Like it says really.

Both games are massive, uber complete, both give you huge arrays of tools to run great games, both exhaustively address their subject matter.

Either book could keep you gaming for decades.

So, why is that not so common?  IMO it's just too much work and too much research and playtesting for most, but when it's done well it really does do something a bit special.

Koltar might make the point that Gurps and Hero (he'd miss Hero actually) do this too, he'd be right.

Solid games that have tested mechanics that deliver to spec, that don't demand railroading or focussing on a really narrow play experience (those are separate issues IMO and different games fall into each of those traps), games that deliver the old promise of rpgs.

What old promise?  Buy this book, get some friends, dice, paper and pencils, and you can have fun for years with nothing but that and your imagination.

And that's the last bit, too many games nowadays seem to try to remove the imagination, DnD 4e and storygames and some of the quasi-indie stuff like Gumshoe.  But great games realise that imagination is what roleplaying is all about, they don't try to fetter it, they give you the tools to realise your imagination and that of your friends in actual play.

You can deliver that promise without many rules too of course, many old games did just that, but the core is to remember what the promise of roleplaying is.

A rulebook, paper and pencils, dice, friends and your imagination and there are whole worlds out there for your entertainment.  Any game that doesn't deliver that misses the point of the hobby.  On my reckoning that means most games miss the point of the hobby, and on reflection I think most probably do.

Quote from: BalbinusAnd that's the last bit, too many games nowadays seem to try to remove the imagination, DnD 4e and storygames and some of the quasi-indie stuff like Gumshoe.

How so? What I know about 4e is broad strokes and vapor until it hits the shelves, and the rest I'm not that familiar with. I'd like to understand where this idea comes from.

I'm not entirely clear on your post myself, Balbinus, but I think I generally agree with the sentiment.  You want games that provide a complete toolbox of rules for a given genre, allowing the GM and players to build whatever they want, as opposed to pre-fab parts that fit into a specific configuration.  The concern with 4e, I suspect, is that it is built to create tight combat encounters with very specific subsets of choice that allow for interesting tactical combos but don't really do much in the way of worldbuilding.  On the story side, the rules give you narrow choices in terms of in-game behaviour rather than just an open-ended world to explore with stuff going on in it.  Is that anywhere near what you meant?

Not to presume, but I think Balb means the encounter encounter encounter chatter we've been hearing so far, and which sounds as though 4E will be centrally about, yep, the encounter, as opposed to providing the framework of a gameworld in which all sorts of shit is there for you to do besides. It's open to debate whether or not D&D, any edition, is the kind of "open" game Aces & Eights sounds like, but in any case the narrowing of its focus as an implicit or explicit goal makes it symptomatic of a lot of current design.

Why those other RPG models aren't out there any more? I dunno. It's partly to do with the fall of the non-D&D mid-tier company, because a game like that does take time and $$$ to develop. Kenzer makes $$$ from comics. So did Mark Smilie, with Artesia. The Spycraft people survive because there are just two(?) of them and their system plugs into the D&D player base. Gold Rush Games OTOH went under with Sengoku.

So, either you latch on to D&D (however loosely), or rely on loyal old customers (Gurps, Hero), or make your money through another source. But simply, y'know, publishing a great crunchy game with high rpoduction values and loads of subsystems is no longer a viable proposition. Sad.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityBut simply, y'know, publishing a great crunchy game with high rpoduction values and loads of subsystems is no longer a viable proposition. Sad.

I'm going to just sit here and really really hope you're wrong.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityNot to presume, but I think Balb means the encounter encounter encounter chatter we've been hearing so far, and which sounds as though 4E will be centrally about, yep, the encounter, as opposed to providing the framework of a gameworld in which all sorts of shit is there for you to do besides.

Well, sure, the rules will be about the encounter, and all the focus is currently on the rules, because they're going to be dramatically different. But rules buzz and setting buzz are two different things.

Or am I missing your point somehow?

The real economic problem is simple: if you give people a big chunky rulebook with plenty of cool subsystems that can handle pretty much any situation the genre in question could possibly call for, why would they buy any supplements after that?

Quote from: ghost ratWell, sure, the rules will be about the encounter, and all the focus is currently on the rules, because they're going to be dramatically different. But rules buzz and setting buzz are two different things.

Or am I missing your point somehow?

No, it's just two different readings of the tea leaves, and at this point nobody knows which one if any will be correct.

I am probably strange... I like Spycraft and I like Esoterrorists. And I like the changes announced in D&D 4e. :rolleyes:

Quote from: walkerpI'm not entirely clear on your post myself, Balbinus, but I think I generally agree with the sentiment.  You want games that provide a complete toolbox of rules for a given genre, allowing the GM and players to build whatever they want, as opposed to pre-fab parts that fit into a specific configuration.  The concern with 4e, I suspect, is that it is built to create tight combat encounters with very specific subsets of choice that allow for interesting tactical combos but don't really do much in the way of worldbuilding.  On the story side, the rules give you narrow choices in terms of in-game behaviour rather than just an open-ended world to explore with stuff going on in it.  Is that anywhere near what you meant?

That and Pierce's take sure.

Plus also the way DnD is trending is increasingly prejudged and prepackaged material.  Encounters are calculated by formula, fairness built into the system so that like in most computer games challenges level with the PCs, the game is increasingly built around making it more like a board game and less like a creative endeavour made at the table.

It's a matter of basic philosophy, with earlier editions the GM made a world, the PCs entered it and fared as they might.  Increasingly that's not the model, the players' choices matter less, the system is increasingly designed to forgive errors and bad decisions.

But all that takes away from meaningful choice, and all of it is about putting more of the responsibility for a good game on the system and away from the people at the table.

Same for Forge games, the Forge influence on DnD is not where Pundit thinks it is, the Forge influence is in the idea that the rules deliver the fun and the players (GM included) receive that fun.

It is a move from a creative model to a consumer model, a model where gamers are consumers of content rather than creators of their own content.

And as Warthur rightly says, that makes commercial sense.  A passive consumer base buys product, a hobby that makes its own fun not so much.

I'm working out the point myself, which is why I'm not as coherent as I'd like, but essentially I think as our hobby matures there's a push to take the people at the table and make them recipients of the experience, not creators of it, not owners of it.  The designer as king, the ruleset as the thing responsible for the enjoyment.  System mattering.

It's wrong, it's alien to the very thing that attracts me to the hobby.  System does not matter, the rules are not responsible for enjoyment, the designer is dead when the book hits the shops.

Sure, a fucked up system will get in the way of fun, just like a bad play space or lousy food, system matters a bit.  But reiifying it displaces the heart of the hobby, it puts a designer and the rules above the folk actually playing, and that is a mistake.

I don't want to be a consumer of the hobby, I want (and intend) to remain what I always was and what this hobby always was, a co-creator.

That's why DnD 4e as described so far doesn't work for me, that's why story games don't work for me, that's why much current design doesn't work for me.  The joy of gaming is in large part the creation of our own epics (or mini-epics or whatever), the joy of gaming is not the consumption of other people's idea of fun.

Gaming is participatory or it is nothing.  The consumer model is alien to what makes the hobby worthwhile.  Hopefully 4e won't go that way, but if it does I think it will not be a good development because it will be a huge force taking power away from the table and into the hands of designers.

This is a very interesting post.  I need to digest it more, but it really speaks to my current gaming predilections, which I've been trying to get a handle on.  Maybe that's why (partly to my surprise) Aces & Eights appealed to me so much.

Quote from: BalbinusLike it says really.

Both games are massive, uber complete, both give you huge arrays of tools to run great games, both exhaustively address their subject matter.

Either book could keep you gaming for decades.

So, why is that not so common?  IMO it's just too much work and too much research and playtesting for most, but when it's done well it really does do something a bit special.

Koltar might make the point that Gurps and Hero (he'd miss Hero actually) do this too, he'd be right.

Solid games that have tested mechanics that deliver to spec, that don't demand railroading or focussing on a really narrow play experience (those are separate issues IMO and different games fall into each of those traps), games that deliver the old promise of rpgs.

What old promise?  Buy this book, get some friends, dice, paper and pencils, and you can have fun for years with nothing but that and your imagination.

And that's the last bit, too many games nowadays seem to try to remove the imagination, DnD 4e and storygames and some of the quasi-indie stuff like Gumshoe.  But great games realise that imagination is what roleplaying is all about, they don't try to fetter it, they give you the tools to realise your imagination and that of your friends in actual play.

You can deliver that promise without many rules too of course, many old games did just that, but the core is to remember what the promise of roleplaying is.

A rulebook, paper and pencils, dice, friends and your imagination and there are whole worlds out there for your entertainment.  Any game that doesn't deliver that misses the point of the hobby.  On my reckoning that means most games miss the point of the hobby, and on reflection I think most probably do.

Are you talking about just super-detailed games or any game that is in itself complete. Regardless, it sounds like Artesia would match your criteria. I was very impressed by how complete and consistent it was (didn't like the rules much, though).

I've played Everway for years with the core book only.

I think I get what you mean, though. And the answer to your query is pretty simple: supplements sell and there seems to be a willingness for many gamers to play in commercial settings.

I don't know if there is a point to this hobby. And seeing how game lines with a vast supplement line seem to be popular, I'd venture that many gamers and writers do not share your ideal on what that point should be.

Personally, I don't buy supplements, except GURPS stuff and a few others. So I like complete or at least open games. I get a lot of mileage out of small books like CORPS, Everway and Story Engine.

What I look for are games that inspire my imagination to deliver a fun experience with my friends.  Sometimes thats art, sometimes it's genre, sometimes it's rules, etc...

Quote from: Balbinus.................
Koltar might make the point that Gurps and Hero (he'd miss Hero actually) do this too, he'd be right.
........................

No I wouldn't .
{{{:-) (Miss Hero that is....)

I see HERO every day - at the store . We have at least 20 some odd books for it, including "FRED"( HERO 5th Edition revised)

Hell, I played in a HERO game or two back in the '80s when it was known as CHAMPIONS.  (shit I'm old. )


 I usually mention HERO and GURPS in the sentence when customers are looking for an alternative to D20 for their main game system. Also, I sometimes include SAVAGE WORLDS as part of that trifecta of really good universal/generic games.

 Only problem with HERO ?
God that book is a huge brick!! Its a fucking doorstop of a book. At least with GURPS 4/e  SJG broke it up into two books - easier to handle that  way . (Other 'doorstop' books: Ptolus, World's largest Dungeon, Largest City...)


- Ed C.

The way Balbinus likes to play takes a lot of work. Of course, it's proportionately more rewarding, but still . . . a lot of work.
Most people don't like to put that kind of work into a game--designing or playing.

I respect the hell out of the work required to design an awesome game and the work required to play it to the nth degree.