One day the simulationists and the narrativists will wage war
The simulationists will wound many with their realistic weapons but then the narrativists will declare that they have won, and that will be that
No see if the simulationists can roll well enough, they will be able to persuade the narrativists that it makes for a better story if the simulationists win
Seriously though I personally prefer a good mix of the two. I don't like games where everything is based around your narrative role, not what you can actually do (in some games your ability to do things depends on how emotionally connected you are to the aim, not how skilled you are. I think that sucks).
At the same time, though, I like a degree of abstraction because realism is often pretty shitty and games are there for us to have a good time.
So, I've finally decided. I'm going to do an off-shoot of All Flesh Must Be Eaten for some of my friends that have never played a pen and paper, tabletop RPG before. I am excited.
To a certain extent the narrativist approach is simply "whatever works best for the story", and if that extends to making the story as enjoyable to partake in as possible (and it should unless you're a lousy GM) then it also ends up encompassing the interpretation of mechanics
they have this system where your power depends on whether you are working by yourself, as part of a team-up or as part of a full
Thor, for example, is most powerful when alone.
Cap is more powerful when leading a team, and so on.
Now, this seems fair enough from a narrative standpoint (Thor does generally tend to show more power in his solo appearances). But to me, it makes no sense. Why can't Thor punch someone while part of a team as hard as he can punch someone when working alone? It's a narrative conceit that says "this is what it is like in the comics," to which my response is "yeah but if I had my way, it wouldn't, and their power levels would be more regular."
So for me, I much prefer M&M, because even if it doesn't represent the difference between power levels alone and powers levels in a team or whatever so much, it does actually say "Thor is this strong, all the time," and that's what I like. I like things to be nicely defined by the way the world works, not by some kind of fuzzy narrative goals. As a player, I don't want to be the writer or the director or whatever. I want to play my character, and have them immersed into a fantasy world. And changing around what they can do based on narrative just reminds me that I am in a narrative, thus breaking immersion.
Why would I want to use a free-form game where you can make any character you like including rules for running full VR simulations, modification of artificial intelligences and changing of physical attributes to fit your mental aims for a Tron game?
they have this system where your power depends on whether you are working by yourself, as part of a team-up or as part of a full
Thor, for example, is most powerful when alone.
Cap is more powerful when leading a team, and so on.
Now, this seems fair enough from a narrative standpoint (Thor does generally tend to show more power in his solo appearances). But to me, it makes no sense. Why can't Thor punch someone while part of a team as hard as he can punch someone when working alone? It's a narrative conceit that says "this is what it is like in the comics," to which my response is "yeah but if I had my way, it wouldn't, and their power levels would be more regular."
So for me, I much prefer M&M, because even if it doesn't represent the difference between power levels alone and powers levels in a team or whatever so much, it does actually say "Thor is this strong, all the time," and that's what I like. I like things to be nicely defined by the way the world works, not by some kind of fuzzy narrative goals. As a player, I don't want to be the writer or the director or whatever. I want to play my character, and have them immersed into a fantasy world. And changing around what they can do based on narrative just reminds me that I am in a narrative, thus breaking immersion.
Flavour should be just that, flavour, not getting in the way of a player/PC's function and role in combat or skill challenges
But as odd as that is I'm not sure how it really varies from, say, systems with abstracted melee/ranged combat, or whether combat is in a confined space or open area, except here the arbitrary limitation is whether they're working alone or together
I can see it being implemented poorly but at face value that wouldn't immediately set off my "stupid mechanics" alarm
Oh, so if I want to make enemy characters in a game, like characters that are like them and may have to face, do I just build them like a normal character? Or do I gimp/superpower them to make them more difficult/easy? Like, they get a pool of 20 extra points or something.
Consider playing through a (short, 2-3 session) premade campaign first. This gives you an insight into many of the 'standard' elements of whatever game you are playing, after which both you and your players can talk about what they did and did not like, and segue into the main campaign.
Listen to what your players want out of the game.
Fudge rules if you don't understand them, write it down and look it up later if you can't immediately find it. Sometimes rules can work out complex and annoying, and having to spend 15 minutes turning pages for exact definitions called up in say grappling rules can really suck the pace and immersion out of a fight. Make a firm temporary ruling instead.
Unique NPCs are fun but don't let them take over the campaign. For instance, try to avoid situations where your level 2 party is travelling with a 16th level wizard who disintegrates everything that can possibly come along.
Unique PCs are fun but don't let a single one dominate your campaign, at least at first. Ask your players to not start out as the superthief who spends half of each session robbing random houses while the rest of the party sleeps.
Oh, so if I want to make enemy characters in a game, like characters that are like them and may have to face, do I just build them like a normal character? Or do I gimp/superpower them to make them more difficult/easy? Like, they get a pool of 20 extra points or something.
I've never played All Flesh Must Be Eaten, but the answer generally varies from system to system. If the enemies the party will be facing are of equal level and the party has lost hit points or expended powers beforehand, then the enemies will feel more difficult than their stats may make them seem.
0
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Posts
A tron RPG already exists and is called Eclipse Phase, basically
No see if the simulationists can roll well enough, they will be able to persuade the narrativists that it makes for a better story if the simulationists win
QED
At the same time, though, I like a degree of abstraction because realism is often pretty shitty and games are there for us to have a good time.
To a certain extent the narrativist approach is simply "whatever works best for the story", and if that extends to making the story as enjoyable to partake in as possible (and it should unless you're a lousy GM) then it also ends up encompassing the interpretation of mechanics
And you ignored my pun and I hope you die
they have this system where your power depends on whether you are working by yourself, as part of a team-up or as part of a full
Thor, for example, is most powerful when alone.
Cap is more powerful when leading a team, and so on.
Now, this seems fair enough from a narrative standpoint (Thor does generally tend to show more power in his solo appearances). But to me, it makes no sense. Why can't Thor punch someone while part of a team as hard as he can punch someone when working alone? It's a narrative conceit that says "this is what it is like in the comics," to which my response is "yeah but if I had my way, it wouldn't, and their power levels would be more regular."
So for me, I much prefer M&M, because even if it doesn't represent the difference between power levels alone and powers levels in a team or whatever so much, it does actually say "Thor is this strong, all the time," and that's what I like. I like things to be nicely defined by the way the world works, not by some kind of fuzzy narrative goals. As a player, I don't want to be the writer or the director or whatever. I want to play my character, and have them immersed into a fantasy world. And changing around what they can do based on narrative just reminds me that I am in a narrative, thus breaking immersion.
I haven't played Eclipse Phase, so I don't know if it sucks or not.
I have read the source book, though; and yeah, it's not like Tron at all.
I'm talkin bout the background
Then hackers can actually attempt to hack the simulation in order to bring about changes in the environment, just like Tron
but in terms of the system, it's exactly what I would use
since I am only going to use the system and throw the background away
because I am running Tron and therefore the background doesn't matter!
Ugh
Why would you restrict a system that severely just to try and adapt it to a completely different kind of narrative?
I mean, my idea would include the PCs all being Users, but they'd be able to specialize in different kinds of Grid manipulation.
Like, one of them is a natural at imagining and creating different weaponry. Or another one is adept at modifying the landscape.
Not sure if an existing system could be jury-rigged to enable that or if I'd have to homebrew most of it from scratch.
I'll show myself out
because it fits pretty much fine?
Flavour should be just that, flavour, not getting in the way of a player/PC's function and role in combat or skill challenges
But as odd as that is I'm not sure how it really varies from, say, systems with abstracted melee/ranged combat, or whether combat is in a confined space or open area, except here the arbitrary limitation is whether they're working alone or together
I can see it being implemented poorly but at face value that wouldn't immediately set off my "stupid mechanics" alarm
Well hey, I look forward to seeing it then!
lots of rust monsters
I have no idea what that means.
Rust monsters eat weaponry.
Like, they can pretty much destroy your characters' best stuff in two or three turns.
They're not particularly fun.
Well find out, because players fucking love rust monsters.
Make sure they're all using metal equipment!
I don't see how anyone could think players would enjoy fighting them.
I'm playing with a couple of first timers, so I plan on making this a lot of fun.
It's basically going to be like Smash TV, but with tons of zombies, traps, and audience participation.
It limited player movement if it affected armour, and on weapons it reduced damage by dulling edges and making clubs unwieldy
They were annoying and horrible but temporary and we were grateful
Consider playing through a (short, 2-3 session) premade campaign first. This gives you an insight into many of the 'standard' elements of whatever game you are playing, after which both you and your players can talk about what they did and did not like, and segue into the main campaign.
Listen to what your players want out of the game.
Fudge rules if you don't understand them, write it down and look it up later if you can't immediately find it. Sometimes rules can work out complex and annoying, and having to spend 15 minutes turning pages for exact definitions called up in say grappling rules can really suck the pace and immersion out of a fight. Make a firm temporary ruling instead.
Unique NPCs are fun but don't let them take over the campaign. For instance, try to avoid situations where your level 2 party is travelling with a 16th level wizard who disintegrates everything that can possibly come along.
Unique PCs are fun but don't let a single one dominate your campaign, at least at first. Ask your players to not start out as the superthief who spends half of each session robbing random houses while the rest of the party sleeps.
Never make a character of your own and put them in the party.
Never split the party.
If the party splits itself, spend more time with the larger group, even if they're doing 'less interesting' things.
Look to what your players want out of the game and try to suit it to that.
Be prepared to improvise.
Fudge rules when they prevent cool things from happening.
I've never played All Flesh Must Be Eaten, but the answer generally varies from system to system. If the enemies the party will be facing are of equal level and the party has lost hit points or expended powers beforehand, then the enemies will feel more difficult than their stats may make them seem.
Yeah, permanent stuff can be real crappy.
Always split the party. It's awesome.
Make sure to put the wizard and the rogue together. It'll be great, trust me.