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

[talorien508]

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?

Hi Ian, it's Mark.

For me, the rules are the guardrails to lean into when I can't adjudicate a particular event. To use your social situations example, I would try to encourage and hope the players explain to the NPC their rationale and convince them without a roll. If they make a really convincing plea in roleplay or blow it completely, there is no roll needed. It's when the reply is somewhat middle of the road that I will ask PCs to make a check.

For traps it really depends on the trap and its trigger. Not to mention how the characters explain their movement and what they do to find traps. If they haven't made express plans to search for traps, it's probably going to be unseen and triggered. Thus, no roll is needed. (Some traps still have saves etc.). If they are looking then they most likely will find obvious traps without a roll. It's only on the top tier traps where they need to be found and disarmed. In most cases I will have them roll to disarm the trap unless they tell me a clever way to make the trap fail or be neutralized.

So, for me, the rules are a framework I use when needed, I'm not beholden to them. Combat being the exception, as there is little room for ambiguity. Not that we don't fudge things at times if someone has something interesting they want to do. I want the rules to fade into the background when they are not really needed and be there for us when we want/need them.

So I guess you might say I like less rules as a GM. I think 5e and BRP fill that role. If I want more I might go to PF1 or 3.5. I think Savage Worlds and PF2e maybe fit somewhere in the middle. Although, I think the relative complexity is more on the combat side of things. Regardless, with any system you decide when to use the rules and when to hand wave. Not sure I completely gave you the answer you're looking for, but you may understand where I am coming from, since you know me.

As a player, I'm flexible and will play any system the GM is willing to run. Rules heavy or rules light.

 

[aco175]

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

Don't they die if they stop flying? Makes getting them to line up at the start of the joust hard.

I have been trying to work on a followers table for 5e and I'm finding that I'm lazy in regards to this. I have looked for something to steal online or started to make something myself with the spare planning time, but it is not working. I wanted a class-specific list for the fighter different than the one for the mage, but then I was working on a generic one with a few sub-tables for followers of the same class and thought everyone could roll for commoners or guards or a bard as a follower. It was tied into the home base bastion system I have loosely started.

Last night the PCs returned to their base after a week and I just has each PC roll a d20 to see if anyone showed up. One PC rolled high enough and I had them roll percentiles and they rolled average like a 35, so I had them roll a d10 and got a 4. I just made up 4 scouts showed up to follow the druid and told the player he can make them up as he wanted. Not a very good system to me.

 

[soviet]

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

Sure.

I think that one purpose of game design is to create a language during play. As humans playing a game we're going to be saying the words of our game actions and character abilities repeatedly throughout the experience. So, lets use that to create and reinforce the desired atmosphere of the gameworld/genre. For example, in a fantasy game I think it's more evocative to say 'make a Maintain Spell check' than 'make a Concentration check', to make a 'Fighting Retreat' than to 'Disengage', or to 'perform a Coup de Grace' than to 'Attack an Unconscious Foe'.

Clearly you can take this too far and start to obfuscate your real meaning but there are a lot of easy wins that get missed IMO. The cold gamey language of Attacks of Opportunity, Investigation checks, or 'once per long rest' does no-one any favours.

My game Other Worlds is designed to support this principle of evocative language. Characters have a bunch of player-created narrative descriptor abilities like Lightning Reflexes, Elven Upbringing, Expert Archer, and so on. The idea is that when you make an action and use an ability just the act of vocalising that game ability reinforces the genre and highlights the nature of your character. We don't both make Persuade checks against the King, I make a roll using my Effusive Charm and you make a roll using your Aura of Divine Authority. The tone of our respective attempts already feel different. The possible outcomes of those rolls are also likely different.

You can also use one ability to support another. Again, this requires a vocalisation of those abilities. This helps to reinforce how you are doing something and what parts of the character's abilities or experience are contributing to that. If I say that my character's Stare Down Foe check is supported by his Terrible Battle Scars and Hero of Helm's Deep abilities that tells you much more about him than making an Intimidate check with a +2 bonus or advantage. When games boil down character traits and differences to '+2 to this' or 'advantage on that' what they actually do is bury those traits and differences into a calculation and stop them being mentioned at the table.

 

[Reynard]

Sure.

I think that one purpose of game design is to create a language during play. As humans playing a game we're going to be saying the words of our game actions and character abilities repeatedly throughout the experience. So, lets use that to create and reinforce the desired atmosphere of the gameworld/genre. For example, in a fantasy game I think it's more evocative to say 'make a Maintain Spell check' than 'make a Concentration check', to make a 'Fighting Retreat' than to 'Disengage', or to 'perform a Coup de Grace' than to 'Attack an Unconscious Foe'.

Clearly you can take this too far and start to obfuscate your real meaning but there are a lot of easy wins that get missed IMO. The cold gamey language of Attacks of Opportunity, Investigation checks, or 'once per long rest' does no-one any favours.

My game Other Worlds is designed to support this principle of evocative language. Characters have a bunch of player-created narrative descriptor abilities like Lightning Reflexes, Elven Upbringing, Expert Archer, and so on. The idea is that when you make an action and use an ability just the act of vocalising that game ability reinforces the genre and highlights the nature of your character. We don't both make Persuade checks against the King, I make a roll using my Effusive Charm and you make a roll using your Aura of Divine Authority. The tone of our respective attempts already feel different. The possible outcomes of those rolls are also likely different.

You can also use one ability to support another. Again, this requires a vocalisation of those abilities. This helps to reinforce how you are doing something and what parts of the character's abilities or experience are contributing to that. If I say that my character's Stare Down Foe check is supported by his Terrible Battle Scars and Hero of Helm's Deep abilities that tells you much more about him than making an Intimidate check with a +2 bonus or advantage. When games boil down character traits and differences to '+2 to this' or 'advantage on that' what they actually do is bury those traits and differences into a calculation and stop them being mentioned at the table.

I see. Thanks for the explanation.

While I agree that something like this will help reinforce the genre, mood and milieu, I am afraid it would make it harder to know, intuitively, what those things actually do mechanically, for me. I prefer stuff that is clear and concise.

 

[soviet]

I see. Thanks for the explanation.

While I agree that something like this will help reinforce the genre, mood and milieu, I am afraid it would make it harder to know, intuitively, what those things actually do mechanically, for me. I prefer stuff that is clear and concise.

'Daily' is less clear and concise than 'once per long rest'?
'Maintain Spell' is less clear and concise than 'Concentration'?

 

[Reynard]

'Daily' is less clear and concise than 'once per long rest'?
'Maintain Spell' is less clear and concise than 'Concentration'?

No, but Elven Upbringing and Aura of Divine Authority are both, mechanically, meaningless.

 

[soviet]

No, but Elven Upbringing and Aura of Divine Authority are both, mechanically, meaningless.

No they aren't. All descriptors in my game work the same way. When a character attempts to do something and the results are uncertain we make a conflict roll. The player chooses which descriptor they wish to use, and which descriptors they wish to support it with. They get a bonus or penalty depending on how well those descriptors fit the situation.

It doesn't define the mechanical effect of each trait, and there aren't different types of conflict roll for different situations. It provides a universal resolution mechanism and relies on player and GM judgement as to what uses of the traits are permissible. This is no harder than 'does my Polearm Specialist feat give me any bonus to help identify what type of polearm this is?' or 'does my expertise on courtly intrigue apply here?' or 'do I get advantage here, because of [reason]?'. The kind of judgements players and GMs make all the time.

 

[Spellslinging Sellsword]

At a minimum I want some way to represent mental. physical, and social abilities and a dice mechanic that can be used to resolve actions related to those abilities.

 

[Piperken]

...I think that one purpose of game design is to create a language during play. As humans playing a game we're going to be saying the words of our game actions and character abilities repeatedly throughout the experience. So, lets use that to create and reinforce the desired atmosphere of the gameworld/genre. For example, in a fantasy game I think it's more evocative to say 'make a Maintain Spell check' than 'make a Concentration check', to make a 'Fighting Retreat' than to 'Disengage', or to 'perform a Coup de Grace' than to 'Attack an Unconscious Foe'...

This is tag language. Which is used a lot in some games!

It's similar to something like Maven Moves from Brindlewood Bay. A beginning player may not know intimately what a "B.A. Baracus" does, but they'll immediately know it has to relate with physicality or protection.

It plays into pop culture enough that most people will generally find it easier to remember at the table as well.

 

[billd91]

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 can see where you're coming from. I also like the STAT + SKILL approach, at least for some games like D&D. It represents both the inherent talent as well as learned skill. But I also like the Call of Cthulhu/BRP method of a rating that is a bit ambiguous in that regard.

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

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.

I think that's a good observation. I can at least see where you're coming from. But might also add that some games with flat-ish progression can have a wide variety of characters in them depending on how they're built - Call of Cthulhu, Mutants and Masterminds both come to mind. So some variation in systems/sub-systems can still be handy and will allow different types of character to shine in different ways.