Welknair
2012-02-02, 06:55 PM
I feel like typing, so I'm going to type. Deal with it.
This maaay go in Roleplaying Games, given the amount of games it covers and it's lack of any actual homebrewing in it. However, it can be used as a guide for making your own system and is generally intended for those individuals who frequent this section of the boards. If you guys really think it should be moved, go ahead.
Welknair's Essays
http://images.alphacoders.com/709/thumbbig-70937.jpg
Introduction
I've come quite a way from when I first played D&D, and have since branched out and experimented with many other games, homebrewed a bit, and even tried to make my own game (I may yet get it published). I am surrounded by family and friends that share my hobby and as a result I talk to them about it. A lot. I see patterns in games and can come up with reasons why one may be more successful than another. I figured I may as well tell my story here and exposit about some of these discussions. If you aren't interested in reading about how systems as a whole work, press that back button and go take a look at someone's prestige class. If not, press forward.
I do not claim to be an expert, by any means! There are people on these boards that have been playing for much, much longer than I and quite likely have a lot more experience with the subject than I do. I'm sure there are books on the topic. These are my views and ideas on these topics. These are my interpretations of the systems and what I view as important. I am quite possibly wrong about everything I say hereafter, and am almost certainly wrong in at least a few things. If you can't handle my fallibility or potential to totally miss a point, press that back button and look at someone's system fix. If not, press forward.
The Beginning
I have been playing tabletop roleplaying games for a long time. When I was in second grade, my father gave me his old second edition books. I wasn't old enough to understand the numbers and stats, but I could understand a story. And so my brother, sister and I played Dungeons and Dragons. We played without rules, we played without stats. And we had a hell of a time. I still remember snippets of those grand adventures. Throughout all of it, I was always the Dungeon Master. I used the existing monsters and spells and just looked over any numbers I came across. The only exception to this was the "Spells Known" table for one of the casting classes that we used to limit my sister's casting.
It's been quite some time since those days. I later acquired a set of 3.5 books and set about learning how to use them. I met friends that shared my enthusiasm, and one particularly amazing one introduced me to this webcomic, for which I am immensely grateful. I got a group together to play and I've had a group more or less continuously since then. They're crazy, homicidal pyromaniacs and I love the lot of them.
After playing D&D 3.5 for some time, I decided to try broadening my horizons. I picked up an old Exalted 1e book. I liked it. I found there were newer ones. I shortly found that I had all of the Manuals of Exalted Power. I didn't stop there. My current tally of books and systems that I've viewed:
D&D 2e: Core three.
D&D 3.0e: MM2, Deities and Demigods, and Epic Level Handbook. Thought these were 3.5 at the time.
D&D 3.5e: A crudton of books. Gotta imagine somewhere on the order of twenty. Not as many as some people, but still a sizable amount.
D&D 4e: PHB 1 and Monster Manual 1.
Pathfinder: DMG, Player's Guide, and Advanced Player's Guide.
Exalted 1e: First book.
Exalted 2e: All of the MoEPs, plus the first two Books of Sorcery and the Scavenger Lands.
Scion: Basic three.
World of Darkness: Basic book, plus Mage: The Awakening.
Modern D20: Basic book.
Starwars Saga D20: Basic book.
Mouseguard: Basic Book.
Shadowrun: Basic Book.
Call of Cthulhu: Basic Book.
Warhammer 40k: Basic Book
GURPS 4e: Basic two, Magic, Thaumatology, Fantasy, Martial Arts and Powers.
Homestuck D20: Pdf'd!
Naruto D20: Pdf'd!
Avatar D20: Got the site!
Probably one or two others I don't remember right now. Figures that I'm AFB.
I have read these systems. I've only played D&D 3.5, D&D 4.0, Exalted, Scion, GURPS, Homestuck and Naruto. My experience and knowledge of the latter group is much greater than that with those games that I have not played.
Why not D&D?
I love D&D 3.5e. It was my first real system and I do believe it's the most popular on these boards. But at the same time, I've come to greatly dislike it to a degree. If you're on this section of the forums, you're either making things or looking for things to supplement your game. Or both. In any case, you must have realized by now that D&D 3.5e has problems. Who ever thought that a Fighter could ever stack up to a Wizard? Who in the world thought that a Monk's ability to slowfall was worth squat compared to Feather Fall? Did anyone actually consider that Druids would be able to shapeshift into anything to fit a situation, completely ignoring their physical traits? We, as creators or users of homebrew, know these flaws quite widely. These and others are things that homebrewers constantly attempt to fix, with varying success (Jiriku's Monk Fix ftw!).
Then again, there are some problems that I simply cannot get over. Fighting orcs in the desert can make you a better swimmer. What. You can stab a random commoner twice in the chest with a dagger, and he's not going to die (Blah blah damage doesn't equal wounds blah blah). Wizards fighting the aforementioned desert-orcs will learn faster than those studying diligently in a top-notch university. See the entire discussion between Elan and Vaarsuvius about starting ages of classes way back near the start of the story. Wizards randomly have writing appear in their spellbook when they level up. These aren't little things, or mechanics that were required for game abstraction. These are nonsenical problems. And they drove me to look at other systems, like the ones mentioned above.
The Other Systems
There was good. There was bad. There were a lot of pages. Many mechanics I found interesting, others out of place. My latest acquisition is GURPS, and I'm loving it. But at the same time, I recognize what I believe to be it's largest flaws. There are many, many things that go into making a game. Whenever I get a new one, I look for these aspects and am genuinely curious to see how they were handled. Over time, and over the many systems, I have come up with the patterns that dictate these aspects, allowing me to categorize games. Anyone that has played more than one game has of course done this to a degree. I'm just going to talk about it a lot. And so the Essays finally begin.
Definition
This is one of the largest choices that a game needs to make, and one that I talk about with my friends and family quite often. A game has a set "Definition" - the degree to which worlds using that system are pre-defined. This is a very large spectrum. The examples I'll be using are D&D 3.5e, Exalted, and GURPS. Exalted, like all of White Wolf's games, is highly defined. Inside cover is a map of Creation. If you're playing Exalted, you are almost certainly using their map. And their types and castes of exalted. And probably a few of their pre-created Exalted characters. Good luck having a game where the Scarlet Empress plays no part. GURPS is the exact opposite, having little to no definition. They give you everything and nothing. It's a toolkit for every universe you could possibly want. But that also means that you have to make a universe. Of course you can use a pre-made world, but it's pretty obvious that this isn't the point. Dungeons and Dragons 3.5e stands smack-dab in the middle of this spectrum. You can bet there'll be some dungeons, and more than likely a dragon or two, but the DM still has a large amount of power over the type of world they run.
"So what?" I hear you ask. The Definition of a game will determine the type of GM willing to run it and the types of game that it will be used for. I mentioned that I adore GURPS, but saw it's main weakness. That weakness? It's also it's main strength and the reason why I love it so - Its total lack of definition. I, as the GM, have total control over my world, and can shape it to be however I please. At the same time, this means a lot of work and a lot of decision making. Many GMs don't like making worlds from scratch and dislike excessive decision making. And it is for this reason that GURPS is not as popular as some other systems.
Another large impact that Definition has on a game is the amount of homebrewing that can be done for it. The less defined it is, the more homebrew-able it is. In Exalted you can make a couple new charms, new martial arts disciplines, items and creatures. Aside from that, your only option is to make an entirely new type of exalted which is no small feat (Though I do remember it being done at one time or another). D&D sits pleasantly in the middle once more, with the wide array of things that homebrewers can create - Base classes, prestige classes, monsters, items, spells, new supernatural systems, feats, system fixes, and all manner of other things. And then you have GURPS. To make a GURPS world is to homebrew. They are effectively synonymous. Many tools are given, but one way or another you are combining factors to create a unique end-result. They just standardized the process. As one could imagine, this homebrew-ablity trait influences the type of GM attracted to the game. If you want to be making tons of unique material for your world and truly making it your own, you won't be running Exalted.
Another way that definition influences a game is in the genres it is capable of supporting. The more defined the game, the more hard-set its genre. Exalted games are almost always action-adventure games, though the creators did a good job of making other genres, like intrigue or war campaigns, viable alternatives. GURPS can support any genre you can think of, and even has specific books to help GMs with the main ones. D&D is, as always, in the middle. Though the creators paid little mind to the topic and the game is pretty obviously geared towards heroic adventure, you can still run most genres pretty easily with it, with the right arrangement of monsters, character limitations and good description.
Out of all the choices one makes when creating a system, Definition is among the most important. It will determine the players, GMs, worlds and stories that use it. And that isn't something you want to ignore.
Mechanics
There are a lot of mechanics that go into making any tabletop roleplaying game, and it is one of the most time-consuming aspects of game design. How is combat handled? How are wounds dealt with? How fast do characters heal? How do you calculate the speed of a falling object? Do you? How do you calculate the damage dealt by a falling character or object? What happens when a character gets no sleep? How does armor affect movement? How are starting stats determined? How do these affect the chance of success with a skill? These and others are all questions that must be dealt with.
Just like with Definition, Mechanics come in a spectrum. Often the designer must make the decision between whether the game will reflect their personal perceptions of reality accurately, or whether it will be playable. I personally have encountered this problem very frequently - just look at my first homebrewing project, my Magitech system. The equation for collision damage is a bit.. unwieldy. It should be kept in mind that these are games, not simulations. In realistic games this balance can be very difficult, as the game needs to flow but simultaneously must be more or less representative of reality.
Here's a little secret: The players don't care. Not for the most part, anyways. You can spend hours mulling over what formula perfectly describes your reality, but unless the players are particularly persnickety, they do not care one way or the other. They just want to play the game, kill some orcs and listen to a cool story. As long as the basics are covered, the mechanics don't matter besides determining the pace and mood of the story. Mechanics go a long way towards determining the genre and flavor of a game, but beyond this it is only background noise. Some elementary concepts should be supported, such as one character being stronger than another, running making you tired and wounds eventually causing death. But unless these mechanics are absolutely ridiculous (Modern D20 - A mid level character can survive being shot repeatedly in the chest) players really don't care. What's important is that the game flows and that the mechanics are fun.
Abstractions are going to happen. As I said, this is a game and not a simulation that we're talking about. You'll notice that in my list of things wrong with D&D I didn't include things like how in real life not all people run the same speed (Dash and Run feats blah blah) or how a successful shield block has nothing to do with how much armor you're wearing (Though they should improve the way they handle shields). These are abstractions that are pretty obviously less than realistic, but to the game as a whole they mean little. They aren't game-breakers, they don't flagrantly flaunt the laws of physics in a way the players can't accept and trying to come up with more realistic systems to handle them would likely bog down gameplay to the point of tedium. So they're abstracted, like many things in the game. As long as the basic idea is there, players can overlook the specific unrealistic elements.
The fun aspect is very key. This is a game and we play it for fun. The mechanics and rules should actively add to the experience, not detract from it. If the rules and mechanics are a detriment, there would be no reason to use them. Rules are used to mediate encounters in which the outcome is unsure and to provide a structure for how characters are defined. If either of these two factors is found to be "un-fun" then the system as a whole is a failure. It's a game, people just want to have a good time with it, not spend all day trading numbers and adding modifiers.
Playtesting and Editions
This is pretty self-explanatory and surprisingly lacking in D&D. You can really tell that the game wasn't extensively tested or run through a "Beta" phase before release. Or Wizards wouldn't be so all-powerful and Druids wouldn't be able to turn into about anything they want to fit the situation. Playtesting is needed for any game to be successful, no matter the genre or medium.
I've read a few generic game design books, one of which being titled something along the lines of "Game Design: A Book of Lenses". It focused on videogames, but many of the principles it put forth were widely applicable. One such principle was the "Rule of the Loop" which stated that the more times that a game was tested, revised and tested again, the better it would be. This is of course true of tabletop RPGs as well. If you're making a system, test early and test often. For games with multiple editions, each edition should be an improvement upon the last based on the issues found in the previous edition. This is somewhere that D&D does very poorly - Instead of trying to fix 3.5e's problems, they totally ignored all the errors that countless players had found and instead opted to make an entirely new game that falsely claimed to be the same game as the one prior. This game, known as D&D 4e, is just as ill-tested as its predecessor. Conversely, Exalted did very well here, smoothly transitioning from 1e to 2e based upon the specific problems found.
One of the problems I find with multiple editions of games is that they often obsolete previous versions. D&D 3.5e to 4e, for example. I spent how much money on all of those books? And now they're useless? Not only are my old books entirely incompatible with 4e, but there is such a disparity that any attempt to update from one version to the other is futile. Closer hops, like that from 3e to 3.5e, allow for such updates, and allow at least some use of prior books, but you still need to buy a whole slew of new ones to play effectively. Sometimes I feel that some games come out with new versions only to force their players to buy more of their books, rather than to fix legitimate problems. I greatly frown upon this, though I know they need to make their money somehow. My beloved GURPS is now up to fourth edition itself, yet all books of all prior editions are still available online in pdf format. One of the things I love about GURPS is how much emphasis they put on world and story creation - these concepts are totally independent of the mechanics that could be changed form version to version. The ideas are universal, and in fact on the back of many of their books they state "These ideas may be used with any tabletop roleplaying game". I could run a GURPS 20e two hundred years in the future when we're all robots, and my old GURPS 4e Fantasy book would still be able to advise me on how to structure a proper fantasy adventure.
The more I played D&D 3.5e and the more I created material for it, the more and more sure I became that WotC had no clue what they were doing. As mentioned in "Why not D&D?", they have a lot of problems. This lead me to the conclusion that either: A) I'm a game-design genius, B) They're total dunces when it comes to game design, C) I'm totally missing something here, or D) Some combination of the above. So yeah, that's what prompted me to write this - the off chance that I have some sort of insight into all of this. Though from what I've seen, your average homebrewer on these boards could make material twice as good as whatever WotC has made. Leaning highly towards option B.
It is common sense that games need testing and revising, just like any game. The more testing is done, the better the end result. Editions should be released only to improve upon prior editions, not to force loyal players to waste money on new books.
Balance
Why do you playtest? Well, to make sure that mechanics flow correctly, ensure there are no obvious oversights in mechanics and to, most importantly, balance the various aspects of the game. What comes up most often in this is character creation. Players want to have fun, and sadly one player having too much fun often detracts from the enjoyment of other players. The most common cause of this is one player being more powerful than another, causing them to hog the spotlight. The primary thing to look out for in playtesting is to see what character options are too powerful and which are not powerful enough. Apparently something I said in my "What in the Nine Hells is a Bloodline" thread was particularly popular - If you can't imagine a player not wanting to use an option, it's too powerful; if you can't imagine a player wanting to use an option, it's not powerful enough. This isn't a catch-all rule, but it is a pretty good rule of thumb.
I hope that you've all heard of the Tier System by now. This system of categorizing D&D 3.5e classes did wonders to my perspective of the game and the way I viewed all characters from all games. To recap, character classes are divided into tiers based on their levels of power and versatility. This very clearly demonstrates the gap between the Wizard and the Fighter - Fighters are pretty much only useful in combat, and even then a well-built Wizard can contribute more. In all other situations the Wizard has a spell to solve the problem. The sheer versatility of Wizards causes them to be useful in almost any circumstance, and as a result the Wizard's player ends up talking far more than the Fighter's. This isn't good. This isn't balanced.
All character options should be in the same band of usefulness and power. This does not exclude certain options being particularly relevant to a build or synergizing particularly well. It doesn't make sense for combat-options to work as well for a caster as for a melee combatant, and some of the most fun in tabletop roleplaying-games is the challenge of creating an effective and cohesive character. But there shouldn't be any options that are categorically useless (Toughness feat. Seriously, guys?) or categorically better than any other option (Wizard or CoD-zilla). That's just bad game design.
Classed versus Non-classed/Leveled versus Non-leveled Systems
You've played Dungeons and Dragons and you know what levels and classes are. Or at least I certainly hope so. When I first learned how to properly play D&D I took the class and level system in stride - it made sense to me at the time. It's an easy way to differentiate between characters and between different levels of power. It's easy to tell about how strong a character is and what type of character they are. But the more I played, the less and less realistic this seemed. By unrealistic, I don't mean one of those necessary and negligible abstractions, but rather a fundamental problem with the game. Classes and levels are the foundation upon which all D&D characters are built. The class and level system, while convenient, does not make sense to me in the context of the story.
When a character "Levels up" they gain new powers dependent on their class in addition to a flurry of other benefits. The best example I can think of for this being nonsensical is the way in which the skill system works. I made reference to fighting orcs in the desert making you a better swimmer, but what about if you want to spend all of your time learning how to climb walls, to the exclusion of anything else? When you level up, you still can only put so many points on your Climb skill, and inevitably need to spend the rest on other things. How does that make an ounce of sense? Shouldn't your points go into what you used or what you trained? Wizards. What if a Wizard wanted to focus on only three schools of magic? Specializing doesn't support that, nor does any other option that I know of. But logically, it should be possible. If it weren't for the level system forcing Wizards to all have the same spell-acquisition system, this may be possible.
It's interesting to note that D&D and the various D20 systems that are derived from it are the only games that I've encountered that make use of a class/level system. The rest have some alternate method of acquiring new abilities or improving old ones. These alternatives are varied, so I think I'll save a discussion on those for a later. The point is that a system either focuses character design by regimented classes and levels, or more of a free-form trait system.
Though I bash it quite a lot, the class system does have the undisputed advantage of easily differentiating characters, though consideration must still be spent to avoid cross overs. Its simple to create class-ed characters and easy for the DM to determine whether or not there are role overlaps. On the other hand, classless systems provide the opportunity for much more customization of characters, but as a result more careful attention must be paid to make sure each character has at least one area in which they can shine and there must be mechanics built in to avoid players totally pumping a single aspect of their character - some sort of diminishing return system works best.
This choice has a lot of influence over how character creation and advancement work. Both of these topics are very important to players and as a result said choice impacts the type of players attracted as well as the types of characters that result.
The End for Now
I don't have infinite time and my urge to type has been at least momentarily sated. If people find this interesting, informative, useful, entertaining, or at the various least anything above horrid, I will quite likely continue my Essays. Possible topics include methods of rolling, character advancement, classed versus non-classed systems, various supernatural systems, and realism versus cinematics among others. Speak up if you want more of this. Otherwise I'll stop wasting your time.
This maaay go in Roleplaying Games, given the amount of games it covers and it's lack of any actual homebrewing in it. However, it can be used as a guide for making your own system and is generally intended for those individuals who frequent this section of the boards. If you guys really think it should be moved, go ahead.
Welknair's Essays
http://images.alphacoders.com/709/thumbbig-70937.jpg
Introduction
I've come quite a way from when I first played D&D, and have since branched out and experimented with many other games, homebrewed a bit, and even tried to make my own game (I may yet get it published). I am surrounded by family and friends that share my hobby and as a result I talk to them about it. A lot. I see patterns in games and can come up with reasons why one may be more successful than another. I figured I may as well tell my story here and exposit about some of these discussions. If you aren't interested in reading about how systems as a whole work, press that back button and go take a look at someone's prestige class. If not, press forward.
I do not claim to be an expert, by any means! There are people on these boards that have been playing for much, much longer than I and quite likely have a lot more experience with the subject than I do. I'm sure there are books on the topic. These are my views and ideas on these topics. These are my interpretations of the systems and what I view as important. I am quite possibly wrong about everything I say hereafter, and am almost certainly wrong in at least a few things. If you can't handle my fallibility or potential to totally miss a point, press that back button and look at someone's system fix. If not, press forward.
The Beginning
I have been playing tabletop roleplaying games for a long time. When I was in second grade, my father gave me his old second edition books. I wasn't old enough to understand the numbers and stats, but I could understand a story. And so my brother, sister and I played Dungeons and Dragons. We played without rules, we played without stats. And we had a hell of a time. I still remember snippets of those grand adventures. Throughout all of it, I was always the Dungeon Master. I used the existing monsters and spells and just looked over any numbers I came across. The only exception to this was the "Spells Known" table for one of the casting classes that we used to limit my sister's casting.
It's been quite some time since those days. I later acquired a set of 3.5 books and set about learning how to use them. I met friends that shared my enthusiasm, and one particularly amazing one introduced me to this webcomic, for which I am immensely grateful. I got a group together to play and I've had a group more or less continuously since then. They're crazy, homicidal pyromaniacs and I love the lot of them.
After playing D&D 3.5 for some time, I decided to try broadening my horizons. I picked up an old Exalted 1e book. I liked it. I found there were newer ones. I shortly found that I had all of the Manuals of Exalted Power. I didn't stop there. My current tally of books and systems that I've viewed:
D&D 2e: Core three.
D&D 3.0e: MM2, Deities and Demigods, and Epic Level Handbook. Thought these were 3.5 at the time.
D&D 3.5e: A crudton of books. Gotta imagine somewhere on the order of twenty. Not as many as some people, but still a sizable amount.
D&D 4e: PHB 1 and Monster Manual 1.
Pathfinder: DMG, Player's Guide, and Advanced Player's Guide.
Exalted 1e: First book.
Exalted 2e: All of the MoEPs, plus the first two Books of Sorcery and the Scavenger Lands.
Scion: Basic three.
World of Darkness: Basic book, plus Mage: The Awakening.
Modern D20: Basic book.
Starwars Saga D20: Basic book.
Mouseguard: Basic Book.
Shadowrun: Basic Book.
Call of Cthulhu: Basic Book.
Warhammer 40k: Basic Book
GURPS 4e: Basic two, Magic, Thaumatology, Fantasy, Martial Arts and Powers.
Homestuck D20: Pdf'd!
Naruto D20: Pdf'd!
Avatar D20: Got the site!
Probably one or two others I don't remember right now. Figures that I'm AFB.
I have read these systems. I've only played D&D 3.5, D&D 4.0, Exalted, Scion, GURPS, Homestuck and Naruto. My experience and knowledge of the latter group is much greater than that with those games that I have not played.
Why not D&D?
I love D&D 3.5e. It was my first real system and I do believe it's the most popular on these boards. But at the same time, I've come to greatly dislike it to a degree. If you're on this section of the forums, you're either making things or looking for things to supplement your game. Or both. In any case, you must have realized by now that D&D 3.5e has problems. Who ever thought that a Fighter could ever stack up to a Wizard? Who in the world thought that a Monk's ability to slowfall was worth squat compared to Feather Fall? Did anyone actually consider that Druids would be able to shapeshift into anything to fit a situation, completely ignoring their physical traits? We, as creators or users of homebrew, know these flaws quite widely. These and others are things that homebrewers constantly attempt to fix, with varying success (Jiriku's Monk Fix ftw!).
Then again, there are some problems that I simply cannot get over. Fighting orcs in the desert can make you a better swimmer. What. You can stab a random commoner twice in the chest with a dagger, and he's not going to die (Blah blah damage doesn't equal wounds blah blah). Wizards fighting the aforementioned desert-orcs will learn faster than those studying diligently in a top-notch university. See the entire discussion between Elan and Vaarsuvius about starting ages of classes way back near the start of the story. Wizards randomly have writing appear in their spellbook when they level up. These aren't little things, or mechanics that were required for game abstraction. These are nonsenical problems. And they drove me to look at other systems, like the ones mentioned above.
The Other Systems
There was good. There was bad. There were a lot of pages. Many mechanics I found interesting, others out of place. My latest acquisition is GURPS, and I'm loving it. But at the same time, I recognize what I believe to be it's largest flaws. There are many, many things that go into making a game. Whenever I get a new one, I look for these aspects and am genuinely curious to see how they were handled. Over time, and over the many systems, I have come up with the patterns that dictate these aspects, allowing me to categorize games. Anyone that has played more than one game has of course done this to a degree. I'm just going to talk about it a lot. And so the Essays finally begin.
Definition
This is one of the largest choices that a game needs to make, and one that I talk about with my friends and family quite often. A game has a set "Definition" - the degree to which worlds using that system are pre-defined. This is a very large spectrum. The examples I'll be using are D&D 3.5e, Exalted, and GURPS. Exalted, like all of White Wolf's games, is highly defined. Inside cover is a map of Creation. If you're playing Exalted, you are almost certainly using their map. And their types and castes of exalted. And probably a few of their pre-created Exalted characters. Good luck having a game where the Scarlet Empress plays no part. GURPS is the exact opposite, having little to no definition. They give you everything and nothing. It's a toolkit for every universe you could possibly want. But that also means that you have to make a universe. Of course you can use a pre-made world, but it's pretty obvious that this isn't the point. Dungeons and Dragons 3.5e stands smack-dab in the middle of this spectrum. You can bet there'll be some dungeons, and more than likely a dragon or two, but the DM still has a large amount of power over the type of world they run.
"So what?" I hear you ask. The Definition of a game will determine the type of GM willing to run it and the types of game that it will be used for. I mentioned that I adore GURPS, but saw it's main weakness. That weakness? It's also it's main strength and the reason why I love it so - Its total lack of definition. I, as the GM, have total control over my world, and can shape it to be however I please. At the same time, this means a lot of work and a lot of decision making. Many GMs don't like making worlds from scratch and dislike excessive decision making. And it is for this reason that GURPS is not as popular as some other systems.
Another large impact that Definition has on a game is the amount of homebrewing that can be done for it. The less defined it is, the more homebrew-able it is. In Exalted you can make a couple new charms, new martial arts disciplines, items and creatures. Aside from that, your only option is to make an entirely new type of exalted which is no small feat (Though I do remember it being done at one time or another). D&D sits pleasantly in the middle once more, with the wide array of things that homebrewers can create - Base classes, prestige classes, monsters, items, spells, new supernatural systems, feats, system fixes, and all manner of other things. And then you have GURPS. To make a GURPS world is to homebrew. They are effectively synonymous. Many tools are given, but one way or another you are combining factors to create a unique end-result. They just standardized the process. As one could imagine, this homebrew-ablity trait influences the type of GM attracted to the game. If you want to be making tons of unique material for your world and truly making it your own, you won't be running Exalted.
Another way that definition influences a game is in the genres it is capable of supporting. The more defined the game, the more hard-set its genre. Exalted games are almost always action-adventure games, though the creators did a good job of making other genres, like intrigue or war campaigns, viable alternatives. GURPS can support any genre you can think of, and even has specific books to help GMs with the main ones. D&D is, as always, in the middle. Though the creators paid little mind to the topic and the game is pretty obviously geared towards heroic adventure, you can still run most genres pretty easily with it, with the right arrangement of monsters, character limitations and good description.
Out of all the choices one makes when creating a system, Definition is among the most important. It will determine the players, GMs, worlds and stories that use it. And that isn't something you want to ignore.
Mechanics
There are a lot of mechanics that go into making any tabletop roleplaying game, and it is one of the most time-consuming aspects of game design. How is combat handled? How are wounds dealt with? How fast do characters heal? How do you calculate the speed of a falling object? Do you? How do you calculate the damage dealt by a falling character or object? What happens when a character gets no sleep? How does armor affect movement? How are starting stats determined? How do these affect the chance of success with a skill? These and others are all questions that must be dealt with.
Just like with Definition, Mechanics come in a spectrum. Often the designer must make the decision between whether the game will reflect their personal perceptions of reality accurately, or whether it will be playable. I personally have encountered this problem very frequently - just look at my first homebrewing project, my Magitech system. The equation for collision damage is a bit.. unwieldy. It should be kept in mind that these are games, not simulations. In realistic games this balance can be very difficult, as the game needs to flow but simultaneously must be more or less representative of reality.
Here's a little secret: The players don't care. Not for the most part, anyways. You can spend hours mulling over what formula perfectly describes your reality, but unless the players are particularly persnickety, they do not care one way or the other. They just want to play the game, kill some orcs and listen to a cool story. As long as the basics are covered, the mechanics don't matter besides determining the pace and mood of the story. Mechanics go a long way towards determining the genre and flavor of a game, but beyond this it is only background noise. Some elementary concepts should be supported, such as one character being stronger than another, running making you tired and wounds eventually causing death. But unless these mechanics are absolutely ridiculous (Modern D20 - A mid level character can survive being shot repeatedly in the chest) players really don't care. What's important is that the game flows and that the mechanics are fun.
Abstractions are going to happen. As I said, this is a game and not a simulation that we're talking about. You'll notice that in my list of things wrong with D&D I didn't include things like how in real life not all people run the same speed (Dash and Run feats blah blah) or how a successful shield block has nothing to do with how much armor you're wearing (Though they should improve the way they handle shields). These are abstractions that are pretty obviously less than realistic, but to the game as a whole they mean little. They aren't game-breakers, they don't flagrantly flaunt the laws of physics in a way the players can't accept and trying to come up with more realistic systems to handle them would likely bog down gameplay to the point of tedium. So they're abstracted, like many things in the game. As long as the basic idea is there, players can overlook the specific unrealistic elements.
The fun aspect is very key. This is a game and we play it for fun. The mechanics and rules should actively add to the experience, not detract from it. If the rules and mechanics are a detriment, there would be no reason to use them. Rules are used to mediate encounters in which the outcome is unsure and to provide a structure for how characters are defined. If either of these two factors is found to be "un-fun" then the system as a whole is a failure. It's a game, people just want to have a good time with it, not spend all day trading numbers and adding modifiers.
Playtesting and Editions
This is pretty self-explanatory and surprisingly lacking in D&D. You can really tell that the game wasn't extensively tested or run through a "Beta" phase before release. Or Wizards wouldn't be so all-powerful and Druids wouldn't be able to turn into about anything they want to fit the situation. Playtesting is needed for any game to be successful, no matter the genre or medium.
I've read a few generic game design books, one of which being titled something along the lines of "Game Design: A Book of Lenses". It focused on videogames, but many of the principles it put forth were widely applicable. One such principle was the "Rule of the Loop" which stated that the more times that a game was tested, revised and tested again, the better it would be. This is of course true of tabletop RPGs as well. If you're making a system, test early and test often. For games with multiple editions, each edition should be an improvement upon the last based on the issues found in the previous edition. This is somewhere that D&D does very poorly - Instead of trying to fix 3.5e's problems, they totally ignored all the errors that countless players had found and instead opted to make an entirely new game that falsely claimed to be the same game as the one prior. This game, known as D&D 4e, is just as ill-tested as its predecessor. Conversely, Exalted did very well here, smoothly transitioning from 1e to 2e based upon the specific problems found.
One of the problems I find with multiple editions of games is that they often obsolete previous versions. D&D 3.5e to 4e, for example. I spent how much money on all of those books? And now they're useless? Not only are my old books entirely incompatible with 4e, but there is such a disparity that any attempt to update from one version to the other is futile. Closer hops, like that from 3e to 3.5e, allow for such updates, and allow at least some use of prior books, but you still need to buy a whole slew of new ones to play effectively. Sometimes I feel that some games come out with new versions only to force their players to buy more of their books, rather than to fix legitimate problems. I greatly frown upon this, though I know they need to make their money somehow. My beloved GURPS is now up to fourth edition itself, yet all books of all prior editions are still available online in pdf format. One of the things I love about GURPS is how much emphasis they put on world and story creation - these concepts are totally independent of the mechanics that could be changed form version to version. The ideas are universal, and in fact on the back of many of their books they state "These ideas may be used with any tabletop roleplaying game". I could run a GURPS 20e two hundred years in the future when we're all robots, and my old GURPS 4e Fantasy book would still be able to advise me on how to structure a proper fantasy adventure.
The more I played D&D 3.5e and the more I created material for it, the more and more sure I became that WotC had no clue what they were doing. As mentioned in "Why not D&D?", they have a lot of problems. This lead me to the conclusion that either: A) I'm a game-design genius, B) They're total dunces when it comes to game design, C) I'm totally missing something here, or D) Some combination of the above. So yeah, that's what prompted me to write this - the off chance that I have some sort of insight into all of this. Though from what I've seen, your average homebrewer on these boards could make material twice as good as whatever WotC has made. Leaning highly towards option B.
It is common sense that games need testing and revising, just like any game. The more testing is done, the better the end result. Editions should be released only to improve upon prior editions, not to force loyal players to waste money on new books.
Balance
Why do you playtest? Well, to make sure that mechanics flow correctly, ensure there are no obvious oversights in mechanics and to, most importantly, balance the various aspects of the game. What comes up most often in this is character creation. Players want to have fun, and sadly one player having too much fun often detracts from the enjoyment of other players. The most common cause of this is one player being more powerful than another, causing them to hog the spotlight. The primary thing to look out for in playtesting is to see what character options are too powerful and which are not powerful enough. Apparently something I said in my "What in the Nine Hells is a Bloodline" thread was particularly popular - If you can't imagine a player not wanting to use an option, it's too powerful; if you can't imagine a player wanting to use an option, it's not powerful enough. This isn't a catch-all rule, but it is a pretty good rule of thumb.
I hope that you've all heard of the Tier System by now. This system of categorizing D&D 3.5e classes did wonders to my perspective of the game and the way I viewed all characters from all games. To recap, character classes are divided into tiers based on their levels of power and versatility. This very clearly demonstrates the gap between the Wizard and the Fighter - Fighters are pretty much only useful in combat, and even then a well-built Wizard can contribute more. In all other situations the Wizard has a spell to solve the problem. The sheer versatility of Wizards causes them to be useful in almost any circumstance, and as a result the Wizard's player ends up talking far more than the Fighter's. This isn't good. This isn't balanced.
All character options should be in the same band of usefulness and power. This does not exclude certain options being particularly relevant to a build or synergizing particularly well. It doesn't make sense for combat-options to work as well for a caster as for a melee combatant, and some of the most fun in tabletop roleplaying-games is the challenge of creating an effective and cohesive character. But there shouldn't be any options that are categorically useless (Toughness feat. Seriously, guys?) or categorically better than any other option (Wizard or CoD-zilla). That's just bad game design.
Classed versus Non-classed/Leveled versus Non-leveled Systems
You've played Dungeons and Dragons and you know what levels and classes are. Or at least I certainly hope so. When I first learned how to properly play D&D I took the class and level system in stride - it made sense to me at the time. It's an easy way to differentiate between characters and between different levels of power. It's easy to tell about how strong a character is and what type of character they are. But the more I played, the less and less realistic this seemed. By unrealistic, I don't mean one of those necessary and negligible abstractions, but rather a fundamental problem with the game. Classes and levels are the foundation upon which all D&D characters are built. The class and level system, while convenient, does not make sense to me in the context of the story.
When a character "Levels up" they gain new powers dependent on their class in addition to a flurry of other benefits. The best example I can think of for this being nonsensical is the way in which the skill system works. I made reference to fighting orcs in the desert making you a better swimmer, but what about if you want to spend all of your time learning how to climb walls, to the exclusion of anything else? When you level up, you still can only put so many points on your Climb skill, and inevitably need to spend the rest on other things. How does that make an ounce of sense? Shouldn't your points go into what you used or what you trained? Wizards. What if a Wizard wanted to focus on only three schools of magic? Specializing doesn't support that, nor does any other option that I know of. But logically, it should be possible. If it weren't for the level system forcing Wizards to all have the same spell-acquisition system, this may be possible.
It's interesting to note that D&D and the various D20 systems that are derived from it are the only games that I've encountered that make use of a class/level system. The rest have some alternate method of acquiring new abilities or improving old ones. These alternatives are varied, so I think I'll save a discussion on those for a later. The point is that a system either focuses character design by regimented classes and levels, or more of a free-form trait system.
Though I bash it quite a lot, the class system does have the undisputed advantage of easily differentiating characters, though consideration must still be spent to avoid cross overs. Its simple to create class-ed characters and easy for the DM to determine whether or not there are role overlaps. On the other hand, classless systems provide the opportunity for much more customization of characters, but as a result more careful attention must be paid to make sure each character has at least one area in which they can shine and there must be mechanics built in to avoid players totally pumping a single aspect of their character - some sort of diminishing return system works best.
This choice has a lot of influence over how character creation and advancement work. Both of these topics are very important to players and as a result said choice impacts the type of players attracted as well as the types of characters that result.
The End for Now
I don't have infinite time and my urge to type has been at least momentarily sated. If people find this interesting, informative, useful, entertaining, or at the various least anything above horrid, I will quite likely continue my Essays. Possible topics include methods of rolling, character advancement, classed versus non-classed systems, various supernatural systems, and realism versus cinematics among others. Speak up if you want more of this. Otherwise I'll stop wasting your time.