Yawgmoth posted:

You sound like that one guy whose name I forget who put a big dumb screed in his game's core book about how everyone who wants combat rules in their RPG is a monster and a psychopath and how dare you!!! then ends it with "but fine, if you need a murder simulator here you go, but by using these rules you agree that you are a terrible person and everything that is wrong with society."

Yes, "dudes get into a situation and have a plot with something at stake" describes a lot of stories. It describes almost every story, in fact! Because if you don't want conflict, or you don't want events that have something at stake, or you don't want goals that require effort/risk, then what do you want? Slice of Life Anime: the RPG? Because you don't really need a system for that.

paradoxGentleman posted:

There actually is a system to play a Slice of Life sort of game whose mechanics even encourage you to do so and stay within genre.

Lichtenstein posted:

If you're talking about Mr. Stolze, expect to face divine retribution. Soon.

Unknown Armies posted:

Somewhere out there is someone who had loving parents, watched clouds on a summer’s day, fell in love, lost a friend, is kind to small animals, and knows how to say ‘please’ and ‘thank you,’ and yet somehow the two of you are going to end up in a dirty little room with one knife between you and you are going to have to kill that human being.

It’s a terrible thing. Not just because he’s come to the same realization and wants to survive just as much a you do, meaning he’s going to try and puncture your internal organs to set off a cascading trauma effect that ends with you voiding your bowels, dying alone and removed from everything you've ever loved. No, it’s a terrible thing because somewhere along the way you could have made a different choice. You could have avoided that knife, that room, and maybe even found some kind of common ground between the two of you. Or at least, you might have divvied up some turf and left each other alone. That would have been a lot smarter, wouldn't it? Even dogs are smart enough to do that. Now you’re staring into the eyes of a fellow human and in a couple minutes one of you is going to be vomiting blood ot the rhythm of a fading heartbeat. The survivor is going to remember this night for the rest of his or her life.

Six Ways To Stop A Fight

So before you make a grab for that knife, you should maybe think about a few things. This moment is frozen in time. You can still make a better choice.

Surrender. Is your pride really worth a human life? Drop your weapon, put up your hands, and tell them you’re ready to cut a deal. Sidestep the current agenda. Offer them something unrelated to your dispute, and negotiate to find a solution.

Disarm. Knife on the table? Throw it out the window. Opponent with a gun? Dodge until he’s out of bullets. Deescalate the confrontation to fists, if possible. You can settle your differences with some brawling and still walk away, plus neither one of you has to face a murder charge or a criminal investigation.

Rechannel. So you have a conflict. Settle it a smarter way. Arm wrestle, play cards, have a scavenger hunt, a drinking contest, anything that lets you establish a winner and a loser. Smart gamblers bet nothing they aren’t willing to lose. Why put your life on the line?

Pass the Buck. Is there somebody more powerful than either one of you who is going to be angry that you two are coming to blows? Pretend you’re all in the mafia and you can’t just kill each other without kicking your dispute upstairs first. Let that symbolic superior make a decision. You both gain clout for not spilling blood.

Call the Cops. If you’ve got a grievance against somebody, let the police do your dirty work. File charges. Get a restraining order. Sue him in civil court for wrongful harm. You can beat him down without throwing a punch.

Run Away. The hell with it. Who needs this kind of heat? Blow town, get a job someplace else, build a new power base. Is the world really too small for the both of you? It’s a big planet out there.

Oh Well

Still determined? Backed into a corner with no way out? Have to fight for the greater good? Up against someone too stupid to know this is a bad idea? Or maybe just itching for some action? So be it. The rest of this chapter contains rules for simulating the murder of human beings. Have fun.

MadScientistWorking posted:

Conflict isn't the same thing as stabbing people. Once again conflict isn't the same thing as stabbing people.

Glazius posted:

For the record, the screed that may or may not be in question:

Glazius posted:

For the record, the screed that may or may not be in question:

Glazius posted:

For the record, the screed that may or may not be in question:

paradoxGentleman posted:

That seems like a very nice and appropriate passage, given what little I know about Unknown Armies. What's Yawgmoth complaining about?

grassy gnoll posted:

Violence rules, kill every stinking kobold and take their stuff. I don't even need a dozen half-spears!

paradoxGentleman posted:

That seems like a very nice and appropriate passage, given what little I know about Unknown Armies. What's Yawgmoth complaining about?

oriongates posted:

The book isn't judging you for having fun with your "murder simulator", it's just trying to remind you, in a round-about way, that this is a different setting, with a different batch of assumptions. It's sub-title is "a game of power and consequences"...but you aren't Exalted characters ripping up the landscape or becoming president...There doesn't need to be a lot of power for the consequences to get very severe. That's what the passage is trying to remind you of...you've got a gun and an enemy. Ultimately, you have the power of life and death in your small little world and your choice will have consequences. Not because choosing to fight is right or wrong, but because that's what happens when you choose anything.

Yawgmoth posted:

I think it's really loving sanctimonious and passive aggressive, much in the way I find Siivola's rant about "ugh this whole hobby started out with wargames and now everything is about people going places and doing things and sometimes those people and/or their friends are in mortal danger, " to be a rather ridiculous complaint. The point of the game is (generally) to tell an interesting story. For the story to be interesting, you typically need the stakes to be high enough to warrant mention and the goal to be important enough to pursue and the conflict to be big enough to put your protagonists in danger. Getting all up in arms over "well you can have other danger than violence so why don't you, huh? HUH?!" is the kind of poo poo I'd expect out of a zero-tolerance elementary school teacher, not an RPG book.
That's a shame because it could have been worded so much better, but given what I know of UA it sounds like a lot of stuff could have been worded better. I don't want or need the writer assuming I'm already doing everything wrong before putting out the information he wants to convey in the next section.

Yawgmoth posted:

I think it's really loving sanctimonious and passive aggressive...I don't want or need the writer assuming I'm already doing everything wrong before putting out the information he wants to convey in the next section.

grassy gnoll posted:

Somebody sell me on Battle Century G, please.

paradoxGentleman posted:

Just to be absolutely sure, I reread both Siivola's post and the UA text and I feel that you are feeling attacked when there is no reason to, considering that what is being condemned isn't the presence of conflict, but the fact that apparently nothing short the life or death of someone can motivate a character, or at the very least must be put on the line for a game to be played, and he even points out that there is nothing wrong with enjoying that.

quote:

As for UA, like Serf pointed out, it's supposed to take place in a setting very similar to our world, and since most RPG players don't start out in that mental space because they are conditioned by D&D, it makes sense to explain the situation while a the same time providing alternatives for people that maybe didn't think about them in the first place.

Apart from the fact that, as I said, this is not as universal as he says it is, I can sort of see where he's coming from.

Mecha Gojira posted:

Do you like tactical combat, an emphasis on balance, relatively simple yet satisfyingly robust character creation and customization options, and of course giant robots?

Then you should check out BCG.

http://gimmicklabs.blogspot.com/?m=1 - Here's the site. Check out the reference document.

Yawgmoth posted:

Yawgmoth posted:

Where does Siivola say anything of that sort? All I see is bitching about life & death stakes and being cynical about survival. Which is needless hyperbole since the only game you could even come close to making that assertion about is D&D, and even there it's a rather tough sell. Maybe I'm just reading an entirely different set of books or something, but I doubt it.
I have more issue with the snide tone of it all than the actual content. I think it's poor form to be so resentful of a pretty basic facet of the hobby and not only let it show, but to actively showcase it in a thing you are selling to that hobby's audience. There's a right way and a wrong way to say that sort of stuff, and "well if you tried you could find a way to avoid fighting but since you aren't going to I'll have to tell you. " is definitely the wrong way in my opinion.

TheLovablePlutonis posted:

How does that simulate SRW or Front Mission gameplay-wise? Only question I have.

Jackard posted:

I remember reading that but nothing called Unknown Armies. Did it have something to do with GURPS?

Mecha Gojira posted:

It's SRW the tabletop. Tactical robot combat on a grid with different terrain features and your pilots even get a set number of "genre powers" which use "genre points" and are basically like SRW's spirit commands.

You can also totally build Getter Robo. As in multiple separate mecha that combine in multiple different ways to create multiple different badass robots.

Mecha Gojira posted:

It's SRW the tabletop. Tactical robot combat on a grid with different terrain features and your pilots even get a set number of "genre powers" which use "genre points" and are basically like SRW's spirit commands.

You can also totally build Getter Robo. As in multiple separate mecha that combine in multiple different ways to create multiple different badass robots.

Lichtenstein posted:

Yawgmoth is a blood frenzied example of satanic conditioning D&D does to our children.

TheLovablePlutonis posted:

This has my interest.

Mecha Gojira posted:

There's also separate pilot creation, and role playing your pilots during intermission nets you more genre points to use in mecha combat.

My favorite mechanic is escalation, though, where each round everyone adds an extra +1 to hit and is tied to finishing move abilities/weapons with names like Zweihander, Radiant Fist, and Missile Massacre.

And of course it's all effects based, so you're free to flavor anything however you want.

TheLovablePlutonis posted:

Ohhh that does sound pretty cool and I might try it... Although what I really want is a TRPG that is on the same "Real Robot" genre and related mechanics as Armored Core, Front Mission or hell, even Mechwarrior, although ever since Mekton (which was better played for Super Robot genre games any way) there weren't many of those.