[RPG]: Spirit of the Century, reviewed by mxyzplk (3/5)

http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/13/13793.phtml

Ernest Mueller's Summary:

Spirit of the Century, from <a href="http://www.evilhat.com/home/">Evil Hat Productions</a>, bills itself as a "Pulp pick-up roleplaying game." It's a fun, well-executed pulp game with innovative mechanics, although the amount of rules means it may only be "pick-up" with already experienced players.


Go to the full review for more information.

[MrWilli]

Good review, although I would have been a bit more critical of the system. I don't think it makes a very enjoyable experience in terms of gaming -- there is not enough detail built into FATE the to make enemy encounters fundamentally different from one another. Fights are a bore, and pulp is supposed to be a very action oriented genre. Plus SOTC makes the common mistake of trying to cram different pulp genres -- adventure, crime-fighting, detective fiction, etc. -- into the same setting and, as a result of trying to find room for all that information, doesn't describe how to GM any of them particularly well.

I think FATE is good for more story-driven adventures where the characters are pretty limited in their options. Mysteries and detective gaming are the areas where it shines, since such game rely more on interviewing witnesses and investigation rather than gunfights. What doesn't fit are pulp adventures like Indiana Jones, masked avenger-type scenarios or anything where combat and exploration is a central focus. I think three stars is more appropriate since the book and the system is only useful for some scenarios and not others.

[mxyzplk]

Oh, I stopped by to say "+1 karma point for being OGL"; I forgot to praise them for their openness in the main review.

MrWilli, out of curiosity, what makes you say that SotC is bad for action? I assume it's not just the lack of detail, because pretty much any game other than the "bad old ones" (D&D, Palladium) tend to fit combat into the same ruleset as other actions. With the Stunts and all it seems like there's as many "combat options" as Savage Worlds or other similar games to me. Now admittedly, they don't detail every single effect - they just give some examples of "hey, you could do a stunt to toss sand in someone's face and give them the temporary Blinded aspect," and leave the other thousand possibilities to you...

[iago]

Thanks for the review, man!

The upcoming Starblazer Adventures from Cubicle 7 (based on the SOTC SRD) defaults to d6-d6 instead of 4dF as the resolution roll, just to respond to your beef. And if we didn't suggest that as a viable alternative in the SOTC text, we should have. Apologies.

[Tancred]

Originally Posted by MrWilli

Good review, although I would have been a bit more critical of the system. I don't think it makes a very enjoyable experience in terms of gaming -- there is not enough detail built into FATE the to make enemy encounters fundamentally different from one another. Fights are a bore, and pulp is supposed to be a very action oriented genre. Plus SOTC makes the common mistake of trying to cram different pulp genres -- adventure, crime-fighting, detective fiction, etc. -- into the same setting and, as a result of trying to find room for all that information, doesn't describe how to GM any of them particularly well.

I think FATE is good for more story-driven adventures where the characters are pretty limited in their options. Mysteries and detective gaming are the areas where it shines, since such game rely more on interviewing witnesses and investigation rather than gunfights. What doesn't fit are pulp adventures like Indiana Jones, masked avenger-type scenarios or anything where combat and exploration is a central focus. I think three stars is more appropriate since the book and the system is only useful for some scenarios and not others.

I'm very surprised by this - I actually find fights in SotC more entertaining and action-packed than a lot of other games, mainly for the added options tagging scene aspects adds, and deciding how you can use the environment to your character's advantage. I think Indiana Jones is a good fit for SotC's take on action! I guess it's just one of those 'your mileage will vary' cases.

My only beef with fights is that it can take a lot to threaten a PC's stress track if they're geared up for a fight with high skills and combat-related stunts, and at 5 boxes and 3 consequences resolving them can take awhile - although my concern is addressed by options on the Fate wiki, so in practice I'm happy!

Nice review I thought!

[MrWilli]

Originally Posted by mxyzplk

MrWilli, out of curiosity, what makes you say that SotC is bad for action?

I believe it is just the lack of variety in defining creatures and enemies. For example, I really enjoy "lost world" scenarios, but there is really nothing in FATE to make, say, a T. rex fundamentally different from an allosaur, or a Triceratops different from an stegosaur. The same is true for weapons. I like my rifles, for instance, to have different strengths and weaknesses -- range, stopping power, etc. -- and a system like FATE really doesn't do that. The lack of diversity just makes everything very bland.

I'm surprised I didn't like the game because I am a big fan of keeping roleplaying systems simple (Savage Worlds is the one I usually default to). I just think FATE takes away too much to be useful.

[Sangrolu]

Originally Posted by MrWilli

I believe it is just the lack of variety in defining creatures and enemies. For example, I really enjoy "lost world" scenarios, but there is really nothing in FATE to make, say, a T. rex fundamentally different from an allosaur, or a Triceratops different from an stegosaur. The same is true for weapons. I like my rifles, for instance, to have different strengths and weaknesses -- range, stopping power, etc. -- and a system like FATE really doesn't do that.

That's not "bad for action". That's "bad for simulationism". I think SotC is not a highly simulationist system. It is bent more on representing literary style events. Which is still good (very good) for action IMO, but admittedly might not be to your tastes.

[mxyzplk]

Originally Posted by MrWilli

I believe it is just the lack of variety in defining creatures and enemies. For example, I really enjoy "lost world" scenarios, but there is really nothing in FATE to make, say, a T. rex fundamentally different from an allosaur, or a Triceratops different from an stegosaur. The same is true for weapons. I like my rifles, for instance, to have different strengths and weaknesses -- range, stopping power, etc. -- and a system like FATE really doesn't do that. The lack of diversity just makes everything very bland.

I'm surprised I didn't like the game because I am a big fan of keeping roleplaying systems simple (Savage Worlds is the one I usually default to). I just think FATE takes away too much to be useful.

Hmm - so I haven't played it, but isn't that where aspects come into play? It's true that there are fewer differences than with a crunch-heavy system, but you have aspects to put in the "big differences." I'd call an allosaur a minion because heck, we all know allosaurs are lame knockoffs of T. Rexes. Then a T. Rex you can give aspects to - "Master Chomper" or whatever works for you. Same with guns - all guns aren't different, but if your deal is having a sniper rifle you'd take it as a weapons gizmo with an aspect of "Long Range" (ideally stated in a more cool way), or a .50 DE pistol with "Stopping Power!" Admittedly the differences are then more dramatic and less simulation in nature.

[mxyzplk]

Originally Posted by iago

Thanks for the review, man!

The upcoming Starblazer Adventures from Cubicle 7 (based on the SOTC SRD) defaults to d6-d6 instead of 4dF as the resolution roll, just to respond to your beef. And if we didn't suggest that as a viable alternative in the SOTC text, we should have. Apologies.

You're welcome, and great!

[C.W.Richeson]

Originally Posted by mxyzplk

Hmm - so I haven't played it, but isn't that where aspects come into play?

Yep. I've never had such imaginative combats than I have with systems like SOTC. All my players clearly know what a rifle does, but it's what a person does with the rifle that makes the scene interesting.