What gameplay elements do you enjoy in an RPG?

[Thinker]

Just as the title suggests, what gameplay elements do you enjoy in an RPG? What elements are required?

[Max_Killjoy]

Just as the title suggests, what gameplay elements do you enjoy in an RPG? What elements are required?

Could you expand on what you mean by "elements", or give some examples?

[Particle_Man]

Combat. I get bored if there is no combat.

[Man_Over_Game]

Just as the title suggests, what gameplay elements do you enjoy in an RPG? What elements are required?

I want it to be tactical, but in a way that being impractical is incentivized. I actually enjoy playing with "My Guy" sort of players. Why can't the Barbarian dash headfirst into battle when it makes the most sense for him to do?

For players to be fully immersed into their characters, they need to be allowed to do stupid things that those characters would do, and doing so should only impact the dynamics of the characters, not the players. But since players are sentimental about their characters as an investment, any unneeded risk feels like an attack on their belongings.

Which is why I enjoy systems that reward players for intentionally being stupid jerks. That's not saying they always need to be stupid or a jerk, or that they should always be incentivized for doing so, but it should at least be considered. In something like DnD, being reckless might get you kicked out of a table. However, in a low-risk high-narrative game like Fate, the entire point is to flesh out the story and not have any basis in tactical combat and sometimes acting out is part of the fun.

I'd like to see a game that combines both aspects; a tactical game that has bonuses for being stupid, whether that be something like a Vengeance bonus you reward the teammates you just betrayed, or some sort of Luck point that lets you change how things go (since you likely just made everything go south).

[Hackulator]

Honestly, I love almost all of it. I enjoy do the crunchy building and optimizing. I enjoy roleplaying. I enjoy solivng mysteries. I enjoy interacting with and competing with other people in a manner that is almost never possible in real life. I enjoy the tactical aspect of combat when playing with miniatures. I enjoy worldbuilding. I enjoy getting cool magic items. I enjoy dying a heroic death. I enjoy running a game for my paraplegic friend so he can jump from rooftop to rooftop, even if only in his mind. I enjoy helping my friend get over his arachnophobia by playing with him in a game where he is playing a character who turns into a giant spider. From time to time, I enjoy brutally murdering a PC who has gotten on my character's nerves in one way or another.

Yea, pretty much all of it, to one degree or another.

[Thinker]

Could you expand on what you mean by "elements", or give some examples?

What aspects of an RPG do you like? Combat? Social encounters (in-character)? Socializing with friends? Investigations? etc. Following up on that, are there any particular mechanics that you like playing with? Flipping it around, which elements and mechanics do you really dislike?

[Thinker]

Combat. I get bored if there is no combat.

So what do you do when you are between combats? Do you just kind of zone out? What do you like about combat?

I want it to be tactical, but in a way that being impractical is incentivized. I actually enjoy playing with "My Guy" sort of players. Why can't the Barbarian dash headfirst into battle when it makes the most sense for him to do?

For players to be fully immersed into their characters, they need to be allowed to do stupid things that those characters would do, and doing so should only impact the dynamics of the characters, not the players. But since players are sentimental about their characters as an investment, any unneeded risk feels like an attack on their belongings.

Which is why I enjoy systems that reward players for intentionally being stupid jerks. That's not saying they always need to be stupid or a jerk, or that they should always be incentivized for doing so, but it should at least be considered. In something like DnD, being reckless might get you kicked out of a table. However, in a low-risk high-narrative game like Fate, the entire point is to flesh out the story and not have any basis in tactical combat and sometimes acting out is part of the fun.

I'd like to see a game that combines both aspects; a tactical game that has bonuses for being stupid, whether that be something like a Vengeance bonus you reward the teammates you just betrayed, or some sort of Luck point that lets you change how things go (since you likely just made everything go south).

Does your enjoyment extend to areas outside of combat? What do you think of a thief trying to lift things from the merchant while talking to him? Or a priest preparing less useful spells?

Honestly, I love almost all of it. I enjoy do the crunchy building and optimizing. I enjoy roleplaying. I enjoy solivng mysteries. I enjoy interacting with and competing with other people in a manner that is almost never possible in real life. I enjoy the tactical aspect of combat when playing with miniatures. I enjoy worldbuilding. I enjoy getting cool magic items. I enjoy dying a heroic death. I enjoy running a game for my paraplegic friend so he can jump from rooftop to rooftop, even if only in his mind. I enjoy helping my friend get over his arachnophobia by playing with him in a game where he is playing a character who turns into a giant spider. From time to time, I enjoy brutally murdering a PC who has gotten on my character's nerves in one way or another.

Yea, pretty much all of it, to one degree or another.

That's cool. Which crunchy bits (or systems) do you enjoy playing with for these sorts of games?

[Zaharra]

Social interactions with NPCs, between PCs, even/especially casual conversations that aren't about saving the town from demons but just learning bits an peices of who a person is.

I really like romantic subplots too, watching NPC/NPC stories unfold, helping them along sometimes if needed. Social connections are the primary motivations for most of my characters, my sorceress stands before the ancient black dragon, unbowed, because her children, husband and friends are in the city the monster is set upon. Even if she dies, she dies with purpose.

I find combat to be the least interesting thing one could ever do in a fantasy world, but if there's a good reason for it I can get into it. If I need to ask "why are we here?" I'm just not into it.

[Max_Killjoy]

What aspects of an RPG do you like? Combat? Social encounters (in-character)? Socializing with friends? Investigations? etc. Following up on that, are there any particular mechanics that you like playing with? Flipping it around, which elements and mechanics do you really dislike?

Mechanics first, I like associated mechanics, and largely dislike disassociated mechanics. (https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress...a-brief-primer). I greatly prefer point-build, and dislike levels, classes, and most attempts to bake "archetypes" and "niches" into the game mechanics.

I prefer being able to create the character I actually have in my head, largely complete, and then go with slow and "shallow" progression, as opposed to being forced to make a seed of a character and then undergo longterm "steep" progression to finally get to the character on paper to match the character in my head. I have functional zero interest in coming-of-age or zero-to-hero or journey-of-self-discovery "arcs".

As for gameplay, I like a mix of things. Combat, exploration, investigation, mysteries, intrigue, etc. I like believable, memorable, three-dimensional NPCs (and setting details). Relationships, romance, etc, are fine and can be fun... so long as there is absolutely ZERO contrived drama (that is, drama created for its own sake and/or in violation of established character).

I like making decisions in-character, but I know my personal limits and how hard it is for me to do things I know are counter-productive or ignorant, and I'm a setting details junky who reflexively gobbles up information about the "game world"... so I stick to smart and knowledgeable characters even if that costs "character build" resources that could go elsewhere, so I don't have to choose between "savvy" and "in-character" as often.

The fact that I'm a setting details junky also ties back to explain why I have no patience for starting off as a raw green character... I'm not going to pretend I don't know what a hobgoblin or a Brujah or an LGM or whatever are over and over and over each time I start a new character just to stay "in character" until they're "supposed to" know what those things are. Ugh.

[Slipperychicken]

Relating to characters and events in their lives. For this reason some of my best games have taken place in settings with approximately-modern technology and either in my home-country or within a similar culture. That kind of background lets us know what the characters' lives look like, and we can both contextualize their struggles and infer many setting elements without being explicitly told about them.

'Slice of Life' segments, where we walk through typical days (or not-so-typical days) in the characters' lives. This can be quite entertaining especially if the characters are eccentric or have exceptional circumstances. It helps shape roleplay a lot and gives us a window into their minds.

Noting the development (or degradation) of relationships between characters. In shadowrun I found it tremendously satisfying to talk with stranger NPCs, add them as contacts, and note their loyalty/connection rating. Writing it down makes me feel like I made a friend who won't vanish the moment the GM's attention wanders. Likewise it can be amusing to know when we've annoyed people, terrified them, or otherwise pushed them away.

Metagame tokens to reward good or amusing roleplay. Luck, willpower, inspiration, edge, fate-points, that sort of thing. The GM can award them to players who amuse him, they must not be stockpiled endlessly (a single-digit cap on the number is quite sufficient), and they must not directly confer any permanent advantage.

Where metagame rewards exist (experience, glory, karma, etc), and for advancement-points especially, character-sheets dedicated to recording the exploits which earned those points. There a player must write down the reason why he got the points (i.e. 5 karma for 'winning an arm-wrestling tournament involving several hundred soldiers', 2 karma for 'convincing stacey's mom that we really were studying instead of fighting vampires'). That gives a lot of nostalgia/sentimental value looking back at the character's accomplishments.

Where combat exists, having a number of options which apply to 'basic' actions. That is, in the normal course of trying to hurt an enemy, without specifying anything beyond striking a foe, one may gain the option to topple him over, direct harm at a specific body part, attempt to snatch his weapon away, and so on. Mythras does this quite well with its 'Special Effects' and the method of selecting them.

[Hackulator]

That's cool. Which crunchy bits (or systems) do you enjoy playing with for these sorts of games?

For the crunchy systems stuff I've never played a game more engaging than 3.5/PF. However, I was recently introduced to M&M 3rd Ed and while it is clearly based off 3.5, it has a power design system that is really awesome and totally different and may match or even surpass 3.5.

[Man_Over_Game]

Does your enjoyment extend to areas outside of combat? What do you think of a thief trying to lift things from the merchant while talking to him? Or a priest preparing less useful spells?

Absolutely! Generally, out of combat is where we'll see these kind of events in something like DnD, when there is no "right answer". Since the goal is open-ended, there's no real way to fail. Even getting into trouble can have ways of making the story more interesting. Now, it does require a bit of a good DM to do properly.

Many DMs may not throttle a combat scenario based on the out-of-combat decisions a group of players make. Just because you have a pacifistic diplomat in your party that managed to end a war with words and is capable of charming almost anyone doesn't mean that a DM is going to care that you're effectively one less combatant against a band of raiders. Or the DM doesn't know how a pacifist can provide in a combat scenario, so they don't make any changes to accommodate the player (like making the Orcs susceptible to the diplomat's persuasiveness, or making some of the diplomat's many allies in the area). Most DMs I know would just say "You made your bed, sleep in it wimp" in kinder words.

I wish that combat was taken the same way as the narrative, where there is no "wrong answer". Obviously, you should avoid death, but often times combat just comes down to dealing/resisting as much damage as possible, rather than doing anything interesting. Damage should be the OPTION, not the GOAL.

[Particle_Man]

So what do you do when you are between combats? Do you just kind of zone out? What do you like about combat?

I sometimes try a little talking to NPCs but that can get dull. Often I wait for the next combat. I like being able to use my cool powers (or sheer physical might) to do stuff in combat, which may include, but is not limited to, hitting (and possibly killing) someone on the other side.

Oh, and loot - that can sometimes be fun, if it gives me something that makes me better in combat.

That said, I also sometimes enjoy the minigame of chargen (including planning out a character 4 dimensionally).

[Slipperychicken]

So what do you do when you are between combats? Do you just kind of zone out? What do you like about combat?

Does your enjoyment extend to areas outside of combat? What do you think of a thief trying to lift things from the merchant while talking to him? Or a priest preparing less useful spells?

I don't mean to speak for those two in particular, but many roleplayers' experiences are shaped by games which lack adequate mechanical support for areas other than combat.

If a reader flips through his game manual, sees all the cool powers and thoughtfully-constructed mechanical support and detailed guidance in the combat section, and then goes to a social-interaction section containing the professional equivalent of "just roleplay it lmao you don't need rules to talk with people, maybe roll a die and add your number, or not, who cares", then it's only natural that he will gravitate to the combat and see it as more interesting. That kind of mechanical emphasis, structure, and level of certainty plays a huge role in directing peoples' attention and interest.

I myself used to think I only enjoyed combat in roleplaying games, right up until I played games like acks and shadowrun which contain well-made rules (reaction rolls, contact connection/loyalty, detailed henchmen/minions rules, etiquette, etc) which meaningfully assist in the roleplaying of relationships and social interaction without getting in the way. The idea of mechanical support is often underrated and derided as a crutch for antisocial gamers, but it is also very helpful for getting the most out of those aspects of roleplaying.

[Psikerlord]

I don't mean to speak for those two in particular, but many roleplayers' experiences are shaped by games which lack adequate mechanical support for areas other than combat.

If a reader flips through his game manual, sees all the cool powers and thoughtfully-constructed mechanical support and detailed guidance in the combat section, and then goes to a social-interaction section containing the professional equivalent of "just roleplay it lmao you don't need rules to talk with people, maybe roll a die and add your number, or not, who cares", then it's only natural that he will gravitate to the combat and see it as more interesting. That kind of mechanical emphasis, structure, and level of certainty plays a huge role in directing peoples' attention and interest.

I myself used to think I only enjoyed combat in roleplaying games, right up until I played games like acks and shadowrun which contain well-made rules (reaction rolls, contact connection/loyalty, detailed henchmen/minions rules, etiquette, etc) which meaningfully assist in the roleplaying of relationships and social interaction without getting in the way. The idea of mechanical support is often underrated and derided as a crutch for antisocial gamers, but it is also very helpful for getting the most out of those aspects of roleplaying.

Indeed, I tend to run gather information type rolls using the Shadowrun Contacts rules.

[Psikerlord]

The elements I enjoy most are:

1. A strong random element to all facets of the game. ie I want to see dice being rolled whether it's combat, exploration, info gathering, social, etc.

2. Fast combat with genuine danger, and flexible options to choose from/adlib.

3. Clear, meaningful PC progression, even if only small increases.

4. Mysterious/unpredictable magic or psionics or whatever it is.

[2D8HP]

I like "regular Joe" human scale conversations with NPC's (like you would have with someone at a bar), big meetings with pooh-bahs (Kings and such) aren't my thing.

I also like pretending to put holes in monsters with arrows and swords.

Gaining loot is good, as are descriptions of new previously unseen scenery.

[Pauly]

I like:
Fast cinematic combat.
Tactical flexibility in combat. (No “one best way” to win)
Social combat (the ability to change an NPC’s mind through the use of various techniques, and conversely having NPC’s able to persuade PCs)
“Pulp hero” PCs (i.e, the PCs abilities top out at maximum human [or whatever race] capacity) *
Flexibility to tailor your progression through acquisition of skills and abilities.
A limited setting. It’s better to do one thing well than many things poorly.

I dislike
Puzzle monsters.
Having a quick reference sheet that is 10 pages long
A system that requires the rule book to be present on the table at all times.
“Super hero” PCs (i.e. the PCs top out at beyond what is humanly [or whatever racially] possible).*
Being locked into class choices to obtain skills.


* exception is games in the Super hero genre.

[Quertus]

I probably should have answered before reading anyone else's reply, so as not to Taint my answer.

My favorite part is Exploration. I don't want a world perfected by the Determinator - I want the PCs to be the first to encounter and decide what to with / how to utilize something new.

Corollary: I like "grim dark", where the PCs are just about the only things that matter.

I enjoy role-playing. It's what makes RPGs better than war games for me. I don't appreciate any system getting in the way.

I like tactics. Related to the above, I want "figuring out that the person you're talking to is a vegetarian, and not offering them a steak" to matter. I can enjoy a game where my only contribution is in tactics, where my character cannot interface with the mechanics (see "sentient potted plant"). I wouldn't enjoy games that are just mechanics where tactics are irrelevant.

I enjoy combat. It's the part of the game where everyone gets to participate. And I'm a war gamer. But RPG combat is boring compared to war gamer combat.

I enjoy the "how the **** do we make this group of characters work?" minigame, rather than the cookie cutter party. Or am I repeating myself? Is that just "loves tactics" + "loves creativity"?

I sometimes enjoy the character creation minigame. Ideally, creating a character could be almost as easy as writing, "Quertus, Wizard" on the character sheet, and that be a perfectly valid character, but with the option to create much more complex playing pieces. And that complexity does not translate directly to power.

I care about player agency. That starts with the ability to choose your character, and to have that determine the difficulty of the challenge, not the GM modifying the challenge to the "correct" difficulty.

Now, for Taint.

I like playing to find out how things will turn out for *these characters, who made these choices*. I don't like it to be required to be the Determinator. But I don't want the system to give advantages for being dumb - the advantage should be getting to tell that story.

Corollary to that: no "only possible path", no railroading. I want an open world, with an open ending. So maybe, oops, we failed, and the king got assassinated. OK, not "game over", but "now what?".

I want diverse NPCs to interact with and connect to. I'm "not from around here" - make a "here" that makes me care.

I'm not a fan of PvP.

I can enjoy romance subplots - even between PCs, if nobody minds.

I love shiny toys!

And... pretty much everything that Max said. At times for slightly different reasons.

[Morgaln]

I like most elements of RPGs, but there are a few things I enjoy especially:

- Creating a story where the decisions of the players matter. Both as a DM and as a player, I want the players to have a say in what happens during the story. When I DM, I never have a clear direction or end goal in mind. I provide an initial story hook and then let my players decide how they would like to tackle the problem/situation I presented them with. The actions they decide upon will then determine how the plot evolves.

- Character development. In general, I'm far more interested in who a character is than what he can do (i. e. personality over stats). I love to put those characters into situations that present them with morally difficult choices or question their preconceptions. Luckily, I'm blessed with awesome players who create those kinds of characters and like to roleplay them.

Conversely, I don't enjoy RPGs as much when they focus strongly on mechanics and put story and character interaction as a distant second.

Absolutely! Generally, out of combat is where we'll see these kind of events in something like DnD, when there is no "right answer". Since the goal is open-ended, there's no real way to fail. Even getting into trouble can have ways of making the story more interesting. Now, it does require a bit of a good DM to do properly.

Many DMs may not throttle a combat scenario based on the out-of-combat decisions a group of players make. Just because you have a pacifistic diplomat in your party that managed to end a war with words and is capable of charming almost anyone doesn't mean that a DM is going to care that you're effectively one less combatant against a band of raiders. Or the DM doesn't know how a pacifist can provide in a combat scenario, so they don't make any changes to accommodate the player (like making the Orcs susceptible to the diplomat's persuasiveness, or making some of the diplomat's many allies in the area). Most DMs I know would just say "You made your bed, sleep in it wimp" in kinder words.

I wish that combat was taken the same way as the narrative, where there is no "wrong answer". Obviously, you should avoid death, but often times combat just comes down to dealing/resisting as much damage as possible, rather than doing anything interesting. Damage should be the OPTION, not the GOAL.

The most memorable battles I played (and incidentally also the ones that had my players most engaged) where those where the goal was not "kill the enemy", but where the batle was a means to accomplish a different goal. E. g. "get to the altar before your friend gets sacrificed", "prevent the guards from reaching the alarm button", "keep the enemy from cutting the rope", things like that. Usually, those are also the goals that would lead to interesting new directions for the story when the players failed. So I fully agree with you on this point.

[Kaptin Keen]

Story. Everything else is secondary, to the point that if it isn't supporting the story, it's highly debatable why it's there. Like - tactical combat. Tactical combat is a fine thing in it's own right, but do I want it in my game, if it isn't making the story better? Or would I rather have cinematic combat, for instance (if that suits the story better)?

So I'm very much about the story telling. And only incidentally interested in all the rest =)

[JeenLeen]

I like it when the mechanics and fluff go together well. That is, the rules support the text and vice-versa.
I'd like to flesh this out with an example, but tight on time.

I also like it when it's possible to build a character who is both competent and at least reasonably well-rounded in a way it makes sense for a realistic character. One of my major qualms with oWoD was that you didn't have enough skill points to both be proficient at what you focus on (combat, social control, whatever) and not stink at stuff a normal person should know (urgh... I gotta put one point in Drive or I can't drive a car? That stinks).

On a closer nuance, I dislike it when some skills become a 'tax'. Like you can't lie without the Lying skill at good levels, since everyone has some level of Awareness. The only system I've found that handles this decently is In Nomine, where a failure or success on a skill like Lying just modifies how well they can detect what you are up to; every other system it means you failed to lie in a remotely convincing way. And no granualarity: a failed lie is obvious, a successful lie is belived... but shouldn't there be results like "he's not sure about you, but can't tell you're lying or what is up about your story"?

[Max_Killjoy]

I like it when the mechanics and fluff go together well. That is, the rules support the text and vice-versa.
I'd like to flesh this out with an example, but tight on time.

I also like it when it's possible to build a character who is both competent and at least reasonably well-rounded in a way it makes sense for a realistic character. One of my major qualms with oWoD was that you didn't have enough skill points to both be proficient at what you focus on (combat, social control, whatever) and not stink at stuff a normal person should know (urgh... I gotta put one point in Drive or I can't drive a car? That stinks).

On a closer nuance, I dislike it when some skills become a 'tax'. Like you can't lie without the Lying skill at good levels, since everyone has some level of Awareness. The only system I've found that handles this decently is In Nomine, where a failure or success on a skill like Lying just modifies how well they can detect what you are up to; every other system it means you failed to lie in a remotely convincing way. And no granualarity: a failed lie is obvious, a successful lie is belived... but shouldn't there be results like "he's not sure about you, but can't tell you're lying or what is up about your story"?

As an aside, a chunk of that was that oWoD used linear buy for character build, and then "exponential" buy for XP expenditures -- so that giving out even a few more points in Abilities (talents, skills, knowledges) would have played into the urge to ramp up a handful of them to 4 or 5 dots, to get ahead of the massive XP cost of doing it later.

But, I agree, it was really hard to make a character who was, before they became a vampire, an actual human person in the game's quasi-modern world. I've known people who simply weren't buildable as mortal characters under the game's starting character rules for mortals.

[Hackulator]

As an aside, a chunk of that was that oWoD used linear buy for character build, and then "exponential" buy for XP expenditures -- so that giving out even a few more points in Abilities (talents, skills, knowledges) would have played into the urge to ramp up a handful of them to 4 or 5 dots, to get ahead of the massive XP cost of doing it later.

But, I agree, it was really hard to make a character who was, before they became a vampire, an actual human person in the game's quasi-modern world. I've known people who simply weren't buildable as mortal characters under the game's starting character rules for mortals.

It was a problem I think borne of an issue that most games seem to have: Designers almost never want you to optimize as much as you can. A starting character isn't really expected to have more than like, 2 dots in any skill, maybe 3 in one or two specialties. However, optimized creation for doing what you want to do dictates otherwise, which leads to problems.

[Rhedyn]

The game needs to not break by itself.

My first instinct with a system is to punish it as much as possible. If it survives the onslaught, then it's a "good system". Other considerations for "what I actually play" end up being things like "a cool magic system" (or anything that allows the characters to have a wide variety of narratively important abilities), cool combats (make your combat a fun game in it's own right), and character concept coolness (people need to be able to make cool characters).

[JeenLeen]

It was a problem I think borne of an issue that most games seem to have: Designers almost never want you to optimize as much as you can. A starting character isn't really expected to have more than like, 2 dots in any skill, maybe 3 in one or two specialties. However, optimized creation for doing what you want to do dictates otherwise, which leads to problems.

And that'd be fine if the description of having just 2-3 dots of something fit with being competent (as a skilled professional) and something like (to use oWoD example) of Dexterity 2 or 3 and a skill of 2 or 3 gave you decent odds at success. But it really doesn't seem built that way once you get to rolling (or just reading the text fluff.)

I think a lot could have been fixed by doing linear cost for xp just like it does during character creation. The game I'm really into right now (In Nomine) has linear costs both during char-gen and during play. It does allow you to easily make a super-optimized combat (or mental-mojo)-focused character, if you go that route, but it also really does well letting you make a reasonably well-rounded person.

I also like it when games state that some skills can be used even if you have 0 points in a Skill. Like, you can use basic e-mail and stuff like MS Word and Excel with 0 ranks of Computers, or you can drive a car in normal situations without points in Drive.

On a related note, one thing I dislike about a lot of d20 games is that, at low-level, it's hard to be competent even in what you specialize in. Your modifier to the d20 for a skill check just isn't high enough that your actual skill matters more than the randomness of the dice.

[Mordar]

Just as the title suggests, what gameplay elements do you enjoy in an RPG? What elements are required?

From a system perspective:

• Progression - Not necessarily level based, but discernible improvement over time.
• Matched mechanics - If it is supposed to be an X-heavy game, the system supports greater granularity/variability/fun doing X.
• Specific over general - I don't generally prefer games (like perhaps Savage Worlds) where a plethora of skills are rolled into one skill, unless it is a tree.

From an interaction perspective:

• Discovery - I like learning about the system and the setting through play. I want to experience it, not just read it.
• Investigation - I like play that involves investigation, either about the world/setting (Lore) or specific objectives (who killed the Duke?) and rewards the investigation. Perhaps by giving the solution that will let the party figure out what to do next, or as the main objective of the story.
• Multiple formats - I generally don't prefer games that are all action all the time, or all narrative all the time, or basically anything all the time. I want to have action, and narrative, and NPC interaction and world building.

Now, the right group can make any of these preferences meaningless because with the right group of people almost anything can be fun. Similarly, wrong group yadda yadda yadda...

- M

[Psikerlord]

Story. Everything else is secondary, to the point that if it isn't supporting the story, it's highly debatable why it's there. Like - tactical combat. Tactical combat is a fine thing in it's own right, but do I want it in my game, if it isn't making the story better? Or would I rather have cinematic combat, for instance (if that suits the story better)?

So I'm very much about the story telling. And only incidentally interested in all the rest =)

I am the opposite, mostly interested in good gameplay. Story? Well, that's what we get afterward when looking back on what happened.

[NichG]

I like games which can inspire me. If there are things that make me want to explore them, find out how they work, see what happens, try out an idea, etc, then those are all good. In terms of how to achieve this with gameplay elements, there's a couple of factors I can think of which are important.

- If something is too self-contained, then it doesn't give me the feeling that it's necessary to explore it. So there should be things whose consequences, interactions, etc are actually fairly difficult to immediately read out. To that extent, things which try to protect and compartmentalize gameplay elements tend to detract from things for me - its better when things have the possibility of spilling outside of the area defined precisely by the rules such that they require some thought as to what will happen.

- Things which combine or interact in non-trivial ways that would require being played out to see what happens are a good way to get that inspiration feeling going.

- Similarly, things which ask you to push the bounds of imagination by specifying something which is difficult to directly render mechanical. I have a soft spot for systems with time-travel because they embed a lot of power and agency in moves which, necessarily, totally depend on the way the setting and story are structured to determine what will happen. And you basically have to try and see in order to find out how things go.

- I want the rules/gameplay so far to hint at the places where things break and where interesting directions to explore are. It doesn't work if e.g. the GM just fiats something arbitrary on the spot every time you explore a mystery - but its very good if the GM fiats into existence some underlying consistent logic or system which you can then uncover. Basically, the more the various mysteries or unresolved things hang together, the more I can feel that pursuing them is really uncovering the unknown.

Examples of inspiring/open-ended mechanics might be things such as:

- A character ability that allows you to scry upon an alternate universe centered around a specific 'what if' question.
- A character ability that lets you trade abstract things with others: anything which can be named and which clearly and uniquely belongs to you/them.
- An ability that lets you experience a particular scene or situation through the eyes of another character with whom you are familiar - feeling how they would react, etc.
- Events or situations during gameplay which can permanently modify a character or how they work, including surprising sensory or cognitive differences. Getting turned into a vampire, ascending to godhood, transferring your mind into a golem, etc can be really interesting, especially if you can further develop it or explore a path which hasn't been worked out. On the other hand, if it's just 'No Con score, +4 Str, Dex and Cha, gain undead immunities' and I can read that in the books then I'm much less interested.

Examples of mechanics which don't inspire me, or get in the way:

- Roll to see if your argument persuades someone (compartmentalizes too much).
- Rock/paper/scissors combat power interactions - shields are strong against swords and weak against spears, etc. The solutions or optimal behaviors can often be read off or pre-computed, meaning that often there's no reason to actually play them out.
- Forced balance considerations, such as systems which break if you deviate very far from 'wealth by level' or the like.

[Kaptin Keen]

I am the opposite, mostly interested in good gameplay. Story? Well, that's what we get afterward when looking back on what happened.

Yes but ... why RPG then? Seems to me you'd be just as happy, if not more, playing one of countless strategy, tactics or skirmish games. In all my experience, the rules for combat (which I assume is what you mean by 'gameplay') are way better in those games than in RPG's.

I have the polar opposite view: Any old set of rules will do, because it's really not about the rules anyways, and we can bend or break them as we please, as long as it suits and/or promotes the story =)