Universal RPG's not Universal?

[Dannyalcatraz]

Danny, I think the point you're still missing is that nothing is set in advance.<snip>
The player and the GM then have to agree to the stakes; if they don't, they never get to the Initiation step, and the GM's suggested consequence will never come to pass.

Didn't miss that at all- got that.

But my point is that the GM is still setting the lethality of the environment & certain actions as he sees fit- that whole analogy of setting the table?- which can be a major factor in controlling the lethality (or lack thereof) in a campaign.

Sure, the GM can choose "you die" as the consequence to everything, but you're going to get a pretty boring game if that happens; as a player, I'm not going to agree to those stakes unless I'm willing to risk my PC's death.

I agree, and that would be the same in any system.

This isn't like D&D or HERO where a player can have their PC walk into a room and then the GM says, "You just stepped on a pressure plate. Make a Reflex save to see if you take half damage from the guillotine trap." This sort of "react to the GM attacking you" stuff just can not happen. The scope of the conflict resolution is larger than that, and the stakes have to be clearly stated, up-front.

I'm pretty sure you could state to the players "You're entering an area controlled by a misanthrope known to set deadly booby traps- mostly poison crossbow and/or shotgun traps- to prevent unauthorized entry into his home..." etc., and still have similar effects. The players are notified up front of the potential consequences of entering the area and can still choose not to enter. They could choose to enter, searching for traps or choose to confront him on a battleground of their choosing.

 

[buzz]

But my point is that the GM is still setting the lethality of the environment & certain actions as he sees fit- that whole analogy of setting the table?- which can be a major factor in controlling the lethality (or lack thereof) in a campaign.

Thing is, in the systems I'm talking about the players get to set the table, too. A concrete example would be players in Spirit of the Century tagging Aspects on a scene, such as using Academics to make a declaration that, say, the stalagmites the NPCs are standing next to are formed of highly volatile ore that could detonate at any moment.

The focus on combat/death in this discussion is also tangential; in a game like Breaking the Ice, there are no rules for combat/death. It's not what the game is about, and thus it will never come up.

We've also drifted away from the original point (of the tangent, at least), i.e., that system matters. "System" being inclusive of all procedures used by the group, whether documented or not. Ergo, if you affirm that "Rule 0" counts as "system," then it obviously does matter, given that it lets the GM act in the way you describe. Likewise, if an RPG lays out a specific social contract, as in the examples I provided, then Rule 0 is not going to be an allowed procedure, and thus the GM can't act in the way you describe.

Which still leaves aside the fact that players will act differently in a game where, e.g., their PCs can bounce bullets off their chests than in one where they can step on a nail and die from infection. Likewise in one where they have narrative input and one in which they do not.

And if you really buy into the idea that system doesn't matter, then recommending a particular RPG for, say, stone age fantasy, is completely moot. Instead, you should be recommending a specific GM. "Joe is really good with primitive settings."

Which, of course, is pretty silly.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The focus on combat/death in this discussion is also tangential; in a game like Breaking the Ice, there are no rules for combat/death. It's not what the game is about, and thus it will never come up.

So you say, but have you noticed how many creeps and sickos are out there?

My point was that I saw no rules in that game that prevented someone from playing such a piece of human scum. That this could possibly ruin someone else's fun is beside the case- it doesn't seem to be outside the rules I saw following your link.

And if you really buy into the idea that system doesn't matter, then recommending a particular RPG for, say, stone age fantasy, is completely moot. Instead, you should be recommending a specific GM. "Joe is really good with primitive settings."

Given my comments on Toon vis a vis Roger Rabbit, I obviously believe that system does matter.

I just believe that it matters less than GM- I do reccomend certain GMs for certain genres...and steer away from certain GMs regardless of system.

 

[Thomas5251212]

Its not sidestepping to control the balance of roleplay/combat in a campaign.

If you have to change the rules to do so, I'd call it just that.

Its not sidestepping to make perfectly clear that a particular course of action could very likely result in a TPK and leave the decision in the hands of the players.

I agree that's not sidestepping; that's just violating metagame borders. Something most people do at some point, but not something many people consider a good thing.

And your point is?

All I have maintained from my initial point on the subject of lethality is that the GM controls the lethality of the game...not the system.

And I don't think you've demonstrated that in a general sense.

What you're asserting is essentially that one HR irrevocably changes an RPG into a different one.

Here, you and I disagree, probably irreconcilably.

Of course it does. Its senseless to talk about a "game system" doing X, then change the part of the system that does Y so it does X. It may not be a radically different system, and that's usually what someone means when they talk about a game system with house rules, but is simply isn't the same system if you change it. Among other things, saying "one houserule" ignores the scope of the change. You're only making "one houserule" when you roll 3d6 stead of 1D20 in a D20 game, but the impact of that change is dramatic, and has ripple effects all over the game.

There probably is no RPG better suited to run WFRR than Toon, and character death would be a single campaign-specific detail...probably the only HR you'd need to make.

And is so broad in its impact it makes more difference than a hundred lesser rules.

 

[Thomas5251212]

FWIW, there is even language in the 3.5Ed PHB (which, given the site in which we're posting, is probably pretty familiar to all here) that supports KS's rationale, though not quite as harsh an implementation.

That still doesn't make it part of the system, just an acknowledgement that systems have limits.

In a very real sense, a PC choosing to ventilate his own skull is "at (his own) mercy," and is using a full round action to deliver a Coup de Grace to himself- meaning an auto hit, auto crit, and (if he has HP enough to survive the blow) a Fort save DC10 + damage dealt or die.

And under the rules, that's not guarenteed to kill him; in fact above a certain level, it probably won't.