat too realistic was the issue, which to me was as much an issue of the atmosphere I was trying to generate for the game as it was one of 'simulating the real world', or if it was that my explanations might have been lacking in the game (I didn't feel so, I definitely had already adhered to Sanc's suggestions of making sure that I had game-consistent examples), or if I'm just on the wrong track, and that making the combat too lethal/debilitating is pulling some of the 'I want to play a hero, not someone who gets shot in the head and dies' fun from the game.

I'm not worried about the specifics of my game (Jeff has taken a look at it, and if anyone else wants to, feel free to PM me with a decent email and I'll send it to you), more with the overall concepts involved.

Thoughts?

Quote from: Panzerkraken;653864So, I wanted to elicit opinions regarding the degree to which realism in mechanical effect can have a detrimental or positive effect on the game experience of the players.  

You're going to get answers all over the map (or rather should get answers from all over the map).

IME game systems designed around the concept "combat is something to avoid" do not tend to be popular. Many players play for combat and want to be good at it. Others that want to avoid it except in extreme conditions (as small minority IME)- would avoid no matter the system in use anyway.

Between those two bookends, you're pitching to a small group. Those who want combat where they can easily die unless they have overwhelming advantage. And that asks it's own question, why play something who's end we know- can I just make a 'live through battle' role and move on to the next interesting part where we don't know the outcome?.

So yeah, a very narrow target group there and a system pitched to it is unlikely to find favor with any other group.

Now to that add in the fact that unless the group is looking for a new game, they are highly unlikely to try yours no matter what.

So the likely answer- yeah, this wasn't a good idea if thought to use it beyond your own group.


As for your writing/explanation of the rules being at fault, don't dismiss it. Unless your other system had similar aspect to its combat, the other group asking why you didn't use it is a good indication that you didn't get the point of the new game across even if you managed to explain the mechanics of it well.

Thanks for sounding in,

One of the thoughts that I had, after the fact now, was that there's a very different makeup between the players in each group.  My group here is almost entirely made up of current or very recently ex- Soldiers, while my group back in Michigan were mostly the sort of people who grew up there and never went further than Ohio or Indiana.  

I wrote the rules up while I was in Afghanistan, and so the tone of how they were applied did assume a very pre-competent tone (for instance, firing stances having a VERY significant effect in combat, much different from the simple -2 in Interlock), and I think I might have to review again for jargon issues, but one of the ideas was to take into account some of the plethora of things that we train on all the time that are missed in rpg systems.

I honestly would've thought that my group here wouldn't have liked it as much because of the 'I play to get away from work!' theory.  I know I used to play a LOT more military games than I do anymore.

Quote from: Panzerkraken;653864or if I'm just on the wrong track, and that making the combat too lethal/debilitating is pulling some of the 'I want to play a hero, not someone who gets shot in the head and dies' fun from the game.

First off, education is important here. If your players are used to monty haul three figure HP games, a more realistic combat system is going to be a splash of cold water in the face. Tell them what to expect in advance. Secondly are you sure that your system isn't edging into too-gritty-to-live territory?

My own system is fairly harsh. Maximum 10 HP for humans without benefits, most PCs top out at around 8-12 HP ever, where a broadsword does 4 damage plus anywhere between 1 and 15 points of damage due to your attack roll. It's dangerous and easy to get killed, but I also give players options like enhancing their dodge and combat skills which means so long as they don't do anything stupid like single handedly charging a pike square they'll probably come through alright.

The enormous variety of factors involved in balancing your system makes it hard to judge these things without extensive playtesting of course, but my experience has been one of players playing smarter rather than trying to bull through every challenge. They pick their battles, choose their ground, and never start an arse kicking match with a porcupine, a thinking man's game.

Nobody is stupid enough to try and stick their glaive plus five into a greater red dragon, that's a thirty ton flying mass of thousand degree celcius fire breathing impregnable armour which is smarter than the next ten people put together. They deal with such creatures in different ways.

Maybe that's not heroic according to the great oilpainting of some dude in a loincloth bathed in a ray of sunlight holding his weapon up for all to admire while the princess clutches his hefty calves sitting on top of a draconian carcass, but it is a hell of a lot of fun.

So basically your problem is one of either education or actual system nastiness. Figure out which is the issue and you're good.

Quote from: The Traveller;653883Secondly are you sure that your system isn't edging into too-gritty-to-live territory?

I agree with the education part, and I think that might have been the issue with the remote group.

As to the second question, where do you think that lies?  Right now, and unarmored human being shot with an assault rifle has about a 4% chance, based on location hit, that they come up with a 'DEAD' result on the damage table, essentially if they're hit in the forehead, eye/nose, or heart they're DRT (dead right there).  There's another 7% chance that they'll take somewhere in the neighborhood of 30,000 damage (mouth, neck, spine), which would give them a little bit of time to get some aid before they bleed out.

(my system has the opposite take from yours on damage numbers, the damage counts up instead of down, and severe injuries can range up to the 100,000 range without actually saying 'you're dead'.  After all, they might be shot right at the feet of someone who could perform first aid, just as they're about to dust off on the way to a trauma center.)

And that's unarmored, armor has a good chance of either preventing the damage from penetrating, or reducing the wound to being something much less severe.

It's crunchy, yes, but I didn't feel like it was slowing the game down; most of the combats went much faster than similar situations in either Cyberpunk 2020 or d20 modern, it felt a lot like running Shadowrun 3rd edition to me.

Does that seem to gritty?  I realize I haven't given enough detail to make a full call on that, but to do so would take a huge amount of text to fully explain.

never mind.

Quote from: Panzerkraken;653864Essentially, this meant taking the table-centric non-hp damage system from Living Steel/PCCS and bringing it into the skill and to-hit resolution system from d20, and using some aspects of Interlock (range-based difficulty to hit and opposed rolls in melee combat).  

Yup, very much like them.

Quote from: Panzerkraken;653986Does that seem to gritty?  I realize I haven't given enough detail to make a full call on that, but to do so would take a huge amount of text to fully explain.

No I wouldn't say it's too gritty but probably a bit heavy on the crunch. If the local group got it but the guys in Michigan didn't it might be because of your familiarity with the system and hence ability to make it run smoothly in person.

I would say this (after a quick skim):

This is less a rulebook than a concise, but dense, summary of the rules of the game.

It functions great as a reference work for those who already know the rules, but doesn't help people new to the rules. The latter are likely to struggle.

Which doesn't mean it's badly written, or that the mechanics are bad, just that it's not accessible to neophytes.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;654131I would say this (after a quick skim):

This is less a rulebook than a concise, but dense, summary of the rules of the game.

It functions great as a reference work for those who already know the rules, but doesn't help people new to the rules. The latter are likely to struggle.

Which doesn't mean it's badly written, or that the mechanics are bad, just that it's not accessible to neophytes.

That's a fair assessment.  I wasn't trying to introduce people to gaming with it, just change some of the paradigms of our group.  Please let me know what you think when you get a chance to read over it a bit more.