Why RPGs are Failing

[Old Fezziwig]

I'm all for combat turns, but I think those turns should be less 'structured' than they are now.

Fair enough, but how would you go about working this into a game?

Best,
Nick

 

[Planesdragon]

I'd prefer a sort of alottment of action points added to the current turn system, wherein the initiative roll determines who reacted in what order, but that points can be spent to be bumped up the order, and spread out instead of being used all at once, also, volunteering to bump yourself down increases your action points, so you can do more later as opposed to 'this much' right now.

The problem with this type of game is that it's inherently unfair in play. In a how-white-wolf-doesn't-want-you-to-play Storyteller game, my hunter pulled up his railgun, aimed, and rolled one chuckfull of dice, taking out one tough noob. My friend next to me spent five blood points, and made five chuckfulls of dice--essentially taking five full turns, in-game and out-of-game, right then. While this "makes sense" and "is realistic", it's also unfair--on the level of being unfair if I was a 1st level noob and he was a 15th level wizard.

If you want to make a number of different actions possible based on a point system, so faster characters do more, then you need to make it a central combat mechanic, as important or more important than attack modifiers or hit points.

Q&D--give each class a "speed factor" based on the saving throw progressions with a midrange in there for the fun of it. Each point lets someone do one standard action per round, and let spellcasters get a faster progression for spellcasting...

Hmm....

 

[barsoomcore]

I'm all for combat turns, but I think those turns should be less 'structured' than they are now.

Cool. Post your improved system. I think everyone would be interested in seeing it.

 

[mythusmage]

A Little Heads-up

I've saved the thread so far to my desktop. There I'll be going over it, and responding to each point raised so far. Which means some replies will be sort of crunched together, so as to avoid repetition.

I will reply to one point. Who said life had to be fair? (Think about it.)

 

[Wormwood]

I will reply to one point. Who said life had to be fair? (Think about it.)

Who said games shouldn't be fair?

 

[Crothian]

Who said games shouldn't be fair?

That would be a choice up to the DM and players.

 

[Planesdragon]

I will reply to one point. Who said life had to be fair?

I didn't. But I expect my game to either be fair, or obviously NOT be fair.

The worst thing you can do, as a designer or the host/referee of a game, is to represent it as being fair when it isn't. There's nothing wrong with an unfair RPG--in fact, a game wherein the characters are inherently unlike each other could give rise to really great roleplaying.

But the unfairness should either be tied to some real factor--like, the D&D model of who has the better attendance at a game--or made up for by making sure each player has just as much face time as the other ones.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Still waiting:

In what sense are RPGs failing in your opinion, OP?

Sales? # of players? Quality of players? Campaign turnover?

I play in 2 campaigns, and we have a blast- there's even a waiting list to join!

 

[mythusmage]

I didn't. But I expect my game to either be fair, or obviously NOT be fair.

The worst thing you can do, as a designer or the host/referee of a game, is to represent it as being fair when it isn't. There's nothing wrong with an unfair RPG--in fact, a game wherein the characters are inherently unlike each other could give rise to really great roleplaying.

But the unfairness should either be tied to some real factor--like, the D&D model of who has the better attendance at a game--or made up for by making sure each player has just as much face time as the other ones.

If we were talking about a game game I'd agree with you. But we're not. D&D® is (or is supposed to be) a roleplaying game. Traditional games should be fair, the better to give two players of equal skill an equal chance of winning.

D&D® however is not a traditional game. It is really an exercise in cooperative imagination where the players take the part of people living in an imaginary world, the latter being presented by a guide.

I agree that the guide needs to be fair in how he applies the rules. But that doesn't mean the presented world needs to be fair. Midnight for example is a very unfair world. One where the characters must be on their toes, and using their wits and skills as best they can.

I would say that any DM who doesn't play a villain to the best of his abilities, in an attempt to be "fair" to the players, is being more unfair than one who does.

The matter of face time etc. is really a matter for another thread.

BTW, I have been taking notes on the postings in this thread. Said notes, properly expanded, will be made into another essay on the subject, to appear in this thread. But, it won't be ready for a bit.

 

[mmu1]

More realistic in behavioral terms.
You know the scene; the party is walking along a forest path heading to the Great Temple of Doloreous Glamor when they run into a band of goblins. Combat ensues.

As opposed to; party is walking along the same path, meets the same goblins, people prepare for combat... And bluff, bluster, and bragging ensue, to be followed by successful or unsuccessful negotiations.

All depending on how the situation is presented. Gamed it'll end up in fighting. Roleplayed it may still end up in fighting, but at least the players will have the option. Furthermore, think seriously about non-combat options should they have a firm grasp on the consequences of their actions.

This is supposed to be "behaviorally realistic"? This is nothing but how YOU think the game should be played, how YOU view non-human "monster" races, etc.

Try telling a group of people playing a LotR-based game that attacking goblins on sight is not role-playing.

Or how about a group of people who, in trekking through the forest, have encountered the remains of several travellers nailed to trees in traditional goblin ways, who don't speak goblin, making negotiation impossible, and who don't want to jeopardize their mission by letting the goblins carry the news of their presence to other, even more evil things, living in the darkest parts of the forest?

It's your subjective opinion that talking things out equals role-playing, and that the game needs more of it... That RPG's are failing definitely doesn't follow from that.