System dealbreakers

[Arkandel]

There was a recent Reddit thread called "what is a rules system dealbreaker for you?" referring to table-top games.

What is a dealbreaker for you as it comes to systems used on MU*? Not code or staff or policies, but actual systems and mechanics.

What can you simply not tolerate, if something, and why?

[Apos]

I can roll with about anything, so I dunno if I would call them dealbreakers, but there's two cases that are popular and common that I find intensely annoying and would pretty much always avoid if I had the choice to do so- one example from low code mushes, one from high code RPI type games.

1. Absolutely no means to organically find rp and having to reach out and page people to arrange RP scenes. Look, I just want to jump in and RP. I don't wanna talk to someone and create a weird, pseudo friendly acquaintanceship with every single person that has relevance to a potential story. That's just weird, man. No wonder WoD games feel like a meat market. If the way to find RP on a game is to talk to strangers OOC first, it's not really my thing.

2. Simulation games that have coded features that create absurd, immersion breaking situations. Someone is playing Tywin Lannister, some grave, dignified badass. He is now walking around naked. Why is he walking around naked in the street? Because the player oocly forgot to put on coded clothes. Oh look, he starved to death, because he forgot to codedly eat. Meanwhile all the players are trying to roll with it IC and it is as dumb as a scene as anyone can possibly imagine. Of all the things I can do in RP, trying desperately to justify some unbelievably stupid code results is on the bottom of my list.

[Lithium]

For me it's RP rooms.

I loved the idea, I hate the implementation.

I miss grid RP, when grids meant something, and you could run into people in public.

I miss hangouts that were actively used.

I miss bumping into someone on the grid and bam, random RP.

As for systems systems... not really a fan of Aspirations. They are never used right it seems, and those who know how to game them can get infinite xp from them.

[Auspice]

Something with 10 million different "moves." I don't mean options. I mean like:

"Okay so you have 3 actions per turn and those actions are divided into sub-actions and you can choose from these charts. You can either MOVE (select from Chart A, B, or C), ATTACK (Chart D, E, F), USE MAGIC (Chart G, H, I), USE ITEM..."

Some systems take this to worse extremes than others, but it becomes this system of micromanaging that just sucks all the fun out of a game for me. Thankfully, they rarely if ever translate to MU*, but that never seems to stop people from trying.

[Aria]

I tend to dislike mechanics-heavy systems that aren't automatically coded in. The more nuanced rules and techniques and bonuses and shit that I have to remember to do a thing, the less likely I am to be interested in it. Especially if those mechanics are dedicated almost exclusively to 97,000 different things you can do in combat. Crazy nuanced rules for all the ways you can bend reality? Fine, sure. Whatever. Not a fan, but I will deal. Crazy nuanced rules for all the different styles/methods/techniques/boosters you can use to punch Bob in the face... please just fuck off.

[Arkandel]

What makes a table-top system not good to use for a MUSH?

[Rook]

@Arkandel
When the system is geared, written, and balanced entirely around the concept of a small tight-knit and very inter-supportive group of PCs. When that concept of an RPG is taken into a multiplayer arena of every-character-for-themselves, it fails horribly and dramatically.

[faraday]

@arkandel said in System dealbreakers:

What makes a table-top system not good to use for a MUSH?

What Rook said. Also, personally, I think that too much complexity is a bad fit for a MU. I adore Shadowrun tabletop. Even if it were fully coded, I would absolutely dread playing that system on a MU. And usually it isn't, requiring entirely too much effort on the part of players and GMs. I know people use it, but I think it doesn't work so great.

[Lisse24]

@apos said in System dealbreakers:

1. Absolutely no means to organically find rp and having to reach out and page people to arrange RP scenes. Look, I just want to jump in and RP. I don't wanna talk to someone and create a weird, pseudo friendly acquaintanceship with every single person that has relevance to a potential story. That's just weird, man. No wonder WoD games feel like a meat market. If the way to find RP on a game is to talk to strangers OOC first, it's not really my thing.

Quoting for emphasis. I am not going to page someone for RP unless I really, really want to RP with that person and have an objective to that RP (IE - introducing myself to the Prince, etc.). So games that don't allow for organic RP to form are going to lose me as a player, not because I think that's horrible and stomp off, but because I'm going to lose interest in any game where I'm not getting RP.

[SG]

@faraday said in System dealbreakers:

I adore Shadowrun tabletop. Even if it were fully coded, I would absolutely dread playing that system on a MU.

Mushing shadowruns is kind of painful, yes. I like Denver, but the system takes forever to work through. I mostly blame the initiative mechanic which can have people posing four times a round while other players are waiting an hour for their turn. I wonder if a simplified version like what they use in Dragonfall or Hong Kong would work well on a mush?

[Auspice]

@faraday said in System dealbreakers:

@arkandel said in System dealbreakers:

What makes a table-top system not good to use for a MUSH?

What Rook said. Also, personally, I think that too much complexity is a bad fit for a MU. I adore Shadowrun tabletop. Even if it were fully coded, I would absolutely dread playing that system on a MU. And usually it isn't, requiring entirely too much effort on the part of players and GMs. I know people use it, but I think it doesn't work so great.

Honestly, for as popular as nWoD is, sometimes it drives me insane as a MU*. I get so sick of having to reference websites/PDFs to remember all the different dice pools.

"Ok, for this power I have to roll This+That+Other+... and then I have this OTHER merit that adds..."

I will worship as a god the person that ever finds a way to streamline that shit.

[faraday]

@auspice said in System dealbreakers:

I will worship as a god the person that ever finds a way to streamline that shit.

Streamlining a system like that isn't hard, but streamlining means compromising, and pretty soon it's lost the "feel" of the original. You see that with generic systems all the time. They're simple, but they're also kinda bland.

[SG]

@auspice said in System dealbreakers:

Honestly, for as popular as nWoD is, sometimes it drives me insane as a MU*. I get so sick of having to reference websites/PDFs to remember all the different dice pools.

As a filthy casual, this has been a huge barrier to me getting into WoD. There's so many goddamned splat books.

[Auspice]

@sg said in System dealbreakers:

@auspice said in System dealbreakers:

Honestly, for as popular as nWoD is, sometimes it drives me insane as a MU*. I get so sick of having to reference websites/PDFs to remember all the different dice pools.

As a filthy casual, this has been a huge barrier to me getting into WoD. There's so many goddamned splat books.

And so many of them are not well-edited. Even 2.0. You'll find sections where it's like they forgot to finish writing or left out entire paragraphs.

I was pulling bloodline info from one book for someone the other night and he goes 'This sounds homebrew.'
'Nope. It's directly from the official book.'

There's so many, written by so many people, often poorly edited that it's just... a mess.

[bored]

Non-coded combat of any significant complexity is a really high bar for me, similar to @Aria / @faraday. Not because I dislike it (I play D&D weekly etc), but MU* is just garbage for it I just really can't bother with the 8 hour timestops / PrPs.

Which, for better or ill, hits most of WoD.

[ThatGuyThere]

@faraday said in System dealbreakers:

You see that with generic systems all the time. They're simple, but they're also kinda bland.

This is my biggest complaint with most generic systems, at best they do one genre well and the rest it just feels sort of bland when playing.
Though I will freely admit i am not one that shies away from learning new systems. So I tend to prefer a system designed to do the thing you are wanting to do well even if there is a learning process involved, to one that is already known but doesn't fit with what you are trying to do with it.

[Seraphim73]

Too random.

I like my bell curves when it comes to dice. Whether they're from multiple dice being rolled at once, or from a bell curve distribution of results... I don't want a 5% chance of a critical failure and a 5% chance of a critical success on every roll (most d100 systems have similar problems for me).

Yes, I'm saying this having played on several Saga Edition games. Yes, d20 drives me batty for most settings. Yes, I can handle it better in Tabletop. But when it comes to a character that I have poured months or years of time into, I want a little more assurance that they won't drop their sword 5% of the time.

[Sunny]

Any system that requires subjective interpretation on a consistent basis throughout it for a non-consent game.

Any mechanic that involves more than a single modifier to rolls.

Any mechanic so complex that most folks still have to have the books after a month of play because god we have to look up how it works every single damn time.

[Misadventure]

For streamlining, I am fairly sure that at least the basic pools for things could be auto coded in so +roll acting auto refers to its default attribute and the acting skill as the base pool. It would be a lot harder to have it be able to say tun on my +3 acting for an excellent director until I turn it off, but that could be done.

I come from the other direction, if something just hand waves many common and obvious factors, I think we are just telling stories, and if we are going to do that, then tell me so I can start ignoring what I thought our common agreements were as well. That's called being fair.

[Rook]

RE: Systems being too complex or too bland.

Pick one. Either you want the system to do the work for you via coded decisions being made on outcomes, or you trust each other to story-tell in a fair and exciting manner.

It's like the adage for many things: "Fast, Cheap or Good - Pick any two."