Mechanics that disappoint you in every conceivable manner

[Mord]

So what do you do in a genre where the heroes are expected to kill a bunch of mooks? The mooks all wake up a few hours later? I think a better solution is for characters with 0 hp to be "dying" so that they can be rescued with first aid/healing magic/a bacta tank/genre equivalent but would otherwise die.

Unless you're playing "Serial Killer: The Killening," I don't think any genre demands that someone, even mooks, die in every battle. For every Star Wars where the Stormtrooper body count is incredible, there's a Star Trek, where phasers are always set to stun. For every Punisher, there's a Batman. For every et, there's a cetera.

[Mord]

So what do you do in a genre where the heroes are expected to kill a bunch of mooks? The mooks all wake up a few hours later? I think a better solution is for characters with 0 hp to be "dying" so that they can be rescued with first aid/healing magic/a bacta tank/genre equivalent but would otherwise die.

Unless you're playing "Serial Killer: The Killening," I don't think any genre demands that someone, even mooks, die in every battle. For every Star Wars where the Stormtrooper body count is incredible, there's a Star Trek, where phasers are always set to stun. For every Punisher, there's a Batman. For every et, there's a cetera.

[angelfromanotherpin]

For that sort of game, you'd probably want to do the 7th Sea thing, where dramatically-important characters get KO'd and the not-particularly-consequentials get the shaft.

[Drolyt]

Otherwise, I've generally liked the concept of the "TKO", that other modern RPG's had even started implementing (calling the status "KO'd" opposed to DEAD, like in Dragon Quest). Basically where in combat, where a PC would've died, they instead are "TKO'd" out of the fight, and only special abilities, or certain powerful healing magic would jump them back into the present combat (I'm sure tough-warrior type would have power to negate TKO and come back X HP, or for X rounds, another to fight as a ghost for a time, soul jump into a foe or body & fight as that, "combat revival" so on). Of course, PC's can still be coup-de-graced and such, but by that point, it's likely a TPK anyway.

So what do you do in a genre where the heroes are expected to kill a bunch of mooks? The mooks all wake up a few hours later? I think a better solution is for characters with 0 hp to be "dying" so that they can be rescued with first aid/healing magic/a bacta tank/genre equivalent but would otherwise die.

They don't kill the mooks, they incapacitate them. They could be left for the buzzards or they can be captured as POWs or pressganged into working for the PCs or they just scatter and don't come back.

That's fine, but my point is that it doesn't work for all games. Just as an example, having to coup de grace a rampaging dragon or demon just seems wrong for a D&D style game.

[Sakuya Izayoi]

Consequences like losing Reputation Points would probably be my go-to approach for a less lethal RPG. HERO makes nonlethal attacks a lot more point-buy efficient, but I've still seen my fellow players get their murderhobo jollies by using their killing attacks on stunned NPCs.

[Aryxbez]

So what do you do in a genre where the heroes are expected to kill a bunch of mooks? The mooks all wake up a few hours later?

I meant that the PC's themselves, are just taken out of the fight, opposed to being killed. Though unlike the more modern video game RPG's out there, can still require they get healing afterwards, but after the encounter at 1HP, or maybe half HP. So like what angelfromanotherpin mentioned about 7th Sea basically, thusly ye can still have minions getting murdered by the gallons as they tend to do. While the Rampaging Demons/Dragons would still die when defeated (I can see the notion of dealing "non-lethal" damage to sentients to be toggled either way for a given campaign tone).

[rasmuswagner]

I know its not a mechanic, but I hate sorcery as an academic endeavor. I prefer when it is dirry, taboo or demoniac like seen on Howard and Lovecraft stories.

You should read the Hellblazer comics, then. John Constantine's magic is plenty dirty. The Constantine you see in the current Justice League Dark comics is a pale shadow of the insanity, corruption and betrayal that is Hellblazer.

[Username17]

There is a narative problem with perma-death that I think was overlooked in this thread - replacement goldfish.

PC party usualy doesn't take companions for a long time. But when one of the party members dies, they meet a random stranger and in one session he becomes new best friend. Steve is dead, long live the Steve!

that narrative problem has nothing to do with permadeath and everything to do with the structure of the game. The series regulars in each episode are dependent upon what players physically show up to the game that evening. If a new player wants in or an old player wants out, you need to come up with a contrived reason for "permanent" team members to be added or subtracted. If a player can't make it to a specific game or a player's friend from out of town wants to play, you need to come up with a contrived reason for a character to not appear in an episode or for there to be a special guest star on very short notice.

It's the same kind of casting problems that weekly shows have except way worse because you usually get very little notice of casting limitations for a particular episode and actors will be added to your cast lists on short notice and you have to fucking deal with that.

Yes, a character dying or retiring creates an obvious need for a new cast member, but that's just like a weekly show. Indeed, such a scenario is way easier to handle than a player simply being unable to make it to the session and calling you to tell you about it fifteen minutes after the game was supposed to start. At least when a character dies, there is an in-character reason why the characters have less dudes in their team and an in-character reason why they'd want to recruit another adventurer.

-Username17

[K]

If losing or winning a battle makes no difference in your game then you have created a fundamental problem.

How did you get that from "no permadeath"? K is saying that rather than "die", a PC is instead saved from death by some contrivance when death would otherwise occur. This could be a blow turned aside at the last minute, the PC being stunned and left for dead, or being severely wounded and unable to fight on without actually dying.

No-one is suggesting that at the end of a battle the script proceeds to the Victory screen even if all the PCs were taken out.

Right.

Failure conditions are awesome, but modern RPG design is all about only designing for win conditions because the assumption is that DM is going to let you win regardless of your actions. The core assumption is that the only failure condition is perma-death with all its problems, so if the DM has to RP the monsters as idiots to guarantee a win, then he must.

Not winning a battle could potentially have all kinds of consequences in a better design, some of those options being harsh enough that even the most callous power-gamer is going to feel right in his nuts. Maybe losing a battle means losing treasure because you get looted for ransom, or getting TKOed means that your prize magic sword gets shattered when you get smashed down by a giant's club, or failing the quest means that you have to go on the run because the princess got killed and the king went crazy with grief and is bankrupting the kingdom in fees to the Assassin's Guild.

Hell, modern RPGs don't even have good retreat options. In DnD and a lot of other games, you win the fight or die because there is no retreat mechanic.

[K]

...That's fine, but my point is that it doesn't work for all games. Just as an example, having to coup de grace a rampaging dragon or demon just seems wrong for a D&D style game.

The issue is that monsters and PCs don't need to have the exact same abilities. You really can have life for PCs and death for everyone else.

The PCs might be agents of the Technocracy and thus the only people with access to the clone vats. The gods might have chosen them for great deeds and thus be willing to break the Laws of Resurrection for just them in order to escort their souls back to bodies through the Vale of Eternal Sorrow. The PCs might be the only vampires who drunk the Blood of the First Vampire and thus they can be reconstituted with the blood of the innocent from a single ash.

The only issue is that the narrative of the game has to support why PCs are special. As I said before, I'm pretty fond of a narrative system that contrives for additional story elements to save PCs, the kind of system where a fatal stab wound becomes the moment when you figure out that your sword houses the soul of a demon who can save you. I like it because that's a story element that then gets integrated with the adventure and campaign.

[zugschef]

If losing or winning a battle makes no difference in your game then you have created a fundamental problem.

How did you get that from "no permadeath"? K is saying that rather than "die", a PC is instead saved from death by some contrivance when death would otherwise occur. This could be a blow turned aside at the last minute, the PC being stunned and left for dead, or being severely wounded and unable to fight on without actually dying.

No-one is suggesting that at the end of a battle the script proceeds to the Victory screen even if all the PCs were taken out.

I think that you can have fail conditions in your game that are just as fun as win conditions.

You need to motivate people to either want to lose or want to win an encounter. If both alternatives (success vs. failure) are equally fun that's a fundamental problem. Fun in a game can't be f(x)=integer or it won't be fun for very long. So in a classic RPG, losing an encounter needs to have a drawback. (I guess part of the misunderstanding has to do with how you define the word "fun".) That's all I wanted to say and K basically agreed with me:

Not winning a battle could potentially have all kinds of consequences in a better design, some of those options being harsh enough that even the most callous power-gamer is going to feel right in his nuts. Maybe losing a battle means losing treasure because you get looted for ransom, or getting TKOed means that your prize magic sword gets shattered when you get smashed down by a giant's club, or failing the quest means that you have to go on the run because the princess got killed and the king went crazy with grief and is bankrupting the kingdom in fees to the Assassin's Guild.

So yeah, I'm totally fine with that.

[Dean]

I'm pretty fond of randomized story elements that you roll off a chart that save you, but I'm old enough to enjoy Gygax's early work and that may be my bias.

Do you have an example of one of those charts? I would be interested in seeing one. Is there a game that used that method of immortality that I don't know about?

[silva]

Right.

Failure conditions are awesome, but modern RPG design is all about only designing for win conditions because the assumption is that DM is going to let you win regardless of your actions. The core assumption is that the only failure condition is perma-death with all its problems, so if the DM has to RP the monsters as idiots to guarantee a win, then he must.

K, nothing you say here reflects the majority of games released in the last 5 years or so, which I understand you meant by "modern rpg design" - from Fate Core to The One Ring to Numenera to Dungeon World to Star Wars Edge of the Empire (and Warhammer 3E before it) to Mouse Guard to Marvel Heroic Roleplaying to Leverage, etc. nothing reflects the above description. Are you sure you meant "modern rpg design" over there ?

[virgil]

from Fate Core to The One Ring to Numenera to Dungeon World to Star Wars Edge of the Empire (and Warhammer 3E before it) to Mouse Guard to Marvel Heroic Roleplaying to Leverage, etc. nothing reflects the above description.

Mouse Guard especially assumes you win. One Ring, Numenera, & Edge of Empire follow the same philosophy as D&D as far as win states. Fate Core is a less fluffy Spirit of the Century, which also inherently assumes you win. Except for Dungeon World, which isn't a game and thus not relevant to this discussion, all of these systems inherently assume success and adventures are designed that way. If you're lucky, you get a paragraph that says "if they fail, figure something out." You have to run the monsters as morons, because defeat means K.O. if you're lucky, and capture scenarios that anyone enjoys is rarer than hen's teeth and is very commonly avoided as worse than death by players.

Stakes can vary, and you may earn a scar or lose a ship along the way, but the adventure's primary conflict is going to be resolved in the party's favour. Breaking this is downright subversive, just like most media.

[shadzar]

2.5+

Was really hoping to get a cleared up version of 2nd, but everyone likes to piss in the pot and call it their own. Not sure why people want to take fight over urine, but whatever.

there is nothing usefull from the stupid lists of this and that since a player should come up with his own this or that like feats, backgrounds, etc to fit what he wants to play than to later bitch when a list is provided and claims he has no player entitlement because he didnt get to pick enough disadvantages ot feats or whatever.....

[Drolyt]

2.5+

Was really hoping to get a cleared up version of 2nd, but everyone likes to piss in the pot and call it their own. Not sure why people want to take fight over urine, but whatever.

there is nothing usefull from the stupid lists of this and that since a player should come up with his own this or that like feats, backgrounds, etc to fit what he wants to play than to later bitch when a list is provided and claims he has no player entitlement because he didnt get to pick enough disadvantages ot feats or whatever.....

Out of curiosity, what games do you like?

[GâtFromKI]

WBL.

If characters are supposed to get +3 to hit and damage to be balanced, don't give them a +3 weapon. Give them +3 to hit and damage. Magic items should be special, and nothing is less "special" than having a bonus you're supposed to have anyway.

[Laertes]

Void spells in L5R.

They do one of the following:

a) If the player actually has a job and a life that are interesting and fulfilling, and as a result puts a relatively small amount of energy into working out the intricacies of their gaming system, the spells are simply bad. Not only are they less powerful, but they take up resources you should have used elsewhere, meaning that the character is either on a lower tier or a higher tier than the others in the party.

b) If the player has nothing to do but sit around and come up with abusive things to do to games, then they become able to do everyone else's schtick better than they can.

It's just terrible design. A binary choice between ruining interparty balance or ruining niche protection, with no middle ground, isn't a good idea. It's difficult to know what they were thinking apart from "this magic should feel, in-character, like some strange poorly-understood wibble, so let's make them like that from a mechanical standpoint."

[Wiseman]

WBL.

If characters are supposed to get +3 to hit and damage to be balanced, don't give them a +3 weapon. Give them +3 to hit and damage. Magic items should be special, and nothing is less "special" than having a bonus you're supposed to have anyway.

Somebody made a rule to fix that. New Level-Dependant Benefits

[OgreBattle]

I hate counterspells in MTG when I'm playing against blue.
...but I like counterspells when I'm playing blue.

[hogarth]

Magic items should be special, and nothing is less "special" than having a bonus you're supposed to have anyway.

Grrr....

Every time I hear a GM say "magic items should be special", it turns out to be code for "my players should be falling over themselves with gratitude every time they find a Helm of Underwater Action". I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that's not what you're trying to say, though.

[tussock]

3rd edition stealth.

Where every character makes an opposed check against every enemy, twice because it's two pairs of skills, to move half speed for one round, at -7 for armour, and then next round does it again, and then next round again, and if any of them fail (which one will if they possibly can because that's a hundred checks on a 2-40 RNG). But then, if you make them, you get a half action before combat starts! Yay! Except for the rule in the DMG where you do something totally different to that which doesn't even use the skills, or just arbitrarily get surprise anyway because reasons, or the monster is immune.

People complain about grappling, because monsters actually use it, but 3e's little mini-game for earning surprise is so bad that people just don't even try.

Or just the whole 3e skill system in general. Unlimited free retries. DC 40 stuff for really mundane things that real-world people can just do, so it doesn't scale to the rest of the game but they stuck bigger numbers on it to suck up all your points anyway. Fucking fiddly purchase scheme. Crazy-long lists of tiny modifiers. And then give most characters too few points to interact with it in any meaningful way in the first place.

I guess, as a replacement for AD&D's thief skills, other than them all suddenly not working at all even compared to AD&D's shockingly high failure rates, or never failing from level 1 because retries, it's almost less bad in some ways.

It's also better than 4e's skill system. But complaining about 4e is so 2008.

[Cyberzombie]

I've always hated combat healing as a mechanic. You never see it happen in fantasy stories and it's a real excitement killer, especially if it's overpowered like in 4E.

[ACOS]

Magic items should be special, and nothing is less "special" than having a bonus you're supposed to have anyway.

Grrr....

Every time I hear a GM say "magic items should be special", it turns out to be code for "my players should be falling over themselves with gratitude every time they find a Helm of Underwater Action". I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that's not what you're trying to say, though.

Yeah, it sounds like he's saying that if you're going to take up magic item space, it better be more interesting than simply "+2 bullshit bonus".

[Laertes]

Yeah, it sounds like he's saying that if you're going to take up magic item space, it better be more interesting than simply "+2 bullshit bonus".

I may have been spoiled by Ars Magica, but I can't look at magic items without thinking: "Who made this, and for whom? Why did they only have that particular bonus? Why wasn't it a scabbard and not a sword that was enchanted? Why three uses a day and not two or four?"

The existence of a magic item, after all, implies that someone made it, and they made it for some customer, either to spec or for off-the-shelf purchase. Given the way high-cost items work in most economies, probably the former. Therefore, the item that you end up getting is either:
a) The item which most perfectly encapsulates the customer's requirements.
b) The closest that the customer could get to (a), given their wallet size.
c) The closest that the manufacturer could get to (a), given their skill level.

As such, you're probably going to end up with very few generic +1 swords and a whole lot of "+1, and also does this other thing that was incredibly useful to the original customer and may or may not be useful to you, the final recipient." For example, a sword which gives a bonus to Ride as well as to attack and damage is the sort of thing that a magician might be commissioned to make for a knight. Likewise, you'll have shields which give bonuses to Heal, armour which gives bonuses to Alcohol Resistance, and so on.

This also means that going to a magician and saying, "Dude, make me a sword which costs the same as these other ones do but has it's crazy random bullshit bonus aligned with my personal needs" has its advantages. Depending on where you stand along the taste continuum of bought items <> found items being more awesome, you may see this as a good or a bad thing.