Crunchy games can be cool.  I don't really have a preference one way or another -- for me it's more about how the crunch ties into actual play, and also whether the amount of crunch is necessary to obtain unique results.

Regardless, though, if we're doing a crunchy game that requires some mastery, everyone has to be in on it, or at least the GM has to have an extremely good handle on the game and help guide players.  I've played in games in the past where I've put in extra work learning a new game/rules, only to have the GM handwave/fudge things, basically negating the effort I've put into learning the system (and making me wonder why they weren't just using another system).

Quote from: The Butcher;575502Like I said above, I'm a bit burned out on Savage Worlds, but you should really check it out in case you haven't. I'm not sure it's "rules-light" (I'd say it's "rules-medium", i.e. "about as complex as I can be arsed to read and run as an adult working full time" ) but it's straightforward and no-frills while also offering a nice amount of complexity, including tactical combat and opportuinities for character optimization. It's certainly not perfect but it might be just what you're looking for.

I'm considering swapping my go-to game (currently 3x variants) for SW, a FATE variant, ACKS, or Justin's thing if it turns out nice. They all look good.

What I'm working on now is a bit of experiment inspired by Star Wars Saga, Bo9S, and 4e in terms of cleaner math and codification, WFRP brutality, pre-3 exploration and domain management, and an endgame loosely inspired by the Immortals material. Fluff wise I'm looking at Fullmetal Alchemist, Hellboy, Samurai Champloo, Princess Mononoke, etc.

Quote from: beejazz;575511What I'm working on now is a bit of experiment inspired by Star Wars Saga, Bo9S, and 4e in terms of cleaner math and codification, WFRP brutality, pre-3 exploration and domain management, and an endgame loosely inspired by the Immortals material. Fluff wise I'm looking at Fullmetal Alchemist, Hellboy, Samurai Champloo, Princess Mononoke, etc.

O_o

I can't make heads or tails of what the end-product of all these things would look like, but my curiosity is piqued. Please post about it when you have the chance!

Quote from: The Butcher;575523O_o

I can't make heads or tails of what the end-product of all these things would look like, but my curiosity is piqued. Please post about it when you have the chance!

I've broken down individual design tasks I'm dealing with in the design and development subforum. I should probably link them in my sig soon.

Quote from: The Traveller;575444Maybe the key is not to de-emphasise fighting neccessarily, but to give more weight to the advantages that can be gained by good roleplaying, whether mechanically or by GM style? GM education is as usual a cornerstone in sorting it out.

Lord no.  That leads to Forge style "Gamist training" where the Narrative mechanics give all kinds of bonuses to lead the knuckle-draggers to the wonders of narrativism.

Case in Point = Riddle of Steel.  Very crunchy system, like an ARMA simulator basically, with an overarching narrative Passion system.  So 1st week of the month, I have a Passion called "Defend the Helpless".  I walk by an alley and see a group of ne'er-do-wells accosting a young lady.  I spring into action and although this is a very deadly system and being outnumbered is a death sentence, I wallop them easily due to my Passion mechanics making me a true Hero.  Now you can change these Passions as part of character advancement.  So on the 15th of the month I pass by the same alley with the same situation, unforunately I gave up my "Defend the Helpless" to "Defender of the Faith".  This city doesn't have a church to my religion, that person isn't a follower, there's no "tie-in" to activate my Passions, so I jump in to help and get curbstomped like any jackass running into an alley outnumbered 5 to 1.

No.Thanks.

CharOp sucks; but games that are basically set up in such a way that they rampantly encourage CharOp really suck.

RPGPundit

Quote from: CRKrueger;575895Lord no.  That leads to Forge style "Gamist training" where the Narrative mechanics give all kinds of bonuses to lead the knuckle-draggers to the wonders of narrativism.

Case in Point = Riddle of Steel.  Very crunchy system, like an ARMA simulator basically, with an overarching narrative Passion system.  So 1st week of the month, I have a Passion called "Defend the Helpless".  I walk by an alley and see a group of ne'er-do-wells accosting a young lady.  I spring into action and although this is a very deadly system and being outnumbered is a death sentence, I wallop them easily due to my Passion mechanics making me a true Hero.  Now you can change these Passions as part of character advancement.  So on the 15th of the month I pass by the same alley with the same situation, unforunately I gave up my "Defend the Helpless" to "Defender of the Faith".  This city doesn't have a church to my religion, that person isn't a follower, there's no "tie-in" to activate my Passions, so I jump in to help and get curbstomped like any jackass running into an alley outnumbered 5 to 1.

No.Thanks.

Those rules sound like stuff for people that do not know how to roleplay. Or am I missing the point?

Quote from: The Traveller;575444Seems to me there's a divide between those who take the premise of many games at face value, that the joy is in playing a character, and those who min-max themselves because they want to kick some ass. Neither of those are bad, both are perfectly natural, but when it comes to kicking ass, obviously the min-maxers are going to dominate, which for many games means they play a leading role without actually playing a role, as it were.

I don't think it works like that; you can play a role or not, and you can be optimised or not, but that's four possibilities, not two.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with being optimised; if I want to hire a craftsman, for example, I'll want to hire the one who's the best at the job, not the funniest one. And if you want your character to be good at a certain thing, there's nothing wrong with that either.

If you're intentionally making a character who is purposefully bad at the things you want them to do during the game, because ROLEPLAYING!!1!, you're an idiot.

As I've said elsewhere, the problem is systems that don't give you enough character resources to make a diverse character, and punish you for trying.

A better solution is to establish a baseline "competency level", and then give players enough resources that they can be competent in a few things, but only up to that level - so investing more won't provide a noticeable benefit, or is simply not possible. Diminishing returns, basically, but taken into account during the design process. D&D4 does that well combat-wise, it's hard to make a character ineffective in combat, but that's design space that could be further explored.

Quote from: Bill;576084Those rules sound like stuff for people that do not know how to roleplay. Or am I missing the point?

No, you got it.  It's the "Matador School".  Wave the bonuses in front of the Gamists, and when they charge, get them to roleplay in spite of themselves.  Or in this case, more then roleplay, because Riddle of Steel is all about the narrative story of the character.  The Riddle of Steel is from Conan, The Barbarian.

Quote from: Thulsa DoomSteel isn't strong boy, flesh is stronger. What is steel, compared to the hand that wields it? Look at the strength in your body, the desire in your heart.

What are you willing to kill for, to die for?  The Spiritual Attributes themselves I thought were an interesting idea, but they StoryHammered it to make it Enforced Narrative Compliance.