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

[billd91]

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.

OK, I think I see what you're getting at here. I think Reynard's kind of getting at Daily and Maintain Spell being relatively clear and concise to someone not steeped in the game's rules, while Elven Upbringing and Aura of Divine Authority have no clear meaning to an outsider observer.
However, I think there may be a difference in meaning, and potentially utility, between those two and more limited-in-scope descriptors like Lightning Reflexes or Expert Archer that might still confound someone. Expert Archer seems like it would be relevant in fairly tightly themed situations and much harder to shoehorn into broader ones. Contrast that with Elven Upbringing and I'd think one might end up being a lot more broadly useful, and thus powerful in the game mechanics, than the other.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I feel like I usually want one of two different things out of an RPG system.

Either:

A) What @Bae'zel said in this post. I.e. a straightforward and reliable system for adjudicating stuff in an pretty intuitive way. BRP for example.

Or:

B) A custom-designed (though fine if it's variant of another system, like PtbA or Resistance) and specific system that is actually focused on evoking specific vibes, tropes, and so on, particularly ones which are not easily achieved in a more straightforward system.

I'll take either, so long as its right for the game/setting, and it's very obvious from the last 35+ years of RPGs that there is no such thing as a system which can handle anything (or if there is, it's incredibly rules-light to the point of almost being freeform), and that all the best times I have had at the table, and seen others have, have involved systems which were well-suited to the subject matter.

What I really dislike and don't want in a system is a system that may well be well-designed, clever, well-balanced or w/e, but that doesn't work with the proposed setting/vibes. For my money, quite a few superhero RPGs fall at this hurdle.

I also really don't need a system where finding out whether someone succeeded or failed at a task, and/or by how much, takes time and effort. I like systems which aren't binary pass/fail, but for god's sake don't make me do math, like working out how many multiples of five the PC succeeded by or something!

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.

I honestly think that with those specific examples, the level of clarity is pretty much identical. In fact, I'd say "Maintain Spell" is more intuitive in its meaning than "Concentration" is, because Concentration does not actually mean you're "concentrating" on the spell in any meaningful sense of the word "concentrate", it's just a weird jargon term. And Fighting Retreat, I think is at least equally clear to Disengage. I mean, I know Disengage has tripped people up at my table before as they try and remember the word for moving away without being attacked (most recently it got called "small move" as in "I want to er... small move away from him without being hit!").

Re: Elven Upbringing etc. that's for a fundamentally different approach to skills/stats, and I don't think it's at all unclear when you'd roll it or why. It's just the same as how some games have you roll "Sailor" to know stuff about ships, or to tie a knot, or w/e.

Personally I struggle to think of any times with D&D where unevocative, mechanical language has genuinely produced more clarity in the rules than a more evocative term could have. I'm sure there must be some, but I think most examples of this are just jargon, which would be no less clear were it more evocative jargon!

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Expert Archer seems like it would be relevant in fairly tightly themed situations and much harder to shoehorn into broader ones. Contrast that with Elven Upbringing and I'd think one might end up being a lot more broadly useful, and thus powerful in the game mechanics, than the other.

This may be technically true, but there tend to be mitigating factors in games designed this way - like, first off you probably have several descriptors like this, so even if you can't work Expert Archer into this situation, you likely can work something else in. Second off, there are a lot of things Expert Archer can achieve, story-wise, that Elven Upbringing cannot. Thirdly, it depends on the system, but my experience is DMs tend to give more narrative weight to stuff that's narrower in scope and sometimes this is formalized in the system, even.

 

[Argyle King]

Broadly:
•have a coherent relationship with the game's fiction
•allow for breadth of play

More Specifically:
•scale in a way that doesn't break immersion
- things like castle sieges and ships exchanging cannonfire are exciting story components; having them fall flat or be mechanically trivialized by character abilities is lame

 

[soviet]

This may be technically true, but there tend to be mitigating factors in games designed this way - like, first off you probably have several descriptors like this, so even if you can't work Expert Archer into this situation, you likely can work something else in. Second off, there are a lot of things Expert Archer can achieve, story-wise, that Elven Upbringing cannot. Thirdly, it depends on the system, but my experience is DMs tend to give more narrative weight to stuff that's narrower in scope and sometimes this is formalized in the system, even.

This is all true, yes. In my game you apply a context modifier that gives you a bonus or penalty depending on how good a fit the ability is for the situation. The more specific abilities tend to get a bonus in the situations to which they apply (and a penalty to the situations where they do not) while the more general abilities have a broader but shallower use.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

- things like castle sieges and ships exchanging cannonfire are exciting story components; having them fall flat or be mechanically trivialized by character abilities is lame

I think a lot of this comes down to the relationship between the abilities and the setting.

Like, in D&D, a lot of settings seem to have been designed as if magic didn't exist, and then magic does exist, and causes weird issues and trivializes stuff and so on.

Whereas in Exalted, the entire point is that you're superhuman demigods, and thus when you collapse the walls of an entire settlement, or just leap sixty foot over them whilst screaming a warcry so loud people die, that's kind of the point, but at the same time, the setting is aware such beings exist, and there may be counters or fallbacks.

Of course there is another angle, which I've rarely seen but not never, which is where the rules don't involve supernatural abilities, but the resolution work such that the DM might say "the enemy galleon fires a full broadside at your ship, from so close you can see the whites of the eyes on the sailors on the deck" and you simply say "Okay, I rolled ship manuevering and got a [insert best result] so my ship takes no damage from them - I guess they missed?", which can also feel pretty off, depending on the fiction its dealing with. This is particularly likely with very generic resolution systems in my experience.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

These days, unless you're AD&D, I don't want a system that makes me learn a ton of sub-systems and exceptions.

 

[Piperken]

This is a harder question for me to answer. I think, at least at this point in time, I like systems whose bones scaffold me as a player such that I gladly engage in the game, in ways that are fulfilling and meaningful.

Right now, I don't have a heartbreaker game that is the game. I've read that some have found that, or put together or designed theirs whole cloth. That is always great to come across, because it is something that one can call their own.

I'm reading about different games, and peoples' very passionate thoughts on what aspects they're seeking or designing for their games. Possible solutions some have come up with, when they've run into common challenges; like, running a city setting in a way that is pleasing, alternative approaches to the standard random encounter table, or how to make clerics function more presently within and through communities in a setting.

I'd like to be able to play some of these games I have not tried, but realize that can be challenge. I am thinking I may pick up solo games at some point? Mostly out of curiosity and to help with this last part.

 

[Reynard]

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.

Got it. They are like Aspects. I thought they were like feats or other individual crunchy bits.

 

[Reynard]

Personally I struggle to think of any times with D&D where unevocative, mechanical language has genuinely produced more clarity in the rules than a more evocative term could have.

Hidden