James Sparrow said:

James Sparrow said:

You're talking a system where you have some dice, a few players, concepts all around and the game goes. From concept the GM determines roll and difficulty. You roll said dice on an arbitrary (GM Fiat) scale and that tells if you succeed/fail. "Stats" are organic and shift at GM and player choice based on who they are. In some cases, players can point out things such as "since I am a mechanic, I understand enough of the basics of devices that I have a better shot at fixing the air conditioner." Gm agrees or disagrees with statement, rolls are made. In some cases, all rolls might be flat (such as a 10 on a d20) modified up and down based on conditions/expertise. This creates the illusion for players and the GM that this game is free from system and narrative can be created more freely without statistics to interfere with the game. This illusion is powerful and can greatly motivate game decisions. Most play either happens in the realm of imagination or may use the occasional map to illustrate points or locations. It generally plays low combat (but sometimes high) combat where the narrative and player decisions are key.

The only difference really between this play style and a game such as Nobilis is Nobilis had someone pre-codify the way the illusion is created, but the illusion is still the same, mechanically. It is designed to operate less with dice, using a different form of generic interface to create the same "illusion" of freedom from mechanics. Sorcerer has been created under the same assumption. Except, these games have created statistics (in Sorcerer it uses 3 stats, like Tri-Stat) to create a mid-ground between mechanics and interface. A way for a player to gauge expertise. Ultimately, in both games, neither are really necessary and exist as the basics of language to communicate the loftier principles of "do what you want, we'll figure out the numbers later."

I have played both formats of games (and countless others).

Again, I assert this entire POV of the "systemless" system is not innovative and operates under the assumption every game plays a game in the exact same way, for the exact same reason. It also makes a broad assumption that gamers already know how to game and these mechanics are so easy to understand that new gamers will completely get exactly what they are talking about. The problem with it is, these types of systems, when published, fail on all three accounts. All gamers do not play for the same reasons, play in the same way, and new gamers will not understand exactly what it means. This is especially true for new gamers who will not necessarily get why the GM has chosen a 10 (if the GM even fully grasps why they chose a 10) and creates a greater possibility for childish arguments of "not fair" or the roll is too difficult or too high.

The rift in the world of RPG is the evolution of those who have been gaming for 20+ years and the new blood of gamers getting into gaming. While I agree the type of gaming experience you prefer is fun and valid, I will also assert it fails to recognize what is important about system.

Systems ultimate base function is a way to provide players and GM's not only a common ground of communication, it also gives them a basis of language to access all different aspects of a gaming experience. Great game design must appease all forms of gamers, allowing each group to easily subtract or add what they like or don't like about their own unique style and play experience. Furthermore, the purpose of system helps those who may not be as creative or quick to identify character and certain elements of their character by creating for them a list of parameters of what they can and cannot do. This can restrain the over-enthusiastic gamer who comes out with such outlandish ideas the GM spends a great deal of time roping them in, or sluggish/lethargic players who don't want to have to entertain the creative power of "doing it on their own." Furthermore, the systems interface creates a basic framework in which to resolve actions, tasks, and decisions that description cannot give. Yes, these decisions can be made arbitrarily, but mechanics help avoid many debates on the parts of the GM or player. It also tells a player how to gauge how the GM will judge their decisions and what they can do to make the story flex in the way the player has envisioned the story in their own minds. Without these tools, the GM can, at their own whims, craft a story to their exact liking where players are left at their mercy to have a specific course spoon fed to them. In this capacity, players activate only to serve the GM's story, to entertain him, and may not have their needs met based on the decisions he makes. The system becomes a method of player "control." You are lucky your experience with this type of play was fair and equal. Many times I have seen it not be. GM's are not always the most altruistic of entities and they can be serious pains to many players. A published system then creates a way to temper their power/control while asserting player authority.

Of course, you can quickly point out, system heavy games open themselves up to just as much GM authority as any other experience. That is true, but when a GM turns on a player it becomes obvious, just like a foul in any sport is clearly a foul.

Great game design should be organic and reinforce play in many different scenarios. We need systems that are flexible enough they can be adapted to everyone's play style. Big box games (such and DND, WFRP, Storyteller, GURPS, Savage Worlds), all attempt to do so and that is why they are industry leaders. They appeal to the largest possible audience allowing each play-group/style to find a way to access their genre/world.

And ultimately, any game that uses some form of interface to resolve disputes are exactly the same, regardless of the numbers that may or may not exist to resolve dispute. Saying I am a mechanic so I have a 15 to fix cars versus, I am a mechanic so I have a 15 to repair is ultimately no different. A GM has just as much power in any game to adjust the difficulty of the Mechanics car fix at any point they wish. So if they try to repair an air conditioner, they may now only have a 10 in either case. One just skips front loaded number crunching, for later on number crunching. They are the exact same thing, the only difference being the illusion that one creates "freedom" even though the same limitations are in place.

I agree RPG's as a whole could use some development in the standard, outdated skill mechanics they all still use, but I am not in the publication game so it sticks with me in the world of home-brews.

I have a lot to say about how this relates to my perception of Warhammer, but have run out of time to finish this up. Hopefully, I can get back to it soon.

For now,

Happy Gaming,

Commoner

shinma and commoner, thanks to both of you for your comments - I'd like to be able to follow them up, but this forum is dreadful for tackling long discussions and big posts on a point-by-point basis (I'm sure there is a way, but life is too short fo figure it out). I was going to suggest that we move to another forum, but I suspect that we'll not quite see eye-to-eye on some things and end up going round in circles anyway.

Rest assured that if I ever see the sort of games I'm thinking of turn up as a commercially viable product in a proper game shop I'll let you know!

Hopefully we'll soon have the component-free version to talk about soon, anyway....

Cheers

Sparrow

Sometimes its not about seeing eye to eye. Sometimes a good respectful discussion with some good points on all sides is enough

Looking forward to commoner's follow up post if there is one. But indeed *tips hat*. Till next time.

I think the most proper term for this game isnt groundbreaking or even innovative. But perhaps evolved? Every new game, every new generation of games, tends to attempt new concepts, rules and styles,some abstract some set in stone.

In the original games you had completely random characters totally dictacted by dice rolls and selecting a class and/or race. No skills werein D&D unless class specific abilities until the secondary skill systyem popularized by Dragon Magazine and made canon by the 1980 release of the 1st Edition Dungeon Master's Guide. No proficiencies until set in stone by the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide.

Games made minor changes throughout the early history. Mainly just different stats or dice resolution rules for actions, usually based on either a target number to beat (on a d20 or whatever) or roll less than (on a D%). Some games took advance steps and added hit location rolls and critical rules (Champions, Role Master, MERP), while later games made intuitive with the attack roll (in Top Secret/S.I. and WFRP 1E for example). Other systems made criticals a result of a dice roll when attacking (such as the critical in AD&D, Palladium Games and criticals/impaling rules in Chaosium games).

Then you had games that decided to remove dice as the random factor, using instead cards or bids or even diceless (AMBER Im looking at you).

Games when from random generation of characters to point build systems, to a combination of the two. Games when from having stats that affected dice rolls (D&D, Palladium) to game where the stat was the die roll (Star Wars D6 and its cousins). Games began to add in game rule effects for altering the outcome of dice rolls (such as Marvel Supers karma, DC Heroes Hero Points, Star Wars Character and Force Points) that got more elaborate as games developed (the Cards from Torg, Shatterzone and Masterbook).

Some games became more miniature friendly, others less friendly. Some began to use chart trackers to keep track of your characters abilities (bllod pool, dice pools, humanity pools and so forth from many games).

I remember when DC Heroes 2nd Edition had the action wheel hand out to help "speed up actions", BTW it didnt.

In the end WFRP 3E is a continuation of these evolutions. Adding in trackers, party options, and so forth to create a more interaction and perhaps "play focused" game. For some of us it doesnt seem groundbreaking as it is only continuing on what was started in the 70s with D&D.

I think then, that we're just debating the point of when is something groundbreaking or innovative. And this is a philisophical discussion that can go right back to the "there is nothing new in the world" and "there are only 6 different stories".

But a discussion on evolution is something we seem to all agree on. I said earlier that I see WHFRP as a new generation, but there is always a hard point to make about when does something belong to a new generation or the old. Maybe we can agree that WHFRP is a logical evolution of many roleplaying traits in the last few years. And there will be future evolution as well (hence I would never call this the Holy Grail).

Peacekeeper, Thanks for reminding me to Star Wars D6 system. That was another one, that made me suddenly see a different way to approach RPG's that fitted me better. Maybe i should have played it more, rather than the couple of sessions i had. Or maybe not, I'm sure it had many flaws as well

James, Honestly mate, i wouldn't say things like "My friends and I don't need a system, just character sheets and our imagination" (paraphrased). It just makes most people think "What do you need the character sheet for?". I lot of us do different forms of gaming, and the last game i played (as opposed to Gm'd), my entire set of tools was the following descripion:

Wilheim Lother von Paschau was born in eastern Prussia to the aristocrity, and raised with all the advatages that that conveyed. Schooled in the best boarding schools, he showed poor apptitude for the classics and sciences, but found pleasure in the outdoors life and showed a talent for equestrian sports and hunting. Aged 17 he joined the Hussers as a officer and raised swiftly through the ranks on a tide of Prussian arrogance rather than any real ability to lead men.
As WWI moved into full swing, Wilheim found the mud and static life of a Calvary officer on the Eastern front unsatisfactory and requested a move to the air wing of the imperial army (at this time, Flight School was pratically an extension of calvary, so this was a common move). Initially trained as an observer, he learnt the joy of flying as he fly high above the squallor of the trenches below. His pilot (at this time a pilot was seen as the driver for the officer), xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx, agreed to teach him to fly, as Wilheim wanted to savour the full freedom of the air

(see if you can spot who that was based on) System less play and system based play are 2 different forms of gaming, and trying to compare a system to .. er .. a lack of system is oranges and apples. Most of us play a number of different ways, to scratch different itches, so to speak. I must resurrect my Melee & Wizard campaign

Fabs said:

As far as I can tell from a (very) quick look at my posts I don't think I said anything about needing character sheets. In fact, in one post I wrote:

Both ran without character sheets and numbers...

Nothing wrong with a good character sheet, of course, but it would be nice to see more of them that are readable without a magnifying glass and not covered with irrelevant detail (an on-going design bugbear of mine).

Cheers

Sparrow

Fabs said:

PART ONE:

Yes, this debate is largely semantics. Some "need" more to define innovation, others don't. True Innovation of course is like creating electricity when there wasn't any electricity before. In modern times, systems such as Facebook are merely better designed Forums and old BBS discussion boards, but many consider those to be innovations in social networking when they could easily be viewed as evolution. It is semantics and really is not so much the point.

PART TWO:

Though on "paper" they seem like two different forms of gaming they really aren't. They can both be used to create the exact same type of games (hack-and-slash to complex narrative games), it simply comes down to how they are used. The only differences between the two mechanically is one system is explicit and the other system is implicit.

PART THREE:

For example, I could take your character you describe and break him down into an explicit system (this will be rough) based on his background. Pretend the explicit system was a d20 roll below.

Intelligence: 10, Strength: 12, Agility: 14, Wits: 13, Charisma: 8. His moderate intelligence reflects his meager education background. As a soldier he would have a decent strength, but it would not be as high as his Agility since he is a pilot and a good cavalry rider. His charisma is a low because he has no ability to lead men, and his keen observation training gives him a higher Wits, but not all that great.

As for skills: He would gain roughly a +5 to ride to reflect his ability to ride, a +3 to observation because he can observe well, +2 to survival to reflect his overall military training, +4 to pilot (as he is not quite as good of a pilot as he is a rider), and a +2 to leadership because of officer training.

In an implicit system, the GM would simply look at his background and from it extract statistics as follows. Though these may change, on the fly, a basic pattern would emerge.

The Character wants to fly: Well, I'll make it like a 18 because he can fly well, so on this check his base is an 18 and it'll be modified in x ways.

The character wants to recall a bit of history: Well, I'll give him a 10, to reflect his basic understanding.

The Character wants to lead some men: Well, he's had some officer training, but is overall a crashing arrogant fool, so I'll give him roughly an 8. But since this is a leadership based task, I'll give him a +2 bonus, so that's roughly a 10.

You see, mechanically, the two systems play exactly the same, one is simply designed by explicit statistics, the other based solely off of background. Eventually, after extensive play however, a character's pilot ability becomes set high where their ability to be charismatic is set low. The variance becomes in the play.

The only real advantage of an implicit system is it gives characters a greater degree of narrative ability. They generated a soldier, so now a soldier has all skills implied by being a soldier. Whereas in an explicit system they may not have some of the statistical advantages being a soldier gives them. I will never forget my first DND 3e game where a fighter tried to climb a giant, but his class precluded him from the climb skill so he fell to his death. I offered him narrative protection, but the player was so angry at the explicit system they chose death in protest. Childish I realize, but this is the great flaw of the explicit system. In contrast, in an implicit system, the rules are left vague and are largely up to GM/player interpretation. This makes a broad assumption players and GM's will make those interpretations fairly and with good definition.

Both slow the action to define the system effect in the exact same manner because both require a stat-check, regardless if they have to reference a character sheet or not. Explicit systems could generate the same narrative freedom as an Implicit system, but the failure generally stems from generation. You see, the written explicit system operates under the assumption a player will abuse generation for their advantage. Therefore, steep costs are levied during generation (you only have x points to spend) which excludes a great deal of character option because you simply run out of points to have the statistics you would use to define your character. When we have generated in the past under an explicit system without any form of point buy or random rolls and a player simply wrote down the statistics they thought their character should have, it achieved the exact same result as an implicit system.

The other great generation difference lies in the fact that when most people generate for explicit system they generate from a statistical basis. Implicit generation does not do so (because you simply can't do it). In our group we build a concept as well defined as an Implicit character, then apply statistics. Typically, points adjustment on point-build games are used to help players bring their characters to life through the mechanics.

Where explicit system, IMO fail to meet player needs is simply in the reliance of controlling attributes and a modification based on a skill list. Or any variance of these concepts (either straight skill based), or level based (like 4e). They all fail to capture or really define a person three dimensionally, often creating two dimensional flat, rough definitions.

HOLY GRAIL/ORIGINAL THREAD CONCEPT REPLY:

What is great about WFRP is it has managed to merge many elements of an implicit system and an explicit system into one. This is achieved through the use of the dice. A character, regardless of the numbers crunched on their sheet, can do a great deal of actions as long as they invest the amount of energy to do so. They have the option of stance dice, Talent cards, specialization, description "stunting," conditions, all of which can contribute to a roll so they have narrative impact on the game. In addition, the use of the various trackers and the way the dice mechanic interacts to the narrative balances the involvement of the player and the GM equally much like the play of an implicit system. They system also gives a great deal of narrative power to players and allows dynamic scenes to manifest from the derived statistics rather than the game haulting and having to be constrained by the dice. It also allows a player to manage their own risks to succeed at any actions they choose.

Now, there are some trappings of explicit system-play that does constrain it's implicit freedom, such as its reliance on an outdated skill mechanic.

You many not view the system as the "holy grail," but the dice definitely are. Games (both implicit and explicit) have fallen short every time to achieve the elegance and simplicity through which these dice achieve narrative and system goals. Stunting, raises, charts, critical effects, have been implemented to achieve what these dice do in a single roll and then, those other mechanics don't come close to the options and power these dice communicate. There are no dice that give as broad of a range of options as these dice do. Failing with beneficial side effects and succeeding with negative side effects were the realm of GM fiat most of the time. Sure degree of success has always existed and so has degree of fail, but ultimately these dice give the clearest picture possible of all outcomes.

The only places WFRP may fall short is when they limit the effectiveness of the dice and the narrative control and freedom they implement. Their are constraints in the mechanic, and those constraints chip away at the evolutionary/innovative nature of the system Most of the time they can be seen when they impact narrative freedom, player choice, and dice freedom at the expense of mechanical adjustments (such as card recharge). However all explicit systems make this trade off. WFRP has done a great job managing what needs to be in these types of systems and have given a great opportunity for new players and given us a plethora of options to approach our character and how we wish to impact the world. The recharge simply designed to constrain action-spam and over-reliance on more powerful cards to create balance. Again, it does create a narrative trade off as you switch between action to action, but also achieves what generation typically does in any explicit system: constraint to protect from player overpowering the story/game. It is mechanical risk management rather than narrative risk management, which the rest of the system supports. And it becomes a clear divide between the implicit and explicit nature of the system. Both are powerful, and as far as action options during combat, WFRP gives an unmatched focus, detail, and option as compared to any other system. Overall, it is a great move for explicit RPGs, but those who prefer Implicit style of play (or half-implicit), may find all this recharge business a bit too limiting.

And that preference is simply preferring Apples to Oranges.

Happy Gaming,

Commoner

James Sparrow said:

Ooops, sorry mate, i might have attributed the quote incorrectly. I must admit I hadn't read back, and might have got confused who said what. Really, i should have just directed it at the concept rather than at anyone in particular.