Approaches to RPG Design

[GMMichael]

My thinking is, the interesting elements of a design come right after that core design. Like if we were using d20 as our base, the interesting stuff comes from the elements you tack on top of that d20+something roll mechanic. You know elements like skills feats ect. The close to core mechanics. (Actually, how do you tell what a core mechanic is?)

What's a core mechanic? You'll probably have to ask Mike Mearls. I'm pretty sure that he was involved in creating that term for D&D 3. A roleplaying game, if you're doing "top-down" design, is going to need some basic rules that apply to the majority of situations. This makes the game easy to play and understand. Those rules are probably considered "core mechanics."

I took the effort to codify my rules, and have 16 of them that provide the foundation for most of the other rules. You can see them under "core rules" here:
https://modos-rpg.obsidianportal.com/wikis/rules-catalog

I really have three core modules: core, character, and extended conflict. The combat and spellcasting modules are the least "core" of the bunch.

Mechanical feel. This is something I have just started looking at is how a mechanic feels and if that matches up with how it should feel. You know dose combat feel like combat, or dose picking a lock feel like picking a lock. (Should they feel alike?) This is what I use rather then reasim. I tend not to try and replicate the reality of an action, but more the feeling and choice that the player expects from it.

Mechanical feel is a big deal, no? The d20 System is simple, but blunt. The Fantasy AGE system requires more math, but gives more consistent outcomes. WFRP uses icons on the dice to reduce the numerical feel, but you end up doing a different sort of math to see how things turn out.

It's probably fair to assume that combat should be fast, and other contests can take longer. When I ran a Skyrim module for my game (see above link), I used some new rules to simulate lockpicking in Skyrim. It wasn't: make a lockpicking check, if it's high enough you pick the lock. It was: make your check, and if you succeed, you make progress toward the attempt. If you fail, you break the pick, and get closer to running out of picks.

 

[attevil]

Another thought I have is to have a tension building thing where the player lists the things they are doing before they roll. The idea to kind of ground what is happening and build a little tension.

If I was making a video game, then I would create a mini-game just for lock picking, but making the skill more complicated in table top might annoy the players, but that really depends on the game. A more story based non-action game could have lock picking as a big deal or a cat burglar game that focuses on tools of the trade. For me, once you introduce combat as a main aspect of the game it overshadows other areas that are less action packed or less story defining. Unlocking a door vs a team mate dying.

For Cyber Run, we have electronic locks, to get passed a locked door, the player characters need to enter the matrix. The matrix creates a level depending on a variety of factors, but it could be a different time period or a different type of reality. What the characters do in the matrix can effect things in the real world, such as burning a particular painting would unlock the locked door. The GM puts action based obstacles to get to the painting and since being in the matrix has an ever increasing chance of alerting the real world security, the characters need to not waste time.

So instead of rolling a die to pass fail lock picking, we have changed it to an action based event with urgency. This will hopefully make those dull pass fail rolls more interesting.

 

[attevil]

I took the effort to codify my rules, and have 16 of them that provide the foundation for most of the other rules. You can see them under "core rules" here:
https://modos-rpg.obsidianportal.com/wikis/rules-catalog

It's nice to boil the structure down to 16 rules, whcih covers everything.

 

[nomotog]

What's a core mechanic? You'll probably have to ask Mike Mearls. I'm pretty sure that he was involved in creating that term for D&D 3. A roleplaying game, if you're doing "top-down" design, is going to need some basic rules that apply to the majority of situations. This makes the game easy to play and understand. Those rules are probably considered "core mechanics."

I took the effort to codify my rules, and have 16 of them that provide the foundation for most of the other rules. You can see them under "core rules" here:
https://modos-rpg.obsidianportal.com/wikis/rules-catalog

I really have three core modules: core, character, and extended conflict. The combat and spellcasting modules are the least "core" of the bunch.


Mechanical feel is a big deal, no? The d20 System is simple, but blunt. The Fantasy AGE system requires more math, but gives more consistent outcomes. WFRP uses icons on the dice to reduce the numerical feel, but you end up doing a different sort of math to see how things turn out.

It's probably fair to assume that combat should be fast, and other contests can take longer. When I ran a Skyrim module for my game (see above link), I used some new rules to simulate lockpicking in Skyrim. It wasn't: make a lockpicking check, if it's high enough you pick the lock. It was: make your check, and if you succeed, you make progress toward the attempt. If you fail, you break the pick, and get closer to running out of picks.

I have thought about doing breakable picks before, but my worry is that it would just end up like it dose in skyrim where you have mountains of picks and what's it matter if you brake them.

I have tried to think about ways to replicate skyrim's lockpicking so many times, but when you strip away all the elements you can't replicate in an RPG. (Your controller vibrating, your slow hand movements.) It's rather sallow.

 

[nomotog]

If I was making a video game, then I would create a mini-game just for lock picking, but making the skill more complicated in table top might annoy the players, but that really depends on the game. A more story based non-action game could have lock picking as a big deal or a cat burglar game that focuses on tools of the trade. For me, once you introduce combat as a main aspect of the game it overshadows other areas that are less action packed or less story defining. Unlocking a door vs a team mate dying.

For Cyber Run, we have electronic locks, to get passed a locked door, the player characters need to enter the matrix. The matrix creates a level depending on a variety of factors, but it could be a different time period or a different type of reality. What the characters do in the matrix can effect things in the real world, such as burning a particular painting would unlock the locked door. The GM puts action based obstacles to get to the painting and since being in the matrix has an ever increasing chance of alerting the real world security, the characters need to not waste time.

So instead of rolling a die to pass fail lock picking, we have changed it to an action based event with urgency. This will hopefully make those dull pass fail rolls more interesting.

For awhile, anytime I wanted to add depth to an action I whould just make it like combat. Like if I wanted to make the diplomacy skill more advanced, I would make diplomatic attacks and defenses. I am trying not to do that though because not everything should feel like combat, also when you make every action into a combative action, then you kind of narrow your focus and limit the verity of gameplay you can have, as everything is just a new form of combat.

Your idea about cyberspace reminds me of DX:HR. That game used electronic locks and to open them, mini game capturing computers in order to make a line from one end of the map to the other. This was all timed as the security computers would also be grabbing computers to make a line to you. Kind of simple, but what I really liked about it was the management aspect. You could use programs well hacking (stops and nukes) to improve your odds, but you could only find those programs by hacking out of the way nodes. It was nice how you had this cost benefit aspect as you tried to gauge if you had time to snatch up a nuke, or if you would have to use a nuke.

 

[GMMichael]

For awhile, anytime I wanted to add depth to an action I whould just make it like combat. Like if I wanted to make the diplomacy skill more advanced, I would make diplomatic attacks and defenses. I am trying not to do that though because not everything should feel like combat, also when you make every action into a combative action, then you kind of narrow your focus and limit the verity of gameplay you can have, as everything is just a new form of combat.

Hmm. What if you had completely different rules for different areas of gameplay?

• For combat, use these rules: attack rolls, hit points, and AC.
• For negotiation, use a deck of cards. Each suit represents X, while each rank represents Y.
• For electioneering, you play marbles. The first player throws a d20 into the circle. The next player chooses his die...
• For piloting, use d6 dice pools.

I went with the combat plan that you mentioned above, but twisted it a little bit. There's a standard outcome resolution mechanic, and you customize it based on what you're trying to accomplish. So combat uses the mechanic one way, a foot race uses it slightly differently, and a spot-the-nuke-before-it-blows contest could be its own version. The rule is, of course, roleplay first. Don't start rolling dice unless you have to. But the framework is there and flexible based on what you need.

 

[nomotog]

Hmm. What if you had completely different rules for different areas of gameplay?

• For combat, use these rules: attack rolls, hit points, and AC.
• For negotiation, use a deck of cards. Each suit represents X, while each rank represents Y.
• For electioneering, you play marbles. The first player throws a d20 into the circle. The next player chooses his die...
• For piloting, use d6 dice pools.

I went with the combat plan that you mentioned above, but twisted it a little bit. There's a standard outcome resolution mechanic, and you customize it based on what you're trying to accomplish. So combat uses the mechanic one way, a foot race uses it slightly differently, and a spot-the-nuke-before-it-blows contest could be its own version. The rule is, of course, roleplay first. Don't start rolling dice unless you have to. But the framework is there and flexible based on what you need.

I wouldn't want to totally change things like that. That would get kind of complex. My current idea for how to do diplomacy is rather then have opposed rolls you have cooperative rolls. Like if your haggle a lower price at a shop both you and the shop keeper roll a cha check with the goal of beating a DC. One of you or both pass the DC then you have managed to come to an agreement. (A dual pass is like a critical success.) It's the same roll, but inverted. Your no longer fighting with the person rather your cooperating with them it changes the dynamic as your trying to find good diplomats to work with and your trying to think about ways you can boost their check as well as your own.

 

[GMMichael]

Yup, it would get complex. Hence, the core rules.

I'm guessing by "diplomacy" you're talking about the D&D skill - I have yet to play in a game that involved diplomats. I like your rule. Who determines what the agreement is? In a negotiation, basically a disagreement, each negotiator has a different goal in mind. So, the first side to pass the DC gets his goal? Closer to his goal than his opponent's?

 

[nomotog]

Yup, it would get complex. Hence, the core rules.

I'm guessing by "diplomacy" you're talking about the D&D skill - I have yet to play in a game that involved diplomats. I like your rule. Who determines what the agreement is? In a negotiation, basically a disagreement, each negotiator has a different goal in mind. So, the first side to pass the DC gets his goal? Closer to his goal than his opponent's?

In the example I put out, it was kind of the players who set the goal and I think in a lot of games the goal would be kind of what. If you have two parties, they both want something different, and the check passes then they both get what they want. If you have two convicting wants that can't both happen, then one part gets what they want and the other gets something of equal or better value. Another idea would be that if the goals can't both happen, you just don't use this check. You use a more direct contest one.

Still a fuzzy idea.

 

[attevil]

For Cyber Run we use character goals to determine results, but we use Moral which serves as mental energy. If bad things happen in combat, a character looses an argument or many other things his or her moral will lower.
In the case of social actions against the character, the character can prevent moral lose by actually doing the action the other character, that succeeded their diplomacy roll, wanted him or her to do. In addition, by performing the requested diplomacy task, the character gains a bonus to his or her next action.
The point of Moral and bonus points is to have a social system without taking control of the character away from the player. We just setup incentives for the player to choose to do that action. Social combat and physical combat are different because most social interactions can happen with only role-playing.

Example:
Player character one Intimidates player character two.
GM tells player character two, you are now intimidated by player character one.
Player character two is playing a submissive type and says "ok, that makes sense I'll cower in the corner." If Player character two is playing an aggressive type he or she will say "No, my character will never cower, I attack."

D&D Intimidate skill allows both of these outcomes, but it doesn't make sense. With the first situation the skill was successful, with the second it didn't do anything, just started combat, which even a failed check could have done.