Is there a meaningful distinction to be made between the system and the content?

[PhoenixPhyre]

As I see it, a TTRPG "rule-set" consists of two pieces. The system and the content. One tells you how to resolve in-game actions; the other gives pieces of various size with which to play.

At one extreme (?) are games like Fate, where the core books are almost entirely system. They tell you how to build content, but they don't provide things like settings, stock NPCs, "PC builds", or scenarios. Effectively, the content and the system are decoupled and you have to provide your own.

Much further toward the content-heavy/highly-coupled end are things like the Storyteller games (Vampire, etc), which from what I understand are so tightly linked with the provided world-building content, etc that it's hard to extract a system that can be applied elsewhere, at least beyond the "roll d10s, count successes" basics. Or Shadowrun, where the world is tightly coupled to the mechanics and vice versa.

In a different place are the modular "generic" systems such as GURPS, where they provide a lot of content in the form of rules/"powers" (ie things to spend build points on) but it's all modular and you end up building the worlds around it.

In the middle are (in different locations) the various D&D's, which have implied world constraints and lots and lots of content, but which also have a framework on which the content is built and a strong tradition of homebrew at all levels.

I've heard that the culture of The Dark Eye (sorry, my german isn't good enough to get the real spelling) is extremely top-down content-driven--you're basically playing in fixed modules where you don't have much freedom to change things and there's a strong meta-plot. But that may be a wrong assumption.

Does this idea make any sense to anyone else? Personally, I like a balance. I need the flexibility to come up with my own content (I dislike pre-written modules and being forced into someone else's setting as a DM) but I also want a broad palette of pre-generated things like stat blocks, spells, abilities, etc to draw from. Basically, I want a large library of content I can use to build my own pieces from. A toolbox with some of the gnarlier bits pre-made (no, I don't want to roll my own relational database, thank you very much) but not a pre-defined setting or hard (sub)genre limits.

But I know other people are in other places; this isn't a right/wrong thing or a better/worse thing, it's a way to try to explain differences in preference.

[KorvinStarmast]

In the middle are (in different locations) the various D&D's, which have implied world constraints and lots and lots of content, but which also have a framework on which the content is built and a strong tradition of homebrew at all levels.
I have run Empire of the Petal Throne and played in Chivalry and Sorcery games, which were two different approaches to what D&D started.
I think you'd like the former more than the latter, given that the world/setting is coherent and well ideated as "this is where you start, this strange, dangerous, and magical world.


Personally, I like a balance. I need the flexibility to come up with my own content (I dislike pre-written modules and being forced into someone else's setting as a DM) but I also want a broad palette of pre-generated things like stat blocks, spells, abilities, etc to draw from. Basically, I want a large library of content I can use to build my own pieces from. A toolbox with some of the gnarlier bits pre-made (no, I don't want to roll my own relational database, thank you very much) but not a pre-defined setting or hard (sub)genre limits.

But I know other people are in other places; this isn't a right/wrong thing or a better/worse thing, it's a way to try to explain differences in preference. Tunnels and Trolls has evolved, over time, to have its own established setting and it has enough tools to tinker with.
I think that our group might enjoy it, but I don't have the system mastery to run it.
It's dice mechanics are, to say the least, unique. :smallsmile:

[HidesHisEyes]

As I see it, a TTRPG "rule-set" consists of two pieces. The system and the content. One tells you how to resolve in-game actions; the other gives pieces of various size with which to play.

-snip-



Yeah that sounds pretty accurate to me.

I think there’s a sense in which you could argue a lot of games have a big overlap between system and content. Like the classes in D&D - they’re content because they tell you what types of adventurers exist in the implied setting, but they also form a pretty basic level of the gameplay experience. Like, one level above the core mechanics, if that makes sense.

I think there are also games that couple system and content together very closely but don’t end up relying on actual pre-written playable materials. Blades in the Dark is a good example: you have the city, the various factions in it, and procedures for navigating all that, but you still make your own scenarios. Sounds like you’d like it in fact.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yeah that sounds pretty accurate to me.

I think there’s a sense in which you could argue a lot of games have a big overlap between system and content. Like the classes in D&D - they’re content because they tell you what types of adventurers exist in the implied setting, but they also form a pretty basic level of the gameplay experience. Like, one level above the core mechanics, if that makes sense.

I think there are also games that couple system and content together very closely but don’t end up relying on actual pre-written playable materials. Blades in the Dark is a good example: you have the city, the various factions in it, and procedures for navigating all that, but you still make your own scenarios. Sounds like you’d like it in fact.

Right. I'd say that classes are "core content"--the system side is "this game is class-based", but the classes define their own sub-systems within the greater system. Effectively, they're plugins onto the core game engine. In principle, you could take 5e D&D and rip out the current classes and replace them with different ones[2], leading to quite a different feel while keeping the core system the same. I say "in principle", because there are strong limits imposed by the base design patterns.

On the other hand, Blades in the Dark is an example of way too coupled system/content for me. It's not just scenarios that I want to have control over, it's worlds. My personal D&D setting is radically different in cosmology and underpinnings than the "stock" system, yet I can re-use most of the non-adventure content relatively straight[1]. If I were stuck in a fixed, known, locked-down setting coupled to mechanics that enforce that setting's constants, I think I'd go nuts. Or get bored. Because for me, most of the fun is in the exploration. In having the interaction of players and world tell me new things about the stuff I wrote. Those moments of "oh wow...if I take that idea they just mentioned and add it to that other thing, I get something that both answers questions I've had AND raises new interesting questions to answer." Like a good scientific theory, the best moments are those that both make predictions that work (in this case, are interesting to play in) and open new areas for discovery. A limited, fixed, known setting kinda puts a major crimp in that. Sure, it focuses much more at the person-level...but that's where my interest is weakest. I love playing at the setting/cosmology level. It's one reason why I consider myself a better DM than a player--I get bored dealing at the "one person" level for very long.

[1] although that's possibly changing with their new "shove the meta-setting into everything like it or not" and "being more opinionated about races and such" trends...[3]
[2] I know there's a FFXIV x 5e total replacement "mod" that basically does that, along with several other such ones. But I'd think that a no-magic, realistic modern-day game wouldn't go so well.
[3] yes, these footnotes are out of order. Deal. :smallcool:

[OldTrees1]

As I see it, a TTRPG "rule-set" consists of two pieces. The system and the content. One tells you how to resolve in-game actions; the other gives pieces of various size with which to play.

Yes.

Changing the system can spiral until one is better off creating or adopting a new system.
Changing the content is often more work but is mostly constructive instead of creative destruction.

I too like a balance. I want the system to be viable enough that I don't feel like changing systems. I want there to be enough content that I don't feel like I need to homebrew a splat book.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yes.

Changing the system can spiral until one is better off creating or adopting a new system.
Changing the content is often more work but is mostly constructive instead of creative destruction.

I too like a balance. I want the system to be viable enough that I don't feel like changing systems. I want there to be enough content that I don't feel like I need to homebrew a splat book.

I think there are some systems that try to make it so creating content is trivial (so that the additional work of creating NPCs/setting pieces/etc is tiny compared to the necessary difficulty of coming up with a scenario), but I actually like coming up with homebrew to fit a particular need. As long as there's enough content existing to not have to for ordinary things. And for NPCs, especially, I like being able to take a stock one and tweak it to my needs without having to reinvent the wheel each time. That's one reason I'm not fond of "NPCs built like PCs" for anything that requires any significant effort to make a PC.

Basically, I want to have an optional library of pieces, plus the assurance that modding things won't shatter the system. Like Skyrim...without the inevitable swarm of Bethesda bugs.

[OldTrees1]

I think there are some systems that try to make it so creating content is trivial (so that the additional work of creating NPCs/setting pieces/etc is tiny compared to the necessary difficulty of coming up with a scenario), but I actually like coming up with homebrew to fit a particular need. As long as there's enough content existing to not have to for ordinary things. And for NPCs, especially, I like being able to take a stock one and tweak it to my needs without having to reinvent the wheel each time. That's one reason I'm not fond of "NPCs built like PCs" for anything that requires any significant effort to make a PC.

Basically, I want to have an optional library of pieces, plus the assurance that modding things won't shatter the system. Like Skyrim...without the inevitable swarm of Bethesda bugs.

Content includes things like PC classes and settings. While some (most) systems try to reduce unnecessary work (Ex: NPCs having easier generation rules) the process of making content will remain one that is simpler and more work in contrast to changes to the system. However they are not replacements for each other, so that information is really only useful to increase our appreciation when either is addressed, or to prepare ourselves when we need to address a gap.

That said it is nice that creating content, or tweaking systems, can be fun. They are just different types of mental/creative exercise. Like designing a card game vs making the first 200 cards.

[NichG]

If the distinction helps in design then that makes it meaningful.

That said, I most enjoy games which blur that distinction. Games where characters can e.g. invent new feats or spells or classes (inasmuch as the system has such things). Games where new and alien things come with their own dedicated subsystems which can be adopted or which might pose a challenge to overcome. Things which overturn expectations about the structure of things, and where that transformation can be intentional and fundamentally about events in the world.

So I'd say, sure, make the distinction where it helps organize information. At the same time, don't treat the distinction as good in of itself - it's a tool to be used when useful and put away when not.

[Zuras]

There can be a vast gulf between system and content. GURPS is a case in point, as you can adapt a wide variety of the setting books without ever using the base system. The generic, simulationist approach lets you translate a lot of setting specific bits to other systems fairly easily. Adapting setting material from less simulationist games is often much more work.

In particular, the time travel, parallel worlds and space settings books are all great if you want to run a more narrative game but also want to keep the crunchy bits consistent.

[Vahnavoi]

You are asking "is there a meaningful distinction to be made between a system and part of a system". On a general level, the answer is a trivial yes. The non-trivial parts are how adding or removing parts changes the system, and at which point it no longer makes sense to call it the same system. That has to be figured out by seeing how the part affects the whole, and sometimes the only way this can be done is testing the system.

[Telok]

Well, it depends.

GURPS, d6, and Hero are toolboxes. The rules don't make the content and the content doesn't mold or distort the rules. BRP, the system Call of Cthulhu runs on, is pretty close to that end of the spectrum. While people think of Champions when they think of the Hero system it also runs several variations from different hardnesses of sci-fi, spies & street vigilanties, and high & low fantasy (doesn't do horror real well in my opinion, but that's extremely subjective and it still does it without rules hacks). The different games don't alter the rules, they set limits & styles on how the rules are used.

Pendragon, Toon, Starfinder, and Amber are strongly tied to the content. The content shaped the rules and the rules are designed to support specific content. Pendragon simply doesn't do guns or high magic fantasy. You could force it to, but it would take a lot of forcing and homebrewing new rules to the point that it could be argued that it wasn't the Pendragon rules any more. Indeed it's been well argued that Pendragon doesn't even do justice to other versions of the Arthurian myth cycle.

Somewhere in the very soft & stretchy middle kilohectares are things like Palladium, Paranoia (some editions, others are up with Toon), D&D, M&M, Pathfinder, the White Wolf games, Warhammers, etc. Stuff like Palladium and M&M are more toward the toolbox end, but not quite there as there are areas they just don't do well in. It's not too bad to swap a character between the various Palladium games. The 2009 Paranoia edition could do fantasy with just some pallett swapping, although it would still be pretty humor oriented, and you could easily run a Star Trek or Star Wars game with it.

D&D, of course, is all over the place; AD&D could translate a character into Boot Hill (spaghetti westerns) and Gamma World, 3.x had the d20 stuff that... had mixed results, 4e didn't do anything but 4e though you could probably re-content it into assorted variations on squad combat tactics without much issue, 5e is adaptable to a variety of sword & magic fantasy genera without significant rules rewrites.

Yeah, I left out Fate, PbtA, Risus, etc., because I don't have enough experience with them to feel happy categorizing them.

[Lord Raziere]

Yeah, I left out Fate, PbtA, Risus, etc., because I don't have enough experience with them to feel happy categorizing them.

My experience is Fate far on the "System" end, but specific fate books that adapt the system focus on a certain setting tend to be more content oriented. sure Spirit of the Century, Dresden Files and Tian Xia are all the fate system, but each one has different stunts, modifications to the rules and such that aren't in Fate core.

while PbtA tends to be extremely content-oriented, as each book focuses on archetypes specific to the setting its built for.

I've looked at Risus once but forgot how it works.

But yes there is a meaningful distinction between content and system- I know from my experiences with Exalted and trying to replicate it in other systems. often you have to figure out how some abilities translate to another. especially when I'm trying to translate the weirdest most esoteric abilities of things like Sidereals, Infernals and Getimians.

[Satinavian]

I've heard that the culture of The Dark Eye (sorry, my german isn't good enough to get the real spelling) is extremely top-down content-driven--you're basically playing in fixed modules where you don't have much freedom to change things and there's a strong meta-plot. But that may be a wrong assumption.TDE generally has the PCs not be real movers and shakers who can significantly change the setting and thus does not have to rely on fixed modules. But the metaplot-relevant ones generally are.

It also has at least 3 settings beside the main setting, each one far less restrictive and metaplot-driven. And for each one a quite significant portion of the rules get changed because system and setting is intertwined in TDE. Unfortunately none of the three got an English release.

[Glorthindel]

It would be intresting to compare games with baked-in setting against similar/identical games which are more open.

I believe Zweihander is basically WFRP with the setting and serial number filed off; I am a big fan of the latter, but never tried Zweihander, so I don't know if it still holds together once you have removed WFRP's default assumptions.

[Vahnavoi]

RISUS is a joke.

Slightly more elaborately, RISUS is a great example of a "rules light" game which works by having players hang arbitrary natural language descriptors on a skeleton of a simple dice game.

Of course, once you know how to look, many bigger budget complex games are constructed the same way, they just do more work for you.

Based on what I know of FATE, FATE's just a slightly more complex RISUS. :smalltongue:

[Yora]

The mechanics of every system determine what actions are possible and what things are not possible. They also influence how difficult those things are and the odds to succeed. That has a great impact on what adventures are possible with the system, and also what kinds of settings can work with the system.

[Vahnavoi]

@Yora: that's the thing though, games like RISUS don't really do that before the players start adding in their own content, by which I mean, arbitrary natural language descriptors. Though I suppose a similar thing can be said of many considerably more complex games - the system actually pulling the game forward is the natural language spoken by the players.

[MoiMagnus]

I'd add a third point:

System / Content / Universe

If you rename the "spell fireball" into "grenade" while keeping the rules the same, you kept the System & Content the same while changing the Universe. Admittedly, some rules will look weird (sleeping makes new grenades spawn in your inventory), but RPGs are full of weird rules that you should not try to think too much about.

Conversely, if you slightly nerfed or buffed the fireball spell, you changed the Content while keeping the System & Universe the same.

Lastly, if you change the spellcasting rules to allow for simultaneous resolution of creature turns, you are changing the System while keeping the Content & Universe the same.

Different RPGs have different level of entanglement of those various points. While it's been a while I didn't open a D&D4e book so I'm not sure whether that was part of the rules or of our houserules, I remember that you could essentially rename all your magic powers to be whatever you want, and give custom description of them, as long as the technical effect was the same. In other words, the "Universe" was quite separated from the "Content".
On the other hand, rules about alignements in 3.5 (like Good/Evil tags on spells) means that the worldbuilding is necessarily linked to the System and the Content.

[KorvinStarmast]

rules about alignements in 3.5 (like Good/Evil tags on spells) And as an aside, only made a clunky system (alignment) worse. Not every bit of tinkering represents an improvement.

[Zuras]

RISUS is a joke.

Slightly more elaborately, RISUS is a great example of a "rules light" game which works by having players hang arbitrary natural language descriptors on a skeleton of a simple dice game.

Of course, once you know how to look, many bigger budget complex games are constructed the same way, they just do more work for you.

Based on what I know of FATE, FATE's just a slightly more complex RISUS. :smalltongue:

I’m not sure how that’s a substantive criticism of an RPG. Every RPG is a structure for combining group storytelling and some sort of conflict resolution system. Any system that facilitates the process by providing some structure is a legitimate RPG, assuming it succeeds in its own terms.

Never played RISUS, so I can’t speak to its specifics, but an RPG that reads more like an Improv facilitator’s handbook than a collection of crunchy bits is just as much an RPG.

[kyoryu]

I’m not sure how that’s a substantive criticism of an RPG. Every RPG is a structure for combining group storytelling and some sort of conflict resolution system. Any system that facilitates the process by providing some structure is a legitimate RPG, assuming it succeeds in its own terms.

Never played RISUS, so I can’t speak to its specifics, but an RPG that reads more like an Improv facilitator’s handbook than a collection of crunchy bits is just as much an RPG.

Well i think there is a distinction between games where the game rules act as an "engine" or framework/structure to play, and ones where they act more as a consultant, off-loading a lot of things like "can I do this" and the like to the table.

Like, if you throw a grenade, GURPS will tell you where the grenade lands with a precision of about 3 feet, how much damage it does to everything around it, etc. A game like Fate tells you pretty much "did you succeed" and putting some constraints on it, while leaving a lot of the details to GM/table consensus.

They're both RPGs, to be sure - I actually tend to prefer "consultant" games more, and find a lot of the criticism of them insulting and narrow-minded. But the difference is real.

[Vahnavoi]

@Zuras:

You really should at least read RlSUS wikipedia page if you want to understand what I said.

[Zuras]

Well i think there is a distinction between games where the game rules act as an "engine" or framework/structure to play, and ones where they act more as a consultant, off-loading a lot of things like "can I do this" and the like to the table.

Like, if you throw a grenade, GURPS will tell you where the grenade lands with a precision of about 3 feet, how much damage it does to everything around it, etc. A game like Fate tells you pretty much "did you succeed" and putting some constraints on it, while leaving a lot of the details to GM/table consensus.

They're both RPGs, to be sure - I actually tend to prefer "consultant" games more, and find a lot of the criticism of them insulting and narrow-minded. But the difference is real.


There’s certainly a distinction, but calling them a joke seems willfully blind to about half of what makes an RPG work. I’d consider it silly to charge people good money for basic advice for running meetings like “raise your hand to talk” and “don’t interrupt people when they’re talking” when you could buy Robert’s Rules of Order, but that doesn’t make those rules bad advice or a joke.

[kyoryu]

There’s certainly a distinction, but calling them a joke seems willfully blind to about half of what makes an RPG work. I’d consider it silly to charge people good money for basic advice for running meetings like “raise your hand to talk” and “don’t interrupt people when they’re talking” when you could buy Robert’s Rules of Order, but that doesn’t make those rules bad advice or a joke.

Yeah, I'm actually on your side on this.

[Zuras]

@Zuras:

You really should at least read RlSUS wikipedia page if you want to understand what I said.


You might want to make yourself more clear then, given you’re calling RISUS a joke and then likening other RPG systems to it. That came off as pejorative, regardless of the original designer’s intent.

If I liken another programming language to Malbolge, I wouldn’t expect a reader to interpret the comparison as positive, even though Olmstead wrote Malbolge as a joke.

[KorvinStarmast]

If I liken another programming language to Malbolge, I wouldn’t expect a reader to interpret the comparison as positive, even though Olmstead wrote Malbolge as a joke. I guess that Windows 3.0 was Bill Gates' version of that. :smallbiggrin: (I'll show myself out)

[Vahnavoi]

@Zuras: you seem to forget that jokes aren't supposed to be 1000% unambiguous and clear. :smalltongue:

RISUS began as parody of GURPS, it's literally a joke system, and one of the punchlines is how it reveals how banally rules of bigger games are constructed. You may disagree, I don't care, your point that all roleplaying games combine "group storytelling with conflict resolution" doesn't really say anything to the contrary because it says nothing about quality of either.

[HidesHisEyes]

RISUS is a joke.

Slightly more elaborately, RISUS is a great example of a "rules light" game which works by having players hang arbitrary natural language descriptors on a skeleton of a simple dice game.

Of course, once you know how to look, many bigger budget complex games are constructed the same way, they just do more work for you.

Based on what I know of FATE, FATE's just a slightly more complex RISUS. :smalltongue:


You might want to make yourself more clear then, given you’re calling RISUS a joke and then likening other RPG systems to it. That came off as pejorative, regardless of the original designer’s intent.

If I liken another programming language to Malbolge, I wouldn’t expect a reader to interpret the comparison as positive, even though Olmstead wrote Malbolge as a joke.

Wait, is the point that Risus was literally intended as some kind of parody RPG? Pretty sure that’s not true. I’ve read the game and a lot of 3rd party stuff around it and talked to the game’s author about it, and I’ve never seen anything to suggest that.

Vahnavoi can you elaborate more on what you mean? It sounds like you’re describing a game design phenomenon I’ve definitely seen - where the fiction is just arbitrary descriptors hung on the mechanics and it’s only the mechanics that really drive the game - but I don’t think Risus fits that bill at all. Have I misunderstood your point?

Back on the main topic of the thread, I do feel like system and content are sometimes much more tightly interwoven than we’ve acknowledged here. I was a bit surprised when OP suggested Blades in the Dark would be too far up that end of the spectrum for the OP’s taste, because it includes a map of its city and a list of factions and NPCs. I think another John Harper game, Lady Blackbird, literally tells you the scenario and has built-in player characters. Or Jason Statham’s Big Vacation, where the mechanics model going on holiday with Jason Statham, specifically. These are smaller, more obscure games not intended to be played for full length campaigns or used as a group’s go-to system, which is how they get away with it. But this end of the spectrum certainly exists.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Back on the main topic of the thread, I do feel like system and content are sometimes much more tightly interwoven than we’ve acknowledged here. I was a bit surprised when OP suggested Blades in the Dark would be too far up that end of the spectrum for the OP’s taste, because it includes a map of its city and a list of factions and NPCs. I think another John Harper game, Lady Blackbird, literally tells you the scenario and has built-in player characters. Or Jason Statham’s Big Vacation, where the mechanics model going on holiday with Jason Statham, specifically. These are smaller, more obscure games not intended to be played for full length campaigns or used as a group’s go-to system, which is how they get away with it. But this end of the spectrum certainly exists.

Let's put some markers on that particular spectrum (the coupling between system and content). Some will have examples, others won't:

0: The system does not provide any setting information at all. Or even genre. All you have is a set of abstract resolution mechanics. Probably also only works in very rules-light games. E.g. Roll for Shoes.

20: The system is modular, providing a core set of resolution mechanics and a feel, but having major chunks to give genre support provided by more specific "add on rules modules". Usually more a toolkit to build your own setting + system than a true out-of-the-box system (pending content). E.g. GURPS? Using a module does lock down the genre, but your selection of genres is huge and can be mixed and matched.

40: The system provides guidance on "conforming" settings and genres but does not require any specific one. Add-on content may provide settings, but DMs are expected to shape those to their likings. E.g. Most D&D & PF products.

50: The system provides a worked-out "hard default" setting with NPCs, maps, etc. Making your own is possible and doesn't break anything, but requires some work. E.g. Pathfinder. Starfinder

60: The system provides a worked-out setting with detailed NPCs, etc and sub-system mechanics are entangled with specific named entities from the setting (places, people, factions, etc). Using a new setting is highly difficult and requires edits in many places to existing "stock" mechanics. E.g. Blades in the Dark, from what I understand.

80: The system provides a set of concrete scenarios, but you can create your own characters. Creating your own scenarios is possible, but they must follow a set pattern for the mechanics to work.

100: The system provides a set of concrete scenarios that you can't easily deviate from, but character creation is possible within limits.

110: The system can only be used for one specific scenario with one specific set of characters and doesn't support any other without massive hacks. E.g Lady Blackbird, the Pathfinder board game (a stretch as far as "RPG" nature goes, but one I've played)

Uncategorized: The system doesn't provide a setting, but it does provide hard rules on genre and thematics, to which the mechanics are tightly coupled. E.g. Most individual PbtA games...I think? Playbooks are fixed and put hard constraints on the settings, but the system doesn't give you the setting details--instead that's generated by reference to the table's chosen ideas.

My personal preference for games is somewhere around the 20 mark. Because I love mucking around with settings at the core level. And systems that make that hard (by coupling mechanical details to the setting) get in the way of that fun. Even making my own scenarios in someone else's setting with the ability to tinker at the small scale (ie the 40-50ish range) is unsatisfying. And I'm not sure how to think about the one I've labeled "uncategorized". Is that high coupling? Low coupling? A spherical cow?

Edit: I think with this I'm assuming (possibly wrongly) that the flow goes System -> setting -> scenarios -> characters. That is, a system that dictates characters also must dictate scenarios and setting (to some degree). The idea of making "setting-free" characters or scenarios is alien to me. But I might be missing something that's obvious to other people.

Edit: Changed some of the values in the 20-50 range to better align with further discussion.

[HidesHisEyes]

Let's put some markers on that particular spectrum (the coupling between system and content). Some will have examples, others won't:
…


This seems about right, although I think I’d put D&D higher up, at least 5E in particular. To me the character classes - the presence of warlocks, paladins, druids etc - really strongly implies setting. And the differences between the classes and the experience of playing them is pretty close to the mechanical core of the game imo. They are mechanical objects but they are very much content at the same time.

Also, your mention of “conforming settings” is interesting. If I understand what you mean by that then I think it would probably be impossible to design a game at level 0 on your scale, as you described it. I suspect that if you set out to design a *completely* generic RPG, it will still lean towards certain genres, or not even genres but game feels, depending on your design choices. I might be wrong about this but my intuition is that even “roll a d20 and add a modifier” vs “roll a pool of d6 and add them up” is going to affect whether most groups want to use it for, say, light hearted anarchic games or more serious fare. I’m kind of out on a limb here, but I think Risus is a good example of game that aspires to level 0 and actually reaches level 4 or 5 on your scale.




Edit: I think with this I'm assuming (possibly wrongly) that the flow goes System -> setting -> scenarios -> characters. That is, a system that dictates characters also must dictate scenarios and setting (to some degree). The idea of making "setting-free" characters or scenarios is alien to me. But I might be missing something that's obvious to other people.

I think so…? Or I think the level of concreteness with which setting, scenario and characters are defined will usually match. Like, most PbtA games tell you enough about their setting that your take on it is going to fall within pretty clear limits, but it’s still a setting that you make. And then the playbooks don’t amount to full-on pregenerated characters, but they do have a lot to say about what kind of person the character is and their role in the narrative, not just their abilities. I actually think I’d put most PbtA games pretty straightforwardly in about the 70s on your scale. Blades is the 80s, Lady Blackbird getting close to 100 (and I’d cap it there).

EDIT: But a few seconds after posting that I’m already doubting most of what I said, lol. It’s an interesting way of thinking about games in any case.

EDIT 2 and then I promise I’ll stop: I would add two more terms into your flow so it goes:
System -> feel -> genre -> setting -> scenario -> characters.

Feel is sort of tone, atmosphere, vibes. Genre is genre of stories the game tells, defined fairly broadly.

[dafrca]

Let's put some markers on that particular spectrum (the coupling between system and content). Some will have examples, others won't:

I think it is an interesting way to break them down, but to be fair based on what you wrote I think D&D moved from 20 to 40 a while ago. Far too many mechanics designed to support their core settings in my opinion to fit 20 now. But yes, I am sure there will be those who disagree. :smallbiggrin:

[PhoenixPhyre]

This seems about right, although I think I’d put D&D higher up, at least 5E in particular. To me the character classes - the presence of warlocks, paladins, druids etc - really strongly implies setting. And the differences between the classes and the experience of playing them is pretty close to the mechanical core of the game imo. They are mechanical objects but they are very much content at the same time.

Also, your mention of “conforming settings” is interesting. If I understand what you mean by that then I think it would probably be impossible to design a game at level 0 on your scale, as you described it. I suspect that if you set out to design a *completely* generic RPG, it will still lean towards certain genres, or not even genres but game feels, depending on your design choices. I might be wrong about this but my intuition is that even “roll a d20 and add a modifier” vs “roll a pool of d6 and add them up” is going to affect whether most groups want to use it for, say, light hearted anarchic games or more serious fare. I’m kind of out on a limb here, but I think Risus is a good example of game that aspires to level 0 and actually reaches level 4 or 5 on your scale.


Yeah, I'd separate genre from feel. The endpoints (0 and 110, the latter chosen as "this one goes to 11") are intentionally "off the scale"--you really can't get there and still have a functional system[1]. I'd put "doesn't tell you a genre, but does tell you a feel" at roughly 10. Feel is a weaker constraint than genre, but it's still a constraint (so not a 0).



I think so…? Or I think the level of concreteness with which setting, scenario and characters are defined will usually match. Like, most PbtA games tell you enough about their setting that your take on it is going to fall within pretty clear limits, but it’s still a setting that you make. And then the playbooks don’t amount to full-on pregenerated characters, but they do have a lot to say about what kind of person the character is and their role in the narrative, not just their abilities. I actually think I’d put most PbtA games pretty straightforwardly in about the 70s on your scale. Blades is the 80s, Lady Blackbird getting close to 100 (and I’d cap it there).

EDIT: But a few seconds after posting that I’m already doubting most of what I said, lol. It’s an interesting way of thinking about games in any case.

EDIT 2 and then I promise I’ll stop: I would add two more terms into your flow so it goes:
System -> feel -> genre -> setting -> scenario -> characters.

Feel is sort of tone, atmosphere, vibes. Genre is genre of stories the game tells, defined fairly broadly.

I agree with this, mostly. Feel is definitely weaker than genre, but I think that feel and genre aren't necessarily weaker than setting. Because you can have the same setting where some stories/scenarios in it have very different feels/genres than others. I think they're parallel tracks, both feeding into scenarios. At least when you take the large-scale view of a setting (ie an entire world that could be real, even if you only use a piece of it for any given story/campaign/etc). They're not entirely independent--you can couple them together quite hard (as do a lot of games and settings), but they can also be more decoupled. For instance, Ravenloft (the setting) is tied very very heavily to one set of feel/genre/scenario. On the other hand, you could (although probably best not with D&D) run a romantic comedy game set in Waterdeep in the Forgotten Realms with no adventurers in sight.

As for examples, I don't have first-hand experience with PbtA, Blades, or Lady Blackbird, so I'm going off of what I've read about them, mainly on the forums. Dungeon World, as I understand it, puts quite hard limits on the types of scenarios you can pull off--you're basically locked into "delving through dark dungeons, with the real threat of loss and logistic concerns being omnipresent and characters not being 0 to hero". It wouldn't work very well for, say, a swashbuckling pirate game with more comedy and witticisms than monsters or a high-flying "us against the gods" planar scenario.


I think it is an interesting way to break them down, but to be fair based on what you wrote I think D&D moved from 20 to 40 a while ago. Far too many mechanics designed to support their core settings in my opinion to fit 20 now. But yes, I am sure there will be those who disagree. :smallbiggrin:

For me, the big distinction between 5e D&D (for instance) and PF on this spectrum is the presence of a "hard" default setting in the core books. 3e had a bit of this as well--it's "default" made pretty strong assumptions about the settings. Not quite as tightly detailed as Golarion, however. PF, for better or worse, fair or not, is identified (maybe just in my mind) with Golarion, while D&D incorporates multiple "conforming" settings, each relatively different. Even Forgotten Realms differs from the presentation of the defaults outlined in the PHB/DMG/MM in many ways. For instance, default paladins don't need a god at all. FR paladins get their powers directly from specific gods and have alignment requirements. FR's cosmology is also slightly different (the World Tree, rather than the modified Great Wheel). Etc.

I run 5e D&D in a very non-standard world. And the mechanical changes I've had to make boil down to "you know, no creature has a default alignment. And anything that mechanically plays off of alignment...doesn't." Even though the planes themselves are pretty different and all the races have different lore (sometimes radically) and I've got a bunch of homebrew, you can use a stock race stat block just fine and all the core classes and 99.999% of the spells (there's one spell I don't allow for setting reasons, and that's from a much later splat) work fine.

I very well could be wrong, but I know that Starfinder (for instance) is heavily tied to the setting in core mechanical ways. Another example is 13th Age, where even though you can swap out the setting, it has some fairly important things that have to be recreated (relationships with the Icons being the thing that comes to mind). May just be my bias, but that feels more tightly bound than "standard" D&D to me.

[1] I mean, you can do pure free-form. But that's pushing the bounds for what counts as a system, just like the PF board game pushes the boundaries for what counts as a RPG on the other end.

[HidesHisEyes]

PheonixPhyre, yep good points.

Although Dungeon World is not really like you describe. It’s wedded to the fantasy genre broadly, but it’s by no means a pure dungeon-crawler (despite the name). As it happens its mechanics actually suit swashbuckling and pulp adventure perfectly. I’d put it maybe just slightly higher up the scale than D&D.

[Satinavian]

For me, the big distinction between 5e D&D (for instance) and PF on this spectrum is the presence of a "hard" default setting in the core books. 3e had a bit of this as well--it's "default" made pretty strong assumptions about the settings. Not quite as tightly detailed as Golarion, however. PF, for better or worse, fair or not, is identified (maybe just in my mind) with Golarion, while D&D incorporates multiple "conforming" settings, each relatively different. Even Forgotten Realms differs from the presentation of the defaults outlined in the PHB/DMG/MM in many ways. For instance, default paladins don't need a god at all. FR paladins get their powers directly from specific gods and have alignment requirements. FR's cosmology is also slightly different (the World Tree, rather than the modified Great Wheel). Etc.Yes, but you have paladins and they do get spells and you have clerics and they do get channel and so on. While D&D is not married to a single setting, all D&D settings are pretty similar.

If you put D&D at 20, where is GURPS ? Or even GURPS with only the fantasy-appropriate books ?

Also while Pathfinder only has one setting, it is not mechanically closer to it than D&D (what surprise, considering it is the same system at its core). It is not as if D&D doesn't have exactly as many setting specific rules even outside of setting books (Red Wizards, Suel Arcanamachs). I have to do exactly tthe same work to port a setting to Pathfinder as i have to do to port it to 3.5. I don't think it is particularly useful to put them at different points on the scale when you can effortlessly use Pathfinder for every D&D setting and D&D for Galorion.

Generally my experience is that D&D does Fantasy settings that are not specifically made for it or inspired by it pretty poorly. I have found it way easer to apply other fantasy systems, even those that were not made to be universal. I mean, decades ago i have seen a group that found it easier to convert to Shadowrun of all things for some fantasy setting after having tried and failed to run it with AD&D2. (Nowaday with the internet, they would probably find something more fitting more easily)

[KorvinStarmast]

Another example is 13th Age, where even though you can swap out the setting, it has some fairly important things that have to be recreated (relationships with the Icons being the thing that comes to mind). May just be my bias, but that feels more tightly bound than "standard" D&D to me. It's one of the things that appeals to me about 13th Age, the 'being attached to the setting' element of chargen. Sadly, our game didn't get very far before RL wrecked it (Scheduling has, once again, a DC of about 35).
Empire of the Petal Throne (the first game I DM'd for an extended period) was similarly tied to its setting.
My players loved that aspect of it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

PheonixPhyre, yep good points.

Although Dungeon World is not really like you describe. It’s wedded to the fantasy genre broadly, but it’s by no means a pure dungeon-crawler (despite the name). As it happens its mechanics actually suit swashbuckling and pulp adventure perfectly. I’d put it maybe just slightly higher up the scale than D&D.

(Honest question, never really having delved into it): But would it work for a comedy game? One where the "action" component is basically background? Or a cosmic-level (like Exalted) game? From what I understand, it's fairly "grounded" and low power, and assumes that most of what you're doing is "adventuring".


Yes, but you have paladins and they do get spells and you have clerics and they do get channel and so on. While D&D is not married to a single setting, all D&D settings are pretty similar.

If you put D&D at 20, where is GURPS ? Or even GURPS with only the fantasy-appropriate books ?

Also while Pathfinder only has one setting, it is not mechanically closer to it than D&D (what surprise, considering it is the same system at its core). It is not as if D&D doesn't have exactly as many setting specific rules even outside of setting books (Red Wizards, Suel Arcanamachs). I have to do exactly tthe same work to port a setting to Pathfinder as i have to do to port it to 3.5. I don't think it is particularly useful to put them at different points on the scale when you can effortlessly use Pathfinder for every D&D setting and D&D for Galorion.

Generally my experience is that D&D does Fantasy settings that are not specifically made for it or inspired by it pretty poorly. I have found it way easer to apply other fantasy systems, even those that were not made to be universal. I mean, decades ago i have seen a group that found it easier to convert to Shadowrun of all things for some fantasy setting after having tried and failed to run it with AD&D2. (Nowaday with the internet, they would probably find something more fitting more easily)

GURPS is one I only have the most passing familiarity with, but I'd probably put it down lower. Somewhere in the 10s or 20s. There are feel constraints (you'll always, from what I understand, end up somewhere on the grittier, death-is-easy end of the spectrum), but there are even fewer genre constraints than D&D. I'd also put the HERO-type systems down there and other "purely generic" games. Ones that are very explicitly "batteries very much not included".

D&D isn't generic. D&D is constrained in genre (and that genre is not "all fantasy"). It explicitly does D&D worlds, not "any fantasy world"--it's not an emulator, nor is it trying to be one. Maybe to make the difference, D&D should get moved up the scale to the 30s, with PF being removed from 40 as an example and being lumped in with D&D. Maybe (?) replace it with Starfinder, which is more setting tied. I think.

[dafrca]

D&D isn't generic. D&D is constrained in genre (and that genre is not "all fantasy"). It explicitly does D&D worlds, not "any fantasy world"--it's not an emulator, nor is it trying to be one. Maybe to make the difference, D&D should get moved up the scale to the 30s, with PF being removed from 40 as an example and being lumped in with D&D. Maybe (?) replace it with Starfinder, which is more setting tied. I think.
I agree 100% with this. I remember how hard me and one friend tried to port over so many things to D&D and failed to keep the feel we wanted. They all ended up feeling like Greyhawk or FR.

I also do not understand the treating PF and D&D as different levels when PF is D&D with a different colored dress on. :smallsmile:

I know it is a very old niche game but Morrow Project's rule set was very tied to it's setting and it was very hard to split them apart. I wanted to use my Traveller rules to play in a Morrow Project game, it was super hard to do. The effort lasted a few months but died under its own weight. :smallbiggrin:

[Mechalich]

GURPS is one I only have the most passing familiarity with, but I'd probably put it down lower. Somewhere in the 10s or 20s. There are feel constraints (you'll always, from what I understand, end up somewhere on the grittier, death-is-easy end of the spectrum), but there are even fewer genre constraints than D&D. I'd also put the HERO-type systems down there and other "purely generic" games. Ones that are very explicitly "batteries very much not included".


It's worth noting that the 'death-is-easy' feel of GURPS is a product of the system that GURPS uses rather than any sort of tonal choice on the part of Steve Jackson games. It has to do with how the model system that is GURPS functions and unless you distort the numbers massively beyond all expectations it will always be that way. It is a solid example of how the mathematical model that 'the system' actually is constrain game options on a purely mechanical level.

A TTRPG system is ultimately a set of mathematical models (often bad ones), and the structure of those models constrains the possible permutations of the game, including through such things as the choice of dice to use, since different RNG setups produce different output curves. Ultimately any time you use any mathematical system at all this introduces constraints on the content of some kind.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It's worth noting that the 'death-is-easy' feel of GURPS is a product of the system that GURPS uses rather than any sort of tonal choice on the part of Steve Jackson games. It has to do with how the model system that is GURPS functions and unless you distort the numbers massively beyond all expectations it will always be that way. It is a solid example of how the mathematical model that 'the system' actually is constrain game options on a purely mechanical level.

A TTRPG system is ultimately a set of mathematical models (often bad ones), and the structure of those models constrains the possible permutations of the game, including through such things as the choice of dice to use, since different RNG setups produce different output curves. Ultimately any time you use any mathematical system at all this introduces constraints on the content of some kind.

Agreed. That's what I mean by a system-imposed constraint on content, and it's part of why you can't really get to 0 very easily at all. System and content are coupled at some level > 0 -- systems set tone and feel just by their basic action resolution system. In some ways, 1d20 + Mods >= TN imposes a different feel than 3d6 + Mods >= TN which is different than the feel a dice pool/counting successes system imposes. And most systems are more involved at this level than just that.

At the other end, you always have some freedom--you can hack games to do things that would never have been expected or supported by their authors. Just like you can build very different games on the same video game engine (although some similarities will remain).

The endpoints are "off the scale", but serve to define the extremes.

Edit: I wouldn't say that the models are bad. All models are wrong. Some models are useful. And some models are useful in certain circumstances but not others and for certain purposes but not others. Fit-for-purpose gives a lot of leeway, especially when the purpose involved is really broad.

[HidesHisEyes]

(Honest question, never really having delved into it): But would it work for a comedy game? One where the "action" component is basically background? Or a cosmic-level (like Exalted) game? From what I understand, it's fairly "grounded" and low power, and assumes that most of what you're doing is "adventuring".



It’s not necessarily low power - a wizard in Dungeon World can do literally anything with magic, if they fulfil some stipulations from the GM. Druids turn into animals, fighters can guarantee someone lives or dies in a fight. But it does assume adventures on the scale of mortals, yes. And it can certainly be comedic but the action is going to be front and centre and pretty relentless if you play it as intended.

So you’re mostly right about it, I just wanted to get across that it’s not at all some sort of gritty, OSR-style survival dungeon crawler. It can spin out in all sorts of directions.





D&D isn't generic. D&D is constrained in genre (and that genre is not "all fantasy"). It explicitly does D&D worlds, not "any fantasy world"--it's not an emulator, nor is it trying to be one. Maybe to make the difference, D&D should get moved up the scale to the 30s, with PF being removed from 40 as an example and being lumped in with D&D. Maybe (?) replace it with Starfinder, which is more setting tied. I think.

Agree D&D should be higher. It really isn’t generic.


It's worth noting that the 'death-is-easy' feel of GURPS is a product of the system that GURPS uses rather than any sort of tonal choice on the part of Steve Jackson games. It has to do with how the model system that is GURPS functions and unless you distort the numbers massively beyond all expectations it will always be that way. It is a solid example of how the mathematical model that 'the system' actually is constrain game options on a purely mechanical level.

A TTRPG system is ultimately a set of mathematical models (often bad ones), and the structure of those models constrains the possible permutations of the game, including through such things as the choice of dice to use, since different RNG setups produce different output curves. Ultimately any time you use any mathematical system at all this introduces constraints on the content of some kind.

You’re right but it can still be a deliberate tonal choice. No idea if it was or wasn’t with GURPS but it certainly can be. RPG designers don’t just pick a dice mechanic that they think models reality, physics and so on and hope for the best. They have other concerns in mind too, and that might include things like tone, appropriateness to setting etc. PbtA uses 2d6 and makes the 7-9 range, the most likely range, “success with complications” because that’s what we see most often in action packed and dramatic fiction: characters get what they want but in complicated ways.

[kyoryu]

Death isn't that easy in GURPS.

With regular/primitive attacks, it's not really that easy at all, death can only come at -HT HP (probably -ST in 4e, it's been a bit). If you're using hit locations, most hit locations have a maximum damage that can be done that kind of prevents that. It's fairly easy to get knocked out, but dying is a touch more rare.

If you're using high tech weapons, that's a different story, especially if you get a head shot, though.

[Quertus]

Edit: I wouldn't say that the models are bad. All models are wrong. Some models are useful. And some models are useful in certain circumstances but not others and for certain purposes but not others. Fit-for-purpose gives a lot of leeway, especially when the purpose involved is really broad.

TCP-IP has 7 layers. Doubtless, a look at how this *really* works would be… complex. But, as an abstraction, that admits it's an abstraction rather than pretending it's Truth, this seems pretty good.

Measuring how tightly coupled the two are, however… may be more difficult.

In part, as we've seen, because we're running into the fact that it *is* an abstraction, rather than formal and complete definition. So that complexity needs to slowly be imported to accommodate an adequate definition.

The other issue is a bit more subjective: who says? Who says X is or isn't suited to Y?

While I doubt we'll get completely accurate measurements for this abstraction… being an abstraction, perfect precision probably wasn't the point in the first place. Knowing to the micron where spherical cows in space will be isn't terribly useful here on the ground with real cattle. :smallwink:


Death isn't that easy in GURPS.

With regular/primitive attacks, it's not really that easy at all, death can only come at -HT HP (probably -ST in 4e, it's been a bit). If you're using hit locations, most hit locations have a maximum damage that can be done that kind of prevents that. It's fairly easy to get knocked out, but dying is a touch more rare.

If you're using high tech weapons, that's a different story, especially if you get a head shot, though.

Really? If I stab someone in the kidneys, or throw a sharpened cream cheese spreader and hit someone in the head, I can't kill them in GURPS?

[kyoryu]

Really? If I stab someone in the kidneys, or throw a sharpened cream cheese spreader and hit someone in the head, I can't kill them in GURPS?

Kidney stabbing is possible, for sure. These things are just all fairly low probabilities. GURPS has a reputation of being deadlier than it is.

Again, some of the high tech stuff changes that, especially on a lucky roll. At high tech levels, GURPS starts to get pretty binary - you're either fine or a thin red paste.

[HidesHisEyes]

Kidney stabbing is possible, for sure. These things are just all fairly low probabilities. GURPS has a reputation of being deadlier than it is.

Again, some of the high tech stuff changes that, especially on a lucky roll. At high tech levels, GURPS starts to get pretty binary - you're either fine or a thin red paste.

Interested in what you think the design philosophy of GURPS is, while we’re on the subject. I’m really not familiar with it but from what I understand it has a reputation for extreme, exacting simulationism. Do you think that’s deserved?

[GeoffWatson]

Really? If I stab someone in the kidneys, or throw a sharpened cream cheese spreader and hit someone in the head, I can't kill them in GURPS?

It's more that you can't easily kill them instantly.
Knocking them down or critically injuring them is pretty easy, but they'll probably survive with medical attention.

[Lord Raziere]

Interested in what you think the design philosophy of GURPS is, while we’re on the subject. I’m really not familiar with it but from what I understand it has a reputation for extreme, exacting simulationism. Do you think that’s deserved?

GURPS 4e has three separate books for what kind of tech level you can set your campaign in, a fourth purely for biotech, a fifth purely for spaceships. You all sorts of guns to choose from, but if you want to do any tricky fancy shooting from the movies, you got to purchase yet another book called "Gun-Fu" to do them which is 50 pages long, this is the low end for a GURPs book.

you get general some general superpowers in the corebook, but if you want the full thing you have to purchase another book to get the superhero genre rules. this doesn't include martial arts or magic both of which are two separate books and are longer than the superhero book. for even more powers you have to purchase yet another book.

but keep in mind, the magic book is not the book on the fantasy genre, which is a separate book.

oh and spaceships don't cover actual space CAMPAIGNS which is again its own book.

now sure you can run a lot using the corebook only. but if you want to really go into more detail, you have to be very thorough and exacting about which books you want and how much your willing to include.

TLDR: the answer is yes. a resounding yes.

[kieza]

I'm going to chip in and say that D&D 4e was a great system marred by poor content. (As I understand it, and I might have heard wrong, the person who designed the core system left WotC during development, and much of the classes/powers/feats were written without his input.)

Good System:
--One resolution mechanic: Roll when you do something, try to roll high.
--One resource model: Every class has At-Will/Encounter/Daily powers. Every class gets feats at the same levels.
--Streamlined level scaling: Add half your level to most d20 rolls (no more BAB and saves scaling differently by class).
--Ritual magic: Lots of magic not useful in combat became rituals that anyone could learn with a feat.

Bad Content:
--Classes felt very same-y, because there was no variation in when they got At-Will/Encounter/Daily powers, or how many, until PHB3. Also, each class had its own selection of powers, except that many of them tended to be replicated with minimal changes for several classes (i.e. there were Fireball-like spells for several arcane classes).
--Classes got pigeon-holed into a specific role with no freedom to branch out (except maybe by multiclassing). That simplified balancing, but seriously limited character creation options.
--Powers felt very game-y, as if the designers started from the mechanics and worked backwards to come up with flavor.
--Relatedly, a lot of powers could be summarized as "I deal damage and cause some other effect." Complex and/or non-damaging powers were rare.
--Monsters' attacks, hit points, defenses, and damage scaled faster than PCs could usually keep up with, and especially at high levels, fights turned into slugfests. Attempts to fix it in later books created must-have feats that most characters couldn't do without.
--Ritual magic was too expensive and time-consuming to use regularly.

My ideal system looks a lot like "4e but with better content," and I'll add that I'm writing something in that niche...might make it into public playtesting via Foundry VTT once I finish my dissertation.

[Saint-Just]

Really? If I stab someone in the kidneys, or throw a sharpened cream cheese spreader and hit someone in the head, I can't kill them in GURPS?

In my experience death quia death is not that easy in GURPS: even at -HP there is only a chance of death, you need to go down to -5*HP to have "just dead, no roll" result ( -HP here means currentHP = -maxHP, -10 if you started with 10, -15 if you started with 15 etc).

Two factors can account for perceived lethality. First, it's easy to become incapacitated (you don't even need to be down to 0 HP to suffer some hefty penalties, and usually you are not going to have a lot of HP anyway) and whole party incapacitated can mean TPK as we all know. Second, the recovery from injuries due to "natural healing" is looong, and sometimes you still unable to recover fully (that limit on HP damage for hit locations? Kicks in when your arm or leg is mangled beyond use). Advanced medical technology or magic solves the second problem, but not every setting has them.

Finally with (un)lucky rolls there is a probability to do humongous amount of damage with something that's relatively weak. Cheese spreader is probably useless you are rules-lawyering but chuck a heavy glass at someone's head (or a roof tile - ask king Pyrrhus) and you probably have a 1/1000 chance to kill the target if it's human (even multiplied many times over it's far from unlimited - what kills the human wouldn't necessary kill a horse; and depending on how ridiculous you go your mighty-thewed heroes may end up closer in strength and vitality to horses than humans)

[PhoenixPhyre]

In my experience death quia death is not that easy in GURPS even at -HP there is only a chance of death, you need to go down to -5*HP to have "just dead, no roll" result ( -HP here means currentHP = -maxHP, -10 if you started with 10, -15 if you started with 15 etc).

Two factors can account for perceived lethality. First, it's easy to become incapacitated (you don't even need to be down to 0 HP to suffer some hefty penalties, and usually you are not going to have a lot of HP anyway) and whole party incapacitated can mean TPK as we all know. Second, the recovery from injuries due to "natural healing" is looong, and sometimes you still unable to recover fully (that limit on HP damage for hit locations? Kicks in when your arm or leg is mangled beyond use). Advanced medical technology or magic solves the second problem, but not every setting has them.

Finally with (un)lucky rolls there is a probability to do humongous amount of damage with something that's relatively weak. Cheese spreader is probably too far ulesss you are rules-lawyering but chuck a heavy glass at someone's head (or a roof tile - ask king Pyrrhus) and you probably have a 1/1000 chance to kill the target if it's human (even multiplied many times over it's far from unlimited - what kills the human wouldn't necessary kill a horse; and depending on how ridiculous you go your mighty-thewed heroes may end up closer in strength and vitality to horses than humans)

My impression is that a combination of those two factors means you end up in death spirals pretty easily. Which gives the impression that you have to be much more careful and only engage when you know you can win cheaply. Which is a very different feel than, say, D&D where recovery is easy and you can keep fighting even when pretty banged up. Thus, the perceived lethality is much higher, because the major consequences kick in way earlier.

[Saint-Just]

My impression is that a combination of those two factors means you end up in death spirals pretty easily. Which gives the impression that you have to be much more careful and only engage when you know you can win cheaply. Which is a very different feel than, say, D&D where recovery is easy and you can keep fighting even when pretty banged up. Thus, the perceived lethality is much higher, because the major consequences kick in way earlier.

Probably. There is a possibility to fudge the rules juust right to encourage more D&D behavior on the system level (all those "cinematic violence" options) but I think they are not very popular. And in fantasy specifically high magic helps a lot as I said, but still not enough to be close to D&D.

Which encourages engaging in violence either: a) in a socially approved manner where your "enemy" will not kill you on purpose and maybe will even help you not to die or b) in an all-out manner, doing everything to make sure odds are in your favor, no such thing as overkill etc.

Oh, and about your classification - I definitely feel like D&D should not be 20, not because of D&D itself, but because to say that everything between roll for shoes and D&D is less than 1/5 of the spectrum is weird.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Probably. There is a possibility to fudge the rules juust right to encourage more D&D behavior on the system level (all those "cinematic violence" options) but I think they are not very popular. And in fantasy specifically high magic helps a lot as I said, but still not enough to be close to D&D.

Which encourages engaging in violence either: a) in a socially approved manner where your "enemy" will not kill you and probably will even help you not to die or b) in an all-out manner, doing everything to make sure odds are in your favor, no such thing as overkill etc.

Oh, and about your classification - I definitely feel like D&D should not be 20, not because of D&D itself, but because to say that everything between roll for shoes and D&D is less than 1/5 of the spectrum is weird.

I decided later that I was going to bump up D&D to where Pathfinder is now (ie 40), but didn't edit the OP. I'm not sure it's really a linear scale anyway...maybe a logarithmic scale would work better? Dunno. It's less about the numbering than the ordering anyway.

[Cluedrew]

Is there a meaningful distinction? Yes there is, whatever you want to call it there is definitely a meaningful difference between describing the basic attributes and filling in the attributes for a character. Which leads into the first of the two... not quite counter points but things to keep in mind.

First it isn't a hard divide. You have a scale based on systems, but a similar scale exists for content. Core rules are on one end, then we can pass through sub-system rules, guidelines and defaults and then individual pieces of content. And I'm not sure how character creation and character abilities fit into this so some would be hard to pin down, but there are different levels of "is pinned down throughout the system" rules can have.

Second is I don't think discussing one in isolation is going to be very useful. For a simple example, talking about D20 variance in practice (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?636333-D20-Variance-in-practice) is actually really hard to do without knowing other things in the system, like the range of modifiers in the system, and although systems will tend towards different types of values they do depend on individual types of content.

[Duff]

I'm going to say "Not in any meaningful sense". Some elements of any given game are tied more or less strongly to the genre, the setting or the fiction.
Every time you choose a game (to buy or to run) you can benefit from considering how much of the published material you want to keep, what you want to change and how much you want to swap out.
The more a game has in it, of course, the more you can run it without using all of it.

For example take vampire
You want to run Vampire in a high fantasy setting? Sure. Keep the rules but tweak the fiction. Change the clans if you want to. (I've played it and it was fun, though I died too quick because my character wasn't willing to keep her head down while working out this vampire thing.)
Or you want to run a vampire game but don't want the clan politics - remove the clans and Vamp on
Or you want Vamps to all be the same, so you say "all clans have access to the same power list" or "All clan powers are gone" and off you go with clans all equal as far as the rules go
Or Vampire run using D20. Keep the fiction, make the clans into classes (ooo, would you allow multiclassing?) and off you go.

It's all "bits of the game that you can use or not"

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm going to say "Not in any meaningful sense". Some elements of any given game are tied more or less strongly to the genre, the setting or the fiction.
Every time you choose a game (to buy or to run) you can benefit from considering how much of the published material you want to keep, what you want to change and how much you want to swap out.
The more a game has in it, of course, the more you can run it without using all of it.

For example take vampire
You want to run Vampire in a high fantasy setting? Sure. Keep the rules but tweak the fiction. Change the clans if you want to. (I've played it and it was fun, though I died too quick because my character wasn't willing to keep her head down while working out this vampire thing.)
Or you want to run a vampire game but don't want the clan politics - remove the clans and Vamp on
Or you want Vamps to all be the same, so you say "all clans have access to the same power list" or "All clan powers are gone" and off you go with clans all equal as far as the rules go
Or Vampire run using D20. Keep the fiction, make the clans into classes (ooo, would you allow multiclassing?) and off you go.

It's all "bits of the game that you can use or not"

For some games, making those changes is easy and has few knock-on consequences. Those fall at the low end of the scale. GURPS is an example here--swap out modules and you can do lots of different things without too much pain. And you can mix-and-match modules. For others, making those changes involves massive rewrites of the entire content. From what I've heard, Lady Blackbird assumes in the core rules certain characters and a certain scenario. Sure, you can rewrite it all...but at that point you're rewriting the entire thing and have to make sure it still hangs together. You've violated the core assumption on which it was built. Others are in the middle (on that axis)--they have some tightly coupled bits (3e D&D and alignment, for instance) and some very less coupled bits (the specific class list or the names of kingdoms in 3e D&D).

To me, that spectrum of "how hard is it to remove certain bits" naturally breaks down into two (loose, fuzzy, not entirely distinct) groups for many systems (away from the endpoints). Things within a group tend to be tightly coupled to each other, while coupling between those groups varies between games. As a modeler, that seems to indicate that the two groups are conceptually different "types" of things.

[Vahnavoi]

To use programmer speech for a moment, it seems to me you're measuring rigidity and fragility of game rule systems. To wit, "rigid" refers to tightly coupled rules where change in one impacts the other. "Fragile" refers to complexly coupled rules where change in one impacts another seemingly unrelated part.

For any given system, you may be able to sort out which parts are rigid and which are not, or if you're making a new system, you can decide ahead of time to make it modular so it won't be very rigid or fragile. But on a general level, you're still talking a distinction between system and parts of the system. "Content" hence just becomes a name for the parts of the system you can swap out.

You can compare it to older distinction between "crunch" versus "fluff". Practically, that distinction means one of two things: either it's "mathematically expressed rules versus rules expressed in a natural language" or it's "rules I care to enforce versus rules I don't". People often conflate the two because they find it easier to invent new natural language expressions than mathematical expressions, so it feels like it's easier to swap out natural language elements, and consequently, those elements feel less important, less set-in-stone. Actual system level analysis may prove such distinctions entirely arbitrary.

[KorvinStarmast]

Bad Content: until PHB3. As an aside: one of the reasons I never tried 4e (when my nephew asked if I was going to get into the new edition) is that I was sick and tired of having to buy new books. (I had sold my 3.5 stuff to half priced books for some beer money).
I finally overcame that in 2014 when I downloaded the Basic Rules for 5e when my brother called and promised that I could play, not DM. (Hmm, guess how that has since worked out?)

--Ritual magic was too expensive and time-consuming to use regularly. Ritual Magic is something that I wish D&D did better, regardless of edition.

I'll add that I'm writing something in that niche...might make it into public playtesting via Foundry VTT once I finish my dissertation. Might this be where I volunteer to be a play tester? :smallbiggrin: You know where to find me.

I definitely feel like D&D should not be 20, not because of D&D itself, but because to say that everything between roll for shoes and D&D is less than 1/5 of the spectrum is weird. Roll For Shoes; on my list if I can get our group to try it.