How do you feel about learning new rule systems?

[dragoner]

Isn't Phoenix Command like Aftermath?

 

[Lord Mhoram]

It all depends on the system, and if can give me a play experience that
1) I'm interested in (I don't play horror game for example)
2) A system I already know isn't sufficient.

I know 3.x/Pathfinder very well, done some 5E, HERO is a main system, and Genesys and Cypher system for the more narrative side. I know the rules to a number of other systems, but none of them do what I want as well as the above; this makes it very hard for a new system to do things I don't get out of what I already use.

 

[Jd Smith1]

Off the top of my head, both Red Markets and Red Aegis are a fairly significant departure from standard fare.

In Red Aegis, you play a family of people throughout the ages of the world.

The Red Markets system revolves around the concept of capitalist economics.

Those are setting issues, not rules system issues.

 

[Jd Smith1]

Isn't Phoenix Command like Aftermath?

No.

 

[Jd Smith1]

I feel like our ideas of "breaking the mold" are probably very different. I'm not familiar with Aces & Eights, but the others all seem very similar to other games, and mostly date back to the 90s. Riddle of Steel is newer, but I don't think it pushes the envelope all that much.

I don't know if adding complexity in an attempt to make things more "realistic" is quite the same as pushing the envelope.

They did not add complexity, but rather took rule systems in new directions. The settings were not unique, but we are talking rules.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Those are setting issues, not rules system issues.

Are you at all familiar with these games? While, yes, it certainly impacts the setting, these also deeply factor into the mechanical systems of each.

In each game of Red Aegis, you play a new scion of the same family in a new age of the world each session. Whether that character survives is relatively unimportant, as the "leveling" system revolves around building your dynasty and advancing your society.

In Red Markets, the concept of capitalistic economics is deeply ingrained in the resolution mechanics and gameplay.

I mean, if the extent of your argument is that all these games roll dice and entail role playing then sure, they're all the same.

In execution and gameplay, however, I can't think of any older games that have much similarity to these two games. I'm confident that even if you changed the setting of both games to something resembling traditional D&D, both games would feel quite different in play and produce different narratives than D&D simply due to how they are mechanically driven.

 

[Jd Smith1]

Are you at all familiar with these games? While, yes, it certainly impacts the setting, these also deeply factor into the mechanical systems of each.

I've read them.

In each game of Red Aegis, you play a new scion of the same family in a new age of the world each session. Whether that character survives is relatively unimportant, as the "leveling" system revolves around building your dynasty and advancing your society.

Setting, not rules.

In Red Markets, the concept of capitalistic economics is deeply ingrained in the resolution mechanics and gameplay.

Not really. And the entire concept is based on the idea that 'everyone grabs their wallet' to explain why the zeds still have their ID on them. They could have gone with a sub-dermal implant, but that would have been too much thinking. And despite their desperate hype, the authors ruin a viable premise by ignoring basic economics.

I mean, if the extent of your argument is that all these games roll dice and entail role playing then sure, they're all the same.

It isn't. Read the thread.

 

[Zardnaar]

Generally don't bother, not that I'm opposed to it but good luck finding players. Bought some but never play them so a new RPG may as well be a pretty book end.

 

[cmad1977]

We play different systems fairly often. It’s not an issue to learn new stuff. Especially when the basic play loop of almost all games boils down to
“Here’s a situation: what do you do?”

Sometimes we find that we don’t like aspects of a system or really like a particular aspect of a system but not the whole thing.

Ex: we played FF Star Wars and while thematically its super cool, we found the calculation of the dice pool and deciphering of the roll to be cumbersome.
Further ex: we played... I’m blanking on the name...
Tachyon Squadron!
We preferred the parts of the game that WERENT in the cockpit, despite the dogfight rules being pretty cool.

 

[Randomthoughts]

I'm just curious to see how people feel about new systems. Are you less likely to try a new game if it's a system you aren't familiar with?

Haven't read the whole thread. But to answer your question, yes, I would be less likely to try a new game if it's an unfamiliar system. It's not a critical factor - I've gotten into a few new systems the past 12 months, but it is certainly a key factor before I buy something.

Like others, I'm reluctant to learn a whole new system from the ground up just b/c of the time (learning curve) and the probability that I would only use the new system for a session or two (so it's usually not worth it). I do like rules fitting the setting so I like rule sets that have customization (which a lot of recent systems do like Cortex or 2d20).

As a player, I'm open to practically anything, but I don't necessarily learn the whole rule set as well, unless I really get into the game.