Let There Be Law
- Thread starter Archon
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Very good article, and I agree with you. Rules always end up having an effect on how the game is accepted, and are effected by the setting. While the D&D/D20 ruleset may be very flexible, inevitably it can't be stressed further.
How does traditional D&D rules apply to a space game where you want capital ships flying around with starfighters everywhere? They can't because they weren't designed for it. The same problem of translation would go in reverse. Rules should be designed with setting in mind.
How does traditional D&D rules apply to a space game where you want capital ships flying around with starfighters everywhere? They can't because they weren't designed for it. The same problem of translation would go in reverse. Rules should be designed with setting in mind.
Just because there aren't really rules setup for a horrific game, doesn't mean that those themes are unusable by the games. I've had several "horror" games of Vampire the Reckoning, and I wrote a D&D adventure that was more or less an "investigative horror" Everything in it was meant to spook out the players, or make them question what their characters were seeing and they were hearing. It turned out pretty good. It strongly involved undead, but the horror of it is both in the descriptions, not if a player has to roll to see if his character goes insane. Cthulu is perhaps best at being terrifying, anything can be horrifying.
Would my "Explore the haunted prison" adventure have been better in Cthulu? I don't know, it used a lot of D&D iconography. A blue dragon for instance, and ghosts of the various demihumans, but I'm not sure. I certainly wouldn't have been able to run it as efficiently. I'm not well versed in Cthulu, which is a big part of good GMing.
Would my "Explore the haunted prison" adventure have been better in Cthulu? I don't know, it used a lot of D&D iconography. A blue dragon for instance, and ghosts of the various demihumans, but I'm not sure. I certainly wouldn't have been able to run it as efficiently. I'm not well versed in Cthulu, which is a big part of good GMing.
Holy shit! Traveler! Kudos to you Mr. Macris for remembering something I was certain the world had forgotten.
I actually based my homebrew sci-fi system on Traveler's concept of Careers.
It's awesome how you can fit a role, but at the same time stir up the usual pot of "min-max" by giving the player some control over his development, but not absolute control. I think it forces him/her to make better decisions in game, rather than preordaining his/her actions to fit the most efficient mold.
If there is any genre that wants players to adapt quickly, or rethink things before applying "More firepower!", it's Sci-fi/deep space.
I actually based my homebrew sci-fi system on Traveler's concept of Careers.
It's awesome how you can fit a role, but at the same time stir up the usual pot of "min-max" by giving the player some control over his development, but not absolute control. I think it forces him/her to make better decisions in game, rather than preordaining his/her actions to fit the most efficient mold.
If there is any genre that wants players to adapt quickly, or rethink things before applying "More firepower!", it's Sci-fi/deep space.
While I disagree somewhat with the specifics of your examples, I agree very much with your argument. Setting and rules really do go hand in hand, much more than many realise. I play with a gm sometime who think rules are just rules, and that is, from time to time, very detrimental to his game.
DnD, while certainly not a favourite of mine, and close to the opposite works surprisingly well for horror and investigative games precisely because of the way the world works, and the familiarity with the rules the players usually have, and their solidity. When those rules start to get broken, when those expectations start to turn upside down, it can be very powerful. You just have to be careful with average DnD players who'll just whine, get up and leave, and complain about a cheating GM.
DnD, while certainly not a favourite of mine, and close to the opposite works surprisingly well for horror and investigative games precisely because of the way the world works, and the familiarity with the rules the players usually have, and their solidity. When those rules start to get broken, when those expectations start to turn upside down, it can be very powerful. You just have to be careful with average DnD players who'll just whine, get up and leave, and complain about a cheating GM.
Absolutely wonderful--I couldn't agree more! Rules should compliment the game, and forcing rules to do things they are poorly suited for detracts from the game. This is why d20 both sparks my admiration and annoys the hell out of me.
d20 is very flexible, and with a little work you can often adapt it to a variety of themes. It is very modular, allowing you to swap out some rules while keeping others. Once you learn the basics it is easy and intuitive to change. But aside from the heroic fantasy described in the article, it doesn't do any of them particularly well. Unfortunately, it is so ubiquitous that many people do not even consider alternatives. And even more unfortunately, games that used their own, perfectly suited mechanics often succumb to the temptation and put out new editions in d20, even when their original rules were far superior.
My absolute favorite game so far is the Legend of the Five Rings RPG, which is a samurai fantasy game. It uses a system known as Roll & Keep, and the melding of game, setting, and mechanics is absolutely flawless. Understanding the rules means you understand the setting better, and vice versa. It also just "feels" like you are playing a samurai character--the dice are very dramatic, and on any roll the sky is ultimately the limit, but there aren't really any botches or critical failures. It simulates playing a samurai who has trained rigorously for his or her entire life, and so isn't prone to undignified mistakes. Rather, as you progress the bar for achievement simply gets higher and higher--in the beginning, you are simply trying to hit your opponents. In the middle, you can generally hit your opponents without a problem but the challenge is now to hit them and kill them in one blow. At the height of your character, you can hit without a thought and generally succeed in killing without effort, but the challenge is to kill honorably decapitate your opponent, leaving just a thin bit of flesh to keep his head from rolling around and insulting his family. Or, by the end of the game your character is so enlightened that he realizes killing others really kills him, and so the challenge is defeating opponents without striking a single blow, by using his influence and reputation. The rules perfectly compliment these sorts of ideas, the idea of chasing unattainable perfection, and without those rules the game would be greatly diminished, because the actions that make sense in the setting also make sense under the rule system.
d20 is very flexible, and with a little work you can often adapt it to a variety of themes. It is very modular, allowing you to swap out some rules while keeping others. Once you learn the basics it is easy and intuitive to change. But aside from the heroic fantasy described in the article, it doesn't do any of them particularly well. Unfortunately, it is so ubiquitous that many people do not even consider alternatives. And even more unfortunately, games that used their own, perfectly suited mechanics often succumb to the temptation and put out new editions in d20, even when their original rules were far superior.
My absolute favorite game so far is the Legend of the Five Rings RPG, which is a samurai fantasy game. It uses a system known as Roll & Keep, and the melding of game, setting, and mechanics is absolutely flawless. Understanding the rules means you understand the setting better, and vice versa. It also just "feels" like you are playing a samurai character--the dice are very dramatic, and on any roll the sky is ultimately the limit, but there aren't really any botches or critical failures. It simulates playing a samurai who has trained rigorously for his or her entire life, and so isn't prone to undignified mistakes. Rather, as you progress the bar for achievement simply gets higher and higher--in the beginning, you are simply trying to hit your opponents. In the middle, you can generally hit your opponents without a problem but the challenge is now to hit them and kill them in one blow. At the height of your character, you can hit without a thought and generally succeed in killing without effort, but the challenge is to kill honorably decapitate your opponent, leaving just a thin bit of flesh to keep his head from rolling around and insulting his family. Or, by the end of the game your character is so enlightened that he realizes killing others really kills him, and so the challenge is defeating opponents without striking a single blow, by using his influence and reputation. The rules perfectly compliment these sorts of ideas, the idea of chasing unattainable perfection, and without those rules the game would be greatly diminished, because the actions that make sense in the setting also make sense under the rule system.
Yeah, system makes all the difference in the world. The ultimate weakpoint of the d20 craze was that everyone immediately tried to shoehorn D&D's mechanics into settings and situations it wasn't built to handle and the results were uneven.
I mean to say that an ultra low magic world would not work if you ported D&D 3.X over to it. Simply because that there were only a few non-spell casting classes, and they were much more limited than the dedicated spell caster classes (see Midnight). You need to strip 3.X of its existing class system and start over from the ground up to make it work (see Iron Heroes).
The basic idea that you roll one die, add a modifier, and compare it to a target number, however, that mechanic is very simple, sound, and forms the basis of a lot good other systems (the best, imo, being Mutants and Masterminds).
I mean to say that an ultra low magic world would not work if you ported D&D 3.X over to it. Simply because that there were only a few non-spell casting classes, and they were much more limited than the dedicated spell caster classes (see Midnight). You need to strip 3.X of its existing class system and start over from the ground up to make it work (see Iron Heroes).
The basic idea that you roll one die, add a modifier, and compare it to a target number, however, that mechanic is very simple, sound, and forms the basis of a lot good other systems (the best, imo, being Mutants and Masterminds).
I love world-building, it's a lot of fun. The main one I have going at the moment is intended as a D&D 3.5 setting.
Savage Worlds is another system that claims to be very general, although in practice it's only really good if you don't mind a bit of a pulp feel to your game. Depending on what game you want to play, this could be awesome or awful.
I've tried on and off to create a system for a stealth game (basically, I wanted to run Thief: The RPG), and I found it quite hard work. It's still mostly a WIP, though I have run a couple of test sessions. The hardest part is impressing upon players that they can't really tank through enemies because they're too squishy and are likely to die if they do so. In the first group, everyone twigged to this and managed to dodge pretty much all potential conflict and get away with the goods, but the second group just ambled in through the front door and then seemed surprised when they got surrounded by grouchy guys in rusty chainmail.
Savage Worlds is another system that claims to be very general, although in practice it's only really good if you don't mind a bit of a pulp feel to your game. Depending on what game you want to play, this could be awesome or awful.
I've tried on and off to create a system for a stealth game (basically, I wanted to run Thief: The RPG), and I found it quite hard work. It's still mostly a WIP, though I have run a couple of test sessions. The hardest part is impressing upon players that they can't really tank through enemies because they're too squishy and are likely to die if they do so. In the first group, everyone twigged to this and managed to dodge pretty much all potential conflict and get away with the goods, but the second group just ambled in through the front door and then seemed surprised when they got surrounded by grouchy guys in rusty chainmail.
Thanks! Don't tell anyone but I am a fan of many of those old RPGs.Atmos Duality said:
Wonderful game. If I had put samurai fantasy as one of my genres, this would be the game I listed. I was exceptionally sad to see it become yet-another-D20 game. Not that I dislike D20 (obviously, as two of my choices were D20 games), but because the rules and setting integrate so damn well.
I haven't played Iron Heroes. Do you recommend it? I agree re: M&M being awesome.MDSnowman said:
I *want* to like Savage Worlds, but every time I actually pick it up, it feels just a bit too soft and fuzzy for me.Amazon warrior said:
I am new to roleplaying (Still in the middle of my first campaign) using the GURPS roleplaying system. I have found the experience to be really enjoyable and these articles have flamed my interest in gamemastering myself. One thing I would add with my "fresh" mind status is that generic rule systems such as GURPS only become bland if the GM is unable to capitalize on their greatest asset, the ability to create new additions to the system.
In the 4th edition rulebooks for GURPS their are several sections stating that if the GM thinks a certain advantage, disadvantage, skill, etc. would be appropriate for the campaign and it is not listed within the sourcebook itself, that he should go ahead and make them up.
IMHO if the GM does this he keeps the rules and therefore the game from becoming bland. Seeing as I am pretty much unfamiliar with any other rule system at the time I think a system like GURPS is great for a beginner like me and a great system for world creation.
In the 4th edition rulebooks for GURPS their are several sections stating that if the GM thinks a certain advantage, disadvantage, skill, etc. would be appropriate for the campaign and it is not listed within the sourcebook itself, that he should go ahead and make them up.
IMHO if the GM does this he keeps the rules and therefore the game from becoming bland. Seeing as I am pretty much unfamiliar with any other rule system at the time I think a system like GURPS is great for a beginner like me and a great system for world creation.
Very good article, I completely agree. Having played many genres with the d20 system as the engine. It ruined many perfectly good games that I have played in, such as the first editions of Spycraft, Mutants and Masterminds, and Star Wars. Later editions did much better jobs especially Mutants and Masterminds. It is Best Superhero system I have seen, and I wrote one because of my frustration with the ones before it were either too simple (Marvel), or too complex (Champions). Other d20 games that were a bit of a let down were Gamma World d20 and a d20 Giant Robot Mecha game I played in. I even felt bad for the GM who ran a Crimson's Skies-like game using a modified d20 system. Although, it was pretty neat (and really sad) to shoot down enemy planes with a Colt .45 in an aerial dogfight.
Also I agree about GURPS. I never really liked that system. It's bland, I don't like rolling low, vehicles can be a mess. It never felt like it had a soul.
I agree with what Amazon warrior said about Savage Worlds. Its genre is pulp action. Which I will admit lacks a lot of crunch, but I'm getting to the point where I want nice simple rules that are easy to teach new players that get the action going and not looking at rules.
The Savage World of Solomon Kane allows me to run a Ravenloft game with the investigative horror AND globetrotting Indiana Jones-like adventures I have always wanted, while allowing the players swashbuckling action they want. It even makes it easy for player characters to lead large groups of men without greatly slowing down the game. However, it would break down for someone wanting intricate combat options or high fantasy super hero characters like advance leveled D&D characters.
Also I agree about GURPS. I never really liked that system. It's bland, I don't like rolling low, vehicles can be a mess. It never felt like it had a soul.
I agree with what Amazon warrior said about Savage Worlds. Its genre is pulp action. Which I will admit lacks a lot of crunch, but I'm getting to the point where I want nice simple rules that are easy to teach new players that get the action going and not looking at rules.
The Savage World of Solomon Kane allows me to run a Ravenloft game with the investigative horror AND globetrotting Indiana Jones-like adventures I have always wanted, while allowing the players swashbuckling action they want. It even makes it easy for player characters to lead large groups of men without greatly slowing down the game. However, it would break down for someone wanting intricate combat options or high fantasy super hero characters like advance leveled D&D characters.
Good article i'll keep this brief ccos i'm in a hurry. I am currently running a horrorish D&D 3.5 game (cos i'm one of them who can't stand 4e) and yea it is a bit of a pain in the ass but i just like the amount of different things dnd allows you to throw in.i'm nt familiar with cuthulu so i think running a campaign in a rule set familiar o the GM i important or more vet players can crack a shit that rule admin is fail. But this does make me more interested in cuthulu
If you're interested, the game is called Call of Cthulu, and is based on a series of HP Lovecraft stories of the same name about the aspirations of an unspeakable old god type creature and how his merest influence in your life can lead to to fear-caused insanity. It has the fear level and an insanity level built right into the character sheet.Eversor01 said:
ALso, I agree. Playing the "wrong game" for the genre IS like putting a round peg through the square hole, but sometimes it's still better then learning how to carve a square peg.
Plenty of space down here. Care to elaborate on your thoughts?Archon said:
I will admit that I like to collect gaming systems, and furthermore it's a dream of mine to find or make a system that perfectly captures the spirit of a few of my favorite console RPGs, namely Star Ocean (which is medieval fantasy + space opera, or more specifically space opera characters in a medieval fantasy adventure) and Breath of Fire 3 (which is medieval fantasy but
overt about its post-apocalyptic background, up to and including pre-apocalypse tech).
But mostly I just like collecting systems.
An excellent article as usual. As somebody who wants to start roleplaying, but doesn't know many role players, these are really useful.
Thanks.
Thanks.
Being somewhat of a lazy GM, I definitely prefer when the rules and setting go hand in hand. You can frankenstein one system into another setting, but it's more work than it's worth, for the reasons stated below. Apart from the notable examples the article mentioned (GURPS et al.) that are designed to go with anything, I think a set of rules tailored towards a setting, or just genre, goes a long way towards enhancing the game experience.
A game invariably suffers when the playerrs need to learn a new system, but on balance, I find that the loss from having to do a lot of exposition (stuff people would know, but the players don't, having not read the book very thoroughly), and the pauses in play to work out mehcanics, are quickly offset by the gain in seamless integration with the game later on. As opposed to, f.inst. trying to shoehorn a Werewolf (ala White Wolf) game into d20 rules, because people know d20.
Rules tailored to a setting provide a good fallback for newer players to get to grips with "what can I do here". Looking at Werewolf Gifts or Exalted Charms f.inst. goes a fair way towards getting a feel for what sorts of tools are available to solve a problem, and that in turn gives some insight into attitude towards problemsolving in general as portrayed by that game. F.eks. knowing you can call down lightning, means clearly some werewolves would consider "spectacular overkill" a valid response, as well as showing their nature-based attitude. Exalted have low-level charms that let you stand on a line the thickness of a human hair, and higher powered ones that let you literally jump over mountains which shows something about the scope and powerlevel of that setting.
In terms of world building, having the rules "fit" just saves you a ton of work, that can be productively channeled into fleshing out the specific parts of the world you will be using, rather than fiddling with houserules and mechanics. I'd rather spend time backgrounding a recurring villain, than working out how to make ghost summoning work under .
A game invariably suffers when the playerrs need to learn a new system, but on balance, I find that the loss from having to do a lot of exposition (stuff people would know, but the players don't, having not read the book very thoroughly), and the pauses in play to work out mehcanics, are quickly offset by the gain in seamless integration with the game later on. As opposed to, f.inst. trying to shoehorn a Werewolf (ala White Wolf) game into d20 rules, because people know d20.
Rules tailored to a setting provide a good fallback for newer players to get to grips with "what can I do here". Looking at Werewolf Gifts or Exalted Charms f.inst. goes a fair way towards getting a feel for what sorts of tools are available to solve a problem, and that in turn gives some insight into attitude towards problemsolving in general as portrayed by that game. F.eks. knowing you can call down lightning, means clearly some werewolves would consider "spectacular overkill" a valid response, as well as showing their nature-based attitude. Exalted have low-level charms that let you stand on a line the thickness of a human hair, and higher powered ones that let you literally jump over mountains which shows something about the scope and powerlevel of that setting.
In terms of world building, having the rules "fit" just saves you a ton of work, that can be productively channeled into fleshing out the specific parts of the world you will be using, rather than fiddling with houserules and mechanics. I'd rather spend time backgrounding a recurring villain, than working out how to make ghost summoning work under .
Tbh, I've only actually played it once or twice, and while I can see that it has a place, it doesn't tend to represent the kind of games that appeal to me personally. The exploding dice can be hilarious, tho - it's another system where punks can get lucky and elites can die young. Maybe that's what bothers me, though...Archon said:
On the subject of collecting systems and specific systems for specific settings, I got given Duty & Honour for Christmas last year - it's basically Sharpe's Rifles: The RPG, and it has a very cool-looking and atmospheric card-based system, including a pretty neat life-path system where you divide up your Experiences into Civilian and Army life, then draw cards to see what you got from each one. I really must inflict it on people at some point.
Your opening paragraph is a bit misleading, it implies that the article is going to be about World building rather than the primer stage for world building.
Nevertheless I agree with most of the actual article, system is important for the feel of the game. Something that I feel could have been addressed in more detail is where you stand of using setting specific systems in their appropriate setting. Do you prefer to use the available system if its good or do you prefer to use a more generic system that can be adapted more easily. You seemed to look favourably on systems like Exalted and WFRP except for thier inability to be used for other game but you never really stated your opinion one way or another. Is the limited scope a deal breaker for you?
On the subject of the general premise that I assume the future articles will focus on, I agree that world building is an incedibly important skill even in preexisting worlds. For example, the Warhammer world is for the most part well defined in WFRP but the details of towns and cities just aren't there for the most part. You still need to be able to infuse life to the surroundings by creating believeable locations and people for the group to journey to.
We have recently started a WFRP game and while the GM has focused down on an area on the border of Middenland and Talabecland he has had to add a huge amount of detail. He has used everything already there but has had to determine where you can buy and sell things, what do the towns actually look like, who inhabits the towns, who rules the places. In addition he has added things that do not appear on the map such as watch towers and forts.
This has essentially resulted in the game focusing on a small region of land with an astounding amount of detail with the players able to do everything they want in the region except for the odd occasion where we have needed to venture out of it. So yes worldbuilding is one of the most important GM skills that exists regardless of whether the setting is generic or specific.
Kaihlik
Nevertheless I agree with most of the actual article, system is important for the feel of the game. Something that I feel could have been addressed in more detail is where you stand of using setting specific systems in their appropriate setting. Do you prefer to use the available system if its good or do you prefer to use a more generic system that can be adapted more easily. You seemed to look favourably on systems like Exalted and WFRP except for thier inability to be used for other game but you never really stated your opinion one way or another. Is the limited scope a deal breaker for you?
On the subject of the general premise that I assume the future articles will focus on, I agree that world building is an incedibly important skill even in preexisting worlds. For example, the Warhammer world is for the most part well defined in WFRP but the details of towns and cities just aren't there for the most part. You still need to be able to infuse life to the surroundings by creating believeable locations and people for the group to journey to.
We have recently started a WFRP game and while the GM has focused down on an area on the border of Middenland and Talabecland he has had to add a huge amount of detail. He has used everything already there but has had to determine where you can buy and sell things, what do the towns actually look like, who inhabits the towns, who rules the places. In addition he has added things that do not appear on the map such as watch towers and forts.
This has essentially resulted in the game focusing on a small region of land with an astounding amount of detail with the players able to do everything they want in the region except for the odd occasion where we have needed to venture out of it. So yes worldbuilding is one of the most important GM skills that exists regardless of whether the setting is generic or specific.
Kaihlik