Casting Shadows

The bulk of my RPG collection is in storage… on the other side of the Earth. Were it not for the not insignificant issues of weight and shipping costs, I would have had it all (or most of it at any rate) sent to me here, long ago. In order to sate a desire most of our group had been having for a sword & sorcery setting, we settled on running a fantasy game using Fudge, and one using Palladium Fantasy.

My opinion on Palladium Fantasy:

I like it. I enjoy the setting, and the way that setting and the ideas within are set up to empower creativity and non-standard approaches to a fairly over-used genre. I like that it does not molly coddle players, and that it contains various elements which are easy to use and actually serve to create excitement in their own right. To name two of my favorites:

• The combat system’s adversarial approach having the players roll off against their opponents, combined with the simple and interesting method of applying the effectiveness of armour, has always created a lot of good energy during what can often be a tedious chore in other fantasy systems.
• The sense that all magic is both borrowed, and poorly understood provides a deeper sense of the mystical, the perils of spell-craft, and removes a lot of the empty carbon-copy feel of level-based mystics in other systems.

I do not care an iota about cross-overs. No argument that revolves around mixing and matching Palladium Fantasy characters or settings with Rifts, or any other Palladium game is my concern. I have listened to these concerns over and over again from other players, and I always have the same two reactions:

• How a game works or does not work is ultimately the province of the GM, so if you are unsure of how to answer cries of ‘The book says-” then you may not be cut out to be a GM.
• Cross-overs are work.  If you do not want to do the work to make them work, then do not run a cross-over.

I have given a lot of thought to the issues raised about game-balance. I have played systems with no balance, and those which are extremely well-balanced and have enjoyed both. I distinctly remember using the idea of balance to sell my players on the idea of trying a point-buy system the first time, citing the variance in play produced by random trait generation. Ultimately, however, it finally comes down to taste, experience, and trade-offs.

All things have a purpose. If I am in the mood to cater to player wish-fulfillment fantasies, then a balanced system will appeal as it allows for fewer areas of disappointment, and rewards those players who directly invest time in developing an understanding of game play and how best to use the system to their advantage. It also does not penalize players who cannot invest the time to become properly conversant in the game. I tend to choose these systems when I am with busy, casual, or beginning players. (See my posts on Trinity)

If I am able to play with experienced players with the time to develop a good, fully-realized character based on a combination of generated and selected traits, then I will. There are rewards for doing more with less that have nothing to do with the mechanics of a game.

A key distinction that gets lost, I think, is that play balance is only of import if the characters are competing against each other. My point of view is that this is cooperative storytelling – we are all working together to create a great tale. Diversity, and sometimes adversity, are great aids in that aim. Generated traits serve this far better than balanced, point-buy systems.

In a competition, in Battletech, let’s say, there is essentially no advantage to taking a smaller ‘mech unless the player possesses both superior tactical insight and more successful rolls on game night. In a roleplaying game, there are myriad reasons why choosing to pilot a light ‘mech can serve the story, character development, and not ignore in any way the tactics of a given battle. The player who takes a character at a seeming disadvantage to the others in the group is not in competition with them, and has nothing to lose in comparison to them. Each member of the group contributes a piece of the story. How well they play their role, how well they employ their character, and how much they contribute are all primary elements of how much the group enjoys the game.

My opinions on Fudge:

I have less to say about Fudge. In fact, I can sum it up in one sentence.

• The system seems to promote mediocrity, and thereby my lack of interest, by vastly minimizing the chance of failure.

I digressed.

Returning to Palladium was very pleasant. In  subsequent posts, I will go over how the campaign was built, and report on how it progresses.