[Forge-main] [Fwd: Thoughts on FORGE]

[Ricardo Gladwell]

This is a discussion between me and Sisyphus that I am forwarding to the
FORGE mailing list so everyone can join in :)

-----Forwarded Message-----

> From: Ricardo Gladwell <address@hidden>
> To: Duncan <address@hidden>
> Subject: Thoughts on FORGE
> Date: 28 Oct 2002 16:16:41 +0000
> 
> Hi Duncan,
> 
> If you don't mind I thought I would split up our discussion on FORGE in
> another email. Also, could I ask your permission to forward this email I
> am sending you to the FORGE mailing list?
> 
> Don't worry about the die mechanics: if you've played more than a couple
> of RPGs, which I assume you have, then you have enough experience. What
> I am looking for is a simple method of resolving tasks. I want a simple
> system that consists of setting a difficulty (a number between 1 and 10)
> and then rolling one dice to determine whether the action was successful
> or not. I want it to use a similar mechanic to the one I've published in
> FORGE 0.0. Any thoughts at all on this matter would be most gratefully
> received.
> 
> You right about the "Try to please everybody and you'll please nobody,"
> idea. However, that said, FUDGE and d20 have both been successful
> 'generic' systems, although they both tend to lend themselves to a
> particular style of play. They don't please everyone but the please
> enough to be played. I want FORGE to lend itself to a d20-style of play,
> but with the simplicity and story-focused play of the Storyteller
> system. In general, each sub-genre of FORGE will tailor the rules
> slightly so that they will work better with their chosen genres.
> 
> Personally, I believe in simple combat systems - complex, 'realistic'
> combat systems are always unsatisfactory. Complexity is better
> 'modelled' by putting in roleplaying 'relishes' during combat rather
> than extra dice rolls. In combat I'd rather see a simple system with
> extra, optional rules that be 'plugged in' for added complexity.
> 
> With the Unique Traits, I want GURPS style advantages/disadvantages
> mixed with d20-feat talents. I'm sure there is some method of doing
> this, I just haven't conceptualized it yet. You are right about GURPS
> in-equal disadvantages/advantages but I want a more generic system of
> classification - e.g. Pacificism would be a Major Code (depending upon
> how much combat plays a role in your games), whilst pyromania would be a
> Minor Insanity.
> 
> Finally, on the subject of subjectivity: I agree, and lots of people
> agree with you, that system and setting cannot really be separated. You
> need to tailor rules to the setting. This is the advantage of systems
> like FUDGE however - they allow you to customize your rules to a
> particular setting. This is why GURPs fails - it assumes all games will
> play under exactly the same set rules. That, and its a horrible, clnky
> system. Even d20 must compromise a bit, for each new world published
> under d20 new rules must always be created.
> 
> So, I want a system like FUDGE that has some aspects of modern
> roleplaying games (d20, Storyteller) and is published under a free
> content license. I also want Paris all to myself for one day.
> 
> On Mon, 2002-10-28 at 00:50, Sisyphus D wrote:
> > With regards to Forge -- ah, yes, let me say first
> > that I've joined the mailing list.  It seems that
> > you've noticed: I found some posts in my mailbox. 
> > Unfortunately, I have to admit that I don't have any
> > great suggestions yet when it comes to die mechanics. 
> > I've never played with the Storyteller system before
> > -- I have virtually no idea with how it works, in fact
> > -- so I can't give you any suggestions from that
> > angle.  Then again, you have Jerry Stratton, and he
> > alone could probably help you create the system (and
> > far better than he and I together could help -- I'd be
> > a detriment).
> > 
> > In addition, I'm terrible at deciding which course to
> > set when attempting to develop the "generic gaming
> > system" -- especially simple ones, as simplicity
> > necessarily sacrifices the detail required to cover
> > all possibilities.  "Try to please everybody and
> > you'll please nobody," as they say, and I tend to
> > agree with that.  Either something is so vague as to
> > be more a set of guidelines than rules (e.g., Fudge,
> > which I actually like), or so convoluted that it needs
> > dozens of source books (e.g., GURPS, which I've grown
> > to dislike nearly as much as d20).  Meanwhile, issues
> > such as realism vs. idealism and realism vs. the
> > fantastic come into play; gritty modern games have a
> > feel wholly different from swashbuckling high
> > adventure, and the systems used to play them must
> > reflect these differences.
> > 
> > If I have any skill at all, it's in creating games
> > based around certain genres or worlds, and then
> > deconstructing those rules and rebuilding them for
> > other genres or worlds.  I've been thinking of
> > creating an open "Ancient Greek epics in space" game,
> > for example, in which gods, heroes, monsters, and
> > magic would be melded with spacecraft, technology, and
> > space exploration.  I think that it would be... well,
> > perhaps not a classic (no pun intended), but
> > entertaining enough.  Could contain rules for tragic
> > flaws, hamartia, prophecy, etc.  At the same time,
> > I've been considering other games whose rules wouldn't
> > fit in with this form at all -- perhaps the rules for
> > fighting would need to be more down-to-Earth (again,
> > no pun intended), or maybe the skills would be more
> > specific.
> > 
> > Subjects such as combat resolution illustrate the
> > above point nicely.  Rules that would strive to be
> > realistic would have to contain almost countless
> > factors -- I mean, look at all of the variables that
> > factor into any equation concerning Newtonian physics.
> >  On the other hand, these countless factors would
> > translate into lots of rules mechanics, which would
> > slow down combat resolution, and thus remove the
> > "feeling" of combat.  One could make two systems, true
> > -- one for simple, and one for complex -- but then
> > isn't one simply making two rules systems?  I've never
> > found two truly interchangeable combat systems
> > developed in such a manner; I mean, if the simple one
> > really represented the complex one, then why shouldn't
> > the simple one always be used?  If the answer is
> > "detail," then why doesn't one create simple and
> > complex rules for every other facet of the game as
> > well -- generic skill resolution, for instance -- and,
> > in effect, create two systems?
> > 
> > And I'm not going to even bring up the issue of
> > realism vs. idealism when it comes to injuries and
> > hospital visits...
> > 
> > Hmmm... let me see what else I wanted to say...
> > 
> > Ah, yes: "classifying unique traits under a unified
> > system."  That's a toughie, although I've often seen
> > it as a design goal.  Part of the problem as I
> > perceive it is that what one person considers a
> > reasonable measure is not always what another person
> > considers a reasonable measure; for example, GURPS
> > (well, GURPS Lite, anyway) lists Pacifism as a -15
> > point disadvantage, while Pyromania is a -5 point
> > disadvantage.  Hunh?  Maybe in Ancient Sparta, but
> > probably not in the modern Western world.  I admit
> > that I did like Fuzion's "Frequency / Intensity /
> > Importance" guidelines, but that's what they amounted
> > to: guidelines.  One person's opinion of a given
> > complication will not necessarily be another's opinion
> > of that same complication.
> > 
> > For the same reasons that I've been basing prior
> > arguments on, generic Powers will likely be a pain in
> > the butt.  When I was considering this matter a few
> > months ago, I tried to come up with a
> > "verb-noun-quantity-duration" system.  For example,
> > "create [verb] a lot of [quantity] fire [noun] for an
> > instant [duration]" could function as the spell
> > "Fireball" or some superhero's "Flame Expulsion"
> > ability; at the same time, "charm [verb] one
> > [quantity] individual [noun] for several hours
> > [duration]" could just as easily function as the spell
> > "Charm Person" as it could for the "Mesmerize" setting
> > on Captain Dirk Starslapper's raygun.  The problem? 
> > Well, the system's too vague, and it suffers from the
> > "subjectivity" problem that affects traits, skills,
> > combat, and everything else.  Besides, it doubtless
> > has holes -- I'm sure that there'd be something that
> > didn't fit, and what then?  New generic rules that
> > have to fit with the old ones?
> > 
> > It suddenly comes to my mind: subjectivity is the very
> > reason that I prefer developing specific systems for
> > specific worlds rather than generic systems for
> > generic ones, even if systems in these worlds are
> > based upon the same rough frame and can be converted
> > one to the next.  Objectivity is a difficult goal;
> > "Red Dwarf" and "Star Trek: The Next Generation" play
> > by different rules, for example, and their systems
> > would have to do so too.
> > 
> > I hope that I'm not frustrating you! -- I'm simply
> > giving you my viewpoint.  Keep in mind, however, that
> > I'm always open to possibility.  And if I can't help
> > with mechanics, perhaps I can do less interesting work
> > (like defining skills that you've approved).
> 
> -- 
> Ricardo Gladwell
> President, Free Roleplaying Community
> http://www.freeroleplay.org/
> address@hidden
-- 
Ricardo Gladwell
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
       little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
             - Benjamin Franklin