Universal RPG's not Universal?

[Henry]

Anyway, if I might ask a further question, does anyone know of a good rpg for primitive tribes? Stone age, low magic if possible?

Old, old (maybe five years ago?) d20 Book called "From Stone to Steel" if I remember, dealt with mechanics for stone, bronze, etc. weapons, infections and diseases, etc. I want to say it was Mongoose, but I'm blanking. If you can find it, it might be up your alley.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I haven't seen the game myself, but I recall a lot of good buzz about Henry's suggestion.

 

[JBowtie]

Old, old (maybe five years ago?) d20 Book called "From Stone to Steel" if I remember, dealt with mechanics for stone, bronze, etc. weapons, infections and diseases, etc. I want to say it was Mongoose, but I'm blanking. If you can find it, it might be up your alley.

From Stone to Steel was from MonkeyGod Enterprises, available nowadays in PDF form - I think Highmoon Media acquired the rights. It covers the weapons and armour from each age in great historical detail.

There's also Lost Prehistorica from Dark Quest Games; you can read my review here . The material on primitive societies is particularly useful.

 

[buzz]

His rationale: an escalating HP system is an abstraction of how proficient a PC is at avoiding damage. If the PC chooses not to avoid the damage, he takes the realistic results of his actions.

On that point, he and I agree totally, and I run my games accordingly.

That's fine, but it doesn't speak to actual lethality when using the ruleset, as opposed to ignoring it, i.e., the Sembieda method you describe.

Fiat isn't neccessarily a deviation from the rules- remember Rule Zero?

Danny, there are games (like the ones I mention) where GM fiat doesn't exist. That's part of the point I'm trying to make.

And should I choose to run a psychopathic killer out on a first date with Miss Victim...er...Buffy Lancaster?

You wouldn't be playing Breaking the Ice, that's for sure.

I read this (http://www.lumpley.com/games/dogcerpts.html#whats) section. Its a game set in the Utah of frontier-era America. Death was everywhere- disease, blizzards, etc. The game acknowledges that a character may be a "remorseless monster" or subject to the supernatural...or even Demons.

I'm sure a GM could make a campaign in that game as lethal as he cared.

Not possible in DitV. The GM sets up a town (i.e., a situation), and then the players make things happen. A DitV GM has absolutely no power to just declare that a PC dies, nor force a player into a conflict where death is part of the stakes whether they want that or not.

Destiny is tricky. Just because you've been told by some wierd old woman that you're the lost son of the last King who will rise up to overthrow the reign of Amhyr the Usurper doesn't mean that the fortune you've just been told is true. Perhaps she gives that fortune to every 5th male traveller she encounters who fits the general description...

Again, not possible. Destiny is a mechanic in Sorcerer and Sword. If "King of Aquilonia" is on your sheet, it is inviolate. The GM can do nothing to change that.

Those games don't eliminate the ability to alter the lethality of the game, they just alter who has the power to do so.

They generally don't give any one player the power to say "You die!" without having to somehow interface with the system.

Every one of the RPGs I've ever played has either explicitly or implicitly allowed or expected houseruling and GM fiat.

You need to play more varied games then.

 

[Thomas5251212]

and



A lot of people, myself included, dog Kevin Sembieda's mechanics for RIFTS. Like many other games of its era and since, it uses an escalating hit point system.

However, Mr. Sembieda went on record in his own publications as saying that, regardless of HP, if you have your PC do something suicidally stupid like put a blaster rifle's muzzle in his mouth and pull the trigger (assuming the PC can take damage from that blaster, of course), your PC is dead.

His rationale: an escalating HP system is an abstraction of how proficient a PC is at avoiding damage. If the PC chooses not to avoid the damage, he takes the realistic results of his actions.

On that point, he and I agree totally, and I run my games accordingly.

That's your choice, but its not what the _rules_ do; its you essentially using GM fiat or a house rule.

and



Fiat isn't neccessarily a deviation from the rules- remember Rule Zero?

Rule Zero isn't a rule, even if they call it that; its an acknowledgement that there are reasons to ignore the rules under some circumstances. Others can claim to the contrary, but I'm not buying that something that says "do what you see fit" is a rule unto itself.

Every one of the RPGs I've ever played has either explicitly or implicitly allowed or expected houseruling and GM fiat.

That doesn't make them part of the rules. It just means they accept the limit of the rules. As such, it makes a very clear border between what the rules do and what the GM does.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

In no particular order:

His rationale: an escalating HP system is an abstraction of how proficient a PC is at avoiding damage. If the PC chooses not to avoid the damage, he takes the realistic results of his actions.

That's your choice, but its not what the _rules_ do; its you essentially using GM fiat or a house rule.

Rulesets generally don't directly address metagaming the RPG system's handling of damage. When the players are metagaming in such a way as to abuse the game's mechanics, the GM has to exert control.

I'm not talking about metagaming by optimizing your PC or something like that, I'm talking about taking actions that not even the main protagonist in the cheesiest of action flicks would take, like sucking on an Uzi on full auto to prove how tough he is (assuming, of course, he's not actually Kal-El).

Every one of the RPGs I've ever played has either explicitly or implicitly allowed or expected houseruling and GM fiat.

You need to play more varied games then.

(as well as various comments about HRs and Rule Zero)

I've played games in approximately 50 systems, and up until I sold a lot of stuff to Half-Price Books, owned another 60 or so, covering horror, sci-fi, fantasy, western. Some were playtests that never made it to publication.

Not a one has barred HR, & several go so far as to say that some or all of the printed rules contained in the books are optional.

Unless and until a game system comes complete with a Mafia Legbreaker to enforce the RAW, the GM still controls the lethality of the game.

Unless and until a game system comes complete with a Mafia Legbreaker to make the GM design encounters with a "system reccomended" level conflict or roleplay, the GM still controls the lethality of the game.

For example, in the past 10 years, I've been in several major D&D campaigns. In the earliest one, combat occured once per 4 sessions, on average. In the one that followed that game's demise, I could count on 2-4 melees per session.

Same ruleset.

Not possible in DitV. The GM sets up a town (i.e., a situation), and then the players make things happen. A DitV GM has absolutely no power to just declare that a PC dies, nor force a player into a conflict where death is part of the stakes whether they want that or not.

So I can't set up a town where a disease like smallpox is rampant (at the time, incurable- the disease ran its course and you either died or you didn't)? Or ravenous demons dominate? Or something as simple & RW as a madman sniping at passersby from the highest point in the town (like the church belfry)?

A GM can't declare a PC who falls 100' or gets shoved into the ironsmith's (active) forge dead?

I didn't see any of that barred on their site.

And should I choose to run a psychopathic killer out on a first date with Miss Victim...er...Buffy Lancaster?

You wouldn't be playing Breaking the Ice, that's for sure.

How so? Again, nothing on the site says anything about the constraints of the quality of human being you're roleplaying.

Again, not possible. Destiny is a mechanic in Sorcerer and Sword. If "King of Aquilonia" is on your sheet, it is inviolate. The GM can do nothing to change that.

Sure he can...he defines the meaning of "King of Aquilonia." He decides if Aquilonia is a major, minor, or possibly even non-existent country. He decides if Aquilonia is currently a democracy or a socialist collective with laws on the books calling for the execution of those claiming to be royalty of the nation. He decides if the title is honorary or meaningful. He decides if there is another equally valid claimant to the throne (say, an identical twin brother, seperated at birth), or if the PC with the title is legitimate or a usurper.

They generally don't give any one player the power to say "You die!" without having to somehow interface with the system.

In one, the controlling player has the power to say "I die!"

In the other, a group of players acting in concert have the power to say "You die!"

That's merely a case of shifting the power, not eliminating it.

Danny, there are games (like the ones I mention) where GM fiat doesn't exist. That's part of the point I'm trying to make.

You haven't proven it- the links provided give no support to your claim. In fact, the point may not even be provable without an actual demonstration of one of the systems you're pointing to.

 

[buzz]

Not a one has barred HR, & several go so far as to say that some or all of the printed rules contained in the books are optional.

I won't deny that there are a lot of RPGs that contain "golden rule" text in one form or another. So, it does not surprise me that you could have played/read 50 RPGs and seen it across all of them. Heck, until fairly recently, I'd bet that every RPG on my shelf was written like this.

That still does not mean that all RPGs work this way.

Unless and until a game system comes complete with a Mafia Legbreaker to enforce the RAW, the GM still controls the lethality of the game.

Well, lots of RPGs now come with an explicit social contract that lays out the responsibilities of all the people involved. Obviously, no one can enforce that other then the group itself. However, that doesn't mean that the person in the GM role can ignore that contract willy-nilly without expecting that the group as a whole may reply with, "Dude, why are you doing that? That's not how the game works." It's no different from being able to assume that the person playing the banker in Monopoly isn't going to grab cash from the bank, i.e., cheat.

I didn't see any of that barred on their site.
...
How so? Again, nothing on the site says anything about the constraints of the quality of human being you're roleplaying.
...
Sure he can...he defines the meaning of "King of Aquilonia."
...
That's merely a case of shifting the power, not eliminating it.
...
You haven't proven it- the links provided give no support to your claim. In fact, the point may not even be provable without an actual demonstration of one of the systems you're pointing to.

All I can say in response to all this is that if you're not going to trust that what I'm saying is true, given that I've played or read these games and you have not, I'm not sure there's much point in continued discussion. I mean, saying you could play a homicidal axe murderer in Breaking the Ice is like saying, in Monopoly, you could have your car run over the little dog in order to steal their hotels. It's just not part of the game.

The fact is, an online retailer like Indie Press Revolution carries products from 52 different publishers, most of which don't work in the traditional way you're describing, and do work the way I'm describing. A DitV GM can't flatly declare a PC dies of smallpox, and a Sorcerer GM can't redefine a PC's Destiny without that player's consent. That's just not what these RPGs are about. Really, a lot of these RPGs were specifically designed to not work in the typical fashion you describe, based on a belief that said fashion is really problematic (whether you agree with that or not).

If you ever go to GenCon, I'd suggest stopping by the demo tables at the IPR booth, or going to the Games On Demand events. You'll get a chance to sample some of these RPGs and get a better idea of what I'm talking about.

 

[Thomas5251212]

In no particular order:


Rulesets generally don't directly address metagaming the RPG system's handling of damage. When the players are metagaming in such a way as to abuse the game's mechanics, the GM has to exert control.

Which I've not denied. None the less, that has absolutely nothing to do with what the _rules_ do, and is in and of itself, a metagame process, no different than GM fiat.

(as well as various comments about HRs and Rule Zero)

I've played games in approximately 50 systems, and up until I sold a lot of stuff to Half-Price Books, owned another 60 or so, covering horror, sci-fi, fantasy, western. Some were playtests that never made it to publication.

Not a one has barred HR, & several go so far as to say that some or all of the printed rules contained in the books are optional.

Unless and until a game system comes complete with a Mafia Legbreaker to enforce the RAW, the GM still controls the lethality of the game.

And when he does so directly in most of them, he's using GM fiat, which I've never denied he could do; I just deny it has anything to do with the rules set at hand. Its entirely a social contract/metagame issue at that point, and what rules set is at hand is irrelevant. But its also got nothing much to do with what level of lethality the game promotes.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

But its also got nothing much to do with what level of lethality the game promotes.

If you ignore the next comment I made (see below) after what you quoted, no.

Unless and until a game system comes complete with a Mafia Legbreaker to make the GM design encounters with a "system reccomended" level conflict or roleplay, the GM still controls the lethality of the game.

The lethality inherent in the system can be made entirely irrelevant by a GM who does not want a lethal game but still likes the system.

He can focus on role-play. He can offer the Players the chance to reconsider actions that would result in campaign ragnarok ("Are you absolutely sure you want to pursue that course of action, considering facts X, Y, and Z?"). Not a bit of that is GM fiat. GM fiat- which seems to be your focus- is but the last arrow in the quiver.

And the reverse is equally true.

Toon is inherently less-than-lethal. However, its ideal for running a cartoon-based campaign, and thus would be a natural for running a "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" campaign. According to the storyline of the movie, such a campaign would have the potential for permenant character death.

I won't deny that there are a lot of RPGs that contain "golden rule" text in one form or another.<snip>

That still does not mean that all RPGs work this way.

I agree, but until you prove it, I have no evidence to the contrary to consider- a bald assertion and link to a website doesn't suffice.

So provide more proof than a mere link. Quote some kind of rules text.

 

[Thomas5251212]

If you ignore the next comment I made (see below) after what you quoted, no.



The lethality inherent in the system can be made entirely irrelevant by a GM who does not want a lethal game but still likes the system.

And by that standard, all systems are essentially freeform systems, and all are the same as each other. If a GM is going to bypass the system when it doesn't suit him, he's not really using the system.

I don't buy it.

Most people do not take a rulesystem and then sidestep it when its inconvenient in any major way. They use it unless its absolutely intolerable, then they either rework it (at which point they have to one extent or another a different system than what they started with) or they find a new system.

He can focus on role-play. He can offer the Players the chance to reconsider actions that would result in campaign ragnarok ("Are you absolutely sure you want to pursue that course of action, considering facts X, Y, and Z?"). Not a bit of that is GM fiat. GM fiat- which seems to be your focus- is but the last arrow in the quiver.

None of which intrinsically effects the lethality of the system, just under what conditions the lethality comes into play.

Toon is inherently less-than-lethal. However, its ideal for running a cartoon-based campaign, and thus would be a natural for running a "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" campaign. According to the storyline of the movie, such a campaign would have the potential for permenant character death.

And if it did in the game, it would be because the GM _changed the system_. At that point, its not the same system, even if its based on it.