Ehhh, I agree with most of the posts here, but disagree on dice pools.  I actually don't play dice pool games often, but there is a statistical and mechanical difference between dice pools and straight rolls that suits some flavors of games better than others.  I find dice pools less "swingy" than many straight roll mechanics, which suits more heroic games.  The idea that they are less "simulationist" is primarily one of interpretation, as D&D (any edition) is so far from a simulation as to make the accusation laughable.  What differentiates them is more the granularity of the approximation.  A percentile system might try to make the player's odds variable by adding bunches of modifiers based on positioning, tactics, etc., but the dice roll is no more a simulation than the less granular dice pool that assumes those variables are built into the dice variation.  In the end, both are still going to result in a hit or miss.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on November 22, 2020, 10:05:13 PM
Ehhh, I agree with most of the posts here, but disagree on dice pools.  I actually don't play dice pool games often, but there is a statistical and mechanical difference between dice pools and straight rolls that suits some flavors of games better than others.  I find dice pools less "swingy" than many straight roll mechanics, which suits more heroic games.  The idea that they are less "simulationist" is primarily one of interpretation, as D&D (any edition) is so far from a simulation as to make the accusation laughable.  What differentiates them is more the granularity of the approximation.  A percentile system might try to make the player's odds variable by adding bunches of modifiers based on positioning, tactics, etc., but the dice roll is no more a simulation than the less granular dice pool that assumes those variables are built into the dice variation.  In the end, both are still going to result in a hit or miss.

As it happens I generally only ever play D&D or related games out of necessity, by default if you will, because that is what EVEYONE in gaming knows.  Left to my own devices I'd probably have only ever played Champions (4e, since Darrin Kelley brought it up, I have my 4.2 book that used to have a disc for the character gen program in the back cover...) and GURPS.

Your closing sentence reminds me a bit about the hilarious statistics statement a former co-worker of mine told me, apparently in all seriousness... in that everything has fifty-fifty odds. It either happens, or it doesn't...

As you can tell. I disagree with adding options to a game system just for the sake of adding more options. Instead of adding new functionality that actually makes a difference in the play experience.

The Lightning Reflexes issue I pointed out in my previous post was this. It would have required one character taking up multiple spots on the combat chart. Forcing the fact, that anytime that one player's character came up for a turn, that he could decide randomly where he could act in that turn. Which caused a level of confusion that the rest of the group, including the GM, were uncomfortable with and found utterly unacceptable.

This was above and beyond the leeway that was already by the game system given for characters aborting to their next actions. So what did this add? Complete chaos. With this player jumping around the combat chart at whatever whim might strike him. Interrupting other players saying, "I want to take my turn NOW!" even more than the system already allowed. Allowing this would have meant throwing out the Combat Chart entirely and having the game revolve around that one player even more than he already forced the game to because of his exploitive character builds.

What is the problem with dice pools? I dont play any dice pool games. The one i tried (wrath and glory) was ass for many other reasons.

I have only two criteria for design:

1. Does the game do what the author intends/what it says on the tin? If yes, it's good design.

2. Does it do it with as much economy of rules/ittle complexity as possible for that goal? If so, it's excellent design.

I don't care what tools are used - dice pools, meta-currencies, levels, classes, OOC stuff, etc. as long as the game's design goal is reached.

The 3.0 and 3.5 bloat was a huge problem. With books of Feats and Prestige Classes coming out left and right. So many options that people didn't know what to do with. It was way too easy to get lost and not know what to do in that sea of options.

To me? That sea of options is bad design. Because it leads to nothing but confusion for consumers.

Dungeondelver and I talked about this in his livestream the other day: reducing choices improves accessibility, eg GURPS/Hero vs "3d6 down the line, choose one of the four basic classes, roll for starting wealth, buy gear, start play." Of course, we were thinking more of newbies.

I'm likely going to get roasted for this opinion.

But I think that the target of every RPG system should be the newbie at the default. Those are the people in most need of being able to understand these books.

Every game is going to be someone's first. So not targeting the newbie I think is self-defeating.

To me, a tell-tale sign of poor game design is:
The meaningless list of <KEYWORD>. Where KEYWORD can be anything which is not explained, usually given as an 'Example Listing' but without real explanation of it's scope within the game. A good example is the dreaded 'TRAITS LIST'. The rules usually go like this: During character creation/generation, the player will choose which good and bad traits they wish to have (or the GM can choose). These traits modify a roll if the situation calls for it by -3 or -5 or more depending on the GM's mood-ring. Here is a partial list the player and the GM can add on to since our playtesters' ideas are not suitable for anyone with a modicum of shame. SIdebar: <list of 10 good traits we have all seen since 1980> <list of 10 bad traits we have all seen since 1980>
This is a sign of half-assed, can't be bothered to be original, 'non-intuitive but paint-by-numbers-and-rote' design. And of course, it gets worse when villains/monsters can have these as well. It's not just traits - I've seen skill lists, backgrounds, abilities, and even equipment lists like this (particular to the 'new-wave' of rules-lite systems). In effect, the modern equivalent of 'You need XXX Avalon Hill / SPI Game to actually play this part of the game' fuddery.

Quote from: Spike on November 22, 2020, 02:00:13 PM
I'm sure I have others, but frankly, reminding myself of these horrors is raising my blood pressure... 

Bisexual coloring used in the artwork.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on November 23, 2020, 12:02:54 AM
Dungeondelver and I talked about this in his livestream the other day: reducing choices improves accessibility, eg GURPS/Hero vs "3d6 down the line, choose one of the four basic classes, roll for starting wealth, buy gear, start play." Of course, we were thinking more of newbies.

Ideally, a level system means you can slowly introduce complexity as the player gain competence.

Games where increased player options (the Katamari Dancey Talents problem) aren't offset by counterbalancing shortcuts to assist GM design. Players who concentrate on one character can afford a lot more time and complexity than a GM who has to build a cast, draw a map and lay out a rough event/encounter structure.  (One thing I was extremely impressed by in the 7th Sea reboot was the speed and simplicity with which one can design and play major villains.)

Quote from: Ratman_tf on November 23, 2020, 01:07:36 AM
Ideally, a level system means you can slowly introduce complexity as the player gain competence.

Exactly as AD&D1e does it.

The longer we play, the more we understand that most useful game design happened in the first decade. The rest is just variations on those themes.

Quote from: consolcwby on November 23, 2020, 12:14:13 AM
To me, a tell-tale sign of poor game design is:
The meaningless list of <KEYWORD>.

By contrast, a finite and well-defined keyword list is one of my hallmarks of good game design. Heck... Hit Points, Armor Class and Saving Throw are just keywords we're all so familiar with few people even bother reading the actual definition of them in the books.

A well-defined list of game terms (i.e. keywords) is extremely useful in making mechanics clear and concise.

If I say "Make a Strength check vs. DC 15" just about anyone reading this knows this means you roll a d20, add your Strength modifier to that roll and if the result is 15 or better you've succeeded at whatever you were trying to do.

But that's only because we've memorized a bunch of keywords. To a gaming outsider like my mother, it'd be meaningless jargon.

So clearly defined keywords are a definite aid for clear systems. If you define "dazed" as "loses their reactions until your next turn" then every time the dazed keyword comes up everyone knows the meaning instead of having to explain the dazed effect time and again.

Finding a huge amount of positive reviews of a game, but little forum posts about actual play.

The implication from its fans that a game requires the GM to put in lots of work designing encounters or tailoring things to the party - almost always a form of denialism of a games fundamentally flawed nature.

Unfortunately any game with lots of widgets or movable parts or options is usally a bad sign. Why?  Because these need real playtesting and almost never get it to anything like the extent necesary.