What Makes One System Better Than Another?

[steenan]

What makes a good game for me:
- a good presentation of what the game is about, how it is supposed to be played, what it focuses on and what it ignores or simplifies
- a setting that allows and encourages this type of play
- a system that facilitates this type of play and adds flavor instead of reducing it; as simple as possible while doing the previous, but not simpler
- a reward system that rewards playing according to the game's theme
- a setting that has fantastic and original elements, but isn't just a mix of strange things that do not fit well one with another
- condensed information; I want to get everything I need to play in at most two books without any need for buying more
- focus on either immersion or story, not mechanics (the system may and should have mechanics, but players should never be forced to "think mechanically" for satisfying game)
- encouraging and rewarding creativity, thinking and roleplaying without requiring perfect tactics, high system mastery or high acting skills
- spotlight balance: each character concept that fits the game's theme and may be created mechanically should be useful and have opportunity to shine with comparable frequency ("balance" as in "everybody is equally useful in combat" is, IMO, rather detrimental for the game)

I prefer focused systems to ones that allow wide spectrum of styles but do not empower any. I don't care if the system has classes and levels, if it has skills, traits or aspects etc. I don't care if a system is slow or fast - both bay bring flavor and both may require mechanical focus whicg I see as a bad thing.

 

[Nymrohd]

A game system is better than another game system for a specific individual if the former allows gaming more suited to his or her gaming preferences than the latter. And imo, that is all there is to it.

 

[Henrix]

I have a good overreachig principle, come to think of it.

The system should be applicable to what the game is about.

If the game is about combat, have suitable combat mechanisms.
If the game is about social status among high school girls it should have mechanisms for that, and probably no traditional rules for combat, except as to how a good quarrel affects the status.
If the game is about supernatural investigations and the main villains are terrible monsters who cannot be defeated by normal means - skip the combat section, and give us good rules about investigations.

 

[Bold or Stupid]

I have a good overreachig principle, come to think of it.

The system should be applicable to what the game is about.

If the game is about combat, have suitable combat mechanisms.
If the game is about social status among high school girls it should have mechanisms for that, and probably no traditional rules for combat, except as to how a good quarrel affects the status.
If the game is about supernatural investigations and the main villains are terrible monsters who cannot be defeated by normal means - skip the combat section, and give us good rules about investigations.

This.
And to add something, the rules should be based around 1 mechanic (d20+mods roll high, handful of 6 siders count 5s and 6s whatever) rather than different ones for each situation. They should be simple to understand and implement. They don't need to cover everything but a simple consistent system is easier to improvise from.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Creators' and publisher's integrity, among other things.

 

[ExploderWizard]

This is a question that will get you almost as many different answers as there are responses.

A given system is better than another system if the participants of the game say it is so.

It all comes down to what an individual or group finds enjoyable. There are no universal qualities that can be defined as " more enjoyable" for everyone. No matter how basic or important a mechanic, or game element seems to be, there will be someone to whom it will be irrelevant.

 

[Piratecat]

I want a system that allows ease of mastery. If I have to constantly look things up in books while I'm playing, I'll be less happy with it. F'rinstance, I probably ran ten Call of Cthulhu games before I ever actually read the BRP rules.

This is why complex crit tables don't mesh well with my GMing style.

 

[Engilbrand]

General:

1. One mechanic. If you need 2 decks of playing cards, 6 different kinds of dice, a laptop and a shot glass to play.... um, never mind. Seriously, though. It shouldn't require different things to play. If those are an extra option for certain things, that's fine. I had a Savage Worlds player who could play Poker against the Devil. That was awesome and very well done.

2. Easy to understand. I hate having to read something 12 times and then ask on a message board because it's just not "clicking". Examples after mechanics are ALWAYS a good thing. For some reason, multiple attacks and defenses confused me for a while with Exalted 2.

3. Suitable. It should fit the basic idea of the game. It doesn't need to cover every conceivable type of game. Choose one thing, go with it. If it can be expanded later to do other things, then expand it later to do other things. Unisystem is slowly growing into other more than the initial thing. It seems to be working out well for itself.

4. Fun. If it's not fun, then there's no point in playing it. Overly complex isn't fun. Is it fun for some people? Sure. But so is self-mutilation. There are "invalid" playstyles for general gaming discussions in much the same way as there are invalid lifestyles for general conversation. D&D, Exalted, Dogs, Unisystem, and RIFTS are valid talking points. (I don't know much about RIFTS.) Comparisons can be done with these. FATAL, Race War, and World of Cynnibar are not valid comparisons. There are people who like to play them, but that doesn't mean that that's OK. It's the gaming equivalent of self-mutilation. Not valid.

My personal preferences:

For me, it depends on the purpose of our game. I really like D&D 4e, Dogs in the Vineyard, Unisystem, and a number of White Wolf systems. I make different types of characters and play them in different ways depending on which system we're using. I don't like when a system "forces" arbitrary things on me that aren't spelled out. I try not to purposely screw with the system.

For D&D, I tend to make strange and typically monstrous characters who kill things. Often. I also make sure that I have powers that I can use to describe the scene in a fun way. I usually want more combat with D&D than "pure roleplaying". I tend to focus skills around combat. I absolutely love that they have separated PC mechanics from NPC/Monster mechanics. (Don't screw with the system. Dual dagger-wielding Paladins with high Intelligence suck. They aren't a valid concept. Don't do it and complain.)

For Dogs, I prefer unique events. The mechanics are interesting in that they're almost entirely for roleplaying. Fighting isn't a focus of the system, so I didn't make it a focus of my character. Yet again, PCs are different from NPCs. (Don't screw with the system. Making a character without a background who is only good at shooting people is not a valid concept.)

For Unisystem, I like how the mechanics don't get into the way of the roleplay. It also does a good job being open in combat and not too intrusive. My biggest complaint is that they don't put out enough new mechanics. They continue to reprint the same mechanics in almost every new book. There had to be a better way to do it. (Don't screw with the system. Complaining that it won't let you do everything that you want is ridiculous. It's an open enough system that homebrewing is pretty easy. Do that. Don't make a character who purposely sucks. It's not a valid concept.)

For White Wolf, it depends. I always make sure to have a decent amount of combat and non-combat skills. I like how open it is. My biggest problem with White Wolf is that they don't do enough of the work for you. Our Exalted game ended because the DM got overloaded with the sheer quantity of work that he had to do to make things interesting for us. Our Adventure! game is going well, though. Maybe WW just messed upa bit in terms of judging the amount of work that they should be doing for certain lines. I consider this a case where things would have been better if, in Exalted, the heroes had slightly different mechanics than the enemies. (Don't screw with the system. If the game is going to have a lot of combat, creating a character with NO combat ability is a waste of time. It's not a valid concept.)

While I like games to be able to cover a decent area, they definitely need to state what they're about and how to play them. Give examples. If the mechanics are going to get complicated, separate them from NPCs and give them their own mechanics. Create a decent selection of adversaries. Put plot hooks in the books. Make sure it's fun.

 

[Wombat]

What makes one system better than another?

It depends on what you want out of gaming. Seriously.

I love Ars Magica. I love Over the Edge. I love 7th Sea. I love Unknown Armies. I love HarnMaster. I love Arcana Evolved. I love World of Darkness. Which one is best? All of them, depending on what I am trying to do.

One of my most important gaming truisms is "Fit the system to the setting, rather than the setting to the system." If you want a combat-centred game, you want one kind of rules; if you want social interactions to dominate, you need another; if you want magic as the central point, you need yet another; if you want a wild cross-section of technologies and races, you need yet another. One of my biggest gripes is trying to force a setting to conform to a system, thus warping the setting. Nah, choose the setting first and then choose the system that matches it best.

There is no "perfect" system. I have been playing rpgs for over 30 years now and, while I have certain favourites, I have no single game system that floats every time above the others. I have no pure system loyalty, and I am happy with that.

 

[Hussar]

Creators' and publisher's integrity, among other things.

I'm not sure what you mean here Aus Snow. DO you mean that the creator's and the publishers should be a "good" company?