First, I'm not a regular here so I'm not up on all the vocabulary and lingo y'all use. So bear with me.

Please, please, please, for the love of all things green and furry, help me find a system so that I can finally run a freakin' game instead of not running a freakin' game because i can never find the 'right' rules.

List O' Requisite Type Things:

1. Rules Lite and Fast. Meaning that you say what you're going to do, roll a standard number of dice, do very minimal single digit math, and know pretty much right away with a simple glance of the dice if it worked or not.

2. Very little (what I know as) 'crunchy bits'.

3. 2dx, 3dx, etc, or die pool.

4. We play fantasy. Pretty generic. Characters range from 'normal humans' to 'somewhat Exalted' types.

5. Combat - here's the thing. I don't need the rules to force realism; we can take care of it during the game. And not every successful hit is automatically a damaging blow. What I need is rules that provide some guiding info: success levels, severity of wound, etc, so that I can make something up (about the attack) that fits what the dice say. But I don't want a dead character every time a dagger lands a strike. On the other hand, if the character gets shot in the torso with an arrow, then, well, better start thinking of a new character concept. But the most important thing is speed of play: roll the dice, look at the dice, decide what happened, move on. Is there such a beast?

6. Broad skill groups.

7. Small number of attributes.

8. Skill based.

9. Ability to add 'powers' (spells, charms, etc) to the system without mucking anything up.

10. In resolution, the dice play a factor, but it's mostly the skill level that decides the outcome.

11. Not sure how to put this... I don't want a character progression system like D&D. Yes, I want the characters to progress at regular intervals, but the rate at which they do should be pretty granular.

Why can't I find a game system I'm satisfied with? Am I freak or something? Aaaaiiiiiiggghhh!!!!

For reference- TriStat dX is pretty close to what I'm looking for. If it focused more on skills than all the special powers and stuff I'd have liked it much more.

Thanks.

Hi Shane! Haven't "seen" you since I stopped frequenting the Harn forums. (I go by Silkworm over there...)

Anyway, I'll answer your question with a question:

You seem to have a pretty explicit idea of what you want from your game. So, why not design your own system? I know you've got the talent for it, given your work with the d20 Harn Guide. Designing your own game can be very rewarding. Also, note that formulating a clear idea of what you want your game to do, as you have, is a huge part of the work. You're halfway there already. Just something to think about.

ShaneNINE wrote: Why can't I find a game system I'm satisfied with? Am I freak or something? Aaaaiiiiiiggghhh!!!!

For reference- TriStat dX is pretty close to what I'm looking for. If it focused more on skills than all the special powers and stuff I'd have liked it much more.

Oh, and John's not tooting his own horn, so I will:

http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/freerpgs/
http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/encyclopedia/

These are good places to go to find games you've never heard of...

Storyboard?

Hero Quest is almost precisely what you describe.

1. Using Simple Contests, one roll for any conflict and it's all over. There is one table that you have to either memorize or refer to (I memorized it after one session).

2. The basic resolution has almost no crunchy bits. Where they exist, they're all in setting info that can be taken or chucked as you like.

3. One d20 for every roll. Every roll. There are no other types of rolls for damage or for anything.

4. The standard setting is fantasy, and I have extensive notes on how to convert it to other fantasy settings.

5. Covers your combat concerns perfectly and applies them to things outside of combat as well.

6. They're called Keywords in HQ.

7. No attributes at all. None. If you want to be strong, you buy it like any other Ability.

8. It's "Ability" based. Everything is an ability, skills, "attributes", friends, everything. One system, no waiting.

9. Can handle any power you can think up as easily as Pick Lock skill (and with the same system).

10. Character abilities are rated on a scale of 6 to 1000 or so. And you use a d20 to resolve things. Yet there are still times when the underdog wins. It's all things here.

11. Characters progress constantly by spending Hero Points at the end of every session (pretty standard these days, actually).

All this said, it may turn out that you can't stand HQ. Why? Because it has several non-traditional ideas in it to make this all work well. So just beware. But I can only recommend it.

Mike "starting to sound like a fanboy" Holmes

I second the esteemed Mr. Holmes' recommendation of HeroQuest. I have used it for everything from Star Wars to Nephilim to Bunnies & Burrows to Aberrant, and then some. It is marvelously versatile and, using the Extended Contest rules, any activity can become the suspense-filled climax of an evening's play... something which most other games only manage with combat.

The problem with using Heroquest, is that it only uses one die. It sounds like you want a system with more of a dice curve, where skill ratings are more important than lucky dice rolls.

I would suggest trying GURPS, but I personally don't like combat in GURPS. However, GURPS combat can be pretty simple. It uses 3d6, so it has a strong dice curve.

Hero System also uses 3d6 but it tends to be more "crunchy."

I second the suggestion that you try creating your own system or adapting a system you like. For example, if you like everything else about Heroquest, I'm sure you can adapt it to use 2d6 or some other dice pool.

Nuadha points out an error in my statements. In HQ there are two dice rolled, one by each side of the contest. Further, by an interesting artifact of the chart used, there are indeed curves in HQ, and very interesting ones at that.

Mike

Nuadha wrote: The problem with using Heroquest, is that it only uses one die. It sounds like you want a system with more of a dice curve, where skill ratings are more important than lucky dice rolls.

You could check out FATE (FUDGE based) - so clever it hurts and it sounds like it'll fit the bill.

I second FUDGE. It can do all of the stuff you want, and it's really easy for new players to pick up, too.

Shane, have you seen The Window?

http://www.mimgames.com/window/

it pretty much fits your bill.

Ok, thanks very much folks.

I had already seen The Window, FUDGE, HeroQuest (Mike, you're right, I just can't wrap my head around that; I need numbers!), Simply Roleplaying, and Action (pretty neat, that one).

FATE looks very promising. I've downloaded it and printed it to read.

I'm also rethinking GURPS Lite. Maybe even a lite version of Hero, but the work involved with that makes me cringe.

Ethan/Silkworm: I could do my own system, true, but I just don't want to. I'm way too lazy. I'm not even looking forward to adapting an existing ruleset. If I did make up my own system, it would likely look a lot like GURPS Lite anyway.

Thank you all for the suggestions.

Shane, I'm missing something. I mean, I can understand if you don't like HQ for some reason. But I don't get the numbers comment. Looking at a typical character sheet, I count 63 numbers on it. And that's before play starts, and loads of other numbers come tumbling in with each resolution. So what were you trying to say.

In any case, if you like Hero, but with less work, then you might be intrested in Fuzion. That and Action are based on Hero.

That said, FATE may be perfect. OTOH, if it is, then I'm not sure what the beef could be with HQ...

Mike

Mike: Um... I was thinking about the word descriptors for abilities, etc. I guess what I meant is that it wasn't quite traditional enough for me. Of course, now that I've read a good bit of FATE I see that it's very similar in that regard. I haven't ever played Fudge, but I was never very keen on it ("What?! Dice with no numbers?!"). FATE seems a really good incarnation of the Fudge rules, though. Neat ideas.

GURPS, Hero, Fuzion, and Action are the kinds of systems that draw my attention. There's just something about each that keeps me from jumping in all the way. I guess if I had to decide right now I'd go with GURPS (lite). Of course, I won't decide cause I have some sort of gaming dysfunction and I can't achieve or maintain a campaign.

ShaneNINE wrote: Of course, I won't decide cause I have some sort of gaming dysfunction and I can't achieve or maintain a campaign.

Hello,

Shane, I think I could help you with this question if you answered me these things:

When, last, did you fully and unequivocally enjoy an entire session of role-playing?

Who were you playing with? What role did you play (not character, I mean what social role) among them?

What system were you using? Which is also asking, what did or didn't you change about the rules-set you were using?

Best,
Ron

Mike:

No, I haven't. But I am now.

Actually, my ideal right now is very different from what it was for the longest time. I used to be into super complicated systems and 'realism'. Now I want something fast and lite. So, in a way, I have been looking at new things, just not quite as far a field as something like FATE or HeroQuest. A big problem I have is that my group really dislikes trying new systems. Whenever I mention a new system I get the collective evil eye - they're tired of making characters for a new system and then never playing.

I really wanted to like FATE. Simple, easy mechanics, with really interesting ideas. But simple or not I wouldn't really know what to do with it when it came time for actual play. I'd feel lost and out of my element running it.

Ron:

Before I answer your questions I think I should clarify a few things.

First, I've been into gaming for 20 years (I'm 32) but I haven't actually done a lot of it; hardly any, actually. Second, I only play with my two pals and my wife. They're the only people I've gamed with in the past 10 years.

1. When, last, did you fully and unequivocally enjoy an entire session of role-playing?

Not ever, I think. Not for an entire session. A recent session of Exalted (what we've been playing on and off for over a year) was definately on the top five list, though. In January, I think. It was one of those games where game mechanics didn't really come into the session at all and if they did it would have just slowed things down.

Who were you playing with? What role did you play (not character, I mean what social role) among them?

My wife and two best pals - the usual gang.

The role I played... the leader. Meaning that the other players are somewhat passive and reactive whereas I'm proactive. I make things happen. I explore plot hooks. I give the GM lots of things to work with. When a tactical situation comes up I take charge even if my character may not be the one in charge. This is the normal role I play in our group. Ever since we were kids.

What system were you using? Which is also asking, what did or didn't you change about the rules-set you were using?

We are using the Exalted Storyteller system. It's my first exposure to this system (or anything like it). We didn't change anything, though I sure wanted to.

I like the die-pool mechanic, but it's way too slow, especially in combat. The charms are neat, but too 'crunchy' for me.

Hm.

I suggest that you try a slimmed-down version of Exalted; don't really change the rules system, just trim the fat. Here's one way to do that:

• Don't roll dice for Extras or any kind of incidental characters; divide their dice pools by 2 to find a difficulty for opposed actions. Then, you can just record this diff.
• Minimize damage rolls; divide damage pools by three and roll the remainder (if it divides evenly, subtract one from the result and roll three instead.)
• Use an abstracted Charm system. Jeph's thread at rpgnet tells how he did it.

Mike Holmes wrote: Have you considered that your choices of systems may be contributing to your lack of running a game? That, perhaps trying something out of your comfort zone is what you need to get some actual play going?

Hi Shane,

I am happy that you've found my essay helpful, because I was anticipating composing a rather painful post for this thread. With any luck, it'll now be food for thought rather than a potential trauma ...

Consider a fellow who tells me, "Help me figure out what sport I can play," and lists a few parameters along the lines of "there has to be a ball, there have to be teams," or stuff like that.

Then I ask, what sport have you actually, unequivocally enjoyed for a full session of play? And he says, not one. "I have never enjoyed any actual session of sports all the way through." He's been "involved" in sports for twenty years, though.

Does this seem ... wrong, to you? It does to me. Not in the sense that I should tell the person, "Give up, go away," but in the sense that there is literally nothing I can tell him regarding what sort of game to play. He has no parameters for success/good/fun at all. Anything I say will only be evaluated in terms of an ideal sports experience that he has in his head, for which he has no actual confirmation from reality.

Or consider the woman who asks me, "Help me find a romantic partner, I'm so lonely." I say, so, what's been happening in your relationships, what did you like in the past. And she says, "I have never enjoyed a relationship. I've never enjoyed a whole date. They all turn out to be cruddy in some way."

Whoa. That is one woman that I cannot possibly offer any advice to, except maybe to say, "There are some good professional avenues to seek out for folks who have a hard time with relationships at this general level."

The most important thing about these two examples is that the person has not even had one unit of enjoyment, ever. It's not like the sports-guy really enjoyed softball for years, but now wants something like it that won't hurt his knees. Nor is it like the woman had a great relationship in college, but lately her relationships are getting shorter and shorter, and more and more alike in their negative outcomes. Those people I could talk to, maybe chat around mutual experiences, and at least provide some data or a recommendation for more people to talk to.

The guy has never even enjoyed a single afternoon of playing any sport. The woman has never even enjoyed a single date. How can anyone help them discover a fun sport or a good romantic candidate by addressing the details? They can't. Clearly there is a much larger issue at work.

To my way of thinking, for role-playing, the larger issue is usually Creative Agenda. Again, since it seems as if you're interested in checking out that idea to approach your situation, I'll look forward to answering any questions you have about it, and we can both look forward to a possible happy ending (or beginning).

Two bits of advice, if you're interested.

1. Addressing this through discussion with your friends and wife isn't necessarily the best route at the moment. People can be pretty threatened by the ideas, especially if they perceive "let's re-consider our role-playing" as "you're not role-playing right," or even as, "let's re-consider our friendship." And that misperception is pretty common, so be careful. I suggest going into a more slow-expectations, internal processing mode about the topic.

2. The "GNS and other matters" essay is currently the most complete of my essays, but it's out of date in some ways, and in one very significant way. I suggest checking out "Narrativism: Story Now," because its first section presents the Big Model - all of role-playing, considered at once, with Creative Agenda (GNS) properly placed among its parts. And I hope that you'll check out the Simulationism and Gamism essays too, because (as far as experience here at the Forge shows) they seem to do a good job of overcoming a lot of ambiguities in the larger essay.

Anyway, overall, I hope this is a positive post rather than a negative one, and I am impressed by your willingness to re-consider your whole approach. It's a big scary step.

Best,
Ron

Shane,

I'm not entirely sure I agree with Ron about discussions with your wife and the other players. I see what he's saying, which is that if such a thing goes bad it's really going to go bad. What you've just been saying on this thread, however, suggests to me an alternative approach.

Start the discussion by saying that you've come to the realization that you're not having anywhere near as much fun as you think gaming ought to be, and that when you think backwards it seems to be you that's the problem, in the sense that you haven't really loved it, not ever. If you really open up on this, I would like to think that your friends and your wife will respond with concern, rather than assuming an accusation.

Next, ask them if they'd be willing to try a few very short games of totally different kinds. Maybe you could alternate with your regular gaming sessions? And when I say different, I mean different. Different style, different setting, different approach, everything. Just for one or two evenings.

Basically I'd like to see you and your friends try a bunch of these brilliant little games that have been generated lately, setting aside all your preconceptions about what you do and do not like. As Ron says, this is like saying that you love sports, and they have to have a ball and teams, but actually you don't like such sports. Okay, what happens if you don't have a ball or teams? Maybe you'll discover that what you really love is skiing.

Fortunately, a lot of these games are cheap or free. Just buy 'em and download 'em. Give them a whirl.

Ideally, I'd like to see you try two coherent designs from each Creative Agenda (Narrativist, Gamist, Simulationist), minimum. Play them straight, meaning no house rules or setting-changes. This is only a one-shot experiment, after all. If you all find you hate something, you've only lost one evening, and maybe (I hope) you've learned something very specific. But if you keep an open mind, you might suddenly find that everyone is just panting to play Donjon or something again.

I'm not the guy to ask for the list of coherent "shorties," but I'm sure others will chime in and make up a starter list.

What I'd ask everyone else, then, is this: can we help Shane by devising a list of 2-4 fully coherent cheap games for each CA? Ideally, these should also be easy to run and require relatively small preparation by anyone.

Chris Lehrich

Hi there,

NARRATIVIST
Dust Devils, InSpectres, My Life with Master

SIMULATIONIST
Pocket Universe, Dread, JAGS

GAMIST
Tunnels & Trolls, Ninja Burger

None of these sets fully represents the mode in question, but each presents a nice sampling of its mode. I'm sure some other folks can chime in with their ideas.

Best,
Ron

Hi,

The Pool.

Best wishes,

/Peter Nordstrand

I don't know about The Pool, actually. I thought this was considered one of those rarest of games, the true hybrid. It might be worth trying out after playing a bunch of the pure-CA games, and seeing which CA seems to arise, but I wouldn't start there.

Chris Lehrich

Thanks for the suggestions and all the help!

How would you classify HeroQuest and FATE?

These games both tend to support narrativism best, IME. I've only played one game of FATE, but I've played loads of HQ.

But really that's not all that important. Read the games, and play whichever sounds like fun.

Mike