vicky_molokh says:
S.F. says:
vicky_molokh says:
S.F. says:
Now kindly point out where "historical war drama about two evil empires" is mentioned in that quote that you are trying to understand. It won't be possible to point out, because it's not mentioned, but you assumed that it is, and that is what's causing your confusion.
Of course it isn't spelled out explicitly with those seven words. I suppose you could imagine a story about Night Witches to be redone as a comedy (like how M*A*S*H was a comedy), but surely it's still obvious that a story about Night Witches would involve the rest of the descriptor?
Where are "Night Witches" are mentioned in that quote then? Also never mentioned. See, the entire "Night Witches" example was a straw man pulled by Drgwen. It had nothing to do with my openness to cat-eared anime witches in maid outfits among teammates.
The sentence that brought on the branch of discussion relating to catmaids among night witches was this one:
Drgwen says:
If you wanted to play a Japanese cat eared maid in my Night Witches game I’d say, sorry, that concept doesn’t fit the fiction for this game.
Like I said, an absurd straw man that had nothing to do with our (yours and mine) previous discussion regarding systems and their limitations. In hindsight, I should've ignored interference like that completely instead of entertaining it in any way, humorous or otherwise.
vicky_molokh says:
S.F. says:
But let's say a chill and open-minded GM wants to run a pseudo-historical war drama with magic. One of the players says "hey, can I play a cat-girl in a maid outfit? I promise to make her fit the story and the vibe as much as possible" and all the players in the group agree that it's okay. Maybe they find it cute as I do. At this point since everyone is okay with it and there's nothing inherently incompatible between "war drama with magic" and "strangely dressed cat-girls" the GM just gives okay and the game starts. And indeed the role-playing of that cat-maid player is perfect, miraculously within the setting, and everyone is having fun.
Switching from a historical story about Night Witches to a pseudo-historicall one with literal magic does seem like a case of swapping out one setting for another. I did wonder if that's what's going on in this branch of discussion, and this seems to be a confirmation.
No, these are two entirely different examples. One of them is a ridiculous straw man, the other is made by an entirely different person, in good faith, in a civil discussion between you and me, and has nothing to do with any elements of the first one, historical or otherwise. Again, if we stop looking for confirmations of our assumptions and instead pay attention to reading, things become much clearer.
vicky_molokh says:
Depends on game context. Cat-girls are usually
mostly only distinct by flavour and not mechanics, so as I stated earlier, the example serves better for setting/campaign-based incompatibilities rather than mechanical ones. I do have in mind at least one other example of a system not supporting certain concepts mechanically and yet this being okay because the system still serves its purpose even with the restrictions.
You'll have no argument from me here. Unlike what some people would have you believe, I, obviously, perfectly understand the distinction between setting and system limitations and wouldn't confuse one with the other. In fact, even if a system-newbie would propose to make a werewolf in a historical 1930 Chicago setting, I would point them to the setting information rather than to the system. That important distinction makes my initial point harder to argue with, so I can see where the straw man came from. However, if we did play in a setting that allowed werewolves in 1930 Chicago, then having a system that wouldn't be able to handle it would be a problem.
vicky_molokh says:
Even those systems have their peculiarities that make some concepts less viable. Most FATE editions are very opposed to any concepts amounting to 'magical combat healer' even if they support magic in general. Cortex is averse to
reliable concepts (i.e. in Cortex, being more skilled means you achieve awesome results more often, but you become only slightly less likely to produce unskilled results due to the way the dice engine is written, producing a more 'pulpy' feel of all concepts).
These are both interesting points. I should try both concepts before I can competently answer to either example. I would say, however, that in Cortex I can probably fix such an issue with flavor and role-play, but I currently have zero experience with actually playing Cortex Prime, so I can't say for sure yet.
vicky_molokh says:
S.F. says:
Previously you mentioned Lancer and its limitations. I never had an opportunity to play Lancer yet, but I see no reason not to trust you on that. What if I wanted to play a pilot who specifically drives a sniper mecha, has barely no close-combat capabilities, and prefers to provide vital support to teammates from a distance? With you as a GM, let's say everyone at the table agrees that it would be good and fun. How would Lancer handle that? Would there really be no way of finding suitable rules for that? Would re-flavoring of abilities be prohibited?
I would say that if you want the mechanics of a deeply specialised sniper like that (as opposed to 'the Jack-of-All-Stats Everest mecha with Cyclone Pulse Rifle'), you'd need to start at License Level 2. And it seems most groups I played with and all published adventures I know start at LL0. Personally I'm a fan of starting at LL2 or more.
So essentially the system does make the concept possible in the end. It doesn't lack the necessary mechanics for it. That ideal chill and open-minded GM (you in this case) would be able to respond with a simple, "Sure, it can be done. How do you guys feel about starting from LL2?" And then you'd guide me through the process of making LL2 character instead of LL0 and everyone will have fun. No system flaw, no setting swaps, no outlandish straw men.
