Tales from the Rocket House

The central, possibly unsolvable problem of changing my swashbuckling system to something that will work for grittier games is not the problem of making it work, per se. Lots of systems work for lots of different things. The hard part is making this system work as well as, or preferably better than the original Tarafore system.

If there isn’t some kind of real advantage there, then what reason does anyone have to choose this over the original Tarafore system (which, while it has not been published, unless you count this column, is in regular use by a number of people, some of whom I haven’t even met online, much less in person)? Ultimately, the burden falls on any innovation to show why it is superior to the current, existing options. After all, there is a learning curve, and thus a time and cognition cost, involved in learning any new game system. If the game system is not noticeably better than what you’re using now, there isn’t any reason to invest that time and effort in switching over.

I've really been thinking about this lately, and the changes needed to turn the swashbuckling system into something that can easily handle the gritty feel of the original Tarafore system are starting to look less like a well thought-out, systematic design and more like a bushel basket of kluges held together with duct tape and bailing wire. And while I am from the American Southeast, that’s really not acceptable.

I'm beginning to wonder what benefit there is in using this system over the Tarafore system itself, at least for gritty, simulationist games that support immersive play. I'm not saying the system wouldn't work, per se, just that there wouldn't be any reason to use it over the original Tarafore system.

I know that a lot of the “feel” of a game system is subjective, and, to some degree, I think the finer-grained Trait listings of the Tarafore system (10 is Average, 13 is Good, etc) feel more gritty or realistic than the coarse-grained Trait listings in this system (3 is Average, 4 is Good, etc). I’m not entirely sure why this is so: it may be that the finer levels help differentiate the characters, and the broad-strokes granularity “feels” cartoonish.

At one point, I thought the more compressed system might be easier for novice gamers to pick up, and to a small degree it is. But the stunts at the core of the swashbuckling system don’t really help. And, for some reason, explaining the + and – “coin flip” system has proven difficult – even experienced gamers had trouble picking it up when describe in text-only (via IM), though I have no idea why.

So What IS it Good For?

The still-unnamed Swashbuckling game is good for swashbuckling type games, something that was not exactly guaranteed from the start. It moves quickly, involves a lot of stunts, and allows characters to bring unusual Traits into whatever conflict is going on. It works well for its intended purpose. And, within the context of a Swashbuckling game, the wound/stun system we playtested could have value. There are a lot of ways to do "swashbuckling," and this could be an option for a less cartoony, "swashbuckling with a small side order of grit" style of play.