|
|
| (25 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| | --[[User:Matts|Matts]] 13:36, 24 February 2007 (MST)Since we've played the system, why don't we put our thoughts on it up here? | | --[[User:Matts|Matts]] 13:36, 24 February 2007 (MST)Since we've played the system, why don't we put our thoughts on it up here? |
| | | | |
| | + | --[[User:Matts|Matts]] 19:04, 20 June 2007 (MST)So that old debate was fun! Here's a change of the Dogs system by its author for horror games: [http://www.lumpley.com/comment.php?entry=201] |
| | | | |
| − | == General impressions==
| + | He brings up some excellent points about multiple participants that I'll integrate into SMitV. It's also driven me to think of SMitV not as a game about relationships, because it isn't really, but as a game about managing resources (at least at the highest level). |
| | | | |
| | + | ==SMitV Mechanic Discussion== |
| | | | |
| − | the below was copied from [[Talk:Nephon Sector One-Shot]]<br> | + | Discuss the pros/cons of specific SMitV Mechanics here. |
| − | --67.183.58.127 13:50, 24 February 2007 (MST)This system was the opposite of less is more. That concept is based on the mathematical idea of elegance, that no matter how complex something looks on the surface it can be reduced to a simple, profound core idea. This system over complicated the vast majority of conflicts by equating all conflicts. The rules are 160 pages to describe one extremely focused kind of encounter. And even in that tiny microcosm it was convoluted, unclear and unweildy in many common situations. Its probably the most overly complex system I have ever experienced; even the seemingly most simple task is clouded in handfuls of dice. There were good story elements but they were entirely unrelated to the system at hand and would have occurred had we been using Hero, White Wolf, Twerps, Palladium or no particular system at all. I understand you like the mechanic, and if you choose to use it thats cool. But this system is most certainly not less is more. This system is the lifeline from Donnie Darko: everything is either this or that. Facts are borderline irrelevant, lets roll some dice and let them determine truth. I am not against playing this; I am, however, against giving it accolades it does not deserve.
| + | |
| | | | |
| − | --[[User:Edmiao|Edmiao]] 20:12, 25 February 2007 (MST) I agree with the above except for the last sentence. I am against playing this system for a prolonged game, unless it is used as an overlay on top of another system only for use to stimulate back and forth PC/NPC conversations. I do see the benefit of this system for use in one shots; it has simple character sheets and only one type of dicing off mechanic to learn, so is easy to pick up.
| + | ==SMitV Mechanic Testbed== |
| | | | |
| − | --[[User:Matts|Matts]] 00:17, 26 February 2007 (MST)Is your main criticism of the system that it's not comprehensive enough with respect to character generation, or is it not concrete enough in the way things are resolved?
| + | Discuss potential mechanic changes here. |
| | | | |
| − | --[[User:Edmiao|Edmiao]] 09:54, 26 February 2007 (MST) The character generation is very superficial. you have, what, 4-6 traits and that's it. Then there are formalized relationships, which most other systems would let fall on roleplay. That's about as minimal as it gets. And then we end up metagaming, (guilty, but can't help it) trying to get those traits worked into a conflict. Conflict dicing is used in place of roleplaying to convince NPCs to spill the beans. As Jason pointed out, who cares about the facts it's all about who metagamed to get their "2d8 likes bunnies" and "1d6 smells like cabbage" traits worked into a conversation. Sure, you can work out the bugs and make the stakes of each conflic low but then the conflicts get very drawn out. If you think our games move to fast, then we could use this to draw them out. In sum, I just didn't like it.
| + | ===Experience=== |
| | | | |
| − | | + | --[[User:Matts|Matts]] 19:04, 20 June 2007 (MST)I saw a great idea on the indie-rpgs board today for longer-term campaigns (ie our 6-session one): you have a "permanent" character sheet and a "story" character sheet. At the start of a story arc (which could just be a session, right) you copy your permanent character to a new sheet. You amass Traits through fallout and experience as normal. When the story is over, you go through Reflection, and make changes according to that, but on your permanent sheet. This way, you can build experience in a given story, and apply the results of past conflicts in the story more or less directly to future conflicts until the climax. Then, you can sum that all up with the way you change your character in Reflection. This shows your character did grow, but that as the immediacy of the situation fades, so too does the bulk of the competence you developed under fire. |
| − | --[[User:Matts|Matts]] 11:20, 26 February 2007 (MST)What mechanical weight can we give 'just roleplaying' in other systems? In most games, let's say I have a talker and you have a fighter. You can stab me, and the mehcanics say incontrovertibly that I'm dead. I can try and convince your character that it's a bad idea, but it's up to you as the player to whether your character is convinced or not. That's a mechanical imbalance in favor of the fighter, and it basically means that if you want to play a character who has the wieght of the system in his favor, you need to play a fighter. | + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | What bugs me is that the 'simple' activities are just as important to the game's drama, and having a well-developed set of binding rules makes the stakes in those situations important. In Hero, what does making your conversation roll mean? What does making your trading roll mean? We know exactly what happens when you land an attack; you injure your opponent. What happens when you make your conversation roll is basically up to the GM. Look how we played fellowship in WHFRP; the stats basically didn't matter, Anjou roleplayed it out, and got some good stuff because we were all (or maybe just I was) entertained. But if we don't have stats there, why have them at all? Why didn't other people in that game have the opportunity to engage in the same type of play as Anjou, even if their players weren't as interested in outrageous accents or roleplaying conversation?
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | I'll leave out the argument on the merits of DitV making active roleplaying a more critical part of the mechanical process, since I'm pretty sure it's just a fetish of mine. But it really bugs me that in most systems, combat is given the most mechanical weight, and is often the only time where your the system measures your characters' actions in a definable, consequential way. That leads to combat being the primary or only way to resolve conflicts, and while I like combat as much as the next guy, I'd like a game where it's not the primary focus.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ==thoughts on disadvantages==
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | --[[User:Matts|Matts]] 13:36, 24 February 2007 (MST)My thoughts re: disadvantages: I think that, in order to give players' disadvantages weight (especially because we're doing 'roleplaying' as opposed to 'backseat moralizing'), your d4 traits are mutually exclusive with at least one other trait. Let's say Matsumoto eats another pecan pie in front of Mr. Tester; he gets his 'd4 instigator' trait. However, that trait is basically the times when his 'cool-like zen' don't work, because he's instigating. In fact, we could say that he's "Cool Like Zen 2d6" "except when he's instigating d4".
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ==thoughts on relationships==
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | --[[User:Matts|Matts]] 13:36, 24 February 2007 (MST)Ben brought up a great point about loyalty vs relationships. After further thought, here's my position: A relationship is basically a two-fold emotional bond: conflicts over or involving that relationship are that much more intense for your character because of his feeling.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | For something like giving an order, Relationships are only somewhat appropriate; if I tell Rina to do something she doesn't want to do, we get in an argument, right? So, for an order, I'd say the command structure would be best implemented through Traits. "Captain of the Bishamon d8" for instance, or "Loyal Soldier". Those dice would come into play when the command structure is being used or followed.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ==thoughts on multiple combatants==
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | here's what the creator said (here [http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=22160.0]) about entering conflicts already in progress:
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Dog 1 starts a conflict with NPC 1. During their initial, just-talking part of the raise,see, raise process, Dog 1 announces that he wants to pull his pistol and start shooting! Dog 2, who up until now has not been involved but concerned that this is now out of hand, wants to prevent Dog 1 from shooting NPC 1.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | How is this handled? Should Dog 2 be involved from the start?
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Dog 2 should not be involved from the start.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | This is a strong GM moment. This is a moment where you, as GM, tell both players that they can't just have what they want.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | "Dog 2, you can't participate in this conflict. Dog 1, you and I must play this conflict to its conclusion in the instant between when your hand lands on your gun and when Dog 2 catches your arm. All our raises and sees have to fit in that tiny space. If you can't do it, you have to give."
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | The players have to obey the rules for conflicts, the conflicts have to obey the causality of the in-game fiction.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | -Vincent
| + | |
He brings up some excellent points about multiple participants that I'll integrate into SMitV. It's also driven me to think of SMitV not as a game about relationships, because it isn't really, but as a game about managing resources (at least at the highest level).
