Quote from: Lisa NadazdyMost times I prefer the generic approach (I use HERO for most things), but sometimes certain games are intertwined with the rules, like say, Pendragon.  I cannot picture Pendragon using any other system other than the one that was tailor-made for it.

It wasn't handcrafted for it. It's an adaptation of the Basic Role Playing system used by Chaosium for all their games. Traits, passions, and glory are just layered on a BRP system with percentiles changed to d20.

-mice

Quote from: flyingmiceIt wasn't handcrafted for it. It's an adaptation of the Basic Role Playing system used by Chaosium for all their games. Traits, passions, and glory are just layered on a BRP system with percentiles changed to d20.

-mice

It may have had the basic origin in BRP, but the two systems only have superficial similarities.  The system for Pendragon was built strictly for Pendragon in mind.

Quote from: MaddmanI have to disagree with you Hinterwelt.  The rules affect the setting in far more subtle ways than what you are talking about, if the setting is at all consistant.

The GM and his stories are not really affected by the rules.  The GM is going to do whatever the hell he wants anyway.  The players *are*.  The rules they follow determine what is a good idea and what will get you killed.  Indeed, how easy it is to get killed.  I would actually say that the 'game' is a summation of the system and setting, so if you use a setting with a different sytem you are playing a different game.  Not that this is good or bad, but playing my Buffy game I've been going on about would be totally different if we were using say, d20 modern or HERO.

Universal systems can work, you just have to be ready to do some heavy tweaking to get the feel that you want.  Otherwise you can get inconsistant settings - problems like the material saying that 'most combatants prefer light armor to stay mobile' but the rules giving huge benefits to those in heavy armor.

I think we will just have to disagree. My play style is independant of tactical approaches. For example, I am currently running a druid in a modified d20 game. It use spell points. All the magic users and my druid were out of points. The player running the warmage was "Let's rest and regain points".

My druid was "The lives of those children we are going after are in danger". The tactical player just gave me a blank look like I was insane.

"But we need to rest so my warmage will have points to attack. Without them, he is useless!" I pressed for us to continue on the grounds my druid would not let the children die so I could get a few hours of rest.

How would the above gone down in any other system? The exact same way. I was dedicated to the role. The tactical player was dedicated to "winning". Both are legitimate play styles but the tactical approch is tied to the system, heart and soul. My style, the system does not matter.

Is that clearer?

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltHow would the above gone down in any other system? The exact same way. I was dedicated to the role. The tactical player was dedicated to "winning". Both are legitimate play styles but the tactical approch is tied to the system, heart and soul. My style, the system does not matter.

Is that clearer?

Bill

What it comes down to, does the system support your play style as much as the tactical player?  Do you gain some mechanical bonus because you are doing something you believe in?  Do you have some expendable points you can use to represent that this is something important to you?

You may be willing to go against the system to play your concept, but a lot of people aren't. And under a harsh GM/system combo your idealism may lead to nothing but rolling new characters all the time.  What I'm getting at is how is it resolved?  Does your plan lead to a TPK because the party isn't at full strength?  Either option is valid, but that option is enforced by the system.

In general players will make use of what rules are presented to them, and will do what they are rewarded for.  If you reward them for being tactical, smart, and careful then they'll tend to do that.  If you reward them for going from the heart and putting the character and drama first, they'll tend to do that.  So grab the system for the kind of game you want to run.

We may be having some disagreements because you're looking from the perspective as a player and I'm coming from the perspective of a GM.

Quote from: HinterWeltI think we will just have to disagree. My play style is independant of tactical approaches. For example, I am currently running a druid in a modified d20 game. It use spell points. All the magic users and my druid were out of points. The player running the warmage was "Let's rest and regain points".

My druid was "The lives of those children we are going after are in danger". The tactical player just gave me a blank look like I was insane.

"But we need to rest so my warmage will have points to attack. Without them, he is useless!" I pressed for us to continue on the grounds my druid would not let the children die so I could get a few hours of rest.

How would the above gone down in any other system? The exact same way. I was dedicated to the role. The tactical player was dedicated to "winning". Both are legitimate play styles but the tactical approch is tied to the system, heart and soul. My style, the system does not matter.

Is that clearer?

Bill

The system effects the genre the setting is irrelivant.  The system may have rules that pander to certain settings better then others because it has words like fighter and mage but the mechanics of it are what create the Genre.

D20 panders to a more tactical style of play.  The mechanics are based around what you can do in combat step by step.  How well your role play your character seldom gains you a play advantage (usually the opposite).  D20 rewards tactical play and therefore regardless of what setting it's placed in it's genre is tactical.

The system will always effect genre more then the setting as the setting is completely the fabrication of the GM.

Quote from: kryystThe system effects the genre the setting is irrelivant.

This is 90% true.  For example, D20, can do pretty much any setting, fantasy, SF, modern, etc.  However, the main thing it can do well (without major adjustments) in any of them is a certain style of heroism with the focus on tactics. You couldn't do historical medieval, or any thing with the realism that people don't turn into demigods as they get more experienced.  D20 also isn't good at loose or freefrom play.

However, if something is important to a setting and you want players to give it more than lip service, it has to be reflected in the mechanics in some way.  For example, imagine if in Pendragon, the rules just stated "characters are ruled by their emotions and basic natures, so play that way."  In that case, players would usually play by their emotions only to the extent that it doesn't put them in any real danger.

I don't think the two need to be related.  I previously believed the setting and mechanics had to match or the feel of the game would diminish.  However, even games whose mechanics are intrinsic can be divorced from their mechanics and still have the same feel if the gamers at hand are focused on story and character rather than numbers and options.

The thing that changed my mind was this... I was running a game in The Everlasting: Book of the Light.  Now I'll keep my opinions to myself regarding the game (maybe another thread) but the mechanics irked me so I - in the middle of a campaign - had the players remake their characters mid-story-stream in d20 Modern.  The campaign continued without using Tarot cards (the Everlasting's mechanics use them) or any of the other quirky mechanics - and the players told me that honestly they didn't think that the game changed in its mood, feel, or flavor.

Just my opinion.

Quote from: NicephorusThis is 90% true.  For example, D20, can do pretty much any setting, fantasy, SF, modern, etc.  However, the main thing it can do well (without major adjustments) in any of them is a certain style of heroism with the focus on tactics. You couldn't do historical medieval, or any thing with the realism that people don't turn into demigods as they get more experienced.  D20 also isn't good at loose or freefrom play.

This is where the real debate comes in.  Is 'historical medieval' a setting or a genre?  The way I look at it medieval would be the setting and historical would be the genre.  You can do D20 in a medieval setting, knights, horses etc.. but trying to keep it historical is the genre kicker that makes (at least stock) D20 pretty hard to use.   Even more so in this case Historical really means realistic - which again is a genre of role playing.  

The same holds true for Pendragon.  Pendragon's mechanics with their emotional based ties set the theme and mood of the game, that's the genre.  The fact that it's set in the past just means you are using swords in stead of guns.  Mechanically Pendragon works better for a medieval setting instead of a futuristic one becasue of what the source rules cover.  But it's a lot easier to take Pendragon home brew some sci-fi rules and use it for a Future setting.  Taking D20 and home brewing it to be realistic, much harder.  Which, to me, means that mechanics really are about the genre and not so much about the setting as the setting is typically just the flavor and not the game itself.

For example take Pendragon, Riddle of Steel and Harn.  They all cover aproximately the same level of technology and the settings are all similar in theme.  However because of the way the rules play out they give different mechanical reasons for characters to act in certain ways.

Quote from: CleanCutRogueI don't think the two need to be related.  I previously believed the setting and mechanics had to match or the feel of the game would diminish.  However, even games whose mechanics are intrinsic can be divorced from their mechanics and still have the same feel if the gamers at hand are focused on story and character rather than numbers and options.

The thing that changed my mind was this... I was running a game in The Everlasting: Book of the Light.  Now I'll keep my opinions to myself regarding the game (maybe another thread) but the mechanics irked me so I - in the middle of a campaign - had the players remake their characters mid-story-stream in d20 Modern.  The campaign continued without using Tarot cards (the Everlasting's mechanics use them) or any of the other quirky mechanics - and the players told me that honestly they didn't think that the game changed in its mood, feel, or flavor.

Just my opinion.

Quite the point I was trying to make. Setting, IME, is the feel of the game if the style of your play is independant of the mechanics. I realize that traditional and Forge views say system matters, and again, I am not saying it does not. It matters if that is your play style. Simple exercise is this, look at your character. Is it a paladin or is it Sir Bithas of the Order of White? When you look at your character, to you see the Total Kill Potential of your character or that he carries Orendel, sword of his ancestors? When picking spells for next level, do you look at the spell list and say "That is a good utility/kill spell" or is it Moonbeam would never use fire spells?

The same thing can be applied to GMs. Do you look at a new race and think "This monster is worth 4.6 characters of first level" or "The group will need to use unusual tactics or be prepared to run"? Do you stock room after room of a dungeon with monsters of the appropriate level or do you look at an adventure locale and say "Wow. A really powerful minotaur will live there and I should drop a lot of warnings"? Do you look at a "monster" race as a race of being living in their part of the world and the players as invaders or the race a faceless statistics set up for the knocking down?

Again, some might say the abve questions are more about good vs bad players. To me, it is more about play styles. Some folks just want more of a board game style while others want more of an acting experience. Neither is more right than the other but, IME, system matters because people want ti to matter.

One final note, as a game designer (a potential third category), I try very hard to make setting not matter in may games. It is difficult but once you get your head around it, it becomes easier to do regularly.

Bill

Oh - and really bad mechanics can screw up even a really good setting...

My game system - called the StarCluster 2 system 'cause I don't really name systems and that was the first game I wrote using it - rewards the characters only for survival. They live another year, they get skills & stuff. No XP, no rewards for being cool, or for killing things, or for risking their lives, or for making magic items, or for being smart. According to "System Matters" game design wisdom, you reward what you wish to reinforce, like Pavlov's dogs salivating when they hear the dinner bell, thus you would expect to see characters shying from conflict, being cowards, or doing nothing dangerous.

That just doesn't happen. The player characters are just as fiesty, trouble prone, brave, intriguing, and just plain fun as in any other game. Why? Because it doesn't matter what is rewarded. They didn't come for being cautious and cowardly - they came to have fun, and they do! There are all sorts of rewards inherent in roleplaying which cannot be quantified and rewarded mechanically. They come in the playing, not the designing.

-mice

I think what Bill is getting at is that system matters, but playstyle trumps system. Unfortunately, that doesn't work so well if the system is designed to coerce only one playstyle. For example, King Arthur Pendragon was, I think, one of the first games to attempt by design to coerce a certain playstyle. Now, since I like that playstyle, I love Pendragon, but if I didn't, playing Pendragon would be a pain.

-mice

Quote from: flyingmiceThat just doesn't happen. The player characters are just as fiesty, trouble prone, brave, intriguing, and just plain fun as in any other game. Why? Because it doesn't matter what is rewarded. They didn't come for being cautious and cowardly - they came to have fun, and they do! There are all sorts of rewards inherent in roleplaying which cannot be quantified and rewarded mechanically. They come in the playing, not the designing.

There are more rewards than direct XP or bonus points.  When they characters act fiesty, trouble prone, brave etc are they rewarded or punished?  Does the game get more interesting and engaging when they do this, or are their characters summarily killed for their foolishness?  Or do they fail in their missions, or not achieve their goals, and so on?  One problem I have with Forge games is that they tend to be heavy handed.  The system affects the play in subtle, not always obvious ways.

Quote from: MaddmanThere are more rewards than direct XP or bonus points.  When they characters act fiesty, trouble prone, brave etc are they rewarded or punished?  Does the game get more interesting and engaging when they do this, or are their characters summarily killed for their foolishness?  Or do they fail in their missions, or not achieve their goals, and so on?  One problem I have with Forge games is that they tend to be heavy handed.  The system affects the play in subtle, not always obvious ways.

They are rewarded by interesting play. That's up to them and the GM, not to me as the designer. They know what interests them - what makes games fun - far better than I do. Putting too much reward and punishment at the system level is a type of railroading - game designer railroading - which I too find limiting and heavy handed. That sort of thing is best handled in my opinion at the most personal level, by the GM and players. Unfortunately, most if not all Forge games seem to be based on a high level of distrust between player and GM.

-mice

Quote from: flyingmiceI think what Bill is getting at is that system matters, but playstyle trumps system. Unfortunately, that doesn't work so well if the system is designed to coerce only one playstyle. For example, King Arthur Pendragon was, I think, one of the first games to attempt by design to coerce a certain playstyle. Now, since I like that playstyle, I love Pendragon, but if I didn't, playing Pendragon would be a pain.

-mice

Thanks Clash, I think that helps. Most important here, the GM can bang you over the head with system or with setting/story. Simplest form is the group does something the GM does not like and uses the mechanics to blast the party to oblivion. Note, it does not matter the method, lightning bolt/super monster. Story wise, the GM could use any number of in setting elements to divert the players to the path he wants. Note, I am not commenting on the "rightness" of the GMs actions. Storywise, he would use a hermit (becuase hermits are a part of the setting) who went into the hills 400 years ago to discover the secret of immortality. He is wise and directs the players to the path the GM desires.

Again, the above are extremes but hopefully help to explain my position further.

Bill