Which gaming system has the best mechanics and why?

[Argyle King]

Actually, the defender does have to account for the attacker's degree of success. A more skilled opponent can afford to take greater risks with things like deceptive attacks. Also, skill can change critical hit odds.

 

[aramis erak]

Alternity is a pretty solid roll-under.

Total commercial failure, too.

 

[GMMichael]

To a point you're right, in that the math isn't all that hard to reverse around. I think it's mostly due to the general mental conception/paradigm of action resolution ---- that the difficulty of resolving a problem has no bearing on the outcome, only the skill level of the person performing the task. It's just......backwards to me.
...It's just a constant metagame irritant about the entire system, trying to rationalize why a given roll is good enough, or not good enough to succeed, when a "roll over a target number" system makes it exceedingly clear.

Your first point is what I couldn't get over about Warhammer 40K - how can my attempt be successful or fail BEFORE the difficulty of the activity has been considered? "Roll under your score, and you're successful." The game DOES adjust for difficulty later, but it also seems backwards.

The metagame irritant point is significant too - a game's rules shouldn't -distract- the players from the game.

But I've recently found that there's a problem with the exceedingly clear roll-over. If you want to play a game about rules, then it's pretty easy to have successes and failures. But if you play closer to the narrative/story/fiction, then a "success" and "failure" is actually TOO clear...

For example:
A messenger gets a message from his officer to take to the king: "we must fall back or lose this town." Another character, interested in seeing the king fail, can sabotage the officer by delivering a different message first: "the enemy is retreating." If one character rolls a message-delivery contest against the other - what does success mean? What does failure mean? More confusing, admittedly, in Warhammer 40K: what if one character rolls under the other, but not below his score? Or is it better to roll higher than your opponent, even though roll-under implies that rolling low is good?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

For example:
A messenger gets a message from his officer to take to the king: "we must fall back or lose this town." Another character, interested in seeing the king fail, can sabotage the officer by delivering a different message first: "the enemy is retreating." If one character rolls a message-delivery contest against the other - what does success mean? What does failure mean? More confusing, admittedly, in Warhammer 40K: what if one character rolls under the other, but not below his score? Or is it better to roll higher than your opponent, even though roll-under implies that rolling low is good?

Are you suggesting that this situation would be better served by a margin-of-success comparison system? Have each side roll a persuasion check, add their bonuses, and whichever one rolls higher is the one who succeeds in convincing the king?

Because that falls back into the same problem I just mentioned. Namely, once one side is sufficiently skilled, the other side has effectively no chance of countering. (It doesn't matter that your rogue has +7 to Persuasion, because that bard has +20, and you're not going to overcome that disparity on 3d6; you should have either min-maxxed your Persuasion skill, or given up on any possibility of succeeding.) Instead, I would take it point by point - The messenger makes a roll to convince the king, and either succeeds or fails (with a massive bonus, due to familiarity and evidence); then your character makes a roll to convince the king of a counter-fact, and either succeeds or fails. If both succeed, then the king realizes that someone is lying, and jails both characters until he can figure out which one to execute.

 

[dracomilan]

Total commercial failure, too.

So true. But it was released in a pretty difficult period for TSR, and had no chance to evolve once 3e decided to go all roll-over (while AD&D had been a confused mix of the two systems). It does not detract from its quality.

 

[aramis erak]

So true. But it was released in a pretty difficult period for TSR, and had no chance to evolve once 3e decided to go all roll-over (while AD&D had been a confused mix of the two systems). It does not detract from its quality.

Was also a flop with most of the people I ran it for.

It conflated two lesser popularity mechanics into one unhappy mechanic: dice roll by difficulty and roll under.

The commercially successful roll low systems (GURPS, BRP) always use the same roll.
The commercially successful dice by difficulty systems use a roll high with cancellation (WFRP 3 and FFG-SW) or opposed roll mechanic (d6 system)

Even in mixed mechanic games (Palladium, pre-3E D&D), the roll low portions are fixed type of die roll, with modifiers for difficulty, rather than adjusting the dice rolled.

Alternity has some great ideas - but when the core action resolution mechanic is problematic, it's doomed.

 

[GMMichael]

Are you suggesting that this situation would be better served by a margin-of-success comparison system? Have each side roll a persuasion check, add their bonuses, and whichever one rolls higher is the one who succeeds in convincing the king?

In a word: no. It's not -getting- to the outcomes I'm talking about. It's the outcomes themselves. Because rolling a "success" on your contest to be the first messenger to the king doesn't tell you a whole lot. Did you get your message to the king before your opponent even set foot in the city? Or did you stick it in his hand just before your opponent delivered his message?

Degrees of success would help with this, but I'm thinking that the outcome should be put to the imaginations of the GM and players, not the dice. To this end, I've designed a system that casts aside "success" and "failure," in favor of "favorable" and "unfavorable" outcomes. Pros and cons for short. Note the difference: an unfavorable outcome can still be an objective success - just one that the character might not want.

Also note that the above system reduces the significance of skill/result point disparities. Even if you have a +20 and you beat your opponent by 13 - you've only gained a favorable outcome. Not a +13 point success.

 

[dracomilan]

Even in mixed mechanic games (Palladium, pre-3E D&D), the roll low portions are fixed type of die roll, with modifiers for difficulty, rather than adjusting the dice rolled.
.

Dunno about that.
Modifying the d20 rolled with a variable did not prove more difficult than modifying the threshold value you have to roll under.
And it allowed for a lot of varied results to be neatly displayed on your character sheet.

I think other parts were flawed (wounds and stuns) but the core mechanic was cool

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Also note that the above system reduces the significance of skill/result point disparities. Even if you have a +20 and you beat your opponent by 13 - you've only gained a favorable outcome. Not a +13 point success.

That seems really vague, though. For most tasks, success and failure are clearly defined. With a system like "favorable" or "unfavorable", it seems like a lot is left up to GM interpretation, which can create an issue where the player thinks a particular goal has been achieved and the GM ends up narrating it in a completely unexpected manner.

That's a problem with any game where "complications" are part of the success table. Note that with D&D, in my above example, the specific checks would involve riding and pushing an animal for an extended period of time, and the PCs can be reasonably assured of the likely results before any check is made - if it took you six hours to deliver a message, but the opponent got there in four hours, then it's because you didn't push the mount hard enough (or pushed too hard and exhausted it). One of the major benefits of a system like D&D is that results are usually clear, and the DM is rarely left uncertain about how to narrate them.

 

[RevTurkey]

Alternity: when I think about it or look at it...I always think...it was great but the mechanics didn't feel right.

This is of course a silly question but I'll join in the silliness to pass some time...

I'm going to throw up some of my thoughts and of course they will be wrong but here goes anyway. Here are my main contenders...

Dungeons & Dragons. It IS a very fun game. It has soooo much setting and optional material out there it is just crazy. It is hackable to work under different spotlights...horror, sci-fi etc. I shouldn't worry about edition much as the different ones offer alternative mechanical focus points...but all can still be fun i found. The basic mechanics, although abstract and not exactly realistic are still most enjoyable to use. Roll a dice...get a number....fiddle about with it...jump in the air and scream victory!

BRP. In it's many forms...Runequest, Call of Cthulhu, Superworld, Ringworld, Stormbringer...etc...a straightforward, logical set of rules. Percentage chance of success on a percentage roll. Clear. Adaptable to many genres. Long history and proven track record with a wealth of gaming supplements and ideas to draw from.

GURPS. HERO. SAVAGE WORLDS...I tend to think of these three together...the holy trinity of 'we can be anything' games. All three are great if in the right hands and if you are inclined to enjoy the tilt they put on complexity. My take is that GURPS has a problem with the way it is presented and that problem has increased with every edition. Same goes for Hero System. Just more and more barriers to entry for a starting group of players. I love those games but the learning curve is steep. Savage Worlds is easy to learn, adaptable and like the others, has lots of source material to draw from. Of these three SW would get the vote from my gaming group. Just the one we have both enjoyed the most as player AND referee.

The new boys in town. FATE, Dungeon World, Cortex, CYPHER, Burning Wheel etc...I have looked at them and always felt they were trying too hard to be cool and groovy. I can find a good deal of merit in each of them. Would I choose them over any of the previous I have mentioned if I only had to make one choice? No.

There are hundreds of other games that I could mention. The Rolemasters, Warhammers, One Rings, Tunnels and Trolls etc but great though they are...I would come down to a choice from the ones above if I had only one to make...so....

D&D, BRP or Savage Worlds?

My nostalgic heart says D&D but my head says Savage Worlds is mechanically better.

So there you go. In 30+ years I think that.

(I'd still pick D&D if I only had one game though lol and it'd be B/X because I am an old fart)