Do you like it when game rules are designed specifically around a particular setting? Or would you rather have generic rules that can be tweaked to fit any setting.
I'm sort of in between. I like rules designed for a particular genre.
I'm usually not crazy about rules specifically designed to work with one particular setting and no other. For example, someone yesterday mentioned L5R and 7th Sea as having a good ruleset, but I'm not really interested in the setting of either, so I will probably never take a look.
Tied to setting. The setting, if it's at all interesting, will have its own uniqueness that the system should reflect. I think you can get away with having a system tweaked to the setting though - you don't need an entirely new way to roll dice with each setting. But the tweaking and adjusting should be done thoroughly, not just as an afterthought.
Unique rules for a setting are cool if they're not hugely obtuse.
I don't mind general rulesets. But serious thought should be given on the quality of the fit and adjustments should be made to get the feel of the genre.
And no ruleset will work with every setting/genre. Some times it's better not to try than to have a really lousy fit.
I think either is cool. Though when I think about it, most of my favorite games have a somewhat generic system with modifications to fit the genre/setting:
D&D: There are plenty of non-fantasy d20 versions out there.
Exalted: Heavily modified World of Darkness, though the modifications to the rules core seem to have more to do with speeding the game up rather than adapting it to Creation specifically. The Creation-specific stuff is in the stuff bolted on to the system, like charms.
Mutant: Swedish RPG based on Basic Roleplaying (same one as in Call of Cthulhu). Again, the tweaks can be pretty clearly separated into system tweaks and setting-specific stuff. The main one that I can think of that crosses the line is the rules for Reliability of equipment (it's post-apocalyptic, so most hi-tech stuff is in pretty bad repair).
TORG: Rather heavily tied into the cross-genre setting, with mechanics that reflect that (rules for what happens when you try to fire an M-16 in stone-age-land). However, it clearly can be de-settinged, as shown with Masterbook.
Eon: Swedish low-fantasy game. It wouldn't be hard to use it with another setting than Mundana (the default one), though it would make almost all the support material useless. Would be harder to make it into a high-fantasy game though.
I don't care about the game being tied to a setting as the setting. What I do think is important are game mechanics that are tied to a specific Genre.
Take D&D and Warhammer, both fantasy settings, similar races similar types of characters can be generated. But the genre's they handle are drastically different and the rules reflect it propperly.
I buy rules, not so much for the setting but for the type of feel they give to a game.
I tend to go with Kryst on this one.
Quote from: kryystI buy rules, not so much for the setting but for the type of feel they give to a game.
Well put. For me I prefer a rule set that is optimized for a particular type of play, that may be a genre, a sub-genre, and so on--it may be even finer than that and have information (not just rules) on running games of a certian type. Like a space exploration SF game that gives information on handling first contacts--not "rules" so much as "This is how to do this and make it feel like so for your players"--these things make for better games to em. Too few games address such needed points, (and some try and seem to miss the target but at least they tried.)
Either suits me. I like complete games--the fewer books I have to purchase the better, and I may not always feel like using my homebrew world for a campaign. In that case, I like it when a default setting is included so I have the option of using it without leaving that book. I can always separate the rules from the setting if I don't like it.
The system is the setting. They can't be separated. Using wrong system shapes the setting in unwanted ways.
Quote from: ThanuirThe system is the setting. They can't be separated. Using wrong system shapes the setting in unwanted ways.
No, I don't think so.
I can name a few systems and settings I've put together for some great games:
d20 & Roma Imperious
True20 & Forgotten Realms
Traveller & Serenity
HARP & Earthdawn
In each of these, I put a system and setting together with a minimum of difficulty. If I want to use Thayan Wizards or Drow, but am using Rolemaster, it just isn't difficult to port that concept over. Nothing breaks, nothing is verboten. It's just another system in which I choose to express a gaming/setting concept.
In short, as long as you have any sort of flexibility, you can
generally divorce system from setting, and vice versa. Granted, some systems might require a little extra conversion, but there it is. It's a bit of a blanket statement you have there, and perhaps could use a few qualifiers.
Quote from: ThanuirThe system is the setting. They can't be separated. Using wrong system shapes the setting in unwanted ways.
Unwanted to who? Seems to me if someone puposefully mixes system and setting from different games, they most likely know what they are looking for.
-mice
Quote from: flyingmiceUnwanted to who? Seems to me if someone puposefully mixes system and setting from different games, they most likely know what they are looking for.
-mice
Indeed. Some game systems whole purpose is to craft a feel, that are background assumptions which a variety of settings can be laid onto--only one must examine the base genre assumptions but as long as the setting doesn't contradict those assumptions they can work together.
Quote from: SilverlionIndeed. Some game systems whole purpose is to craft a feel, that are background assumptions which a variety of settings can be laid onto--only one must examine the base genre assumptions but as long as the setting doesn't contradict those assumptions they can work together.
This is a very personal opinion of mine, but if someone writes the setting in such a way that it is tied to the system, this is poor setting design. Now, do not get me wrong, system can affect setting but to purposely do so seems...artificial.
For instance, if you have a system that uses spell points and those points can be stored, you could have the Holy Order of Spell Point Gatherers. Described in setting, they are dedicated to gather spell points and hording them towards the upcoming Apocalypse.
Alternatively, you can have an Order of Terminus, an order dedicated to the gathering of magic and magical power to combat the upcoming, forordained end of the world. In meta discussion of the group you can describe that they are gathering spell points and magic items for the Final Battle. Armed with this knowledge, should you desire it, the GM can customize the setting for any system. For example in D20, they gather spell scrolls and other items. Easily done and the setting is unharmed since the concept of the Order is not tied to the system.
All that said, it must be noted that I am a fan of universal systems and settings. So, not trying to say anyone is "wrong" just pointing out that settings can be universal. :)
Bill
I 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.
Most 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.
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
Quote from: HinterWeltThis is a very personal opinion of mine, but if someone writes the setting in such a way that it is tied to the system, this is poor setting design. Now, do not get me wrong, system can affect setting but to purposely do so seems...artificial.
Bill
You're going a bit to extremes though--a rules set can support assumptions of the setting for example, a rules set may support that magic can be gathered (that its is a concencrated substance that can manifiest in location or objects) and that substance may be tied to certian aspects of the setting such as a castle of such age that needs magical spells to thwart its crumbling. this actually is similar to an event in Ars Magica btw...
More finely: If the system mechanically say presents a rule where falling off a cliff will not kill a character under any circumstances (no matter the cliff's height) you create a feel, this feel may be cartoon like in tone if the outcome is that the character un-killed can then recover enough to walk away. If the setting is supposed to be brutal, then obviously this rule, is not supporting that feel and needs to be fixed. (and it is like your own an extreme example.)
Quote from: SilverlionYou're going a bit to extremes though--a rules set can support assumptions of the setting for example, a rules set may support that magic can be gathered (that its is a concencrated substance that can manifiest in location or objects) and that substance may be tied to certian aspects of the setting such as a castle of such age that needs magical spells to thwart its crumbling. this actually is similar to an event in Ars Magica btw...
More finely: If the system mechanically say presents a rule where falling off a cliff will not kill a character under any circumstances (no matter the cliff's height) you create a feel, this feel may be cartoon like in tone if the outcome is that the character un-killed can then recover enough to walk away. If the setting is supposed to be brutal, then obviously this rule, is not supporting that feel and needs to be fixed. (and it is like your own an extreme example.)
Oh, definitely. In later posts I tried to refine and further explain my point. I am not saying a system should not support the setting or it is poor design to do so but I do believe that it is poor design for setting to be tied to system. It is a fine distinction but one I believe strongly in.
Bill
I like rules to be independent of setting. In fact, it seems to be a common preference in the RPG field. I'm surprised more game designers haven't picked-up on that.
After all, how many times have you heard a gamer talk about "using X Rules for Y Setting?" You'd figure that more writers would want to facilitate that by not tying X Rules too-closely to Z Setting in the first place.
Quote from: YamoI like rules to be independent of setting. In fact, it seems to be a common preference in the RPG field. I'm surprised more game designers haven't picked-up on that.
After all, how many times have you heard a gamer talk about "using X Rules for Y Setting?" You'd figure that more writers would want to facilitate that by not tying X Rules too-closely to Z Setting in the first place.
Outside of RPGnet I don't think I've ever heard it. I'll put forward that most people play what they pick up, and the idea of using X rules for Y setting is actually rather rare. Careful, you're starting to make my pine for King Stannis...
Quote from: MaddmanOutside of RPGnet I don't think I've ever heard it. I'll put forward that most people play what they pick up, and the idea of using X rules for Y setting is actually rather rare. Careful, you're starting to make my pine for King Stannis...
Agreed. Most gamers run with games as-written, and hack what they need to with houserules. What you are talking about is like model kit-bashing, and is only true for the bleeding edge of gamers - those who have lost the ability to take thigs at face value.
RPGnet is a thing unto itself, and has little to do with the larger world of RPG playing. I love RPGnet for its many virtues, but RPGnet is jaded, hypercritical, and self-referential. It's also rife with in-jokes, attitude, and one-upmanship. This is a really nice place, and doesn't need to be another RPGnet. We already have one.
-mice
Quote from: MaddmanOutside of RPGnet I don't think I've ever heard it. I'll put forward that most people play what they pick up, and the idea of using X rules for Y setting is actually rather rare. Careful, you're starting to make my pine for King Stannis...
Actually, I very much doubt that. If "most gamers" had been using Champions for superheroes, I doubt HERO System would have ever seen the light of day.
If "most gamers" hadn't immediately started trying to hack Mutants & Masterinds to work for everything from D&D fantasy to Star Wars, I doubt True20 would have ever seen the light of day.
Then there's BESM > SAS > TriStat dX.
If you go back far enough, even GURPS gew out of Fantasy Trip.
Games evolve this way all the time as fan response alerts companies to the fact that they've shortchanged a great set of rules by associating it too closely with a single setting or genre.
Quote from: Yamostuff
Yeah, but I disagree that this is a common thing. The hardcore gamers, the ones who have their heads all in game design, they do this kind of thing. Most gamers don't. If you went to any of the groups I've played with and wanted to do something like run Star Wars with HeroQuest or whatever, they'd look at you like you were on crack.
Quote from: MaddmanYeah, but I disagree that this is a common thing. The hardcore gamers, the ones who have their heads all in game design, they do this kind of thing. Most gamers don't. If you went to any of the groups I've played with and wanted to do something like run Star Wars with HeroQuest or whatever, they'd look at you like you were on crack.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagee. My own anecdotal experience confirms my view, but yours clearly doesn't.
Quote from: YamoActually, I very much doubt that. If "most gamers" had been using Champions for superheroes, I doubt HERO System would have ever seen the light of day.
Wrong. After the initial success of Champions, Peterson and Macdonald realized the potential of the system and made plans to expand it into other genres, which became games like Fantasy Hero, Danger International, and Justice Inc.
Quote from: Lisa NadazdyWrong. After the initial success of Champions, Peterson and Macdonald realized the potential of the system and made plans to expand it into other genres, which became games like Fantasy Hero, Danger International, and Justice Inc.
And they didn't notice at all that people were already doing this?
Don't buy that.
Quote from: YamoAnd they didn't notice at all that people were already doing this?
Don't buy that.
You don't have to buy it. However, when I first started playing it (waaaaaaay back in 1981), even I had thought "you know, this is a great supers game, but I can see potential to use this for fantasy and other types of gaming". If had those kinds of thoughts, I'm certain it crossed the minds of the original creators, too. I mean, what makes you think they didn't realize the potential for this at the start? Those guys are at least as creative as I am, so why do you sell them short?
I like systems that can be adapted to other setting, such as Unisystem, although there are some exceptions (the Toon rules may not adapt well to other genres, but they're great for playing cartoon characters.
Quote from: YamoActually, I very much doubt that. If "most gamers" had been using Champions for superheroes, I doubt HERO System would have ever seen the light of day.
If "most gamers" hadn't immediately started trying to hack Mutants & Masterinds to work for everything from D&D fantasy to Star Wars, I doubt True20 would have ever seen the light of day.
Funnily enough in the PLAYTESTING stage for my superhero game one of the testers decided to use it for High Fantasy. (Guess what, it worked fine..;) )
Given the wide range of supers around, a good supers game makes a pretty good foundation for a generic game. The main issues that could pop up would be a lack of resolution at the lower end of the scale (e.g. the original Marvel game only had five Strength levels available for normal humans).
Quote from: DackeGiven the wide range of supers around, a good supers game makes a pretty good foundation for a generic game. The main issues that could pop up would be a lack of resolution at the lower end of the scale (e.g. the original Marvel game only had five Strength levels available for normal humans).
That's not really an issue though "only five strength levels" is a matter of taste really (D6 uses very similar spread, Savage Worlds, Unisystem, Even D20 fundamentally uses only 0-5 scale , its just hidden by a 3-18 meaningless subgradiation after all only the bonus matters to /actual/ resolution)
This gets into a lot of what people mean by granularity though--Hero for example has a Huge possible spread of numbers, but for some things (OCV, DCV, dice damage from strength ) derived from primary stats the break points were pretty specific meaning a lot of those points really mean nothing different than all the points around it. To the actual mechanical effect of the game. After all if you have +5 attribute added directly to a d20 roll, that matters a lot more than 200 point attribute that adds only +1 to the d20 roll.
To take it a bit back on target a game whose traits fit the scope and scale of things (or even the purpose and theme, because some games aren't about doing at all, or describing the acts of doing.) is important. After all if you sat down to play a fantasy rpg about killing things and taking its stuff, and one of the cheif stats was "Fluffybunnyness" this might perhaps strike you as wrong...(unless its about fluffy bunnies with swords and mail delving into lost warrens of elder things...but I digress.)
Quote from: SilverlionThat's not really an issue though "only five strength levels" is a matter of taste really (D6 uses very similar spread, Savage Worlds, Unisystem, Even D20 fundamentally uses only 0-5 scale , its just hidden by a 3-18 meaningless subgradiation after all only the bonus matters to /actual/ resolution)
D6 has a 7-point spread for natural human ability (2D, 2D+1, 2D+2, 3D, 3D+1, 3D+2, 4D), and D20 has a 9-point spread (-4 through +4). Five levels is a bit too small for my tastes, as it only allows for "really bad", "bad", "normal", "good", and "really good."
Quote from: DackeD6 has a 7-point spread for natural human ability (2D, 2D+1, 2D+2, 3D, 3D+1, 3D+2, 4D), and D20 has a 9-point spread (-4 through +4). Five levels is a bit too small for my tastes, as it only allows for "really bad", "bad", "normal", "good", and "really good."
And MSH had 6 Sh 0, Fe, Ty, Gd, Ex, Rm. If you count -4 on D20...you have to be fair and count SH 0 in MSH. (and then again that was only for some traits after all Incredible was the level of an Olympic gymnasts Agility--which is a human attainable rank..) Add to that that unlike some games one could perform feats into the next rank by making a Red Feat (so one could make an Incredible rank Strength Feat with a Red result in the Remarkable column )
So while you had limited ranks one could always stretch a wee bit beyond that range. And that all presumes one needs fine distinction for the low end anyway, after all why is 5 ranks or 4, or three "not good enough" for fantasy? What makes a few numbers, or words not descriptive enough to cover human capabilities at the low, middle, high, end of human scale?
Quote from: SilverlionSo while you had limited ranks one could always stretch a wee bit beyond that range. And that all presumes one needs fine distinction for the low end anyway, after all why is 5 ranks or 4, or three "not good enough" for fantasy? What makes a few numbers, or words not descriptive enough to cover human capabilities at the low, middle, high, end of human scale?
Indeed. I've run "attribute-less" Fudge games like this. Average human strength is default, great strength is a gift and weakness is a fault. That's all I need.
Quote from: SilverlionAnd MSH had 6 Sh 0, Fe, Ty, Gd, Ex, Rm. If you count -4 on D20...you have to be fair and count SH 0 in MSH.
-4 in D20 (stat 2-3) is more like Feeble in Marvel. Shift 0 is -5, and is intended to only be used for situations where your ability is somehow reduced.
Quote(and then again that was only for some traits after all Incredible was the level of an Olympic gymnasts Agility--which is a human attainable rank..)
That's why I specified that it applied to Strength - I think the other stats generally placed human maximum at Amazing or possibly Incredible.
QuoteAnd that all presumes one needs fine distinction for the low end anyway, after all why is 5 ranks or 4, or three "not good enough" for fantasy? What makes a few numbers, or words not descriptive enough to cover human capabilities at the low, middle, high, end of human scale?
Of course. Personally, I think one does need some sort of fine graduation at the lower end of the scale. I like TORG's system, which had logarithmic stats (+5 to the value meant a real-world measure 10x as high, though there were some points where they patched that, mostly dealing with speed values).
wow - this thread has deviated quite a bit from the original poster's topic. I'll chime in on the railroaded conversation, though lol
it's not about granularity - it's about how specific vs. general the rules are. Fudge, for example, isn't designed around the concept that THIS much strength means you can lift THIS much weight and push THIS much load... etc. It's designed around a more general concept. Other games get more numeric - like Torg's excellent scale. It all depends on the preference of the players.
But back to the original poster's topic...
The granularity of a set of mechanics - the crunchiness - is still independent of the setting and the player's roles and the story. You can pull ALL mechanics out of play and go diceless/rules-less (not my cup o' tea btw) if all the players are into the story and their characters and not focusing on what a +1 means to what statistic.
But again that goes back to style of play. Although this conversation is intriguing, I think it's - when all is said and done - irrelevant. For some play styles, the numbers and the rules help push the story to focus on certain things (combat, for example, in a game with four chapters devoted to it). For other play styles, that same game's mechanics aren't important.
Quote from: DackeOf course. Personally, I think one does need some sort of fine graduation at the lower end of the scale. I like TORG's system, which had logarithmic stats (+5 to the value meant a real-world measure 10x as high, though there were some points where they patched that, mostly dealing with speed values).
I hope you mean "I also liked Torg's system" because Torg's system was the exact opposite of having the fine gradiatian you said you liked. (Log scales in general tend to do that.)
Speaking of Logs BTW..that's one of those instance-- Mayfair's DC Hero's RPG for example where system to setting makes a lot of sense, Mayfair used LOG scale (albeit more compressed than Torg's) to measure superheroes, which created problems for the low end but allowed you to easily stat the high end supers. The system was built to allow for the setting which included such people as Superman, Martian Manhunter, Green Lantern, Captain Marvel and so forth.
Quote from: SilverlionI hope you mean "I also liked Torg's system" because Torg's system was the exact opposite of having the fine gradiatian you said you liked. (Log scales in general tend to do that.)
The thing is that TORG's scale allowed you to have a decent amount of granularity at the low end of the scale (humans topped out at 13, with the bottom at 5 or so - 9 different values) while still allowing really big things to be measured on the same scale (without using tricks like Star Wars' character/speeder/starship/capital scale).