Quote from: TristramEvans;645379I don't think that every game system needs to be universal, but the other side of that is that I'm not going to play a game where the system tries to corrall me into playing the game a specific way that I don't like.

Yeah, in hindsight Ars Magica was a poor example... Mouseguard might be better? Very setting-specific stuff in there. Sorta weird premise. Mechanics aren't really portable outside the setting... yeah, that might be a better example of what I mean.

QuoteI could see that working, as long as it was entirely in the hands of the players. In fact WHFRP 3E already includes something similar on a binary axis with the conservative/reckless dice. when I adapted the dice system for a supers game, I changed it to rage/calm.

What do you mean, in the hands of the players? Like... under their control all the time? Because part of my premise with this thing is that the character isn't always directly under the player's control - there are aspects of the character that belong to it, rather than the player. Emotions and emotional responses being one of them.

QuoteI guess the question is, how much do emotional states have an external effect that they need to be mechanically represented? In my game I do let players "claim motivation" when they think some event has significantly effected their character's resolve or mental state, which they can then use to influence die rolls.

I admit I'm not really sure yet! That particular subsystem... thing... is still gathering momentum in my head, and I haven't touched it in a long time. But it's something I want to implement, so each emotion will definitely have some effect of some kind. This is largely sensible to me, from a simulation standpoint - your emotional state impacts what you do quite a bit of the time, even if only a little bit.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;645384What do you mean, in the hands of the players? Like... under their control all the time? Because part of my premise with this thing is that the character isn't always directly under the player's control - there are aspects of the character that belong to it, rather than the player. Emotions and emotional responses being one of them.

Well, players control as opposed to character's control at least. In other words, I would not like to see an emotional subsystem that could be used by a GM to railroad a character.

QuoteThat particular subsystem... thing... is still gathering momentum in my head, and I haven't touched it in a long time. But it's something I want to implement, so each emotion will definitely have some effect of some kind. This is largely sensible to me, from a simulation standpoint - your emotional state impacts what you do quite a bit of the time, even if only a little bit.

I'd be intetrested in seeing it as it comes to fruition. One thing I've found in personal experience, however, is that players who are immersed in their characters are very much subject to their emotions already. I'd worry if a system distanced the player from the role by making emotions a part of the rules. There was a game a few years ago called Eoris (which I never read), that apparently had some sort of mechanic where emotional states of the characters played a big role mechanically. I dont think that game managed to capture an audience for whatever reason (at least I havent heard anything about it online since), but it might be worth taking a look at.

Quote from: TristramEvans;645389Well, players control as opposed to character's control at least. In other words, I would not like to see an emotional subsystem that could be used by a GM to railroad a character.

Hmm. I don't think that the way I envision this being set up would allow that.

I mean, part of the purpose is so that the character "gets a say" in how the character is being played. The intent is to avoid players treating their characters as pawns rather than as entities unto themselves (among other goals).

The GM could push emotional trauma at the player/character, and the character might become an emotional nightmare, but I'm not really seeing a way it could be used to force the player/character to act in any particular fashion.

QuoteI'd be intetrested in seeing it as it comes to fruition. One thing I've found in personal experience, however, is that players who are immersed in their characters are very much subject to their emotions already.

This system is meant to help engender that for everybody, not screw it up for the people who are already doing it.

I've heard of Eoris, it was mentioned in the thread I initially posted regarding this concept, here. I haven't gotten the chance to look at it, though.

Principles for a good game:
1. It should be fun
2. Easy to learn
3. Fast moving

Quote from: TristramEvans;645338Being in-character isnt an excuse for being a selfish jackass, I'd agree, but I don't think any players primary responsibility is making sure the other players are having fun. If that responsibility was assigned to anyone, I'd say it should be the GM. A good GM will take into account what pushes any particular player's buttons and give everyone at the game table chances for their characters to shine. Beyond that, if a person is a self-absorbed ass, I don't think there needs to be any rules to compensate for that, just stop playing with them.

There are actually very few things I'm certain of, despite the attitude I take in posting, but one thing I am certain of is that unless the entire group is onboard with watching out for everyone else's fun, it just won't work. And it can't be the GM's sole responsibility because they can't dictate how players interact, nor can (or should) they force spotlight time.

And this isn't as simple as a player being a self-absorbed ass. Very few problems at the table can be so simply isolated and identified, and sometimes these issues go unnoticed through nobody's fault. Really, it shocks me how few RPGs effectively address and provide guidelines on how to maintain group harmony. On the other hand certain systems have rules which most definitely disrupt it, for example 'newbie traps' and the like, which may make an individual player feel smart, but actually creates a dynamic that runs counter to working together.

I wonder if combat should be fast sometimes. It certainly shouldn't be tedious or boring. But gaming is gaming, not real life.

I also think that while the rules shouldn't be obtrusive, they should also enhance the feel of the game or the setting. Using poker rules/cards in a western game, for instance.

Please. If there is one thing this site, ENWorld and the Banning Place has taught us it is that there is no good design, just bad design and people bitching about it on line.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;645516I wonder if combat should be fast sometimes. It certainly shouldn't be tedious or boring. But gaming is gaming, not real life.

.

That's why my list was short, because everything else is pretty subjective.  If a game is designed for slow combat, than it doesn't mean it's bad design to have slow combat.  Think Axis and Allies.  However, what I was alluding to in my list was that it needs to move enough so that everyone is engaged without long stretches of one of the players not being involved.  Fast combat is related to that, but isn't necessarily so, if that makes sense.  I.e., you can have slow combat and as long as the players are involved, it's OK.

Quote from: GrumpyReviews;645533Please. If there is one thing this site, ENWorld and the banning Place has taught us it is that there is no good design, just bad design and people bitching about it on line.

heh.  truth.

Quote from: GrumpyReviews;645533Please. If there is one thing this site, ENWorld and the Banning Place has taught us

I don't believe they've taught us anything, myself, other than nerds are just as culpable as any people to groupthink.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;645516I wonder if combat should be fast sometimes. It certainly shouldn't be tedious or boring. But gaming is gaming, not real life.

Thing is a lot of designers seem to think that fast and simple is somehow more engaging that slow and complicated. Either can be tedious and boring, and one is not the solution to the other.

"Green Flags"?

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;645516I also think that while the rules shouldn't be obtrusive, they should also enhance the feel of the game or the setting. Using poker rules/cards in a western game, for instance.

Yup, this.

Quote from: Ghost WhistlerI wonder if combat should be fast sometimes. It certainly shouldn't be tedious or boring. But gaming is gaming, not real life.

I think it depends on each game premise. Take late D&D editions and Riddle of Steel, for example. Those games are about combat. If you dont make combat take a good ratio of the adventure/campaign, youre wasting rules. While in early D&D and, say, Apocalypse World, combat is just another element that composes their premises, far from being the only and important one.

(and thats my beef with Shadowrun - Ive always thought that conceptually it pertained to the later group and thus should have a much simpler and faster combat. )

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;645667Thing is a lot of designers seem to think that fast and simple is somehow more engaging that slow and complicated.

It need not go as fast as a real life combat, but 45 minutes of play time to resolve 6 second of game time, moving from player to player one at a time leaving large period where players are sitting on their thumbs... is dull and I cannot believe anyone actually enjoys that.

I think the hobby's default/traditional model of combat resolution (an entire sub-system full of minutia and idiossincrasies) is an artifact from its wargaming roots.

I suspect the games with faster combats are those that break away with that tradition (or dont follow it too close) like the so called "narrative" or "rules light" ones (Amber, Everway, Over the Edge, Castle Falkenstein, Wushu, Heroquest, Apocalypse World, etc).

Edit: another factor in this equation is abstraction vs high-detail. Games of the first case tend to be faster, while the second case tends to be slower. Keep in mind this dont have necessarily to do with realism, since you can have abstract systems which generate plausible results (Unknown Armies comes to mind) and vice-versa.

Quote from: TristramEvans;644840Granted. I'm  just listing my preferences, the "good" in the (parodic) title is as meaningless as it was with the original thread.

That's what I call a wise self-awareness.

I see it in Gleichman's Designer's Notes from a dozen years ago, and can only wonder how he became the enfant terrible he is today.