Still Searching for "That" System

[Thomas Shey]

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

Well, Rifts was absolutely going to have a lot of moving parts, and depending on how they expressed the Pathfinder approach I can see it there.

Note of these three, two were situations where they were porting over properly representing other games that I consider significantly more complex than native SW, however; its probably not surprising that upped the practical complexity to some degree. Even though they has some things to keep track of, I didn't find either my XCOM or Broken Earth games nearly as complex to run as I suspect those would be (they both ended prematurely, but that for reasons that were largely non-systemic).

 

[HaroldTheHobbit]

My biggest problem with WFRP is how lop-sided it is. It just seems that there's a clear way to "win" the game. If you make an elf with a background that starts with great armour, you're going to be 2-4 times as survivable as others. The amount of XP you get in exchange for random rolls during character creation don't come near to offsetting the hindrances you take by ending up a lowly ratcatcher with a bag of dung to spend on being able to afford a rib-bone to use in combat. (I'm only exaggerating a little.)
The lop-sidedness of this harbors resentment in the players. There is such a wide gap in effectiveness, that a poor character should just stay behind to care for chickens.

Random chargen is a big no for me, for the above reasons. I always have a chat with my players about overarching campaign theme and rough party composition from fun and power level perspectives. They are then free to choose from a limited list, and I throw them a small amount of bonus starting exp anyway. Imho, if you want to have a knight and beggar in the same party, there better be reason and all player buy-in. And @TheSword is right about char development and races.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

Well, to be honest, in SW about the only thing people really need to know tactically is that charging into missile fire can be a problem, and even that's only severe in modern games (in a fantasy SW game, most ranged attackers have either pretty slow rate of fire or relatively modest damage). It can be advantageous to know your options (and you're not going to get full value out of a lot of Edges if you don't), but you can just brute force through it and it won't kill you.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

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.

I have read many of the thread where you described your frustrations (they reminded me of some of mine in the past), and I am convinced you are; 1) running too many games.
2) Expecting too much from games where the players are basically casual players.
3) Expecting systems and adventures to make up the gap between, what you want and what the players can deliver.
From my reading of your previous posts and threads, your players were/are happy enough with your 5e games but you are not.

From my perspective you are still a good GM, though you may be burned out and need a break. I think mix in some board games and if you really want to GM, run shorter campaigns, dial down your expectations unless you find players that are on your wavelength. Play different systems, if you have 60 systems give some of them a chance.

 

[dbm]

Well, to be honest, in SW about the only thing people really need to know tactically is that charging into missile fire can be a problem

I agree. I think one of the advantages that Savage Worlds has over a system like 5e is that the system is a bit more intuitive in terms of what you might do, and what that might mean. For example, in 5e ganging up on enemies (or having them gang up on you) has little effect unless characters start using the ‘Help’ action. In contrast, in Savage Worlds superior numbers naturally give a bonus - it intuitively makes sense.

So, while players may have more options in combat in Savage Worlds those options are intuitive and they are very rarely ‘gated‘ behind a specific ability that the character needs to have.

As a GM that rarely means I have to tell a player that they can’t attempt something they want to try. Their chances may be low, but they can try pretty much anything that a person could try in ‘real life’ (or a pulp action version of real life!).

 

[Blue]

I have some questions, because it looks like there are assumptions hidden in your requirements list. This is just to help narrow down what your looking for, none of it is debating or judging.

At the very first - all of your requirements sounds like you want lethal combat to be a common solution to challenges. For instance the superhero genre is very survivable in general as well as being built around the concept of having interesting options unqiue to each character. You have TMNT & Other Strangeness (not that Palladium fits the other requirements) and MARVEL (FASERIP) on your list of owned games, but they are definitely a minority. But truth be told you have a lot more (high/grim/*) fantasy games on that list as well as some SF versions of that type of play. So are you okay with any genre, or are you looking for a D&D-like in terms that combat to the death is a common occurrence?

Or, to flip this around: are you okay with character/party failure as long as it's more like a downbeat in a story, as long as character death is not a common result of that failure?

Next question - Good GM tools. A number of systems are a lot lighter on needed (and even wanted) GM prep. For example a lot of PbtA games and other Story Now are forgiving in "encounter building" and adventures are minimal. I see Monster of the Week on your list, and the most recent adventure I saw for that was complete at three non-dense pages. Does looking for "good GM tools" have the assumption that you are looking for a system with a traditional DM style RPG like D&D/PF/etc. where you need those tools? Or would a game that has a lot less reliance on that also fit your needs?

Along those lines, if you could say why Monster of the Week doesn't meet your requirements, that would help clear up understanding for a whole swath of games of a particular style.

 

[innerdude]

Here's a post of mine from another thread that describes how Fantasy Flight Star Wars worked for me...

"I ran one campaign in Fantasy Flight Star Wars' (I think it was Age of Rebellion). I never got the hang of the rules and had to have one of the players interpret the die rolls for me.

Him, looking at the symbols on the dice: "I got two challenges, a threat, and an opportunity..."
Me: "So I guess you fired your last shot before your power pack drained. It missed the Stormtrooper, but it hit a pipe near the enemy's head, spraying out steam. This could fill the whole room, but it's close enough for the Wookie to grab to bend the pipe and blind your opponent."
Him: "No, that would be one challenge, two threats, and a celebration..."
Me: "Alright, you hit the Stormtrooper. As he falls, his blaster fires erratically, causing the Blast Doors to begin closing at the end of the hall. From the other end, you see a squad of 5 more troopers turn the corner, weapons raised. One activates his com: 'Lieutenant, we've found them!'"
Him: "No, that would be a success, a threat, a challenge, and a disaster with three raises."
Me: "Ok, you tell me what is the correct way to read that die roll."

I hated running that system. It codified all the narration, shackled my creativity and descriptions, seemed completely arbitrary in its rules with extremely similar and confusing language to separate different results."

Hmmm, yeah, that's unfortunate. That's nearly exactly opposite of my group's experience. Our experience was tremendously fun and satisfying---satisfying enough that it got a player who in the past 20 years hadn't played anything but WoD and D&D 3.5 / PF1 to actually buy Edge of the Empire.

Maybe it was the fact that I'd had a significant learning opportunity running a narrative style game using Ironsworn that made the difference. FFG / Genesys system was right up my wheelhouse. It felt totally natural interpreting the dice, giving players more director-stance / background-level input on how scenes were playing out, interpreting die results using different techniques, etc.

If you're primarily encultured to use "trad" action resolution type results, the Narrative Dice system would feel much like you've described --- confining, awkward, difficult to resolve, and unsatisfying. "Trad" ethos runs fairly counter to the Genesys / FFG system.

It's not really spelled out in the rules in a satisfying way, though. It's like FFG was afraid to go to that "bridge too far" by telling players directly, "Don't try to run this like your typical roleplaying campaign."

With my Ironsworn experience, it was so easy to pick up the threads of what to do. It was obvious that interpreting a narrative dice result was meant to have more "reach", or potential narrative impact than strict "in the moment" action resolution. A single throw of the dice could indicate gears of NPC intentions / events churning in the background, a mounting threat (or a mounting opportunity) coming ahead that the characters may or may not be aware of; it could mean some circumstance you thought was true in your GM "head canon" may have just become very much untrue, because fate / the dice have deemed it so.

If you're comfortable using PbtA / FitD style narrative techniques, the FFG / Narrative Dice system sings. Once you're used to concepts like Ironsworn's bonds and momentum, FitD's position/effect tradeoff, PbtA's fronts, and Blades in the Dark style clocks / Ironsworn progress tracks, the Narrative Dice system feels like a very natural extension of those concepts, just with a little more character-facing build structure around it.

*Edit -- Looking at your comment, it also seems that if your player/players were sitting there expecting you to interpret the dice, but without offering their own input and merely negating your input with "That doesn't follow from the dice, try again," then there was a significant mismatch between system expectations, player expectations, and the intended group dynamics.

 

[innerdude]

I agree. I think one of the advantages that Savage Worlds has over a system like 5e is that the system is a bit more intuitive in terms of what you might do, and what that might mean. For example, in 5e ganging up on enemies (or having them gang up on you) has little effect unless characters start using the ‘Help’ action. In contrast, in Savage Worlds superior numbers naturally give a bonus - it intuitively makes sense.

So, while players may have more options in combat in Savage Worlds those options are intuitive and they are very rarely ‘gated‘ behind a specific ability that the character needs to have.

As a GM that rarely means I have to tell a player that they can’t attempt something they want to try. Their chances may be low, but they can try pretty much anything that a person could try in ‘real life’ (or a pulp action version of real life!).

I would also totally agree with this. In my 8+ years of experience running it, Savage Worlds players quickly understand and naturally intuit their character's fictional positioning based on the rules / their character's in-fiction capabilities.

 

[Retreater]

From my reading of your previous posts and threads, your players were/are happy enough with your 5e games but you are not.

Yeah. I've gotten to the point where I don't enjoy 5e at all. It's probably a burn-out issue with that system, but it's also that I can't figure out how to get the experience I want from it - and I've been struggling against the core assumptions of 5e for close to a decade now.
It's a resource management/attrition system that doesn't give practical advice for how to deplete resources because the Encounter system is seriously out of whack, and no one has 6-8 encounters per day. The closest thing to a solution is the Gritty Rest mechanic, but players balk at this (I know I have).
Perhaps going through and cutting out certain spells would help? Perhaps requiring the expenditure of Hit Dice to heal would help? Perhaps allowing death save failures to accumulate until the character has a short rest would help?
But I didn't have to do this for any other edition of D&D. I feel like for all their failings, they at least worked for the attrition concept.

From my perspective you are still a good GM, though you may be burned out and need a break. I think mix in some board games and if you really want to GM, run shorter campaigns, dial down your expectations unless you find players that are on your wavelength. Play different systems, if you have 60 systems give some of them a chance.

Thanks for the vote of confidence.
So I've been criticized by players in other groups for being a "system junky" - playing 5-10 sessions with a game and then moving on, just because I like learning new systems, having new experiences, and searching for the best fit for the group. This has frustrated players that they can't gain a system mastery, develop a relationship with a character, explore the world, gain high levels, etc.
Many players don't want to buy-in with another system, so that's why I struggle with finding something I can sell them on for a "long term" experience.

 

[dbm]

I've been struggling against the core assumptions of 5e for close to a decade now.
It's a resource management/attrition system that doesn't give practical advice for how to deplete resources because the Encounter system is seriously out of whack, and no one has 6-8 encounters per day.

You’re going to start thinking I’m on the Pinnacle payroll… (I’m not )

This is one of my big issues with pretty much all varieties of D&D. The attrition model does not fit with how we play our games. It assume 5-6 speed bump combat encounters to chip away at party resources before you get to a ‘cool’ fight that you really want to run; one that has interesting opponents and makes sense in-character.

Guess what - Savage Worlds has a completely different resource model and built in assumptions which means you don’t need to have speed-bumps to whittle down your player’s resources. In many ways ‘minor combats’ are a poor adventure design choice for Savage Worlds, as any enemy could theoretically Ace a damage roll and take out a PC. (There are multiple mitigations available to address this as you need to, however).

(We now return you to your scheduled programming…)