Let's talk about system options versus character options.

[Reynard]

[This is part of my ongoing effort to get a solid conceptual foundation for my own RPG design, so the goal is to get a sense of what other folks like and don't like in the domain of the subject.]

When it comes to mechanical options available to players, it seems there are two poles: options that are basked into the system and available to anyone, and options that are inherent to the individual characters and not available to those without the class/feat/talent/power whatever. Of course this is a contnuum, and not a clean or simple one, so there will be some inherent complexity even discussing it. But broadly, I am curious what people prefer in play, and what they consider pros and cons for leaning toward one pole or the other. And, of course, I am interested in what games folks feel do a good job of presenting either, or a mix.

Just for clarity: I am not really interested in talking about non-mechanical options in this thread. This is not about agency broadly, and systems that don't attach mechanical weight to options aren't really relevant here. Thanks.

Games like (just for example) Savage Worlds tend to focus on lots of system options: cover, called shots, autofire, whatever are all available to everyone. Of course some characters have the right traits to make better use of those than others, but they are are. And of course Savage Worlds also gates some options -- particularly the supernatural or special ones -- behind specific character builds, with the right powers and edges etc. HERO was like this too, with a pretty robust stance and maneuver system on top of a very extensive powers system.

Some games lock out players from using certain maneuvers or tactical options -- either explicitly, or virtually because the penalty for trying these things without special character traits was so high. 3.x D&D is a good example of this, I think, where the various combat options were ineffective, dangerous or both without dedicated feats (sometimes multiple feats). And of course D&D (all flavors) has lots and lots of abilities that are gated behind specific character generation/build choices.

I like the idea of having lots of options available to players at any given time, but I also acknowledge that the more options available, the more likely some players end up with option paralysis.

So what do you think? How do you prefer options be presented and available, and do you think they are better universal to the system, or built into character build choices?

 

[payn]

Tough nut to crack as I like both.

The con of character exclusive options is you can feel like creativity is squashed as you require trip foe or talk to crowd of people feats to be successful at doing those things. On the other hand, universal options then leaves whatever you can spin narratively as the diversity among the PCs.

Presentation is usually the key. If folks understand how to express their character within the gameplay then either option here will be successful.

 

[TwoSix]

What sort of genre is in play here? Character-specific actions being gated makes a lot more sense for a supers or a high fantasy game, than something that's more gritty medieval, in my opinion.

 

[GMMichael]

When it comes to mechanical options available to players, it seems there are two poles: options that are basked into the system and available to anyone, and options that are inherent to the individual characters and not available to those without the class/feat/talent/power whatever. Of course this is a contnuum, and not a clean or simple one, so there will be some inherent complexity even discussing it. But broadly, I am curious what people prefer in play, and what they consider pros and cons for leaning toward one pole or the other. And, of course, I am interested in what games folks feel do a good job of presenting either, or a mix.

Just for clarity: I am not really interested in talking about non-mechanical options in this thread. This is not about agency broadly, and systems that don't attach mechanical weight to options aren't really relevant here. Thanks.

So to summarize:

"Should all characters be able to do all things?"

or

"Are class-exclusive abilities okay?"

So what do you think? How do you prefer options be presented and available, and do you think they are better universal to the system, or built into character build choices?

It seems obvious that a character should do things better as character options are directed toward those things. That's what character creation is, right? (Well, ignoring the fluff that OP excludes.)

My preference is soft-coded (like everything else) into Modos RPG: wanna do something crazy? Make a roll and let's see what happens. There are only a few things that are exclusive to certain characters, magic being one of those. Don't let your game be like D&D/Warcraft, with everyone running around casting spells all the time.

 

[aco175]

I like having both, although I generally only play D&D. The 'game' has certain rules that everyone accepts such as everyone rolls a d20 to hit or everyone has levels and gain HP as you go up in level. Then there are specific rules that are by class like fighter scoring a crit by rolling a 19 or 20 where others can only do this by rolling a 20. These specific rules make picking that class cool or special depending on what players want. You want to cast fireball- you need to pick this or that. You want to cure people from dying- you need to pick the other thing.

I would like some options within the choices other than picking a new subclass. A bit like 4e did with a choice of 3-4 powers to use at each level.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

A system with classes seems to automatically come with some abilities only being character options, not system options.
But even there, you can obviously have some "system options" like maybe everyone can attempt to disarm a foe or push someone away.

The example of 3E with system options that are only good if you take character options is interesting. I am not fundamentally opposed to the idea, but I think I don't like the approach that 3E did, because it often lead to those options becoming part of your default routine. I liked 4E approach to say that these options might require some resource (in 4E terms, it was an encounter or daily power). A character without the character option might not generate resources for the more effective method, but even the specialized one has to decide carefully when to use it (but maybe it's also more reliable or more effective.)

The danger of some things being character options can be seen in D&D 3+ and Pathfinder, too: Sometimes abilties that plausibly everyone could try are locked behind a feat, power or spell and everyone else can't do it, or the GM might have to carefully improvise a no-feat(spell/power) version of the ability that is still worth using but doesn't make the feat useless, either.
Also, sometimes these abilities are even so specific that spending character options on them feels like a waste. (I remember a Pathfinder skill feat that lets you count really well - nice flavor, will probaby not come up ever compared to being able to use medicine to restore hit points to an ally more often.)

For analysis paralysis, maybe it woud help if the system options have some leeway in interpretation. Maybe the "disarm" maneuver is a general "hinder enemy's combat ability" maneuver that has some simple rules, like: "Target deals half damage and cannot attack at range until it takes the "ready weapon" action again, or something.

 

[Reynard]

For analysis paralysis, maybe it woud help if the system options have some leeway in interpretation. Maybe the "disarm" maneuver is a general "hinder enemy's combat ability" maneuver that has some simple rules, like: "Target deals half damage and cannot attack at range until it takes the "ready weapon" action again, or something.

Fate is a good example here: Create an Advantage is an action, and because of the open ended nature of Fate, what that advantage is could just as easily be "disarm" as "trip" or whatever.

 

[Reynard]

So to summarize:

"Should all characters be able to do all things?"

or

"Are class-exclusive abilities okay?"

The point is that is is not, and probably cannot be, simply "OR." There must almost certainly be a tendency for any given game system. What I am curious about is where folks prefer to sit between those poles, and why.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Like others, I like both…I think. I used the qualifier because I’m not sure there’s actually a big difference between HERO and 3.5Ed.

In each, almost any character can attempt almost anything, but there’s a big difference in their odds of success at a given option depending on their training and abilities.

Anyone in 3.5Ed can Trip, but without the right combination of attributes, feats and equipment, you’re more likely to fail than succeed. Ditto bomb disarming in HERO.

The only things that DON’T work that way are supernatural/superhuman abilities. Trying to fly without wings, spells or superpowers in either system is going to result in a failure 100% of the time in both systems.

 

[Reynard]

On the subject of how many options is a good number of options, especially as it relates to "system options" in any given situration (tactical versus social, or whatever): I feel like most people can juggle 4 or 5 things n their head without getting lost in the weeds. If the rules for these things are straight forward and/or easily summarized right on the character sheet (or play mat, etc) then maybe a couple extra?

If I think about games that offer stances in combat, say, I feel like it is always Defensive, Aggressive or Neutral, and almost never like 6 or 7 stances.