I've gone a little poll crazy today...


Here I'm interested in what type of game system mechanics you favor.

Please note that it can be very different from your overall campaign style. I for example favor very maneuver focused tactical game mechanics- but the overall campaign style can be very different from that at times.

And as always pick the closest


______________________
For a better breakdown of the above choices:

Resource Management: victory through skilled used of limited resources, An example is old school D&D style play with limited spell selection/casting, Hit Point management, use of expendable items like wands and potions, etc.

Tactical Maneuver: Victory comes from the characters at the right place on the battle map at the right time. Facing, multiple opponents, battle terrain all have important impact.

Dissimilar Assets: victory comes from using a mix of characters with very specialized abilities in proper ways.

Combat- Balance: An attempt to include all three of the above.

Gaming: The system should be fun to play as a mini-game. Common in some Forge designs- uses tokens, bidding, card games, etc.

Story First: The mechanics work to create interesting stories, and/or direct them to specific ends.

Role-playing First:  It’s all about role-playing, and that can be done no matter the system, I can use them all

The best rules are the least rules: Rules get in the way

Genre First: The most important things in the rules is that it reflects core assumptions of the original source genre up front and in a way that can't be ignored.

This is almost impossible for me to tie down. It might change from month to month. As such, i take the wimps way out and abstain.

Quote from: One Horse Town;250866This is almost impossible for me to tie down. It might change from month to month. As such, i take the wimps way out and abstain.

Oh, I wish I had thought of that option- Always Changing...

Sigh. And still the 10 option limit is a killer.

Please put it in Unlisted. I'd like to use that group to note the % failure of the poll...

gleichman: That's indeed crazy poll... I as crazy player would liko fill more than one option, because sometimes in some games I am very "story first" and othertime if eel like "the best rules are least rules". Anyway I will probalby fit a bit more into "the best rules are least rules" option, but it's in my case only a tiny bit.

Quote from: Fritzs;250869gleichman: That's indeed crazy poll... I as crazy player would liko fill more than one option, because sometimes in some games I am very "story first" and othertime if eel like "the best rules are least rules". Anyway I will probalby fit a bit more into "the best rules are least rules" option, but it's in my case only a tiny bit.

Even if it's by a little bit, I'd say that's good enough.

I considered the idea that cross-overs would be a bugbear, and I had some problems myself between Combat- Balanced and Maneuver going in the end with the one I place the most importance on (and find the least in modern rpg design).

In the end I wanted to know where people came down if they had to (and could) make a choice.

I might rerun the poll with the ability to select multiples, and maybe with names turned on so people with like tastes can email each other. No really certain, but I've been considering it.

If it's any consolation, my own personal view is that if you want a winning RPG game design formula, you're better off aiming for the Combat - Balenced option.

I voted unlisted because my chosen style is fun first, all else second including story if it suits our moods that evening.

Examples of different games I run:

CoC - Modern day, heavy investigation, highly lethal.  Very RP focused.  I have lots of pages of notes when I plan CoC.

Unknown Armies - Total anarchy and weirdness here the players can cut loose and do crazy stuff without quite the lethality of CoC.  They have fun trying to throw me for a loop, and I have a blast rolling with their punches.  There's always a story happening to tie it all together but I use one page outlines for planning games.

AFMBE - Zombie slaughter action horror, heavy focus on survival, resource management and combat.

Dark Heresy - Investigation and combat in equal parts.  CoC meets AFMBE.

WFRP - Down and dirty fantasy, combat and RP focus.  Our first WFRP game started out as a typical adventuring party type setup but by the end of it the players had become leg breakers for the Tilean mob and the tone had become completely different.

"The best rules are the least rules" with an honourable mention to "Combat focused- especially on Tactical Maneuver". With everyone being reasonable about maintaining SIS consistency and a proactive but non-railroady GM, we rarely need anything more than a simple one-roll task resolution mechanic, but I do appreciate punctuating the roleplay with an occasional combat minigame.

I'm not sure what "Roleplaying First" means. However, if it means what I thought Best/Least meant and "Best/Least" means "everybody go fuckin' hog wild and bullshit about magical invisible pink sporks and +9001 Hats of Zombie Jesus Tentacle Rape", then I'd like to change my vote to RP-First with only an occasional dip into the other bag of tricks.

Quote from: Vaecrius;250900I'm not sure what "Roleplaying First" means. However, if it means what I thought Best/Least meant and "Best/Least" means "everybody go fuckin' hog wild and bullshit about magical invisible pink sporks and +9001 Hats of Zombie Jesus Tentacle Rape", then I'd like to change my vote to RP-First with only an occasional dip into the other bag of tricks.

I didn't intend Best/Least to mean that.

I put that group down assuming that such a campaign would be contrained not by mechanics but by the players- so it shouldn't become that wild unless that's what the players want. And that's a question somewhat different than the purely mechanical focused one I put forth.

That's pretty much what we do then. ::votes::

I'm a huge fan of Amber and Shadowrun. What does that say about my gaming style, in your opinion?


EDIT: By the way, I voted Genre First.

I went unlisted. I was very tempted to put combat focused (balanced) because I like both resource management and dissimilar assets realized. But I like so much more than combat focused, but really don't care if the game creates a good story (many games that would make suck arse story that would make great games) or roleplaying first.

I guess I'm about trying to create an exhilirating and empowering experience for the players. I like facing them with conflicts that makes them feel threatened on their characters behalf, but lets them deal with problems in ways they find cool... whether that means being sneaky, kick-ass, deceitful, diplomatic, magical, investigative, etc.

I guess I probably should have put combat focused, but I'd define combat more loosely as "conflict focused". There are enemies to defeat and you'll deploy your cool abilities and player cleverness to defeat them, but you might not ever engage them in combat at all.

I went unlisted too, since I like lots of different games.

I selected tactical combat first, since that seems to be the ultimate test of gaming systems for me.

I like to be able to imagine the action as a real event unfolding, and to be able to react to it organically and imaginatively.  So my preference is for a rules system that has mechanics that allow for the simple execution of complex stunts.

For example, this Saturday I played in a Pathfinder Society scenario -- The Hydra Fang Incident.  We were investigating a business down by the docks, and while the bulk of the party went in through the front door, I walked around to the back to peek through a window.  I ended up smashing a window out because they were too grimey to see through.  That provoked a scream from inside the building, and I saw a girl .  My comrades rushed in, and were ambushed by two crossbow wielding rogues hiding in the corners of the room.  I could see one of the artilerists was standing by a window, so I hustled over there and swung at him through a window I couldn't see through.

Once the glass was cleared, I reached through the window, grabbed the crossbowman, and drug him out the window.  I let go of him and took a swing at him with my fist but his jacket absorbed the body blow.  He swung back at me, but being the more experienced brawler I went under his guard and cold-cocked him, so he went down.

Now, 3.5 D&D handled all of that very well.  The map and miniatures made it clear that I had line of sight and saw the crossbowman attacking my friend.  Smashing at him through the window gave him cover and total concealment so there was no guesswork in the modifications to the attack roll.  The grapple rules allow the grappling character to move the grappled character five feet with a successful grapple check, so it was easy to figure out mechanically whether I was successful in pulling him through the window.  And the Improved Unarmed Strike feat effectively models the differences between an untrained brawler and trained brawler, which allowed me to make an attack of opportunity and knock him out when he tried to return my punch.  Finally, the nonlethal damage rules means I only cold-cocked him, and could thus interrogate him late.

D&D 3.5 is one of my favorite system simply because the combat system is flexible without being aggravatingingly complex.  Another system I like is the HERO System, because of it's many combat maneuvers -- like Move Thru and Move By --  which can be used to model all sorts of things.

I went with unlisted. I do consider myself a Genre GM but my interpretation of a genre may not pass the "the accepted definition" test.

Regards,
David R