What Makes One System Better Than Another?

[DonTadow]

Whenever you attempt to objectify this, its bound to fail, because what makes something better is solely up to individual taste. There have been several things mentioned, but I"ve met gamers who think those htings make the game "better". Balance is not an issue with rift players because realism is more important. Rules Comprehension may be important to one player, but to a person who plays the complex paladium system, simple rules are not enough.

I mentioned in a thread earlier thaat one system will probably be the definition of what an rpg is in five years, despite being too similiar to rpg board games right now. IN this instant it is not even personal taste that defines which is better but the time in which a game is released.

 

[Cadfan]

Is there anything, in your mind, that a system should *always* accomplish? For a medieval (D&D-style) fantasy game? For some other genre?

Not really. My comment was really addressed to the inclusion of rules that the designers feel they *have* to have for whatever reason, when those rules don't actually improve the game. A children's game like Faery Tale doesn't need a detailed combat simulator. A fight-porn game like Feng Shui doesn't need simulation level rules for character wealth.

Each of these games could be turned into a game that uses the extra portion that I don't think is necessary, but doing so would require altering the vision of the game. And unless that alteration is carried through 100%, you end up with lousy game design.

I can give an example: the 3e craft and profession systems. They're like the first step into a game that provides usable rules for economic activities. But they absolutely fail in that regard. They promise that you can use them for any craft or skill you can imagine, but in reality all they provide is a shell. The rules for craft boil down to "the DM sets a DC, and you roll for it." The rules for profession boil down to "roll, divide by two, earn that much gold." Meanwhile, investing in these skills trades off with your adventuring skills, creating an unnecessarily conflict. The result is a system that seems tacked on, as if the designers were worried that either players *needed* some official representation of their economic abilities (ie, that player/DM judgment wasn't psychologically acceptable to the player base), or that the designers felt that they *had* to include a nod to economic activities in the official rules, even if the rules were really a hollow shell. So there's two problems- first, the tradeoff effect distracts from 3e's strengths. Second, player/DM judgment would probably accomplish the strengths of the 3e craft and profession system as well or better than the actual system, since the actual system for craft really is just DM judgment, and the profession system doesn't even differentiate between types of professions in terms of income earned per week.

Now, good craft and skill rules could be written and included in 3e (or 4e). But if you're going to include those, I think its really important to do it full strength. Make the rules contribute something a DM couldn't contribute by an ad hoc rule. Make the game include economic issues in regular gameplay. Make the craft and profession rules either not trade off with adventuring skills, or, include economic issues often enough that the tradeoff is acceptable to the typical player.

Its ok not to make the effort. Its ok to go all-in. Just don't go halfway with these things.

 

[Tetsubo]

What makes one system better than another?

It depends on what you want out of gaming. Seriously.

I love Ars Magica. I love Over the Edge. I love 7th Sea. I love Unknown Armies. I love HarnMaster. I love Arcana Evolved. I love World of Darkness. Which one is best? All of them, depending on what I am trying to do.

One of my most important gaming truisms is "Fit the system to the setting, rather than the setting to the system." If you want a combat-centred game, you want one kind of rules; if you want social interactions to dominate, you need another; if you want magic as the central point, you need yet another; if you want a wild cross-section of technologies and races, you need yet another. One of my biggest gripes is trying to force a setting to conform to a system, thus warping the setting. Nah, choose the setting first and then choose the system that matches it best.

There is no "perfect" system. I have been playing rpgs for over 30 years now and, while I have certain favourites, I have no single game system that floats every time above the others. I have no pure system loyalty, and I am happy with that.

I agree with Wombat here. I own every edition of Gamma World ever printed. But for me the best 'fit' is the 4th edition. It just seems to capture the feel I am looking for. The others are decent settings. But the fourth marries setting and system together the best.

 

[Engilbrand]

I absolutely agree about the 3e crafting rules. I had a DM (he sucked) who decided that, because the characters were in the Chuult, they could easily make stuff like poisons and magical items. All that they had to do was find the stuff, make the craft checks, and make the stuff. The problem? Do you have any idea how many rolls have to happen for 3rd level characters to get the money for even a +1 Cloak of Whothefarkcares? It was retarded.

 

[Hereticus]

What makes System A better than System B? I'm looking for answers as basic as "it should be balanced" or more involved, such as whether it's an advantage or disadvantage to have 3 different skills that are all similar enough that any can be used to jump, but each is better than another in different situations (from one narrow ledge to another vs. across a chasm vs. up to the rafters).

First of all, I would like to say "Hello" to everyone here. I joined today and this is my first post.

Nobody (as far as I know) remembers a game as being great because the GM/DM maintained the integrity of a system of rules. Great games come about through colorful interaction between players and their characters.

That interaction happens when the rules do not get in the way (cumbersome, restrictive or partial), but everyone understands the established rules/guidelines. That means that the DM should be clear, flexible, and have taken feedback from the players when creating the rules.

The game should be about what is of interest to the players. It should not be about the DM dictating a storyline that they keep steering back to. I prefer a game where the characters are empowered to effect the campaign world, not one where the DM controls all significant choices. The game does not belong to the DM, it belongs to all almost equally.

Character classes should have plenty of options, and yeah, balance. I prefer a game with few races and classes, but alot of flexibility and choices within them.

 

[Ulrick]

"What makes one game system better than another?"

1. Mechanics that can be easily understood by beginners so new people can enter the hobby without being overwhelmed.

2. Advanced mechanics that can be mastered by advanced players so they won't get bored with the system.

3. The number of people who play the system. Let's face it. There's a number of good systems out there that are great, but the player base is small. I'd rather play something than not play at all.

4. If the system fits the objective of what you're looking for in a game, great. Choose that system. If not, pass it by. For example: If you want to run a SciFi/Space Opera game, don't use WoD. Or if you want to run a high magic game, don't use Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay.

5. More cowbell.

 

[rogueboy]

1. Mechanics that can be easily understood by beginners so new people can enter the hobby without being overwhelmed.

2. Advanced mechanics that can be mastered by advanced players so they won't get bored with the system.

This is largely what I've come to the conclusion of, but I'm not entirely sure what the best way to implement this is... one thought I've had (though I'm not sure how well it would address point #2) is to have fairly basic rules as the base-line, with optional rules that add more mechanics/realism/etc. Does that work well enough for your second point? Do you have any ideas about how else to deal with this? I definitely agree that your first point (easy basics so newcomers aren't overwhelmed) is a critical point to any system. I see 2 basic ways to do this: simple basic rules with optional rules for more complexity or complex basic rules with optional rules to simplify them (replacing the more base rules).

3. The number of people who play the system. Let's face it. There's a number of good systems out there that are great, but the player base is small. I'd rather play something than not play at all.

I'm not quite sure I understand what you're saying here... are you saying that having a small player base is a bad thing? You're third sentence seems to imply that, but the last sentence seems to argue against that. Just trying to make sure I understand what you're saying.

5. More cowbell.

I like it!

 

[ExploderWizard]

5. More cowbell.

I don't know Bruce. The last time I checked we didn't have a lot of games that feature the cowbell.

 

[sinecure]

What Makes One System Better Than Another?

The degree to which it conforms to the Forge's one true Big Model for RPGs. If it does not make sense under the Forge philosophy, it's either unfun or objectively bad game design.

 

[DracoSuave]

The system has to fit the game. That was the d20's big failing, that it was trying to market itself to third parties as a good 'catch-all' system. But it isn't, it's a fast and loose system for kick-in-the-door smash mouth heroics.

But d20 cthulhu? d20 Rokugan?

Contrast with the L5R rules. Very good at a social game where occasionally you duel with katanas that kill in one swipe.

I prefer when the game system doesn't attempt to model some concept of reality, but to model some form or genre of storytelling. A game that's supposed to model anime mecha doesn't need realistic rules for g-forces on the human body. A game that's supposed to model jet dogfighting in a modern combat setting would want those rules.

It's like when you're watching a comic book movie and the guy next to you starts yammering 'Dude, that's not realistic. You totally can't punch through a wall like that.' Rules for a game need to support immersion, not destroy immersion.

A system should not be arcane. It should be accessible, and if it is complex, should come with guidelines on how to create the character you desire.