What is your "Fight Me" thread?

[ImNotTrevor]

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.

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

I get thr opinion as fact thing inasfar as listing pet peeves. That much I understand.

It's the BS in the off-topic discussion that has attracted my ire.

[2D8HP]

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..

Will do.

The closest , in being fun to play, have been (in order)

Pendragon,

Traveller (1977 rules)

WotC "5e" Dungeons & Dragons,

Car Wars, and

RuneQuest (1978 rules)

Other games I don't think I played enough of to tell (MERP/Rolemaster, Shadowrun, and The Fantasy Trip), or just didn't come close (Champions, Cyberpunk, and Vampire).

The easiest to Gamemaster (or "Keeper") successfully (players said they liked it) was Call of Cthullu, but that may be because I really "phoned it in", whereas I put more prep into D&D.

Traveller was more work for me than CoC, but a little less work than D&D.

Strangely the most successful games I GM'd (or "Administered") was my very half-assed version of "Top Secret", perhaps because my players really liked pretending to shoot firearms, which I just didn't see the joy of.

Basically the less engaged as a GM' I was, the more my players liked it.

[Max_Killjoy]

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?

Please do.

[BRC]

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.

I agree. BRCRPG-Lite might be a good game, but it's not the same game. If the game doesn't become fun until you rebuild it, it's not a good game.

Okay, now, let's alter the premise.

I have made BRCRPG 2nd Edition, in order to better carry across my vision of the premier vampire-fighting RPG.
BRCRPG is, once again, a huge mess of a book. Every editor that I brought it to scooped their own eyeballs out halfway through. The rules are an incomprehensible tangle of different systems for difference scenarios, I use Dice for combat, playing cards for social checks, and a Dread-style Jenga tower for Magic.

But, somehow, through bribery, threats, or blackmail I somehow get you to agree to play it.

The first session is a total mess, the game is absolutely miserable.

The second session is hardly much better.

The third session, you've gotten enough hang of the mechanics to actually start playing.

By the Fourth session, you're actually having a ton of fun! The different systems all make sense for what they're modeling, switching around like it does makes gameplay feel new and fresh, and that Jenga tower gives each spell cast a Thrilling sense of Danger.

From the Fifth session onwards, you're slaying vampires and rousing rabble and having a great time doing it. You barely ever need to consult the Rulebook anymore (Which is good, because it's still miserable).

In the end, it's fun. But it takes more work to learn the 2nd edition than it did to modify the 1st edition.

Is BRCRPG 2E a good game? If so, why is it a good game while the 1st edition was not? Both games require effort to be put in before they become fun.

[Guizonde]

reading the last two pages or so, i figured out another pet peeve:

i don't care if i'm playing a complicated (by my standards) game, so long as the manual is user-friendly. you know why i never tried the discworld rpg? despite having content that i'm sure i'd enjoy, the way it's written in french makes it seem byzantine to use. part of that is due to the following:

-i never played a gurps game.
-i never had someone explain to me a gurps game.
-the manual was written by a math phd wannabe.
-the translation was done by an académie française reject.
-"ergonomics" is clearly a bad word by whoever is guilty of the last two points.

i played 3.5 for years, never liking the d20 mechanic or the bookkeeping, but i kept at it because the dm and team made playing it fun and, if not brainless, at least much less challenging (keep in mind most house-rules concerned fluff or spell descriptions. we were playing by the book otherwise).

i ran a pf module, and it was too much work for me. i tried paring it down to the barest minimum, but nope, i didn't enjoy it.

i'm now playing again pf. team's good, dm's really good, there are newbies and veterans, most are having fun (except the ones playing over skype, but that's due to logistics, not the game). hell, the pf phb is legible!

would i play pf or gurps on my own? probably not. if someone dumbed down the language involved in those hard to read manuals, hell yes i would, even if to say "at least i tried".

final point: ergonomics matter much more than people think on these boards, and a complicated writing style can deter veterans, so imagine for newbies! are we trying to have fun or are we trying to pass off as elitists?

[Lord Raziere]

Easy Answer:

BRCRPG 2e is not a good game, because I wouldn't go that far for it, I don't have the time for that. I don't see the difference other than the fact that someone tried to force me to play it, and I would quit the game if they did. three different resolution systems? using cards, jenga AND dice? too much set up, and if the entire point is to avoid the rulebook at the end, then whats the point of learning it in the first place? you gave three sessions of miserableness for two sessions of fun. thats not good fun output. its sounds real over-designed, just not worth it.

[RazorChain]

I agree. BRCRPG-Lite might be a good game, but it's not the same game. If the game doesn't become fun until you rebuild it, it's not a good game.

Okay, now, let's alter the premise.

I have made BRCRPG 2nd Edition, in order to better carry across my vision of the premier vampire-fighting RPG.
BRCRPG is, once again, a huge mess of a book. Every editor that I brought it to scooped their own eyeballs out halfway through. The rules are an incomprehensible tangle of different systems for difference scenarios, I use Dice for combat, playing cards for social checks, and a Dread-style Jenga tower for Magic.

But, somehow, through bribery, threats, or blackmail I somehow get you to agree to play it.

The first session is a total mess, the game is absolutely miserable.

The second session is hardly much better.

The third session, you've gotten enough hang of the mechanics to actually start playing.

By the Fourth session, you're actually having a ton of fun! The different systems all make sense for what they're modeling, switching around like it does makes gameplay feel new and fresh, and that Jenga tower gives each spell cast a Thrilling sense of Danger.

From the Fifth session onwards, you're slaying vampires and rousing rabble and having a great time doing it. You barely ever need to consult the Rulebook anymore (Which is good, because it's still miserable).

In the end, it's fun. But it takes more work to learn the 2nd edition than it did to modify the 1st edition.

Is BRCRPG 2E a good game? If so, why is it a good game while the 1st edition was not? Both games require effort to be put in before they become fun.

No it's still not a good system. I can have a lot of fun with my friends and have just by freeforming with a single dice. We spun some great adventures and had fun.

In my not so humble opinion: SYSTEM MATTERS THE LEAST. What is matters more is good players and a good GM. If you give the choice of bad players, bad GM or a bad system then I'll choose the bad system every single time.

Bad system is the easiest to work around and have fun despite it.

[2D8HP]

Is BRCRPG 2E a good game? If so, why is it a good game while the 1st edition was not? Both games require effort to be put in before they become fun.

Of the three BRC games, my choice would be 1e BRCRPG "light", a far distant choice would be 2e BRCRPG, and I wouldn't play BRCRPG 1e "heavy".

Ironically, I'm mapping the games to thosd I'm familiar with, and while not quite the same, the one I reject based on your description, is a metephor for the game that bar-none was the most fun for me to play.

The confusing mess of 1e BRCRPG "heavy" is 0e Dungeons & Dragons with the Blackmoor and Eldrich Wizardry TSR supplements, and the All the World's Monster's, and Arduin Grimoires third party books (but without Greyhawk), which was my first FRP I played (thankfully the DM had Greyhawk) and actually the most fun, 1e BRCRPG "light" corresponds to the 1977 Holmes bluebook Basic rules, and 2e BRCRPG is AD&D in your metephor.
All proved to be pretty dang fun, but there was a learner curve.

---

No it's still not a good system. I can have a lot of fun with my friends and have just by freeforming with a single dice. We spun some great adventures and had fun.

In my not so humble opinion: SYSTEM MATTERS THE LEAST. What is matters more is good players and a good GM..

Very true, but it's much harder to rant about.finding good folks.

[Lacuna Caster]

What is matters more is good players and a good GM. If you give the choice of bad players, bad GM or a bad system then I'll choose the bad system every single time.

You may be overlooking the extent to which bad systems can actively cultivate bad GM-ing and play practices. (In part because what counts as 'bad play' under one system may be entirely healthy and encouraged under another. To give but one example, many games burden the GM with at least one impossible task. Polaris, by contrast, doesn't even have a GM.)

[Cluedrew]

Is BRCRPG 2E a good game? If so, why is it a good game while the 1st edition was not? Both games require effort to be put in before they become fun.

You could consider BRCRPG 2e a good game with high complexity and a long start up. A good game is just one that people can enjoy, and people seem to be enjoying this. It would definitely be worth improving so you can learn how to play it much faster.

BRCRPG 1e I don't think is a good game, because you have to turn it into a different game, BRCPRC Lite, for it to be fun.

[Quertus]

The moment you, having never played a system, start spouting absolute truths about it, I'm going to stop listening to you

Well, I don't need to have played d20 CoX (is there such a thing?) to utter a statement like, "the clowns* I play with would never keep such a round die on the table. We'd lose half our time to retrieving dice, and nobody would retain immersion. I need a game whose resolution mechanic involves nice, square dice, if it involves dice at all." And I doubt one needs to play FATAL to run away screaming, gouging their eyes out while begging for the merciful embrace of the Great Old Ones.

* this comment is for illustrative purposes only. any resemblance to people I've played with, past or future, is purely coincidental.

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.

As a software developer, let me just say, in my professional experience, sometimes the customer understands what they need, and sometimes they don't. That's in no small part what business analysts are for.

And, on a forum, such advice, while ostensibly for the OP, will likely be read by many lurkers with perhaps only superficially similar needs, some of whom may actually want the proffered system.

[Max_Killjoy]

You may be overlooking the extent to which bad systems can actively cultivate bad GM-ing and play practices. (In part because what counts as 'bad play' under one system may be entirely healthy and encouraged under another. To give but one example, many games burden the GM with at least one impossible task. Polaris, by contrast, doesn't even have a GM.)

As an aside, that impossible task is why I've long said that RPG story isn't like authorial fiction -- RPG story is emergent in play. For me, the GM isn't plotting a story, they're laying out what the NPCs are trying to accomplish and how that all might work out if the PCs weren't involved, and then handling the actions and reactions and interactions of the NPCs, etc. Thus, character-driven, not story-driven... and part of why I react so strongly against assertions that character "belongs to" story.

Others' mileage may vary.

EDIT: reading the article in detail, it would appear that my desired approach comes closest to the "bass player" resolution, but with the initial setup including some "inertia" as to what will happen if the PCs do not somehow actively (intentionally or not) change the course of events.

Well, I don't need to have played d20 CoX (is there such a thing?) to utter a statement like, "the clowns* I play with would never keep such a round die on the table. We'd lose half our time to retrieving dice, and nobody would retain immersion. I need a game whose resolution mechanic involves nice, square dice, if it involves dice at all." And I doubt one needs to play FATAL to run away screaming, gouging their eyes out while begging for the merciful embrace of the Great Old Ones.

* this comment is for illustrative purposes only. any resemblance to people I've played with, past or future, is purely coincidental.

Indeed, the idea that you can't judge a system (or setting) until you've actually played it and experienced every nuance first-hand... is total bunk.

[1337 b4k4]

As a software developer, let me just say, in my professional experience, sometimes the customer understands what they need, and sometimes they don't. That's in no small part what business analysts are for.

As a software developer surely you also are quite familiar with the pain though as well? It's almost a law of the internet that if you post a question online for how to do something with a piece of software, inevitably one of the first answers will be about how you don't want to do what you're doing and you should use a completely different software product entirely. Which while possibly true is also completely unhelpful if requirements dictate you use the software you are using. (e.g. Until the libre-office folks fixed it around 2013-2014, the standard answer from the open office support boards for "how do I open an excel spreadsheet with more than 64k rows" {a feature of excel since 2003} was "you shouldn't be using a spreadsheet for that much data, you should use a database")

Likewise sometimes you're limited to certain systems because you don't have players or gms willing or able to switch

[Actana]

Indeed, the idea that you can't judge a system (or setting) until you've actually played it and experienced every nuance first-hand... is total bunk.

It's not total bunk. Yes, you can form opinions on many different kinds of systems just by reading them, and you can absolutely form opinions on whether or not you might like the system to begin with, but there are many kinds of systems which open up in unexpected ways. Something that might not seem logical or intuitive might well be so in practice because of how the game works in play. That's not to say every game needs to be tested in order to know how everything works, but for games that operate in ways you haven't tried it is absolutely beneficial to test them before making a final verdict. First impressions and reading a system only go so far. When reading it's easy to miss things that are meant to be experienced and used in practice.

Generally speaking it often comes down to being able to form opinions on a game based on the similarities with other systems. It's easy to have an idea on whether or not a d20 knockoff is good because the core functionalities of the system is the same as those dozen other d20 systems you might have played. But that expertise is not necessarily compatible with other systems, like Burning Wheel. It's difficult to form a basis on whether or not BW is good if you only have experience in d20 games. In the end, the more games you play the better you can appraise systems you've never experienced before. But it's still never a guarantee that you can form an accurate impression of how well or badly it plays.

It goes the other way as well. You might read a system and really like it, but once you start to play it turns out that it wasn't all that great. That's certainly happened for me. I see no reason the opposite would be impossible.

[BRC]

Alright, final variant of this thought experiment.

I come out with BRCRPG 3e, and this time, by some miracle, it's actually playable. You can sit down with a new group and within 30 minutes be having a blast fighting vampires on the streets of revolutionary Paris. The rules are intuitive and innovative, I've gotten rid of the Jenga tower, the Rulebook is readable and well-formatted, all that good stuff.
The system is great! If you want to hunt vampires and navigate revolutionary politics in Paris 1793. There's a pre-suggested campaign path, starting by defending a kindly priest from and angry mob, and ending with exposing Robespierre as a vampire and cutting his head off. Support for anything outside this campaign, or even advice on how to run games that don't follow the general structure already provided, is slim. I provide exactly the enemy and NPC statblocks you'll need for the sample campaign, with limited support for making your own.

For the sake of this argument, while you may be down for late 18th century Vampire hunting, the system is so specific that it's not really what you, or anybody you know, would be looking for in a Game. You could adapt it, make it what you want, but doing so means extra effort homebrewing new enemies and altering various systems to work in places that are not Paris circa 1793. While BRCRPG 3e may be fun while played as intended, it would take about as much effort to make it the game you'd want as it was to convert BRCRPG 1e to BRCRPG Lite.

Is BRCRPG 3e a Good Game?

[Max_Killjoy]

It's not total bunk. Yes, you can form opinions on many different kinds of systems just by reading them, and you can absolutely form opinions on whether or not you might like the system to begin with, but there are many kinds of systems which open up in unexpected ways. Something that might not seem logical or intuitive might well be so in practice because of how the game works in play. That's not to say every game needs to be tested in order to know how everything works, but for games that operate in ways you haven't tried it is absolutely beneficial to test them before making a final verdict. First impressions and reading a system only go so far. When reading it's easy to miss things that are meant to be experienced and used in practice.

Generally speaking it often comes down to being able to form opinions on a game based on the similarities with other systems. It's easy to have an idea on whether or not a d20 knockoff is good because the core functionalities of the system is the same as those dozen other d20 systems you might have played. But that expertise is not necessarily compatible with other systems, like Burning Wheel. It's difficult to form a basis on whether or not BW is good if you only have experience in d20 games. In the end, the more games you play the better you can appraise systems you've never experienced before. But it's still never a guarantee that you can form an accurate impression of how well or badly it plays.

It goes the other way as well. You might read a system and really like it, but once you start to play it turns out that it wasn't all that great. That's certainly happened for me. I see no reason the opposite would be impossible.

It's very easy to identify "poison pills" in new systems, however. For me, certain mechanics / assumptions I know I won't like based on experience and analysis are readily apparent.

Predicting that I'll like a system isn't as easy... but I can tell without doubt that I will not like a system.

[2D8HP]

...BRCRPG 3e may be fun while played as intended, it would take about as much effort to make it the game you'd want as it was to convert BRCRPG 1e to BRCRPG Lite.

Is BRCRPG 3e a Good Game?

BRCRPG 3e sounds like a good short term, or "once-in-a-while" game, short of like Paranoia and some board games.

[Lord Raziere]

Alright, final variant of this thought experiment.

I come out with BRCRPG 3e, and this time, by some miracle, it's actually playable. You can sit down with a new group and within 30 minutes be having a blast fighting vampires on the streets of revolutionary Paris. The rules are intuitive and innovative, I've gotten rid of the Jenga tower, the Rulebook is readable and well-formatted, all that good stuff.
The system is great! If you want to hunt vampires and navigate revolutionary politics in Paris 1793. There's a pre-suggested campaign path, starting by defending a kindly priest from and angry mob, and ending with exposing Robespierre as a vampire and cutting his head off. Support for anything outside this campaign, or even advice on how to run games that don't follow the general structure already provided, is slim. I provide exactly the enemy and NPC statblocks you'll need for the sample campaign, with limited support for making your own.

For the sake of this argument, while you may be down for late 18th century Vampire hunting, the system is so specific that it's not really what you, or anybody you know, would be looking for in a Game. You could adapt it, make it what you want, but doing so means extra effort homebrewing new enemies and altering various systems to work in places that are not Paris circa 1793. While BRCRPG 3e may be fun while played as intended, it would take about as much effort to make it the game you'd want as it was to convert BRCRPG 1e to BRCRPG Lite.

Is BRCRPG 3e a Good Game?

Yes. It does what its intended to do. If you want something more, find something that does what is intended do more while still being innovative, intuitive and so on. Duh.

[kyoryu]

You may be overlooking the extent to which bad systems can actively cultivate bad GM-ing and play practices. (In part because what counts as 'bad play' under one system may be entirely healthy and encouraged under another. To give but one example, many games burden the GM with at least one impossible task. Polaris, by contrast, doesn't even have a GM.)

Interesting article.

Most readers will agree that in a standard role playing game, the referee, or game master, has complete control over the story, and that the character players have complete control over their characters, who are the main characters in the story.

I don't. I started with sandbox play, in which there is little "story", and now also play more story-like games that offer player freedom ("bass-playing", per the article).

I also see little reason to differentiate between participationism and trailblazing per the article.

But the primary issue that creates the "impossible thing" is reconciling the idea of playing a game that is a "story" with the amount of prep that must be done. We're still working on figuring that out, really.

[Quertus]

Indeed, the idea that you can't judge a system (or setting) until you've actually played it and experienced every nuance first-hand... is total bunk.

You can judge some things, but perhaps not always others. But, for that matter, you can misjudge some things from only playing with a single group. Giving a system a fair shake is hard.

But, yes, it's easy to say things like, "I don't think I'll like this game where you score points based on how many and which women you rape" without having played it.

As a software developer surely you also are quite familiar with the pain though as well?

Likewise sometimes you're limited to certain systems because you don't have players or gms willing or able to switch

Yes, but I don't view it as pain. If I really want to know about X, and only X, I'll ask experts on X. And even they will sometimes say, "WTF do you think you're doing?! Don't use X for this!" Good times.

This is when you attempt to renegotiate government contracts, or prepare for lots of long nights.

Sometimes, it's less work to try to get your players / GM to play a new system.

[Amphetryon]

It's very easy to identify "poison pills" in new systems, however. For me, certain mechanics / assumptions I know I won't like based on experience and analysis are readily apparent.

Predicting that I'll like a system isn't as easy... but I can tell without doubt that I will not like a system.

This is entirely an aside:

Is there a system that you like (not just are willing to put up with)? I'm honestly curious, having read many of your posts. I can't recall one appeared to actually like.

[Quertus]

Interesting article.



I don't. I started with sandbox play, in which there is little "story", and now also play more story-like games that offer player freedom ("bass-playing", per the article).

I also see little reason to differentiate between participationism and trailblazing per the article.

But the primary issue that creates the "impossible thing" is reconciling the idea of playing a game that is a "story" with the amount of prep that must be done. We're still working on figuring that out, really.

I'll third the bass playing, although, for me, it's "set up a bunch of stories running in the background; the players may never see all (or, I suppose, any) of them - their story us what they make it". Kinda reverse bass, I suppose - I'm playing a bunch of melodies, they play their bass however they want?

IMO, the difference between participationism and trailblazing is that, in the former, you're on the rails; in the latter, you're free to roam, but you recognize that you lose the game if you lose sight of the rails and can't get back to them. In one, you're a rail cart, and that's what you signed on for. In the other, you're an electric car with a limited battery, and you're hoping your battery doesn't run out in the middle of Jurassic Park you don't get too deep in the woods before your headlights die (I can't quite get the symbolism right here).

Have you ever played a game where you agreed to the rails*? Where, say, the GM was running a module, and you knew there was an "expected" destination? But the GM let you do pretty much whatever as you tried to figure out where the middle wanted you to go? That's trailblazing, as I read it.

In P~, the GM is still reading you a story, you're firmly on the rails, but you can paint your rail car whatever color you like.

Or, another (easier?) way to look at is, in P~, it's the GM's responsibility to keep the story on the rails. In trailblazing, it's the player's responsibility to find the rails.

* this speaks to my biases, as trailblazing is what I call "agreeing to the rails".

[Max_Killjoy]

This is entirely an aside:

Is there a system that you like (not just are willing to put up with)? I'm honestly curious, having read many of your posts. I can't recall one appeared to actually like.

I liked WEG d6 Star Wars (especially as it grew up, added "scales", etc) in a lot of ways, but looking back, additive dice pools are hard to balance.

I liked oWoD Vampire and Werewolf, but that was more about the group and the characters and so on, the system in retrospect is mediocre.

There was a homebrew d100 system with brackets of 20 that amounted to degrees of success, that I really liked for a lot of reasons and did a lot of mathematical work on for the designer, but it had some baggage from older d100 systems and a lot of overhead and would have benefited from a curved probability.

The new D6³ system as used in the Planet Mercenary RPG has several things going for it, it's solid and smooth and fast... but I find it kinda specific to that setting and it's up in the air if it would handle other settings or genres well, that remains to be seen.

I liked HERO 4th/5th in a lot of ways, but it really doesn't handle "normal people" scale well, with little variation... average and "best" are crammed into a very small space when you're not getting into the superheroic part of the scale. I'm a firm supporter of levelless, classless, point-based design. If I were going to start anywhere, I'd start here, but for a non-superheroic system I'd change the dice scale, change the math on skill rolls and combat values, and go from the segment/phase system to an action-point system.

[Aran nu tasar]

Alright, final variant of this thought experiment.

I come out with BRCRPG 3e, and this time, by some miracle, it's actually playable. You can sit down with a new group and within 30 minutes be having a blast fighting vampires on the streets of revolutionary Paris. The rules are intuitive and innovative, I've gotten rid of the Jenga tower, the Rulebook is readable and well-formatted, all that good stuff.
The system is great! If you want to hunt vampires and navigate revolutionary politics in Paris 1793. There's a pre-suggested campaign path, starting by defending a kindly priest from and angry mob, and ending with exposing Robespierre as a vampire and cutting his head off. Support for anything outside this campaign, or even advice on how to run games that don't follow the general structure already provided, is slim. I provide exactly the enemy and NPC statblocks you'll need for the sample campaign, with limited support for making your own.

For the sake of this argument, while you may be down for late 18th century Vampire hunting, the system is so specific that it's not really what you, or anybody you know, would be looking for in a Game. You could adapt it, make it what you want, but doing so means extra effort homebrewing new enemies and altering various systems to work in places that are not Paris circa 1793. While BRCRPG 3e may be fun while played as intended, it would take about as much effort to make it the game you'd want as it was to convert BRCRPG 1e to BRCRPG Lite.

Is BRCRPG 3e a Good Game?

Absolutely. It may not be a game that fits your needs, or the needs of your friends, but if what it tries to do is be the best plot-linear Paris 1793 vampire hunting thriller game possible, and it succeeds, then yeah it is a good game. It achieves what it tries to do, and if you are willing to take the game on its own terms, it is excellent.

A non-hypothetical example of this would be Sagas of the Icelanders, a game which I've read through but unfortunately never gotten a chance to play. If you want a game about gender roles in ~874 Iceland, Sagas has got you covered brilliantly. It's got mechanics that hard-code gender roles into the game, it's got mechanics that drive drama between characters, it's a great game. But if you want to play anything other than a game about gender roles in ~874 Iceland, it can't help you. If you wanted to play, say, a game set in ~874 Iceland about heroic, larger-than-life warriors battling against an army of giants, Sagas of the Icelanders would be rubbish at it. It's an extremely focused game.

Similarly, Montsegur 1244 is a game about the 1244 siege of Montsegur, and more specifically about the crises of faith that the inhabitants encountered. It's not a game about anything else at all; trying to houserule it to cover other things would be nigh-impossible. I haven't read or played it, so I can't make any judgments about quality (although it gets rave reviews from the story games crowd), but it is another example of a similarly hyper-focused game.

Does that level of focus make a game bad? Not at all. It means that its audience is extremely limited (there's a reason why such focus is way more common in indie games rather than large companies) but if you are the target audience, a game like BRCRPG 3e (or Sagas, or Montsegur, or any number of hyperfocused indies) would be exactly what you wanted.

[Drakevarg]

I'll third the bass playing, although, for me, it's "set up a bunch of stories running in the background; the players may never see all (or, I suppose, any) of them - their story us what they make it". Kinda reverse bass, I suppose - I'm playing a bunch of melodies, they play their bass however they want?

This is more or less how I've always run my games, and it's honestly never really occurred to me to do different. I can try to funnel the party in certain directions, but a PC determined to get off the rails will and it's always struck me as unfair to flatly say 'no,' or simply put thousands of miles of empty sandbox in every direction outside of the prewritten scenario until they give up and go back. It's basically narrative sulking. That said, I also do something akin to trailblazing simply out of necessity - there's something of a semi-unstated gentlemen's agreement around the table that while the players are free to act as they wish, it's in poor manners to deviate too harshly from the scenario offered to them. There's only so much a DM can prep for in a week and if the party simply decides to skip the next three villages they pass without so much as stopping for the night then they have no one to blame but themselves when the DM runs out of material.

[Max_Killjoy]

That image is how GMing felt for the old group some nights... improvising and laying out new details and NPC actions just ahead of the PCs' never-ending mad onward rush into the unknown. I think that's part of where my obsessive urge to worldbuild expansively comes from in part... wanting to never be caught in an "um..." moment or a self-contradiction ever again.

[halfeye]

What about using a hammer to hammer screws, when there are screwdrivers around?

[kyoryu]

In P~, the GM is still reading you a story, you're firmly on the rails, but you can paint your rail car whatever color you like.

Or, another (easier?) way to look at is, in P~, it's the GM's responsibility to keep the story on the rails. In trailblazing, it's the player's responsibility to find the rails.

I see little practical difference. Few games are so entirely structured that the GM says "this happens, and this happens, and this happens." Realistically, there's always *some* level of choice - even in DragonLance! In both P~ and trailblazing, you've got the same setup - the players know there are rails, the GM sets up what will happen, and the players basically work along with the rails.

Compare that to the significant differences with illusionism (players are unaware of the rails) or sandboxing (no story, so no rails) or bass-playing (the players drive the story, so no rails), and the differences between the two are minor, if any.

To make an analogy, few games are actually "railroads". They're more like the car ride at Disneyland - the car has a rail it travels on, but there's guides that keep it on the rail. You can go left and right a certain amount, but are ultimately constrained by the rail. The destination is never in question.

The difference between participationism and trailblazing is only the width of the guides.

[ImNotTrevor]

It's very easy to identify "poison pills" in new systems, however. For me, certain mechanics / assumptions I know I won't like based on experience and analysis are readily apparent.

Predicting that I'll like a system isn't as easy... but I can tell without doubt that I will not like a system.

This is not the assertion that has been put forward.

The issue comes with saying things like "this is how this rule operates" without having played or "this os what this rule causes to happen."

Saying "I would not like this" is not stating a universal truth. That's an opinion.

The fact that this is the person having trouble differentiating the two concepts (fact vs opinion) is somehow entirely unsurprising.

[Max_Killjoy]

I see little practical difference. Few games are so entirely structured that the GM says "this happens, and this happens, and this happens." Realistically, there's always *some* level of choice - even in DragonLance! In both P~ and trailblazing, you've got the same setup - the players know there are rails, the GM sets up what will happen, and the players basically work along with the rails.

Compare that to the significant differences with illusionism (players are unaware of the rails) or sandboxing (no story, so no rails) or bass-playing (the players drive the story, so no rails), and the differences between the two are minor, if any.

To make an analogy, few games are actually "railroads". They're more like the car ride at Disneyland - the car has a rail it travels on, but there's guides that keep it on the rail. You can go left and right a certain amount, but are ultimately constrained by the rail. The destination is never in question.

The difference between participationism and trailblazing is only the width of the guides.

Indeed.

If the story can only proceed while the PCs are following the pre-laid rails, then the only difference is that in "trailblazing", there's an faux moral burden assigned to the players to find and follow the rails. The rails still exist, and they're still laid down by the GM. While I didn't have a name for it at the time, I've seen this happen, with the GM telling the players "You're the ones who decided to not follow the breadcrumbs and just wander around the town for three weeks of in-character time." when the players complained that they'd missed any chance to avert the impending disaster...

Only, if there was an impending disaster and the entire game was based on it, then the GM needed to do something to get this across to the players, something more dire than breadcrumbs in a faux sandbox.