What kind of RPG games would you like to see made? - Page 4 - Myth-Weavers


Gaming Discussion

For all things gaming related.

What kind of RPG games would you like to see made?

Originally Posted by Kylia Quilor View Post
It's not a matter of bias when the guy is explicitly talking about RAW that put in a level of fiddliness that would make a board game like Twilight Impierium Blush.
That guy, and I remember him from that forum, was notorious for his bias, not his analyzing skills (you can see he's banned and it takes a LOT on The RPG Site to achieve that).
As stated above, I've actually played Fantasy Craft. It's not nearly as fiddly as he makes it seem - though you can note a lot of his complaints boil down to "I'm not used to this part of the rules working like this, HOW DARE THEY".
And yes, no matter what you're talking about, you can make it seem like stuff it's not. Take it on my word as a journalist...I can probably describe Risus and Savage Worlds RAW and make you think Risus is slower at the table, were I so inclined. (Granted, I'd need to put some actual work into that, but then if I hated Risus, I could).

In reality, I think the best comparison is 3.PF. And Fantasy Craft is about as fiddly as that, which it seems most of you are fine with.
Some would say FC is a a bit fiddlier than 3.PF, I'd say "a bit less after you get used to it, though it might seem a bit more at first due to lack of familiarity".

So, there's the guy's review, and the above's my actual play experience (and in PbP, which is relevant to this site). You pick which one of us to believe, OK? I'm not affiliated with Crafty Games...meaning I get nothing for persuading you.
Which, in turn, means I'm not going to try too hard.

That review is a pretty positive review, but it doesn't say a thing about the details of the rules or the actual play.
Just google "Fantasy Craft review". There was a pretty detailed review on the first page when I did that this morning.
Basically, the big ones for me are "limiting magic by points, so casters don't dominate (as much)", "making feats (fighter spells) as useful as actual spells", "turning defence into something that scales with level"*, and the like.

*Not having to upgrade to better armour definitely helps to avoid the Christmas Tree Adventurer effect.

Either way, neither makes it look appealing to me, but unlike The Fred, I don't think 3.PF is this giant mess that needs fixing as he seems to think.
Well, here I agree with The Fred. If we disagree on that, the disagreement is on a fundamental level.

Nor do I need a game that fiddly.
Sure. You already have 3.PF for that level of fiddliness, and if you have no issues with it...yeah, I can totally understand why you wouldn't be looking for yet another!
It's like the reason I'm not looking to learn HERO: I've already learned GURPS and mostly, EABA.

Or, a new game in general.
Well, then you simply aren't in a situation when you'd be inclined to look at any games.
But if you're not looking for any games, why are you participating in a thread about "what new games you'd like to see made"? I mean, it's implicit in the title that you'd be willing to purchase them, if they were to fit your criteria. If your criteria include them "not being new games"...well, obviously they couldn't be something we might see in the future, right?
Not saying you should leave the thread, or anything of the sort, mind! It just seems weird. And I'd like to know why you're participating in the thread in order to know what arguments might seem relevant to you.

Let’s not go too far into discussing an existing system, we’re getting off topic. Could always make a separate thread for Fantasy Craft though!

Originally Posted by AsenRG View Post
However, the site you linked to is not one I'd recommend for unbiased opinions, especially not when it comes to 3.5 and its offshoots.
Here's a link for balance.
I think I saw that too when I searched for it yesterday but I have to agree that it doesn't go into much detail. The other review is definitely biased and the guy is pretty much frothing (scrolling up that thread hardly fills me with any confidence) but does, for what it's worth, at least go into some detail on the actual rules. Both present things in less-than-analytical ways; the first says "they added this thing, how dumb!" where the second says "they added this thing, so that's cool!" without really analysing the pros and cons of said thing (in fairness the first does more of that, but also more frothing; the second is more balanced).

Anyway, yeah, let's not consume the whole of this thread with FantasyCraft, and I don't really see myself buying it just to see what it's like, but interesting to hear of another 3.5-derivative. It does sound fiddly, too - I actually like 3.5/PF's level of complexity, but it certainly doesn't need to go up and as far as learning a new system goes, less is often more. I guess it's back to that thing of elegance again.

Originally Posted by Kylia Quilor View Post
Either way, neither makes it look appealing to me, but unlike The Fred, I don't think 3.PF is this giant mess that needs fixing as he seems to think.
I wouldn't describe either 3.5 nor PF as "a giant mess" and indeed, I love 3.5! It's probably my favourite system (of the, like, four-and-a-half that I know, admittedly - Eclipse Phase is pretty cool, but honestly that's more the setting than the system itself). However I can also see that it has some flaws. Some are very minor, some are much more severe, and whenever I play it, these annoy me. Things ranging from "why the hell is Dodge even a feat?" (minor, but disproportionately annoying) to a dislike of the power curves, the whole martial vs magic thing, and things like the way natural weapons work.

I'd like to see something which embraces the 3.5ness of 3.5, but does a few things a bit differently. However I appreciate that part of the draw of 3.5 is as much its familiarity and nostalgia as anything, idiosyncrasies and all. Things like 5e and PF2e have tried to streamline it, but at the risk of "dumbing things down"; I'm sure there's a better, happier medium but I'm not sure if it would still lose too much of what makes 3.5 what it is. Even if it did, it would probably be a much nicer system in its own right. I'm tempted to try and make one myself, though probably just for fun (and science!) rather than with any seriousness.

Sorry, I'll take it to PMs. I just wanted to point that a system like what @The Fred wants to see has already been written, IMO.
Well, it turned out not everybody agreed with me. I didn't notice we were causing thread drift.

Back on topic, another thing I'd like to see made is an RPG that reflects Eastern Europe's folk tales at least somewhat accurately, but frankly, I doubt I'd ever see one!

The big piece of easy-to-implement low-hanging fruit that I’d like to see is a game that takes Pendragon’s Traits and Passions (not necessarily those specific, genre-appropriate ones, but ones that suit the cultures of the setting) and uses those as the basis for targeting social skills.

(I may have mentioned this here before - I know I’ve talked a fair bit about my views about social interaction in RPGs. I’ve implemented something like this in my own 5e games, although it’s a bit basic and mostly confined to +5/-5 modifiers for DCs.)

I.e., you don’t roll “Persuade” - you use your Persuade skill to appeal to the lord’s Love of Country or to overcome his Suspicion of Outsiders. (Because talking to the pages the previous day got you the information that those would be strategically good approaches with this particular individual.)

Basically, do what “social combat” systems are trying to do, which is make social interaction as interesting as combat, but not by using combat as the model for social interactions. It really surprises me that Pendragon (which has a lot of opposed rolls) doesn’t default to a model in which opposed rolls versus Traits are the norm for social skills. (E.g. Courtesy vs. Proud to avoid offending someone or Orate vs. Cowardly for the stirring Crispin’s Day speech.) Obviously you’d want to raise the base levels for the skills to compensate for the fact that you need to win an opposed roll, and figure out some way to mechanize using a skill to trigger a Passion roll, but otherwise it’s a very straightforward adaptation that would build on one of the system’s main strengths without adding any real crunch at all.

But I think any game which has a lot of politics and intrigue could use something like that.

That’s what I mean, though - it’s not made the default norm for the system. And it doesn’t specifically use a skill vs trait opposed roll very often. Instead, the two subsystems tend to run in parallel.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Last Database Backup 2019-06-19 09:00:07am local time
Myth-Weavers Status