Your "Perfect RPG" Wishlist...

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I don't want a single RPG. I want RPGs that are tuned around a given game experience. I even put 5E and OSR into separate categories, as they each offer satisfying -- but different -- dungeon-centric fantasy gaming.

That said, my list:

• No nostalgia for nostalgia's sake. I played through the era of having to look at charts to adjudicate every roll. The designers back then didn't know better, but we do now. Use the best design available to offer the experience you're looking for.
• The game shouldn't be generic. If I'm sitting down to play a zombie game, it should have core mechanics that help it naturally tell a different story than a space opera game or a supers game or a fantasy game.
• Have a unified resolution system. The majority of decisions should be adjudicated in the same fashion, ideally with the same die type.
• The core game should be extremely streamlined and complexity should come from optional bolt-on modules, which ideally would create different experiences.
• The core rules themselves should be able to be expressed in a handful of pages. The rest of the rules can be adding more details or options (like the spell or monster lists in D&D games) or ways to flesh out games (like random tables full of content).
• The math should be solid. I don't want to worry about it myself, but I want to know the math majors banged on it and declared the chassis sound.
• I should not need to be a math major myself in order to make compelling homebrew content.
• System mastery should be satisfying but not to the extent that it makes those without it feel like they shouldn't bother showing up.
• No "trap" character options. Characters should be able to excel in one area, so long as they're never useless in other situations.
• Make the core rules engine open content, so that others can create supplements and adventures, etc., to go along with it.
• I should be able to prep a satisfying game in less than 30 minutes. But if I get inspired to, I should be able to find satisfying ways to spend all weekend doing some sort of prep for an upcoming session.
• Character creation should form natural connections with other players' characters and create setting details in an emergent fashion.
• There should be a special on-ramp for non-RPG players and it should be good enough for even seasoned veterans to enjoy.

 

[GMMichael]

3. A (mostly) unified mechanic: In my idea world, this mechanic lets us make regular use of all the standard polyhedral dice. Why? Because it sounds fun to be able to use all the dice I own. . .

I'll probably revisit this thread as wish list items occur to me. But yes, I want my dice to be evenly respected. It always irked me that a percentage of my dice bag was d12s that never got used...

 

[JohnSnow]

I'll probably revisit this thread as wish list items occur to me. But yes, I want my dice to be evenly respected. It always irked me that a percentage of my dice bag was d12s that never got used...

One of the things I like most about Savage Worlds system is that most of the dice get a lot of respect, although the d12 probably gets used the second least. And, alas, the d20 mostly gets left out.

 

[Bill Zebub]

1. Very flat power gradient. Experienced characters are more effective than new characters, but everybody can adventure together and monsters are always scary.
2. Low magic. Magic-using characters are unusual, and their magic is subtle and/or weak, and using it is dangerous. NPC casters are rare and significant.
3. No ability scores. The difference between strong and weak, smart and dumb, etc. is expressed not through a number but is implied through what they are good at.
4. PCs are primarily human. There might be a couple other setting-specific choices but those are as uncommon as casters.
5. Dice mechanic that produces a range of results, not just succeed/fail.
6. Special abilities are gated in use primarily through risk:reward or situationally, not finite uses per time period.

 

[JohnSnow]

1. Very flat power gradient. Experienced characters are more effective than new characters, but everybody can adventure together and monsters are always scary.
2. Low magic. Magic-using characters are unusual, and their magic is subtle and/or weak, and using it is dangerous. NPC casters are rare and significant.
3. No ability scores. The difference between strong and weak, smart and dumb, etc. is expressed not through a number but is implied through what they are good at.
4. PCs are primarily human. There might be a couple other setting-specific choices but those are as uncommon as casters.
5. Dice mechanic that produces a range of results, not just succeed/fail.
6. Special abilities are gated in use primarily through risk:reward or situationally, not finite uses per time period.

I really like some of these, but I also have questions.

I mostly like the flat power gradient idea, but I (personally) would like to see characters go from novices (like the Hobbits in LotR, say) to becoming like Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli; Fafhrd & the Grey Mouser; or Conan. I like the idea of character power growth, but in my ideal world, an experienced hero is at most Batman or Captain America, not Superman. I like magic though, so there's probably a balance to be had here.

I'm fascinated by your desire for no ability scores. Care to explain/elaborate? I tend to like ability scores, but I admit they tend to be a shorthand for character capability. Separately, I love the idea of dice mechanics that produce a range of results, as opposed to a binary pass/fail. Good call there!

I love the idea of special abilities that are gated in through risk/reward, situation, or some sort of narrative choice on the part of the players. Almost nothing bugs me more than D&D's "per day" mechanics. That said, I can accept that, without some outside factor, wounds take time to heal naturally.

To me, a lot of your ideals are dials on a setting that I like to tweak sometimes, but it's interesting to see those listed here. I think a good ruleset should be able to support a variety on the magical dial, but I don't want to see "use magic" baked in as a patch to make the system work (D&D healing, for example). In an ideal world, I should be able to run any action setting with the same basic ruleset, although I'd freely accept the need for some kind of patch/alteration to play as superheroes, dragons, or kaiju-fighting mech pilots, for example.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Great comments/questions.

I really like some of these, but I also have questions.

I mostly like the flat power gradient idea, but I (personally) would like to see characters go from novices (like the Hobbits in LotR, say) to becoming like Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli; Fafhrd & the Grey Mouser; or Conan. I like the idea of character power growth, but in my ideal world, an experienced hero is at most Batman or Captain America, not Superman. I like magic though, so there's probably a balance to be had here.

Well, as amazing as Aragorn is, in D&D terms I think he’s still below 10th level.

The One Ring actually does this pretty well: as characters get more experienced their ability to do things goes up noticeably, but their defenses and health move only slightly. This results in adversary math that lets you have a party of mixed PC experience.

I'm fascinated by your desire for no ability scores. Care to explain/elaborate? I tend to like ability scores, but I admit they tend to be a shorthand for character capability. Separately, I love the idea of dice mechanics that produce a range of results, as opposed to a binary pass/fail. Good call there!

I just find that numerical ability scores carry too much baggage. Two characters with the same Strength score are perceived as exactly as strong as each other in every way, as opposed to them each being good at different things that require strength. For example. Assigning a number seems to constrain imaginations.

I love the idea of special abilities that are gated in through risk/reward, situation, or some sort of narrative choice on the part of the players. Almost nothing bugs me more than D&D's "per day" mechanics. That said, I can accept that, without some outside factor, wounds take time to heal naturally.

To me, a lot of your ideals are dials on a setting that I like to tweak sometimes, but it's interesting to see those listed here. I think a good ruleset should be able to support a variety on the magical dial, but I don't want to see "use magic" baked in as a patch to make the system work (D&D healing, for example). In an ideal world, I should be able to run any action setting with the same basic ruleset, although I'd freely accept the need for some kind of patch/alteration to play as superheroes, dragons, or kaiju-fighting mech pilots, for example.

That’s a great way of expressing it. Challenges should be designed with the assumption of no magic, and magic just becomes a different way of solving them, with different advantages and disadvantages.

 

[MichaelSomething]

I want the Whys and the How's explained in a way so that there isn't a schism between what the players expect from the game versus how it plays.

 

[JohnSnow]

Great comments/questions.



Well, as amazing as Aragorn is, in D&D terms I think he’s still below 10th level.

The One Ring actually does this pretty well: as characters get more experienced their ability to do things goes up noticeably, but their defenses and health move only slightly. This results in adversary math that lets you have a party of mixed PC experience.

I definitely think the D&D power gradient is nuts, and one of my biggest pet peeves is that it has more levels of dead than the world of the The Princess Bride which, I like to remind people, was a comedy.

I think a pretty flat health curve is smart. I'm also unclear on whether magic swords should actually provide a bonus "to hit." It's something I've been thinking about relative to the inspirational fiction.

I just find that numerical ability scores carry too much baggage. Two characters with the same Strength score are perceived as exactly as strong as each other in every way, as opposed to them each being good at different things that require strength. For example. Assigning a number seems to constrain imaginations.

I hadn't really thought about the idea that ability scores constrain people's imaginations. I find that they tend to help curate a character concept, but I concede that can be limiting. I think this is absolutely true of systems without a robust skill package.

That’s a great way of expressing it. Challenges should be designed with the assumption of no magic, and magic just becomes a different way of solving them, with different advantages and disadvantages.

I think the primary thing that needs to go away is "magic that always works" or "magic that implements binary conditions. I know that some old-school players love "Save or Die" mechanics, but I can't stand them. I love the idea of a wizard using magic to open a lock - but only if it's one of the spells he has. I'm reminded of Harry Dresden. Sure, he's got a spell that can blow open doors, but fine manipulation isn't his strong suit, so he relies on the skill of picking locks he learned from his stage magician father.

 

[Haplo781]

gestures at MCDM

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I'll probably revisit this thread as wish list items occur to me. But yes, I want my dice to be evenly respected. It always irked me that a percentage of my dice bag was d12s that never got used...

Heck, percentile dice in 5E are basically wasted dice.