Quote from: GunslingerYou'll do it Hinterwelt and people will accuse you of telling them how to play or, my favorite, a good group and GM does that anyway.

What will I do? I do so many things that seem to have results I am unaware of...

Bill

QuoteAnd here is the other part of the issue. You are looking at play solutions. I acknowledge those. To be honest, in terms of an explanation (not implementation) it is the easiest solution to the issue. I wished to explore a system solution. To do so, you need to look at the setting and translate it to a system. To date, i believe (and this is only my opinion) every company who has tried has failed. That does not, in any way, mean you cannot run a successful campaign for many years in these settings. Design and play are different matters. Design can affect play. Play ALWAYS trumps design.

I also think your discussion is more related to the nature of designing such systems than you seem to be admitting. See, if I was aiming for your segment (and in some ways I do) in the market I would be designing systems with strong meta-elements for manipulating the story, both from player's and GM's POV. However, IMO, this is not needed as your method of play does not require specific rules to make it work. It is reliant, if I understand correctly, on the skill of players and GMs. Since play trumps design, you will have a good game.

I guess I just feel the the issue is entirely too fundamental to ever be solved in a systemic fashion.  

Sure I suppose I could take this brainstorming phase and try and force some codified system around it, or go from questions to statements as you did in your example above, or as so many trendy indie games have, but I think that would be largely an unnecessary stricture on a very fluid and natural process.  

But at it's core, as I've been trying to explain, this isn't a system issue, it's a genre issue, a style issue, and looking at it as a system issue is entirely the wrong way of going about it because no system can ever rewrite the entire original series, and that's exactly what you would have to do to get this "consistency" you seek so avidly.  

The best solution I have really seen systemically, were the "MacGuffin" and "Resourceful Pockets" skills in Time Lord, but there we're back to just boiling things down to a die roll and a move on, and thus all the problems I discussed with that solution in the original post.

Quote from: J ArcaneThe best solution I have really seen systemically, were the "MacGuffin" and "Resourceful Pockets" skills in Time Lord, but there we're back to just boiling things down to a die roll and a move on, and thus all the problems I discussed with that solution in the original post.

Not quite: a good description (from the players), some sub-plot elements (collecting the right bits - negociated between the players and the GM) a die roll and move on

This sort of thing used to happen all the time in Shards.  The refs would present us with a situation that they had no idea how it could/should be resolved, but in the confidence that we were creative and had lots of resources.  Sometimes it resulted in the campaign plot taking a massive leap to the right (like the time we protected an NPC from a major occult threat by making her the Queen of Faerie (and thus it was Faerie's problem now)), but a good GM can handle that

So you folks want mechanics for not-having-to-actually-solve-the-mystery-but-still-wanting-to-feel-smart?

Quote from: SettembriniSo you folks want mechanics for not-having-to-actually-solve-the-mystery-but-still-wanting-to-feel-smart?

I don't know if these folks do, but I'm willing to bet that is precisely what a huge number of folks want.

I mean, in my bread game the murderers got away with it, I think for many contemporary players that is just not acceptable.  The PCs must win, all must have prizes.  I'm not sure anyone here falls into that camp though, I suspect those folk post in less robust atmospheres.

Balbinus: Oftentimes I get the feeling it´s DMs who want to
"Pretend-it-is-a-mystery-without-actually-preparing-a-thought-out-mystery-to-solve"

Quote from: SettembriniBalbinus: Oftentimes I get the feeling it´s DMs who want to
"Pretend-it-is-a-mystery-without-actually-preparing-a-thought-out-mystery-to-solve"

Often that's true, many GMs would rather give the players the illusion of a challenge than an actual challenge, sometimes because it's easier and sometimes because they correctly realise that's what their players really want.

The whole concept that you choose the solution to the mystery based on players' ideas voiced during the game, which I routinely see recommended, is exactly that.  A GM shortcut designed to avoid the work of crafting a real but soluble mystery for the players.

But I think also many folk nowadays want essentially pablum, they want assured victory every time, to look cool without having to do any work for it.  And hey, it's their leisure time, there's nothing wrong with that, but it's not what I'm in the game for.

Quote from: BalbinusI don't know if these folks do, but I'm willing to bet that is precisely what a huge number of folks want.

I mean, in my bread game the murderers got away with it, I think for many contemporary players that is just not acceptable.  The PCs must win, all must have prizes.  I'm not sure anyone here falls into that camp though, I suspect those folk post in less robust atmospheres.

I think that Settembrini hasn't actually read the thread, and needs to go bugger off somewhere else, instead of yammering like a buffoon.

It's not a system issue, it's a play technique discussion, and again, as I've pointed out to you already, we're not talking about real mysteries here.

QuoteBut I think also many folk nowadays want essentially pablum, they want assured victory every time, to look cool without having to do any work for it. And hey, it's their leisure time, there's nothing wrong with that, but it's not what I'm in the game for.

I find something deeply flawed in the mindset of applying the term "work" to a game, and think such mindsets have no more place in a roleplaying game than they do in MMOs, where they're exceedingly popular amongst a small subset of very pathetic people with no lives, and the designers who like to milk them for cash.

I also find that 99 out of 100 what people are talking about when the speak of "challenge" or "working for it" in an RPG, is just scaling down the odds, and scalling up the "XP to level" numbers.  

Whoopie.  It continues to amaze me that people can be so terribly smug because their system of choice gives me an average of 30% chance of success instead of 50%, as if it makes them some kind of hardass.

Quote from: J ArcaneI think that Settembrini hasn't actually read the thread, and needs to go bugger off somewhere else, instead of yammering like a buffoon.

It's not a system issue, it's a play technique discussion, and again, as I've pointed out to you already, we're not talking about real mysteries here.

I was drifting the thread I admit.

On your dilemma, I think the Buffy rpg has much to teach us.

In the Buffy series, Buffy routinely beats up the vampires for a bit before staking them, to be honest it's never terribly clear why.  The real reason is that fights are more dramatic than insta-stakings.

In the Buffy rpg, a stake does 5x normal damage, but only if that would be enough to kill outright, if not it just does normal damage.  The result is that PCs beat up the vamps for a bit before staking them, as the system makes that a sensible strategy.  Accordingly, the PCs act as the characters in the show do, even though the characters in the show actually act irrationally.

Similarly, in Buffy we have a Slayer and a bunch of White Hats, essentially a superhero and a bunch of ordinary folk.  However, the ordinary folk contribute in the show and don't get wiped out as sensibly you would expect.  The game emulates this by giving White Hat characters far more drama points, which can be used to edit scenes, to amend wounds to being just flesh wounds or stuns, and for a variety of other effects.  Playing a White Hat becomes viable, indeed I personally prefer it, and in play the Slayer kicks ass while the White Hats contribute from the side lines, occasionally get lucky and sometimes slay a vamp but often more through apparent luck rather than skill.

The Buffy rpg is probably the best mechanical rpg emulation I've ever seen of a show in which characters behave in a way that makes no real world sense.

So, for a Sherlock Holmes rpg, one solution could be a mechanic where the PCs gain points for finding clues along the way, once they have enough points they can trade them in for a big reveal from the GM, which they can then use for the thrilling conclusion.  If the PCs don't get enough points, they never get to buy their big reveal, so challenge is still present but at the end of the adventure all going well they will suddenly have a burst of inspiration solving the plot.

These things can be done, it's just that it takes a slightly different approach.  Similarly with Hinterwelt's Star Trek issues, a Buffy rpg style approach would likely solve those by building in mechanical reasons to make it rational for the players to make their characters act like characters in the programme do.

Quote from: J ArcaneI find something deeply flawed in the mindset of applying the term "work" to a game, and think such mindsets have no more place in a roleplaying game than they do in MMOs, where they're exceedingly popular amongst a small subset of very pathetic people with no lives, and the designers who like to milk them for cash.

I also find that 99 out of 100 what people are talking about when the speak of "challenge" or "working for it" in an RPG, is just scaling down the odds, and scalling up the "XP to level" numbers.  

Whoopie.  It continues to amaze me that people can be so terribly smug because their system of choice gives me an average of 30% chance of success instead of 50%, as if it makes them some kind of hardass.

Did you miss the "it's their leisure time, there's nothing wrong with that" bit?

Anyway, what of it?  I work to improve my skiing and have more fun because I challenge myself, when I played Bridge each week I worked to improve my game and enjoyed it more for the greater challenge, when I play shoot'em ups I don't generally just set the difficulty at the easiest setting, I work to improve my skills because the game gives me more when it's more challenging (I generally set it at normal, as that for me is where the balance between work and fun comes out about right, others set it higher of course).

There's nothing strange about the idea that to get the most out of a hobby one may wish to put some work in and accept some challenge.

In terms of my personal taste, I find nothing personally very rewarding in a game where the GM and/or system assure me of absolute success every time, I find that unrewarding.  That doesn't make me hardass, but it is comparable to how I feel when playing computer games, bridge or skiing.

Buffy definitely does have a reputation for serving well for a situation like Dotctor Who, where the main character is, theoretically at least, much more powerful than the rest of the characters.  

It takes on a different form in Doctor Who, in that the Doctor's chief advantage is that he's a bloody genius.  sure he's rather physically capable as well, but the only real difference is that with him, sometimes he survives because of Time Lord physiology instead of pure luck like his companions.  combat capability isn't even really an issue in the series because, well, the Doctor doesn't generally fight things, except on rare occasions.

I forgot to say, I'm actually reading some Sherlock Holmes this week.

One story was a proper mystery, I guessed almost immediately the exact solution and was correct.  That's one though, otherwise they are as J explains, they're not mysteries and there is no real possibility of a reader solving the problem (well, some there is and I didn't, some there plainly isn't).

They're really crime stories, which is a different genre to mysteries and often confused with it.  Personally I think it's peculiarly ill suited to gaming, this particular manifestation (crime stories generally I think make great gaming and have been bizarrely neglected) but I think that the simple answer is that not everything which works in one medium will work in another, some things make great stories but lousy games and vice versa.

I can see the Buffy/Who comparison, it wouldn't be combat but you could have similar concepts to make it work.

With Trek, you'd need something to encourage sending down the bridge crew as an away team, which makes no sense at all on a moment's thought, something to encourage social rather than technical solutions to most issues and something to allow technobabble solutions on occasion.

Frankly, drama points might do much of it, I spend x drama points to have a relevant technical solution to this issue, does that not get us there?  The trick then is to structure the scenario so that technical solutions are just part of the overall solution.

Quote from: BalbinusDid you miss the "it's their leisure time, there's nothing wrong with that" bit?

Anyway, what of it?  I work to improve my skiing and have more fun because I challenge myself, when I played Bridge each week I worked to improve my game and enjoyed it more for the greater challenge, when I play shoot'em ups I don't generally just set the difficulty at the easiest setting, I work to improve my skills because the game gives me more when it's more challenging (I generally set it at normal, as that for me is where the balance between work and fun comes out about right, others set it higher of course).

There's nothing strange about the idea that to get the most out of a hobby one may wish to put some work in and accept some challenge.

In terms of my personal taste, I find nothing personally very rewarding in a game where the GM and/or system assure me of absolute success every time, I find that unrewarding.  That doesn't make me hardass, but it is comparable to how I feel when playing computer games, bridge or skiing.

I seek challenge in RPGs not through system, but through the challenge of taking on new roles.  

The actual events of a game, the "challenges" a character may face in the game, aren't real, they aren't a challenge to me personally, only to the character.  So getting hung up on them, to me, doesn't make much sense, there's nothing innately meaningful about a challenge unless I'm literally partaking in it.

If I want that kind of challenge, I'll play a LARP.  There's nothing challenging about ramping the statistics in the GM's favor.

The challenge to me is only in coming up with interesting characters and stories to tell, portraying them well, reacting to the events as they pass.