Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sword of Spirit" data-source="post: 6292143" data-attributes="member: 6677017">I'm glad it's working so well for you. That's what I like to see. I still haven't had a chance to play it, but Savage Worlds looks like a very good system from what I can tell by reading through it (twice).The main place where I might express dissatisfaction is that it seems like the level of details on certain things (such as the various skill and combat modifiers) isn't harmonious with the overall rules chassis and general feel of the game. Couldn't you accomplish the vast amount of that with the GM applying a simple +2, -2, or -4, as recommended at the beginning of the rules chapter?So in that case I might not be satisfied because it feels like a very light framework has had unnecessarily heavy components added to it, which increases search and retrieval time from zero to however long it takes to find those parts of the book. (I wouldn't try to modify it until having played it, as you mentioned.)It's not a glaring degree of discontinuity, but it's enough for me to notice. Note--I think Savage Worlds is a good system, and I still have those criticisms. Don't let get me started ripping apart bad systems...I'm not looking for one true system. I think that's kind of like looking for the one true sport. It doesn't make sense, because they hit a variety of different play experiences. I think, instead, that there can be a system that is as perfect as possible for its intended goal, and that part of that is the degree to which the rules are satisfying. And you'll need a different system for different types of games. Some scenarios work great with some universal systems, while others might kind of need their own thing to feel right.  Indeed! In that case, I'd say that you'd want some sort of app that allowed you to do things such as select a weapon, and then before taking a shot simply clicking on a variety of checkboxes to set range, movement by you or your opponent, etc. That degree of complexity is generally going to be necessary for a certain experience you're likely to be looking for with battlemechs to be satisfying. Of course, anything that can reduce the end-user time spent doing math and looking things up, rather than blowing holes through steel armor, is a major asset.Good point. A game that is designed as a bunch of unrelated subsystems can accept new subsystems without throwing off the feel, while it's harder to pull off some of those subsystem functions with a universal resolution system.I think it can be done, as long as the system is devoted to a specific goal. Yes, you do limit your experience--but that's a good thing! Trying to make a gritty horror game system work for cinematic supers just (dare I say) shouldn't work. If it does, it means that "working" is a pretty low bar.I'm thinking we can work on getting the seamless level a lot closer to Monopoly or Chess than it is now.Another game that looks very well designed. I'll play and enjoy (to a greater extant) just about any game, but I'm really hard to please when I'm critiquing a system (whether I've actually played it or not), so that's high praise from me.I still haven't played it, so I'm not sure how it works out in play. I can tell that there is a learning curve. The proof in the pudding would probably be how much mental overhead is required to apply all the details regarding aspects, invoking, compelling, and all that stuff.Still haven't really examined any of those. The Apocalypse World system doesn't grab me--but that's mostly a matter of taste. Fiasco looks like it flows fairly smoothly--probably because it's a hybrid role-playing/party game and therefore needed to be designed to function quickly with new players.Been meaning to look at Cortex and Corex+, but haven't gotten to it yet.I'm a fan of having "fluid" rules that expect GM decision making all the time. I'm not a fan of the way a lot of these systems have "gaseous" rules that seem to be there just to make the air smell pretty. In other words, a lot of these really light systems provide rules when they'd rather just give you a book telling you how to tell stories in a setting. The rules are like, "oh, well, I guess we need a way to roll dice while we're collaboratively telling stories...right?" They really aren't intended to be role-playing games at all, but they throw in a resolution mechanic, some sorts of point buy or attribute distribution system, advancement rules, etc, when they could really accomplish their goal with just describing each character with a couple of paragraphs of prose (and maybe a haiku for good measure), and then saying, "As the storyteller, feel free to flip a coin if you need help making a decision regarding the story every now and again."In such cases, it's actually unsatisfying to have rules at all. Make a system that wants rules, and where those rules actually contribute in a meaningful way, or entirely skip them.*Nod*Degree and type of randomness is a big system decision that I don't hear discussed much. In my own system you can use one of three types of randomness, depending on the type of scene (one of them being "none"). I find many (even most) systems put a lot of swinginess in their system, and that it's done because they haven't considered trying less swinginess. A bell-curve is a good alternative, as is simply reducing the contribution that randomness makes to the overall outcome of an action. Definitely. It just makes everything feel a bit smoother. The game system feels like it's your buddy rather than your adversary when it's coherent.How fast is it in play? I looked at a bit of the quick start material and it seemed to have some intriguing ideas. I'm always uncomfortable with subsystems that have to be referenced just for certain situations. I'm pretty sure there is a way to design a game where summoning and implementing the subsystem you need at any particular moment can be very smooth and satisfying, but I'm not sure how that would look.I'll try to reply to some more posts later.</blockquote>

Verification