How Much Do You Care About Novelty?

[Micah Sweet]

And as I've pointed out, Spycraft and d20 Modern were missing some of those.

You can design a "rules widget" to allow silent takedowns of full-HP enemies in a spy movie style, as Worlds Without Number (which I believe you are familiar with, no?) shows. You could modify their takedown rules.

But that "rules widget" and many others are absent from both of the games.


By that logic, D&D's HP, levels, etc. "try to force the narrative". So that doesn't mean much.

If you want more rules, I support making them, especially if they make things more realistic to my mind (as the suggested takedown rules would do IMO). I've certainly done so for my games. HP and to a lesser degree levels are abstractions to make the game more playable (and you can't ignore the familiarity of D&D-like systems for play with real people who want something they know). I made peace with them long ago. Moving beyond them into other narrative-pushing mechanics is where I start to have issues.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

If you want more rules, I support making them, especially if they make things more realistic to my mind (as the suggested takedown rules would do IMO). I've certainly done so for my games. HP and to a lesser degree levels are abstractions to make the game more playable (and you can't ignore the familiarity of D&D-like systems for play with real people who want something they know). I made peace with them long ago. Moving beyond them into other narrative-pushing mechanics is where I start to have issues.

Being real, I can't see that levels and increasing HP based on level "make the game more playable", because games like CoC are more accessible and straightforward than D&D, and don't have either.

They're a particular choice for a particular kind of gameplay, not generally suited to RPGs as a whole.

(HP are a useful abstraction to be clear, but making them increase by level isn't necessary or beneficial to most genres.)

And I was under the impression you were saying the value of Spycraft/d20 Modern was in how they supported genre tropes. My point was that they actually didn't, and that was our main objection.

 

[Reynard]

games like CoC are more accessible and straightforward than D&D,

That is the first time I have ever seen that assertion.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Being real, I can't see that levels and increasing HP based on level "make the game more playable", because games like CoC are more accessible and straightforward than D&D, and don't have either.

They're a particular choice for a particular kind of gameplay, not generally suited to RPGs as a whole.

(HP are a useful abstraction to be clear, but making them increase by level isn't necessary or beneficial to most genres.)

And I was under the impression you were saying the value of Spycraft/d20 Modern was in how they supported genre tropes. My point was that they actually didn't, and that was our main objection.

They support the ability to do things in those genres, like rules for spy gear and spy missions. They don't need to push spy narrative for me.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

That is the first time I have ever seen that assertion.

Well, they are. Players don't need to know as many rules as D&D and they work in a predictable way. There's a reason CoC is played by an entire audience who don't play other RPGs in Japan, for example.

I would suggest that actually a pretty large number of RPGs are more approachable and accessible than D&D, even when we look at how limited the "up-front" learning for D&D is.

In fact, PbtA/FitD games and similar, are, for people truly new to RPGs significantly easier to learn, in my experience. The people who struggle are those familiar with other RPGs and who have difficulty adopting the approach described, but if that's the approach you start with, it's easy.

They support the ability to do things in those genres, like rules for spy gear and spy missions. They don't need to push spy narrative for me.

To me that's a distinction without a difference.

And not letting you knock people out or one-shot them means you can't do "spy missions", so clearly that's a problem even from that perspective.

 

[Autumnal]

Numenera 1e was a good example of this to me. I was REALLY sold on the concept; the art, the cyphers, the possibility of truly strange places to explore. But I was really disappointed by the surprisingly mediocre treatment. It felt like "standard" D&D with lots of one-use items that were mostly exotic grenades. I think my expectations were too high: I was hoping for Jodorowsky sci fi spirituality and Moebius crazyness. The Incal or Metabarons?

That's just me though.

Not just you. When Cook started describing the project, I was hooked. I love all his inspirations, and had tried to base campaigns on several, but they’d fallen flat. The idea of a game putting such ideas front and center made me want it right then. The concept art only made me happier. And then the actual focus of this lay felt less distinctive than a bunch of D&D settings. It’d be easy to wax hyperbolic about my disappointment, but there are too many waxed hyperbolas already.

I wonder if I could loot the game for what I want from it to use with QuestWorlds.

 

[Autumnal]

I would suggest that actually a pretty large number of RPGs are more approachable and accessible than D&D, even when we look at how limited the "up-front" learning for D&D is.

Very much so. True also of games like Fate and Everway.

For spy games by the way, even though I dislike the Gumshoe system, Night’s Black Agents is the gold standard. It’s got real system support for both George Smiley and Jason Bourne, and excellent discussion of how applying the options affects play.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, they are. Players don't need to know as many rules as D&D and they work in a predictable way. There's a reason CoC is played by an entire audience who don't play other RPGs in Japan, for example.

I would suggest that actually a pretty large number of RPGs are more approachable and accessible than D&D, even when we look at how limited the "up-front" learning for D&D is.

In fact, PbtA/FitD games and similar, are, for people truly new to RPGs significantly easier to learn, in my experience. The people who struggle are those familiar with other RPGs and who have difficulty adopting the approach described, but if that's the approach you start with, it's easy.


To me that's a distinction without a difference.

And not letting you knock people out or one-shot them means you can't do "spy missions", so clearly that's a problem even from that perspective.

The issue for me is that I don't generally work with people completely new to RPGs,and in any case I'm certainly not, and the many games I am familiar with and enjoy are almost entirely traditionally designed. The basic concept behind the kind of games you're describing was hard enough for me to understand at all, and when I did I still didn't and don't see the appeal, and they appear to want a gaming experience very different from what I want. I don't think I could ignore those feelings when participating in such a game or a discussion of what to play where such a game was in the mix. I simply have too much emotional and mental investment in traditional RPGs.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

traditional RPGs

What is a "traditional RPG"?

I'm pretty sure Call of Cthulhu is a "traditional RPG" by any conventional definition, but you seem to have a different one? Do you just mean "D&D-based RPGs"?

 

[Micah Sweet]

No, CoC counts. I was thinking of games like PbtA or Blades. Played a bunch of CoC, mostly at conventions. Lots of fun.

What is a "traditional RPG"?

I'm pretty sure Call of Cthulhu is a "traditional RPG" by any conventional definition, but you seem to have a different one? Do you just mean "D&D-based RPGs"?