"System Orphan" Looking for a Home

[Aberzanzorax]

I agree with the thread by pawsplay (post#2).


I'll also add some advice:
Go even broader. As you develop more of a perspective on what some games do well and some do poorly, you'll begin to notice the differences.

Think of someone who tried a kind of wine, loved it, and then broadened out. At first the options and flavors were diverse and even confusing/overwhelming in scope. But then, after tasting perhaps dozens or hundreds of wines, that person came to know what made them different, what made some wines good versus bad and when they were in a "pinot noir mood" versus a "cabernet savignon mood".

Or, if you don't like wine analogies, think the same with cars. Many of us loved our first car (old, beat up, broke down)...No car could replace that feeling. But instead of trying to replace that feeling, as adults we research different kinds of cars to meet our current needs (and may own both a minivan for toting the kids around and a convertible sports car to feel the wind in our hair).


My advice in a nutshell: broaden your experience and knowledge and you'll become an expert in enjoying rpgs.

 

[Goblinoid Games]

I went through a similar "crisis" (if you can call it that) when D&D 3.0 came out. So I understand what you mean about feeling down about it. I wanted to like 3.0, but it just didn't turn out how I'd hoped, and it wasn't the game for me. Like pawsplay said, there is no such thing as a perfect game, but my solution was to actually go back a little further in editions compared to what I had played. I had been a big supporter of AD&D 2e, mainly the core books, I never got into the later expansion books. Then I discovered much of what I liked about 2e was even more to my taste in 1e and classic D&D, so there you go. I went with older editions and never turned back. That might not be the right direction for you, but I thought I'd toss the idea out there. Sometimes nothing scratches the D&D itch like D&D (as opposed to trying to fit another type of game into that mold), maybe you just need a different edition. Each one has it's flaws no doubt, so the trick is to find the one you can live with and house rule.

 

[Ulrick]

I kinda understand where you're coming from. But for me, nothing will be like those days when I exclusively played and ran AD&D 2nd Edition. 3.0/3.5e was great and I almost exclusively played that, but eventually I got annoyed at all of the rules.

After 4e came out, the edition wars almost left me without a group. It was almost a no win situation:

Me: Let's try 4e.
Players: 4e sucks! (Eventually convinced them to play it, and it turned out not to be my cup of tea either).
Me: Okay, Let's try Pathfinder
Players: I don't wanna spend another $40 on a rulebook.
Me: Okay, let's play AD&D 1st or 2nd Edition. I want a simpler system to run.
Players: I hate THACO.
Me: Fine, I run it using ascending AC.
Players: I don't want to track down the books.
Me: I have them all, in duplicate. But fine... let's do Warhammer Fantasy Role Play.
Players: You can't be heroic in that system.
Me: Okay. Let's go back to 3.5e...
Players: 3.5e is outdated, we should try something else...



My advice-- pick a system you like, and just go with it, despite whatever flaws it has, and despite whatever complaints your fellow players might have with it. Playing a game is better than sitting around and complaining about a given ruleset.

 

[Argyle King]

You mentioned enjoying GURPS as a player, but not wanting to GM. (Which is understandable because it can appear to be a very daunting task at first glance.)

Have you tried the GURPS Dungeon Fantasy line? It pairs down a lot of the options, and they've even recently released a monster pdf for it. It's still completely compatible with the rest of GURPS; it just makes things a little smoother for the style of game you might expect from D&D-esque fantasy and dungeon delving.

GURPS Dungeon Fantasy

You only for sure need DF 1-3. The other entries into the line are (IMO) very good quality, but none of them are needed beyond the first three to sit down and play.

Though I would suggest the monster pdf to give you a little more of a selection for preworked creatures. GURPS Dungeon Fantasy Monsters 1

 

[Jared Rascher]

I've recently found myself burned out on Pathfinder as well, and upon further analysis, I've realized that the amount of work I do isn't equal to the amount of fun I have. I really started looking at Savage Worlds, and while I haven't started up a campaign with it, the other night, my friend called off as GM and asked if I had anything I could run.

In one night's time, I threw together a fun Aliens versus Predator versus Space Marines game for the night, and the most time it took me was putting together the pregens for the game. It was a lot of fun, and it made me realize that having a system that is flexible enough to handle a quick pick up game is a real plus in some situations.

I'm waiting to wrap up my Pathfinder game, and I'm currently running a DC Adventures/Mutants and Masterminds game on the week I don't run the Pathfinder game, and I'm finding more and more each week that I'm really looking forward to the DC game and I'm just hoping not to disappoint my players on the Pathfinder night.

I guess to get back to your original post, if you still want to find things to spend your money on and to try and get into, don't be afraid to pick up new game systems instead of tons of supplements for one system. I've been expanding my Savage Worlds collection, and have been really thinking about picking up the Basic Roleplay system by Chaosium just to read through it.

 

[innerdude]

Thanks for the comments, everyone. Good to know that others have faced something similar in the past.

I'm finding more and more each week that I'm really looking forward to the DC game and I'm just hoping not to disappoint my players on the Pathfinder night.

KnightErrantJR, I know exactly where you're coming from with that.

I think part of what has me most discouraged is that it seems that the things I dislike most about "the RPG experience" are endemic to the culture--rampant power gaming, lack of character engagement, rules lawyering, and just generally treating the game like their own personal way of proving their "manhood" or "superiority."

In some ways, when I say I'm a "system orphan," it's partially because I want to be passionate enough about what I'm GM-ing that I can set up a culture at my gaming table that precludes, or at least redirects those tendencies. I want the game to be fun, energetic, and the players excited about what's going on--because I think that type of an atmosphere gets people engaged.

I don't know if that makes any sense or not.

As far as alternate rules sets:

I've just picked up the Runequest Deluxe hardcover, and I'm starting to learn Hero a bit as well.

I really enjoy about 90 percent of Savage Worlds, but there's just enough that I don't necessarily like that I can't dive in full bore with it. I think it needs some basic type of weapon proficiencies; the whole "You can shoot anything, or fight with anything" just doesn't jive with my sensibilities. I also think the wound track sometimes unnecessarily penalizes players for taking risks.

 

[pawsplay]

I really enjoy about 90 percent of Savage Worlds, but there's just enough that I don't necessarily like that I can't dive in full bore with it. I think it needs some basic type of weapon proficiencies; the whole "You can shoot anything, or fight with anything" just doesn't jive with my sensibilities. I also think the wound track sometimes unnecessarily penalizes players for taking risks.

I'm with you there. SW is on my permanent backburner, just waiting for the right game to come along.

 

[nedjer]

Thanks for the comments, everyone. Good to know that others have faced something similar in the past.

KnightErrantJR, I know exactly where you're coming from with that.

I think part of what has me most discouraged is that it seems that the things I dislike most about "the RPG experience" are endemic to the culture--rampant power gaming, lack of character engagement, rules lawyering, and just generally treating the game like their own personal way of proving their "manhood" or "superiority."

In some ways, when I say I'm a "system orphan," it's partially because I want to be passionate enough about what I'm GM-ing that I can set up a culture at my gaming table that precludes, or at least redirects those tendencies. I want the game to be fun, energetic, and the players excited about what's going on--because I think that type of an atmosphere gets people engaged.

I don't know if that makes any sense or not.

As far as alternate rules sets:

I've just picked up the Runequest Deluxe hardcover, and I'm starting to learn Hero a bit as well.

I really enjoy about 90 percent of Savage Worlds, but there's just enough that I don't necessarily like that I can't dive in full bore with it. I think it needs some basic type of weapon proficiencies; the whole "You can shoot anything, or fight with anything" just doesn't jive with my sensibilities. I also think the wound track sometimes unnecessarily penalizes players for taking risks.

Makes lots of sense. Love to say it was just down to combative rule sets, but I've seen power-gaming with everything from the lightest to the bulkiest systems. Help sometimes comes through advancement that rewards co-operation and completing challenges, (which can be done in the meta-game if any sensibilites are troubled by hacking into the rules). I.e. if you re-define 'superiority' in terms of contributions to the team and good solutions to problems, (including combat), there's more than the next macho slapdown for players to be getting on with

 

[Rel]

I really enjoy about 90 percent of Savage Worlds, but there's just enough that I don't necessarily like that I can't dive in full bore with it. I think it needs some basic type of weapon proficiencies; the whole "You can shoot anything, or fight with anything" just doesn't jive with my sensibilities. I also think the wound track sometimes unnecessarily penalizes players for taking risks.

I've become a huge fan of Savage Worlds so I hope this doesn't sound like proselytizing but, if you like 90 percent of it then that sounds pretty darned good! I also think that SW is a fairly easy system to tinker with because it is rules lite and fairly transparent. If you feel like it's got you most of the way toward your goal, I think it is likely you can brainstorm some ways to get you that last 10 percent.

If weapon proficiencies are your issue then, right off the top of my head, what if you know how to use a number of weapons equal to half your Fighting die and non-proficient weapons cause you to take a -2 to all combat rolls (maybe a -2 to damage as well)? That means that starting out with a d4 you only know how to use say Daggers and One Handed Swords. But with each increase of your Fighting you gain one new weapon until you know a half a dozen of them at d12.

As for the whole risk takers getting smacked by the Wound track, I think that's a valid concern. My approach to that one is to encourage characters who like that style to take Hindrances that play into those situations. That way, when they do something crazy, I feel justified in awarding them extra Bennies to help offset the damage they're about to take. Characters who are Overconfident, Heroic or Loyal and charge into combat appropriately can get a little extra help on those needed Soak rolls.

Anyway, I'm not trying to distract you from your striving for a system that sets your world on fire. Just figured I'd throw out a couple practical examples from my experience with SW.

 

[Mallus]

Repeat after me:

System may matter, but it doesn't matter that much.

The rules aren't the game.

The people you game with are the game.

Good people and a bad system are better than bad people and a good system any day of the week. Because, as Sartre was kind enough to point out, Hell is other people.

%90 of anything is terrible. If you like %90 of something, that's effing amazing.

edit: also, as a recent convert, I'm obliged to say Savage Worlds is quite good.