General Systems suck because they don't have anything to say. No themes or message

General Systems suck because they don't have anything to say. No themes or message.

Y/N?

I would argue that when you get down to it, the nature of the game is the real important factor to most healthy groups that I have experienced, and the themes involved come second. Not many people want to play a Forgotten Realms game, they want to play 5e or something. Not many people want to play a Golarion game, they want to play Pathfinder.

General systems are fine, depends on what sort of game you want to play. I've run a few systems in different settings and can at least personally attest that the trick to them is having a vision as a DM and a group, and having a group who wants to play a particular way and isn't confined to one setting/system. I've run two very different games in FATE CORE that were both fun for different reasons, and some Pathfinder/3.x homebrew, etc, etc, etc.

>Y/N
Solidly “N”.
Nobody realistically comes into this hobby long-term to send a message. It’s okay for you to be wrong though, it just gives you a chance to be right later on.

General systems are more of a lego-kit than a ready-made toy. They by themselves are mostly a bunch of parts, but are capable of being used for far more than a single non-generic system would have if you spend the time and energy to set them up the right way (both mechanically and narratively). Whether or not it's worth the effort is entirely down to the GM, the group, and the story.

This Ideally, generic system is a base rather than finished product. Most of the time building on top of generic system is much more practical rather than making homebrew from scratch.

>pliers suck because they don't have anything to say. No themes or message.
> Y/N?
it's a fucking tool not a plot you tool

you know what this shit calls for? Lets post our good times with generic systems. Get in here Gurpfaggots, Cypher Cissies, Fat(e), and [insert other generic systems here]

Nah, biggest problem with general systems is that they weren't created with a specific playstyle in mind, they might offer options and tweaks to use should you wish to play certain ways, but specialised systems will almost always be superior to that, you just need one that suits your tastes.

Good specialized system > good generalist system > bad generalist system > bad specialized system.

If you marry your crunch to your fluff, then correcting one or the other becomes a much harder task without fucking shit up.

In general, too vague rules > too specific rules, because adding stuff on is always easier than extracting and/or replacing it.

>Implying anyone plays anything besides D&D

>Sticking to the default subject matter subject matter of a RPG
>Not simply using the game systerm as a tood for developing your own themes and messages

Don't tell me people seriously do this?

Once we decided to port SKT from D&D to GURPS. We had played the first session already, and 5e felt like a fucking chore. I was playing a Purple Dragon Knight Dragonborn, and the subclass was so bad I was on the verge of rerolling, and I'm usually not concerned at about efficiency if I like the character and can get some good roleplaying going.

>Enter GURPS

Now my character was fucking amazing. My breath weapon was fearsome, I was armored like a fucking tank, could do cool melee maneuvers, and my status as a knight and diplomacy skills actually mattered. Also I had a freaking squire.

The others got cool shit too: now the ice witch could actually shape ice, the ratfolk ninja was a fucking shadow, etc etc.

The best part of the session was going face to face with an ogre. It was actually scary, since your limited HP means that you can't simply tank hits while the rest of the party wails on the guy. So I said fuck it, chucked my spear at the vitals, which hit for massive damage. As the monster recoiled in pain, I charged him, swinging at the legs with my broadsword. I struck true, and he fell. Then I simply stood upon his chest, retrieved my spear, and ended my foe's life with a thrust through the eyes.

From that point on we always ran D&D in GURPS.

I can't think of any established systems which have "messages" other than a handful. Like I know WoD and Shadowrun have pretty obvious political themes but that's really it as far as I know.

Nobody picks D&D for social commentary.

Eclipse Phase, because the developers are anarbabies. Good writers, but have hilariously bad understandings of how societies function.

General systems suck because half the fun of the hobby is trying out new systems; and the second your group gets into the rut of 'just play everything in GURPs' you've hit stale cereal central.

>In general, too vague rules > too specific rules, because adding stuff on is always easier than extracting and/or replacing it.
Funny how the opposite is true. If what you said was true, we wouldn't need published systems at all because we could easily build from scratch, ideally during play. In fact, it's easier to leave out subsystems or modifiers, or reduce entire subsystems (social combat?) to a single roll.

t. burger

Paranoia.

>because we could easily build from scratch, ideally during play
Wait, you mean you don't?

Once you've played through enough systems to classify their relevant traits, it's simple enough to create a serviceable system that is tailored for your purpose by using the elements established by the previous systems by using them as building blocks.

>b-but you're still copying the other systems, because you're using parts of them!
That's not how it works.
It's easier to build a house from scratch than to buy a pre-made house and then waste time and effort on renovating it to suit your needs.

>it's easier to leave out subsystems or modifiers, or reduce entire subsystems (social combat?) to a single roll
Trivializing content != tailoring content

Themes and messages are the GM's job, not the system's.

I wouldn't say they suck, but I do tend to avoid them when possible. It's less about message and more about themes. A specific system is better able to support a chosen premise or genre than a generic system attempting to emulate doing so.

reducing complexity/increasing abstraction = tailoring content

>reducing complexity/increasing abstraction = tailoring content
How delusional you have to be to unconditionally believe this?

Complex resolution mechanics are avoided solely when it is required to shift the focus of the system elsewhere.
If it's a social-heavy campaign, reducing the complexity of social interactions will only negatively impact the game.
Sometimes it's even beneficial to increase the complexity of interactions, in order improve focus onto the elements you want players to interact with.

For example, it's impossible to run a truly well-made social campaign in DnD, because not only it requires trivializing the usual dungeon crawling elements of DnD such as combat, but it also requires emphasising the social interactions by making them more complex, which you can't achieve by merely reducing the already existing system.

Furthermore, sometimes the tone of the resolution mechanics doesn't fit the tone of setting.
I wouldn't put death spirals in a system that I intend to use with a light-hearted setting, just as I wouldn't put fate points into a system that is intended to convey the brutal and unforgiving tone of the setting.
It is far easier to correctly set the tone of your system by building it from scratch with the building blocks that all the other systems provide you with than try to hack and reduce a pre-made system to a workable state.

I'm in three GURPS games right now, about to be in a fourth.

Game 1 is a game set in a fan-made fantasy setting called Ranoc. Fairly interesting, but unfinished so our GM has to fill in the blanks. We used to have 7 players, but it has since dropped to 5. My friend was one of those who left because he simply didn't mesh well with the GM. No big deal. I play a big ass Minotaur in that game with a big ass halberd and I do big ass damage. Big fun.

Game 2 is a game that I run personally. It's currently at 5 players My friend that left Game 1 is in there, as well as a different guy from Game 1. It's going great, despite being just super generic fantasy.

Game 3 is a game my friend (that left game 1) introduced me to and it has 4 other players. The GM there is pretty lax, and we're in a giant tree dungeon thing where there's weird shit and we're trying to climb up and map the thing out. Pretty cool.

Game 4 is ran by the guy from Game 1 which joined my Game. It's going to be set in a custom setting where there's this mysterious mega dungeon (can't help but make Diablo jokes) and I'm going to be a cute little mouse knight looking for his uncle who went all Don Quixote in this giant mega dungeon. I have a sword as long as my body that I wield with one hand because I'm simply that bad ass. We currently have 4 players total, including myself.

So yeah is a faggot

>Complex resolution mechanics are avoided solely when it is required to shift the focus of the system elsewhere.
Wrong, with each modifier or mechanic you ask yourself if it is worth the effort on behalf of GM/players. If it does not enhance the experience, you can leave it out. Spend your compexity budget wisely, user.


>If it's a social-heavy campaign, reducing the complexity of social interactions will only negatively impact the game.
>The quality of a social-heavy game depends on the complexity of the social task resolution system.
>facepalm.jpg
You don't need many rules to handle social situations, retard. A single skill roll to supplement, you know, role-playing can suffice for a social-heavy game.

>not only it requires trivializing the usual dungeon crawling elements of DnD such as combat
Nah, matrix combat and magic don't trirvialize physical combat in Shadowrun.

Actually buying into the social skills double standard? Eww.

>
>the tone of the resolution mechanics doesn't fit the tone of setting.

It's nice to see other people who are actually aware of this from time to time. For a while I thought I was insane, since I got shouted down whenever I brought it up. It always seemed so obvious and intuitive to me, and it was a surprise that so many people either didn't notice or didn't care how a resolution mechanic affected the tone of the game.

Id say the opposite.

I don't want the system to be trying to impart some moral message. That should be up to the GM and players.

At least that way your 'message' is more likely to be tailor made to your group - and more to the point it won't impact the quality of the game/system as the devs try to shoehorn in their message.

See for example Eclipse Phase.
First edition has a motley group of ridiculous future social groups.
Second edition has the same set, but now two of them are 'x-threats' and unplayable, becyase the devs don't like those group's points of view.

>You don't need many rules to handle social situations
Oh, so a combat-heavy game requires a thousand maneuvers, skills and stats to account for, but a social-heavy game can be trivialized to asingle roll, huh?
No, fuck off, retard.

You really buy into that double standard bullshit? Why don't you reduce combat to roleplaying as well, with a single roll to supplement? Do you have a real reason or are you just a brainless sheep?

>I never played a TRPG in my life: the post

You'd have to be the kind of person who likes Deadman Wonderland to be this wrong.

Yes.

GURPS can be an exception if you have the right modules and realize it's not really very general or universal (it's good for very specific brand of pseudo-realistic genres, especially military or spy fiction)

At least I like things. You, on the other hand, are sour like milk that went bad ages ago

LOL, look at these RPG noobs.
You can talk comfortably while sitting at a dinner table. In fact, you already are. But you're not going to fight it out real life.

Social skill rolls generally fulfill two functions:
A. You want to bring the capabilities of the player character into play, if their skill level deviates from the social skill level of the player.
B. The GM is not sure if an NPC would fall for an argument/would actually trust the PC/would be seduced by him/would be run rough-shod by his fast-talk. He rolls dice, applying circumstantial modifiers to determine the reaction.
In short: the drama can be acted out.

Dark Souls but Surfing: how do we make this happen?

You can mime stabbing the GM just as much as you can describe doing it. If combat can have increased complexity when the combat situation is complex, social mechanics should kick in when the social situation is sufficiently complex. If you don't understand this you're retarded.

>You can mime stabbing the GM just as much as you can describe doing it.
Lel, if you truly believe that, why not publish an RPG that does just that. Either that or you're just baiting.

>If combat can have increased complexity when the combat situation is complex, social mechanics should kick in when the social situation is sufficiently complex.
It's not about complexity, it's about rolling out which cannot be acted out. Or which gamers don't want to act out. That's why social combat is just a fringe concept, apart from being a marketing pitch because your game has not much else to offer.

And complexity in social situations can be handled with high degree of accuracy using the above guidelines for when to roll.

>And complexity in social situations can be handled with high degree of accuracy using the above guidelines for when to roll.
Same can be said about combat. Why not trivialize combat to a single roll then too?
Oh wait, it's because players enjoy tactical combat options in combat-heavy games, just the same as they enjoy tactical social options in social-heavy games, so fuck you.
If you're so nigger-triggered by the social system, why not say the same, say, about magic? If magic isn't the focus of the game, you trivialize it to a single roll, and if it is the focus of the game, you create an expansive and detailed magic system.
Or if you don't like magic, then let's talk about crafting. If crafting isn't the focus of your campaign, trivialize it to a single roll, and if it is the focus of the game, you create a detailed crafting system that handles such things as components, crafting processes etc.

Besides, you've diverted the original argument.
The point was that complexity is used as means to focus interactions onto a particular aspect.
If you want to focus your game on a particular aspect, you create a complex system around it and trivialize everything unimportant.
And yes, that also includes emphasising social mechanics and trivializing combat mechanics in social-heavy games, which is the concept that you seem to be unable to wrap your head around.
If you are unable to understand what is being said, then you are either a retard, or deliberately pretending to be one.

>Same can be said about combat.
Not, it can't. Because unlike social combat you're not acting it out for the most part.

>If you're so nigger-triggered by the social system, why not say the same, say, about magic?
Because it can't be acted out.

>Or if you don't like magic, then let's talk about crafting.
Okay, let's: it can't be acted out

>Besides, you've diverted the original argument.
I explaining why people who disagree with the assertion that you don't need many rolls to resolve social actions have no clue what they're talking about.

>If you want to focus your game on a particular aspect,
Mechanics don't have to be particularly complex to be interesting. Nor do the interesting parts arise exclusively from the mechanics. You can run breaking and entering in a corporate HQ with little rules interaction and still have it be the center of the game AND interesting.

>If you are unable to understand what is being said, then you are either a retard, or deliberately pretending to be one.
>hurr durr, everyone who disagrees with me is dumb

> I explaining why people who disagree with the assertion that you don't need many rolls to resolve social actions have no clue what they're talking about.
Just the same as you don't need many rolls to resolve combat actions. You can't say that social interactions can be always trivialized and then proceed to claim that other interactions can't be trivialized either.


>You can run breaking and entering in a corporate HQ with little rules interaction and still have it be the center of the game AND interesting.
Then at that point you are simply running a freeform since you aren't using any elements that meaningfully distinguish your game from freeform, which begs the question of why you are using a system in the first place.

> >If you are unable to understand what is being said, then you are either a retard, or deliberately pretending to be one.
> >hurr durr, everyone who disagrees with me is dumb
No, I don't think you are dumb for disagreeing with me, I think you are dumb because you are unable to comprehend that systems exist to facilitate games, and not vice versa.

I have run and been in quite a few great games of savage worlds that never could have happened, or at the very least would have been a dick and a half to make work in specific systems. Like I'm talking each one of these games would probably require completely separate systems, which means hoping such a system existed, tailoring it further to fit the idea of the game, or completely changing the game idea to fit the new system, which I mean who knows how that could have affected how things went

1) Space dog the bounty hunter, with a healthy dose of bebop and some outlaw star mixed in there. I'm talking strapping a go-pro to your head while knocking the teeth out of eco terrorists, punching a hole in the side of a pirate ship and threatening to just hold down the mini-gun's trigger, driving up toy sales with custom drones and robutts, hacking into major banks, and killing a corporate nemesis by ramming them with a hobby jet traveling at mach 2

2) Powder fantasy mystery crew, raiding lost elvish tombs, trying not to punch a "friendly necromancer" in the face, shooting dwarves, stabbing ghosts, and interrupting concerts

3) Fantasy super heros, what happens when the x-men in a renaissance inspired alt history world? Fucking insanity that's what, vampire's kick flipping off of horses, a pixy taking up residence in a suit of talking armor and accidentally chloroforming an entire town, cursed swords, ancient witches, and pretending to be god in order to steal the crown jewels

4) Modern fantasy, stopping a plane hijacking with a rapier, dicking around in america in the name of the queen, exploding triad members with our bare hands, getting run over by a russian in a hatchback, an ancient evil awakens, better almost crash a helicopter into the pentagon

I don't even have space for crazy russian cyborg adventures

Oneshot bonus round
WW1 penal supersoldiers meet WW2
You play yourselves in a horror B movie
Literally van helsing
Escape from apocalyptic london

>Just the same as you don't need many rolls to resolve combat actions.
PbtA proves this to be correct.

>and then proceed to claim that other interactions can't be trivialized either.
I never made the claim that combat can't be resolved with a few rolls. I pointed out the difference between combat and social situations: real world talking is part of the game, real world fighting isn't.

>Then at that point you are simply running a freeform
Shadowrun 1E was exactly like that and any rules for corporate intrusion was added in later splabooks/editions. It wasn't freeform, the GM just had to improvise a lot mechanics-wise (or rely on information from the scenario).

>you are unable to comprehend that systems exist to facilitate games, and not vice versa.
Systems facilitate games but you don't complex rules to achieve that. Case in point: old-school RPGs.