System Versus Setting
Recently, I went through my (very large) collection of roleplaying games, and was wondering why I have so many different game systems. WotC would have you believe that the d20 system can handle anything. Even if that's true, it doesn't make it the best system for every genre.

Some systems have a unique flavor, designed to enhance their specific setting. Deadlands has poker chips and a deck of cards that turns an otherwise average RPG system into something fun to play (Deadlands d20 lost this flavor, which is why Pinnacle has moved on to their Savage Worlds game system). In Nomine uses 3d6 - rolling a 111 is a divine intervention (111 = holy trinity), while 666...I think you can guess what happens there. These little touches are custom-built into the system, and any "universal" system has to figure out how to accomodate such additions. Without them, it's just the same old system in a different outfit.

Then there's the game rules, that directly affect how people play the game. You don't rush into combat playing HarnMaster, where combat is realistically lethal. On the other hand, 1st edition D&D gave fighters the lawnmower effect versus creatures of less than 1 HD, creating some truly awesome battles where it is possible to triumph over a "horde" of kobolds or goblins. Characters in the HERO system can start with a large variety of skills, while fighters in 3rd edition D&D are lucky if they can speak coherently and get dressed. :)

Perhaps the most annoying thing is when a unique and interesting setting is saddled with bad rules. My current pet peeve is In Nomine. It's a great, wonderfully detailed setting that is epic in scope and like nothing else out there. But the rules suck, suck, suck (there's a holy trinity for you...). Paying the same amount of starting points for two different characters will get you either the unbalanced combat monster or an angel that can be beaten up by a couch potato. Skill points are few and far between, and since the rolls are based on a 2d6 curve for success or failure (there's a 1d6 "kicker" that determines how strong the success or failure is), the game rewards the "Pro from Dover" concept, where you dump all your starting points into a few areas.

Thing is, you can't just grab the setting from In Nomine and drop it into another system. There's too many unique things about how the setting and rules are tied together. It wouldn't work as a straight point-based system like Champions...when you deal with angels and devils, many of the powers are absolutes. The Ofanim of Michael ALWAYS go first in a fight, even when mortally wounded! An experienced Angel of Yves can get the Library Card power and circumvent ANY mortal security system in order to get information. And, some of the powers that require a roll only do so because the designers couldn't think of a better way. Seraphs always know when someone is lying...unless they flub the roll, at which point they can't discern the truth of anyone's statement for hours.

Anyway, back to choosing an alternate system for In Nomine. The closest fit would be a "fuzzy" system, like the Amber DRPG. It's also designed for epic characters...but the lack of rolling means you lose out on that 3d6 option of divine and infernal interventions. In a diceless game, when an intervention happens, it's not fate...it's the GM screwing with you. I also looked at the Storyteller system...not a bad fit, but again you lose out on the flavor that ties In Nomine's rules into the setting. In the end, if I ever decide to convert In Nomine over, I may have to come up with a whole system from scratch, tediously converting every single power over. Damn, why couldn't the designers do better than a lame GURPS variant with more holes than swiss cheese?

Rant over. Thanks for reading, talk to you soon...
- posted by Fedifensor @ Friday, June 20, 2003