Let's Talk About Core Game Mechanics

[Fenris-77]

I prefer option 1. If skills are to some degree interelated, and proficiency in one expects some amount of proficiency in related skills, let the game reflect that. Create skill groups that provide proficiency, but also include the ability to specialize for enhanced effect.

Of course, you had to expect I'd give that answer.

Detailed skill lists are definitely some people's jam and I think that unpacking how to do that well is an interesting topic, even if it's not my personal jam. In the BRP space I really like how Mothership handles this.

 

[Micah Sweet]

100% agree.

All RPGs are such terrible approximations of reality that it's hard to take seriously any claim of "realism" or "logic". Sure a 0.001% approximation is more realistic than a 0.0005% approximation. But....really? If somebody enjoys fiddling with the additional complexity, then have at it! Enjoy! But let's not kid ourselves that any of these are actually realistic.

Maybe I'd be more convinced if you used a less hyperbolic (dare I say more realistic?) example case. Realism and verisimilitude is a spectrum, not a binary. Chucking it as you suggest because you can't truly get there is throwing the baby out with the bathwater as far as I'm concerned.

But, lots of people enjoy lighter games than I do, so to each their own, so long as we all remember no playstyle preference is just better than another.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I wasn't trying to be hyperbolic. Even just looking at a simple 1:1 combat...never mind exploring a world...the most complex RPG rules are a joke of a simulation.

That said, I can appreciate getting into the nuts and bolts of the more complex rules and appreciating the simulationist aspect of playing that way. I just don't buy the argument that they are "more realistic". It's like saying that Pets.com was more profitable than Enron because they lost less money.

 

[JohnSnow]

What I like:

• Big number GOOD. While I appreciate the elegance of "roll under" systems, I just can't get on board.
• Quick results. If you are using target numbers, they should be known.
• Degrees of success.
• Skills that can be improved.
• Not having to wait for people to do lengthy math calculations at the table.

This can be accomplished with percentile systems, d20s, dice pools that track "successes," "dice ladders," or a small (2dX-3dX) additive dice system. It may sound silly, but I've had smart players who struggle with adding up more than 3 numbers. Exploding dice seem to be an exception to this, but that may be because the minute a die explodes, everyone's paying attention to the results so it doesn't FEEL like the math takes forever.

Personally, I love the swinginess of the d20 or "exploding dice," but I know not everyone does.

 

[FrozenNorth]

100% agree.

Or do you agree 8 times out of 8?

 

[Thomas Shey]

I find myself disinclined to run systems with chunky skill lists. At this point I really don't care about 6 different firearms skills. Not do I find myself smiling at the prospect of having to figure out which of 80+ skills applies in a given situation. This is all personal preference, but I prefer games that come with a little bit less cognitive overhead and as a result sit a bit lighter on the table during play.

I can sympathize with the position--but like I said, you can only lump skills so much before its starts to feel "off" to me. That business with Piloting and the two kinds of vehicles has bothered me every time I've seen it come up in Savage Worlds; I can tolerate it, especially in very pulpy settings that often assume broad competence beyond what even I'd normally expect of heroic characters, but its a bit of a bridge farther than I'm comfortable with.

 

[Reynard]

What I like:

• Big number GOOD. While I appreciate the elegance of "roll under" systems, I just can't get on board.
• Quick results. If you are using target numbers, they should be known.
• Degrees of success.
• Skills that can be improved.
• Not having to wait for people to do lengthy math calculations at the table.

This can be accomplished with percentile systems, d20s, dice pools that track "successes," "dice ladders," or a small (2dX-3dX) additive dice system. It may sound silly, but I've had smart players who struggle with adding up more than 3 numbers. Exploding dice seem to be an exception to this, but that may be because the minute a die explodes, everyone's paying attention to the results so it doesn't FEEL like the math takes forever.

Personally, I love the swinginess of the d20 or "exploding dice," but I know not everyone does.

Roll under is still, by definition, "big number good" -- especially if Price Is Right rules apply.

 

[Fenris-77]

I can sympathize with the position--but like I said, you can only lump skills so much before its starts to feel "off" to me. That business with Piloting and the two kinds of vehicles has bothered me every time I've seen it come up in Savage Worlds; I can tolerate it, especially in very pulpy settings that often assume broad competence beyond what even I'd normally expect of heroic characters, but its a bit of a bridge farther than I'm comfortable with.

Yup, we all have different tolerances for this sort of thing. I mostly play and design for fantasy games, but I get the piloting thing. That's one place where I think I'd prefer one skill but with some specializations for the other types of vehicle. I think it matters less for sci-fi than it does for modern settings. I think in sci-fi setting you can assume a broader familiarity with different kinds of vehicle more easily.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I wasn't trying to be hyperbolic. Even just looking at a simple 1:1 combat...never mind exploring a world...the most complex RPG rules are a joke of a simulation.

I think I'd have to disagree at least as broadly as you put it here.

As I've noted, in my younger days I was both a fencer and a martial artist (and the latter included some limited weapon techniques) and I actually thought that (of all things) the Hero System's engagement with melee felt reasonably authentic in how it dealt with engagement, interrupting othere's actions and so on. It only got down so far into fine detail, but if you described what was going on in non-mechanical (but still descriptive) terms, it'd fit reasonably well what I'd expect to see happen.

So I don't think I can follow you calling them all a "joke".

 

[JohnSnow]

I'm the worst of both worlds: I can't figure out why folks have issues, one way or another. It is just arithmetic, one way or another. The whole THAC0 complaints has always struck me overdone.

I know that people have trouble with certain kinds of operations, and it isn't a reflection of intelligence or anything like that, but I admit I still roll my eyes when people complain about "roll under."

As someone who played with THAC0, gets the math, and still hates "roll under" systems, I can try to give you some perspective on this one.

Firstly, descending armor class is simply less intuitive than ascending armor class. If I'm rolling a number, why do I need to compare it to a value and then do subtraction to figure out whether I hit or not? You've put a step between you and the outcome for no reason. The primary benefit of THAC0 was that the game had a hard cap at AC -10. Which would be exactly the same as setting a hard cap at AC 30.

The value of a "roll under" system is in immediately knowing whether I succeeded or not. This can also be accomplished by the GM simply being transparent with target numbers.

As for my general dislike of "roll under" systems, it's entirely based on a dopamine response of "Big Number Good!" I have trouble getting excited about rolling low. I don't know if it's from test scores as a kid, the first game I played being D&D, or what, but the simple reality is that I get a psychological hit from "number go up." That's the reason. It's entirely subjective. I don't care. (As an aside, Vagabond transforms a "roll under" system into a "roll over" one by taking the target number and doing subtraction ONCE. This works just fine for my dopamine brain, although its lack of granularity in task difficulty is something I'd have to house rule if I decided to play it).