MrBrown

I can't really vision any kind of RPG product line that wouldn't start to decline after about 5 books. I think RPG producers would be better of trying to make several products that are more specific, but similar in presentation, rather than one Big product that everything else is then based upon. I think WW's WoD has kinda got it, though I can't personally say anything about the quality of their products.

Ginthaeriel, I agree with you. I think CRPGs (and PnP RPG products as well), have generally lost the basic idea of "let's do a game that is fun to play", instead relying on doing things the way others have done before, or relying on outside definitions on what an RPG "should" be. I do think there is potential in the genre as such, I just don't think most games are close to it, at all.

For me, the issue is simply about boredom. In the BG games for instance, if your Cleric died, then you had to tromp through the countryside to the nearest temple and then back to whatever you were doing (not to mention the inventory management to carry all their stuff). This could be 5-15mins of boredom, depending on where you were. And yes, it was annoying. Death didn't bother me in games like some Final Fantasies for instance, where having enough phoenix downs would be enough. There death was just a statistical set back, not a gateway to boredom. This isn't really a problem with PnP, where you can just say "okay, you're at the temple" and "okay, you're back at the 34th level of the dungeon".

"Total party wipeout". It always annoyed me in many squad/group/party -based games how the death of one character/unit, a specific one or any, meant loss in combat.

Yay, another "why can't I get moral decision-making by making a setting" -thread! Rantrantrantrant... Seriously, your situations sounds almost identical to Gromnir's, so read that thread: http://forums.obsidianent.com/index.php?showtopic=41601 I agree with Eldar on that RPGs require a contract between the participants. I'd go a step further though and say that the contract should be about the "point" of the game (the thing that is fun, assuming the game succeeds). If the participants agree that the game is about "moral decision making" (whatever that is), then the game is about that. The end. And the guy who makes a crazy pirate PC gets a spanking.

Why did you show up, seriously. I recommend just telling him what you think is wrong with this whole thing, and leaving. No reason for you to start acting like idiots as well, like some here seem to suggest. At first, I thought the whole hobo-thing was the result of the random tables as well... Pretty wacky tables at that. I've sometimes found players (occassionally myself included) really eager to use such tables though. They can be pretty fun, if they're not too extreme. Or, as an introduction to a different setting.

"Judgement" is such and abstract term that I can't really know what kind of things you're thinking of there, so I'll leave that general statement unanswered. Well, the only thing I can say is, I've found them ridiculously easy. Just one more thing: The kind of play I'm advocating here with the alignment stuff, is one where the competitiveness (actually, I prefer the word "challenge") is top priority is and "staying in character" secondary. It's the type I think works best in D&D, and that I personally try to get my groups to play if we play D&D. I recommend to keep trying. I don't think D&D is (that) bad or anything, but playing only one system can easily get you stuck in thinking it's the world, and other systems are just providing them same thing in a different package. As for the last comment, I think there's 2 groups of people in this case: people who have a specific type of playing and try to fit that into any system they encounter, and people who try to play by a system first and see where it takes them. It might be pretty obvious from what I've written, but I highly prefer the second approach.

There is nothing wrong with competitiveness as such. It's a goal in playing as much as "staying in character" or "drama" can be. There is no universal "good game", and it doesn't happen without talking about it and recognizing it. As a sidenote, my posts in the Dead Horse: The Beating -thread were mainly about D&D having rules that encourage competitiveness, and thus causing D&D play to often "drift" from other kind of goals (such as "staying in character") to creating competitiveness. This is usually a bad thing, as at least some participants probably don't want it to. There is no need for GM arbitration in such matters, as long as the group agrees on the goal of play, and use a system that supports it and doesn't cause "drifting" from it. Most of the comments like "players try to get away with anything" and "the GM needs to arbitrate the game" come from people who try to GM D&D (or other competitiveness -oriented games) without competitiveness, only to find their play drifting to it, and thus feeling a need to scold the players for their "bad behaviour" Penalties to the player, not the character. Character "power" is important, because that is how the player affects the game world (in D&D, and many other games, but not all). If the player's character has no power, that player is as good as impotent. If something the player does in the game makes him lose his power, then naturally he strives not to lose it. If, in the case of the paladin, the paladin changing alignment means the player loses his power (by not being able to atone, not being able to create a new character, etc etc), then the player will strive not to change alignment. This is where the "GM-arbitrated alignment" makes itself "necessary". If you feel a need to punish the player for not "staying in character", then of course someone needs to arbitrate it. If you take player punishment out of it, then the player can make his paladin fall when he feels like he did something to cause that, and the player can make it by his own accord. And, there is no need for GM-arbitration. There's nothing uncommon about having disagreements about rules. To connect it with my previous paragraph, these are disagreements on the system. Just don't mistake them for disagreements on the goal.

EDIT: I don't mind the topic as such... I just don't want start it from the beginning, again. Ok. Well, let me add this: For the kind of playing I described in the d&d forums post, there should be no penalty to the player for changing alignment, in any instance. That is to say, if the player of the paladin decides that his paladin has now changed alignment and loses all paladin powers, then the GM/system/the whole game as such should provide (not force) him with means to gain back his original power almost immediately. Whether that means atonement, a new character, turning into an "anti-paladin" (using any of the several rules for such out there; I find the Unearthed Arcana variant Paladins to be the best), or something else. Without this, the system only works when "staying in character" is top priority. Which is rather hard to maintain in D&D, due to the competitiveness of the rules (to use theory jargon: the rules of D&D make it so easy to drift from "staying in character" to competitiveness, willingly or not). Get away from.... What? If there are no penalties for changing alignment and being of any specific alignment, the players don't need to "get away" with anything.

Oh, I don't mind alignment as such. I know D&D doesn't work without alignment. Like I said, the example I provided doesn't really work (EDIT: in D&D that is, because D&D has alignment); it's just an example of how things could be done. Yeah yeah... Read the link I provided. Sorry, but I really don't want to get into this discussion again; it's repeated ad nauseum (sic) at the D&D boards. It is not a "roleplaying" mechanic. It's a drama driving mechanic. It isn't telling the players how or what they should play; the players change it according to how they play.

These are really problems of bad (or inexperienced) GMs. The only things you need to do is discuss PC agenda before play, or provide it if the players do not want to co-create it, and get the players to agree to have the PCs pursue that agenda. Then the GM just needs to provide the adversary and their actions.

The Paladin has no inherent benefit (by the rules anyway, dunno about your houserules), so why would you need to watch over it? And no, you really don't need to judge player's alignment through their actions, because in 3ed D&D, there really isn't any inherent benefit in having one alignment over the other (unless you put one there, of course). I'm too bored to go over this since I've just done it on the official d& forums (last posts on the thread): http://boards.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=628618&page=2 I can give further opinions on it though, if anyone's interested. And finally, alignment is "staying in character". It won't bring about moral decisions, or even drama. It's hardly a carrot/stick method. Obviously, it comes with assumption that any spiritual attributes the players assign to their characters will come into play, AND that the players themselves want it to happen. Like I said before, world simulation doesn't bring about drama (or moral decisions).

Oh, I agree completely with that. I guess I worded my original post badly. It's more about getting to the (agreed-upon) "point of the game" and avoiding drifting, than forcing something to someone. Just for the record, I didn't suggest so (and never would; I consider GM judgement of player decisions to be pretty bad form in just about any case.)

Ok, a Riddle of Steel Spiritual Attributes conversion to d20... This thing doesn't really work, it's just an example. 1. Get rid of other experience awards. Totally. Shoo shoo. And tune down the loot, maybe 2. Get rid of alignment. Alignment is "staying in character", and is only in the way of moral judgementing. Define a set of Spiritual Attributes for each character. RoS has 4, picked from several types, mainly Destiny, Drive, Faith and Passion. They need further definition, such as a specific character might have "Drive: Become a general of the Army", or "Passion: Love for his family". Each attribute has a score from 0 to 5, starting at maybe 1 or 2 for each. They work like this: 1. Whenever the PC does something that any of the spritual attributes "apply" (to be defined, but for instance the love-for-family guy defending his family) to, the player adds the attributes as a bonus to his rolls (in D&D, mainly to-hit, skills, damage, AC, saves and spell DC). If more than one apply, they stack. 2. Each "scene" (to be defined) that the above happens, the player adds a single point permanently to all all SA's that applied. If the PC does something against his SA, it is lowered by one point. 3. The player can, at any time, permanently take a point away from any SA and gain an amount of experience (maybe 100 to 200) that applies immediately. 4. Whenever an SA is at 0 (such as from the use of #3), the player can change it. For instance, Passion: Love for family to Passion: Love for homeland. #3 and #4 are crucial. In actual play, you do this: Let's say you have two characters with the following SAs: John: Faith: The King. Passion: Love for Maria, the daughter of Baron Vodstok. Bob: Faith: The King. Drive: Become a noble. Then in play, the GM does something like these: - The King orders Baron Vodstok and his immediate family beheaded for treachery. - The King disbands all nobility, and turns to true dictature. - Baron Vodstok offers to take Bob as part of his family, if he takes his daughter in marriage. ...And what you get is mechanically supported decision making that completely defines the reward system. Or more appropriately, a drama-driving mechanic. In each of those examples, the characters must make a choice between their SAs, AND they get points no matter what they choose... As long as they DO make the choice. And in Gromnir's setting... Tiki-tiki Too-too the Thri-Kreen has: Faith: Unethically Produced Commodities are of the Devil, and not-to-be-used. Passion: His pack. And then Gromnir says: "Someone in your pack has a disease that can only be cured with UPC!". And Tiki-tiki must choose whether to abandon his morals or his love, AND he gets points whichever he does. What the GM does here is called a "bang", btw. In these kinda of games, the GM just needs to keep banging.

If I did think those points were already clear, I wouldn't make them, would I? The key point here is moral judgement; it's not "just" player decisions. But... But... Theory is too beautiful to be soiled by actual play! Seriously, I don't see much to make specific examples about. Gromnir's problem: "Players do not make moral judgements". The answer: "Reward them for it, and they will". Duh. Unfortunately, I don't remember any related reward systems that would be free and online... I'll need to dig up, or maybe make a crude d20 version of the Riddle of Steel one. Oh, one thing though. Watch out for "Over before it even started": Making the moral judgement the game is supposed to be about (or is it? At least I'm assuming it is, from the post) seems to take 5 seconds time, and that's before Gromnir gets to say "you're at this tavern...". Gromnir: "The world is completely dependant on the Unethically Produced Commodity. But, a revolution is starting, to rid the world of this past. Which side do you choose?" *5 seconds* Players: "Ok, were the revolutionaries!". *End moral decision making, begin "staying in character".*

To get player's to make moral decisions, you need to: - Reward it uniquely. That is to say, no other mechanic brings the same rewards as making moral decisions does. Or, make it the only reward system. - Take GM judgement out of it. Player's can't make moral judgements if some outside authority dictates one is "right" and some other is "wrong". This applies to reward mechanics as well as in-world events. A few more points: - Reward systems are what RPGs are about. Determine your focus, and then wrap the reward system around it. Besides increase in character effectiveness, rewards can also be narrative power, or social ones. - World/physics simulation doesn't lead to moral decisions. You need a system for it. Seriously. At least a reward one. - "Roleplaying", as it is commonly understood as "staying in character", does not lead to making moral judgements. "Staying in character" is being static; moral judgement is all about change. For an example of reward systems and mechanics on "moral judgement", you could check out the Spiritual Attributes in The Riddle of Steel. They're all about answering "what is worth fighting for?".

Agree with the above. Happens to everyone, IMO. Another pit trap is to start thinking "why can't they make great games like game A anymore", always comparing new games to that game, not willing to accept how some new game might be great in it's own way.

FF12? Yeah, 12 (not 10-2). It came out in Japan a month or so ago.

Final Fantasy XII and X. Geneforge 3 ... I haven't updated my computer in 5 or 6 years, haven't had the chance to play any newer PC games.

Agreed. It's not only AC that does that though, D&D 3E seems to do a complete turn around when getting to high levels from low. Different things start to matter. It's weird.

Don't see any reason they need to. You just need a rules set designed for the type of playing you want to conduct. If you want drama, then you need a drama driving mechanic. A system that only has rules for stuff like how to hit opponents and skills checks will bring about drama only accidentally. In other words, very rarely. D&D 3E is designed to do this. Secondary attacks wouldn't make much sense unless it became alot easier to hit opponents. I'd say high level characters rely more on HP though, as that keeps going up more than melee damage (spells are another thing, though...).

I don't care if 3e, or any system for that matter is "extensive". What matters to me in a system is that it is coherent in what it is trying to do, not that it answers all my prayers. Why would you want all chocolate bars to taste the same? I'm personally unable to find any "d20 foundation" anywhere. All of them seem to be just variants of the same system, or at the least, based on a similar resolution mechanic (add stats roll d20 compare to DC). It's basically just a marketing gimmick, IMNSHO. Certainly. But this requires two things - For the designers to make a system that is internally coherent (in other words, that it doesn't try to achieve a different type of game with rule A than it does with rule B), and for the users to realize what type of game the system is trying to achieve. If both of this do not happen (to at least some extent), then the user will be on a wild goose hunt with his houserules. No, I don't prefer gamism, nor have I said I do (I certainly don't mind playing it, though). I'm simply claiming it is the type of gaming D&D is aimed at, or rather, the one it best supports regardless of what designers intended to do. I probably wouldn't mind this happening in a gamist RPG (especially in a CRPG, which are mostly very gamist indeed), but I wouldn't consider it a very elegant thing either. Mostly because it is something where both reward and plausability are easy to implement, if the system can be worked from the ground up. As I see it, it wouldn't be a flaw, just lackluster design.

BTW, recommend RPG-theory reading: http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theory/threefold/ and http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/ These both have to do with distinctions in playing styles. The 2nd is more of an in-depth variant of the 1st one. Even if you don't agree with all of them (I certainly don't), they are very enlightening reading.

Indeed. I wasn't trying to say the rules system is necessarily perfect. However, whether or not something is flawed or not would require one to know what it is trying to achieve in the first place. I only have hands-on experience with Basic D&D, core 2e AD&D and the majority of 3ed. IMHO, despite alot of differences in detail, the assumed creative agenda is mostly the same. I also think 3ed D&D is pretty inflexible. D20 is too, at least when it comes to trying different kinds of settings. I would rather say that the rules are a tool in trying to achieve a creative agenda (which can be generally described as "what your game is about"). Not the only one, but an important one. The agenda is the primary goal however, so it doesn't matter as much what tool (rules) is used, as long as it achieves the agenda. I agree with your second paragraph pretty much, I've also had bad experiences in similar situations. Well, I wouldn't mind talking about the game with your specific house rules if I knew what they were... But person B playing by the same ruleset might not have the same houserules, and might have alot more of them. So it is kinda futile to talk about your and person B's games with the name of the original system, since there's a big chance that your houseruled ones are widely different. It all comes down to "perfectness" being a guestion of preference.

Certainly. Yes, because I don't think it's a guestion of preference. The rules are a means to an end. What end someone is trying to achieve with them for their game is up to preference, but the effectiveness of the rules as written in achieving this is arguable. Also, you are misinterpreting the argument. The fact that you have problems with the D&D rules is proof that they are not a good tool in achieving the type of playing you're trying to do. You are simply arguing this is because it's an imperfect system, while I'm saying it's because it is a tool meant for a different kind of job. It is not about what kind games you or I play or prefer. As I said before, anyone can play the game anyway they want, but if their playing style differs from the one the rules are intended for (and they don't houserule), they might end up with problems like you are having. That doesn't change the game that is being run, it just might bring out problems with it. In other words, not all D&D-games being played are gamist, but those that are not have the chance of getting incoherency problems, like the ones you are having. The same could happen trying to play in gamist way in a non-gamist system. If the rules were really secondary, then why the need for houseruling? If people didn't care about the rules that much, then there'd be no need to houserule them. What I think you're really saying with this is that adhering to the rules as they are written in the books is not a primary concern, and with this I agree. However, this brings us back to what I said in my previous post about the futility of talking about any specific system if you have to assume an undetermined amount of houserules.