Sorry if I lost track of it in the thread, but do you have an example of a particular rule from a particular game that is a significant improvement on (a) coming up with story hooks for characters prior to the start of play (flaws, motivations, relationships, etc.) and (b) aligning player and gamemaster expectations on what sort of campaign this will be (heavy on combat, heavy on story and social interaction, etc.)?
My sense is the rules in such games are generally a place holder for the conversations above. As was noted elsewhere, I would be extremely wary of a system that introduced complex story mechanics (ala combat) that obviated the need for roleplaying all together.
Let's use the Hero System (CHAMPIONS) as an example.
First, let's not oversell the rule set. It doesn't align player--GM expectations, but negotiations/discussions around the rules can dispel incorrect assumptions. The GM still maintains control over what he plans to run.
A bit of background on the system:
It is a classless design system- Characters are created by spending points on attributes, skills, perks, and powers
- The number of points available to spend is assigned by the GM as part of the campaign design and a typical restriction would look like “Characters may be constructed on 100 points plus up to another 100 points from Disadvantages”.
When a PC is constructed, a player may -- and almost universally does -- take Disadvantages. Disadvantages increase points with which the player may construct the character.
Disadvantages range in scope from things that limit the character compared to a normal person (something that wouldn't hurt a normal person will knock out or kill this character, the character has reduced or missing physical capabilities), the character has emotional attachments or social obligations that opponents can take advantage of (has a rival or loved one that gets into trouble), the character has a history (hunted by someone, is actively monitored, (in)famous), or the character has mental restrictions on behaviour – (phobias, personality ticks, oaths and codes of honour, etc.).
Each disadvantage is effectively rated two ways: the approximate frequency of occurrence in play (infrequent or about 25% of adventures, frequent or about 50% of adventures, or very common 90% of adventures) and severity. When a character is presented to the GM, the GM takes note of the disadvantages and assumptions found therein and should compare them with the expected campaign play.
The character is hydrophobic and becomes near catatonic when near large amount of open water, but that happens rarely? So the planned Arabian desert --> Mediterranean ship transition probably won't be good for this character. The GM should mention open water is expected to occur more frequently that 'infrequent' in the campaign and perhaps the points should be re-distributed from “infrequent,total” to “frequent,moderate”,
So how does this supply story hooks? Half the disadvantages are things in the campaign world that have an established interest in the character or ways for things in the campaign world can find that character.
The other half are player cues of situations the player wants to occur. If the player buys something as “almost always” or “frequently occurring” then the player is explicitly accepting and expecting its occurrence. If a player buys something as infrequent, it is a signal the player is willing to occasionally experience the event, but doesn't want it a focus or ubiquitous in the campaign world. Anything not mentioned by any character sheet should be of limited concern for the campaign unless the original campaign write up mentioned it -- no player cares enough about it for even infrequent occurrence.
