What makes an RPG good?

[Longes]

So, here, at the gaming den we talk a lot about good and bad RPGs, call *World names, etc.
But here's RPGGeek's best RPG tournament, and DungeonWorld became the absolute champion, with Fate on the second place.
So what is the criteria YOU use to determine whether a game is good or bad, or are we all here just a bunch of rpg hipsters?

[Sakuya Izayoi]

I believe it breaks down into a few things

1. Are the rules easier to adjudicate than Cops n' Robbers? Do they produce results satisfactory to all parties, even when they fail to achieve something?

2. Do the rules present meaningful choices that give you individuality and presence within the game world?

3. Is the game world, or implicit setting, created by both the fluff, and #1 and #2, something that engages you and allows you to imagine fully what's going on?

The idea behind judging a book like Dungeon World harshly, regardless of its popularity, isn't to be a jerk. It's to rate it as a consumer product, of what value you get in terms of rules and lore, like Ralph Nader would judge a car based on how safe and reliable it was, not how popular it was.

[deaddmwalking]

My perception is that the folks who are most active on RPG boards are also the most likely to be running the games, rather than a player with a character. Of course, many of them are involved in both aspects, but by and large, GMs spend more time thinking about gaming outside of the session than players, and consequently spend more time participating in game discussions.

This is going to skew some of the 'best RPG discussions'. Some of the things that make the game fun for a player feel like an 'unreasonable limitation' on the GM. A rule that says explicitly 'do whatever you want' is incredibly freeing for a GM - and there can be no accusation of running things incorrectly.

A theoretical 'best game' would be easy to adjudicate, it would offer lots of options to the players so they could interact with the world in any way their imagination inspires them to do so, and the work of designing the game world would be easy enough that a GM could create whole regions 'on the fly'. Making those 'consistent' is what makes creating a game so difficult - but that would be the final piece of the puzzle.

[Laertes]

To me, what makes a game good is consistency. I use the word verisimilitude a lot but that's because it's vital. The more consistent a game's fluff is with itself and with its crunch, the easier it is to roleplay within that world.

Let me take an example. In Shadowrun, you can buy things that make you better at your job. Since corporations have more money than you, their very best people are therefore better than you regardless of whom you are. As a result your tactics are not take-and-hold ones because you cannot stand against the most powerful counterattack that a corporation can muster. You must therefore use stealth and speed to raid quickly and leave before the big guns can descend on you. This ties the fluff, the crunch and the players' behaviour together nicely and creates a world where you can actually plan ahead in a meaningful way.

A good system never contradicts its fluff. Good fluff supports its system. When the two go together, the game is fun and everybody has a fun time.

[Previn]

So, here, at the gaming den we talk a lot about good and bad RPGs, call *World names, etc.
But here's RPGGeek's best RPG tournament, and DungeonWorld became the absolute champion, with Fate on the second place.
So what is the criteria YOU use to determine whether a game is good or bad, or are we all here just a bunch of rpg hipsters?

They use the 3rd edition of Shadowrun, and the 2e D&D, but have 3 (4?) different FATE games on there and both *world games. Fiasco is not remotely the same thing as Numenera, Lady Blackbird is... not really a game in this sense. This poll tells me that RPG.net likes ruleless 'games' and can't reason at all based on the game choices and pairings.

That being said I expect good game to support the expect framework/style and play of the game using the rules and for player decisions to have reasonably predictable outcomes or end points.

[Josh_Kablack]

But here's RPGGeek's best RPG tournament, and DungeonWorld became the absolute champion, with Fate on the second place.?

I was going to answer this seriously with a long-winded post about clarity, consistency, evocativeness and market saturation; but it seems that your first post provides a much snappier answer:

You can judge an RPG's quality with the following rule of thumb: If RPGGeek Likes it, then it sucks..

[virgil]

So, here, at the gaming den we talk a lot about good and bad RPGs, call *World names, etc.
But here's RPGGeek's best RPG tournament, and DungeonWorld became the absolute champion, with Fate on the second place.
So what is the criteria YOU use to determine whether a game is good or bad, or are we all here just a bunch of rpg hipsters?

They use the 3rd edition of Shadowrun, and the 2e D&D, but have 3 (4?) different FATE games on there and both *world games. Fiasco is not remotely the same thing as Numenera, Lady Blackbird is... not really a game in this sense. This poll tells me that RPG.net likes ruleless 'games' and can't reason at all based on the game choices and pairings.

Why the hell do they have 2E and Pathfinder, but not 4E or even 3E? SR3, but not SR4/5? They have the current Star Wars and WEG's, but none of the editions between? They have Castle Falkenstein, but not Rifts. They have frelling Fighting Fantasy Gamebooks?!

I am so confused by the decisions made here.

[OgreBattle]

IDEALLY:
-Rules are as simple to grasp yet can resolve complex situations
-Character choices are meaningful without being cluttered
-The game sets out to accomplish what it states it's mission was

PRACTICALLY:
You played with a game master/DM that was charismatic and good at presenting the story. Your party members were people you can get along with. The chair you sat on was comfortable and the snacks were tasty.

[Avoraciopoctules]

- nice art
- if combat is a Thing, you can have interesting tactical choices without a bunch of gratuitous complexity
- interesting things your characters can scheme towards accomplishing (probably meaning a cool setting, but there are other possibilities)

[Josh_Kablack]

I am so confused by the decisions made here.

If it is anything like BGG, then all decisions are marketing schemes to profit current advertisers while maintaining a facade of impartiality via a smokescreen of baroque algorithms.

[virgil]

I am so confused by the decisions made here.

If it is anything like BGG, then all decisions are marketing schemes to profit current advertisers while maintaining a facade of impartiality via a smokescreen of baroque algorithms.

That reminds me of a question I've had before, somehow. Is there any honestly objective research in gaming statistics happening? Outside of a few indie games, production numbers are freakin' hard to glean. I don't hear about demographic studies being done, and the surveys I've heard of or seen seem more like marketing than actual research venues.

[Laertes]

Statistics are expensive to gather and analyse, and would differ wildly from place to place. Here in London most gaming events are dominated by story games, but I'm told Poland is still dominated by WFRP.

[zeruslord]

Best entry on there IMO is the forum game they ran that got wrecked in the first round. Why is Fate's first-round opponent not Savage Worlds? Do Rogue Trader vs Dark Heresy! Star Wars EoE vs d6 Star Wars! Can you really compare Paranoia and Nobilis? Why is Dogs in the Vineyard vs GURPS something that can even happen before the semifinals, let alone planned for the first round?

the only decent thing in the first round is Ars Magica vs MtA. literally the only contest with two actually comparable games.

[Mord]

Everything about that bracket is fucked up, and all the voters are liars or idiots. How the hell does Burning Wheel get 2:1 votes against Vampire? Someone had to have paid for all those VTM supplements now littering the "used" shelves at the FLGS.

[Dogbert]

1) Is the book honest? (i.e Is the game really about what the sales' brochure says it is?)

2) Are the rules serviceable?

3) Does the editorial design make reading the book easier?

If all three are a "yes," then it's a good product (independently of whether I like the game or not).

[Voss]

Everything about that bracket is fucked up, and all the voters are liars or idiots. How the hell does Burning Wheel get 2:1 votes against Vampire? Someone had to have paid for all those VTM supplements now littering the "used" shelves at the FLGS.

Eh. I don't know all that much about Burning Wheel. But number of copies sold means fuck all for what constitutes good. It is very easy to manipulate people into buying shit. Most of the global economy is predicated on that exact concept.

[TheNotoriousAMP]

I don't know all that much about Burning Wheel. But number of copies sold means fuck all for what constitutes good. It is very easy to manipulate people into buying shit. Most of the global economy is predicated on that exact concept.

Maybe, but in reality most people just want something that is simple, but feels good. Which is why the most popular stuff is serviceable and generic, doesn't mean its necessarily bad, but it appeals to a ton of people. Which is probably why Dungeons and Dragons has always been the most popular game system, its bland as fuck (cannot stand it, sorry) but its fun and most people don't really need to think too much or make uber deep moral choices and instead bash people in the face. Its not so much manipulating people as it is creating a product that goes over easy with most, we just tend to be a lot more demanding. Every genre, hell even pro wrestling, has the same tension in between generic and decent vs niche and demanding. So, in general, large numbers of copies tends to be a decent indicator of something that's at least passible or has a ton of inertia (which can disappear fast).

[Voss]

Which is a fucking bizarre premise premise for Vampire since it gets off on being elitist and not for normal people, and theoretically avoids bashing face for profound navel gazing about the irrelevance of the universe. It was the very pinnacle of niche and demanding, whining endlessly about anyone who wasn't a slavish devotee of goth-punk, despite the ubiquity of vampires and werewolves.

[TheNotoriousAMP]

Which is a fucking bizarre premise premise for Vampire since it gets off on being elitist and not for normal people, and theoretically avoids bashing face for profound navel gazing about the irrelevance of the universe. It was the very pinnacle of niche and demanding, whining endlessly about anyone who wasn't a slavish devotee of goth-punk, despite the ubiquity of vampires and werewolves.

If you consider the subculture of the 90's, all that shit was fairly mainstream, especially in geek culture. Much like modern hipsterism, elitism was/is the new normal in a very weird way.

[Cyberzombie]

In my opinion Good RPGs do the following:

1. Keeps the players excited: Combats should not be slow, boring and grindy. Your die rolls should be swingy enough such that people care about the outcome and get excited or nervous about the numbers that show on their d20s (or d6s).

2. Doesn't coddle the players: The game needs real consequences and bad things should be able to happen to the PCs. At the very least, their character should be able to get knocked out of a fight. The game can't fall into the trap of removing everything PCs don't like. The game is flat and boring if their characters are never KOed for a combat or otherwise get their asses beat sometimes. Winning all the time sucks.

3. Doesn't turn people into sidekicks: All the PCs should get a chance to shine during the game, and all the PCs should feel useful. The game shouldn't be so imbalanced where casual players feel useless next to powergamers.

4. Fun to DM too: DMing should not be a boring chore of tracking tons of status effects and worrying about overly complex monsters and mechanics. Keep the book-keeping down, especially for NPCs.

[tussock]

I think what makes RPGs good is the lack of what makes them suck.

So stalling the table to look up a rule because it's too fussy for any rules-nerd at the table to remember or fudge through is terrible, especially so if it's at all common. The world ending can get it's own page-long catastrophy and I won't care, but grappling rules? No.

Similarly, rules should be as clear as you can make them, because rules arguments or relying on timely arbitration are really a bit shit. D&D is massively complex, but that's no excuse for any particular rule to carry multiple implications.

When a player takes something for their character, it should do what it says on the tin, and also not be trivially nerfed by DM ineptitude. Getting what you buy IRL is a legal requirement and they'll put people in prison for cheating you. People EHAT getting something lesser.

One player character being casually win-button to everything while others are too fragile or clumsy to even try any actions, mostly for common scenes. Mechanics that use up a bunch of IRL game time need to let everyone take part without ruining the scene.

To counter that somewhat, it's important we don't force people at the parts of the game they're not particularly interested in. There's no actual sweet spot, people enjoy different aspects of open concept games like D&D, you have to let players sit back and watch sometimes. Some people really aren't there for the intricacies of your tactical positioning mini-game, so you need some quick-mode options there that just work.


And ultimately, in-game choices need to fit that whole 7 +-2 thing. Too few and you feel like you've got no real choices, too many and you get regret and second guessing. It's a thing.

You can pre-chunk bigger option sets to have very large trees. So 7 races, and 7 classes. Or 30 races in 6 obvious groups, or 8 classes where some have 7 further sub-class options. But not 12 races or 11 classes because that won't make anyone happy. Similar at the table for spell lists, feat sets, casting options, melee special attacks, and so on. Even the number of opponents and ideal party size.


Which is all about getting what you want via structured choice sets, having challenges everyone can choose to share or not, and mechanics that don't get in your way in resolving them.

Ideally your reward and development system also wants to encourage the proposed genre. So treasure-hunters get XP for treasure, and monster-slayers get XP for monsters, investigators get XP for finding clues, and liars get XP for the stories.

[Whipstitch]

If you consider the subculture of the 90's, all that shit was fairly mainstream, especially in geek culture. Much like modern hipsterism, elitism was/is the new normal in a very weird way.

I don't really think it's weird, it's actually really simple: to most people the only difference between an elitist douche bag and an expert is that the latter agrees with them.

[silva]

So, here, at the gaming den we talk a lot about good and bad RPGs, call *World names, etc.
But here's RPGGeek's best RPG tournament, and DungeonWorld became the absolute champion, with Fate on the second place.
So what is the criteria YOU use to determine whether a game is good or bad, or are we all here just a bunch of rpg hipsters?

I think acknowledging there are clearly different gaming styles and mindsets is the first step. Then trying to establish what criteria makes good games for each style would be the second. So a more practical question would be: why Dungeon World pleases the light-narrative crowd so much, and why D&D 3e pleases the tactics-sim crowd so much ? What each crowd look for on games, and what they ignore/dont value so much ?

[ACOS]

If you consider the subculture of the 90's, all that shit was fairly mainstream, especially in geek culture. Much like modern hipsterism, elitism was/is the new normal in a very weird way.

I don't really think it's weird, it's actually really simple: to most people the only difference between an elitist douche bag and an expert is that the latter agrees with them.

I don't see the 2 as being mutually exclusive (but nor are they necessarily 1-in-the-same). The former is defined by their attitude, while the latter is defined by knowledge/experience.

[Laertes]

So, here, at the gaming den we talk a lot about good and bad RPGs, call *World names, etc.
But here's RPGGeek's best RPG tournament, and DungeonWorld became the absolute champion, with Fate on the second place.
So what is the criteria YOU use to determine whether a game is good or bad, or are we all here just a bunch of rpg hipsters?

I think acknowledging there are clearly different gaming styles and mindsets is the first step. Then trying to establish what criteria makes good games for each style would be the second. So a more practical question would be: why Dungeon World pleases the light-narrative crowd so much, and why D&D 3e pleases the tactics-sim crowd so much ? What each crowd look for on games, and what they ignore/dont value so much ?

To me the real question is "How much staying power is the *World franchise going to have?" D&D, Shadowrun, Ars Magica and Paranoia are incredibly old brands by RPG standards. They've been refined through the ages and have large and loyal fanbases, in many cases getting into second or third generations of players. Vampire the Masquerade was, in its heydey, a world-spanning colossus, and even today it's probably played by more people than play its successor Requiem, but it's no longer a powerhouse in the way that it was before. Still, it will probably outlast a lot of games that are big at the moment. When you talk about "best game", these are the names you need to pay attention to because they will likely still be here when your fashionable little thing is long forgotten.

Let's see what * World looks like in twenty years. I am prepared to lay money on the prospect that in twenty years time there will still be Shadowrun, Ars Magica, Vampire, Paranoia and D&D games going but * World is going to be this weird little relic of the past that people see in bargain bins and think "huh, weird" and then move on past.