Good game: Great Ideas, Interesting Mechanics... but it needs an editor.

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com

EmperorNorton

Legendary Pubber
Joined
Jun 3, 2018
Messages
5,415
Reaction score
15,219
Have you ever read an RPG book, gone "man, this would be great to run", but known there was no way you could actually expect anyone else at the table learn it from the book cause the book has godawful editing and organization?

I recently picked up Tears of the Machine, a small indie game written by Russell G Collins. It is basically Evangelion with the serial numbers filed off. The mechanics embrace this theme incredibly well.

The basic core of this is the Pilot Ego vs "Mecha's" Id interplay. Ego is a pool of points, from 0-5 that can go up or down during play. You do something tied to your motivation and succeed? You can gain ego Fail? You can lose Ego. (Same with your fears, do something and succeed over your fear, you can gain ego, fail, and you can lose ego. You also can risk ego in situations involving characters you have a strong relationship to). Ego is also used as a resource to bump up your rolls, that little extra "oomph" that you can put into something because you are believing in yourself.

Your Mech (which is a biological horror disguised as a mech, much like Eva) has an Id. When you are in your mech and a round goes by where your ego doesn't change, it doesn't go up or down at all,your mech's id goes up by 1. You can also spend Id like you do Ego, but only for violent actions, and when you do, it will be an INCREDIBLY violent action, with less concern for collateral damage. If the mech's id is ever higher than your ego, you risk losing control and it going straight up berserk.

This whole interplay of maintaining the mental health of your pilot vs the violent urges of the mech is really cool, really interesting, and clever game design. And the entire system has pretty clever ideas. The way it handles teamwork is interesting as well.

But my god the book itself. It's repetitive. There are two sections called rules overview and rules details. And they mostly repeat the exact same information, only the details section includes a little more detail. The rules on how GM characters work are hidden in the GM section, but those rules are referenced repeatedly in the rules detail section that occurs much earlier. For instance, it mentions boosts from an Antagonists rolls, but in the rules details section it doesn't even tell you that antagonists roll dice, or what dice.

The rules on how Id is accrued is brought up 4 separate times in the rules, and 3 of those times it is written so vaguely that until I found the 4th time it was mentioned that I understood how it was supposed to work.

This game is really interesting. The mechanics are cool. The setting I'd probably make a few changes to, but that is normal for me, overall its a solid starting point. But my god the editing. I think the book could be about half the length, with the same amount, if not more information, and way way more clarity.

What books have you had this issue with. Where you like the game, but you feel like you have to fight the book to run it?
 
Marvel SAGA.

It's a testament to how great the mechanic is that it's still my favorite supers RPG of all time despite all the issues with the book itself.

Marvel SAGA has the undesirable distinction of being an incredible game shoved hurriedly onto the shelves as TSR truly run out of time. It as a great game and had so much potential, but a brief shelf life and little legacy.

I have scoured e-bay for extra copies of the books and cards for years.
 
Marvel SAGA has the undesirable distinction of being an incredible game shoved hurriedly onto the shelves as TSR truly run out of time. It as a great game and had so much potential, but a brief shelf life and little legacy.

I have scoured e-bay for extra copies of the books and cards for years.


I get lucky and have provided copies for friends, at costs, well, not fun ones, when I could. Did pay off the rest of my old car (buying from a friend) with a like new book and cards.

However, never fear. Things are changing. Always changing. :grin:
 
Prime Directive, from Task Force Games.

It is an odd but endearing game. Prime Teams are a good idea and I like the Cygnans and Rigellians.

When I first played it my group didn't know about the Star Fleet Battles/Star Trek distinction. We were very confused.

The rules were a little odd too, but there has yet to be a Star Trek game with truly great rules. We settled for Last Unicorn Games' version and ignored anything that slows play down.
 
Fate Core - If it didn't try to re-write rpg-lexicon, then more people would understand what they are reading with it.

Nobilis 2E - Same as above, yet muliply that by 1000. Whoever thought calling a GM a 'Hollyshock God' was gonna be a good idea?
 
Eh, I have no problem with understanding Fate Core at all, in fact I think that the Fate Core book is really straightforward. What specific problem did you have with it? I can't think of anything that is rewriting the RPG Lexicon.

I haven't read Nobilis but iirc it is a lot like Chuubo's, which Chuubo's is a pain to understand but it isn't the editing it is the fact that the system is so weird and esoteric that it is hard to understand, the way it is written isn't the barrier. Also, tons of games rename the GM, Chuubo's uses Hollyhock God as well, and I kind of like it for its ridiculousness in name. I mean, it wasn't like GM was even the original name for it in the RPG sphere.

EDIT: I'm still running back through the Fate Core book and I really have no idea what you are talking about. Not a single thing in there isn't "what it sounds like on the tin". Everything is either named the same as what it is in other games (attack, defend, GM, skills, fail, succeed, tie), has a name that makes complete sense (overcome, stress, succeed with style), has a name that makes complete sense + has no direct corollary to anything with an established name (creating an advantage, consequences, invoking, compelling).

I really really don't get what your complaint about Fate Core is here. You don't have to like it, but your complaint makes zero sense.
 
Last edited:
Eh, I have no problem with understanding Fate Core at all, in fact I think that the Fate Core book is really straightforward. What specific problem did you have with it? I can't think of anything that is rewriting the RPG Lexicon.

I haven't read Nobilis but iirc it is a lot like Chuubo's, which Chuubo's is a pain to understand but it isn't the editing it is the fact that the system is so weird and esoteric that it is hard to understand, the way it is written isn't the barrier. Also, tons of games rename the GM, Chuubo's uses Hollyhock God as well, and I kind of like it for its ridiculousness in name. I mean, it wasn't like GM was even the original name for it in the RPG sphere.
Call of Cthulhu uses Keeper of Arcane Lore. Hollyhock God doesn t seem so daft.
 
I always felt like the name of the GM in any game was kind of similar to the goofy "how to choose start player" rules from most board games: Just a silly thing that gets put in as a little joke even though everyone knows no one will use that method and everyone is just going to choose start player however they normally do.

I don't think they expect you to use the term, everyone will probably say GM (or DM for people who primarily played D&D in the past).
 
I want to believe there's a wonderful game somewhere in Cadwallon; a hybrid RPG/Mordheim-esque miniature skirmish game. It's a gorgeous game with a great underlying fiction/setting. But the rules are just this side of Hybrid-levels of clarity.

Marvel Universe RPG (the one with the stones) really could have been something special with a revised second edition.

And this one...

fantasywargaming.jpg
 
I always thought “Narrator” was a silly title for a GM.
Especially since it’s just wrong. The worst thing a GM or supervillain can do is monologue.

Even “game master” sounds a bit presumptuous to me, but it works because I think the best parallel of the role is a master of ceremonies.
 
I never really care what the GM is called in a game. As long as I know who is GMing.

Reminds me of a MtG game I was playing with a friend years ago. I used the term "burned", and he quickly pointed out that "burned" was a Jyhad term. I was like "Bitch please, you know what I mean, so who cares?"
 
It still sounds goofy to me, this many years on.

But....I'm also a fan of embracing the goofiness.
Embracing the goofiness is key. My parents' DM, who introduced me to D&D, always wore a fez as a sign of his stature while running games. They were all comfortable with the absurdity of it.
 
A few decent ones that fit the theme...

"Mission Director" - Recon

"Briefing Officer" - Prime Directive

"Script Supervisor" - Golden Heroes
 
I really really don't get what your complaint about Fate Core is here. You don't have to like it, but your complaint makes zero sense.
I actually really like Fate Core, I'm not complaining, it's more in the spectrum of a quibble.

Actually Fate is one of the few systems that I refer to as my 'home game' - it's so flexible, and if you tweak Aspects and Consequences right, you can portray so many settings quite well. I'm one of the more vocal voices in this forum for supporting Fate, it's a great game. My two current campaigns are using Fate, so I'm certainly not filled with Fate-hate or anything like that.

I guess I was replying to this part of your opening post: "What books have you had this issue with. Where you like the game, but you feel like you have to fight the book to run it?"

The book is written very casual and straight-forward, that's certainly not my issue. I was actually recounting from many discussions with others where they were having difficulties understanding Fate, and alot of it boiled down to the actual wording of the terms. I don't mind it, but I can't say that I blame them, as Fate Core reinvents lots of concepts that were previously in rpg lexicon for many years, and gives them brand new names.

A few examples - the 'Overcome Action' - it's an odd name for something that most games would simply refer to as a 'standard roll' or something like that. It's the same as rolling a D20 in D&D or a D100% in BRP, it's the core roll.
Often it's much easier to just say "Make a roll', rather then 'Attempt an Overcome Action". I get much less confused looks when I translate that.

A 'Create Advantage Action' is a bit clunky as well. It's better than 'Overcome Action' however. But it's often less confusing to tell players that they need to make a roll that is going to grant them a bonus to their subsequent roll, or something like that. But fair enough.

Another example I can think of is Milestones. Most people equate them with levelling up/EXP gain whatever, and this is a reasonable analogy for Significant and Major Milestones, but Minor Milestones are really just opportunities for Downtime. It just seemed a little confusing for my players to get that, they were expecting gaining new abilities etc, but when I described it as downtime, it just seemed to grok so much better with them.

For some reason many people often get confused with Aspects as well, I'm not sure why. They often think that they need to be activated with Fate Pts, it takes a bit of time for them to get their head around the whole 'permission' side of aspects as well as the 'invoking' side. Also I have found that Fate Pts often get misinterpereted as Luck Pts, Pulp Pts etc rather than an economy for story editing

So my comments were based on my experiences with players, as well as a fair bit of sentiment that I have come across. I really like the Fate Core book, but there is something about it that many have described as confusing.
I'm not really sure why this is, but I'm thinking that it possibly could be because it's lexicon is a little different to more mainstream traditional games - granted that it is no where near as different as the lexicon used in the more narrative storygames

There is something about Fate that tends to confuse many people, at least initially. I suppose it's hard for me to identify why that it, but it could be the book's wording.
 
Last edited:
Nobilis 3e:grin:!
Well, I wasn't that sure of the "great idea, interesdting mechanics" bit, but it could have been serviceable, had it met an editor:tongue:! As it stands, not so much.
 
I actually really like Fate Core, I'm not complaining, it's more in the spectrum of a quibble.

Actually Fate is one of the few systems that I refer to as my 'home game' - it's so flexible, and if you tweak Aspects and Consequences right, you can portray so many settings quite well. I'm one of the more vocal voices in this forum for supporting Fate, it's a great game. My two current campaigns are using Fate, so I'm certainly not filled with Fate-hate or anything like that.

I guess I was replying to this part of your opening post: "What books have you had this issue with. Where you like the game, but you feel like you have to fight the book to run it?"

The book is written very casual and straight-forward, that's certainly not my issue. I was actually recounting from many discussions with others where they were having difficulties understanding Fate, and alot of it boiled down to the actual wording of the terms. I don't mind it, but I can't say that I blame them, as Fate Core reinvents lots of concepts that were previously in rpg lexicon for many years, and gives them brand new names.

A few examples - the 'Overcome Action' - it's an odd name for something that most games would simply refer to as a 'standard roll' or something like that. It's the same as rolling a D20 in D&D or a D100% in BRP, it's the core roll.
Often it's much easier to just say "Make a roll', rather then 'Attempt an Overcome Action". I get much less confused looks when I translate that.

A 'Create Advantage Action' is a bit clunky as well. It's better than 'Overcome Action' however. But it's often less confusing to tell players that they need to make a roll that is going to grant them a bonus to their subsequent roll, or something like that. But fair enough.

Another example I can think of is Milestones. Most people equate them with levelling up/EXP gain whatever, and this is a reasonable analogy for Significant and Major Milestones, but Minor Milestones are really just opportunities for Downtime. It just seemed a little confusing for my players to get that, they were expecting gaining new abilities etc, but when I described it as downtime, it just seemed to grok so much better with them.

For some reason many people often get confused with Aspects as well, I'm not sure why. They often think that they need to be activated with Fate Pts, it takes a bit of time for them to get their head around the whole 'permission' side of aspects as well as the 'invoking' side. Also I have found that Fate Pts often get misinterpereted as Luck Pts, Pulp Pts etc rather than an economy for story editing

So my comments were based on my experiences with players, as well as a fair bit of sentiment that I have come across. I really like the Fate Core book, but there is something about it that many have described as confusing.
I'm not really sure why this is, but I'm thinking that it possibly could be because it's lexicon is a little different to more mainstream traditional games - granted that it is no where near as different as the lexicon used in the more narrative storygames

There is something about Fate that tends to confuse many people, at least initially. I suppose it's hard for me to identify why that it, but it could be the book's wording.

This is something I’ve noticed, experienced players often have more trouble groking new games because they have decades of play assumptions and terms burned into their brains. Not sure the fault lay in the rules or text though and more in the result of playing the same narrow range of mechanics for decades.
 
This is something I’ve noticed, experienced players often have more trouble groking new games because they have decades of play assumptions and terms burned into their brains. Not sure the fault lay in the rules or text though and more in the result of playing the same narrow range of mechanics for decades.
Yes, and to an extent it is understandable. Every hobby develops an argot or lexicon in some form, so rpgs are no different.

I guess that considering this hobby only originated in the 1970s, the lexicon and concepts are still actually evolving.
 
Yes, and to an extent it is understandable. Every hobby develops an argot or lexicon in some form, so rpgs are no different.

I guess that considering this hobby only originated in the 1970s, the lexicon and concepts are still actually evolving.
40 years is enough time for a fairly large lexicon to develop. Pitch and pocket have only been terms used in music production for 20 years or so and most people interested in that side of things will know what they mean.
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top