Good Roleplaying Game Design Theory

[jindra34]

Just thinking about a how these work and wanted to see what other think.

First of what I feel are important criterion for the system:
1. Uses one and only one item for character building.
2. Costs of things are the same regardless of when purchased.
3. Has streamlined rules.
4. Allows for changing direction without completely rebuilding character.
5. Functional diversity of options.

Now given those I would define

A bad game as:
One meets at most 2 of the criterion
Or is not honest about relative value of options
Or has major conflicts between fluff and system.

A good game as:
One that meets at least 3 of the criterion
And is honest about relative value of options
And has no or easily overlooked conflicts between fluff and system.

And a perfect game as:
One that meets all the criterion
And has all options at the same value
And has well meshed fluff and rules.


Is there anything anyone thinks I missed or would disagree with in my theory?

[QuidEst]

1. Uses one and only one item for character building.
2. Costs of things are the same regardless of when purchased.
3. Has streamlined rules.
4. Allows for changing direction without completely rebuilding character.
5. Functional diversity of options.


1. Not really sure what that means. One "item"?
2. This seems oddly specific compared to the others, like it's in here because you had a problem with one particular game that didn't do this. Sure, it's nice and all, but I don't think it's really contributing much. It falls under #3.
3. No arguments here. I enjoy a bit of complexity, but even that can be set up in an efficient manner.
4. Reasonable.
5. Definitely.

I like systems that provide me with an interesting way to make a particular character concept, but that might be considered part of #5.

[jindra34]

1. Not really sure what that means. One "item"?

Not really sure what the word is. But essentially there should be one item/unit/thing that is used to build your character


2. This seems oddly specific compared to the others, like it's in here because you had a problem with one particular game that didn't do this. Sure, it's nice and all, but I don't think it's really contributing much. It falls under #3.

These rules are kinda personal, and its not something that I personally have had problems with, but it is something that from a system perspective not doing requires massive justification.

[GolemsVoice]

Not really sure what the word is. But essentially there should be one item/unit/thing that is used to build your character

I believe he's thinking of the habit of including magical items in a character build when designing characters for D&D. While these are never the core of D&D characters, depending on the class they are all but essential.

[PrinceOfMadness]

I think what Jindra is saying that he prefers RPGs to have character statistics all generated by one 'currency' as it were. Like in Shadowrun 4e or Champions, you're given a certain number of 'points' to spend on character creation. Raising an attribute is worth a different number of points than, say, raising a skill, or buying a feat.

I'd argue, though, that this falls under streamlining.

[Knaight]

First of what I feel are important criterion for the system:
1. Uses one and only one item for character building.
2. Costs of things are the same regardless of when purchased.
3. Has streamlined rules.
4. Allows for changing direction without completely rebuilding character.
5. Functional diversity of options.
Taking into account that this only really applies to fairly traditional games (one character per player, one GM or rotating GMs, adventuring) here's my opinion.


1. I can't parse this. If you refer to drawing from one pool of resources (e.g. GURPS's single point pool) rather than several (e.g. D&D's feats, skill points, levels, etc.) then I disagree, and am willing to make a case for either of them as both have variety.

2. No. If you refer to character points versus experience from later or something I disagree emphatically, as this cuts out the possibility to encourage specialization then growth outwards in many directions or general competence then specialization. If you refer to equipment, absolutely not - supply and demand are shifting things, market shocks are inevitable, and then you have situations such as famines which drastically change food prices. This isn't a problem for the vast majority of game systems, particularly those that abstract wealth to some extent, and asking for it is pretty much requesting that a necessary patch for D&D functionality as regards the magic item market be applied universally.

3. Agreed.

4. Agreed.

5. Agreed.

[jindra34]

I think some added explanation on 2 and 3 is needed.

2. I'll use real world terms for. If I spend 2 years training with an axe I should reach the same ability level with it regardless of whether I spent any time training in anything else prior to that.

3. By rules I literally mean the rules and mechanics by which the game is played at the 'table'. And I would not classify character creation as a part of those.

[QuidEst]

Not really sure what the word is. But essentially there should be one item/unit/thing that is used to build your character


Ah. I would disagree on that point. I like having a couple different tools to represent parts of my character with.

[Tvtyrant]

For number 1 I wouldn't say I want one thing exactly, but I do prefer that either they be entirely interchangeable or they have no interchangeability. So if the system uses XP, money and influence I would like to be able to buy XP or Influence, or use my XP to get money or influence, etc. But anytime it becomes asymmeterical and only two of them can be exchanged it unbalances their relative strength, and the game becomes about finding the optimal exchange rate.

[Knaight]

2. I'll use real world terms for. If I spend 2 years training with an axe I should reach the same ability level with it regardless of whether I spent any time training in anything else prior to that.

3. By rules I literally mean the rules and mechanics by which the game is played at the 'table'. And I would not classify character creation as a part of those.

2. That doesn't make sense. If you've spent 5 years prior training with a sword, you'll reach a significantly higher ability level than the guy who started out with nothing, due to how it teaches some of the same skills. If you're naturally stronger, or faster, or more driven, or more talented then you'll pick up axe work faster.

[jindra34]

2. That doesn't make sense. If you've spent 5 years prior training with a sword, you'll reach a significantly higher ability level than the guy who started out with nothing, due to how it teaches some of the same skills. If you're naturally stronger, or faster, or more driven, or more talented then you'll pick up axe work faster.

It may teach the same skill but the reactions and motions are different. Meaning that while you may not be training as much to learn how to do things you'll be spending a significant chunk of time integrating the new reflexes without overriding the old ones. And physical capability is an independent factor to skill with arms.

[Knaight]

It may teach the same skill but the reactions and motions are different. Meaning that while you may not be training as much to learn how to do things you'll be spending a significant chunk of time integrating the new reflexes without overriding the old ones. And physical capability is an independent factor to skill with arms.

The reactions and motions are different, yes. That doesn't mean that the skill overlap doesn't put the person with experience at an edge. Physical capability is also not an independent factor when it comes with learning - if you're in good shape you can get in more, better practice. In any case, my main point stands; what skills people already have influence how easy new things are to learn.

[Totally Guy]

I think you are missing the big picture. Games are about different things they result in their own behaviours and reinforce different themes. I think a game should be judged on how well it reflects that particular theme and how the game playing experience works together with that. Your list kind of implies that all RPGs are working toward the same goal.

[Rakmakallan]

I think you are missing the big picture. Games are about different things they result in their own behaviours and reinforce different themes. I think a game should be judged on how well it reflects that particular theme and how the game playing experience works together with that. Your list kind of implies that all RPGs are working toward the same goal.

This.
While these rules would ,more or less and depending on personal preference, work in let-us-say a "conventional" RPG in the style pf D&D, Pathfinder, maybe even Shadowrun and SAGA, you cannot apply the same criteria to different kinds of game design that cater to a varying pool of players and playstyles. Indeed the common goal is always to emulate a role, but there are more factors the be taken into account, such as the wargaming part, the degree of theatrics, the setting, the roles themselves etc.

[Craft (Cheese)]

I think you are missing the big picture. Games are about different things they result in their own behaviours and reinforce different themes. I think a game should be judged on how well it reflects that particular theme and how the game playing experience works together with that. Your list kind of implies that all RPGs are working toward the same goal.

This. You can't really judge mechanics and individual design aspects of a game as "good" or "bad": What works wonderfully toward building one sort of experience can be absolutely horrible when trying to build another. It's part of the reason why universal systems like GURPS can only be second-best at anything.

[Friv]

A good roleplaying game needs to do only two things:

1) Accomplish its own goals in its mechanics and story, and
2) Communicate those goals clearly to its intended audience.

Everything else is personal taste. As long as the game is doing what it intends to, and people playing it know what it intends to do, it is succeeding.

[NichG]

For me, I tend to rephrase #2 in this more concrete way:

If I look at someone's character sheet (perhaps just their starting sheet), building that exact set of abilities should cost one fixed number of points. If I can end up with the same sheet (or a sheet that is strictly advantageous over the one I'm looking at) for fewer xp, thats a problem.

For example, this is an issue in 7th Sea. Two players could present the same sheet to you and one could say 'I bought these overlapping skill groups for the 3 free skill points' while the other could say 'I bought all these skills up to 3' and end up spending vastly different amounts.

[ThiagoMartell]

A good roleplaying game needs to do only two things:

1) Accomplish its own goals in its mechanics and story, and
2) Communicate those goals clearly to its intended audience.

Everything else is personal taste. As long as the game is doing what it intends to, and people playing it know what it intends to do, it is succeeding.

This, so much this.

[Hylas]

For me, I tend to rephrase #2 in this more concrete way:

If I look at someone's character sheet (perhaps just their starting sheet), building that exact set of abilities should cost one fixed number of points. If I can end up with the same sheet (or a sheet that is strictly advantageous over the one I'm looking at) for fewer xp, thats a problem.

For example, this is an issue in 7th Sea. Two players could present the same sheet to you and one could say 'I bought these overlapping skill groups for the 3 free skill points' while the other could say 'I bought all these skills up to 3' and end up spending vastly different amounts.

Yeah, I think issue #1 and #2 could have been explained better in the original post and thank you for explaining #2 with an example.

What I never liked about WoD was that costs were linear during character creation and exponential to level up afterwards. I felt like the game was begging me to just min/max a few really high skills and stats and then catch up on the low skills after 2 sessions. Then I would just simply have "more pips" than anyone else.

For issue #1 this has been clarified, but he means comparing something like GURPS with D&D. D&D has feats, attributes, and skills, and you can't interchange them in value. GURPS has points which can be spent on any aspect of your character.

[TheOOB]

For me mechanics are kind. I think a roleplaying game needs two things. An interesting mechanic, and an interesting roleplay design aspect.

I'm working on a system right now, currently under the working title "Vigilance". The base concept of the game is the players are humans inhabited by Heroic Spirits from legend, gaining supernatural powers. The game mechanic I'm working with is one where you select why type of actions you are going to perform in secret at the start of a round, and make the choices about the action on your turn, allowing for set of tactics based on timing and interrupting. I'm also building it around an organic system where everyone can improve their character as they want, though each character will still have some unique abilities.

As for the OP's qualifications

1. Uses one and only one item for character building.

Kind of. Your Heroic Spirit gives you some bonuses to start, then you build your character with some allotted XP.

2. Costs of things are the same regardless of when purchased.

XP is the same at creation it is during play, though as your characters bond with their spirit strengthens(their myth score), they are able to purchase new more powerful supernatural powers.

3. Has streamlined rules.

Most checks are roll xd10 where x is Skill Rank + Attribute ranks, 7,8,9 is 1 success, 10 is two successes.

4. Allows for changing direction without completely rebuilding character.

You can improve any aspect of your character with XP. If a spellcaster wants to start dumping XP into Empowered Strength and Strength Powers, they can do so(and if a Strong character wants to start casting spells, or become super fast, they can do that too).

5. Functional diversity of options.

In addition to attributes and skills, you can learn Empowered(superhuman) level attributes, and powers for each attribute, you can learn Skill Perfection(skill rerolls) for each skill, and skill powers, and each character has three different Aspects which provide a suite of different unique powers unique to them(example aspects are fire, leadership, enchantment, arcana, life, shadow, luck, ect).

I find one of the most helpful thing is to play lots of RPGs, recognize what they do good and bad, and don't be afraid to use some of their ideas. There is no need to reinvent the wheel(and you can't copyright game mechanics), so, as long as there is something unique to your system, go ahead.

[Frozen_Feet]

I think you are missing the big picture. Games are about different things they result in their own behaviours and reinforce different themes. I think a game should be judged on how well it reflects that particular theme and how the game playing experience works together with that. Your list kind of implies that all RPGs are working toward the same goal.

What this guy said. I can't unconditionally agree with any of the 5 rules.

1? Sometimes (quite often, actually) it makes sense for different things to depend on different resources, and it could add a lot of strategic depth.

2? It's an important game balance factor in a lot of games I know that you can't throw your resources around willy-nilly and need to plan ahead.

3? Sometimes, "streamlining" takes the edge out of the whole game. You can make things simpler, but you can't always make them simple, period. If your game is simulation of running a nuclear submarine or a battlemech, all those convoluted details about running either can add to the experience.

4? It is the basic concept of several games I own that your character is sacrificing a lot to be or become something special - if they could turn around at any point, it would undermine the whole premise of the game!

5? "Functional" is a relative word. If you want to play a low-key, fairly realistic fantasy game, it stands to a reason you'd want to disencourage or penalize actions that are technically possible, but don't actually work in that sort of setting. (Examples: blind swordsmen, offensive dual-wielding, loads of awesome but impractical weaponry combinations.) A lot of times, inequal options make much more sense that flat-out disallowing them.

As an example, I'll discuss how a game called "Noitahovi" I recently bought fits these rules:

1: Attributes and Powers/Abilities are acquired in different manners. Natural and supernatural allies both have different requisites and means of gathering them. So there's at least four items to keep track of while you develop your character. This makes sense, and trying to tie them into a single, over-arching resource would break the setting's internal logic.

2: This one is followed pretty well. A character can swap his Attributes and Abilities around as they see fit.

3: This too is followed pretty well, with each Conflict being solved in the same manner.

4: At a glance, this is followed: a player is allowed to change their character's synopsis, goals, attributes and abilities around almost on a whim. However, when you look deeper into the game, you realize it's explicitly about what the characters need to sacrifice in order to get power and difficulties it will put on their way. Even despite the easiness of rearranging character mechanics, the further you get in the game, the more narrative repercussions and penalties it will cause you. Your followers might abandon you or try to usurp you, you might earn the ire of your supernatural allies, your enemies might try to exploit your sudden change... the game arbiter is explicitly encouraged to make "changing direction" an increasingly difficult ordeal.

5: In this game, the world is ruled by matriarchy, because women have more powerful sorcery than men. A man always has less supernatural might, and they also face social resistance if trying to assume leading position, unless they climb up the thigh of some high-ranking woman. Some backgrounds and peoples clearly have it worse and face an uphill battle, narratively if not mechanically.

Overall, there's great freedom in building a character, but playing one is a vastly different experience depending on who you start as.

[jindra34]

Going to address somethings that have been discussed. The first being that meeting all the criterion is not required for being a good game, just meeting a solid most.

Second the logic behind #1: If there are multiple point types used to build your character and they aren't able to be exchanged at a fixed rate then somethings will be possible to be built with differing types of points which will make experience with the system a prime factor in story influence. If they are able to be exchanged at fixed rates, I must ask why are you using multiple instead of simply using the one that always gets whole numbers?

Thirdly: #2 really is about a 'building block' principle of character design, namely it shouldn't be possible to alter the net story influence of a character by changing when they picked up certain things, and each item has a fixed 'item' of story impact and should have a fixed cost.

And finally: #3 isn't saying simple, its saying that the rules should go quickly at the table and not impede play or story.

[Totally Guy]

Can you rate some games as Good, Bad and Perfect using your criteria to show how it works?

[valadil]

It may teach the same skill but the reactions and motions are different. Meaning that while you may not be training as much to learn how to do things you'll be spending a significant chunk of time integrating the new reflexes without overriding the old ones. And physical capability is an independent factor to skill with arms.

To put this in D&D terms, here's how I'd justify that. 5 years of sword training isn't just buying you weapon focus: long sword. It's getting you some fighter levels as well. Those fighter levels will give you weapon proficiency. Depending on how far you're willing to stretch the levels, they'll give you strength and dex bumps. Maybe a combat expertise or dodge feat. The point is, those 5 years of training will give you abilities that transfer as soon as you switch weapons.

[jindra34]

Hm... I'll try.
To be honest I've yet to play a game that I would classify as perfect. The closest IMO is NWoD, which honestly would be perfect if they could get all the fluff of the sub-systems to mesh better.

DnD 3.5 I would classify as a bad game; primarily due to the fact that the system lacks honesty about how things compare.

GURPS (in all editions) is a bad game; simply it lacks fluff.

DnD 4 again I would classfiy as bad; not because of its not honest (it is very honest about how everything lines up) but because there is no major functional difference between options, and it uses multiple resource types for building characters and you pretty much are locked into a single path of abilities from the beginning.

Exalted 2e: Good game, has some fluff line up issues but they really don't impact the game, and the difference between points at initial creation and later development break either/both of 1 and 2.

Dresden Files RPG: Another close to perfect; primarily because it breaks rule 1 (Refresh and Skills are seperate systems that do end up touching).

Hackmaster by the current list is a good game; primary issue comes from lingering troubles of a class and level system with the feats and skill points being variable based on class but not having any real equality with other options.

[Tyndmyr]

For me, I tend to rephrase #2 in this more concrete way:

If I look at someone's character sheet (perhaps just their starting sheet), building that exact set of abilities should cost one fixed number of points. If I can end up with the same sheet (or a sheet that is strictly advantageous over the one I'm looking at) for fewer xp, thats a problem.

For example, this is an issue in 7th Sea. Two players could present the same sheet to you and one could say 'I bought these overlapping skill groups for the 3 free skill points' while the other could say 'I bought all these skills up to 3' and end up spending vastly different amounts.

I'm not actually against that. A certain element of system mastery isn't bad...the question is really one of degree.

That said, 7th Sea does have a problem with this being too high a degree. The biggest probably isn't the skill synergies, even. The biggest problem is that there's two sets of pools with different costs, so learning extra skills is very inexpensive initially compared to later.

[NichG]

I'm not actually against that. A certain element of system mastery isn't bad...the question is really one of degree.

That said, 7th Sea does have a problem with this being too high a degree. The biggest probably isn't the skill synergies, even. The biggest problem is that there's two sets of pools with different costs, so learning extra skills is very inexpensive initially compared to later.

My problem with it in 7th Sea (as opposed to say D&D) is that its not even a matter of some options being better than others, its purely a matter of knowing a bunch of strictly beneficial tricks. Its like a time tax on playing the game, which strikes me as having little advantage as far as system design. Better to put in things that actually create interesting choices than 'no-brainers' that you have to spot to take advantage of but are thereafter strict advantage.

D&D has a little bit of this too, for instance if you're building a Fighter-Rogue, reversing that order to Rogue-Fighter basically gets you a bunch of free skill points.

[Friv]

Hm... I'll try.
To be honest I've yet to play a game that I would classify as perfect. The closest IMO is NWoD, which honestly would be perfect if they could get all the fluff of the sub-systems to mesh better.

Speaking as a huge fan of NWoD, it doesn't do most of the things that you like systems to do, so you're probably going to have to go back and start working on this theory some more.

The huge disconnect between linear character creation and geometric experience progression makes it wildly useful to specialize at creation, the costs of things changes all the damned time, it's basically impossible to change direction as a supernatural since retraining isn't remotely a thing, and while the rules are fairly streamlined, every group has massive subsystems that don't interact with each other very well. It only meets one of your five criteria well, and two more moderately, and two not at all.

[kyoryu]

This isn't a theory. It's a list of things one person likes.

A theory would look at different aspects of games, and how they promote or detract from various goals that a system might have. For instance, a theory might include a note that complicated character creation systems promote low lethality games due to the costs of creating a character.

In this way, we could use such a theory to analyze whether or not a game meets its own goals and is or is not internally consistent, as well as figure out what types of gameplay a particular system promotes, and use that to help people decide what types of games they want - and many people will want games that are very different than the OP.

I mean, you call GURPS, D&D (3x and 4) all bad games, despite the fact that they are some of the most successful RPGs ever made. You may not like them, but that is a matter of whether or not they meet your needs. They clearly meet the needs of other people, so they aren't "bad".

[jindra34]

Speaking as a huge fan of NWoD, it doesn't do most of the things that you like systems to do, so you're probably going to have to go back and start working on this theory some more.

The huge disconnect between linear character creation and geometric experience progression makes it wildly useful to specialize at creation, the costs of things changes all the damned time, it's basically impossible to change direction as a supernatural since retraining isn't remotely a thing, and while the rules are fairly streamlined, every group has massive subsystems that don't interact with each other very well. It only meets one of your five criteria well, and two more moderately, and two not at all.
Going to start from the bottom. Namely that I'm assuming the group is playing one sub-system (though the conflict is the main reason why I classify it as non-perfect). And retraining is exactly what I was not meaning to with #4, I was saying that it is possible to branch out or add a new direction without having to do that. As for costs changing, the cost of a specific level of a specific trait does stay constant. The fact that the level of a trait gets more costly as you go on is fine.

As for why Dnd 3 and 4 are popular to a degree I would says thats due to carry over from older editions (which I haven't looked at and won't assess). And GURPS is a great system, I'll admit that, but a system is not a game.

[jindra34]

Speaking as a huge fan of NWoD, it doesn't do most of the things that you like systems to do, so you're probably going to have to go back and start working on this theory some more.

The huge disconnect between linear character creation and geometric experience progression makes it wildly useful to specialize at creation, the costs of things changes all the damned time, it's basically impossible to change direction as a supernatural since retraining isn't remotely a thing, and while the rules are fairly streamlined, every group has massive subsystems that don't interact with each other very well. It only meets one of your five criteria well, and two more moderately, and two not at all.
Going to start from the bottom. Namely that I'm assuming the group is playing one sub-system (though the conflict is the main reason why I classify it as non-perfect). And retraining is exactly what I was not meaning to with #4, I was saying that it is possible to branch out or add a new direction without having to do that. As for costs changing, the cost of a specific level of a specific trait does stay constant. The fact that the level of a trait gets more costly as you go on is fine.

As for why Dnd 3 and 4 are popular to a degree I would says thats due to carry over from older editions (which I haven't looked at and won't assess). And GURPS is a great system, I'll admit that, but a system is not a game.

[Friv]

Going to start from the bottom. Namely that I'm assuming the group is playing one sub-system (though the conflict is the main reason why I classify it as non-perfect). And retraining is exactly what I was not meaning to with #4, I was saying that it is possible to branch out or add a new direction without having to do that.

Ah, my mistake. I was thinking of it in a larger sense than that. Comment withdrawn.


As for costs changing, the cost of a specific level of a specific trait does stay constant. The fact that the level of a trait gets more costly as you go on is fine.

Most of the subsystems make this not true for certain traits, though. As one example, if you choose to join the Carthian movement in Vampire, you reduce the cost of your Allies. If you already had Allies, you don't get the cost reduction retroactively. If you're a changeling and you get the right dream, you reduce the XP cost to buy something; the cost is different based on something that happens in the game. In Changeling, you can change your Affinities by changing Courts, which has an XP cost/benefit that can be calculated out if you're feeling more munchkiny than not.

And, of course, in character creation starting with Strength 2 / Dexterity 2 / Stamina 2 costs the same as starting with Strength 4 / Dexterity 1 / Stamina 1, but getting up to 4/2/2 costs 35 XP in the first case and only 20 in the second. That was what I meant about the differing character creation currencies changing the costs of traits.

[Tyndmyr]

My problem with it in 7th Sea (as opposed to say D&D) is that its not even a matter of some options being better than others, its purely a matter of knowing a bunch of strictly beneficial tricks. Its like a time tax on playing the game, which strikes me as having little advantage as far as system design. Better to put in things that actually create interesting choices than 'no-brainers' that you have to spot to take advantage of but are thereafter strict advantage.

D&D has a little bit of this too, for instance if you're building a Fighter-Rogue, reversing that order to Rogue-Fighter basically gets you a bunch of free skill points.

Yeah, and the D&D level(at least in this particular instance) seems about fine. Knowing the game well lets you get some nifty minor bonuses in niche areas...but it's nothing that's that immense of a deal.

On the other hand, in seventh sea, the difference can grow uncomfortably large if someone has sufficient system mastery...and a massive difference along with being strictly better is concerning. Add in all the regular ol' system mastery tricks, and balance is...not really a thing.

[Kitten Champion]

A well designed roleplaying game is very much like a well designed novel. That, in many ways, depends on genre in which it was written.


You need an incentive to play, to come back to the setting, plot, and characters each week. Some people want to feel like they're living through the lives of larger-than-life heroes or villains, others want to test their brains with a mystery. Some enthusiastically embrace the chills from a horrifying series of events as played through the eyes of their imagination, or go through highs and lows of a romantic or political melodrama. The hook is the most important thing for an RPG, it comes before the mechanics and fluff -- what are you hoping players will get out of the world you've just drawn a chalk outline around. What's your audience, and how is it distinct from others trying the same? A good RPG knows the answer to this, and can describe it in a sentence or two. If you need a paragraph, I'll tell you now. you've already lost me. Diversity is important in general, but classes/skills/levels aren't necessary, merely the opportunity to choose different paths and experience a variety of things. No one wants to read a book where the hero spends 300 pages just sword fighting endlessly, you need context and depth to make anything interesting.

Naturally, you can roleplay without rulebooks, pretty easily actually -- I can imagine myself doing most anything I want so long as I'm keen on trying. The important point -- why we bother with pen and paper when we've already got such a flexible means of entertaining ourselves? This is the second factor -- consequences. Every dramatic work has, at its core, the potential for failure. These are where rules come in. They give the narrative risk, a chance that something the protagonists wants will be denied to them and usually becomes the centrepiece of any viable work of fiction. Your imagination is poorly optimized to imagine failure, at least in a way that's exciting to a story, and not neurotically depressing. The level of rules is dependent on what your game is all about, what you want to achieve here. If your game is highly social in aspect -- perhaps a mystery game -- the rules for persuading, questioning, perceiving lies/emotions/intentions, gathering evidence, are going to vastly outstrip your fighting mechanics which are not nearly so central to the genre you've established. You put emphasis on both those aspects of the story which have some natural risk of failure and on those actions most likely to be described in your stories. In a science fiction space opera, you'd expect some details on the nature of the running of a space ship, the skills required and the methods employed. These might translate for a more satisfying experience into extremely complex and drawn out rules. The feeling of flying an actual space ship might warrant it. Walking short distances, eating, or taking a brief nap -- probably won't. You can bloat a work of fiction if you describe every conceivable action, and it just seems stupid to claim every situation has a chance of failure. It does technically, you could slip and fall while crossing a room, or choke on your dinner, but as narrative convention its silly. So keep the details specific to the events which are of consequence. These are notably different in a political thriller than in a baroque romance. Once you've chosen what your story-hook is, what world you've be participating in, know it inside and out -- the tropes employed, the criteria for an exciting time, why people are attracted to it -- use that knowledge towards deciding the focal point for conflict. This is essentially what you're doing with your rule system.

You've got your world, and now you've decided how conflict appears in it, the last step is ensuring continuity. Can your characters sprout wings and fly around the world in a heartbeat? Then why are they lawyers? Characters, there abilities, the logic of the world has to make some degree of sense. You've got rules, but without a context to why they exists they can seem (and technically are) arbitrary. If your character can travel backwards through time, or summon the heat of the sun into her pinkie toe, it's going to create issues. These need some level of explanation because we can't intuitively know how they work simply by determining their success or failure. This is where you explain your magic system, and not simply have "wizard casts spell that does whatever I want" or something similar. These aren't necessarily rules for determining the success of actions, but what actions are available to you and why or why not. If you play as a member of XXX race you get a +2 benefit of somesuch, just because? If the rules are the limitations at the ends of the world, continuity is the structural underpinning which keeps it from folding into itself in a ridiculous fashion. Stories need it, cry out for it, desperately.

With an interesting premise, an element of risk, and a "real" world to step into, you've got room to tell whatever story you want.

[TheOOB]

Yeah, I think in the long run, the only hallmark of a well designed game is a game designer who cares a lot about the game design and actually thinks about the impact on the decision they make(or at least they are lucky and make good ones unintentionally).

[Knaight]

Yeah, I think in the long run, the only hallmark of a well designed game is a game designer who cares a lot about the game design and actually thinks about the impact on the decision they make(or at least they are lucky and make good ones unintentionally).

Though I would note that there are plenty of designers who fit that description but are still terrible.

[Inglenook]

GURPS (in all editions) is a bad game; simply it lacks fluff.
That's kind of the point …? :smallconfused:

[Frozen_Feet]

Second the logic behind #1: If there are multiple point types used to build your character and they aren't able to be exchanged at a fixed rate then somethings will be possible to be built with differing types of points which will make experience with the system a prime factor in story influence. If they are able to be exchanged at fixed rates, I must ask why are you using multiple instead of simply using the one that always gets whole numbers?

System mastery influencing outcome of a game is not inherently undesireable; we're talking about games after all.

Let's take Lamentations of the Flame Princess, and indie RPG and retroclone of D&D: this game specifically states that players should use their own wits and skill, and not just rely on what's on the character sheet, to solve puzzles. If the players are stuck, the Arbiter is told to tell them "I agree - so whatcha gonna do about it?" There is no ready-made story dictated from above - what the players do with their characters is the story. Seeing whether they succeed or fail is part of the excitement.

Besides, let's face: some people are smarter, more charismatic, more logical, more imaginative or better narrators - even before taking game mechanics into account, there exist a wild array of inequalities between players that affect how much screentime each one gets.

Now, about fixed exchange rates: depending on what the rates are, it might influence the benefits of exchanging. This can mean the order of exchanges is important, and can be used to add strategic or tactical depth. More on this below.


Thirdly: #2 really is about a 'building block' principle of character design, namely it shouldn't be possible to alter the net story influence of a character by changing when they picked up certain things, and each item has a fixed 'item' of story impact and should have a fixed cost.

But frankly, it makes sense that some options would have different impacts and costs if you pick them in different order. Suppose you're a cop becoming murderer; you know the system and are in a position to hide your trails much better, than if you're a murderer becoming a cop. The latter is definitely more of an uphill battle.

An example from Noitahovi, starting characters can freely choose from all Lesser Sorceries. However, once they have chosen a Path of Greater Sorcery, they can only learn Sorceries from that Path. Choosing a Lesser Sorcery from other Path then means abandoning Greater Sorceries or switching all your Sorceries to a new Path, both of which have far-reaching narrative repercussions, from causing Conflict between your followers to supernatual allies cursing you.

Really, let's talk about Chess (Go or Checkers would do just as well) for a moment. The whole game is basically about choosing your options in the correct, or best, order. Depending on the position of pieces on the board, different pieces will have drastically different strategic value.

Including this in character creation can be good for a whole game, actually, since it can create tensions and potentials that drive the game forward.


And finally: #3 isn't saying simple, its saying that the rules should go quickly at the table and not impede play or story.
They are actually the same thing, as more complex rules will take more time to process, and vice versa.

---

Really, I can summarize most of this as one game design principle: inequal options and complexity are added to create room for strategy and tactics.

In a well-designed game, what inequality and complexity are there support play and drive the narrative into directions intended by the game desinger.

In a badly designed game, some inequalities might be unintended, leading to strategies that take the narrative into direction inimical to designer intent, or the complexity does not serve to produce working strategies.

By this standard, Noitahovi is a well-designed game - all rules are strongly tied to the narrative and obviously support the setting and kind of game the desginers wanted for the players to play.

D&D 3.5 in turn is a badly-designed game - the optimal strategies for play are often a far cry from how the designers thought the game would be played, and there are loads and loads of rules that are obsoleted by other rules, making all that complexity redundant. To name a few examples: three variations of sneak attack doing the same thing, starvation rules, more than half of the skills, three or more variables that all have the purpose of telling how hard it is to hit a character...

Pareto Principle, AKA 80 - 20 law comes to mind. The law states that 80% of effects stem from 20% of causes - if this is the case for your game, with 20% of rules being used for 80% of situations, it raises the question what those 80% of rules are for.

Of course, you can defend games like D&D by stating they are less games, and more systems for making games (which is true). You don't have a real game until you've picked which parts of the system are being used for your game, and you can make some very tight games with D&D by carefully picking rules that support each other. (The same goes for GURPS and other general systems.)

[Craft (Cheese)]

Though I would note that there are plenty of designers who fit that description but are still terrible.

I'd say it's necessary, but insufficient. You don't have good musicians who hate music, good mathematicians who hate numbers, and you don't get good game designers who aren't passionate about game design.

[Knaight]

They are actually the same thing, as more complex rules will take more time to process, and vice versa.
Not necessarily. There's a difference between complex and complicated, where games can be complex with numerous important choices due to the emergence of complexity within a simple rules set; games can also be made extremely complicated but without much complexity or much in the way of choice. Streamlined isn't about being simple, it's about being efficient. To use a hyperbolic example - you could design a system where you roll a d20, consult a table where each number corresponds to a number between 21 and 40, then consult another table where each number corresponds to 1-20 with which you reference the same table. This introduces two seemingly random tables, with the output being the exact same 1-20 you could get by just rolling a 1d20. It's undeniably more complicated, but it isn't more complex, and streamlining would make it less complicated while retaining all complexity as the problems in it are due to inefficiency. This particular example is, of course, hyperbolic, but there are certainly cases where similar problems arise at a smaller level.

[TheOOB]

When describing game systems, I like to use the term complexity and depth. Complexity is how many rules there are, and how difficult they are to learn, understand, and utilize. Depth is your ability to make important, informed, meaningful choices that affect the outcome of something in the game.

Many people think a complex game has more depth than a simple game, when that's not always true, in fact simpler games often have more depth, though there are exceptions to that as well. In really complex games, it often comes down to who understands the rules best and is the best at math. In deep games is usually comes down to tactics, and picking the right ability/action for the situation.

Needless complexity should be avoided, but some games don't lend themselves to super simple design either. Just make sure if you're making a new rule, that it needs to be there, but if it needs to be there, by all means make it.

[jindra34]

System mastery influencing outcome of a game is not inherently undesireable; we're talking about games after all.
Yes we are, but in contrast to many games, RPGs are innately co-operative as opposed to competitive, and having player familiarity with the system influence their ability to influence the story will create tension and undermine that sense of working together.


Besides, let's face: some people are smarter, more charismatic, more logical, more imaginative or better narrators - even before taking game mechanics into account, there exist a wild array of inequalities between players that affect how much screentime each one gets.

True but the system shouldn't add more issues to the mix. It should seek to lighten the work and effort of the players not further burden them.


Now, about fixed exchange rates: depending on what the rates are, it might influence the benefits of exchanging. This can mean the order of exchanges is important, and can be used to add strategic or tactical depth. More on this below.
Fixed rates can't existing means that every trade path between two items gets the same results. So multiple paths leading to different net rates is not fixed rates.



But frankly, it makes sense that some options would have different impacts and costs if you pick them in different order. Suppose you're a cop becoming murderer; you know the system and are in a position to hide your trails much better, than if you're a murderer becoming a cop. The latter is definitely more of an uphill battle. The issue here is your 1. overlooking the fact that the murder has some idea of how the criminal operates that will given him an edge, and 2. That the two might not have had the same value of abilities to start.


An example from Noitahovi, starting characters can freely choose from all Lesser Sorceries. However, once they have chosen a Path of Greater Sorcery, they can only learn Sorceries from that Path. Choosing a Lesser Sorcery from other Path then means abandoning Greater Sorceries or switching all your Sorceries to a new Path, both of which have far-reaching narrative repercussions, from causing Conflict between your followers to supernatual allies cursing you.

Preventing options is very different from changing how they cost.


Really, let's talk about Chess (Go or Checkers would do just as well) for a moment. The whole game is basically about choosing your options in the correct, or best, order. Depending on the position of pieces on the board, different pieces will have drastically different strategic value.

Including this in character creation can be good for a whole game, actually, since it can create tensions and potentials that drive the game forward.
I honestly feel this analogy fails do to comparing to the types of games involved (competitive with a defined win condition versus a relatively open environment where players all work together.)


Really, I can summarize most of this as one game design principle: inequal options and complexity are added to create room for strategy and tactics.
As long as they are fully intended and all players recognize them at the start then yes, but having them come about by accident or without a chance for the whole group to know about it is just asking for trouble.


In a well-designed game, what inequality and complexity are there support play and drive the narrative into directions intended by the game desinger.

In a badly designed game, some inequalities might be unintended, leading to strategies that take the narrative into direction inimical to designer intent, or the complexity does not serve to produce working strategies.

Designers can't anticipate everything a player will want to do, and once the designer (someone who is not playing with you, does not know you, and doesn't know how you play) starts to be considered an influence on the narrative of the game I would say the game is already starting to fail.

A good game should be open to not only play styles and builds, but also to stories that groups might tell in it. A good game should help provide the framework of both the story, world but shouldn't define them. The rules should resolve conflicts without obstructing either play or the narrative. And a good game should foster the sense of co-operation between the entire group.

[Jack of Spades]

Designers can't anticipate everything a player will want to do, and once the designer (someone who is not playing with you, does not know you, and doesn't know how you play) starts to be considered an influence on the narrative of the game I would say the game is already starting to fail.

A good game should be open to not only play styles and builds, but also to stories that groups might tell in it. A good game should help provide the framework of both the story, world but shouldn't define them. The rules should resolve conflicts without obstructing either play or the narrative. And a good game should foster the sense of co-operation between the ente group.
So, a game system should never come with a setting or narrative built in? Deadlands, Deathwatch/Rogue Trader/Dark Heresy, both WoD's, Star Wars, Serenity, any of the DnD setting books, and many other games are simply bad design because they're made to operate within specific, extremely fleshed out settings? Fiasco, InSpectres, Deathwatch, and many others I can't think of at the moment are weaker for the fact that they are built, honed, and polished toward a specific narrative arc? GURPS is just about the only RPG that doesn't exist in a state of near-failure?

I'm sorry, that doesn't follow at all. Some of the best games are the ones that have the setting and the story they're meant to tell woven into the mechanics. It makes the rules tighter and simpler while still allowing for a good amount of depth. From the poker deck in Deadlands to the corporate resources of InSpectres to the crazy setup and "Tilt" of Fiasco, there is a huge precedent to demonstrate that games are a lot better when they revel in the fact that they are built to tell a specific story or operate in a specific setting.

Making an RPG that "does everything" a la GURPS will only result in an RPG that people turn to as a last resort. It's not good design theory, it's simply lazy. Good design builds toward a known type of experience, or at the very least acts consciously toward emphasizing a specific source of engagement. Lazy design simply creates a set of rules for things to happen within and doesn't bother thinking about how and why people which approach the game. Lazy design leads to bloat, and bloat leads toward a game that people will avoid whenever they can.

[jindra34]

Jack your kinda right in that it doesn't follow, and that is mainly because it bloody well isn't what I'm trying to say. A setting and narrative threads are not just fine but good, they lighten the load on everyone. But stepping over and having the system says things like this is how your going to play, this is what your going to do and such is not.

[erikun]

I can't say that I agree with your points as a way of detailing a "good" game. There are plenty of games which are quite good which fail a number of your tests; and I'm sure there are games which are not that great which meet several of them. The real test of a game is how well it can be played and how well it allows the playstyle it intends.

As for your individual points, though:

1. Uses one and only one item for character building.

A system can have more than one character-building resource and still work out fine. Consider how D&D is supposed to work: Characters have levels, have combat skills, and have non-combat skills. The level is supposed to show the level of competence a character has. As such, every character of a given level is supposed to be as competent as other characters of the same level. (Well, that's the rough intent.) That's why all characters are handed the same amount of combat abilities each level, and given a seperate pool of non-combat talent to improve the character. If the characters were just given a pool of "improvement points" and told to spend how they wished, a character could simply focus entirely on combat and become very imbalanced.

A single character-improvement resource does promote minmaxing. This isn't as much of a problem in a game with different sets of actions, because there are times when the uber-character can use their minmaxed skill. It is a much bigger problem in a game focused primarily on one situation, such as D&D and combat.

2. Costs of things are the same regardless of when purchased.

I'm... not too sure about that.

The biggest question is, what do you mean as "the same"? A "high-level" character no doubt has more experience and gets a greater number of skills than a "low-level" character, but what is an equal exchange between the two? You could say that learning to use a rapier should carry the same "experience" worth for both characters, but what does that mean? 10XP for killing five orc warriors is a game contruct, and generally doesn't mean anything to an actual character. It might be quite a feat for a low-level character, but a high-level character would do so without blinking.

Would that still be considered the same cost?

It's easy to say that something like rapier-training should have the same XP cost regardless of character level, but that doesn't always mean the same thing for all systems.

3. Has streamlined rules.

This is a nice idea, but hardly necessary. I'd much rather have functional but non-streamlined rules than streamlined but non-functional ones. Streamlining is mostly an aesthetic, and a way of easily handling borderline cases: Should climbing on a monster's back be a strength check, a climb check, or a grapple check?

On the other hand, forcing something like magic to behave like a skill or melee attack roll will hamstring it into a very specific style and feel.

4. Allows for changing direction without completely rebuilding character.

This one I'd agree with the most, although again it depends on the system. I can easily see systems where one type of magic prevents access to another; enforcing this rule would change that aspect of the setting.

5. Functional diversity of options.

Always a good idea, but frequently easier to say than do.

[jindra34]

1. Uses one and only one item for character building.

A system can have more than one character-building resource and still work out fine. Consider how D&D is supposed to work: Characters have levels, have combat skills, and have non-combat skills. The level is supposed to show the level of competence a character has. As such, every character of a given level is supposed to be as competent as other characters of the same level. (Well, that's the rough intent.) That's why all characters are handed the same amount of combat abilities each level, and given a seperate pool of non-combat talent to improve the character. If the characters were just given a pool of "improvement points" and told to spend how they wished, a character could simply focus entirely on combat and become very imbalanced.

A single character-improvement resource does promote minmaxing. This isn't as much of a problem in a game with different sets of actions, because there are times when the uber-character can use their minmaxed skill. It is a much bigger problem in a game focused primarily on one situation, such as D&D and combat.1. A single pool doesn't promote min-maxing, variable value for any resource is what promotes it. 2. What exactly is it that makes combat skill and non-combat skills different from a narative perspective? 3. Who says the a majority of the game will center around combat (or any other area).


2. Costs of things are the same regardless of when purchased.

I'm... not too sure about that.

The biggest question is, what do you mean as "the same"? A "high-level" character no doubt has more experience and gets a greater number of skills than a "low-level" character, but what is an equal exchange between the two? You could say that learning to use a rapier should carry the same "experience" worth for both characters, but what does that mean? 10XP for killing five orc warriors is a game contruct, and generally doesn't mean anything to an actual character. It might be quite a feat for a low-level character, but a high-level character would do so without blinking.

Would that still be considered the same cost?

It's easy to say that something like rapier-training should have the same XP cost regardless of character level, but that doesn't always mean the same thing for all systems.This is something I've been explaining. Read back in the thread, and also consider that this kind of issue comes from having multiple resources (Level, experience, skill points and feats) and is mostly unique to moderately binding class and level systems (more open ones treat levels as points to build from, and more closed ones actually treat the levels themselves as the building blocks.)


3. Has streamlined rules.

This is a nice idea, but hardly necessary. I'd much rather have functional but non-streamlined rules than streamlined but non-functional ones. Streamlining is mostly an aesthetic, and a way of easily handling borderline cases: Should climbing on a monster's back be a strength check, a climb check, or a grapple check?

On the other hand, forcing something like magic to behave like a skill or melee attack roll will hamstring it into a very specific style and feel.
Streamlining as I have explained repeatedly is not meaning to having everything work the same (that would break point 5) but having everything play quickly.

Overall your arguement seems to be coming from a base solely of 3.X DnD, maybe look around at other systems and read through the thread and think about what the point is.



Also I'm suprised no one has yet disputed my two absolute requirements for a good game; Namely for the system to be honest about how things measure up, and for the game to have fluff that doesn't cause major conflicts with the setting.

[Anxe]

I interpreted #1 as meaning only one book required to build a character. Is that wrong?

[jindra34]

I interpreted #1 as meaning only one book required to build a character. Is that wrong?

Yes it is. While it would be nice to be able to build characters off of just one book, it stifle much of the potential growth of the system.

[erikun]

1. A single pool doesn't promote min-maxing, variable value for any resource is what promotes it. 2. What exactly is it that makes combat skill and non-combat skills different from a narative perspective? 3. Who says the a majority of the game will center around combat (or any other area).
To respond to your points:

Variable value doesn't promote or discourage minmaxing; just because it is incredibly easy to gain skill ranks in basketweaving does not mean that everyone will play maximized basketweavers. Rather, my point was that a single pool allows a player to put all the character's points into a single skill. This may not be a good idea - and in some game styles, it certainly isn't - but it is only possible with working with a single pool that can be spent as the player chooses.

Not all games are going to focus on how metagame rules relate to a narrative perspective. In fact, I'd say most games do not. The point of my response, though, is that a game system can still be useful and functional without needing a single pool of character attribute points.

Nobody says the majority of games will focus on combat, or anything else. But it is certain that some games will, and if you are making a "Theory of Good Game Design" then it will have to consider those systems as well.


This is something I've been explaining. Read back in the thread, and also consider that this kind of issue comes from having multiple resources (Level, experience, skill points and feats) and is mostly unique to moderately binding class and level systems (more open ones treat levels as points to build from, and more closed ones actually treat the levels themselves as the building blocks.)
This has no relation to classes or levels, though. A GURPS or WoD character with many points in a skill will breeze through challanges that a new or unskilled character would have great difficulty with.

How much of a reward should such a character receive for overcoming such challenges? How much should that reward progress such a character? Should the character receive such a reward based on how much of a challenge it was for them, or based on some arbitrary "challenge rating" equal for all characters?

Because the first would mean superheroic characters engaging in world-changing events just to learn how to wield a rapier, while the second woudl mean that highly powerful characters should learn such skills trivially.


Streamlining as I have explained repeatedly is not meaning to having everything work the same (that would break point 5) but having everything play quickly.
Aha, I see. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I'm still not sure I would agree, though. D&D3 skill resolution is most certainly more streamlined, by your definition, than any other system I've seen. However, it is also one of the worst.


Overall your arguement seems to be coming from a base solely of 3.X DnD, maybe look around at other systems and read through the thread and think about what the point is.
Not really, no. While a theoretically good-D&D system would be a counter to a lot of your points, the problem still remains that there are perfectly good and functional systems that violate several of your points.

[Edit] And an argument coming from a D&D3 base does not validate it or invalidate it anymore than one coming from a more varied base.

Actually, the problem is that you are trying to make a theory on good RPG design, but you don't have much relating to the actual roleplaying in a system. All of your rules seem to be about the appearance or presentation of the rules. What about enacting rules that promote the gamestyle you wish? What about preventing rules that restrict or encourage behavior counter to the playstyle you are encouraging? Something like WoD's Humanity, Exalted's Stunt system, or Mouse Guard's Nature are far more important to how good the games are than much of what you've listed in this thread.

And of course, by calling it "Good Roleplaying Game Design Theory" you are implying universal rules that apply to all games. Any game that is good without following your rules - or even that is improved by not doing so - puts a sizable dent in your theory.


Also I'm suprised no one has yet disputed my two absolute requirements for a good game; Namely for the system to be honest about how things measure up, and for the game to have fluff that doesn't cause major conflicts with the setting.
I'm not sure that something like Paranoia is that honest, but it is part of how the game plays.

That said, I'm not surprised nobody has disputed it. You're basically saying the system shouldn't contradict itself in two slightly different ways. I think most people would agree with this.

[jindra34]

This has no relation to classes or levels, though. A GURPS or WoD character with many points in a skill will breeze through challanges that a new or unskilled character would have great difficulty with.

How much of a reward should such a character receive for overcoming such challenges? How much should that reward progress such a character? Should the character receive such a reward based on how much of a challenge it was for them, or based on some arbitrary "challenge rating" equal for all characters?

Because the first would mean superheroic characters engaging in world-changing events just to learn how to wield a rapier, while the second woudl mean that highly powerful characters should learn such skills trivially.Does it? Most systems actually attach fixed values for things like experience and advise giving them out at relatively fixed rates (per session and pers arc/story/adventure with maybe a minor bonus for overcoming great challenges).



Not really, no. While a theoretically good-D&D system would be a counter to a lot of your points, the problem still remains that there are perfectly good and functional systems that violate several of your points.

[Edit] And an argument coming from a D&D3 base does not validate it or invalidate it anymore than one coming from a more varied base.A theoretically good D&D system would look very different from any since 3.x, which I haven't even done a check on it versus these rules because its not honest about how things compare to each other.


Actually, the problem is that you are trying to make a theory on good RPG design, but you don't have much relating to the actual roleplaying in a system. All of your rules seem to be about the appearance or presentation of the rules. What about enacting rules that promote the gamestyle you wish? What about preventing rules that restrict or encourage behavior counter to the playstyle you are encouraging? Something like WoD's Humanity, Exalted's Stunt system, or Mouse Guard's Nature are far more important to how good the games are than much of what you've listed in this thread.
Honestly I haven't touched much on roleplaying in relation to the system for one reason: How many systems actually tell you how to roleplay? People roleplay all sorts of ways and a good game should be able to accomidate that. And what playstyle exactly am I encouraging .

And of course, by calling it "Good Roleplaying Game Design Theory" you are implying universal rules that apply to all games. Any game that is good without following your rules - or even that is improved by not doing so - puts a sizable dent in your theory.
Read that last bit of the first post, I acnkowledge that a good game is one that fits most of the rules I posted and that I'm open to adding more to the list. In essence I myself believe the theory is not yet complete.

[erikun]

Does it? Most systems actually attach fixed values for things like experience and advise giving them out at relatively fixed rates (per session and pers arc/story/adventure with maybe a minor bonus for overcoming great challenges).
I wouldn't say most systems; I know at least two that grant "experience" for skills based on actions, for example. It also still runs into the problem of a great hero needing to save the world to learn how to use a sword, something any petty adventurer can pick up after a fight with some orcs.

There is also something else that rubs me wrong about the concept. If handing out experience per session (and similar systems) is seen as the "right" way to give experience, then different systems for experience would by definition be the "not right" way to do so. Even saying that system could still be a 'good game' despite that is just that - despite it being the "not right" way to handle experience.

But I'm not seeing anything necessarily wrong with the alternative.


Honestly I haven't touched much on roleplaying in relation to the system for one reason: How many systems actually tell you how to roleplay?
Not tell, necessarily, but encourage. Your own preferred WoD system does this with Humanity and similar values, putting mechanical penalities on a character for acting in certain ways. It also uses Virtue, Vice, and Willpower to grant bonuses for taking certain actions. Mouse Guard and Burning Wheel have Nature, Belief, Goal, and Instinct, all of which give the characters benefits and can influence player decisions.

--

If I were to make a list as you are, I think I'd focus on three major aspects in a RPG system. How comprehensive is a system, how much does it encourage roleplay, and how clear are the rules? That is, how much does the system cover what a player would want to do and allow for it? How much does it encourage players to act as their characters might? And how clearly do the rules convey all this to the players? (The GM does counts as a player, too.)

A very simple system may encourage roleplay and have very clear rules, but have a very small number of options available for players - I see this a lot in good, smaller RPGs. A system could have plenty of options and present them clearly, but do very little to engage or promote players to roleplay - most generic systems, like GURPS, behave like this. And a system could have tons of options and do plenty to set the mood for the game, but be so obtuse and confusing that it is difficult to determine how to play the game as intended.

[Frozen_Feet]

Yes we are, but in contrast to many games, RPGs are innately co-operative as opposed to competitive, and having player familiarity with the system influence their ability to influence the story will create tension and undermine that sense of working together.

Not so fast bucko! What is the core reason for rules existing in the first place? Conflict resolution. And this here is an important part, because it's where the game portion of RPGs exists. Because while the players might not be in conflict with each other, most RPGs introduce some element they are in conflict towards, whether internal and external. What makes it a game is that we want certain uncertainty in the outcome; on the other hand, we don't want it to be entirely unaffected by skill (either player's or character's).

The less we allow rules to affect the direction of a narrative, the less it is a game. Once we move to course of the story being dictated by player consensus or premade script, it ceases to be a game and instead becomes a play, either make-believe of children or that of the stage depending on which extreme the pendulum swings to.


Fixed rates means that every trade path between two items gets the same results. So multiple paths leading to different net rates is not fixed rates.

You're talking about fixed and equivalent rates. Rates don't need to be equivalent to be fixed, and fixed but non-equivalent rates don't need to end in same result regardless of order of transaction.


The issue here is your 1. overlooking the fact that the murder has some idea of how the criminal operates that will given him an edge, and 2. That the two might not have had the same value of abilities to start.

...

Preventing options is very different from changing how they cost.

I didn't flesh out the example as well as I could, but what you're overlooking is: Someone can be a known cop and still become a murderer as easily, but under many legal systems it's flat-out impossible to be a known murderer and still become a cop.

This is directly related to your later statement. Prevention of options is the cost! In Noitahovi, since some options directly reflect to your narrative role, losing one option can lead to loss of that role, leading to a second cost. Finally, shift in role has logical consequences, leading to other costs.

In roleplaying games, narrative goes hand in hand with mechanics, so focusing too much on mechanical costs without accounting for narrative costs leads to bad design. You don't seem to acknowledge this as well as I'd expect from a person who specifically calls for fluff and crunch to support each other. To quote Erikun, "the problem is that you are trying to make a theory on good RPG design, but you don't have much relating to the actual roleplaying in a system".


Designers can't anticipate everything a player will want to do, and once the designer (someone who is not playing with you, does not know you, and doesn't know how you play) starts to be considered an influence on the narrative of the game I would say the game is already starting to fail.

This is fallacious, plain and simple. A designer might not be able to tell what a player will want to do, but whether they know what they can do depends on design space of their game and how much they've thought on it.

And the designer of a game is very important for the game, because they made the rules, and it depends on their work whether those rules work for the game. This is related to your question: "How many systems actually tell you how to roleplay?"

My answer, stemming directly from my experience, is: most of them!

Seriously. Examples from RPGs I own:

"Ikuisuuden Laakso: roolipeli pingviineistä" has every player playing either a Hero Pinquin or Anti-Pinquin. It states things like "all Hero Pinquins are outcasts" and calls it mutually exclusive with raising a family and being part of the community.

"Noitahovi" requires each character to have at least one over-arching goal and a flaw that hinders them in attempt to reach it. It also requires for each character to have two "quests" for each session, one dictated by the player, one by the GM. The over-arching theme of the game is power, and what one must sacrifice in order to have it; the GM is specifically told to throw increasingly difficult moral dilemmas at the players as they advance, up to situations where loss is unavoidable.

In "Praedor", perhaps the most popular Finnish RPG, players are meant to bey Praedors - people who go to ancient ruins in search of treasure. The game constantly reminds players that this is borderline insane, and only characters with no-other way out would seriously consider this. It then goes to give examples of people and personalities who would.

In "Tähti", players are meant to assume roles of teenage mutant finnish girl pop idols, and play out the difficulties of being such. The game is maybe 90% fluff and has very little in the way of mechanics. Sure, you could take those few mechanics to play some other kind of characters, but it would miss the whole point.

In "Lamentations of the Flame Princess", it's explicit in description of all character classes that these people are special, in less severe but very similar manner that "Ikuisuuden laakso" tells that all heroes are outcasts. In addition, you only get experience from a very specific subset of things: killing things (minor way) and acquiring lost treasure (MAJOR way). If you want to advance in a class, you need to go where no man has gone before, and face dangers that would make lesser men flee. In other words, your character must have at least a tiny bit of the archetypical murderous sociopath adventurer in them, otherwise they have no place in the game!

CODA "Lord of the Rings Roleplaying game" is even stricter: it explicitly states characters are meant to be heroes, in the Tolkienian sense, and going contrary to that will make your character weaker. Playing a villainous character will net you Corruption, and eventually make your character into an NPC. It even tells that some flaws and character abilities might not be fit for PCs, because they would hinder or even preclude them from being a hero.

Note: few of these games explicitly deny using their rules for something else. This is because, like I said before, it often doesn't make much sense to flat-out disallow something - instead, they simply penalize things that PCs are not supposed to do. Regardless, most of these games would be poor fits for anything not part of their explicit design space. Tähti especially, since it's so tightly about one concept that if you radically deviate from it, you really don't have a game at all and need to make one yourself. This doesn't make it a bad RPG, but it is one with narrow design space.

But what is this mystical concept I keep using? I'll let Jeff Vogel explain, because he did it better than me. (http://jeff-vogel.blogspot.fi/2012/05/legend-of-grimrock-and-design-space.html)

Namely, Jindra, you're calling for a good RPG to have as broad design space as possible. The problem here is that having a vast design space is contrary to other benchmarks you place for a good RPG, or at least, makes them much harder to achieve.

For example, streamlined rules: like I previously discussed, the more things you are going to model, the more time it will take in play. You will eventually hit a line where you can't get any simpler if you want a good model, and after that, each thing you want to model that doesn't fall under that one good model will need new rules, which is going to slow the game down.

This links back to how I discussed about difference between a Roleplaying system and a Roleplaying game; something like GURPS or D&D has incredible design space, but as a result, they fail as games; you can't actually make good enough use of all the rules to justify using them all for a game. You can only get a good game out of D&D and GURPS if you cherry-pick rules to create a more specific scenario, that consequently has way narrower design space.

[ThiagoMartell]

I'd just like to point out that in 2nd and 3rd edition GURPS had more fluff than most other RPGs (dunno about 4th). The amount of research they did was amazing.

[Tyndmyr]

Yes we are, but in contrast to many games, RPGs are innately co-operative as opposed to competitive, and having player familiarity with the system influence their ability to influence the story will create tension and undermine that sense of working together.

Most RPGs. Not all.

Consider Paranoia.

[Totally Guy]

I'd go as far as to say that the games that are competitive rather than co-operative tend to have a whole lot less room for creative application of the rules as they've been written to a thorough enough level to cope with two parties who have less incentive to interpret them the same way.

[Knaight]

I'd just like to point out that in 2nd and 3rd edition GURPS had more fluff than most other RPGs (dunno about 4th). The amount of research they did was amazing.

4th still has very well researched high fluff books, particularly if you look to the historical stuff. That said, the core rulebooks are essentially fluffless in every edition, which some apparently dislike.