Just what it says. Get specific. How should a game and its rules and such be written? How should it be played. We've had a lot of discussion of the OSR lately and it's boring me. Not because it's about the OSR, just because it's all philosophy and strawmen. Lets talk about something concrete for a while, and something more about ourselves. I'll start.

Design:
1) I like unified resolution mechanics, like skills and such. They're just more convenient overall. I'm fine with straying outside when you have to, but unique mechanics for everything for its own sake just doesn't do it for me.

2) I prefer unified character/NPC/monster creation mechanics... There shouldn't be ten sets of rules for this either. 3x, despite being my favorite game(s), doesn't do this for me. There's saves, skills, classes, feats, LA, PrCs, and a billion other things that just don't need to have unique mechanics.

3) I like characters to have unique abilities that no one else can even try, or, failing that, unique aptitudes. I especially prefer using feats or something like them as an implementation, for reasons I'll get into below. 4e powers and swsaga talents were close but no cigar.

4) I strongly dislike micromanaging my character builds. So far, GURPS or M&M are sounding like great games for me, but point 4 has always been a dealbreaker on these games. I'll happily play with a pregen, but I don't want to build a character because I don't want to micromanage ranges and areas of effects and linked powers and a billion other little details. It always feels like there would be five different ways to build the same character and that bugs me.

5) I strongly strongly want in-world justifications for game mechanics. I don't want the mechanics to exist solely for gameplay's sake. Maybe I'm just sore because the targeted gameplay doesn't fit with my playstyle. Anyway, fighter daily and encounter powers are a total dealbreaker for me for this reason. Even vancian magic is slightly annoying because I see it as an arbitrary balancing mechanic. Action points or force points I can take or leave.

6) I prefer unique characters to character classes as a rule. The idea that someone who has sneak attack must also be able to hide in shadows and climb walls (for example) is odd to me. I just don't like the idea of abilities coming in suites. Not really a dealbreaker for me, but it's there.

7) I don't like attrition and resource management games. First and foremost because they assume multiple combat encounters (for attrition-based combat) and that isn't my playstyle. Old editions of D&D assume dungeons, and while I like dungeons, they aren't the focus of my games. 4e might've designed itself around encounters, but it still feels attrition-based.

I like for each and every combat to have a real chance of PC death. I also like for random elements to crop up during play. Hp can be abstract so long as there are also random wounds that actually do something. And if hp are abstract, there's no problem with giving players only enough to last one fight and letting them heal between battles (as long as the wounds last).

9) I like campaign scale rules as rewards for clever play or punishment for failure. Sanity, wealth, dismemberment, prestige, a keep... yes please. I like the idea that playing a character one way or another will have a real impact on that character and its place in the world.

Playstyle:
1) I like taking genre fiction (sci fi or fantasy mostly) and mixing in elements of mystery and horror.

2) I like a big world with lots of NPCs, all of whom matter, but none of whom are indispensable.

3) I like to have outcomes of events left open. I don't design a mystery that assumes the players are going to solve it, solve it correctly, or bring the bad guy to justice.

4) That said, the causes or history of events is very much closed. Since I design mysteries without the absolute necessity that they get solved, nothing bugs me quite as much as "taking suggestions from the players" as to who might have done it.

5) Sometimes suggestions are fine, mostly outside of play and especially at character creation. Nothing too large in scope (inventing an organisation or having a rank in it... organisations are a big deal in my game, and you've got to work for influence in them).

6) Usually, I've only got one or two fights per game, and I try and make them potentially lethal, even though games I've used so far seem hell-bent on doing the opposite.

7) Not intentional on my part, but PC arson has been super-effective several times in my games.

I like most of my world to feel real.

9) I like a little bit of my world to be batshit crazy and terrifying.

10) I play (mostly) by the rules.

10a) I make the rules.

And that's all I can think of off the top of my head. How about you guys? What would be your ideal game? How do you run your sessions?

Design:

1. I love flexibility. I cherish the ability to swap out bits and bobs, to hack a system, to kitbash. Most of my games started out as kitbashes.

2. I like interpretation. I like a heavy dose of the GM and players in the rules, not some idealized RAW. Wiggle room is just sweet.

3. I like rules that are extensible and scalable. I love being able to adapt a rule from one case to another.

4. I dislike metaplot. Very much. That world ceases to belong to the designer when I get my hooks into it.

5. I like rules that enhance the setting, but don't mandate the setting. Too often "Support" is exactly equal to "Coerce".

6. I prefer games that never lose sight of the player character. It's always all about the PC.

7. I love tools that can be used at the group level. Making your own setting rocks!

8. I like settings with hope and danger. Unrelieved darkness is just as bland as unrelieved brightness.

9. I love implied depth in a setting. Tolkien did this in LotR, but far too few designers use it as a tool. Detail on detail is boring, and I can make that crap up.

10. I love unique characters, and generally stay away from level and class systems, though there are exceptions if they are done right, Bill!

-clash

It kind of depends on what mood I am in. But here are my general thoughts:


Design
1) I like the mechanics to fade into the background when possible. That doesn't mean I want no mechanics at all, but I do lean toward rule medium, rules light.

2) I like games that don't tell me how to game. Nothing wrong with some GMing advice, or overviews of different approaches, but I tend to tune out when the writer tells me the correct way to play an RPG or the correct way to design an adventure.

3) I usually prefer games that don't go crazy trying to replicate reality. For me, this just gets me thinking to much about the mechanics than about what is happening in the game.

4) I prefer broad principles that can be applied logically by the GM to specific circumstances, rather than small scale rules covering every conceivable situation. Note this doesn't mean the book asks me to make up stuff as a go, but rather provides a clear set of guidelines that you can use to apply consistently to different circumstances. I just don't like having to look up or memorize too many rules.  However, once in a while, I do enjoy playing something more like GURPS.  

Style
1) I'll really will try anything, but I think I like open style adventures. I really like exploring and investigating.

2) I like stuff to actually happen during the game session. So I guess I like to move at a steady to fast pace. Sitting there, waiting for people to decide what they are doing, kills me.

3) For genres I really like modern investigations/espionage, horror, classic fantasy, etc.

Quote from: flyingmice;370484Design:

1. I love flexibility. I cherish the ability to swap out bits and bobs, to hack a system, to kitbash. Most of my games started out as kitbashes.

2. I like interpretation. I like a heavy dose of the GM and players in the rules, not some idealized RAW. Wiggle room is just sweet.

3. I like rules that are extensible and scalable. I love being able to adapt a rule from one case to another.

4. I dislike metaplot. Very much. That world ceases to belong to the designer when I get my hooks into it.

5. I like rules that enhance the setting, but don't mandate the setting. Too often "Support" is exactly equal to "Coerce".

6. I prefer games that never lose sight of the player character. It's always all about the PC.

7. I love tools that can be used at the group level. Making your own setting rocks!

8. I like settings with hope and danger. Unrelieved darkness is just as bland as unrelieved brightness.

9. I love implied depth in a setting. Tolkien did this in LotR, but far too few designers use it as a tool. Detail on detail is boring, and I can make that crap up.

10. I love unique characters, and generally stay away from level and class systems, though there are exceptions if they are done right, Bill!

-clash

Although it has got classes and levels and is a derivative of d20, you might get some mileage from FantasyCraft, Clash.

Quote from: One Horse Town;370493Although it has got classes and levels and is a derivative of d20, you might get some mileage from FantasyCraft, Clash.

Really? I will have to  check it out then, Dan! If you say so, that's all I need.

-clash

Design

Simply, fast playing and expressive rules.

Just enough detail to make each character individual.

Unified mechanics.

Some sort of meta-game mechanics to allow players to throw in an extra oomph when feel it really matters to them.

I don't care about stuff (endless list of weapons and armours and gadgets).

Note: D6 ticks most of these boxes. Fate has a lot of the right ideas, but it's just grown too cluttered for my tastes.

Play style

Character driven. The adventure is just an excuse to showcase personalities and motivations (and not how often happens the characters are just extras hired to showcase the GM's adventure).

Cinematic and upbeat.

I like transparency; dice rolls out in the open, target numbers stated in advance. Some people say this makes it less immersive, I say there is nothing more immersive than to appreciate what is really at stake.

Not fantasy.

Player choices and actions matter. I dislike intensely Gming styles based on smoke and mirrors. I hate being asked to make empty dice rolls.

I don't really care about prgression and gaining levels and power.  I rather start with the character as I want to play it and just play it.

Quote from: flyingmice;370496Really? I will have to  check it out then, Dan! If you say so, that's all I need.

-clash

It's pricey, so i'd do a bit of digging first to see if, in fact, you would get some mileage from it.

Quote from: flyingmice;3704849. I love implied depth in a setting. Tolkien did this in LotR, but far too few designers use it as a tool. Detail on detail is boring, and I can make that crap up.

Definitely.  I don't have too many hard-coded preferences, but if I had to pick one, this would be it.  I love the feeling that there are bigger going-ons and lots of secrets in the world, but once you start detailing it just takes away the wonder.

Ultimately, that killed Exalted for me.  The corebook gave you this rough backbone to the setting, with lots of unwritten lore, hints of exotic locations and people, and it was awe-inspiring (for me, at least).  A dozen supplements or so later, and you know the exact stats for every major deity and political faction, as well as nearly every single mover and shaker in Creation, and what they're up to "right now".  Not to mention technology, magic, how fate and samsara work, etc, etc.  Just...bleh.  

Ideas have the potential for awesome, facts have a tendency to be boring.  Give me a few good ideas for inspiration, and my group will handle the rest.

Quote from: One Horse Town;370504It's pricey, so i'd do a bit of digging first to see if, in fact, you would get some mileage from it.

OK - will do!

-clash

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. We've had a lot of discussion of the OSR lately and it's boring me. Not because it's about the OSR, just because it's all philosophy and strawmen. Lets talk about something concrete for a while, and something more about ourselves. I'll start.

Design:
1) I like unified resolution mechanics, like skills and such. They're just more convenient overall. I'm fine with straying outside when you have to, but unique mechanics for everything for its own sake just doesn't do it for me.

2) I prefer unified character/NPC/monster creation mechanics... There shouldn't be ten sets of rules for this either. 3x, despite being my favorite game(s), doesn't do this for me. There's saves, skills, classes, feats, LA, PrCs, and a billion other things that just don't need to have unique mechanics.

3) I like characters to have unique abilities that no one else can even try, or, failing that, unique aptitudes. I especially prefer using feats or something like them as an implementation, for reasons I'll get into below. 4e powers and swsaga talents were close but no cigar.

4) I strongly dislike micromanaging m... etc

Sounds like you might enjoy SLA Industries, my favourite RPG and you can download the core rules for free at RPGDriveThrough.com.  All my points below SLA fits the bill perfectly.

When I look for an RPG I am looking for

1) Simple rule system.  A system that rarely impedes on roll-playmg is important.  Having to wait whilst people roll buckets of dice, or looking up what modifiers they should be using is annoying. [SLA basically used 2D10, add your skill, minus any modifiers like -4 if aiming at the head, if you roll above 11 you succeed.]

2) There is a real threat.  Your character could die, or be forced into actions they do not wish to if the balls things up.  [Even a squad of youths armed with baseball sticks can take out heavily armed player characters IF used correctly by the GM.  Tooled up opponents are very scary]

3)  There is a good reason why you are going around killing/investigating things.  Not five random people met in a inn and decided it would be a good idea to follow a strange map and raid a dungeon. [In SLA it is your job to 'troubleshoot' for the company ... but don't ask any questions]

4) The game MUST have loads of good background materiel.  Not suggested plot lines, not 'this is what is happening today', but supply history and characters with plans, and a few mysteries.  a good GM can put two and two togeather to create there own plots within the game world. [SLA has it in buckets]

Style

1) I think the only style is a games direction/plot may need to evolve with the players actions/desires.  The idea is to have fun not ram a story the GM thought of down the throat of his/her players.

Design

I like simple rules light systems. The less rules I need to remember or look up during play the better.

I like fast combats and lots of them. There is something great about clearing a dungeon level or two in a session and racking up an impressive list of kills by putting a tribe or two to the sword.

I like transparent, easy to grok mechanics. Percentages are a favourite as everyone understands them. I also appreciate roll 1d20+x to hit a target number. THACO not so much.

I like class systems, a few years ago I used to love builds before I realised I wanted character creation to take less than 5 minutes. Especially when I am DMing.

Style

I like a game where it feels like my character is at risk. Open ended rolls and hefty criticals help make combat feel like a risk. Give me grim and gritty any day.

I like rich settings you can sink your teeth into. Warhammer's old world is probably too much setting but it remains a personal favourite.

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. We've had a lot of discussion of the OSR lately and it's boring me. Not because it's about the OSR, just because it's all philosophy and strawmen. Lets talk about something concrete for a while, and something more about ourselves. I'll start.

Design:
1) I like unified resolution mechanics, like skills and such. They're just more convenient overall. I'm fine with straying outside when you have to, but unique mechanics for everything for its own sake just doesn't do it for me.

2) I prefer unified character/NPC/monster creation mechanics... There shouldn't be ten sets of rules for this either. 3x, despite being my favorite game(s), doesn't do this for me. There's saves, skills, classes, feats, LA, PrCs, and a billion other things that just don't need to have unique mechanics.

3) I like characters to have unique abilities that no one else can even try, or, failing that, unique aptitudes. I especially prefer using feats or something like them as an implementation, for reasons I'll get into below. 4e powers and swsaga talents were close but no cigar.

4) I strongly dislike micromanaging my character builds. So far, GURPS or M&M are sounding like great games for me, but point 4 has always been a dealbreaker on these games. I'll happily play with a pregen, but I don't want to build a character because I don't want to micromanage ranges and areas of effects and linked powers and a billion other little details. It always feels like there would be five different ways to build the same character and that bugs me.

5) I strongly strongly want in-world justifications for game mechanics. I don't want the mechanics to exist solely for gameplay's sake. Maybe I'm just sore because the targeted gameplay doesn't fit with my playstyle. Anyway, fighter daily and encounter powers are a total dealbreaker for me for this reason. Even vancian magic is slightly annoying because I see it as an arbitrary balancing mechanic. Action points or force points I can take or leave.

6) I prefer unique characters to character classes as a rule. The idea that someone who has sneak attack must also be able to hide in shadows and climb walls (for example) is odd to me. I just don't like the idea of abilities coming in suites. Not really a dealbreaker for me, but it's there.

7) I don't like attrition and resource management games. First and foremost because they assume multiple combat encounters (for attrition-based combat) and that isn't my playstyle. Old editions of D&D assume dungeons, and while I like dungeons, they aren't the focus of my games. 4e might've designed itself around encounters, but it still feels attrition-based.

I like for each and every combat to have a real chance of PC death. I also like for random elements to crop up during play. Hp can be abstract so long as there are also random wounds that actually do something. And if hp are abstract, there's no problem with giving players only enough to last one fight and letting them heal between battles (as long as the wounds last).

9) I like campaign scale rules as rewards for clever play or punishment for failure. Sanity, wealth, dismemberment, prestige, a keep... yes please. I like the idea that playing a character one way or another will have a real impact on that character and its place in the world.

Playstyle:
1) I like taking genre fiction (sci fi or fantasy mostly) and mixing in elements of mystery and horror.

2) I like a big world with lots of NPCs, all of whom matter, but none of whom are indispensable.

3) I like to have outcomes of events left open. I don't design a mystery that assumes the players are going to solve it, solve it correctly, or bring the bad guy to justice.

4) That said, the causes or history of events is very much closed. Since I design mysteries without the absolute necessity that they get solved, nothing bugs me quite as much as "taking suggestions from the players" as to who might have done it.

5) Sometimes suggestions are fine, mostly outside of play and especially at character creation. Nothing too large in scope (inventing an organisation or having a rank in it... organisations are a big deal in my game, and you've got to work for influence in them).

6) Usually, I've only got one or two fights per game, and I try and make them potentially lethal, even though games I've used so far seem hell-bent on doing the opposite.

7) Not intentional on my part, but PC arson has been super-effective several times in my games.

I like most of my world to feel real.

9) I like a little bit of my world to be batshit crazy and terrifying.

10) I play (mostly) by the rules.

10a) I make the rules.

And that's all I can think of off the top of my head. How about you guys? What would be your ideal game? How do you run your sessions?

You know I can agree with nearly all of this. Even point 7 (some PCs in a game of mine set in Thieve's world burn the city to the ground.)

Unified, straightforward mechanics - no - or very few - exceptions/sub-systems (guess that's why involved magic rules get up my nose)

Rules light to medium

Fast combat - no battlemats or minis. Can be confusing? Sure - so's combat in real life if combatant's accounts are to be believed.

BRP is good for me. And light FUDGE builds. And I love the way in Two Fisted Tales that you can try anything using Attributes and 'skills' just make it easier - captures the pulp sensibilty perfectly.

Character focus - it's why we play, isn't it? Or is that just me?

Cinematic or gritty depending on mood - but screw 'reality' - it's a fucking game not a mathematics textbook.

Well in response to OP points 1-3...

1) Lately I've tended to work on 2-way mechanics system where you're interfacing two different basic resolution mechanics: e.g. d20 roll under for success/fail and then a die-pool or step die (e.g. d4 to d12 depending on stat) for how well - then you've got a platform where you have the latititude to choose either mechanic exclusively for some rolls. Some mechanics work really well for some things and really badly for other things, so its nice to have some choices.

 2) Unifed character/monster mechanics...yep, totally agree here. Simpler and fairer. I'd probably take this a step further: I don't really like how some games divide the player's and GM's stuff into 'my things' and 'your things', e.g. how Alchemists are an NPC-only class in Palladium Fantasy for example, or how 4e D&D engineered out  monster criticals that would make combat unpredictable by making decent critical damage need a magical weapon, something monsters don't get.

3) Unique character abilities/feats....here, I'm uncertain. Its nice for characters to have unique abilities, but I like interesting/cinematic events in play (the fighter leaping down on a guy from a tree for extra damage, attempting to disarm a guy with a super crossbow shot, whatever...) and once you've decided you need a feats to represent that, its largely unfair to let the people who haven't 'paid up' attempt it.

For designed, I want games that are simple, even if they have a lot of parts.  Over the Edge is simple, and so is Starblazer Adventures, and so is the Palladium system, each having progressively more parts.  Whereas games like Nobilis, 4e, Champions, etc. are not simple.

I like unified game mechanics as a rule, but toolkits are the most important thing for me.

The playstyle is all about Emulation of Genre, and making the world feel like a real (emulated) world. Wrote a lot about that in my upcoming Politically Incorrect Guide to GMing.

RPGPundit