What I like about certain RPG systems

[moriarty777]

I started this thread in part because of the 'Old Skool is New Again' thread. It got me thinking and I decided to start this new thread to highlight the positive aspects of various systems available. What do I (or we if others contribute) look for in a system. What do we like that makes a difference?

Who knows... this might also be useful for a prospective (or current) game designer.

Well, if I start with the D&D 3.x -- when it first came out, there were many things which I found appealing. I've always liked some crunch to my games and the FEAT idea was not a bad one. I like the idea of 'Ambidexterity' as a FEAT (existing only in 3.0 mind you) and others such as Alertness or Ironwill. I like that armor and weapon were grouped in categories and if your character wasn't proficient in a certain class of weapon, that they could take a FEAT and learn it. It provided with some versatility. That's not to say that the FEAT system was perfect. Different and more specialized combat maneuvers fell under the FEAT domain. If the FEAT system were re-tooled to focus more on gifts or talents, you'd still have a game with a lot of variation but perhaps more freedom as well.

Castles & Crusades ... my favorite. Sure, it doesn't have the crunchy variations that 3.x has but it does have one solid thing that trumps it -- the SIEGE mechanic. With the notion of primes and how saves and skill checks are resolved, it is simple to learn and quick to resolve which lends itself to a faster-paced game. It doesn't try to 'itemize' a list of skills and still provides a mechanic to permit the notion of strengths and weaknesses with the selection of Primes. Better yet, because of the way it's designed, you can port from either the older AD&D (and OD&D) systems or the 3.x D&D systems with little effort!

West End Games (current d6 system and pre-d20 Star Wars). I will always have a soft spot in my heart for this game. Like C&C, it is simple to learn with easy mechanics which also promote a focus of the narrative and roleplay. This system differs from the previous two in that you don't roll up stats. You assign dice pools to various attributes with additional ones to specific skills. This provided ultimate versatility and variation which seems to be an argument used for FEATs and an itemized skill system. At the same time, you didn't choose a class... ever... not did you advance in a system of 'levels' but skills and attributes did improve over time.

These games all have their strengths... and subsequently, their short comings. With the WEG d6 system (and other similar systems)... be prepared to use a bucket of dice. With D&D 3.x ... be prepared to use miniatures -- the current system is built around the concept making them pretty much a requirement. As for C&C, well, one can always add or remove features easily enough (another Strength) but it may be forever compared to its older siblings (AD&D and OD&D) as well as its bodybuilding cousin (D&D 3.x).

Moriarty the Red
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com

[Treebore]

I think for me as long as the system is reasonably simple how it conveys the action and story of my character is what sells me.

Like Traveller (MegaTraveller) uses just 2d6 and an incremental difficulty up to 18 (21 for impossible, I think. Going off of *** poor memory here),

plus it also lets a good sci fi story be told with reasonably good and simple mechanics to determine succes.

Legend of the 5 Rings. Its a d10 roll and keep system. Pretty darn simple once you figure it out. Tells an awesomely gritty story in a quasi Japanese setting (good amount of Chinese thrown in, but dominantly Japanese) in a fantasy world. The grittiness of this is carried out by the mechanics.

Shadowrun. Essentially a d6 pool system that is also roll and keep. A bit wonky a little to often (not sure about 4E, haven't played it yet) with the mechanics, but an awesome premise for a setting and loads of fun despite its wonkiness.

3E. I like a lot of elements of 3E. My main problem is over kill on details that don't add to the experience that I am looking for. AoO bogs things down and dims the enthusiasm for success because the players act more like they just got done running the Boston Marathon and their lungs are falling out rather than they just won a lottery.

Plus some of the feat combo's (at least the few that were revealed to me) are more like super powers from the Mutants and MAsterminds game.

Skills were overly complex as well. Granted having synergy bonus made "sense", So did having 4 ranks at first level. Eventually, unles you actually played well into Epic level, skill ranks became serious over kill.

Plus it was also a lot of record keeping.

Combine record keeping of skills with record keeping of feats and their bonuses/effects, it becomes a chore even for the player, let alone the poor DM.

Then add in how often all those records being kept were temporarily altered by spells and the nightmare gets worse. Exponentially worse for the DM.

But their are a lot of things I learned in 3E that I liked. I do like feats. I like to apply/give them as DM rewards rather than a guarranteed benefit by "x" level. In my C&C games I use them as a mechanic to give a PC a permanent ability. All due to how they play their character in the course fo the game. Like in my home game two players made numerous SIEGE checks to pull off second attacks and Cleaves. So eventually I gave them "feats" to where they no longer need to make a SIEGE checks. The Runemark is close to getting two "feats", changing the energy type of her spells and speed casting.

I also like skills. Its just too much record keeping and too arbitrary. So for the sake of simplicity I gave the full skill list of the class to the class. The only limits I had were in the number of knowledge, craft, profession, and perform skills. Plus your skill rank was equal to your level. In 3E I allowed them to pick skill focuses, which were skills they normally would have selected as per 3E rules, and they had 3 ranks higher in those.

I don't do that in C&C, they just get the skills, no focuses, thats what class abilities are for.

Another thing I like about 3E is the customization of monsters. That is something I still do in C&C. I guess you can think of my "monster inventory" being more like Gamma World rather than stock creatures. Especially where classes are concerned. I gave intelligent monsters classes since my 1E days. It was nice to see D&D catch up to me.
I also love "templates", especially with regards to lycanthropes and undead such as vampires and liches. I've also come to appreciate "swarm templates".
So with C&C, I like it for much the same reasons as everyone else. It gives the power of direction back to me. The poor CK who does all the work to make the game worth playing.

Once again I am entrusted with the responsibility to make the game fun, and to decide what "power level" the game will have based on what I am comfortable with running.

I get to decide what rules above baseline btb (by the book) get used (with player agreement in most cases, I get to throw whatever monster I want at them).

People say I get to do that in 3E. Yeah, right. I can. I'm not sure how many people would have allowed me to be DM if I said "no" even half as much as I wanted to. Especially since so many of them spent money on the new book because they wanted to try out the new ideas "right now".

Plus WOTC even "spinned it" to where the players were to get what they want.

Excellent marketing since players are about 4/5 of the market and you want them to buy, buy, buy. Sucks for the DM having their arm twisted by the system they are running to give the players what they want when they want it. Irregardless of how it messes up your campaign history or power scale or your comfort zone.

So I much prefer the environment of C&C as well as it simple rules base that is so powerful in its flexibility that I can use stuff from pretty much any d20 bases RPG with little difficulty.

It allows me, and my players, to focus on the story. The players accomplishments within that story is what makes their characters truly cool and memorable rather than their "cool/awesome/wicked feat chain" or "super cool power toy weapon".

So that is why I don't like to DM 3E, or GURPS, or Rolemaster, etc... Too much book keeping with too little return.

Another game that is great in the "story elements" is EPICrpg. ITs main success in this is that your character is integrally linked to their guild. Much like real life people were and are linked to their "organization". Plus the rules are pretty solid too. When I start up a new home campaign I am going to really try and mix this with C&C and whatever campaign world/region I use.

I am also looking into running HARP this summer. I think it may have a decent balance of story versus rules tinkering. All I know is the material reads well and gets me wanting to play, so thats a good sign in my book. The couple of "try out" play sessions went well too.

Mutants and Masterminds. I don't get in the mood to play superheroes very often, but when I do I like this rules set. IT has the potential problems of 3E, but at least the rules back up the DM most of the time.

I could also go on as to why I like Synnibar, Paladium Fantasy, RIFTS, Chivalry and Sorcery, Aftermath, and others, but I have things to do today besides post on messageboards.

[seskis281]

I will give the 1st release of 3.0 it's due - it was initially what got me back into gaming after years of absence.

The first handbooks that came out had things I liked that I always struggled with in AD&D and 2nd ed. (I am a fan of the unified mechanic - which is why C&C became the hybrid I was looking for), liked the INITIAL easiness of understanding, and I would even admit to liking the layout with the faux notebook style. I was especially excited as Greyhawk was announced as the default world. The new core modules seemed at first to return me to what I loved about D&D - hey, their moto at the time (if only briefly) was "back to the dungeon." The Sunless Citadel and Forge of Fury were excellent low level modules. I began running several long and very fruitful campaigns with these. Of course, then the modules stopped, the supplements and subsequent rules came, and it all spiraled again. If it weren't for everything that got released that made it so hard to run a game without players bringing large trunks of rulebooks original 3.0, as modified by me, worked fine.

For a different style of gaming, White Wolf's releases (if you were into Vampires, etc.) had a flavor and storytelling emphasis which I found always played well especially with theatre people (which has been my world for most of my life).

And of course I have one very nostalgic favorite still - D&D Expert rules set. Took the basic rules and expanded them enough before having to figure out AD&D - for a middle school kid in the early 80's this was "my" first real D&D.
_________________
John "Sir Seskis" Wright

Ilshara: Lands of Exile:
http://johnwright281.tripod.com/

High Squire of the C&C Society
www.cncsociety.org

[SavageRobby]

seskis281 wrote:
I will give the 1st release of 3.0 it's due - it was initially what got me back into gaming after years of absence.

Same here. I still think it has a lot of really good ideas - just an overabundance of them.
I love the relative simplicities of D&D (B/X), AD&D (1st edition) and C&C.

From Savage Worlds, I love the Bennies and Adventure Cards mechanics. They give players more options, and a better chance to influence the story at critical moments, something I really like. I also like the typically narrower randomization curves, since it predominately uses d4-d12 (with exploding dice), rather than a d20.

I'm also a huge fan of Hindrances/Disadvantages/Quirks, or whatever you want to call them, from whatever system you want to yank them from. I've found characters are better defined by those (in terms of roleplaying) than by any class, race, skill or special ability, and they provide more roleplaying and GMing opportunities than any other single factor.

I like the Over the Edge holistic dice pool approach to skills/backgrounds, but never found a really good way to integrate that into a system. However, I will use something like that in my C&C campaign to help quantity (in game terms) a player's background and how that affects their SIEGE rolls.

[concobar]

Other than 1st edition ad&d the there are a few games that I always remember fondly.

Star frontiers, I am a sucker for simple percentile systems and sci fi that involves wookie type critters (yazarians). My game group played this game for months back in middle school.

Traveller, simple system that could handle any situation as long as the ref had a dose of common sense. I kinda liked that you could die in character generation. I have had a hard time keeping a game going though as most of the local area gamers seem determined to play fantasy games.

MERP. loved the percentile system and the critical hit charts, besides.. who doesnt like Tolkien?

3.x unified mechanic was a good idea. I like that armor class increased with quality and the simplified to hit system. Hated AoO and how complex combat becomes as characters level and aquire feat combination that allow for ridiculous actions.

Deadlands. really a great system and easy to run. character generation being determined by a poker hand was neat and who doesnt like undead cowboys from hell?

Shadowrun. love it, the system is easy to use and the setting brilliant in its simplicity.

C&C, love it. it combines everything I liked about 1st ed AD&D with everything I like about 3.x. I think the classes are very well thought out and I am a fan of the race descriptions and abilities. C&C is a perfect fit for my style of fast action packed game. the rules melt into the background and for the first time in over a year the local group is role playing instead of roll playing.

rifts MDC vrs SDC = blech

GURPS, a nice enough system. not really my style.

eberron hate it except for the actions dice. I am thinking about allowing action dice as a house rule for my C&C campaign.

[sieg]

What I like, and something that seems to be rare these days, is the concept of the character being a (somewhat) average guy or gal. Not to say they're Joe or Jane Peasant, but IMO the character should be a person and their actions should make them a Hero. Too many systems seem to want to "make" you a Hero right out the gate (exalted) and I just don't like that.

Call of Cthulhu is one that fits my view of the "normals rising to herodom by action" as did OD&D/OAD&D. In the latter, sure you're probably going to take that peasant at 1st level but better not tangle with the watch!

When you lose the above, then you need to have watch soldiers at character starting level (or a bit more) to make them intimidating. Then the Guard captain has to be even higher. You end up with the Mayor being 10th level (!) Or you end up with PCs basically running the town during the first few adventures.

Speaking of running the town, Boot Hill was another one that fit into this PoV; though the tables made my head hurt.
If you want to play a Superhero, play a SH type game. Otherwise take your puny character and build him or her into a real Hero by deeds, not bennies!
_________________
Always remember, as a first principle of all D&D: playing BtB is not now, never was and never will be old school.- Tim Kask, Dragonsfoot

[Dagger]

Awesome topic! I actually have been brainstorming on this very topic because I'm writing a system based on the things I love about RPGs. I have no goals beyond writing it for myself... I always thought that if it had appeal to others I would let it become whatever it was destined to become.

I have a ton of notes (too much to type!), but here are some general things I like in a system:

-Consistent, unified mechanics: Roll a d20, d%, d6, etc... to attempt actions

-Ability to attempt any kind of action (even if chance of success is bleak)

-Attributes (Str, Con, etc...) that have meaning. I don't like how a score of 3-18 results in a small bonus/penalty to actions and doesn't do anything else in the game system.

- Character Races

- Skill Based games as opposed to class/level based games

- While I don't prefer class/level systems, I do like that characters have a rank/experience level that represents how powerful they are based on how much XP they've earned

- Skill bundles as opposed to detailed skills

- Spell/Powers point systems as opposed to memorized spells

- Opposed skill checks vs. "I hide in shadows and am now invisible"

- Standard movement based on race and not a speed attribute

- Simple, round based combat (no segments, weapon speed, etc...)

[DangerDwarf]

What I look for in a system?

First I want simple. I like easy, rules light systems with a fast pace play. Not an overabundance of rules. C&C, Savage Worlds and Talislanta are all good example of what I like.

For the fantasy genre I want levels, classes hit points and all of that stuff that is typical D&D. No complex skill system, something basic is cool. Although the Talislanta skill system is among my favorite.

For non-fantasy games I dont want hit points, I want wound levels, condition monitors, whatever. I want skills a bit more in depth than I want for my fantasy games but still pretty basic.

I don't mind more complex systems, but I generally only run them as temporary diversions from my core gaming.

I don't like rolling fistfuls of dice to determine a single action. Shadowrun and the White Wolf line are cool , but a fistful of dice is for high level fireballs not an attack roll.

[Jyrdan Fairblade]

Same here, though I stuck around for a long time with 2e. Specifically, it was reading about all the cool Necromancer Games products that really did it.

And the D&D Expert rules set was an amazing piece of work. Really, I think that those five D&D boxed sets were amongst the finest products TSR put out, looking back. I love AD&D, but those D&D products were solid.

seskis281 wrote:
I will give the 1st release of 3.0 it's due - it was initially what got me back into gaming after years of absence....

And of course I have one very nostalgic favorite still - D&D Expert rules set. Took the basic rules and expanded them enough before having to figure out AD&D - for a middle school kid in the early 80's this was "my" first real D&D.

[aethelulf22]

Any thoughts on Warhammer WFRP? It seems to be a lot more popular here in Europe than in the US. I've never played but always been intrigued....

[Jyrdan Fairblade]

I played 1e and loved it. Then I bought 2e and still love it, but haven't gotten a chance to play or run the game.

What Warhammer does so brilliantly was the marriage of the system and the setting. I just don't know that it would be the same without one and the other.

Every time a new Pirates of the Caribbean movie comes out, I say to myself that I really should do a piracy-themed Warhammer game.

aethelulf22 wrote:
Any thoughts on Warhammer WFRP? It seems to be a lot more popular here in Europe than in the US. I've never played but always been intrigued....

[Omote]

Jyrdan Fairblade wrote:
What Warhammer does so brilliantly was the marriage of the system and the setting. I just don't know that it would be the same without one and the other.

Agreed! There would be no reason to play WFRP if it wern't it's own system IMO. The system and the setting go completely hand-in-hand. I love WFRP2, and think it's one of the better RPGs on the market today. The system is solid, and a with the 2nd edition, many of the quirkly rules have been codified and brought up to date.

A worthy game. I've always loved d% systems.

...........................................Omote

FPQ
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

[Tank]

Two systems that I don't think have been mentioned yet:

Rules Cyclopedia D&D:
Likes - 100% self-contained, simple enough to pick up quickly, great weapon mastery system, complete rules on strongholds. Monsters, spells, and cosmos included. Includes easy conversion to AD&D. Mystic included!
Dislikes - Cumbersome saving throws and nonweapon proficiency rolls. Ability score requirements needlessly restricting choices. Race & class not separated. Thief ability scores work as percentiles. Nonstandard hit dice. And who thought a base AC of 9 was a good idea?

d20 modern/future:
Likes - purchase DC system and licensing, action points, mutations, progress levels, cybernetics.
Dislikes - lousy base classes, fast hero is the best, gadget system, no solid foundation of archetypes, the art, overly complex driving/flight rules, talent trees - how are they meaningfully different than feats?

[old school gamer]

Well here are my favorites

Hero System: I have been playing Champions since it came out in 1981. I still consider it to be the most flexible character creation system out there and one of the best for Supers. You can make any character you want to make as well as the GM Ok's it. Yes it can take along time to make a character but the end result is that get what you want, without having roll dice or put together a class combination. Many combat manuevers to chose from and you can spend experience points on anything you want to.

D&D: Ok, I will confess that I have always had a rather ambivalent relationship with D&D. I started playing when I was 14 and I am 43 now, so I have played nearly every version there is. I liked the game because it was the only thing out there at the moment. I can still like it because if you have a good GM and some good players it can be alot of fun.

I never liked 2nd edition mainly because by the time that game came out Champions 4th edition came out and I simply consider its flexible point system to be superior to AD&D. Also I had the hardest trying to get anyone to play Hero System because they considered AD&D to be the only game worth playing.

When D&D 3E came out I was initially impressed. This was mainly because I like that they got rid of the whole race/class/level restrictions from the earlier versions which made no real sense to me. I had alot of fun playing it at first mainly because we the players didn't know what we were doing and were sort of playing it like earlier versions of D&D.

Then 3.5 came out and although I at first resisted getting the new version too many of the other players did and I eventually caved in. It eventually ended up becoming a fantasy superhero game with much too magic for my taste and pretty much turned me off.

So enough with the negativism.

Legend of the Five Rings and 7Seas. Love these games. Simple to learn, lots of flexibility in creation and a good combination of combat, action and political intrigue to keep everyone interested. I have been playing in a really good epic scale L5R game that I can't wait to play again.

Call of Cthulhu. This took some getting used to. If you are a power gamer you will hate this one. But if you like to play the average guy trying to save the world and even making to ultimate sacrifice to save the world then you will enjoy it as I have. Granted, it has a rather lethal combat system and it really is not game for everyone I have grown to appreciate it.

Oh and since I am here anyway.

Castles and Crusades. I wish I had found this game years ago. I absolutely love it. It is such a refreshing change from Hero (which I still love), and allows me to simply run the adventure without having to refer to the rules. It amazes me that nobody else came up with this game.

[serleran]

The only games I like are the ones that have ideas I've not seen elsewhere, or have a fundamental flexibility that allows me to rip out their core, or to integrate into, whatever I want. Fortunately, I am able to do that with a lot of games, and therefore I like a lot of games...