TheRPGSite

Following from another thread, i find it a good idea to start this thread.

First, some basics:
* To keep true to this section's creed of "No Theory discussion" please do refrain from posting things unless you have seen them in practice, one way or another.
* It is ok to categorize something, but that is only for keeping track of "what goes where", but the categorizing itself risk being completely worthless, since it might just tell the colour of the "nut or bolt", when one really needs to know the size and best place to put the bit as a part of a game.

So, now you may wonder, what is this tread about?
You could call it "Design Practice", or at least an attempt at it, as opposed to design theory.

I'll state a few things, just to give some examples:

* Having a big section of something in an rpg rulebook tends to make the game gravitate towards that section more, like Big Combat Section often leads to the game becoming combat-oriented, or Big Drama Secion often leads to becomeing more story-, plot- and/or drama-oriented.
* "Fluff", such as using specific words in the text, or adding comments from fictional characters from the game, or pictures, helps to set the intended Mood and Feel in the game.
* Using specific skills, skillsets, classes, professions, and so on, also may aid in setting the Mood and Feel in the game.
This part also affects the players more.
* Adding unusually powerful things to the game may mess the game up fast, unless the GM is cautioned about it, to be careful with those things.

These four may seem obvious to some,  some may have reason to disagree, and a few might not even have heard of them.
If you have reason to disagree with any of those for, or any other statements of similar kind in this thread, then do speak up and say why your experience tells you something else.

Other parts that may be interesting is the different play effects that may happen from:
* Using 1-5 skills, 1-18(20?) skills, or 1-100 skills.
* Using Levels vs pointbased skills.
* Different ways to "fuel" Magic and other Powers.
* Using Character Templates/Archetypes/Classes vs not.
... And so on.

There is the common answer "it is just a matter of style", but really, in some cases it may really not be, and even if it is, "style" may be crucial.
I mean, if one looks for basic hack'n'slash dungeouneering, but finds that it is just a fast way to die in the game ... well, the style of the game should be the same in the "fluff" as in the rules, right?

This thread is intended to at least gather info, that may be important to clearify some "nuts and bolts" that can be used in actual rpg - design.

So:
Post.

Interesting Links:
http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=21479

Okay, I'm game.

I think a lot of this comes down to naming the hammer in "when you have a hammer, everything looks like nails."

I've long held that the conflict resolution mechanic steers the course of play.

For instance, if you have two attributes of melee combat, two attributes of ranged combat, and one attribute for healing, you know what kind of game you are expected to play, and it would be very difficult - as a player and a GM, to force a game structured so into being a My Little Pony Adventure.

Similarly, if my stats are Friendship, Love, and Cooking, my player-mind will not be geared toward high flying wuxia martial arts.

Crossing one with the other would constitute rubbing against the grain of the game design. Clearly the designers (even unconsciously) want you to think of certain options by virtue of how the game is set up. I think this is the case for all RPGs, no matter how generic seeming.

//Panjumanju

Quote from: Panjumanju;617131Okay, I'm game.

I think a lot of this comes down to naming the hammer in "when you have a hammer, everything looks like nails."

I've long held that the conflict resolution mechanic steers the course of play.

For instance, if you have two attributes of melee combat, two attributes of ranged combat, and one attribute for healing, you know what kind of game you are expected to play, and it would be very difficult - as a player and a GM, to force a game structured so into being a My Little Pony Adventure.

Similarly, if my stats are Friendship, Love, and Cooking, my player-mind will not be geared toward high flying wuxia martial arts.

Crossing one with the other would constitute rubbing against the grain of the game design. Clearly the designers (even unconsciously) want you to think of certain options by virtue of how the game is set up. I think this is the case for all RPGs, no matter how generic seeming.

//Panjumanju

I think that easily is another expression for the "Using specific skills, skillsets, classes, professions, and so on, also may aid in setting the Mood and Feel in the game" - example statement.
Although one might claim that it goes a bit further, by referring to Attributes instead of skill = even greater impact on the game's feel and mood.

Some is of the opinion that even the Attributes should be determined so they support the mood and feel as well as the intention of the game, and i think it is a good idea, unless you aim for a kind of multi-genre game, in which a standard like basic roleplay or WW's "Storytelling games" is much more preferrable, in order to account for the variations in the different genres.

I think i, for instance, has seen a game where "Technology" was a basic attribute instead of a skill ... and yes, it is a cyberpunk-like game.

Quote from: Catelf;617145Some is of the opinion that even the Attributes should be determined so they support the mood and feel as well as the intention of the game, and i think it is a good idea, unless you aim for a kind of multi-genre game

Here's how I bridge that divide in my omni-genre game:

There are six core Attributes, that represent inherent capabilities of characters. These are exactly the same from setting to setting.

Learned abilities are Skills, like charm or fire combat. There's a basic core, but some settings might not use all of them, and some settings might add new ones.

Then there are Characteristics. These are unique statistics that implement mechanics peculiar to a specific setting, supporting its mood and feel.

• Cybervalue. For a "cyberware causes madness" setting, like CP2020. You could also use a "Humanity" Characteristic.
  
• Necrosis. In Dead Man's Land, all PC's are slowly dying from the zombie plague. Necrosis measures how far down that path they've gone.
  
• Virtue. For a world akin to D&D, where Alignment is a metaphysical reality, how Virtuous you are is a game measurement. (As is how Evil.)
  

Thus, you can add additional new "Attributes" for each setting, while allowing for a standard suite of Attributes that apply to all settings. Best of both worlds.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;617152Here's how I bridge that divide in my omni-genre game:

There are six core Attributes, that represent inherent capabilities of characters. These are exactly the same from setting to setting.

Learned abilities are Skills, like charm or fire combat. There's a basic core, but some settings might not use all of them, and some settings might add new ones.

Then there are Characteristics. These are unique statistics that implement mechanics peculiar to a specific setting, supporting its mood and feel.

• Cybervalue. For a "cyberware causes madness" setting, like CP2020. You could also use a "Humanity" Characteristic.
  
• Necrosis. In Dead Man's Land, all PC's are slowly dying from the zombie plague. Necrosis measures how far down that path they've gone.
  
• Virtue. For a world akin to D&D, where Alignment is a metaphysical reality, how Virtuous you are is a game measurement. (As is how Evil.)
  

Thus, you can add additional new "Attributes" for each setting, while allowing for a standard suite of Attributes that apply to all settings. Best of both worlds.

To me, it wasn't a divide, but just 2 different approaches ...
But, anyway, that is how you have solved it, with a possible 3'rd way, which is virtually the same as the one in Old WoD.
What may be further interesting is, do your solution seem to work as intended?
What do your players (seem to) think?
Do the different Characteristics work as intended?

Quote from: Catelf;617160What may be further interesting is, do your solution seem to work as intended?

I'll have to get back to you on that. :) (More testing is required.)

You can state practices as rules, even if other games do not do so. (Such as seating order, lighting, ways to speak, hats to wear...)

If you use numbers, people will generally assume that high numbers are good.

If you put stats into the same category, people will assume those stats are equally useful.

People will manage comparing numbers faster, than manage addition. They will manage addition faster than substraction multiplication. They will manage these faster than dividing by 2. They will manage this one faster than other divisions (except for dividing by 10, which is effortless).

You can hand players a cheat sheet with the most important rules, even if you do not have a character sheet. If you do, you can make them into one.

You can prevent confusion by using a thesaurus (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0012.html). This is especially useful when one kind of level progresses at a different rate than other kinds of levels. Like, say, when you only get a spell level every two character levels.

Adding stats can reduce clarity. If you only ever use a stat in combination with another one, what does the stat represent by itself? Additonally, if the primary stats can be bought seperately, people will optimise their spending by looking at the resulting stat.

The longer people spent on preparing parts of play, the more they want them in the game exactly as they imagined them. This is true for PCs, NPCs, locations, adventures, anything.

When there is bonus or penalty for a certain type of behaviour, making it a bonus will be more enjoyable for everyone around. If it's a bonus, people will try to implement that behaviour. If there is a penalty, people will try to obfuscate the rule. Furthermore, do not pay up front, but right on time when people actually engage in that behaviour.

GMs are optional.

Quote from: Catelf;617095* Having a big section of something in an rpg rulebook tends to make the game gravitate towards that section more, like Big Combat Section often leads to the game becoming combat-oriented, or Big Drama Secion often leads to becomeing more story-, plot- and/or drama-oriented.

I agree with the mood and feel stuff...
 
In relation to this, there was a point that I thought was interesting, that came up on Planet Algol's OSR thread  (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?671255-In-which-the-OSR-is-explained/page4)on rpg.net...
 

Quote from: GallowglachtFor example I've played 4e and BECMI with the same group of people and with some newbies mixed in. Same people, same general preferences but there was a difference in play style. And I believe it comes from what was on their sheets, not any over-riding game philosophy. Game runs mostly the same, the players listen to description of environment and challenges and roleplay their characters. The change is when they are momentarily stumped and glance around for a hook. When looking at their character sheets, in 4e they say all this cool stuff their character could do and that sparked ideas and tactics based on the cool manoeuvres and combos or utilities listed in new ways. When playing BECMI, the list of equipment tended to draw the eye and people where trying to catch giant snake heads in burlap sacks to avoid the bite, or trying to hammer spikes through the giant snakes tail so they could run away.

So there is the game being shaped by the character sheet ...immediately available rules?...rather than the full book itself.
 
I think you can tell a lot about a game by the official character sheet, whether or not you use it...

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;617239So there is the game being shaped by the character sheet ...immediately available rules?...rather than the full book itself.
 
I think you can tell a lot about a game by the official character sheet, whether or not you use it...

So if I don't want to prejudice play in a certain direction, I should not make an official character sheet? Fuck! Maybe better would be half a dozen?

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;617257So if I don't want to prejudice play in a certain direction, I should not make an official character sheet? Fuck! Maybe better would be half a dozen?

-clash

Thing is, we are always affecting people in one direction or another, unconsciously, on a daily basis.
I think 3-4 different would be enough.

Quote from: 1of3;617225When there is bonus or penalty for a certain type of behaviour, making it a bonus will be more enjoyable for everyone around.

That's the thinking behind my Initiative system. It either provides a bonus to PC's, or is more or less unnoticeable.

The other option, providing a penalty to PC's or seeming to do nothing, would be rules-design suicide.

Quote from: 1of3;617225You can hand players a cheat sheet with the most important rules, even if you do not have a character sheet. If you do, you can make them into one.

Adding stats can reduce clarity. If you only ever use a stat in combination with another one, what does the stat represent by itself? Additonally, if the primary stats can be bought seperately, people will optimise their spending by looking at the resulting stat.

GMs are optional.

I would almost like to add your post as it is to the OP, but i do need clearifications on the parts i included in the quote above:
* Handing the players a sheet with the most common rules almost goes into GM-territory, but what is the effect if it is added to the rules themselves?
* "people will optimise their spending by looking at the resulting stat"
Um, somehow, it isn't quite clear to me what youre saying, elaborate, please?
* GM's are optional?
Perhaps they are, but as far as i know, if the GM is removed, that role must be replaced in some way, like sharing or rotating the role over all players, or by adding some kind of mechanism in order to keep the structure.

Quote from: flyingmice;617257So if I don't want to prejudice play in a certain direction, I should not make an official character sheet? Fuck! Maybe better would be half a dozen?
 
-clash

The character sheet reflects the rules maybe? So its not so easy to escape.
(Like how you can fit a starting Tunnels and Trolls character on an index card, while a FantasyCraft character sheet is about 8 pages).
 
Maybe if the GM keeps the character sheets hidden. I think Amber does something like that- secret experience spending so a PC doesn't know the PCs exact capabilities?

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;617379The character sheet reflects the rules maybe? So its not so easy to escape.
(Like how you can fit a starting Tunnels and Trolls character on an index card, while a FantasyCraft character sheet is about 8 pages).
 
Maybe if the GM keeps the character sheets hidden. I think Amber does something like that- secret experience spending so a PC doesn't know the PCs exact capabilities?

That's a good solution, another is to let the player write down the info on their own paper, in any order they like.

Quote from: Catelf;617293* Handing the players a sheet with the most common rules almost goes into GM-territory, but what is the effect if it is added to the rules themselves?

I think, the difference between rules, house-rules, GM rulings etc. is very fuzzy. The content is pretty much the same, so the only difference is presentation and origin.

I agree that this one is more about more into design and presentation than the underlying system. Much like structuring your text etc. If that does not fit your intention for this topic, that's OK. Otherwise, feel free to copy anything I said.

Quote* "people will optimise their spending by looking at the resulting stat"
Um, somehow, it isn't quite clear to me what youre saying, elaborate, please?

Imagine there is attributes and abilities. Attributes cost *5, abilities *2. You only ever use attribute+ability. Now there is a particular problem. Where otherwise players would think: "What stats do I like?", they will now consider: "Which combination do I like, and how can get those spending as little points as possible?" So there is a new layer of complexity.

You might want to have this, personally I usually avoid it. The phenomenon does not occur in this manner, when one or both stats are created at random.

Quote* GM's are optional?
Perhaps they are, but as far as i know, if the GM is removed, that role must be replaced in some way, like sharing or rotating the role over all players, or by adding some kind of mechanism in order to keep the structure.

Certainly true. And it's very interesting how this might be done. As a hyothetical scenario, if nothing else. Gives you a better grasp, on what you want a GM to do.

Quote from: 1of3;617475The phenomenon does not occur [...] when one or both stats are created at random.

But that causes other problems, like rolling up a character you don't want to play.

I'm not saying it's a bad idea, just the opposite: rolling those two scores offers benefits and penalties, so does buying them and so would any other generation method (a standard array, for example).

All design decisions involve trade-offs. To design, you make decisions and accept the bad side-effects of your decisions.

Quote from: 1of3;617475I think, the difference between rules, house-rules, GM rulings etc. is very fuzzy. The content is pretty much the same, so the only difference is presentation and origin.

I agree that this one is more about more into design and presentation than the underlying system. Much like structuring your text etc. If that does not fit your intention for this topic, that's OK. Otherwise, feel free to copy anything I said.


Imagine there is attributes and abilities. Attributes cost *5, abilities *2. You only ever use attribute+ability. Now there is a particular problem. Where otherwise players would think: "What stats do I like?", they will now consider: "Which combination do I like, and how can get those spending as little points as possible?" So there is a new layer of complexity.

You might want to have this, personally I usually avoid it. The phenomenon does not occur in this manner, when one or both stats are created at random.


Certainly true. And it's very interesting how this might be done. As a hyothetical scenario, if nothing else. Gives you a better grasp, on what you want a GM to do.

* However, when costructing and designing a game, there is a notable difference between Rules and "Advices to the GM".
Remember that "house rules" seize to be that, when actually written into a game.
The difference between them may be fuzzy to a GM, but it isn't to the game designer.

Essentially, one may make handouts of the most common rules and put them into the game to begin with, saying "do this", or one may make them and suggest them be photocopied and that the GM hands them out for ease, or one may just suggest that the GM makes some and hands them out.

* Yes, that is a sidefeffect that may occur, but it is just as possible that only the Attribute is rolled .... but it is a good idea to point out to the designer, that is clear.
... Question is how to re-formulate the sentence ....
Oh, and Daddy Warpig pointed out something in your comment there, too.
I agree with him.

* Not all can think out good ways to exclude a GM, and some thinks "a real rpg must have a GM" ....
However, one might, or migh not, want to add in possible ways for running GM-less, in order to make variated solo adventures possible.

Quote from: 1of3;617475Imagine there is attributes and abilities. Attributes cost *5, abilities *2. You only ever use attribute+ability. Now there is a particular problem. Where otherwise players would think: "What stats do I like?", they will now consider: "Which combination do I like, and how can get those spending as little points as possible?" So there is a new layer of complexity.
 
You might want to have this, personally I usually avoid it. The phenomenon does not occur in this manner, when one or both stats are created at random.

Is it bad that the players are trying to break the system, or bad if they do break the system?
Point optimizing is something to be wary of, but what about just setting costs so that nothing is clearly hugely optimal? Maybe by calculating it fairly precisely (if each stat affects 4 skills, skills are 1/4 the cost), maybe by making it sufficiently complex that its hard to work out (attributes sometimes cross over, are rolled individually, etc).
 

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;617480All design decisions involve trade-offs. To design, you make decisions and accept the bad side-effects of your decisions.

Amen.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;617480But that causes other problems, like rolling up a character you don't want to play.

Sure. I never intended to say that there was a single right way. I'm sorry, if I made that impression.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;617500Is it bad that the players are trying to break the system, or bad if they do break the system.

I think, you cannot "break" a system. You can employ a system cleverly, you can play it. If it appears that a system doesn't work when used by a clever player, that's not the player's fault.

The phenomen I described is not a problem with clever players who will understand the trick, and are willing to do it. But if there are other players who do not understand what would be the optimal way or are not willing to do such calculations (such as myself), it might be a problem for these people.

That does not mean that you cannot add such complexity to your game. It just appears to me that often authors do not consider what they are doing there. "Sure, we need attributes and skills. That's realistic", they might say  or whatever.

Quote from: 1of3;617501I think, you cannot "break" a system. You can employ a system cleverly, you can play it. If it appears that a system doesn't work when used by a clever player, that's not the player's fault.

The phenomen I described is not a problem with clever players who will understand the trick, and are willing to do it. But if there are other players who do not understand what would be the optimal way or are not willing to do such calculations (such as myself), it might be a problem for these people.

That does not mean that you cannot add such complexity to your game. It just appears to me that often authors do not consider what they are doing there. "Sure, we need attributes and skills. That's realistic", they might say  or whatever.

Hm ...
I understand the sentiment, but i have personally always gone for "what suits the character best?" during character creation, and the possible dilemma you are speaking of has mainly occured to me when using experience points.

I think, if anything should be "done about it", it is to, as a designer, point out to the Games Master, that rpgs is supposed to be entertaining for everyone involved, no matter wether they are min-maxers, basketweavers or the GM.
... And it is normally the GM's duty to see to this.

Quote from: 1of3;617501I think, you cannot "break" a system. You can employ a system cleverly, you can play it. If it appears that a system doesn't work when used by a clever player, that's not the player's fault.

The phenomen I described is not a problem with clever players who will understand the trick, and are willing to do it. But if there are other players who do not understand what would be the optimal way or are not willing to do such calculations (such as myself), it might be a problem for these people.

That does not mean that you cannot add such complexity to your game. It just appears to me that often authors do not consider what they are doing there. "Sure, we need attributes and skills. That's realistic", they might say  or whatever.

Sorry, I'm guilty of using 'broken' in the weenie sense, to mean "unbalanced".  There are real broken things (infinite power loops and stuff) but they're fairly rare.
I'd agree that authors often don't consider how best to do things. I think though that offering choices is fine though, as long as those choices are fairly equal, or an advantage requires a trade-off somewhere else.

Something else that I just thought of...

Quote from: Catelf;617095* Adding unusually powerful things to the game may mess the game up fast, unless the GM is cautioned about it, to be careful with those things.

Or sometimes adding more unusually powerful things can un-mess-up the game, because they form a new sort of balance...

For instance, characters with larger hit point totals can be too powerful, but if there are more ways for people to be taken out other than just damage, then larger hit points aren't as powerful any more.
You could perhaps build up strategies in the game based on this, where some characters have lots of HPs but can still be taken out by being knocked out or killed with spells or stun weapons.

i.e. you can balance up a game by either adding to it, or subtracting from it.

I discovered this principle the hard way playing Rifts ;)