I am of the option it comes down to how the player relates to their character. System helps but it is how the player plays within the system.
I don't actually think that matters all that much. How the PC interacts woth the diegetic frame is really what's at hand. Well, to be fair, it does matter, just maybe not as much as knowing the rules of the game you're playing, at least in terms of the OP.I am of the option it comes down to how the player relates to their character. System helps but it is how the player plays within the system.
The meta mechanics can overcome some inconsistent physics mechanics, but, yeah, generally, I see rules expectations have profound effects once the system is learned.Note that I am not talking about meta tools that directly reward in-genre play. I am talking about general rules that create a set of "physics" that reflect the genre.
Thoughts?
We were siting in a beer garden and one GM was talking about hacking Pathfinder to do an anime-supers sort of game, which I wasn't going to play in, except I mentioned that they could probably get a set of rules to better emulate that setting. He relied that it was easy enough to do what he wanted, and they were all on board with it. So I was like Koo Koo, gives me time to work on my CoC Mad Baron game, and it did, worked out great. That GM is also our perpetual 5e DM.In such cases, the reaction is often to claim the new system/group/GM is the problem, rather than the player simply being a mismatch to the available group.
The converse problem is that many won't try again with more changes if the GM didn't make enough to get it to feel right.I think his answer is going to be a lot of people's answers, it is easy enough to do what they want to do. Expectations and play-styles will align, probably that is even what they are looking for, a different setting where they don't have to learn new rules.
Yes, though with these guys, they were an older group that had been playing a while, and I was the newcomer. That game was probably them yucking it up over beers, which isn't too far off how we play. The other GM likes Paranoia, which goes over well. More cohesive long term groups are better at hacking and playing hacked games, for newer groups, playing close to the RAW is probably better.The converse problem is that many won't try again with more changes if the GM didn't make enough to get it to feel right.
Part of the problem is that level-up was the holdback from the d20 STL - so examples were intentionally absent.Conversions need finesse I think, something like Traveller 20, I remember finding the leveling weird in a way that I didn't with Stars Without Number. Some people really liked the d20 games, where they didn't really appeal to me, I don't know why, maybe it was coming from Palladium and Rifts.
Do characters advance in those games? Is there something that impacts how fast they advance based on what happened in the game?Call of Cthulhu doesn't, 2d20 doesn't, GURPS doesn't, Traveller doesn't. I'm not doubting that some systems (other than D&D and OSR stuff) do, but what you're talking about doesn't seem like the default.
.Yes, they do.Call of Cthulhu doesn't, 2d20 doesn't, GURPS doesn't, Traveller doesn't. I'm not doubting that some systems (other than D&D and OSR stuff) do, but what you're talking about doesn't seem like the default.
CoC (and other BRP, including Pendragon) - what you use in a significant task is elligible for a check-roll at end of session and/or character month. If that roll is over the current score, raise the score by an amount (which varies by which edition/flavor of BRP game).Do characters advance in those games? Is there something that impacts how fast they advance based on what happened in the game?