The Sort of TTRPGs You Want More (and Less) Of

[Lucas Yew]

Rules-complexity wise, something on any point of the spectrum between PF1 and GURPS. The lesser input from potential "tyrant GMs" the better, for me.

Legal-freedom-wise, something on any point of the spectrum between OGL and CC-BY-SA. The lesser chance of having unpleasant lawyer meetings from posting stat blocks on my public blog the better, for me.

 

[Aldarc]

Lately, my attention has been grabbed by games that are relatively simple to get into, with fewer and/or clearer rules. I also have really taken to products that have a strong design element, with thought to how they will be used at the table to help play.

Same. I value the ability to jump into game play relatively quickly and mechanics that are straightforward for play.

I also really like games where the mechanics and the setting are kind of designed hand in hand. Blades in the Dark does this really well. I feel like Tales From the Loop does also, although I know that system was used in another game first. But the "classes" in that game are so perfectly designed to be archetypical kids in the 80s.

On the other hand, I have a mixed opinion about this. While I agree that having mechanics and setting designed hand-in-hand help reinforce the feel of the game, such as BitD, it also can make it more difficult to take good set of system mechanics that you like and make them your own for a different setting. BitD is a good example, because it has great game play, but I find the BitD setting kinda dull and not the sort of setting that I would like to actually run. The setting was my biggest hang-up with even picking up the book. This also my problem with a number of the PbtA games. They are often so incredibly narrow in their slice of genre that if you don't like it, then you either have to design your own or look for the appropriate genre flavor you are looking for in another system.

One of my favorite systems was True20 because it offered a relatively generic ruleset that allowed me to heavily customize for whatever genre or world that I was running. The books even discussed the math so you could easily design your own classes and the like relatively easy. Or you could adjust power lists so that they were genre/setting appropriate. So while my gaming tastes have moved beyond its antiquated d20 system in favor of more narrative games, I miss having that sort of customization for designing character options for settings.

Ironsworn may be a sign of the PbtA system being pushed in that direction, even if it is setting specific. It removes playbooks in favor of Asset cards that players can just pick at character creation and as they level. So I do think that the PbtA system can potentially handle more customization that is a bit more divorced from setting.

 

[schneeland]

Are we talking mechanics, settings or both?

 

[Aldarc]

Are we talking mechanics, settings or both?

Whatever sort of games you want to see more of, whether that is defined by mechanics, setting, or both.

 

[Lanefan]

Contrary to those who'd like to see system and setting tied together, I'd like to see the exact opposite.

Why?

Because given the complexity and time involved in learning most RPG systems, system-learning is something I only want to do once. Ever. I most assuredly don't want to have to learn a new system every time I want to change the tone or type of game I'm running or playing.

Which means I want that system to be flexible enough to handle anything I and-or everyone else decide to throw at it, well enough to give a playable game if not necessarily perfect in all things....

Playstyle: Grim'n'gritty? Over-the-top heroic fantasy? Low magic? High magic? No magic? GM-driven? Player-driven? Murderhobo? Solo play? Large-group or ensemble play? No or slow or fast character advancement?

Setting: Ancient Greco-Roman? Viking? Middle Earth? Westeros? Golarion? Renaissance England? Age of Sail? Outer space? Outer Planes? Urban? Wilderness? Dungeon-crawl? [the only thing I'll leave out here - intentionally - is modern-day or future realist]

Philosophy: Simulationist-realist? Gamist? Story now? Rules-light? Rules-heavy? Rules-as-physics? RAW only or kitbashable? Sandbox play? Adventure path play? Combat-focused? Intrigue/mystery focused?

I firmly believe a system that can do all these things* well enough for rock and roll is out there, only nobody's designed it yet. Old-school D&D vaguely waves at it - or can be made to - but still misses on some counts; ditto GURPS. Newer D&D misses much of what older D&D hits while often hitting what it misses - but how to combine them so they hit everything?

* - plus whatever ones I missed, this isn't a complete list.

 

[hawkeyefan]

@Lanefan Then this begs the question....do you actually want to see any new games?

 

[Lanefan]

@Lanefan Then this begs the question....do you actually want to see any new games?

Yes - just one more.

One game that steals-tweaks-combines the best features of lots of other games (and copyright be damned!) into one, modular enough and flexible enough to support pretty much any playstyle or setting or philosophy while still at its core being the same game. A game that doesn't tie itself to one mechanic for everything but is willing to use different mechanics to accomplish different tasks. A game that might be a bit complex to start with but that after learning it once you're set for life.

One game to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.

 

[hawkeyefan]

That’d be cool. I don’t think it’s possible, but it would be cool.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Same. I value the ability to jump into game play relatively quickly and mechanics that are straightforward for play.

I don’t know if it’s a matter of having less time or what, but I’m all for simplicity when possible in game design. I’m not against complexity...but if you’re gonna be complex you better make sure it’s worth it. Most complex games don’t seem to be worth it, to me.

On the other hand, I have a mixed opinion about this. While I agree that having mechanics and setting designed hand-in-hand help reinforce the feel of the game, such as BitD, it also can make it more difficult to take good set of system mechanics that you like and make them your own for a different setting. BitD is a good example, because it has great game play, but I find the BitD setting kinda dull and not the sort of setting that I would like to actually run. The setting was my biggest hang-up with even picking up the book. This also my problem with a number of the PbtA games. They are often so incredibly narrow in their slice of genre that if you don't like it, then you either have to design your own or look for the appropriate genre flavor you are looking for in another system.

Oh I love the setting. Or, probably more accurately, I love the presentation of the setting and I love how the setting and the rules work together.

So far, the Forged in the Dark system has been used for a couple of other genres, most notably sci-fi in Scum and Villainy and fantasy military in Band of Blades. Both are solid, and make some necessary tweaks to rig the system for the new setting. There are also plenty of other hacks, of varying degrees of quality. I think the system can be used for other games, if properly crafted.

But to me, Blades works so well because the rules and setting bounce off each other in such interesting ways.

One of my favorite systems was True20 because it offered a relatively generic ruleset that allowed me to heavily customize for whatever genre or world that I was running. The books even discussed the math so you could easily design your own classes and the like relatively easy. Or you could adjust power lists so that they were genre/setting appropriate. So while my gaming tastes have moved beyond its antiquated d20 system in favor of more narrative games, I miss having that sort of customization for designing character options for settings.

Generic systems are difficult for me. I think some systems can indeed serve as a chassis for multiple games, such as PbtA, but still need strong design choices that make them unique.

Ironsworn may be a sign of the PbtA system being pushed in that direction, even if it is setting specific. It removes playbooks in favor of Asset cards that players can just pick at character creation and as they level. So I do think that the PbtA system can potentially handle more customization that is a bit more divorced from setting.

I’ve looked at Ironsworn a bit, but not in depth. The solo play aspect caught my attention; I’m curious how that would work.

But I think it’s likely a good example of how one system can be modified pretty heavily in order to create a game that, although it has similar elements, feels like its own thing.

 

[Umbran]

So... my answer is a little weird...

I, personally, don't have a huge need to see games that I am never going to use. If I'm not going to play it or run it... it may be an interesting curiosity, a fun read, an intellectual exercise in reviewing design.

But, most of all, I want to see games I get to play with. So... I want to see games that folks around me are excited about.

Because given the complexity and time involved in learning most RPG systems, system-learning is something I only want to do once. Ever. I most assuredly don't want to have to learn a new system every time I want to change the tone or type of game I'm running or playing.

Which means I want that system to be flexible enough to handle anything I and-or everyone else decide to throw at it, well enough to give a playable game if not necessarily perfect in all things....

I understand the desire here... but I recognize that any system flexible enough to be all things to all people is also going to have so many metaphorical levers, knobs, switches, and sub-systems to adjust to meet that design criteria as to be too complex to actually use.