On playing new game systems

[prabe]

Well, I've ran across a bunch in my time. I remember Living Steel as being unfun to learn.

But the most complex was a system ... and the name escapes me .... but I recall being interested in it (this is the 80s), and it was modern warfare-style, but the rules for combat with the weaponry, and the amount of weaponry, were just .... oof. Ballistics ain't easy when you're making them super-realistic.

I'd imagine that trying to make modern warfare realistic would result in it being deadly. Not necessarily a bug, mind, just not necessarily a feature, either.

I used to have a gaming buddy who was a collector, mainly in the 1980s and 1990s, and he had a lot of really weird stuff that I have no idea what it was called or whether he was running it exactly right.

 

[lordabdul]

I think many of us forget, not just the time and budget limitations (which are manifold and manifest) but also the difference in experience we have.

I believe the OP was motivated by the classic situation of "the game-master wants to play some new game, but the players don't want to". In that case, the GM usually has already bought the book(s), and is waving them around in front of uninterested friends. The only financial factor in play at this point for refusing to play the new game is what I mentioned in my earlier message, which is that some players feel obligated to buy the rulebook too. It's something that is very foreign to me -- in multiple decades of gaming, 99% of the time the only person who has books is the GM (or a player who is also a GM and has the books for GMing purposes).

 

[DrunkonDuty]

I'll be facing this quandary quite soon.

I've been playing Pathfinder with a group for about 3 years now. The new campaign, which should start in a month or so, is going to HERO system. But I'll talk them around.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

99% of the time the only person who has books is the GM (or a player who is also a GM and has the books for GMing purposes).

This was my experience also, for much of my early involvement in the gaming hobby, but became less true as my peers and I became adults with more personal autonomy and disposable income.

 

[atanakar]

My willingness to try a new system is tied to what is available for the wanabee GM. If there is a free pdf starter kit with pre-gens and a short mission I'll give it a try if I like what I read. If I have to create characters and a story it will go at the bottom of the to do pile...

 

[Morrus]

it can be HARD to learn a new game system.

My argument was basically that it usually isn't.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[3catcircus]

I've seen a "D&D-snob" aspect from some people who've only ever played D&D when asked to try a new system that I don't see from people who are coming from almost any other TTRPG when asked to try a different TTRPG.

I noticed a lot of people who had no problem trying d20 Modern who turned their noses up at other modern systems even though just about any other system (GURPs, TW:2K, TORG, BRP, D6, Tales from the Loop, etc.) is far better suited to the needs of a modern era type of TTRPG. Spycraft did an ok job, but it had a significant amount of tailoring from d20.

 

[aramis erak]

Funny I was just making a reference to that in my previous post above. I have no idea why so many people have problems with "roll under" resolution systems... Is it because they grew up playing D&D and have a "beat the score" reflex ingrained? For me it's weird, it would be like refusing to play card games or board games that have a system where you need the least number of points to win, which is fairly common...

...although I was just researching this a bit and made some interesting discovery: Rummy, for instance, is commonly scored in France (where it's called "Rami") by adding up the points of all the cards you have remaining at the end, and so this is very much a "lowest score wins" game. I looked up the American version and it looks like the scoring is completely different (at least according to the Wikipedia page), and instead you score the cards that you put down and subtract the cards you have left in your hands... making it a "highest score wins" game! Is there some weird cultural bias at play here, and some countries just don't have a tradition of more varied scoring and resolution systems? How is Rummy played in the UK for instance?

I've surveyed 4th, 5th, and 6th graders as to preference for rolling dice... a stable preference for roll high is present even with those kids.

Gin Rummy as I was taught it was you get points equal to what your opponent(s) have in hand.
Mah jongg is a rummy variant as well, and it's usually losers pay the player going out the difference in points.
Regular rummy in the US is about how much you can put down, not so much about going out, with what's left in hand counting against.
Hand and foot and Canasta also are more about what you get down, not what's left in hand, but what's left in hand does cancel points.

 

[Zhaleskra]

I've seen a "D&D-snob" aspect from some people who've only ever played D&D when asked to try a new system that I don't see from people who are coming from almost any other TTRPG when asked to try a different TTRPG.

I was a D&D-snob even having played other systems. Thankfully, I've recovered and in doing so have seen the flaws in earlier editions of D&D for the gigantic warts they are. Yes, I had fun, but I will never run or play AD&D2E again.

I agree that trying new systems is much easier as a player than as a GM trying to get others to try a system out.