Game Design Matters?

I've seen more and more of this on Veeky Forums recently, and I thought it'd be interesting to try and have a reasonable discussion about it, as well as open up an angle which I haven't really seen broached before.

Does game design matter in RPGs? How significant is the system you're using for the experience, and how big a deal are flaws the system might possess? Does the GMs ability to fix things via rule zero hold a much larger sway than design itself?

Those are the basic questions, but the new thought I wanted to add to the conversation was this- If you're one of the people who believe game design is not significant, then what do you expect of game designers? What should they aspire for when making a new system, or focus their efforts on? If ensuring all the mechanics involved in the system are fit to purpose, that the options are decently balanced and that it all generally works isn't a big deal, what else should they be doing?

Other urls found in this thread:

sendspace.com/file/2fuwd4
boards.fireden.net/tg/thread/48976085/#49017910
1d4chan.org/wiki/Oberoni_Fallacy
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

I doubt there's many people who would argue that game design doesn't matter at all.

More reasonable is the position that other factors can outweigh design. Familiarity, for example. If your players can't be bothered to learn the system, then what use was it to buy the game with excellent design?

PnP game design is also somewhat subjective. You can say William Faulkner was objectively a more important and original writer than Danielle Steele, but that doesn't stop people from buying her paperbacks in the airport.

The most important thing a system does for me is tell me what's important in the system--what situations do the rules address? What kind of interactions emerge when these rules are in play?

For example, I appreciate a lot about the design of GURPs, but even the light/starter pack version includes rules to describe in detail exactly how much a character can lift, exactly how fast they run, which is your dominant hand, etc. This implies to a newbie that all this is important, when 99% of the time, all you need to know is a relative hierarchy. Trying to simulate reality down to which hand is dominant implies every other greebly little factor could be in play.

Despite its flaws, I think this is a strength of old school D&D. Combat is abstracted to a single roll, implications of the spell descriptions are left to the DM rather than fine tuned like a legal contract, and many situations are left to player creativity and description (what use is it to know exactly how much you can lift in pounds, when the GM decides how heavy the rock is anyways--isn't it just as arbitrary?)

I'd argue you can also quite objectively assess a system based on how well it executes its premise.

If a system claims to achieve something, or that a certain rule works a certain way, if the mechanics fail to achieve that or actively undermine it there isn't really any other conclusion.

But this keys into what you said, which I agree with- Good design means knowing what your system cares about, and focusing the bulk of the mechanics on that, rather than labouring irrelevant extras with excessive rules.

>How significant is the system you're using for the experience, and how big a deal are flaws the system might possess?

It varies dramatically, with some groups sticking as close as they possibly can to the rules, other groups being quite loose and perhaps just building around a core mechanic.

For the most part, people tend to like to argue from the RAW stance, because system arguments are mostly about exchanging complaints until everyone leaves upset but convinced that they came out on top. Often, these arguments end up being rather far removed from how anyone actually plays the games, because they revolve around assuming the only way to play is in the absolute worst ways with no possible opportunity for remedy.

Discussions on the other hand tend to lean towards highlighting how important rule zero is and exploring what can be done with the system. Often, the flaws of most popular games are well known and easily remedied, and have stopped being any significant concern. A familiar example is D&D 4e's early monsters having too much HP, which is hardly worth obsessing about since there are a few easy guidelines for adjusting that to better suit a group's tastes, allowing the discussion to move past that moot point..

>If ensuring all the mechanics involved in the system are fit to purpose, that the options are decently balanced and that it all generally works isn't a big deal, what else should they be doing?

The major job of a game designer is less about producing balanced mechanics but rather introducing interesting options. Balance is a bit of a modern concern, and even then doesn't really extend to all modern games because there's other goals that are more important. Ultimately, a group that wants to break a game can break any game, and with a GM having easy and swift abilities for hammering down any standing nails, the question of balance is always ultimately secondary.

>focusing the bulk of the mechanics on that
I agree with what you said, except for this.

Just because a game is about something, doesn't mean it needs narrowly focused mechanics pertaining to that. I've noticed that storygames in particular sometimes work against their own intentions with mechanics that interfere with the kind of story they're trying to create.

For example, the quantum adventurer's pack in Dungeon World--it always has whatever you need in it (up to a certain number of uses), to cut down on bookkeeping... but isn't there an interesting story that results from not packing something you need?

>cleverly worded edition war bait
Mechanics matter exactly as much as the players care to use them..

When that something is things like chalk or rope? Nah.

Although, I think I remember a variant rule from one of the OSR books (dunno which). Your pack has a number, and you have to roll under the number to find what you are looking for. An attempt lowers this number by 1 (maybe it was only for successful attempts?). When it dips below a certain number, it's used up.

This keeps the "drama", as little as it is, but also skips the part where you fill a page with the number and weight of ropes, ccandles, ink, chalk, mirrors, salt, tacks, hammer, nails, iron spikes, crowbars, poles, pickaxes, shovels, waterskins, pots etc. you have.

You've only really discussed flaws that have clear and obvious solutions, though. What about situations where it's a lot more muddy and unclear? In those situations starting from RAW is necessary, at least as a frame of reference.

And for all the sorts of groups on the spectrum lay out, isn't it still better if the mechanics themselves are good, whether you lose them or not? Even if a GM can fix imbalances that come up in play, isn't it a better use of their time if they don't need to?

Seems like everyone but you is having a civil discussion.

Not all players or GMs are versed in dozens of systems, so any designer who gives a shit about their work should at least offer a decent foundation and some guidance on how and when to use the rules (ie, the paragraph at the beginning of many games that tell you not to roll an agility check to see if a character can tie his shoes).

PnP RPG's are innately "incomplete", because they leave room for player choice and imagination (which is why they require a GM or at least some form of arbitration)--unlike board games, which should have rules that cover pretty much any position/event in the game space (you can't drive your car off the monopoly board and go run over pawns on the chessboard next door).

For that reason, I dislike most games that try to decide everything "objectively" with a RNG or a rule. Pure simulation should always take a back seat to playability, unless you're designing a war game for the DoD or something (or your market is strictly limited to people who are entertained by exhaustively detailed simulation).

>isn't there an interesting story that results from not packing something you need?
Sure, but there's nothing in the game that prevents you from pushing that story if you want. But it's always in your hands whether you want to push it that way. The point of "always having whatever you need" is to not let things that are decided beforehand (like what you have in your pack) stop you from blurting out something you find interesting later on. The stories in DW are made because you're interested in creating story, not because you're interested in seeing what kind of story happens as a result of your interaction with pre-determined factors. It's a story-facilitating caveat, not a get out of jail free card. If you use it to shut down a story, then you're using it wrong and probably don't really get the point of the game.

Veeky Forums was a lot better when the majority of posters were already acclimated to Veeky Forums culture prior to browsing Veeky Forums for the first time.

We didn't have to deal with the constant accusations that every question, comment, or joke post was BAIT BAIT OMG FUKKIN BAIT WEAK BAIT TROLL.

Instead we have /pol/ and bait threads like these.

Asking questions and trying to start a discussion, which has thusfar been extremely civil and reasonable, is 'bait'? That word has lost all meaning.

> What about situations where it's a lot more muddy and unclear?

Those tend to be matters of personal taste. In fact, they are almost exclusively matters that vary depending on the group's opinions.
Even going back to the 4e HP issue, some groups may prefer higher HP.

>Even if a GM can fix imbalances that come up in play, isn't it a better use of their time if they don't need to?

A GM should be tweaking the game regardless, because games are delivered in a one-size-fits-all package. This includes simple things such as choosing some options rather than others, and otherwise tailoring the game to better suit your personal vision.
While starting mechanics being balanced is good, it's by no means the most important part of a system, and in fact is largely a secondary concern because the simplest way to balance everything is to strip everything of any mechanical significance. While this works for simple narrative games, it's an unpopular decision that exchanges variety for balance.

Also, some people actually have fun balancing systems or otherwise working with unbalanced parties. Exalted and other StoryTeller system games are examples of games that are widely unbalanced and still retain popularity, and GURPS is effectively a "pick parts and hopefully try to construct a balanced system" game that likewise enjoys popularity, perhaps in part because of the effort required into eventually producing a balanced game with it.

I agree that GMs should be tweaking a game, but there's a clear difference between tuning things to preference and having to take action because a rule in the game is not fit for purpose.

It's funny how the Internet has sped up the depreciation of meaning.

It was only three years ago that "cuck" meant "someone who voluntarily lets their wife sleep with another man". Now it just means "Someone who said something I don't like and I can't formulate an actual response".

Nowadays, "bait" just means "OP asked an open-ended question".

You sound like a cuck.

It's the sad fact of the internet. The ability of human beings to communicate with one another through a huge variety of means has vastly outstripped our emotional intelligence and actual skill in communication using those platforms, leading to the strange and toxic habits forming pretty much everywhere in the digitally connected world. I still love the internet, but damn we suck at using it.

Also, congratulations for having your point proven less than a minute after making it. really is a champ.

>Exalted and other StoryTeller system games are examples of games that are widely unbalanced and still retain popularity,

I think the two are unrelated. A game doesn't have to be balanced to be popular and enjoyed; the argument put forth is that it's better if it's balanced than if it's not (what "balanced" means can vary game to game however), not that balance and good game design in general is a necessity for success, popularity, or even fun.

It's like... having a AC isn't needed for a car to function as a car, but having one if you desire to use it improves the worth of the car without question.

Are you hoping to turn a hypothetical molehill into a hypothetical mountain?

Yes, designers have oversights and no game is free from flaws. Exalted could be essentially called more of a bundle of flaws masquerading as an actual system. But, when all is said and done, if you like the themes, feel, and fluff of Exalted, the long list of bizarre design choices ultimately is less important.

For some people who stick closely to a system, out-of-the-box balance/imbalance may be a decisive deal breaker. For most people, however, even a very balanced game is going to end up unbalanced in some way in actual play, and rule zero is enough to patch up their end user experience while they focus on the more important features of the game.

I'm also kind of getting tired of these leading questions that seem largely just for the sake of prolonging this discussion.

A good system, when used for the right setting and themes, can actively enhance the experience through its mechanics. A bad system (or an inappropriate system, regardless of its quality) will only ever be what the players and GM can manage to wring out of it, and in fact can make things WORSE if the mechanics clash with the narrative too badly. Imagine trying to run a muck-farmers-trying-to-survive-a-war campaign in Exalted and you'll see what I mean.

If having the AC drops the gas mileage down to 8 mpg and makes the car smell, it's not an improvement without question.

Balance often comes with sacrifices, the leading sacrifices being mechanical variety and depth. Stricter systems or systems that have less options tend to be more balanced, but they also tend to be less fun overall.

Unbalanced games that are popular tend to be considered good because the designers were faced with decisions and erred on the side of providing more and more varied options to players.

>Yes, designers have oversights and no game is free from flaws. Exalted could be essentially called more of a bundle of flaws masquerading as an actual system. But, when all is said and done, if you like the themes, feel, and fluff of Exalted, the long list of bizarre design choices ultimately is less important.

But it would be better if it wasn't that, right?

>balance means everything ends up the same
When will this meme end?

>If having the AC drops the gas mileage down to 8 mpg and makes the car smell, it's not an improvement without question.

You can just turn the AC off. I specifically used that example because it has no permanent drawbacks.

Not all mechanical changes are like that, but please don't pretend that, say, Exalted is balanced to the point that any more would ruin the fluff or feel of the game.

...

Theoretically? It's only maybe, not certainly.

Take what happened with D&D 3e to 4e. The idea was to make it more balanced and more streamlined, and while these were seemingly obvious design concerns, the popular opinion is that 4e went too far in many regards, reducing what many people considered to be important aspects of variety and performing many unnecessary and unpopular changes.

Improving games is not something as simple as identifying issues and then trying to fix them. All you need to do is point at Pathfinder as an example of a game that sought to improve a pre-existing game, but ended up introducing new problems in the process, like its flawed CMB math, as a result of moving too far.

With everyone having different opinions on what makes games good, and these often coming into conflict with the myriad perceptions of what a game is for, putting balance as too high a priority has often caused problems from not only excessive applications of balance, but at times ended up with the game becoming even MORE unbalanced as a result.

With a final D&D example of this, the 2e Magic User was underpowered at low experience and overpowered at high experience. For 3e, they sought to reduce their abilities at high levels while improving their low level capabilities, but this ended up with them going into excess by improving low level wizards too much and this followed them into higher levels as well.

Balance is good. Putting it as too high a priority can lead to excessive attempts to "fix" problems that need subtler and more delicate touches.

tl:dr. a game that has all its current problems "fixed" is still not necessarily a better game, and in fact may actually be worse.

The problem with game mechanics and focus is very simple: give a man something and he'll invariably be compelled to use it.

I understand the logic of old school D&D. It's not about combat and battles it's about ~Exploration~ but the exploration is all freeforming and talking with maybe one or two dice rolls for abilities. But combat is a life threatening situation so naturally people want a good sized list of hard set rules that need to be followed with plenty of different abilities to make sure you don't die when you do encounter a dangerous monster. Of course D&D also has instant kill death traps and environmental hazards which can only be gotten around by freeforming essentially so I guess even in THAT sense it isn't consistent.

Lemme summarize the problem: if you grab some random chucklefuck and bring him along on a big jungle trek through wilderness then give him a gun "just in case" chances are he's going to make an ass out of himself one drunken stupor night and either hurt himself or piss off local authorities something fierce. And that's in a real-world context where actions have consequences. A game incentivizes this MUCH MORE for the simple fact it's well, a game.

You can't expect to give people a chunk of feats, skills, abilities and rules related to performing combat then suddenly whine when players wanna fucking use them. It's human nature that when you're given something you wanna play with it. See what it does and all that. Explore your options. And if your only options are related to fighting then guess what's going to fucking happen.

"But what about ROLEPLAYING" you ask well here's the thing: Roleplaying isn't always easy. It requires you to think about things outside the box. It requires you to get inventive sometimes and most of all: you still need context. You need to know what your character is capable of and your abilities only give you so much information. It's not something people can reliably do all the time.

>You can just turn the AC off. I specifically used that example because it has no permanent drawbacks.

If your example depends on it not being applicable in order for you to offer it up as an example, that's just a particularly poor example.

The point I'm trying to make is that most decisions include drawbacks, many of them not so immediately obvious.

Have you ever wondered why games are not all balanced, even though it would be very easy to do so just by making every option identical? It's because most people consider variety to be more important than balance.

Having balance requires measures of sacrifice. While it's a good thing to have, it is by no means the most important, especially if the idea is to create a product that can be used by a variety of different groups for a variety of different games.

> reducing what many people considered to be important aspects of variety and performing many unnecessary and unpopular changes.

It's also important to remember that a lot of the complaints about 4e were just straight up wrong or misinformation spread by a bunch of whiners who couldn't stand their pet game was being phased out.

It's true 4e changed much but a lot of the complaints against it don't actually hold much water ESPECIALLY if you compare them to the complaints about 3e which to this day ring as being semi-legitimate.

The only real complaints about 4e that were actually true were fucked up monster health and damage in the early game and a lack of utility options.

This links in to the earlier comments about systems needing to focus.

If a system dedicates the largest part of its wordcount, it's logical to assume that combat is a key part of the system that you should be involved in relatively frequently.

If it's meant to be a system all about avoiding combat but you still dedicate a huge number of rules to it, something has gone wrong in the design process.

That just seems like excusing laziness and incompetence on the part of designers.

It's perfectly possible to create systems with a lot of interesting options that are also balanced. Creating a system with lots of options and not bothering to balance them is just laziness, while creating a balanced system but adding no options just shows a lack of creativity and good ideas.

>Have you ever wondered why games are not all balanced, even though it would be very easy to do so just by making every option identical?

As said

>When will this meme end?

>It's because most people consider variety to be more important than balance.

See the only time I've EVER heard that being a complaint about 4e is that all the classes have a similar structure.

Which to me is silly because literally what's happening is that each class has a shitload of powers. You want variety? You have a FUCKTON of variety. Arguably more with certain classes than 3e ever offered you. You can't look at two classes with similar structure then say "they're exactly the same" when both classes rely heavily on their abilities and fail to mention anything about said abilities.

I like this post. This is a good post.

Players are usually given the most toys for combat, even in games that supposedly are low combat (like World of Darkness).

I'd never thought about this, but its a great insight.

A majority of players dramatically disagree with your defense and assessment.
I understand that this is a sore topic for you though, so I'm not going to bother poking the matter further.

>reducing what many people considered to be important aspects of variety and performing many unnecessary and unpopular changes.

This was more a matter of presentation, not how the rules changed. Battlemaster exists in 5e, and it's basically a 4e (essentials) fighter.

Once a brand establishes itself, popularity has increasingly less to do with quality, and more to do with branding, marketing and familiarity.

>Improving games is not something as simple as identifying issues and then trying to fix them.

Sometimes it is. Sometimes it isn't.

>All you need to do is point at Pathfinder as an example of a game that sought to improve a pre-existing game

It did not. It sought to supplant a pre-existing game so Paizo can keep selling material for it. And it _still_ managed to improve the game in many respects (reeling in polymorphs and cleric buffs, unifying more mechanics, eliminating dead levels); and the steps where they made it worse were 90% things that were discrete changes, so if they had not made them, you'd have ended up with a better game.

>With a final D&D example of this, the 2e Magic User was underpowered at low experience and overpowered at high experience. For 3e, they sought to reduce their abilities at high levels while improving their low level capabilities, but this ended up with them going into excess by improving low level wizards too much and this followed them into higher levels as well.

So if you are incompetent at balance and focus on it, you may screw up. Fine. This doesn't mean you shouldn't try to balance, it means you should fucking do it right.

Your reply reminds me of a recent blogpost of The Angry DM. He raised similar points about changing the balance of 5e.

This.

You won't get it perfectly right, but this is no excuse to not try; and if you tried but failed, it's no excuse to not keep trying.

Honestly, when it comes to 4e the complaints seemed purely about the layout and formatting. Because everything looked the same people assumed it all worked the same.

You're right though, in practice 4e classes are much more distinct in their mechanical identity than the 3.PF equivalents.

Do you understand I presented an extreme to make a point, completely unrelated to the post you linked it to?

The vast majority of complaints about 4e were rooted in Feel, not Fact.

This doesn't make them illegitimate- If you're getting involved in something as a leisure activity and you aren't enjoying it that's a bad thing- but it does make them somewhat tangential to a discussion of system mechanics.

>It's perfectly possible to create systems with a lot of interesting options that are also balanced.

I've played about forty different systems at this point, including the majority of the more popular titles, and ignoring homebrew and joke systems.

I've yet to see a game that was not easily broken. In fact, I have a friend who's major entertainment is breaking apart systems.

If you can tell me about this fable system with a lot of interesting options that's still balanced to the point where my friend would not be able to tear it apart in a single sitting, I'd love to hear what this game is.

Balanced does not mean 'is impossible to break'.

It's all about how easy the balance problems are to run into, and how significant they are.

A well balanced game will have everyone on roughly the same level, and even an optimised character won't be lightyears ahead of another unless they're actively trying to be a dick.

A badly balanced system, for example, would offer two character options as equal and different choices, but have the two be of such completely different power and scope that it's virtually impossible for one player to ever interact with the game on the same level as the other, no matter how much they optimise and how little the other player does. That example should be quite familiar to most people on Veeky Forums.

That's not really true. It's most often used as a pejorative against people who agitate for open borders and the destruction of national identity.

If you can't see how that relates to the literal definition of "cuck," then you're probably a cuck.

What says.

But I like talking about my favorite balanced game, so go ahead and break Strike!

sendspace.com/file/2fuwd4

Combat chapter starts at 85 IIRC. Assume that only the basic non-combat systems are used.

Also note; wouldn't fixing that brokenness then improve the game? Or your argument is that none of the brokeness you found could be fixed in ways that wouldn't improve the rest of the game negatively?

>You won't get it perfectly right, but this is no excuse to not try; and if you tried but failed, it's no excuse to not keep trying.

No one is advocating ignoring balance or trying to say that balance isn't important.

The issue is that balance is not THE most important feature of a game, especially not at the costs some designers are willing to pay for it. If a designer is sacrificing too much variety, mechanical depth, thematical concepts, or other concerns in order to make the game more balanced, he is not improving the game.

It's a little funny, because what I'm advocating is being a bit more balanced with balancing.

>If a designer is sacrificing too much variety, mechanical depth, thematical concepts, or other concerns in order to make the game more balanced, he is not improving the game.

No one is really pushing for this, I think. OP asked if game design matters, and the fact that we are arguing about how much a single part of game design matters I think proves that we all think that yes, game design absolutely fucking matters.

No one said balance is the most important thing, user, but many people who have played a number of games will advocate it is fairly important for actualized play, rather than the constant theorycraft you see people talking about online.

The answer is that it varies, and what people want out of a system differs.

For some people, out-of-the-box balance is essential. For most, however, it would be nice but is ultimately unnecessary.

I think the major issue is that some people here are trying to argue for some sort of universal, objective standard, so that they can feel more justified in exalting or condemning a game.

For example, lets say Strike! is balanced for the sake of argument. But, it has a number of weaknesses, mostly because its loose narrative structure kind of deflates the importance of its tactical combat. It comes off as a weird mix of 4e and Fate, and the question of whether or not the combat is balanced is less important than whether or not the combat feels like it has a substantial purpose. This is in part up to the GM and their presentation, but many groups will find that Strike!'s somewhat eclectic mix just isn't for them.

To say Strike! is a good game because it is balanced is just another opinion, just like saying Strike! is a bad game because they think the aesthetics are atrocious or the combat too gamey. What we need to do is appreciate that different people will have different opinions, and that while game design matters, what parts of game design matters differently to different people.

>But, it has a number of weaknesses, mostly because its loose narrative structure kind of deflates the importance of its tactical combat.

Right, so the game being balanced doesn't impact it negatively; being sorta wishy-washy-narra-tivey, and many players finding that weird does.

So if you grabbed the balanced system and bolted it on something that was more concrete, more fitting to the taste of the average player, you'd have a balanced game without the aforementioned perceived issue.

I plan to do this for 5e and upload it to the WotC shop.

>The WotC shop

Be careful man. Last I heard the copyright rules and revenue share on that place was god fucking awful.

If I cared about money I'd do a kickscammer furry RPG game where you can point-buy build your gender.

... and a gaiden game where you can shoot them, for 'murrica!

I have that built into my system

you just get the human stat block, but get some of the abilities of the animal in question for the Furry Races

...

>creating a system that appeals to everyone equally.

This is an impossible thing and generally a bad idea even to try for.

Knowing your audience and who you're designing for is a key part of making a good game, along with having a strong and consistent core concept as an anchor for your design.

>What you're trying to do isn't a bad idea and worth exploring, but we're still very far away from creating a system that appeals to everyone equally.

Right, and that's not even my goal; I'm just trying to explain that I think balance can almost always be improved without giving up much of anything, and that a solid, balanced foundation in no way holds the game back from having any sort of theme the designer wants.

> I'm just trying to explain that I think balance can almost always be improved without giving up much of anything

Part of what makes narrative systems "balanced" is that the mechanics have less of an impact and are less concrete. The more mechanical depth a system has, the more tangible its mechanics are, the less balanced it's going to be, as a natural result of the smaller differences being more noticeable.

And then you can take that imbalance and chip it away until it is at a satisfactory level.

Maybe it won't be as balanced as narrative games (although, I think Strike's narrative skill rules are probably by far the weakest part of the game, balance wise and et al), but you can improve it to a point where even people who take issue with balance won't mind (or if they do, they can fix it for themselves).

Like... Is the 5e skill system considered balanced by you? It has a lot of drawbacks imo (small modifier vs large dice range) but it doesn't seem especially imbalanced. Maybe some skills and stats could get a bit more love, but I can't think of a way that the base system is less balanced than Strike's.

when will this meme end?
see

It's not just political, /pol/, it's universally applicable: ANY act whereby you allow yourself to be willingly fucked over is 'cucking'. ANY act where you submit, ANY non-alpha activity in fact.

That sounds dumb, arbitrary and ludicrously subjective.

Watchu gonna do about it, cuck? Cry on tumblr?

erm, it ALSO sounds like the definition of 'cuckold', metaphorically extended. Funny how that works, eh?

>Does the GMs ability to fix things via rule zero hold a much larger sway than design itself?
Two mistakes. There isn't always GM and there is no rule zero. (Outside of games that say that they have a rule zero).

And game's rules and design is incredibly important.
I've been reading Masks rules lately. It's a game about young teenage superheroes who still haven't figured out themselves and thus change the way they see themselves based on what others tell them to be. And that's all directly in the game's mechanics in a way that it's basically impossible to play the game without engaging those themes.

Also system directly affects the tone and style of the game.
In Burning Wheel when starting character crosses a road, they get lost in sewers and break a leg.
In Fate a starting character can punch down a mob group and save the Major with minor issues as long as they want it hard enough.

That's why I never prefer generic systems. If there is something so cool and interesting in a theme or setting that I wan to play it, I also want there to be mechanics in the game that handle it with sufficient detail and focus.

This is exactly how I feel about systems. I find it hard to wrap my head around it when people say they don't think a systems mechanics are important, because for me a well designed game is built to support those themes and ideas.

The best games are built from the ground up to support their concept and premise effectively. It's why generic core mechanics and arbitrary stat or skill lists always seem so counter intuitive to me, because they're so disconnected from whatever the game is actually meant to be about.

Game design matters. A bad system can run a game even if the GM is good.

A good system doesn't guarantee a good campaign, however.

And what a good system needs is subjective and varies from person to person.

Some people want simplicity with balance. Others want a wide variety of character options and varies mechanics to keep things interesting.

This is why you get people who prefer one game over another, such as preferring 5e over Pathfinder, or vice versa. Both systems are lacking in different areas, and what shortcomings have a bigger impact on enjoyment will vary from one player to the next.

Such systems turns to be versatile "works for a variety of game types" systems.

Generic systems are really good for when you want to play a game that lacks a purpose built system, or you dislike the purpose built system.

For instance I like Shadowrun. I have a friend who runs the Shadowrun seeing in FATE because he doesn't like it's fiddly item based mechanics, but to me, Shadowrun is a game about testing the quality of your operation plans, and that includes thinking of the right tools to bring, and date doesn't do that.

But when I want to run a homebrew scifi action campaign based on a mashup of Star With EU, Stargate, Mass Effect, Halo, Andromeda, Farscape, and Breath of Fire 4, Final Fantasy Tactics, taking themes and elements from all of the above and trying to build a coherent campaign integrating purpose selected pieces from them, chances are I either want a generic system, or I need to pick a specific system that's "close enough" and then homebrew whatever it's lacking.

I managed it okay in EotE, but it involved reverse engineering how races and careers and characters and NPCs and equipment worked and was built in order to be able to build the like 50 pages of homebrewed material I made heavy heavy use of, along with some deliberate changes to the core system to suit what I was going for in the campaign.

And looking back on it, it might have been easier to just homebrew vehicles and equipment for GURPS.

Its because people got bored of just saying faggot/faggot got reclaimed by actual faggots.

New ways to say 'effeminate as bad' are cuck and fucboi, basically both used by middle class white folk, just slightly different political orientations. Get with current year.

The truth is that the insult that has disappeared after cuck became popular is virgin.

Now, who is the one type of person who literally cannot be a cuck. A virgin.

Connect the dots and wake up sheeple.

Shut up, virgin!

>'effeminate as bad'
See, this right here is absolutely wrong. user has personalized it: he thinks we big meanies are picking on his effeminate ways. No no: it has nothing to do with being effeminate - it is all about dominance. And their is neither masculinity nor femininity in 'dominance'. Dominance is a non-sexual issue - it crosses ALL boundaries. You are a 'cuck' if you have been dominated. Has nothing to do with beliefs or sexual predilections or sexual identity: being a cuck is being submissive.
Get with current year, fucboi faggot cuck.

If it's unrelated then why exactly bring it up? Also, for reference, going into extremes like that when the premise is based off a fallacy doesn't really do anything to help your case, even if you did have a solid point to make.

Waitaminnit

Cuck isn't about you being dominated. Cuck is about being too much of a bitch to do anything about someone taking what's yours.

>Cuck isn't about you being dominated. Cuck is about being too much of a bitch to do anything about someone taking what's yours.
I'll take "What is 'Being Dominated'" for $1000, Alex.

Can we stop debating the meaning of a stupid meme insult and actually talk about games?

What do you want to say?

A system is definitely important. If you say the GM is the engineer of the game, then the system is basically the building blocks you're given. You can turn most systems into almost any sort of game, ignore rules, tack on rules, but if you want to stay reasonably close so you're not just effectively playing an entirely different system it will affect the quality of the game.
Like other people have said, it also depends on what your players what. Players who are interested in DEEP and IMMERSIVE roleplaying won't be interested in a system that puts all emphasis on combat. Players interested in combat and that alone aren't going to care about 10 000 rules for roleplaying and out-of-combat interactions.
I mean consider this - do you think you can run an enjoyable game with FATAL?

>cuckboi thinks bitches can be dominant

>being a cuck is being submissive.

Yet subs have all the power in an actual BDSM relationship.

>t. submissive cuck
If you had power then you wouldn't be the sub, dumbass.

A BDSM relationship hinges on the person who wants to be the sub. If nobody wants to be the sub then there's no relationship. It's like how companies work - even though they have billions and billions, manpower, expertise, and so on, none of that matters. The real power is in the hand of their customers. If the customers don't want to buy then all of that power goes underwater.
Now can we get back on track?

There is no shortage of submissive cucks who would willingly drink piss if they thought that it'd make their partner happy.

Just like there's no shortage of morons who will waste money on low-entry garbage simply because it's attached to a brand that they recognize from their childhood.

>I doubt there's many people who would argue that game design doesn't matter at all.

I have literally argued against this multiple times on Veeky Forums. Not even being hyperbolic, it's not like they were saying it's not a big deal or something, people will argue that the way a game is designed is literally and wholly irrelevant to how it is played or how well it accomplishes its design goals.

It baffles me.

I am in the development credits of Strike! I can safely say that the game has several breaking points.

I completely and utterly disavow the entirety of Strike!'s noncombat. The math behind it is far too punishing (e.g. on average, if a success is worth 1, then a twist is supposed to be worth -1, and twists are supposed to be common). The wealth system is laughable and gameable. The listed tricks are either too broad (e.g. anything to do with detecting deceit) or uselessly narrow (e.g. turning a fair fight into a dirty one, as long as you are not actually using tactical combat). Some party members are liable to vastly outpace others in skill acquisition; I should know from a campaign I once played in, wherein my PC had learned four new skills a few sessions in, while another PC had learned zero.

Kits also have shoddy balance between them. The most flagrant example is the sorcerer kit, which grants far too much with its advances, particularly Widened Expertise.

As far as noncombat is concerned, there are a few minor balance quibbles, such as the new Area Denial being flagrantly overpowered, and the martial artist now being the weakest class in the game due to a lack of actual class features. Also, by level 3, 5, or 7, it is likely that a given party will have Fast Reactions on all of its characters, making the initiative subsystem meaningless. Again, these are minor.

Where Strike!'s balance truly snaps in half is when everyone opts to make the same character. Consider a level 2 party composed of nothing but Blood Adept magician/strikers with The Excellent Prismatic Spray, Mudge's Localized Inferno, Lightning Strikes, and Fast Reactions. The party always goes first, opens up with a Potency-boosted Excellent Prismatic Spray, Lightning Strikes, and Mudge's Localized Inferno. They have just wiped out a considerable portion of the encounter before any enemy has acted. No rolls needed.

Strike!'s combat wholly crumbles in the face of same-y alpha striking.

It does seem to come up a strange amount. I try to give them the benefit of the doubt but the actual arguments involved tend to be very circular or fall apart under scrutiny.

It does seem like it's just a way of people trying to justify their preferences out of insecurity.

I have been trying to solve Strike!'s alpha-striking issue for a while now. The best I could manage was this solution: boards.fireden.net/tg/thread/48976085/#49017910

As an alternative to that hypothetical level 2 party, consider a level 1 party of nothing but Blood Adept magician/defenders with The Excellent Prismatic Spray, Mudge's Localized Inferno, and Fast Reactions. They likewise always go first, open up with a Potency-boosted Excellent Prismatic Spray, and then all Mark the same enemy.

The rules allow Marks to stack, thereby completely screwing over a multi-marked enemy. The only winning move for that enemy is to not do anything.

This is intentional; I have spoken to the author about how stupid it is for Marks to stack, yet they insisted on allowing this so as to support parties with more than one defender.

Personally, I think that Strike! would be better off strictly enforcing a limit of "any given role can appear once in any given party." It is a bit heavy-handed, but it encourages variety, as opposed to same-y spam tactics.

Would it be better if marks worked to make it fine to attack ANY marking guy? Rather than them stacking to prevent you attacking at all?

To me they usually say something amounting to "the GM can always fix it", which isn't wrong since the GM is allowed to do anything at all to the rules and playstyle as long as he checks it with his players. The problem with that obviously is that it's not the same game anymore.

It's also worth citing the Rule Zero/Oberoni Fallacy

1d4chan.org/wiki/Oberoni_Fallacy

Basically that's the argument people make when they claim that the rule system has no bearing on the game ergo ANY rule system can deliver a quality game, and also ergo that any rule system can deliver ANY game (since what is and is not quality varies widely from group to group). If any rule system can be made into returning any game, that obviously means you're just changing the ruleset until it's not even recognizable.

No, because that would shift things in the other direction: additional defenders become redundant.

It is really best to just bite the metaphorical bullet and accept that Strike! works best when everyone in the party has a different role. Between blaster, controller, defender, leader, lurker, and striker, the players should be able to come to a compromise on what role each character should take.

Haven't been involved in this system but doesn't this sound like a balancing issue? If it's preferable in terms of power output to spam the exact same build over and over that sounds like the class design is flawed.

It is indeed a balancing issue.

If there was an anti-alpha-striking mechanic built into the game (I have already proposed this: boards.fireden.net/tg/thread/48976085/#49017910 ), then maybe all-striker parties would be more balanced.

However, it is an extremely difficult to balance multiple defenders in a single party. They are either too weak or too strong. Not even 4e managed to balance this that well, and the eminent solution really does seem to be "only one defender per party."

What's with you two jerking each other off? Niggas trying to logic games?? I'm sure that will work out grandly for you.

?

>muh real power
Huh, I don't think you know what power is, user...as long as all those billions of people keep forking out their money mindlessly, them people are NOT wielding power........they are dissipating it. Frittering it away. While the REAL power keeps them billions of people jumping at shadows and paying real money to feel fake safe.

user if people stopped buying the goods then there's literally nothing the company can do
In a market economy power always lies with the consumer, it's the reason why when you're looking for a job you're powerless, because you're trying to sell your labor and nobody is buying. Same shit.

Excuse me?

>user if people stopped buying the goods
>stopped buying the goods
>stopped buying
Your argument has fallen apart, user. Who has the power? Seriously, who?