I have a rather consistent approach to deciding if a given game system may or may not be interesting. I skip the entire character generation and setting sections if possible stopping only long enough to determine the type of numbers I'll need to actually play the game (average stat, average skill rating, whatever).
Then I go over the whatever are the core rules (typically combat) that would be most important in play. I then plug in those 'average' values and see if the game is interesting to play.
No Setting. No real characters. No role-playing. Just the game mechanics themselves. The question is, is the underlying game fun just by itself. In short, is this a rpg that is built upon an interesting game system. Or is it a rpg that is built upon a boring game system.
That one test tells me if the game has any legs. Or if my attraction is based upon the marketing and fluff packaged around the design- things sure to fade the longer I use it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
9 comments:
One of the things I find myself doing, from time to time, is buying a game knowing full well I won't use the core system. I usually buy these games because they tout some interesting sort of sub-system. I buy the game because I want to learn about the subsystem--often in hopes that I can cannibalize it for other games.
Questions:
Average values for a PC (based on setting context) or average values for the average human (or person) in the setting? There is a difference in many games.
What about powers, equipment, techniques? How comprehensive a look do you take? I don't know many dice mechanics that are much fun in and of themselves, but in the context of a game with tension and drama the dice might have little tricks that enhance that drama.
I have my little litmus tests like you, I look at the dice mechanic and establish what sort of probability curves come from it. Then I look at the character creation ranges and see how much of a stat range they'll allow when combined before the system breaks down. This gives me an idea of the legs of a game as far as advancement goes.
After that I'll usually take some basic (though not necessarily average) stats and combine them with some typical equipment and see what it plays out like. I don't do this to see if I get enjoyment out of the system but more to see if I can understand it enough to run it. If there's something I can't decipher at this stage or I find that there are massive complexities to combat that I don't like, I generally walk away. The only exception to this was Alpha Omega because it was so. Damn. Sexy.
How can you tell if you will like a system? Can anyone like a system? I can see if a system meets my requirements or not, or if it has an innovative idea I like, but systems are inherently dis-interesting creatures. To me it makes more sense to look at the cool features of the game and give a quick test within the context of the system to see if they play out in a way that you expect according to the flavor text.
I believe S. John Ross uses a similar test.
DeadGod: sub-systems are somewhat different in that they generally (but not always) serve some need that may or may be 'fun' to do. So my requirement may change.
I used to be on the lookout for sub-systems many years back. But I haven't even considered them in years.
Helmsman: Typically I would use the values for PCs, but it really doesn't matter.
And I tend to ignore equipment and gear for the simple reason that if it requires those to make the system interesting- it has failed my test out of the gate.
Jeff Rients: S. John Ross either does not apply that test to his own games, or he is much more easily entertained than I :)
So are you saying that if you can make an entirely average being with absolutely no interesting qualities no powers, no equipment (so no Mecha or other Genre-pertinent items like say assault rifles for a war game) and then put him against another completely average featureless naked person to fight...
... and you find that fight fun...
... then that's a game you find interesting?
Well... um yeah... I'd give that game stellar marks as well. That's like taking a child tying him up with steel cable and chain and gagging him in a soundproof basement and then telling him if he can get up to the dinner table in 30 seconds he can eat.
Tell me, did HERO system actually accomplish this? If so... how?
Helmsman: I'm sorry, for some unknown reason I got into my head the idea of special gear (like D&D magic items).
No, you're correct. I use common equipment for the general setting. For modern or fantasy that's easy. Sci-fi, it would depend upon the setting.
For example, if it was the wild west I'd grab a couple of peacemakers, a henry, and a saw-off shotgun and for it.
Ah, well that works better. Recently I've taken to trying to work out a way to convert a home brew basic system to Rifts. The caveat was that I would try to maintain the original feel of the game as much as possible and only eliminate mechanics and structure when my new system already had that base covered. (My earlier attempts at converting the game with an "I know better" attitude to non-homebrew systems had some success but I'd inevitably run into problems because my players would feel that I'd eliminated something they personally liked from the game.)
One thing I discovered from this semi-purist approach was that a lot of the core systems in Rifts really had a lot of character that it incorporated into my game. (Alignments and Combat Styles) A lot of these things are getting tossed out as meaningless fluff in new games but I saw potential to add mechanical significance to them with my broader spectrum system. Anyway, I've yet to give things a good playtest but I by my estimation the setup that I've got now would pass this test. At least by what qualities I find fun.
If you ever have the time, could you elaborate on the underlying process of what you do with those average values and how you look at whether they're interesting or not? I'm interesting just what you look for and how you evaluate it. Unless you've spoken about this before.
Wyatt: In general, I look to see how much influence my own decision making has on the game system. Or in other words, something besides just rolling dice.
In RIUS for example, that's all there is to do once you remove the non-mechanical elements. You have a number of dice, and you roll them. Boring. The only thing interesting about it is the mental image you get when you're rolling against someone's "combat monster" skill with your "expert baker" skill. Take that away, and the game system is boring- I may as well be flipping coins.
Some games allow you to assign dice from some pool, and then roll them. Also boring.
In contrast HERO provides me with all sorts of maneuvers that modify the die roll, it includes modifiers for conditions under which the die roll is made- indicating that I could use those as well to influence the outcome. The results of 'success' run a wide range of possibilities.
In short, even without any background, complete characters, or role-playing there's a complete war game there.
And that's really the key. Are the mechanics a complete game that doesn't need the non-mechanical elements of an rpg to entertaining.
I suppose a rpg could be created upon a complete card game (although that's not my taste) or a complete dice game (again not my taste) although in both cases for me it should be more interesting than than 'War' or Yatzee.
After that I start in the details. How random is the system, how 'realistic', how difficult to use, etc.
Post a Comment