What is your "Fight Me" thread?

[Koo Rehtorb]

Burning Wheel... I admit that I just don't get it yet, despite reading through the book... I may have to take notes or find some sort of pared-down starter document.

The core rules honestly aren't particularly complicated. There's a reason the game is divided into the Hub and the Spokes, you only have to add in the complicated subsystems when you're ready for them.

GM calls for a type of test and declares the obstacle (usually between 1 and 10). Player starts with a number of d6s = to their rating in that skill, with 4+ being a success, needing a number of successes equal to or over the obstacle number. Player may add an additional d6 for every other skill they have that's related in some way to the test they're making, so if they're digging a mine shaft they'd probably be rolling Mining and could claim an extra die for also having Engineering. Player may also add an additional d6 for every person helping them in the task who has a relevant skill to help with. Player also notes the difficulty of the test by comparing the number of dice they were rolling compared to the obstacle number on a chart and marks the test down for purposes of advancing it (you need a certain number of different types of tests in order to advance it).

That's basically all you need to go a long way with the system until you're ready to add in the subsystems and such.

[Max_Killjoy]

The core rules honestly aren't particularly complicated. There's a reason the game is divided into the Hub and the Spokes, you only have to add in the complicated subsystems when you're ready for them.

GM calls for a type of test and declares the obstacle (usually between 1 and 10). Player starts with a number of d6s = to their rating in that skill, with 4+ being a success, needing a number of successes equal to or over the obstacle number. Player may add an additional d6 for every other skill they have that's related in some way to the test they're making, so if they're digging a mine shaft they'd probably be rolling Mining and could claim an extra die for also having Engineering. Player may also add an additional d6 for every person helping them in the task who has a relevant skill to help with. Player also notes the difficulty of the test by comparing the number of dice they were rolling compared to the obstacle number on a chart and marks the test down for purposes of advancing it (you need a certain number of different types of tests in order to advance it).

That's basically all you need to go a long way with the system until you're ready to add in the subsystems and such.

That makes sense, but as you note, there's a lot more, and I can't really judge a system just on the very basic roll mechanic.

Character creation, progression, magic system, combat details, etc, all matter too.

[Lacuna Caster]

Someone posts a thing that they thought was perfectly reasonable, or just a little bit unreasonable enough to discuss, and all of a sudden they are under fire on every side. But naw, we're going to defend our point to the end. Fight me.

But we're all different, and we're all unreasonable in our own way. What do you think is the issue you would have a thread like this about?

ALL OF THEM
FIGHT ME BRO

That makes sense, but as you note, there's a lot more, and I can't really judge a system just on the very basic roll mechanic.

Character creation, progression, magic system, combat details, etc, all matter too.

Mouse Guard is basically BW Lite, and I actually tried fusing it the BW lifepaths system at one point. If it helps, I could probably send on a couple of pages that boil down most of the material?

[Koo Rehtorb]

That makes sense, but as you note, there's a lot more, and I can't really judge a system just on the very basic roll mechanic.

Character creation, progression, magic system, combat details, etc, all matter too.

Honestly, half that stuff isn't actually needed. The game works just fine without any magic at all and it's entirely viable to play the game while making all combat a simple opposed roll using the mechanics I described above. It's also not a huge step up in complexity to use the second level of combat instead of the opposed roll, Bloody Versus. That's just a pair of opposed rolls where you divide your dice pool into attack and defense and deal damage accordingly. The intricate combat subsystem IS admittedly fiendishly complicated, but it's quite viable to play a whole campaign of BW without having to ever use it if you're so inclined, the game won't break over it.

For progression, each level of a skill has a certain number of routine/difficult/challenging tests that you need to make before it increases by 1 and you figure out the difficulty of any individual test with the help of a chart. In practice you'll tend to find your skills plateau around the 5-6 range because you'll need to do things that will almost certainly fail to advance past that point, and you usually don't need those skills to be higher to succeed reliably at most things with that.

As for character creation, might I suggest taking a look at https://charred.herokuapp.com/#/ ? It's fairly intuitive when you fiddle with it. Worth noting, the typical campaign caps you at four lifepaths and at 6 as a maximum in your attributes and skills at character creation.

[Quertus]

That said, you do know your table better than anyone, so, for example, if you know that you've got some jackass who will always choose the broken powergaming option, you do probably want to avoid pick the games that have that particular pitfall. But that's not the same as knowing how a game will actually work in play.

FTFY. Give the players what they want. Don't try to force a square peg into a round hole.

I think this is a false analogy. Games are complicated and always have a lot of moving parts, and it's often difficult if not impossible to see how they all fit together without actually trying them.

Allow me to chime in.

I've also played these silly games for 30+ years. When trying out some of the newer systems (Fate, Burning Wheel, PbtA), I personally found that a lot of what got in my way of enjoying them was an expectation that things worked the way they did in the systems I was used to. It took a bit of playing them to really learn how to enjoy them as they were, and not let my cross-expectations get in the way.

In a way, my experience worked to my detriment in this case, as I kept trying to shove square pegs in round holes.

Your mileage may, of course, vary.

This. The group, the GM, the general assumptions and mindset - gets downplayed in many game discussions.

The group can really make or break a game.

A lot of complaints about games are actually complaints about GMs, or about the speaker's misunderstanding of the game premise.

How long it takes a gamer to "see the elephant", and play the game "as intended" - or, at least, in a way that will optimize their personal enjoyment of the system - can vary greatly.

[AMFV]

I think this is a false analogy. Games are complicated and always have a lot of moving parts, and it's often difficult if not impossible to see how they all fit together without actually trying them.

That's certainly true for games that you think you would like and then wind up not liking. However if I've tried other games with similar systematic assumptions, and similar rules choices. And I didn't like them that it's enough to know based on my taste that I probably wouldn't like this other thing as well. I'll be honest if my friends were doing a Powered by the Apocalypse game I would probably try it, but I don't really think I would enjoy it.

[Max_Killjoy]

FTFY.

Rude.

Say what you intend to say in your own words, don't edit other people's posts to put words in their mouth.

This. The group, the GM, the general assumptions and mindset - gets downplayed in many game discussions.

The group can really make or break a game.

A lot of complaints about games are actually complaints about GMs, or about the speaker's misunderstanding of the game premise.

How long it takes a gamer to "see the elephant", and play the game "as intended" - or, at least, in a way that will optimize their personal enjoyment of the system - can vary greatly.

No. A lot of complaints about games/systems, are complaints about those games/systems.

These are not board games. The point of an RPG isn't "master the system" and then "play as intended". The system either reflects the setting and atmosphere intended... or it does not. The system either does what the players (including the GM) need it to do... or it does not.

Blaming the GM/players for "not getting it" is seeing someone trying to turn a bolt, and saying "you'd be better off pounding that nail with this hammer".

[BRC]

No. A lot of complaints about games/systems, are complaints about those games/systems.

These are not board games. The point of an RPG isn't "master the system" and then "play as intended". The system either reflects the setting and atmosphere intended... or it does not. The system either does what the players (including the GM) need it to do... or it does not.

Blaming the GM/players for "not getting it" is seeing someone trying to turn a bolt, and saying "you'd be better off pounding that nail with this hammer".

The point of an RPG is to have fun. Think of the system as an engine that takes in Effort and produces Fun. Your mastery of the system means you get more fun out of it for the same, or little, energy.

Let's say I want to run a game of D&D. Me and my players all want a high-fantasy adventure game about a group of mercenaries who delve dungeons, slay monsters, and retrieve treasure. Eg: Exactly the Archtypical D&D Game.

But, I have not "mastered" D&D, not in the way that matters anyway. My 4 PC's open the door, I flip through the monster manual until I find a monster with CR equal to their level, and declare that monster to be in the room. Then they roll initiative, kill the monster (Which is a reasonable encounter for 4 PC's of level equal to it's CR) , and move on. It's boring, a series of 30x30 rooms, each containing exactly one monster, which instantly tries to kill the party.

According to the Rules, we're playing D&D. We're playing the type of game it was intended for, and it's a type of game we would theoretically enjoy. But, by using the system poorly, the game isn't fun.


If somebody can't sink a nail, sometimes the problem is that they're trying to use a screwdriver when they need a Hammer. Sometimes the problem is that they're trying to use a nail when they need a screw. Sometimes the hammer is faulty.

Sometimes the problem is that they don't know how to use a hammer.

Edit: Which is to say, a complaint about a game COULD BE the result of the game not being what the group wants, or they could have stumbled upon the perfect system for the game they're trying to run, but they honestly don't know how to use the system properly.

[PersonMan]

Regarding changing systems: Beyond theoretical time needed to learn the rules from square 0, one has to also consider differences to formerly used rulesets and so on.

For me, for example, it took a long time to work out out BW chargen worked, and even longer to come up with a half-decent (that is: interesting to me) character concept because chargen was so unlike what I was used to. I had a fully "mechanized" backstory, but also what felt like a lack of mechanical framework to work around, meaning that instead of doing what was typical for me, either building to a concept or conceptualizing around mechanics, I had to do a mix of the two. So, for me, there wasn't a move from square one on, I started at square negative two.

Then I made the mistake of playing something that didn't work that well within the system, due to not realizing just how much the FORK thing is important. I wouldn't say I "learned" the system until after I spent hours in chargen, then more in play, and even then I barely have enough knowledge to play.

Adding to that is any setting info, which - even if we assume there is no default setting to learn - will be different based on the system. I feel like I could make a setting for DnD or Pathfinder easily enough, maybe make GURPS work for something - but a Burning Wheel world? Even if I could, I'd be uncomfortable with it.

Basically, when it comes to time investment, I think there's more than just learning the rules to be done. You have to learn the game, and the feel of the game, and how to use all of the pieces you theoretically understand.

[Quertus]

Rude.

Say what you intend to say in your own words, don't edit other people's posts to put words in their mouth.

Hmmm... I don't remember* you calling people out as rude randomly, so I'll assume I botched my "understand FTFY netiquette" roll. Apologies to the poster I modified.

* I am working up a good senility, you aren't actually known for that, are you?

No. A lot of complaints about games/systems, are complaints about those games/systems.

These are not board games. The point of an RPG isn't "master the system" and then "play as intended". The system either reflects the setting and atmosphere intended... or it does not. The system either does what the players (including the GM) need it to do... or it does not.

Blaming the GM/players for "not getting it" is seeing someone trying to turn a bolt, and saying "you'd be better off pounding that nail with this hammer".

Well, yes, but those aren't mutually exclusive statements. A lot of fruits are apples, and a lot of fruits are oranges, and a lot of fruits are bananas. At least IME.

And, just speaking for myself, some of my lack of enjoyment in certain games was because I had missed the point of the game, in that, once I got the point, I enjoyed it more.

But then I enjoy D&D as the best system for roleplay I've ever played.

Speaking more broadly, I've heard lots of descriptions of systems - both ones I've loved, and ones I've hated - where someone else's play experience and view of the system held no semblance to reality what I had experienced. I have a difficult time coming to a more reasonable conclusion than that they are clearly from another, alternate universe the people that they played the game with had a huge impact on how the game played out.

But, once again, that in no way invalidates the fact that many complaints about systems really are directly about the system, played as intended / in the most optimal way for that user.

That said, to all, I recommend keeping an open mind about us annoying nit pickers who ask about the deals of your play experience, and who suggest things you "know" you hate, as at least some of us are trying to make sure you didn't just get a bad (for you) group / GM, and aren't throwing the baby out with the bath water over one bad experience.

[Lord Raziere]

The point of an RPG is to have fun. Think of the system as an engine that takes in Effort and produces Fun. Your mastery of the system means you get more fun out of it for the same, or little, energy.

If that is true, DnD is a very inefficient engine in terms of effort/fun input/output. it has been stated by people who know the system that to truly master it requires the equivalent of a college minor. Fate on the other hand, is a simpler system and no matter how hard you find it to learn whether its minutes, hours or days, its definitely less time to learn that than to master DnD 3.5. much more efficient in its effort to fun ratio.

If that the systems intention, then I reject it all the more so, as it is not worth that much effort and learning for something I can already have fun with, without learning it, I love roleplaying what it already is, whats the point of your engine if its so impractical? furthermore, the engine is plagued with numerous faults, the instructions are counter-intuitive and misleading on many levels, it would be hard to pick a worse engine to master.

[Max_Killjoy]

"understand FTFY netiquette"

The only etiquette involved in "FTFY" is don't do it.

[BRC]

If that is true, DnD is a very inefficient engine in terms of effort/fun input/output. it has been stated by people who know the system that to truly master it requires the equivalent of a college minor. Fate on the other hand, is a simpler system and no matter how hard you find it to learn whether its minutes, hours or days, its definitely less time to learn that than to master DnD 3.5. much more efficient in its effort to fun ratio.

If that the systems intention, then I reject it all the more so, as it is not worth that much effort and learning for something I can already have fun with, without learning it, I love roleplaying what it already is, whats the point of your engine if its so impractical? furthermore, the engine is plagued with numerous faults, the instructions are counter-intuitive and misleading on many levels, it would be hard to pick a worse engine to master.

1) Which definition of "Master" were those people using? The common definition would be to have a comprehensive knowledge of all the rules, character options, and interactions. To be a "Rules Expert" as it were.
My definition is "To be good at having fun with it", which requires very little knowledge of the rules.
My Roommate knew 3.5 inside and out. Our friends asked him to run a Pathfinder game, and so he did. It was well received, and fun for everybody, despite the fact that my Roomate refused to read any of the pathfinder rulebooks (Except maybe the monster manuals and the occasional spell list). He let his players handle their character creations, because he had Mastered 3.5, and that mastery transferred over to Pathfinder. He knew the systems were similar enough that what made a good 3.5 Game would generally also apply to Pathfinder.

2) I agree, FATE is much simpler. And yet, I have far more fun with D&D than with FATE. For the amount of effort I want to put into an RPG, I get far more enjoyment out of D&D than I do from FATE. The type of game I want to run fits perfectly within what D&D is meant to do, while it would be awkward and unwieldy to handle in FATE.

3) It sounds like you don't have much fun playing D&D, and therefore, shouldn't play D&D.


Edit: Here's what I mean by "System Mastery".

Once, when I was a Bad GM, I wanted the party to fight a Berserker. A dude who hit hard and had lots of hitpoints.

I would painstakingly use the NPC rules, constructing a Rules-legal 5th level Barbarian NPC in full-plate armor with a greataxe. I'd spend an hour selecting feats and abilities for him such that he could hit hard and take a lot of punishment.

Now? I grab a Hill Giant statblock, shrink him down to Medium size, replace his giant club with a medium-sized axe that hits harder because I say it does, drop rock-catching (Since the PC's are unlikely to be throwing Rocks). It takes me like 30 seconds.

To the PC's, he's still a big guy who hits hard and has a lot of hitpoints. About the same amount of Fun is had all-around, but it took a lot less effort on my part. I realized that rigorous mechanical fidelity (A Human barbarian being modeled as a Human Barbarian), had very little impact on the game. What mattered was how I presented the NPC to my party (A human barbarian with a big axe), and the relevant ways they interacted with him mechanically (Mostly dealing him damage, taking his hits, ect). Provided everything was harmonious, provided my "Barbarian" hit hard when he hit, was easy to land blows on, and took a lot of damage to bring down, the game moved smoothly.

[Cluedrew]

Nothing I've ever read in a PbtA-based game has made me want to try the system.

And you are under no obligation to try it. But don't hate it because you don't think you would enjoy it.

Also explaining what the other person did wrong is generally more helpful than just saying something is wrong.

[kyoryu]

I thought at one point we agreed that FATE (for example) wasn't going to be a system that I'd enjoy.

Not saying you should or would like Fate. My point wasn't that Fate is awesome. My point is that my years of experience *actively worked against me* when learning Fate, and interfered with my enjoyment of it.

So, no, I don't believe that I can look at a system and determine if I'd like it or not, because when I do I'm looking at it from the perspective of other systems, and applying concepts in the new game to my understanding of game flow in other systems.

A lot of complaints about games are actually complaints about GMs, or about the speaker's misunderstanding of the game premise.

How long it takes a gamer to "see the elephant", and play the game "as intended" - or, at least, in a way that will optimize their personal enjoyment of the system - can vary greatly.

Absolutely. When I introduce D&D players to Fate or PbtA games, or whatever, I make a point of almost selling it like a different sort of thing altogether and not a replacmenet for D&D.

Blaming the GM/players for "not getting it" is seeing someone trying to turn a bolt, and saying "you'd be better off pounding that nail with this hammer".

No, it's saying "hey, stop trying to hammer that nail with a socket wrench."

Sometimes a socket wrench isn't the right tool for the job, and you really do need a hammer (or really just like hammers). But if you try to use a socket wrench like a hammer, you're going to get poor results. Again, I'm speaking from experience of trying to use a metaphorical socket wrench to drive the metaphorical nail, and having it not really work well.

I'm not saying that all cases of people not liking something is because of that. Because that would be stupid. People like different things, and that's awesome. But I've seen a great many cases where dislike of a system is due to trying to use a socket wrench like a hammer. I only argue about things when people make statements about a system that do not line up with my experiences *at all*, which is usually, to me, a sign of that kind of disconnect. To be clear, I don't mean experiences not line up in terms of liking/disliking it - I mean people talking about experiences in play flow that differ significantly from mine, like the game feeling "totally abstract", or "super pulpy" or whatever.

To put it differently, if you had a car that had weird controls - say, the gas on the shifter, and shifting with the pedals, etc. You wouldn't have much enjoyment with it the first few times you drove it. However, you might find out, once you had acclimatized to the controls, that it was actually a lot of fun, and there might actually be a reason for controls being like that. And, again, to be clear, you might *still* hate it.

2) I agree, FATE is much simpler. And yet, I have far more fun with D&D than with FATE. For the amount of effort I want to put into an RPG, I get far more enjoyment out of D&D than I do from FATE. The type of game I want to run fits perfectly within what D&D is meant to do, while it would be awkward and unwieldy to handle in FATE.

I would be the first person to say, as a Fate fan, that Fate is absolutely not the greatest system in the world for doing All The Things. Like any system, there's things it does well, and things it does poorly.

Socket wrenches are great for turning bolts, and not very good for driving nails.

[BRC]

Hrmm, here's a thought experiment for everybody.

Let's say I built a system, called BRCRPG. BRCRPG was a mess. Any test more complex than cooking an egg was resolved by following massive, skill-specific Flowcharts with a new roll at each step, the Magic system was so overpowered that spell casters were basically gods, "Balanced" by the fact that any time you cast a spell, you had a 1% chance of your heart exploding. An oddly large portion of the rulebook was dedicated to using Ships, and to top it all off, the system was very heavily based around the idea that you were playing as rebels fighting against an empire of evil vampires in my custom built, hyper-specific "Drowned World" setting, with substantial portions of the rulebook being dedicated to codifying the 12 different types of Vampires in the setting, with a sizable amount of character-options only working against a handful of different Vampire types.

The Rulebook is best used as a construction material, the system is borderline unplayable, and not worth anybody's time, even if "Rebels vs Vampires" is exactly your cup of tea.

But, let's say somebody read through this hypothetical monstrosity and realized that if you used the "Simple Task" resolutions for everything, got rid of all spells above 4th level, and just cut out everything to do with Vampires, you got a very good system for running low-magic swashbuckling high-seas adventure.


BRCRPG is a terrible system as written. But, if you know how to use it (By ignoring 85% of the rulebook) you can have a lot of fun with it.

Can we call BRCRPG a "Good System"?

[kyoryu]

Can we call BRCRPG a "Good System"?

The trick is to first define "good system".

I'd generally define it as "producing the desired results for a given overall game experience."

[BRC]

The trick is to first define "good system".

I'd generally define it as "producing the desired results for a given overall game experience."

Well, if you desire to have fun playing a low-magic high seas swashbuckling adventure, BRCRPG can provide you that in spades, once you learn to ignore 85% of the rulebook, find or make a character sheet template that uses consistent format for skill checks, and figure out how to read the terrible gothic font I've chosen to use for section headers.

[Aran nu tasar]

BRCRPG is a terrible system as written. But, if you know how to use it (By ignoring 85% of the rulebook) you can have a lot of fun with it.

Can we call BRCRPG a "Good System"?

I'd argue no, you can't.

However, you can call your homebrew version a good game. And if you wrote up BRCRPG-Lite you probably couldn't publish it due to copyright issues, but I'd have no hesitation calling that a good game.

[2D8HP]

If that is true, DnD is a very inefficient engine in terms of effort/fun input/output. it has been stated by people who know the system that to truly master it requires the equivalent of a college minor. Fate on the other hand, is a simpler system and no matter how hard you find it to learn whether its minutes, hours or days, its definitely less time to learn that than to master DnD 3.5. much more efficient in its effort to fun ratio....

You got me all excited about a game that's more fun per effort than D&D, until I read "3.5".

3.5 isn't what I think of as D&D, it really seems more like someone using D&D lingo to make something trying to be like Champions instead (I'm guessing the "D20 based" Mutants & Masterminds makes the link clear).

I really wish people would be clear about which D&D they mean.

TSR D&D is one thing (after WotC "3e" the differences between different types of old D&D seem minor), and the disparate WotC "D&D"'s are each something else

Hrmm, here's a thought experiment for everybody.

Let's say I built a system, called BRCRPG. BRCRPG was a mess....

...But, let's say somebody read through this hypothetical monstrosity and realized that if you used the "Simple Task" resolutions for everything, got rid of all spells above 4th level, and just cut out everything to do with Vampires, you got a very good system for running low-magic swashbuckling high-seas adventure.


BRCRPG is a terrible system as written. But, if you know how to use it (By ignoring 85% of the rulebook) you can have a lot of fun with it.

Can we call BRCRPG a "Good System"?

If I knew what to cut out, and it wasn't too interposed with useful text (say just rip out pages 18 to 96), than yes a low-magic swashbuckling game sounds good, otherwise, it sounds like a pain in the neck

Well, if you desire to have fun playing a low-magic high seas swashbuckling adventure, BRCRPG can provide you that in spades, once you learn to ignore 85% of the rulebook, find or make a character sheet template that uses consistent format for skill checks, and figure out how to read the terrible gothic font I've chosen to use for section headers.

Unreadable font?

Like the later printing of Castle Falkenstein?

Forget that mess.

What is this a metephor for?

[Drakevarg]

Unreadable font?

Like the later printing of Castle Falkenstein?

Forget that mess.

What is this a metephor for?

I'm tempted to say some sort of bizarre rules-heavy version of World of Darkness, because long tedious metaplot information worked directly into the rules and headers with obnoxious font are exactly the worst parts of that system.

[2D8HP]

I'm tempted to say some sort of bizarre rules-heavy version of World of Darkness, because long tedious metaplot information worked directly into the rules and headers with obnoxious font are exactly the worst parts of that system.

Unfortunetly I remember that well, as in the early 1990's I still tried to game, but the majority of tables were playing Vampire, but I regard the worst part of that game as the modern day with sociopaths in Darwinistic power struggles setting. Just like Cyberpunk, I could open my front door for that mess, I game to escape that!

How would one get Swashbuckling out of the WoD rules?

---

Anyway, to get me to learn new rules systems there are some pretty high bars:

It has to look fun enough to be worth the effort (no modern day or near future anything!)

It has to have actual people who want to play it (I spent too many years trying to get others to try Pendragon to ever be a "game evangelist" again!).

A GM who will hand me a pre-gen and play a "what to you do" style, can get me to try most anything, but that's extremely rare (the last GM I remember like that ran Shadowrun more than 20 years ago)..

To all the D&D haters who want me to try "indie" games, here's what to do:

No homework!

Have an available seat at the table.

Describe an in-game scenario.

Ask "what do you do?"

Repeat.

Unfortunetly as a gamemaster, I found that the easiest way to get players to my table, was to let their PC's have superpowers and/or firearms which were the scenerio's I was least interested in.

Pathfinder's "Inner Sea" setting looks interesting, but that the game has a "Gunslinger" class is enough for me to give it a pass (Arduin in the 1970's did a similar lameness with "Techno's").

By the late 1980's and early 1990's I really felt out-of-step with what other gamers wanted (guns and/or superpowers, bionic, comic-book, or supernatural).,

If I want to play a character that at all resembles Fafhrd, The Grey Mouser, Robin Hood, Sinbad the Sailor, or Sir Gawain, are there really any tables that aren't for some version of D&D?

I sure don't see any, and even D&D now seems to be mostly about playing something like Thor, or Dr. Strange, rather than more human scale PC's exploring a fantastic world.

Sure does grind my gears.

[BRC]

It was just a Thought Experiment. I just thought of bad things a system could do.

[Knaight]

It was just a Thought Experiment. I just thought of bad things a system could do.

Small wonder it resembles WoD.

[BRC]

Small wonder it resembles WoD.

Some of it might have been based on things I remember a friend griping about when trying to muddle their way through Changeling: The Lost

[Quertus]

1) Which definition of "Master" were those people using? The common definition would be to have a comprehensive knowledge of all the rules, character options, and interactions. To be a "Rules Expert" as it were.
My definition is "To be good at having fun with it", which requires very little knowledge of the rules.

Yes and no. It depends on what flavor of fun you're trying to have.

I've watched people with no clue how the rules worked "have fun" "playing Pokemon" or "playing four square", but their fun was really Calvin ball, and bore only a surface similarity to the actual game in question. That's not something I'd personally have much fun with.

Once, when I was a Bad GM, I wanted the party to fight a Berserker. A dude who hit hard and had lots of hitpoints.

I would painstakingly use the NPC rules, constructing a Rules-legal 5th level Barbarian NPC in full-plate armor with a greataxe. I'd spend an hour selecting feats and abilities for him such that he could hit hard and take a lot of punishment.

Now? I grab a Hill Giant statblock, shrink him down to Medium size, replace his giant club with a medium-sized axe that hits harder because I say it does, drop rock-catching (Since the PC's are unlikely to be throwing Rocks). It takes me like 30 seconds.

To the PC's, he's still a big guy who hits hard and has a lot of hitpoints. About the same amount of Fun is had all-around, but it took a lot less effort on my part. I realized that rigorous mechanical fidelity (A Human barbarian being modeled as a Human Barbarian), had very little impact on the game. What mattered was how I presented the NPC to my party (A human barbarian with a big axe), and the relevant ways they interacted with him mechanically (Mostly dealing him damage, taking his hits, ect). Provided everything was harmonious, provided my "Barbarian" hit hard when he hit, was easy to land blows on, and took a lot of damage to bring down, the game moved smoothly.

Hmmm... When I was a bad GM, I just made stuff up. Now, I follow the rules. See how that wording implies everyone who doesn't do things your way is having badwrongfun?

I'm torn, though, because providing a statistically equivalent Hill Giant (give or take it's size penalty to hit & AC, if D&D 3e), for the same rewards, is just as balanced as the Hill Giant itself.

It changes a few subtle things, like hide scores and knowledge:local vs knowledge:nature. But, most of all, it changes how internally consistent the underlying mechanics of the game are. It depends entirely on your group as to how important that last bit is. So I guess I'll fall back to my standby and say, "know your group".

Blaming the GM/players for "not getting it" is seeing someone trying to turn a bolt, and saying "you'd be better off pounding that nail with this hammer".

"hey, stop trying to hammer that nail with a socket wrench." I'm not saying that all cases of people not liking something is because of that. Because that would be stupid. People like different things, and that's awesome. But I've seen a great many cases where dislike of a system is due to trying to use a socket wrench like a hammer. Socket wrenches are great for turning bolts, and not very good for driving nails.

Thank y'all for continuing this analogy - I finally figured out what I wanted to say.

Sometimes, you see someone, screwdriver in hand, slowly twisting a nail. It's only natural to ask if they wouldn't rather hammer it in. Sometimes, they're only doing it because all they know is screws. But, sometimes, they're doing exactly what they intended to do, even if it makes no sense to those who only view nails as something to be hammered

You got me all excited about a game that's more fun per effort than D&D, until I read "3.5".

I'm sure I don't need to tell you, but if you ever find a system with greater return of fun per unit effort entered than old-school (pre-3e) D&D, let us know.

What is this a metephor for?

Life.

[ImNotTrevor]

On BRCRPG:
Calling it a good system would be the Oberoni Fallacy, which is itself a Non Sequiteur and self-destructing argument. Essentially:
Saying you can houserule out a problem with a system does not mean the problem doesn't exist.
Obviously it exists, because you're FIXING IT. If it didn't exist, you wouldn't fix it. Get it?

On Taste, with a side of Fight Me:
Stop wording personal opinion as fact
STOP WORDING PERSONAL OPINION AS FACT
STOP WORDING PERSONAL OPINION AS FACT
This thread has become lousy with it.

Whatever your taste in systems, fine. Whatever your predictions on how much you would like a system, sure. DON'T PISS IN SOMEONE ELSE'S WHEATIES ABOUT IT. The moment you, having never played a system, start spouting absolute truths about it, I'm going to stop listening to you for the same reason someone who has only ever read a lasagna recipe and never actually cooked it doesn't get to tell me all the faults in my lasagna when I've made it every Sunday for 5 years. Especially if they're going to word it as though their preferred method of fun is The One True Measuring Stick. They can shove it.

On Recommendations:

If someone recommends something you don't want to play, don't play it. Don't shoot them in the foot for trying to be helpful.

On 15 minute learning:
I got a kid from having never played a trpg before in his life to having a working understanding of Apocalypse World enough to jump into a campaign in its 3rd session, in 20 minutes. (This is accurate, I timed myself.) He's still playing 7 sessions later, and has caught up with the others on all the finer points.

What do I win?

[Drakevarg]

For me, whether or not the recommended system is good is completely irrelevant. I don't give a tuppenny tryst if it's the single best most universally flexible system that has ever or will ever be conceived by mortal minds. Do not offer me an answer to a question I didn't ask. I didn't ask for a new system. I do not want a new system. I want a solution to my problem within the parameters provided, nothing more or less.

[Lord Raziere]

Hrmm, here's a thought experiment for everybody.

Let's say I built a system, called BRCRPG. BRCRPG was a mess. Any test more complex than cooking an egg was resolved by following massive, skill-specific Flowcharts with a new roll at each step, the Magic system was so overpowered that spell casters were basically gods, "Balanced" by the fact that any time you cast a spell, you had a 1% chance of your heart exploding. An oddly large portion of the rulebook was dedicated to using Ships, and to top it all off, the system was very heavily based around the idea that you were playing as rebels fighting against an empire of evil vampires in my custom built, hyper-specific "Drowned World" setting, with substantial portions of the rulebook being dedicated to codifying the 12 different types of Vampires in the setting, with a sizable amount of character-options only working against a handful of different Vampire types.

The Rulebook is best used as a construction material, the system is borderline unplayable, and not worth anybody's time, even if "Rebels vs Vampires" is exactly your cup of tea.

But, let's say somebody read through this hypothetical monstrosity and realized that if you used the "Simple Task" resolutions for everything, got rid of all spells above 4th level, and just cut out everything to do with Vampires, you got a very good system for running low-magic swashbuckling high-seas adventure.


BRCRPG is a terrible system as written. But, if you know how to use it (By ignoring 85% of the rulebook) you can have a lot of fun with it.

Can we call BRCRPG a "Good System"?

No.

If it was a Good system, you wouldn't need to ignore a vast majority of it. You could just play. Its same the reason why people don't like a series where "it gets good at a certain later arc at like a hundred chapters in" and you have to slog through a bunch of considered bad before that: if the show was so good, why can't it be good NOW? if the system is so good, why isn't it good WITHOUT needing such a big overhaul.

because guess what, if a game tries to sell me on the premise and that it can competently do that, and this is a total lie, it doesn't matter if it can do this completely different thing that has nothing to do with the premise sold upon. It LIED, it wasted my time, it proved itself to be scrap. the fact that this scrap can be recycled into something useful, which if made into an rpg would be good, has nothing to do with this. I'm not talking about the game your creating from it, I'm talking about the game actually made.

[Cluedrew]

STOP WORDING PERSONAL OPINION AS FACT
This thread has become lousy with it.

In this thread, I think some people are doing it as a joke, pretending to be more confrontational than they really are. Not all of it, but some of it.

What do I win?

Unfortunately, very little. You already had my respect and there isn't much else I can give you on the forum.