Best and Worst Game Mechanics

[Person_Man]

What are the absolute best game mechanics you've ever encountered in any roleplaying game? (But especially d20 games). I mean "best" in a totally subjective fashion, as in, it helped make the game more fun and/or enjoyable and/or easy to play for you and/or your friends. My initial thoughts:

Combat:

Tactical Map: Playing in the "theater of the mind" is great if you want quick combats. But if want movement and your position relative to multiple enemies to be an important factor (where am I standing, where are my enemies standing, how quickly can each of us move, what's the range of each of our attacks, what happens if one creature tries to move away from another, do I get bonuses for fighting on higher ground or flanking an enemy or attacking them from the rear, can I just fall back and make ranged attacks every round, etc) then you more or less need a physical map with miniatures or other playing pieces, and having one can add a lot of strategic depth to combat.

Save or Lose Abilities: Enemy uses an ability against a player. That player gets 1 roll (if they're lucky). If you fail that roll, then you're either dead or incapable of participating in the rest of combat, regardless of how many hit points you may have or what choices your character has made during combat.


Roleplaying:

Aspects and Fate Points: This comes to us from the Fate system (http://www.faterpg.com/), a free spin-off of d20. The full version is a bit more complex then described below. But the short version is that Aspects describe the core of your character's identity. They are meant to be both positive and negative, to help drive the plot and your interactions with others, both in and out of combat. If you can invoke an Aspect or guess a Aspect of an enemy or scene, then you can spend a Fate point to dramatically improve your chances of success. On the flip side, your GM can invoke your Aspects to make bad things happen, but you gain a Fate point if you accept it. For example, if you have the Aspect of Dumb Luck, you might say "Wouldn't it just be my Dumb Luck if while running away from these vampires, I accidentally stumbled into a gun store?" If the GM accepts it, you spend a Fate point and you're in a gun store, even if there wasn't one originally planned for that scene. On the flip side, while waiting for a hot first date, the GM could invoke it by saying "Vampires are about to try and kidnap you. You could roll for Alertness to see if you notice them. But wouldn't it just be your character's Dumb Luck if he just got jumped and hauled away, leaving your date thinking you stood her up." And then you gain a Fate point for accepting the negative consequence and move the story forward in an interesting way, or reject it and take your chances with the dice.

Diplomacy Skill: Boiling complex roleplaying interactions down to a single Skill roll that you can easily screw with using magic items, spells, class abilities, and a bunch of other stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with Roleplaying or story telling.


Exploration:

The Hidden Map: The dungeon (or other similar area) is a hidden map, which is only revealed through exploration. Players are free to move around the map however they choose, and these choices have consequences, allowing them to discover (or avoid) monsters, treasure, traps, puzzles, riddles, NPCs, or anything else the DM wants to put on it. Believe it or not, the idea of a hidden map was a huge deal back in the day, as virtually every other game began with the entire tabletop/map/board completely revealed to all players at the time the game started.

Unlimited Resources: Most RPGs have abilities of some kind that let you bypass Exploration (via divination, teleportation, or both) or Combat (via encounter winning spells or abilities) or both, such as anything that heals your character (if you can heal hit points and negative status effects at will, then it really doesn't matter how badly you're hurt by traps or combat, which can render your choices in Exploration and/or Combat meaningless, as long as you don't get killed). These add complexity to the game, usually in a good way. But if these abilities are functionally unlimited (ie, you can just cast Rope Trick or use a Secure Shelter or Teleport away from danger and rest) then Exploration is pretty much meaningless, except as a framing device for Roleplaying and Combat.


So, what do you think?

[eggynack]

I have a few least favorite game mechanics. The first is traps. They're incredibly linear, boring to solve, and tend to act as nothing but a rogue tax on the party. There're ways to make traps interesting, usually by using them in conjunction with something else, but the one and done way it's often implemented is bad.

The second is aligned spells. I could go on for awhile, listing spells that have either little justification for being evil, or none at all. However, I think that the mechanic itself is the problem. Applying morality to a method, regardless of the way that method is employed, makes no sense to me. This claim also holds true for poison.

The third is standard melee combat. It's better than traps, but it's still a bit too linear for my tastes. In my opinion, this game's encounters are at their best when they're driven by tactics and decision making. There really aren't many things in direct melee combat that hold my interest along those lines. It often feels like you can just run melee combat with basic pre-programmed tactics, and that's a bad thing.

[3WhiteFox3]

My least favorite mechanic is anything based on a 'gotcha' mentality. Basically anything specifically designed to screw someone over who hasn't prepared for that eventuality. Unfortunately, D&D is full of these; Rust Monsters, Darkness Spells, Mimics (though I hate these less than the others), traps, anything that's more about proving the DM's cleverness than actually having a good time.

My favorite mechanic is probably robust and versatile character creation mechanics. Anything that allows me to make various characters based around the same system is pretty cool. One of the things I really dislike about older editions of D&D is the fact that you're locked into one class or one kit and unless you cast spells, there is no difference besides your stats compared to someone else of the same class and kit combination.

[Fax Celestis]

I love action points. They give the player a modicum of control over the dice, so if you really need to land that attack, you can burn an action point and make it happen.

I hate multiclass XP penalties with a burning, fiery passion of a thousand flaming suns on fire.1 I also have a seething hatred for the non-rule that feats can't do supernatural things unless they're for spellcasters.


I have a few least favorite game mechanics. The first is traps. They're incredibly linear, boring to solve, and tend to act as nothing but a rogue tax on the party. There're ways to make traps interesting, usually by using them in conjunction with something else, but the one and done way it's often implemented is bad.

What about encounter traps as outlined in Dungeonscape?


1 The flames are also on fire.

[3WhiteFox3]

I love action points. They give the player a modicum of control over the dice, so if you really need to land that attack, you can burn an action point and make it happen.

I hate multiclass XP penalties with a burning, fiery passion of a thousand flaming suns on fire.1 I also have a seething hatred for the non-rule that feats can't do supernatural things unless they're for spellcasters.



What about encounter traps as outlined in Dungeonscape?


1 The flames are also on fire.

I'll also say that I love both action points and fate points. Both are essentially in-game currencies that really enhance play and allow characters to do awesome things.

[eggynack]

What about encounter traps as outlined in Dungeonscape?

I tend to think those are one of the better mechanics in the game, because it makes traps an interactive and tactical encounter that doesn't only involve one character. Encounter traps tend to be my main suggestion when people bring up traps, actually, cause they're neat. My issue really only lies in the basic "search/disable/succeed or fail" trap mechanic.

[Allanimal]

Character generation in the Traveller RPG I think qualifies for both.
It is a lot of fun, almost a game in itself, which is a great thing. But the fact that your char can be killed during character creation isn't so much.

The Mongoose version of Traveller got rid of the death during chargen, but you could still end up severely maimed or owing a lot for medical expenses.

What I don't like, and usually house rule away when I GM, is the random qualification for your career choices. You really want to be a Space Marine? Ooh, sorry you rolled poorly now all you can be is a space hobo.

The crazy imbalance you get with random die roll PC creation in D&D? It is much bigger in Traveller. But it is a lot of fun. I have never had a group that didn't have fun with the process. The results werent always likable...

So yeah. Good and bad elements in the same RPG game mechanic.

[Stegyre]

Combat:

Tactical Map
Back in the "really-old days" (early '80s), this was why I abandoned OD&D/AD&D for metagaming's TFT. +1

Save or Lose Abilities
Just, yeah. My general philosophy is spells, conditions, etc., should just have the effect of making certain actions harder, even much harder, but the idea of the one-die-roll battle is immensely unsatisfying.

Roleplaying:

Aspects and Fate Points
Not sure who came up with this first, but it sounds very similar to M&M's complications, which are (imho) a much better approach than, say GURPS disadvantages, for the reasons explained my M&M:

Some roleplaying game systems include complications, disadvantages, or similar problematic character traits which offer “bonus points” for creating the character; essentially, you get more points for your character’s good traits when you take on some bad ones.
The problem with such “up-front” rewards for giving a character flaws is that the player gets all of the reward (the bonus design points) immediately, but the disadvantage only occasionally limits or affects the character, sometimes even randomly. Since there is only so much “screen time” in a game session, there is virtually no way for the GM to spotlight every one of every character’s disadvantages, so some end up being worth “more” in the sense of reward in exchange for drawbacks. Plus, after they have “paid out” their initial benefit, front-loaded negative traits are nothing but a burden to the character from that point forward, leading players to try and avoid or mitigate them as much as possible.
Complications address this issue by having a “pay-as-you-go” approach: if the GM uses a complication in the game, and the player responds by going along with it, the player gets a reward in the form of a victory point. This means that although the hero has to deal with some “bad stuff” from time to time, there is an upside, and a reason for players to want their characters’ complications to come into play!

Diplomacy Skill: Boiling complex roleplaying interactions down to a single Skill roll that you can easily screw with using magic items, spells, class abilities, and a bunch of other stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with Roleplaying or story telling.
Legend's bidding system seemed like an interesting alternative to this. I'm just not sure I follow how it works in practice. Anyone have some feedback?

Generally, I think the challenge with social interactions is the disconnect between player and character. No one bats an eye that an utterly inept player can RP Conan or the Grey Mouser in combat, but we have all sorts of issues with smart player / dumb character, awkward player / charismatic character, etc., in social situations. I don't know that there is a good solution here other than "more die rolls": making the resolution of a social encounter depend upon multiple opposed rolls rather than a single one. Mathematically, I think the end result could still be reduced to a single die roll, so we aren't really changing things.

Exploration:

The Hidden Map
Well, yeah, but that was kind of the whole point from the get-go, wasn't it? It was all about the dungeon delve.

Unlimited Resources
This one's problematic. For example, "unlimited resources" could also refer to things like spells/maneuvers/etc. that don't run out or can be readily refreshed. We used to think this would be terribly overpowered. Hence, Wizard's and Sorcerer's limited spell slots. Then we realized, maybe not so much. Hence Warlocks, ToB, and ultimately 4e (or so I'm told). Some resources, to my mind, shouldn't be limited, or at least should have less grievous limitations. Others should, but where to draw the line may depend very much on what sort of campaign you are having: my group's choices may be very different from your group's choices, yet we both have a very satisfying gaming experience.

Beyond that, I apologize that I don't have anything to add. I came to the thread looking for what others thought. (I prefer the bell curve 3d6 over flat 1d20s, but I recognize that as a personal preference, not an objectively "best" or "worst" mechanic.)

[DR27]

I tend to think those are one of the better mechanics in the game, because it makes traps an interactive and tactical encounter that doesn't only involve one character. Encounter traps tend to be my main suggestion when people bring up traps, actually, cause they're neat. My issue really only lies in the basic "search/disable/succeed or fail" trap mechanic.And Boon Traps - what is healing that monster as we damage it?

[Person_Man]

I have a few least favorite game mechanics. The first is traps. They're incredibly linear, boring to solve, and tend to act as nothing but a rogue tax on the party. There're ways to make traps interesting, usually by using them in conjunction with something else, but the one and done way it's often implemented is bad.

I agree with your sentiment. But I think the problem is one of execution, not concept.

In old school D&D, you generally had more then one path to accomplishing your goal, or your goal was to simply explore for treasure or a specific plot trigger (find the princess, or artifact, or whatever) while avoiding death. (The earliest use of the term "railroad" game was a dungeon with only 1 path to success, and was explicitly called out as being poor dungeon design).

Also, well designed traps can be solved multiple ways, and/or they have multiple steps which required decision making. Either you could figure out the trap using logic and whatever resources you had available, OR if you were a Rogue you could attempt to disarm it with your class ability, OR you could choose another path without the trap. (Though the other paths would also have monsters, or a riddle, or a different trap, etc).

For example, let's say that you come across a treasure chest in a dungeon. You've done this before and you're not an idiot, so you know that the treasure chest can be trapped. You ask the DM if you notice anything (and attempt the appropriate checks). If you fail, you ask yourself, "ok, given the size of the room and the chest and how the chest looks and any other signs in the room, is it possible the chest is trapped even if I missed something." And that's when you pull out the 10 ft pole, or you just take an ax to the side of the chest, etc. If you succeed and find a trap, then you would learn what type of trap it is, and you could "disarm" it with logic. For example, if the key hole really shoots a poison dart when you open the chest, you could just stand to the side when opening the chest, or put a wooden block in front of the key hole when you open it, etc.

If you're a Rogue, then you can attempt a Disarm Traps check (and in the old school games, only Rogues had this option), and that gives you a chance (which was a mediocre chance at best) of bypassing the above. But this was an additional option that you gained by having a Rogue, NOT the only option for dealing with every trap you encountered.

The short version is this: Traps are good if they add meaningful choices to the game. They are bad if they just put up a roadblock that involves no choice.

[Eldan]

Diplomacy Skill: Boiling complex roleplaying interactions down to a single Skill roll that you can easily screw with using magic items, spells, class abilities, and a bunch of other stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with Roleplaying or story telling.

After having played a good dozen systems in my life and very different ones, this is actually my favourite mechanic for social encounters. In my experience, any complex system of social interaction makes players think more about numbers (and aspects, tokens, flaws, virtues, whatever else the game has) than the actual words they are saying.
I much prefer a system where people can talk and make their argument in peace, instead of having to get into resource management or a dozen rolls while talking.

[Arbane]

I like the way Legend of the Wulin handles social influence skills*: they give you a condition that either gives you penalties when you ignore it, or gives you bonuses when you go along with it. If someone influences you into 'In love with (X)', you might as well play along with it, because it gives you bonuses!

* (Also curses, medical conditions, predictions, etc.)

[Malimar]

I kind of love D&D3.5's experience and leveling mechanic. Everybody will eventually wind up within a level or two of one another, no matter what happens, no matter how imbalanced the party's levels.

[NichG]

I may be the only one, but I feel that FATE's Aspects are actually a really awful idea. The problem is that making a universal rule for how some arbitrary concept applies to the game world makes the actual distinction between concepts mechanically meaningless.

If 'I am the King of All Creation' and 'I like knives' basically do the same thing (give you a bonus on a roll in applicable situations when you spend a fate point), thats a problem for me. Rather than Aspects enabling you to play any kind of character, they render all kinds of character effectively the same (unless the DM does the kind of work necessary to make them different, at which point you're not really using the mechanics of the system anymore).

Also, the game becomes dominated by the meta-game of rationalizing the use of your aspects. Rather than thinking in character 'okay, how can I resolve this dilemma' you're encouraged to think out of character 'okay, how can I make 'Wanted for Murder' help me here?'

For the rest of them, I roughly agree. I don't make much use of tactical maps by default, but they're useful when things get complex. When I do something like a diplomacy skill, I try to find a way so that the skill doesn't act as a 'roll and see if you won the debate' thing but instead gives you distinctive 'powers' you can use (like, retract what the party blabbermouth just said).

My favorite thing though is probably 'secrets'. Like the hidden map, but the idea that there are things you can discover that will change not just what happens but what the campaign is eventually about. And that there's a possibility that you miss them. I also generally like 'hidden powers' in the system. Things that maybe you're guaranteed to discover, but you don't know about at character creation. It forces you to think on your feet and adapt organically, and since everyone's on the same page, its not like you're at some huge disadvantage because you don't plan out your build based on the unknowns.