[quote]Sounds like: Player empowerment
Is: Rewards for playing the way the DM wants you to[/quote]
Sounds both like a win/win to me 
[quote=āSimonā]
It gives a little bit of an incentive toward RPing.
However, as I said, I believe that RP comes from the players not the rules, anywayā¦
Still, deciding personalities traits during character creation will make people think about it more than they might have done. And having them written on the character sheet might reminds people to role-play from time to timeā¦[/quote]
I really love some of the personality traits. How could you forget personality traits like:
-I misuse long words in an attempt to sound smarter
-I quote (or misquote) sacred texts and proverbs almost every situation
(I imagine (spontaneously) translating proverbs from my native language to the language the group plays - like with a fake russian accent as a dwarf or similar )
And doing it during character creation, a brand new player to d&d would look at his character sheet and see a bunch of numbers (he more or less understands), skills and the personality traits. A little rp from the DM when he plays the NPCs may all a new player needs to break the ice and try to rp his character.
This is one of the reasons I wanted to give 5e a try:
[youtube]xE-2AQhcf4w[/youtube]
(Am I the only one that thinks that Greg is Seth MAcFarlaneās long lost brother?)
[quote="-H-"]
Is: Rewards for playing the way the DM wants you to[/quote]
As an aspiring DM, I donāt see a problem with that 
ninja-edit:missquote
[quote=āCaptain_Hindsightā][quote="-H-"]
Is: Rewards for playing the way the DM wants you to[/quote]
As an aspiring DM, I donāt see a problem with that [/quote]
Disguising DM power as player perks? Maybe this new version really is embracing that old school mentality.
Anyway, now that I have a bit of time to shoot the RPG breeze, a few more thoughts on the system matters debate ā¦
Yes, system matters. Of course it does. Thatās kind of trivial, really. The real question is to what degree system matters, and I think it matters far less than the general consensus.
For one thing, I think that the quality of a system matters remarkably little. Some of the games Iāve enjoyed most as a player at our evening sessions have featured systems that ranged from insipidly derivative to flat-out nonsensical. Somehow, those systems - once they actually hit the table rather than these theoretical discussions of ours - never got in the way of a fun game.
Thatās something pretty astonishing, isnāt it? I canāt think of another medium of which you could say that.
I think Iāll have to concede the point about CoC vs H Engine simply because Alrikās analysis is so acute, especially the point about the difference in perspective between DM and players. (Besides, you could also argue that CoC, Sherpa and H are just points on the same line, differing mainly in resoltution.)
But hereās another that may prove more fitting: Iāve played a couple games of CoC here with various DMs, as well as Trail once with Darth I. Those are quite different systems, and I can bore you for quite some time as to why I - in theory - like one and dislike the other. Yet in actual play, those games didnāt feel any different.
So sure, system matters. In some cases, as with Dread, system matters a whole lot. But more often than not, I donāt think system matters quite enough to be the grounds for a game design philosophy.
(Now to sit back and wait for the indie folks to set me straight and drag me into 21st century again. 
)
For me a system is a tool, that should emphasize the things I want to do in a campaign.
It is like in painting - should I use aquarelle, or acryl, or even oil?
Would both be fun? - yeah!
But is there something somewhere, that would help me, doing the things I wanna do? (note: my choice would be acryl btw. 
)
So typically I have an idea first, and later ponder what kind of system would emphasizes that idea the best.
āDo I want to make moral degeneration a focus?ā
āIs it courtly intrigue?ā
(or as some of my players would say it: āone of Darthbinkās social meatgrindersā)
etc.
Then later, I would choose a system that helps the most and maybe apply a few houserules to modifier it a little more torwards emphasizing the things I want to focus on.
Would it work with the āflip-the-coinā mechanic as well?
I am pretty shure it would do so, but would it actually help me?
Probably not.
So I would say, that system does not matter, but it helps. 
Continuing the Summon Auburney ritual ā¦
[quote=āIcewindā]If we take DnD as an example, there are tons of rules about combat, treasure, magic, skills, feats and whatnot. Are there any rules that will help foster roleplay? No. There are literally none. There are no rules that will help the players have the opportunity of expressing their character. If a major belief or characteristic of my character never comes up in play, well tough luck, I cannot (within the rules of the game) enforce that the topic be brought up.
Now good players and GMs can work around that, they can adress the topics and create situations that will create good roleplay. But the game does not help them with that. Furthermore the game does not require any player to actually have any beliefs or character at all. It is more an afterthought to the whole system.
DnD is just about loot and XP, that is what the system is designed for and what the mechanics enforce.
So but you might say: Good players and a good GM can still roleplay!
But to that my answer would be: Yes, but are you still playing DnD? Hell you could even roleplay the shit out of Monopoly! But that doesnāt make Monopoly a good roleplaying system!
Now if we take Burning Wheel as an example. The core mechanic of that game is that every character has three core beliefs that are central to their character at that moment. Eg:
- All monsters are human.
- I will protect the sister of my friend no matter what!
Now the GMs responsibility (and this is an explicit rule), is to challenge those beliefs via the game. So just there we have a very different goal than in DnD. Itās not about fighing, XP and loot. Itās about challenging what the characters belief, what they hold dear and breaking them, changing them. So the game is more the medium through which we explore the characters.
[/quote]
This pretty much sums up the heart of the indie movement, and while these ideas have led to some interesting games, Iāve always felt that they do D&D an injustice.
The problem is that role-playing, or even good role-playing, is not an absolute concept. It depends on the genre.
For example, what if we were to play a Poirot scenario? It could be a fun, challenging game, and there would be plenty of opportunities for good role-playing, particularly since you could expect the game to be dialog-driven, but there would presumably be next to no exploration of the main character. In fact, delving deep into Poirotās character would be jarringly out of place.
D&D is similar. Originally, the game was firmly in the sword & sorcery genre, and the system was well-suited for role-playing in that genre. There is, for example, a belief system in the form of alignments, which once upon a time did have strong rules to back it up. And those beliefs are certainly challenged - theyāre simply challenged in a way appropriate to the genre, the way Moorcock or Leiber would do.
As for exploring a character, I have yet to see a more effective way of doing so than handing someone a ring of wishes.
The summoning ritual is not strong enough yet ā¦ time to add the final arcane words:
āA gameās system can help determine its focus. An example of a game which uses its system to focus on story is Das Schwarze Auge.ā
Now if Iāve said the incantation correctly, an Auburney will magically appear!
[i]** a roiling black cloud of stinking smoke issues forth from the summoning circle**
screams of tormented (or perhaps blissfully exstatic?) souls can be heard drifting over from the world beyond on an unearthly gust of wind
a voice sounds from the darkness[/i]
NOW YOUāRE JUST TEASING ME, HAROLD - IN NO WAY CAN WHAT YOU JUST SAID ABOUT DSA BE CONFIRMED BY THE LOGIC OF ANY SANE BEING IN THE MULTIVERSE. GIVE IT A REST ALREADY!
CHERCH, Echerrmmā¦ the voice clears its invisible throat
Apart from that, however - many valid and valuable points have been brought up in this thread so far. I agree with some of them, beg to differ on some others, and would go into more details about themā¦ had I not made a New Yearās resolution not to participate in System Matters threads anymore.
They are fast becoming the Alignment Discussions of the new decade. 
Suffice it to say that both Icewind and Darthbinks bring up some very agreeable arguments and thoughts, while Amlashās and Captain Hindsightās reactions to this bit:
[quote]Sounds like: Player empowerment
Is: Rewards for playing the way the DM wants you to[/quote]
make me die a little inside, and makes me fear for the future of your pityful mortal species.
ā¦and to think I once had such high hopes for your upstart mutant monkey raceā¦
ā¦to think I once suggested you for membership in the Trans-Dimensional Federation of Ascended Sentients, by virtue of your invention of RPGs aloneā¦
**the voice can actually be heard shaking its head in a mockery of sadness and resignation**
I RECKON WE WILL GO WITH THE OTHER PLAN NOW, AFTER ALLā¦
another gust of smoke and wind, and there is only silenceā¦
Success! Success! The ritual worked! It cost 963 gp worth of material components, but it was worth it! Wooo!
Would I ever tease you about something like this? Of course not. Never. Well, maybe.
I do think thereās some truth in the statement, however. For example, using a traditional DM generally places more emphasis on the story - the actual story, not the creation or telling of that story - than DM-less formats. The same goes for simple rules.
Not that one style is better than another or anything silly like that, of course. But yes, I think itās safe to say that thereās a lot in traditional games that supports strong stories.
(And yes, Iām starting to worry about that āother planā ā¦)
[i]* a new person (or is it?) enters the room, takes a brief look around and joins the debate *
- an eery presence, like stale air from a cavity not opened for millenia, mixed with a sweetness like from a thousand forbidden pleasures, exudes from the strange figure *[/i]
Greetings, all. I have been sent here by my master, whose identity I am kindly asked not to reveal at this point, as I trust you will have nothing but understanding forā¦ but let us lose no time on my humble person, and letās instead get back to this debate of yours you appear to appear to have been having just then - for far be it from me to interrupt you in your dealingsā¦
You will forgive me if I have unintentionally eavesdropped, and snatched up a few words of yours while making my way through the doorā¦ were you just saying something about
if I heard correctly?
What would that āactual storyā be? As opposed to its ācreation or tellingā?
Are you perhaps talking of setting? Or some other thing that yet escapes me?
And I was also catching something about āsimple rulesāā¦ Yes, these are great. But what is that? I do feel a lingering presence in the astral space of this discussion chamberā¦ is thatā¦?
Why, Iāll be damned! (Or I would be, if I wasnāt already)
Indeed I find my worst worries confirmed - Thereās been a mention of DSA here not long ago!
But certainly, that canāt have been in connection with those āsimple rulesā you also brought up, now can it?
But no, how foolish of me - Certainly none could argue that a system with about 180 skills, and no less than 3 separate dice rolls for each and any application of any given one of them would count as āsimpleā, now could one?
* the mysterious newcomer takes a decidedly suspicious glance around the room, and pauses, apparently waiting for a responseā¦ *
ouch that hurts
ā¦ and reminds me of that insider joke at the early White Wolf Game Company, that their rules were intentionally bad, so that the players woud be forced to roleplay.
[quote="-H-"]This pretty much sums up the heart of the indie movement, and while these ideas have led to some interesting games, Iāve always felt that they do D&D an injustice.
The problem is that role-playing, or even good role-playing, is not an absolute concept. It depends on the genre.
For example, what if we were to play a Poirot scenario? It could be a fun, challenging game, and there would be plenty of opportunities for good role-playing, particularly since you could expect the game to be dialog-driven, but there would presumably be next to no exploration of the main character. In fact, delving deep into Poirotās character would be jarringly out of place.
D&D is similar. Originally, the game was firmly in the sword & sorcery genre, and the system was well-suited for role-playing in that genre. There is, for example, a belief system in the form of alignments, which once upon a time did have strong rules to back it up. And those beliefs are certainly challenged - theyāre simply challenged in a way appropriate to the genre, the way Moorcock or Leiber would do.
As for exploring a character, I have yet to see a more effective way of doing so than handing someone a ring of wishes.[/quote]
That is why, at least for me, a RPG Ruleset is a tool:
In some RPG stories you want to emphasize other things than in others
a rule set that would help you srory, thus helps you.
In a horror rpg campaign I did, I was using Unknown Armies, since it had a mechanic, where someone could not only loose his sanity, but also harden against certain effects instead - thus slowly turning in an uncaring inhuman being.
ā¦ āThe Sheriff of Nottingham is torturing the villagers again? ā¦ "
ā¦Well no surprise (and shock) here ā¦ā
- and exploring what this means for a characters, as some characters simply lost their mind because of all that carnage and suffering and other just hardened till the point of loosing the feeling that makes us human.
I certainly would have worked with Call / Trail of Cthulhu too, but to a lesser extend and would have had not the same impact.
In another (personal) horror campaign, the players were all playing cyborg (child) soldiers. So I used a variant of a New World of Darkness (Innocents) RPG ruleset, so that it would emphasize the theme of āLoss of Humanityā.
etc.
if I heard correctly?
What would that āactual storyā be? As opposed to its ācreation or tellingā?
Are you perhaps talking of setting? Or some other thing that yet escapes me? [/quote]
Sorry, maybe I didnāt express myself very clearly. What Iām talking about is - to put it in theatrical terms and tiptoe very cautiously onto your home turf - roughly the same as the difference between classical theater and improv.
When I go to see a play for the first time, Iām generally interested first and foremost in the story itself (and the meaning of that story). Sure, Iāll pay attention to the acting, and try to appreciate the costumes and stage design, but what I really want to know is what happens to that Macbeth fellow. Thatās the actual story.
At an improv show, I donāt really care all that much about the story itself. Iām there to see how the actors build the story, put each other on the spot, extricate themselves from dead ends, etc. The way the story is created is the important part; the actual story is almost an afterthought.
So yes, although it might sound odd, systems like DSA (and Iām talking about its older, simpler incarnations) really do put a greater focus on the story itself than many more recent games.
ā¦ but a system can not only help the things you want to do,
it can effectivily make them harder.
D&D ruleset is killing stuff and collecting loot but that does not mean that you cant get more bang for the buck. a GM can still make RP encounters or encourage RP.
anyway, not everyone have the same emphasis on RP, the same RP skills or interests. I personally simply enjoy sitting together with a group of people playing a game and I most likely would play anything else as long I can have some fun with friends. I try to make it as enjoyable as possible for others with bigger emphasis on RP and I will take any RP āchallengeā from the GM but it just isnt my main focus.
in short, the point is: RP does not need any rules, RP is what you make out of it and it is the GMs task to create an environment that can challenge all kinds of players equally.
Yes, but rules can help you a lot. (just yesterday we were discussing the Recon-Point system of the Leverage RPG (Cortex plus) and how this mechanic could help a Shadowrun game a lot.
ā¦ and as I mentioned before, rules can also hinder a game.
So system does matter after all.
Perhaps not, but RPGs do. Wouldnāt you agree?
The trouble with all this is that āsystem mattersā isnāt simply a neutral statement of fact when it comes to RPGs. It carries all sorts of baggage.
For one thing, āsystem mattersā is inextricably linked to GNS theory, which makes the whole thing a bit hard to agree with for those of us who think GNS is a pile of minotaur manure.