RPGs that you feel trip over their own cool ideas

[Retreater]

If I wanted and old school game with convoluted legacy mechanics I would just grab 2e AD&D

Well, just convert 2E's AC to the positive scale and THAC0 to an attack bonus, and I think you're well on your way to a better designed C&C.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, just convert 2E's AC to the positive scale and THAC0 to an attack bonus, and I think you're well on your way to a better designed C&C.

I rather just use and convert the setting info for a game I like better mechanically. 2e was the best for that. Thank you TSR!

 

[DragonLancer]

That doesn't seem like a system "tripping over its own feet". It seems like players that aren't completely on board with the intended playstyle.

Yes and no. I can see where you are coming from but that isn't it at all. It's definately a case of a system trying to emulate the travel from the books but ultimately failing. As I say, we're all Middle Earth fans, but even the GM (or LoreMaster) feels it doesn't add to the game and actually detracts from the storytelling. If you want the party to pass by an ancient dwarven way stone then just do it. The travel mechanic doesn't really work and I would say it is the system tripping over it's feet but I see what they were trying to emulate.

 

[Nikosandros]

I feel like everyone complains about the same thing with C&C but the designers dont seem to care. Ive specifically avoided the game based on everyone voicing it is overly complicated.

I'm no fan of the Siege Engine, but evidently the authors like it a lot. There also seem to be enough players who like it, since C&C is still pumping out revisions and new books.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes and no. I can see where you are coming from but that isn't it at all. It's definately a case of a system trying to emulate the travel from the books but ultimately failing. As I say, we're all Middle Earth fans, but even the GM (or LoreMaster) feels it doesn't add to the game and actually detracts from the storytelling. If you want the party to pass by an ancient dwarven way stone then just do it. The travel mechanic doesn't really work and I would say it is the system tripping over it's feet but I see what they were trying to emulate.

That is definitely a subjective call. I am very familiar with TOR and never encountered any issue with it's travel rules. Encountering travel scenery is evocative and fun for me.

 

[Umbran]

I have two of these. One is Monte Cook's Cypher system - I really like the mechanics, but I'm not a big fan of cyphers. Outside Numenera, they always feel tacked-on...

They conceptually work in something like Old Gods of Appalachia, or other setting where one-shot charms and magic (or tech) items make some sense. What gets in the way is that the system assumes there is a constant flow of such items.

Daggerheart = Plays like a game it was not designed to feel like. its generation of Hope and Fear don't work in a way that is fun to interact with. They feel more like random elements that are sloppy in how they flow through play.

That's odd. For us, they flow just fine.

I'd like to hear more about how you feel they are sloppy - they're the basic force driving the GM's action economy, and while it takes a new GM some time to learn to work with the pacing they provide, other systems have similar learning issues and don't get called sloppy for it.

Never quite at the right times, and not really for the right reasons are they gained.

They aren't all that diegetic. They aren't gained as a clear direct consequence for in-game events.

 

[Micah Sweet]

They conceptually work in something like Old Gods of Appalachia, or other setting where one-shot charms and magic (or tech) items make some sense. What gets in the way is that the system assumes there is a constant flow of such items.



That's odd. For us, they flow just fine.

I'd like to hear more about how you feel they are sloppy - they're the basic force driving the GM's action economy, and while it takes a new GM some time to learn to work with the pacing they provide, other systems have similar learning issues and don't get called sloppy for it.



They aren't all that diegetic. They aren't gained as a clear direct consequence for in-game events.

That last is why it wouldn't work for me, but that doesn't mean it isn't a working system that does what it intends to do.

 

[Umbran]

That last is why it wouldn't work for me, but that doesn't mean it isn't a working system that does what it intends to do.

Honestly, this raises an interesting thought.

Hope and Fear in Daggerheart are not generally clear results of mechanical and physical in-game events. You could add something to the narrative on each and every roll to include them, but that would be a post hoc justification.

(Not that post hoc justification is a bad thing, mind you - even in highly simulationist games, that happens all the time - in a game process the dice tells us something happens, like a random encounter, and the GM creates the narrative reason for that encounter after the dice tell them it is happening.)

However, Hope and Fear can be seen as real in-world things. Just not physical things - they are emotional. If your character has Hope, they have the emotional fortitude to pull themselves together to exert greater efforts. If there's Fear, the PCs hesitate, and allow the antagonists to do more things before the PCs can respond.

In a discussion some time ago, some people argued that in Star Wars games, "Force Points" are diegetic, because the Force is diegetic. Those folks should have no problem with considering Hope and Fear n Daggerheart to be diegetic.

 

[Swanosaurus]

Honestly, this raises an interesting thought.

Hope and Fear in Daggerheart are not generally clear results of mechanical and physical in-game events. You could add something to the narrative on each and every roll to include them, but that would be a post hoc justification.

(Not that post hoc justification is a bad thing, mind you - even in highly simulationist games, that happens all the time - in a game process the dice tells us something happens, like a random encounter, and the GM creates the narrative reason for that encounter after the dice tell them it is happening.)

However, Hope and Fear can be seen as real in-world things. Just not physical things - they are emotional. If your character has Hope, they have the emotional fortitude to pull themselves together to exert greater efforts. If there's Fear, the PCs hesitate, and allow the antagonists to do more things before the PCs can respond.

In a discussion some time ago, some people argued that in Star Wars games, "Force Points" are diegetic, because the Force is diegetic. Those folks should have no problem with considering Hope and Fear n Daggerheart to be diegetic.

To get further sidetrecked: How do people feel about diegetic/extradiegetic metacurrency? Personally, I'm fine with metacurrency (though I prefer if there is only one, in player's hands), but I really don't like it if it's turned into something diegetic. I yet have to so an RPG where this doesn't feel forced to me. Also, it is often combined with the idea that the characters are some kind of chosen ones, which is also one of my no-gos. I even dislike it if they officially represent gritting your teeth and spending some extra effort. I mean, in most RPG situations, you'd do that anyway, right? If a huge troll with a huge axe is standing in front of you, you won't say "O well, I'll bring me B-game, and only if things go badly I'll step it up."
To me, metacurrency is just a tool the players have to make things go their way. It represents nothing in the fiction; it's as external to it as the chapter numbers in a novel - sure, the structure of the novel is an important part of its narrative, but it usually isn't any part of the diegetic reality of the novel.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Honestly, this raises an interesting thought.

Hope and Fear in Daggerheart are not generally clear results of mechanical and physical in-game events. You could add something to the narrative on each and every roll to include them, but that would be a post hoc justification.

(Not that post hoc justification is a bad thing, mind you - even in highly simulationist games, that happens all the time - in a game process the dice tells us something happens, like a random encounter, and the GM creates the narrative reason for that encounter after the dice tell them it is happening.)

However, Hope and Fear can be seen as real in-world things. Just not physical things - they are emotional. If your character has Hope, they have the emotional fortitude to pull themselves together to exert greater efforts. If there's Fear, the PCs hesitate, and allow the antagonists to do more things before the PCs can respond.

In a discussion some time ago, some people argued that in Star Wars games, "Force Points" are diegetic, because the Force is diegetic. Those folks should have no problem with considering Hope and Fear n Daggerheart to be diegetic.

If Hope and Fear happen in the game for diagetic reasons, I'm prepared to think of them as diagetic mechanics. That's my (personal) line.