Rant warning: this is a rant. Read accordingly. So don't accuse me of hating everything and being overly analytical.
Worst
Optimist: For the sake of contrast I'm going to start by describing the worst case scenario. Let's suppose you wanted a realistic game. In order to maximize how accurate it is to real life and to make sure that everything is possible you'll need a large rule book and make stats.Pessimist: If by that you mean "buried under an endless mountain of rules" then yes.
Optimist: The game is so realistic that a physics text book could be considered an expansion book.
Pessimist: Good news everyone! This game is so complex that not even professional scientists fully understand everything about it.
Optimist: Some math is required but a calculator can be used and all of the formulas are provided.
Pessimist: Gee thanks mister! I had this exact scenario in college physics which I did poorly in.
Optimist: Every body part has it's own measure of health.
Pessimist: Every milliliter of your body needs be labeled with a health number. Even with 3D modeling programs I don't know how you'd keep track of all that.
Optimist: The human mind is tracked in detail.
Pessimist: Make sure you have a full list of every fact and memory of your entire character's story.
Optimist: There are many muscles in the human body that can have separate skills.
Pessimist: How many muscles are in the human body? Multiple that by every possible skill and you've got a good start on that character sheet.
Optimist: I'm not providing any counter points because this is a straw man. It is here to demonstrate that no matter what the system represents there are some things that must be simplified for the sake of usability. There are a large number of details that must be ignored.
Pathfinder (1e)
Optimist: I'll go from most complex to least which is worst to best (except the last) to show that things can in fact be done better and so that the rants calms into a praise.Pessimist: So read this section last so you can see how terrible the Pathfinder rules are.
Optimist: Pathfinder is a welcomed simplification over Dungeons and Dragons 3.5 edition.
Pessimist: "Better than something that's worse" is code for "this is still terrible".
Optimist: Pathfinder uses a medieval fantasy setting. However there are expansions for modern and space age.
Pessimist: The game only does 1 thing and it didn't do it well. So then they added a couple more to spread the joy of failure.
Optimist: There are some classic races to chose from.
Pessimist: Not much to say here. Humans are useless, some races aren't balanced.
Optimist: There are a few classes to pick between.
Pessimist: A few? That's a lie. There's tons of classes. Too many to even name.
Optimist: Ok well using only the core book there's only a few and it should be easy to pick the one you want.
Pessimist: If you want to play X no matter how the game plays then yes. However if you'd like to have effective gameplay no matter the class then you'll be sorry. In order to make an informed decision you'll need to read through each class and race which will involve a dozen pages of rules and abilities which have no unifying mechanic other than d20 vs DC meaning there are no shortcuts to grouping the abilities together. A single class alone is difficult enough to keep track of but 11 classes? That will overwhelm new players that are just trying to be useful.
Optimist: But you don't need to read things like spells, feats, bloodlines, etc until after you have decided on a class.
Pessimist: Maybe but the information up until that point is overwhelming and if you are a spell caster then you'll have a whole new wave of overwhelming when you look at the spell list.
Optimist: But at level 1 there are few spells. So assuming you picked your class on little information there isn't a whole lot to know.
Pessimist: Ha! You're not creating a character that easily. What skills do you have? Look at your list of class skills and the list of all skills (only a little too large). Which feat should I pick? Look at the giant list of feats. Bloodline, familiar, arcane school? You'll need to read a lot there too even at level 1. Which equipment do I buy? Look at the large list of equipment
Optimist: Objection: not all equipment can be purchased at level 1 so you need not look at all of it.
Pessimist: But the book doesn't have a list of things that are affordable at level 1 so you'll have to look through all of them. Also most non-magical equipment can be bought at level 1. And did I mention potions? These magic items are affordable at level 1 but knowing your options require you to look at the low level spells of every class's spell list.
Optimist: So the creation cost is high but once you have a character you can easily level up.
Pessimist: Not quite. If you multi-class or want prestige classes then you get back into the problem of the class list. Ignoring that you still have to fight the spell list and feats as you level up. And now that you can afford or save up for magic items you'll need to look at that list. Or rather lists because there are several categories each with a huge number of items (books keep adding more because magic items are so popular). *insert book avalanche*
Optimist: Well the other class abilities are easy enough for character progression.
Pessimist: You mean the ones that don't have any choices? That's not as easy as it sounds because some of them improve with level so you have to re-read them every so often. But anything that has options has too many options. Except when it comes to how you'll play your character in which case there are too many restrictions.
Optimist: What do you mean? You can play your character however you like.
Pessimist: That's not true and is one of the biggest problems with this system: the mechanics dictate the setting. For example I'd like to be a drunken fist martial artist, he'll be a chaotic good monk except that monks must be lawful. Or "Ooh I like these abilities. I think I'll choose this sorcerer bloodline. Oh wait that says I descend from dragons. But I don't want to have to change my character's back story...". Or "I think I may run Pathfinder. The system looks good-" *cough fat chance cough* oh sorry I interrupted by own hypothetical dialogue. "I'll run Pathfinder... Oh darn I was hoping to have Elves in space but the system mandates a medieval setting."
Optimist: Objection: there are other settings that can be used.
Pessimist: Hardly. The majority of the system assumes the default setting. And the problem is that the system is so tightly coupled with the setting so that changing things isn't easy. Phew *wipe sweat*. I'm getting tired and I've only just finished complaining about character creation. I haven't even started talking about the general rules or the monsters.
Optimist: Does that mean you'll let me talk?
Pessimist: No. This is a rant so I'm the star of the show.
Optimist: Surely there must be some redeeming qualities of Pathfinder.
Pessimist: Hm... Nope the other systems are better at everything. Now where was I?
TL;DR: This is all you need to know from a player perspective.
Optimist: You were complaining about character creation.Pessimist: Right right. Speaking of horrible disfigured creatures, there's also monsters in this system. There's a huge number of monsters, several dedicated books in fact with plenty added with each setting book... Hm. I seem to have used my book avalanche gag too early.
Optimist: You can look them up by name, type, or CR. It's pretty nicely organized considering the size of material. I'm not sure that could be improved.
Pessimist: I'll tell you what could be improved: having all of the monster's rules listed on the page with the monster. Some of them are well hidden in the monster's type. That's right: when you look at a monster you have to compare what you see to the rules for that monster type, the rules for that monster subtype (yes really), the rules for the monster category/template, the rules that are actually listed on the monster page, then look up each feat, look up each spell, and look up each universal monster rule. Man this is so complicated that it's even difficult to list all of the places the rules exist.
Optimist: That sounds exaggerated.
Pessimist: Well let's look at an Old Red Dragon. He's got a list of feats, a list of spells, some terms that are universal monster rules, and he's got abilities. Now that we've read the description of Old Red Dragon we just need to check the description for Red Dragons, for Chromatic Dragons, for True Dragons, for Dragon type, and then for fire subtype.
Optimist: Objection: not all of those have abilities.
Pessimist: True but the only way to know that would be to read each of them.
Optimist: But that's just for dragons because they are so popular. No other monsters are that complex.
Pessimist: All right fine. So dragons do have the longest chain of inheritance. But don't think you can get off easy by memorizing some common abilities because nearly every monster has a unique ability of some kind, ones that don't are considered boring. So rather than a common set of rules everything gets more and more rules.
Optimist: If you hate monsters so much why don't you just kill them?
Pessimist: Well I would but the combat system doesn't make it easy. There's a list of things you can do in combat but the much more daunting list is the table of attack of opportunity.
Optimist: But that's just a list of actions followed by "yes" or "no" that are grouped by standard/move action etc.
Pessimist: Exactly. The problem is that the table is very important but too large to memorize so whenever you do anything except attack you have to check the table to see if that's a bad idea. Then there's grappling rules which is the target of many jokes. And if you get multiple attacks from multiple source, good luck trying to figure out how they fit together. Speaking of multiple sources there are many different types of bonuses that can be applied but they don't stack with bonuses of the same type.
Optimist: You're running out of things to say seeing how you've devolved into a hit list of points without descriptions.
Pessimist: Yeah I'm running short aside from general complaints about lack of balance (ever heard of "linear fighter, quadratic wizard"?). To summarize how bad the rules are I'll point out that I literally had nightmares about the game being too complex.
Optimist: That's not fair. That was mostly due to being nervous about the first time I've ran any game. After waking up I would tell myself "the rules aren't that bad".
Pessimist: Only to later find out that they were.
Optimist: Well... Mostly. But it was spread out over 10 months so it wasn't overwhelming.
Pessimist: Yeah still finding new rules after 10 months of running the game. What's there to be overwhelmed with?
Optimist: We're moving on.
Pessimist: But I still have a whole smaller rant about how absurd the starting ages of elves are.
Optimist: Look is this a rant against Pathfinder or are we going to talk about better systems?
Pessimist: All right fine I'll let you have some things to say but I'll rain on that parade when the time comes. Also the next post will complain about elf ages.
GURPS 3e
Disclaimer: I haven't ran or played any GURPS. I've only read some of the rules so some of this section may be wrong.Optimist: GURPS stands for "generic universal roleplaying system". It is designed to be a single generic system of rules that can be used for any setting.
Pessimist: Ah hahahaha. Don't tell me you believe that hogwash. "Single set of rules" ha! You wish.
Optimist: Well there's a core rulebook which all of them use as a basis.
Pessimist: Yeah but the core book has different rules depending on your situation. Use 1 of these 2 combat systems. And here's the rules for magic which for some reason isn't covered by normal mechanics and here's the rules for psionics which is for some reason different than magic. Setting things on fire with magic? Use these rules. Setting things on fire with psionics then use an entirely different set of rules for some reason... And there's multiple magic systems which the bottom of the right side bar on "Basic Set" page 151 says that if you don't like this system of magic then change it. So basically "we didn't make universal rules for magic so make your own rules and hope it works out".
Optimist: I like the 2 combat systems because 1 is a super set that's more complex compared to the simplified combat. So you can choose the level of effort vs realism/versatility you desire.
Pessimist: That's fair. And they do an OK job of keeping them separate and letting you know how things work in either situation.
Optimist: Secondly magic is a complicated thing. Many novels out there handle things differently so many types of rules are needed.
Pessimist: You know that's not true because Humans & Heroes (and Mutants & Masterminds) has an actually universal system. What good does it do you to have these different rules for magic if you can't intermix them? So a character from 1 setting can't cross over into another, almost as if the system isn't universal enough to handle these 2 different things *gasp*. And that's exactly the problem with GURPS is that each book defines its own rules because the "universal" rules couldn't cut it. Meaning that each book adds rules which change the core rules so that they step on each other and can't use a single set of mechanics so the whole thing falls apart. Making cross-overs difficult and universal an untrue description.
Optimist: That's sounds like a conclusion. Are we moving on to the next system?
TL;DR: That's the biggest point along with huge lists. The rest is minor.
Pessimist: Not yet. While explaining why a "universal system" isn't universal at all is quite fatal and is the biggest point there's still another important thing to cover: the lists. And 1 more point for which I'll look up a simple question: is the minimum damage in GURPS 1 or 0? Looking at the table of contents the first spot to check is chapter 13 Basic Combat under "Attack" on page 96 which says nothing about damage. But look there's "Making an attack" on the next page (97-98) still no mention. Let's see there's "Damage and Injury" on page 100 that's got to have it but doesn't. It mentions a sidebar on the previous page (99) and says that there's more details in "Injury, Illness, and Fatigue" on page 126. Should I check the advanced combat chapter? Maybe minimum damage is the Gamemaster's judgment call when using basic combat. The previous page (99) sidebar (half a page) under "Basic Weapon Effects" says that weapon damage types are explained in a sidebar on page 73. The following sidebar (p 99) "Effects of Injury" says nothing about minimum damage amount. I'm guessing that the "type of damage" explained on page 73 are like how slashing does 50% more damage which was mentioned earlier so I'll try page 126. Oh that's an entire chapter (15) but there's only 1 section on normal damage which is "General Damage" (page 126) which doesn't answer the question. All right then I guess I'll check out page 73 even though that's the equipment chapter (8). This sidebar says that thrusting attacks have a minimum damage of 1 but doesn't say for other types. On the same page there's a section for "Basic Weapon Damage" which says that minimum damage is 1 for cutting or impaling but for crushing is 0. *Pulls out hair* Why was this so difficult to find? I had to read about 9 different sections which jump around without telling me where to go or answering my question. I even asked someone who has played GURPS to look in his book for minimum damage and he said "it doesn't say". It's fine to have different sections talking about different things but there should be enough cross references that I should be able to check any of these and get directed to the right page. Secondly why is there 2 different answers for minimum damage? It does sound realistic but it is a tedious detail that doesn't add value to the game. As we've already pointed out your system can't account for every tiny detail so only have the things that are worth the cost which this is not.Optimist: It doesn't sound that tedious. I'm OK with having the 2 different minimum damages.
Pessimist: Well then how about this: since GURPS has an apparent aversion to universal rules there isn't a blanket minimum damage rule, nor is there a rule for melee weapons etc, nor is there a rule for minimum damage for every single possible type of damage (only cutting, impaling, and crushing are covered), so I expect every single place where damage occurs and could under any circumstances have any dice subtracted (that could result in less than 1) to state the minimum damage. For magic this means every single spell with subtractions would need this information since there's also no rule for minimum magic damage. Despite my reasonable expectations Basic Set page 158 has defied them under the description of fire spells which reads "If a wooden shield takes 10 or more fire hits in one turn, the bearer is at -2 DX and 1d-5 damage per turn until he gets rid of it." (there's no minimum damage on page 129-130 either). With an aggressive lack of minimum damage rules I must conclude that this fire can deal negative damage which by simple subtraction would mean that it heals you.
Optimist: Yeah right. What was your other important point about lists?
Pessimist: Comparable to Pathfinder GURPS has a dreaded set of large lists. In the Basic Set book there's 21 full pages of advantages and disadvantages, 23 full pages of skills, 10 full pages of spells (97 spells), and 10 full pages of psionics. That's 64 full pages to read if you'd like to shop for options. And that's just the Basic Set, there's an entire extra book on magic and many other books that add rules. This character creation difficulty helps highlight the redundancy of the system: because there isn't a universal way to handle things they have to try to list every option in the universe which leads to massive lists which are far from covering everything. Compare the spells Reptile Control and Bird Control (Basic Set page 155) which have exactly the same text word for word (even cost etc) only changing the animal type. "If only there was a way to make a spell generalized enough to apply to different kinds of animals but alas it is impossible so I'll just have to list each type of animal as different spells" (Steve Jackson)
Optimist: Yes earlier you made it quite clear that the system is not universal.
Pessimist: I can't over-emphasis it because it is so unacceptable. Steve Jackson's GURPS by Steve Jackson Games should be ashamed of Steve Jackson.
Optimist: Yeah his name is on the cover too many times. Moving on.
Mutants & Masterminds 3e
Optimist: Wait I thought we agreed that we wouldn't cover M&M because we'd cover H&H instead which is based on M&M.Pessimist: I know but H&H fixed an issue with M&M that was so terrible that I absolutely must complain.
Optimist: All right. Make it quick. Mutants & Masterminds is a point buy system. Being able to afford things is the central balance of the system.
Pessimist: Unless you have magic. Magic allows you to buy anything for a single point. You start out with 150 points so after buying magic for let's say 30 points you can then buy 120 different powers at the strength of 30 points each. That is to say that by simply putting the word "magic" next to a power you can completely ignore the balance of the game and buy everything. Why even bother having character points if someone can so blatantly ignore them? That's like saying "everyone here is equal except that guy whose god-like". What the crap is that? Just put a period and have everyone be balanced like a proper universal system. This section is short but it is perhaps the most infuriating thing I've seen in game rules (with GURPS as a whole being the second) so just insert a whole bunch of rage faces here.
Humans & Heroes 3.9
Rules are located at: http://skyspiral7.github.io/Humans-and-Heroes/
Optimist: Humans & Heroes is a point buy universal system that uses a set a powers that can have modifiers in order to create any effect using these building blocks. There's a short list of skills and a medium list of advantages and nothing else. All rules are covered by these things.Pessimist: The skill rewrite is planned for version 3.10 so currently the skills have some missing spots and are a bit complex.
Optimist: All right fine. But the version 3.9 skills aren't that bad.
Pessimist: Well the ambiguous "pick any skill you can think of" is pretty bad but anyway. There are 21 (ish) skills which fit on 31 pages (although could be printed smaller). There are 38 advantages which fit on about 12 pages. There's also godhood...
Optimist: Oh come on. I've listed godhood as a weakness of the game and plan to fix it ASAP.
Pessimist: Yes but I haven't fixed it yet so I'm going to complain in order to be fair. Godhood has only a few things but a couple of them ignore some of the balancing of the game. Supreme is a lot like Magic...
Optimist: Yes but you have to actually be a god-like character to do it. So the game breaking is at least justified.
Pessimist: But it's still game breaking and shouldn't exist. There's a few more that are vague and overpowered but none of them are reasonable but that's enough about godhood. While 41 powers is very small compared to GURPS, the 62 power modifiers (33 pages) are a bit overwhelming.
Optimist: *Sigh* I know. I'm hoping to hide most of them under the complex rules when I make a switch to select either simple or complete rules.
Pessimist: And each power needs to be checked because some have unique modifiers. Even though there's a large list of universal modifiers.
Optimist: That's because the modifiers on the power pages only make sense for that power. It's a way to provide options using a common mechanic. Additionally some of the modifiers on power pages are just there to explain special cases of the universal modifiers.
Pessimist: Providing power options through a single common mechanic? Except that some powers have non-modifier options.
Optimist: This isn't fair that you can see right through my weaknesses. I am aware of those powers and do plan to convert them over to using modifiers.
Pessimist: It isn't fair to promise solutions or that I'm bias for this system. Some of the website is poorly organized and some webpages are huge.
Optimist: How about I just say: I would like to fix all issues that I am aware of.
Pessimist: That's a vague statement that's obviously not going to be completed, like ever. I'll accept that.
Optimist: But seriously there is a reason I have this system. It is actually universal, is nicely balanced,-
Pessimist: I don't know about that since it hasn't been play tested.
Optimist: -and is far less complex than other systems. Making it the best that I know.
Pessimist: I'm sorry but I couldn't hear you over all that bias.
Other Simple Systems
Optimist: I've heard rumors of others games that might-Pessimist: What's this? Abstract speculation? Duck and cover!
Optimist: Yeah I know but my point is that there are some games that have very few total rules. Some might not have dice or randomness at all.
Pessimist: While these games are plenty versatile the lack of defined rules takes a different direction (a qualitative one) than I want. And obviously this whole rant is based on what I want.
Optimist: I want a quantitative system so that I can use these characters to fight each other. Something specific enough that you can reference it to know whether or not a character is being inconsistent about his abilities. But something truly universal enough to be able to have an ultimate cross-over of ultimate destiny.
Rules for your rules
Optimist: Here are some principles that all systems should pay attention to but many fail.Principle 1: A universal system needs to have a set of rules that can be used universally rather than a list of every possible thing in the universe.
Pessimist: I'm looking at you GURPS. How would I fire radioactive flaming hornets from my hands with magic? Well I'd need a new spell since that isn't listed or I'd switch to a better system like Humans & Heroes (or M&M) which covers all possible ranged damage under a simple banner of 2 points per rank. Which is infinitely many possibilities under a single rule.
Principle 2: Keep the rule set as small as possible. Only add rules when you absolutely must.
Pessimist: I'm looking at GURPS and Pathfinder for multiple reasons each. Pathfinder has way too many rules and monsters shouldn't add new rules. GURPS if your rulebook really was universal then there should be only 1 book of rules and everything else are settings or campaigns: no other book should have rules at all.
Principle 3: You must ignore some details. To keep the rules simple you should ignore as many details as possible and only add/keep ones that add value and are worth the complexity (which needs to be small).
Pessimist: My GURPS rant about this above is obvious. I surprisingly can't think of any examples of this in Pathfinder. Pathfinder doesn't seem to have any details that are too tiny, the complexity is from normal detail level things.
Principle 4: Don't overwhelm players or Gamemasters. It's a bad sign if there's a long list of something especially if the list is incomplete.
Pessimist: This one is difficult to escape but Pathfinder and GURPS did a poor job of handling this. Humans & Heroes (or M&M) at least tries to keep things small.
Pessimist: This one is difficult to escape but Pathfinder and GURPS did a poor job of handling this. Humans & Heroes (or M&M) at least tries to keep things small.
TL;DR: To sum these 4: your rules are more complex than they need to be.
Which is the whole point of this post.
Principle 5: Stay balanced: everything from monsters, to players, NPCs, fighters, and wizards should all be on a fair playing field. For a universal system just use the same set of rules for everyone.
Pessimist: Pathfinder is the bigger offender but GURPS is also to blame. Magic and psionic are not equal and I heard that using the fantasy book will overpower all other books. Although I'd be surprised if the super powers book is not stronger still.
Pessimist: Pathfinder is the bigger offender but GURPS is also to blame. Magic and psionic are not equal and I heard that using the fantasy book will overpower all other books. Although I'd be surprised if the super powers book is not stronger still.
Principle 6: Stay organized by keeping everything related in 1 place and by referencing where to find everything that's somewhat related. This is a principle for how to consolidate the rules rather than about the rules themselves.
Pessimist: Again my GURPS rant about this above is obvious. Pathfinder monsters don't have all the info in 1 place. Did you know that the Fire subtype is immune to fire? I didn't for a long time because only some of said monsters list fire immunity in the monster page.Principle 7: If the system can have more than 1 setting then the rules need be an underlying engine agnostic of the setting.
Pessimist: Looking at Pathfinder is obvious but I'm also blaming GURPS. By trying to list every option they have assumed what is and isn't possible which in turn implies a limited number of settings at best. Like the "One Eye" disadvantage which assumes that your character's species normally has 2 eyes. There's also a lot of things stated about the social impact of magic and psionics. Which is to say that they come bundled with some setting.
No comments:
Post a Comment