4 hours ago, BigKahuna said:

Yeah, I think your missing the point here.

The main difference between a purely narrative game and a crunchy one is that in a crunchy one you can ignore the rules at any time and go narrative, in a narrative system there are no rules when you want to go crunchy. One has options, the other has none.

This argument that a crunchy system is not narrative is pretty ridiculous.

Adding rules to an RPG is not optional, its a requirement for it to qualify for it actually being an RPG. Having rules, is not some sort of obsticale to role-playing, but not having rules IS an obsticale to it being a game. RPG's are both, a role-playing experiance and a game.

Ehhh... I mean lets look at pathfinder, probably the crunchiest game I know, and also one of the worst designed. While there is a lot there to play with, your just lying to your players if you try to drop the rules and pretend the fighter is even useful to have in the same party as the wizard or druid after a few levels. But in A FATE powered game you can legitimately play green arrow having the same narrative weight as superman.

One of big hopes for this new edition, actually. A sharp turn down of monk and shugenja power levels, or a sharp turn up in bushi and courtier power.

I like crunchy systems, but only if certain options are not intentionally hobbled compared to others.

34 minutes ago, mortthepirate said:

Ehhh... I mean lets look at pathfinder, probably the crunchiest game I know, and also one of the worst designed. While there is a lot there to play with, your just lying to your players if you try to drop the rules and pretend the fighter is even useful to have in the same party as the wizard or druid after a few levels. But in A FATE powered game you can legitimately play green arrow having the same narrative weight as superman.

One of big hopes for this new edition, actually. A sharp turn down of monk and shugenja power levels, or a sharp turn up in bushi and courtier power.

I like crunchy systems, but only if certain options are not intentionally hobbled compared to others.

Pathfinder the worst system designed? Your joking right? I hope your stating that as an opinion, not a fact because the fact is that its based on a 10+ year old system and its still, right now, today, second only to 5e D&D in sales. It remains the most played game on Roll20 and Fantasy Grounds, again second only to D&D 5e. If its so poorly designed why are so many people still playing it given, what I guess your suggesting are better options?

Legend of the Five Rings is best served by the narrative dice system in my opinion, but I do hope they recognize that it can't just be Star Wars Edge of the Empire Asian Fantasy. It needs to be specific and I think in large part why games like D&D5e, Pathfinder, Star Wars, Adventures in Middle Earth and Shadowrun lead the industry is because they are specifically designed systems for the genre, theme and style. D&D is a very specific type of fantasy.. Star Wars is a very specific type of science-fiction, you can't just cookie-cut it. My hope is that FFG recognizes that Edge of Empire as a system in anything other then Star Wars would be awful, it works for Star Wars because the cinematic style of world matches the cinematic style of the system that supports it.

So here is hoping FFG does their research!

Worst designed, yes. Dnd 3.5 got (which pathfinder is built upon) exploded because it was 1) dnd and 2) was the edition released just as the internet was really blowing up.

Quality has little to do with popularity. Pathfinder has grossly mismatched classes, a terrible skill system, and player options that were INTENTIONALLY designed to be traps and bad decisions because the main developer liked ccgs at the time and didn't understand the differences between a constantly changing pool of cards and a static unchanging character sheet.

But it had dnd on the cover, so it had name recognition (which is hugely important).

And people still play it because people hate change. Look how many people are freaking out about losing the roll and keep system for l5r. I mean, dnd 5th edition is built solely on the basis of emotional nostalgia (does this FEEL like dnd was their primary goal, after all. Whatever that means. )

To me, my entire class role (fighter) can be totally fulfilled by just one of another classes simple class features (a wizards summon spell)... that seems like petty piss poor design.

I loved old 1E OA, I have such fond memories of that game. I was like 13 or 14 when I got it, I think, [85 was it?] and it was the game that really stretched me as a gamer in a role-playing sense with the honor system, proficiencies etc. I never played 3E OA, although I've been a Palladium Rifts gamer for many years and Rifts Japan has been a favorite setting for me. Anyways I've been starving for a good Mystical Oriental RPG, I am sooooooo pumped for this. Wooohoooo!

Re: Pathfinder and D&D 3+

It is worth mentioning that in AD&D/2nd edition, as the levels progressed, the balance between Fighter and Wizard was; while Wizards got better spells? Fighters amassed whole armies of followers. This was the balance between the two classes. Unfortunately, this balance was ignored and thrown out the window with the D20/3.5 edition(s).

3 hours ago, Jennkryst said:

Re: Pathfinder and D&D 3+

It is worth mentioning that in AD&D/2nd edition, as the levels progressed, the balance between Fighter and Wizard was; while Wizards got better spells? Fighters amassed whole armies of followers. This was the balance between the two classes. Unfortunately, this balance was ignored and thrown out the window with the D20/3.5 edition(s).

I had no idea this was a thing. I never played a dnd edition older than 3rd. This is interesting

Can I just make an assesement here, I'm not trying to insult anyone here but I have been playing RPG's since I was 10, I'm 42, I have spent most of that time as a GM. My experiance in gaming in that time has been that the overwhelming majority of people, GM's and players alike have terrible RPG experiances and suffer from what I like to call RPG-PTSD.

Whenever I'm cultivating a new group or bringing in players to a group I have already cultivated I would say 80-90% of the time, unless the person has never actually played an RPG, that player or group is already broken, suffering from RPG-PTSD. Completetly messed up by terrible GMing, lack of fundemental understanding of the game and always with grand dillusions with bizzare claim about how x or y game is "ruined" or "unbalanced" and they refuse to play it. Its always something, I rarely get a player who actually fits into a well adjusted group.

The way you talk mortthepirate, that's what RPG-PTSD sounds like. I promise you that if you came to my group and we played Pathfinder you would not experiance any unbalance issues, mechanical problems or believe that the game is some how poorly designed. Trust an old vet, its not the system, its you.

The reality is that most of the popular systems, are popular because they are good and function well in well adjusted groups, but how those groups adjust is different for every group. Hence if you walk into my game, your probobly not well adjusted and need to reprogram. That is why for example in some group 4e D&D is a miracle system that solves all problems, while in another its the biggest disgrace in RPG in 40 years of design. Who is right?

The answer is no one. The reality is that these games are well designed, its just that we all have preferences, but calling one of the most popular and best selling games on the market today "poorly designed" is a pretty ridiculous statement. You might not like it, I can get behind that, I hate a lot of systems (4e included) but its far from poorly designed. There is a big difference between saying "I don't like Pathfinder classes" and claiming the game is poorly designed. That's a very poorly informed opinion.

Trust, but verify, BigKahuna (she said, desperately trying not to derail the thread and failing)

What methods do you use to provide balance to something that 80%-90% of people you encounter find wrong? And why does popularity somehow prove that it does not have the flaws that people point out? They are not mutually exclusive. It can be both horribly unbalanced, poorly designed, and yet still sell well.

8 hours ago, Jennkryst said:

Trust, but verify, BigKahuna (she said, desperately trying not to derail the thread and failing)

What methods do you use to provide balance to something that 80%-90% of people you encounter find wrong? And why does popularity somehow prove that it does not have the flaws that people point out? They are not mutually exclusive. It can be both horribly unbalanced, poorly designed, and yet still sell well.

True it can be horrible balance or design and sell well. This is a common issue because good marketing is almost more important than product performance, in an age where even review boards are a festering pit of ad revenue and psychological marketing...

However - one thing that I've always loved about pen and paper RPG is that the entire game is always subject to the GM. If I play a computer RPG and I want to play a style of character that doesn't fit the meta, or I want the focus of my game to differ from the story focus the developers have given it, I'm just stuck. I can be a poor character with an uneventful life, or find another game. With pen and paper RPG, as the GM, I can just change a few things to bring to life the aspect of the game that I (and my players) want to explore, both mechanically and in story.

I think an essential skill to being a GM, or any RPG player is to own the story and the game. If you don't like how something works, barter with the GM (or with your players) for how you want it to work. Be invested more in the story than the stat points.

So big kahuna, it reads a bit like: There are no bad systems, only bad GMs(category in which you obviously don't include yourself) .or "unadapted players".. Poor explanation too. If a system needs a skilled GM to work, that isn't a very good system.

And yeah popularity isn't quality. 50 shades of gray is one of the most sold book ever. It's still ****.

Oriental adventures had interesting features (wujen, spirits, hengeyokai...) but the system was lacking the freedom of Roll and Keep. And corrupted l5r 3e with trying to put bonus numbers everywhere as a raw +something instead of extra R or K dice.

I don't believe in that RPG ptsd. That's very pretentious.

I do believe in personnal bias, but that can be worked on.

I'm.. going to pm you because I don't want this conversation to take over the thread, and I really like talking about this stuff

2 hours ago, Nitenman said:

So big kahuna, it reads a bit like: There are no bad systems, only bad GMs

Honestly, I think this is very nearly true. A good GM can compensate for a bad system in a thousand ways, ranging from house rules to simply making the story so fantastic that I genuinely don't care if my PC is less mechanically effective than another one. But a good system can't compensate for a bad GM, because it can't force them to make the content of the game interesting and fun. It can be a marvel of perfect design and I'll still be bored out of my skull or have absolutely no worthwhile opportunities to use my sheet.

I'll agree that there are systems which are better designed then others. I ran a first edition Scion campaign some years back, and its mechanics were almost more hole than cloth, and undeniably that put more of a burden on me as the GM. But in the end, the system is maybe 10% of my enjoyment of a game, the setting is about 20%, and the GM and my fellow players are 70%.

Hah! This is my kind of discussion! Time to wipe the floor with you guys !

I have played FATAL.

It was fun.

35 minutes ago, AtoMaki said:

Hah! This is my kind of discussion! Time to wipe the floor with you guys !

I have played FATAL.

It was fun.

Fun like a really bad movie is fun.

3 minutes ago, mortthepirate said:

Fun like a really bad movie is fun.

Some of the most fun one can have depending on the movie.

can be worst of both worlds too. Bad GM and bad mechanics. I "played" once in a game where the decorum was like far west movies (only a facade) and the characters were cardboard cutout, GM throwing is Uber NPC everywhere and rules had been handcrafted from a half remembered D&D 3.5.

but my post was about more than what has been quoted. So loss of context. I was mainly contesting this idea of RPG-PTSD. When discussing about the possible flaw of a game, saying "yes, but at my table it doesn't happen" is neither constructive nor does it address the flaw.

if the GM has to do extra extra mile, system is probably bad or include some oversight on accessibility to new/ inexperienced players.

I've never played Pathfinder, though I have heard about many D&D Players moving to the system; as for bad RPGs, it's about system clunkiness, sometimes a game is just designed to be 'specific', (I'm talking to you RoleMaster), and then there are those games that start with good intentions and just fail (Palladium system). As Open-Ended RPG systems go, The HERO System was pretty cool, but the GM had to be on the ball. I, too, am an old man who played 1st Ed AD&D since '78-'79.

Plenty of mistakes, believe me, but I worked at it and became to go-to DM for a few Gamer groups. That moment of DM Enlightenment is as uplifting as finding religion.

And I stand by my comment that AD&D 1st Ed. is the best, because every game that was made after it, tried to be it. The originators didn't know what we know today, and some 40 years later, the RPG systems are still struggling to find that fit.

I like the concept of Edge of the Empire, and I like the way it is done - I see a lot of the Original Star Wars RPG (from West End) in it. I hope that 5 Rings does well, but as I said, when it comes to 'Oriental' adventure games, AD&D OE maybe 8 out of 10, but nothing much else gets close to it.

20 hours ago, Jennkryst said:

Trust, but verify, BigKahuna (she said, desperately trying not to derail the thread and failing)

What methods do you use to provide balance to something that 80%-90% of people you encounter find wrong? And why does popularity somehow prove that it does not have the flaws that people point out? They are not mutually exclusive. It can be both horribly unbalanced, poorly designed, and yet still sell well.

I have never said that 80%-90% of the people with RPG-PTSD have a problem with Pathfinder, that was somehow derived from my post . Nor did I say there was anything to balance. This isn't a system problem, its a player problem. What I said is that 80-90% of the people I meet that join my gaming groups, be they online or offline have to adjust to how an actually well adjusted group functions. RPG-PTSD is a wide range of things, though its usually built on some sort of perception or insecurity, sometimes that is a perception about the balances of one RPG or another that kicked their *** but, in the end it always just ends up being just that, perception, nothing real or substantial. It stems from bad practices and perceived notions about fairness and balance in an RPG.

The method to solve it is simple, invite them to your game. Most people that come from bad experiences, when they find a good one, they immediately recognize it and adapt.

For those that said that they "don't believe in RPG-PTSD", I beg to differ. You do, you might know it by something else but any GM with experience will see it in action. Some of the more common symptoms are things like.

1. Always looking at other character sheets, concerned with the "power level" of other peoples characters.
2. People who use the term "Build" when talking about character creation.
3. People who complain that "martial classes" or "X Clan" or some other defining thing in the game is boring, yet insist on playing them.
4. People who are always demanding house rules to fix stuff about other peoples characters or hypothetical characters that aren't in their game.
5.People who compare their character to theoretical characters that could be built and complain about the "power output" or "statistical chance of something or other".
6. People who insist on playing a system like D&D and then complain about their core mechanic like the use of a D20 die, or Vancian magic.

Some of the more common stuff, but, most GM's will run up on players like this . This is what RPG-PTSD looks like and while I do think GM's have the power to address this to a degree, in general I think the cause is bad GMing, but the cure is just a good player group. When your sitting at a table of 5 other players who are not doing any of this kind of stuff, you really stick out when your doing it. The social pressure of being the annoying guy is usually enough to cure people of it. So simply put as a GM I don't usually have to do anything special to solve that sort of behavior, I kind of let the goodness of the group and game do it.

Oh and I have to say to those of you that feel insulted and think that RPG-PTSD isn't a thing yet can stand up and claim that a game system a vast majority of the market plays and loves is broken and unbalanced, really? Your basically saying that everyone who plays a game like Pathfinder would play it despite it being broken because we don't know an better? That somehow we were duped by advertisement?

I wouldn't call it being "duped by advertisement". But simply a matter of offer and demand.

My demand is to play RPGs. If the offer in my 'local environment' is simply of D20 (be it D&D X edition, Pathfinder, or some other variant) I am either forced to play it, or not play any RPG at all. After a while, you grow so used to it (inertia is a HUGE factor in these things) that you just don't want to learn a whole new system/game. Regardless of the flaws you perceive in it.

Really "Best" is a subjective thing. DnD/Pathfinder are undoubtedly the most popular which arguably means they're the "Best" to the most people. But there's plenty of other games, and plenty of people who find those the best. Personally I love the Space Opera cinematic feel of FFG Star Wars.

But before that came FFG's WFRP. That was undoubtedly a more narrative system than its predecessors, it had the same concept of lucky failure and unlucky success. But FFG succeeded in capturing the GrimDark nature of the setting really well. Characters felt like regular peasants, there was death disease and corruption around every corner. Gear was basic, magic was very dangerous...

I hold high hopes that they will succeed in capturing the feel of L5R. The dice system won't belong to the 300lb gorilla of gaming, but it will be tailored and unique. I expect plenty of people won't like what FFG offer up, but others will be thrilled.

On the whole RPG PTSD it's probably not the right words to use, but there are certainly bad habits that need removing. Sometimes it's a single player, sometimes it's the GM, sometimes it's the whole group. You see a lot of people coming to the FFG Star Wars boards that have problems with the game system. They have tried to implement house rules, or are implementing them without even knowing it. Finding the sweet spot of a system and having a group who can then run it the intended way is an incredible thing, really. Teaching someone the hidden gems of a game are even better.

In the end having fun is why we do this, and for most players it's important that everyone at the table has fun too.

@BigKahuna Could you perhaps give us a good, concise definition of what RPG-PTSD is? I think defining your term will help everyone better understand where you're coming from. You have given a couple of examples of symptoms and (I think, maybe) causes, but summary will help the rest of us, I think.

Also, to everyone, what are the criteria for "balanced" role playing game design? It's quite true that we can't really argue against "I don't like system X" because that is a matter of personal opinion and completely valid. We can discuss the merits of "system X uses too many dice because I can't fit them all in my hands at one time and they spill everywhere and then I stepped on a D4 and got tetanus." (That-that might have gotten away from me at the end there.) In any event, we can all get on the same page if we start defining some rules for what makes a game balanced or unbalanced for the purposes of this discussion.

23 minutes ago, Aedo said:

@BigKahuna Could you perhaps give us a good, concise definition of what RPG-PTSD is? I think defining your term will help everyone better understand where you're coming from. You have given a couple of examples of symptoms and (I think, maybe) causes, but summary will help the rest of us, I think.

Also, to everyone, what are the criteria for "balanced" role playing game design? It's quite true that we can't really argue against "I don't like system X" because that is a matter of personal opinion and completely valid. We can discuss the merits of "system X uses too many dice because I can't fit them all in my hands at one time and they spill everywhere and then I stepped on a D4 and got tetanus." (That-that might have gotten away from me at the end there.) In any event, we can all get on the same page if we start defining some rules for what makes a game balanced or unbalanced for the purposes of this discussion.

For me, balance means each player character can be effective at what they do, without other options stepping on their toes, or the gm having to engineer events to force the issue. Example: the scariest thing on a battlefield should be a high rank bushi, not a high rank shugenja or monk.

If this is not naturally the case, the system has failed to work correctly. It fails extra hard if the monk or shugenja have even more options to add to the party after beating out the bushi at theirs

If I may put in my two cents (because this is the internet and everyone is required to have an opinion)...

I think pudding has the overall best balance between narrative experience and mechanical crunch. Furthermore, pudding goes well with just about any genre you can think of. In my experience anyway.

In conclusion:

5 hours ago, Bayushi Karyudo said:

I wouldn't call it being "duped by advertisement". But simply a matter of offer and demand.

My demand is to play RPGs. If the offer in my 'local environment' is simply of D20 (be it D&D X edition, Pathfinder, or some other variant) I am either forced to play it, or not play any RPG at all. After a while, you grow so used to it (inertia is a HUGE factor in these things) that you just don't want to learn a whole new system/game. Regardless of the flaws you perceive in it.

I can understand that but there is a reason that the "Local Enviroment" is Pathfinder rather then say Palladium or Conspiracy X. Its more popular, its what the majority of the people in your area want to play. That isn't the result of some sort of clever business move by Paizo. They produced a game, people tried it, they loved it and it became a thing. If it really was poorly designed, I don't see how that would happen.

As for the topic of balance, again this is such a massive grey zone that any discussion easily derails. For example mortthepirates version of roles based balance to me personally as a GM and as a player doesn't play any part. I create personas, not classes, roles or archtypes. It never even occurs to me to look to see what is available as options when I'm creating a character in any game. I write a backstory and then find the class, skills, abilities or whatever the game is structured on to match. In practice the concept of equal contribution comes more through role-playing then mechanics anyway so the fact that two people can "disarm traps", perhaps one as a skill and another by a spell is really not a big deal, its such a small part of the game that I don't really see it as disruptive or unbalanced. Typically people tend to adapt anyway, so for example if I'm a Rogue, the mage player would basically just give me a curtiousy and pick another spell as an option.

As mentioned before though, I don't think the "theoretical" existance of a mage with a knock spell trumping a rogue with a disarm skill means the system is poorly designed or unabalanced. There should be multiple ways to approach problems, in this case one is a skill one is a spell. Its as likely that in one game there are no rogues and mages need the knock spell as it is that there is a rogue with no mage. I sort of don't really see that in practice, even though we talk about this sort of stuff in theory.

To me balance is more about the game as a whole, is there a core flow to the game in which the narrative and the mechanics live in harmony so as not to interupt each other. There are games like Warhammer Fantasy RPG 3.0 or D&D 4e for example where the mechanics and the narrative kind of get in each others way. When the mechanics define too much of the narrative your kind of in this wierd place where actions defined by the rules negative the narrative. If the mechanics are too fiddly, take too much time to resolve or attempt to replace the player interaction, then you have a kind of balance issue in the game where your mechanical character is more important then your narrative character.

Skill challenges in 4e a good example of mechanics that infiltrate too much on story.

As for actual "power" balance, to me, that just like balance is impossible to define. Am I powerful because I can cast Fireball? Can't I also be powerful because I'm nobility and I'm rich? The two aren't balanced, one person can deal lots of damage, the other can pay off assassins to do his dirty business for him. To me this is not really a discussion, as a GM I always say, if you think something is so powerful that its unbalanced, play it and I'll prove you wrong. The only real power in the game is in the hands of a GM, I can render any character powerful or useless with simple application of perfectly legitimate mechanics. All RPG's are by designed balanced this way, the GM is the designer of challenges and he creates them to fit the characters. A fireball is useless if the fight your in is a political debate or an economic exchange. Its silly to presume that power is displayed through mechanics.

As for RPG-PTSD, its just a term, an easy way to identify bad habbits that are usually formed from bad experiances that people carry with them. A good example of that is "rules lawyering", that guy who interupts everyone and quotes the rules all the time. This is a bad habit, because while rules are important, they are their to support RPG's not to disrupt them. GM's and players should always feel free to abide and ignore any rules they like in the name of fun, **** to my knowledge every RPG book ever written encourages this concept. Rules lawyering isn't a natural development for a role-player, thats something you learn to do from bad experiances and good experiances can cure it. One of many examples of RPG-PTSD.

I have the weird feeling that you see your GMing trough rose glasses, the psychologist GM that save broken players from bad GMing experiences. Seriously we all **** up sometimes, we all break players and we all repair some others.

See taking your example, rule lawyering isn't a "bad habit" though it can indeed be a bother. It happens when a player who knows (or think he knows ) the rule feels he is not getting what he should. Maybe he invested in mechanics with expectations, and then feels frustrated to see GM handwaving or giving to everyone the benefits he invested in. It's usually coming from a problem in communication. But its not going to impact on the rest of this players gaming life. Another GM might have no issue with it. In clear they are many bad habits, as much as there are players or GM.

see this is where you are wrong. A rule lawyer isn't a bad player intrinsically. So if someone really bent on rule is at your table, do you consider he needs to be "repaired"?

There are many ways of gaming, we need to respect every gamer personality. No one's broken,even a munchkin.

Now lets drop the references to Pathfinder. Tbh we don't care how pathfinder is great and all. We are here to talk about L5R and oriental adventures.

what could be interesting to import from oriental adventures is the classes that were not samurai or monks.

Bear warriors for example, spirit shapeshifter or Wujen

Oh and +1 for pudding.