Latest revision as of 18:23, 9 March 2011

The purpose of this page is to find out what people like about games. It is a collection of gaming meta-information which can be used for whatever makes sense. I plan on referencing it heavily and possibly integrating it into a game at some point. This page can hopefully develop into a resource we can all reference.

What this page is not about is debate and argument. No matter what you post I will not argue (not even with Gabe (ok maybe with Gabe (seriously I wont even argue with Gabe))) and I request that you do not either. I (and anyone else who cares to as well) may ask clarifying questions, even very pointed and direct ones, but these are not meant as an attack, argument or statement of value (or lack thereof).

Another thing which does not belong here is 'I dont like x about game y'. This page is specifically about what you do like and that alone. It is allowed to say 'I like quality x about game y except in situation z'. For example you might say 'I enjoy the capricious dice rolling of Rolemaster character generation, but I dont think it would make for a very good actual game except in limited circumstances.'

What I am asking about here are system related preferences, so please be very specific about which system and what mechanic you are referring to. I have organized the remainder of the page into sections, and if they grow large enough they will get their own individual pages. If there is interest I can also make a page for play style related commentary, such as what play styles people like.

Remember everyone Please be as specific as possible.

Setting

Use this section to describe which settings you like and why. If there is enough interest I can divide this into genre specific sections.

--Gameadmin 20:02, 29 December 2010 (MST)I like the gritty, dark fantasy of WHFRP in all of its iterations. The many career choices make the setting come alive, even the ones no one ever picks really help color the world.
--Gameadmin 20:02, 29 December 2010 (MST)I like the familiarity of canned settings like Star Trek. I never know how important it can be for everyone to already know the little details. There is no need to explain what a dilithium crystal is or what a Cardassian looks like. It really helps get everyone in to the 'shared hallucination' which brings the game to life.
--Gameadmin 20:02, 29 December 2010 (MST)I like the impending doom in Call of Cthulhu and how there is always something under the surface.
Edmiao interesting point about the shared familiarity. i think that is why i was always a bit lost in WHFRP, because everyone else knew the game world better than I did. that said, i liked the gritty dark fantasy feel of it a lot.
Edmiao somehow intricate plots were always beyond me. maybe i was too tired late at night. I think in later games the airhead character suited me because it allowed me to plow through the game world kind of oblivious to the really deep scheming plots.

--Gdaze 12:18, 3 January 2011 (MST) Way to miss the point Ed, haha. I'm going to be specific as possible, but a bit vague as well. I like established systems because this takes some pressure of the GM, and allows the characters to do a bit of outside reading. This saves the trouble of the "You've been living in this world but don't know anything about it" that a lot of Japanese console RPGs suffer from.

--Gdaze 12:18, 3 January 2011 (MST) I love the WHFRP setting as well as the 40k one, both for the same reasons that they are well established and I like their feel overall.

--Gdaze 12:18, 3 January 2011 (MST) Warmachine - Great steampunk setting, love how the humans fight each other more then anything else in the world. Each side has a good feel.

--Gdaze 12:18, 3 January 2011 (MST) Darksun - Love this PA fantasy game, very interesting setting but doesn't work very well with D&D type rules.

--Gdaze 12:18, 3 January 2011 (MST) Shadowrun - Never really played it, but I think it has a neat setting.

--Gdaze 12:18, 3 January 2011 (MST) Forgotten Realms - I like typical fantasy as well, a world created just for adventures.

--Dieter the Bold 23:26, 11 February 2011 (MST) As much as I had fun in Matt's WHFRP campaign, I have to say that I prefer standard published settings or original sandbox settings over altered published settings. I've been having an enormous amount of fun with the Star Trek setting (as published w/ some differences in history only) and loved Ben's Amour setting (totally original). WHFRP is great for dark fantasy. I totally agree with Gabe on Forgotten Realms for high fantasy. Call of Cthulhu is always fun in seeing just how far you can sleuth without going insane or getting devoured. Cyberpunk is solid, but I'd take Space Opera or PA over it.

JASON: What is it about a modified setting that you do not like? Since I wasnt really in that game, I dont know how modified it was. When I was around, it was just magic was illegal and religion was more oppressed. You are right about Star Trek too. I would never have guessed it could be this much fun. Its so easy to say 'a Klingon destroyer decloaks 1000km from you' and get a consistent reaction from the players. People seem to remain on the same page, which is very helpful.

Gabe, what do you like about Shadowrun?

--Gdaze 15:59, 14 February 2011 (MST) I just like the feel of Shadowrun. I really like how the net is up and all around everyone, makes playing a hacker actually seem fun. I also feels that it blends fantasy and sci-fi in a great way, which is fairly hard to do.

Character Generation

Use this section to describe which aspects you like about which games character creation systems. This includes anything game related that happens before you actually start playing the game with other players.

--Gameadmin 20:23, 29 December 2010 (MST)I really enjoy character generation in Hero. It is like solving a puzzle, each one unique. There are so many options that you can always find a way to make your character an individual. In a way it gives you, the player, a separate game to play over and over, every time you get experience or make a change. Making new characters really is engaging.
--Gameadmin 20:23, 29 December 2010 (MST)In theory I like the card drawing aspect of making characters in Deadlands, but in practice it is wildly unpredictable and is not an asset.
--Gameadmin 20:23, 29 December 2010 (MST)I like the idea of creating a house in A Song of Ice and Fire.
Edmiao i love character generation in hero as well. Agree that its like solving a puzzle and is very engaging. spending xp in hero is very fun as well, 1-5 points in wierd things can add a lot of flavor to a character.

--Gdaze 12:22, 3 January 2011 (MST) WHFRP 3rd (sorry should have put that before). Fast, easy, and people can be ready to play in under an hour.

--Gdaze 12:22, 3 January 2011 (MST) WH40KRP - All of them really, I like choosing each path, and is fairly quick except for when it comes to getting equipment in Rogue Trader.

--Gdaze 12:22, 3 January 2011 (MST) Mutants & Masterminds D20 ed. - I haven't actually played this, but character creation seems very geared towards making supers. Besides a slight problem with the limits and one stat affecting another, seems fairly easy.

--Gdaze 12:22, 3 January 2011 (MST) Hero, but only if you have the software. It is a lot of fun to build a character. Coming up with how to do a certain power/ability can be a lot of fun.

--Dieter the Bold 23:39, 11 February 2011 (MST) I prefer point-based character building, but am surprisingly conflicted over HERO. It does leave the field wide open for your imagination, but sometimes that's a downside. I definitely like systems that stream you through categories to help build your character concept, e.g., WH40KRP. I also love "fidgety" systems. Those that have a 1,001 Talents, Benefits, Advantages, etc. that you can select to combine and tweak to create different builds for a character concept. D&D 3.5, for example.

JASON: I know how you feel about Hero. It can be daunting with so many choices. I often look at characters I have made and see I keep getting stuck in the same tropes. They arent varied enough because my preferences become giant ruts from which I cannot escape. It seems like when players are of equal skill that Hero is a very balanced game, but a single player who exceeds the others and things get out of whack fast.

So you think that a small of very important choices (which 3 talents do I pick) is better than a very high number of seemingly small ones (how can I create the exact skill I want)?

Skills Resolution

Use this section to describe what you like about skills resolution outside of combat. Generally, this is anything which happens in 'narrative time'.

--Gameadmin 20:36, 29 December 2010 (MST)I like the unified dice mechanic of WHFRP 3rd ed. It is so easy, straightforward and fun. It makes so much sense and is adaptable to a great many situations.
--Gameadmin 20:36, 29 December 2010 (MST)I like the multiple dice and their implementations in Deadlands 1st and 2nd edition, better in 2nd. I also like how chips give the characters life and allow danger to be palpable without breaking the game.
--Gameadmin 20:36, 29 December 2010 (MST)I like how fast World of Darkness 3rd edition plays, especially with skills.
--Gameadmin 20:36, 29 December 2010 (MST)I like how courage works in Star Trek, allowing players to have influence over situations without controlling them.

--Gdaze 12:26, 3 January 2011 (MST) WHFRP 3rd ed. and also WH40KRP - Both are quick and easy. I think I would say that WH40KRP is a bit better because it assigns benefits to how much you beat your roll by, while WHFRP ignored this for the most part at first. Can be used to make own world quite easily as well.

--Gdaze 12:26, 3 January 2011 (MST) D&D 3.5 - I like that you have to beat a DC, however in practice this doesn't always work as it can mean you have to keep track of a lot of little bonsues and which bonuses can actually apply to the roll. Looks streamlined but feels clunky in practice at times.

--Dieter the Bold 00:22, 12 February 2011 (MST) d6 has worked the most, but I honestly think the White Wolf d10 TargetNumber = Successes -> Effects was the easiest and most effective mechanic. I do like having Fate/Fortune Points/Courage/Poker Chips to allow characters to influence the story beyond dice rolls.

JASON: Gabe, when you get extra effects by rolling better in relation to your skill, does that ever seem like the dice are more important than your character? I know it does for me sometimes, but I want to get other perspectives. This is something I am very conflicted on. It is kind of the crux of games like Rolemaster. Also, I didnt know you played WHFRP 3rd ed. Isnt it bad ass? I have a set of those custom dice, but dont have the game yet. I cant wait to get a job so I can buy it!

Narrative control for players is one of those things that seems hard to do well. The poker chips in Deadlands, so far, have been the most successful. I hope to see what Trail of Cthulhu can do soon.

--Gdaze 15:59, 14 February 2011 (MST) Oh sorry I actually have NOT played the 3rd ed. But I’m very tempted by it. I already have so many books though.

Are the dice more important than my character, good question. I guess in my mind I look at it as uping your skill represents your chances of rolling better. That said it is fairly frustrating to roll bad, and then see someone who doesn’t have a high skill just roll really well. Although a little funny too…

Hmm, I dunno. I guess I’ve never had that problem.

Combat

Use this section to discuss any game aspects specifically dealing with action that occurs in 'combat time'.

--Gameadmin 20:46, 29 December 2010 (MST)I like how fast and deadly combat is in Cyberpunk.
--Gameadmin 20:46, 29 December 2010 (MST)I think there is a lot of genius in Hero combat (mostly the different options and attack types), but it has such a high learning curve and requires so much knowledge on the part of the players that I think for many games it is not worth the effort.
--Gameadmin 20:46, 29 December 2010 (MST)I like how cards determine initiative in Deadlands 1st and 2nd ed, and how the chips and dice work well to make the world dangerous but playable.

--Gdaze 12:30, 3 January 2011 (MST) AGAIN WHFRP and 40K. Yeesh, I say those a lot. Combat is simple yet has a wide range of options.

--Gdaze 12:30, 3 January 2011 (MST) Hero, but usually only on "low powered" games, such as a Fantasy, Sci-Fi, or PA game. Works great for those, but at the supers level it can be hard to keep track of everything and can bog down combat.

Werewolf - I forgot which ed, but the one we played awhile ago. But I like it that if you score more successes you hit and do more damage. Combat can become a bit clunky at times though.

--Dieter the Bold 00:30, 12 February 2011 (MST) I don't like counter-resolutions to rolls. I.e., Hit vs Dodge. I think it extends combat to a detrimental degree. I prefer that maneuvers/stances be the method of modifying a character's combat defenses.

JASON: Gabe, what you say about Hero is another internal conflict of mine. In lower powered games it works pretty well. With Supers, there are so many options it can be overwhelming. Yet I keep wondering if at some point the skill level of the players can overcome this. I dont know, and given my current thinking, I doubt I will ever find out, but its something I am always considering.

Dieter has hit something very important on counter resolution rolls. I dont like dodge blow either. First of all, because its super-powered. But also because, like he said, it just drags things on longer and longer. Hey wait, didnt I just hit him? Damn, ok, lets roll initiative.

Would a counter roll would be fine if both are made at the same time, like player x has y dice in his attack pool, player a has b dice in his defense pool? Both roll for successes, if attacker has more, he hits. What would you think of that?

Roleplaying

Use this section to discuss game aspects that deal specifically with roleplaying focused elements. This includes systems and system rewards.

--Gameadmin 20:49, 29 December 2010 (MST)Social intrigues in A Song of Ice and Fire look really cool, but I haven't tried them in real life so I dont know if they work.
--Gameadmin 20:49, 29 December 2010 (MST)he idea of keeping a die when you yield in Dogs in the Vineyard is a good one, but in practice it doesn't seem to mean as much as I would hope.

--Dieter the Bold 01:14, 12 February 2011 (MST) I love sandbox-style games with focused group goals and tight bonds between players. Again, Ben's Amour game is the best example. I like having a wide open world to move about in with the option to pursue adventure and inquiry wherever I want. While it is fun to all meet in an inn on a dark and stormy night, it seems that long-term gaming stability works best when the PC group has a strong goal as a whole from the beginning (and past).

JASON: The common goal/theme for a group is so important I cant believe it doesnt get more pub.

--Gdaze 16:00, 14 February 2011 (MST) Groups must have a common theme/drive/goal. Period. This is why in my games right from the start I establish what that is (Protect the town and slay the giant / Save the ship / Protect your pack mates and your base / Grow artifact business). And while none of my games lasted very long, I felt that they worked pretty well in that respect.

Advancement

Use this section to discuss character advancement related elements. This is about gaining and spending experience.

--Dieter the Bold 00:56, 12 February 2011 (MST) I love advancing my characters. I'm currently involved in a HERO Fantasy game that rarely hands out XP, and even when it does it's only a couple points. This is highly demotivating for me. I do like that skill advancement is based on skill use and advancement made via failed skill rolls. If my character isn't growing in points & abilities, I don't feel like they're going anywhere. I enjoyed advancement most in Ben's Amour game, where XP came after each session, with bonus points for good RPing. But I am content with XP issued every "chapter" or "arc", so long as those aren't too far apart.

JASON: This is something I am very torn on, personally. I spoke to Ben a lot during his game, and I was always so against the huge amounts of XP. It doesnt make any sense, in 3 weeks of game time you gain a lifetime of skill or experience in a subject or some super powerful item. Yet, the effect was different. For the most part, the players loved it. This is one area where Ben is wise and I am an eternal fool. If you get an assload of XP, show up or not, participate or not, do anything cool or act like a doofus, then shouldnt that devalue the whole experience? This is something I can not understand. I know I want to work for what I get, I want it to feel earned. In no way do I want the stuff cheaply. Because of how delicate this balance is, and how deeply personal it can be, I think the subject of XP should be discussed with players before a campaign begins, and everyone should be on the same page.

In my personal gaming Valhalla, there would be little or no XP. I do love player growth, but not always on the character sheet. If the character is making its mark on the world, then that is growth enough. I have to admit, however, that I am not in this elusive neverland yet, I definitely enjoyed adding new skills to my SIFRP character.

--Gdaze 16:07, 14 February 2011 (MST) I'm actually part of the exp should be equal part. Ben's fantasy game worked very well, and I'm one who doubted the whole spend EXP for gear thing. If you punish people for when they don't show up, they will only resent you. There is already enough negatives for not showing up (don't get to choose what to do, miss out on fights, miss out on contacts, don't get to research that one thing your character has been wanting to). I get how you see it, that you are rewarding the players who DO show up, but there is another side to it, which is punishing those who don't.

Also keeping EXP the same keeps the characters in balance. Also Ben's game wasn't a normal fantasy, it was somewhat based on the idea of Dawnforge. That is, we were playing the character of old, the great heroes of the past who were the stuff of legends. This should be earned, yes. But that is what the EXp growth represented, the world was rich in potential power, and it went to those who needed it.

And heck, that game had some of the BEST battles. Although ONE went too long, which was really more of a flaw of the system, they were all pretty epic. So while we did have a lot of EXP, we were constantly in danger.

Some of the most exciting times I've had were had in that game, such as: Falling out of the sky and trying to make sure everyone landed okay. Fighting a fucking dragon (which I kinda missed out on, stupid personal problems), fighting an evil shadow, and so on. The exp was a lot, but we weren't just using it to fight off faceless minions, we were involved in real epic feats. I dunno, it worked pretty well.

I should also add, I am surprised it worked. Usually too much EXP is a bad thing. And I'd agree that more often it IS a problem. I guess that game was defently one that something could be learned from.

JASON: How would you feel it meta game rewards, like XP, were given out equally, but in game rewards, such as loot, contacts, and other things, were expressly earned during play? Rewards are grouped into categories and you can only buy the ones you qualify for.

BEN: I think I'll jump in here, seeing as one of the cornerstones of this discussion is OAAAA, which I ran. On principle, I'm actually in Jason's school: historically I always wanted advancement to be primarily story based, with point-based advancement rare and precious. OAAAA represents a 180 degree turn from that philosophy. I'm going to make a few comments on why I made the change, and why I think it works (these are not exhaustive lists, just what comes immediately to mind):
Why I did it:
1.) Appeasement: characters like to advance. Our group had a notoriously short attention span, and a sense of stagnation was quick to sap player enthusiasm for a campaign.
2.) The Heroic Journey: This was actually the main reason (#1 above sounds rather cynical). I felt that a game in which the players progressed, much as story characters, from the nobodies to the great heroes was something I wanted to try to capture in a game.
3.) Fun: Most games are based around restricting XP. Thus, spending them is almost painful, because you are never sure which of your precious deficiencies you should fill. I decided that for this game, which throughout it's world-feel was somewhat lighter and more flippant (and rich with tropes) than most of my games, I would sacrifice meaningfulness for entertainment in advancement. More on this later.
Why it works
: 1.) Appeasement/Fun: Lots of XP is, as it turns out, exciting and fun. If you missed a session, you might be clued out, but you also had 15XP to spend! OMFG! The players were ready to get back in the action immediately. 2.) Flexibility: I'm a flexible GM: when I realized that I could adjust the difficulty of any threat to match the players (as gabe alludes to), I stopped worrying about their "power". It was kind of a pain in the ass to keep up with their gains, but not nearly as bad as I first imagined.
3.) The hero system: The hero system is amazingly well balanced in a single currency: point cost. By converting everything in the game to points, XP became the great equalizer: no one could complain about unfair gains/losses, because everyone had the same number of points. This is not possible in systems that do not have this kind of inherent balance.
4.) Flooding: My greatest fear was ridiculous min/maxing with the points people got. Eliminating power pools helped here. But interestingly, Lots of XP actually flooded this out: the "sensory overload" of having so many points meant that people spent them more loosely, which usually meant that they were willing to spend them on things other than min/maxed traits. I think this was one of the greatest triumphs of this approach, and one of the most unexpected.
5.) Punishment vs. Reward: Gabe alluded to this as well. In my experience, there is more punishment in differential xp than reward. Yes, "better" RPers do more for the story with their XP, so less harm is done in giving them more points. But in general, good RPers care the LEAST about points. Also, another great triumph of this campaign was that bonus XP was awarded to the whole group, but with express, public acknowledgement of who was responsible: Even though it was only 1 or 2 points a session, these points were treasured by players, and people felt really good when they scored them for the group. At the same time, and this is key, players were excited when other players RPed it up, because it benefited them, and they were also motivated to RP more themselves, both for the glory and the points. In a way, it was a metagame "shared goal" of working together. Furthermore, people who like to RP get pleasure just from RPing, and I would argue are more satisfied by netting points for their allies than for themselves: it's just more in the spirit of most players' play styles, surprisingly.

--Gdaze 12:38, 15 February 2011 (MST) Wondering when you were gonna chime in on your game Ben. Haha. But really, that was one of the best games I think you ran. I found it to be surprisingly fun.

And Jason, in response to your question I'm going to go back to OAAAAAA. My character had this wicked claw weapon. Every now and then I'd pump more into it because it ignored armor. But I found that I didn't like just suddenly getting a new weapon. So during adventures I'd do things like gather ingredents I thought might make such a blade, dip it in foul bogs I found, and so on.

Actually, a lot of players from what I can remember did things in game to explain their advancements. And this leads me to my point. The players did this on their own, there was no system in place to say "Do this to level up that". None. But we did. There were SOME limits on how much we could up a skill, we couldn't pour all 15 EXP into our magic item or up a skill too many times, but overall there were few restrictions. Ben I'm surprised you didn't mention these limits in the whole min/max thing haha.

I think we liked to do things in game to explain the EXP because we were all making a story for how our charaters grew. Maybe because we were gaining so much, it just didn't feel right to not explain it?

When you have a system that says you can only get this because you did such and such, it affects the meta-game the players play. And you get the more heavy RPers getting more time. I'm okay with in game rewards like contacts (loot was EXP in Ben's game), that is fine. But you don't want a player hogging all of the time either. But maybe that is something else.

Hmm, OAAAA was defently a great game. I feel like that is one game where the goal and setting were laid out, and all the players ended up contributing a lot. Sorry Ben, I won't suck your cock but I did like that game.

Other

Include anything here that does not fit elsewhere.

Edmiao i just enjoy hanging with my homies on a friday evening. ah, those were the good old days.

--Gdaze 12:38, 3 January 2011 (MST) I agree with Ed on this one 100%. I've been missing Role Playing and Magic pretty bad these days. Sigh and all that.

--Gameadmin 16:11, 3 January 2011 (MST)You guys are right on the money here. Even when I got frustrated with the direction, or the game, or the system, or anything, it was always fun. We always knew that we had dedicated players. People shared ideas on the wiki and collaborated all week long. We had good pizza and long-standing jokes that were fun to rehash. Few things can approach this camaraderie.

--Gdaze 17:15, 3 January 2011 (MST) Oh fuck do I miss pizza. All in all, that was the longest I've run well, pretty much any RPG. Most groups fall apart pretty easy, but we ran a lot of those pretty long.

--Dieter the Bold 01:15, 12 February 2011 (MST) Jason & co. are rolling on Friday nights. They've been pretty consistent for a while. Might be room for you, Gabe...