One of the best things about the Cyberpunk tabletop game was its rules system.
The question is this... which rules version do you think would best serve Cyberpunk 2077... both the video game and the upcoming PNP products?
Which set of rules do you believe best represent the freedom, hard core combat with consequences, and dynamic fluidity of the Cyberpunk world, and its visions?
Well... I've never played Cyberpunk PnP - at least I don't remember if I played a game at a convention or something, or any PnP / Tabletop in 20 years, but I was a regular AD&D / Paranoia / MERP / W40k / others player in the 80's, and I've been reading up on CP2020 and tried to imagine how a game night would pan out, so I feel informed - just enough - to vote, and I cast for
Interlock Unlimited.
I have heard reports that 2020's rules are good, I personally like the sound of the combat described in Friday Night Firefight, and its deadliness is somehow familiar. But its obvious to anyone there's a general consensus that the rules need changed, after all there was v3, whose rulebook I got the other day and although I havent read it in detail I found things in it that put me off, that felt like they were straying from the path laid down by the 2020 rulebook (which is a great read altogether!).
Change is a good thing, we should welcome it, and if 2077 is basing itself on 2020 not 203X then the original motivation behind the creation of v3 rules is presumably returned also. So I'm for a change up, and Wisdom000's obvious passion for the game and the IU rules (which for an unofficial set polling neck in neck with the official is impressive) causes me to trust in his experience, since I have none of my own.
Final word is Pondsmiths ofc, but there's wisdom in listening to players feedback, especially gathered over such a long period.
I'd like to hope that CDPR tries to emulate a system, but I've noticed developers tend to reinvent the wheel when they transfer to their medium. It always reminded me of the similar argument about movies and books. An argument that, although not without merit, Harry Potter, LotR and Twilight have emphatically demonstrated the author knew best.
Its way too early to make any assumptions about how the game will play, but unless they make a game ala Neverwinter Nights, party based, with profuse stats, and yes turn-based & "sticky targeting", then the games not really going to be reminiscent of a Friday night firefight, is it? Some translation is necessary moving to a completely different medium & context. My memories of the fun had during PnP game nights were more to do with the people involved - they each contributed more, especially the quality of the Games Master - than the actual setting & ruleset. The computer is totally different, increasingly so as average imagination levels fall with the constant influx of new young gamers, fed on the rich visual diet they now understandably demand. Dunno about you, but there were 3 TV channels most of my childhood, no home movies, and the general policy of parents who grew up without TV was to limit the children's time at it, expecting them to go out and find their own amusement.
Point is, 2077 is going to be different from a PnP session, it has to be for many reasons, not least the developers desire to do something fresh - for their own sanity and job satisfaction, a motivation I personally won't fault. But CDPR are the best hands your beloved game could be in, imho.
As much as people knock Bethesda around here (not entirely unfairly...), I think that they got shooting mechanics between your skill and V.A.T.S. pretty good.
Indeed, I liked the VATS system myself, and it was a legacy from the earlier games they conscientiously kept deserving respect, and as a whole the system was an effective way of hiding the fact that there are still numbers behind the game mechanics.
Nothing better than the mouse/keyboard combo.
I'm a PC only player, I have a controller that I rarely use - only if a game is clearly more fun with one do I use it, but I find the vast majority of what I play isn't. I don't like the targeting help you usually get, I much prefer the precision of the mouse, and the layout of the keyboard, but then I can still twitch like a 25 year old.
If thats what you dig, then thats cool... but I hear a lot of people complaining about manual shooting, or "twitch combat" as the like to call it... which to me is a must have...
I don't quite understand you here, to my mind the controller reduces the amount of hand-eye coordination required to play a game, while the mouse increases speed, maneuverability, all round vision, and demands a satisfying level of precision. But each to their own !
Well, it's the inverse of the problem pnp games face, in that it is virtually impossible to run your character as not having the knowledge you yourself posses. I mean its funny how the illiterate barbarian suddenly gets real good at math when its time to divvy up loot....
Aye, its difficult to curtail your own metagaming, but everything i'm hearing about CDPRs current aspirations indicates they are well aware that a game must help you in this regard by enforcing some rules & limitations. Put simply: I doubt you'll be able to do everything in one playthrough no matter your knowledge, unlike say Fallout 3, where you could do & be everything first game out of the box (in my opinion that fact meant F3 was an adventure game, not an RPG).
One of the reasons I still remember Paranoia fondly... a night of that was unpredictable anarchic fun which even encouraged frequent dismantling of the fourth wall.
And its improtant to allow for this stuff, because in a pnp game, you can be clever. It means in a video game, you can feel like you are part of the action. The only other way to do it is with turn based action.... and as I said, that would pretty much be a deal breaker... I want to be the one shooting, I want my gun fights to feel different, unique, fast paced, and desperate... and no turn based combat in the world allows for that... in fact, turn based combat pretty much misses the point of a video game as I have said. You have turn based in a tabletop because otherwise its just people yelling at the gm, which no one could handle... the video game handles it all just fine.
Yeh I know this argument and it seems to be the prevailing one currently, but I don't agree. I love turn based games, heck Ive loved all game systems at one time or another & don't believe any of them are "wrong", plus I want some variety in my games. They have been overused perhaps, in need of a new interpretation, but a clever developer will blow your unsuspecting mind one day, i'll bet.
And aw.... it was inevitable I guess due to lack of exposure, but IU is falling behind... makes me sad.
You could try expanding on the essential rule differences a bit, because its not as clear as it could be to the newbie. Oh and btw, I noticed your subliminal blipvert / fnord in italicising the IU option, devious !
TL;DR:
“Charitably...I think...sometimes, perhaps, one must change or die. And, in the end, there were, perhaps, limits to how much he could let himself change.”
- Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 10: The Wake