Still Searching for "That" System

[Retreater]

The recent 20th Anniversary Kickstarter would have been good for your group, I think. While it funded a special edition of the core book to celebrate 20 years it also funded new, thinner player books. It also funded brand new ‘player boxes’ which are designed to hold a player’s archetype (if they have one), advances, cards with the rules for specific edges, a combat reference sheet, powers cards etc. All stuff intended to make play at the table much easier. The player’s book only has player-facing rules in it, so while (for example) it has rules for chases those rules are only the player’s options. Nothing on the GM side like how to design and set up chases.

Something like that might make adoption easier.

Yeah, I passed on the Kickstarter because - at the time - I didn't think I would be able to get my group to even consider a system other than 5e. Now, I have plenty of options, which is both a blessing and a curse.
I have signed up to be notified when late pledges become available, and I can consider purchasing at that time.

The big, hardcover SWADE core rules is definitely too much (both in content and price) to pass out to 5 players. The new versions might work.

It's just a lot when you GM, host, and are also the only person that looks at rules or how to build characters when you're away from the game.

 

[Retreater]

Sorry to be nasty, but those 4 requirements are nothing 'unique', and if you have SIXTY systems and still can't find one that suits you, then I think the problem is in your approach to gaming, and sixty more suggestions won't help you.

You're very likely correct, and a straight answer is always appreciated.

I have to admit that I've gotten frustrated and given up a lot of hope over the years. I feel like I used to be a good GM. I don't know if maybe I've been broken down by ...
1) Running too many games.
2) Running games for players with no investment outside of the session.
3) Expecting systems and adventures to do more than their shares of heavy lifting.

 

[Cadence]

Looking over your requirements again, have you ever checked out 13th Age? It feels like, compared to name-brand D&D versions it hits your 1-3. I'm not sure about 4 as I've never GM'ed it.

 

[Retreater]

Looking over your requirements again, have you ever checked out 13th Age? It feels like, compared to name-brand D&D versions it hits your 1-3. I'm not sure about 4 as I've never GM'ed it.

I've run it before for a previous group and I really enjoyed it.
It might be worth putting in consideration.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Retreater: you're ruling out many rules-medium games as too complex. My suggestion for Savage Worlds would be, Put the major combat options on a player handout. Rather than expecting them to grasp it from play, put it on paper for them to reference as needed. SW is a simple core mechanic - which misleads many into assuming it's a rules light game...

I had something like this I both handed out and used as a GM when I ran it, in fact.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I don't quite agree about SW being rules light. My mechanical notes are 13 pages of typed shorthand. Not counting weapons tables, powers, edges nor hindrances. There are a LOT of special cases covered in the not short rulebook, and the rulebook almost purely rules.

Note I said "relatively" light. Its got a common resolution metric that's used most places, and the bookkeeping is usually pretty simple. In a lot of games few or no characters are interacting with the powers system so managing all the exception-based elements there is moot, and (keeping in mind that Retreater's issues were with his players grasping it) the lists of weapons and such is only relevant to the degree a given player uses them, and how many different weapons are most players going to use? Two? Three?

At the GM end, the fact most opponents are not Wild Cards makes managing them pretty simple, too, which is why some large-group battles are more practical than in a lot of games.

There are a lot of combat options, but as I mentioned, you either can have those, not have those, or make them largely arbitrary GM calls. I don't really see there being a meaningful fourth case there, and the first is pretty much going to increase some complexity where it occurs.

But I don't see SW having as much practical overhead as most games in the D&D sphere, honestly. Its certainly as simple or simpler than 13th Age, Shadow of the Demon Lord or PF2e for examples I know well, and significantly simpler than PF1e/D&D3e.

 

[Thomas Shey]

While I agree FATE is very transactional it is rules light because there are really only 3 rules - create aspects, spend points to leverage aspects, roll to overcome aspects.

The combat minigame is also an opposed overcome roll with stress as a pacing mechanism.

the challenge is getting players to engage in the “aspect exchange” where ‘narrative intent’ gets focussed into definable props

It also can be extremely stressful to run as a GM if you have a group that's prone to overapplying Aspects, because their applicability is so subjective in many cases.

 

[Retreater]

Note I said "relatively" light. Its got a common resolution metric that's used most places, and the bookkeeping is usually pretty simple. In a lot of games few or no characters are interacting with the powers system so managing all the exception-based elements there is moot, and (keeping in mind that Retreater's issues were with his players grasping it) the lists of weapons and such is only relevant to the degree a given player uses them, and how many different weapons are most players going to use? Two? Three?

SW certainly ramps up in difficulty based on the setting. Of the ones I've played, here's the ranking in complexity (from Number 1 - most complex to Number 3 - least complex).

1. Rifts
2. Pathfinder
3. Rippers

 

[Thomas Shey]

You're very likely correct, and a straight answer is always appreciated.

I have to admit that I've gotten frustrated and given up a lot of hope over the years. I feel like I used to be a good GM. I don't know if maybe I've been broken down by ...
1) Running too many games.
2) Running games for players with no investment outside of the session.
3) Expecting systems and adventures to do more than their shares of heavy lifting.

All of these can certainly be problems. I also think you've got at least two pieces of rope that don't meet in the middle in your original requirements (I don't know of any game with decent mechanical tactical elements that don't require players to be willing to learn and engage with those rules themselves. I don't think I believe that's even possible, though of course the word "decent" is doing some heavy lifting in that sentence).

 

[Retreater]

All of these can certainly be problems. I also think you've got at least two pieces of rope that don't meet in the middle in your original requirements (I don't know of any game with decent mechanical tactical elements that don't require players to be willing to learn and engage with those rules themselves. I don't think I believe that's even possible, though of course the word "decent" is doing some heavy lifting in that sentence).

Right. I think the problem is that I have two players (sometimes three) who are willing to use tactics, and the other half who charge in half-cocked with characters who aren't optimized at all. So something that would reward the players who use good planning and tactics but isn't required for players who don't want to do that.
Because playing in a game like 4E (or Gamma World, which we're currently doing), having a couple of players who don't "get it" means TPK for everyone.