Before I run a game I let the players know if its going to be gritty and lethal, so they should avoid combat, or cinematic and heroic, so they should feel free to be creative in combat situations.

Never had a problem past that.

I go over the system I'm using for the game beforehand. If at any point the system conflicts with common sense, common sense wins. If a player asks, I explain my reasoning for a ruling. I've never had a player argue with me once they've heard my reasoning.

Never had a problem past that.

In other words, these are problems that only exist in the theoretical world of mistrust of bad GMs. Not ones I've encountered IRL in the last 30 years.

Quote from: Arminius;730728Rob, however much I see excess in the "player empowerment via rules" that's common in Forge-influenced thought, I can easily see a difference in play between (for example) Labyrinth Lord and The Fantasy Trip.

I agree.

Quote from: Arminius;730728But again, "you can do/try anything" is still the core of what I see as the RPG experience. If someone doesn't understand what I mean by that they can ask or look at Haffrung's longer explanation upthread.

I view the rules as the details of how you accomplish a task. An abstract combat system like OD&D variety is based on the roleplaying of the player and the referee. In GURPS, Fantasy Trip, Harnmaster, etc it is baked into the mechanics. There are distinct differences in the above system between different weapons and different fighting styles. Differences in OD&D that are abstracted away.

In GURPS is possible to have a great sword fighter that is distinctly different in several aspects than a broadsword and shield fighter. In OD&D the sole tradeoff is slightly lower AC (no shield) for higher damage.

People like that difference. I like that difference. But what it doesn't effect is the fact when I want to roleplay a character that is a drunken fool the doesn't system matter. In GURPS I use the character personality to pick disadvantages to make up my point total. In OD&D it just written on the character sheet. In GURPS I can pick alcohol tolerance as a distinguishing trait, in OD&D the best I can do is arrange my score so my constitution is high.

Understand I am speaking from the experience having ran the same setting with varying systems over multiple campaigns. The rule system I pick for fantasy are generally what I call general purpose fantasy roleplaying. Games that have at their center a D&Dish center of dungeons, elves, magic, dwarves, and orcs. Some system like Exalted are not a good fit.

Quote from: estar;730746I agree.



I view the rules as the details of how you accomplish a task. An abstract combat system like OD&D variety is based on the roleplaying of the player and the referee. In GURPS, Fantasy Trip, Harnmaster, etc it is baked into the mechanics. There are distinct differences in the above system between different weapons and different fighting styles. Differences in OD&D that are abstracted away.

In GURPS is possible to have a great sword fighter that is distinctly different in several aspects than a broadsword and shield fighter. In OD&D the sole tradeoff is slightly lower AC (no shield) for higher damage.

People like that difference. I like that difference. But what it doesn't effect is the fact when I want to roleplay a character that is a drunken fool the doesn't system matter. In GURPS I use the character personality to pick disadvantages to make up my point total. In OD&D it just written on the character sheet. In GURPS I can pick alcohol tolerance as a distinguishing trait, in OD&D the best I can do is arrange my score so my constitution is high.

Understand I am speaking from the experience having ran the same setting with varying systems over multiple campaigns. The rule system I pick for fantasy are generally what I call general purpose fantasy roleplaying. Games that have at their center a D&Dish center of dungeons, elves, magic, dwarves, and orcs. Some system like Exalted are not a good fit.

If all the systems you use have similar rules for role playing, then all those systems are going to feel the same as far as roleplaying is concerned.

Systems can have direct rules for roleplaying and deciding what happens next in a broader, non-physics sense, and these will direct roleplaying and consequences in particular directions that emulate different genres, media, and archetypes.

A zombie game where the players mow down the undead in their dozens will play very differently from a zombie game where killing zombies doesn't decrease the danger or help you in any material way. A zombie game about finding a cure will play differently from a game focused on scarcity, where getting enough clean water to survive is a challenge.

The rules can help direct the challenges you face, the stakes of these challenges, and the types of outcomes you are likely to get.

I'm not saying it's impossible to get those different experiences in one system if you have a good GM and good players and you're all on the same page when it comes to role playing. But it is easier to reproduce a certain experience with rules designed specifically to deliver that experience.

Quote from: Adric;730786A zombie game where the players mow down the undead in their dozens will play very differently from a zombie game where killing zombies doesn't decrease the danger or help you in any material way. A zombie game about finding a cure will play differently from a game focused on scarcity, where getting enough clean water to survive is a challenge.

The two games you are describing don't depict the same zombie horror setting. Some systems have the setting heavily baked into the rules. Licensed RPGs often, but not always, exhibit this characteristic.

A better compassion is GURPS with GURPS Zombie versus the games you mentioned. GURPS Zombie support both campaign types and other zombie genre tropes as well.

Quote from: Adric;730786Systems can have direct rules for roleplaying and deciding what happens next in a broader, non-physics sense, and these will direct roleplaying and consequences in particular directions that emulate different genres, media, and archetypes.

Yes, they can, but it's at this point where I start to get off the bus. First, because the more you try to enforce genre through mechanics, the more you require players to manipulate structures that have no analogue from the character POV. Second, because matters of genre can be handled on the social level more easily than can physics. Third, even when the rules address only the GM through mechanics or advice, the effect on the player's POV is still there.

For example you might have a game where the GM is explicitly told to introduce crises related to each PC's background at critical moments. This may be fun for players who enjoy a sort of audience perspective or who like that sort of engagement but the awareness that the scenario won't be over until each player's issue has been addressed will be distracting to players whose characters might not be conscious of the requirement.

The problem with filtering everything through the lens of genre is what happens when the people at the table have different likes, interests, and awareness of these genres? I can't take it as a given that my players are steeped in the tropes of gothic horror, or high fantasy, or wizard school. Most of my players are not pop culture geeks. They may have been in adolescence, 30 years ago. But today, D&D is the only geekish thing they engage with. And even then they aren't engaging with the Forgotten Realms or Strahd or any of that stuff. They don't read the books. D&D is a game that happens at the table. They don't expect or want it to emulate or be like anything else.

Quote from: Haffrung;730806The problem with filtering everything through the lens of genre is what happens when the people at the table have different likes, interests, and awareness of these genres?

This is a primary factor in why I run my games as sandboxes. I run into so many expectations that the only consistent way I found to deal with it is basically sit back, run the setting and focus on what the players want to do.

After a campaign is finished it obvious that it run in phases with each phase dominated by the interests and goals of a player or a sub group.  When that get achieved or resolved then the group shuffles around, comes to a consensus and the next phase begins. The phases are only apparent in hindsight.

Those interests represent the spectrum of subgenres possible within the setting. For example in fantasy the campaign could start out as a dungeon crawl, then acting as a bunch of mercenaries, followed by an involved caper, finally focusing on establishing a stronghold.

I find RPGs that target a broad genre are better suited for campaigns where players are free to set the direction.

For example I find the Song of Ice and Fire RPG to be a nicely focused game for Westeros roleplaying but I can't help thinking that I am better off with GURPS, Fudge, or Fate, because with how I run games there more than a good chance the players will quit focusing the themes of the core rulebook and do something else that interests them.

Quote from: Haffrung;730806The problem with filtering everything through the lens of genre is what happens when the people at the table have different likes, interests, and awareness of these genres?

First, you give them some idea of what to expect.

Second, you remember that you're all adults and have the ability to converse with one another during the game.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;730825First, you give them some idea of what to expect.

Second, you remember that you're all adults and have the ability to converse with one another during the game.

That's all well and good. But what's wrong with treating it just like a game? My buddies and I started playing D&D when we were 10. By the time we were 12, the amount of time we had spent playing D&D dwarfed the amount of time we had spent watching fantasy/swashbuckling/horror movies, or, for some of the guys, even reading. A bit of Conan or Moorcock or Tolkien might find its way into our adventures. But we weren't trying to emulate anything. Still aren't. Of the five guys in my group, four of them don't play video games at all, or read fantasy, or even watch stuff like Game of Thrones. We're from a generation before geek stuff became mainstream. We don't play D&D because we're immersed in geek and genre culture. We play because it's a fun game. That's why premise-based Forge games wouldn't work with my group. You couldn't say "it's like True Blood but in pioneer Oregon" because I doubt anyone I play with has a clue what True Blood is.

Quote from: Haffrung;730849That's all well and good. But what's wrong with treating it just like a game?

Nothing.

It's all about aligning expectations.  If one player expects the game to be dirty and gritty, and another expects to plow through enemies, and another expects a bunch of diplomacy, then somebody is going to be unhappy.

It's not about emulating anything - those references are to give well-known examples of tone to set expectations, nothing else.  If your group doesn't know those references, then you'll have to explain it more explicitly, that's all.

For the "True Blood in pioneer Oregon" idea, it's easy enough to just say "you're in pioneer Oregon... and you're vampires.  The game will be mostly about ".  You can still pitch the premise, you just can't use the shorthand version.

Re: BV and Haffrung, either way you aren't using rules to enforce genre.

Note: some genre elements can be encoded in rules while maintaining IC-POV. Like, Fafhrd & the Grey Mouser can beat a dozen street thugs while drunk: they just need the stats, and they (the characters) know they're that good. But others are more problematic. E.g., "a spotlighted secret from my past will play a role in this episode."

Quote from: Arminius;730869Yes, they can, but it's at this point where I start to get off the bus. First, because the more you try to enforce genre through mechanics, the more you require players to manipulate structures that have no analogue from the character POV.

It's still quite possible to express genre through mechanics while maintaining the same level of immersion as hit points and armor classes. All rules are an abstract representation of something, I'm not sure why abstracted combat is less immersion-breaking than abstracted social standing or emotional stability.  

You character doesn't know how many hit points they have, you are translating that numerical representation into you're character's physical condition, or ability to continue acting, or whatever hit points measures in your game. Translating HP into physical condition doesn't break your sense of immersion because you are used to doing it.

Quote from: Arminius;730869Second, because matters of genre can be handled on the social level more easily than can physics.

If you are using a game about fighting things, and the genre is about fighting things, that's mostly true. I wouldn't use D&D to try and play a game about alien teenagers coming to earth to try and become pop idols and become famous, because they are two very different genres. The goals for the characters are different, the actions the characters will be taking are very different to what the rules for D&D focus on, and the consequences of those actions would be very different between the D&D genre and the Alien Pop Idol genre.

Quote from: Arminius;730869Third, even when the rules address only the GM through mechanics or advice, the effect on the player's POV is still there.

Of course this is true, rules influence play. It's true of the games you play right now, just as it's true of every other game out there. If you don't notice much of a difference between how your POV is affected, that's because all those games you play do it similarly to each other and you're used to it.

Just because you are used to one way of playing, doesn't mean it's the only way or other ways don't work. It just means that other ways will initially feel unusual to you.

Quote from: Arminius;730869For example you might have a game where the GM is explicitly told to introduce crises related to each PC's background at critical moments. This may be fun for players who enjoy a sort of audience perspective or who like that sort of engagement but the awareness that the scenario won't be over until each player's issue has been addressed will be distracting to players whose characters might not be conscious of the requirement.

I'm not sure what you're basing this rule on. We're both just creating examples of rules that may or may not exist to try and support our positions. I agree that if a rule is bad it will not work well. Are you asking if there is a way that kind of rule could add to the game without impacting immersion? or are you saying that the introduction of such a mechanic will break the game?

Quote from: Arminius;730869Re: BV and Haffrung, either way you aren't using rules to enforce genre.

Note: some genre elements can be encoded in rules while maintaining IC-POV. Like, Fafhrd & the Grey Mouser can beat a dozen street thugs while drunk: they just need the stats, and they (the characters) know they're that good. But others are more problematic. E.g., "a spotlighted secret from my past will play a role in this episode."

There are other elements that can be coded into the rules, and remain in IC perspective. Relationships, for example. If you have some kind of relationship-based currency in your game you can hold over NPCs (and perhaps) PCs, (say, leverage) you could spend such currency to compel them to do what you want. If fleshed out into a full idea, this is mechanically encouraging and rewarding building these relationships and then pushing at them, and enforces a genre where interpersonal conflict and status become very important. Players will think about the weaknesses of other characters, and their character's strengths, and how these can be used to gain leverage.

Perhaps this kind of play would emerge through a system that doesn't have any rule aimed at this social dynamic, but it will definitely be prominent in a system that does revolve around such a system and economy.

The Forgist win if this thread hits 100 pages.

Carry on kids. Fight the good fight against Oceania, or was it Eurasia?  

And somebody please remind me who our eternal enemy is this week!

Adric, I'm sorry, but you've misunderstood practically everything I've written.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;730104No, it's not. It's the worst kind of ridiculous geek parsing of a common phrase.

"What do you want for dinner?" "Oh, anything's fine. Surprise me." Would any reasonable person expect to get a plate with a piece of old tire and a pile of pennies on their plate at that point?

Christ, are the lot of you such a bunch of social shitwits that normal human communication is beyond your fucking grasp?

Would you just fucking say what you mean already Vulmea? Jesus you and the dancing around overly polite mamby pamby bullshit.