Let's talk about system options versus character options.

[Bill Zebub]

I'm learning to really appreciate a la carte design, but a potential pitfall is that the designers miss some unintended combinations that the community figures out.

 

[dbm]

I have thought about this a lot over the years. First, there is no one best answer in my opinion, and second multiple options can and probably should exist in the same game system.

I have previously called these ‘gated abilities’ versus ‘skill penalty abilities’. Compare a system like GURPS with a system like early D&D editions.

In GURPS, if you want to try something fancy like disarming an enemy, that would be mechanically implemented as a skill penalty. Anyone can try it, but only highly skilled characters are likely to succeed reliably (meaning that they have invested significant character cost into having this level of skill). Contrast that with early class based systems where only certain classes could attempt specific things (e.g. only thieves can pick locks and so on). In such a system only characters with the right class, feat or some other on/off ability can attempt the action but that might be with no penalty since the player has invested a significant character cost to have access to it.

My initial feeling on this was that the skill-based approach is better since it seems reasonable that there are something most anyone can attempt. Experience has shown that it’s less black-or-white. Consider a GURPS character attempting a disarm or called shot rather than just trying to hit their enemy. That gives them a penalty to their combat skill, meaning that they are less likely to succeed. And when they fail, often there is no effect meaning that the character’s action was basically useless / meaningless. My experience is that this can result in some negative play experiences.

First, characters are less likely to try fancy manoeuvres, especially against difficult opponents. That means that fights against the toughest opponents cause the player to fall back in their most basic attacks (since these are more likely to succeed) which can feel anti-climactic, especially if this is a big set-piece against the BBEG or some such.

Secondly, if the player is trying to pull off a specific manoeuvre unsuccessfully but keeps going for some reason it can result in several rounds of complete non-contribution which, again, results in a negative experience for the player. In effect, the game is giving the player lots of opportunity for un-fun outcomes.

By contrast a systems which either says you need a feat to attempt some action, or make it a limited resource (e.g. ‘you may attempt a disarm a number of times equal to your Int modifier per long rest’ or some similar limitation) means that the character can reliably use a specific tactic. While that less ‘realistic’ it is probably more fun in play, more of the time.

There are other things which seem like they should be gated pretty strongly, like supernatural abilities, while still feeling ‘realistic’ since these sort of things are not commonly known.

My preference is for a third way, which borrows some element of both approaches. I like systems where levels of success generate some kind of resource that can be spent on special outcomes. Examples include generating stunt points in the AGE system, and success levels in Mythras, both of which can be used to achieve special effect with a post-hoc decision. The benefit of this is that- if the character doesn’t generate any special outcome they still get the basic result (in combat, doing some damage). So the players are encouraged to try cool things but they aren’t punished by a reduced chance of succeeding at the most basic version of the action.

So far, quite skill-like with all ‘up’ and no ‘down’. Where the other school of design potentially comes into play is letting players invest resources into their character to make certain special abilities easier to achieve. This happens in the AGE system where certain build options either add new ways of spending stunt points or make widely-available options cost less stunt points so you can access them more reliably.

The combined effect is that anyone can try a ‘stunt’ most of the time, and there is less negative play experience since they aren’t less likely to achieve a basic result. And on top of that players can invest resources in their ability to pull off favoured tactics more often.