This is my pitch about how I enjoy complex systems and system mastery.
In the past, I've gotten into a few complex systems like the HERO System on the RPG side, and a few games like Star Fleet Battles on the board game side. More recently, I've been doing simpler games, including board and card games like Pandemic, Power Grid, Dominion, and Thunderstone. However, the itch is still similar - it is a game where you exercise skill in picking among the options to choose the right move. I do like math - not as in adding up numbers, but as in puzzles, brain teasers, and other challenges.
I also like to some degree acting and improv along with role-playing. For me, I can play in games like Amber Diceless, but when I play a more mechanics-using RPG with dice and stats, one of the draws is combining that tactical skill use with role-playing. That side is what makes it a challenging GAME as opposed to just improv.
I say this in particular because there have been a couple of posts and threads suggesting that enjoying this sort of system mastery makes you a bad person. I enjoy system mastery, and I have fun with others doing so. Liking the challenge isn't about showing up other players, it is fun by itself to take on challenges and see how well I can do.
As I recall, this preference is a now and then sort of thing with you. That typically you play with much lighter systems and then once in a while dip your toes in deeper waters.
Was that impression incorrect?
Seems 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.
Maybe 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.
Generally I play in games where combat is quite dangerous even for the min-maxed, so roleplaying develops naturally. In games like D&D where a high level character can legitimately take a surface to air missile in the torso and wander off slightly singed, it becomes much more of a problem.
There's nothing wrong with playing a Char-OP game. Hell, even my own game (CH) has the ability to be a CharOp game because it's skill based and not class based.
That being said, I don't like D&D to be a CharOP game because the vast majority of my gaming experience playing it (1981-present), CharOp was barely a blip on the radar, and those munchkins who focused on squeaking out every + they could were missing the spirit of the game, IMO.
But I'm not going to sit here and say that every game with CharOp is bad. I haven't played every game, so that would be stupid. And I'm not going to say that a person who likes the mini-game of CharOP is (insert pejorative here). It's a legitimate playstyle preference. Different strokes.
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.
Generally I play in games where combat is quite dangerous even for the min-maxed, so roleplaying develops naturally. In games like D&D where a high level character can legitimately take a surface to air missile in the torso and wander off slightly singed, it becomes much more of a problem.
High-powered combat and role-playing aren't mutually exclusive.
Quote from: gleichman;575439As I recall, this preference is a now and then sort of thing with you. That typically you play with much lighter systems and then once in a while dip your toes in deeper waters.
Was that impression incorrect?
No, it's been a gradual change rather than "now-and-then". I've always played a fairly wide range of RPGs.
However, since I moved to the Bay Area in 2000, I've mostly dropped playing complicated systems like HERO or Rolemaster that used by be part of my repertoire. I played a short campaign of D&D3.0 a little while after it came out, but I've never been much of a D&D player. I did do Harnmaster and Burning Wheel for a while, which are pretty complicated. However, that group broke up when our usual host moved away.
I still enjoy them and still play complex RPGs occasionally at conventions or as one-shots, but those games are pretty rare. It mostly has to do with the people I play with not being into them. Maybe it is true that this is because it was easier for me to find friendly people I like playing rules-lite games. However, that doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with the complex games.
i.e. Just because certain assholes like D&D3.X doesn't mean that liking D&D3.X makes you an asshole.
Quote from: jhkim;575454I still enjoy them and still play complex RPGs occasionally at conventions or as one-shots, but those games are pretty rare.
Yes, that matches what I remember.
My impression is that there are very few fans of complex games on this board, and that in general they are heavily frowned upon by the most vocal members here. It will be interesting to see if this thread shows anything different.
I like Advanced Squad Leader, Star Fleet Battles, Hero, Rolemaster, etc...but still prefer rpgs to be rules lite.
Preference being the key word here.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;575450But I'm not going to sit here and say that every game with CharOp is bad. I haven't played every game, so that would be stupid. And I'm not going to say that a person who likes the mini-game of CharOP is (insert pejorative here). It's a legitimate playstyle preference. Different strokes.
I'm going to try this, and see if I get bit.
Does this open-mindness extend to players who feel maps and minis are an important part of their games and/or to people who feel that playing RAW has value?
Quote from: jhkim;575454i.e. Just because certain assholes like D&D3.X doesn't mean that liking D&D3.X makes you an asshole.
Ignore Declan. Dude has some serious hate issues for 3e that border on the unhealthy.
Quote from: gleichman;575458I'm going to try this, and see if I get bit.
Does this open-mindness extend to players who feel maps and minis are an important part of their games and/or to people who feel that playing RAW has value?
As a rules lite, no map preference guy, I will still defend RAW having value.
You need rules to provide 'structure to the universe'
I also think it fine to bend the RAW when it makes sense to do so.
Maps and minis are loved by many players. At the very least people enjoy using them. So that makes them important.
Quote from: Libertad;575453Combat and role-playing aren't mutually exclusive.
Of course not, what I'm saying is that if combat represents a disproportionate amount of time and importance in the game, and someone is min-maxed for combat, roleplaying can take a back seat for that player.
In dangerous combat games, fighting becomes a combination of skill and cunning, or a desperate scramble for survival amidst a lethal dance of bullets/razor sharp steel. As a result players tend to roleplay more since combat isn't the first option they consider, although I would say combat in such games is at least as much fun, nothing hones the thrill of battle like real risk.
Its kind of hard to describe the mindset that emerges, its rare to see someone storming the Duke's castle single handedly, the idea of just wandering through a dungeon killing things and collecting treasure becomes bizarre (there's just as much dungeon crawling, its just undertaken with a specific goal in mind usually). Heroes still battle dragons, but they make damn sure they have a dragonscale shield and as much odds-stacking on their side as they can manage, which while min-maxing isn't a game imbalancer since they need the combined efforts of the whole group and a healthy dose of tactics to stack those odds.
Quote from: gleichman;575456Yes, that matches what I remember.
My impression is that there are very few fans of complex games on this board, and that in general they are heavily frowned upon by the most vocal members here. It will be interesting to see if this thread shows anything different.
Personally, I "grew up" on both charop and tactically involved stuff. Got the shit kicked out of me at first (on both fronts) but learned to love the playstyle.
Then I moved and had to run my own games for large groups of new players and at other peoples' houses. Minis weren't an option both because I was broke and because I had enough to carry. I still played games with my highschool buds online, but the chat clients we used likewise ruled out the minis. And chargen in 3x hurts first session playtime, which is all I get lately with the BFA program taking most of my time and focus.
My "holy grail" is a game I could use for all of the above; something both fast and light, and tactically engaging / interesting for character building. Some of your old articles and a lot of Justin Alexanders' stuff on adventures have been interesting and helpful in the process. On the chargen stuff all I have to learn from is 3 and 4 as illustrations of what worked or didn't.
Very little "frowning on" here, except that I sometimes wonder whether minis-dependency might hurt D&D's strength as an intro game (see paragraph two).
I am very much biased towards rules-light stuff. For the first time in many years, I GM more than I play; and I don't have a lot of time for prep. I rolled a Rolemaster character once and it felt like a chore.
D&D, CoC/BRP and Traveller are the Holy Trinity of RPGs to me. I'm also inordinately fond of Palladium and White Wolf (minus Exalted) stuff. I also had a big Savage Worlds phase for a couple of years (2008-2010). Now I'm fooling around with WFRP, and I still want to run Two-Fisted Tales, and Eclipse Phase, and something superheroic (ICONS is looking good right now).
Quote from: gleichman;575456Yes, that matches what I remember.
My impression is that there are very few fans of complex games on this board, and that in general they are heavily frowned upon by the most vocal members here. It will be interesting to see if this thread shows anything different.
HERO enjoys a small, loyal but admittedly mostly silent following around these parts. Rolemaster also has plenty of fans around here. But now that you've mentioned it, I don't think they're anyone's #1 game.
GURPS gets very little love as a game system, too, but we do have one stalwart that posts every now and then (Koltar).
Quote from: beejazz;575496My "holy grail" is a game I could use for all of the above; something both fast and light, and tactically engaging / interesting for character building. Some of your old articles and a lot of Justin Alexanders' stuff on adventures have been interesting and helpful in the process. On the chargen stuff all I have to learn from is 3 and 4 as illustrations of what worked or didn't.
Like 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" :D) 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.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;575459Ignore Declan. Dude has some serious hate issues for 3e that border on the unhealthy.
To be fair, Declan has specifically stated he was not saying that 3rd ed was making people assholes (see OP of related thread). That's what people thought he said, but that's not what he actually said, and he said so explicitly there.
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" :D) 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 (http://www.driftwoodpublishing.com/whatis/SA.htm).