Ranting Theories
Mostly just getting some stuff out of my head...
Theory: "There is no perfect system, only a perfect combination of players, characters, setting, house rules, etc."
I was fairly enamored with the d20 system when it came to be. The core simplicity appeals to me still, but it's become so mired in optional rules that it's impossible to see anymore. Now I almost wish I was still using THAC0 - which at least encouraged math skills instead of good-luck-finding-all-your-modifiers skills. Lately, I've come to appreciate Unisystem (save for a few major holes). Even there, though, I've seen a disparity between characters that's hard to deal with.
And thus, I have come to believe that the system matters infinitely less than how (and by whom) it's used. I have had great games in different systems, and crappy games in the same ones. It's more important to have people who are all interested in the game and not too contrasting in styles. I have seen the difficulties that arise from one 'munchkin' in a group of 'roleplayers' (and vice versa), and think the ability to function together in a group like that matters far more than what die is rolled when.
Theory: "Arrrrrgh!" or "Open-ended isn't the way to go."
In a persistent world (such as a MUCK), things take on a whole different dimension. Instead of a game running for once a week - with occasional interruption - for maybe forty sessions in a year, you have a place where some people may play forty sessions in less than two months. If there's an XP system, people will accumulate points one way or another. If you design a system thinking 'X is the practical maximum strength for PCs and Y is the absolute,' you're probably fooling yourself if you think there won't be multiple Strength: Y characters running around a year down the line. And if there aren't maximums, then don't be surprised when a PC steps up and tosses a building into low orbit.
I don't even know if there is a good system for this sort of game - I can't recall seeing one that works long-term. Maybe there's something to RP MU*s dying every few years. The most fun I've had was really during periods of time I didn't use (or didn't have) a system to work in - but I don't trust enough players to work under those (lack of) constraints either. Add to that the horrible difference in abilities you can end up with between a new character (say, a stock guard with basic weapons and some combat training) and an old character (designed as a common youth, but with so many points they have the stats of a demi-god and magic enough to blow up small cities), and it's really hard to challenge people in any way that's still fun.
So my current feeling is to have a system with realistic (and enforced) maximums to stats and slow advancement. As much as gamers like the feeling of accomplishment at having a Level Z uber-mage, logic fails when trying to fit them into a world that's expected to have any sort of continuity. Such powerful characters can (and do) shape the world too seriously for everyone else to deal with. I think it would be better for that continuity to put limits in effect to keep older (or just favored) characters from being so insane compared to new ones. Then, heaven forbid, everyone could at least play together.
Theory: "Moneymongers and rabid fans suck."
Why? Because they refuse to accept one fundamental part of storytelling - the ending.
Endings serve a purpose. They keep a story self-contained and keep it from dragging out and losing its spark, which seems inevitable at some point. In movies and books, it's rare that you find a single piece-turned-trilogy in which the sequels surpass the original in appeal. Usually the magic of that first part is in the telling of the setting and/or the relationships between characters. By the time you get to the sequels, that's been done.
Sure, everyone wants to see more of characters/stories they like, but there comes a time it's really better to let go than to continue stringing things along.
In a fantasy setting, it seems to be even worse. The stories there often involve things of epic scale, thus to top a story and make a sequel, the creators have to come up with something... that's more epic in scale. It only works for so long before becoming ludicrous. For an extreme version of this sort of power creep, just read about DragonBall Z.
So... I won't say sequels shouldn't exist, but there comes a time when every story should end. It sorta makes me wish there were a 'forced retirement' for some of my own characters, honestly.
Theory: "There is no perfect system, only a perfect combination of players, characters, setting, house rules, etc."
I was fairly enamored with the d20 system when it came to be. The core simplicity appeals to me still, but it's become so mired in optional rules that it's impossible to see anymore. Now I almost wish I was still using THAC0 - which at least encouraged math skills instead of good-luck-finding-all-your-modifiers skills. Lately, I've come to appreciate Unisystem (save for a few major holes). Even there, though, I've seen a disparity between characters that's hard to deal with.
And thus, I have come to believe that the system matters infinitely less than how (and by whom) it's used. I have had great games in different systems, and crappy games in the same ones. It's more important to have people who are all interested in the game and not too contrasting in styles. I have seen the difficulties that arise from one 'munchkin' in a group of 'roleplayers' (and vice versa), and think the ability to function together in a group like that matters far more than what die is rolled when.
Theory: "Arrrrrgh!" or "Open-ended isn't the way to go."
In a persistent world (such as a MUCK), things take on a whole different dimension. Instead of a game running for once a week - with occasional interruption - for maybe forty sessions in a year, you have a place where some people may play forty sessions in less than two months. If there's an XP system, people will accumulate points one way or another. If you design a system thinking 'X is the practical maximum strength for PCs and Y is the absolute,' you're probably fooling yourself if you think there won't be multiple Strength: Y characters running around a year down the line. And if there aren't maximums, then don't be surprised when a PC steps up and tosses a building into low orbit.
I don't even know if there is a good system for this sort of game - I can't recall seeing one that works long-term. Maybe there's something to RP MU*s dying every few years. The most fun I've had was really during periods of time I didn't use (or didn't have) a system to work in - but I don't trust enough players to work under those (lack of) constraints either. Add to that the horrible difference in abilities you can end up with between a new character (say, a stock guard with basic weapons and some combat training) and an old character (designed as a common youth, but with so many points they have the stats of a demi-god and magic enough to blow up small cities), and it's really hard to challenge people in any way that's still fun.
So my current feeling is to have a system with realistic (and enforced) maximums to stats and slow advancement. As much as gamers like the feeling of accomplishment at having a Level Z uber-mage, logic fails when trying to fit them into a world that's expected to have any sort of continuity. Such powerful characters can (and do) shape the world too seriously for everyone else to deal with. I think it would be better for that continuity to put limits in effect to keep older (or just favored) characters from being so insane compared to new ones. Then, heaven forbid, everyone could at least play together.
Theory: "Moneymongers and rabid fans suck."
Why? Because they refuse to accept one fundamental part of storytelling - the ending.
Endings serve a purpose. They keep a story self-contained and keep it from dragging out and losing its spark, which seems inevitable at some point. In movies and books, it's rare that you find a single piece-turned-trilogy in which the sequels surpass the original in appeal. Usually the magic of that first part is in the telling of the setting and/or the relationships between characters. By the time you get to the sequels, that's been done.
Sure, everyone wants to see more of characters/stories they like, but there comes a time it's really better to let go than to continue stringing things along.
In a fantasy setting, it seems to be even worse. The stories there often involve things of epic scale, thus to top a story and make a sequel, the creators have to come up with something... that's more epic in scale. It only works for so long before becoming ludicrous. For an extreme version of this sort of power creep, just read about DragonBall Z.
So... I won't say sequels shouldn't exist, but there comes a time when every story should end. It sorta makes me wish there were a 'forced retirement' for some of my own characters, honestly.
Only you can decide to put the pencil (or keyboard) down and walk away from a character.
ReplyDeleteWow man, I agree with everything you wrote. As uninvolved as I have been with RPG's for the past five years, I still believe that 2nd ed AD&D was great because the rules didn't really interfere with the story telling and the adventure. Also, could it be planned for that arthritis and alzheimers could prevent uber-powerful characters?
ReplyDeleteThe uberpowerful characters in fantasy settings can plan for old age and take measures to prevent such things from occuring. ;) (Immortality is a trait you can buy in some cases)
ReplyDeleteA solid portfolio of low risk/high yield tavern investments and shares in healing potion manufacturing companies could also help the ubers plan for their twilight years.
ReplyDelete