|
|
Post by mikezekim on Jun 27, 2019 21:42:23 GMT
A common problem with many RPGs is they lack rule-support for different campaign frameworks. GMs either have to hand wave stuff or make up enter new rule sub-systems.
Examples:
If I wanted to run a "tramp freighter" game in BP, I would need to create an entire rule sub-system for vehicle maintenance, buying and selling of goods, as well as creating economic data for where to buy and sell different type of goods.
If I wanted to run a "new colony" game, I would need to create rules for the building and running of settlements. Pathfinder's Kingmaker series has become the gold-standard for this style of game.
If I wanted to run a "mining" game, I would need rules for prospecting (underwater), mining, selling, equipment maintenance, etc...
If I wanted to run a "research and exploration" game, I would need rules for generating generic research results, raising funds, etc...
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 2, 2019 23:42:56 GMT
Yeah, that's an accurate observation. Especially now in a modern market where RPGs increasingly focused on one kind of story, intention or experience. Truth is, for any one game to cover all the possible options there would have to be so many volumes the project would become economically impossible to publish.
|
|
|
|
Post by grinnenbaeritt on Jul 12, 2019 15:26:10 GMT
Yeah, that's an accurate observation. Especially now in a modern market where RPGs increasingly focused on one kind of story, intention or experience. Truth is, for any one game to cover all the possible options there would have to be so many volumes the project would become economically impossible to publish. I'm actually not that convinced it would be. Let's say you want to cover the "space" element, you detail a "Major" location sourcebook (e.g. A space station orbiting Poseidon) with an expansion of what is given in the main rules... then strap the relevant required details/rules/examples onto/into that. Besides, the economic trend is to publish a Chunky "Core" rulebook, then for any following products/supplements to be more "lightweight" with regard to page count/content, but cost roughly the same, mainly due to two reasons. 1. Not everybody "wants" that additional content, so the demand will be lower, at least for printed product. 2. The difficulty of producing/acquiring that much additional specifc content to make it viable as a quality product for a player. Much more likely for a GM though. My point, and this is a big one, is that BLUE PLANET has always been about the setting/background for me, and less about the rules, so I'd actually try and develop some generic coverage which will attract "crossover" referees.. So, would I buy sourcebooks on space-stations, underwater cities, mining facilities etc SPECIFIC for the BLUE PLANET rules, possibly... add in quality examples of floor/ship plans etc, then definitely. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 23, 2019 22:32:40 GMT
Fair point, and I agree that BP has always been about the setting. We do hope you will like the new rules as much as we do however.
|
|
|
|
Post by michaelsd on Aug 1, 2019 17:14:08 GMT
Just a suggestion: at the end of the day the real money value is uninteresting for the GM. What has to be done by the characters to get the money / stuff done? "tramp freighter" game, the engine replacement is 200k. One job one -> adventure for example. You do not need economic data either, just roght estimations. Planet x needs soad, you get a profit of X credit with a cargo full of soap. "new colony" game: the settlements needs wood for the houses -> talk to elves -> adventure "mining" game: you know the drill by now  So, yes, some rules are needed, but I do not think we need subsystems for everything. But, as everything, it is highly player/GM (taste) dependent. |
|
|
|
Post by mikezekim on Aug 5, 2019 15:57:12 GMT
Just a suggestion: at the end of the day the real money value is uninteresting for the GM. What has to be done by the characters to get the money / stuff done? That is a weak argument. The same argument can be made for combat and yet practically every RPG written has combat rules. Telling the players, "Your ship's engine is acting wonky, you need to do this run to earn enough cash to fix it" is about as interesting as getting a dungeon map from an old dude in a bar. It reduces the game to GM fiat. Specialized rule sub-systems are about empowering the players, not GMs. It gives them a framework to work within. If done well, it helps GMs as the players will seek adventure instead of the GM having to constantly come up with a new reason for the PCs to risk their lives. When I ran 50 Fathoms, I didn't need to force player to go out and adventure, they did that themselves. They would score some cargo and then scour the map to figure out the best port to sell. When I played the Kingmaker series for Pathfinder, having rules for building and maintaining a kingdom radically changed how we approached the game. We just couldn't do the typical murder-hobo approach of wandering the land and killing all "monsters" of an equal or lower level. The needs of the kingdom dictated which areas we explored and claimed. And claiming an area didn't mean killing all monsters. Often it was wiser to negotiate with the intelligent monsters that were too powerful for the party to destroy without taking on great risk. The GM didn't need to come up with a convoluted idea to get us to explore the Swamps of Sorrows, we did that ourselves as the kingdom needed a waterway access to grow its commerce and the river that we were on flowed through the Swamps. Because Blue Planet doesn't really have any rule support for different frameworks, I go the quasi-ShadowRun route. All of my players work for the Doer Detective Agency. Doer is a Dolphin and maintains an office above a pizzeria in the Old Town neighborhood of Haven. Think Charlie's Angels, but with a dolphin in charge. The PCs are hired for jobs, sometimes of questionable legality. It is a framework that works, but I'd love to explore the world from other aspects, such as commerce or founding a new settlement. |
|
|
|
Post by michaelsd on Aug 5, 2019 17:31:36 GMT
It has nothing to do with forcing them to adventure. It is an opportunity. As a GM Id not "have to constantly come up with a new reason for the PCs to risk their lives" they do it anyway. I just do not need a system to know where can they sell cargo X for profit. I can do everything you said without specified rule system, but I understand what you are saying, it is different playstyle.
"Your ship's engine is acting wonky, you need to do this run to earn enough cash to fix it" is exactly what is going on. Again, I do not need a list to look up the cost of a "X59 Hyperfilter", but our taste may differ here.
I think "support for Different Campaign Frameworks" in BPv3 are the Ties and Tracks. That is more then enough for me, but I never had a problem of playing in V1 or V2 either.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pawel on Aug 5, 2019 19:18:05 GMT
As much as I like Shadowrun, the very concept of only playing Shadowrunners in it is a bit of a waste in my opinion. So many opportunities there! Give me a sandbox anytime and I'll find my own adventure in it, craft my own campaign, so many campaigns. But that, of course, is the unrestrained beauty of RPGs.
Having focused mechanic frameworks for varied types of campaigns - in my humble opinion - would be a waste of space in a book I'd rather see devoted to setting/lore and a general/universal set of rules.
I think Jeff is aiming at something that will please us all, though. It will certainly please me - the Tracks mechanic, as michaelsd mentioned, will add to the narrative without encumbering us with overly heavy set of stats and tests and is flexible enough to work just about wherever in a sandbox setting.
|
|
|
|
Post by grinnenbaeritt on Aug 6, 2019 9:42:09 GMT
Telling the players, "Your ship's engine is acting wonky, you need to do this run to earn enough cash to fix it" is about as interesting as getting a dungeon map from an old dude in a bar. It reduces the game to GM fiat. Specialized rule sub-systems are about empowering the players, not GMs. It gives them a framework to work within. If done well, it helps GMs as the players will seek adventure instead of the GM having to constantly come up with a new reason for the PCs to risk their lives. I have to admit, I'd be fairly disappointed if the CORE rules didn't already allow this. To be fair, any further expansions/campaign settings, should perhaps be detailing the possible uses of existing skills within them. It's not really a matter of creating new rules per se, as explaining how the existing ones (as per the Core rules) are used in "unusual" contexts. |
|
