New RPG, what are rules and concepts you love in rpg's?

[Hakon Blum]

Hello everyone.

I am currently working on a rule system useable with any current rpg.
D&D, Star Wars, Star Trek, Firefly, Battle star Galactica, Lord of the Rings, Warhammer 40k, Warhammer, Conan the Barbarian, Prehistoric, Game of Thrones, what ever interests you, this game will be designed to have easy and fun core mechanics, that allow common sense conversions to occur from any universe you wish.

The game will come with a conversion for 2 fantasy games D&D+Warhammer, and 2 sci-fi games WH40K+Star Wars.

My question to the community is what are things you love and hate about various rpg's
(also feel free to express weather this would interest you in becoming an actual product)

To start it off:
i think games that can be single stat dependant like star wars edge, where agility is a god stat for all combat, are bad, they allow power gamers to min max, not that they shouldn't want to be a beast of a character but i feel having multi stat dependency in a game (more so then even d&d) fixes this.

I think 5e lacks a good grappling system, as does star wars.

I think original Warhammer fantasy had so many career options and it was great how it was randomised, but i think 5e got it right in that background career shouldn't have to be gaming career, having back ground is good, and more options are better then less.

i hate the d20 system, i think its far too random, and at this point i believe my game will using a 2d6 system for a nice bell curve

i like the EOTE story telling system and would like to implement it, maybe with an extra d6 or 2d6 roll with different coloured dice.

so what are some rules you love, hate, or would like to take from a current system and change slightly?

 

[Michael Silverbane]

I like games with a lot of complexity in character generation. I like to see the power gamers min max the living poop out of it during character creation. What I don't like is games where some of those choices are clearly bad and some of those options are clearly good for the typical activities that will take place during the game. If a game is about fighting monsters, basically any sort of character you can make within the scope of the rules should be a capable monster fighter.

I like games that have rules for role playing, as well as rules for tactical combat. Pendragon's personality traits are an excellent example of this. The virtues and vices that you choose during character creation affect your character's actions during game play, and taking action contrary to your chosen traits can change those traits, or even be impossible.

I like games that have mechanics that support what they are about. If a game is about exploration, players should be incentivized by the mechanics of the game to go exploring. If it is about personal horror, players should be incentivized for engaging their personal horror stories.

3d8 makes the prettiest bell curve.

 

[Blue]

A collection of successful RPG design patterns was compiled that was really good.

I went looking for a link and this seems to be an updated (from 2006 to 2009) version.

http://legendaryquest.netfirms.com/books/Patterns2.zip

 

[Morrus]

I like complexity in the back end and simplicity at the front end. In other words, I like it when you can spend ages tinkering with a character (if you want to) but in actual play the game still runs fast.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app

 

[Blue]

I've played with various universal systems before. They can be good, but I find that a system that mechanically support the fluff can be stronger. WHFR 1e mechanically is much more dangerous then D&D, an the magic had built in chances for chaos. There was no magically healing. It made a very different feel because of the mechanics.

A quote I read went something like "A good roleplaying system allows you to play the iconic archetypes of the setting. A great one encourages it."

So that's my bar. Be it via optional rules, modules for a particular feel, or what-have you. Have the mechanics of the system support the feel and theme of the setting.

 

[Blue]

Things I'd like to see in a system:

I enjoy systems that get out of my way and let me play (and run). Universal mechanic, no scattering of subsystems that I need to look up, easy ad hoc adjudication, minimal at-table math.

I enjoy systems that let players have a lot of customization in character creation and advancement, such that creating characters is fun that some people might do just for the heck of it. But minimize sub-optimal characters. (Which also means reigning in highly optimized characters that make a regular character sub-optimal.) I don't like Masters-of-all-trades where you can always grab at the spotlight, and I dislike uber-specialized characters that only are good at one thing and the GM needs to work that in every session to give that PC some spotlight time.

On the flip side GMs have simple and quick foe creation and customization. I want to minimize DM mechanical prep time for a session.

Combat isn't overwhelmed with lots of fiddly options that slow it down. Players shouldn't have to wait more than a few minutes between actions even at high levels of play - so that means that everyone else's turn plus everything the GM does shouldn't take more than a minute each (maybe a bit more for the GM).

Improv and "let me try this" are built into the system, as opposed to a bunch of hardcoded options. If two characters want to pull a rug out from someone to make them fall down the stairs, the GM should be able to adjudicate in the time a "regular" action would take. By the same token, improv actions shouldn't necessarily be weaker than "regular" actions. Not saying that someone throwing a chair at someone's legs to get them to fall is as likely to succeed as a experienced martial artist who knows how to trip people, but that improv actions aren't always a bad choice because regular actions are much more powerful.

If the setting isn't all about combat, that combat is quick by wall time and can be done by just an expert or two much like D&D can have just one party face, or one ranger/explorer. Not every class being centered mechanically around how they can equally contribute to combat. Consider something like Leverage, with one Hitter in a group.

 

[Hakon Blum]

3d8 makes the prettiest bell curve.

could you explain this a bit further?
what advantages do you see over 2d6?

 

[Michael Silverbane]

could you explain this a bit further?
what advantages do you see over 2d6?

When I say that it is the prettiest. I literally mean that when graphed out, it looks more bell shaped. It is aesthetically pleasing to look at (and has the added benefit of having a number of combinations that is a power of 2). There are some mathematical 'advantages' in that the larger range of possible values gives a bit more granularity and the three dice instead of two enforces the statistical median(?), mean(?) whatever, a bit more than two dice. But really, this is all secondary to how nice it looks.

 

[mflayermonk]

It should be incredibly easy to stat out the world.

 

[Jhaelen]

Hello everyone.

I am currently working on a rule system useable with any current rpg.

Hello!
Good luck with that (and I think you mean 'useable with any current setting')!

I've played with various universal systems before. They can be good, but I find that a system that mechanically support the fluff can be stronger.

This!
I always use the tool comparison: There's a right one for every job. Or to quote the saying: 'If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail'.

If done right, a dedicated system will always be better than a generic system.