I 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) "This is why we're better than [some other game, usually D&D]."
2) Page count. I see "This Here New RPG is a 457-page book" and I stop reading.
3) What the game is trying to do and what makes it good for doing that. Greg Stafford's designer's notes for Pendragon 5th edition should be required reading.
Overselling a game system, a la FATE and it's aggressive marketing, is off-putting I'll say first up.
In terms of new game systems, it's a case of whether it's ideas are really warranted or just gimmicky. I'm set in my ways to a degree, but if there are some new clever ideas I will take note and give them some due. I'm not really a fan of generic systems for this reason, as we have plenty of generic systems out there. New systems, for me, should be warranted by emulating the setting of the game, and so the interest in the setting itself is paramount. Beyond that, I like efficient efficacy in design - not clutter. Don't have 10 stats, rather than 1, sort of thing.
What I'd like from a newer designer? Primarily a passion and genuine craft towards emulating the source material, rather than a desire to impose a system design on it.
My bar for new systems is stratospherically high these days. There are just so many fucking game systems out there now, and nearly all of them are mash ups of ideas that have been floating around for decades, or arbitrary changes in mechanics that make no difference. And I think it matters (in a bad way) because so much creative energy gets eaten up by these projects, and it fractures and dilutes the community. For example, there certainly needs to be several kinds of games outside the OSR genre, but do we really need the ~20+ D&D style OSR systems out there? Would it actually make any difference to how we play that kind of game if we just blew off all the system wankery, picked one of the relatively well developed editions (1E would be fine with me, but I wouldn't care if it was something else) and just use it? Then all the awesome small-batch publishing going on could focus on what it does well: settings, dungeons, and stuff like that.
So, my answers to your questions would be:
1) Don't exist at all, unless you fulfill some clearly useful purpose not being met by one of the 15 frillion games already out there
2) Pointless redundancy
3) I would love to see some creative material - that dungeon you and your gang have been playing for 12 years, etc.
Quote from: rway218;937408What 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: Dont try to "fix" something that wasnt broken in the first place, it was your own bad gaming or one bad GM. REALLY hate this and why I so dislike Gumeshoe and all attached to it so. Dont badmouth someone elses game just to make yours look batter. Pundit and especially Zwiehander are guilty of this. Also please god not another OSR gank of the same damn rules for the umpteenth billionth time. Or using the OSR as an excuse to steal someone elses game.
2: Not much really. I'll give most any system a try. What may keep me from actually running it past one session if that tends to vary. But overcomplexity is a prime offender. And pretty much a no sell for me is the aforementioned fix-it and pretentiousness.
3: Be creative. Dont just rehash whats gone before with a new coat of paint. Also dont just cater to whats "trendy" and for gods sake dont try to be politically correct or SJW. Just make a setting and let the pieces fall where they may instead of another soapbox with RPG written on the side. Think about how the races and monsters all interact and weave it together.
1. As others have said... it's the overselling. Whether it's claiming to advance the 'evolution' of RPGs with its 'innovative' mechanics, or it's bashing on older well-established games, or claiming to 'fix' other systems. Aggressive appeals to the 'newer is better' crowd just turn me off.
2. Its the overzealous fans of a game that often do the most to keep me from wanting to play it.
New Game comes out and suddenly, the next day, there'll be a horde of the usual suspects lined up to tell us why New Game is the best thing since pie.
If I didn't know how little money was involved in RPG publishing I'd suspect they were hired sockpuppets.
3. Something that is more concerned with the actual play than showing off how 'clever' its rules are or how lavish its production values are. Something that makes me want to play it because it's got a great setting that the author has really sunk his passion and imagination into and isn't something I would have thought of on my own.
Quote from: rway218;937408What is the one thing you DONT want in a new Game System?
anime/manga-inspired art.
QuoteWhat keeps you from accepting a new game or system?
Failure to provide a meaningful improvement over systems I already used, combined with imagination inferior to my own.
QuoteWhat would you LOVE to see from a newer designer?
An original setting that is evocative and makes me want to play the game combined with a solid system that doesn't try to re-invent the wheel but is clever enough to entice me to use it. Also a
complete game without an obvious intention to ride a supplement treadmill that may or may not ever happen.
What is the one thing you DONT want in a new Game System?
Thick rulebooks. I find thick rulebooks are full of bullshit where 100 pages are used to express 10 pages of content.
What keeps you from accepting a new game or system?
Forge / Narrative / Storygame elements (not my thing)
Rehash/Reboot of something I already own (I rarely buy later editions of stuff)
System without a Setting (I don't like generic systems)
What would you LOVE to see from a newer designer?
Nude selfies.
And the same thing I want from all designers: entertain me!!!
D&D won the RPG war. No other RPG really matters, in comparison. Good luck with your new game design.
Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;937428D&D won the RPG war. No other RPG really matters, in comparison. Good luck with your new game design.
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/lucille-portable.gif)
Quote from: rway218;937408What is the one thing you DONT want in a new Game System?
Narrative mechanics.
Quote from: rway218;937408What keeps you from accepting a new game or system?
Narrative mechanics, OOC mechanics, dissociated mechanics.
Quote from: rway218;937408What would you LOVE to see from a newer designer?
Brains, heart and guts. :D
Also a well-designed setting, adventures, and maps.
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) Crunch. Not a fan of masses of tables, subsystems and rules for everything under the sun; non-unified mechanics (i.e., 'role high for this, but role low for that').
2) My actual litmus test is the character sheet. If everything can't fit on one page, with some white space leftover, I'm probably not going to bother with it. Don't make me constantly refer to charts.
3) Settings, supplements (not rules) or adventures for established systems, OR system neutral adventures/supplements. Tell me how to convert your stuff to other systems, maybe. MAPS. MAPS, MAPS, MAPS.
On the whole, I don't need another system. I'm always hacking my own. But sure do read or scan a lot of them.
Quote from: rway218;937408I have three quick questions, that may help younger developers in the future:
I don't care about hypothetical younger developers in the future. When something is actually developed, I might pay attention then.
Quote from: rway218;937408What is the one thing you DONT want in a new Game System?
Gimmicks. Specialty dice like FFGs Star Wars, Cards. Miniatures. Things that may not provide more enjoyment of the game but should be bought to play the game as intended.
Quote from: rway218;937408What keeps you from accepting a new game or system?
The fact that 99% of the time, I already have a system that does what the "new" game or system does, and does it much better too my satisfaction.
Quote from: rway218;937408What would you LOVE to see from a newer designer?
Some actual fucking research. If you are coming out with a replacement for D&D, then I expect you to have played some D&D so that you have an idea about what you are replacing. There are a lot of wannabe game designers who have only read online about the game that they are writing to replace - they do not have direct experience of that game and thus no insight into why the original game works at what it does.
Quote from: CRKrueger;937440dissociated mechanics.
What do you mean by dissociated mechanics?
Also, for those who don't like thick rule books, would you be OK with a larger book if it was 20 pages of rules and then the rest was items, monsters, setting info, etc?
Quote from: Ashakyre;937467What do you mean by dissociated mechanics?
For dissociated mechanics, read here (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/17231/roleplaying-games/dissociated-mechanics-a-brief-primer). Essentially an OOC mechanic which does not exist in or reflect the reality of the setting.
A player spending a Drama Point to change what happens - the character is unaware of what occurs - dissociated.
A fighter tripping a slime - slimes can't be tripped, the purpose of the mechanic is just to apply a negative modifier regardless of the reality of the character's situation - dissociated.
Aspects are true - unless I don't spend a Fate point to actually have them apply - dissociated.
Etc.
Quote from: Omega;937415Dont badmouth someone elses game just to make yours look batter. Pundit and especially Zwiehander are guilty of this.
Off topic: I have asked you numerous times to show me where I have done this. You never responded. Please show me examples.
Thanks.
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) Excessive page count. Many rpg writers suck buns at writing concise rules. Scanning multiple paragraphs to find out just what the fuck you mean is frustrating. Fuck it, you get two answers here! Your game needs some sort of focus. What am I supposed to be doing in your game?
2) If the new system doesn't offer a different experience than what I am playing, it's probably not going to get played.
3) With phone apps and all that jazz, would love to see some apps that can do the heavy lifting for the GM and players.
Quote from: rway218;937408What is the one thing you DONT want in a new Game System?
Gimmicky dice mechanics. Or specialty dice that are required to play the game.
QuoteWhat keeps you from accepting a new game or system?
I already own a number of systems that I really enjoy. I don't really need a new system. Accepting anything new would be dependent on a quality combination of rules system and setting.
From my point of view:Quote from: rway218;937408What is the one thing you DONT want in a new Game System?
I don't want hundreds of pages of rules to remember or complex (by my measurements) gameplay.
ETA: Narrative mechanics.
Quote from: rway218;937408What keeps you from accepting a new game or system?
I want clear rules for the mechanics provided, providing mechanics with rules of "let the GM and the player work out what happens" turns me off.
I dislike systems so wed to the setting that you can only play that setting. I know other people think the opposite on that one. :D
ETA: Narrative mechanics.
Quote from: rway218;937408What would you LOVE to see from a newer designer?
A good workup of the game I'm writing, with a really nice Traveller-style chargen for it.
From my players' point of view:I like to research stuff before making decisions. A friend wanted to see if RPGs were for her. I did a bunch of research, got DwD Studios BareBones Fantasy and ran a game for my wife, her sister, and the friend of ours. One time I'm explaining to them about all the other RPGs I'm still reading, looking for a different system to run, and why. All three women look at me with glazed over expressions. They look at each other and my wife very kindly says "We don't really care about the system, as long as it doesn't get in the way of role playing our characters."
Quote from: rway218;937408What is the one thing you DONT want in a new Game System?
Stuff that gets in the way of role playing our characters.
Quote from: rway218;937408What keeps you from accepting a new game or system?
Stuff that gets in the way of role playing our characters.
Quote from: rway218;937408What would you LOVE to see from a newer designer?
Specifically, they like the Descriptors from BareBones Fantasy that give guidelines for role playing your character. And they like generating Traveller characters because of the background the process gives the character.
Quote from: rway218;937408What is the one thing you DONT want in a new Game System?
Mechanics that look fine on paper but near are useless or meaningless at the table. A lot of role-playing mechanics are like this: for example, if I have a FATE character with 7-odd aspects, I can always find one that fits any situation: so in essence what I have is a bunch of +2 bonus tokens that always work.
QuoteWhat keeps you from accepting a new game or system?
I don't want the designer's political/religious/etc. agenda creeping into the game – just 'cause it's cool in your neck of the woods, doesn't mean I care or want it in my face. "Bible-thumping-rpg design" doesn't bode well...
QuoteWhat would you LOVE to see from a newer designer?
Good adventures. I don't get any use from detailed settings as virtually none of that background makes an appearance at the table – neither me nor my player's are going to read hundreds of pages of pretend history ahead of time to play a game. I make my own settings anyway. Adventures, on the other hand, are fantastic tools to get right into playing right away. And try to be creative: read up on some prolific reviewers to find out what some people like to see in an adventure, no more: "Guards on a Caravan", "Find the lost Children", or "Save the Village" scenarios please.
Quote from: rway218;937408What is the one thing you DONT want in a new Game System?
Rules-liteness. There have been lots of rules light systems. Lots of them are actually good. But the market is crowded with them and with less rules heft, there is less and less to distinguish them.
QuoteWhat keeps you from accepting a new game or system?
1) Advertisements of more rules-lightness (see above)
2) Main claim to fame is "finally" solving D&D's problems. That tune's been sung since the 80s.
3) Funky dice only made by your company. Sorry FFG.
QuoteWhat would you LOVE to see from a newer designer?
As a contrapositive to #1, I want positive rules space that does interesting things, not new ways to offload central game tasks to GM handwaving.
Quote from: rway218;937408What is the one thing you DONT want in a new Game System?
The ONE thing? I guess my least favorite thing might be hmm, easy healing and revival/resurrection. Or Narrative design, though enough Narrative focus and I don't even consider it a game.
QuoteWhat keeps you from accepting a new game or system?
Preferring games I like better. Almost everything has me preferring what GURPS does in most ways.
QuoteWhat would you LOVE to see from a newer designer?
Realism-based detailed rule systems for simulating various non-personal-combat situations in system-agnostic/convertible terms. Situations such as climbing, outdoor survival in various terrains, vehicle movement (and vehicle combat), medicine, physical feats, acrobatics, stealth, etc.
1) Mechanics that take hours to resolve. Now, it's not a total deal-breaker...I love Legends of the Wulin, but A) You're unlikely to do the same thing but better, and B) not even my groups, which are amazingly patient, are willing to devote all that time for a single combat. It's why I am only using it as a combat simulator, lately.
Conversely, don't keep to the same old, same old. If all your game does is what 1e D&D does, just write me a setting for it (or a retroclone). It can even be systemless, I find those among the most useful - I'm not sure how many people share that view, but that's my position.
2) Rules that require me to have lots of dice, counters and maps on the table. In fact, anything that requires more than the rules, character sheets and some dice. I just don't have the time to set them up...and they often suck at being adapted to a different setting - which is how I'm most likely to use them.
Also, if you have any political opinions...keep them for yourself. I don't live in the USA and don't want your politics as part of my game.
3) Tell me what the game is trying to do and what makes it good at it.
Quote from: languagegeek;937490I don't want the designer's political/religious/etc. agenda creeping into the game – just 'cause it's cool in your neck of the woods, doesn't mean I care or want it in my face. "Bible-thumping-rpg design" doesn't bode well...
Not a direct attack on me I'm sure :)
If they have religion it is normal, if they press one type of religion it can be good as long as it fits the world (such as Call of Cthulhu, Tribulation). Even a religiously void game is good, as long as it does not insult other religious views (All Christians (edit other religious view here)suck type of wording)
There's a difference between having religion present and pushing an agenda, and I seriously advise you to learn it.
I am a communicating Christian, a Seminary graduate, and I'm married to an Episcopal priest. I find the phrase "Bible-thumping-rpg design" giving me deep, deep apprehension.
"Dude, you took RPGs and Jesus and made them both suck!"
Back to the original topic:
Back in my first grad school life getting my MBA, one thing they beat into us was "What is your distinctive competence?" What is it that you (or your product, or your company, or whatever) do better than anyone else?
A game needs a distinctive competence. What does this game do better than any other game?
Quote from: rway218;937408What is the one thing you DONT want in a new Game System?
I'm not interested in some wacky new way of rolling dice. Or drawing cards. Or playing some side game (Rock-Paper-Scissors, Poker, Jenga, etc).
QuoteWhat keeps you from accepting a new game or system?
Lack of originality in content. D&D/AD&D starts to get really lame in the mid- to late-80's. It's content becomes iterative rather than truly original. I think Vampire: the Masquerade had the seeds of something great, and the timing was right for its popularity to surge when it did. I think its ultimate undoing, though, was violation of #1, some fancy new way to roll dice. I also really loved Dark Conspiracy, and for once how I felt about was an exact match for how pretty much everyone felt about it--awesome setting, shitty system. In any case, the iterative vs original seems to have almost become stylistic. Almost as if designers are intentionally creating crap.
QuoteWhat would you LOVE to see from a newer designer?
I recently purchased and am currently reading an update an expansion of an obscure third-party module from 1980. It's now written in a different game system I'm not entirely familiar with. But the new game system is not so bizarre that I can't immediately parse references to mechanics, despite not owning the rules. What references do exist are few enough that it doesn't distract from the content. And the quality of the content makes it more than worth tolerating some minor nuisances.
So yeah, if you can write content that is so good I don't care if you're using a dumb-ass system, while at the same time using a system that isn't dumb-ass at all but easily grok'able through plain English, that would be nice.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;937534There's a difference between having religion present and pushing an agenda, and I seriously advise you to learn it.
I am a communicating Christian, a Seminary graduate, and I'm married to an Episcopal priest. I find the phrase "Bible-thumping-rpg design" giving me deep, deep apprehension.
"Dude, you took RPGs and Jesus and made them both suck!"
That should be repeated more often;).
From my standpoint I generally feel that there is not much need for a new system for every game. New systems demands a lot more investment in both mind and time. If you got an idea for a setting, want to write adventures and such, dont give in to the temptation of "your own uniqe thing" regarding rules. Do it 5e OGL, D6, Savage Worlds, OSR, BRP etc etc. Sure tailor it with appropriate rules variants for what you are doing. But dont invent the wheel again. Very very few people have anything intresting at all to add in rules design. And you are probably not such a person. Even if you have written rpg material for years and made commercial stuff for some company. Choose a system and make the game wear it with pride on its sleeve. Dont pretend that what you are doing is unique or revolutionary in any way regarding rules.
Just the necessary genre adaptions you feel important for what you are doing and in the right context.
The big exception would be; Do you have a highly specific idea and you feel that no other system can handle what you are aiming for? If you can make the bulk of the rules being no more than 30-40 pages (in raw text with with decent sized fonts) and this is a playable complete game, then maybe, just maybe you should consider add your system the the million other games out there. And mind that I do not include some one-shot story game-book. I mean as a complete full system in that page count.
I have three quick questions, that may help younger developers in the future:
Quote from: rway218;937408What is the one thing you DONT want in a new Game System?
A "What is roleplaying?" section. I doubt those things have ever helped anyone figure out what an RPG is. In the days of the internet, anyone who's interested probably either already knows what it is, or can find out in five seconds with Google. Save your page count for something useful.
Quote from: rway218;937408What keeps you from accepting a new game or system?
Honestly? The fact that I already have half a dozen go-to systems that do the kinds of gaming I want. A new system to me, is just reinventing the wheel. I'm at a place in my life now where I have so little time to game, I'd rather spend that time playing or prepping my game than learning new systems. EG: I run a once-monthly old school D&D game. Why should I bother reading new game rules when I've got an established campaign? That time could be better spent writing adventures, preparing miniatures, etc.
Quote from: rway218;937408What would you LOVE to see from a newer designer?
Prove 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.
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. :D
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. :D
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?
I don't mind variations on existing themes, as long as one remembers that "brevity is the soul of wit."
My no. 1 turnoff is huge page count, period.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;938410I don't mind variations on existing themes, as long as one remembers that "brevity is the soul of wit."
My no. 1 turnoff is huge page count, period.
That's just because you need a toilet seat you can read on without your feet going numb.
Quote from: CRKrueger;938408I 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. :D
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. :D
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?
My take on it is that it doesn't seem possible to please everyone, but you can make something that pleases a certain crowd. And if you do enough things really well, people might overlook the things the don't suit their preferences.
People want small page counts. Cool. But that sounds "a small page counts for rules, but there can be a lot of content - spells, monsters, items, setting info - especially if there's lots of random, indexed tables to link it together."
It certainly seems that people don't want completely new ways to use dice. Fair enough.
The toughest square to circle is people don't want things that are too weird, nor do they require the wheel to be reinvented, especially when it comes to settings. It sounds tough, but that's the crux of any artistic endeavor.
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?
System bashing. It's tawdry and unprofessional.
Quote from: rway218;937408What keeps you from accepting a new game or system?
Very little, I'm always willing to try new things. Bad writing, unappealing art (if especially if there's a 'tone' or built in setting) and incomplete explanations are pretty much it.
Quote from: rway218;937408What would you LOVE to see from a newer designer?
An open mind, the willingness to experiment and the humility to accept that the game may not be for everyone, but still trying to make it as fun as possible.
Quote from: rway218;937408Answer all or any... go...
Hopefully, this is useful for you.
Quote from: CRKrueger;938408How 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?
Because we are vast and contain multitudes.
And I for one have never had any interest in the OSR anyways.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;938428Bad writing, unappealing art (if especially if there's a 'tone' or built in setting) and incomplete explanations are pretty much it.
That's a good point that a lot of new RPGs skimp on. (not surprisingly - good art is expensive) The way I figure it, people are hooked in by the art/layout, they keep looking if they like the story/fluff/vibe, and they stick around if they like the mechanics. Basically, of those 3, the art is the most important to bring people in, while the mechanics are most important to get people to be long-term customers (recruiting others etc.), but nobody is going to get to that point if they aren't hooked in the first place.
Besides the prettiness factor, if I see two RPGs, one of which has a bunch of awesome artwork while the other looks like it was drawn with colored pencils in high school art class, I'm going to assume that the former is probably better polished all around since they invested so much in the look, it's likely that they invested time in the system. (Certainly not true 100% of the time - but more often that not.) I might not even bother reading the summary for the latter, since there are a heck of a lot of shoestring RPGs clamoring for my attention.
A good cover is essential. If any money is spent on art, it should go there - it basically will 9 out of ten times mean the difference between someone even bothering to pull a book off a shelf at a store to peruse it.
Inside, generally speaking, no art is preferable to bad art. But good art can really enhance a game.
And art isnt as expensive as it used to be with the internet. Its generally not that hard to find an amateur who will do some decent liner art for a game for a pittance (speaking from experience).
Also, its worth remembering that there are 2000+ years of human history in art that is copyright free. While clip-art can induce groans, used cleverly it can be as good or even better than modern art.
Quote from: Tristram Evans;938454Also, its worth remembering that there are 2000+ years of human history in art that is copyright free. While clip-art can induce groans, used cleverly it can be as good or even better than modern art.
True - though that depends upon the RPG. An Arthurian RPG would have free at coming out of their ears, especially if they're going for an old-school exaggerated chivalry vibe. (basically chivalry through the Victorian rose tinted lens) I know that I was surprised that Pendragon didn't take advantage of it.
A sci-fi RPG with unique aliens is mostly out of luck. While art is cheap relative to what it once was - a cover, 6-10 unique aliens, a half dozen classes (iconic for each), space ships, and mecha; all together they'd run a new RPG at least a couple grand, and probably considerably more.
Quote from: CRKrueger;938411That's just because you need a toilet seat you can read on without your feet going numb.
Such a good investment!!
I want one of those Japanese heated seats!
Quote from: CRKrueger;938408I mean really, who here besides Gronan is still playing the first RPG they ever played?
Me?
And probably many others. Even the ones who got into RPGs more recently. I won't be surprised that people who got into RPGs via 3e are now playing 3e in some form, probably 3.5 or Crapfinder.
Quote from: Charon's Little Helper;938455True - though that depends upon the RPG. An Arthurian RPG would have free at coming out of their ears, especially if they're going for an old-school exaggerated chivalry vibe. (basically chivalry through the Victorian rose tinted lens) I know that I was surprised that Pendragon didn't take advantage of it.
A sci-fi RPG with unique aliens is mostly out of luck. While art is cheap relative to what it once was - a cover, 6-10 unique aliens, a half dozen classes (iconic for each), space ships, and mecha; all together they'd run a new RPG at least a couple grand, and probably considerably more.
Thats true, but a sci-fi game does have the advantage that NASA has made their entire archive of photos OF SPAAAAAACE...open to public use.
Quote from: CRKrueger;938408I 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. :D
Where this comes from - for me - is that too often people design games without reading or playing a variety of RPGs. I swear half the new systems I see are a recipe of 'X system with a little Y thrown in', because that's how the designer has been playing X system for years, anyway, and they don't realise that the really cool Y element they've 'innovated' has been done repeatedly in other systems, they just don't have a broad enough base of experience to know.
'Don't give me anything I already have' - to me - means "Don't design a game that already exists all over again. Design a new game."
//Panjumanju
Quote from: Panjumanju;938512'Don't give me anything I already have' - to me - means "Don't design a game that already exists all over again. Design a new game."
Or, "don't sell me your houserules to system X as a whole new game."
Quote from: CRKrueger;938408I 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. :D
I took it as "what will it take get you to
play a new game?" Which is a way harder sell than "
Buy a new game". :P
Getting me to
buy a new game is surprisingly/embarrassingly easy.
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. I absolutely hate choosing hindrances in games to get build points. Especially if the hindrances are actually just personality traits. (Looking at you, Savage Worlds.)
2. Is learning to play this game more work than simply kit-bashing some version of D&D into shape? If so, I will not be very enthusiastic.
3. I would like a straightforward skill-based game with no special edges/feats/whatever special abilities are called. Just distribute your skills and adventure, no gimmicks involved.
Quote from: robiswrong;938558Or, "don't sell me your houserules to system X as a whole new game."
Yes, exactly.
I don't mean to be down on homebrews - I do them all the time. Heck, my signature is littered with them. But still.
//Panjumanju
One problem with all the retread games floating around is a simple consequence of how effortless it is to produce and distribute documents now. Pretty much everyone I knew in the 70's and 80's had their own group-specific house rules for D&D and most other games, and they were often extensive. I don't think many people thought of them as new games, and they mostly existed as collections of spiral notebook paper stuffed in a binder. But in terms of content they contained pretty much everything people rattle on about in the endless threads about modern OSR variants. The material is all fine, but I dislike the fact that all the official 'branding' of these sets of house rules has fragmented the hobby, making a lot of dueling banjos that are basically playing hte same tune at slightly different tempos. It would be better if we were publishing dungeons, spell books, etc. that were all aimed at a few common rules sets, and handle our house rule tweaks on a side channel.
Quote from: Piestrio;938596I took it as "what will it take get you to play a new game?" Which is a way harder sell than "Buy a new game". :P
Getting me to buy a new game is surprisingly/embarrassingly easy.
Funny, I'm just the opposite. I'll sit down and play anything once. Getting me to BUY takes a major act of God. And good luck getting me to run something new.
Quote from: CRKrueger;938408...
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. ...
Hehe! You're psychic! Actually, I am currently playing TFT full system without houserules, though I started with just basic Melee. But it's an exception for me, and I am noticing the many things TFT doesn't have that GURPS does. You're right too that I don't just play GURPS, in fact I find all editions of it to want many optional rules and house rules which I am constantly thinking of how to improve on. And though I was one of the people who said I pretty much stick with GURPS, I am still looking for new rules and systems, even if I mainly tend to just see if there's anything interesting and if I can use any bits of it for something else.
So ya, score one critical hit for CRKrueger!
Quote from: CRKrueger;938408I mean really, who here besides Gronan is still playing the first RPG they ever played?
I am - first played RQ and still play RQ.
Quote from: CRKrueger;938408Even 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.
OK, you got me there, I started with RQ2 and now play a heavily modified RQ3ish.
However, I have no interest in learning GURPS, Savage Worlds or whatever new system comes around, just to take some better mechanics. I took some things from HeroQuest, Legend and Mythras, but probably wouldn't use them for my main campaign.
I still play a variety of ca. 1980 or before games, either as published or with the usual grab bag of house rules. RQ2 (often); 1E and BD&D; TFT; Behind Enemy Lines.
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. I don't want $40+ source books, hardcover or not. It's insane how costly many games are.
2. I'm open to new games and certainly to new systems. I actually prefer being exposed to many new systems, I read RPGs like fiction novels. Sometimes, if they are cheap enough, I buy them just to read and with no intention of actually playing them.
3. What I'd like to see in a new RPG is for it to have a classless, leveless system that has a nice mix of lore, exploration / discovery, and fast paced combat that is both detailed and cinematic. I'd also like to see an RPG that is well suited to solo play and capable of having a full experience in a short scenario build.
I believe I have found much of that with REH's Conan RPG, which I have play tested.
Quote from: CRKrueger;938408Yeah 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. :D
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?
"Marginal Benefit versus Marginal Cost." Something has to convince me it will be enough fun to bother with. I was all over the new X-Wing miniatures game until I got to the "deck building" aspect. I can't get enough of PENDRAGON, especially since the 5th edition reboot. But the odds of being really interested in another pseudomedieval generic fantasy game is very small; I have already decided that I want a rules light game, so the odds of something being awesome enough to be worth putting down a game I know almost by heart is very small.
And my time is way to scarce for me to say "I'm going to plow through this 450 page book on the off chance I'll find an idea or three to enhance my game."
Quote from: CRKrueger;938408I
I mean really, who here besides Gronan is still playing the first RPG they ever played?
(Raises hand.)
(Still playing the first miniatures game I ever played, too.)
Quote from: Charon's Little Helper;938440Besides the prettiness factor, if I see two RPGs, one of which has a bunch of awesome artwork while the other looks like it was drawn with colored pencils in high school art class, I'm going to assume that the former is probably better polished all around since they invested so much in the look, it's likely that they invested time in the system.
I'm somewhere in the middle. I find I'm often suspicious of 'a bunch of awesome artwork'. I feel like I see a number of games getting raves more because of their production values than their gameplay, and people getting really persnickety over small things that don't really matter at the table.
Now a game with really bad artwork, whatever I see that as, I might question the judgement that led to including it versus just leaving the pages clean and uncluttered. Classic Traveller still stands out IMO as a really nice looking set of books without all the glitz.
Sometimes though 'bad' art can be a lot more interesting than 'good' art.
Given that my first real RPG was basically gamebooks-inspired freeform, and I'm still playing freeform in a forum, I can also claim I'm playing my first RPG:). Of course, it requires me to buy no books.
Although I've found that non-fiction is almost mandatory for a decent freeform game;).
I'm still playing my first (real campaign) RPG experience, AD&D 2e. One could say I played 1e with my brother as a one-shot lark, but the whole procedural generated dungeon thingie fell flat in under an hour; part youth, part preference. In fact, the more systems I play the happier I am when I return to AD&D 2e. Still haven't finished savoring that dish yet.