So I played Monsterhearts. Biggest problem I had were these:
There’s no mechanic that forces the Ghoul to satisfy hunger – there’s simply no penalty either way for the hunger going unfed.
There’s no explanation in the text for the physicality of a Ghost. For example, if a Ghost jumps off a building, does it break her ghostly legs? Can a ghost eat?
I’m not really wanting answers to these questions per se. I know the answer is “if you have players that get Monsterhearts, they won’t cause these problems to come up” – but that doesn’t seem like very good “system matters” design, does it?
I realize you cannot legislate, in rules, against players who aren’t with the program and I’m not looking for a spot rule against every contigency. It would be good to have a little more information along these lines in the canon of the rules.
I’ve had several fun games with Ghosts where the physicality was varying levels based on where the player wants to go with it.
I think it can be a thing that causes problems because it is vague, but it can also mean players have more room to explore cool stuff, imho.
Have you seen American Horror Story? They do a great job with the physicality of ghosts. That’s how I’ve always imagined the MH Ghost.
As for the Ghoul’s hunger, I’ve always felt it was a really good excuse to deliver harm on a miss.
OK, so the players decide what other aspects or attributes they have as a result of being a ghost?
The physicality of Ghosts is something that gets decided at the table for every group. It’s very much about trusting the players of the game to come up with what’s right for them, like how it’s left to the players to determine the nature of a werewolf’s transformation.
System Matters isn’t about strictly defining everything within a system, it’s about using the tools within a system to tell stories in ways that other systems don’t do. The Ghost’s physicality and level of intangibility is very much a design choice in the game.
Other aspects and attributes are partially covered by the Ghost moves but there are things that can just be agreed upon by players. After all, not everything is a move. Some things just happen in the fiction because of positioning and narration.
Ghoul
1. Hard move
2. They have to hold steady to not feed
3. Harder moves the longer they not feed (it’s a golden opportunity)
OK PK Sullivan so I was pretty correct in saying that it’s about what the players decide and how they collaborate. Thanks!
All of the mythos choices are in the hands of the player. The vampire doesn’t even necessarily need to be adverse to the sun. Go with what the established fiction demands. And turn the question back on the player.
I checked the playbooks because I thought the “Playing the …” section on the ghost might have some guidance on physicality. It doesn’t, sadly. Lots of other good stuff though.
The Ghoul’s does explain feeding and “The Hunger” move does add 1 to rolls when pursuing a hunger, so there is some mechanical weight there. Also the Ghoul needs to hold steady to ignore a feeding opportunity.
I’d classify the game as more Story Matters than System Matters, but thats probably a whole nother flame war.
As Tim Franzke and Jeffrey Collyer said, the Ghoul’s move forces the character to hold steady in order not to feed. I believe that is quite a strong lever, already… also, what does the Ghoul’s “Under the Skin” (MC advice, in the book) say?
For the Ghost: yes, the lack of definition is intentional. The book clearly says that all these matters (a Ghost’s phisicality, the Vampire’s relation to the sun, whether a werewolf can choose when to turn in his animal form) are left for the table to decide.
Thanks for the input folks! I am starting to see the vision clearly
Only one more annotation, Dave Fried: there is no “you are compelled to X”. The book states very clearly that players are always in control of their character. Even the Darkest Self is something they have to play, and the MC does not get to move them around.
“System matter” is not “System should matter in these new games, but sometimes it doesn’t and story matters instead”.
“System matters” means “system matters in every rpg ever played, with no exception, even if everybody say it doesn’t”
It’s a given. Even a broken system matter. If it doesn’t work, it does matter. If it work well, it does matter.
So, Monsterhearts system matters, like every other system.
System matters is often used as a particular design ideal – the rules, both explicit and implied, of a game exist to foster a certain kind of experience through play. Just saying that system matters doesn’t convey that.
And that, too, is misleading. Every game foster a certain kind of experience thought play. The idea that only coherent games do it is a sort of wishful thinking born from people who wantet to be able to say that “with traditional rpgs you can play anything” (really, like you can play a romantic comedy with Rolemaster…)
Every game ha rules. Every set of rules foster a certain experience. Coherent rules foster a coherent experience, and incoherent rules simply foster an incoherent experience. (it’s the same difference between good rules and bad rules, really)
(sorry if I go on and on on this, the misapplication of these concepts is a pet peeve of mine. i could rant about this for hours)
The thing that I struggle with is that sometimes aspects of what it means to be a particular type of monster are mechanically enforced and provided as moves (particularly, say, Dissipate for the Ghost or Short Rest for the Wicked for the Ghoul) and sometimes it’s just story color that you can define as you need. It doesn’t feel entirely consistent to me. I dunno. Some of that stuff clearly is because it interacts directly with the themes and socially-oriented mechanics of the game, while it may not matter on that level if a vampire can go out in sunlight or bench press 600 lbs, but I’m not sure I see that for all of the explicit moves.