The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
I am bad at thread titles. (Pen and Paper discussion)
DirtyDirtyVagrant
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Alright.
This thread is about tabletop RPG systems. All of them. What did you love about them? Hate about them? Did they possess design elements that you felt were conducive to fucking off at the table? Or that pitted players against each other somehow?
I'm developing a system, and I'm here for some honest input. What do you guys prefer in your games? A roleplay or action-oriented focus? Dice rolls or point buy? Do you like to play realistic characters with real vulnerabilities or avatars of power worthy of challenging the gods? Somewhere in between? Or maybe a little of both?
What are your issues with existing conventions in tabletop games? I mean the mechanics, the settings, the expectations of players, the length of what constitutes a "campaign" or merely a few adventures.
This thread will also be about me bouncing ideas off of you.
I will get started.
Hit points and magical healing
The most common complaint I get from the groups I'm part of is that magical healing coupled with a hit point system virtually negates any sense of urgency in a game. The inability for a player to legitimately take permanent damage under the rules is something that annoys and confuses, especially in later levels where you're either topped off or you're dead, and there really is no in between.
My resolution so far is to break damage into two types. Appropriately named lethal and nonlethal. The idea is that your 'lethal' HP regenerate slowly, and when they fall below incremental levels you'd take a permanent or semi-permanent wound of some sort, such as a broken or amputated limb or somesuch. My issue with the two now is how to scale their development.
Initiative, attack rolls, and defense scores
Second at bat is initiative. I cant quite wrap my head around this one, and the issues I have are not so much that current initiative systems are broken or anything, it's just that I feel like there's gotta be a better way. The system I have so far uses static numbers with conditional modifiers. I am of the personal opinion that luck (a die roll) should have little to do with who goes first. People who are faster are always faster unless the situation says otherwise.
Attack VS Defense
I think we all know the frustration of encountering enemies that we can hardly touch, or for that matter, enemies which pose little threat to anyone but the casters in the group. If you're fighting a bunch of stuff that isn't really a threat and then the group finds something that none of you can lay a finger on, that is like some dragonball shit and it doesn't really work well, especially if one or two group members are behind in levels. (In my opinion)
I haven't really found a solution for this yet. All the models I've come up with result in the same absurd power progression seen in games like D&D.
Levels
Levels are a pretty stupid concept, I think we can all agree. At least on some level. From what I can see, the only reason levels are necessary at all is to steamline the creation of content for the players. If you dont have a consistent way to track the power level of the group and compare it to the challenges you're throwing at them, two things might occur. The group will be absurdly bored because they will annihilate everything you throw at them (and you'll waste a lot of time tweaking things - time better spent playing), or you'll wipe them out.
The system I'm playing with at this point uses levels, but in a much narrower context. There are five levels, ranging from the very mortal to the very immortal, and there are no strength gains for mere 'experience'. Instead, I'm using it for exactly what it's intended for: to track the relative strength of players so that it's easier to find appropriate challenges.
Whether or not I should use a point system or something else for advancement is still a subject of discussion with basically everyone I've asked so far.
The importance of roleplaying, writing, and persistence in the game world
I got nothing here. I'm having some trouble gathering my thoughts. If you have relevant input, spill it.
Thanks guys.
Man I hope this thread doesn't just choke and die.
Also it's mod approved.
This thread is about tabletop RPG systems. All of them. What did you love about them? Hate about them? Did they possess design elements that you felt were conducive to fucking off at the table? Or that pitted players against each other somehow?
I'm developing a system, and I'm here for some honest input. What do you guys prefer in your games? A roleplay or action-oriented focus? Dice rolls or point buy? Do you like to play realistic characters with real vulnerabilities or avatars of power worthy of challenging the gods? Somewhere in between? Or maybe a little of both?
What are your issues with existing conventions in tabletop games? I mean the mechanics, the settings, the expectations of players, the length of what constitutes a "campaign" or merely a few adventures.
This thread will also be about me bouncing ideas off of you.
I will get started.
Hit points and magical healing
The most common complaint I get from the groups I'm part of is that magical healing coupled with a hit point system virtually negates any sense of urgency in a game. The inability for a player to legitimately take permanent damage under the rules is something that annoys and confuses, especially in later levels where you're either topped off or you're dead, and there really is no in between.
My resolution so far is to break damage into two types. Appropriately named lethal and nonlethal. The idea is that your 'lethal' HP regenerate slowly, and when they fall below incremental levels you'd take a permanent or semi-permanent wound of some sort, such as a broken or amputated limb or somesuch. My issue with the two now is how to scale their development.
Initiative, attack rolls, and defense scores
Second at bat is initiative. I cant quite wrap my head around this one, and the issues I have are not so much that current initiative systems are broken or anything, it's just that I feel like there's gotta be a better way. The system I have so far uses static numbers with conditional modifiers. I am of the personal opinion that luck (a die roll) should have little to do with who goes first. People who are faster are always faster unless the situation says otherwise.
Attack VS Defense
I think we all know the frustration of encountering enemies that we can hardly touch, or for that matter, enemies which pose little threat to anyone but the casters in the group. If you're fighting a bunch of stuff that isn't really a threat and then the group finds something that none of you can lay a finger on, that is like some dragonball shit and it doesn't really work well, especially if one or two group members are behind in levels. (In my opinion)
I haven't really found a solution for this yet. All the models I've come up with result in the same absurd power progression seen in games like D&D.
Levels
Levels are a pretty stupid concept, I think we can all agree. At least on some level. From what I can see, the only reason levels are necessary at all is to steamline the creation of content for the players. If you dont have a consistent way to track the power level of the group and compare it to the challenges you're throwing at them, two things might occur. The group will be absurdly bored because they will annihilate everything you throw at them (and you'll waste a lot of time tweaking things - time better spent playing), or you'll wipe them out.
The system I'm playing with at this point uses levels, but in a much narrower context. There are five levels, ranging from the very mortal to the very immortal, and there are no strength gains for mere 'experience'. Instead, I'm using it for exactly what it's intended for: to track the relative strength of players so that it's easier to find appropriate challenges.
Whether or not I should use a point system or something else for advancement is still a subject of discussion with basically everyone I've asked so far.
The importance of roleplaying, writing, and persistence in the game world
I got nothing here. I'm having some trouble gathering my thoughts. If you have relevant input, spill it.
Thanks guys.
Man I hope this thread doesn't just choke and die.
Also it's mod approved.
DirtyDirtyVagrant on
0
Posts
It sounds like you're going for something more of a traditional action-adventure, but I think a broader perspective would be a healthy way of looking at the intended gameplay and decide which conventional rules are needed for what you're looking for in a roleplaying game.
When you buy a book / system, you have to choose based on what will work for your group. For example, I personally really like Mouse Guard but will never be able to run it tabletop because there is no loot, and my current group just aren't heavy roleplayers. The mix includes at least one first-timer/WoW convert, and most of them just aren't in sync with what an MG session would be like.
Similarly, when you create a system you need to decide what you want to make. Is it to target the mass market or just for your group? If the latter, you shouldn't be asking us this first question set :P I mean, you aren't going to DM us all are ya?
I would decide the setting you want to create and build the mechanics much, much later. Like, last. Though the quality is hit and miss in general, the Fear the Boot podcasts have some good input on building an RPG system. The best piece of advice I gleaned was to create what they called a "Feel Document" - basically write what playing in that setting would be like, and use this document as gospel for all else on forward - thematic and mechanical decisions both. It will answer a lot of your questions for you based on how you want the game to feel & play.
Had to (nit?)pick this out - but 4e seems to have pretty much erased this phenom, though it was definitely a massive issue in 3.x D&D (at least for us). Not sure what systems you are pointing at here but some of these knots have been untied.
I hate the "100% capability then BOOM dead" phenomenon. SW:Saga did very well there with the Condition Track.
I would recommend hidden HP's tracked by you. It makes what should be abstract actually abstract.
I would recommend a rule set for what the HP's are - is 0 HP dead, KO'd, maimed? If you want to include those things in the game, make rules for them. Maybe 0 is dead, but the player can opt to lose an arm instead?
Maybe you have ONLY a condition track instead of HP's (see also: Shadowrun)?
Another question to ask - how complex do you really want this shit to be?
Re: overly available magical healing~ this is largely dependent on your setting. are we talking fantasy with clerics and such? I assume so. Some solutions for DMing existing and/or creating a new game - 1) remove resurrect. 2) the DM needs to be willing to kill characters, or maybe more accurately - the DM shouldn't bail them out of jams their dice or decisions get them into on a regular basis. 3) longer workdays - press their resources. 4) Empath style healing? Damage transfer rather than straight heals?
You should keep dice involved IMO. I really don't know what your goal is here, so it's hard to reply to.
WEG D6 SW had a pretty good progression that kept things reasonable.
Also keep in mind your dice impact this immensely : 1d20 + attack stat vs [target number] and something like 2d8 + attack stat vs [target number] make for massively different hit & miss tables. 1d20 is pretty wild with big swings on both ends, but something like 2d8 is more measured and weighted towards the middle.
I've always liked the "attack overflow above target number augments damage" school of thought, but it's difficult to do in a balanced way.
'nuff typin'
I have never played Iron Heroes.
I would not mind DMing a game here.
That is pretty damn good advice. I'll start working on that today.
3.x DnD was the big one. Pathfinder is still really bad about it. 4e does fix the problem. Unfortunately, it has other issues that prevent me from ever wanting to play it again, but that's a different thread.
More good ideas. And it's funny that you mention DMs bailing out their players. I'll have to think of something there, too. I'll let you know what I come up with.
If you could watch my group roll initiative, you'd know. These guys take five to ten minutes just to get everything down, if it's a good day. What I'm trying to do is sort of streamline it.
"Ted, what's your initiative?"
"Uhh...8."
"Okay well, you rolled the highest on your listen/spot check so you've got a plus two. Unfortunately you all failed the checks so you get minus four for being surprised."
That kind of thing.
I think you should differentiate your old system gripes and your system goals.
In a new system, I would build the attack mechanics before initiative, and have them make sense together.
For both new & tweaking old systems, I think the 4e mechanic of using [10 + skill = Passive Perception] whenever the players are not actively calling out Spots and stuff is a good idea. That way they can just roll dice + initiative stat and you can modify as you need to when you write the number down.
However, why is Spot a factor in initiative at all in your example? Imagine a 1v2 combat where the third guy is hiding the bushes with a crossbow. If guy #1 doesn't see him it should not affect how quickly he can draw his weapon on guy #2... it will just mean he's flat footed or whatever when he gets shot, or possibly the bushes guy gets a surprise round?
Anyhow. Feel Document, make & post ;o
Almost all your complaints completely mesh with mine. Levels are terrible, hit points are crap, initiative is something that should NEVER be done D&D style, and untouchable foes make everyone unhappy.
However, the rules that you use should be pinned on the genre of the game. Fast conflict-resolution systems that focus on description and action like Wushu are great for heavy action but they don't fit at all in a gritty game that would be more suited for Call of Cthulhu or something like Edge of Midnight.
Dice Pool systems really weight rolls towards the average, but you get the occasional flash of brilliance. It's a nice change from percentile dice or d20s since there's such a ridiculous swing on those, so choose wisely.
Really, I'd have to say my biggest beef with RPGs in general is experience. No matter how it's done, I have yet to see a system in which it's done well. If anyone has good system for improving characters in a realistic fashion, I'd love to hear it.
I started out with one where the players earn x amount of experience that they can use to buy skills, and during a session the DM keeps a record of what skills the players use and they can only raise those. Each time they used those the amount that they could raise them by rose incrementally (to keep people from using one skill once and then dumping all of their experience pool into it). Man. That was quite a sentence. Combat skills and life skills were divided and had separate experience pools. The total amount of combat experience earned was used to gauge how powerful a character might be.
It works well on paper, but I don't think it will work well in a session. I suppose I could playtest it.
The more I think about it, the more I think a dice pool system would be good. I'm just coming off of Deadlands HoE though and...I gotta say, that was kind of a letdown. The randomness is what killed me. Plus, once you get to a certain point in a dice pool system, it's like "That's it. Dont even roll, you succeed." There's no discussion.
Stone? That guy was throwing 15d12+10 on his shooting rolls. You know what he needed to hit us? A 5. Maybe a 15 if we dodged well, and we were badasses. It was more of the same shit. Untouchable enemies. One of the antagonists in that game survived a direct hit with a nuclear weapon. Now I gotta take it out with a .38? Fuck you.
Let me work on that Feel document a bit more tomorrow, and I'll throw it up that night. See if I'm putting the right stuff down. So far I have the basic feel of the game, some vague details about the setting, a spot of history and some other stuff.
---
I've always been fond of the Silhouette system, where you roll multiple d6's, and every six past the first gives you a +1 to the result.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
Also I've seen people with 7d12+2 shooting miss a 5 without busting. That's just shithouse luck, and when it takes two or three entire sessions to buy a meaningful skill upgrade for your character (or 10+ sessions to get them back where they were), that kind of event is just going to piss people right off.
That said, there may be a way to make it work. My original design was a dice pool system where each ability score was a pool and your skill levels were added to that roll. So your guy has a 4d6 strength (hypothetically), and your weapon skill level is 4, so you're throwing 4d6+4.
The problem I had with this was that defense was thrown way out of balance (everybody was hitting everything or missing everything, there was no in between) *unless* I did opposing rolls. Which was fine, except combat slowed to a crawl. I was using open rolling, and even when I factored in the slight increase in averages, attack rolls still ended up either vastly overwhelming the opposing defenses or not even brushing them.
I wonder if I could use some combination of "attack overflow above target number augments damage" and the abstract players dont know their HP levels model. That could be cool.
You can delete posts via Edit.
In short, you roll a number of dice equal to your stat+skill, but you only keep a number of dice equal to your stat. Then you total it up and check the result. But the best part of the system is the absolute best roll you can get is 10-keep-10, and anything beyond that just converts into a higher total or a better effect with your roll.
It means that raising both skills and attributes is v. important(unlike many dice-pool systems where you just raise skill until it's maxed, since it's a better return for your XP) and it solves the buckets-of-dice problem, since the most you'll ever need is 10d10.
L5R is just a pretty slick system in general, though. I quite recommend it, even if the setting could be better.
Themes and stuff
The absolute most important thing to me is to be able to create a world that the PCs can feel like they're a part of, not just one where they happen to be in their grander quest.
You know that feeling you get when a bad storm is rolling in? And you can see the darkest clouds ever on the horizon? Does anybody here long for that feeling? Like "Man. Finally some shit is gonna happen." Everybody's preparing. People are pulling their cars into the garage or making last minute phone calls to warn relatives or rushing pets into the house or herding the family into the basement. The world never feels more alive than during that calm before the storm. That's the feeling I want to recreate in a game. I want the players to feel like shit is happening, even though the setting is largely peaceful (In appearance).
Further, I want the players to feel like something is at stake. I want them to remember that they could die at any moment, but I don't want to subject them to terrible luck. I only want to sting them for poor judgement.
I decided that I'm opting for a more roleplay-centric system. But at the same time, when it's time to throw down I want combat to be perfect. Dynamic, decisive, swift, and satisfying. It's a small part of the game, so getting it right is all the more important. Otherwise you might as well not have it at all, right?
The setting I have in mind follows humanity into a foreign world. Their technological advancement would be something like 1960s America, although with less weapons progress because no cold war equivalent ever happened (they don't follow the same timeline, so no world wars either - I just mean that they've discovered practical uses for things like electricity, gunpowder, and so forth). I haven't decided where this place is or how they got there.
I'm seeing a lot of airplanes, and that's given me an idea to try a setting where it's just an endless sea of floating landmasses, suspended in the sky for whatever reason. The surface, if there is one at all, is somewhere beyond reach, or, if anyone has been there, they never returned.
Let me brood on this a little longer.
I don't know how far you are in your game development, but one thing you may want to consider is the sort of freedom that was explained in the forward for Deadlands. There would always be something that came up in our campaigns that wasn't described in the rules, and it was at these times that we would make our own. We would agree on a fair method of rolling or we would combine two rules into a new one. There was a lot of fun in it, we really enjoyed those moments. Clearly that's no way to design a whole game, rules are there for a few very important reasons, but I'd love to see something that maintains that feeling of freedom and malleability.
I know that exact feeling that you were describing you want for your game, and the setting you wrote about has a lot of possibilities in it. One good thing about setting games in the past, even an altered past, is that it gives PCs an instant leg up- they know about inventions and breakthroughs in science and technology and so everyone, even the most average Joe is able to be some form of genius. Best of luck to you, please keep everyone posted as to your progress on here.