PDA

View Full Version : What Does Your Ideal TTRPG Look Like?



Amphetryon
2016-08-01, 01:00 PM
We see a fair amount of "This is my problem with [RPG X]" posts on these forums. Often, they are a thread-starter's complaint about a particular system, or at least a particular system as played at a particular table. Other times, they are provided as a commentary or counterpoint to a mechanical aspect of a specific TTRPG a poster brings up, either as a strength or a weakness of that system.

Almost as regularly, we see a poster mention that she is designing her own TTRPG, to address perceived weaknesses of the systems she's played to that point. People seem to want to fiddle with TTRPGs they find not-quite-satisfactory, in order to achieve a satisfactory gaming experience.

With these in mind, I thought it might be interesting to see how people would describe their "ideal" TTRPG. What genre(s) does it handle? Is it Class-based or not, Level-based or not? What Stats does it use to represent a PC's abilities? How does it resolve combat and non-combat situations, and how much differentiation is there in those resolution mechanics? How does it address the distinction between a Player's abilities and the abilities of that Player's Character, if at all? What aspects of gameplay does it emphasize, and what does it brush off as less important? You get the idea.

If your ideal system already exists, feel free to mention it by name, but remember, the word is ideal. If you love everything about Riddle of Steel except how it handles courtly intrigue, Riddle of Steel falls short of the ideal for you, else you would not include the 'except.'

Jay R
2016-08-01, 01:47 PM
If your ideal system already exists, feel free to mention it by name, but remember, the word is ideal. If you love everything about Riddle of Steel except how it handles courtly intrigue, Riddle of Steel falls short of the ideal for you, else you would not include the 'except.'

I reject this definition. Saying "my ideal RPG is D&D except without alignment, or TOON but with Cthulhu added," gives useful information about what my ideal game would be.

My ideal TTRPG game would be a simulation of a genre that allows me to play as a character in that genre. Thus, the rules must work well for its genre. It would have classes if the genre has archetypal characters that fall into clear categories that can be modeled that way. Thus, the classes in Flashing Blades (Noble, Gentleman, Soldier, Rogue) or original D&D (Fighting Man, Magic-User, and Cleric, with Thief and Paladin added next) work well for me, but not the 3e use of classes to make system-unique builds out of the mechanics.

The combat system would allow the kind of combat unique to that genre. Thus, Flashing Blades use of five different dueling styles is a good example, as is the Hero System for super-hero games (less so for other genres).

If the genre used magic, the magic should work according to the source material (thus, the magic in all versions of D&D is far too diverse and powerful.).

Playing the role correctly within the genre should work smoothly. TOON, Flashing Blades, and Pendragon are my best examples.

The system should be as complex as needed, and no more so. D&D's 9-way alignment serves no purpose except to make D&D inconsistent with any fantasy novel or legend. I saw how it grew out of Moorcock's Law and Chaos, but it doesn't match that either. But the prize for over-complication is Chivalry and Sorcery, the most lush, vivid, realistic, complete, unplayable mess ever published.

I should have some control over my character. I don't mind rolling stats, but when I played Traveller for the first time, the dice made me into a two-foot-tall amoeboid (whom I named "Ooze the Avenger").

My ideal game would not model intelligence, but only in-world knowledge. When we played original D&D, we decided that "Intelligence" really meant "magical ability" and "Wisdom" really meant "divine ability", because regardless of how you roll your stats, unintelligent players played characters unintelligently, and unwise players played them unwisely.

Ideally, my character's skills and abilities get better only if I use them. Flashing Blades is good at this, as is Pendragon.

I don't want characters who become more powerful than most of the rest of the world. I lose interest in D&D, or Champions, when the characters get too high.


[Except that I don't always want to play in 17th century France, Flashing Blades would be as close as anything published to my ideal game.]

IShouldntBehere
2016-08-01, 01:50 PM
I kind of what different things for different things. The system I want to stomp monsters with between a few beers is very different from the kind of thing I want to play a Space Opera with. Sometimes I'm in the mood for a simulation, other times I'm in the mood for something really abstract and nearly free-form.

To answer this question I'd need to be looking at more narrow task. What would your ideal TTRPG for doing X look like? Give me an X and I'll make some attempt to describe what kind of engine I'd want for that.

OldTrees1
2016-08-01, 02:02 PM
I have not thought about this in depth enough to have a complete answer however this is what I have:

I would want it to be a class & level based system with level by level multiclassing (despite knowing that radial tech trees rapidly get hard to balance as freedom increased). I think this system makes it a bit easier to customize and homebrew player specific alterations.

The core of the game would be comprised of
Quantitative Improvement: A point based advancement system with level caps (think skill points -> skill ranks in 3rd D&D).
Qualitative Improvement: A feature based system. There would be a variety of kinds of features & classes would be distinguished by ratio of kinds/freedom of choice/& unique features. Each feature would be balanced and comprised of one or more qualitative improvements to your abilities beyond baseline competence (Ex: "You hits can now send foes flying" or "Souls glow in the dark to your eyes").

Combat/Interaction would probably be turn based but different characters could have a different ratio of active(on turn)/reactive(off turn) actions in a cycle. (Ex: Bodyguard Barbarian vs Pyromaniac Pyromancer).

Max_Killjoy
2016-08-01, 03:12 PM
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?486741-Looking-For-a-System-for-a-Fantasy-Mid-magic-campaign

Wishlist:
* No classes -- character builds are open.
* No levels -- progression is by XP expenditure or the like.
* Characteristics and skills both matter.
* Dice results are "curved" resulting in somewhat more predictable results.
* Resolution is relatively quick, without a massive amount of mathematics or debate before or after a roll, and without needing to look up three dozen special "talents" and whanot that modify everything
* Can handle magic without magic overwhelming other ways of doing things.
* Prefer resource-based rather than slot-based magic.
* Combat is smooth, but not highly abstract -- mechanical actions model character actions, not some undefined unit of abstract stuff.
* Game scales well -- avoids the issues some games have of the attack/defense/damage/soak relationships radically changing as characters advance.

Freelance GM
2016-08-01, 04:04 PM
The "career path" method of backstory/character generation of Traveler, mixed with Shadowrun's free-form, priority-based character creation.
The straightforward, simple, yet flexible gameplay of D&D 5E
The grimdark grittiness and lethality of Dark Heresy
The dynamic dice mechanics/task resolution of the Dragon Age/Fantasy Age system.
The one-system-fits-all setting diversity of GURPS.


It's a tall order, but it's an ideal TTRPG, not a pitch for an actual product.

Cluedrew
2016-08-01, 04:56 PM
I agree with IShouldntBehere and Freelance GM, or would like to say something related to what they touched on.

I don't think that an ideal role-playing game could exist, because there are so many different (and some times conflicting) goals that RPGs can am for. A simple example is the level of detail vs. speed of play, if you keep increasing one eventual the other will suffer. I think the closest you could come is by creating a modular system like GURPS. The base system would have to be much simpler, but would have to expand cleanly as you add modules to explore parts of the game you are interested in.

But in here even something like the health system would have to be dynamic, and be easily modified by expansions. You might want pure narrative wounds for non-combat games, damage track for gritty games and HP form more heroic adventures. So even the base system would have to be modular and in the end maybe you would be better off creating a set of games. Maybe it could be done, perhaps a system that can act in the place of a 100 other systems can be built... I'm gone to stick to my much more modest project.

Speaking of which I am working on my system, which even if I do a good job will probably only cover one type of game well. Still it is my single favourite type of game at this time, although not the only one I'm interested in, so in that regard it will hopefully be my ideal game. When I finish. If I finish. 2 years in and I still have to work out parts of the core mechanic out.

BayardSPSR
2016-08-01, 05:22 PM
The thing is, a lot of people are going to reply with unspoken assumptions about what "default" is, or without specifying the part of an RPG that produces a particular effect. You're going to get a lot of responses that read "the good bits of A, the ease of play of B, and the realism of C," without describing what makes those happen (and without examining whether the rules that produce those effects are incompatible with each other).

Knaight
2016-08-01, 06:02 PM
I like variety - the idea of only playing one system is downright unpleasant to me, regardless of how ideal it is. I currently bounce between several, and while there is something that could be called a main system it's Fudge. For those not in the know, it's a system that varies so much that whether it is even a game or a framework for creating a game is a contentious issue, and I vary it heavily.

MrStabby
2016-08-01, 06:09 PM
So Ideal is beyond me, as i don't have a broad enough experience (mainly D&D of various editions). This said there are a few pointers i would go for:

1) Complexity in character generation not play. The ability to make meaningfully different characters (as measured by mechanics) in a game is an important asset. Comparing 3rd ed D&D to 5th ed 3rd has this as its only advantage. The depth of interactions mean you can make so many more different characters that play differently. Not all of them are powerful (another issue). This complexity means a very slow game at the table though, which is frustrating. Having all the maths done at character creation and levelling up is a huge bonus for streamlining the game.

2) Balance. Ok this is the elephant in the room. No point having options is some are unplayable bad/boring/so good that others don't want them at the table.

3) Fast paced - I like the depth of options some systems have and even kind of appreciate the optimisation mini-game that can sometimes develop but to me this shouldn't slow down play at the table and shouldn't get in the way of the role-play. I like systems like 5th edition advantage that gives a variable bonus expressed and implemented succinctly.

4) I like character. This is an odd thing to define but to me there is an element of specialism to it. D&D wizards, for example, are too broad for my tastes. Abjurers, Enchanters, Evokers with only (or almost only) their schools of magic would appeal to me more.

5) Few, if any, all or nothing abilities. An encounter where a failed save trivialises the whole thing isn't really fun. Likewise if that same save is passed the attacker has wasted their most precious resource - not a great building block.

6) Options in play. Too many characters I have had the mistake of making seem to be awesome and powerful but turn out to be pretty dull. For all the viable options the best one seems to always be the same (for some characters). Where an attack is "I hit it with my axe" and little option for different styles, targets, angles, shoves etc. some characters can get boring quickly. Even when options are there in a system a system will often reward more ultra-specialising in a particular action rather than a (narrow) range.

7) Flexibility enough that DMs can make rulings and that those rulings seem consistent and can be applied to any situation that arises without seeming arbitrary and capricious.

8) I like a level based system. I like that progress comes in discrete steps. I like that moment of the party levelling up together and the shared moments of anticipation for how new abilities will interact. I like that each level can be significant and anticipated.

9) I want rewards outside of leveling up - not just treasure but also character progress.

Vitruviansquid
2016-08-01, 07:34 PM
Yes, I want to play different games at different times, but to respect what I perceive to be the spirit of OP's question...

What I'm jonesing for right now is a game where...

1. the dice system (or whatever else is used for resolutions) is simple without having easily identifiable situations of absurdity, or the situations of absurdity should never come up in actual play. Gameplay itself is fast-paced, and relatively unpredictable (Savage Worlds tends to contain agreeable pacing, so this is a situation where I'd say "like Savage Worlds").

2. there are classes with unique and interesting mechanical niches, as well as unique and cool flavor. Each class must play a different way with its own theme, and while they might have broadly overlapping roles (for example, two classes both defend their weaker teammates), they have to do them in different ways. The character creation process should be expansive that you can pretty much play chargen as if it was a game in itself. These classes must play as a team for success (in this case, I'd say "like DnD 4e").

3. there is a big, meaty, crunchy system for combat but there are also systems in place to make the non-combat stuff fun, or at minimum, agreeable. It is also very important that you don't give up being good at combat to be good at non-combat, or vice versa when building your character (at chargen or during character advancements).

4. there are mechanical representations of a character's personality, because I find that more fun than constraining.

5. there is a unique and interesting setting that is tied to the mechanics of the game. I don't really care what it is specifically - it could be fantasy, sci-fi, real-world, post-apocalyptic, primordial, whatever. But no zombies.

6. The game is easy to prepare for and run by the GM.

Earthwalker
2016-08-02, 06:25 AM
Onethly to the original poster, great thread idea, thanks.

Twothly I would say if my ideal game existed (it doesn’t) at the moment it was Fate. Since picking it up and running it I love it. I would like an opportunity to play it as well so I can try it from the other side of the screen (metaphorical screen that is).

Threethly a list of things I would expect in my ideal game.

No levels, advancement is by spending units on improving certain parts of your character
Point buy or life path character creation, maybe both.
Meta currencies available to players to effect the narrative / systems in play (reroll dice etc)
Simple for the GM to run and adventures can be created on the fly.
Suitable for many different styles / genres (maybe by adding on rules / expansions)

Max_Killjoy
2016-08-03, 03:34 PM
I'm surprised there hasn't been more traffic on this thread.

2D8HP
2016-08-03, 05:29 PM
My ideal TTRPG would:
1) Be at least as easy to learn and to create PC's as the 1977 "Basic" D&D rules were.
2) Have at least as quick flowing combat as 5e D&D has.
3) The ability to make special "snowflake" PC's like 3.x D&D.
4) Feel as intuitive to GM as early 1980's "Call of Cthullu", and be at least as easy to GM as CoC..
5) Have "Ranger" like PC's as awesome as the1e AD&D Ranger was.
6) Able to do "swashbuckling" adventures well.
7) Able to do "Swords and Sorcery" as well as 1981's Stormbringer!
8) Able to do "Arthurian" as well as (King Arthur) Pendragon.
9) Has settings as rich as Castle Falkenstein.
10) Not be as complex as 3.x D&D.
11) Not seem as ridiculous as Gamma World.
12) Not be a comic book superhero setting.
13) Not be a Cyberpunk setting.
14) Not have supernatural cannibals as PC's.
15) Not be a modern day setting at all.
16) Be large print (Flashing Blades looks really cool but I need a magnifying glass to read it, and some of 5e D&D as well).
17) Be in print and in the stores, not just "online".
18) Have actual other players, (in the '90's all the tables were either Cyberpunk or Vampire, today it's only 5e D&D or Pathfinder, which is a big improvement, but it would be nice to play say '77 Basic D&D or Pendragon as well).

Blue Duke
2016-08-03, 06:09 PM
My Ideal
*no levels, advancement by spent XP or some other kind of points
*No Classes (Archetypes are fine as good examples and quick start characters)
*Life Path style character creation
*crafting rules that work and let me if i want play a mad scientist inventing random things even if its power armor in a fantasy seting or an airship
*Easy to understand combat system
* Magic system that's easy to understand and does not rely on 'Spells per day' but that does not leave the non mages feeling useless
* stronghold construction related to crafting - maybe its just my group but any time we see a cool house or location atleast two of us immediately begin planning how we can turn it into a stronghold - the DM rolls his eyes, makes it prohibitively expensive or illegal to build there and forces us to be murder hobos (Sorry for the rant)
*Airships damn it, ones that dont crash

Edit: on thinking i have additonals
*No Grim Dark horror....i dont want strahd or anything like it any where near me its just not my idea of fun
*Dinosaurs because Dinosaurs are fun and 'well sure but where do we put the Triceratops pen ?' should be a question asked when chooseing stronghold locations.

BayardSPSR
2016-08-03, 06:28 PM
I'm surprised there hasn't been more traffic on this thread.

Criticism is more fun than praise.

Amphetryon
2016-08-04, 05:09 PM
Criticism is more fun than praise.

Opinions vary. That said, I didn't restrict the query to extant systems because I chose to use the adjective 'ideal,' with its definition in mind.

Cluedrew
2016-08-05, 06:02 PM
You know, I have thought about it and I think I've got an outline of what my ideal RPG would be like. Except it wouldn't really be an RPG at all, it would be a system for creating RPGs for exactly the game you want.

It would probably have to have a common base that you could carry over. Things like the dices system, terminology and so on. Then it would have a bunch of subsystems that built off that base that you can pick from to add to your game. Everything from the health system to character creation.

The amount of content you would need, all of which would have to be able to interlock with each other, is staggering though. Even if the basic book only has 2-3 options in the "major" areas, I can see expansions that are things like 25 different magic systems, descriptions on what each one is for and how to tweak each one if it is not quite what you wanted.

And since this is ideal, I would like to specify and active and helpful online community where you can go to ask for advice, so off the modded subsystems you have made (homebrewing is encouraged) or just check out what combinations of systems are popular for different settings right now.

BayardSPSR
2016-08-05, 06:52 PM
You know, I have thought about it and I think I've got an outline of what my ideal RPG would be like. Except it wouldn't really be an RPG at all, it would be a system for creating RPGs for exactly the game you want.

:smallbiggrin: We have arrived at the same place.

Regarding the amount of stuff that would have to be made, that's one of the reasons I've leaned towards more minimalistic rules as the foundation. Like a soup-stock of RPG rules.

kieza
2016-08-05, 08:30 PM
Well, I've got a handful of criteria:

1) Unified System: Every class should use the same basic mechanics, with twists to make them distinct from each other, instead of having one system for weapon-users, another for magic-users, a third for a different kind of magic users, etc.
2) Limited Numeric Escalation: A high-level character should not have 10 times as many hitpoints as a low-level character. Nor should a high-level character automatically hit a low-level character, or a low-level character automatically miss a high-level character. If the players want to invest in improving a certain numeric stat, they should be able to (to some extent), but the core of advancement should be learning new abilities and specializing/diversifying their build.
3) Options for Everybody: Every class should be able to do special things: casters have their spells, but weapon-users should have a selection of weapon tricks and other abilities that let them do more than select targets and attack in combat, or make skill checks out of combat.
4) No Level-Gating: The vast majority of abilities should be available from level one. If you want a character capable of mind-control, you shouldn't have to wait until you're high level to get a spell that does that, or start to specialize in it. (Which is not to say that a level one character should be an instant expert, but they should be able to get the core abilities.)
5) Limited Resource Management: I don't actually like the X/day resource system, for reasons that have been discussed to death. (One-encounter adventuring day, villains that go nova because they're only in one encounter, bosses that are only a challenge if the party is low on resources when they face them, etc.) I can accept an injury/fatigue recovery mechanic that makes characters wear out if they take a lot of punishment, but the vast majority of active abilities (spells, weapon tricks, etc.) should refresh on a per-encounter or at-will basis.

D&D 4e did #1 and #3 pretty well. D&D 5e tried to do #2, but I'm undecided how well it works. I haven't really seen anything that does #4 or #5 to the extent I'd like.

Max_Killjoy
2016-08-05, 09:07 PM
Well, I've got a handful of criteria:

1) Unified System: Every class should use the same basic mechanics, with twists to make them distinct from each other, instead of having one system for weapon-users, another for magic-users, a third for a different kind of magic users, etc.
2) Limited Numeric Escalation: A high-level character should not have 10 times as many hitpoints as a low-level character. Nor should a high-level character automatically hit a low-level character, or a low-level character automatically miss a high-level character. If the players want to invest in improving a certain numeric stat, they should be able to (to some extent), but the core of advancement should be learning new abilities and specializing/diversifying their build.
3) Options for Everybody: Every class should be able to do special things: casters have their spells, but weapon-users should have a selection of weapon tricks and other abilities that let them do more than select targets and attack in combat, or make skill checks out of combat.
4) No Level-Gating: The vast majority of abilities should be available from level one. If you want a character capable of mind-control, you shouldn't have to wait until you're high level to get a spell that does that, or start to specialize in it. (Which is not to say that a level one character should be an instant expert, but they should be able to get the core abilities.)
5) Limited Resource Management: I don't actually like the X/day resource system, for reasons that have been discussed to death. (One-encounter adventuring day, villains that go nova because they're only in one encounter, bosses that are only a challenge if the party is low on resources when they face them, etc.) I can accept an injury/fatigue recovery mechanic that makes characters wear out if they take a lot of punishment, but the vast majority of active abilities (spells, weapon tricks, etc.) should refresh on a per-encounter or at-will basis.

D&D 4e did #1 and #3 pretty well. D&D 5e tried to do #2, but I'm undecided how well it works. I haven't really seen anything that does #4 or #5 to the extent I'd like.


Most of what you list there can be accomplished by not having levels at all.

Amphetryon
2016-08-05, 09:49 PM
You know, I have thought about it and I think I've got an outline of what my ideal RPG would be like. Except it wouldn't really be an RPG at all, it would be a system for creating RPGs for exactly the game you want.

It would probably have to have a common base that you could carry over. Things like the dices system, terminology and so on. Then it would have a bunch of subsystems that built off that base that you can pick from to add to your game. Everything from the health system to character creation.

The amount of content you would need, all of which would have to be able to interlock with each other, is staggering though. Even if the basic book only has 2-3 options in the "major" areas, I can see expansions that are things like 25 different magic systems, descriptions on what each one is for and how to tweak each one if it is not quite what you wanted.

And since this is ideal, I would like to specify and active and helpful online community where you can go to ask for advice, so off the modded subsystems you have made (homebrewing is encouraged) or just check out what combinations of systems are popular for different settings right now.

I would wager that many would list that amount of content, in conjunction with the need for an active community to which you could go for advice, as bugs rather than features.

2D8HP
2016-08-05, 10:13 PM
Well, I've got a handful of criteria....
The list largely reads like

BRP/Runequest,

HERO/Champions,
and
GURPS/Man to Man,

all of which have existed for decades!
What am I missing?

CharonsHelper
2016-08-05, 10:32 PM
This question is like asking what my ideal food is - it doesn't really have a single answer.

While some are definitely better than others, it also depends what sort of mood I'm in. In addition, I'm willing to eat something which is, while pretty good, not my favorite if it means that I get to have my meal with my friends. Sometimes I'll eat a strange food every year or so just for the change of pace. (The last is how I feel about Call of Cthulhu.)

I mean, heck, I'm currently writing an RPG right now, and even when it's done I have no doubt that I'll continue to play other RPGs.

bulbaquil
2016-08-06, 10:32 AM
- Medieval or semi-medieval fantasy setting with no rules on high-tech and no intention of ever making rules for high-tech
- Inclusion of numeric levels, even at the expense of making character growth seem "stairstepped" rather than "organic"
- Weapon and magic proficiencies are skill-based; skills are the backbone of the system
- Random elements in character building and leveling to ensure that you can't guarantee 100% what your character will look like at level X
- First level characters either cannot or are extremely unlikely to die (or get KO'd) in one hit
- Many different dice are used in a variety of different contexts and are rolled frequently
- High-level characters are clearly more powerful than low-level ones, but do not completely overshadow them
- Magic is limited in scope, and mages can never completely overshadow the rest of the party or negate all challenges; the game's magic system does not allow for a so-called "Tippyverse"
- Magic uses an MP system rather than a "spells-per-day" system
- Humans are the mechanically optimal race choice for most archetypes, but other races do not lag too far behind
- Meta-currencies linked to what would otherwise be a dump stat
- No alignment - or, at least, no alignment with mechanical ramifications
- The rules explicitly reference the possibility of ambiguity within the rules
- A wide player base, or the invention and application in real-life of sophisticated VR and AI that can simulate a wide player base

Knaight
2016-08-06, 10:45 AM
The list largely reads like

BRP/Runequest,

HERO/Champions,
and
GURPS/Man to Man,

all of which have existed for decades!
What am I missing?

For one thing, that list also fairly explicitly states that the system would be a class and level system. That takes GURPS and HERO out of the running instantly. I'm not all that familiar with Runequest, but by my understanding it's a primarily skill based system where classes are things that affect skill access. It's not a primarily power based system where characters collect powers while skills are more restrained, and that's what's being asked for. I could be wrong about this - my knowledge of Runequest is generally secondhand and all sorts of sketchy.

kingtiger13123
2016-08-06, 11:10 AM
My ideal system would include:
1) Balance between different forms of combat. Possibly a bad example, but I would like to see a balance like exists in My Little Pony, as users of brute force, like Earth Ponies, Dexterous Combaf, like Pegasi, and mages, like Unicorns, all are capable for being useful in combat without being overspecialized to a crippling extent.
2) Combat takes place in a three-dimensional space, with good attacks for ground units, so that flying monsters aren't only tackleable by flying PCs.
3) Settting in which all NPCs of high power are dead or turned evil, to better facilitate adventuring.
4) Item creation system that encourages creativity and ingenuity of all kinds. Instead of flipping through the Magic Item Compendium and then making requests to the wizard, you can make your own items, with their own personality and powers, approved by DM.
5) Class system similar to Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay.
6) Stats only determined through Point-Buy, instead of dice rolls to have character creation be more fair and allow for better customization.
7) Either no alignment, or a system that more easily allows for changing alignment compared to the Nine Alignment Chart.
8) Easy way for DMs to create adventures, possibly with a compendium of maps to use in the back of the book.

Cluedrew
2016-08-06, 01:25 PM
I would wager that many would list that amount of content, in conjunction with the need for an active community to which you could go for advice, as bugs rather than features.For the amount of content, it can be a good or bad thing, hopefully by grouping expansions properly you only have to seek out the parts you need. That it would totally be a rabbit-hole, but one you only have to go down as far as you want to.

The online community was not supposed to be necessary, just something else that would help push the game even higher. I did not mean they were supposed to be necessary. It might help a new person to the game but you can do it the other way.

SirBellias
2016-08-06, 01:59 PM
The ones I enjoy learning more about are the narrow range Powered by the Apocalypse games.

Ideally, it would look like Paranoia, grafted onto Monster of the Week.

This does not exist. I am sad. Though I am going to try running this tomorrow,and see how it goes.

kieza
2016-08-06, 06:48 PM
For one thing, that list also fairly explicitly states that the system would be a class and level system. That takes GURPS and HERO out of the running instantly. I'm not all that familiar with Runequest, but by my understanding it's a primarily skill based system where classes are things that affect skill access. It's not a primarily power based system where characters collect powers while skills are more restrained, and that's what's being asked for. I could be wrong about this - my knowledge of Runequest is generally secondhand and all sorts of sketchy.

Yeah, sorry. I thought that was clearly implied.

The thing is, I like classes and levels. Classes, because if you do them well, it cuts down on system mastery: you can pick a class and it will have all the features needed to be baseline-competent at a role, along with (hopefully) guidelines suggesting how to get the most out of them. And levels, because there's nothing like the feeling of gaining a level and getting to pick a new, significant, noteworthy ability.

Now, I guess you could write a point-buy system that does that right, but my experience is that class-and-level systems do what I want better than point-buy systems. With a class-based system, you can group abilities together into packages (D&D calls them feats) so that a feat gives you complete functionality. In the GURPS games I tried, you could in theory buy individual abilities as soon as you had the points for them...but they didn't work right until you had the points to pick up several related abilities. So, it didn't work as promised, and we kept running into problems where people picked up what they thought was an awesome new ability, only to realize that they had to keep investing in it to make it actually useful.

TL;DR: I like class-and-level systems because you don't run into the point-buy problem of having to buy abilities A, B and C separately in order for any one of them to be effective.

Yuki Akuma
2016-08-06, 07:19 PM
My ideal TTRPG looks like this (http://www222.pair.com/sjohn/risus.htm).

ImNotTrevor
2016-08-06, 08:39 PM
The ones I enjoy learning more about are the narrow range Powered by the Apocalypse games.

Ideally, it would look like Paranoia, grafted onto Monster of the Week.

This does not exist. I am sad. Though I am going to try running this tomorrow,and see how it goes.

What you want is Bureaucalypse

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nkvK07oFd1DInAJ83X2vUdFRrBMG6UKz6IJ8kezgkdQ/mobilebasic
That's the official link to the system. It's free, shared via this doc. This is not pirating or advertising. That's just where you go.

Lorsa
2016-08-07, 04:33 AM
My ideal TTRPG is one that is fun and enjoyable to play for me and my friends. One that has as few as possible of the kind of rules that annoy or irritate us.

I know, I'm so boring. But it's true!

Remmirath
2016-08-08, 01:00 AM
The most important thing to me about a tabletop RPG system is that it can effectively model the scenarios that I expect to encounter when playing, and combat's the thing that's going to bother me most if the system doesn't get it right. So, keeping that in mind, my ideal RPG would:

- Have a detailed combat system taking into account different weapons, styles, levels of protection, and so forth; emphasis should be if anything more on proper defense, and if easily hit, characters should go down quickly. Wounds system a big plus. Rolemaster with sufficient house rules is so far the closest thing I've found to this ideal, but the "with sufficient house rules" caveat makes it clear that I consider that a starting point.
- There should be a robust skill system which allows for characters to become proficient in a variety of things not directly related to their primary profession, and not even necessarily directly related to what one expects out of a campaign. Resolving skill checks should be straightforward. 3rd edition D&D is pretty good with this.
- It should be both class and level based, because I like a progression, and that's to me the best way to handle an increase in skill as time goes on. Experience shouldn't come solely from monster killing, however, and a first level character should ideally be somewhat competent. Classes should be reasonably broad with room to create lots of different character concepts within them, rather than having a class for everything.
- Character creation should be detailed, thorough, and entirely up to the player with the exception of stats (or at least, there should be some mechanism in place so that people don't just max 'em out). I like the standard array of something to the effect of strength, dexterity/agility, constitution, intelligence, wisdom/intuition, and charisma; more can be good, less usually isn't. I don't like stat increases on level up.
- The system shouldn't be strongly tied to any one specific setting, so that it can be used for lots of different things easily. I do like some systems that are specific to a setting, but if we're talking ideal systems, I'd ideally like to have one that would work for just about everything and isn't tied to anything.
- I don't much care what the dice mechanics are, although I've a general preference against dice pools; so long as they work, it's all good. D20, percentile, whatever.
- On the question of balance, I like there to be enough balance such that every class has its strengths, but not such that every class is just as good at the same things in different ways. For example, if you've got a thief and a fighter, the thief class (not necessarily the individual character; I like there to be room for subpar and particularly good characters) should be just as good at stealth and perhaps backstabbing as the fighter is at the martial arts, but the shouldn't translate as the thief being just as good in a fight.
- Mechanics are plentiful and detailed for things such as combat, skills, and so forth, but essentially nonexistent for roleplaying. Social skills should influence how the NPCs perceive the character, but no more.
- Support for large-scale conflicts and battles via a separate resolution system; this has come up more often than one might think in my games, and most systems don't handle it well.

Remedy
2016-08-10, 11:56 PM
My ideal TTRPG would be based on eldritch artifacts. Well, maybe that's not a good description - despite modern connotations, taken literally, all "eldritch artifact" means is "supernatural old thing." I mean the version that has all those modern sci-fi/fantasy implications - nearly incomprehensibly powerful and alien things that have a constant sense of not belonging in the world.

It would be something of an eldritch object kitchen sink - plenty of origin stories and possible powers for an object to have, but all pushing it firmly outside the standard metaphysical possibilities of the setting in dangerous, uncontrollable ways.

A pool that tugs on the souls of those who enter, shredding the spirits of the weak-willed and bestowing strange powers and transformations on those who can pull back. A book that can answer almost any question but does so in exchange for a magically binding service that will further its unknowable goals. A dragon statue that can let you break off part of your mind and bestow it upon anything - want to leave a message? Store some memories in a place you know the recipient will look. Want to manipulate an ancient slumbering deity? Incorporate part of your personality and ambitions into it before it wakes up.

Stuff like that I guess? I'm not really creative enough to come up with really cool stuff, but hopefully it gets the idea across.

Players would have characters knowledgeable in regular magic or fantasy science (because let's face it, real science need not apply here) and perhaps with features representing their previous interactions with these sorts of artifacts. If the group feels like playing a more typical fantasy game, you're all set here - eldritch objects cause problems, players oppose problems and find temporary solutions to keep the objects from causing more problems, insert other plot elements. But the feature of this game that would interest me most, and make this into an ideal game for me, would be a system for letting players delve more deeply into the cosmic powers.

The eldritch objects would be represented here mechanically, with Conditionals, Cosmic Essence, and Control Factors (or any other number of configurations, I'm not a professional game designer, this is just me getting my wants down as well as I can). Conditionals represent the metaphysical and sympathetic ties of the object - the hunger of the pool, the universal intelligence of the all-knowing book, the torn psyche of the statue. Cosmic Essence is the power source that allows the eldritch objects to exert effects on the world based on their Conditionals - more Cosmic Essence means the pool grows larger and tears at the soul harder but gives greater rewards to those who overcome it, the book gives more complete information and becomes more accessible, the dragon can tear off and subsequently invest larger portions of the psyche while also adding bits of its own mind and influence in each transaction. Finally, Control Factors represent the things that make the object impossible to predict or control completely to your advantage - things like the book's malevolence and personal goal, the fluctuating strength and randomized gifts of the pool, and the mental damage and encroachment by the dragon statue.

If players can solve or counteract the object's Conditionals, the object's Cosmic Essence will no longer be bound to the effect and can be harvested. This can take a variety of forms and will be hindered by the object's Control Factors just as much as trying to make regular use of the object. The pool's Conditional can be solved by finding something more satiating than human souls to fill it or by negating its hunger somehow. The book's Conditional can be counteracted by finding a question the book can't answer and then finding and informing it of the answer, or by somehow removing its independent malevolent will (not possible by any normal means, but maybe if you have another eldritch object...). The dragon statue's Conditional can be fixed by making its fractured psyche whole again.

And then the cycle begins anew, as players can use the Cosmic Essence harvested from the objects to create their own objects! These will require certain outstanding conditions, of course - creating an object with an otherworldly intelligence and powers beyond your wildest dreams should never be easy - but it should be something within the players' grasps. That's when the real fun begins - the players can, within certain limits imposed by aforementioned outstanding conditions, set the Conditionals of their object, and invest however much of their gathered Cosmic Essence they want. However, they most certainly don't have complete control over the rest of the item - while the Conditional allows them to control the effect to somewhere within the ballpark of what they want, unintended complications and side effects can't be mitigated much, and players will only have the faintest influence (if any at all) over what the object's Control Factors will be, leading to an item that can give them incredible power, knowledge, and opportunities, but with great cost and immense risk. And if it doesn't turn out like you wanted, there's no easy pulling the plug - you'll have to solve the problem you created with just as much effort as the ones you overcame to make the thing. (Though at least you'll get your Cosmic Essense back if you succeed!)

Campaigns will center around mortals (albeit ones with somewhat higher than normal power) trying to survive while manipulating forces far beyond their control in the hopes of advancing goals no mortal has any right having. They'll make allies or enemies of extradimensional intelligences that find them amusing at best and insignificant cur at worst, while their best options to fight if they fall on the enemy side of that equation are the equivalent of hand-operated nukes. And if a player or the whole party gathers enough Cosmic Essence over the course of the campaign, they could make objects so massively powerful and universe-influencing that they effectively rewrite the laws of reality and change the cosmos of the setting.

(Hell - I originally thought up this setting while thinking about the Gate of Alchemy and Truth/God from Fullmetal Alchemist, so if I were to feel like keeping that connection going for my own crossover game, I might decide that the entire existence of alchemy was based on somebody making an eldritch object with huge amounts of Cosmic Essence.)

I have no idea how you'd make a game like this work in any concrete mechanical way, rather than just a handful of dice mechanics and a lot of fiat, but hey, we're talking about ideals here. I would play this game almost exclusively if it existed.

2D8HP
2016-08-11, 01:09 PM
My ideal TTRPG would be based on eldritch artifacts.....

Well, maybe that's not a good description - despite modern connotations, taken literally, all "eldritch artifact" means is "supernatural old thing." I mean the version that has all those modern sci-fi/fantasy implications - nearly incomprehensibly powerful and alien things that have a constant sense of not belonging in the world......

Campaigns will center around mortals (albeit ones with somewhat higher than normal power) trying to survive while manipulating forces far beyond their control in the hopes of advancing goals no mortal has any right having.....

I have no idea how you'd make a game like this work in any concrete mechanical way, rather than just a handful of dice mechanics and a lot of fiat, but hey, we're talking about ideals here. I would play this game almost exclusively if it existed.My first thought for that is Sorcery (magic system) in the old Stormbringer! RPG (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormbringer_(role-playing_game)), which involved the summoning and binding of demons and elementals in contests of wills and power, in which the Sorcerer could become bound!

Airk
2016-08-11, 01:29 PM
My ideal TTRPG is one that is fun and enjoyable to play for me and my friends. One that has as few as possible of the kind of rules that annoy or irritate us.

I know, I'm so boring. But it's true!

It's not a boring answer, it's just a bad answer because it lacks details.

What kinds of rules annoy or irritate your group?

Also, as written, your answer means that freeform RP is ideal for your group, since it would have no rules to annoy or irritate you. This is probably not what you intended.

Quertus
2016-08-11, 03:09 PM
Wow, tough call.

First thing to come to mind: I want to be able to build a character that matches the concept in my head. I don't want to be dissatisfied with the system's implementation of my character; I want the system to enable my character. A few examples of my character concepts:

My character is magical, but can only use that magic to animate the dead.
My character is magical, and can decide what to do with that magic on the fly. If I'm introduced to Q-Particles, I can, seconds later, start generating Q-Particles.
My character is a shapeshifter, who gains the full abilities of whatever form taken. If I meet a Kryptonian, I can (give or take fighting skill) go toe-to-toe with Superman seconds later.
My character is a blind, tentacled Amoeba, who senses the world through smell and vibration.
My character is a telepath, who can "see the world through others eyes"; ie, can know exactly how you feel when you look at something, and know exactly what that something is, even if the character had no previous experience with your culture / art / technology / etc.


Most systems, it feels like I have to shoehorn my character concepts into their limited frameworks. Sure, I can Animate Dead in D&D - but it comes with all kinds of other junk (more spells, spellbooks, religion, etc) that isn't part of my character concept.

Of course, not all these concepts work in all genres... but that didn't stop a DM from giving me that shapeshifter body in D&D! :smalleek:

Second thing to come to mind - and this might well be the most important thing for me - is that there are, to put it in common parlance, no trap options.

I want any character I build to be able to affect the flow of the narrative in a reasonably predictable, reasonably equivalent way to any other character. I don't want to build a human grappler in a world of planet-sized creatures, or a diplomat in a world of mindless undead.

Most systems I've played, someone had a character where they - and/or the party - felt that their entire character concept/build/class/whatever was entirely useless. And generally fairly well locked in to being useless. :smallfrown: That's probably the most common complete failure of a system I've encountered.

My ideal system would definitely have lots of options. This allows for great character diversity, replay value, etc. Core only, four classes, bland blah doesn't cut it for me. 3e D&D... if all of the options were "equally viable", might have enough options to qualify. Probably not.

Point buy games often seem like they have a lot of options, but, usually, it's "do one of these few things / combinations of things / equivalent sets of things, or else you will have negligible narrative impact".

Oh, despite my desire to be able to build exactly what I want, I would also like the ability to randomly roll up a character. Hmmm... this time, I'm playing a polymorphed dinosaur with psionic powers that manifest through nearby foliage as healing and elecrical powers, raised in an orphanage until the monastery took him in?

I want cool stuff. :smallcool: For me, animating the dead is cool stuff, as was the old Shadowrun initiative system, where fast characters got to act multiple times before anyone else got to go. But I don't just want my cool stuff - I want as much of everyone's cool stuff as possible. My ideal system would, well, have everyone feeling like their character had cool stuff.

Oh, and cool stuff has to have the option to exist as physical things, and as intrinsic parts of the character. Games with just one or the other don't appeal to enough people. Some people just don't think the 2e swiss army fighter was cool. :smalltongue:

And it can't be a game of Mother May I on getting that cool stuff. Cool Stuff has to be guaranteed, and start early. A starting Shadowrun character could be really fast; a 2e D&D Necromancer could animate the dead starting at 1st level. This is good. Getting an ability 2 years after the campaign ends is not. :smallfrown:

My ideal system would be easy to read. No Gygaxian prose, no room for reasonable people to rules lawyer, no difficulty interpreting what is meant by a rule.

And, this is purely a personal issue, Rules are separate from Fluff. I don't want to have to dig through 200 pages of fluff to find the 2 sentences of rules I need. Fluff has its place - that place isn't in a RULES book.

And that's all the time we have for today; thank you, and good night! :smallwink:

Vrock_Summoner
2016-08-11, 04:20 PM
So Quertus, out of curiosity, have you ever tried Mutants & Masterminds? I understand it may look off-putting as a superhero game, but it works fine for fantasy too, there are few to no traps and tons upon tons of options for just about every being you can think of within the power level of the party, with equivalent narrative impact being enforced through the Hero Points and power level mechanics, and backgrounds run a gigantic range and can be as limited or open as you want with little effort through Power Descriptors and widely variable stats. It's slightly dense, but nowhere near as Byzantine as most rules-heavy systems (including D&D and GURPS), despite having enough options and customization potential to put D&D 3.5 to shame. The only one of your things that I don't think it covers is the instant copy character who can go from shmuck to Superman sans skill all at once, but that's sort of inevitable to maintain the narrative balance you were talking about, since such an ability is almost literally a "get stronger than the rest of the party free" card.

I'm not saying Mutants & Masterminds is your perfect ideal system or anything, but based on what you said you want, if you haven't checked it out, I strongly recommend you do.

Quertus
2016-08-11, 11:09 PM
So Quertus, out of curiosity, have you ever tried Mutants & Masterminds? I understand it may look off-putting as a superhero game, but it works fine for fantasy too, there are few to no traps and tons upon tons of options for just about every being you can think of within the power level of the party, with equivalent narrative impact being enforced through the Hero Points and power level mechanics, and backgrounds run a gigantic range and can be as limited or open as you want with little effort through Power Descriptors and widely variable stats. It's slightly dense, but nowhere near as Byzantine as most rules-heavy systems (including D&D and GURPS), despite having enough options and customization potential to put D&D 3.5 to shame. The only one of your things that I don't think it covers is the instant copy character who can go from shmuck to Superman sans skill all at once, but that's sort of inevitable to maintain the narrative balance you were talking about, since such an ability is almost literally a "get stronger than the rest of the party free" card.

I'm not saying Mutants & Masterminds is your perfect ideal system or anything, but based on what you said you want, if you haven't checked it out, I strongly recommend you do.

Indeed I have! :) It is, quite possibly, my "favorite system that no-one will play". I own one of the older editions, and have read others.

I find the math to be easy enough, although the toughness saves and wounds are a little counterintuitive. Which reminds me: my ideal system would be so easy to play, a 7-year-old could play it competently - like the 3.x d20 system, where I have taught multiple 7-year-olds to play, and unlike 2e D&D, where college-educated adults often had difficulty remembering how the mechanics worked.

M&M requires minimal shoehorning for most character concepts, I'll give it that. Some concepts turn out a bit differently than they would in other systems, so converting characters that conceptually work in both systems often feels odd, but as long as you don't look outside the system, it works great.

My biggest problem with M&M is that its slavish devotion to balance limits some options. True, I can't play my completely unbalanced shape shifter (like I could in some systems), but, because everyone's stats are bounded by level, I also can't really expect to play someone who buffs the party. Because buffing already balanced stats breaks game balance.

Like most systems, it has almost no ability to actualize a character who breaks the action economy by virtue of being just that fast.

It is similarly poorly suited to the concept of "great power, but at a cost", since someone else could easily have equal power, but without the drawbacks. In fact, one kinda expects all the PCs to have equal power.

Similarly, that ritual to summon a level 30 demon? Yeah, it's gonna require a level 30 character to perform it - and said character will probably be significantly more powerful than the "end of the world" demon they were summoning, anyway.

So, yeah, a few concepts feel a bit odd in M&M, but for the most part, it seems like a great system.

-----

On an unrelated note, something else my ideal system would have is invention: the ability to create something new. Battletech has mech construction rules; D&D allows you to create custom spells, items, and even classes; Shadow Run allows for the creation of custom spells; WoD Mage is all about custom spells; etc. My ideal system would have clear rules to allow my characters to invent solutions to the problems they face. IIRC, Battletech and Shadow Run succeeded at that; most other systems have nothing, or a Mother May I invention system.

Sometimes, Mother May I is just fine for invention, but, if we're talking ideal system here... well, as someone who wasn't allowed to even pull off rotes straight out of the book in WoD Mage, I'd prefer not to be at the whim of horrible GMs. And I'd like my character to be easily portable between groups.

And, if we're talking truly ideal here, I believe that my ideal rpg would be completely immersive virtual reality, run by an impartial AI, utilizing a GMs ideas and creativity. In other words, a creative mind comes up with the idea, but then an impartial AI handles the rules, the world, etc.

Vrock_Summoner
2016-08-12, 01:06 AM
On an unrelated note, something else my ideal system would have is invention: the ability to create something new.
I don't have much to say on the rest of your post, but if this is big on your list I think you should look at Ars Magica for inspiration. It only somewhat fits most of your other requirements, since it's a strongly setting-specific system (though you can build anything short of God that makes sense within that setting's cosmology, which is still more than I can say for most games, and the setting is full of concept versatility if you're willing to look outside the main character type). However, it has the single most thoughtful and user-friendly "build your own solution" mechanics of any game I've ever played, so even if the system as a whole doesn't work for you, you could definitely consider drawing ideas from it to home brew into your own games.

Hm. I should start brainstorming an actual answer to this thread. I wonder what my ideal system would look like...

Lorsa
2016-08-12, 07:36 AM
It's not a boring answer, it's just a bad answer because it lacks details.

What kinds of rules annoy or irritate your group?

Also, as written, your answer means that freeform RP is ideal for your group, since it would have no rules to annoy or irritate you. This is probably not what you intended.

You're right, it does sound like freeform RP would be ideal. It was really not what I intended, no. :smallsmile:

Now let's see, it differs from group to group obviously. I can say a few things that have annoyed or irritated me though.


1. Random character progression.

This is my main beef with Burning Wheel (as seen from the thread that discusses it). I do enjoy the drama of having random task/conflict resolution (therefore no freeform RP), but I don't much care for when it's applied to the improvement of characters. For example, the swedish game Eon requires to you roll OVER your skill in order to improve. The idea is that it makes skills harder to increase the higher they get but the result is that it just becomes too random.

Many version of D&D also has a random character progression element, specifically HP. This annoys some of my friends more than me, but it's easy enough to make some houserules to dimish its effect without affecting the system as a whole.

2. "Roleplay-skill" based character progression.

Again with character progression. While I consider myself a fairly apt roleplayer, and it may thus seem counter-intuitive why I wouldn't want to reward it, it is a simply matter of reality that not everyone is equally good. Some are new, some are shy, some take longer to learn and others just don't want to. I don't believe in penalizing people, or more specifically their characters, for skills lacked by the player. I think roleplaying works best when it's free from judgement, not when it's scripted into the rules to be "awarded".

Character progression summary: In fact, I think I most prefer when every character in the whole group is awarded the same amount of XP and progresses in the same way, regardless of individual people's actual "performance". I see RPGs as a group activity, not a competition between players.

3. Game mechanics meant to describe a theme but really don't.

Whenever you put in game mechanics for other things that task/conflict resolution, you really need to think hard and playtest it properly to make sure it works as intended. An example (not necessarily bad) would be the sanity rules in CoC.

One bad egg I remember clearly is WoD's (both o and n) morality rules. The theme in many of their games is about the slow moral decay that occurs when people are forced to make hard choices. Vampire in particular is about slowly loosing grip with ones humanity. Unfortunately, the game mechanics are random and based on only a few important rolls. This means that, given the things that normally happen in RPG adventures, a Vampire character may loose almost all Humanity in just a few game sessions. Hardly a slow decay, but a two month journey to the lowest scores of the Humanity scale. That's not for being a murder-hobo, in case it was unclear.

At the same time, another PC may have done the exact same things, but succeeded with all the rolls thus retaining all humanity. In fact, the player may succeed with ALL morality-based rolls, thus never experiencing the slow decline at all!

Basically, when you have a theme you want to include, don't make your mechanics too random, or they may end modeling something else.

4. Combat mechanics that boils down to one roll.

Mind you, I have had combats that were resolved in just one roll. Just the other weekend there was a fight where the outcome was more or less pre-determined, so I had the player roll a "tactics" roll and let that determine the amount of injuries attained by the people on his side.

What I don't like is when one roll is incredibly more important than all others, but it's not explicit in the rules, or perhaps not really intended. Again, BW is an example, where in the end it all boils down to the armor roll (it soaks all or none of the damage). The swedish game "Coriolis" is of such nature that going first effectively wins you the combat, as any hit taken reduces the effectiveness in combat to pointless.

I don't mind the BW "simple combat" solution as much, when it specifically states that it is resolved in one roll, I dislike when it's an unintended consequence (poor design basically).

5. Obvious but unintended character min-max opportunity.

Some games are written with min-maxing in mind (case in point: D&D). Some are not, yet feature horrible min-max character creation mechanics. One big offender here is WoD, where at character creation you get "dots" to distribute, whereas in the game you get XP to buy dots, and the dots cost different amount of XP depending on which level they are on.

This means that creating characters with very high skill + very low skills is the obvious min-maxed option compared to those of with more even levels. I really don't think that was intended, and I hate that I have to keep it in mind when creating characters.

Either be honest with that your system is written with min-maxing in mind, or make it impossible.

---------

I guess there's more but that will have to do for now. Reading the list, it seems what I really dislike is bad or poorly designed game mechanics. The kind that was invented to do something, but instead turn out doing something entirely different.

Really, playtest, how hard can it be?

Cluedrew
2016-08-12, 09:16 AM
Really, playtest, how hard can it be?Well first you have to get a group of players. Earlier in development, when the rules are new and unstable, this means finding players who are willing to learn rules for a game that they may only play once and may not even be fun. Later on you can have some players come back, but you also need new people to minimise any biases about previous editions of the game, things people may have liked but didn't fit into the big picture. And that not even getting into long term play or rules clarity, both of which have there own additional guild-lines for a good play test.

Also it helps if the play testers don't like you, I mean you don't want them hate you, but you don't want them to be nice.

Any I haven't even gotten to setting up the play test, running it, collecting or figuring out what the feedback actually means.

So I guess what is I am saying is... play testing can be hard. It is worth it, most defiantly. But that doesn't make it easy.

Max_Killjoy
2016-08-12, 10:02 AM
You're right, it does sound like freeform RP would be ideal. It was really not what I intended, no. :smallsmile:

Now let's see, it differs from group to group obviously. I can say a few things that have annoyed or irritated me though.


1. Random character progression.

This is my main beef with Burning Wheel (as seen from the thread that discusses it). I do enjoy the drama of having random task/conflict resolution (therefore no freeform RP), but I don't much care for when it's applied to the improvement of characters. For example, the swedish game Eon requires to you roll OVER your skill in order to improve. The idea is that it makes skills harder to increase the higher they get but the result is that it just becomes too random.

Many version of D&D also has a random character progression element, specifically HP. This annoys some of my friends more than me, but it's easy enough to make some houserules to dimish its effect without affecting the system as a whole.

2. "Roleplay-skill" based character progression.

Again with character progression. While I consider myself a fairly apt roleplayer, and it may thus seem counter-intuitive why I wouldn't want to reward it, it is a simply matter of reality that not everyone is equally good. Some are new, some are shy, some take longer to learn and others just don't want to. I don't believe in penalizing people, or more specifically their characters, for skills lacked by the player. I think roleplaying works best when it's free from judgement, not when it's scripted into the rules to be "awarded".

Character progression summary: In fact, I think I most prefer when every character in the whole group is awarded the same amount of XP and progresses in the same way, regardless of individual people's actual "performance". I see RPGs as a group activity, not a competition between players.

3. Game mechanics meant to describe a theme but really don't.

Whenever you put in game mechanics for other things that task/conflict resolution, you really need to think hard and playtest it properly to make sure it works as intended. An example (not necessarily bad) would be the sanity rules in CoC.

One bad egg I remember clearly is WoD's (both o and n) morality rules. The theme in many of their games is about the slow moral decay that occurs when people are forced to make hard choices. Vampire in particular is about slowly loosing grip with ones humanity. Unfortunately, the game mechanics are random and based on only a few important rolls. This means that, given the things that normally happen in RPG adventures, a Vampire character may loose almost all Humanity in just a few game sessions. Hardly a slow decay, but a two month journey to the lowest scores of the Humanity scale. That's not for being a murder-hobo, in case it was unclear.

At the same time, another PC may have done the exact same things, but succeeded with all the rolls thus retaining all humanity. In fact, the player may succeed with ALL morality-based rolls, thus never experiencing the slow decline at all!

Basically, when you have a theme you want to include, don't make your mechanics too random, or they may end modeling something else.

4. Combat mechanics that boils down to one roll.

Mind you, I have had combats that were resolved in just one roll. Just the other weekend there was a fight where the outcome was more or less pre-determined, so I had the player roll a "tactics" roll and let that determine the amount of injuries attained by the people on his side.

What I don't like is when one roll is incredibly more important than all others, but it's not explicit in the rules, or perhaps not really intended. Again, BW is an example, where in the end it all boils down to the armor roll (it soaks all or none of the damage). The swedish game "Coriolis" is of such nature that going first effectively wins you the combat, as any hit taken reduces the effectiveness in combat to pointless.

I don't mind the BW "simple combat" solution as much, when it specifically states that it is resolved in one roll, I dislike when it's an unintended consequence (poor design basically).

5. Obvious but unintended character min-max opportunity.

Some games are written with min-maxing in mind (case in point: D&D). Some are not, yet feature horrible min-max character creation mechanics. One big offender here is WoD, where at character creation you get "dots" to distribute, whereas in the game you get XP to buy dots, and the dots cost different amount of XP depending on which level they are on.

This means that creating characters with very high skill + very low skills is the obvious min-maxed option compared to those of with more even levels. I really don't think that was intended, and I hate that I have to keep it in mind when creating characters.

Either be honest with that your system is written with min-maxing in mind, or make it impossible.

---------

I guess there's more but that will have to do for now. Reading the list, it seems what I really dislike is bad or poorly designed game mechanics. The kind that was invented to do something, but instead turn out doing something entirely different.

Really, playtest, how hard can it be?


I largely agree with that list.



Me... I prefer a more freeform approach to the roleplaying itself. Leave the mechanics to task resolution, and that's it.

Every attempt I've seen to deeply codify roleplaying into the rules has, IMO, fallen flat on its face, and made the roleplaying into another dice-rolling, optimizing, metagaming exercise.

CharonsHelper
2016-08-12, 10:35 AM
Every attempt I've seen to deeply codify roleplaying into the rules has, IMO, fallen flat on its face, and made the roleplaying into another dice-rolling, optimizing, metagaming exercise.

I actually do like the Apocalypse rules for intimidation, and I used it as a (very general) template for the intimidation rules in my own system.

It doesn't force them to do anything, but if you intimidate them, they have to do 1+ things from a list at their choice. (Back away/tell you something they think you want to know etc.)

I also kinda like rules/skills to apply to bluffing/lying and for bargaining/negotiation.

But for general talking/discussion/roleplaying - I agree with you.

CharonsHelper
2016-08-12, 10:40 AM
5. Obvious but unintended character min-max opportunity.

Some games are written with min-maxing in mind (case in point: D&D). Some are not, yet feature horrible min-max character creation mechanics. One big offender here is WoD, where at character creation you get "dots" to distribute, whereas in the game you get XP to buy dots, and the dots cost different amount of XP depending on which level they are on.

This means that creating characters with very high skill + very low skills is the obvious min-maxed option compared to those of with more even levels. I really don't think that was intended, and I hate that I have to keep it in mind when creating characters.

Either be honest with that your system is written with min-maxing in mind, or make it impossible.

Yes - I have a personal loathing for any game system where character creation & advancement are different costs, especially as blatantly as WoD/Cthulhutech etc. Even in 3.x D&D/Pathfinder, since I always play with point-buy (though I've tried to convince my group to use an array before) I would prefer if, instead of the ability point addition you gain every 4th level (which always goes to your highest stat unless you're dumb) that each level you gain +1 ability point spent as per character creation.

Malimar
2016-08-12, 10:59 AM
I've never played Pendragon, but it allegedly has a feature that appeals to me where years pass between adventures, so you play your character and then eventually you play their heir, and so on. The perfect TTRPG for me would have this feature or something like it, because I love dynastic play and, like, Crusader Kings II is the Platonic Ideal of games and even TTRPGs should strive to emulate it and stuff.

2D8HP
2016-08-12, 11:52 AM
I've never played Pendragon.
Pendragon tops my list of games I'd like to have played, I bought four editions of it (1,3,4 & 5)!!

Max_Killjoy
2016-08-12, 01:03 PM
I actually do like the Apocalypse rules for intimidation, and I used it as a (very general) template for the intimidation rules in my own system.

It doesn't force them to do anything, but if you intimidate them, they have to do 1+ things from a list at their choice. (Back away/tell you something they think you want to know etc.)

I also kinda like rules/skills to apply to bluffing/lying and for bargaining/negotiation.

But for general talking/discussion/roleplaying - I agree with you.


There's a place for some social interaction rules to deal with certain aspects, I'm not denying that -- intimidating NPCs, etc.

Yael
2016-08-13, 10:46 PM
Just one point...

Players/GM arriving at the pointed time... Not three hours late... :smallfrown:

Cluedrew
2016-08-14, 09:23 PM
There's a place for some social interaction rules to deal with certain aspects, I'm not denying that -- intimidating NPCs, etc.Somewhere this is a line between social as a skill/ability which should be handled with mechanics and social as characterization which should be left abatable to describe the character. Good luck trying to draw that line perfectly though.

*Or not, you can have a diplomatic game were player skill counts here... but that isn't my ideal RPG.

To Yael: If I could I would totally encode "having fee time to play the game" into the system if I could. But I haven't figured out how to do that.

2D8HP
2016-08-14, 09:51 PM
At the 5e Forum I saw this post:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20677189&postcount=4

I picked up this that I was working on before and changed some stuff around.

Cleric, Fighter, and Sorcerer. .

I like it! :biggrin:

But it reminds me of something......

http://i2.wp.com/shaneplays.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/original_dungeons_and_dragons_dd_men_and_magic_cov er.jpg?zoom=4&resize=312%2C494
Essentially he distilled 5e's many disparate classes, back into the original-original D&D classes of "Fighting-man", "Cleric"and "Magic-User", but with a 5e chassis. Maybe not "perfect", but a step in the right direction!

Earthwalker
2016-08-15, 06:23 AM
[snip]

My character is a shapeshifter, who gains the full abilities of whatever form taken. If I meet a Kryptonian, I can (give or take fighting skill) go toe-to-toe with Superman seconds later.

[snip]



I honestly have no idea how this power fits into any group game. What is the point of taking any other power but this ? It is in fact all powers rolled into one.

You have 4 starting characters.

Character A has super strength.
Character B has flight
Character C has telepathy
Character D has any of the above when he chooses and has any powers of the villains you meet.

Characters A,B and C are there just so Character D can copy their power sets.

Max_Killjoy
2016-08-15, 06:50 AM
I honestly have no idea how this power fits into any group game. What is the point of taking any other power but this ? It is in fact all powers rolled into one.

You have 4 starting characters.

Character A has super strength.
Character B has flight
Character C has telepathy
Character D has any of the above when he chooses and has any powers of the villains you meet.

Characters A,B and C are there just so Character D can copy their power sets.


There could be unstated limits, or limits that the player is RPing, or something.

But in general, it takes a group that's not focused on raw power balance, and a player making a conscious effort to not dominate the game.

It's one of those concepts that probably works better in fiction than in a game, for the most part.

Yora
2016-08-15, 06:51 AM
Mine looks like Basic/Expert D&D with Base Attack Bonus for attack rolls, d6s instead of d100s for thief skills, the XPH spell point system instead of spell slots, and the fighter, thief, and magic-user classes being open to characters of all races.
Which is what I am currently using.

CharonsHelper
2016-08-15, 07:14 AM
Second thing to come to mind - and this might well be the most important thing for me - is that there are, to put it in common parlance, no trap options.

...

My ideal system would definitely have lots of options. This allows for great character diversity, replay value, etc.

The two of those are both good goals, but they're mutually exclusive.

When you have significant customization there will always be trap options. This is inherent, because even if option X is a solid choice in build X, it may be terrible taken when playing build Y.

If you want options to play niche builds, then there need to be powers/abilities for those niche builds which will be sub-par for any other build. etc.

Earthwalker
2016-08-15, 07:51 AM
There could be unstated limits, or limits that the player is RPing, or something.

But in general, it takes a group that's not focused on raw power balance, and a player making a conscious effort to not dominate the game.

It's one of those concepts that probably works better in fiction than in a game, for the most part.

I think you hit the nail on the head. I was reacting to how my group would view the power and how much hurt feelings it would cause.
Perhaps my group isn't the best to base things off.

I mean I to would feel a little pointless if another player at the table basically had all my powers and everyone else in the groups too.

Also am I wrong here but seeing a Kyptonian and becoming one doesn't give you all the powers in seconds, shouldn't you have to power up your yellow sun solar battery first ?

2D8HP
2016-08-15, 07:52 AM
Mine looks like Basic/Expert D&D with Base Attack Bonus for attack rolls, d6s instead of d100s for thief skills, the XPH spell point system instead of spell slots, and the fighter, thief, and magic-user classes being open to characters of all races.
Which is what I am currently using.
I'm very curious on how those work, especially the XPH spell points, what are those? You have so many posts (and thank you for them!), that it's hard to quickly wade through them, so pointers would be great.
Thanks!

CharonsHelper
2016-08-15, 09:24 AM
I think you hit the nail on the head. I was reacting to how my group would view the power and how much hurt feelings it would cause.
Perhaps my group isn't the best to base things off.

I mean I to would feel a little pointless if another player at the table basically had all my powers and everyone else in the groups too.

Also am I wrong here but seeing a Kyptonian and becoming one doesn't give you all the powers in seconds, shouldn't you have to power up your yellow sun solar battery first ?

The only way I could see it working in an at all balanced way is sort of like how the pokémon ditto works. You could get all of their moves and core types, but you don't gain their ability scores, so you're likely a sub-par copy since you have to spread your ability scores to be decent at everything that you change into, while they put their abilities to what most benefits their own moves.

OldTrees1
2016-08-15, 12:59 PM
The only way I could see it working in an at all balanced way is sort of like how the pokémon ditto works. You could get all of their moves and core types, but you don't gain their ability scores, so you're likely a sub-par copy since you have to spread your ability scores to be decent at everything that you change into, while they put their abilities to what most benefits their own moves.

Alternatively:
Everyone gets 3 powers except you. You get 1 power that you can change.

BWR
2016-08-15, 01:34 PM
My ideal game system let's me do exactly what I want how I want, is intuitive and easy to understand and exactly as crunchy or rules-light as I want it for any situation. And it has amazing art.

Hey, we are talking ideal.

Remedy
2016-08-15, 01:49 PM
My ideal game system let's me do exactly what I want how I want, is intuitive and easy to understand and exactly as crunchy or rules-light as I want it for any situation. And it has amazing art.

Hey, we are talking ideal.
Well yes, but this is less "ideal" and more "so vague that it can't directly contradict any of my desires." I mean, aside from the fact that you consider good art important, your answer doesn't actually say anything about what you want from a game.

LooseCannoneer
2016-08-15, 02:07 PM
Alternatively:
Everyone gets 3 powers except you. You get 1 power that you can change.

I'd probably add a time limit on changes, given that you could rapidly swap between flight and, say, laser eyes without too much issue.

Vrock_Summoner
2016-08-15, 02:40 PM
I'd probably add a time limit on changes, given that you could rapidly swap between flight and, say, laser eyes without too much issue.
You might not want to do so while flying, however.

CharonsHelper
2016-08-15, 02:42 PM
You might not want to do so while flying, however.

Lol - I'm now imagining the character trying to calculate if he is high enough that can switch to laser eyes, use them, and have time to switch back to flying before he hits the ground.

BWR
2016-08-15, 03:07 PM
Well yes, but this is less "ideal" and more "so vague that it can't directly contradict any of my desires." I mean, aside from the fact that you consider good art important, your answer doesn't actually say anything about what you want from a game.

I said exactly what I want: something that allows me to do exactly what I want and how I want it. It can't be any more specific than that because then we would be getting into details about what I want in any particular game, the details of which may vary from game to game. The concept of an ideal system only works if it is immensely complicated with tons of rules to run any conceivable type of game yet actually functional, or the system is very specific and really only works for a single type of game or very limited set of games.
Not to mention I have a hard time envisioning anything specific in an ideal system. I just don't know what it would look like. Every system I've come across is flawed to one degree or another. Even ones I like have stuff I dislike. As it is, I will eventually house rule the **** out of almost any system I use to make it more to my liking but that's not exactly making things ideal, just altering some of the more issues. Sometimes I will even make up some sub-mechanics but none of these options result in something ideal, just (to my mind) better than where I started.

OldTrees1
2016-08-15, 03:10 PM
I'd probably add a time limit on changes, given that you could rapidly swap between flight and, say, laser eyes without too much issue.

GrrlPower is a webcomic with 2 multipower superheros. Even with very rapid switching there have been times where rapid switching would be tactically disastrous. While the difficulties of switching away from flying -> free fall are obvious in hindsight, invulnerability is another example. If you are set to invulnerability and said invulnerability is being tested, someone with laser vision could continue being proactive but the copycat is stuck in total defense.

oxybe
2016-08-15, 03:16 PM
4th ed D&D with editing and a few house rules.

-Reign in the variable +X's and reactionary abilities
-change up feats to allow for allowing neither new options for characters or expanding existing ones, not raw numerical boosts
-inherent bonuses is default, there is no +X Sword.
-more "quality of life" cheap magic items, like portable campfires, tents that protect you VS the elements, everfull waterskins, etc...
-MM3/MV style monsters the default

Quertus
2016-08-15, 03:21 PM
The two of those are both good goals, but they're mutually exclusive.

When you have significant customization there will always be trap options. This is inherent, because even if option X is a solid choice in build X, it may be terrible taken when playing build Y.

If you want options to play niche builds, then there need to be powers/abilities for those niche builds which will be sub-par for any other build. etc.

I was writing a more thorough response, but it was eaten :( So, let me try again. Here are some of what I think your main points were, and my responses thereunto.

Cross-theme abilities are useless.

My signature character, Quertus, has max ranks in hide. Under some DMs, who artificially inflate the DCs, this is useless. I attempt to re-educate such DMs. While he's nowhere near as good as a dedicated sneak, under most DMs his skills give him mundane options most people don't expect from a wizard.

If I can actually make use of sneaking as a wizard in 3.x, I expect my ideal system will also allow characters to perform some useful off-theme actions.

Increasing options creates more trap options.

This sounds like 3e thinking, where you try to combine classes, feats, and items in some optimal combination to produce The Build. But it doesn't have to be that way. What if 90% of your ability to affect the narrative was already baked into some solid core, and your add-ons were more minor, flavorful options, more like kits in 2e. Under that kind of system, diplomat fighter seems less of a trap.

Or, what if 110% of your ability to affect the narrative was baked into your core class, and your add-ons on a whole detracted from your ability to impact the narrative. In this case, a fairy princess pirate unicorn rider fated herbalist ninja mystic diplomat word salad fighter might be a trap option, but a more reasonable starting character would not.

So, let's use agile design principles to develop the most basic implementation of the game from my word salad example. In this game, which I will dub The Worst System Ever (TM), you have one stat, "affect narrative". When you want to do something, you explain your actions, the GM tells you the DC, you roll dice and add your affect narrative stat. Your character also has from one to three "descriptors". Each descriptor gives your character some special bonus in certain specific cases (or allows otherwise impossible actions, like flying)... but also subtracts one from your affect narrative score.

It might seem a trap to take more than one descriptor... but I think, if it fits the theme of your character, most players wouldn't look at it that way. Put another way, even if there is some optimal diet, I believe most people appreciate a variety of foods, and as long as it approximates a good diet, it's close enough.

...

In summary, I don't think that these two goals of "lots of options" and "no trap options" have to be mutually exclusive.


I honestly have no idea how this power fits into any group game. What is the point of taking any other power but this ? It is in fact all powers rolled into one.

You have 4 starting characters.

Character A has super strength.
Character B has flight
Character C has telepathy
Character D has any of the above when he chooses and has any powers of the villains you meet.

Characters A,B and C are there just so Character D can copy their power sets.

No, I can only shapechange into a creature. So, if all of their powers are biological, yes, I could have any one of their powers at a time, albeit untrained. And some biological powers (I'm looking at you, Cyclops) are unsafe to duplicate without the right gear.

A... "mad scientist"... stole my character's body in a D&D game / mind swapped my character into this amazing shapeshifter body. In D&D, character abilities come from training and items, so nothing a shapeshifter could duplicate. So no hard feelings from the other players. That didn't stop it from completely detailing the campaign, however, as there were still plenty of powerful monsters for my character to change into. I killed the campaign in one session. I spent the first half of the session experimenting, and nailing down exactly what I could do, and the second half trivializing encounters with precision shapeshifting. :(


There could be unstated limits, or limits that the player is RPing, or something.

But in general, it takes a group that's not focused on raw power balance, and a player making a conscious effort to not dominate the game.

It's one of those concepts that probably works better in fiction than in a game, for the most part.

Yeah, honestly, I've never found a system where a character based on this concept was really playable. Which is why my hypothetical ideal system would enable this concept in a way no other system has. ;)


Also am I wrong here but seeing a Kyptonian and becoming one doesn't give you all the powers in seconds, shouldn't you have to power up your yellow sun solar battery first ?

Touche. Bad example, but one I thought everyone would easily understand. ... What is the source of One Punch Man's power?

CharonsHelper
2016-08-15, 03:34 PM
This sounds like 3e thinking, where you try to combine classes, feats, and items in some optimal combination to produce The Build. But it doesn't have to be that way. What if 90% of your ability to affect the narrative was already baked into some solid core, and your add-ons were more minor, flavorful options, more like kits in 2e. Under that kind of system, diplomat fighter seems less of a trap.

Or, what if 110% of your ability to affect the narrative was baked into your core class, and your add-ons on a whole detracted from your ability to impact the narrative. In this case, a fairy princess pirate unicorn rider fated herbalist ninja mystic diplomat word salad fighter might be a trap option, but a more reasonable starting character would not.


At that point - then your choices don't create trap options only because they don't affect the game much. They are mostly 'magician's choice' choices - tricking players into thinking that they have more customization options than they really do mechanically. There would still be trap options, they just wouldn't be significantly detrimental.

LooseCannoneer
2016-08-15, 08:59 PM
You might not want to do so while flying, however.

Why not? Let's assume that switching is completely instantaneous, and that shooting a laser is also relatively instantaneous. If you spend a quarter second shooting a laser before switching back, you're only falling at 2.45 m/s before you catch yourself. If you were to do a half on/half off rotation where you fly up, then laser, then fly up, then you could maintain a stable velocity while firing lasers everywhere.

If you wanted to get really wonky, you could accelerate up to the maximum possible velocity in flight, then swap to invulnerability right when you hit something, which is something neither the invulnerable person nor the flying person could do.

Switching instantly whenever you want has issues.

Vrock_Summoner
2016-08-15, 09:44 PM
Why not? Let's assume that switching is completely instantaneous, and that shooting a laser is also relatively instantaneous. If you spend a quarter second shooting a laser before switching back, you're only falling at 2.45 m/s before you catch yourself. If you were to do a half on/half off rotation where you fly up, then laser, then fly up, then you could maintain a stable velocity while firing lasers everywhere.

If you wanted to get really wonky, you could accelerate up to the maximum possible velocity in flight, then swap to invulnerability right when you hit something, which is something neither the invulnerable person nor the flying person could do.

Switching instantly whenever you want has issues.
In context of an RPG, I had assumed power switching would take a turn or part of it, rather than being instantaneous. So you start falling when you switch out, keep doing so while firing the laser, and then take the third regaining the flight ability (and thus still falling for the duration). Depending on round length in your system, that's eighteen or thirty seconds of falling, or somewhere in that area, which isn't always tenable for positioning and splatty reasons.

More to the point, though, I was making a joke. Sorry that apparently wasn't clear.

LooseCannoneer
2016-08-15, 09:55 PM
In context of an RPG, I had assumed power switching would take a turn or part of it, rather than being instantaneous. So you start falling when you switch out, keep doing so while firing the laser, and then take the third regaining the flight ability (and thus still falling for the duration). Depending on round length in your system, that's eighteen or thirty seconds of falling, or somewhere in that area, which isn't always tenable for positioning and splatty reasons.

More to the point, though, I was making a joke. Sorry that apparently wasn't clear.

No problem.

I would personally add a cooldown time in between swaps, and make the swap itself fast (some form of non-standard action). That way, it would allow for an emergency in combat without allowing abuse.

Quertus
2016-08-16, 10:06 AM
At that point - then your choices don't create trap options only because they don't affect the game much. They are mostly 'magician's choice' choices - tricking players into thinking that they have more customization options than they really do mechanically. There would still be trap options, they just wouldn't be significantly detrimental.

Hmmm... good point. But I think they're is still some acceptable middle ground. Take food for example. Even if there is a "perfect diet", which, say, includes one apple and one orange per day, that doesn't necessitate that mango and papaya are trap options. Yes, you could add in trap options, empty calories like chocolate cake, but I don't think you have to have trap foods while still having a fun variety of flavors to stimulate the pallet. And fresh apples vs apple sauce vs baked apples vs... doesn't seem like a non-choice. If it was, why would we have bothered inventing the vast variety of ways to prepare food? Sometimes you're more in the mood for one than the other.

2D8HP
2016-08-16, 10:24 AM
Part of a longer post at the worst Roleplaying game thread, seems to fit here:

Easiest to hardest to GM?

1) Call of Cthullu (easy system and the plots are amazingly easy to make up).
2) Basic D&D (fun setting and a 48 page rulebook!).
3) Ringworld/Runequest/Stormbringer! (pretty much the same rules as CoC).
4) Advanced Dungeons and Dragons (the more and closer you adhere to RAW the harder it gets).
5) Every other RPG (mostly because I don't seem to be able to remember for very long any other games rules I read accept for Pendragon which I've never gotten to play).

Most fun to least fun to play?
1) Original D&D (first love is the strongest).
2) All other versions of D&D that I've played.
3) Traveller.
4) Runequest.
5) Shadowrun.
6) Every other RPG I've played that I don't list.
7) Champions/Villains & Vigilantes/superheroes in general.
8) Vampire
9) Cyberpunk.

Games I've never played but want to?
1) Pendragon
2) Flashing Blades
3) Castle Falkenstein (the setting just looks so fun!).
4) Dungeon World.
5) All the various other versions of D&D that I haven't yet played including the "retroclones", "homebrews" etc.
6) All the "Fantasy Heartbreakers".

Games you would have to pay me well to play:
1) Werewolf (I actually like Lycanthopes in most Fantasy settings, just not W.O.D.).
2) Pretty much any modern day, near future or "dark future" setting, I just don't see the point. Most of my work in real life is spent doing building repairs for the police and the jail, I don't want any settings close to that in my games, I crave escapism (gas-lamp fantasy, swashbuckling, Swords and Sorcery, Space Opera etc.)!

Earthwalker
2016-08-16, 10:28 AM
[snip]

No, I can only shapechange into a creature. So, if all of their powers are biological, yes, I could have any one of their powers at a time, albeit untrained. And some biological powers (I'm looking at you, Cyclops) are unsafe to duplicate without the right gear.
A... "mad scientist"... stole my character's body in a D&D game / mind swapped my character into this amazing shapeshifter body. In D&D, character abilities come from training and items, so nothing a shapeshifter could duplicate. So no hard feelings from the other players. That didn't stop it from completely detailing the campaign, however, as there were still plenty of powerful monsters for my character to change into. I killed the campaign in one session. I spent the first half of the session experimenting, and nailing down exactly what I could do, and the second half trivializing encounters with precision shapeshifting. :(
Yeah, honestly, I've never found a system where a character based on this concept was really playable. Which is why my hypothetical ideal system would enable this concept in a way no other system has. ;)

Even after your story I am still convinced that there is not a way for this to make it into a game. Of course like you say your ideal system would let this in (I just have no idea how).
You have of course clarified what powers you can take and limited it. It still feels if this power exists it’s pointless taking “biological” powers. Take shape shifting instead and get all of them.



Touche. Bad example, but one I thought everyone would easily understand. ... What is the source of One Punch Man's power?

See we have gone beyond my limited knowledge of superheroes.

CharonsHelper
2016-08-16, 10:40 AM
Hmmm... good point. But I think they're is still some acceptable middle ground.

Oh - you can definitely do better on that front than 3.x & Pathfinder. They have quite a few options which always sub-par; probably about 1/3 of the feats and nearly that many of the spells. But any game with much crunch, true customization, & significant asymmetry is inherently going to have some amount of 'trap' options which are solid/awesome in specific niche builds but are weak for any other characters.

It's like in MTG. A card which gives +1/+2 to all soldier cards is freakin' awesome if you're running a soldier deck, but it would be pretty worthless in any deck.

Cluedrew
2016-08-16, 02:56 PM
The ability to remove trap option also depends on what we mean by "trap option". I don't wish to split hairs but... well first off I have never been given a definition for trap option and on top of that I have heard it be used in ways that suggest means from "sub-optimal" to "it appears to be a good choice, but it never will be, ever".

And I think an option looking like a good choice but not being a good choice is actually part of it. I mean that magic card doesn't strike me as a trap, because it is obvious to anyone with even basic knowledge of the game what that care is for. I can't tell you if it is a good or bad card overall, but I can say I would not put into a deck with no soldiers. And I have played very little Magic: The Gathering.

ImNotTrevor
2016-08-16, 08:47 PM
Touche. Bad example, but one I thought everyone would easily understand. ... What is the source of One Punch Man's power?

That is debated, apparently.

Prevailing theory is that Saitama is a "Mysterious Being," basically people who become so dedicated to an ideal/obsession that it becomes their reality.

Ie, the crab guy who ate so much crab he became a crab monster.

For Saitama, is desire to break his own limits was so great that he simply stopped having any. Meaning his power level is infinitely high in all regards.

Piedmon_Sama
2016-08-16, 10:20 PM
+Combat feels like Samurai Champloo or one of the better Chanbara movies: fluid, tactical, grounded but not too hidebound by "realism" (which is usually unrealistic anyway). Combat should be more complex than "bigger DPS = win." You should not get punished for trying to do cool things.

+Combat is always highly lethal and dangerous. Anybody can get ganked by a knife through the ribs or a bullet to the head. But you can totally do insanely cool anime kung fu stuff too. Just be sure to end your turn in cover.
---> The nebulousness of Hitpoints is removed. Something more concrete like Warhammer's wound and armor saving throws would be preferable. Characters are more "fragile" in that they can't stand there and let dragons chew on them the way high level D&D PCs can. Getting wounded should be a big deal even if you're Hardass McGee. Think how insanely tough a dude like Spike Spiegel or Mugen is---they get like 3-5 serious injuries and they're done. However the offense/defense ratio should be rejiggered so that characters are harder to hit, armor should prevent injuries rather than contact, and natural healing should be made better than useless.

+Classes have granular complexity. Being a fighter can be as simple as "I walk up and hit it with my axe" or as awesomely complex as "I'll 5-ft step over here, acrobatics through his threatened area and make an attack on his rear side while fighting defensively----so does that sneak attack damage apply to my offhand weapon too?" Similarly there are no "low-skill" classes.

+Social rules stay light and leave things up to the DM. No "MY BLUFF CHECK WAS FORTY YOUR NPC MUST DO THE THING" nonsense.

+Crafting rules are similarly simple, open-ended and ultimately up to the DM. If your character sitting at his forge/writing desk is eating up a lot of the campaign, then somewhere you ****ed up.

+Magic doesn't (totally) replace practical skills. Your Rogue being able to Jackie Chan his way up the castle wall should stay cool and valuable and not become irrelevant once the Wizard is able to crank out potions of Spider Climb.

+Get as detailed as you want with skills because I love the implied backstory and roleplaying that can come just from picking through a massive number of options. Seriously my favorite skill system is Palladium's because those dudes have a whole subset for domestic skills. Why shouldn't your fighter know how to keep a kitchen spotless and why shouldn't there be a way to represent that?

+A user friendly, highly granular way to create your own monsters, races, tools, spells and classes.

CharonsHelper
2016-08-17, 08:22 AM
+Combat is always highly lethal and dangerous. Anybody can get ganked by a knife through the ribs or a bullet to the head. But you can totally do insanely cool anime kung fu stuff too. Just be sure to end your turn in cover.
---> The nebulousness of Hitpoints is removed. Something more concrete like Warhammer's wound and armor saving throws would be preferable. Characters are more "fragile" in that they can't stand there and let dragons chew on them the way high level D&D PCs can. Getting wounded should be a big deal even if you're Hardass McGee. Think how insanely tough a dude like Spike Spiegel or Mugen is---they get like 3-5 serious injuries and they're done. However the offense/defense ratio should be rejiggered so that characters are harder to hit, armor should prevent injuries rather than contact, and natural healing should be made better than useless.

This sounds like you'd prefer a vitality/lifepoints sort of system. Vitality = awesome ability to avoid hits / Lifepoints = being hit and has at least a mild death-spiral

On a critical hit the damage goes straight to lifepoints, so even a mook who gets lucky and/or catches them off guard (so that they take defense penalties) could seriously hurt even a high level character. But most of the time that mook's attack will be dodged by their 'awesome ability to avoid hits' and the high level character will just take a few vitality points of damage, not really getting hit at all.

At least - that's the solution I've come up with in the sci-fi RPG system I'm working on - Space Dogs. :P (shameless plug)

Max_Killjoy
2016-08-17, 08:35 AM
General observation.

Personally, I don't care for loose rules or loose interpretation... I want an attempt to hit that does not succeed -- a miss -- to be that and only that, within the setting and within the rules. I want an attack that is successfully blocked to be that and only that, within the setting and within the rules.

A dodge should be a dodge / evasion, to avoid an attack, nothing else.

"Hit points" should only model actual ability to endure and withstand damage, not a mashed up confused abstraction of elusiveness, luck, resilience, etc.

Frozen_Feet
2016-08-17, 08:40 AM
My ideal RPG would be Basic/Expert with some of the stupid rules excised or simplified.

Which is more or less what Lamentations of the Flame Princess is, so unsurprisingly LotFP is what I've been using for 6 years.

It gets bonus points for getting a steady supply of adventure modules which are genuinely interesting and not something I would come up by myself.

CharonsHelper
2016-08-17, 08:53 AM
"Hit points" should only model actual ability to endure and withstand damage, not a mashed up confused abstraction of elusiveness, luck, resilience, etc.

I take it that means that you dislike the high HP in games like D&D/Pathfinder which is meant to be more abstract?

CharonsHelper
2016-08-17, 08:58 AM
Which is more or less what Lamentations of the Flame Princess is, so unsurprisingly LotFP is what I've been using for 6 years.


It's an OD&D heartbreaker - right?

Max_Killjoy
2016-08-17, 09:12 AM
I take it that means that you dislike the high HP in games like D&D/Pathfinder which is meant to be more abstract?

Yes.

The hit point escalator is one of the reasons I dislike level-based systems so much.

Frozen_Feet
2016-08-17, 09:33 AM
It's an OD&D heartbreaker - right?

No.

At it's core it's a B/X retroclone. Nothing heartbreaking about it. It's the adventure supplements which are the selling point.

CharonsHelper
2016-08-17, 09:47 AM
No.

At it's core it's a B/X retroclone. Nothing heartbreaking about it. It's the adventure supplements which are the selling point.

What's the difference between a heartbreaker and a retroclone? Maybe I have my indie RPG terminology mixed up, but I thought that they were pretty much the same thing.

Max_Killjoy
2016-08-17, 09:57 AM
What's the difference between a heartbreaker and a retroclone? Maybe I have my indie RPG terminology mixed up, but I thought that they were pretty much the same thing.

https://www.google.com/search?q=D%26D+heartbreaker
https://www.google.com/search?q=how+to+tell+a+retroclone+from+a+heartbrea ker (https://www.google.com/search?q=D%26D+heartbreaker)

Frozen_Feet
2016-08-17, 10:09 AM
Heartbreaker is a much broader concept. They try to be genuinely new games, and can be wildly deviant from all versions of D&D, it's just visible the designer didn't have experience with tabletop games other than D&D.

Retroclones really just reproduce D&D rules of some era in cleaned up form for modern use. LotFP, in particular, was made because Raggi wanted to publish old-school adventures, but compatible systems were out-of-print, so he made his own retroclone so that in the case of an interested player miraculously NOT having a compatible system, they could buy one from Raggi.

Since then, newer editions of LotFP have acrued extra rules not found in B/X, but the system was not the point.

Piedmon_Sama
2016-08-17, 02:20 PM
This sounds like you'd prefer a vitality/lifepoints sort of system. Vitality = awesome ability to avoid hits / Lifepoints = being hit and has at least a mild death-spiral

On a critical hit the damage goes straight to lifepoints, so even a mook who gets lucky and/or catches them off guard (so that they take defense penalties) could seriously hurt even a high level character. But most of the time that mook's attack will be dodged by their 'awesome ability to avoid hits' and the high level character will just take a few vitality points of damage, not really getting hit at all.

At least - that's the solution I've come up with in the sci-fi RPG system I'm working on - Space Dogs. :P (shameless plug)

Yeah, pretty much. Unearthed Arcana 3.5 actually had a pretty good Vitality/Wound Points system but the one time I tried to use it I found out some players become so petrified without the cushion of Hitpoints they suffer a kind of decision paralysis. An armed standoff with a gang of 1 HD mooks dragged out for three sessions of crawling and maneuvering, and if I'm making that sound fun it wasn't.

CharonsHelper
2016-08-17, 02:36 PM
Yeah, pretty much. Unearthed Arcana 3.5 actually had a pretty good Vitality/Wound Points system but the one time I tried to use it I found out some players become so petrified without the cushion of Hitpoints they suffer a kind of decision paralysis. An armed standoff with a gang of 1 HD mooks dragged out for three sessions of crawling and maneuvering, and if I'm making that sound fun it wasn't.

That version (I played with basically the same thing in Star Wars Revised Edition) was kinda swingy, though those players seem to be WAY too scared of it. I mean, the worst case scenario is that your character dies. For the first few levels in 3.5 that happens on crits anyway.

I specifically included a rule in Space Dogs to avoid the swing-ness though - it allows PC classes to (for a cost of Grit, which is basically physical mana) mostly mitigate hits which go straight to lifepoints, taking x2 vitality & 1 lifepoint instead (though PCs only have 6-10 lifepoints). In theory it keeps the pluses of such a system while removing the swingy-ness.

Knaight
2016-08-17, 04:28 PM
What's the difference between a heartbreaker and a retroclone? Maybe I have my indie RPG terminology mixed up, but I thought that they were pretty much the same thing.

A retroclone is a straight up duplicate, with possibly some slight changes. A heartbreaker is a genuinely new game that people put a huge amount of work into, but that was made by someone clearly only familiar with D&D and that then ends up vastly worse than it would have been had they spent just a little more time researching what's out there.

Vrock_Summoner
2016-08-17, 07:04 PM
Oh, the talk about wounds and HP actually brings something up for me. I haven't talked much about anything else that would go into my ideal system so this may be a bit out of left field, but it would include built-in incentives for winning, achieving certain objectives, and even just not losing which are more complex and characterizing than just XP and death, because if the game is to be truly enjoyable there should be high tension and a large chance of partially or completely failing, but it shouldn't be the kind of easily-lost and not-really-fun tension of "oh, I really like the guy I'm playing, I'd hate for his character arc to be cut off out of nowhere by a stray crit arrow."

Quertus
2016-08-17, 08:34 PM
Lol - I'm now imagining the character trying to calculate if he is high enough that can switch to laser eyes, use them, and have time to switch back to flying before he hits the ground.

That sounds like my 3.x cleric Khan Ravensblood, riding his zombie dragon. It flies just fine... until it uses its breath weapon, and immediately falls out of the sky, because it can only take partial actions. Quite the hoot at times.


Even after your story I am still convinced that there is not a way for this to make it into a game. Of course like you say your ideal system would let this in (I just have no idea how).
You have of course clarified what powers you can take and limited it. It still feels if this power exists it’s pointless taking “biological” powers. Take shape shifting instead and get all of them.

Well, my story wasn't intended to convince people one way or the other, but to provide a frame of reference for how it did and didn't work the first time I played such a character.

Hmmm... thinking about it, in a system like Shadow Run, where you pay different prices for different races, and being a shapeshifter also prevents certain important options, like cybernetics, and there aren't powerful monsters commonly available to copy, I could see it working. Make the race cost 4 or 5 of your initial build points (old-school Shadow Run) or something, and I can see it being runnable. Problem is, I don't know that the concept really fits with the theme of the game, and I rarely enjoy the kind of game / the role that particular incarnation of the character would likely fall into.


General observation.

Personally, I don't care for loose rules or loose interpretation... I want an attempt to hit that does not succeed -- a miss -- to be that and only that, within the setting and within the rules. I want an attack that is successfully blocked to be that and only that, within the setting and within the rules.

A dodge should be a dodge / evasion, to avoid an attack, nothing else.

"Hit points" should only model actual ability to endure and withstand damage, not a mashed up confused abstraction of elusiveness, luck, resilience, etc.

As a fan of HP, let me give you a different PoV.

When I'm fighting with padded weapons, I can feel my HP. That trading of thrusts and parries as I feel my stamina (HP) dropping, until one of us lands a hit (killing blow).

HP also work well to stimulate combat in which you mostly dodge a poisoned blade, where you can easily survive getting nicked several times, only to fall victim to the debilitating poison. Or where some smaller creature scratches you, perhaps dozens of times, and the wounds eventually become infected.

I'd like to think that these are every bit as realistic as only counting solid hits that could kill a man in a blow or two. And much simpler than trying to individually model stamina, vitality, focus, reading your opponent, fighting style familiarity, sword placement, dodge, parry, and everything else that goes into a fight. But if you don't mind complexity, yeah, HP are an oversimplification.

erikun
2016-08-17, 11:18 PM
My ideal TTRPG would be easy to teach, where I can explain to a new player the general concepts and what they would need to do to start playing.

My ideal TTRPG would be easy to learn, where a player could pick up and reasonably assume, without prior expectations, what they could encounter. It would be something like "roll this die and compare to this number", not "roll this die, add this bonus, compare to this die roll, then if successful roll this die, add these other numbers, subtract those numbers, then roll these other dice for the miss chance..."

My ideal TTRPG would be easy to setup, both for players creating characters and for people running games to create a session. It would be easy to manage what is going on and how to keep track of things.

My ideal TTRPG would be able to produce the expectation that players are going to have when sitting down at the table. A group most likely will never be sitting down at a game with everyone having the exact same expectations, but ideally, any one person should be able to find a game which suits what they are looking for, as opposed to being forced to just play a single type of pre-determined game.

My ideal TTRPG would be something which handles more than just combat, where non-combat not only has a reasonable mechanical representation, but also has some viable use.

My ideal TTRPG would have mechanics and difficulty level/values based on the actual, expected chances of success (realistic or not) as opposed to just throwing some numbers out there in hopes that things work out.


A big reason for those expectations is that I know that I'd be teaching the game to anyone I'd want to play it with. Unless your ideal game is D&D, you probably would too - and even if it was, you'd still need to teach it to people unfamiliar with TTRPGs in general. I want to be able to sit a person down and get them playing reasonably quickly without too much confusion. I want them to be able to play the sort of game they have in mind, before they decide the whole thing is too fiddily and choose to go watch a movie instead.

I also note that not every game system is going to work with every game experience. Fate Core is great with a proactive table, but fairly poor without it. So Fate Core would probably work better than even the "best" general TTRPG if you want everyone to get highly involved, even if my ideal game from above would still be something I'd rather use with new players.