Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 5491543" data-attributes="member: 27160">Well, you can never prove an absolute, I know, but I have come to the belief that designing a good RPG that supports multiple foci is impossible.  I can't prove it, of course - but I have yet to see one, and I have seen (and, more importantly, played) many RPG systems.  Too many key system elements drive the focus one way or another, and the features that support these foci typically either break or compromise the very features needed for their fellows.  My honest opinion is that, in order to get a system that supports one focus of play really well, you have to sacrifice the things that support alternative foci.I play, as preferred RPGs, HârnMaster (set in HârnWorld) and D&D 4E (set in the Nentir vale).  Hârn is about as immersive and simulationist as you can get.  It has a (mostly) working economy.  It has characters who are born to higher rank.  It has detailed and rational explanations for its magic system and its 'monsters'.  I would not call it any more (or less) a roleplaying game than D&D 4E.  It's different, sure!  The focus of play is utterly different, partly as a result of the rule system being utterly different.  But both are very definitely roleplaying games, far beyond what any computer "roleplaying game" will ever achieve.No, I honestly don't think we can.  the result will, inevitably, in my opinion, be a kludged compromise that pleases neither those seeking one type of game nor those seeking another.  The evidence of this will be extensive house rules (including selecting subsystems from among options offered in the game and selectively ignoring some game rules) that will mean that each table of such a game is, in effect, a totally different game.  The fact that we have had this with (all) previous editions does not mean that I think it's a good thing.  Some game elements are so well embedded (xp and level, hit points) that it's very hard indeed to remove them, resulting in them just getting in the way for games they really don't suit.I can't say much to this except that I don't find it to be the case at all.  I have run Hârn using a board and figures (albeit rather differently than I do for D&D 4E), and the immersion was just fine - better, I think, than it would have been without the board and figures (and mini trees and rocks, but that's another story...).Most "Forge-born creations" are explicitly aimed at instant-story focussed games, so they are really expected to support single or few-session games; there is no surprise, there.  Sorceror, Ron Edwards' first game, can support something longer, as can Primetime Adventures - but that second one sets out to emulate TV series', so it would be expected to last "a season or two", just like the thing it emulates.I think the possibility for a long-term campaign have nothing to do with tightness of focus or the other stuff you mention.  It starts with whether the players (including the GM) are all really 'on message' with the game focus and theme, and requires a system that retains the type of cohesion required for that focus.  D&D 4E, for instance, is doing well for my group so far because it remains balanced - both between the characters and between the party and the encounters - through all levels of play.  It's not perfect, but it knocks previous editions, where we had to abandon games after level 8 or so as they just became silly, for six.  HârnMaster, on the other hand, also does exceedingly well because it has a well-balanced economy and society in the game world; a group of half-a-dozen ne'er-do-wells have a rough time ripping it to shreds in the way they used to in 3.5E, for example.  In their different ways, both work beautifully - but a mixture of the two would just be horrible!Because then you would have two different games.  Now, there's nothing inherently wrong with that, except that you would lose the cross-compatibility that 4E, for instance, has - but the issues would not end there.  To get a functional "immersive" game there are other obstacles.  Character level, for instance.  I have many times, in the past, tried to build a convincing fantasy city with D&D.  I have always failed, in the final analysis, because either the city is stuffed full of mysteriously beneficient ex-adventurers, or it it so fragile that any reasonably high level PC party can trash the place in a few combat rounds.  Level (and, to a lesser degree, hit points - not so much due to lack of "realism" as due to the PC behaviour they encourage) really can't peacefully coexist with a strong simulationist focus.  Then the "continuity ideas" arise.  I think this is because the xp -> level up paradigm encourages cometitiveness, and this then find expression in players saying "if this and this are true in this world, then surely, logically, I can do this!"...tldr version - I don't think it works, even as "options", unless you essentially make entire halves of the game 'optional'.  Even then, this 'optional' really isn't.  For those wishing to play with a specific focus, around half the rules will actually be "don't touch this with a bargepole if you want a cohesive game".Not SOL, no - just needing to play a different game.  That is something I have been doing for nearly thirty years, so I guess it's something that doesn't phase me.  The difference being, really, I was playing a load of different games because D&D didn't coherently support any real focus, and I wasn't prepared to spend as much effort houseruling as some folk were.No, I'm giving an honest answer, as I see it.  It's like the question "when did you stop beating your wife?" - there is no direct answer I can give that is not misleading and/or inaccurate.  I really, strongly, do not think that character levels reflects any sort of real or fictional phenomenon.  It's a game mechanism, pure and simple.  I could say that level 1 = Rocky or Sam Spade and level 30 = Atlas or Merlin, but Rocky will never become Atlas, and Merlin never was Sam Spade - the comparison is misleading.  The idea of escalating in power as a character "ages" is purely a game device, in my view.It seems to me that the purpose of the N levels (N = 30 or whatever) is to keep play varied and (more) interesting over a long campaign of challenge-based play.  It also gives players some feeling of "reward" for challenges beaten.  That's it.  No more to see.You are welcome to dream on <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />  I think combining them will just take us (back) to a compromised, confused, unfocussed mess.You have my sympathy.  That has to be the most bizarre, ill-considered outlook I have heard of.  Mind you, I have read stuff around here of folk refusing even to read and try 4E, so I guess it's not totally unique.  I hear it takes all sorts - but I do sometimes wonder "Including those? Really??"Yeah, that is logical under your (curious) circumstances.  If it helps any, I'd be happy if 4E had the name changed to "DragonQuest" if it continued to be developed <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></blockquote>

Verification