Selecting a system to play

HelloRaptor

I always used to say I don't give a damn what the mechanics are if it's a theme I want to play. And then FATE came along and made a liar out of me.

Yeah, FATE'll ruin just about anything.

@Glitch

If others don't share their vision, the game will fade or die, but always deciding to go with what you think will be popular is worse than going with what makes you happy.

I'm with @Arkandel: These things are not mutually exclusive. Plenty of people looking to open games do so because the idea of creating something people will come play and enjoy makes them happy, and there's a certain threshold of what counts as a success in that regard even if it's a nebulous one. Three people logging into a Roman-era MLP Alt-History FATE MUSH is probably not what they're interested in putting their effort into, so 'will people want to play this' does become a consideration.

Sure, if all you REALLY want is magical ponies playing senate and nothing else matters to you, more power to you. Make your game. Play with your three people. But not everybody is so laser focused, nor do they need to be.

People should make what they'll have fun with, and what will make them happy, but acting like 'will it be popular' can't or shouldn't be a consideration for either of those things is pretty silly.

Glitch

@Arkandel said:

Again, you (the generic 'you') are free to do what you wish with yours. I'd never discourage someone from running their own thing, there's nothing wrong with that.

You did say do what you want, but that was a throw-away at the end of a long argument expressing exactly why they shouldn't.

I am saying there's no such thing as 'should'.

Do you prefer can?

What does that even mean?

Do you have trouble with is too?

If anything people should try to have fun.

Look, you found a meaning astonishingly close to my meaning in the very next sentence.

I am asserting - and there's no way for me to prove it other than empirical evidence so I can only push the idea that far, but I find it far from hard to defend otherwise - the majority of players don't care about the mechanics they're using, they care about the game's themes, roleplay being available, their friends being around.

If people don't care about mechanics, but instead care about having fun, enjoying a good theme and finding roleplay with new people and friends, a new system won't be much of a hurdle. It'll be more of a hurdle for some, but that's hardly a reason not to do it.

It's alright to value different things. I place great value in being able to play with more than the same 2-3 people I have been all week because no one else is logging on. I find no inspiration in that.

See, this is the worst part of your argument. You say people can do what they want, but you spend a lot more words saying how they shouldn't (or asserting something so you can imply it without having to use the word should). Or, like this comment, say it's all right to value different things and then immediately offer a backhanded reference to what you "greatly value" that, shock of shockers, implies otherwise.

@Ganymede
I did make the caveat that if you like the system or had readily available code to go for it. That's for the person starting their game to prioritize, like your own prioritization of your homebrew. What I'm arguing against is the suggestion that popularity should be the primary consideration of a system.

HelloRaptor

@Glitch

What I'm arguing against is the suggestion that popularity should be the primary consideration of a system.

Did anybody say it should be the primary consideration? I don't think @Arkandel did.

But it's entirely okay for it to be a primary consideration, alongside other shit like 'do I enjoy this' and whatever else somebody wants to consider a primary concern.

EmmahSue

You're ALL the prettiest.

That is to say, you read like you're all in VIOLENT AGREEMENT.

ES

Thenomain

@Tempest said:

@Thenomain If you have 7th sea code, why isn't there a game of it around?????? I don't even know it, but I believe it's the same system as L5R? Which I have a little experience with.

No idea. Ask The People.

Arkandel

@Glitch said:

@Arkandel said:

Again, you (the generic 'you') are free to do what you wish with yours. I'd never discourage someone from running their own thing, there's nothing wrong with that.

You did say do what you want, but that was a throw-away at the end of a long argument expressing exactly why they shouldn't.

No, but I did present an alternative to my long argument, advising that perhaps a niche game better fits a Skype campaign (or the like) instead of a fully-fledged coded MU*. Approximately the same effect for a fraction of the investment.

What does that even mean?

Do you have trouble with is too?

I don't think sarcasm is warranted here. Asking you to define what 'should' means in the context you presented is a legitimate question; does it mean for example most players ought to give new mechanics a chance? That they should care more about the system and enjoy it as part of the games they're playing? That you think people already favor such systems more than I believe that they do? Were you, in other words, claiming people's behavior towards mechanics needed adjustment?

If anything people should try to have fun.

Look, you found a meaning astonishingly close to my meaning in the very next sentence.

Again, misplaced sarcasm.

If people don't care about mechanics, but instead care about having fun, enjoying a good theme and finding roleplay with new people and friends, a new system won't be much of a hurdle. It'll be more of a hurdle for some, but that's hardly a reason not to do it.

Existent systems is already a hurdle for many players. We're going back to empirical evidence here, but many folks I've spoken to didn't even want to delve deeper into mechanics they're already a bit familiar with and have been using - in some cases - for years, let alone care to try on fresh, radically different ones for size.

In fact my impression of what's popular is many people only care for the part of the mechanics which describes their characters' abilities (can I turn invisible? turn into different creatures?). Obviously I could be wrong, and there's no way to prove it anyway.

It's alright to value different things. I place great value in being able to play with more than the same 2-3 people I have been all week because no one else is logging on. I find no inspiration in that.

See, this is the worst part of your argument. You say people can do what they want, but you spend a lot more words saying how they shouldn't (or asserting something so you can imply it without having to use the word should). Or, like this comment, say it's all right to value different things and then immediately offer a backhanded reference to what you "greatly value" that, shock of shockers, implies otherwise.

Those are my priorities. There are folks who wouldn't care if they only interact with a relatively small group on a consistent basis, or build a MUSH with a limited time horizon (say, running metaplot with a strictly defined end-point and shutting the game down when the story is told). I would have little interest in that, which is exactly what I said.

Misadventure

If only WoD wasn't so lame.

It's always had things to BE and things to DO and things to THINK about.

It's always had powers and fiction to emulate.

It's always had sorta new for the time ideas on focusing players on character, story, creativity, whatever.

It's core mechanics have always bit. For all the numbers and tracking, it makes little sense and they seem to keep heading away from numbers doling anything important. And that is why I look to any other system.

EG adapt 7Th sea to World of Darkness setting. They are extremely close you could probably just change the dice rolling over, add in a little for their Fortune system, and done.

Derp

They do something important if you think of it in terms of increasing your odds of achieving your goal, rather than some measure of how greatly you achieve it. More successes = better success was not really how it was intended to be, short of Exceptional Success. It's just 'hey, you did the thing'. A higher rating means that you have a greater chance of succeeding.

HelloRaptor

@Derp

More successes = better success was not really how it was intended to be

Which is kind of counter-intuitive given things like the combat system, where 4 successes is absolutely you 'doing better' than 1 success is, or contested rolls where the lady with 7 successes pretty objectively 'did better' than the guy with 5, etc.

Also the shit where you only get an exceptional success on an extended roll if the very last roll you make is Exceptional is just arbitrarily dumb. That's not really related to the rest, just something that always annoys me.

Misadventure

I know what its supposed to do, but thank you for putting the info out there. I'm saying that mechanically, as in the system, I feel it doesn't make good use use the amount of information it generates and requires to be tracked. It has a ton of dice, and in the end, they are concerned with fail badly (by choice only), fail, succeed, succeed very well. There is more detail when doing damage, and you can argue every success matters in anything where you are accumulating successes. I've seen systems handle this level of breakdown easier, simpler. My concerns may not be yours.

Note it may be attractive to have a lot of "system" or "equipment" or "spells" or "feats". It is possible that functional or not, they function as something to fiddle with, which may keep many players happy.

Coin

@HelloRaptor said:

@Derp

More successes = better success was not really how it was intended to be

Which is kind of counter-intuitive given things like the combat system, where 4 successes is absolutely you 'doing better' than 1 success is, or contested rolls where the lady with 7 successes pretty objectively 'did better' than the guy with 5, etc.

Also the shit where you only get an exceptional success on an extended roll if the very last roll you make is Exceptional is just arbitrarily dumb. That's not really related to the rest, just something that always annoys me.

They fixed a lot of this in 2e by acknowledging the difference between Contested and Resisted Rolls (basically every roll is Resisted, where resistance is dictated by a stat of the target's or the difficulty set by the storyteller) unless they are Contested (where all parties are exerting effort). This isn't exact, obviously.

It's really not fair to take the combat system into account in this regard, IMO, since in general combat systems tend to stand apart and obey different rules (or are subject to sub-systems of rules) within most roleplaying game systems.

Also, thankfully, in 2e, they completely revamped the way extended rolls work with regards to Exceptional Successes; it's actually really cool now, IMO.

Derp

As a complete aside from WoD: I do really enjoy Rifts. But it's a very complex system. Even moreso than DnD and WoD. So if you're looking for less system, that is not the way to go, but if you want something that can handle just about anything you can think of from multiple different realities all rolled into one game? Rifts is a great way to go.

HelloRaptor

@Coin

It's really not fair to take the combat system into account in this regard, IMO, since in general combat systems tend to stand apart and obey different rules (or are subject to sub-systems of rules) within most roleplaying game systems.

There's no need to be fair, really. I wasn't actually trying to make a point about those systems, just noting that it's understandable folks tend to think 'more succs = better' because of them.

Ganymede

@Coin

I always felt that an exceptional success against a target should render it incapacitated, suppresses, or whatever. Marginal successes may result in damage that ultimately lead to incapacitation, but the exceptional success wins out.

And so, I built this into my homebrew system.

Coin

@Ganymede said:

@Coin

I always felt that an exceptional success against a target should render it incapacitated, suppresses, or whatever. Marginal successes may result in damage that ultimately lead to incapacitation, but the exceptional success wins out.

And so, I built this into my homebrew system.

IIRC, if you hit someone for a number of successes above their Size (typically 5) you Stun them. The problem with this is that 5 Damage is a a lot of damage, so adding something else on top of it can often be overkill considering how many dice people can easily accrue.

Saulot

I would love to do a MUSH for Eclipse Phase, but I'd be lying if I didn't admit popularity (or the lack thereof) kills any want I have to do so. That and it would probably be a hot mess to code (says the non-coder). That said, I do prefer WoD to other systems, and the few times I've done homebrew games I always use the Storyteller System since the most I have to do is make a tweak or two with Skills.

Arkandel

If we're going into pet peeves about the WoD, mine has to do with how far better attack dice scale (and continue to scale in 2.0) compared to defense.

That makes combat pretty brutal and bursty, which while it may be an appealing factor in some regards - if we aim for 'realism' for instance, since a normal person being shot in the belly would at least incapacitate if not kill them instantly - but in both PrPs and (worse) PvP it tends to be anticlimatic for my tastes. That's for two reasons:

It places way too much emphasis on who wins initiative.
It often makes opponents who're created challenge combat characters one-shot everyone else, and ones who're created to challenge non-combat characters get stomped into the dirt by the former.

I prefer a more normalized difficulty curve through encounters.

Thenomain

@Saulot,

Yes, Eclipse Phase would be hell to code for. Just the monetary system alone requires, what, 8 different kinds of currency? Yeah.

Ganymede

@Coin said:

IIRC, if you hit someone for a number of successes above their Size (typically 5) you Stun them. The problem with this is that 5 Damage is a a lot of damage, so adding something else on top of it can often be overkill considering how many dice people can easily accrue.

The attack has to do at least as much damage as the target's Size. If so, then the target loses their next action, and has 1/2 of their Defense for the next. Armor applies, so it is pretty hard to stun someone.

What I'm aiming to do with my system is to use Conditions rather than damage, but I digress.

Coin

@Ganymede said:

@Coin said:

IIRC, if you hit someone for a number of successes above their Size (typically 5) you Stun them. The problem with this is that 5 Damage is a a lot of damage, so adding something else on top of it can often be overkill considering how many dice people can easily accrue.

The attack has to do at least as much damage as the target's Size. If so, then the target loses their next action, and has 1/2 of their Defense for the next. Armor applies, so it is pretty hard to stun someone.

What I'm aiming to do with my system is to use Conditions rather than damage, but I digress.

Tilts (which, yes, are a sub-type of Conditions) are what you seem to want. I would still keep Damage as a thing. It's integral. But there is a Stunned Tilt, yes.

I would probably do it the other way around and allow any attack that exceeds the target's Size or Composure (whichever is higher, so generally Size but not always) applies the Stunned Tilt. Regardless of actual damage; it would be a good way of making Armor slightly less effective without actually taking away from its protection.

It could also represent being hit really hard without being damaged, which happens all the time. I got punched twice in the brow two weeks ago during sparring and I totally reeled for a few seconds--long enough to qualify as a turn and I was lucky it wasn't a real fight or I would have been pretty open--but I didn't actually get damaged, much less exceptionally so. Traditional boxing gloves are also designed to mitigate damage but make it more disconcerting to be punched in the face with them, that's an effect of the padding.

There's also the Beaten Down rule, where if you're a mortal and take more Bashing damage than your Stamina (or any Lethal damage at all) you are Beaten Down and can't really function offensively without spend Willpower (discussions of whether this rule is optional or not are superfluous, it exists as a possibility you might want to consider).