Your favorite PnP RPG system?

[Alex_Steel]

The fishmen example obviously also sorta ties in with the importance of the illusion of danger over actual sudden death. I know some people love Tomb of Horrors style games, but I don't and I think it's a very good thing. I've never seen the appeal of a simulationist, explorationist or gamist approach, narrative-faggotry is the only way to RP for me. To me, all other categories can be done just as well or better by boardgames or video games, with a lot less hassle.

It all depends on what kind of game you want to play. The illusion and existence of danger are very important because they are part of the entire setting. Characters don't know everything about the world they live in. Once the players get to know most of the inner workings of a setting, the game loses a lot of points. The goal is to excite the players in real life so the distribution of information should be controlled. That's why when I want to make a game of mystery, horror or whathaveyou, I always use settings that are self-made or unknown to the players. By the way, the value of the unknown certainly applies to simulationist or explorationist approaches.
Personally, I will kill player characters if their actions and rolls demand it. I have used my GM powers to save PCs from death in favour of the story but that is not very common. My approach is that if characters are being saved in favour of the narrative too much, the illusion may break after a while, especially if you are playing with the same players for a long time. Once the illusion breaks, the players consciously or subconsciously become more reckless, changing their roleplaying and this affects the game in a really bad way. But if the players know their characters can die, it helps to maintain the illusion of danger when you truly need it. I've seen some really bad examples of games where the narrative was superseding everything else and that's why I always try to balance things out.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

See, I find that a wrong kind of attitude for roleplaying. It's not really a "game", since it is never about winning against the GM or clearing Stage X. It's about narratives and story. From my perspective, the game aspect is entirely secodanry and only exists to support the collaborative narrative as a framework for handling scenes and as a means of establishing the story's genre. Personally I think the game is succesful if a player thinks that some point is a good part for their character to die because of how it'd serve the wider narrative, or when the players can care about NPCs dying. The importance of a fleshed-out longterm character is paramount for both to occur.

Of course, there is also the fact that many RPGs feature a large number of fail-safes in their PC mechanics against random death, so GM intervention is not required as often as one might think.

EDIT: More importantly, there's the question about the logistics of PC death. In many games and stories, introducing a new protagonist to the story is going to be one hell of a task. This naturally escalates the larger the story's scope is and how important the PCs are. Past a certain point you will have to premeditate the replacement character with the player if he's continuing, and figure out HOW to fit in a new character with no or least disruption to the flow.

In a way, low-level DnD has it pretty sweet since you can just have the PCs get drunk and they wake up with a new dwarf Fighter.

 

[Alex_Steel]

I don't think there is right or wrong, just different ways for GMs and players to play according to their preferences. A long-term character can be achieved even if the GM plays by the rules, but it requires from players to be thoughtful of their actions and their characters to be more true to the setting. Not everyone will be a hero but everyone wants to be awesome in one way or another. And most players don't want their characters to die. And while real life does not care about our wishes, there are still awesome stories of horror or courage.

I have an example of what can happen if the sacrifices in favour of the narrative become too many. Some years ago, I was playing at a live V:tM Camarilla campaign here in Athens. It had started some years earlier and I joined with some of my friends later. The GMs frequently ignored the rules in favour of narrative and this agitated a lot of players because they complained about the uselessness of their characters' stats. The game had devolved to a point where some players could do almost whatever the hell they wanted and as it spiralled out of control, the consistency of the setting was seriously challenged because the players lost more and more connection of what can and cannot happen.

Around 1.5 years after that, during the summer, a friend of mine started his own live V:tM in another gaming club and invited all those players from the previous campaign. And many of them came. We used Sabbat this time but he was much more true to the setting. Knowing the situation at the Camarilla live, he informed all the players that the game will have just c&c and that they should be careful who they talk to and what the hell they are doing.

After a while, the results were quite clear. Many of these (old school btw) players from the other live could not handle it and I'm not talking about some sadist GM here. They were too used to being pampered posers and they had lost every sense of what c&c and having character stats mean. On the other hand, other players from the gaming club we joined and my friends had absolutely no problem with understanding the setting and realizing the challenges presented. I even remember a couple of examples. One player decided to play a ghoul with lots of muscles and was surprised that a vampire was stronger than him. Another one playing a Lasombra decided he wanted to use dominate on another character just for the kicks and then he had his arse kicked.

By the way, those fail-safe mechanics are neat. I like L5R's Great Destiny advantage for example. Once per session, the character doesn't die. I like giving it in secret to a deserving character to increase his chances of living but the gift does not supersede everything. The consistency of the setting is never compromised and stupid choices will bring the appropriate consequences.

 

[Alex]

That stuff really depends on what game you are playing. Vaarna_Aarne Using the term simulationist was a bad choice. Keeping the illusion of challenge and danger while there is none is actually a kind of play the Forge associates with simulationism (though I argue that isn't really necessary), because the game aims to "simulate" a genre, like super hero stories. Old D&D had early characters dying a lot, and though high level ones had a lot of protections, they were still fair game. They could lose levels to an undead monster, or lose their magic sword to a rust monster, or even suffer a death from which they couldn't be resurrected (if a vampire slew them, for example).

That kind of game had a real danger. It is just that that it was set up in a way the the winning conditions for each side weren't directly opposed. The GM's objective isn't to kill the characters. It is to present them with dungeons, situations and places that are fun, dangerous and sometimes even "scary". Of course, you could use illusionism there, but if you did, you would keep the players from reaching their objecteives, which was to change the campaign world in a fun or memorable way. If the player couldn't choose the way to change the world, or if his objectives were sure to be accomplished, so that everyone did no matter what, that kind of game broke down.

In the end, though, what kind of game you want to play is really up to you. I really like the idea of old D&D, but it is pretty hard to find people willing to spend so much time in that kind of game, where a mistake could mean your whole work was for naught. This is actually something I have been trying to address in The Star That Shone Blue. To have your character's accomplishments pass on when he is "retired" to your new character. For example, if your character was a necromancer who conquered nations (I know, this stuff is really original, right ), and he is somehow forced out of play (maybe he died a final death, or became the slave of some demon, or maybe he converted to Christianity, who knows), your next character could draw from your earlier accomplishments. He could be a hero who suffered at your previous character's hands, an now raises to fight him (unknowing of his fate). In this case, all your former accomplishments would become grievances of your new character (which in turn would give him strengths). Or maybe you could be a strange experiment by the necromancer, or his apprentice, or the shadow of a loved one of his that he could never resurrect. That way, the loss of a big character wouldn't mean starting over, but looking at what you had accomplished from a different angle.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

I believe what we have here is a failure to communicate.

In a way, we already approach the concept of a campaign from a very different perspective. From my viewpoint, setting =/= story and setting conforms to the story. Similarly, I think that there is a fundamental difference that players and GM should address in your example Alex_Steel that being that the first game appears to have been approached as a power fantasy and scorekeeping. When the GM and players succesfully approach a game as collaborative fiction, there is no such issue because everything is discussed extensively. For example, in a recent online session I had a character learned a shocking revelation about another character and an NPC, and we (the group + GM) still in the process of debating what kind of reaction and future path makes most sense for the now initiated subplot and overall story. In this kind of approach, you don't have the kind unpleasantry you described because the approach is radically different. I consider the fun in roleplaying to be in fleshing out a character and participating in a story. This is why I detest the notion of a totally open-ended game.

Like I said, I also don't consider total danger to be relevant to the narrative. In fact, a good narrative will use action sparingly (well, unless it's light-hearted adventure, and not like my endless posts about how depressed my characters feel). And in a good narrative the players are motivated to follow and act accordingly in it because it pulls them in. Not to mention the GM will have avoided overt moon logic which makes the players go in all the wrong places all the time or just bugger off to be pirates or something.

Note that I do think that stats matter, and I think they matter quite a lot. Stats are the primary way to gauge a characters ability and establish the framework in which the story operates. But in many instances if the way they function is understood, rolls are not necessary. For example, you don't need to include the element of chance to things like physical contest because it really doesn't make sense if just put two characters with DIFFERENT stats lifting things to show which one is stronger (incidentally I find strength charts in RPGs very funny). The raw stats already tell the outcome of such an event.

The idea you presented Alex is what I was talking about, an effective way of approaching the situation. Of course, the previous character's accomplishments themselves can present the same problem, and in that example it presents a problem with how to establish the party unless the starting point is that the rest of the PCs killed the power-mad fresh Evil Overlord their necromancer had turned into or similar. In fact, premature NPC-fication of the character in agreement with the player and the GM is also a good solution to this, since the situation already presents something that would be a major part of the overall story.


PS: Necromancers enslave entire nations with necromancy, they dont' conquer them.


EDIT: On a completely unrelated note, seeing a dev make bayonets anything but the very worst melee weapon in their game makes me want to strangle them for being imbeciles without any idea about how shitty and useless bayonets are.

 

[Alex_Steel]

Yes, Vaarna_Aarne, I too believe we just have a different philosophy about GMing RPGs. Personally, I love creating a setting that feels "real", with lots of details but also abstract ideas that I like to flesh out between sessions, tailoring them to the current data. I like open worlds and plots that may run in the background, giving hooks to the players. I also find that I like the challenge of an open-ended game and finding ways to keep the players invested in the story, while at the same time they feel free to do whatever they want. I see the appeal in what you describe though.

I don't think any of those ways is wrong, I just believe I'm used to that kind of GMing or it fits my abilities.
In the future, I would certainly like to participate in one of your campaigns and maybe even learn something about GMing in the process.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

Well, like I've said I've got a script for a Godlike campaign that I still haven't got to use.

 

[Alex_Steel]

Well, like I've said I've got a script for a Godlike campaign that I still haven't got to use.

I definitely can't commit to anything right now since my immediate future is fluid. Once everything settles down and I have a clear plan and an everyday program with remaining free time (crosses fingers), I'll pm you.

 

[Alex]

Hey, sorry to nose in, but I think I should mention I am always up for a good RPG game.

 

[Wolfus]

I wish my english was good enough to join

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

Well the whole thing as basically written with Gran Torino's theme song on loop. Another thing I decided to try was take a rather different kind of approach to a story and have the story take place in two campaigns. The main campaign being "present day" for the story in a world much like ours (exact date undetermined) where some of the characters (I am prepared to let players have multiple characters, seeing how this doesn't pose as much of a problem on teh internets forum as medium of roleplaying) who are some post office clerks at a UN Building get a strange package with a large, old notebook filled with names and dates and words they're completely unfamiliar with, like some guy named Lawrence Clyde Moreland AKA The Indestructible Man. Of course, our heroes get some physical demonstration that there's something about the book when men with guns come in and make it clear they want the book and everyone who read it dead. The rest of the characters in turn would be people from said book that get looked up, old men who have no recollection at all that they were once more than human. In fact, nobody remembers anything out of the ordinary in the Berlin Olympics or anything else from that day onward. The second campaign is then played along the side where parallel to the mystery being uncovered in the main campaign and what really happened at the end of the war is then played out.

 

[SCO]

Ever considered using dogs in the vineyard conflict rules Vaarna?

What’s really cool, though, is not that you use dice for stats, but how those dice factor into conflict resolution. First off, you determine what’s “at stake” in a conflict. At the end of the conflict, whoever is left will get to decide what happens to what’s at stake. Then you figure out the specifics of where it’s taking place (anything that might be important like who’s watching, chairs that could be smashed, exits that could be escaped through, et cetera). Then you figure out who’s participating. At this point, everybody participating takes up the relevant dice and throws them all at once. The dice you roll depend on what category the conflict starts out in: Just talking, physical, physical fighting, and gunplay. If a character has a relationship at stake, or has relationship dice representing his opponent in the conflict, he rolls the relevant relationship dice (relationship dice can cover the obvious like brother, uncle, or what have you, as well as less obvious like ‘the town drunk I helped home one time’). That’s it for the initial dice. Dice for traits and things come up when and if they’re used.
So, everybody involved has their dice rolled and out on the table. Whoever’s opening the conflict starts out by picking two dice to use as his first “raise”. You can choose any two of your dice, and as you put them forward, you must describe what action those dice represent. The action is something your opponent can’t ignore, and must fit the scope of the conflict you’re currently at (so if you’re just talking, you can’t describe your action as punching a guy in the face, you have to escalate to physical conflict for that).
Your opponent will then attempt to ‘see’ your raise. He can put forward, one, two, or more dice to see. If he can match your raise with only one die, he has “reversed the blow” and takes no negative effect, and in fact reverses it against you. He gets to keep that die to use when it’s his turn to raise. If he uses two dice to see, he has somehow negated the effect of your action with no negative effect to either of you. If it takes 3 or more dice to see, your opponent “takes the blow”, which means he’s still in the conflict, but he takes a negative effect for your action. After the conflict is resolved, he’ll take a number of fallout dice equal to how many dice he had to see with. The size of the fallout dice increases depending on the type of conflict (each fallout die from just talking is a d4, while fallout dice from shooting are d10s). Finally, if an opponent can’t or won’t see a raise, he can ‘give’, which means he’s out of the conflict, but he doesn’t take any further fallout dice.
Players then take turns raising and seeing. If there are more than two opponents, one player will raise, each other affected by your action will see, then the next player will raise and each other will see, and so on. Now, let’s say you run out of dice to see or raise, but you’re not happy with where the conflict is ending, what do you do? You escalate! This is where you go from, say, just talking to making a break for it, or throwing a punch, or drawing a gun. When you escalate, you look at what stats are appropriate to the new type of conflict and roll those dice. You can only ever roll a stat, trait, or thing once in a conflict, so if you’ve already used one stat for a lesser type of conflict, you don’t reroll it when you escalate. Likewise, once you’ve introduced a trait or item, you don’t get to roll it again no matter how many times you use that trait or thing. Eventually, somebody gives by choice or by being out of things they can roll, and whoever is left in the conflict decides what happens with what’s at stake.
After the conflict, those fallout dice mentioned get rolled, and depending on what’s rolled, you get experience, short term effects, long term effects, minor injuries, serious injuries, or you’re dying. Note that due to the size of dice associated with different types of conflict, you can’t get injured from a conflict that never escalates past ‘just talking’ and you can’t end up ‘dying’ unless guns come into the picture (a bit of dramatic license here, since obviously stabbing or severe beating could kill someone, but the game is set up so that such unglamorous things won’t off your character unless you want them to for dramatic reasons).

As you can see, it's kinda trying to turning the LARP back into the game, and not just by being a binary 'do or die' stat check.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

Generally that's not an issue, as I said before, because only a few systems have "sudden death" combat.

 

[Mother Russia]

Vaarna dear, have you read Shadows of Esteren yet? I made a thread about it here in the Gazebo a couple months ago. At least get the pdf, it's not that expensive. The book is worth it for the artwork alone...it has real art in it, no dungeon punk or chainmail bikini with Cloud Sword type art.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

Nope.

 

[Mother Russia]

Nope.

Then READ IT!

 

[ManjuShri]

Anyone played any of the Judge Dredd RPGs?

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

I once took part in a fairly bugfuck insane Judge Dredd d20 game.

 

[WetWorks]

Anyone played any of the Judge Dredd RPGs?

I remember having read the rulebooks to one of the old dredd games, must have been an 80s dredd. Think it had a yellow box. Don't rmember much else about it though.


As for most favouritestes system, i think that would be an extremely contextual question. For gunporn i'd go with Shadowrun 4, which i currently have a cozy relationship with. Im fond of 3.75 for fantasy, it does what it does reasonably well, but i recall the 1st Warhammer FRPG had a pretty good system.
I like Call of Cthulhus generic system for it having almost no rules, but enough to have a veneer of depth. Fits the mood, and allows for drama.

 

[tuluse]

Reading through GURPS rulebooks, I don't care for only using D6s. The variety and different applications of dice is part of the fun to me. Does this make me a faggot?

 

[particle man]

Reading through GURPS rulebooks, I don't care for only using D6s. The variety and different applications of dice is part of the fun to me. Does this make me a faggot?

If it does, well, I'm a dicefag too. I consider that the major downside to GURPS. It's still a cool system though, I thought character creation was perhaps a bit more fun/interesting than in d20/D&D.

 

[crazyirish]

The Riddle of Steel with some homebrewing going on.

 

[WetWorks]

Reading through GURPS rulebooks, I don't care for only using D6s. The variety and different applications of dice is part of the fun to me. Does this make me a faggot?

I'm not a dicefaggot, since i believe you can do fine with a one die system ie. storyteller and SR4 systems. I dont understand the love for gurps either; 3d6 means more averages, meaning less drama. Too nitpicky system, with different gravity falling dam etc. Too sim-nerdy.

 

[Mother Russia]

I prefer less dice rolled, and as few variates of dice as possible. That's what was really great about the d20 system, it streamlined the retarded subsystems and funky dice of AD&D2e, and also resulted in new rpgs being produced that emulated this superior system. WFRP 2.0, for instance, one of my fave rpgs to this day, used only d10's.