Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Engilbrand" data-source="post: 4728223" data-attributes="member: 44184">General:1. One mechanic. If you need 2 decks of playing cards, 6 different kinds of dice, a laptop and a shot glass to play.... um, never mind. Seriously, though. It shouldn't require different things to play. If those are an extra option for certain things, that's fine. I had a Savage Worlds player who could play Poker against the Devil. That was awesome and very well done.2. Easy to understand. I hate having to read something 12 times and then ask on a message board because it's just not "clicking". Examples after mechanics are ALWAYS a good thing. For some reason, multiple attacks and defenses confused me for a while with Exalted 2.3. Suitable. It should fit the basic idea of the game. It doesn't need to cover every conceivable type of game. Choose one thing, go with it. If it can be expanded later to do other things, then expand it later to do other things. Unisystem is slowly growing into other more than the initial thing. It seems to be working out well for itself.4. Fun. If it's not fun, then there's no point in playing it. Overly complex isn't fun. Is it fun for some people? Sure. But so is self-mutilation. There are "invalid" playstyles for general gaming discussions in much the same way as there are invalid lifestyles for general conversation. D&D, Exalted, Dogs, Unisystem, and RIFTS are valid talking points. (I don't know much about RIFTS.) Comparisons can be done with these. FATAL, Race War, and World of Cynnibar are not valid comparisons. There are people who like to play them, but that doesn't mean that that's OK. It's the gaming equivalent of self-mutilation. Not valid.My personal preferences:For me, it depends on the purpose of our game. I really like D&D 4e, Dogs in the Vineyard, Unisystem, and a number of White Wolf systems. I make different types of characters and play them in different ways depending on which system we're using. I don't like when a system "forces" arbitrary things on me that aren't spelled out. I try not to purposely screw with the system.For D&D, I tend to make strange and typically monstrous characters who kill things. Often. I also make sure that I have powers that I can use to describe the scene in a fun way. I usually want more combat with D&D than "pure roleplaying". I tend to focus skills around combat. I absolutely love that they have separated PC mechanics from NPC/Monster mechanics. (Don't screw with the system. Dual dagger-wielding Paladins with high Intelligence suck. They aren't a valid concept. Don't do it and complain.)For Dogs, I prefer unique events. The mechanics are interesting in that they're almost entirely for roleplaying. Fighting isn't a focus of the system, so I didn't make it a focus of my character. Yet again, PCs are different from NPCs. (Don't screw with the system. Making a character without a background who is only good at shooting people is not a valid concept.)For Unisystem, I like how the mechanics don't get into the way of the roleplay. It also does a good job being open in combat and not too intrusive. My biggest complaint is that they don't put out enough new mechanics. They continue to reprint the same mechanics in almost every new book. There had to be a better way to do it. (Don't screw with the system. Complaining that it won't let you do everything that you want is ridiculous. It's an open enough system that homebrewing is pretty easy. Do that. Don't make a character who purposely sucks. It's not a valid concept.)For White Wolf, it depends. I always make sure to have a decent amount of combat and non-combat skills. I like how open it is. My biggest problem with White Wolf is that they don't do enough of the work for you. Our Exalted game ended because the DM got overloaded with the sheer quantity of work that he had to do to make things interesting for us. Our Adventure! game is going well, though. Maybe WW just messed upa bit in terms of judging the amount of work that they should be doing for certain lines. I consider this a case where things would have been better if, in Exalted, the heroes had slightly different mechanics than the enemies. (Don't screw with the system. If the game is going to have a lot of combat, creating a character with NO combat ability is a waste of time. It's not a valid concept.)While I like games to be able to cover a decent area, they definitely need to state what they're about and how to play them. Give examples. If the mechanics are going to get complicated, separate them from NPCs and give them their own mechanics. Create a decent selection of adversaries. Put plot hooks in the books. Make sure it's fun.</blockquote>

Verification