Condenced knowledge of roleplaying games

[Strung Nether]

After prowling through the forum, it is apparent to me that there is several years’ worth of arguments and information on this board. I have spent hours reading arguments, and while I have learned a lot, I feel that there is more to be known. I am looking for some "general principles" that should apply to games, not things as vague as "they should probably be fun", but more like "feat taxes are dumb, skill points are not a class balancing point, making muggles matter at high levels of power always pisses SOMEONE off, etc.”

There is a wealth of information in the TOMES, and I feel that the members of this board (yes, even shaz) could make an incredible gaming system if they just agreed on some design goals.

This post is a little directionless, but basically I want people to post basic principles that they believe are good to have in any system. I'll start with some examples:

-Taking away an option from someone, even if it is obsolete, really pisses people off.
-If you are going to have rules for non-combat stuff, like stealth and diplomacy, ether make a complete subysystem that works well or just magic tea party it. Patchwork systems like the 3.x bluff/intimidate/diplomacy where you can make the king give you his kingdom at level 1 with a die roll is just stupid.
-Having different classes use different resource management systems makes balance hard, but also makes it easy to make classes that "feel" and play differently.
-Giving players more than three or four choices of attacks/whatever on their turn leads to decision paralysis and makes the game really slow.
-Giving the players plot abilities (things that can actually do something out of combat) can make it hard to be a DM, but generally allows players to feel more involved in the cooperative story thing.
-Feat taxes are dumb/classes should actually be able to do what they are designed to do.
-Making magic items like +x longsword that just give incremental number boosts is a really lame way to do magic. A flaming sword should actually be on fire, not a typed +xd6 damage to your attacks.
-Crossclassing/monster levels/challenge rating fuckery is almost always a clusterfuck. Giving people level appropriate abilities becomes hard as they add different levels of different shit. Horizontal power advancement is probably best handled with feats.
-Having a class that is only OK at three things is not OK when there are three other different classes that are GOOD at one of each of those things. Being able to suck at several things at once is a bad character concept (looking at you bard). If a class can’t do something well, it is not really a feature of that class.
-Magic weapons/armor/dildos should scale with the character's level, because swapping equipment for a extra +1 every three levels is dumb.
-Classes should not be dependent on one specific type of weapon. Feats/abilities should apply to general weapon types, like "slashing", "bows with or without cross", or straight up "melee weapons". This keeps the DM from having to play Santa and give out specific items to characters least the character becomes underpowered.
-Interrupts/extra actions is a fucking mess. Avoid or reserve for super spells/abilities.
-Leveling up should mean more than adding a +1 to everything.
-Monster design should have a good variety of puzzle, PK, character and etc. monsters. Said monsters should also tell the DM what they are and how to play them well. A paragraph or three about their society/eating habits/mating rituals is fine too.
-You cant have races "mean something" while at the same time not having a "correct race" for each class. Pick your poison.

PS: I know that some people will list things that others disagree with, but instead of making this thread an argue-about-anything thread, just say "i disagree with this." We can probably find the arguments for and against in other threads on the board. (Linking to said thread would be helpful.)

[Wrathzog]

I appreciate your wide eyed enthusiasm and general faith in humanity. It is refreshing.
Anyhow... my design goals for a game would be:

1) Versimilitude. The mechanics set the rules of the universe and the setting needs to reflect that. This is not necessarily the same thing as realism.
Erfworld would be my example of this done right.

2) Balance without Homogenization. Player classes should be balanced around a single point (for D&D, I'd use tier 2.5) while managing to be interesting somehow.
3.5 gave us a bunch of interesting mechanics to play with but never bothered to even pretend that it was balanced.
4E went off in the opposite direction and gave us skim milk.

3) Monster/Player equality. I know this one will draw fire but I don't give a fuck. It can be summed up with Players are not immune to diplomacy checks.

4) Social Encounters should be as interesting as Combat Encounters.
Also, gaining power in one arena should not necessarily mean giving up power in another.
Crazily, Pokemon nearly pulled this one off with Beauty Pageants.

5) Character generation and progression should be quick, easy, and painless (like your mother). 3E and 4E D&D are absolutely atrocious at this.

6) Every character option should be truly significant. Picking a Race is significant. Picking a background is significant. Picking up Weapon Focus is not significant.

[TheWorid]

3) Monster/Player equality. I know this one will draw fire but I don't give a fuck. It can be summed up with Players are not immune to diplomacy checks.

4) Social Encounters should be as interesting as Combat Encounters.
Also, gaining power in one arena should not necessarily mean giving up power in another.

As a fan of playing Diplomancer/Face characters, I strongly agree with both points. If I sink significant character building resources into doing something, I expect it to work - the fighter PC can use his swording skill to gut my character, the wizard PC can still zap me with spells, so why should my silver tongued rogue be incapable of exercising her abilities on other PCs?

To add a few points of my own:

1. NPCs should be build using the same rules as PCs, or at least very similar ones. This ensures (to some extent) that opposition will not bend suspension of disbelief by following their own set of physical laws.
2. Abilities should be as specific as possible, but written concisely, so that it is clear to players what they can do with their abilities. MTP is not inherently bad, but the whole reason we make rules is to reduce confusion and arguments.
3. To reiterate an obvious point, Character creation should be fast - almost every game claims this about themselves, but it is almost never true.

[Strung Nether]

1) Versimilitude. The mechanics set the rules of the universe and the setting needs to reflect that. This is not necessarily the same thing as realism.

I completely agree.

2) Balance without Homogenization. Player classes should be balanced around a single point (for D&D, I'd use tier 2.5) while managing to be interesting somehow.
3.5 gave us a bunch of interesting mechanics to play with but never bothered to even pretend that it was balanced.
4E went off in the opposite direction and gave us skim milk.

I think that a perfectly balanced game with diverse+interesting+effective character concepts is the holy grail, the problem is that is probably not achievable. I think its more of a "error on balance or variety" issue. using different resource mechanisms for each class makes the classes play inherently differently, but it can also cause things like wizard/muggle issues.

3) Monster/Player equality. I know this one will draw fire but I don't give a fuck. It can be summed up with Players are not immune to diplomacy checks.

I have never had a "actually, you believe him and do what he says" work in any campaign, your experience may be different however. Even using dominate or charm on players can be a sticky situation. I think that people just don't like it when their choices are made meaningless/for them by a npc or any not-me roll.

4) Social Encounters should be as interesting as Combat Encounters.
Also, gaining power in one arena should not necessarily mean giving up power in another.
Crazily, Pokemon nearly pulled this one off with Beauty Pageants.

Ideally, yes. Practically, I have never seen anything resembling a good social combat system.

5) Character generation and progression should be quick, easy, and painless (like your mother). 3E and 4E D&D are absolutely atrocious at this.

Agreed, however, this is like saying quality art and excellent prose are good things to have. No one really chooses to have hard and long character generation, its usually just a product of option/supplement bloat.

6) Every character option should be truly significant. Picking a Race is significant. Picking a background is significant. Picking up Weapon Focus is not significant.

I agree mostly. Feats and other "character" options should matter. Equipment is a little trickier because item dependency is kinda lame, and if items are really important you almost always have it. Diablo 3 is probably a good example of one extreme, while riddle of steel is the other. I also think that "race" mattering is a really tricky tightrope. If race matters too much, then there WILL be one good race for each class, which can defeat the purpose of picking a race to begin with. Its a fine line between "every race is same" and "EVERY barbarian is a half orc."

1. NPCs should be build using the same rules as PCs, or at least very similar ones. This ensures (to some extent) that opposition will not bend suspension of disbelief by following their own set of physical laws.

This is always a good thing. There are powers that i think monsters should have that players don't get for a few more levels (fly at will, gaze flesh to stone, strange grapple attacks or other such nonsense) due to the destructive nature they can have for balance.

2. Abilities should be as specific as possible, but written concisely, so that it is clear to players what they can do with their abilities. MTP is not inherently bad, but the whole reason we make rules is to reduce confusion and arguments.

Agreed.

3. To reiterate an obvious point, Character creation should be fast - almost every game claims this about themselves, but it is almost never true.

Again, I think this is a universal goal, up there with "make it fun" and "don't suck".

[ModelCitizen]

Giving players more than three or four choices of attacks/whatever on their turn leads to decision paralysis and makes the game really slow.

I disagree with the numbers you picked here. 3-4 choices would limit you to BECMI fighter complexity. Even a 3e shock trooper has Charge, Glaive Full Attack, Composite Longbow Full Attack, Domino Rush. He's over four as soon as he picks up an activated magic item and people still complain that those guys don't have enough buttons to press.

[Endovior]

3) Monster/Player equality. I know this one will draw fire but I don't give a fuck. It can be summed up with Players are not immune to diplomacy checks.

I have never had a "actually, you believe him and do what he says" work in any campaign, your experience may be different however. Even using dominate or charm on players can be a sticky situation. I think that people just don't like it when their choices are made meaningless/for them by a npc or any not-me roll.

Personally, I've had some pretty decent experiences with social-fu on other PCs in Exalted...

4) Social Encounters should be as interesting as Combat Encounters.
Also, gaining power in one arena should not necessarily mean giving up power in another.
Crazily, Pokemon nearly pulled this one off with Beauty Pageants.

Ideally, yes. Practically, I have never seen anything resembling a good social combat system.

...just, y'know, NOT because of the social combat system that's actually included with Exalted, which is goddamn terrible. I think it was mostly the case of the fact that there were social combat rules encouraged people to take social powers to make a try for it... then, when we found out how much those rules blew, we mostly ignored them, instead using the powers we took as the basis for some MTP, which was far superior.

[erik]

I like much of your list, Strung Nether, and have comments on a few.

-Giving players more than three or four choices of attacks/whatever on their turn leads to decision paralysis and makes the game really slow.

That number cannot be right. Way too low. That would be like playing a level 2 wizard for life. Even a level 5 wizard with 12 spells a day (specialist, +1 bonus per level, not counting cantrips), and I don't think option paralysis has quite set in there.

1-Making magic items like +x longsword that just give incremental number boosts is a really lame way to do magic. A flaming sword should actually be on fire, not a typed +xd6 damage to your attacks.

2-Magic weapons/armor/dildos should scale with the character's level, because swapping equipment for a extra +1 every three levels is dumb.

If there is no +X bonus, then there's nothing to scale. So if you take point 1, then point 2 is obsolete.

-You cant have races "mean something" while at the same time not having a "correct race" for each class. Pick your poison.

Sure you can. A changeling can be a master of disguise and yet not become the "correct" anything. But it does mean something. The problem with classes that call for certain races almost entirely stems from racial attribute bonuses which are more important to class than any other consideration.

Even in 3e most race/classes started out alright because +2 to physical mod wasn't critical (unlike 4e where attack mod is king), and the core races didn't have +mods to casting stats. The -2 mental stats ruled some classes out for races, but other than that, most combos were acceptable.

A race should provide interesting background, and possibly an interesting niche power. Since humans don't inherently have that, be sure to have extra interesting background/powers available.

PS: I know that some people will list things that others disagree with, but instead of making this thread an argue-about-anything thread, just say "i disagree with this." We can probably find the arguments for and against in other threads on the board. (Linking to said thread would be helpful.)

I disagree with this.

I'm probably drinking the koolaid on most other points, however.

My preferred generic role playing conceits:

Right Mechanics. Fit the mechanics and random number generator with what the setting calls for. Corollary: include game mechanics to resolve important points for resolution (stealth, combat, social, etc.).

Internal Consistency. Fit the setting with some sort of reasonable expectations to what powers are actually in play.

Special abilities are interesting, numbers are not. What I enjoy and remember about characters isn't how big their bonuses were, but what neat things they could do.

Trap options are bad. Nobody should be tricked into being a shitty character that cannot contribute in the most critical aspects of the game. Corollary: random generation of critical character elements (attributes/HP especially) is a shitty method if it results in grossly divergent character utility.

[Neurosis]

*Condensed.

[Blicero]

I like much of your list, Strung Nether, and have comments on a few.

-Giving players more than three or four choices of attacks/whatever on their turn leads to decision paralysis and makes the game really slow.

That number cannot be right. Way too low. That would be like playing a level 2 wizard for life. Even a level 5 wizard with 12 spells a day (specialist, +1 bonus per level, not counting cantrips), and I don't think option paralysis has quite set in there.

I don't want to start another WoF-related discussion here, but, in this sentence you are completing ignoring the Vancian axiom of "If a and b are numbers such that a>b, and x is a spell of level a and y is a spell of level b, then awesomeness(x) > awesomeness(y)." So, in any given situation, your wizard is only evaluating a smaller subset of his total spells. And that does reduce decision time and decrease the possibility of option paralysis while allowing for a larger total number of powers possessed by any given character.

[Chamomile]

you are completing ignoring the Vancian axiom of "If a and b are numbers such that a>b, and x is a spell of level a and y is a spell of level b, then awesomeness(x) > awesomeness(y)."

Making such a statement as simple as "higher level spells are usually significantly more useful than lower level ones" that needlessly complex is certainly an achievement worthy of celebration.

[Blade]

I have never had a "actually, you believe him and do what he says" work in any campaign, your experience may be different however. Even using dominate or charm on players can be a sticky situation. I think that people just don't like it when their choices are made meaningless/for them by a npc or any not-me roll.
[...]
Practically, I have never seen anything resembling a good social combat system.

Dying Earth RPG has both.

[Blicero]

Making such a statement as simple as "higher level spells are usually significantly more useful than lower level ones" that needlessly complex is certainly an achievement worthy of celebration.

I try.

[erik]

in any given situation, your wizard is only evaluating a smaller subset of his total spells.

That's fair, to an extent. As I level up I tend to relegate the lower level spells into non-combat roles (utility, longer duration buffs), however, some do remain in use beyond when they are at highest level. So I think the number of available spells is still greater than 4. I think a greater factor in assisting decision making process is that some spells immediately stand out as better/worse options, which speeds the decision making process.

So perhaps we should not be trying to simply limit the number of options for martial characters, but make them very different.

[Strung Nether]

I disagree with the numbers you picked here. 3-4 choices would limit you to BECMI fighter complexity. Even a 3e shock trooper has Charge, Glaive Full Attack, Composite Longbow Full Attack, Domino Rush. He's over four as soon as he picks up an activated magic item and people still complain that those guys don't have enough buttons to press.

Those numbers stink because they were recently pulled out of my ass.

Personally, I've had some pretty decent experiences with social-fu on other PCs in Exalted...

...just, y'know, NOT because of the social combat system that's actually included with Exalted, which is goddamn terrible. I think it was mostly the case of the fact that there were social combat rules encouraged people to take social powers to make a try for it... then, when we found out how much those rules blew, we mostly ignored them, instead using the powers we took as the basis for some MTP, which was far superior.

It could quite posibly work, I am just not very famillar with it. I do not doubt that social combat COULD be awesome, its just that besides exalted it is usually just ignored, and there is really not much to base a system on. DnD 1.0 was a mess, so I assume the first series of social combat rules will be to. I think that it would be awesome to get working, but the effort and investment to to make said system is probably more than most writers are willing to undertake.

If there is no +X bonus, then there's nothing to scale. So if you take point 1, then point 2 is obsolete.

It does make little sense. I was mainly referring to the +1/3 CL enchantment bonus that all "magic items" give players in F+K's tomes. I really like the idea, although it is probably not needed in a game where the monsters are written without the +1 to everything every three levels.

A race should provide interesting background, and possibly an interesting niche power. Since humans don't inherently have that, be sure to have extra interesting background/powers available.

You said what I was thinking much more eloquently than I could. If one race has small size and +2 int, than they are all wizards. But if one race has darkvision, the other sleeps 4 hours a day, another can eat almost anything organic and not get sick, then you can have different races without having "correct" races. Mechanical bonuses are a bad thing, flavor bonuses are good.

Right Mechanics. Fit the mechanics and random number generator with what the setting calls for. Corollary: include game mechanics to resolve important points for resolution (stealth, combat, social, etc.).

Internal Consistency. Fit the setting with some sort of reasonable expectations to what powers are actually in play.

Special abilities are interesting, numbers are not. What I enjoy and remember about characters isn't how big their bonuses were, but what neat things they could do.

Trap options are bad. Nobody should be tricked into being a shitty character that cannot contribute in the most critical aspects of the game. Corollary: random generation of critical character elements (attributes/HP especially) is a shitty method if it results in grossly divergent character utility.

Yes, yes, yes and yes. I think that the first two are somewhat "don't suck" and "verisimilitude", but numbers ARE boring, and trap options always shitty.

Dying Earth RPG has both.

Never heard of it before, will google.