Quote from: YamoExactly. I'm just speculating as to what might motivate a designer to see this as a worthy goal in the first place. Not just the theory jargon that they might employ to justify it to others, but what's really driving the process for them psychologically.

It sure isn't the potential to turn a big profit and, in light of that, I'm tempted to look to egotism.

Well, I've done lots of work I'm fairly happy with that isn't going to turn any profit and I hope it's not easily ascribable to raw egoism.

I've played DitV and I found it a decent experience. With the right group, I'd play it a bit more often (although I don't see myself playing it long term). But if you really, really like what it delivers in the focused way it delivers it then boy are you gonna like it.

-Marco

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalI believe that the best system is one that stays the fuck out of my way.

I beleive that the best system is the one that supports what I want to do.

I have a quip in my sig over on another board... "Use the rules, don't let the rules use you." I think that getting out of the way is only half the job of a system... that's the "don't let the rules use you" part. In other words, don't let the rules take you in a direction you don't want to go.

The other half is the active part of the rules. I don't think I am surprising anyone here when I say the job of the rules is to model the situation in a manner that is satisfying for the participants. If it's too busy getting out of the way, it can't do that.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadThe other half is the active part of the rules. I don't think I am surprising anyone here when I say the job of the rules is to model the situation in a manner that is satisfying for the participants. If it's too busy getting out of the way, it can't do that.

The thing is, when I'm thinking about rules I'm not thinking about the game.  Games like Dogs, where the rules get really stuck in during conflicts, I don't really enjoy them.  Just as things get interesting we all start getting into the rules, it kills the game for me.

Getting out of the way is a valid design goal, it is in fact explicitly the design goal for Unisystem for example.  Some folk like that, some folk like supportive rules, but liking supportive rules does not mean people who like them to get out of the way just haven't found the right rules yet.  It means they have different tastes.

Quote from: BalbinusThe thing is, when I'm thinking about rules I'm not thinking about the game.  Games like Dogs, where the rules get really stuck in during conflicts, I don't really enjoy them.  Just as things get interesting we all start getting into the rules, it kills the game for me.

I've not played DitV, but judging from what is being discused in the CR thread, I might agree.

But let me frame this in another light, to see if we are talking about the same thing here. When I am playing Spycraft 2.0, running a chase, I am actively interacting with the rules and I am enjoying myself. The rules support what I am trying to acheive.

I COULD run a chase with maximal GM authority and minimal game support (e.g., deciding off the top of my head what sort of obstacles that the players run into and what sort of tactics the villains use), and decidine on the fly which skill checks and modifiers apply. But I would find that less enjoyable because I would doubt my own personal ability to keep the pace up with exciting obstacles and efforts on the part of the NPCs. And the players are going to have to come up with appropraite responses and I am going to have to judge them on the fly and hope the odds work out right.

Now with the chase system in hand, all I really have to do is give the players their cards, take mine, choose tactics, and provide garnish for the results of each round depending on the setting details. It's much easier, the menu driven nature provides more inspiration, it flows better, and due the design forethought, I have more faith that the mechanical resolution is going to work out.

So, I don't know if I am hitting on the same thing or if you would enjoy a Spycraft chase scene as much as I do, but I find that the active presence of the system in this case (and similar cases... there is a whole host of dramatic conflicts in Spycraft) is what makes it fun.

Caesar,

I think it depends a bit on the game and a bit on what is being supported.  The Spycraft chase rules sound very good, and chases can be hard to just roleplay through.  Social stuff, by contrast, is often pretty easy to roleplay through.

I tend to want rules to govern stuff I struggle to resolve by conversation without resorting to massive gm fiat.  So, combat, chases, lockpicking, physical conflicts or challenges generally I like to have rules.  Social challenges or conflicts there are games where I like there being rules (Dying Earth for example) but generally I prefer just to roleplay that stuff.

Quote from: BalbinusI think it depends a bit on the game and a bit on what is being supported.  The Spycraft chase rules sound very good, and chases can be hard to just roleplay through.  Social stuff, by contrast, is often pretty easy to roleplay through.

I tend to want rules to govern stuff I struggle to resolve by conversation without resorting to massive gm fiat.  So, combat, chases, lockpicking, physical conflicts or challenges generally I like to have rules.  Social challenges or conflicts there are games where I like there being rules (Dying Earth for example) but generally I prefer just to roleplay that stuff.

Yes, well, I can certainly sympathize with that. I like some sort of social modeling in the game (I want the PC to be more than just the player in a different body), but that's a situation in which I prefer the activity to be more player driven and am a little more iffy on intrusive personality mechanics than I am other mechanics.

I don't mind it so much on the GM end, and typically try to synthesize PC and player when it comes to judging NPC reactions. I sort of see it as if the player dictates intention, and the rules dictate delivery. I know many people in real life who are not near so clever, charming, etc., as they think they are.

The other thing is, by all accounts Spycraft 2 is just a totally kickass game.  Theory is all very well, but great execution can change my mind on almost anything.

Quote from: BalbinusThe other thing is, by all accounts Spycraft 2 is just a totally kickass game.  Theory is all very well, but great execution can change my mind on almost anything.

So essentially what you are saying is bad rules should get out of your way.

(Or, well, be absent in the first place.)

I can get on board with that.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadSo essentially what you are saying is bad rules should get out of your way.

(Or, well, be absent in the first place.)

I can get on board with that.

To a degree, I'm more saying that sufficiently great rules may change my mind in particular cases.

That said, Spycraft is in fact the only game like this I've seen where I've thought that it would add to the game.  I think my position is more rules should get out of the way, except in Spycraft 2 which you should move to London and run for us.

Quote from: S. John RossMy own preferred internal question is "has someone else already developed this idea to my satisfaction?"

Indeed. I look at it much the same way--if it been done right -TO ME- then I'd not be delving into it.