The Perfect RPG

[Chrono22]

What can it do?
How does it play?
What services/extras does it provide (digital aides, content, etc)?

On GNS- some people believe that each individual prioritizes one of those three principles to the exclusion of the others. If so, then the answer to the above is obviously no- but are the assumptions of GNS theory really limited to Gamism, Narrativism, and Simulationism? There could be a slew of different RPG focuses in contention- and if there is no truly unifying "good" to be said about RPGs as a generality, then there can be no perfect game.
So, what makes an RPG a good RPG?

[Chrono22]

To kick off the thread, I'll post my own views on the subject. And just so everyone knows, the objective of the thread isn't to try to convince me to change my thoughts or anyone elses'. I just want to know what people think about this subject.
Face to face/pen and paper RPGs are about role playing, but they have more in common with cooperative story telling. At the root of it, we play RPGs to live out a fantasy, to captivate our hearts with emotional plots and our minds with tactical and logical challenges. RPGs are about experiencing things that are impossible in our ordinary, humdrum lives.
So, what we fantasize about depends on what we want to experience.
Usually these inner motivations come down to:

Power (the ability to cause a change, to exert your will and control your suroundings)
Prestige (fame, infamy, notoriety, popularity, appreciation, respect, acceptance)
Success (resolve, satisfaction, accomplishment)
Freedom (being unrestricted by social, physical, or mental constraints)
.. and of course, to a lesser extent boredom or simple curiosity.

So, I guess, an RPG that is good at allowing the players to experience the above is a good one. An RPG with rules that help guide, refine, and enhance those experiences has good rules.'

I guess the reason why realism is so important- is because it's the basis for our expectations. The more closely an RPG mimics reality, the more poignant and memorable the above experiences will be- that is, until the rules themselves interfere. Simulation can only go so far...
I mean, being all powerful really isn't interesting or fulfilling if you know on a conscious level that it doesn't matter.
The same goes for prestige- who cares about the opinions of imaginary characters anyway?
Success- at what, being a dork and rolling dice?
Freedom- you're still sitting around a table in your restricted life... what escape?

So, you see what I mean. An RPG must aspire to become more than a game to the player, or else it won't be as fulfilling.

[Zeta Kai]

The perfect game would have to:

Have a plethora of options, for both the players & the GM, so that they could create whatever they could imagine within the game world.
Have a robust & flexible game balance, so that no option or combination of options could destabilize the game in a significant manner, making all options viable, yet not overwhelmingly powerful.
Appeal to (or at least have the potential to appeal to) the gaming tastes of every player; this would have to basically entail being able to successfully emulate every conceivable gaming genre while incorporating a simple, easy-to-learn core mechanic that is able to resolve all in-game situations intuitively.

Good luck with all that. I think that the best a real RPG could hope for is to nearly (but never quite completely) obtain one of these things. Anything more than that is overextending one's reach in a fashion that is a perfect setup for abject failure.

[PinkysBrain]

What services/extras does it provide (digital aides, content, etc)?
For games with miniature based combat I think digital tabletop is going to be big some day ... but for the moment a setup is still too expensive for most and RPG creators don't have enough revenue to make decent graphics.

I think once we get large cheap touch screens suitable for game tables (perhaps autostereoscopic) and large cheap libraries of animated fantasy 3D art out there the time will be right ... 5 to 10 years?

[Amphetryon]

I mean, being all powerful really isn't interesting or fulfilling if you know on a conscious level that it doesn't matter.I would add that being all powerful really isn't interesting or fulfilling because there cease to be legitimate challenges at that point.

POSITED: The theoretical PRPG (Perfect Role-Playing Game) should present the players with obstacles of varying difficulty that have both a legitimate chance of being overcome (1) and legitimate chances (2) and consequences (3) for failure.

(1) Legitimate without resorting to the Gygaxian motif of 'Guess what the Gamemaster is thinking!'

(2) I'm qualifying this as needing some degree of tactical, strategic, or narrative skill to overcome. If the characters need to be optimized all to heck, or if they can only fail due to a catastrophic confluence of events or GM fiat, the challenge fails this metric.

(3) Consequences should be mechanically present for either the characters themselves or the storyline. Having your character's head shaved is not a consequence of failure unless playing Samson or some archetype where the hair is a badge of honor or office of some sort, for example.

[Evilfeeds]

Few points.

There is no "perfect RPG". Theres not even a "best". The closest you'll ever get is a "best for key demographic" - a fourteen year old boy will (stereotypically) tend toward powergaming / dungeon crawl, whereas a mature "serious" roleplayer will look for something thats more gritty and rp-focused. (not that either of these ways is better than the other).

GNS is bunk. Its a nice concept, and perhaps even an interesting thought excercise, but its bunk nonetheless. Trying to have a serious RP discussion with GNS is akin to turning up at a medical convention promoting the health values of magnetic bracelets.

Thirdly, and I realise that this is somewhat obvious, but even a terrible RPG can be fun, with the right people / GM. Conversely, no matter how good the RPG, unless you have a decent GM you won't have fun.


So, having said that, my "ideal" rpg would be something along these lines:


1) Simple. One of my favourite systems is oWoD - it takes about 2 minutes tops to grasp the basic concepts (roll stat + skill d10, get above target number). Compare as well d&d 3rd vs 2nd edition: 3rd ed had a lot more in it, but was simpler overall. No need for hundreds of tables comparing weapon type vs armour type.

2) Lots of options, but not so many as to swamp us. I feel d&d magic suffers from this slightly: Many spells (even within core) are just altered/bigger versions of other spells.

3) The ability to gain stuff: be it xp, gold or whatever. This satisfies a fairly primeval urge in most of us - reward is good.

4) Immersive and compelling. This is largely down to the setting. I greatly enjoyed some Legend of the 5 rings rp'ing, largely because I was heavily into the CCG at the time, and I was both invested in the setting and my clan. If you can get an RPG to span more than one gametype, kudos. (World of Warcraft would seem like a perfect contender, at least on the surface, since so many people play the MMO).

[Chrono22]

So, why is making the perfect RPG impossible? I suppose trying to fit every genre and possible setting into the game would make it overlong and thus unusable, but what about optional/user-made content?
You could release the game in sections: basic game, standard game, scifi, history, fantasy, steampunk, freeplay, modern... just have sets of optional rules that are compatible with the core mechanic.
So, the GMs and players are free to mix and match the components to make the game experience they want.

It might be impossible for the game to fulfill every person's expectations at the same time, but so long as it can be modified to match expectations it doesn't have to.

[Harperfan7]

So, why is making the perfect RPG impossible? I suppose trying to fit every genre and possible setting into the game would make it overlong and thus unusable, but what about optional/user-made content?
You could release the game in sections: basic game, standard game, scifi, history, fantasy, steampunk, freeplay, modern... just have sets of optional rules that are compatible with the core mechanic.
So, the GMs and players are free to mix and match the components to make the game experience they want.

It might be impossible for the game to fulfill every person's expectations at the same time, but so long as it can be modified to match expectations it doesn't have to.


GURPS? lkja;ldsjgfa;lskdjf

[Evilfeeds]

So, why is making the perfect RPG impossible? I suppose trying to fit every genre and possible setting into the game would make it overlong and thus unusable, but what about optional/user-made content?
You could release the game in sections: basic game, standard game, scifi, history, fantasy, steampunk, freeplay, modern... just have sets of optional rules that are compatible with the core mechanic.
So, the GMs and players are free to mix and match the components to make the game experience they want.

It might be impossible for the game to fulfill every person's expectations at the same time, but so long as it can be modified to match expectations it doesn't have to.


You can please some of the people all of the time, or you can please all of the people some of the time, but you cant please all of the people all of the time.

If you try to make an RPG that makes everyone happy, then you're going to need hundreds of different variations on how to govern things. Then you dont have an RPG, you have a collection of optional rules and settings.

Every time someone wants something different, you have more rules and errata to put in. Soon, the rulebook is 6 feet high. (think of it this way: would d&d be anywhere near as popular if every single splatbook was required reading before you could play your first game?)

An RPG is also much more than just a setting. Some systems are very closely tied with their setting, others are very generic settings that work anywhere. You can create different books for different genres, but then you need to change/fix the rules to reflect that world. And to a degree, you're just remaking GURPs.

Lets take something that is many people disagree on: charisma.
In dungeons and dragons, I believe that charisma is a stupid stat. Outside of the rather arbitrary governance of certain abilities (sorcerer spells, for example), it is completely unnecessary (imho).

Yet many people think charisma is completely necessary. They believe that characters should be able charismatic, regardless of the players social skills. So what is the "correct" character sheet? One with, or without?

Okay, you can leave it optional.

What about Hit points? How is it a 10th level fighter in full plate can easily suffer a 100ft drop, yet a 1st level fighter wearing nothing would be obliterated? Ok, so not everyone likes the HP system. That should be optional.

If you change the HP system, you'll have to change the magic system (otherwise, a low level fireball will be able to kill level 20 fighters). More options.

If you change the magic system, you'll probably need to tweak wizards.
(on that subject, vancian magic is stupid. Lets add an MP system).

etc etc...

So, yes, theoretically you COULD have a single system to cover all possible play styles, but the errata for each play style would essentially be an RPG in its own right.

So, rather than trying to create a hideous abomination that would be the all-encompassing RPG, why not just pick a few key demos, and make a system thats perfect for that? If I want to play a creepy horror game, I have call of cthulu. If i want to smash things in the face, I play d20. Neither are perfect, by any stretch, and Id be hard pressed to even compare the two (apples and oranges).
But they're both good games. They do what they do, and they do it well.

Edit:

I should point out, GURPs is a popular enough system, but no matter what setting you use, its still GURPs. Im not personally a huge fan, partly because I feel its more complicated than an RPG needs to be. And so GURPs is far from a perfect system.

[Chrono22]

GURPS? lkja;ldsjgfa;lskdjf
Eh, perhaps. Is it balanced, realistic, and is it simple?

[Chrono22]

...
Why would it be a monstrosity? It doesn't follow that a GM would allow every supplement and every genre simultaneously. And, why would allowing players and GMs to modify the system to improve their own enjoyment be a bad thing? I'm just not understanding this reasoning.
I mean, the objective of the RPG is to let the players and GM have fun. Why should anything else (even the rulesystem) become an obstacle to this directive?

[Harperfan7]

Eh, perhaps. Is it balanced, realistic, and is it simple?

From what I've heard, yes. I've never played it though.

[Jogi]

Hey Chronos22, I am sorry I didn't answer you yet. I haven't got the time, but soon I'll post my ideas.

As for now:

- I belive we have to consider that a perfect Roleplaying Game can't be a perfect realism simulater, otherwise it won't be a game. Too much realism is equal to too much danger, therefore easy to die, hard to have fun. Normal players don't often enjoy this aspect.

- I also belive success in an action depends on more than one probability. Thus I find that single-dice systems aren't that good, as they tend to be "too harsh" upon success/fail. I'd suggest at least two dice to be used in a good system.

- We use too many numbers sometimes. Take D&D for an example: why have an ability score that then translates to a modifier, when only the modifier is used? I'd love to see less numbers, less sums during a game. I do reckon this is not that easy to occour.

A great system is possible, but after that, the only way to improve it is to focus on the first word of Roleplaying Game.

[sonofzeal]

From what I've heard, yes. I've never played it though.
I have. It's realistic and simple. Hardly balanced though, and rather poor for running the sort of heroic fantasy that D&D players are used to. It's a fundamentally more gritty and realistic system than most heroic RPGs, with the result that it's excellent for those sorts of campaigns, with fairly high lethality and linear rather than exponential growth rates. I like the ideas, but I wouldn't want to port a D&D campaign directly, especially not one past, say, level 3.

[Zeta Kai]

I have. It's realistic and simple. Hardly balanced though, and rather poor for running the sort of heroic fantasy that D&D players are used to. It's a fundamentally more gritty and realistic system than most heroic RPGs, with the result that it's excellent for those sorts of campaigns, with fairly high lethality and linear rather than exponential growth rates. I like the ideas, but I wouldn't want to port a D&D campaign directly, especially not one past, say, level 3.

Yeah, GURPS is good for realistic, low-powered games. But it starts to break down when you try to play high-powered characters, like your typical mid-level D&D characters (or, god-forbid, Exalted-like characters). It can theoretically handle them, but it's rather unwieldy, IMO.

[LurkerInPlayground]

To kick off the thread, I'll post my own views on the subject. And just so everyone knows, the objective of the thread isn't to try to convince me to change my thoughts or anyone elses'. I just want to know what people think about this subject.
Face to face/pen and paper RPGs are about role playing, but they have more in common with cooperative story telling. At the root of it, we play RPGs to live out a fantasy, to captivate our hearts with emotional plots and our minds with tactical and logical challenges. RPGs are about experiencing things that are impossible in our ordinary, humdrum lives.
So, what we fantasize about depends on what we want to experience.
Usually these inner motivations come down to:

Power (the ability to cause a change, to exert your will and control your suroundings)
Prestige (fame, infamy, notoriety, popularity, appreciation, respect, acceptance)
Success (resolve, satisfaction, accomplishment)
Freedom (being unrestricted by social, physical, or mental constraints)
.. and of course, to a lesser extent boredom or simple curiosity.

So, I guess, an RPG that is good at allowing the players to experience the above is a good one. An RPG with rules that help guide, refine, and enhance those experiences has good rules.'

I guess the reason why realism is so important- is because it's the basis for our expectations. The more closely an RPG mimics reality, the more poignant and memorable the above experiences will be- that is, until the rules themselves interfere. Simulation can only go so far...
I mean, being all powerful really isn't interesting or fulfilling if you know on a conscious level that it doesn't matter.
The same goes for prestige- who cares about the opinions of imaginary characters anyway?
Success- at what, being a dork and rolling dice?
Freedom- you're still sitting around a table in your restricted life... what escape?

So, you see what I mean. An RPG must aspire to become more than a game to the player, or else it won't be as fulfilling.
GNS is a silly theory. I'd argue that OD&D managed all three criteria for gamism, narrativism or simulationism to one extent or another. I'd call it "arm-chair" philosophy if it weren't for the fact that I'm an arm-chair philosopher too.

RPG's are cooperative fiction (and are also intrinsically "gamist" by definition). Fiction doesn't need to be "realistic" when it can simply suspend disbelief. If you can swallow Vancian magic, you can swallow nearly anything. We're not modeling particle physics here. You only need to simulate those things that are crucial to the genre or theme you're shooting for. If you want a gritty combat system, you'll have a gritty combat system. For other things, you don't even need a rule to do that. Sometimes it's just enough if the GM fiat preserves that verisimilitude. Simply put: simulationism is just narrativism under a different name.

I'll also note that how people judge power, freedom, prestige or success tends to vary from person-to-person and genre-to-genre. A western is going to have a much different criteria for success than a high fantasy epic. Not to mention that both scenarios may pose different kinds of challenges.

Suffice it to say, I think GNS are end-goals of an RPG system but not its means.

[The Tygre]

I'm with Evilfeeds on this. What you're basically describing is a generic system, and look around you, man. GURPS is popular, yeah, but how does it -really- fare? Generic systems are fundamentally flawed on a conceptual level. No matter how much is encompassed, tastes and details will be missed. Rules and flavor have to be stretched thin to accommodate numerous settings, timelines, and worlds. Look at Steve Jackson, Green Ronin, or Palladium. They all have their generic systems, but, aside from Steve Jackson, they're not the hot-ticket items.

Gary Gygax said that the perfect game would have no rules. Have that as you will.

My advice? Look around. Sticking with specialty systems ain't so bad.

[Chrono22]

I'm with Evilfeeds on this. What you're basically describing is a generic system, and look around you, man. GURPS is popular, yeah, but how does it -really- fare? Generic systems are fundamentally flawed on a conceptual level. No matter how much is encompassed, tastes and details will be missed. Rules and flavor have to be stretched thin to accommodate numerous settings, timelines, and worlds. Look at Steve Jackson, Green Ronin, or Palladium. They all have their generic systems, but, aside from Steve Jackson, they're not the hot-ticket items.
I frankly disagree with these assertions. And while, yes GURPs does seem less flavorful than other dedicated systems, I think that has more to do with the people who wrote it and their intentions, and not because of any subversive fundamental flaw.
GMs can take creative license with any material they are given. So can writers.


Gary Gygax said that the perfect game would have no rules. Have that as you will.
Funny, I have a similar outlook. The perfect game has no rules. Only good advice.

[Zeta Kai]

Wouldn't the perfect game have, by definition, the perfect players? And, since we are all flawed human being, would that not in turn be impossible? Philosophically speaking, of course.

[Maroon]

My perfect RPG would be OD&D without the levels, instead having character generation similar to Traveller, with younger characters having less experience but more potential and older characters having more experience but less potential. Optimally, the players should not have to read the rules to play, only to generate the character.

Like OD&D, it would not have a universal resolution system (besides "roll some dice and I'll tell you what happens"), instead offering advice to the referee on how to adjudicate events based on the abilities of the character and the actions described by the player, but, like OD&D, it should have a simple saving throw mechanic to give the players a chance to avoid disastrous consequences as a last resort. It should also give advice on handling arguments between the referee and a player or between players.

It'd also take pages from the Dying Earth RPG (for its point mechanic and its magic system), BRP, GURPS (for its simulationism), the Empire of the Petal Throne, and others.

It should be able to be played with no more than a handful of six-sided dice and some paper, and be able to fit in a couple of digest-sized booklets (or available in an easily navigable digital format).

That's it, really. My perfect RPG. I can do the rest myself.

[Evilfeeds]

Why would it be a monstrosity? It doesn't follow that a GM would allow every supplement and every genre simultaneously. And, why would allowing players and GMs to modify the system to improve their own enjoyment be a bad thing? I'm just not understanding this reasoning.
I mean, the objective of the RPG is to let the players and GM have fun. Why should anything else (even the rulesystem) become an obstacle to this directive?

It would be a monstrosity for its size alone. You'd essentially have 5 or 6 different RPGs mashed into one system in an attempt to cover all your bases.

Fair enough, a GM might not allow every supplement and genre. But we're not talking about genres, we're talking about an RPG. Saying you "allow the players and GMs to modify the system" is a cop out. ALL systems can be modified. The job of a good RPG is to provide a good system that doesnt need modification - that is fun from the ground up.

You could put the rules for different settings in different books, you say. Well fair enough: WoD does that. But the WoD books (vampire, werewolf, etc) are RPGs in their own right, and dont really mix and match well. (See how long a vampire lasts in a game of werewolf, or how obscene a matter mage is in vampire). Even then, a game of WoD still feels like WoD, and plays entirely differently to D&D.

And rules are fundamental to an RPG: this is one of the reasons that diceless roleplaying is, generally speaking, not popular. There are no rules that determine when you hit, and when you critically fumble, and such forth. Its a nice idea to have a "rules-less rpg", but then its not really a game anymore, its just roleplaying.

Let me attempt to illustrate the flaws with a singular system thusly:

There are 6 people in a group.
Person A loves Dungeons and Dragons 4th edition.
Person B loves Mage: The ascension.
Person C loves Amber, the diceless roleplaying system.
Person D loves Everway, the card based system.
Person E loves Toon, the cartoon RPG.
Person F loves Call of Cthulu.

Now, each of these settings is very different, but its not unfeasible to create a single setting which every single person could enjoy.
But how the hell to you go about creating a system which appeals to the needs of every person? Amber only has 4 stats: Mage has dozens. Everway resolves conflict resolution through the use of cards, d&d through very precise stat and dice numbers. In toon, theres never a real sense of risk, since you can only ever be "knocked out" - in call of cthulu, you're desperately scrambling to stay alive and sane. In d&d, what a player can and cant do is very plainly printed in black and white: in others, your character can do strange and silly things.

At what point does a single RPG even begin to approach the needs of all these people?

[sigurd]

I think its a myth to think that people want what they already have. I think players want a poignant experience in a well written setting. By the end of the first session they should be digging their character and at the end of the last session they should be missing the setting.

Characters can be mice, men, monsters, robots. Settings can be medieval, fantasy, space, sci fi. Its cooperative fiction - most everyone will share a good new story over a bad old one.

You can adapt generic systems to particular settings and the association makes them particular. Ironically, I think a system must please and support a DM first so that its well understood. The DM must please\challenge the players first rather than be too slavishly tied to the system.

I've known DM's who simply loved Runequest and their game table was great because the story was great.

I think the question to ask after 'whats the perfect system?' is how pure is the system implemented anyway. You may not like a rules lite system but too many people do to ignore them.

I don't think you can separate system from DM. They have to be considered together.


S

[imp_fireball]

For games with miniature based combat I think digital tabletop is going to be big some day ... but for the moment a setup is still too expensive for most and RPG creators don't have enough revenue to make decent graphics.

I think once we get large cheap touch screens suitable for game tables (perhaps autostereoscopic) and large cheap libraries of animated fantasy 3D art out there the time will be right ... 5 to 10 years?

How long are you willing to wait before you could just create your own animations with but a thought? Two years?

No one will ever provide enough content until then. Also I'm betting 300 years before that happens. Just saying.

[PinkysBrain]

They only need combat animations and it doesn't have to be movie CGI quality (ie. no need for accurate model interaction or IK, clipping errors be damned). NWN quality animations with slightly higher polygon count would be good enough for it to be attractive (whereas I think your average static image maptool pog is less visually attractive than a standard miniature).

[Draco Ignifer]

The perfect RPG eeds to be able to deal with high-powered characters and low-powered characters in an interesting way. It needs to be able to handle high fantasy and high technology and not be unbalanced when those get taken out. It needs to have a lot of options so that people can customize their characters and be free to act the way they WANT to act, but also robust so that these options can't break it. Lastly...

The perfect RPG needs to be simple, because the more complex the rules are, the more time you're going to spend just rolling, consulting tables, and trying to comprehend said rules. At the same time, the perfect RPG needs to be complex, because the more simple the rules are, the less realistic the results will be, the more options that won't be covered, and the harder it is to suspend disbelief. It can't be somewhere between, because the people who want to keep it simple won't be happy, and the people who want to play a realistic simulation won't be happy, and THAT won't be perfect.

When you figure out how to make THAT work, you'll make a mint.

[Kuma]

the perfect RPG is in my opinion, one which your friends are playing as well, you don't need a particular system, even the pre-oldscool note book RP's are fun in thier own way.

[Samurai Jill]

On GNS- some people believe that each individual prioritizes one of those three principles to the exclusion of the others.
Not quite. GNS theory suggests that most people have marked preferences for one of these 3 modes, and so an RPG that caters to them will need to establish a similar preference for their favoured mode whenever modes come into conflict. (e.g, if realism conflicts with survivability in combat, then a Gamist RPG is going to have to relegate realism to second place.) This doesn't mean a Sim-inclined player can't enjoy, e.g, Nar play- but it's less likely than that they'd enjoy Sim play, and unless the rules are very clear and focused on the subject, won't naturally gravitate toward Narrativist play.

Of course, there are plenty of other ways in which player's tastes can conflict, but those ways are usually obvious- if you don't like lightweight rule-sets, then you don't, if you don't like superhero RPGs, then you don't. Nobody gets confused over that, so it doesn't require a great deal of discussion. (Or maybe there are just personal probems within or between people that are simply beyond the power of an RPG to solve- again, that's beyond the scope of the theory.)

The GNS answer would be: An RPG is good (for a particular mode of play,) based on... well... a lot of things. Long enough that I wrote 3 separate essays to cover the subject. Things that are usually good for one mode are often bad for another- that's kinda the point of the theory. There is no RPG that can fully satisfy all 3 tastes at once. There is no univeral perfect RPG.

There is such a thing as a 'general' RPG- like FUDGE or GURPS- that can be customised to appeal to any of these 3 groups, but it requires extra work on the part of the GM, and, often, won't do it particularly efficiently.

[Samurai Jill]

GNS is a silly theory. I'd argue that OD&D managed all three criteria for gamism, narrativism or simulationism to one extent or another.
'To one extent or another' is perfectly possible, it's the idea that you can fully satisfy 2 or more modes at once that's- to be blunt- silly. GNS theory states that it's actually better to fully satisfy 1 mode first, and only include others to the degree that they don't interfere with the first. Which, again, is perfectly possible, but isn't a compromise any more than 'unconditional surrender' would be a 'compromise'.

(Personally though, I will say I actually found OD&D more palatable than 2E or 3E, simply because it's relative simplicity made it easier to throw out, rewrite, or ignore the bits you didn't like.)

RPG's are cooperative fiction (and are also intrinsically "gamist" by definition)...
A Gamist RPG, by definition, has interpersonal competition or the confrontation of external adversity as it's foremost priority. I don't see how this is intrinsic to the definition of RPGs at all, and this potentially conflicts with the creation of gripping stories in several ways.

...Fiction doesn't need to be "realistic" when it can simply suspend disbelief. If you can swallow Vancian magic, you can swallow nearly anything.
As it so happens, there are those of us who can't swallow Vanceian magic, thank you very much.

We're not modeling particle physics here. You only need to simulate those things that are crucial to the genre or theme you're shooting for. If you want a gritty combat system, you'll have a gritty combat system. For other things, you don't even need a rule to do that. Sometimes it's just enough if the GM fiat preserves that verisimilitude. Simply put: simulationism is just narrativism under a different name.
Simulationism- by definition- is a primary emphasis by the players on following in-world cause and consequence without external metagame agenda. Story is inherently an external metagame agenda. It doesn't happen unless there's a conscious focus on creating it. if the GM supplies that focus (via railroading or illusionism,) then you have story creation, but the players get no say in it. If the GM doesn't restrict the players' choices, then the odds of them creating a strong, cohesive story more-or-less by accident are minute. If the GM doesn't restrict players' choices, and they are actively engaged in creating story, then things are happening in the world for reasons that don't follow solely from in-world cause and consequence. The fact is that what's consistent or probable and what's dramatically satisfying often diverge drastically.

[Chrono22]

If you're going to branch off to talk about GNS, please take a moment to note the spoilered part of the first post. The assumptions of GNS are not necessarily limited to GNS- there are many potential conflicts in purpose. If there are no basic goods to be said or made about an RPG, without trumping one playstyle or another, then there can be no value judgments about RPGs. All systems, from Paranoia to Descent to World of Darkness to 4e, are equal on their own terms.
I think that's a load of elephant dung.

[Dairun Cates]

...is Risus. (http://www222.pair.com/sjohn/risus.htm)

It's simple, there's infinite character options, it's inherently balanced, uses d6's (which even non-gamers have), can cover any genre, can be learned in a minute, can be modded easily, and a character sheet fits on an index card.

If there HAS to be a "perfect" RPG, this is it.

Of course, there's no such thing. The inherent fight between ludology and narratology is infinite in nature. There's a middle ground between the two, but you're sure as hell not going to hit it without sacrificing something.

For instance, you're really not going to have hundreds of player options without sacrificing simplicity, and you certainly can't have both without putting a lot of work on the GM. Really, I saw the perfect RPG is the one that best suits the needs of the campaign setting and the players. In that sense, Mutants and Masterminds is perfect for some people, but horrible for others. If you want to do fantasy adventure, play D&D. If you want superheroes, play M&M. If you want to be a tremendous wanker and still claim you're a "good guy", play Exalted. It's as simple as that.

Of course, that doesn't mean you should give up on designing systems. There's plenty of great niches that haven't been filled yet. I, myself, am working on a campaign setting and Role-playing system for ludicrous Pirate vs. Ninja fights. Should be fun when I'm done.

But seriously... Risus is the best system ever.

[Samurai Jill]

If you're going to branch off to talk about GNS...
Chrono, this is not 'branching off'. Spoilered or not, you quoted this exact subject in your original post.

...please take a moment to note the spoilered part of the first post. The assumptions of GNS are not necessarily limited to GNS- there are many potential conflicts in purpose.
I agree, absolutely. I'm pointing out, however, that these conflicts are pretty damn obvious, and don't require a great deal of discussion. You can't have a system that handles both teen romance, dungeon crawling, and survival horror without being pretty unwieldy at managing all three.

Evilfeeds has it right- If you want to model something in an elegant fashion, some degree of specialisation is essential.

[Chrono22]

Chrono, this is not 'branching off'. Spoilered or not, you quoted this exact subject in your original post.
Actually, it is branching off. I spoilered it because I know there are many people, like yourself, who will try anything they can to drag a game theory discussion into GNS. GNS is a dead end when it comes to game theory discussion. It makes no revelations about gaming- its conclusions are the same as its premises. Threads that center on it fall into a spiral of circular debate. I only mentioned it so that you wouldn't. I guess that's what i get for trying to head you off.:smallannoyed:


I agree, absolutely. I'm pointing out, however, that these conflicts are pretty damn obvious, and don't require a great deal of discussion. You can't have a system that handles both teen romance, dungeon crawling, and survival horror without being pretty unwieldy at managing all three.
Yes, you could. Scary Movie the RPG.


Evilfeeds has it right- If you want to model something in an elegant fashion, some degree of specialisation is essential.
This is true, but the specialization need not be entrenched in the core mechanic- and so long as the assumptions about play are made by the DMs and players, they will be satisfied with what their game includes.
This is why optional content is a good answer. It can tailor to different kinds of genres, while leaving the central system and core mechanic relatively unchanged.

Simply saying "It can't work" isn't a justification for why it can't.

[Samurai Jill]

This is why optional content is a good answer. It can tailor to different kinds of genres, while leaving the central system and core mechanic relatively unchanged.
Yes, but everything about the core mechanic which isn't actively supporting the agenda in question then basically constitutes dead weight.

Yes, you could. Scary Movie the RPG.
No, that would be an RPG which handles farce.

Actually, it is branching off. I spoilered it because I know there are many people, like yourself, who will try anything they can to drag a game theory discussion into GNS... ...I only mentioned it so that you wouldn't.
Chrono, if you has prefaced your post with something to the tune of- oh, I don't know- "I do not want to discuss GNS", then you might have a case here, but you didn't. You brought the subject up, it happens to be eminently relevant, I naturally discussed the point. GNS makes plenty of non-trivial predictions about how to make an RPG work for a given mode, so if you think it's conclusions are the same as it's premises, I don't know what more I can do to correct your misconceptions.

But hey- if you don't want to discuss the subject further, I won't. Thank you for your time.