PDA

View Full Version : Earthbound and other Wacky Modernish RPGs



Coidzor
2009-12-15, 10:55 AM
Anyone have any ideas as to what systems would be best/easiest to get the sort of oddball enemies and psychic powers and so on that Earthbound had?

Or if there's any kind of existing body of work in terms of a fan-made RPG system?

..I just... I just had the idea of an Earthbound-themed set of dice and... it was wonderful.

And then I wondered what it would be like to play such a game with such dice...

And now I'm asking you all. haha. :smallbiggrin:

The White Knight
2009-12-15, 12:09 PM
..I just... I just had the idea of an Earthbound-themed set of dice and... it was wonderful.

I'd be interested to hear what you were thinking here.

jmbrown
2009-12-15, 12:41 PM
FATE would be the best system IMO. Relatively rules light and I like the idea of aspects. In case you don't know, they're defining parts of your character that you can utilize to give you the edge in a certain situation. For example, Ness might have the aspects:

Cracked bat
Gets homesick
Doesn't talk much
Dumpster diver

Players can use aspects to give them an advantage like if he gets into a fight he can compel his cracked bat aspect to give him a better chance of striking someone. The GM can also compel aspects to put you at a disadvantage like saying "Ness, you're feeling homesick. A call to your mom sure would be great." Players can also put themselves in disadvantageous situations in exchange for extra fate points so if the GM describes a trashcan near, Ness' player could say "I jump in and look for hamburgers to eat."

Random NPC
2009-12-15, 12:45 PM
Mutants and Mastermind

/thread

Hal
2009-12-15, 01:08 PM
I actually played in an Earthbound game at a con using the Savage Worlds system (Savage Earthbound?). It was great fun. Somebody kicked Pokey in the coinpurse while he was delivering his villainous monologue. It's a well-remembered moment.

Another_Poet
2009-12-15, 01:19 PM
This is better than my idea for a Fable II style game using WHFRP.

Ness finds a Skip Sandwich DX!
You don't have room in your backback...
Ness puts the Skip Sandwich DX back.

Zovc
2009-12-15, 04:44 PM
Most Shin Megami Tensei games are set in modern or futuristic settings.

For the record, that includes the Persona games.

realbombchu
2009-12-15, 10:44 PM
I realize that BESM is not that popular or widely available (3rd edition, I mean) but I tried an Earthbound style game with two friends a while back using that system, and it went pretty well. I don't know if my friends enjoyed it as much, though. They had never played the video game, and only agreed to play my RPG version because of all the neat praise I had for the video game. I think, as a result, some of the best references were lost on them.

A kind of modified 4th edition D&D could work in theory, but would be a lot of work. You would need new classes and magic items, and power sources would be almost universally psionic. Still, using at-will, encounter, and daily level powers would be a nice change from power points, and even a Jeff-like character could hold his own by being some kind of non-arcane artificer.

I think one of the nice things about an Earthbound game is that you don't always have to excuse yourself if something is a little absurd. With the influence of evil madness spreading in the world, things just don't need to make (as much) sense. That was one of the things my friends and I had the most fun with.

Optimystik
2009-12-15, 10:51 PM
3.5 could do it - the game actually uses power points, after all!

Tengu_temp
2009-12-15, 10:59 PM
I realize that BESM is not that popular or widely available (3rd edition, I mean) but I tried an Earthbound style game with two friends a while back using that system, and it went pretty well. I don't know if my friends enjoyed it as much, though. They had never played the video game, and only agreed to play my RPG version because of all the neat praise I had for the video game. I think, as a result, some of the best references were lost on them.


The thing with BESM is, unless you're married to the idea of hit points and mana/spirit points, M&M can do everything it can do and also do a much better job at it. Not that BESM is a bad game (though it's not awesome, either), it's just that M&M is much better designed.

Yeah, it might feel a bit boring when the default answer to people asking what system to use for this and that setting is M&M, but that is because M&M really is that versatile. There are very few settings it handles badly.

Random NPC
2009-12-16, 01:48 AM
What I've played on Mutants and Mastermind:

Superhero game similar to inFAMOUS set in our hometown
Shin Megami Tensei/Persona 3 game
A real life world war 2 non-superhero game
A D&D game set in a futuristic Eberron
Space Opera game set in an even further future of Eberron
Fallout 3 game


Think of a game. Yes, you can play it with M&M. It's that good

Coidzor
2009-12-16, 02:08 AM
So... M&M gives GURPS a run for its money at versatility, eh?

Random NPC
2009-12-16, 02:30 AM
So... M&M gives GURPS a run for its money at versatility, eh?

Never played GURPS, but I find M&M quite versatile

Haven
2009-12-16, 02:40 AM
So... M&M gives GURPS a run for its money at versatility, eh?

Indeed, though it isn't nearly as in-depth as GURPS. Of course, IMO that's a good thing.

But yeah, if you take a look at the official forums you'll see how many settings it can cover. Particularly if you poke around "Roll Call" (http://www.atomicthinktank.com/viewforum.php?f=14&sid=44982b5daab2172da321681a3e216cfe), where pretty much everyone from everything has been statted (someone statted up The Dude from The Big Lebowski...he's, uh, not very powerful though).

edit: I should probably add I've never played GURPS either ^^

jmbrown
2009-12-16, 02:55 AM
So... M&M gives GURPS a run for its money at versatility, eh?

Versatility? Lol, no. GURPS pretty much covers everything under the sun.

Now, ease of play and time spent learning? Definitely.

The Dark Fiddler
2009-12-16, 08:02 AM
Mutants and Mastermind

/thread

Thank you so much! My group will be starting our first M&M campaign, and I couldn't think of what to play!

"My character's name is Ness, and..."

Tengu_temp
2009-12-16, 09:28 AM
Versatility? Lol, no. GURPS pretty much covers everything under the sun.

Now, ease of play and time spent learning? Definitely.

I'm not really familiar with GURPS, but from what I've seen the only advantage in versatility it has is that it covers gritty games much better. And yeah, it's a much slower and more cumbersome system, and easier to break too - M&M is the most balanced open system I've seen, at least as much as an open system can be balanced.

Satyr
2009-12-16, 10:10 AM
So... M&M gives GURPS a run for its money at versatility, eh?

No. Not even close. When compared with Gurps, M&M cries itself to sleep every night and answers penis enlargement mails to overcome its innate infeririority complex.:smalltongue:
When it comes to flexibility and adaptability, M&M is a set of building bricks, and Gurps a toolbox with endless raw material.
When it comes to ease of rules... well yes, M&M has the easier rules but ackomplishes this through superficiality and a general lack of depth. The Gurps rules are the more stringent and in itself logical ones. It takes a bit more time to get into the system, but once you understand the system, it is mostly self-evident. If you think that simple rules are an end in themselves, yes, M&M offers good rules. If you think they are a means to an end, they are somewhat lacking.

Even in its very core competence, super hero gaming, M&M is at best equal to Gurps . In every other regard, it is vastly inferior. If you like, we can make it a challenge - create a character of your choice in M&M, including background story, setting parameters etc. and I'll rebuild it in Gurps. Then I'll build a character in Gurps and you can try to rebuild it using M&M.

Tengu_temp
2009-12-16, 10:19 AM
Simple rules are an end in themselves, they make the gameplay much faster. You rarely need more than building bricks to get the character you want.

I'm tempted about this challenge, but I'm not sure am I not too lazy to purposely make characters just for it. Not to mention that there are some settings M&M is bad for - very gritty games with little cinematic or supernatural elements, and Christmas Tree-effect games where you continuously buy/find better magic items.

Zovc
2009-12-16, 10:28 AM
Is there anywhere I can see a 'demonstration' of M&M's rules?

I'm also interested in this Persona 3 game Random NPC mentioned. Is there a source you can point me to for that?

Satyr
2009-12-16, 10:40 AM
Simple rules are an end in themselves, they make the gameplay much faster.
No. All other things equal, knowing the rules makes a game run faster and/or smoother. Easier rules are only faster to lean, but once you know the rules well enough, it really doesn't matter how easy or complex the rules are. Yes, there are rule mechanisms that are inevitably faster or slower than others (e.g. pool systems were you roll dozens of dice at a time, instead of only one or a few), but that doesn't make them easier or harder to understand.



You rarely need more than building bricks to get the character you want.
Perhaps I long for more details than you. I thouroughly hate playing characters I deem to be superficial, onedimensional or flat stereotypes, and more detailed characters are almost always more interesting. To use another analogy, character creation is in my opinion very similar to create a portrait. Who would use a paint roller for that if more accurate means are available?

Tengu_temp
2009-12-16, 11:11 AM
No. All other things equal, knowing the rules makes a game run faster and/or smoother. Easier rules are only faster to lean, but once you know the rules well enough, it really doesn't matter how easy or complex the rules are. Yes, there are rule mechanisms that are inevitably faster or slower than others (e.g. pool systems were you roll dozens of dice at a time, instead of only one or a few), but that doesn't make them easier or harder to understand.

I disagree. Compare these two ways of estimating do you hit the enemy:
1. Roll 1d20 and add your attack bonus. If the number you get is the same or higher than enemy defense bonus, you hit, otherwise you miss.
2. For each point in your appropriate attack skill, roll d6d6 (not 6d6, d6d6), add 3/4 of the difference between your and the targer's Strength and 1/2 of the difference between your and the target's Dexterity if it's a melee attack, or 3/4 of your Dexterity and of your 1/2 Perception if it's a ranged attack. Substract the cover bonus, as written in the table on page XX, if it's a ranged attack. Square root the number you get, substract 3/4 of the target's Parry skill and 1/2 of the target's Dodge skill for a melee attack, or the target's Dodge skill for a ranged attack, as well as the square root of the difference between the target's and your Agility, if it's higher than 0. Compare the result to the appropriate number in the Fight Conditions table - if it's lower, then you miss, if it's higher, than you hit, if it's equal, you hit if your Tactics skill is higher than the target's. If you hit, roll on the hit location table...

Which method is simpler? Which method is faster?



Perhaps I long for more details than you. I thouroughly hate playing characters I deem to be superficial, onedimensional or flat stereotypes, and more detailed characters are almost always more interesting. To use another analogy, character creation is in my opinion very similar to create a portrait. Who would use a paint roller for that if more accurate means are available?

So it's impossible to create a character that will be simple mechanically, yet interesting and complex as a person?

Satyr
2009-12-16, 11:53 AM
Which method is simpler? Which method is faster?

It is not like these are even closely similar, or even equal takes on the rules, nor that the second construct makes any sense. It is just convoluted, which is surely not true for most complex systems. As far as I know, more complex rules are usually better structured than simple ones, because the need for such a structure is more imminent. This is certainly the case with the Gurps rules, which are complex, but not difficult due to the inner logic of the rule structure and the self-evidency of most rolls.
As a side note, a system were you only ever roll one kind of the same roll all the time without any circumstantial variety or tactical options would be an even worse choice than the convoluted mess example, as the sheer repretiveness, predictability and lack of any influence or alternation would make it incredibly boring.


So it's impossible to create a character that will be simple mechanically, yet interesting and complex as a person?
No. It is just more difficult. And, unnecessarily so. Why should we argue in absolutes? The absolutes are almost always wrong.

A system that actively supports the development of characters with interesting strengths and weaknesses, and even small fluffy traits with little impact which are just there to give the character more depth and substance and helps to visualise the character. Especially for new players who have little experience in creating characters this is an invaluable assistance which helps to create well-rounded and diverse characters from the very beginning.

Besides, it is not only the investment but also the quality of character traits in the game. You can easily argue that traits which are hard wired into the rules have a lot more impact and substance than ephemeral traits without any counterpart in the rules. The one thing has supposedly an impact in the game, the other is pretty much arbitrary and solely depends on the wilingness to include them.

Tengu_temp
2009-12-16, 12:36 PM
It is not like these are even closely similar, or even equal takes on the rules, nor that the second construct makes any sense. It is just convoluted, which is surely not true for most complex systems. As far as I know, more complex rules are usually better structured than simple ones, because the need for such a structure is more imminent. This is certainly the case with the Gurps rules, which are complex, but not difficult due to the inner logic of the rule structure and the self-evidency of most rolls.

It doesn't change the fact that more complex rules are slower, even if they are not convoluted, because even if you're completely familiar with them, there are still more processes you have to make in order to estimate the result of a roll. There is a reason DND abandoned THAC0.
And no, I don't think if there's any connection between the structure of rules and their complexity. Either a complex and a simple system can be elegant and logical, and either can be a complete, utter mess.


As a side note, a system were you only ever roll one kind of the same roll all the time without any circumstantial variety or tactical options would be an even worse choice than the convoluted mess example, as the sheer repretiveness, predictability and lack of any influence or alternation would make it incredibly boring.

I must agree here, a game needs combat* options to be interesting. M&M, for example, gives you plenty of options - even if you purposely don't take any feats/powers that can be used tactically or as a reaction, you always have hero points and extra effort.

* - Or during other confrontations, but combat is the most common type of confrontation in most RPGs.


No. It is just more difficult. And, unnecessarily so. Why should we argue in absolutes? The absolutes are almost always wrong.

A system that actively supports the development of characters with interesting strengths and weaknesses, and even small fluffy traits with little impact which are just there to give the character more depth and substance and helps to visualise the character. Especially for new players who have little experience in creating characters this is an invaluable assistance which helps to create well-rounded and diverse characters from the very beginning.

I never found it difficult to create a complex character no matter was the system in question complex or simple, or did it support creating characters with quirks or not - note that these two are not the same, for example DND 3.5 is far from the simplest rules out there, yet its mechanics have absolutely no support for character personalization. It's a great help for newbies, yes, but if you've got a bit of experience, you'll be able to create a multi-dimensional character even in TWERPS.

On a sidenote, M&M encourages creating complex characters too, in a simple yet effective way - the Complications mechanics.


Besides, it is not only the investment but also the quality of character traits in the game. You can easily argue that traits which are hard wired into the rules have a lot more impact and substance than ephemeral traits without any counterpart in the rules. The one thing has supposedly an impact in the game, the other is pretty much arbitrary and solely depends on the wilingness to include them.

I don't think so. Unless the game is very light on roleplaying, the characters' personalities and other things the mechanics don't cover will have an important impact on the gameplay, as well. I'd argue that every single aspect of a character depends on the willingness to include it in the game, be it documented by the rules or not - you could have a combat-heavy character, which of course takes a lot of room on your character sheet and is well documented by the rules, only for it to turn out that the game has absolutely no combat at all.


This gets quite offtopic. Taking it to another thread would be the best solution.

Random NPC
2009-12-16, 02:57 PM
Is there anywhere I can see a 'demonstration' of M&M's rules?

I'm also interested in this Persona 3 game Random NPC mentioned. Is there a source you can point me to for that?

Here's a preview (http://grfiles.game-host.org/2e_files/MM2eCh1.pdf) of character creation. You need to buy the rulebook for all the rules. Or maybe browse around the M&M website here (http://www.mutantsandmasterminds.com/)

The game Persona 3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persona_3) is a PS2 RPG game. Really cool. We wrote up rules on how to play it. Basically we did a Power Level 3 character for our characters and a Power Level 10 for each individual Persona. All the players had one Persona each. We had to battle shades in our university.