TheRPGSite

Reading about the new edition of Eclipse Phase, it made me something click for me, something I've always felt about the hobby.

Don't you think there is a tension between these two aspects, Setting and Game? I mean, on one side we have those sprawling scenarios full of interesting ideas, concepts, characters, regions, cultures, stories and past histories to explore. On the other we have gaming systems that are inherently focused, as every system is, due to the scopes and goals they're naturally chained to. Which begs the question: why are we being feed these thick setting books exposing a huge lot of detailes from the dialects it's peoples talk, to the correct form a culture member takes a crap, to the exact atmospheric composition a specific space habitat have.. when the system acompannying it is usually poorly equipped to explore these things in any manner whatsoever?

It seems to me the ratio of explorable pre-made setting content is kinda low. Let's take Shadowrun for eg. a game which I know lots of folks here have familiarity. It's setting is vast, with hundreds of years of history, with almost all facets detailed, social, political, biological, physical, meta-physical, etc. And what it's system do? Tactical Dungeon Crawling. Yeah, you heard it. You have sourcebooks detailing how a megacorp operates on a strategical level, how a governing body like the Native American Nations organize themselves, while the game's rules does dungeon crawling.  Now, there are systems that try to have a wider scope as to be generic/universal but I personaly don't believe they achieve this goal. Take Gurps for eg. It's so granular that on high level (supers?) the whole things breaks apart. And it's combat is so plastered that I could never see it doing a pulp/cinematic action right.

By this logic, I think the best RPGs are the more "gameable" ones, that is, those focusing on exploring the gaming part, as opposed to exploring settings. Those that come with a vague "implicit setting" or premise, and just gives brush strokes on the world out there, and let the players color the rest on their own. Like the OSR, or D&D without setting books (or with ones like Dark Sun 1e, or maybe just the Wanderer Journal! ). Or Beyond the Wall. Or Dogs in the Vineyards. Or the old Runequest books that inspired more than defined things, in contrast to new ones that seem obsessive with (ungameable) fluff.

But then I may just be frustrated at Eclipse Phase, because I find it a pretty interesting setting themes-wise, but a poorly "gameable" one. :(

Thoughts? Please forgive the words as I'm a non-native. Try to capture it's spirit instead of it's form, if possible.:D

Quote from: Itachi;971176Reading about the new edition of Eclipse Phase, it made me something click for me, something I've always felt about the hobby.

Don't you think there is a tension between these two aspects, Setting and Game?

No.
Or rather, to the extent that there is such, I easily resolve it by the game losing to the setting:).
But usually, when people are talking about such "tension", they mean the setting doesn't support their preferred mode of play. So I just tune the complaints out.

QuoteI mean, on one side we have those sprawling scenarios full of interesting ideas, concepts, characters, regions, cultures, stories and past histories to explore.

Yes, and it's a good thing.

QuoteOn the other we have gaming systems that are inherently focused, as every system is, due to the scopes and goals they're naturally chained to.

What are the scopes and goals that D&D, Reign and Skulduggery RPG are all chained to?
Or do you mean that they're chained to different goals? In that case: yes, a system/setting mismatch is possible. But it only means another system might be better.

QuoteWhich begs the question: why are we being feed these thick setting books exposing a huge lot of detailes from the dialects it's peoples talk, to the correct form a culture member takes a crap, to the exact atmospheric composition a specific space habitat have.. when the system acompannying it is usually poorly equipped to explore these things in any manner whatsoever?

Because it's not the system that explores those things.
It's the characters and players.

QuoteIt seems to me the ratio of explorable pre-made setting content is kinda low. Let's take Shadowrun for eg. a game which I know lots of folks here have familiarity. It's setting is vast, with hundreds of years of history, with almost all facets detailed, social, political, biological, physical, meta-physical, etc. And what it's system do? Tactical Dungeon Crawling. Yeah, you heard it. You have sourcebooks detailing how a megacorp operates on a strategical level, how a governing body like the Native American Nations organize themselves, while the game's rules does dungeon crawling.

Yeah, Shadowrun is a great mismatch of setting and system, got to agree. It might have used a system for organisations...
Then again, I'd rather tack the organisational part of Reign Enchiridion's system on it, and suddenly those runs you do have tangible, system-level changes (which also help a new Referee to present the effect of your actions). That is, if I liked the setting itself, which is not the case - I just can appreciate the amount of effort that went into it.
(But elves are only acceptable in my cyberpunk if we start by global elfocide:D!)

QuoteNow, there are systems that try to have a wider scope as to be generic/universal but I personaly don't believe they achieve this goal. Take Gurps for eg. It's so granular that on high level (supers?) the whole things breaks apart. And it's combat is so plastered that I could never see it doing a pulp/cinematic action right.

Systems that try to be universal usually just mean you can use them for multiple settings as they don't have setting-related dials, or said dials are changeable. GURPS achieves that.

QuoteBy this logic, I think the best RPGs are the more "gameable" ones, that is, those focusing on exploring the gaming part, as opposed to exploring settings. Those that come with a vague "implicit setting" or premise, and just gives brush strokes on the world out there, and let the players color the rest on their own.

Since those pretty much put me to sleep, I strongly disagree;)!
If I have to paint in the holes of your "broad-brushed" setting, what is my reason to use your game, at all? I have Mythras for fantasy, you're unlikely to beat that as a system. I've got other systems for other kinds of games. What does your game bring to the table?
OTOH, I wouldn't even dream of using Mythras in Spellbound Kingdoms. The system and setting are really intertwined, there. Strive to achieve the same.

QuoteLike the OSR, or D&D without setting books (or with ones like Dark Sun 1e, or maybe just the Wanderer Journal! ).

Good, then what does your game add to it?

QuoteOr Beyond the Wall.

Adds a cool magic system and chargen system. But I still have to supply the setting.

QuoteOr Dogs in the Vineyards.

Makes me asleep.

QuoteOr the old Runequest books that inspired more than defined things, in contrast to new ones that seem obsessive with (ungameable) fluff.

Never seen a Runequest book with ungameable fluff, and I've seen mostly the new ones. Your examples are kinda falling flat.

QuoteBut then I may just be frustrated at Eclipse Phase, because I find it a pretty interesting setting themes-wise, but a poorly "gameable" one. :(

I'm afraid that seems to be the case, yes.

QuoteThoughts? Please forgive the words as I'm a non-native. Try to capture it's spirit instead of it's form, if possible.:D

First and foremost: I disagree with the idea.

Utterly false dichotomy.  I don't need rules to explore to say "I want to hire a boat and sail over there."

It requires both a referee and players with intelligence and imagination, though, and that's a lot harder to find.

Shadowrun has an extremely focused default mode of play...and it's trivial to move past, just like it's trivial to move past dungeoncrawling in D&D.  If you can't do anything without rules, then Shadowrun later included through supplements:

• Detailed Rules for being a Rocker
• Detailed Rules for being a Journalist
• Detailed Rules for being a Simsense Star
• Detailed Rules for being a Paramedic
• Detailed Rules for being a Law Enforcement Officer
• Detailed Rules for Corporations and how Shadowrunners can affect corporate rankings, effects of stock, etc.
• Detailed Rules for being a modern Pirate/Smuggler

I mean, the original book had a short story about a guy who infiltrates a gang and manipulates his gang into a gang war with another gang so he can eliminate the leader in the chaos and move up the ranks.  Do we need detailed rules for gangs influence and ratings to play this out otherwise we have a "clash of setting and system"?

At some point the GM has to do some damn GMing.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;971198Utterly false dichotomy.  I don't need rules to explore to say "I want to hire a boat and sail over there."

It requires both a referee and players with intelligence and imagination, though, and that's a lot harder to find.

The assertion in the first sentence is true.

The second sentence is just needless, bullshit crustiness (albeit, not unexpected).

He's right. It's a false dichotomy. The OP may be overthinking all this?

Quote from: cranebump;971208The assertion in the first sentence is true.

The second sentence is just needless, bullshit crustiness (albeit, not unexpected).

He's right. It's a false dichotomy. The OP may be overthinking all this?

The second sentence is deliberately inflammatory, and coming from Gronan we can expect a healthy Brady threadcrap anytime now.

Still, there is a point to be made, even if he uses a sledgehammer where the touch of a needle would suffice.

Arguing about someone's capacity for intelligence and imagination is silly, but a point could be made that a steady diet of do-it-yourselfism GMing and open, more free campaigns could foster imagination and creative thinking more than a steady diet of pre-packaged linear Adventure Path consumer content.

There's a way to actually have a conversation about how best to foster that creative thinking though, and Gronan's not in a conversation having mood today it seems by the last few posts.

Quote from: CRKrueger;971212The second sentence is deliberately inflammatory, and coming from Gronan we can expect a healthy Brady threadcrap anytime now.

Still, there is a point to be made, even if he uses a sledgehammer where the touch of a needle would suffice.

Arguing about someone's capacity for intelligence and imagination is silly, but a point could be made that a steady diet of do-it-yourselfism GMing and open, more free campaigns could foster imagination and creative thinking more than a steady diet of pre-packaged linear Adventure Path consumer content.

There's a way to actually have a conversation about how best to foster that creative thinking though, and Gronan's not in a conversation having mood today it seems by the last few posts.

I'd call it thinly-disguised onetruewayism, though I agree that Geezer is particularly pissed off lately about "kids these days and their stupid stupidness." (as noted in the thread about megadungeons, wherein we blame the shitty GMs for not "running things right" {which is the same shit I've heard 4vengers say if you took issue with their system}]).

While there could be a discussion about what style best serves "GM creativity," I'm not sure this particular thread is the place to broach it. Then again,it's the RPGsite, so...there it is...

(On the comments about Adventure Paths, I am in agreement that, if a player/GM begins and ends there, they're not getting the most out of the game. That said, if they're getting what they want out of the game, what difference does it make? Gronan's comments amount to a basketball fan bitching about the Golden State Warriors not setting enough picks on their way to bumrushing the championship. Style is style, man--people have different ones. My advice, were it solicited, would be  that, if someone is so all-fired pissed off about D&D'ers having shitty notions about how to "really" play the game, to recruit some new players and introduce them to your style. You can't know what you're missing if you don't know of it in the first place).

Quote from: CRKrueger;971200Shadowrun has an extremely focused default mode of play...and it's trivial to move past, just like it's trivial to move past dungeoncrawling in D&D.  If you can't do anything without rules, then Shadowrun later included through supplements:

• Detailed Rules for being a Rocker
• Detailed Rules for being a Journalist
• Detailed Rules for being a Simsense Star
• Detailed Rules for being a Paramedic
• Detailed Rules for being a Law Enforcement Officer
• Detailed Rules for Corporations and how Shadowrunners can affect corporate rankings, effects of stock, etc.
• Detailed Rules for being a modern Pirate/Smuggler

OK, I admit I didn't know that.
I wonder whether these came before or after the similar sourcebooks for CP2020:).

QuoteI mean, the original book had a short story about a guy who infiltrates a gang and manipulates his gang into a gang war with another gang so he can eliminate the leader in the chaos and move up the ranks.  Do we need detailed rules for gangs influence and ratings to play this out otherwise we have a "clash of setting and system"?

There are games that have those;).
And my point is that if you want or need such rules* to properly run a setting...there are games that have those. It might not be the game that comes pre-packaged with the setting, but that's probably because the author didn't think such rules necessary, and not because "all systems are bound to be inclined towards personal combat".

*Say, because you don't understand how the world of gangs operates - no shame in that.

QuoteAt some point the GM has to do some damn GMing.

And now we know that if you were writing a cyberpunk game, you'd be one of those authors that don't think to put a system for gang influence:D!

Quote from: CRKrueger;971212The second sentence is deliberately inflammatory, and coming from Gronan we can expect a healthy Brady threadcrap anytime now.

Still, there is a point to be made, even if he uses a sledgehammer where the touch of a needle would suffice.

Arguing about someone's capacity for intelligence and imagination is silly, but a point could be made that a steady diet of do-it-yourselfism GMing and open, more free campaigns could foster imagination and creative thinking more than a steady diet of pre-packaged linear Adventure Path consumer content.

There's a way to actually have a conversation about how best to foster that creative thinking though, and Gronan's not in a conversation having mood today it seems by the last few posts.

I fucked up my right shoulder and it hurts like hell and I haven't had a good night's sleep in over a week.

How do you "foster" creative thinking?  62 years of life have led me to conclude that people are either creative or not.  Though I suppose telling people "hey, make up some shit you think would be fun" might free up somebody who grew up thinking that the rules are the only permitted things.

Quote from: CRKrueger;971212The second sentence is deliberately inflammatory, and coming from Gronan we can expect a healthy Brady threadcrap anytime now.

Still, there is a point to be made, even if he uses a sledgehammer where the touch of a needle would suffice.

Arguing about someone's capacity for intelligence and imagination is silly, but a point could be made that a steady diet of do-it-yourselfism GMing and open, more free campaigns could foster imagination and creative thinking more than a steady diet of pre-packaged linear Adventure Path consumer content.

There's a way to actually have a conversation about how best to foster that creative thinking though, and Gronan's not in a conversation having mood today it seems by the last few posts.

I fucked up my right shoulder and it hurts like hell and I haven't had a good night's sleep in over a week.

How do you "foster" creative thinking?  62 years of life have led me to conclude that people are either creative or not.  Though I suppose telling people "hey, make up some shit you think would be fun" might free up somebody who grew up thinking that the rules are the only permitted things.

Also, Clark's First and Second Laws exist for a reason.

I often find reading the details of how others organize themselves creatively to be useful. When I write about myself I try to present it as A way not as THE way.

Quote from: AsenRG;971221And now we know that if you were writing a cyberpunk game, you'd be one of those authors that don't think to put a system for gang influence:D!

Maybe I thought the GM should make that stuff on their own, since me doing it would be telling the GM how gangs work in his setting.  Maybe I thought the subject was better covered in a "Gang Book" and I didn't want the Core Rules to be 968 pages.

The point is, whether I did or didn't, it doesn't mean we have a clash between Setting and System.  The setting includes Shadowrunners, the game is named Shadowrun, not Earthdawn: The Sixth World or The SIMS: Cyberpunk Fantasy Seattle.

You may as well shovel the horseshit that because Cyberpunk 2020 doesn't have OOC metagame narrative story rules for running a Case and Molly romance it's betraying Gibson.

Quote from: CRKrueger;971212a point could be made that a steady diet of do-it-yourselfism GMing and open, more free campaigns could foster imagination and creative thinking more than a steady diet of pre-packaged linear Adventure Path consumer content.

This is more or less what I tried to say, thanks.

After almost 30 years of gaming, I'm starting to see big ultra-detailed settings as a waste of time/energy/potential that could be better applied in the act of gaming (that is, immediately gameable resources, rules, ideas, whatever), or just slimmed down in the name of brevity or cohesion. What matters at a gaming table is the play. And a 300 pages setting enters in the way of actual play since at the least it will require players to spend time studying it and in worst case it will be a learning curve so high it may hinder actual play (since each player may come with his own interpretation/understanding of it). RQ/Glorantha encapsulate better what I'm trying to say, I think. The old booklets (say, Borderlands) were immediately playable, while these days we have so much chaff (say, Guide to Gloranta) that one must first dig into big (sometimes humongous) amounts of content before start playing.

Thus, I think both the OSR, and these new games that mix different influences in name of immediate play (like Beyond the Wall or Dungeon World), hit a soft spot for me that the
"setting-based" gaming of the 90s and early 2000s don't. I have family and kids and don't want to spend hours comprehending your setting ultra-detailed history meta-plot or whatever. Just give me easy of use materials and evocative/inspiring thems and ideas, and let us create our own details and meta-plots while playing.

Makes sense?

I don't need rules to explore setting elements, but I do need to be given ideas for making use of the material (inner workings of Corporations or high level political shenanigans, say).

A lot of 1990s material actually says "Be sure to keep this stuff out of the hands of your players! Don't let them mess with these Important Events or affect these Vital NPCs!" - ie it does the opposite of what any decent right-minded GM should be looking for.

Quote from: Itachi;971235This is more or less what I tried to say, thanks.

After almost 30 years of gaming, I'm starting to see big ultra-detailed settings as a waste of time/energy/potential that could be better applied in the act of gaming (that is, immediately gameable resources, rules, ideas, whatever), or just slimmed down in the name of brevity or cohesion. What matters at a gaming table is the play. And a 300 pages setting enters in the way of actual play since at the least it will require players to spend time studying it and in worst case it will be a learning curve so high it may hinder actual play (since each player may come with his own interpretation/understanding of it). RQ/Glorantha encapsulate better what I'm trying to say, I think. The old booklets (say, Borderlands) were immediately playable, while these days we have so much chaff (say, Guide to Gloranta) that one must first dig into big (sometimes humongous) amounts of content before start playing.

Thus, I think both the OSR, and these new games that mix different influences in name of immediate play (like Beyond the Wall or Dungeon World), hit a soft spot for me that the
"setting-based" gaming of the 90s and early 2000s don't. I have family and kids and don't want to spend hours comprehending your setting ultra-detailed history meta-plot or whatever. Just give me easy of use materials and evocative/inspiring thems and ideas, and let us create our own details and meta-plots while playing.

Makes sense?

Sure, I have a problem getting into Glorantha and Tekumel myself.  Second Age/Third Age, God-Learners, Lunar Empire, Wyrmfriends, HeroQuests, Mythic Resonance, thousands of years of Myth, Legend and History.  It gets in the way.  Which is why sometimes the Old Ways are best.  
Tekumel - barbarian off the boat.
Glorantha - Pick One, Borderlands, Griffin Mountain, Pavis/Big Rubble, Snakepipe Hollow.  Keep it small and character focused, let the campaign breathe becoming slowly enriched by the detail, not strangled by it before you get started.

But, I've run a couple very successful MERP campaigns, and while you may have gotten more out of what was going on if you had read The Silmarillion and the History of Middle Earth, it certainly wasn't required, and since those two campaigns were The Fourth Age and Sauron Gets the Ring, the Lore had no direct determination on the campaign.

The actual level of detail doesn't matter,  it only matters when it becomes obstructive to the player's enjoyment of the game.  That has more to do with the preferences of the players and the skill of the GM then it necessarily does with the sheer amount of detail.

I ran both White Wolf and Shadowrun in the "Metaplot 90's" and the players never felt like they had to keep up with reading novels or that things were pre-ordained.  Were the players likely to even find out about, let alone stop, the plans of a Methuselah or a Great Dragon or Megacorporation? No, but there was always a chance.

The person running this website is a racist who publicly advocates genocidal practices.

I am deleting my content.

I recommend you do the same.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;971253And while there is some truth to this, the idea that the players can just say "I want to do X" and then the GM should be able to just run with that is largely illusionary. If a group says, for example, "I want to leave town and explore the wilderness!" the result you're going to get with a GM who is familiar with hexcrawl procedures and a GM who is not familiar with hexcrawl procedures is going to be very different. Not all such game structures (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/15126/roleplaying-games/game-structures) require mechanical support, but mechanical support will tend to sprout up around the structures being used during actual play.

I would distinguish between
1. GM procedural content generation tools (eg random encounter tables) - always useful IMO and
2. Specific mechanical subsystems (such as a mass battle system or Cyberpunk computer hack 'run' system) - not always useful or necessary IMO. Individual combat system counts here too, but is nearly universal.

If players want to be able to do anything at any time, I need lots of #1, but having to learn a bunch of #2 can get in the way.  If I have a basic PC task resolution mechanic such as d20 roll stat+bonus vs target number, I can apply that in any situation. What I need are aids to create situations in the first place.

BTW I did actually use the Mentzer Expert ship rules for an expedition to the Isle of Dread, the results were very interesting especially when using the (separate) getting-lost rules... there is enough there to run a sea-crawl game. But fewer giant sea ticks please. :)

The person running this website is a racist who publicly advocates genocidal practices.

I am deleting my content.

I recommend you do the same.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;971332I'd add:

3. Scenario structures, which are often not mechanical in nature, although they can be (dungeon procedures in OD&D, for example).

When people talk about games that have amazing settings but they can't figure out what to do with them, for example, they're talking about a game that doesn't have an obvious scenario structures.

Yes - though this is most useful for pre-game prep work where the GM is the primary decider of what the 'adventure' will be; scenario structures are less vital if the players themselves are highly motivated instigator types who will have their PCs go out looking for stuff and mess with anything they come across. In that situation I mostly just need stuff (eg environments, NPCs, spaceships, monsters, conspiracies, organisations, rumours) for them to mess with, either pre-created or easy to create in play. And some kind of task-resolution mechanic, plus hopefully a reward structure like XP which encourages messing with stuff.

I agree about the defaulting to railroad structure. Hard railroad-by-scene seems less common these days, but the Paizo AP style approach where you progress from adventure site to adventure site with a mission to kill everything there seems very common. I guess it dates back at least to G1-G3.

Quote from: Itachi;971176Thoughts? Please forgive the words as I'm a non-native. Try to capture it's spirit instead of it's form, if possible.:D

I want a system that simulates the world and physical interactions in it -- and leaves the setting up to me and the other players.

GURPS and universal systems like that are pretty much all I play (exception: D&D). And while I find GURPS isn't great for super hero games, it's passable and there are other universal games that are better (e.g. Champions) for higher power levels.

With rare exceptions, I find systems that provide rules for theme or setting to be actively distracting from those things and degrading to the play experience, and while I'm not an extremest about it, I prefer system to stay away from those elements (same with social interaction).

Gameable Worlds
I haven't played Eclipse Phase (I believe I downloaded a free version at some point; not sure) but I know what you mean by poorly -gamable worlds: worlds where it's unclear what you do.

While it's something of a failure-of-imagination to not be able to come up with anything to do, I think there are clear examples of games where what-you-do is easily and instantly accessible to everyone and I think it's less about the setting and more about the extant motivations of the PCs:

1) Adventurer -- you seek treasure in high-risk areas, such as dungeons. This is classic and most-easily accessible. It provides immediate motivation, you need hardly any back-story (if you're the sort of person who goes on adventures, we don't need to know much about why), and leads to interesting in-game action. Game settings that easily and obviously support adventurer characters are the gold-standard in accessibility

2) Agent / Investigator -- you receive missions that require engagement and resolution. You might be a literal agent or spy, a soldier, a mercenary hacker, a private investigator, a super-hero or just someone people come to when Cuthulhu is eating their friends. In this case the GM gives you a mystery to solve, a crime to stop, or an objective to accomplish and you're off to the races. This is the model for a huge variety of successful games (all secret agent or military games, all super-hero games, Paranoia, etc.), only second because IME being an agent in a very weird world can be counter-intuitive. Also: there needs to be a good reason people keep coming to you. Being super-powered or a professional investigator is an obvious solution, but in games where the agent structure is less-formal, it can be hard to explain why Bob the Dilettante keeps getting asked to check out Cthulhu

3) Entrepreneur -- You run a business. Traveler is the main one here (although Traveler covers all three motivations), but other games have elements of this. Basically the game includes a "mini-game" that simulates running a business and the PCs engage with that, buying high, selling low, or otherwise aiming to make money through their business. My feeling is that the business simulation mechanics better be first-class if you're going to really make that the center-piece of play and otherwise it should be a supporting role.

4) Victim -- people keep showing up trying to kill you. Victim games provide obvious motivation, but it can get real old, real fast.

My experience is that games which are too civilized for adventurers but lack clear agent/investigator structures can be hard to game in. Maybe that's the problem with Eclipse phase?

Cheers,
-E.

All that setting detail is for Advanced Level of Setting Play. For some people it isn't their first time to the rodeo; they aren't interested in bleacher seats and corndogs. If well-fleshed material (let alone elaborate set-piece hooks, or pre-driven narrative,) seems like too much for you -- or a few of your table novices -- to jump right in, then don't start there. That level of setting material is for those who are restarting or continuing there, and want more!

It's like most things in life: it's hard to start big.

That's why all our education started small in pre-school and built up to greater complexity in college, etc. Kindergarten American History looks different from Collegiate American History. The GM is the Teacher who caters the Setting material into an understandable Session to the Table of students.

Interesting discussion, here. As a possible data point, I had a quartet of elementary school kids in my 'Lord Meren' game last weekend, and they took to the setting like ducks to water. From what I could tell, they already knew something about Ancient Egypt and the reign of Tutankhamun, so they dove right into the game session. They did very well, too! The Barsoom game had all very experienced players in it, who also knew a bit about the Red Planet, ERB, and the pulps; that one also went very well, I thought.

I should note, in the interests of full disclosure that I don't share the opinions of most of the people on this thread re 'setting vs. game'; I've always been much more interested in the world-setting over the game mechanics, but I think this is primarily due to both my origins in F/SF fandom and the early gaming I did which was very setting-heavy and rules-light. (Blame Phil and Dave, if you like.) For me, the game is a way to explore the setting, not the other way around; I've seen way too many game settings where the world has obviously been set up to enable the author's pet game mechanics to work. (Usually not very well, from what I've seen.) YMMV, of course.

I find E categorization of different PC motivations interesting as it captures 3 of the predominant RPG modes I've seen.

Quote from: -E.;9713562) Agent / Investigator --

Rather than focusing on who does  it, I focus on what is done so I call this Mission based. For me the name is more inclusive of games like Star Trek and Star Wars (which are often, probably mostly) mission based and also fits well with RPGs about soldiers and sailors and such. Admittedly Investigator fits Call of Cthulhu better than Mission, but I don't think CoC suffers from the "what do we do next?" gaming problem.

Focusing on who does it rather than what they do can be pretty unclear. Take for example, pirates. It seems like pirates are a lot like sailors, but while mission based is almost a requirement for playing active duty sailors pirates campaigns can easily fit into category 1). I'd argue they are actually better played mostly under category 1. After all, how many times can the GM give the players a map to buried treasure before that becomes utterly preposterous? But given some decent random tables for generating ships at sea and some detail on coastal towns the GM can allow the players to decide where they go, what ships they board, and what towns they try to plunder.

Quote4) Victim -- people keep showing up trying to kill you. Victim games provide obvious motivation, but it can get real old, real fast.

This one is unfamiliar to me. What would be a couple of examples of games or settings where this is the default character and play style?

I think we need to add another category for games that are essentially free wheeling politicking or focused on gaining office. Amber Diceless would seem to fit the former so would a lot of LARPs. Flashing Blades can fit the latter (though it can skip that and simply work a Mission style of game). I think HeroQuest (the one set in Glorantha) probably lends itself to this sort of play as you move up in cult rank and increase your status and political influence and power in your Cult, Clan, and Tribe. And maybe Vampire and WoD stuff would fit here? (I'm asking, not telling as I've never played any WoD and don't really 'get it.')

5) Politician -- you build influence and negotiate alliances to increase your status and power over the others around you. This may be mostly a game of one-ups-man-ship or it may be how you claw your way to higher and higher office or status in a hierarchy.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;971332I'd add:

3. Scenario structures, which are often not mechanical in nature, although they can be (dungeon procedures in OD&D, for example).

When people talk about games that have amazing settings but they can't figure out what to do with them, for example, they're talking about a game that doesn't have an obvious scenario structures.

I'd argue that the RPG industry in general suffers from a paucity of scenario structures. Most GMs these days only have one structure in their toolbag: Railroading.

Beyond that you've got a pretty good representation of location-based scenarios (e.g. dungeoncrawling), a little bit of mystery-by-clue, and a light patina of hexcrawling.

That's one of the major differences between Cyberpunk 2020 and Shadowrun.  CP2020 had cops, rockers, solos, nomads, corpers, etc.  Shadowrun said "Yeah all that stuff exists, but YOU are a Shadowrunner."

I am a little surprised that Eclipse Phase is being pointed to as a game that leaves you hanging as far as default assumptions go I remember it being fairly focused.  I went and checked:

Quote from: Eclipse Phase pg. 22WHAT DO PLAYERS DO?
The players can take on a variety of roles in Eclipse Phase. Due to advances in digital mind-emulation technology, uploading, and downloading into new morphs (physical bodies, both biological and syn-thetic), it is possible to literally be a new person from session to session. With bodies taking on the role of gear, players can customize their forms for the task at hand.

THE DEFAULT CAMPAIGN
In the default story (also known as the “campaign setting”), every player character is a “sentinel,” an agent-on-call (or potential recruit) for a shadowy network known as “Firewall.” Firewall is dedicated to counteracting “existential risks”—threats to the existence of transhumanity. These risks include biowar plagues, nanotech swarm outbreaks, nuclear proliferation, terrorists with WMDs, net-breaking computer attacks, rogue AIs, alien encounters, and so on. Firewall isn’t content to simply counteract these threats as they arise, of course, so characters may also be sent on information-gathering missions or to put in place pre-emptive or failsafe measures. Characters may be tasked to investigate seemingly innocuous people and places (who turn out not to be), make deals with shady criminal networks (who turn out not to be trustworthy), or travel through a Pandora gate wormhole to analyze the relics of some alien ruin (and see if the threat that killed them is still real). Sentinels are recruited from every faction of transhumanity; those who aren’t ideologically loyal to the cause are hired as mercenaries. These campaigns tend to mix a bit of mystery and investigation with fierce bouts of action and combat, also stirring in a nice dose of awe and horror.

Granted, this is not as focused as Shadowrun, but still pretty clear.  I think maybe in EP's case the posthuman setting is so alien that it can be a little difficult to get a good frame of reference as a GM.  It's harder to internalize.

Quote from: -E.;971356. . . buying high, selling low . . .

(https://cdn.meme.am/cache/instances/folder354/500x/75258354/willy-wonka-pure-imagination-wait-a-minute-strike-that-reverse-it.jpg)

Quote from: Black Vulmea;971383(https://cdn.meme.am/cache/instances/folder354/500x/75258354/willy-wonka-pure-imagination-wait-a-minute-strike-that-reverse-it.jpg)

... okay, that's why they kept repossessing my far trader...

-E.

1) I almost never use published settings.
2) My settings tend to be over-detailed, because I like detailing settings.
3) I am used to, and prefer, game systems that make some attempt to give you some useful systems for engaging things in ways that make sense, such as TFT and GURPS, or Aftermath. Though it is up to a GM where he/she/it wants to draw the lines between "out of scope", "GM discretion", and "yes, actually, we do have rules for atmospheric composition effects".

Quote from: Itachi;971176... Take Gurps for eg. It's so granular that on high level (supers?) the whole things breaks apart. And it's combat is so plastered that I could never see it doing a pulp/cinematic action right. ...

Well if what you want is Supers combat, or pulp/cinematic action, then most of the GURPS combat rules may not apply so well, because they have lots of good stuff for detailed mortal-level combat that makes sense, rather than over-the-top stuff that doesn't really make sense. Using a detailed logic-based system to model "is Superman more powerful than Zod - what if he throws a skyscraper at him?" or "well James Bond has to win in a stylish fashion" is a recipe for things like "what do we do when we want this cool thing to happen but the rules indicate it won't work" or "I guess we have to ignore how the game system just had him get beheaded". It seems to me that's at least as much about how comic books and pulp cinematic action flicks don't make sense, as it is about scaling in GURPS. GURPS has continued to develop systems for such things (e.g. the pulp action expansions) though it's not really my thing and you'll still have some of the general detailed approach of GURPS.

It also occurs to me that if you want a game about contests of narrative uberness, then yeah that seems like a conflict with detailed settings, too, unless the settings description are mainly about how cool things are rather than how and why they are the way they are for logical reasons.

Quote from: Bren;971376I find E categorization of different PC motivations interesting as it captures 3 of the predominant RPG modes I've seen.Rather than focusing on who does  it, I focus on what is done so I call this Mission based. For me the name is more inclusive of games like Star Trek and Star Wars (which are often, probably mostly) mission based and also fits well with RPGs about soldiers and sailors and such. Admittedly Investigator fits Call of Cthulhu better than Mission, but I don't think CoC suffers from the "what do we do next?" gaming problem.

Focusing on who does it rather than what they do can be pretty unclear. Take for example, pirates. It seems like pirates are a lot like sailors, but while mission based is almost a requirement for playing active duty sailors pirates campaigns can easily fit into category 1). I'd argue they are actually better played mostly under category 1. After all, how many times can the GM give the players a map to buried treasure before that becomes utterly preposterous? But given some decent random tables for generating ships at sea and some detail on coastal towns the GM can allow the players to decide where they go, what ships they board, and what towns they try to plunder.

This one is unfamiliar to me. What would be a couple of examples of games or settings where this is the default character and play style?

I think we need to add another category for games that are essentially free wheeling politicking or focused on gaining office. Amber Diceless would seem to fit the former so would a lot of LARPs. Flashing Blades can fit the latter (though it can skip that and simply work a Mission style of game). I think HeroQuest (the one set in Glorantha) probably lends itself to this sort of play as you move up in cult rank and increase your status and political influence and power in your Cult, Clan, and Tribe. And maybe Vampire and WoD stuff would fit here? (I'm asking, not telling as I've never played any WoD and don't really 'get it.')

5) Politician -- you build influence and negotiate alliances to increase your status and power over the others around you. This may be mostly a game of one-ups-man-ship or it may be how you claw your way to higher and higher office or status in a hierarchy.

Who does it v. What they do
I think either way is fine -- and really, they're completely inextricable: I like your pirates example.

If I'm the Pirate Captain, and the action revolves around stealing enough booty to keep my crew from mutiny (with some formal idea about how much is "enough" and where the danger zone starts... and also how I can find ships to plunder -- presumably by setting my own risk/reward dials... high risk & reward for attacking established shipping lanes... lower for going after ships off the beaten path), then it's an Entrepreneur game (Model #3).

If I'm a crewman and the (NPC) Captain is going to be taking us from one encounter to another or sending me off to do things, it's a missions game, where I'm given missions by my captain.

To be clear, games can definitely switch mode or have all three at once (as Traveler does).

If I'm running a pirates game, I need to figure out pretty quickly if I need to gin up a framework for  morale, mutiny, booty, and the like. If the players are crew-members then I need less of that (the NPC Captain will handle it and I'll just make judgement calls). If the PC's are the captain or are going to be heavily involved in running-the-ship / crew decisions, then I need to give them the levers to pull to make their decisions meaningful.

Victim Games
In my experience very few genres are all-victim all-the-time -- often they start out that way, but then evolve into something else... but I would count

* Horror games where the PC's are the prey (versus the more standard model where they're investigating)
* Super hero games where they[re playing hunted mutants in a future where all mutants are hunted (popular in the 80's and 90's)
* Conspiracy games where the first scenario is more-or-less regular people discovering the illuminati by accident and then the second one is running for their life as the conspiracy tries to kill them. Presumably some of these games turn into more of a mission-based game when they gain their footing and form a game plan for striking back
* JAGS Wonderland which (canonically) starts with the PC's "going crazy" and being victimized by insanity before they start to figure out what's going on.

I did not play a whole lot of Vampire, but my understanding was that, while it had some victimization elements (the PCs are being toyed with by powerful, malignant NPCs) it was mostly a mission-based game (Your Prince tells you to go do something). I could be wrong about that. The GURPS Vampire game I played was mostly mission-based.

Politician
I think this qualifies. It's a bit like Entrepreneur where you have this agenda to get powerful / make money, and you have things you can do to achieve it... but what you do and how you do it is up to you. Like Entrepreneur, it's very player-directed, and kind of sandbox in a way, in that there's very little of someone telling what you need to do, or kicking in doors and taking what's behind them.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: CRKrueger;971231Maybe I thought the GM should make that stuff on their own, since me doing it would be telling the GM how gangs work in his setting.  Maybe I thought the subject was better covered in a "Gang Book" and I didn't want the Core Rules to be 968 pages.

The point is, whether I did or didn't, it doesn't mean we have a clash between Setting and System.  The setting includes Shadowrunners, the game is named Shadowrun, not Earthdawn: The Sixth World or The SIMS: Cyberpunk Fantasy Seattle.

You may as well shovel the horseshit that because Cyberpunk 2020 doesn't have OOC metagame narrative story rules for running a Case and Molly romance it's betraying Gibson.

Nah, that's horseshit and you know it. But CRK, would you re-read the posts?
You're the one who assumed I'm talking about the rules of Shadowrun. I commented that the rules might be different, but never said that you needed more rules (though to be fair, I also commented that I wonder whether the rules supplements pre-date the similar ones for CP2020, and that I'd replace part of the book with different rules - but then I also said that systems don't explore settings, that's what PCs do:)).

Whatever. Let me clarify, the disconnect between system and setting in Shadowrun is, to me, two-fold.

First, that it's way too fucking heavy as a system! While my Wizard is effortlessly summoning fire, I'm getting a headache getting all the modifiers straight.
Hey, wasn't he the one changing reality with his mind? Why does it seem I'm doing the harder mental work? Something's not right here...:D
And don't get me started on my physical adept not knowing the result of his attack until we roll two more dicepools;).
And yes, that's from a guy that likes Exalted:p. Somehow, Shadowrun manages to be heavier and slower than that!

Second, the disconnect is that it has many, many pages of info on organisations and NPCs. But what does the system do with it?
Why, runs, runs and then, more runs. As you said yourself, there's fiction in the book about getting in a gang and working your way up.
But everything that the PCs do is breaking and entering. Last time I asked the question, I was told that "this is how the adventure I'm running is".
As JA puts it, "standard structure" of the adventure.
While I don't begrudge the focus on dungeons in a game named Dungeons and Dragons, or the focus on runs in a game named Shadowrun...if that's all that should happen in those games, then you don't need about 80% of the setting descriptions.
(And the reason why I like well-described settings is that I want to do more than that).

Quote from: S'mon;971330I would distinguish between
1. GM procedural content generation tools (eg random encounter tables) - always useful IMO and
2. Specific mechanical subsystems (such as a mass battle system or Cyberpunk computer hack 'run' system) - not always useful or necessary IMO. Individual combat system counts here too, but is nearly universal.

If players want to be able to do anything at any time, I need lots of #1, but having to learn a bunch of #2 can get in the way.  If I have a basic PC task resolution mechanic such as d20 roll stat+bonus vs target number, I can apply that in any situation. What I need are aids to create situations in the first place.

BTW I did actually use the Mentzer Expert ship rules for an expedition to the Isle of Dread, the results were very interesting especially when using the (separate) getting-lost rules... there is enough there to run a sea-crawl game. But fewer giant sea ticks please. :)

Quote from: Justin Alexander;971332I'd add:

3. Scenario structures, which are often not mechanical in nature, although they can be (dungeon procedures in OD&D, for example).

When people talk about games that have amazing settings but they can't figure out what to do with them, for example, they're talking about a game that doesn't have an obvious scenario structures.

I'd argue that the RPG industry in general suffers from a paucity of scenario structures. Most GMs these days only have one structure in their toolbag: Railroading.

Beyond that you've got a pretty good representation of location-based scenarios (e.g. dungeoncrawling), a little bit of mystery-by-clue, and a light patina of hexcrawling.

While I agree with the idea of separating typical scenario structures, I really hope you're wrong on the state of GMing these days;)!

Quote from: CRKrueger;971380Granted, this is not as focused as Shadowrun, but still pretty clear.  I think maybe in EP's case the posthuman setting is so alien that it can be a little difficult to get a good frame of reference as a GM.  It's harder to internalize.

I think that's true, but the "alien" part is not true. In my observation, the only people that have no idea what to do in EP are those that feel lost until they find a dungeon;).
Well, the OP might manage to provide me with a new example. Let's hope he does;)!

I don't know if I really understood the question but personally I prefer games that were designed for their settings: Flashing Blades, James Bond 007, Pendragon, etc. There is no tension between system and setting because of that.

Quote from: AsenRG;971436Whatever. Let me clarify, the disconnect between system and setting in Shadowrun is, to me, two-fold.

First, that it's way too fucking heavy as a system! While my Wizard is effortlessly summoning fire, I'm getting a headache getting all the modifiers straight.
Hey, wasn't he the one changing reality with his mind? Why does it seem I'm doing the harder mental work? Something's not right here...:D
And don't get me started on my physical adept not knowing the result of his attack until we roll two more dicepools;).
And yes, that's from a guy that likes Exalted:p. Somehow, Shadowrun manages to be heavier and slower than that!

Which edition?  2nd Edition being more complicated than any form of Exalted is just laughable. Period.  Full-blown 3rd granted got practically Gurps: Vehicles crazy.  4th/5th - completely different game I wouldn't piss on if it were on fire.

"I don't like the level of crunch" is a piss-poor reason for declaring a disconnect between setting and system.

Quote from: AsenRG;971436Second, the disconnect is that it has many, many pages of info on organisations and NPCs. But what does the system do with it?

You mean besides Lifestyle, Contact and Organization rules so that PCs have ways to gain Contacts, improve relationships and actually become members of organizations?

Quote from: AsenRG;971436Why, runs, runs and then, more runs. As you said yourself, there's fiction in the book about getting in a gang and working your way up.
But everything that the PCs do is breaking and entering. Last time I asked the question, I was told that "this is how the adventure I'm running is".
As JA puts it, "standard structure" of the adventure.
While I don't begrudge the focus on dungeons in a game named Dungeons and Dragons, or the focus on runs in a game named Shadowrun...if that's all that should happen in those games, then you don't need about 80% of the setting descriptions.
(And the reason why I like well-described settings is that I want to do more than that).

You realize you sound just like the people who claim D&D only supports Dungeoncrawling...you know those people you usually mock? :D

So...which is it?  Are you demanding more rules or are you not demanding more rules?  Are you demanding more published modules with a different scenario structure or are you not demanding more modules?

What did you want them to do?

You want to run a group of mercenaries, the mercenary archetype is there to give you an example, the detailed setting provides you with tons of conflict areas around the world and even mentions specific mercenary companies, and then there is Fields of Fire, the goddamn mercenary supplement.

Aren't you the guy that makes up a whole world on the fly every week and can effortlessly convert Fiasco into Phoenix Command so there's no point in even talking about system differences?

Now you expect me to believe this same guy can't take all the detail the setting provides you and run Yakuza without rules or explicit guidelines in the Core Book? (Yes, there's an Organized Crime supplement book too. :p)

Something's rotten in Emerald City brother, and it ain't the Seattle Sourcebook. :D

Quote from: Opaopajr;971362That's why all our education started small in pre-school and built up to greater complexity in college, etc. Kindergarten American History looks different from Collegiate American History.

That's pretty much the exact opposite of how it works IRL, at least here. Young children start broad with "the Stone Age" and then "the Romans". By University, if they're lucky it's economic effects of the industrial transition in basket weaving in 1826 Farnsworth. If they're unlucky it's "...and how that should make you feel."

Whereas I think in play people (however experienced at roleplaying in general) need to start small, fighting Tusken Raiders on Tatooine say, and work out from there into galactic politics et al. A game which cares about galactic politics should still support getting started. If it's *only* about galactic politics then it needs really strong support for political play, as much as D&D has for dungeon-bashing.

In the case of Cyberpunk games in particular, something people are forgetting is that typically the worlds are full of factions whose conspiracies and conflicts the PCs get entangled in, and have to deal with.  That doesn't mean the game needs rules for playing Damien Knight any more than Case needs to know how to become Oyabun or Molly needs to know how to run DC Metro PD.  Knowing that the street says that the Oyabun of DC has moles inside DC Metro PD on the other hand...useful information...if it's true, and maybe even if it's not.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;971332I'd add:

3. Scenario structures, which are often not mechanical in nature, although they can be (dungeon procedures in OD&D, for example).

When people talk about games that have amazing settings but they can't figure out what to do with them, for example, they're talking about a game that doesn't have an obvious scenario structures.

I'd argue that the RPG industry in general suffers from a paucity of scenario structures. Most GMs these days only have one structure in their toolbag: Railroading.

Beyond that you've got a pretty good representation of location-based scenarios (e.g. dungeoncrawling), a little bit of mystery-by-clue, and a light patina of hexcrawling.

I think a lot of referees and players alike sort of forget to think of implications.

For instance:  My city of Ram's Horn is on a navigable river.  There are docks and warehouses.

Where people carry goods by water, you WILL have pirates.  Shall we fight them, join them, or become them?

Furthermore, if there are tariffs, there will be smugglers.  Same thing.

You don't need to know anything about the setting, just a little about the real world and human nature.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;971530I think a lot of referees and players alike sort of forget to think of implications. . . . You don't need to know anything about the setting, just a little about the real world and human nature.

Some years ago, over dinner at our favorite Mongolian barbecue, one of the players in my Flashing Blades campaign asked me about how I developed and maintained so many intrigues in the campaign. I told him that any time I create a non-player character, my mind immediately begins ticking off their immediate relationships - parents, siblings, extended family, colleagues, rivals, institutional affiliations - and from there intrigues just cascade from the character.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;971225I fucked up my right shoulder and it hurts like hell and I haven't had a good night's sleep in over a week.

How do you "foster" creative thinking?  62 years of life have led me to conclude that people are either creative or not.  Though I suppose telling people "hey, make up some shit you think would be fun" might free up somebody who grew up thinking that the rules are the only permitted things.

Agreed. And an addendum. Some players and DMs are creative in radically different ways.
Example I've used before: I do most of my DMing on the fly on the spot based on whats gone before or what Ive established so far. One of the other DMs I know does extensive adventure prep. Another does world prep and then sets things in motion and lets the players do as they will.

A well thought out setting can be great for DMs who aren't good at that aspect and frees them up for focusing on the adventures. Or acts as springboards for adventure ideas, and so on. Even a skeletal setting like Karameikos from BX can do that. But others might want something much more detailed like the BECMI Gazeteers.

Quote from: Itachi;971176Thoughts? Please forgive the words as I'm a non-native. Try to capture it's spirit instead of it's form, if possible.:D

D&D has the best system. Always has. And it matches its setting perfectly. So simple in design really. All it's about is:

Solo-players that are looking for human random number generators for their next game. So they tell their friends that they wan't to be Dungeon Master at a game table.

Victorian England was light on barge pirates. Some settings are too peaceful to make standard adventurer plots likely. These can work well for horror stories though.

Quote from: S'mon;971338Yes - though this is most useful for pre-game prep work where the GM is the primary decider of what the 'adventure' will be; scenario structures are less vital if the players themselves are highly motivated instigator types who will have their PCs go out looking for stuff and mess with anything they come across. In that situation I mostly just need stuff (eg environments, NPCs, spaceships, monsters, conspiracies, organisations, rumours) for them to mess with, either pre-created or easy to create in play. And some kind of task-resolution mechanic, plus hopefully a reward structure like XP which encourages messing with stuff.

I agree about the defaulting to railroad structure. Hard railroad-by-scene seems less common these days, but the Paizo AP style approach where you progress from adventure site to adventure site with a mission to kill everything there seems very common. I guess it dates back at least to G1-G3.

My current player group actually want hard railroading and a clearly focused mission at all times. They flail about helplessly when I ask them where they want the game to go next. I suspect some of this may be the pernicious influence of CRPGs where you don't really have the option of freeform choice, just the illusion of choice.

I have encountered more than one group of players to whom "you don't need a special rule to try to do something" has been quite a revelation. For me that was the default assumption of play. "I want to hire a ship and sail to the Island of Openminded Stewardesses." "I want to become a crimeboss and take over the thieves guild."  We didn't need sailing feats and organized crime rules.

Quote from: S'mon;971488That's pretty much the exact opposite of how it works IRL, at least here. Young children start broad with "the Stone Age" and then "the Romans". By University, if they're lucky it's economic effects of the industrial transition in basket weaving in 1826 Farnsworth. If they're unlucky it's "...and how that should make you feel."

Whereas I think in play people (however experienced at roleplaying in general) need to start small, fighting Tusken Raiders on Tatooine say, and work out from there into galactic politics et al. A game which cares about galactic politics should still support getting started. If it's *only* about galactic politics then it needs really strong support for political play, as much as D&D has for dungeon-bashing.

:confused:

Perhaps my example is unclear, so let me try another one: we often start our children with mathematical symbols and basic numeracy before introducing them to integral calculus.

Because it's hard to start big.

Settings place similar demands upon their players and it is up to the GM to gauge their audience's receptivity. Birthright may start off with politics baked into the cake, but I am not going to run players immediately against aggressive Awnsheghlien with a crippled kingdom. It is better to offer manageable small setting challenges before I throw them into setting deep water.

Because it's hard to start big.

Quote from: Opaopajr;971620Settings place similar demands upon their players and it is up to the GM to gauge their audience's receptivity. Birthright may start off with politics baked into the cake, but I am not going to run players immediately against aggressive Awnsheghlien with a crippled kingdom. It is better to offer manageable small setting challenges before I throw them into setting deep water.

Because it's hard to start big.

Yes I think a lot of games would benefit from an introductory "newbie town + starter dungeon" type setup in the core book. Very few do, the default is much more towards a linear single-session intro adventure, if anything.

Quote from: S'mon;971630Yes I think a lot of games would benefit from an introductory "newbie town + starter dungeon" type setup in the core book. Very few do, the default is much more towards a linear single-session intro adventure, if anything.

Oh, I think we were in agreement then. I couldn't tell if I was coming across unclear. Perhaps your "whereas" threw me off. :)

It seems to me that ways to "foster player creativity" and interest in doing things other that wait for the next train on the GM's railroad to glory, include just having your game clearly work dynamically and have player choices be mostly what determines what happens. When players observe that doing things, particularly things that aren't just waiting and responding predictably to GM prompts, leads to other logical and interesting things happening (and applying active thought to situations tends to have good results), in ways that are unscripted and make some sense and are fun, then at least some players will be more awake and active and creative and interested, and the ones who aren't at least enjoy the show more. One can also have the smart and interesting NPCs naturally tend to be more interested and friendly with the smart and creative PCs, and/or take more advantage of the predictable PCs.

Is there tension between setting and game? Only in badly-designed games.

Quote from: CRKrueger;971448Which edition?  2nd Edition being more complicated than any form of Exalted is just laughable. Period.  Full-blown 3rd granted got practically Gurps: Vehicles crazy.  4th/5th - completely different game I wouldn't piss on if it were on fire.

I'm pretty sure I've seen only 4th edition, though. If 2nd edition is that different, what I said about the mechanics wouldn't apply to it.

Quote"I don't like the level of crunch" is a piss-poor reason for declaring a disconnect between setting and system.

It is, if you expect the system to deliver on fast and furious gameplay.

QuoteYou mean besides Lifestyle, Contact and Organization rules so that PCs have ways to gain Contacts, improve relationships and actually become members of organizations?

...weird. I don't remember ever using such rules. Had the GM houseruled them out?
It's possible. You know what, I'm going to retract what I said about Shadowrun's mechanics until I get a new glimpse on the book itself, so I wouldn't work with what we played (which might have been influenced by the GM liking action sequences). I think I can borrow someone's book for a while.
The setting is my bigger issue either way, but at least I'd know whether I've spouted a bunch of nonsense about the mechanics.

QuoteYou realize you sound just like the people who claim D&D only supports Dungeoncrawling...you know those people you usually mock? :D

Maybe. It would be unfortunate if that was the case, but we'll have to see.

QuoteSo...which is it?  Are you demanding more rules or are you not demanding more rules?

Less rules, and those remaining to be different...well, if my memory of them is exact and complete, at least.

QuoteAre you demanding more published modules with a different scenario structure or are you not demanding more modules?

I'd like to see more modules with a different scenario structure, yes. Just so the Shadowrun fans would be more amenable to playing something that's not preparing, executing and dealing with the fallout of a run.

QuoteAren't you the guy that makes up a whole world on the fly

Yes.

Quoteevery week

No, my campaigns usually last much longer:D!

Quoteand can effortlessly convert Fiasco into Phoenix Command so there's no point in even talking about system differences?

And I see you've been taking rhetoric lessons from Pundit...no point answering this.

QuoteNow you expect me to believe this same guy can't take all the detail the setting provides you and run Yakuza without rules or explicit guidelines in the Core Book? (Yes, there's an Organized Crime supplement book too. :p)

Of course I can, Greenie;). I'd use Cyberpunk 2020 or Fates Worse Than Death RPG, but that's besides the point.

The problem is, I sometimes want to play. As it has happened, sometimes I want to play so much I'm even willing to put up with the setting of Cyberpunk.
If, after that, I get to do only runs, runs every week, with the argument that "the game is made to do that, as the adventures prove", I feel...cheated out of an opportunity;).

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;971530I think a lot of referees and players alike sort of forget to think of implications.

For instance:  My city of Ram's Horn is on a navigable river.  There are docks and warehouses.

Where people carry goods by water, you WILL have pirates.  Shall we fight them, join them, or become them?

Furthermore, if there are tariffs, there will be smugglers.  Same thing.

You don't need to know anything about the setting, just a little about the real world and human nature.

Well, you still need to know the lawlessness level. Because the pirates might be the last of their kind, and bound to be pending soon, or they might be a force to be reckoned with:).

Quote from: S'mon;971602Victorian England was light on barge pirates. Some settings are too peaceful to make standard adventurer plots likely. These can work well for horror stories though.

But there were pirates in Victorian times, just elsewhere.
And you don't need your adventurer plots to be of the standard variety;).

Quote from: AsenRG;972100I'm pretty sure I've seen only 4th edition, though.

[Samuel Jackson]"Shit, Asen, that's all you had to say."[/Samuel Jackson]

Thing to rermember about Shadowrun is:
1st is a wonderful, glorious, somewhat unplayable mess.
2nd, cleaned up and expanded a bit, is "Golden Age" Shadowrun.  You want what made the game what it is, pick up a copy of second and run some of the published adventures.
3rd is kind of like D&D 3e - it eventually disappeared up it's own ass into rules minutiae.
4th is kind of like D&D 4e, ie. Not-Shadowrun. Although it's even worse. Different company, different people, not even the same setting really as none of the original worldbuilders are involved, and fundamentally different system.
5th is kind of like D&D5e in that is still running on a lot of 4th assumptions and rules, but unlike 5e in that is doesn't attempt to hide that fact, makes no attempt to return to what made the game to begin with and still is, well IMNSHO, complete and utter shite.  Frank Trollman isn't always wrong.

FASA Shadowrun vs. Catalyst Shadowrun is far more of a difference than TSR vs. WotC D&D.

A great wailing and pearl-cluthcing will now commence from certain quarters I'm sure, but...you've never played Shadowrun.

I feel Shadowrun is a neat system at it's core of "pool of d6 vs target number". The problem is the subsystems, which are super slow and unnecessary complex. They should have kept the core and use the remaining energy to structure the "life of a scoundrel" aspect just like Blades in the Dark or The Sprawl do. But then Shadowrun is a child of the 80s where the unnecessary complexity was the norm, and mechanized "gaming structures" was a rarity (which only attests to Pendragon ahead of time design).

Quote from: Skarg;971639It seems to me that ways to "foster player creativity" and interest in doing things other that wait for the next train on the GM's railroad to glory, include just having your game clearly work dynamically and have player choices be mostly what determines what happens. When players observe that doing things, particularly things that aren't just waiting and responding predictably to GM prompts, leads to other logical and interesting things happening (and applying active thought to situations tends to have good results), in ways that are unscripted and make some sense and are fun, then at least some players will be more awake and active and creative and interested, and the ones who aren't at least enjoy the show more. One can also have the smart and interesting NPCs naturally tend to be more interested and friendly with the smart and creative PCs, and/or take more advantage of the predictable PCs.

This. One thousand times this.

I think the tabletop roleplaying as a medium has specificities that are totally different from other media like books, cinema or videogames. Someone bringing his pet-story for an audience is totally legit for a movie, but problematic on a tabletop game where everybody is supposed to be actively interacting with the game most of the time.