What Mechanics or Systems Do You NEED?

[DEFCON 1]

For me roleplaying is improvisation and storytelling with dice used to randomly determine the "gets" we receive during our scenes. So rather than an audience shouting out "Beach!" when asking for a location (for example) on an improv stage, when one of us makes the "offer" to the table (and DM) that we are going to attack the basilisk with our longsword, the dice are the ones shouting out "You hit!".

And thus... I want game rules and mechanics that are most aligned to the narrative reasons we are asking for this unknown "get" for whatever game we are playing. If there are mechanics that don't facilitate the story, then there's no reason to have them. One easily understandable example is the Call of C'thulu d20 game... this is a genre, setting and story that is meant to be a bunch of completely normal people slowly discovering these eldritch horrors all around them, losing their sanity as their brains cannot comprehend them while they try to survive, and then probably dying-- and yet the d20 system has experience points and levels to become more powerful characters. But becoming more powerful and "leveling up" is the exact antithesis of the narrative of how Call of C'thulu is meant to play. And thus those mechanics are bad mechanics in my opinion because they do not serve the story that we are trying to tell as we sit around the table.

And that's often the problem with a lot of "generic" game systems... they may allow for multiple genres and settings to use one set of rules, but a lot of those genres and settings have a specificity in their stories that demand specialized mechanics for them. FATE is not the right system to do "monster hunting", D&D is. The genre emulation we get from the Fiasco playsets is not helped by creating characters using the HERO system. The tension of the Jenga tower is exactly the "get" you want for Dread, but it doesn't serve us in the Space Fantasy of Star Wars.

So to me... figure out what you want the game to feel like and offer up as variables to the players as they all create the story at the table, and then design rules and randomizer systems that help highlight them as much as possible.

 

[kenada]

Do you need a system that supports narrative elements through mechanics? Do you need the game to model the world, mechanically, in a realistic or at least consistent way? Do you need a robust and fun combat system? Do you need the game to get the hell out of the way with transparent and intuitive mechanics? Do you need a game to have new and interesting mechanics to bother with trying it?

I need a conflict resolution process that I can reason about. When something is at stake, I should be able to understand my options and how to respond. I should also have confidence in the impact my decisions will have.

For games that are about something, I want mechanics that support what they are about. An exploration game should have mechanics about exploration. A game of scoundrels trying to make it in a harsh world should have mechanics not just for their scoundreling but for the world and its forces arrayed against them. Generally, games should not include mechanics for auxiliary or unrelated activities. If the game is not about raising emus, don’t include a subsystem for emu farming.

I also like it when mechanics make sense. They can be abstract and fantastic, but I prefer they not contradict themselves or the reality established in the game.

(Character progression is nice, but I’m not sure it’s strictly needed.)

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is a question about personal preferences and NOT a question about objective game design truths or onetruewayism. Please respond accordingly.

For a TTRPG work for you, as a player or as a GM, what does it need to have in its mechanical base?

By that, I am essentially asking you what parts of play are important, but with a strong focus on the mechanics of it all.

Do you need a system that supports narrative elements through mechanics? Do you need the game to model the world, mechanically, in a realistic or at least consistent way? Do you need a robust and fun combat system? Do you need the game to get the hell out of the way with transparent and intuitive mechanics? Do you need a game to have new and interesting mechanics to bother with trying it?

Like that.

Thanks.

The most important thing for me is that the game makes a sincere attempt to model the imaginary world in which the PCs exist in as realistic and consistent a way as possible, allowing for the practicalities of gameplay.

There are plenty of things I don't want the game to have, but I'm trying to be positive here.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I should also say that I really want the game to be clear and unapologetic about what it's about. No waffling about design and playstyle. Tell us what you're doing and why, and show us how you're doing it.

 

[Celebrim]

Absolute needs

1) Combat system that provides some tactical granularity such that fictional positioning matters.
2) A challenge system, often implemented as a 'skill system' though that's not essential, the essential components of which are too complex to describe here but include such features as independence, space spanning, distinct, balanced, and casually realistic. I put this as distinct from the combat system in that elegance is not a positive attribute of a system because the different sorts of challenges that can occur each have distinctive features that make them dissimilar from each other. Social challenges don't work in real life like combat challenges. With some things margin of success matters because success can be quantized. Other things it doesn't because success is a quality and not a quantity. And so forth. Since these things are not symmetrical so if your resolution system is symmetrical then ultimately things will feel off. While this problem can haunt even good challenge systems, it's more of a problem if it tries to model everything as combat or tries to model combat the same as everything else than if it tries to model a Lore test the same as a Jump test.
3) Chargen and progression system which should be space spanning, balanced, and evocative.
4) Strong examples of play. By that ideally, I mean "Here are multiple adventures that can be run as is by someone new to the system that will produce enjoyable play and we've play tested the scenario enough to know what can go wrong and since this is for beginners we'll tell you how to work through it." But it also means that the fluff of the rules text actually strongly corresponds to what can be produced in play, say the way that in Order of the Stick the author is taking care that his panels do correspond to situations that can be produced by the game being played. Your rules text needs to include walkthroughs of how the rules are intended to work in fun social play using examples that aren't trivial. I've gotten to the point that if I see any fiction in your rulebook that doesn't appear to have been produced by play in the system it's such a red flag that I will immediately put down the book and consider you so unfit as a designer as to never look at your work again. Do not put micro-fiction in your rules that represents the story you want but which clearly isn't the product of social RPG play. Don't put examples of play in your text where the story works because of a series of unlikely rolls that given the scene a wonderful narrative structure. I'm much more impressed by what Gary did in his extended example of play that includes the system one shotting a PC in a horribly unfair situation the player couldn't really have seen coming and Gary absolutely implying "This is how my game works. This is the intended play."

Wants that border on needs:

4) Travel rules.
5) Chase rules.
6) Vehicle rules.
7) Unless equipment is purely abstract in your system balanced equipment gear lists with appropriate prices.
8) Mass combat rules.
9) Crafting/Trade rules.

The systems I like tend to not tell you exactly how to play or what the game is supposed to be. I don't like being in a situation as a GM where the players are telling me what they want to do but the system doesn't provide for that. And I don't like a system that through silence implies to the players that the scope of the imagined universe is as small as the game is. When I play we aren't primarily playing a game. You the player are inhabiting via an avatar a shared imagined universe and the game is there to help bring that to life so that what happens with the universe feels like what should be happening if it were real. So I need what it takes to make that happen.

 

[payn]

(Character progression is nice, but I’m not sure it’s strictly needed.)

This is a great call out. Traveller is one of my favorite RPGs and has little PC progression. The focus is on playing and when the time feels right to end it, the time is right. No worrying about never making it to x, y, or z level again, again.

 

[kenada]

Strong examples of play. By that ideally, I mean "Here are multiple adventures that can be run as is by someone new to the system that will produce enjoyable play and we've play tested the scenario enough to know what can go wrong and since this is for beginners we'll tell you how to work through it." But it also means that the fluff of the rules text actually strongly corresponds to what can be produced in play, say the way that in Order of the Stick the author is taking care that his panels do correspond to situations that can be produced by the game being played. Your rules text needs to include walkthroughs of how the rules are intended to work in fun social play using examples that aren't trivial. I've gotten to the point that if I see any fiction in your rulebook that doesn't appear to have been produced by play in the system it's such a red flag that I will immediately put down the book and consider you so unfit as a designer as to never look at your work again. Do not put micro-fiction in your rules that represents the story you want but which clearly isn't the product of social RPG play. Don't put examples of play in your text where the story works because of a series of unlikely rolls that given the scene a wonderful narrative structure. I'm much more impressed by what Gary did in his extended example of play that includes the system one shotting a PC in a horribly unfair situation the player couldn't really have seen coming and Gary absolutely implying "This is how my game works. This is the intended play."

I hate when games provide obviously fake examples of play. It’s a major pet peeve. I want to see how the game works when people who already know play it, especially when it involves new and unfamiliar mechanics. Don’t make me go look up an actual play on Youtube either.

 

[Campbell]

These days I find myself and more drawn to games with fairly minimal progression that start characters out as protagonists from the outset. Instead, I like the game's reward system to be focused on relationships and / or meta currency like World of Darkness' Willpower. It helps sustain play while still making players feel rewarded for playing to characters.

 

[payn]

I think its easier to say what I dont need at this point. My favorite fantasy system is still 3E/PF1. The character customization is just unbeatable. I can specialize in a million ways and no two characters will ever feel alike. Most especially, I can tailor it to the campaign in a way most games cant come close. It's also rife with pitfalls and crap options that would ruin your day. After 20 years of playing it I can dial it in to x, y, and z and make it hum just like a song.

I dont think I have it in me to fight a system into working like that again. If 3E was dropped on my lap today, id likely never run it. First of all, 20 levels is just too much. When they tried to push 30 in 4E, I just laughed. The high level never working great was only part of the issue. It takes forever to get a PC up that many levels and my players and I were always ready to start over well before end game. D&D has settled into it because it needs to cater to both the down to Earth adventurer and the godly fantasy super in one game. It's a strength and a weakness because it caters to multiple play sets, but I dont need multiple play sets anymore.

I had a conversation the other day on EN world here about ASIs in 5E. An old schooler wanted to randomize it instead. Their suggestion was rolling percentile and then having a stat number like 15.73. Meaning you need .27 to get to 16 in a stat. Every level up you roll, but not percentage this time but 3D8 for some reason. I just couldn't understand why this was better than just getting a bump at certain level? Even if you wanted it random, there has got to be easier ways. The second I see this type of thing im out, I just dont need it.

I played in a short Forbidden Lands game awhile back. I loved the supply dice method for tracking supplies. I have a D8 and roll any time the character needs to drink. On a 1-2 the dice shrinks to D6, to D4, to nothing. Then, I know its time to resupply. Its random, it feels old school, but its simple and elegant. No rules about needing X liters per day, but can carry Y liters, and fireballs evaporate Z liters.... I just dont need that level of simulation poppycock gumming up the works and slowing the game down.

I could go on, but those complications for little pay off that slow the game down are things I have abandoned.

 

[overgeeked]

The more minimalist and free-form the better.

Character creation. Task or conflict resolution. Some kind of health, damage, or clock mechanic.

And that’s about it. Everything that can be handled in the fiction should be. Only fall back on the mechanics when there’s a disagreement about what the fiction dictates.