Thanks for the opening shots! I'm going to mentally group them and take a couple of different cracks at them. First up, some of my idiosyncracies regarding gaming systems.
WhtKnt says:
How do you feel about Rolemaster/HARP or Castles & Crusades?
Rolemaster takes me back to what I consider D&D alternatives in its era (not to be confused with OSR, which I'll whine about later). It worked for me in its time as the crunchy fantasy system, in my head a clear contrast to what role D&D had in terms of gaming experience. I enjoyed it then, but then as a game-starved young man then I enjoyed everything I could lay my hands on. The two systems felt different, and that was a good thing.
The d20 era though, where I'm lumping HARP and C&C and others, was way more chaotic than my preferences. I was excited to see so many different takes, but they all felt samey samey to me, I think it's because of the deluge thatn accompanied the open-gaming license that lost me. So I briefly played them, but they didn't sink in much.
Which somewhat brings me to my point of OSR retroclones, that if all they're trying to do is to offer their preferred version of how original D&D ought to be like, then it just feels terribly arbitrary to me (let's keep encumbrance rules, or let's have gritty healing, or let's abstract supplies, etc), like homebrew where all rules are guidelines and you can just ignore the bits you don't like.
And I feel this inclination I have informs my feelings about the next thing:
Aironfabio says:
What is it about generic systems that turn you off. Especially given that you instead seem to like Free League that basically uses variations of the same system for most games (albeit some woth more customization than others).
I differentiate between having a core system that branches out into many rules and mechanics variations corresponding to their setting, and having a core system that simply adds setting elements to them.
So for something like World of Darkness or PbtA, the core mechanic is the largely the same, but each setting has its own special features, so vampire power lists are different from werewolf power lists, even though theiy both use the same dot system, or the classic 2d6 in PbtA is consistent, but each setting has its own very different set of playbooks and moves.
On the other hand, Cypher, Fate, SWADE all point you back to the same set of powers and abilities, regardless of setting, so a bow is the equivalent of a gun, winged boots are jetapacks, just reskinned, a blast power is both a fireball and nuclear explosion. If I'm buying into a game designer's vision of what their system means, I want to hear what 1d6 means to them in their design, rather than for them to tell me they're leaving it up to me to decide what 1d6 means.
Free League seems more like the former than the latter.
bowlofspinach says:
Also, what game have you seen other people praise but don't like yourself?
So I'm trying my darnest to see the good in Cypher or SWADE, and while I can cognitively get the elegance of the Cypher system or the comprehensiveness of SWADE once you start looking into its ruleset, I can't get into character the way I'd prefer, and that does bother me a bit, because I'd like to think I'm a true sucker for all sorts of systems.
I'd love to hear what the rest of you think about this! :)
Last edited July 29, 2022 10:15 am