What do you, personally, need a system to do for you?

[Reynard]

As player or as GM, what aspects or elements of the activity of engaging in a roleplaying game do you, personally, need the system to support or do with mechanics and rules? What parts of play do you NOT need the system to do, or actively do not want the system involved in? What game systems are good examples of what you prefer from that perspective?

Just by way of a very basic example that I think most folks have experience with: do you need the system to help you determine whether a character is able to find and disarm a trap? In its most basic sense, this means some sort of skill or ability check to determine success. As opposed to the player describing where they are looking or how they are searching, and then (if a trap is found) how they will disarm it? (Note that i don't want this thread to be about finding traps, DM-may-I or pixlehunting. This is just an example. Feel free to start that thread if you really want to dive into that subject.)

Another example would be social situations: do you want the system to get involved in convincing NPC X to do Y?

 

[jdrakeh]

Provide detailed rules for jousting on flying air sharks. At a bare minimum.

 

[Bae'zel]

This may seem really glaringly obvious, but I must have a baseline, universal task resolution system that intuitively covers just about any typical player action, from direct, immediate tasks (eg search for a trap in a specific room in specific circumstances) to broad ones (eg a streetwise check to represent a week of searching through contacts in a city to gather rumors and connections). My favorite is a clear STAT + SKILL approach.

I also need clear, simple enemy stat blocks that I can easily re-skin into other things, or customize to increase or decrease it's threat level as needed.

As you can tell, certain systems with more "narrative" or "trope" first approaches don't sit well with me. I have never been able to grasp Burning Wheel games, nor Blades in the Dark. I'm glad that they exist, and that people enjoy them, but I am too simple and basic for these more erudite systems.

Lately my favorite systems are Outgunned, Wrath and Glory and Free League's (I think I like d6 pool systems the most now).

 

[payn]

At one point in time I was definitely all about rules over rulings. I was a bit younger and less experienced and had a slew of bad GMs which I now know was the problem. So, I have much less of a need for the system to provide an answer for everything. What I do want is a solid resolution system that is flexible and anything can be run through it.

For example, Mongoose Traveller 2E uses 2D6+mod+skill target 8. If its difficult target 10. They added boon/bane which works like advantage from 5E. On top of all that they also use effect which is the number you miss or beat the target by. For example, if you roll a 10 on an 8, your effect is 2. This can equal out to more damage but also it can mean degrees of success.

With the above system from Traveller 'goose 2E, I feel confident I can adjudicate any situation as it arises, and my players will understand how I come to the ruling. Yes, its often a discussion to reach the conclusion, but having a common framework makes that an easy discussion that makes sense. Gone are the days of the GM just pulling something out of the air.

On the contrary, I do still love Pathfinder Classic which is my go to for fantasy even today. I found the sub-systems to be a lot of fun, even if they needed a bit more playtesting before going out the door every month from Paizo. I really enjoyed having mini games for haunts, chases, social scenes, etc.. I know that mechanical heft was too much for the average gamer, or perhaps the average gamer just likes more simplicity (cant argue with 5E success) but I feel like it gives the game a much needed variety in its operation. The additions were a welcome spice to the same dish being served over and over.

When thinking about the difference between the two, I think a lot of the determination lies with progression. Traveller, for example, has a flatter progression overall. Once your PC has been created, they wont change much in ability. The game allows more of a focus on whats happening in it, as opposed to gaining items and power like D&D/PF. In the latter sense, I really enjoy the complexities of sub-systems in PF1 because you have so many ways to interact between class/archetype/prestige, feats, and skills. All these things can be adapted during play and focuses can be moved from one to the next. Character ability is dynamic and the possibilities are endless. You need a robust amount of systems to allow that myriad of opportunity to shine. YMMV.

 

[Reynard]

Provide detailed rules for jousting on flying air sharks. At a bare minimum.

I would hate to see what happens to air sharks that can't fly.

 

[Reynard]

This may seem really glaringly obvious, but I must have a baseline, universal task resolution system that intuitively covers just about any typical player action, from direct, immediate tasks (eg search for a trap in a specific room in specific circumstances) to broad ones (eg a streetwise check to represent a week of searching through contacts in a city to gather rumors and connections).

What I do want is a solid resolution system that is flexible and anything can be run through it.

I think I am finally settled on the same. In theory I want neat subsystems that are laser focused on the thing they are trying to adjudicate (social combat minigames, or whatever) but in actual, real world, at the table play, I just want to be able to call for a roll (or not) and intuitively know what the results mean. I don't mind complex outcomes (succeed with fear, or whatever) but I still want a solid sense of what it means in the fiction just by looking.

 

[soviet]

I don't think I have a single 'want' here. I want different systems for different things. I like Rolemaster and I also like Other Worlds (my own system, a single-roll narr-supporting system).

In terms of fundamentals what I expect any good system to do is:

• Formalise/ritualise some part of the roleplaying conversation in evocative language
• Provide a clear model for how the roleplaying conversation will go in terms of who has what authority and when
• Provide a clear, decisive, and transparent method for resolving uncertain outcomes that doesn't rely on GM fiat
• Create through that method and rules structure interesting decision points for the participants

 

[Reynard]

I don't think I have a single 'want' here. I want different systems for different things. I like Rolemaster and I also like Other Worlds (my own system, a single-roll narr-supporting system).

In terms of fundamentals what I expect any good system to do is:

• Formalise/ritualise some part of the roleplaying conversation in evocative language

Can you explain what you mean by "evocative language" here?

 

[Bae'zel]

Oops I forgot to reply about social systems.

Again I like the baseline approach, but I don't mind extra things like relationship trackers or Faction reputation or whatever.

Like, this NPC follower has a higher "loyalty" or "friendship" stat in relation to your PC, so your Persuasion check is easier. Or "you've done X many favors for that Faction, so they give you discounts in their stores and you get a bonus to social checks with them".

As long as it's relatively simple though. In D&D I use a "reputation" or "favor" ability score for NPCs or factions. In other games I use keywords or simple stats that go from 1 to 10. Stuff like that.

 

[Pedantic]

I settle for generic resolution (GM picks difficulty from scale, player rolls appropriate modifier), because it's what's taken over the zeitgeist post 5e, and I'm not going to persuade my players into a different play loop at this point.

I want a game to strive for action completeness. Ideally players should be able to know the resolution procedure for any action they declare, barring hidden information in the situation they haven't uncovered. My ideal state has a player asking for information about the situation, and then having everything they need to reference the to and procedures to determine any relevant DCs themselves.