Quote from: Larsdangly;794433This hobby would be so much better if it just stuck with the three or four rules sets that cover the major bases

Good luck with that!

Quote from: Larsdangly;794433Who gives a flying fuck whether you roll d100 or have skills or parry or have a healing die or don't or whatever?

I do.

Quote from: Brad;794452Good luck with that!

Good point! The lesson here is that we don't have to invent the three or four that would get it all done. That job was pretty much completed in the age of disco.

Quote from: Bren;794454I do.

I understand you folks are out there. I'm just making sure you get some sort of external clues in your environment that you are wrong.

Quote from: Larsdangly;794447Re-naming 'Charisma' or putting stats on a d100 scale or inventing the 500,000th mechanic for resolving to-hit rolls or calling abilities skills or skills abilities are not changing a paradigm.

I never said all rule systems were paradigm shifts, but the creation of D&D was.

Just because you think different sets of rules are pointless because it's been "done before" doesn't really change the fact that people are interested in new things, and your own tastes don't necessary reflect the tastes of others.

For instance, Monte Cook just released a new rules set for Numenera and used it for the Strange, and as far as I can see it's been a big hit.  But if he listened to you, it would be another D&D clone.  I don't by the argument that a new rules system "confuses" players.

You could make a pretty kickass Tekumel rpg using the system from Atlantis 2nd Age. The lifepath system in that game would suit Tekumel perfectly for character creation, and it's ridiculously easy to run.

That Bethorm PDF looks ridiculously amateurish; I got a bunch of V&V books from Jeff Dee that use the same style and it grates on my nerves. Seriously can't they get someone with a fucking clue about how to do proper layout?

Quote from: Larsdangly;794456I understand you folks are out there. I'm just making sure you get some sort of external clues in your environment that you are wrong.

Well of course because all the evidence in your head points to virtually no one liking anything other than the 3 or 4 systems that you like. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Larsdangly;794433This hobby would be so much better if it just stuck with the three or four rules sets that cover the major bases (e.g., something like D&D; something like traveller; something like GURPs), patch whatever pointless flaws you see with your own house rules, and focus our energy on publishing kick-ass settings.

The hobby does have a standard, D&D and its close variants make up anywhere between 50% to 75% of the activity in the hobby. Right now it is split between Pathfinder, 3.5e, 4e, and 5e with the OSR (classic editions) probably equal to about 1/5th of the smallest one of the preceding four. In future 4e will likely fade and 5e will grow and duke it out with Pathfinder. But neither Fate, FFG Star War, or FFQ Warhammer 4K,  or another other alternative RPG is going to exceed any of the major D&D variants.

This is a hobby about making up shit you think will be fun.

Jeff Dee made up some shit he thought would be fun.  All else is nonsense.

And Tekumel is a fringe subgroup in a fringe hobby; except for the top three or for companies, there is no fucking money in gaming.  And whether Tekumel is "OSR" or not is utterly irrelevant to the 500 or so hard core Tekumel faithful.  There is a core group who will buy virtually anything with Tekumel on the cover, and beyond that group, sales are trivial.

Let's try not to get fooled by our own press releases, shall we?

I'd love to see a reprint or reissue of Book of Ebon Bindings, regardless of system.

I used to own a paperback of The Man of Gold way back when. Hrm. Vanished after many moves...

Quote from: Will;794482I'd love to see a reprint or reissue of Book of Ebon Bindings, regardless of system.

I used to own a paperback of The Man of Gold way back when. Hrm. Vanished after many moves...

Mine dissapeared after one move. I suspect a dark conspiracy is involved.

I somehow ended up with two copies of Man of Gold. I blame you two.

Quote from: Larsdangly;794433This is just another example of the way in which this hobby steps on its own dick over and over and over again.

For a moment there, I hoped you were trolling. There's not a sentence in this post that isn't wrong. Seriously.

Quote from: Larsdangly;794433When will some critical mass of people realize that the seething horde of rules sets do nothing but slow and confuse play and divide players.

Speak for yourself. If you can't handle multiple systems, stick to the ones you can manage. No need to curtail variety in the hobby because you can't handle more than three different rulesets.

Quote from: Larsdangly;794433And they are almost all based on distinctions without a difference. Who gives a flying fuck whether you roll d100 or have skills or parry or have a healing die or don't or whatever? These are effectively arbitrary, fiddly house rules.

Looking at combat system and injury alone, OD&D's abstract hit-point-based combat plays fairly different from RQ's grisly hit location tables, or Savage Worlds' fast-moving but blow-by-blow fights and death spiral Wounds.

These make for different games. SW is very "cinematic" in that a single hero, even at starting level, can take down hordes of mooks even as a starting character. OD&D is deadly at low levels and borderline superheroic at high levels.  RQ is always brutal and you can smell death in the air even when it's your veteran knight in full plate vs. a midget with an icepick.

I can only attribute the sentence you've blurted out to sheer inexperience with other systems.

Quote from: Larsdangly;794433And the things that do influence how a setting works — e.g., access to magic, power level, religion, politics, etc. — are not rules issues!

Now where is LordVreeg when you need him? Well, someone has to pick up the slack.

Access to magic. In D&D, you get to work magic if you pick a magic-using class, and rules are given for those. So in D&D worlds, the ability to cast spells is something you pick up early in life and master as you accrue experience.

In Runequest you learn magic from cults -- you may not have a single spell to your name until you join a certain cult and learn a bit of magic -- and again, rules are given for joining those.

In Mage: the Ascension you learn magic when you Awaken (any time in life, and usually befoire the game actually starts) and your Tradition (wizardly faction) has a favorite Sphere (signature magical discipline), and you use XP to increase Arete (general spellcasting competency) and Sphere ratings, though you can also learn magic from Libraries -- and guess what, rules are given for all of those.

In all three instances, extensively different rulesets reflect different takes on how magic works in each of these fictional worlds, refelcting extensively different metaphysics. I don't think this should be hard to grasp, even for you.

Power level. I don't even know where to start here. Superhero RPGs offer rulesets for building characters that can fly, deadlift a battleship and shoot lasers out of his eyes right off the bat. DCC, WFRP, OD&D don't. Was that for real? I mean, the whole "power level is not a rules thing"?

Religion. Are the Gods an aloof bunch that works in mysterious ways? Or do I want to see my PCs sacrificing to the gods in the eve of a major battle, or storming the gates of Heaven itself in search of some artifact? Rules for divine intervention and planar travel could be put to good use at my table.

Politics. Depending on the complexity of the politics you want in your games, you absolutely need rules for certain things. I don't think I'd enjoy an RPG campaign patterned after ASoIaF as much if players didn't get to field armies and storm my enemies' castles. So I'd want rules for that. I'd also enjoy seeing players struggle to hold on to them as winter approaches and the granaries are depleted from the war effort, so I'd make good use of systems for agriculture and population morale. You might not want rules for this -- not even abstract and easily managed rules like Reign or An Echo, Resounding -- but handwaving a decision often robs PCs of the ability to interfere where they can -- or robs you of the ability to ascertain to which degree they can interfere.
 

Quote from: Larsdangly;794433They are setting issues

"Make sure the ruleset you are using matches the setting and game you want to play, because the setting and game WILL eventually match the system."

"The amount of rules given to a certain dimension of an RPG partially dictate what kind of game the rules will create. If 80% of the rulebook is written about thieves and the underworld, the game that is meant for is thieving. If 80% of the mechanics are based on combat, the game will revolve around combat."

I'm not quoting the source until he deigns to make an appearance here.

Quote from: Larsdangly;794433that were always intended to be settled by the DM

...who has every right to want a rules engine to help him objectively consider all the factors involved, rather than be told to "wing it" (or God help him, "choose what is a Dramatically Appropriate Climax to your Story, for you are an Auteur and can Do No Wrong") by some doofus on the Internet.

Quote from: Larsdangly;794433or (for purchased settings) author.

The author can go fuck himself with a spoon as soon as cash changes hands. I'll take it from here, Mr. Greenwood, thank you very much. Hell, this one even made it into the 5e PHB, in case people needed official confirmation from a WotC product that they don't need official confirmation from a WotC product.

Quote from: Larsdangly;794433This hobby would be so much better if it just stuck with the three or four rules sets that cover the major bases (e.g., something like D&D; something like traveller; something like GURPs), patch whatever pointless flaws you see with your own house rules, and focus our energy on publishing kick-ass settings.

No hobby would be better with less variety.

On the other hand, every hobby on Earth would be a lot better without the self-appointed, all-knowing, stick-up-their-asses gatekeepers, clamoring for objective standards in elf-pretend, often of the sort that eludes even science and engineering.

There is absolutely no "objective" reason not to have hundreds of competing systems out there. It's a hobby. People write stuff just for the hell of it, and you get to choose whether to use it, or not. No need to put down anyone for, y'know, taking part in the hobby.

If you don't like System X, write a scathing review and I might even read it. But calling for the cessation of RPG rules design? Bullshit.

Quote from: The Butcher;794509Sheer, unadulterated awesome.

Bravo!


Really, with such a detailed setting like Tekumel, with so much content that is completely system neutral, I would expect expression in multiple systems.  My goto would be RQ6 for it, or some version of D&D.

Quote from: Larsdangly;794433This is just another example of the way in which this hobby steps on its own dick over and over and over again. When will some critical mass of people realize that the seething horde of rules sets do nothing but slow and confuse play and divide players. And they are almost all based on distinctions without a difference. Who gives a flying fuck whether you roll d100 or have skills or parry or have a healing die or don't or whatever? These are effectively arbitrary, fiddly house rules. And the things that do influence how a setting works — e.g., access to magic, power level, religion, politics, etc. — are not rules issues! They are setting issues that were always intended to be settled by the DM or (for purchased settings) author. This hobby would be so much better if it just stuck with the three or four rules sets that cover the major bases (e.g., something like D&D; something like traveller; something like GURPs), patch whatever pointless flaws you see with your own house rules, and focus our energy on publishing kick-ass settings.

Quote from: JRT;794435Why?  Saying that people are too lazy to read, try, or use new rules is kind of dumb.  The one thing I would hate is a move to universal rules systems, and I think making D&D a universal rule set is sort of thinking backwards.  If it wasn't for people thinking against the grain and trying something new, we wouldn't have GUI's in our game systems, we wouldn't have had new innovative computer games--and we wouldn't have even had the RPG if Gary and Dave didn't decide to change the paradigm.

He certainly isn't saying that people are to lazy to read.... And he's not even saying that new or different rules are wrong, or that rules systems should be universal. He'saskiing whether you really need to publish a "new game" that is really just some other game with different healing rules and a different way to roll dice. It could totally be done as plugins, as in fact it was done in The Dragon and various RPG zines back in the day.

I've had plans for doing my own retroclone for a while, which has drifted in focus away from emphasizing specific mechanics and towards the general structure of how the game is played. It really shouldn't matter if you are rolling 1d20 or 3d6 or d100 over a target number, or under an ability score, or rolling for broad abilities or specific skills, or using a unified mechanic or mixing it up based on what seems best. It's all a matter of taste.