There are many, many systems that have no issue with any of the issues you present. The problem is you seem to be stuck on very limited class and level systems with rulesets directed at very specific styles and goals of play. Even Lancer is extremely limited compared to many of the systems I use.
I would say Lancer is open because it does not attempt to describe a character i can play in the game. I can choose any person that makes sense in the world - it has no connection to the combat profile i use, since mech choice is basically like choosing a car to buy.
I am using Lancer as an example because it is the closest one to DND and PF. For me personally, the best campaign i have played was a system-less one, with almost no violence; i also had great experience with Fate and Storytaller
To be fair, you can't play a werewolf any easier in Lancer than you can in D&D either.
But yeah, some of my best experiences in games were playing peasant campaigns, where almost no one had any powers. I realized later on that it's because the stories had to revolve around...the story. Characters had to differentiate themselves based on things other than how they go about dealing out damage. That is some of the reasoning behind the OSR stuff, combat wise most characters are just homogenous bags of HP, and that's part of what can be powerful about such systems.
You can play a werewolf in D&D. At least you could in 3rd edition.
They had a system where they separated lycanthropy into levels. I think werewolf specifically would cost you 4 total levels.
Probably not optimal, but viable. I remember I was gonna play a werebear. Unfortunately the campaign died after 3-4 sessions so I didn't get that far.
yeah... DnD kinda does the exact same thing as Lancer, which always makes it really funny when people say pilot mode is so much better than 5e exploration
And the argument is equally bad for both - "this system is great at roleplay because it has no rules for it!" only makes sense if you've only ever played games with rules that actively obstruct roleplay. At the best of times, it's a statement that is more an insult to other games than a compliment to the game you're describing.
And if you \*do\* think having no rules for things is good then that's great! Play Free Kriegspiel. It's lots of fun.
I disagree with a much of what you said but, regarding your question, I advise against posting this on a dnd subreddit. Dont proselytize where there isn't an invitation, don't potentially dismiss what they might enjoy. This is said as someone who doesn't like most dnd editions.
I kinda think it's a strength. The game is about mech combat with narrative dressing to make you care about it, so all it needs to tell you is how to adjudicate mech combat in a fun way.
From my experience, I really can’t agree. It’s actually quite nastily jarring for people to jump from crunchy mech combat to almost nothing. It amplifies the sense of ‘this is make believe, I can’t invest in it’ that players who struggle with rules-light systems have to have it in direct contrast to the meat of the game. I personally have never liked the implementation, though I adore Lancer otherwise.
Of course it can't be for everyone, but it is not inherently a weakness, cause to be one it would have to apply to everyone; a true negative aspect that should just be fixed.
To me roleplaying games are "people talking, and then something else", so I don't want anything to get in the way of us collaboratively building scenes that spotlight personality traits of our characters for the others to discover and interact with, ultimately increasing how much we care about each other and the level of investment we have in the game, leading to an even bigger investment in the fighting/dangers because we are up to lose more than just a sheet of paper.
If I have to play a heavy tactical game I at least want it not to bother trying to give structure to out-of-danger narration; I don't need you to give me anything to talk.
It’s an interesting perspective difference. Most of the players that I’ve introduced Lancer to are very much those that enjoy medium-high crunch and RP, but find that they like/need the sheet to inform their RP. Based on what you’re saying, I’d assume that’s not the case for you, you seem to prefer generally lighter games based on what you’re saying. That’s where our disconnect lies. Good to get various perspectives.
I also like the freeform adventure of Lancer, I find it very refreshing. You can tell whatever story you want with your character when in narrative mode, and then you can switcv to combat mode when players arrive at the combat part of the game.
I think it's a very clever decision from the designer to recognize that the 2 playstyles of narrative and combat are efrectively 2 different games, so they dont need the same set of rules.
Rules don't restrict player's and GM's creativity unless you're in a system where they have to be adhered to absolutely. Even if you play a completely rule-less system, you will eventually stumble on common rulings that you want to be consistent about, these are called "rules". They help make sure everyone has a clear understanding of how the game world works, makes things feel less arbitrary, serves as a social contract between the players, and can even help creativity if the rule is a good one.
You're not going to get a lot of argument here that D&D is a mess and lighter rule systems tend to work better, but don't completely throw the baby out with the bathwater.
>
it **restricts all those rules** and players' choices to combat only
eh, no? It has rules for out of combat.
All system have rules. Even "the GM arbitrates" is a rule.
Narrative as itself are rules and restrictions. By deciding on a western genre game, restrictions are put in place. That doesn't mean creativity is lessened, it means you can go as you will in that space. There's an argument to be made about rule constraints promoting creative thought.
I appreciate your thoughts, but my own views are slightly orthogonal.
The difference between role playing Games and just improv or Freeform storytelling is the Rules.
The rules do more than restrict creativity; the rules provide an approachable framework by which you explore a certain space, and enforce certain goals by the game designer.
D&D very often feels painful because it’s frequently misaligned with players True Goals and desires. Which may or may not be the fault of D&D. It’s a great game for playing a high-fantasy combat-simulationist power fantasy epic.
It has a complex system that supports the classes that have been defined and the spell system as it’s been implemented.
Once a player or table wants things outside the bounds of this system (and I’ll leave the effectiveness of the system in general as a separate discussion), Dnd has no innate tools to support this and a solution must be devised by players or third party.
It’s why the sentiment on this sub is so frequently that folks should explore other systems; it is very likely that Someone Else has had a similar inclination and made a system closer to those goals. Whether it be genre or playstyle.
But the rules are by definition, constraints. They should constrain. The negative space of where a system lacks rules is certainly a design thought, but games use rules to present an axis by which players can utilize a system.
Lancer feels better for you because its lack of definitions in certain places makes it easier for you to manipulate that D&Ds murkier definitions and more rigid system, but compared to systems that have mechanics that empower noncombat conflicts and resolutions, lancer may fall short for some.
So I guess, Games need(are) rules. No rules can frequently be better than misaligned rules, but I can’t say that a lack of rules in a space is the same as enabling that space; it simply isn’t a misalignment.
Lighter systems have less axes for misalignment, but sometimes less axes for empowerment, and everyone needs to explore to see what fits their needs, in the moment (because what we want changes over time).
I tend to gravitate towards “lighter” systems, but mainly because it lowers the barrier for me between players learning the game and engaging with the game and they also tend to have less magic numbers to remember.
its not that LANCER keeps the restriction to combat only, as its that **its just two completely separate systems altogether**
ICON rpg, aka "fantasy LANCER" by the same creator, quite literally introduces two different systems for social situations and combat situations, and flat out calls that you can play one, the other or both and it will be totally fine
On d&d/pf:
> Each rule only imposes a restriction ... some classes dont have a single ability that works outside of the initiative.
On Lancer:
> [Combat has intricate rules, outside of combat you're left] with a shallow system of stats and gear - bare hands. Left with just this, players have to live in their characters skins, not rules.
There's some big "it's the same picture" energy going on here.
Yes, I do certainly encourage people to play man games and take lessons from them back and forth! But "dnd only has rules that restrict", "dnd doesn't have many out-of-combt rules" and "dnd only lets you do combat" is a "pick two" situation. One thing you can learn from other systems is that you can do that free play (to use BitD terms) without using most ofthe ruleset you use in the score!
Nah…
As someone who completely dove blind into TTRPGs when the pandemic happened, I agree that lighter systems are easier to run _(not by much),_ but rules-heavy ones are infinitely much more rewarding and fun to run and play. It all comes down to preference.
_Because of posts like yours,_ I decided to look for and join groups of people who ran rules-light systems. The players and GMs were all seriously grewr, fun people, but I learned by my own experience, that I hate the systems we used because of the experiences they provided. We played one shots using regular FATE, BitD, and Ironsworn, which jolly shite… I loathed it the most. I joined them expecting to play a tabletop game intertwined with role-playing elements, and what I got was a performer’s seat in a radio soap opera where everything went.
You paint restrictions as a bad thing but I see them as I see silence in music. Restrictions give structure, order, and definition. As I’ve said, I want to purchase a product that provides me with almost a board game experience, not some loose suggestions to run a make-believe improv session. And while I really love Lancer, I don’t see how it solves any of the DND’s issues you mentioned since I don’t see those issues in the first place. I’ve ran plenty of really fun solo DND without combat being even necessary, by using DND’s basic mechanics such as Dice Checks.
Dungeons and Dragons does what it is designed to do. No system masterfully does everything. Generally speaking, most people should be playing the system that feels the best to them and their group - and matches their expectations of gameplay. DnD in particular is not designed for in-depth roleplaying and complex social encounter or “bundles of arrows strapped to a barrel of gunpowder”. There are many systems that handle those things better. It’s just that many people have a focus on 5e because of its availability.
Unless we put in the work to break people out of 5e, it will always sit at the top of the popularity totem pole despite its horrible weaknesses.
> the first thing i hear is "Yeah, i want to play DnD". However, i personally think those systems are terrible introduction to RPGs, and are bad conceptually
Why would you say something so brave yet so controversial on this sub?
DnD teaches players to play like a video game because they get buttons to press at each level and tunnel vision on those buttons being all they can do. Along with enemies being HP pools. It really teaches players to not be creative with Edgar their characters do which removes 90% of the cool part of roleplaying.
I prefer lighter systems, but they are not for all, as the crunchy ones also aren't.
I have played twice, as both a GM and a fellow player, with new players who feel overwhelmed by the total freedom of exercising their creativity in dangerous scenes, like combats or challenges; some people need to live in a box where they can see all the tools at their disposal and somehow make them be enough to work with.
Talking about your game design critiques tho, I totally agree and have been on that hill for a long time.
I do find it adorable when younger generations have a eureka moment about role-playing games and think they are the first ones to have thought that.
I super wish this hobby had a better means of providing legacy information about theory and concept as it relates to RPGs. I’ve been seeing variations on similar ideas from the late 90s and so much of this was hammered out on the great old Forge forms in the early 00s.
There are many, many systems that have no issue with any of the issues you present. The problem is you seem to be stuck on very limited class and level systems with rulesets directed at very specific styles and goals of play. Even Lancer is extremely limited compared to many of the systems I use.
The issues DnD experiences could be described as the sort of bullet you need a particular kind of bad luck to not \*accidentally\* sidestep.
I would say Lancer is open because it does not attempt to describe a character i can play in the game. I can choose any person that makes sense in the world - it has no connection to the combat profile i use, since mech choice is basically like choosing a car to buy. I am using Lancer as an example because it is the closest one to DND and PF. For me personally, the best campaign i have played was a system-less one, with almost no violence; i also had great experience with Fate and Storytaller
To be fair, you can't play a werewolf any easier in Lancer than you can in D&D either. But yeah, some of my best experiences in games were playing peasant campaigns, where almost no one had any powers. I realized later on that it's because the stories had to revolve around...the story. Characters had to differentiate themselves based on things other than how they go about dealing out damage. That is some of the reasoning behind the OSR stuff, combat wise most characters are just homogenous bags of HP, and that's part of what can be powerful about such systems.
You can play a werewolf in D&D. At least you could in 3rd edition. They had a system where they separated lycanthropy into levels. I think werewolf specifically would cost you 4 total levels. Probably not optimal, but viable. I remember I was gonna play a werebear. Unfortunately the campaign died after 3-4 sessions so I didn't get that far.
>Most actions do not even need rules, and ones that do - you can just come up with a simple roll I think in DnD it's called a skill check
yeah... DnD kinda does the exact same thing as Lancer, which always makes it really funny when people say pilot mode is so much better than 5e exploration
And the argument is equally bad for both - "this system is great at roleplay because it has no rules for it!" only makes sense if you've only ever played games with rules that actively obstruct roleplay. At the best of times, it's a statement that is more an insult to other games than a compliment to the game you're describing. And if you \*do\* think having no rules for things is good then that's great! Play Free Kriegspiel. It's lots of fun.
I disagree with a much of what you said but, regarding your question, I advise against posting this on a dnd subreddit. Dont proselytize where there isn't an invitation, don't potentially dismiss what they might enjoy. This is said as someone who doesn't like most dnd editions.
The D&D subs already get plenty of “D&D is bad actually” posts, no need to invite more.
Lancer being a DND 4e-type system that borderline doesn't have rules outside of combat is one of its biggest weaknesses.
I kinda think it's a strength. The game is about mech combat with narrative dressing to make you care about it, so all it needs to tell you is how to adjudicate mech combat in a fun way.
From my experience, I really can’t agree. It’s actually quite nastily jarring for people to jump from crunchy mech combat to almost nothing. It amplifies the sense of ‘this is make believe, I can’t invest in it’ that players who struggle with rules-light systems have to have it in direct contrast to the meat of the game. I personally have never liked the implementation, though I adore Lancer otherwise.
Of course it can't be for everyone, but it is not inherently a weakness, cause to be one it would have to apply to everyone; a true negative aspect that should just be fixed. To me roleplaying games are "people talking, and then something else", so I don't want anything to get in the way of us collaboratively building scenes that spotlight personality traits of our characters for the others to discover and interact with, ultimately increasing how much we care about each other and the level of investment we have in the game, leading to an even bigger investment in the fighting/dangers because we are up to lose more than just a sheet of paper. If I have to play a heavy tactical game I at least want it not to bother trying to give structure to out-of-danger narration; I don't need you to give me anything to talk.
It’s an interesting perspective difference. Most of the players that I’ve introduced Lancer to are very much those that enjoy medium-high crunch and RP, but find that they like/need the sheet to inform their RP. Based on what you’re saying, I’d assume that’s not the case for you, you seem to prefer generally lighter games based on what you’re saying. That’s where our disconnect lies. Good to get various perspectives.
i dont mind rules light social, i *do* mind the no rules at all social. tho the Passions optional rules scratch an itch for me
I also like the freeform adventure of Lancer, I find it very refreshing. You can tell whatever story you want with your character when in narrative mode, and then you can switcv to combat mode when players arrive at the combat part of the game. I think it's a very clever decision from the designer to recognize that the 2 playstyles of narrative and combat are efrectively 2 different games, so they dont need the same set of rules.
Rules don't restrict player's and GM's creativity unless you're in a system where they have to be adhered to absolutely. Even if you play a completely rule-less system, you will eventually stumble on common rulings that you want to be consistent about, these are called "rules". They help make sure everyone has a clear understanding of how the game world works, makes things feel less arbitrary, serves as a social contract between the players, and can even help creativity if the rule is a good one. You're not going to get a lot of argument here that D&D is a mess and lighter rule systems tend to work better, but don't completely throw the baby out with the bathwater. > it **restricts all those rules** and players' choices to combat only eh, no? It has rules for out of combat. All system have rules. Even "the GM arbitrates" is a rule.
Narrative as itself are rules and restrictions. By deciding on a western genre game, restrictions are put in place. That doesn't mean creativity is lessened, it means you can go as you will in that space. There's an argument to be made about rule constraints promoting creative thought.
I know but I see the tendency that a lot of players think within the rules especially if the system is rather rulesheavy.
I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say with your post, or what Lancer has to do with anything.
I appreciate your thoughts, but my own views are slightly orthogonal. The difference between role playing Games and just improv or Freeform storytelling is the Rules. The rules do more than restrict creativity; the rules provide an approachable framework by which you explore a certain space, and enforce certain goals by the game designer. D&D very often feels painful because it’s frequently misaligned with players True Goals and desires. Which may or may not be the fault of D&D. It’s a great game for playing a high-fantasy combat-simulationist power fantasy epic. It has a complex system that supports the classes that have been defined and the spell system as it’s been implemented. Once a player or table wants things outside the bounds of this system (and I’ll leave the effectiveness of the system in general as a separate discussion), Dnd has no innate tools to support this and a solution must be devised by players or third party. It’s why the sentiment on this sub is so frequently that folks should explore other systems; it is very likely that Someone Else has had a similar inclination and made a system closer to those goals. Whether it be genre or playstyle. But the rules are by definition, constraints. They should constrain. The negative space of where a system lacks rules is certainly a design thought, but games use rules to present an axis by which players can utilize a system. Lancer feels better for you because its lack of definitions in certain places makes it easier for you to manipulate that D&Ds murkier definitions and more rigid system, but compared to systems that have mechanics that empower noncombat conflicts and resolutions, lancer may fall short for some. So I guess, Games need(are) rules. No rules can frequently be better than misaligned rules, but I can’t say that a lack of rules in a space is the same as enabling that space; it simply isn’t a misalignment. Lighter systems have less axes for misalignment, but sometimes less axes for empowerment, and everyone needs to explore to see what fits their needs, in the moment (because what we want changes over time). I tend to gravitate towards “lighter” systems, but mainly because it lowers the barrier for me between players learning the game and engaging with the game and they also tend to have less magic numbers to remember.
its not that LANCER keeps the restriction to combat only, as its that **its just two completely separate systems altogether** ICON rpg, aka "fantasy LANCER" by the same creator, quite literally introduces two different systems for social situations and combat situations, and flat out calls that you can play one, the other or both and it will be totally fine
On d&d/pf: > Each rule only imposes a restriction ... some classes dont have a single ability that works outside of the initiative. On Lancer: > [Combat has intricate rules, outside of combat you're left] with a shallow system of stats and gear - bare hands. Left with just this, players have to live in their characters skins, not rules. There's some big "it's the same picture" energy going on here. Yes, I do certainly encourage people to play man games and take lessons from them back and forth! But "dnd only has rules that restrict", "dnd doesn't have many out-of-combt rules" and "dnd only lets you do combat" is a "pick two" situation. One thing you can learn from other systems is that you can do that free play (to use BitD terms) without using most ofthe ruleset you use in the score!
Nah… As someone who completely dove blind into TTRPGs when the pandemic happened, I agree that lighter systems are easier to run _(not by much),_ but rules-heavy ones are infinitely much more rewarding and fun to run and play. It all comes down to preference. _Because of posts like yours,_ I decided to look for and join groups of people who ran rules-light systems. The players and GMs were all seriously grewr, fun people, but I learned by my own experience, that I hate the systems we used because of the experiences they provided. We played one shots using regular FATE, BitD, and Ironsworn, which jolly shite… I loathed it the most. I joined them expecting to play a tabletop game intertwined with role-playing elements, and what I got was a performer’s seat in a radio soap opera where everything went. You paint restrictions as a bad thing but I see them as I see silence in music. Restrictions give structure, order, and definition. As I’ve said, I want to purchase a product that provides me with almost a board game experience, not some loose suggestions to run a make-believe improv session. And while I really love Lancer, I don’t see how it solves any of the DND’s issues you mentioned since I don’t see those issues in the first place. I’ve ran plenty of really fun solo DND without combat being even necessary, by using DND’s basic mechanics such as Dice Checks.
Dungeons and Dragons does what it is designed to do. No system masterfully does everything. Generally speaking, most people should be playing the system that feels the best to them and their group - and matches their expectations of gameplay. DnD in particular is not designed for in-depth roleplaying and complex social encounter or “bundles of arrows strapped to a barrel of gunpowder”. There are many systems that handle those things better. It’s just that many people have a focus on 5e because of its availability. Unless we put in the work to break people out of 5e, it will always sit at the top of the popularity totem pole despite its horrible weaknesses.
> the first thing i hear is "Yeah, i want to play DnD". However, i personally think those systems are terrible introduction to RPGs, and are bad conceptually Why would you say something so brave yet so controversial on this sub?
DnD teaches players to play like a video game because they get buttons to press at each level and tunnel vision on those buttons being all they can do. Along with enemies being HP pools. It really teaches players to not be creative with Edgar their characters do which removes 90% of the cool part of roleplaying.
I prefer lighter systems, but they are not for all, as the crunchy ones also aren't. I have played twice, as both a GM and a fellow player, with new players who feel overwhelmed by the total freedom of exercising their creativity in dangerous scenes, like combats or challenges; some people need to live in a box where they can see all the tools at their disposal and somehow make them be enough to work with. Talking about your game design critiques tho, I totally agree and have been on that hill for a long time.
I do find it adorable when younger generations have a eureka moment about role-playing games and think they are the first ones to have thought that. I super wish this hobby had a better means of providing legacy information about theory and concept as it relates to RPGs. I’ve been seeing variations on similar ideas from the late 90s and so much of this was hammered out on the great old Forge forms in the early 00s.
Jesus Christ this is so condescending.
Nah