[tangent on the Art vs Tech discussion] Examples of technological advancement?

[Lessa]

Yeah, it doesn't fit my preferences these days, but Shadowrun is solid enough and does what it sets out to do - crunchy simulation.

Leaf, some Shadowrun subsystems (decking and driving) are notoriously unplayable as written. And combat is not that behind either, crumbling to a halt if you have anything more than half-dozen participants.

And that continues into the newest edition.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

Leaf, some Shadowrun subsystems (decking and driving) are notoriously unplayable as written. And combat is not that behind either, crumbling to a halt if you have anything more than half-dozen participants.

And that continues into the newest edition.

Heh, this one's my bad. I actually looked up the system I was thinking of and found out I was actually thinking of Cyberpunk 2020. I haven't played Shadowrun enough to have an opinion either way.

Cyberpunk is a solid system though. :p

 

[EmperorNorton]

CP2020 is a system I have problems with personally (like the fact that they gave solos the only initiative skill), but the system definitely works.

Also, humorous story about CP2020, I was running it once and during character creation time one of the players was half paying attention to me just rambling about random stuff while he was finishing up his skills.

Me: Man, don't you think it's weird that the surgery level for getting a Mr. Stud Sexual Implant is higher than literally implanting something in your brain.

Him, confused, looking up: Wait, what, a Mr. Stud Sexual Implant. On his forehead?

The whole Mr Stud Sexual Implant on his Forehead thing was a long running joke after that.

(Kind of like a unicorn, except he had to tattoo a pretty lady on it so that when it hung in his eyes it would go back up and out of the way).

 

[cody]

Going “doubles are critical” is not even close to mathematically equivalent to that. So, different, not better.

If you want to ensure someone always has a chance at a crit, 01 (Delta Green) or 00 (Eclipse Phase) as critical success. If you want multiple levels of crit, differentiate between exact roll of skill, doubles, and/or rolls over a threshold that's below skill.

Personally I think having skill level influence chance of crit fail makes more sense, but either way I'm not looking for exact mathematical equivalence. I'm looking for equivalent player choices. Having played a campaign of the new Delta Green, it's pretty clear blackjack + doubles for crits delivers equivalent player choice with less mechanical execution compared to other BRP derivatives. I'm not saying it's a perfect game, but that specific dice mechanic is clearly better.

Where does something like simulation fit into your judgement?

I believe games that are overly concerned with simulation fail as both simulations and as games. Games with a simple variety of interesting choices can often end up being more realistic than games with too much detail, because that leads to false choices or extremely unrealistic loopholes. For a wargame example, Band of Brothers delivers more realistic results than ASL despite not being concerned with anywhere near the same level of detail. Having both is great, sure, but I'm not aware of any RPG that's on the level of something like Napoleon's Triumph.

 

[Endless Flight]

My favorite RPG-related technological advancement is that I can save a whole collection of games on my laptop instead of taking up the ever-decreasing amount of space in my closet.

 

[CRKrueger]

Once again, conflating the issues 3.x has (number bloat and fiddly modifiers), with BAB/Ascending AC is entirely missing the point.

I don't even LIKE 3.x.

A proper comparison is running 2e AD&D as written, and then with THAC0 converted to BAB and AC converted to ascending.

Outside of people who learned THAC0 first and now are incapable of realizing the flaws in it, I guarantee that 99.9% of people are going to prefer the second.

Good for them, what's the point? I'm sure 90 something percent of Americans prefer Pizza to Kimchi.

I fully understand X steps is less than X+1. The simple fact remains (in the point you continually keep missing) that mathematical superiority in a calculation measured in fraction of seconds is meaningless when you realize that because of ascending AC, all those numbers they are calculating faster...are LARGER, and thus people who have issues with math are guaranteed to be actually calculating slower. You have to look at the system the mechanic is expressed in.

BAB in 3.5e doesn't get you anything, in fact it's part of the entire problem.
BAB in Beyond the Wall kicks the hell out of THACO.

 

[CRKrueger]

Leaf, some Shadowrun subsystems (decking and driving) are notoriously unplayable as written. And combat is not that behind either, crumbling to a halt if you have anything more than half-dozen participants.

And that continues into the newest edition.

It may very well have been introduced in the Catalyst editions, but the problem with FASA Decking, as well as Cyberpunk 2020 Decking is that they are minigames, not that they are "unplayable as written".

If you have people who are roleplaying their characters, a chromed to the max samurai who's faster then a speeding bullet would agonize over a decker opening a door, even if it only took a couple seconds in game, it would probably feel to the samurai as long as it would to the player.

For those who check their stopwatches to ensure adequate spotlight time in the story, yeah, those systems were always untenable...except miraculously when they were the decker...of course.

 

[CRKrueger]

I'm not saying it's a perfect game, but that specific dice mechanic is clearly better.

Baloney.

The only thing you need to have in a blackjack system with levels of success is to say, "the highest number of equivalent success" instead of highest number.
No matter the number...
Crit always beats Special
Special always beats Normal
Normal always beats Miss
Miss always beats Fumble

It took less than a minute to explain, and a whole table that never played any d100 incarnation before understood it immediately.

 

[EmperorNorton]

Ah yes, subtracting negative numbers from one number and then adding a number to another number and comparing them is super simplistic, but wow, sure, adding together two double digit numbers is going to be way slower. Again, where is my eye-rolling emoticon.

3.x has a lot of problems, but attack bonus and ascending AC isn't one of them. It's overly fiddly, the numbers get way too high, feats are a mess, spellcasters pretty much have all their downsides removed, iterative attacks, etc. etc. etc. But the fact that THAC0 was replaced by BAB and descending AC was replaced with Ascending AC wasn't one of those problems.

Honestly find it strange that literally the only people to ever try to use anything like THAC0 again after 3e came out are games from people who fetishize the old school, and even a good portion of them switched over too, but boy THAC0 sure is a great mechanic.

I legitimately believe that people use their familiarity to excuse dumb mechanics. No person getting into RPGs now would look at the two systems side by side and think THAC0 was the superior mechanic. Is the reason because they are all dumb and you are smart, or is the reason that you've gotten so used to it that you just accept it?

 

[Endless Flight]

THAC0 wasn’t a dumb mechanic. It worked and still does. It’s not the fastest, intuitive or perhaps the most elegant mechanic, but it served its function well for the many years it was used. Some people like the negative ACs when the characters got better armor. It’s not all strictly mechanical. There is some aesthetics involved.

 

[cody]

Baloney.

The only thing you need to have in a blackjack system with levels of success is to say, "the highest number of equivalent success" instead of highest number.
No matter the number...
Crit always beats Special
Special always beats Normal
Normal always beats Miss
Miss always beats Fumble

It took less than a minute to explain, and a whole table that never played any d100 incarnation before understood it immediately.

How long did it take your players to calculate and write down the % chance for critical and special success for all of their skills? To explain the (ambiguous) rounding rule? To check whether they did the math correctly at level up time when skills change? Don't even start on things like the resistance table.

Seriously, how is this and the THAC0 argument actually in good faith? They're clearly not simpler.

 

[EmperorNorton]

And why do people like those aesthetics? Because it's something they got used to.

If I have a door with a pull handle on the outside that you have to push in, its still a dumb design even though it still works. And maybe someone likes the way it looks, and they always know to push it so they don't see a reason to change it, but tons of people are going to get confused by that door, and if the pull handle was switched for a push plate it would work better.

If THAC0 had never existed, and BAB had happened first, absolutely no one would consider THAC0 an improvement.

 

[CRKrueger]

Ah yes, subtracting negative numbers from one number and then adding a number to another number and comparing them is super simplistic, but wow, sure, adding together two double digit numbers is going to be way slower. Again, where is my eye-rolling emoticon.

3.x has a lot of problems, but attack bonus and ascending AC isn't one of them. It's overly fiddly, the numbers get way too high, feats are a mess, spellcasters pretty much have all their downsides removed, iterative attacks, etc. etc. etc. But the fact that THAC0 was replaced by BAB and descending AC was replaced with Ascending AC wasn't one of those problems.

Honestly find it strange that literally the only people to ever try to use anything like THAC0 again after 3e came out are games from people who fetishize the old school, and even a good portion of them switched over too, but boy THAC0 sure is a great mechanic.

I legitimately believe that people use their familiarity to excuse dumb mechanics. No person getting into RPGs now would look at the two systems side by side and think THAC0 was the superior mechanic. Is the reason because they are all dumb and you are smart, or is the reason that you've gotten so used to it that you just accept it?

BTW, saying the person arguing with is "fetishizing" something is a decent sign you're probably the actual one going off the deep end.

The reason I'm not declaring BAB as some Absolute is because I'm not some kind of Rainman, spouting drivel like "equivalent player choice with less mechanical execution" as if I'm declaring a Axiom or Natural Law.

In very simple systems like Beyond the Wall, BAB is superior, the numbers are low enough, that always adding never causes problems. In d20/3e systems that throttle down the insanity, BAB provides minor practical benefit.

In the systems where THACO was actually used, and most people just had the GM handle it and no player calculated anything, (or simple put their table row on their sheet, which was 90% of players I saw back then) BAB would make things worse despite its mathematical superiority.

 

[CRKrueger]

How long did it take your players to calculate and write down the % chance for critical and special success for all of their skills? To explain the (ambiguous) rounding rule? To check whether they did the math correctly at level up time when skills change? Don't even start on things like the resistance table.

Seriously, how is this and the THAC0 argument actually in good faith? They're clearly not simpler.

Anything someone does outside of the game is immaterial. What matters is how things work at the table.

In any BRB-derived game, you could use Harnmaster rules and say "any success that ends in a 5" if you want 10% or "any success that ends in 5 or 0" if you want 20%. That removes the need to pre-calculate anything, but it's meaningless if you have people who just write the numbers down. Let's not kid ourselves, any d100 GM in existence has made a table so that no one ever has to calculate anything with regards to Crit and Spec success anyway.

The arguments are in good faith because you guys are treating mathematical operations of 1 step and speed advantages of fractions of a second as if people were inventing the friggin' airplane and acting like anyone who disagrees that the miniscule benefits you're talking about don't mean much (or anything) as if they're deluded or just arguing for the sake of it (and crying like a spoiled child about Mods having a differing opinion). Spend a lot of time at The Gaming Den by any chance?

 

[TristramEvans]

I'm not sure why this topic, of all things, is quite so ...contentious... but here's some pictures of cute bunnies

Anyways, here is a question for the thread I find far more interesting...

What game(s) do a specific subject best (in your opinion)?
Who has the best magic rules?
Who has the best rules for cybernetics?
Who has the best boating rules?
What game does Hacking the best?

Or just any game/edition that specifically gets some system really right, regardless of the game overall.

Ones I can think of off the top of my head...

007 James Bond (Victory Games) - Chase rules
Unknown Armies - Sanity system
Ars Magica - Magic system
Star Frontiers: Knighthawks - Starship combat
Fading Suns - Interrogation rules

 

[EmperorNorton]

I'm out.

When someone starts implying you are autistic because you have a strong opinion, it's time to fuck out of the conversation, because people like that don't give a shit about actually debating, they just want to shit on people.

 

[TristramEvans]

I'm out.

When someone starts implying you are autistic because you have a strong opinion, it's time to fuck out of the conversation, because people like that don't give a shit about actually debating, they just want to shit on people.

OK, yeah, CKR? That's way over the line.

Edit: But this argument has gotten personal on both sides, looking back. Not the Pub's finest thread, folks. We definitely need more Swo around here, stat!

 

[EmperorNorton]

And by out I mean specifically the THAC0 conversation, because there are other interesting conversations.

For your question TristramEvans:

Mecha Combat: Jovian Chronicles 1e is by far the best I've seen so far. It is something I've hunted forever, but most games just get SOMETHING about it a bit wrong for me. The big 2 for me are:

1. I hate games that model mecha as a completely separate character that your character doesn't apply any of their ability to. Yes, Heero Yuy is a badass in Wing Gundam, but put him in a Leo and he will still take out dozens of other Leos.
2. I hate games that treat mecha combat as just scaled up personal combat. It should have SOMETHING that makes it feel different. The damage system for mechs in Jovian Chronicles for instance, where in people it applies universal penalties, but in mecha it damages individual systems.

Also, Jovian Chronicles 1e has the best space movement rules ever written. They actually track momentum and vectors accurately with a remarkably elegant and easy to use system. If I ever make a space game I'm probably stealing these rules straight up.

Justin Alexander has a good explanation of the vector movement rules in his review over on his site: https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/34907/roleplaying-games/rpgnet-review-jovian-chronicles

 

[CRKrueger]

OK, yeah, CKR? That's way over the line.

Oh sorry, the guy who claims people have their opinion because they have a nostalgic fetish or are making arguments just because that’s the way they learned doesn’t like when people decide for themselves why HE is arguing the way he does?

Well...
Tough Shit. You throw the elbow, don’t be surprised when you get a fist back.

I’m not the one who started playing the man instead of the ball.

 

[TristramEvans]

Interesting. I know of Jovian Chronicles, and Heavy Gear, as they both came from the folks who did Tribe 8, still one of my favourite games. But I never read it. May have to change that. If it also uses a variation of the Silhouette system, I'm intrigued.

 

[TristramEvans]

Oh sorry, the guy who claims people have their opinion because they have a nostalgic fetish or are making arguments just because that’s the way they learned doesn’t like when people decide for themselves why HE is arguing the way he does?

Well...
Tough Shit. You throw the elbow, don’t be surprised when you get a fist back.

Yeah, nobody's being pleasant, I'm not suggesting you are solely at fault, but derogatory allusions to autism is guaranteed to upset more than just the person you are responding to.

 

[CRKrueger]

Interesting. I know of Jovian Chronicles, and Heavy Gear, as they both came from the folks who did Tribe 8, still one of my favourite games. But I never read it. May have to change that. If it also uses a variation of the Silhouette system, I'm intrigued.

Jovian Chronicles does use a precursor to Silhouette. The ship design books are amazing and the stellar movement rules are awesome. Hell, even if you don’t like mecha, there are enough spaceships and fighters that you could do without them, odd as that sounds. If you can deal with Silhouette, it’s really a great Solar System RPG.

 

[EmperorNorton]

Yeah, it uses the Silhouette system. I still like the version in 1e Jovian Chronicles more than the more recent Silhouette Core or even the 2e of Jovian Chronicles. Original core rulebook plus the Companion is better imo. For instance I don't think you can find the vector movement rules that use the direction markers in anything but 1e JC. Strangely they left that out of 2e and Silhouette Core, despite it being much much simpler than writing down your vectors every turn.

Also the setting is really good, especially if you like Gundam-style level of tech and travel in your mecha games. (It even uses the Lagrange points and O'Neil Cylinder colony design).

 

[CRKrueger]

Yeah, nobody's being pleasant, I'm not suggesting you are solely at fault, but derogatory allusions to autism is guaranteed to upset more than just the person you are responding to.

Jesus. C’mon man, you’re going to take exception on behalf of people not involved who just possibly might be offended? You think I care about triggering someone who participates on a public forum? You’re an artist, consider it an allegory, since we were talking about claiming minuscule mathematical improvements as clearly and objectively superior despite no practical effect in some systems. I could have used anal, OCD, etc, is that OK because they don’t have the current cultural clout? What about the offence of all the people with diagnosed fetishes, where is their advocacy? You really want to walk down that road?

 

[EmperorNorton]

How about we just put it in the past.

I'm not going to say I was never nasty in the thread, but just to explain my opinions, I don't think fetishizing things is necessarily a bad thing. We all fetishize stuff. I know I do. I have obsessions with mecha rpgs that I'm sure dwarfs most OSR people's obsessions with old school D&D. I wasn't meaning it as an insult, as much as I was saying that it gets in the way of logic.

If I said something else that you took as a personal attack, it wasn't what I was intending, so I apologize for that and the misunderstanding about my remark on fetishizing.

Let's just move on.

(Also my mecha rpg fixation sucks since no one I play with seems interested in playing in a mecha rpg...)

 

[raniE]

How long did it take your players to calculate and write down the % chance for critical and special success for all of their skills? To explain the (ambiguous) rounding rule? To check whether they did the math correctly at level up time when skills change? Don't even start on things like the resistance table.

Seriously, how is this and the THAC0 argument actually in good faith? They're clearly not simpler.

Because "simpler" was never the issue with the blackjack rules discussion? Your solution is simpler yes, but it removes an entire category of success (the special success) and moves the critical from having a 5% chance of happening to 9%. If you start adding in distinguishing between doubles and exact skill rolls, or adding thresholds, you're bringing complexity and calculations (unless you propose having the exact same threshold for a special success regardless of skill level which is going to mean the chance of getting a special doesn't increase with skill level at all) back in while still not having even close to the same numbers, nor the simplicity of "lower is always better". That is a very different system that does not have the same level of granularity and will produce different outcomes. That isn't a clear technological improvement in any way, that is just a different way of doing things that you may or may not prefer.

As for the Resistance table, that is´actually excellent if your players are not that great at math (and since we're postulating I as a GM have to check my players math this sounds like it would be the case, even though for me some of my regular players are way better at math than I am and would be more likely to be correcting me), but want to know what chance of success they have. It says right there in the table, 13 vs 10, that's a 65% chance of success (or the reverse, 35% chance of success if the active roller has the lower stat). I didn't actually have to look that up as it is a very simple mathematical operation to perform, but the table is there if you need it (and should probably be on the outside and inside of any GM screen, or be listed on the character sheet, or be given out as a handout). The player can easily know exactly what they're getting into and what probability of success they have.

The alternative is opposed rolls, in which calculating your chance of success gets much more opaque. Say I have a 65% skill rating and my enemy has 50%, but rolling higher is better as long as you are under your skill level, then when over skill level they become worse. But doubles are even better than that (or worse, as the case may be) and rolling exact skill level is the best. What chance of success does the character with a 65% skill rating have? The 50% skill rating one? It is a much more involved operation to look that up than just looking at a table/doing a simple mathematical operation between only two variables.

So, which one of these you prefer is not based on some sort of objective supremacy of one way of doing things over the other, but rather on what you consider important. Do you think having a unified system where everything is handled the same way is more important than giving yourself and your players an exact chance of success? Go with opposed rolls. Do you hate looking things up in tables and/or consider doing the calculation mind-numbingly boring, or too slow for the table? Go with opposed roll. But if you do want exact chance of success to be easily available, and don't mind looking things up in a table every now and then (or don't find it too cumbersome to just do the calculation in your head at the table) then you should probably use the Resistance table instead. Using both the resistance table and opposed rolls makes things a lot murkier, but that is really for specific systems. You could just as easily dump all those percentile skill ratings and just handle everything via the Resistance table, making everything an opposed action a la HeroQuest, but with a different resolution mechanic.

Now I'm predicting you will reply that my answer is disingenuous, or that one approach is obviously superior to the other, but I'm afraid you're wrong on both counts there, in both my examples. These may be rules you prefer (as I said, I myself am partial to blackjack resolution) but that doesn't mean they are better, as they don't actually do the exact same things. The whole THAC0 vs BAB thing may be different yeah, because you can actually do that with the exact same mathematical outcomes.

 

[CRKrueger]

How about we just put it in the past.

I'm not going to say I was never nasty in the thread, but just to explain my opinions, I don't think fetishizing things is necessarily a bad thing. We all fetishize stuff. I know I do. I have obsessions with mecha rpgs that I'm sure dwarfs most OSR people's obsessions with old school D&D. I wasn't meaning it as an insult, as much as I was saying that it gets in the way of logic.

If I said something else that you took as a personal attack, it wasn't what I was intending, so I apologize for that and the misunderstanding about my remark on fetishizing.

Let's just move on.

(Also my mecha rpg fixation sucks since no one I play with seems interested in playing in a mecha rpg...)

Fair enough, but realize that claiming someone isn’t using logic to make a decision is technically a PA also.
You were claiming I was ignoring the fact you were pointing out, obsessing on the familiar.
I made the counterclaim that you were focusing obsessively on that fact to the exclusion of all other factors, including practical table experience.
Neither of us were being particularly nice about it. I accept your apology and offer the same.

It appears we have the same Jovian Chronicles problem, however.

 

[TristramEvans]

Jesus. C’mon man, you’re going to take exception on behalf of people not involved who just possibly might be offended? You think I care about triggering someone who participates on a public forum? You’re an artist, consider it an allegory, since we were talking about claiming minuscule mathematical improvements as clearly and objectively superior despite no practical effect in some systems. I could have used anal, OCD, etc, is that OK because they don’t have the current cultural clout? What about the offence of all the people with diagnosed fetishes, where is their advocacy? You really want to walk down that road?

I was mostly hoping we could move past this.

No, I'm not planning on going down the road of trying (or even advocating for anyone else to try) to not offend anyone. We all know the pitfalls of that. But when arguments get personal, we both know it goes no where good. Yeah, I think I could have called out someone before your post, for multiple ad hominems. But I'm going to say something that's going to piss you off man - the use of autism as an "allegory" for obsessive, myopic, or pretentious behaviour is something with a political association these days. No, I'm not going to debate that fact. I'm intimately familiar with it. So yeah, an insult that is going to raise the political hackles of a bunch of posters is something I'm going to call out whereas I've not given a second thought to the idea that someone might consider themselves a part of a "fetish community" gets offended by a use of that word. I used that word earlier, I think.

Now, I know you my friend, and I know you will be very tempted at this point to rage against the machine. To worry about censorship, or the mods acquiring a bias, or taking sides, or slippery slopes. But I think this thread can recover, and move on to decent and gentlemanly conversation that The Pub is known for. That's not going to happen if this argument goes any further. I implore you to let this one go.

 

[CRKrueger]

I was mostly hoping we could move past this.

No, I'm not planning on going down the road of trying (or even advocating for anyone else to try) to not offend anyone. We all know the pitfalls of that. But when arguments get personal, we both know it goes no where good. Yeah, I think I could have called out someone before your post, for multiple ad hominems. But I'm going to say something that's going to piss you off man - the use of autism as an "allegory" for obsessive, myopic, or pretentious behaviour is something with a political association these days. No, I'm not going to debate that fact. I'm intimately familiar with it. So yeah, an insult that is going to raise the political hackles of a bunch of posters is something I'm going to call out whereas I've not given a second thought to the idea that someone might consider themselves a part of a "fetish community" gets offended by a use of that word. I used that word earlier, I think.

Now, I know you my friend, and I know you will be very tempted at this point to rage against the machine. To worry about censorship, or the mods acquiring a bias, or taking sides, or slippery slopes. But I think this thread can recover, and move on to decent and gentlemanly conversation that The Pub is known for. That's not going to happen if this argument goes any further. I implore you to let this one go.

Sure, I can do that. Can you send me a PM about the political association of autistic, I’m drawing a blank on where it’s used in a political context, code word, what have you. I’m genuinely curious.

P.S. How about “Go back to The Gaming Den”? That get’s the point across without the allegory to a specific condition.

 

[CRKrueger]

Just for pedantic Trivia. The real guy Rainman was patterned after was a savant, but he wasn’t autistic. The more you know.

 

[Edgewise]

What game(s) do a specific subject best (in your opinion)?

I'll try...

Who has the best magic rules?

I think Barbarians of Lemuria has a great freeform system. The DCC systems for both wizards and clerics are lots of fun.

Who has the best rules for cybernetics?

I don't have enough experience to have a strong opinion on this one. One thing I'll say is that I've seen a few systems that try to counterbalance the advantages of cybernetics with a resultant loss in "humanity." I've never been a fan of this one. It makes more sense to me that you'd have good old-fashioned health problems from balancing rejection syndrome against a compromised immune system.

Is there a game that does this well?

Who has the best boating rules?

You got me here. I'm interested to see what other people mention.

What game does Hacking the best?

Cyberpunk 2020 has a fun system, but most hacking mechanics have the problem of turning a session into a one-player mini-game. I'm more a fan of realistic hacking, which would take time, and often require someone to get in the trenches with social engineering, wire tapping, dumpster diving, etc. That's something I would houserule - Blades in the Dark has mechanics for things like this, but it puts the narrative for this in the player's hands, which is not my style.

 

[Ladybird]

I'm not sure why this topic, of all things, is quite so ...contentious... but here's some pictures of cute bunnies


View attachment 9789

View attachment 9790

View attachment 9791

View attachment 9792

We go back to playing The Warren next week, so these could actually be character art for our game...

(It's horrific. There have been sacrifices. We went to some sort of abandoned temple with... statues of ancient rabbit gods? There's a conspiracy of forest animals, with some link to an abandoned warren where they performed dark rituals. And of course, we're rabbits, so everything is terrifying to us anyway; my bunny's special ability is to run away really fast, and I think I made the right choice. We are picking up a new player and I think she has no idea what she is letting herself in for.)

 

[Stevethulhu]

Cyberpunk 2020 has a fun system, but most hacking mechanics have the problem of turning a session into a one-player mini-game. I'm more a fan of realistic hacking, which would take time, and often require someone to get in the trenches with social engineering, wire tapping, dumpster diving, etc. That's something I would houserule - Blades in the Dark has mechanics for things like this, but it puts the narrative for this in the player's hands, which is not my style.

If you ignore the crossword grid/dungeon bash aspects of CP2020 Netrunning and just go with a more freeform approach, I found it to work so much better. The other thing to remember being, anyone can Netrun, its just that Netrunners can do it better. Just like anyone can roll initiative, but Solos get a buff on it.

 

[AsenRG]

I'm not sure why this topic, of all things, is quite so ...contentious...

RPG fans arguing whether one system is better than another? Are you serious?

What game(s) do a specific subject best (in your opinion)?

Well, if it's just in my opinion (that's been known to change over the years, I'll freely admit)...

Who has the best magic rules?

It's a 60:60 split between Flashing Blades (FGU) and Fast Magic (Zozer Games). Most likely Flashing Blades.
BoL is a close second, because it takes longer.

Who has the best rules for cybernetics?

No opinion.

Who has the best boating rules?

Possibly Flashing Blades, the naval supplement.

What game does Hacking the best?

Fates Worse Than Death.

Or just any game/edition that specifically gets some system really right, regardless of the game overall.

Scavenging: Atomic Highway!

Social conflict: Exalted 3 was the closest from what I've seen...if you could cut out 90% of the exceptiuon-based crunch. So, I guess, something like Exalted 0.3?

Jungle combat against unseen opponents: Grunt.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

I believe games that are overly concerned with simulation fail as both simulations and as games. Games with a simple variety of interesting choices can often end up being more realistic than games with too much detail, because that leads to false choices or extremely unrealistic loopholes. For a wargame example, Band of Brothers delivers more realistic results than ASL despite not being concerned with anywhere near the same level of detail.

I haven't played either of the wargames you mention (although I'm familiar with ASL as a concept) but I do get what you mean. I do think sometimes in wargames the really heavy simulations end up being too scripted to be fun as games. But I don't think it's universal. Virgin Queen has a lot of chrome but I think it handles it really well. (And I'm fond of some of Richard Berg's designs, so entirely unnecessary chrome is something I enjoy).

So it's plausible at least that a RPG could benefit from a similar approach. I'm of the view that both complexity and simplicity bring something to the table and you can't have the benefits of both in the same game.

But if you believe that the objectively best RPGs are those that have the highest choice quality and the lowest complexity, the question arises why you aren't just freeforming everything, as I mentioned before. Player hard skills would seem to meet all your requirements. I'm talking something like this, just as a campaign - http://www.interactivitiesink.com/larps/hvm/hvm.html (The systemless version, not the RTLB version. And not that while it describes itself as a LARP it's pretty borderline in this case).

Having both is great, sure, but I'm not aware of any RPG that's on the level of something like Napoleon's Triumph.

Possibly something like Privateers and Gentleman or another game from the era where the boundaries between "RPG" and "wargame" were a lot blurrier.

 

[Lessa]

Social conflict: Exalted 3 was the closest from what I've seen...if you could cut out 90% of the exceptiuon-based crunch. So, I guess, something like Exalted 0.3?

I've heard good things about Exalted 3e and it's Intimacies (right?). Talk more about it if you can, please!

 

[Voros]

For hacking Cryptomancer is by far the best, the whole game is built around hacking, it also has a unique science fantasy setting completely distinct from the likes of Shadowrun. The rules are also very well presented, this is a really underrated game. The designer is working on a second edition.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

For hacking Cryptomancer is by far the best, the whole game is built around hacking, it also has a unique science fantasy setting completely distinct from the likes of Shadowrun. The rules are also very well presented, this is a really underrated game. The designer is working on a second edition.

Does it make everyone a hacker? That's probably the best way to go.

The problem with hacking in RPGs is it always ends up as solo gaming while the rest of the group twiddle their thumbs. So mostly a setting rather than a mechanical problem.

 

[EmperorNorton]

Yeah, Interface Zero (Savage Worlds version, don't know about the other versions), fixes the general hacking problem from most games with mechanics backed up by fluff.

Basically everything is on an AR level style network, so hacking is done in real time while with the team and doesn't turn into a minigame all on its own separated from the rest of the group.

 

[Edgewise]

I would like to see hacking mechanics that are reminiscent of the movie Sneakers, where a lot of ancillary hacking tasks involve fieldwork. Maybe you have to steal a keycard, trick a receptionist into giving you a password or bargain with Russian mobsters for black market spyware. That sort of stuff can involve the whole party.

For hacking Cryptomancer is by far the best, the whole game is built around hacking, it also has a unique science fantasy setting completely distinct from the likes of Shadowrun.

I just perused...it sounds very interesting. I'm especially interested in science-fantasy that isn't Shadowrun - unlike many here, I pretty much loathe the setting.

EDIT: Apparently I already own it! It must have been in a bundle...it's straight-up embarrassing how many games I have.