Let's talk about system options versus character options.

[pemerton]

An RPG that handles this nicely, in my view, is Cthulhu Dark.

PC building consists in choosing a name and an occupation/profession. The only stat is Sanity, which is rated on a die.

Then, when a PC performs an action that requires a roll, the player builds a dice pool:

*Include one die in your pool if the action is humanly possible (so eg running quickly across a street is humanly possible; summoning entities from the outer void is not possible);

*Include one die in your pool if the action is within the scope of your occupation/profession (so eg a longshoreman wouldn't get this die if trying to summon an entity from the outer void, but an antiquarian who has read the Necronomicon might);

*Include your sanity die in your pool if you're prepared to risk your sanity to succeed at the action.​

But I don't have any particular preference. I've enjoyed very build-focused RPGs (like 4e D&D) and also RPGs where most or all PC abilities come from skill ranks that, at least in principle, anyone can have (Torchbearer 2e, Prince Valiant, Classic Traveller).

Agon 2e is a fun RPG where PCs differ mostly in their attributes (of which there are 4) and in their descriptors (of which they might have one or two): descriptors allow adding to the dice pool, a bit like the occupation/profession in Cthulhu Dark.

So I don't think there is any particular "optimal path" of design in this respect.

 

[Nth Dimension Games]

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.

Ah, good old analysis 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?

You need to start with the options that are universal to a system. There's actually a very limited number of things you can do in combat, adventuring and even roleplaying. Once you clearly establish what you can do, then you introduce variations on those universal options. That's where you start making character build choices matter.

Someone said "something fancy like disarming an enemy" is quite revealing about the psychology of TT gamers. D&D has trained the community and established the precedent for other TTRPGs that things like this are "special" and exceptionally risky. Games like D&D are designed to discourage anything other than Fireball. I think the reason why is simply the risk/reward structure.

What's typically the goal of combat? Reduce your opponent's hit points to 0 or cause them to flee. Then again we don't want them to flee because we miss out on their loot. So we're incentivized to blow them up with overwhelming force from a distance. Why invoke an attack of opportunity for moving inside their threat range, being in melee range, and risk being disarmed ourselves if we roll poorly? What do we gain from it that a fireball couldn't accomplish with less risk? Their weapon falls on the ground that they pick up with a partial action on their turn and whack us with it. Okay, so we're really good and we disarm them and now hold their weapon in our hands. We're still in melee range, dual wielding (penalties for that), we can throw it (attack of opportunity from that unless you have the feat). Its just not a system designed for anything cool therefore anything other than the most basic make-umber-bigger-ability is considered "fancy."

So back on topic. I prefer, because I designed it that way, to have as many options as possible that can be easily managed within the same system. Every special ability is an expression of a universal ability everyone has access to. I've tried to stick to the mantra "it does the same thing, but in a different way."

What this means is, using combat as an example, if it hurts your opponent with the goal of reducing your opponent's hit points to 0, how many ways can we do that? For a fantasy based TTRPG, I started with Melee, Range and Magic. Staples of fantasy settings. Then I ask, are there any ways we help reduce our opponent's hit points to 0 without directly hurting them? Disruption Methods, Grapple Arts, Psionics, Spells and Divine Spells. Each one of those classifications everyone can do (not in combat through, there's nuance) because they're universal concepts (this is built into my game's design from the start).

So saying this, it's going to depend on what the game considers a universal action versus a class exclusive one. D&D has using any spell as impossible without "training." Their system uses a class leveling feature which infers time and dedication into learning that class's abilities. You have limited resources, levels, and that resource can be spent on abilities that are "exclusive" to that class (even though lots of levels don't grant any abilities) so long as you have the prerequisite level requirement.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I tend to consider both desireable if you're going to have a really full-featured system, honestly.

My gold standard here was alwasy the Hero System combat manuevers; some anyone could use just by being able to operate in combat, some you had to access by acquiring aka learning the particular martial manuevers that allowed them. Some of the latter were improved versions of the former, but a few were things you were just assumed you couldn't pull off successfully without training.

Now, Hero being early and focused on superheroic games for most of its primary design period only did this sort of thing in combat, but you can absolutely have this distinction elsewhere (and I think its desirable you do): you see this in the modern versions of Green Ronin's AGE system where Stunts (resolution results that can give you additional benefits) exist both as generic cases and special cases only some characters know, and these are split into four categories (combat, magic, exploration and social).

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

Hero, just in its basic manuevers, has at least five come to mind (Haymakers, Move-Bys, Move Throughs, Block and Dodge). And I'm probably forgetting some latter-day ones.