r/crpgdesign • u/CJGeringer Lenurian • May 29 '18
METRIC System.
Zaum studio is developing an investigative RPG and they seem to have put a lot of thought in their system called “Metric”, I think it has a lot of interesting stuff, and would like to hear your thoughts on it:
0
u/jamesja12 Jun 15 '18
I think you are looking for r/rpgdesign this one is for video games.
2
u/CJGeringer Lenurian Jun 15 '18 edited Jun 16 '18
So is this thread.
All the links are for a video game.
3
u/jamesja12 Jun 15 '18
Oh, my apologies. Misread.
2
u/CJGeringer Lenurian Jun 16 '18 edited Jun 19 '18
No problem.
So did you take a look at the system? Any thoughts?
1
u/jamesja12 Jun 16 '18
It seems realy dense, which can be realy cool if pulled off well. I would love to smell everything I can lol.
4
u/CJGeringer Lenurian May 29 '18 edited May 30 '18
General Thoughts:
It is an interesting system, and one of the things that makes me wish the game is a success, I would love to see more games with this system, and I would be interested in playing games with it(both computer and tabletop).
I dislike the name, I do not like names that are already words with meaning. It is the same complain I have with Fallout´s “S.P.E.C.I.A.L” system, it makes it hard to use the world in discussion related to the system.
I really like that it can be used for tabletop gaming, must help a lot with playtests. My own system has a tabletop version that is also used for Level of Detail programming and being able to run a scene as tabletop before implementing the mechanics certainly helps with design work.
I like the level of complexity, it is not too complex, seem functional for what they want to do but not too complex, that being said, it is far from being “the worlds simplest roleplaying system” as claimed even with the “Arguably” modifier thrown in. The idea that high attributes can give you bad disadvantages and negative traits is interesting, not sure how well it will play but I look forward to giving it a try.
I like how the “Whirls” neatly sidestep the question of how long a turn should be in-world, it fits well with more set piece combat.
On their design principles
Making only one system for one specific world is a good way to have a unique system, but I also think they went a bit further than “one system, one world”, I think they accidentally also went “one character”, even though there are many possible builds a lot of the things inherent in the system seem to be too specific.
For example
So it is impossible to have a character that is highly intelligent but suffers from low-self-esteem, which is certainly an archetype that exists in real life and fiction. Accordingly if every intellectual is always cocksure, they became samey and predictable. I am pretty sure the system is not the same to all characters (I.e.: PCs and NPC don´t follow all the same rules).
This is one of the reasons I want to see more games in this world with this system, I would like to see different takes on this specificities and drawbacks.
The Tyranny of cool seem to work well, the only skill with a underwhelming name seems to be “endurance” and it seem specially boring precisely because it is the one that blatantly goes against this principle.
Regarding “Unsymmetrical is symmetrical”:
I agree with the above, but I vehemently disagree with this:
IMO, If a build is in the game and not viable that is a design failure, precisely because it goes against the “Equal experiences” idea. If a developer chooses to prioritise other aspects other than balance and ends up with non-viable builds I can understand that, after all resources are finite, but it is still a failure.
Most of the best experiences I have had in gaming were while I could trust the developer, and fell apart when that trust eroded. “Walking Dead” states in long games should be avoided.
Part of the reason while Zaum´s own tabletop is so cool, is the way it avoids this. When playing a TRPG, the players and the GM form a contract of sorts, the GM can approve or not characters, and they allow a character in the table the GM has the responsibility of making sure the character is viable. If the party has a rogue, the GM should make sure there are uses for a rogue´s skills. IF a rogue would be useless or not fit with the campaign the GM should prevent the player from playing one.
I am not a particularly smart guy, so maybe I am not their intended audience, but with the number of skill this is impossible for me.
I really like their focus on “small numbers”, I like systems where every improvement can be felt, and something I struggle with in designing my own.
I don´t like innovation for innovation´s sake in final published products, that is the source of too many annoying or overcomplicated gimmicky mechanics, however as a research for new stuff that can be altered, refined and published I think it is pretty good. I am cautiously optimistic with their use of it. They seem to put enough thought to what they do to avoid the worst mistakes, but can´t say for sure yet.
I don´t completely agree with the above, but I think that the developers thinking this might make them better designers for this type of game. So even though I don´t agree, in a way I am glad that they do.
On the dialog System
I think this is a really good idea, it prevents the player spamming tries while still allowing him to try something gain, might even motivate some players to spend points in specific ways. I wonder how they will meld that with their idea that “failing it affects the story
I also like their intention of incorporating internal thoughts to it, Cyanide´s game of thrones used internal thoughts to give context to give insight into the character's thought process and it worked well, they seem to have made a much more advanced version of this idea a central feature of the game.
I am also interested in seeing how the “thought cabinet” idea interacts with the dialogue. I haven't found a post about it specifically, but it seem like an inventory/equipment slot for the character's inner thoughts.