Do you prefer a game that has a great setting, or will you first look at how the dice works when it comes to a game you will try?

For me, I prefer the dice rules.  If the game has a great setting, but I can't stand the dice, then I will not play it.  Edge Studios Star Wars for example.

Naturally, we all try to find dice and setting to BOTH be good in an RPG we want to play, and I'm the same, but generally I prefer good rules over good setting.

I like to look at both but if the game uses funky dice that requires reading chicken bones then I will give it a pass. If the game uses regular dice, but has new concept mechanics I will give it a look. It really depends on if I am looking for a new system to try vs a new setting to use.

I want the dice to deliver results commensurate with the settings expected outcomes; so no matter the setting i'm first looking at the dice.

I'd say the dice rules matter more than the setting, but it depends. Best example I can think of are many of the systems that use proprietary dice. I don't care how cool the setting is, or how much I like it: if the dice are proprietary I won't play it. I'd rather play some goofy d12 system or something than resort to using the company's special dice.

That said, I can respect a system if it comes up with something unique that isn't obtuse. One example is the Dragon Age RPG: roll 3d6 + Skill, which has a interesting bell curve when compared to a d20 system.

Another one I really think is neat (and I might get some flak for) is the classic Vampire: The Masquerade system. Rolling a pool of d10s, using a Skill + Ability and counting successes.

I want a good to great implied setting.  For a strong implied setting, it has to be reinforced by the rules, including the mechanics.  Dice are a part of that. 

Chances are, I'm not going to use the setting as presented, because no matter how well done, it is likely not quite to my tastes.  If it's in the ballpark, with a strong, supported implied setting, then I'm likely to enjoy using those rules in a setting of my own.

Quote from: weirdguy564 on March 21, 2024, 06:15:23 PM
Do you prefer a game that has a great setting, or will you first look at how the dice works when it comes to a game you will try?

For me, I prefer the dice rules.  If the game has a great setting, but I can't stand the dice, then I will not play it.  Edge Studios Star Wars for example.

Naturally, we all try to find both dice and setting to BOTH be good to play, and I'm the same, but generally I prefer good rules over good setting.

What usually first attracts me to look at a game is the general genre (cyberpunk?  dark fantasy or sword and sorcery? etc).   While I've mostly played Shadowrun for example, I'm keen on looking into (as in downloading the sample PDF and reading/watching reviews specifically) anything new in a genre I'm interested potentially playing in.  What gets me past the point of just looking at the rules/universe into actually trying the game in a demo or short series of games will be the game mechanics.  What keeps me playing in a campaign beyond just those 1-3 sessions is the setting.

Setting and game mechanics are kind of apples and oranges.

Setting is always a handshake between the GM and the game designer. Sometimes you rope in the players, too, but you don't have to. However, the game designer always needs to accept that GMs will almost never play the setting they write exactly as the designer wrote them. At the very least, the GM will have to embellish details which can't reasonably fit into a setting book. However, mechanics are a completely different can of worms. Most GMs have enough skills to manage basic mechanics like a D20 oracle without the game designer's input, but fundamentally, game design includes a ton of specialized knowledge and experience and it is NOT the GM's job to manage all that beyond basic debugging. The game designer is the one who should do the game design.

And now, some personal opinions of mine. Most RPGs don't actually have good worldbuilding. They certainly don't have worldbuilding to my tastes, but in many instances I would say that RPG worldbuilding flirts the line with being outright bad because door stopper encyclopedia setting splatbooks are less usable than just making things up. If the setting doesn't tell me what kind of story the setting is trying to tell, it's a bad setting. It's also a bad setting if the setting makes a mistake which unironically dehumanizes the roleplay (a sadly common flaw which draws it's roots from misanthropic philosophy.) Between these two factors, good RPG settings are not quite rare, but they are certainly the minority. However, most game writers are glorified GMs more than experienced game designers, and one of the side-results of that is that they are more comfortable writing up complex faction alliance networks and nation guides that arguably fall on the GM-side of the RPG handshake than writing the game mechanics which clearly fall on the game designer side.

I say this now, but here is the hypocritical truth.  I like rules over setting.  Most of the time.

My favorite RPG of all, Palladium Rifts, is the opposite of what I said.  It has a great setting, but Palladium Books are famous for their janky rules.  For example, the game is based on shooting lasers and railguns, but has no cover rules.  But, damn, that setting is fun as hell and intricate.  A bit trope heavy, maybe, but fun.

Dice rules matter. The mechanics that underpin the dice obviously inform this idea.

Much like the mechanics of a game should be informed by the genre, so too should the dice expression (note: the results in play, not necessarily the dice themselves - but this is the tricky part) underpin the kind of gameplay you want.

One of the things that I observe is that most people do the following, and usually in this order:

1) They play a single game system and base their opinions of all other games on that system. You see this, obviously with d20, and everyone tries to emulate all genres with the d20 (in its various flavors) almost exclusively. Later, they might start house-ruling things to their taste.

2) People that play multiple games in different genres. They'll associate those systems specifically with those genres. Rarely will they consider those systems outside of those genres. Those that do will be always be GM's (obviously), which starts them down various roads of trial and error. House-ruling is almost inevitable.

3) GM's will start looking at systems and die-mechanics separately (but not exclusively). Often will syncretize mechanics from other systems. Gravitation towards Universal systems becomes common, and rarely is ever a silver-bullet. Dissatisfaction is almost ubiquitous - but there is *always* a house-rule or a fix for some perceived problem (even if it only creates other issues of less importance).

All of this leads to this realization that while mechanics matter, there is a "meta" that comes only from trying lots of difference rules and dice-mechanics that takes you back to ground-0. The GM itself is the "missing" link that makes any system really work.

This is not to say that there is no distinction between any systems and die-mechanics - there definitely is. But a GM that has gone through lots of different systems and put in that saddle-time as a GM will run any particular game system better than those that stick one particular system.

There are things that fall into/out of vogue. Currently I feel people want more simplicity, range of results, minimal die-rolls. The trick is there is a loss of fidelity when it gets too simple. On the other hand an experienced GM will fill in that fidelity because of their system-mastery. Some systems scale in power *much* better than others, but there are often other costs. It takes a good GM to mitigate those. Systems and die-mechanics can't do it all.

Game settings should make the necessary demands of the mechanics to express those setting's conceits.

When it comes to settings, I prefer toolkit games myself. With canons you attract a bunch of cultists who tell you the right and wrong way to play your character, which I despise.

It's especially obnoxious in White Wolf games where race, class and faction are forced together into one annoying high school clique. You can't just be a wizard or a mad scientist or whatever, you also need a bunch of setting baggage tacked on.

Wanna play Sylvia Marsh from Lair of the White Worm, priestess of the ancient Celtic snake god Dionin that gave its followers vampirism as a blessing? Well, fuck you, you're only allowed to play a snake vampire cultist of Set from the Conan stories.

Wanna play a demon? Well, fuck you, your only options are either a fallen angel from a very heretical version of Christianity where God is a woman, or this weird take on Agent Smith from the Matrix.

Oh, and the rules are also terrible, so there's that. Like, vampires can only increase their level by committing illegal acts of cannibalism. Unless you play Requiem, but nobody plays that and you'll get bullied for saying you like it.

That said, there are some settings that I've fallen in love with over the years. With my luck, unfortunately, they're all dead IPs. Good luck finding groups interested in playing.

Quote from: tenbones on March 22, 2024, 10:09:09 AM
3) GM's will start looking at systems and die-mechanics separately (but not exclusively). Often will syncretize mechanics from other systems. Gravitation towards Universal systems becomes common, and rarely is ever a silver-bullet. Dissatisfaction is almost ubiquitous - but there is *always* a house-rule or a fix for some perceived problem (even if it only creates other issues of less importance).

Yeah, this is the stage that I'm at. I'm dissatisfied or frustrated with everything I ever used to even vaguely like. I despise the popular games that everyone plays, while wanting to play games that nobody plays.

PbtA design has hit on a lot of problems I have with traditional ttrpg design like Pass/Fail resolution, whiffing, combat lasting forever...

Bad Setting: I don't bother to look at the mechanics, regardless of whether they might be awesome or not.
Good Setting: I'll look at the mechanics and, if they too are good, then the game gets play. If not, then I might be willing to try other mechanics with the setting, but usually not.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on March 22, 2024, 01:37:13 PM

Quote from: tenbones on March 22, 2024, 10:09:09 AM
3) GM's will start looking at systems and die-mechanics separately (but not exclusively). Often will syncretize mechanics from other systems. Gravitation towards Universal systems becomes common, and rarely is ever a silver-bullet. Dissatisfaction is almost ubiquitous - but there is *always* a house-rule or a fix for some perceived problem (even if it only creates other issues of less importance).

Yeah, this is the stage that I'm at. I'm dissatisfied or frustrated with everything I ever used to even vaguely like. I despise the popular games that everyone plays, while wanting to play games that nobody plays.

PbtA design has hit on a lot of problems I have with traditional ttrpg design like Pass/Fail resolution, whiffing, combat lasting forever...

What's funny is that most of these issues were answered in other systems that go back to the "golden age" of the OSR but I don't think are OSR because they're not d20 specific.

MSH - Had meta-mechanics that actually simulated Supers genre tropes. Karma. They had degrees of success (color shifts). It had scaling power of unmatched level (Column shifts which include planet-smashing power at the far end).
Talislanta - had one table resolution which included both combatants abilities directly, AND degrees of success on a 1d20 roll including Crit/Fumble.
Palladium- had degrees of success, Crit/Fumble, Scaling damage beyond traditional values (Mega Damage), active defense,
Rolemaster/MERP- well... had a chart for everything that covered everything.
WEGD6 - Scaling power, degrees of success, active defense. The whole kit and caboodle.

I could go on - but it weirds me out people jizz over "new" systems that don't really do it better than what came before - or worse, the continual use of d20 for all things, or even worse than that: the same retread over and over while whining about why D&D sucks. Nevermind that the OSR d20 isn't doing anyone large favors outside of a fairly narrow band of mechanics.

I do understand the problem of "selling it" to new players. But that IS what is called for. GM's that stick to their guns and show motherfuckers The Way. That's what St. Gary and Dave did. And unfortunately everyone is still doing just that... instead of giving the others that followed in their wake their due. One could argue that those systems failed because "they weren't good enough", but by that same logic, then Taylor Swift is a better muscian than all of Van Halen.

The response is that marketing for sale is a lot different than use in practice. What we do at our tables is what is important, not what the mob tells us is because of habit or some herd-like mentality. BUT the onus is on us to sell it to each player we have at our table. One by one.

Or we go the easy way out and let whomever owns the D&D brand tell us what we're supposed to be doing. I say, no.

I won't use a bad system or a bad setting. I'm very likely to take a setting I like plus a system I like, eg Xoth setting using Dragonbane rules.