The Loss of Imagination

[Supplement Four]

I'm reading through an old Heroes magazine tonight, reading up on some notes the designer of the 007 rpg had written (a couple of decades ago), when a few of his words struck me within the context of Classic Traveller...

(quote)

Yes, other games are complicated so that any change requires an entire subsect of exceptions and "howevers" in order not to conflict with the established rules. This is due to the fact that a game will have different rules systems to resolve combat, skill attempts, interaction, and everything else. Often, the ystems within the game itself are incompatible.

When we were designing Bond, we made the conscious decision to base everything in the game on the Ease Factor/Quality Results system. Skills, Combat, and Interaction systems are all perfectly compatible because they are all the same.

This free-flow approach to gaming we had devised had a major bugaboo. We were relying on the free imagination of the GM and players. Usually, they are so locked into a set of rules so convoluted and specific that they cannot make up rules on the spot to cover new situation.

(end quote ... emphasis is mine)



My God! I thought when I read that. That's exactly the way I feel when people start talking about how Classic Traveller needs to be modernized--how it needs a task system--how it needs some structure.

Game companies, and the d20 system in particular, has trained gamers to be rule hounds. Game Masters (not all, but many) are not comfortable making up rules on the spot. Players look at GMs sideways when it does happen.

Heck, just recently, on these forums, someone was new CT, purchased the CD-ROM, and asked for advice. I sent him in two directions: Towards Rule 68A, which is basically the non-structured, official Classic Traveller game system; and towards the UGM, my structured task system designed specifically for CT.

Which did he pick?

The UGM.

Why?

Probably it's what he's used to.

And, this is my point...

We've gotten away from "just play it". The GM takes the ball and runs with it. Players now want "proof". How did you come up with that throw? Where's the precedent?

Are we now hemmed in by reams and reams and libraries upon libraries of d20 rules? Do we need the core rule book, the advanced rules, and all the supplemental material before we can play a role playing game.

What has happened, in this day and age, to our imaginations?

Is all this structure really necessary?

And, if structure really is that necessary, then why can't we just make up the structure we need, no our own, and stick with that?

Have we been brainwashed? Culture-ized? Taught that, in order to have a great rpg, we need all of these official rules upon rules upon rules?

I sometimes see aversion from new players to Classic Traveller because it does come off as less structured than a d20 rpg published last week under the OGL. And, that's always amazed me...until I read the article above tonight.

Are we experiencing a loss of imagination due to these rules-thick rpgs?

 

[far-trader]

Not so simply I think.

I'd put the blame more on movies, television, computers, and console games.

RPGs, even the most rules bound edition, is still largely imagination driven and derived. Like books. Both beg the participant to exercise the little grey cells.

Movies, television, computers and consoles are pure passive escapist activities. I'm not knocking them for it, I quite enjoy them for that reason. But I much prefer a good book over a good movie and even a bad* RPG night over a good evening of my favorite console play.

* EDIT Actually I just recalled a bad RPG night that I'd blocked quite well and must amend the statement above. I prefer a good RPG night, bad RPG nights are just bad.

But the times have changed. Not for better or worse, only for the inevitability of change. Better or worse are subjective judgments based on experience. And I bet there are a lot of people who can't imagine a game where if your character dies you can't just go back to the last save and try to escape your fate by trying a different tactic. As many times as it takes to win...

 

[casquilho]

I do not claim to understand why it has happened, but the RPG community has lost a lot of it's ability to think and imagine on it's own. The games today seem designed to take all thought and offer "official" answers for everything.

I have watched this shift from the GM/Group makeing the choices to a reliance on the company to give them the answers. In my over my 25+ years of playing RPGs the shift has been clear and steady. Now what caused this, I can think of many items that seemed to have added to the situation, but I do not know what is the main cause.

Daniel

 

[opensent]

I think some of this stems from character portability. Gamers recognize that no gaming group lasts forever, and so they want some continuity in gaming. If you have a favorite character which is based on no published rules, but whatever you and GM A worked out, there is little chance you will be able to play him if you show up to GM B table at convention, or when you move to GM Cs locale.

So as a player you create characters within the published framework, so whatever happens, your character is 'legit'. Competition plays a part in this for tournaments and whatnot as well.

Some of this is based on equitable treatment of players. If character A can throw a fireball that kills every monster in the room, surely character b must have some advantage that bring an equivalent amount of power to the party. So now let's codify the rules so both are equal.

I personally think this is born from our PC (Political Correctness) culture where everyone is special and all children above average. Who wants to be the single 555555 guy in the 999999 party? Better to moderate everyone down to 777777 right?

Like kudzu, this is extended into the mechanics of the game, so that everyone has published rules to know what is and what is not possible. Fundamentally, these rules are another mechanism to ensure fairness between players. Mechanic A shows how Frank can kill 3 people at once with a Gauss Rifle and save everyone. If 6 guys show up, now Bill pitches in and shares some of the glory.

Mechanic B shows how Bob can repair an engine and save everyone. Inventing a new mechanic on the fly that lets Frank kill 30 people at once, however realistic, gets the raised eyebrow from Bill and Bob because how can their character offer the same value to the party/game? Everyone wants a role and few people want to just tag along on an adventure.

I think it is a noble trait for people to want to treat each other fairly, which is where a lot of this comes from, in my opinion. But the answer to that is not adding more rules or being constrained by the rules you have. It is more flexibility from all parties, and more awareness and communications on the part of the Ref and players about what they are looking for in the game.

 

[Gallowglacht]

Sorry S4 but your arguement seems a bit all over the place. Reading an old article that said GM's are locked into complex rules, you draw the conclusion that modern gamers are locked into too complex rules systems. So whats different? How are we loosing imagination now when the article mentions the same thing decades ago?

You mention D20 specifically, so lets glance at that. Less imaginative? First off D20 broke down a great many barriers and restrictions in character and game type that D&D had laboured under since inception. All races could play all classes to whatever levels. As all creature now used the same rules you could literally play anything. Unlike AD&D, it could and is used for other genres and again as all use the same base they can be mixed freely, more freedom for imagination. The core rules are less complex than their AD&D predecessors. D20, roll high, high stats good, replaced d20 roll high, d20 roll low, roll d%, high Str good, low Thac0 and AC good etc...

Sure there are shelfloads of additions available that complicate things. But many are third party, used to fuel the set-up and growth of new publishers that can offer us alternitives and new goodies. Secondly, the additions are not required but can be used if the players want to. If players are playing an overly complex game of D20, lets remember, they chose to. Some of these additions have simplified mechanics (SAGA, UA) or made the game more interesting (book of 9 swords).
4th edition is heading in the direction you suggest to. Less complex, more freeform, combat more interesting etc...

Gaming doesn't get less imaginative/more complex as time goes on it is in a constant state of change. My group is chugging along just fine. 3 current games Delta Green, D&D and Traveller. 3 of the group only started Roleplaying in the last year/ year and a half.

I don't want to start a whole thing where I defend D20 and end up looking like a fan boy, or get into counter charges of how imaginative it is to use the same setting for decades, maintaining 70's theories of sci-fi or any other crud from internet discussions. Lets just say that when we look at CT and d20 we see very different things and perhaps agree that roleplaying imagination doesn't have anything to do with ruleset.

 

[Supplement Four]

Lets just say that when we look at CT and d20 we see very different things and perhaps agree that roleplaying imagination doesn't have anything to do with ruleset.

My argument wasn't really an argument, but more of a question--with a lot of questions. Yes, I rambled a bit.

The concise point I was trying to make is this: Gamers today (and then, according to the article) allow themselves to be hemmed in with "official" rules, repulsing from games with "lite" rules that assume the GM will use his imagination and just make it up.

The preference seems to be on games with tons of rules. When a situation comes up in a game, the first instinct is to "look it up" rather than the GM just making his "best guess" and rolling with it. Task libraries are preferred over the GM's judgement.

GMs today don't seem to know how to referee Classic Traveller because they don't have a handle on how to make up throws on the spot, during the heat of a game. They prefer a structured task system telling them "officially" what to do in every situation.

There's "imagination" and creativity in designing and declaring throws on the spot, but it seems to be a dying art form.

 

[sablewyvern]

I do not claim to understand why it has happened, but the RPG community has lost a lot of it's ability to think and imagine on it's own. The games today seem designed to take all thought and offer "official" answers for everything.

I agree with you in part, but disagree strongly in some respects.

The community as a whole does seem to demand a higher degree of breadth in what is covered by the rules (although, this doesn't necessarily mean greater complexity or detail -- having a simple mechanic that can be applied conistently to a wide range of situations meets this criteria).

Desiring rules that are comprehensive in this fashion doesn't necessarily indicate anything about imagination, though -- it may just mean that players and GMs want to have a comprehenisive set of rules that they don't have to expend their energy and resources dealing with inconsistencies. Similarly, wanting consistency, and the ability (or lack thereof) to make consistent rulings on the fly, has nothing to do with imagination or lack thereof.

There is a long-standing tradtion in the D&D community that the Monster Manual is a core book. This originates with the release of 1st Edition AD&D, and brings with it a view hled by some that the official monsters are somehow sacrosanct. When I was first exposed to the D&D community, I was quite flummoxed by this attitude. As a long time Rolemaster GM, I had used official critters occasionally, but for the most part just created what I wanted when I wanted it. When I asked why people held this view that the Monster Manual was "core", I received a perfectly valid answer -- many DMs demanded a decent compilation of pre-made beasties for their games, so they could focus their attentions elsewhere.

Except in specific circumstances, rigid adherance to the creatures in the Monster Manual is still problematic, but relying on such a resource is not in and of itself a bad thing -- it's entirely value-neutral. That some people have never been able to come to terms with the idea that a creature pulled out of an official tome has to remain identical to its original presention indicates that the narrow view S4 is talking about has always been with us -- but I don't think it's a view held by the majority. In any case, it's not a new thing.

 

[Icosahedron]

To me, it boils down to hassle and consistency.

It can be a hassle looking up complex rules to explain a situation, but it can also be a hassle trying to think up a representation of yet another problem the players have thrown at me. Which is easier?

The only way I can ensure I get consistent results from one game to another is to make a note of what I ruled. Then checking through tomes of case-histories becomes just as tortuous as checking through those heavy rules. Again, which route minimises hassle and maximises consistency?

I tend to go for a compromise. I use CT, but it is heavily supplemented with with a casebook of houserules. If a situation is unimportant, I'll make it up on the fly, but if it's something that is likely to recur, I want a simple rule to cover it - whether I read one or write one.

 

[Supplement Four]

The only way I can ensure I get consistent results from one game to another is to make a note of what I ruled. Then checking through tomes of case-histories becomes just as tortuous as checking through those heavy rules.

When the UTP was introduced for CT, this was one of the reasons cited for its creation.

 

[Blue Ghost]

I'm reading through an old Heroes magazine tonight, reading up on some notes the designer of the 007 rpg had written (a couple of decades ago), when a few of his words struck me within the context of Classic Traveller...

(quote)

Yes, other games are complicated so that any change requires an entire subsect of exceptions and "howevers" in order not to conflict with the established rules. This is due to the fact that a game will have different rules systems to resolve combat, skill attempts, interaction, and everything else. Often, the ystems within the game itself are incompatible.

When we were designing Bond, we made the conscious decision to base everything in the game on the Ease Factor/Quality Results system. Skills, Combat, and Interaction systems are all perfectly compatible because they are all the same.

This free-flow approach to gaming we had devised had a major bugaboo. We were relying on the free imagination of the GM and players. Usually, they are so locked into a set of rules so convoluted and specific that they cannot make up rules on the spot to cover new situation.

(end quote ... emphasis is mine)



My God! I thought when I read that. That's exactly the way I feel when people start talking about how Classic Traveller needs to be modernized--how it needs a task system--how it needs some structure.

Game companies, and the d20 system in particular, has trained gamers to be rule hounds. Game Masters (not all, but many) are not comfortable making up rules on the spot. Players look at GMs sideways when it does happen.

Heck, just recently, on these forums, someone was new CT, purchased the CD-ROM, and asked for advice. I sent him in two directions: Towards Rule 68A, which is basically the non-structured, official Classic Traveller game system; and towards the UGM, my structured task system designed specifically for CT.

Which did he pick?

The UGM.

Why?

Probably it's what he's used to.

And, this is my point...

We've gotten away from "just play it". The GM takes the ball and runs with it. Players now want "proof". How did you come up with that throw? Where's the precedent?

Are we now hemmed in by reams and reams and libraries upon libraries of d20 rules? Do we need the core rule book, the advanced rules, and all the supplemental material before we can play a role playing game.

What has happened, in this day and age, to our imaginations?

Is all this structure really necessary?

And, if structure really is that necessary, then why can't we just make up the structure we need, no our own, and stick with that?

Have we been brainwashed? Culture-ized? Taught that, in order to have a great rpg, we need all of these official rules upon rules upon rules?

I sometimes see aversion from new players to Classic Traveller because it does come off as less structured than a d20 rpg published last week under the OGL. And, that's always amazed me...until I read the article above tonight.

Are we experiencing a loss of imagination due to these rules-thick rpgs?

I never had that problem when I ran Traveller back in the day. If someone was on the verge of falling off a cliff or something, then I'd tell them to roll less than their DEX, or some other number with a DEX modifier. Similarly I did the same thing with other stats, or conjured a working rule on the spot. Traveller was pretty forgiving in that regard.

 

[vraymond]

Have we been brainwashed? Culture-ized? Taught that, in order to have a great rpg, we need all of these official rules upon rules upon rules?

I sometimes see aversion from new players to Classic Traveller because it does come off as less structured than a d20 rpg published last week under the OGL. And, that's always amazed me...until I read the article above tonight.

Are we experiencing a loss of imagination due to these rules-thick rpgs?

Yes. :smirk:

I was trading emails with my ex-boyfriend recently. He told me that he preferred playing D&D 3.5 "because it was so simple." I found myself completely non-plussed by his statement - and then I remembered why we rarely gamed together. He played very much by the rules, and worked very hard to use the rules to his advantage as a player. By recent standards, he was a sharp rules lawyer and a min-maxer - but otherwise a decent player. I was (and remain) a referee who is "rules-light" - go with the flow and if necessary, make a ruling and keep going.

I recently returned to CT as the basic mechanic for a campaign, because I knew that I could use it to introduce a setting to my players and they would have enough there to understand things, but not so much as to trip things up for me or for them.

One sure measure of these things is that the sheer number of pages for games these days is so much greater than ever in the past. CT runs about 144 digest sized pages. If you go by the entire set of CT books, it's still about the size of a single D&D rulebook.

And one more thing? I prefer Rule 68A. Thanks.

 

[castiglione]

All rules started off as house-rules. The proliferation with rules probably has to do with people wanting their game world to be self consistent.

With that being said, part of me believes the whole "you must play this way or the gaming gods will burn you down" schtick is encouraged by gaming companies to get you to keep buying their stuff. Saying, "All you need to play is this rulebook, some paper, a pencil, your imagination and some dice" isn't exactly a formula to riches let alone paying the rent.

 

[tbeard1999]

I agree that far too many gamers seem to require rules for nearly everything. But this is not a new thing. Take a look at first edition Chivalry and Sorcery (1978), Aftermath (1981) and Space Opera (1980).

Of course, these games were never more than fringe products (though with highly dedicated fans in the case of C&S and Space Opera).

But the "just do it" vs. "rules for everything" dichotomy has been with us since the beginning of the hobby.

In my opinion, the problem is that there is a relatively small percentage of game masters who can comfortably wing it (and that have the charisma to instill trust in the players that he's not being utterly arbitrary and that his solutions are reasonable). There's a much larger group of folks who can run games competently (or even excellently), but lack whatever it takes to make up *good* rules on the fly. Add to this, the fact that there is an economic incentive for game companies to publish "expansions", and you wind up with rules bloat.

A philosophy that I ruthlessly adhered to in "A Fistful of TOWs" was to design for the typical case. The less likely (or relevant) the event, the more simplified and abstract the rules become. RPG designers would do well to emulate this philosophy in my opinion.

I'm also deeply skeptical of so-called "universal mechanics", which in practice seem to require all kinds of accomodations and special cases to work acceptably well. This, I feel, creates at least as much rules bloat as it saves. (An arguable point, I realize; at any rate I don't think that in actual use, most universal mechanics save enough energy to be worth the effort).

I prefer to use the best tool for the job, so I do not shy away from designing specialized mechanics.

 

[ToadSmokingDuckMonkey]

Replies

Any sour observations below come from hanging around the various RPG groups that game in the local game/comics shop (which has a quite large back room that is open after hours). Its all generalities with a kernel of truth. In my opinion, the problem with many of the new breed of players is a general discontinuity and disrespect for the roots of their AD&D hobby. They don't care about rulesets that aren't D20, and view campaign settings that aren't fantasy or a readily recognizable license with complete disdain. I'm a little on the young end to claim full Grognard-hood (26), but I started tabletopping early (age 10 or 11) with a group of adults. I try very hard to get folks interested in alternate rulesets and settings; frankly, I am very tired of AD&D, but it can be done right, and I attempt to show them how.

"Are we experiencing a loss of imagination due to these rules-thick rpgs?" -Supplement Four

I have observed the rules lawyering that accompanies rules-thick RPGs driving off new and casual players from a campaign. This is especially true when it comes to the more organized groups (con games and tourneys, Living Greyhawk, etc.). It is a pity, as these are the sorts of places we could get spouses, friends, and passers-by involved.

"I'd put the blame more on movies, television, computers, and console games." -far-trader

I would say that as the years have drug on, more and more folks tend to feel entitled to simpler puzzles, a linear rate of character advancement, combat as a solution to all dilemmas, and a linear campaign storyline (which CT is poorly suited for at any rate, with it's focus on being an open world). I do attribute this to the rise of the digital RPG game, more specifically most (but not all) of the popular titles coming from Japan.

While I was a fan of such games when I had the time to play them (I don't dig 60+ hour commitments), I didn't let them atrophy my problem-solving skills or my desire to experience as a player or design as a GM open-world-ish campaigns. I have observed a tendency for younger GMs to design linear campaigns with specific types of PCs in mind. When the players stray from the intended path, rocks fall and everybody either: gets the hint and goes the other way, listens to the GM get angry and do what he wants, experiences mass party death, or finds another GM.

I cannot respond to opensent's sentiments on character portability, because I have allowed this or played with a GM that allowed it.

"You mention D20 specifically, so lets glance at that. Less imaginative? First off D20 broke down a great many barriers and restrictions in character and game type that D&D had laboured under since inception. All races could play all classes to whatever levels. As all creature now used the same rules you could literally play anything. " -Gallowglacht

Shades of opensent's "Better to moderate everyone down to 777777 right?" argument ring true here. All the races are equal, save a few differences (maybe Tieflings really like fried chicken, everyone knows which way Elves swing, and Dwarves like their ale!). The only difference race makes to a 3.5 player is the little crunchy character creation bits, and the occasional Stereotypical Roleplay Moments "oh yeah, I'm a Gnome, so I should use Dancing Lights to mess with someone..." .

They've done the same thing to character classes.

With the class/race rules the way they are, if you are playing a Human Fighter, by Gygax, that is something really different to the AD&D 3.5 players where I live. They have moved onto more advanced character types like Goblin Paladins, Tiefling this and/or thats, and other absurdities that they barely mention once character creation is over (other than aforementioned Stereotypical Roleplay Moments). Bottom line, if you can't make your human fighter different than all the others folks have heard of, you lack imagination; and if you come up short here, how the Christian-Anti-D&D-Comics are you going to do a Goblin Paladin justice?

"Sure there are shelfloads of additions available that complicate things. But many are third party, ..." -Gallowglacht

There are so many additions that complicate matters that are not 3rd party. PHB2, the extra monster manuals, all the class-specific books, etc. After being begged by the rest of my group to run an interstitial campaign whilst waiting for the normal GM's work schedule to normalize, I decided to try out GMing a 3.5 campaign. I told them I would be running the game out of the SRD (as that was all I had available to me), the players hollered that they wouldn't be able to make the characters they wanted.

You should have seen the looks on their faces as I told the players that they would be rolling for stats! Obiwan Kenobi could have felt their terror across the light years as I told them it would be 4D6/drop lowest/arrage to please/mulligan if the total is less than 66 (an average of 11 in each stat). They wanted to use the point-buy system suggested in some Wizards AD&D book that allowed level 1s to get a 21 in a single stat...

My point is that the new breed of modern players don't like the degree of GM control that a small, compact ruleset (especially one with a random element to character creation) provides. They want all of those dark alleyways so they can take the reigns away from the GM. As for why they want that comfort... well, it seems railroading is lot more common these days for whatever reason.

"...roleplaying imagination doesn't have anything to do with ruleset." -Gallowglacht

I've addressed this a little above but I will do so specifically: It is my belief that the ruleset shapes the imagination. It helps the player visualize his character's abilities and where the PC fits in that world. This principle does rely on the concept of an unbroken Magic Circle; that is, it must be a shared hallucination. One set of easily defined rules helps to maintain the illusion. It is broken when any player character tries to shoehorn in something that doesn't fit.

In many cases, this is an inexperienced or perhaps merely unimaginative player that keeps trying to play a single character archetype, or is attempting to copy something from television or film (because they can't imagine anything as cool themselves). This is expressed most prominently in those PCs that everyone at the table can clearly recognize from somewhere else (Hi, Drizzt6925). Sometimes, this can be alleviated by choosing a licensed game (Buffy, Star Wars, Firefly, etc.); other times, you must simply tell the player to beat it and go write some fanfic.

GMs do this too. I know a group that plays Harry Potter with relatively un-house-ruled AD&D 3.5. I can't imagine how that abomination plays.

"There is a long-standing tradtion in the D&D community that the Monster Manual is a core book. This originates with the release of 1st Edition AD&D, and brings with it a view held by some that the official monsters are somehow sacrosanct. When I was first exposed to the D&D community, I was quite flummoxed by this attitude. As a long time Rolemaster GM, I had used official critters occasionally, but for the most part just created what I wanted when I wanted it." -sablewyvern

I quoted this whole thing as besides the bit about Rolemaster, as this has been precisely my experience.

""All you need to play is this rulebook, some paper, a pencil, your imagination and some dice" isn't exactly a formula to riches let alone paying the rent." -castiglione

Unless you make dice ;-)

 

[castiglione]

I would say that as the years have drug on, more and more folks tend to feel entitled to simpler puzzles, a linear rate of character advancement, combat as a solution to all dilemmas

I've noticed this trend as well. How many gamers try to find cheat codes for video games? I imagine a lot. To me, that's just crazy; what's the point of playing a game if you're going to cheat? If someone told me an exploit for a game I'd bought, I'd be annoyed. To me, that's like telling someone what the end of a novel or movie is before he's read or seen it.

This same attitude seems to be common among RPG'ers mow. I recently read a forum thread where someone said he started off all characters in D & D as at least 5th level because he didn't see a point in playing a 1st level character as they couldn't effectively kick anyone's ass effectively. This left me scratching my head. Getting that 1st level character to the point where he's 2nd level (or God forbid...3rd level) was always the fun part for me. And the focus on "feats" in combat strikes me as being just an excuse to try to turn hopeless combat situations (which should be resolved by means other than combat) into possible victories. I think some of this may have to do with the cultural context that RPG'ers come from; people expect RPG to replicate the type of entertainment they're used to. CT was published in the 70's concurrently with Star Wars and took, for its cues, written sci-fi. Current sci-fi as seen in movies is a bit different.

Maybe I'm just getting old.

 

[pendragonman]

TSDM, your argument is precisely why I get irritated when new people are foisted on me unawares. As you have no doubt found by now, my GMing style doesn't really lend itself to the "I want this to be a computer game" players.

You may have noticed that I reward those that ROLEPLAY well, as opposed to roll play well. Dice are not the be all end all of RPing, and a well rolplayed encounter is not contingent on how well a player rolls the dice.

 

[kafka47]

For me, it just shocks me, how little confidence that today's players have in just having fun. RPGs are not videogames, and rule systems like d20 make you believe that they are.

When I have started a new Traveller game, I am shocked how people express things in terms of levels & xp...then I realize that if 3.5 is the only experience people have with gaming...then it is going to be a hard slough to get them to realize that knowledge in of itself is a worthy endeavor.

 

[Supplement Four]

I'm also deeply skeptical of so-called "universal mechanics", which in practice seem to require all kinds of accomodations and special cases to work acceptably well.

(snip)

I prefer to use the best tool for the job, so I do not shy away from designing specialized mechanics.

I agree. I see the attraction to just learning one game--something like d20--and then being able to play any game you want with little time spent learning rules (just learning the d20 tweaks, for example, for that particular genre or rpg).

But, I think that the one-size-fits-all game system leads to banality.

One thing I'm exciting about in playing the Bond game is that the mechanics do such a wonderful job of matching the Bond mythos. As I've said before, WEG's D6 Star Wars game, too, does a wonderful job of displaying the feeling and atmosphere and the rush of playing in the Skywalker universe.

That's something that's missing from the one-size-fits-all games.

On top of this, not too many one-size-fits-all games have been that successful--not as successful as a game with its own mechanics that took off. GURPS has been around, and is probably the most successful of the one-size-fits-all, but look at all the blanket systems that failed or only were moderatly successful like the D6 system or HERO or BRP (heck, even the CT rules had a go as a genric system for scifi in its incarnation, and then used for the fantasy game Thieves World). All of those are moderately successful, but none blew the doors off the sales chart.

It wasn't until WotC said, "Hey, you can use the d20 system for free!" that we've seen a hugely successful one-size-fits-all rule set, but I think the "free" aspect, along with D&D being the most popular rpg ever (thus, has the most players acquainted with its system).

Different genres require different types of mechanics, if those genres are to be served using the best possible options.

I like it, when, I dig into a new game to see "how things work". I've never been one to gravitate to one single system for every game I play. I like my Quality Ratings and Ease Factors in Bond, and I like my hand full of dice in D6 Star Wars. And, I like the rules lite Classic Traveller, and I like the percentaged based system found in FASA's Star Trek game...or TSR's Top Secret/SI game.

Heck, I even like d20 (the only time I like d20) when I'm playing D&D (which is never...not in a long, long time).

 

[ghashsnaga]

My question is does this reflect the mentality of the gamers in question or the system? The Forge takes a stand that system does matter. So what is it about Traveller that encourages on the spot rulings compared to D20?

I gave up on the D20 systems because it doesn't offer me what I want out of gaming these days. However Traveller still has a place among my other games like: Burning Wheel, Dogs in the Vineyard, Spirit of the Century, and Shock.

BTW: For those that haven't seen it:
http://www.phreeow.net/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=Spirit+of+the+Far+Future
Traveller ported over to Spirit of the Century

Ara

 

[jrmapes]

Actually the "One Rules Set to Bind Them All" isn't a new concept either.

In the wayback a little company known as SPI started using "core rules" for their board war games. It didn't matter which game you picked up, the core rules were the same. Then in each game came a supplement with any specific additions that were needed to play the individual game.

TSR's 2nd edition AD&D (post Gygax) was IIRC the first RPG to really start to touch on this. You had the core rule books then dozens of supplements and game spin-offs. The spin off games still for the most part needed the core books but you could ignore all the 2e AD&D specific rules.

It really wasn't surprising to me when WOTC announced the OGL. It was a natural progression. (not one I liked much - but yet still the expected progression)

As to the meat of the issue at hand, well lets just say that I agree that like many of you, I must be getting old and leave it at that. For if i were to say more than I agree that the current game systems and the what current gamers do today when they are not playing an RPG directly affects their imagination and creative ability - well I would most likely get into a long winded rant and severely piss off all the D20, MMORPG, and the playwiigameboxstation people by using words like munchkin, power gamer, rules lawyer, instant gratification whores, etc etc etc.

I am pretty sure no one would want to pile through a post like that so yup, I agree.

I must be gettin old.

Jerry