What Rules/Systems Would You Steal For EVERY Game?

[Thierry-Advent]

So it’s like a dynamic clock system. I like it!

[edit] … or it’s a hp system for tasks. “Hit” the task with a success, deal “damage”, reduce its “hit points”, task is completed at 0. Either way, I might steal this for d&d.

It also works for opposed rolls. Imagine a coding battle between two hackers. The side that reaches their Threshold first wins, and either enters the system or is blocked from entering.

 

[Thourne]

More than a Pass/Fail resolution system.
Yes/No but... this or that.
Degrees of success even in failure or complications coming with a success sort of stuff.

 

[billd91]

Fantasy AGE's Advanced Skill Checks for long actions. The GM sets a Threshold to reach, say 10 because hacking the program is a moderate task. Then the GM sets the time increment, say 5-minutes per attempt.

Every time the player succeeds (on 3d6 in the case of FAGE) the stunt die tells you how many points you've progressed towards 10. When you reach 10 the action succeeds. For each attempt (success or fail) time progress and chances of getting caught by a security guard increases.

I've done this for social interactions too, as it models the ebb and flow of a discussion better.

With a d20 just have the player roll a d6 on the side to know how many progression points he gets for each success.

I've seen other variants on this sort of thing in which a successful check adds to an index value that accumulates until the task is completed. The most obvious one is building up damage inflicted on an opponent until it's defeated. The main art is figuring out how you want that index value to behave, how easy you want it to be, and how you want the whole thing integrated into the system. In the case of FAGE here, adding stunt die values to 10 means that the overall goal will take at least 2 checks to succeed, at most 10 (that's rolling a lot of 1s on the stunt die), and an average of 3 based on the expected value of 3.5/roll. And since players are accustomed to rolling the 3d6, it integrates well. Since it's values from 1-6 and accumulating to 10, it's easy to add it up.

But it wouldn't be that hard to come up with variants including:
1) Rolling tasks and adding the task's results together to come to an index target. No extra dice to roll, but math a bit harder.
2) Rolling tasks and adding the just the PC's skill modifier (min 0) to come to index target. No extra dice to roll, math easier than #1, heavily counts character skill value if you want it to matter more.
3) Rolling tasks but tasks, rolling other die to add to index target. Welcome to D&D combat. Could easily be used for diplomacy too with PCs rolling 1d6 if untrained, 1d10 if trained, 2d6 if trained with expertise, + some additional value for critical success, to overcome a target's "resist argument hit points".

And so on...

 

[Reynard]

At least for games where combat is going to be a thing, I think encounter building/balancing guidelines have become a must. Unfortunately, many of them are done poorly. But in theory it is a good idea to give GMs a tool to at least eyeball what is mechanically an appropriate encounter for a given level of difficulty or intended feel.

 

[zarionofarabel]

Because players and GMs have different roles. Is this controversial?

Well, it depends on the game and playstyle. Some TTRPGs have very little difference between GM and player. So again, why does there need to be strict control placed on the frequency or gravity of player worldbuilding vs GM worldbuilding? As an example, the so-called 4D playstyle proponents use a technique called "co-creation" which essentially allows players completely unrestricted worldbuilding permissions, independent of system used.

What does the game say about the idea that the player might invent something about the Stormlands that contradicts something the GM has developed and might be key to the scenario, but the players don't know exists.

Burning Wheel is purpose built for player driven campaigns, so it's assumed that there are no predetermined plot points for the players to experience. The game also leans heavily on the collaborative aspects of play so the GM would be expected to alter things to conform to the new lore the player has added. While it doesn't explicitly say so, I believe Burning Wheel was created as a response to an overbearing and controlling GM style of running games.

I wasn't talking about abuse. I was talking about coherence.

I've watched a great many AP vidoes over the last few months, and I don't think a single GM controlling the lore means things will be any more coherent than if the players can also create lore. In my own personal experience, I know it doesn't.

Again, what it really comes down to is trust, and not just trust in process, but trust in the participants to collaborate to create a fun and interesting experience for all. As a player the default position regarding worldbuilding is to trust the GM implicitly. All this particular methodology asks is that the GM trusts the players in the same fashion.

 

[jian]

I really like the Danger Patrol mechanic for Threats, which is really the game’s core mechanic - it sets up threats as dynamic obstacles which can change and get worse depending on how the players roll. I think it’s a very interesting system for skill challenges and multiple stage problems.

Basically, a Threat appears (e.g. Collapsing Building 5). If the PCs don’t deal with it, it will happen (e.g. collapse and kill a lot of people). PCs roll their dice against it, but you get only one stat die (d6-12) and every roll above 4 is a Hit (reduces the Threat by 1) but every roll under 4 is Danger (can make things worse). The main way to get more dice is to endanger yourself and get 2+ Danger dice (d6s).

(You also get Bonus dice from skills, gear, and powers but can only use them once a scene.)

 

[zarionofarabel]

At least for games where combat is going to be a thing, I think encounter building/balancing guidelines have become a must. Unfortunately, many of them are done poorly. But in theory it is a good idea to give GMs a tool to at least eyeball what is mechanically an appropriate encounter for a given level of difficulty or intended feel.

By balanced do you mean...

1) The PCs will almost always win, though they will probably lose some resources. (The default meaning, ala D&D style "balancing" that most people seem to mean when they talk about balance in combat.)

2) 50% of combat encounters will end in a TPK? (What actual balancing of combat encounters would result in, ala the "fair fight" that almost no one means when they talk about balance in combat.)

 

[Reynard]

Well, it depends on the game and playstyle. Some TTRPGs have very little difference between GM and player. So again, why does there need to be strict control placed on the frequency or gravity of player worldbuilding vs GM worldbuilding? As an example, the so-called 4D playstyle proponents use a technique called "co-creation" which essentially allows players completely unrestricted worldbuilding permissions, independent of system used.

Burning Wheel is purpose built for player driven campaigns, so it's assumed that there are no predetermined plot points for the players to experience. The game also leans heavily on the collaborative aspects of play so the GM would be expected to alter things to conform to the new lore the player has added. While it doesn't explicitly say so, I believe Burning Wheel was created as a response to an overbearing and controlling GM style of running games.

I've watched a great many AP vidoes over the last few months, and I don't think a single GM controlling the lore means things will be any more coherent than if the players can also create lore. In my own personal experience, I know it doesn't.

Again, what it really comes down to is trust, and not just trust in process, but trust in the participants to collaborate to create a fun and interesting experience for all. As a player the default position regarding worldbuilding is to trust the GM implicitly. All this particular methodology asks is that the GM trusts the players in the same fashion.

I have neither played nor read Burning Wheel, so I will gladly accept your explanation. Games where the GM is not expected to prep even situations are very rare, though, so I did not assume it was one of those.

 

[Reynard]

By balanced do you mean...

1) The PCs will almost always win, though they will probably lose some resources. (The default meaning, ala D&D style "balancing" that most people seem to mean when they talk about balance in combat.)

2) 50% of combat encounters will end in a TPK? (What actual balancing of combat encounters would result in, ala the "fair fight" that almost no one means when they talk about balance in combat.)

Neither. As I said, the point is to help the GM set the difficulty appropriately.

If you want to argue about whether there should be an easy button, or TPKs half the time, you will have to find someone making either of those assertions.

 

[zarionofarabel]

I have neither played nor read Burning Wheel, so I will gladly accept your explanation. Games where the GM is not expected to prep even situations are very rare, though, so I did not assume it was one of those.

Burning Wheel assumes the GM will primarily be reactive and the players will be proactive and act as primary drivers of the narrative. Since that is my default GM style no matter the system it makes it easy to have knowledge skills in any game function the way wises do in Burning Wheel. Also, even if you don't actually play Burning Wheel, I recommend reading it, especially if you are interested in game design. It has some absolutely fantastic first principles and methodologies that I think anyone interested in game design should be familiar with. In fact, in recent years I've seen a number of things people touted as some "new and amazing and never seen before" aspect of game design, only to find out that it was something Burning Wheel did ages ago.

Neither. As I said, the point is to help the GM set the difficulty appropriately.

If you want to argue about whether there should be an easy button, or TPKs half the time, you will have to find someone making either of those assertions.

I was just trying to figure out what you meant by balancing encounters. If it's merely the ability to judge the potential difficulty of an encounter then I understand, though you should probably say that instead.

Perhaps it's a side effect of not being a D&D guy, but I've never had a problem understanding the potential difficulty of an encounter. The kinds of systems I use don't have the kind of wild differences in capability that the D&D family of level based games tend to have. They also feature much shallower power curves so an opponent that is deadly at the beginning of a campaign will probably be only slightly less deadly later in a campaign. I prefer it that way because it is both much easier to judge and much more realistic.

Though I understand that being able to understand the potential difficulty of an encounter in a system like D&D is probably helpful. Especially considering the absolutely wild level of power creep one experiences between low and high levels.