Quote from: Herne's Son;937572Prove to me that you've played an RPG other than whatever the current version of D&D is. I can't believe the number of shitty games I've come across over the years that are "Like D&D! But better!", and it's painfully obvious that the designer has only ever played D&D.

BTW, that's a good one and you should take it to heart!

Quote from: rway218;937408What is the one thing you DONT want in a new Game System?

Same as nearly everyone: big hulking thick rulebooks. If you give me a thick rulebook, hopefully it's game-table-useful fluff.

Quote from: rway218;937408What keeps you from accepting a new game or system?

Clunky mechanics. I'm OK with some crunch — Runequest/Mythras is probably my upper limit — but unintuitive, labor-intensive subsystems annoy the hell out of me.

Eclipse Phase is an example of a system that takes a simple idea — you get to switch bodies, so your attributes change when you do that — and fucks up the execution (what the fuck is "Somatics" supposed to represent?). Why not split Ego and Morph attributes?

Quote from: rway218;937408What would you LOVE to see from a newer designer?

Anything as long as it's been playtested.

Quote from: Skarg;937496Realism-based detailed rule systems for simulating...vehicle movement (and vehicle combat),

I must say - I have NEVER seen a really good simulation vehicle movement/combat system.  They've all been some manner of clunky or far too abstract.  If there was a good one - I'd buy it to browse that section even if the rest of the game was mediocre.

As to thickness of the book being a turn-off, it depends how much of the book is core rules and how much is content.  If it's 300-400 pages of rules, that's way too much.  If it's 30-40 pages of rules, 100-150 pages of setting, and 150-250 pages of content (classes/races/weapons/monsters etc.) that's just fine with me.  I'm a big fan of extra content - especially a variety of foes.  (They add depth to the game without much added complexity since even the GM only needs to know the rules for the baddie they're currently running.)

Quote from: rway218;937408What is the one thing you DONT want in a new Game System?

Lots of complex rules.

Quote from: rway218;937408What keeps you from accepting a new game or system?

Familiarity with/Love of current favourite systems.

Quote from: rway218;937408What would you LOVE to see from a newer designer?

Support for games that I know and love.

These days I can't stand things complicated or fiddly, and I appreciate when the author is clear on what he intended to do and how. Also, I'm tired of straight fantasy. That's it.

Quote from: rway218;937408I have three quick questions, that may help younger developers in the future:

What is the one thing you DONT want in a new Game System?

What keeps you from accepting a new game or system?

Both get to the same question.  (1) One that makes me do the work.  An example that come up recently is FATE, I wouldn't even call it a game but some design ideas; (2) One with dice mechanics where the statistics have been poorly thought out and/or require me to buy dice I can't use for another game (unless you provide me with such dice for free and enough for 6 players at least); (3) mechanics that seem like a great idea for a single PC or 1-on-1 combat but become completely unusable with 4 PCs and 12 monsters.  For example, card deck mechanics (do you need a deck for each player and each monster?), scripting mechanics, special ability use tracking (when low level monsters have them), etc.; AND (4) show me the rules, if I can't see what the mechanics are there is a very, very low chance I will buy it as

Honorable mentions: (1) yet another re-skinning of D&D a very hard sell unless you have done something elegant with it.   I'm really not interested in yet another class based system with d20 mechanics, it's so simplistic don't need to buy someone's idiosyncratic take on it.  I'm really sick of D&D just applied to a non-fantasy genre; and (2) pretension/perversion/real-world politics, don't care about your on-true-wayism, old vs new ways, mechanics (not just flavor text) that try to emulate real world sexual themes, or some political axe to grind, which usually is flavor text with thinly veiled social-racial superiority crap or social-justice warrior wankery.   Basically I don't need to be told what a "good" game is and I've a real life so games that cater to getting your sexual/political jollies off are not just lame, to put it mildly.

QuoteWhat would you LOVE to see from a newer designer?

A complete game, with all the gear stated out, a couple hundred monsters so I can choose what to use, a good selection of ready to go characters/NPCs, and an introductory adventure.  
Atomic Highway is a great example of getting it right.  It has a simple and elegant approach that still allows for great game depth, the simple rules also allow one to readily expand on what is provided.

Quote from: rway218;937408I have three quick questions, that may help younger developers in the future:

What is the one thing you DONT want in a new Game System?

What keeps you from accepting a new game or system?

What would you LOVE to see from a newer designer?

Answer all or any...  go...

1. Gimmicks -- in either cumbersome randomizer equipment (cards + beads + dice + charts... simultaneously), proprietary pieces (FFG anything here), or tediously long procssing for a result (rolling dice/cards (X-1)/N+75%, then chart look ups).

2. Redundancy. What do you do that is so different than what has already been done? And too many new ways obfuscating basic % probability. As a GM I need to know QUICKLY how doable something is, especially during improv.

3. More Adventures, be it mini-sandboxes, branching and linked modules, plug & play premises, or beer & pretzels Complexity Ratings.

I need more core rule systems like I need foot blisters.

I am too old to care about fine tuning bleeding edge crapola in new and novel ways.

I want more time savers beyond "101 New Random Generated Crap to Fuck Up Your Campaign!"

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper;937624I must say - I have NEVER seen a really good simulation vehicle movement/combat system.  They've all been some manner of clunky or far too abstract.  If there was a good one - I'd buy it to browse that section even if the rest of the game was mediocre.

As to thickness of the book being a turn-off, it depends how much of the book is core rules and how much is content.  If it's 300-400 pages of rules, that's way too much.  If it's 30-40 pages of rules, 100-150 pages of setting, and 150-250 pages of content (classes/races/weapons/monsters etc.) that's just fine with me.  I'm a big fan of extra content - especially a variety of foes.  (They add depth to the game without much added complexity since even the GM only needs to know the rules for the baddie they're currently running.)

Did you ever play Car Wars with Boat Wars and Air Wars?  GURPS Vehicles goes into a lot of detail but I think the hexes make it a bit less functional.

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper;937624I must say - I have NEVER seen a really good simulation vehicle movement/combat system.  They've all been some manner of clunky or far too abstract.  If there was a good one - I'd buy it to browse that section even if the rest of the game was mediocre.

As to thickness of the book being a turn-off, it depends how much of the book is core rules and how much is content.  If it's 300-400 pages of rules, that's way too much.  If it's 30-40 pages of rules, 100-150 pages of setting, and 150-250 pages of content (classes/races/weapons/monsters etc.) that's just fine with me.  I'm a big fan of extra content - especially a variety of foes.  (They add depth to the game without much added complexity since even the GM only needs to know the rules for the baddie they're currently running.)

Quote from: David Johansen;938122Did you ever play Car Wars with Boat Wars and Air Wars?  GURPS Vehicles goes into a lot of detail but I think the hexes make it a bit less functional.

Had a lot of fun with Car Wars over the years, but it is very tactical with tracking movement.  If familiar with the rules it goes fast.  I can't think of a way to make it simpler if you still want a simulation of maneuver.

 Most games that seem to go for self described realism and simulation suffer from complex rules that in the end slow things down so much you feel like your car battle is occurring at 5 mph.  I've never seen a bottom-up approach work.  Rather top-down approach rules, where you focus on the outcome, i.e. verisimilitude, IME work better for car battles and chases where the outcomes align with expectations.  Also such approaches are less complex, so faster in play, and thus feel more like a fast moving car battle.

I've found Atomic Highway to be the best for Mad Max style engagements.  Here you have an abstracted "range" concept but it is tied to vehicle performance and driver skill.  In play it feels very much like Mad Max, and much more fluid and dramatic than Car Wars.  I've run a couple battle car chases with leaping raiders and the like with Atomic Highway and it really captures the genre, and it is quick and not complex in the slightest.

QuoteWhat is the one thing you DONT want in a new Game System?

Tons of buy in. I'm a middle aged man with a full time job, a marriage, school, a toddler and an infant.

I absolutely cannot and will not devote significant time to mastering setting and/or rules information. I like games but I have a million things that are more important.

QuoteWhat keeps you from accepting a new game or system?

They don't do anything amazingly better than what I already have and know. The added investment of learning new game stuff isn't worth the things I'd have to forgo.

QuoteWhat would you LOVE to see from a newer designer?

Quick playing, self contained games. There's a reason I mostly play board games anymore and I'd dare say it's close to why board games are eating RPGs lunch. If someone could really crack that code I think it'd do wonders for the hobby.

Quote from: David JohnsonDid you ever play Car Wars with Boat Wars and Air Wars? GURPS Vehicles goes into a lot of detail but I think the hexes make it a bit less functional.

Quote from: Xanther;938128Had a lot of fun with Car Wars over the years, but it is very tactical with tracking movement.  If familiar with the rules it goes fast.  I can't think of a way to make it simpler if you still want a simulation of maneuver.

 Most games that seem to go for self described realism and simulation suffer from complex rules that in the end slow things down so much you feel like your car battle is occurring at 5 mph.  I've never seen a bottom-up approach work.  Rather top-down approach rules, where you focus on the outcome, i.e. verisimilitude, IME work better for car battles and chases where the outcomes align with expectations.  Also such approaches are less complex, so faster in play, and thus feel more like a fast moving car battle.

I've found Atomic Highway to be the best for Mad Max style engagements.  Here you have an abstracted "range" concept but it is tied to vehicle performance and driver skill.  In play it feels very much like Mad Max, and much more fluid and dramatic than Car Wars.  I've run a couple battle car chases with leaping raiders and the like with Atomic Highway and it really captures the genre, and it is quick and not complex in the slightest.

Those are more abstract systems.  They're fine if it's vehicle vs vehicle combat, but they don't work well combined with a system which is primarily about infantry.  You could do a more abstract system of aircraft combined with infantry because they operate on a different plane [pun intended] but they don't work for abstract cars/tanks combined with infantry.

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper;938136Those are more abstract systems.  They're fine if it's vehicle vs vehicle combat, but they don't work well combined with a system which is primarily about infantry.  You could do a more abstract system of aircraft combined with infantry because they operate on a different plane [pun intended] but they don't work for abstract cars/tanks combined with infantry.

If you call Car Wars abstract I'd hate to see what you call detailed.

They do work with pedestrians, there are several Car Wars scenarios that have the.  But as you can imagine weapons made to harm vehicles are easy one-hit kills on pedestrians.  Atomic Highway works as well and is a bit more forgiving.  Again both these systems are intended to shine with "high speed" vehicle battles.  They also work with aircraft, it's just another vehicle with different maneuvers.  

If you are more interested in battles where the vehicle moves at infantry speed, then you don't really need these rules as the vehicle becomes just a heavily armed and armored "infantryman" (that require special weapons to hurt them) with limited lines of fire and sight.  Aircraft in those situations are just like off-board artillery from the infantry perspective.

If you are really looking for well grounded simulation bottom-up rules for plane-tank-infantry then Squad Leader is it.  If you want individual infantry to matter then those players would have to be heroes under the rules.

Yeah, at this point "Play a wargame" seems the best advice.

Or find a copy of Michael Korns' "Modern War in Miniature."

I fear my answers are going to be very different from others...

Quote from: rway218;937408What is the one thing you DONT want in a new Game System?

A fantasy heartbreaker? I just don't want a regurgitation of the same thing we've seen and played since 197X.

Quote from: rway218;937408What keeps you from accepting a new game or system?

* When it is too long
* Too much like a pre-existing product
* Tries to do too much / so broad or universal it has no focus
* There it no originally to the mechanics (we've seen it all before)
* It lacks a clear and easily understood setting

Quote from: rway218;937408What would you LOVE to see from a newer designer?

More genre exploration that is not just someone's new Tolkien rip, and generally inspiration, creativity, a streamlined system not too difficult to learn that lets you be involved in a unique and interesting setting.

//Panjumanju

I think maybe the "Don't give me anything I already have." crowd is protesting a bit too much, like maybe 350 times more than necessary.

I mean really, who here besides Gronan is still playing the first RPG they ever played?
Even for the people who are still playing some flavor of D&D, or Traveller, or RuneQuest, or TFT...that's not the first flavor of D&D, Traveller, RuneQuest or TFT you started with, I'm thinking (Gronan, Skarg and maybe two others excepted).  You added stuff, and some of that stuff came from other published versions of the House Systems of TSR, GDW, Chaosium or SJG, or some licensed or OGL version of same.  It was useful to you, even if you didn't take it whole cloth.

Yeah of course we're all massively jaded grumpy fucks who have no time and little interest for anything new...until something catches our interest...and then HOLY SHITBURGERS, we actually find the fucking time.  Whoda Thunk it?  

It's goddamn magic I tell you, and I didn't even need to learn Enochian.

How can this place be both the place of "Rulings not Rules", "Building your own" and "OSR4life" and also be the place that has no time for any variations on existing themes?