What Makes One System Better Than Another?

[LostSoul]

For instance, "balance" only matters in games with a decent gamist element. It's irrelevant in strongly narrativist systems, at least in the normal sense. (Narrative balance remains important.) In strongly simulationist systems, it's practically antithetical.

I don't know about that.

It depends on the premise of the game, but unbalanced systems can front-load a premise. Could be why unbalanced systems are good for sim (front-loaded premise enforced by the game's rules).

 

[slwoyach]

I agree with Wombat. If I want to slap on a loincloth, pick up a broadsword, and wade through rivers of blood I want Conan D20. If I want a sleek sci-fi game, Alternity. If I want a solid fantasy game without super-powered characters I want E6. If I want a solid game for buckling a swash, 7th sea. Heck, I even grew kind of fond of WoD (which I've always hated) once I was exposed to Changeling.

I also like simple mechanics that can be lifted from one system to another if I like it.

I love HarnMaster.

I was under the impression you like Harn rather than HarnMaster. What, no DND love?

 

[Umbran]

What other considerations are there to picking one system over another?

Here's my take on it:

Asking, "What makes one system better than another?" is rather like asking, "What makes one tool better than another?"

You ask what makes system A better than system B? I ask what makes a hammer better than a screwdriver?

Objectively, nothing makes one tool better than another. Different tools are only better than one another in a given context, when relating to a specific task. Tools are not good or bad, they are good or bad for doing something. A hammer is good for driving nails. It kinds of stinks at loosening bolts.

For most of us, the "task" is implicitly defined, roughly as "running games I like to play" We get into a lot of disagreement there, because what I like to play is not what you like to play. We treat those implicit assumptions as objective truths, but they generally aren't.

So, tell me the type of game you like to play, and then we can talk about what would make a system better or worse at doing it.

 

[kitsune9]

As the title suggests, I'm trying to get at a fairly simple, although potentially hard to define, concept: what makes System A better than System B? I'm looking for answers as basic as "it should be balanced" or more involved, such as whether it's an advantage or disadvantage to have 3 different skills that are all similar enough that any can be used to jump, but each is better than another in different situations (from one narrow ledge to another vs. across a chasm vs. up to the rafters).

A couple of key points I've come up with so far are as follows:
*Balance - the game shouldn't favor one class over all others, though whether having all be equal or a rock-paper-scissors aspect is less clear to me
*Speed of Play - if it takes an hour for each person to take a turn (especially if it's in the D&D sense of 6 second turns), there's a problem.
*Flexibility - is it an advantage or disadvantage to have 15 classes that can be described as a "nature-based warrior"? Should there be a massive number of classes, a couple fairly basic classes that combine to cover almost any concept you can come up with, or one ultimately flexible class?
*Customizability - similar to flexibility, I see this as being a little different: is reducing the number of skills an advantage or disadvantage? Does this change if you reduce it past a certain point? Is it good or bad to make simplifications to the skill selection system, such as was made with the change from 3.x (skill points every level) to 4e (flat +5 to 'trained' skills, all skills improve as you gain levels).

What other general categories are there that should be considered? What do you consider to be a draw for a system? What other considerations are there to picking one system over another?

These are good ideas, but I think ultimately it's a matter of personal experience and taste of what makes System A better than System B. I could take all these ideas and make an argument that 3.5 fits this criteria perfectly, but there'd be some guy who would say that it's 4e, another guy who says it's 3.0, another 2e, another 1e, and then some guy would say it's none of the above, it's Palladium, and so on. We all have differing tastes on what makes a system "work" for us. Finding like-minded players is the challenge, but once you get them together, we have fun.

Happy gaming.

 

[rogueboy]

Thank you all for the quick replies, there's some interesting ideas in here, which is what I was looking for.

I probably should have stated it at the beginning, but I understand that this is a very opinionated subject, and different games are better for different things. I was trying to get at, for you, why do you have a preference for the system(s) you do? Several of you have done this, and I thank you for that.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Baron Munchausen is the best game because it encourages drinking fine brandy.

Baron Munchausen is the worst game because I no longer have a lot of money to go into fine brandy expenses.

 

[Mournblade94]

General:

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.

That does not mean the rules system is bad. It could just be the individual reader has a mental block. It could be an overly complex rule, but it could also jsut be a mental block.

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.

I have difficulty seeing what would make someone liking overly complex rules system invalid for discussion. I know plenty of people that enjoy games for the math component.

I like stochiometry because it is fun to solve the problems.

What would make an overly complex (which is often just an opinion) rules system invalid. Is Rolemaster invalid for this discussion as example.

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.

Why are these games not valid comparisons?

(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.)

I don't think any player that plays these concepts would complain about the rules system not allowing them to shine, because that obviously is not their goal. How are you defining a valid concept? Valid to this discussion? Any character you can possibly make is valid for the game. you might be able to define characters invalid to a rules system discussion.

(Don't screw with the system. Making a character without a background who is only good at shooting people is not a valid concept.)

I don't know of this system, but if the point of the game is storytelling and NOT combat, yes I can see this as an invalid concept. I cannot see the paladin you listed above as being invalid for a D&D game however.

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.)

I THought I was getting it. This is very confusing as to what defines 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.

Very often "what the game is about" is up to the DM. You mentioned Exalted above, and from what I have played of it, it is not necessarily a combat oriented game.

 

[Aus_Snow]

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?

Close enough, yeah. As much as possible, anyway.

There's a distinct lack of good ethics in the running and workings of several RPG companies that come to mind, and most likely many more. A lack of honesty to the letter and/or to the spirit, a clear disdain for customers (or potential customers), and in some cases for their own workers or contributors. . . and so on.

I'll name just one well known example *from the past* that shouldn't start any fires or whatever, and leave it there, for a couple of reasons: latter-day TSR.

 

[Hussar]

Close enough, yeah. As much as possible, anyway.

There's a distinct lack of good ethics in the running and workings of several RPG companies that come to mind, and most likely many more. A lack of honesty to the letter and/or to the spirit, a clear disdain for customers (or potential customers), and in some cases for their own workers or contributors. . . and so on.

I'll name just one well known example *from the past* that shouldn't start any fires or whatever, and leave it there, for a couple of reasons: latter-day TSR.

I think a lot of that though is only important to a small sub-set of gamers. Typically gamers who fancy themselves as part of the "industry". I think for a larger majority, most people couldn't care less about the company that produces the games.

I could, of course, be entirely wrong here.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I think a lot of that though is only important to a small sub-set of gamers. Typically gamers who fancy themselves as part of the "industry". I think for a larger majority, most people couldn't care less about the company that produces the games.

I could, of course, be entirely wrong here.

Well, I most definitely agree with the majority of that. Pretty much common sense, in the bigger picture.

But that's the thing - I was only speaking on my own behalf. And, FWIW, I'm not one of the (arguably) 'typical' ones who 'fancy themselves as part of the "industry"'. Not at all. But then, you didn't even say 'only', but instead 'typically', so I feel no compulsion to go biting your head off.

If I was to answer the question all over again, but in a quite possibly misguided attempt to speak for the majority, I would have to say 'marketing'. That's what 'makes one system better than another', more than anything else.