NPC
01-06-2002, 09:10 PM
Okay, everybody keeps bringing up "Should a system be designed for a single setting or multiple settings?"
I am usually against designing a system for a single setting but tend to agree with a lot that people who prefer that specialization say.
I think I've figured out why.
I do not think systems should be made for specific settings. I do think systems should be made for specific styles (or multiple styles, but specific styles from that choice, not every conceivable style.)
Really distinct settings (say, Dungeons & Dragons worlds) also come with a style.
I don't think anyone should have made a rules system that was designed purely for the Forgotten Realms/Dragonlance/Greyhawk multiverse setting. However, I do think they should have made a system designed for the "feel" those worlds share, and that's what they did.
Elite is not setting specific. I have a lot of different settings I run campaigns in using the Elite system.
On the other hand, it is style specific. There's a lot of traits I could mention, but one of the easiest examples is the way weapons are handled. The quality of your weapon is more important than the type. A "Good Sword" typically does the same thing in combat as a "Good Gun." Of course, there's a bit more variety than that, and there are artifacts and gadgets with weird abilities, but for the most part it doesn't matter if you prefer a gun or a sword. Or a standard strength magical staff. Or extensive martial arts training.
--------------------
Combative characters with really inefficient fighting styles, weapon choices, or combat abilities tend to be common. The rules don't penalize odd characters (though players sometimes actually ask for and receive a combat penalty because they want their character to be weaker as part of the overall concept), and the settings almost always are set up so that traditional combat tactics just aren't applicable to the fights the PCs get into. Sometimes at other levels there's traditional weapon choices (i.e. the weapon or tactic that seems most efficient), just not the PC levels. For example, in my near-future superpowered/sci-fi/anime/political game, typical Earth armies use the weapons that would be most effective in real life, because there's nothing different about them from the real world. However, most PCs have special powers, (even if its an unknown one, like an "Action Hero Aura" that allows them to run through machine gun fire and somehow not get hit). For example, most weapons that Alantons (human-like aliens with superhuman ki powers) use are powered by ki so a ki sword isn't any better or worse than a ki pistol or ki gauntlet. In another setting, guns are powered by the wielders' magical fields (which all living creatures in the setting have), but people can also channel magic through swords, and both work out to about the same overall effectiveness, so whether your character uses a gun or a sword is a matter of taste, not tactics.
----------------
Basically, Elite has the weapon rules it does because the genre and playing style its made for tends to not favor certain types of weapons (or else everyone would use the same type of weapon.) The characters themselves will often argue that their weapon of choice is the best, but players aren't penalized for wanting to play a gunslinger, a fencer, an explosives expert, or a spellcaster, when it comes to offensive power.
For example, many people want to play something similar to Final Fantasy 7's world, story, and politics (NOT its magic system or combat system or hack and slash elements). However, they might be disappointed when they find that their character who uses a rifle has to keep track of ammunition when they try it in their favorite system. The guy playing a swordsmaster might be a bit upset that the gun user does more damage than him. In the game, you don't have to keep track of ammunition, and the swordsman isn't any weaker than the gunner. If you want a party based on the one in the game, you can't use a system based on "realistic" styles (unless you don't mind the balance of power not being anything like it is in the game, as a shift in the effectiveness of weapons could completely change the balance of political power between two military forces.) Elite is probably a good alternative for that, since weapons are the same and ammunition rules don't exist (except optionally for really powerful weapons.)
That might not work for, say, Star Wars, and especially not for something based on World War II. On the other hand, it works for the style of the settings I like. They are different in setting, but they have the same style and philosophy. If Elite can be ported to other styles without much hassle, that's fine, but its made for this style.
However, any setting that fits this style can use Elite without the feel being changed too much. So, Elite isn't setting-specific, but it is style-specific.
I am usually against designing a system for a single setting but tend to agree with a lot that people who prefer that specialization say.
I think I've figured out why.
I do not think systems should be made for specific settings. I do think systems should be made for specific styles (or multiple styles, but specific styles from that choice, not every conceivable style.)
Really distinct settings (say, Dungeons & Dragons worlds) also come with a style.
I don't think anyone should have made a rules system that was designed purely for the Forgotten Realms/Dragonlance/Greyhawk multiverse setting. However, I do think they should have made a system designed for the "feel" those worlds share, and that's what they did.
Elite is not setting specific. I have a lot of different settings I run campaigns in using the Elite system.
On the other hand, it is style specific. There's a lot of traits I could mention, but one of the easiest examples is the way weapons are handled. The quality of your weapon is more important than the type. A "Good Sword" typically does the same thing in combat as a "Good Gun." Of course, there's a bit more variety than that, and there are artifacts and gadgets with weird abilities, but for the most part it doesn't matter if you prefer a gun or a sword. Or a standard strength magical staff. Or extensive martial arts training.
--------------------
Combative characters with really inefficient fighting styles, weapon choices, or combat abilities tend to be common. The rules don't penalize odd characters (though players sometimes actually ask for and receive a combat penalty because they want their character to be weaker as part of the overall concept), and the settings almost always are set up so that traditional combat tactics just aren't applicable to the fights the PCs get into. Sometimes at other levels there's traditional weapon choices (i.e. the weapon or tactic that seems most efficient), just not the PC levels. For example, in my near-future superpowered/sci-fi/anime/political game, typical Earth armies use the weapons that would be most effective in real life, because there's nothing different about them from the real world. However, most PCs have special powers, (even if its an unknown one, like an "Action Hero Aura" that allows them to run through machine gun fire and somehow not get hit). For example, most weapons that Alantons (human-like aliens with superhuman ki powers) use are powered by ki so a ki sword isn't any better or worse than a ki pistol or ki gauntlet. In another setting, guns are powered by the wielders' magical fields (which all living creatures in the setting have), but people can also channel magic through swords, and both work out to about the same overall effectiveness, so whether your character uses a gun or a sword is a matter of taste, not tactics.
----------------
Basically, Elite has the weapon rules it does because the genre and playing style its made for tends to not favor certain types of weapons (or else everyone would use the same type of weapon.) The characters themselves will often argue that their weapon of choice is the best, but players aren't penalized for wanting to play a gunslinger, a fencer, an explosives expert, or a spellcaster, when it comes to offensive power.
For example, many people want to play something similar to Final Fantasy 7's world, story, and politics (NOT its magic system or combat system or hack and slash elements). However, they might be disappointed when they find that their character who uses a rifle has to keep track of ammunition when they try it in their favorite system. The guy playing a swordsmaster might be a bit upset that the gun user does more damage than him. In the game, you don't have to keep track of ammunition, and the swordsman isn't any weaker than the gunner. If you want a party based on the one in the game, you can't use a system based on "realistic" styles (unless you don't mind the balance of power not being anything like it is in the game, as a shift in the effectiveness of weapons could completely change the balance of political power between two military forces.) Elite is probably a good alternative for that, since weapons are the same and ammunition rules don't exist (except optionally for really powerful weapons.)
That might not work for, say, Star Wars, and especially not for something based on World War II. On the other hand, it works for the style of the settings I like. They are different in setting, but they have the same style and philosophy. If Elite can be ported to other styles without much hassle, that's fine, but its made for this style.
However, any setting that fits this style can use Elite without the feel being changed too much. So, Elite isn't setting-specific, but it is style-specific.