It’s not my intention to be provocative or troll-like with this post and I apologize in advance if anyone takes my criticisms too personally.
I’m a 20+ year veteran of about a jillion rpg systems and over the years I’ve been leaning more and more towards leaner systems that encourage storytelling/role-playing over managing massive data tables. I heard about the simple/elegant systems behind MG and decided to pick up a copy (having no experience with BW).
The character creation system is a charming, the task-check system is clean, the traits system is an interesting take on the kind of character defining attributes that Spirit of the Century uses, etc. etc. All good stuff so far.
And then we hit the RESOLUTION section of the rules and all of the elegance goes out the window and the “simplicity” turns around to bite the user on the butt. I’ve tried to give this system the benefit of the doubt but I find it so wildly contrary to the rest of the attitude of the system that stresses role-play and simple mechanics.
It’s contrived (the weird “team-based” objectives - regardless of what motivations the individual might have and how those motivations might be mercurial during the action), it’s clunky (the cross-reference charts that are modified yet again by particular weapons), and the “tactical” choices are hollow (choosing between attack, defend, etc. is almost always an obvious character choice or comes down to a random rock-paper-scissors game).
The whole resolution system smacks of “different for the sake of being different” rather than actually offering anything better than what has been previously designed in other game systems. And where I find FREEDOM in the rest of the open-ended mechanics of MG, I find the rigid, board-game structure of the resolution system to be absolutely stifling.
I gm games for my kids on occasion and try out various systems with them and I thought that MG would be a nice one to try out but the irony is that the conflict resolution system has been the least intuitive one that they have tried to digest. They feel straight-jacketed by it (and so do I).
I like the notion of compromises and of doing away with “hit points” but I just can’t see the appeal of using the remainder of the conflict rules. When I go through the motions of trying to convince myself that the system works and just go with the flow, other simple game systems pop up in my head (Savage Worlds, Fudge, d6, etc.) and remind me of how EASY and narrative the same combat actions could be instead of the strange 1-2-3 dance of MG.
So, short of gutting out the conflict resolution system and replacing it with something that doesn’t require more modifications to the character/skill system, I am trying to come to grips with MG and see if maybe I’m just missing the BIG PICTURE. I’d hate to think that the MG resolution system is like beer in that everybody hates it at first but after you suffer through tons of the bitter stuff, you’ll eventually develop a taste for it. I want to enjoy it out of the gate.
Obviously a lot of thought went into it and a lot of people find it a usable and enjoyable system, so my request goes out to those people: what is it about the system that is worth sticking with it rather than ejecting it in favor of something cleaner? Sell me on it, if you care to.