Quote from: The Shaman;3714401. Mechanics that emulate genre and flow easily in play. Boot Hill's Speed mechanics for gunfighting, Flashing Blades fencing rules - they take what's important about the genre and place it front and center, providing rules that give depth but don't bog down in actual play.

Five years ago I would've said something along the lines of, "Gimme a solid generic system and I'll make anything work." After renewing my interest in older roleplaying games, I'd have to say I prefer purpose-built rules systems.

Archetypes are fine for some games, but too limiting for others.

I've been thinking along similar lines too.  Recently I've been moving more towards specific purpose-build rulesets, and away from generic systems (ie. d20 3.x SRD, GURPS, etc ...).

Lately I've been looking at the Mongoose Runequest ruleset.  Haven't started a Runequest game yet, but was asked by several friends who have been looking into starting a game later this month.  (Haven't played Runequest in over 25+ years).  If combat is still just as deadly as the older editions of Runequest, I think the game may very well end up being more like a roleplay intensive sandbox type game with a lot less emphasis on mindless hack & slash style combat.  (None of us are really into the mindless hack & slash stuff as much these days).

Quote from: beejazz;370480Just what it says. Get specific. How should a game and its rules and such be written? How should it be played.

I've been looking at this thread time and time again, and I have a very hard time coming up with a specific answer, or set of answers. Not because I do not have any preferences, but because my preferences will widely depend on what I want to play at the moment, and how I want to play it.

I think games and their mechanics are specific to certain types of game play experiences. I do not favor a single game experience in role playing, but revel in a variety of types of games. I might want to play D&D one day, in which case I will have a set of aims, intents, and preferences to reach these, or Vampire the next, in which case I will have another set of aims, intents and preferences. Or maybe play some horror game, or something goofy, and so on, so forth.

For each type of genre, I will have sets of preferences as to how I want to emulate said genre, and what I think the resulting game play should feel like, the type of entertainment it should provide at the actual game table.

Hence, I have a hard time coming up with a very specific set of preferences. Sometimes I will prefer no skill system at all. Sometimes, I will want broadly defined areas of expertise. Sometimes, I will want precision and bean counting. Sometimes, I will want to use miniatures, which will imply some tactical rules, and sometimes, I will want broadly defined combat tactics I can adjudicate on the spot, and sometimes, some clearly defined rules that leave little to interpretation.

Which makes me think, besides genre emulation and game play desired, a big part of my decision as to what system to use, the type of game experience I think would provide the best results at the game table, will also heavily depend on the players, the persons involved at the game table, and what I know of their play styles and personal preferences. I have very close friends for instance who love the role playing aspect of the game (Call of Cthulhu, Vampire), and prefer rules they can be creative with (they fell in love with HeroWars), rather than tactical game play and bean counting. I would not try to push for a game of AD&D, Iron Heroes or 3rd ed on these guys right out of the gate, but could propose OD&D (and did), which provides the opportunity for the system to grow according to the players' specifics, if you have a good table communication and the ability to craft efficient, and coherent house rules.

So really, to me, I guess that broadly, what I want is a game that is coherent with itself and tries to provide a good, coherent game experience at an actual game table. A game that I can grasp mentally speaking, and then add to my arsenal of various game systems and genres. Another arrow in my GM quiver, that will provide me with yet one more specific type of ammunition to do the job best and have a great game tonight.

I have gone, however, gradually tired of learning new game systems. Maybe because I feel like I mostly have all the types of ammunitions I would need for nearly every type of gaming situations and players combinations the hobby would throw at me. The latest game to truly have grabbed my interest is Aces & Eights, because I can't remember the last time I read a Western emulation game that actually made me want to run games in the Wild West. But it's taking me forever to read through it, because fundamentally, I think I'm getting worn out on yet-another-new-shiny-game-system-to-learn-from-scratch. I'll finish my read though. And run it, sooner or later. Same thing with Flashing Blades, which I haven't grabbed yet, but will, ultimately.

A few thoughts. Sorry I can't be as specific as other posters on this thread.

Ohhh, interesting.
Benoist - Would it be fair to say you particularly like a particularly flexible or customizeable ruleset, then? They are systems which would let you set how broad the skills you use are, for instance (e.g. FUDGE). Or is it easier just to toss out the whole rule system and switch from OD&D to Vampire, say?

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;371572Ohhh, interesting.
Benoist - Would it be fair to say you particularly like a particularly flexible or customizeable ruleset, then? They are systems which would let you set how broad the skills you use are, for instance (e.g. FUDGE). Or is it easier just to toss out the whole rule system and switch from OD&D to Vampire, say?

Both. The original D&D game of 1974 (i.e. OD&D) for instance clearly fits in your first category: it's basically a tool kit you build upon and adapt to a particular play style, or genre emulation, or specific game play, etc.

However, if all I wanted was OD&D, I would just stick with it and be done with it. That's not my attitude, though.

Sometimes, I'll want a game to be flexible mechanically, and I'll look towards OD&D if I want the freedom to do whatever the hell I want, or 3rd ed if I want to have a huge toolbox to work with, instead, or GURPS if I want to treat another subject completely with yet all sorts of mechanical fiddly bits, or World of Darkness if I want more unified game mechanics, etc.

Sometimes, I'll select a game that does its job admirably well, however. AD&D comes to mind when you're talking dungeon and hex crawling, medieval fantasy, henchmen and hirelings. In Nomine Satanis/Magna Veritas does its thing, and that's *it* - emulate Angels and Demons fighting their silly wars on Earth - even the d666 man. That tells you everything. If I want falling my feet first on a group of teens who love to play Heroclix, Magic: The Gathering and Yu-Gi-Oh, I'd seriously take a look at Fourth Edition and try to find the way to make it work for me too. And so on.

What I really want is a great game. In other words, I'm interested in what's actually going to happen at the game table itself, and how to get there. The game system in this regard is a mean, a tool. Not an end. Ever.

QuoteThe game system in this regard is a mean, a tool. Not an end. Ever.

Damn your WIS score!

I do alot of 'what-if' thinking about how to get thinks to work mechanically - since I enjoy it but not necessarily with any particular end in mind. And this one does sneak up on me alot, I'll admit. The acid test for a good rule has to be "is it one that makes for a good game", but I find its hard sometimes figuring out if you've done it. I find it helps to get input from other people - but quite but often I'll find I've got too many pages of 'vision types' rules just because I've found a method I thought was cool for making darkvision/elfsight/panoptical vision penalties run off modified Marvel Super Heroes power stacking rules.

Hence the username I picked, really (from Terry Pratchett's impractical inventor). Oh well.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;371682The acid test for a good rule has to be "is it one that makes for a good game", but I find its hard sometimes figuring out if you've done it. I find it helps to get input from other people - but quite but often I'll find I've got too many pages of 'vision types' rules just because I've found a method I thought was cool for making darkvision/elfsight/panoptical vision penalties run off modified Marvel Super Heroes power stacking rules.

You're right. This is it really: "is it a rule that makes for a good/better game?" is the question to ask, and then again, the answer, to me, will vary greatly depending on what I want out of this particular game, what the players want out of this particular game, what this particular game is supposed to play like, what it's supposed to emulate, and so on, so forth. That's why there's no "One Game System To Rule Them All", so to speak.

1. If character builds can even be minimaxed or minchkinised then I'm in the wrong game. Those are out of place in tabletop gaming IMO. Fine for the likes of WOW because that's what theyare about.

2. In game design please make the GM's life as easy as possible. it's one thing to have players record all sorts of stats and numbers for various eventualities and capabilities. It's quite another, when the GM has multiple enemies to deal with, while moderating combat, to have to use the exact same level of detail.

3. The GM really shouldn't have to roll for anything. It's the players job to solve problems and situations through their skills (by making rolls). The GM shouldn't have to do anything more than set up the problem/puzzle/people.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;3716991. If character builds can even be minimaxed or minchkinised then I'm in the wrong game. Those are out of place in tabletop gaming IMO. Fine for the likes of WOW because that's what theyare about.

Some players can find just about anything to use and abuse, in just about any game.

Quote from: beejazz;370480It always feels like there would be five different ways to build the same character and that bugs me.

Worse, often one or two of those ways is far more efficient than the others, so if you don't treat building your character like a game and optimize your choices, you can do it "wrong".  (See also Ghost Whistler's point about "builds" being "minimaxed or minchkinised".)

Quote from: BenoistWhat I really want is a great game. In other words, I'm interested in what's actually going to happen at the game table itself, and how to get there. The game system in this regard is a mean, a tool. Not an end. Ever.

Then tell us about your playstyle preferences. If anything, this calls for more specifics. What do you want to happen at the table? You like mystery? Politics? Puzzles? Hack'n'slash? All of the above? What prompts you to choose one game or another in a given situation? Consideration of genre or adventure types? Group size? Availability of prep time? And if you like most things sometimes, are there a few in particular you just plain won't do ever?

Quote from: Ghost Whistler1. If character builds can even be minimaxed or minchkinised then I'm in the wrong game. Those are out of place in tabletop gaming IMO. Fine for the likes of WOW because that's what theyare about.

2. In game design please make the GM's life as easy as possible. it's one thing to have players record all sorts of stats and numbers for various eventualities and capabilities. It's quite another, when the GM has multiple enemies to deal with, while moderating combat, to have to use the exact same level of detail.

3. The GM really shouldn't have to roll for anything. It's the players job to solve problems and situations through their skills (by making rolls). The GM shouldn't have to do anything more than set up the problem/puzzle/people.

1. Builds shouldn't be priority 1 of any game, and you'd think we'd have been at this "flexible character creation" thing long enough to predict loopholes.
2. Addendum: NPC creation should *not* take a half an hour. PC's probably shouldn't either, but depending on the casualty rate, it might not be as big a deal.
3. Meh. Variable damage is nice. Same for rolling things players wouldn't know the results of in secret. Hell, same for occasional rolls on random tables.

Quote from: John Morrow;371717Worse, often one or two of those ways is far more efficient than the others, so if you don't treat building your character like a game and optimize your choices, you can do it "wrong".  (See also Ghost Whistler's point about "builds" being "minimaxed or minchkinised".)

Yeah... this is one of the reasons I've never actually gotten around to playing M&M. You can build very similar characters with very different point totals thanks to power levels and alternate powers.

Quote from: ggroy;371701Some players can find just about anything to use and abuse, in just about any game.

Perhaps, but Castle Falkenstein won't produce the same degree of such discussion as the likes of Exalted

I second that - Munchkin potential is definitely a lot higher in some games than others (though I haven't played either Exalted or Falkenstein).

Where you sit on this is a different matter.  I find I'm happy as long as the campaign doesn't implode too quickly (Aberrant) or the system isn't imbalanced to the point of accidentally killing 3/4 of the party challenging the uberPC (Rifts, Synnibarr). Personally I like some munchkining - found out one group of friends wanted to start a game of Pendragon on the weekend, but I couldn't face a fantasy system that wasn't fairly high fantasy I think I've been spoiled by too many years of playing or running D&D at higher levels.

What I thought was interesting though is that I think there's probably a conflict in design between the preference for easy-to-run NPCs (Ghost Whistler), and a preference for having PCs and NPCs use the same rules (the OP). Hard to please everybody all the time, unfortunately.

Beejazz,
I've started this post about 4 times.  Never have time to finish it.  Maybe I work too much.

Design--

1) Vreeg's Oft-cited #1 rule of Setting design..."Make sure the ruleset you choose represents the style of game and campaign you want to run, because eventually the game and the campaign WILL MATCH THE RULESET."

2) Rules are the physics of the world.  Generic, plug-in rules create generic settings without major overhaul.  If you are using a class based system, those classes determine much of the setting.  Moreso with magic.  

3) I believe that the % of the rules written for a specific part of the game show what that game is best for.  A game with a large % of the ruleset written for mercantile exchange is going to be about that.  

4) I prefer skill-based systems.  And ones where skills are used in depth.  Skills should have different levels of difficulty.  Chararctes should be able to take broad-based skills that apply to a lot, or advanced skills.  'Basic First Aid' does not mean someone can perform surgery, but maybe they could help.

5) I prefer games where playing stupid can get a PC killed.  Consequences are reinforcers, as is survival.  I do everything in my power to make sure players that survive have a feeling of real accomplishment.

6) I prefer earthbound, gritty games.  I generally change the growth curve and gradation to keep the feeling of PC accomplishment, but I remember back in 1979 watching some kids play a mash of AD&D and the characters were all 15th-22nd level.  I made fun of them.  And honestly, I still make fun of games like that, which were called 'Monty Haul' then and 'Epic Level' now.  personal opinion, but I'm being honest.

7) I still (naively, perhaps) believe that you can achieve some level of simulation and still have playability.

'Implied Depth' can only happen if you've written up the real depth.  I think the original mention of this uses Tolkien as the example.  Perfect.  The Good Prof was able to achieve 'implied depth' because he had written the background.  Having a character mention a few syllables of Elvish was good 'Implied Depth' for him because he had created the languages behind it.  
At some level , everything we write is a sketch because it will never be totally complete.  But Implied depths comes from a good GM not oversharing or bogging down the game with the background he lovingly wrote, as well as having written some good depth behind the implied level.

9) Flexible and universal NPC/character creation is a must, with players being able to exercise creativity.

IN terms of Play--

1) I do long term.  My 8 year old PC group is my younger group.  

2) Combat and adventures are a means to en end.  Sure, it's an adventure style game, and combat can be breathtakingly fun.  But adventuring is not an end.  Maybe there are military issues, maybe they are saving a town, maybe they want money or power or to impress someone...

3) As a corrollary, my games spend at least 1/2 the time 'towning', enjoying the fruits of their labors and growing the benefits.  

4) Difficulty.  Rare stuff is rare, and money is not always easy to get.  Just becasue you find a magic doohicky worth 20k gold doss not mean you'll find a buyer with that money hanging around.

5) Magic is magical.  Low level stuff may or may not be common.  But there are not 30 mages in a small city able to cast a fireball-level spell.