Even tho' GRR Martin bored me to death with A Dance with Dragons I still like the idea of running a Westeros game. I have the campaign guide and the rulebook and I am reading Peril At King's Landing. Nice adventure, very much in the style of the books.
The campaign guide is great, and effectively system free.
But I got so bored with the core rulebook. Now I think it's that I (like many of us) have got old and frankly can't be bothered to learn a new system.. I have settled into my old faves of d100 and Traveller, and I might play Savage Worlds if I want.
So.. anyone want to say what they think of SIFRP and if there is anything really good in it that will stop me just using my fallback of d100-BRP-OpenQuest?
Quote from: tzunder;495400So.. anyone want to say what they think of SIFRP and if there is anything really good in it that will stop me just using my fallback of d100-BRP-OpenQuest?
Hah, until I read this line I was going to suggest you ignore the SIFRP system and use a d100 system instead.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;495408Hah, until I read this line I was going to suggest you ignore the SIFRP system and use a d100 system instead.
I think that a BRP based game would be a perfect fit for the setting, certainly. And creating some rules for the houses struggle is not difficult.
Quote from: tzunder;495400So.. anyone want to say what they think of SIFRP and if there is anything really good in it that will stop me just using my fallback of d100-BRP-OpenQuest?
I like BRP but I think SIFRP is excellent for the sourcematerial. My comments would be:
- It has good support for house management and large scale events, mass combat and social intrigue, not just skill use and combat. I also think the house creation system is pretty fab in getting players onto the same page and invested in the group.
- I find the core mechanic in SIFRP simpler than BRPthough they are about the same. BRP's core system has to change depending on whether you are rolling skills, attributes or contested attributes. It also doesn't have the ceiling issue that some don't like with BRP's d100 roll under.
- I like how SIFRP handles defeat and wounds in that they deal with maiming and a hefty consideration for surrender as an option. It really helps put the player into the right frame of mind.
- No arbitrary divide between Attributes and Skills. You just have one list of Abilities. This means less numbers on the page which can make a PC or NPC easier to grok and stat IME.
More generally, what exactly is horrible about the base SIFRP system?
Quote from: tzunder;495400Now I think it's that I (like many of us) have got old and frankly can't be bothered to learn a new system..
Same here.
Over the last few years, I have been moving in this direction.
I think 4E D&D and 4E Essentials are probably the last "new system" I will ever learn, in regard to pen & paper tabletop rpg games. (With a shortage of reliable and desirable players in my present locale, most likely I'm not going to bother playing 5E D&D when it is released).
I have the Savage Worlds core book, but couldn't be bothered with using it for a new regular campaign.
Personally I think GURPS or Harnmaster are better suited than d100 RPGs. The former because of the advantage and disadvantages system and latter because Harnmaster is a brutal low fantasy RPG.
Quote from: tzunder;495400So.. anyone want to say what they think of SIFRP and if there is anything really good in it that will stop me just using my fallback of d100-BRP-OpenQuest?
Some months ago I was in the same place as you. I hope my experience will be useful to you.
I was going to run a Song of Ice and Fire game, initially I wanted to use another system (I was a little leery about SIFRP), but my group insisted they wanted to try SIFRP, so SIFRP it was.
SIFRP has a few things I like a lot:
-The wound system, very similar to the one of Fate.
-The amount of skills is right, exactly to my taste.
-Combat offers some tactical options.
-The house creation system is pure gold, this is, in my opinion, the best part of the game, it has nothing on the Ars Magica covenants. A shame that character generation doesn't work likewise.
But when I ran SIFRP, I realized there were things I didn't like at all, to the point that they became dealbreakers:
-The dice system. I liked it at first, but after some play, I realized that it was very deterministic. Having one die more than your opponent was a VERY BIG advantage, and if you have two dice more, there is no point in rolling, you'll win anyways. The specialty system makes things worse, because when you roll and keep dice, the result is even more deterministic.
-The social combat system is too complex for my taste. Maybe it works all right, but I couldn't bring myself to use it, it felt stiffed, and I didn't want to interrupt the roleplaying scenes.
-I felt the system was easy to abuse, some combos are overkill, and it is very easy to create the best swordman of Westeros ever... as a just created character.
-I didn't like the way armors worked. They absorb damage but make you easier to be hit. The way armors work makes a lot of sense once you apply the optional fatigue rules, but it gets a little too complex and metagamey.
So, after running a few sessions of SIFRP, I talked to my friends and told them I didn't feel comfortable with that system and wanted to use Mongoose RuneQuest 2 instead (yes, a 1d100 derivative). Despite their cries of anguish (well, not really), we converted the characters to MRQ2, and I feel much better GMing it, it's incredible what running a system you feel comfortable with can do.
So what is my advice? Use a system you like and feel comfortable with, your gamemastering will be much better, and you will have more fun. That said, even if you use Openquest (or another system), I recommend you use the SIFRP house creation system and generate a house for your PCs (we did), trust me, it's a lot of fun.
Quote from: Claudius;495563I recommend you use the SIFRP house creation system and generate a house for your PCs (we did), trust me, it's a lot of fun.
Does it need much converting to run under MRQ2? (Are there any dice mechanics, even?)
Quote from: daniel_ream;495568Does it need much converting to run under MRQ2? (Are there any dice mechanics, even?)
The house generation system uses (like the rest of the game) d6s. I wouldn't convert anything, I would just use the system as it is. When rolling house fortunes, have the PC roll Lore (Stewardship) divided by 20 in d6, maybe adding 1d6, for example, if a PC has Lore (Stewardship) 80%, make him roll 4d6 or 5d6.
I've come to the conclusion that a decent Game Master can run almost any setting with almost any rules set. Most posters who advocate a "perfect" system for whatever setting under discussion are biased by their love for that rules set and would say it's perfect no matter what setting was being proposed.
GURPS, BRP, D&D 4E, and other rules sets all do pretty much the same things, only they approach them in slightly different ways. They all could work for almost any setting if the Game Master is familar with the rules and the setting. For me, I prefer OD&D or C&C for most games. That's my own bias speaking and may have no bearing on whether those rules work for you.
Just my two cents.
Quote from: estar;495508Personally I think GURPS or Harnmaster are better suited than d100 RPGs. The former because of the advantage and disadvantages system and latter because Harnmaster is a brutal low fantasy RPG.
Don't you consider Hârnmaster a member of the 1d100 family?
Quote from: finarvyn;495610GURPS, BRP, D&D 4E, and other rules sets all do pretty much the same things, only they approach them in slightly different ways.
Frankly I think that says more about the paucity of variety in RPG design than anything else.
As an obvious example, the notion of having a set of rules for modelling an organization as a single entity in such a way that organizations can interact with each other and PCs can interact with the organization is a relatively rare thing in RPG design, and is usually tightly tied to the setting (Covenants in Ars Magica, Houses in Song of Ice and Fire, Kingdoms in Birthright, etc.).
Quote from: finarvyn;495610GURPS, BRP, D&D 4E, and other rules sets all do pretty much the same things, only they approach them in slightly different ways. They all could work for almost any setting if the Game Master is familar with the rules and the setting.
Oh yeah dude, 4e could totally rock LA Noire...
or, you know, not.
Quote from: finarvyn;495610I've come to the conclusion that a decent Game Master can run almost any setting with almost any rules set. Most posters who advocate a "perfect" system for whatever setting under discussion are biased by their love for that rules set and would say it's perfect no matter what setting was being proposed.
I don't know if I'm a decent GM, but I know I couldn't run any setting with any rules set. I can only run a setting and a system I like and feel comfortable with.
Regarding the "perfect system" part, I realized a long time ago there are no perfect systems, unfortunately! There are, though, systems better tailored to the task.
QuoteGURPS, BRP, D&D 4E, and other rules sets all do pretty much the same things, only they approach them in slightly different ways.
That's because they're all
roleplaying games. They all have a chargen chapter, a combat chapter, etc. But those different approaches make a world of difference, at least to me.
QuoteThey all could work for almost any setting if the Game Master is familar with the rules and the setting.
If the GM likes and is comfortable with both the setting and the system, yes.
QuoteFor me, I prefer OD&D or C&C for most games. That's my own bias speaking and may have no bearing on whether those rules work for you.
And OD&D and C&D don't play like RuneQuest or SIFRP. I'm not saying they're worse, or better, but different, and that difference matters to me. A lot.
Quote from: Claudius;495616Don't you consider Hârnmaster a member of the 1d100 family?
No more than Rolemaster. To me d100 mean the family of games originating with Runequest not all RPGs that use a d100 as their mechanic.
Quote from: finarvyn;495610I've come to the conclusion that a decent Game Master can run almost any setting with almost any rules set. Most posters who advocate a "perfect" system for whatever setting under discussion are biased by their love for that rules set and would say it's perfect no matter what setting was being proposed.
GURPS, BRP, D&D 4E, and other rules sets all do pretty much the same things, only they approach them in slightly different ways. They all could work for almost any setting if the Game Master is familar with the rules and the setting. For me, I prefer OD&D or C&C for most games. That's my own bias speaking and may have no bearing on whether those rules work for you.
Just my two cents.
I always contended that a game with all the elements of roleplaying can run anything. It boils down to how much work you want to put into it. Obviously individual systems take less work to use for specific genres, settings and/or campaign style.
What makes roleplaying games so flexible is the fact the character is the focus of the game. That and the human referee allows for infinite number of scenarios to unfold. You would have to work hard as a designer NOT to make a roleplaying game flexible.
Quote from: daniel_ream;495632Frankly I think that says more about the paucity of variety in RPG design than anything else.
As an obvious example, the notion of having a set of rules for modelling an organization as a single entity in such a way that organizations can interact with each other and PCs can interact with the organization is a relatively rare thing in RPG design, and is usually tightly tied to the setting (Covenants in Ars Magica, Houses in Song of Ice and Fire, Kingdoms in Birthright, etc.).
That doesn't follow from finarvyn's statement. What defines all those games is the focus on the playing of individual characters and the use of a human referee to adjudicate.
The presence of subsystems, like SoIaF's House system, Birthright's domain system, covenant, Traveller trading, are useful aides to help the referee adjudicate these aspects of the game. But these mechanics are not necessary if the referee is willing to do the work.
Quote from: daniel_ream;495632Frankly I think that says more about the paucity of variety in RPG design than anything else.
Yeah, it might, if it was true. Well, even then, there would be
much better comparisons to be made, and so, it would end up false anyway.
Looking at just two of those - D&D 4th edition and BRP - there's the world of difference in how they approach things. Just in so many ways, it would be staggering to make them at all alike. And that is hardly the most dissimilar pair of RPGs in existence! Not by a long shot.
If I suspected some kind of agenda in the post you replied to, I would have to say it was disingenuous. As it stands though, I'll just go for "inaccurate". :)
Quote from: Claudius;495716And OD&D and C&D
Isn't that a Palladium game?
Sorry, couldn't resist. :D
Quote from: Imperator;495410I think that a BRP based game would be a perfect fit for the setting, certainly. And creating some rules for the houses struggle is not difficult.
I'd use the MRQII Empires system, and stat up each house and its territory as a Province. But I'm not sure it would work with major houses vs. minor houses within the same territory (e.g. Starks vs. Boltons). What do you think?
Quote from: The Butcher;495860Isn't that a Palladium game?
Sorry, couldn't resist. :D
Uuuuuhm :o, Cadillacs & Dinosaurs is what I meant from the very beginning, I promise.
I was actually thinking that maybe I could use the RuneQuest Empires book, which I also have sitting unread on my shelves and model the houses with that. I do like the idea of a dynastic game and since I don't intend to follow GRR Martin's plotline, to give the game the same sense of uncertainty and shock as reading the books the first time does, then a strategic level meta-system is needed.
Quote from: The Butcher;495862I'd use the MRQII Empires system, and stat up each house and its territory as a Province. But I'm not sure it would work with major houses vs. minor houses within the same territory (e.g. Starks vs. Boltons). What do you think?
Not sure, as I'm not familiar with Empires system. Anyway, the differences in power between the major and minor houses are so crushing that I'm not sure you really need a ruleset to decide on the result, should one of these houses rebel without the support of another major player.
Quote from: The Butcher;495862But I'm not sure it would work with major houses vs. minor houses within the same territory (e.g. Starks vs. Boltons).
House Bolton is not a minor house at all. They are vassals of house Stark, sure, but they are a powerful house in spite of that. The books are full of major houses that are vassals of other houses, like Hightower, or Frey.
Quote from: The Butcher;495862I'd use the MRQII Empires system, and stat up each house and its territory as a Province.
Quote from: tzunder;495917I was actually thinking that maybe I could use the RuneQuest Empires book, which I also have sitting unread on my shelves and model the houses with that. I do like the idea of a dynastic game and since I don't intend to follow GRR Martin's plotline, to give the game the same sense of uncertainty and shock as reading the books the first time does, then a strategic level meta-system is needed.
I have MRQ2 Empires, but I haven't read it in depth (let alone used it), I found it a little too complex. Besides, it doesn't model noble houses
inside a kingdom, but different kingdoms/empires/whatever and their provinces.