I absolutely agree with previous posters who have said that there is no single game which is perfect for every purpose. But what would I rather play most of the time?
Core Mechanic and Dice
Whilst it is true that dice v. target number may be quicker, it gives a much more arbitrary (or, if multiple dice, unmanageable) statistical range than you can get with tables or by using a simple system of dice + modifier v. dice + modifier. The trick is to keep the number of unpredictable modifiers to a minimum, and work out in advance what your modified stats will be. Derived core stats should generally be avoided because they make even generating NPCs too slow, as I found with Miravlor (which I wrote).
Example 1:- if I have Attack 9, + d20, v. Defence 20, I have a 50% chance of success. +1 Attack has a limited effect on my blow. If I have
Attack 0, +d20, v. Defence 20, I have a 5% chance of success.
+1 Attack now literally DOUBLES my chance of hitting! It's indispensable!
If on the other hand I have Attack 17, +d20, v. Defence 20, I have a 90% chance of a hit, and a 10% chance of a miss. +1 Attack now literally HALVES my chance of missing!
Example 2:- if I have to roll N dice, and roll X on one dice to succeed, going from N=1 to N=2 DOUBLES my chance of success, but going from N=9 to N=10 hardly affects it.
Speed of Action System
Combat should not be divided into rounds or turns - instead, during combat time should be tracked separately for each character (or for units of NPCs) as it continues from one action to the next, but randomised
so that you can't predict exactly how things will go.
"Stunts", "Powers", "Feats" or "Spells"
Player characters should have special abilities that they can draw on from time to time. This makes the game more tactical, more tactically interesting and often more exciting. My preferred system is to have energy points, magic points, etc. Vancian is OK at low levels but gets too bogged down at high levels. Some games make power unlimited in availability but dangerous. This is unsatisfying if it is implicit in the setting that your character has trained to perfect his abilities. How come he hasn't blown up yet, or been eaten by a demon from the void, if he has a 5% chance of doing so each time he fire-blasts someone? Systems which drain life / hitpoints etc. when you cast are OK, but can be a bit arbitrary because the fighter may have more casting reserves than the wizard, etc.
(Mainly) Points-Based CharGen
Character generation should be points-based, but that doesn't mean that there can only be one pool of totally interchangeable points. You can fix the number of points that characters can spend on stunts, for example, as opposed to their main ability scores or skills. That way it's easier to make the game balanced.
There should be no rigid character classes or professions, and perhaps not even rigidly prescribed racial abilities for non-humans, depending on the setting. However there should be lots of guidelines of a sort of semi-binding nature so that you have some guidance as to what sort of "feel" is authentic to the game setting.
However there are ways to get near to this level of flexibility but keep the convenience of the class-based system for new-ish characters. For instance, Labyrinthe (LARP) uses an excellent CharGen system. From levels 1 to 8 you are stuck with a class, but 75%+ of the game is played at level 8+, and at that point you advance with points. So you get an easy-peasy starter package, plus the flexibility of points. A very good thing about Labyrinthe CharGen is that you can get non-standard abilities passed which you basically draft and the Game System Manager approves. That should be standard for tabletop roleplaying games. There is no excuse for not allowing non-standard abilities provided they are authentic to the setting. The referee in a tabletop game only has maybe 6 players, 8 at absolute most I should have thought (I commonly play with one ref and 2, 3 or 4 players). How can he not have time to consider non-standard abilities? Referees should be open to player ideas. Not bound by them by any means, but open to them. In big LARP systems you need a dedicated Game System Manager to make this work, but if abilities are written down in simple terms in say 150 words or less, and broadly reflect standard rules but with some modifications, they work just grand, even in LARP.
The system of buying a level in this and a level in that and having starter kits is OK - better than a traditional class-based system where you can't mix and match. I'm going to use a pick-and-mix CharGen / advancement system for my new, simpler RPG - not as flexible as my ideal points-based system, but easier for new players.
Wealth and Social Status
Lower starting wealth and social status should have balancing advantages which are not inherent to your character nor permanent but are exterior to him and temporary, for instance in terms of luck. This is because you can change your wealth and social status and catch up on disadvantages in those areas.
Alignment?
Roleplay should not be dictated by a crude alignment system. But it is nice
to be able to say:- this character is aligned to the angels, this one to the demons, this one to the pagan spirits, this one to none of the above. For supernaturally weird characters like angels and demons, and priests, obviously alignment-like considerations should affect their behaviour. Vampires should be evil, evil beasts. Demons should be creatures of awful unholiness. That's just the way it has to be! I don't want namby pampy demons struggling with their inner moral consciousness. What a load of b******t. I mean, the odd one or two who are the exception - it's just possible. A demon might be saved. But as a matter of course? What's the point of demons if they're not unholy scary dreadful creatures of terror?
Character Levels?
Character levels do NOT have to be tied up with character classes.
Durham University Treasure Trap (LARP) uses an interesting system where your character has a level but, in theory, no character class. (Actually they use skill trees which could be similar to character classes in some ways.) It is a points-buy system, but when you get past X amount of points, your level increases and that represents your resistance to certain effects, but also caps how many ranks you can buy in a particular skill (e.g. Elemental Skill max. 1 rank per level bracket). This can help to preserve game balance.
Referee's Fiat for Monster Abilities
The referee just makes up the monster's stats. Combat stats may include some derived elements (e.g. you get a sword bonus to your strength score to work out your damage score), but monsters do NOT need to be balanced like PCs. It's too time-consuming, if you have a decent CharGen system to get balanced and diverse PCs, to extend it to monsters / NPCs, and for what benefit? A possible benefit in terms of game balance, which could easily be achieved simply by good judgment by the referee. And if he gets it wrong, he has a simple choice:- fudge or TPK and apologise!
Combat Systems
Injury which is kept track of for player characters and important NPCs should be convertible into an instant kill chance (with no recorded injury levels) for mooks. My game Omnifray does this by having injury as a percentage score. This also means that if you change shape, you keep your old percentage injury - you don't need to adjust new life points for a new physical form, etc.
A Deadly System
I like RPGs to be a bit bloody for combat, so that people take even light injuries quite seriously. After all, if someone cut my arm open in real life, I would be very upset about it. I wouldn't be saying "heck that's just 5 lifepoints out of my 24, I'm fine". Far less would I take a 30-healthpoint injury from a troll, be unconscious at minus 6, minus 7, minus 8, then get a Cure Moderate Injury, wake up with 3 healthpoints and be feeling ready to jump straight back into melee against the now-regenerated troll. Worst of all is to have a guaranteed number of lives, e.g. I just have to spend a doom point and I'm right as rain. But a system with last-chance get-outs is great if they aren't 100% guaranteed. Even 90% is OK if the system is deadly enough!
Guidelines for Lots of Situations
Let the referee wing it if he wants, but give him guidance for how to handle different situations so he can do it consistently - so the game world operates consistently for the players, and feels realistic in terms of how likely things are to succeed.
Class-based systems are easier to create and to balance, and - for a fair few people - a more appealing choice for just throwing some things together with ease, and starting play quickly. Convenient pegs for relative overall power, and stable containers for ability packages. This is considered a strength, of yes, *class-based* systems. It's true!
