1 hour ago, Popdart said:

I'm fine with minimal crunch when it comes to various settings and items as long as Genesys comes with enough tools for me to create my own. Generic systems sometimes have a habit of not giving players and GMs tools to customise and tinker and I sincerely hope that Genesys does not fall into that trap.

You think?

My observation is that generic systems generally try to cram so many options in and then the GM is unwilling to say "no, we're not using "these" options" and you end up with a rules bloated game with PCs all over the map in both power and theme.

40 minutes ago, Forgottenlore said:

You think?

My observation is that generic systems generally try to cram so many options in and then the GM is unwilling to say "no, we're not using "these" options" and you end up with a rules bloated game with PCs all over the map in both power and theme.

I realise that I was a bit vague so my apologies for that. What I meant to say was that generic systems don't really have many rules or ways to create your own options as either players or GMs. I agree that they tend to provide a lot of options to cover all of the various genres and the like but there tends to be minimal detail on ways to customise rules, create new enemy templates, create new character options, etc. I would much prefer a toolbox book as opposed to splatbook #27 with even more options because the bloat becomes just as ridiculous as you say.

35 minutes ago, Forgottenlore said:

You think?

My observation is that generic systems generally try to cram so many options in and then the GM is unwilling to say "no, we're not using "these" options" and you end up with a rules bloated game with PCs all over the map in both power and theme.

A GM who is not willing to to stick to his campaign restrictions and decides to allow rules/options he deems inappropriate is not a failing of the system. This is the same as having a party of 2nd level D&D characters all running around with +5 Swords of Dont Tough Cuz Its Really Sharp. Its is entirely a GM issue. I have a DM who created a low magic world using Pathfinder because he couldn't control the rate he handed out magic items and the players because OP very quickly. Instead of holding off on more magic items for a few levels, having them stolen, or using some other method to reclaim balance, he over over-reacted and removed almost all magic from the world. He generally has a problem with Power Munchkin players.

32 minutes ago, Popdart said:

I realise that I was a bit vague so my apologies for that. What I meant to say was that generic systems don't really have many rules or ways to create your own options as either players or GMs. I agree that they tend to provide a lot of options to cover all of the various genres and the like but there tends to be minimal detail on ways to customise rules, create new enemy templates, create new character options, etc. I would much prefer a toolbox book as opposed to splatbook #27 with even more options because the bloat becomes just as ridiculous as you say.

This hasn't been my experience with generic systems. Savage Worlds provides some nice systems and advice for creating your own content, and Fate has an entire book dedicated to modifying the system to suit your needs.

Plus we know Genesys is going to have advice for homebrew, that's been stated already.

1 hour ago, lyinggod said:

A GM who is not willing to to stick to his campaign restrictions and decides to allow rules/options he deems inappropriate is not a failing of the system. This is the same as having a party of 2nd level D&D characters all running around with +5 Swords of Dont Tough Cuz Its Really Sharp. Its is entirely a GM issue. I have a DM who created a low magic world using Pathfinder because he couldn't control the rate he handed out magic items and the players because OP very quickly. Instead of holding off on more magic items for a few levels, having them stolen, or using some other method to reclaim balance, he over over-reacted and removed almost all magic from the world. He generally has a problem with Power Munchkin players.

Never said otherwise. Just commented that generic systems, which tend to have lots of options, tend toward that sort of abuse.

10 hours ago, Forgottenlore said:

Never said otherwise. Just commented that generic systems, which tend to have lots of options, tend toward that sort of abuse.

In a way. The motions, the more ways to abuse the system, and as universal systems are trying to exist with enough options for multiple genres, they are easier to abuse. This is something HERO taught me. More so than in other games (like Pathfinder, D&D) GMs of universal systems have to say "No". Other games have a lot of "core" material that any player can easily be expected to use without issues, not so Universals, especially point based ones.

The Star Wars games seems much less capable of being abused even granting lots of options, I expect Genesys will be similar.

27 minutes ago, Lordmhoram said:

More so than in other games (like Pathfinder, D&D) GMs of universal systems have to say "No".

Exactly the point I was making.

1 hour ago, Lordmhoram said:

In a way. The motions, the more ways to abuse the system, and as universal systems are trying to exist with enough options for multiple genres, they are easier to abuse. This is something HERO taught me. More so than in other games (like Pathfinder, D&D) GMs of universal systems have to say "No". Other games have a lot of "core" material that any player can easily be expected to use without issues, not so Universals, especially point based ones.

The Star Wars games seems much less capable of being abused even granting lots of options, I expect Genesys will be similar.

1 hour ago, Forgottenlore said:

Exactly the point I was making.

On the other hand, many of the generic systems, including Genesys with its funky dice, are now better than ever at allowing the GM to say "Yes" or "Yes, but..." to whatever crazy action the player suggests their PC wants to do. If you're going for a cinematic feel, there's nothing worse than a game that sets characters on narrowly defined rails and punishes them when they try to do something unusual, flatly interpreting a failed check as "you failed".

3 hours ago, Dragonshadow said:

On the other hand, many of the generic systems, including Genesys with its funky dice, are now better than ever at allowing the GM to say "Yes" or "Yes, but..." to whatever crazy action the player suggests their PC wants to do. If you're going for a cinematic feel, there's nothing worse than a game that sets characters on narrowly defined rails and punishes them when they try to do something unusual, flatly interpreting a failed check as "you failed".

Agreed. I was mostly talking about campaign set up and character design. If the GM is planning for a medium damage cap in HERO (say 10d6), and someone comes in with an 18d6 attack the GM says "no".

4 hours ago, Forgottenlore said:

Exactly the point I was making.

That is what I though, I was expanding on it.

To the question posed by the OP - consider this: a very simple trap that, when a tripwire is broken, fires a burst of fire at the doorway. Player wants to disable it.

d20: DC is 18 because it's poorly lit. Player has a +6 bonus, and could be called pretty skilled. Confident, therefore, at passing the check. Rolls an 11. Not enough, eat fire.

Narrative Dice: It's a daunting check with a setback. Roguelike PC has 2 greens 2 yellows in skulduggery, and a boost dice from a previous check. Fails with 3 advantage.

OR

d20: player rolls a 15! With their +6, the trap is disarmed. Move along.

Narrative Dice: 3 success, 2 advantage, 1 despair...

This is not withstanding creatures they may meet and interact with, or anything else inherent to the system. It's just pointing out that a deeper axis of resolution has so many more options for players and GM alike.

Actually on reflection - think of the start of Raiders of the Lost Ark. Indy fails the perception check, but gets advantage which means he doesn't avoid the spiders, but Satipo spots them on his back and he can deal with them. Satipo fails his coordination check but gets a triumph, as he tries to swing across the ravine. Indy then gets a failure with triumph and despair on his archaegology/knowledge/lore check, regarding the exact weight of the sand, meaning he gets a boost when dodging the traps on his way out (and maybe a round or 2 delay on the trap going off).

If you think in those cinematic terms, rather than classic D&D dungeon hack, you get a sense for how this system supports dungeon crawls narratively.

4 hours ago, Endersai said:

Actually on reflection - think of the start of Raiders of the Lost Ark. Indy fails the perception check, but gets advantage which means he doesn't avoid the spiders, but Satipo spots them on his back and he can deal with them. Satipo fails his coordination check but gets a triumph, as he tries to swing across the ravine. Indy then gets a failure with triumph and despair on his archaegology/knowledge/lore check, regarding the exact weight of the sand, meaning he gets a boost when dodging the traps on his way out (and maybe a round or 2 delay on the trap going off).

If you think in those cinematic terms, rather than classic D&D dungeon hack, you get a sense for how this system supports dungeon crawls narratively.

Great examples! I think classicla dungeon crawling wise, the narrative dice will fit the bill quite nicely.