New System Deal Breakers

[prosfilaes]

1) More than one book required to play the game. D&D and Pathfinder get a pass on this for tradition's sake, but even those should move to a single core rulebook with their next editions.

I don't know; would Pathfinder really help its core market by cramming some monsters into its main book? One single core rulebook helps lure new people in with just one book to start; if you don't need to do that, especially if you going to have a dozen books anyway, it's nice to cleanly separate the player's stuff and the monsters.

 

[delericho]

I don't know; would Pathfinder really help its core market by cramming some monsters into its main book?

No, but...

Fundamentally, I feel the core rules for most games out there (and especially D&D and Pathfinder) are simply too long. If you need the better part of 1,000 pages before people can get started, you're doing something wrong.

As I said, I'm willing to give D&D (and Pathfinder) a pass on this for tradition's sake, although even there I would prefer them to drop down to a single Core Rulebook for the next editions.

However, for any other system, I expect everything I need to play to be included in a single book (or, I suppose, boxed set). What I didn't say, although I suppose I should have, is that I also expect that book to be a reasonable size - no more than about 250 pages. See WFRP 2e or SWSE for examples of how I think it should be done.

 

[prosfilaes]

No, but...

Fundamentally, I feel the core rules for most games out there (and especially D&D and Pathfinder) are simply too long. If you need the better part of 1,000 pages before people can get started, you're doing something wrong.

As I said, I'm willing to give D&D (and Pathfinder) a pass on this for tradition's sake, although even there I would prefer them to drop down to a single Core Rulebook for the next editions.

I'm not going to say anything against that as a personal preference. But to say they should do that; well, I think, financial motivations aside, they know their audience and what their audience want. Pathfinder, in particular, could easily be swept under by another D20 derivative if people really wanted something less prolix then Paizo is offering.

 

[delericho]

I'm not going to say anything against that as a personal preference.

Well, indeed. I was mostly commenting on my deal-breakers.

However...

But to say they should do that; well, I think, financial motivations aside, they know their audience and what their audience want.

While this is certainly true, it only applies to their current audience, and there's a limit to how often you can sell the same stuff to the same people. If the games are going to survive, they really need to attract new players.

I'm very much of the opinion that those 1,000 pages of core rules are a major impediment to new players coming into the game. Indeed, I was in the process of introducing the game to some new players, and the moment they saw the books I saw their enthusiasm die. "We need to read all that to play?" they asked.

And the truth is that while they didn't need to read it, or indeed anything, for a new group to start up it is true that someone needs to have read the rules, and created an adventure, and the players have to have created characters, and then they get to start having fun. $100 and several hours of reading, is just too much initial investment to ask people to put in to a game that they might like.

It would be a different matter if we had a good Starter Set, but there hasn't been one since the old Red Box. Too often the boxes represent a "pay-for preview" or, worse, use a dumbed down ruleset. What then happens is that our potential player bypasses the starter set in favour of the 'real' version of the game... and then goes play WoW instead of doing all that reading.

So, yeah, I do think that D&D and Pathfinder should go to single Core Rulebooks for their next editions. Indeed, they should build their Starter Sets around the same Core Rulebook everyone else uses, and then build up from there.

(However, this opinion may be revised when the Pathfinder Starter Set hits. It's possible that that might do what it needs to do, and brings in lots of new players. But I'm not holding my breath.)

 

[Zhaleskra]

However, for any other system, I expect everything I need to play to be included in a single book (or, I suppose, boxed set). What I didn't say, although I suppose I should have, is that I also expect that book to be a reasonable size - no more than about 250 pages.

How does 318 pages grab you, with a lot of the last few pages being indexes, and there's a fast play chapter that's two pages long, and it's the only book you need to play and/or run the game?

Other books are supposedly in the works but not strictly necessary.

 

[Neonchameleon]

And I have to spend the entire game trying to engage uber PCs while watching the weakling PCs fight at the edges of the encounter. And I hate having to game the system just to challenge my PCs. I realized 4e wasn't for me when I realized even a natural 20 wouldn't hit one of the party rogues - but the same monster would hit the other party rogue on a 10+. I hate that.

I know this is offtopic, but unless you are talking about opportunity attacks (i.e. free attacks given away by the PC rather than being the monster's standard attacks - therefore they don't count the way normal defences would), I have to ask how? How did you get a 11 point gap in defences between two PCs? (For the matter a natural 20 always hits.) I've never seen that much difference (or one PC overshadowing another too much all the time). I'd check the maths on both character sheets.

4. Assumed character role. If the game assumes PCs are of one particular group, I get annoyed sometimes. Usually if that assumption is rather tight. Hey, you know what? I don't want to BE a vampire. Or an arthurian knight. Or a superspy.

That depends on the background. Some games written tightly for a group work spectacularly - others are pointless.

8. Equipment Reliance. Not a fan of any game where the PCs' gear is a huge factor. Even in games where the setting makes PC gear choices important (Shadowrun, for example), I am just not a fan.

Here I'm going to quote I forget who. "Iron Man should be able to beat Tony Stark in a fight".

And don't even get me started on Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay...

What's wrong with it? Other than it's dark and messy fantasy.

13. Critical Fumbles. Unless they're very simple, and minor in effect - but generally, they lead to deadpanery which is just a PITA.

Here I'd adopt the 4e weapon breakage rule into any game. A natural critical fumble allows you the chance to reroll - only if you botch the reroll do you fumble.

Savage Worlds core book specifically says NEVER make an NPC/enemy via the same process as you would build a PC.

I don't recall too much in the way of indications of what you should do on the other hand other than play it by ear.

 

[delericho]

How does 318 pages grab you, with a lot of the last few pages being indexes, and there's a fast play chapter that's two pages long, and it's the only book you need to play and/or run the game?

Yeah, that's fine. The 250-page thing is a guideline, not an absolute law.

 

[Greg K]

What's wrong with it? Other than it's dark and messy fantasy.

Awesome setting, but, in my opinion, past editions had horrible mechanics.
As for the, current, version? All those components jack up the price, considerably, and will be a bitch to replace should they become lost and the game goes out of print . On top of that, from what I have read, despite the asking price

1. you receive less career options and magic/priest options; and
2. you only get 1 of each card. If two players want the same action for their characters, you have to copy the cards or buy a new set.

 

[Herschel]

1. Skill trees: HATE them. Give me a basic framework of skills and role play from there. The 1E/2E thief skills set gets legacy treatment but not in any new game. If I need to designate "ranks" between swimming and running, I don't want to play it.

2. Lack of balance: Characters should all be able to shine at different points in combat. If a game easily devolves in to Superstar and his lackeys, I don't want to play it.

3. Anti-Taco gaming: Any game that can not be played while eating tacos should be never be published.

 

[Votan]

I know this is offtopic, but unless you are talking about opportunity attacks (i.e. free attacks given away by the PC rather than being the monster's standard attacks - therefore they don't count the way normal defences would), I have to ask how? How did you get a 11 point gap in defences between two PCs? (For the matter a natural 20 always hits.) I've never seen that much difference (or one PC overshadowing another too much all the time). I'd check the maths on both character sheets.

I do seem to recall seeing this, although it required a new character (who was able to select magic items precisely) with the chance involved in a 4d6 drop one random stat system. I also saw it with melee characters, which might make a difference.

But it was certainly possible for it to happen. You can work around it in a variety of ways . . . But a naive use of the system could make it occur.