For quite a while, I have had a revulsion to D&D. (Not a Forgite, thing, you understand, my hatred of Sorcerer pretty much excludes me by definition. Don't worry, I have the other side covered in my second point.) D&D just disgusted me for some reason. Literally. I'd get nauseous trying to read it. I put it down to stupid Vancian Magic/Tabletop MMO-itis/Whatever the fashionable complaint is this week. But then today in my college class we got into that famous "Politics and the English Language" essay, and something just clicked.

D&D claims to be a role-playing game. Notice the language. A game. Websters gives the definition as " A contest, physical or mental, according to certain rules, for amusement, recreation, or for winning a stake." Notice the bold. Games, literally by definition, must have rules. That means that for something to be a game about role-playing, it must have rules specifically for role-playing. If you are going to to in-character interaction without rules to govern it, you might as well just do it free-form on the internet, because you are not playing a game.

Let's do an exercise. Let's say we told a random stranger on the street the rules to D&D (or any of the countless knock-offs) without telling them what it was, what would they think? Well, with 90% of the rules relating various small-scale tactical engagements. They would conclude that it's a squad-based war-game. And they're right.

That doesn't, by itself, make these sorts of games bad. There's nothing wrong with violence-simulation. But the pretension of roleplaying is detrimental. How can you make a good game when you don't even know what kind of game you're trying to make? Worse, even though old fans are accustomed to your redefinition of the language, your definition becomes conflated with the original one, so you rhetorically trick people into equating tactical violence with roleplaying, entirely by accident. (not that you can't make violence a character thing, but these games do not)

As an example, I once saw a game that purported to be a role-playing game with a Shoujo manga theme. Plenty of information on the subject, but mechanically, we had the generic "Target number of everything" approach with the requisite Chapter or two on combat. Okay, fine. Not the main thing, but we've had Escaflowne, Superior, and maybe Nanoha depending on for liberally you define "shoujo". There's a precedent. As for romance and relationships? Well you're just supposed to  make shit up as you go because obviously a game suppossedly focused on a genre defined by social interation shouldn't impede playing with things like mechanical reinforcement.

Let's be perfectly clear here: This hobby is niche. Even if every publisher built this stuff like Germans we would not have the money for ads. The only people that are going to buy RPGs are people who can (A) roleplay on their own without rules, and (B) hold an interest in the purported subject. The point of a roleplaying game is to give structure and encouragement through mechanical reenforcement. If you do not have rules for genre tropes than you  have failed at making an RPG.

Role-playing games can't be games of role-playing. Jesus christ.


Okay, so given that, there's plenty of other games for me to like, right? Call of Cthulhu is about role-playing a guy who goes insane rom horrific revalatiions, and there are actually rules for it, so there's a point to buying it instead of IRC. Burning Wheel has rules to help you be a better act like an elf. I should approve. Except I don't. So what's the problem?

The problem is one outlined by Orwell's Essay. There is needless complication. It seems like the only games with actual roleplaying mechanics that aren't forgite use some stupid variation of Attribute dice/points + Skill dice/points =  total competence dice/points for everything else. Then roll competence vs. whatever.

This is stupid. If Einstein had had this mindset, he'd leave his equations like this:. Rules are why we play the game, but efficiency is just as valuable here as it is anywhere else. If we can simplify a game without eliminating player options then we should. Why the fuck do I need Attributes and skills when all my tasks are defined by what skill they use?
It's never "make a dexterity roll," it's always "Make a firearms roll" with dexterity taked on for no good reason. Exalted takes it over 9000 (like it does with everything) by having a stat called Perception and a skill called Awareness. I am not making this up.

If anyone at all could tell me what is possibly lost by cutting out stats and just adding extra skill points I would be grateful, because I can't think of a single thing. Hell, as far as combat goes, why not just compress it down to a "Murdering people" skill and a "not get murdered" skill. It's not like the weeaboo is going to use anything other than a katana or the goth will switch from the scythe, so why not standardize? Just tack on weapon mods and you keep all the tactics with half the pointless-number crunching. (Once again, there can be meaningful fiddly bits. Nobilis comes to mind.)

The only thing that has really satisfied both my criticisms for a while was Houses of the Blooded, and any game about romance and politics is going to give a hell of a time rounding up a group.. Anything else that lacks focus-issues and bloated mechanics?

You take your games way too seriously.
 
Welcome to the RPGsite BTW.

Here is a review of 3:16: Carnage Amongst the Stars which sounds like it meets most of your criteria.
http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/13/13991.phtml

The big problem with the definition of "Game" and RPGs is that the very nature of what roleplaying actually happens during gameplay defies the use of mechanical rules.    We can all roll to attack with same, but we will not all "bluff the guards" in the same manner unless you simply make the rule to roll Dice + Bluff vs. Guard Target Number.

BTW, D&D has always been a squad based wargame.  Explore the area, kill the monsters, gather the loot, rinse and repeat is the core of the game and the concept of storylines, accents and roleplaying has always been tacked on and every group decides how much emphasis to put on the wargame aspect.

Quote from: KrakaJak;254765You take your games way too seriously.
 
Welcome to the RPGsite BTW.

I would contest that being serious inhibits fun. Hamlet is fun for some people. Besides, less stupid mechanics means less flipping through the book in the middle of a session and more honesty would help be find something I want to play. Both improve my fun.

And thank you.

Hearts & Souls is about superheroes, and it includes rules for role-playing of a sort. Mind you its basically using your in character motivation to roll dice to succeed at tasks you are attempting--because that motivation is why you are a superhero...

My upcoming fantasy game lets you apply your own reasons for success based on traits you come up with. If the reason you succeed at a task is because of your hatred for someone, or because of your broken marriage--that's up your traits and the relevance of them to the situation.

Now mind you, I'm not sure what you are wanting specifically. Rule on assuming a role, and fulfilling that role? Social rules on interacting with others? D&D has rules for playing a role--mind its the role of a tactical figure involved in exploration and conflict. Not a social role (per se..) but a balanced role for tactical fantasy. Though its not what I want from an RPG either.

Quote from: Spinachcat;254768BTW, D&D has always been a squad based wargame.  

No matter how many times this is said, it still isn't true.

Quote from: Spinachcat;254768Here is a review of 3:16: Carnage Amongst the Stars which sounds like it meets most of your criteria.
http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/13/13991.phtml

The big problem with the definition of "Game" and RPGs is that the very nature of what roleplaying actually happens during gameplay defies the use of mechanical rules.    We can all roll to attack with same, but we will not all "bluff the guards" in the same manner unless you simply make the rule to roll Dice + Bluff vs. Guard Target Number.

That's because the rules aren't comprehensive enough. That's the good kind of complexity. Exalted's social combat may be the most epic fail since the fist stoner took a philosophy class, but at least it shows that it's possible to mechanically represent debate according to genre. Things like Houses did it right.

And thanks for the suggestions, guys. I'll look into them.

Quote from: Silverlion;254770Now mind you, I'm not sure what you are wanting specifically. Rule on assuming a role, and fulfilling that role? Social rules on interacting with others? D&D has rules for playing a role--mind its the role of a tactical figure involved in exploration and conflict. Not a social role (per se..) but a balanced role for tactical fantasy. Though its not what I want from an RPG either.

Firstly: I want mechanics that reinforce acting. Not something that says "you can't do that" but something that rewards me for it. If it doesn't matter mechanically how I act then human reasoning will show it efficient not to.

Secondly: I want genre mechanics in a genre game. If I'm playing horror I damn well expect that I get some sort of monster magnet for being a blond haired cheerleader or vise-versa because emulating horror is why I bought the game.

Thirdly: As far as socializing goes, I want to have mechanical support and distinctiveness depending on my niche. In BESM the only social traits you could take for your character were Seduction and Intimidation. If I want to be  hot-blooded and inspire by nameka to the heights of valor then I'm out of luck. If I'm a seducer then I do the exact same things mechanics-wise as the guy that threatens to break your knees. Compress them to "influence" or make them different.

Your analysis is wrong in the general case, and actually very Forge-y, but you manage to get your preferences across, which is really what you're here for, yes?

I'd say take a look at Risus, and if the general idea appeals to you, look into Heroquest (the Issaries game, not the Milton Bradley one) and/or Over the Edge and/or the the Thundarr RPG. (Then again I haven't played any of those...)

Good call on Over the Edge, Eliot Wilen.

You might even be interested in Pendragon.
=

Quote from: SadinotnaIf anyone at all could tell me what is possibly lost by cutting out stats and just adding extra skill points I would be grateful, because I can't think of a single thing. Hell, as far as combat goes, why not just compress it down to a "Murdering people" skill and a "not get murdered" skill.

Like most Forgers, your experiences seem to be quite narrow.

The reasons to have separate attributes and skills separate are two. Firstly, not everything is a skill, but it still might have varying levels of performance possible.

Secondly, when people want to do something which they've no skill in, they might have some native talent in it and just be able to give it a go. You could always write down every possible skill and put "10%" or whatever next to it, but it's usually simpler just to write down "Agility +10" or the like.  

As for the skill of "murdering people", in many campaigns and game systems, "kill or be killed" is not your only option; you may wish to evade, disable, knock out, injure or frighten your foe. We need separate skills or at least combat options for that. This is not an option in a Diablo-style campaign, but is in many others - which is why I say that your experiences are obviously quite narrow.

Nonetheless, in any game system, we put detail in the rules what we want to see in play. For example, the RealTime rpg has just eight skills and no attributes, and is designed to run games like the tv series 24, so its eight skills are:

but the rules note   "The eight skills listed are suitable for most any action genre game and many other genres and settings. However, some worlds and games might require some change to the list of skills. For example, if the game is set in an emergency room, the GM might combine skills, eliminate some, and then subdivide the Heal skill into several more specific skills, to better reflect the needs and focus of the game."
and thus we get the example of,


so this is a good example of the principle of putting the rules where you want your game to focus - the ER game would have no combat or blowing things up, so there are no skills for that. But the 24 game would have no diagnosis of obscure tropical diseases, so there's no skill for that in that one.

QuoteThat doesn't, by itself, make these sorts of games bad. There's nothing wrong with violence-simulation. But the pretension of roleplaying is detrimental. How can you make a good game when you don't even know what kind of game you're trying to make?

And of course, just because there are rules for it doesn't mean we have to do it in the game session, and just because there are no rules for it doesn't mean we can't do it. AD&D1e had no rules for fighters or clerics finding or disarming traps, but that did not mean that clerics and fighters had no option but to stumble blindly into them and set them off. It had lots of rules for combat, but that did not mean that nobody could try to seduce the barmaid.

The rules neither oblige nor permit any particular action in a game. You're meant to use your imagination to go beyond the rules, it's a social creative hobby. If you only do what's in the rules you may as well play a computer or board game. Of course the rules will encourage or discourage this or that kind of action; but there's a difference between having a well-trod path to walk on but which you can step off if you want to, and having railway tracks you physically can't take yourself off. You just need imagination - and a little courage to try something new.

Set aside your Forger rage and broaden your experiences of gaming. Begin with this list of free rpgs.

I disagree that RPGs are all about mechanically reinforcing so-called genre tropes. This leads to the calcification of genres at the expense of imagination. So DnD becomes all about "killing their things and taking their stuff" (a particularly annoying modern catchphrase). I like the "genre" to breathe and evolve according to the whims of the group. This is how DnD developed in the first place.

And I disagree that RPG mechanics should always be as simple as possible. I used to think this way, and even designed a couple of games that way. But it leads to bland. Sub-systems can be a lot of fun, at their best quirky and flavourful.

The OP is full of shit, uses childish sophistry and has established an intricate but idiotic system of justification to explain why others are having badwrongfun.

Welcome to theRPGsite! You'll fit in just fine.

Quote from: jeff37923;254771No matter how many times this is said, it still isn't true.

D&D has always been a squad based wargame.  

From day one, the concept has been a small group of diverse specialists sneaking through dangerous territory and killing the opposition.    Every edition of the game has included specific rules for movement, weapon ranges, healing rates and other issues related to battle.   All sorts of genre trappings have been laid over that initial format, but that is the core of the gameplay as presented by the original authors and their company.

Quote from: Greentongue;254779You might even be interested in Pendragon.
=

What fantasy gamer would not be interested in Pendragon?   That game is amazing even if you're not a King Arthur fan!