PDA

View Full Version : What would you consider necessary in a new TTRPG?



JessB
2020-11-07, 09:56 PM
Hello everyone!
So, as stated above I am curious as to what you all would consider necessary, important, and or nice to have in a TTRPG? What class distinctions, mechanics, and other things do you think or have seen implemented that improved or would improve gameplay? Would you consider freedom or structure to be of more importance when it comes to character creation, combat, and social aspects of the game?
What things have made a game feel accessible, rewarding, or immersive to you? And lastly, what are the things that have had the opposite effects of that? The pitfalls in past games and systems you have played that didn't seem to be conducive to gameplay?

Segev
2020-11-07, 10:06 PM
Either an interesting setting or genre as its intended playspace, and mechanics that support the playstyle.

I have...a number of mechanical toys and concepts I would play with if designing my own, but it tends to be moderately setting or concept-specific.

Silly Name
2020-11-08, 10:05 AM
I am pretty big on good presentation and clarity of rules - which, mind you, doesn't mean I necessarily demand pretty illustrations, although they're always welcome. I want a book to be readable, with an accessible index and the rules sensibly formatted. To there's nothing quite as bothersome as having to constantly flip back and forth to consult rules that should be all close to each other.

NigelWalmsley
2020-11-08, 11:09 AM
I think about the most useful general advice you can give is that rules should do what they say they do, be organized in a reasonable way, and be clear about what they do.

There aren't really specific mechanics that I would say are universally good, because different genres work in different ways and want different mechanics. A game that is "like Shadowrun" might want mechanics for managing news cycles or hacking computer systems or covering your tracks after a crime. A game that is "like D&D" probably wouldn't want those things, but might instead want mechanics for things like managing supplies on exploration missions or simulating battles between armies. Both games want a combat system, but there you're going to see big differences between how combat work when people generally use guns versus when people generally use swords.

Even something as basic as the RNG depends on the genre you're trying to emulate. Dice Pools work nicely when the expectation is that the power curve is relatively flat, because it's impossible to push someone completely off the RNG. Conversely, if you want to model stories where high level characters can essentially ignore low level ones, you'd rather have a flat RNG (e.g. d20), because that makes it very easy to reach a point where mooks don't threaten you at all.

Jorren
2020-11-08, 11:31 AM
Hello everyone!
So, as stated above I am curious as to what you all would consider necessary, important, and or nice to have in a TTRPG? What class distinctions, mechanics, and other things do you think or have seen implemented that improved or would improve gameplay?

Nowadays it would have to be a toolkit approach to game design with many dials, levers, and style adjustments to vary the game as needed (FATE, GURPS, etc.). Conversely, a very focused game with geared towards a definite style of play (Delta Green, Nobilis, etc.)


Would you consider freedom or structure to be of more importance when it comes to character creation, combat, and social aspects of the game?

Freedom for expansive games (generic fantasy or sci fi), Structure for other types (horror, games modeled on specific books or IPs).


What things have made a game feel accessible, rewarding, or immersive to you?

Accessibility for me is mostly helped by clear and concise rules; unified mechanics go a long way towards doing that. I'm ok with non-unified mechanics, but there really needs to be a good reason for it. As for rewarding, that's more difficult to say since that can come from so many different sources. I've found that in most cases rewarding came down to the capacity to make interesting decisions as a player. Immersion is rather harder to pin down, since it came down to playing the same character for long periods of time and the DM in question; immersion is not really a major focal point for me. It's nice when it occurs, but I don't actively need to seek it unless I'm playing a very focused game (something like Dread or Ten Candles).


And lastly, what are the things that have had the opposite effects of that? The pitfalls in past games and systems you have played that didn't seem to be conducive to gameplay?

Complexity where it is not needed, overt focus on tactical combat to the exclusion of other factors (3E D&D), lack of unified mechanics without a good reason (many games), xp/reward systems that incentivize unusual play (XP as a resource, conflating advancement XP with reroll/metagame currency)

Ravens_cry
2020-11-08, 11:35 AM
I'd like to see more mechanics that feel good to play. Overall, I'm not a fan of 5th Edition D&D, but, I do like the Advantage/Disadvantage system. It feels awesome to roll two dice and one whiffs, but, wait, the other succeeds, and the converse is also true. I'd rather have systems that feel fun than aim for absolute statistical precision.

Theoboldi
2020-11-08, 12:29 PM
Aside from what the other posters have already talked about, I want two things in particular.

One, it needs to have a section for GMs that clearly outlines how it expects you to run it, and that gives you all the tools necessary to do so. I need to know how to get the most out of the system, how to apply the rules I have been given, how I should prepare for a session, and what the author expects to happen if I change some of the rules.

If the game involves combat, I need to have some premade opponent or at least guidelines that make creating them on the spot not a hassle. If the game is about exploration, give me guidance on how to create interesting locations. If it's all about interpersonal relationships and how the characters interact with one another, tell me how to get interesting interactions started and encourage in-character conflict.


Two, mechanical options within the game should be relevant to what the game is actually about. If I am expected to create a character with limited build resources, then I need to know that whatever I pick is something that will then actually be used within the game.

To give an example here, D&D and many games with similar skill systems to this day tend to include a mostly useless Performance skill. It is entirely unrelated to the main adventuring focus of the game, and you would have to go out of your way to create situations where it would be useful. And while it can add flavor to a character, it does so at the expense of abilities that could give them the spotlight during play. If it's something that certain character types are just expected to be able to do, they should get it for free alongside actually relevant benefits.

zarionofarabel
2020-11-08, 03:47 PM
No to Classes, Levels, Ablative HP Combat, Vancian Magic, Combat Using Minis and Grids, and Non-Human PCs.

Yes to Skill Based Resolution, Human Only PCs, Pass/Fail Only Resolution.

Frankly DnD has been done to death, FFG funky dice resolution and minis combat just slows everything down to a crawl and focuses attention mechanics instead of narrative, any PC race other than human is just a human in a funny hat with some mechanical bonuses.

The Fury
2020-11-08, 10:22 PM
Strictly necessary? Players I suppose. Character sheets maybe. I've seen TTRPGs that have done away with pretty much everything else. GMs? Dice? Class/level progression? Experience points? Hit points? Don't need 'em. Like was mentioned before, you should probably have an easy to understand ruleset though.

Telok
2020-11-09, 02:26 AM
Clarity, focus, and communication.

The game should be clear & up front about what it's doing and how it's doing it. There should probably be a focus for the game, other people laid that out; combat, exploration, interpersonal relations, heists, horror, etc. And it should all be effectively communicated to the players and GMs.

Failure states: Clarity - 'melee weapon attack' that only sometimes means 'attack in melee with a weapon'. Focus - having an incomplete section of the game where some characters auto-win, others can't participate, and the DM has to keep making up rules. Communication - AD&D thief skills were a complete communications failure, most D&D stealth/vision rules.

Statistics, in-genera believability, and a well defined scope.

The rule writers need to understand what the dice do, what results come out, and how that shapes the game. Diceless games usually have a resource or something that participants spend, thecrule writers must understand the rates and frequency of aquisition and expenditure, and how that shapes the game. The game needs to produce and support believable results for it's chosen genera. Big dang heroes should be doing heroic things, random people facing cosmic horrors should fear death. A clear scope to the game lets the players and GMs know that the rules don't deal with things beyond that. A game about squad level combat should know & tell you if it encompasses individual duels and multi-army battles.

Failure states: Statistics - a "hard" multi-roll task being easier to succeed at than an "easy" task. Believability - the strongest hero in the land being beaten a number of times at strength contests by nameless npcs. Scope - saying the game works for 1 to 8 players when it actually, as presented to the customer before internet groups solve any problems, stops working smoothly outside of the 3 to 6 range. Or saying that you can have experiences like your favorite hero in a novel and not doing so in a straight forward way.

Clarity, focus, and communication. Statistics, in-genera believability, and a well defined scope. Get those and a good index, I'll pay money. Lots of fail? Random people on the internet have written decent, fun, free, playable games.

Cluedrew
2020-11-09, 07:46 AM
I think a new system needs two things:
A hook: Why should I pick up this system? Why not use one I already have/know? It can be setting based, mechanical or even better both designed from the ground up in a way that works together.
Working Rules: We can negotiate on what sort of rules, how many there are and they can have the occasional hiccup, but they at least half to work.



Yes to […] Human Only PCs, Pass/Fail Only Resolution.Human-Only is situational, as a very simple example if you can only play humans in Star Trek (even though all aliens are humans) something is very wrong. But mostly... Pass/Fail resolution is actually a negative for me. A negotiable negative (see above) but I've just run and played so many systems that have done so many good things with degrees of success. Most of them being Powered by the Apocalypse systems.

Xervous
2020-11-09, 08:44 AM
Complexity should be reserved mostly for the backend, but even there choices should be straightforward and system assumptions should be made clear. Mutants and Mastermind 3’s core rulebook is one of the better examples I’ve seen (but the bar on editing and clarity is admittedly pretty low when we have stuff like 5e D&D and 5e Shadowrun). The rules are presented with all kinds of context painting how various facets expect the game to be run and the consequences of deviating from those assumptions.

The system should know its audience and sell itself to them, not flail miserably at being an Everything game.

Uniform progression rate for the party. Seriously, flibbertigibbet individual RP dependent progression as a system mechanic.

‘Good enough’ abstractions for resolving tedious / repetitive / long run actions. Fewer rolls to reach a conclusion. So don’t use a D20 for starters .

If the game is heavily constrained, presenting players the illusion of character building choice, it should be up front about this. If the intent is to constrain the mechanical outputs of character creation refer back to the first paragraph on context and clarification.

If the game is much more open, again context and clarification play a part. Are characters expected to be roughly equals or does the system expect there to be divergent specialization?

Pauly
2020-11-09, 06:47 PM
Unified mechanics. A skill test is a skill test whether it is combat, NPC interaction, disarming a trap etc.

Find a way to make each characteristic useful in combat. Using the classic DnD characteristics
Wisdom - good at making decisions - bonuses for missile fire and skills like counterattack because they can judge the right time to take action.
Intelligence - good at information processing - bonuses for critical hits because the know the armor gaps/critical zones.
Charisma - good at reading/influencing others - bonuses for skills such as dodge and parry because they can predict what the opponent will do.