Boolean wrote:What is wrong with our HP systems?
Time based resource depletion (or rather renewal) is a somewhat severely discredited system. It can Vancian right the hell off.
Boolean wrote:And/or, what are these "good design principles" we should be adhering to?
In this case assuming you wanted to have adhered to things like the following principles...
Modular design - When you write something, like the rules for a wizard ability set, you write them in nice discrete chunks covering specific actions and abilities. These chunks are specifically designed for general re-use within the greater system. Later when you write things (like NPCs) that require support for similar actions and abilities you use these chunks as required.
This creates a simpler, better, more stable system. It means that every rule you write is not merely a one off rule but also a tool added to a diverse toolkit that can be easily accessed and used to describe previously unaccounted for characters and game events.
A separate rules system to handle NPCs is rather clearly not the result of following this methodology. You might conceivably have NPC or PC only modules as
part of this system but only assuming you want to emulate power disparity without a level system.
The "wing everything from scratch" attitude is directly a result of the failure to provide a proper Modular rules system in the first place as a Modular implementation would have greatly aided in "Winging it by the rules" by allowing you to easily select modular components on the fly from an expanded modular toolkit.
Standardised design - Similar in a lot of ways to modular design. However specifically this differs in that it means you are using similar rules and methods across multiple chunks of modular rules, indeed ideally across the entire rules set.
This is beneficial as it makes the rules easier to learn, understand, remember and apply. It also makes the rules more intuitive and easier to extend both "on the fly" and otherwise.
This principle is directly counter to having a major breach in standardisation, in the form of a new parallel rules system, across arbitrary groups of characters. Breaking it in this manner leads to situations where PCs are running around with one (or more) "Fire Sword" abilities, while NPCs run around with 'Sword of Fire" abilities that look the same, are described the same but resolve with different rules. That being very clearly a bad thing in many ways.
Extensible design - Ideally the entire system should be designed from scratch to support extension and additions in future, and possibly not by the same people who create it in the first place.
This means, among other things, adhering as strictly as possible to Modular Design and Standardised Design. But it also means things like documenting the methods and reasons behind rules and outlining their less obvious implications, even documenting and providing material on the rules and guidelines used in order to generate the actual game rules provided.
The benefits of an extensible design are fairly obvious, but in an RPG it is worth noting that simple use of the system almost ALWAYS involves some form of extension or addition to the material created. Providing no support for this activity, or indeed designing in such a way as to sabotage it, is clearly severely limiting the accessibility of the rules system to ANY actual gaming group.
Creating a distinct NPC rules set is not in and of itself counter to this methodology/goal, but if you followed the other design methods here you are furthering this goal and
they are damaged by the distinct NPC rules.
Minimising Complexity - A rather obvious activity with rather obvious benefits, it also further aids in other good design principles. You avoid numerous difficulties by keeping your system as simple as it can afford to be while still describing what you have defined to be the minimum amount of complexity required to be engaging and useful.
However it also has a some interesting implications, especially when used in combination with other good design principles.
Modular Design combined with Minimising Complexity would imply that your character ability sets describe only those abilities you care about describing and that you can select modular chunks of the rules such that you only describe the aspects of any single specific character that you need to
and that you do so in the simplest possible manner
So when Frank and RC complain about the massive complexity of standardised, modular, minimal complexity Laser Turrets they are talking out of their asses. A character that does nothing but shoot a laser bolt
already does nothing but use the minimal number of rules modules already simplified to the maximum level of simplicity we can afford to allow.
Granularity and Data Loss - When you simplify your system you have set a certain level of detail that you do not wish the game to drop below, or to needlessly exceed.
If you have two parallel rules sets that interact with each other you gain NO efficiency in complexity because if you have been meeting your Complexity Minimising goals the two rules sets are of the same complexity.
If the PC rules set is more complex than your minimal level of detail goal you have major design issues with a whole bunch of wasted complexity cluttering the place up and fooling around with your other design principles and goals.
If your NPC rules set is LESS complex than your minimal level of detail goal you have a portion of the system that is unable to describe the game play you need it to and unable to provide what you have determined to be the minimum amount of interest and engagement for the players.
Worse still the PC and NPC systems
have to interact, regularly and in large volume. All sorts of data is exchanged back and forth, and if the systems are indeed different it is
translated. This creates an information bottleneck. When the PC system passes information to the NPC system detail is lost. When the NPC system passes information back to the PC system there is either some volume of information just plain missing or you have to go to the effort of generating it on the spot.
And if that weren't enough PCs interacting with NPCs is largely what the
entire fucking game is about. Whatever trade offs that say, 4E, makes by simplifying it's NPCs until they are unplayable characters with no attributes, equipment, or social elements are trade offs that will get rammed into the players faces endlessly for 90% of the game.
Interacting with NPCs is the majority of the game. The granularity of the detail and complexity you set for them
is the defining granularity of the majority of the greater rules system.
Practical Goals in resource management and encounter threat ratings - I bring this one up just for the whole time based resourcing system thing and issues with guys walking into combats and such with pre-existing damage or resource expenditure that may or may not have happened off screen.
The problem is that the five minute working day (or rather assumption that it either will or won't happen) as a balance mechanism is really bad for game play. And that trying to emulate it as a goal is effectively setting yourself not just a bad goal but a pretty much unattainable one, it just WON'T balance your resource expenditure.
Character strength for things like CR comparison needs to be balanced on the resources they enter combat with (in which case where they expended resources they don't have at that point is completely irrelevant). NOT on the resources they COULD have entered combat with.
Either that or the rules governing resources need to avoid these issues as much as possible in the first place. Killing off expendable time renewing resources like daily abilities is a damn good move. Even HP are basically an arbitrary out of combat time renewing resource that could be killed off.
"But what about damage,
Everyone always entering combat undamaged is no less stupid than NPCs always doing so". Well then I suggest that removing every "daily" type resource we can should leave you with a relatively small volume of "lasting" negative status conditions like injuries that could be specifically measured as modifiers to a character's comparative strength, then you don't care if it takes five minutes or five YEARS to heal them, you have their effective strength to compare to potential challenges on hand as required.
And So...
I think it is very important to note the
interaction of good design principles. Modular Design helps Standardisation, helps Simplification helps extensibility, etc...
You get good results that meet goals and which DON'T include writing complex, parallel, different and sub standard rules systems that take over your game and suck the fun out of it.
Indeed as you encounter issues in your system design sticking to good design principles from scratch means when you encounter issues like "I need fast to build adaptable and simple as reasonably possible NPCs" you find that the majority of the issue is ALREADY WELL ADDRESSED by your prior use of design principles such as modularity and minimised complexity.
Design principles that led you to use the same modular system to generate NPCs as you use for PCs and which will lead to further benefits when you encounter more issues in future such as converting NPCs to PCs and so on.
Good design principles generate good results. "Just fucking winging it" as a design principle will lead to an endless need to "Just fucking wing it" in more and more complex and unpleasant ways in future feeding into an ever worsening mess.
I also want to point out that a lot of these design principles look a lot like good, professional, high quality, software design principles. There are reasons for that. Think on it.
