Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;825651Puppetland is a 20 year old indie game where you play as puppets try to free Puppettown from the tyranny of Punch and his boys. It's one of the more unique games in the hobby.

The problem with many white wolf games is that the default factions don't really give you an idea of what PCs are actually supposed to do. More recent games tried to fix that, while not doing enough to make these new factions interesting in their own right.

Yuuuuup!

The groups are heavy ideological with a lot of emphasis on what they believe in. They aren't functional organisations like a group of bounty hunters or a group of lore seekers (with the exception of new Mage).

In vampire they are setup almost like an European political landscape or maybe like the factions in Tropico. Well I would suggest the capitalists, socialists, religious, intelectuals (OD) and environmentalists (CotC, might be far fetched).

They are clearly setup for politics. Not for doing stuff.

So the indie games have lots of features I like, but which are scattered across different games. Feed has a rewarding loss of humanity mechanic, Monsterhearts has pulling strings and tweakable classes, and Rosemont Bay and Urban Shadows aren't out yet but I'm sure they'll have novel mechanics. Witchcraft and Everlasting still use 90's simulationist mechanics but they do have some novel innovations in cohesive storytelling.

I might try my hand at an rpg that combines those elements I like, but I was wondering what anyone else thinks. What is your advice for anyone intending to write another World of Darkness heartbreaker?

I am not looking for the narrative mechanics you seem to like. I like the simulationist mechanics better.

My advice for a heartbreaker would be:

1. Yes to backstory, no to metaplot (owod did yes to both leading to railroading and new did no to both leading to vagueness)
2. Cut the bullshit. No more flowerly language. Straight to the point.
3. Clear layout. Easy overview of what you are about to read by just skimming the pages.
4. Broad settings. Kitchen sink approach. Straight from the box a game with a lot of different possible conflicts.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;826164I am not looking for the narrative mechanics you seem to like. I like the simulationist mechanics better.

My advice for a heartbreaker would be:

1. Yes to backstory, no to metaplot (owod did yes to both leading to railroading and new did no to both leading to vagueness)
2. Cut the bullshit. No more flowerly language. Straight to the point.
3. Clear layout. Easy overview of what you are about to read by just skimming the pages.
4. Broad settings. Kitchen sink approach. Straight from the box a game with a lot of different possible conflicts.

I prefer narrativist mechanics because it provides more flexibility in character concepts. Simulationist just ends up being an exercise in forcing a square peg into a round hole.

1. Backstory needs handholds for players to grab onto, otherwise it's irrelevant. In reality, adults don't structure politics like high school cliques.
2. I'm down with that.
3. Ditto.
4. If that isn't handled properly it can easily turn out ridiculous.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;826299I prefer narrativist mechanics because it provides more flexibility in character concepts. Simulationist just ends up being an exercise in forcing a square peg into a round hole.

Well, you won't find much fans of this approach on this forum. People here seem to hate indie games (storygames/the forge) with a passion. I honestly never heard from any of these games before I went to this site. It's all oldskool rpg's around here. TSR D&D, Star Wars D6, Classic Traveller etc.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;8262991. Backstory needs handholds for players to grab onto, otherwise it's irrelevant. In reality, adults don't structure politics like high school cliques.
2. I'm down with that.
3. Ditto.
4. If that isn't handled properly it can easily turn out ridiculous.

It seems we agree on the bad writing and bad layout. I really like big fleshed out settings and you don't. So let's agree to disagree on some points. Different tastes. We dislike WoD for different reasons.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;826363Well, you won't find much fans of this approach on this forum. People here seem to hate indie games (storygames/the forge) with a passion. I honestly never heard from any of these games before I went to this site. It's all oldskool rpg's around here. TSR D&D, Star Wars D6, Classic Traveller etc.

Old school does not equate to simulationist. Simulationist means a game's rules are excessively detailed in an attempt to simulate "reality" as accurately as possible (or inaccurately, as the case may be), despite the infeasibility of doing so.

I like Risus the most. It's technically an old school game.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;826363I really like big fleshed out settings and you don't.

That's not what I said at all. I have no problem with fleshed out settings. I have a problem if those backgrounds are more fun to read than to play. Backgrounds need to be relevant to the PCs and what they are doing (read: must have built-in plot hooks), otherwise it shouldn't be included.

The PCs are the main characters of the campaign and the plot centers around them and their exploits. (At least that's how RPGs are supposed to play out.) If the players are not having fun, then something is wrong. When writing the background of a campaign setting, one must keep in mind this all-important question: "why should the PCs care?"

For example, if the PCs are trapped in Silent Hill, a verbose explanation of why the town became haunted in the first place is irrelevant unless it gives the PCs insight to escaping their predicament or otherwise furthers the plot.

I'll use a ghost story to illustrate. In campaign setting X, the PCs are reluctant paranormal investigators who all live in a dilapidated apartment building dating back over a century. The apartment building was previously a hotel, which was previously an asylum, and has a long and illustrious history of tragedy, freak accidents, satanic murders, and similarly horrible things. Those past events remain relevant by the time period of the current campaign because they resulted in hauntings that continue to the present day and which the PCs can encounter and solve by researching the original causes.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;826373Old school does not equate to simulationist. Simulationist means a game's rules are excessively detailed in an attempt to simulate "reality" as accurately as possible (or inaccurately, as the case may be), despite the infeasibility of doing so.

I like Risus the most. It's technically an old school game.

Ok I meant traditional rpg's vs. Fate or even storygames etc. Games where you have mechanics for altering the story instead of just attributes and skills and a DM who acts as a judge or referee.

These theories seem popular at theforge (:forge:) and sites like that. I don't really want to be too navel-gazing about these things. You get into the whole GNS thingy and everything becomes pretty subjective about which game is what category. Is D&D gamist or simulationist? I really don't know.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;826373That's not what I said at all. I have no problem with fleshed out settings. I have a problem if those backgrounds are more fun to read than to play. Backgrounds need to be relevant to the PCs and what they are doing (read: must have built-in plot hooks), otherwise it shouldn't be included.

For example, if the PCs are trapped in Silent Hill, a verbose explanation of why the town became haunted in the first place is irrelevant unless it gives the PCs insight to escaping their predicament or otherwise furthers the plot.

I'll use a ghost story to illustrate. In campaign setting X, the PCs are reluctant paranormal investigators who all live in a dilapidated apartment building dating back over a century. The apartment building was previously a hotel, which was previously an asylum, and has a long and illustrious history of tragedy, freak accidents, satanic murders, and similarly horrible things. Those past events remain relevant by the time period of the current campaign because they resulted in hauntings that continue to the present day and which the PCs can encounter and solve by researching the original causes.

I agree with you. I don't really understand the misunderstanding. Didn't you read my post?

I like explanations, because it explains why the things are the way they are. That also means the pc's could find out about this bit of lore and they could change it. If a haunted town is a haunted town, then it's just static. Nothing lead to that town becoming haunted and if it isn't haunted anymore then it's just a town.

If there was gypsy curse placed on that town, the gypsy who placed it might be mad for you to lift the curse. Or the haunting was placed to keep people away to protect them from something worse. Lifting the curse awoke something else.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;826363Well, you won't find much fans of this approach on this forum. People here seem to hate indie games (storygames/the forge) with a passion. I honestly never heard from any of these games before I went to this site. It's all oldskool rpg's around here. TSR D&D, Star Wars D6, Classic Traveller etc.

I think you are conflating narrative or genre mechanics for story mechanics. These aren't the same things and many games that use the former are popular here (even the later can be popular too with the likes of FATE) and have a history that dates back to the 80s at the very least.

In many ways, White Wolf is the baton twirler for RPGs with narrative mechanics. Some would say its "success" was the catalyst that gave birth to the indie/storygame movement of the 00s.

FWIW the one reason I have enjoyed Urban Shadows is that it uses narrative (and a smidgeon of story) mechanics to deal with the issues with White Wolf's system, but maintains a traditional structure for the most part. It does all this without making the rules as complex as WW did as well.

In particular, I feel Urban Shadows nails:

1. PC creation. The way it knits the PCs together and builds the setting around them is more direct than WW's prelude and question approach. And WoD games need a strong PC bond as there is not need for the traditional concept of a party, no matter how much WW renames it.
2. Humanity. Again this is much more direct, with pros and cons to decisions made in its regard. The WW equivalent is a wet blanket in comparison.
3. Debts. Having a formalisation of social obligation is excellent and avoids risk averse players (which are often encouraged so in traditional RPGs) basically turtling out of plots as players that their PC would not be able to so easily ignore or avoid.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;826690You get into the whole GNS thingy and everything becomes pretty subjective about which game is what category. Is D&D gamist or simulationist? I really don't know.

D&D was considered "incomprehensible" because it didnt chose one of these arbitrary playstyle divisons and impose it on players

Quote from: TristramEvans;826698D&D was considered "incomprehensible" because it didnt chose one of these arbitrary playstyle divisons and impose it on players

I have to admit I find this GNS theory quite arbitrary and pretentious.

Quote from: TristramEvans;826698D&D was considered "incomprehensible" because it didnt chose one of these arbitrary playstyle divisons and impose it on players

  I thought the term was 'incoherent'? (I think I've visited The Forge once, maybe twice, in my twenty years online. Everything I know is secondhand or the stuff they took--and often changed for the worse--from rec.games.frp.advocacy. )

Quote from: Skywalker;826694I think you are conflating narrative or genre mechanics for story mechanics. These aren't the same things and many games that use the former are popular here (even the later can be popular too with the likes of FATE) and have a history that dates back to the 80s at the very least.

Ok so what or narrative mechanics and what are story mechanics?

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;826704I thought the term was 'incoherent'?  

Ah yes, you are correct. Its been a while

Quote from: jan paparazzi;826703I have to admit I find this GNS theory quite arbitrary and pretentious.

exactly.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;826705Ok so what or narrative mechanics and what are story mechanics?

I think the generally accepted (as much as these things can be and recognising the fuzzy line between them) distinction is:

- narrative mechanics reinforce genre, which is an element of story, but don't give the player authority over story or require the player to step outside the PC's natural influence in the story. This includes things like Pendragon's personality traits, corruption in Urban Shadows, aspects in Fate, and questionably a number of mechanics in WW.

- story mechanics allow the player to influence story from an authorial perspective, often able to create or influence story beyond the ambit of the PC or the PC's natural influence on the genre.