Thread replies: 13
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
File: 100243.jpg (40KB, 698x976px) Image search:
[Google]
40KB, 698x976px
One of my regular players recently suggested he could run a game in the Stalker/Roadside picnic setting, of which he's a fan, because he found a rules system for it.
Since I almost never get to play, I was on board from the beginning, so I had him send me the rulebook and began reading it. IT's something from a finnish guy called simply Stalker, pic related.
Now, I don't mind too much that it's written in comic sans, or that it has low production values.
The thing is, it's barely a game at all.
Basically, to make your character you select a bunch of traits from a pre-made list, mostly the usual boring stuff. Then, the game goes like this - you describe your action, the GM rates it according to how good the idea was and how well you roleplayed, then decides if you passed or not. THe only bit of agency a character has is a small reserve of points he can spend to succeed anyway.
No dice, barely any stats or depth to the characters. It's unabashed "mother may I", everything is in the hands of the GM.
What's worse is that the foreword is a wankery about how the game is better than those other stupid games that still roll dice.
Now, I don't need an heavy system. In fact, lately I've been spending a lot of time with more storygame-oriented games. The thing is, those usually have a lot of things in place to say who gets to say what - too many of 'em, in some cases. This Stalker shit is really just GM masturbation.
And yet, all the reviews I've seen for the game are glowing. Are we really that shit at evaluating games?
>>
>>54480700
>And yet, all the reviews I've seen for the game are glowing. Are we really that shit at evaluating games?
First, yes we are that shit.
Second, if it's glowing it's a reminder not to touch it.
>>
>>54480700
Have you never played a diceless game before?
>>
>>54480700
sounds like most lame dieless game systems. I just surprise how many are being pushed right now. I know amber kind of so;d in the day but I believed to was mostly due to being a new idea and based on great books
>>
>>54483352
There's diceless, and then there's "suck the GM's dick".
For all it does, this game could have had dice rolling, or card drawing.
>>
I'm running a short campaign in the roadside picnic setting, and I use a lot of the fluff from this book.
I'm a shit DM who can't into math so I've cobbled together a system where players gain advantage/disadvantages based on the traits they've chosen. They roll 2d6, add the points they've put into the different skills, then argue whether or not they deserve to roll again based on the traits they've selected.
It's not a GREAT system, but it just about works. IIRC there's an official dice-based system but I seem to recall it was even worse.
>>
>>54480700
> you describe your action, the GM rates it according to how good the idea was and how well you roleplayed, then decides if you passed or not
Ooof, sounds the like the game needs a close group of friends who are on the same page with what they want out of the story.
>>
You're clearly stuck in a "GM versus players" mentality
Learn to actually roleplay, not metagame and enjoy telling stories with mature friends
>>
>>54487751
>sounds the like the game needs a close group of friends who are on the same page with what they want out of the story.
Rather niche then.
>>
>>54487778
Even if you don't have a GM vs player mentality, you don't always play with a group of people who all want the same thing.
>>
File: 1307555744884.png (5KB, 239x258px) Image search:
[Google]
5KB, 239x258px
>>54480700
>No dice, barely any stats or depth to the characters. It's unabashed "mother may I", everything is in the hands of the GM.
If you don't trust your GM to be the ultimate arbitrator of the game, you should not be at his table.
That said, I'd just replace the "how well you roleplayed" part with a die roll because that kind of thing is subjective as fuck and needlessly punishes players who are bad at roleplaying (= most players). The other component can still be GM's judgment on how good your idea is.
>>
>>54489398
Personally, I don't understand people who play RPGs with people who are not their closest friends in the whole world. What's the appeal of that?
>>
>>54487778
This is obviously not a matter of GM versus players mentality. OP is complaining about a lack of rules and resolution mechanics, which are supposed to HELP facilitate action adjudication and reduce the "GM's current mood" factor.
Thread posts: 13
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2