Martial Dailies - How so?

[marune]

I only kept the most important parts :

To simulate a fantasy setting, of course.

I want casters and melee-types to be relatively balanced with each other, such that one does not overshadow the other in all situations. I want combat classes that are diversified, such that one is not simply a "fighter" - there are multiple approaches to combat, and you have to choose one, with each having strengths and weaknesses. I want the mechanics of each class to reinforce the flavor of the class: defender-type classes will have mechanics to encourage them to do that, while assassin-types will have mechanics that encourage them to be sneaky and ambush people.

I want a system that is internally consistent, allows for non-combat situations to be as mechanically complex and involved as combat, and rewards something other than just killing things. I want a system that encourages the idea that the in-game world is alive, and that it is internally-consistent and sensical.

We are going somewhere...

First, let me say that combat vs non-combat stuff has nothing to do with the playstyle(gamism, simulationism, narrativism). It is a common error to link combat to gamism, even if it's easy to come up with a gamist "solve the mystery" game.

Second, you really seem to mainly focus on Exploration, even if you talk about balancing melee and magic in combat. (i.e. I understand : magic shouldn't be better than swords to explore combat situations).

Because, you understand that "prowess balance" is a gamist metagame concept.

Would you run a game in which one player plays Aragorn and the other Pippin ?

Next question, what do you like and disklike in GURPS ?

 

[GnomeWorks]

And I wasn't necessarily characterizing you with that comment.

Okay. Just wanted to clarify that I wasn't trying to be a jerk, or anything.

So you're choosing to intepret the game in a way that makes trouble for your ability to enjoy the game? That seems like a poor choice to me.

I will not budge from my interpretation, though I will go to some lengths to try to make seemingly-nonsensical things fit into that framework. If something doesn't make the cut, I take it out: I did this with a lot of the Bo9S maneuvers.

First, let me say that combat vs non-combat stuff has nothing to do with the playstyle(gamism, simulationism, narrativism). It is a common error to link combat to gamism, even if it's easy to come up with a gamist "solve the mystery" game.

I wasn't trying to apply the GNS labels to combat or non-combat mechanics. I simply want there to be mechanical support, as detailed as combat, for non-combat encounters. I just happen to prefer mechanics that support simulationist play.

Second, you really seem to mainly focus on Exploration, even if you talk about balancing melee and magic in combat. (i.e. I understand : magic shouldn't be better than swords to explore combat situations).

That could be.

Next question, what do you like and disklike in GURPS?

It's been awhile since I looked at it, but IIRC, the mechanics seemed rather messy to me.

 

[GnomeWorks]

Because, you understand that "prowess balance" is a gamist metagame concept.

...I suppose so. It is a game, though. There's got to be some gamist balances in place.

Would you run a game in which one player plays Aragorn and the other Pippin ?

I think part of the problem with that comparison is that, IMO, Aragorn is probably higher level than Pippin - Pippin doesn't have a whole lot going for him, whereas Aragorn is pretty hardcore. I don't want to derail the thread into comparing LotR characters, though.

If, though, for example's sake, Pippin had a reasonable set of skills that were equivalent to Aragorn's, but in other ways (ie, not combat or ranger-y type things), then yeah, I'd be fine with that.

 

[marune]

...I suppose so. It is a game, though. There's got to be some gamist balances in place.

The only balance really important in a RPG is the "spot-light one", i.e. each player having a good share of the attention of the others.

D&D is doing it with "powerfulness balance", because D&D is all about overcoming challenges, where the most powerful generally is more successful.

I think part of the problem with that comparison is that, IMO, Aragorn is probably higher level than Pippin - Pippin doesn't have a whole lot going for him, whereas Aragorn is pretty hardcore. I don't want to derail the thread into comparing LotR characters, though.

If, though, for example's sake, Pippin had a reasonable set of skills that were equivalent to Aragorn's, but in other ways (ie, not combat or ranger-y type things), then yeah, I'd be fine with that.

In a simulationist mindset, the problem happens if Pippin hasn't has much ways to explore the situations as Aragorn.

If the game is well-built, it won't happen, because while Aragorn will be tearing the orcs apart, Pippin will be doing some crazy stuff around, that will too get the attention of the others player.

The important point in this example is that Pippin should not be necessarily useful in the combat situation, only "showing" itself trough his actions, like Aragorn is doing by fighting.

If that is not feeling right for you, you are not so much of a "simulationist".

 

[GnomeWorks]

The only balance really important in a RPG is the "spot-light one", i.e. each player having a good share of the attention of the others.

D&D is doing it with "powerfulness balance", because D&D is all about overcoming challenges, where the most powerful generally is more successful.

Fair enough. Combat is still significant, and so you don't want one character to overshadow the others. In social encounters, I would hope that each character would have a way to contribute.

In a simulationist mindset, the problem happens if Pippin hasn't has much ways to explore the situations as Aragorn.

If your game is well-built, it won't happen, because while Aragorn will be tearing the orcs apart, Pippin will be doing some crazy stuff around, that will too get the attention of the others player.

Pippin's focus may very well not be combat. In that case, Pippin will not have as much to do as Aragorn, ignoring anything resembling the idea of level. However, perhaps Pippin spends his time crafting awesome things, a trade with which Aragorn has no familiarity. They are both contributing to the group as a whole, and therefore to the game, but in different areas.

 

[marune]

Pippin's focus may very well not be combat. In that case, Pippin will not have as much to do as Aragorn, ignoring anything resembling the idea of level. However, perhaps Pippin spends his time crafting awesome things, a trade with which Aragorn has no familiarity. They are both contributing to the group as a whole, and therefore to the game, but in different areas.

You playstyle is a confused G/S.

The whole idea of "contribution to the party success" is very G.

I'll have to think which questions to ask to make you realize what your real priority is.

 

[GnomeWorks]

You playstyle is a confused G/S.

The whole idea of "contribution to the party success" is very G.

If there is no adversity to be overcome, what is the point of playing?

So of course there are going to be gamist elements in my approach.

 

[marune]

If there is no adversity to be overcome, what is the point of playing?

So of course there are going to be gamist elements in my approach.

Characters are going to face adversity of course.

What is G is to ask to players to overcome challenges, i.e. finding a way to make their character useful to win a fight or a negociation.

 

[GnomeWorks]

What is G is to ask to players to overcome challenges, i.e. finding a way to make their character useful to win a fight or a negociation.

It's up to the player to make decisions for their character that makes them useful in a fight or negotation. If a player generates a character not useful in a fight, that's their choice. The options to make a character useful in a fight should be available, but not mandatory.

 

[Zelster]

This entire argument is ridiculous. The sports analogy works perfectly; if the OP was ever involved in such an endeavor, he would realize that it is simply not possible to excel during every single moment of the day. Use statistical analysis to determine how often a person can make a truly excellent move per day, now reconcile it with the D&D fantasy narrative system. How many times per day can you lift your max weight on a squat? How often do you have that perfect strike against your fencing opponent? Roughly once per day, if you're lucky and don't miss.