As a counterpint to the other thread, which mostly represents Gleichman's very idiosynchratic tastes, here's a list of things that I look for in a game system.

1) First and foremost, the system should "fade into the background" during play. The system is there merely to facilitate roleplaying and shouldn't interfere with it or needlessly interrupt it. As such, there should only be rules for those circumstances that require it because they cannot otherwise be decided by common sense judgements based on the circumstances.

2) Combat should be fast, and it should not be "realistic". Real-life combat is quick, confusing, arbitrary, whiffy and more than often ends up with the two combatants rolling around in the mud within a minute or so. IT doesn't make for fun games, where player expectation is more geared towards cinematic combat. When it comes down to it, if a combat plays faster its going to "feel" more realistic and intense to players, no matter how abstract the specifics of the rules are, than a drawn out combat requiring multiple calculations, charts, modifiers, etc during which time a player is completely out of character.

3) New players should be able to jump in and start playing without knowing the rules. As such, the rules should be presented and implemented in such a way that a player can simply make common sense decisions from their character's POV and the rulers should support that. "System mastery" implies a system that requires OOC knowledge for a character to be effective, and should never as a term refer to any player except the GM.

iv) Players should have a clear idea of what their characters are supposed to do from the time the game starts. The game should have a strong, clear, easily graspable premise that can be communicated quickly to the players and provide a starting point where all players are all on the same page.

5) To facillitate the two points above, players should have a clear idea of what their character can do, just by looking at their character sheet. This means that as much as possible real-world terms should be used to describe characters, or at the very least very simple evaluation systems that can be easily translated into real-world terms. If a player has a Strength or Desterity of 8 or 18, they should know what that means in real world terms. This doesn't mean that attributes ratings need to have an exact correspondence ( str 12 can lift 235 lbs, frex), as in many cases there's no reason a character would know exact amounts like that. But they should know if they have a chance at lifting something just by looking at their Strength.

6) This goes the same for Target numbers if they are used, especially if the GM is meant to assign them. A list of TNs that goes 14 -hard, 17- difficult, 23 - near impossible, doesn't help at all.

7) The players full and primary responsibility should be roleplaying their characters. The reason the GM exists is to allow players to concentrate on being in character without worrying about metagame concerns.

8) The emotions, thoughts, choices, and personality of the character should be solely the domain of the player playing them. The only exception to this is those events in which the character would have no control in real life (traumas, phobias, the influence of supernatural powers, terror, etc).

9) the rules should not assume any control over the GM's traditional responsibilities. The rules are there as tools for the GM to use, and the GM should not be reduced to simply enacting the rules of the game designer unless that is their choice due to limitations of imagination and judgement (in which case they'd probably be better off finding a good GM).

10) the rules should not favour "mechanical balance" over the consistency of the imagined world.

11) the game should be playable using only the core rulebook(s) with no need for any group to ever buy supplements unless they want to.

12) the art of the game should be inspirational and convey the mood and themes of the game. No art is preferable to bad or even mediocre art.

13) the game should justify its existence by providing something that no other system before it does. If its just a bog-standard "generic" rules set, with no background attached, then unless it has a revolutionary mechanic that does soemthing better than any other system before it, the game is not worth much. A new and unique/interesting setting is worth more than any new rules set.

Quote from: TristramEvans;644796...there should only be rules for those circumstances that require it because they cannot otherwise be decided by common sense judgements based on the circumstances.

...should not be "realistic"

..."System mastery" implies a system that requires OOC knowledge for a character to be effective, and should never as a term refer to any player except the GM.

...the GM should not be reduced to simply enacting the rules of the game designer unless that is their choice due to limitations of imagination and judgement (in which case they'd probably be better off finding a good GM).

...the rules should not favour "mechanical balance" over the consistency of the imagined world.

Some of your points are (arguably) more narrowing even than Gleichman's. Also there's an awful lot of "don't"s for this to be the positive version of his list.

Quote... if a combat plays faster its going to "feel" more realistic and intense to players, no matter how abstract the specifics of the rules are...

So a coin flip determining the victor is the best combat system?

Quote from: beejazz;644838Some of your points are (arguably) more narrowing even than Gleichman's. Also there's an awful lot of "don't"s for this to be the positive version of his list.

Granted. I'm  just listing my preferences, the "good" in the (parodic) title is as meaningless as it was with the original thread.

QuoteSo a coin flip determining the victor is the best combat system?

I think there's a balance to be reached somewhere in-between. While that may be the fastest, it doesn't account for any variables so there's no feeling of the pc's abilities actually affecting the outcome. The only situation I could see a coin flip really working would be one of those "find out the result, then roleplay it out systems", which I personally don't prefer.

But honestly the time difference between flipping a coin or rolling a d10 isn't enough to make much of a difference to me.

Quote1) First and foremost, the system should "fade into the background" during play. The system is there merely to facilitate roleplaying and shouldn't interfere with it or needlessly interrupt it. As such, there should only be rules for those circumstances that require it because they cannot otherwise be decided by common sense judgements based on the circumstances.

Yes but this is very much a judgement call. Take Social mechanics, I am 100% committed to in character roleplay, I think Social mechnaics aid roleplay because they help to differentiate the characters abilities from those of the player. However, other people disagree totally and woudl remove social skills and allow the players simply to act it out.
I prefer more more complex character creation as it helps define what the character can do so that in play there is no need to ask those questions and play flows more smoothly.

Quote2) Combat should be fast, and it should not be "realistic". Real-life combat is quick, confusing, arbitrary, whiffy and more than often ends up with the two combatants rolling around in the mud within a minute or so. IT doesn't make for fun games, where player expectation is more geared towards cinematic combat. When it comes down to it, if a combat plays faster its going to "feel" more realistic and intense to players, no matter how abstract the specifics of the rules are, than a drawn out combat requiring multiple calculations, charts, modifiers, etc during which time a player is completely out of character.

There is a cut off between complexity and realism versus clarity and abstraction. That point varies from player to player. Most players find T&T combat far too abstract. Most players are happy with D&D's I roll to hit you roll to hit, but they ignore the abstraction and in their imagination it's a rapid quick exchange of blows and not a cagey 5 minutes of cut and thrust.
Some players want variations of different types of sword some don't. The best combat system woudl be one with dials that could be turned up for detail or turned down for speed of play. If a system has to many abstractions it can't cope with this sort of focus.

Quote3) New players should be able to jump in and start playing without knowing the rules. As such, the rules should be presented and implemented in such a way that a player can simply make common sense decisions from their character's POV and the rulers should support that. "System mastery" implies a system that requires OOC knowledge for a character to be effective, and should never as a term refer to any player except the GM.

I would agree with this as my prefered play style, but I can also totally understand that some players like system mastery and enjoy that side of the game so again its just a style issue.

Quoteiv) Players should have a clear idea of what their characters are supposed to do from the time the game starts. The game should have a strong, clear, easily graspable premise that can be communicated quickly to the players and provide a starting point where all players are all on the same page.

this is interesting as I would say this is more for the GM to set. One of ther Strengths of D&D is that you can use it as a dungeon delve if that is your fancy or you can use it to run a political intrigue or a city exploration or whatever. So I would say if a sytem ties you to play style its a weakness, whereas if the system allows the GM to set a clear premise easily that is a strength.

Quote5) To facillitate the two points above, players should have a clear idea of what their character can do, just by looking at their character sheet. This means that as much as possible real-world terms should be used to describe characters, or at the very least very simple evaluation systems that can be easily translated into real-world terms. If a player has a Strength or Desterity of 8 or 18, they should know what that means in real world terms. This doesn't mean that attributes ratings need to have an exact correspondence ( str 12 can lift 235 lbs, frex), as in many cases there's no reason a character would know exact amounts like that. But they should know if they have a chance at lifting something just by looking at their Strength.

Yes this makes sense for the vast majority of games

Quote6) This goes the same for Target numbers if they are used, especially if the GM is meant to assign them. A list of TNs that goes 14 -hard, 17- difficult, 23 - near impossible, doesn't help at all.

I think hard (14) Difficult(17) etc are pretty clear guidelines. If something is hard then player can pretty quickly spot its hard for a normal person if they are super skilled at that thing it will be easier.
So not sure what you mean here.

Quote7) The players full and primary responsibility should be roleplaying their characters. The reason the GM exists is to allow players to concentrate on being in character without worrying about metagame concerns.

Yes this is my prefered sytle of play however its not the only sytle of play. Original D&D was much more about the players are their characters and they are exploring and solving puzzles. puzzles in particular are a feature of early games that have lost a lot of popularity.
Games that focus on other aspects than pure roleplay are not necessarily bad games its just a style choice.  

Quote The emotions, thoughts, choices, and personality of the character should be solely the domain of the player playing them. The only exception to this is those events in which the character would have no control in real life (traumas, phobias, the influence of supernatural powers, terror, etc).

Mostly true but you need to be aware tha the GM is the only interface to the game world that the players have. The way the GM describes something will have a huge influence on the emotional responses it generates in the players and from their that they project onto their PCs. So whilst the players have the illusion of control the real control lies with the GM.

Quote9) the rules should not assume any control over the GM's traditional responsibilities. The rules are there as tools for the GM to use, and the GM should not be reduced to simply enacting the rules of the game designer unless that is their choice due to limitations of imagination and judgement (in which case they'd probably be better off finding a good GM).

Thsi is really open to so much interpretation that it's meaningless. The GMs traditional responsibilites are defined by what the earliest games and their rules, so the earliest games used rules to define the role of the GM but new games can't do that because?
I have no issue at all with the rules enforcing limits on the GM. If I think they are usful or might be fun I will use them if not they can be discarded.
Certainly rules that help GMs, like random personality generators for NPCs, or random monster builders or random tactics generators for powerful monsters are all good.

Quote10) the rules should not favour "mechanical balance" over the consistency of the imagined world.

Fair enough setting consistency is paramount. However, where there is a metagame concept like level that only exists to provide some game balance it should do what it says on the tin so for me balacing classes of similar level is the only point of having levels and if you aren't going to use it for that purpose why use it at all.

Quote11) the game should be playable using only the core rulebook(s) with no need for any group to ever buy supplements unless they want to.

I would go one step further and say the core rules should be clear and consistent enough that in play there should be no need for an experienced GM to consult the rulebook expect to get specific effects of in game powers, spells, equipment etc.

Quote12) the art of the game should be inspirational and convey the mood and themes of the game. No art is preferwable to bad or even mediocre art.

Art is very subjective. The Art in 1e AD&D for example was 90% egregious but some people even some people on this very site found it evocative and inspirational.

Quote13) the game should justify its existence by providing something that no other system before it does. If its just a bog-standard "generic" rules set, with no background attached, then unless it has a revolutionary mechanic that does soemthing better than any other system before it, the game is not worth much. A new and unique/interesting setting is worth more than any new rules set.\

Settings development shoudl be the purview of GMs. GMs should be encouraged to create their own interesting and unique settings. Settigns that are commerically produced shoudl 'show their working' and talk about the how and why of their design to enable GMs to deconstruct them or to use them as a stepping stone to new ideas.
I have no problme with multiple rule sets with little variation. They just enable more players to find their sweet spot. Let 1000 flowers bllom and 100 voices contend and all that.

Interesting list; here is my feedback, because it's all about me:

Quote from: TristramEvans;644796As a counterpint to the other thread, which mostly represents Gleichman's very idiosynchratic tastes, here's a list of things that I look for in a game system.

1) First and foremost, the system should "fade into the background" during play. The system is there merely to facilitate roleplaying and shouldn't interfere with it or needlessly interrupt it. As such, there should only be rules for those circumstances that require it because they cannot otherwise be decided by common sense judgements based on the circumstances.

Agree.



2) Combat should be fast, and it should not be "realistic". Real-life combat is quick, confusing, arbitrary, whiffy and more than often ends up with the two combatants rolling around in the mud within a minute or so. IT doesn't make for fun games, where player expectation is more geared towards cinematic combat. When it comes down to it, if a combat plays faster its going to "feel" more realistic and intense to players, no matter how abstract the specifics of the rules are, than a drawn out combat requiring multiple calculations, charts, modifiers, etc during which time a player is completely out of character.

Agree except when playing certain settings.



3) New players should be able to jump in and start playing without knowing the rules. As such, the rules should be presented and implemented in such a way that a player can simply make common sense decisions from their character's POV and the rulers should support that. "System mastery" implies a system that requires OOC knowledge for a character to be effective, and should never as a term refer to any player except the GM.

Agree.



iv) Players should have a clear idea of what their characters are supposed to do from the time the game starts. The game should have a strong, clear, easily graspable premise that can be communicated quickly to the players and provide a starting point where all players are all on the same page.

Agree.



5) To facillitate the two points above, players should have a clear idea of what their character can do, just by looking at their character sheet. This means that as much as possible real-world terms should be used to describe characters, or at the very least very simple evaluation systems that can be easily translated into real-world terms. If a player has a Strength or Desterity of 8 or 18, they should know what that means in real world terms. This doesn't mean that attributes ratings need to have an exact correspondence ( str 12 can lift 235 lbs, frex), as in many cases there's no reason a character would know exact amounts like that. But they should know if they have a chance at lifting something just by looking at their Strength.

Agree, but this is tricky when a person first sits down to play.



6) This goes the same for Target numbers if they are used, especially if the GM is meant to assign them. A list of TNs that goes 14 -hard, 17- difficult, 23 - near impossible, doesn't help at all.

Agree, some visual aid is what I prefer.



7) The players full and primary responsibility should be roleplaying their characters. The reason the GM exists is to allow players to concentrate on being in character without worrying about metagame concerns.

Agree.



8) The emotions, thoughts, choices, and personality of the character should be solely the domain of the player playing them. The only exception to this is those events in which the character would have no control in real life (traumas, phobias, the influence of supernatural powers, terror, etc).

Agree, and 'good' players will hopefully roleplay these things.



9) the rules should not assume any control over the GM's traditional responsibilities. The rules are there as tools for the GM to use, and the GM should not be reduced to simply enacting the rules of the game designer unless that is their choice due to limitations of imagination and judgement (in which case they'd probably be better off finding a good GM).

Agree.



10) the rules should not favour "mechanical balance" over the consistency of the imagined world.

Agree.



11) the game should be playable using only the core rulebook(s) with no need for any group to ever buy supplements unless they want to.

Agree.



12) the art of the game should be inspirational and convey the mood and themes of the game. No art is preferable to bad or even mediocre art.

Agree, but art is subjective.



13) the game should justify its existence by providing something that no other system before it does. If its just a bog-standard "generic" rules set, with no background attached, then unless it has a revolutionary mechanic that does soemthing better than any other system before it, the game is not worth much. A new and unique/interesting setting is worth more than any new rules set.

Agreed, and it need only do a few small things betetr than another game to justify itself, IMO.

QuoteFirst and foremost, the system should "fade into the background" during play.

I think I agree with this in principle, but am willing to be rather forgiving about it. I prefer significantly "crunchier" systems, so don't mind if the rules are a bit more in my face.

QuoteCombat should be fast, and it should not be "realistic".

Agree-ish. I'd also add that combat mechanics should be as reflective of what is happening in the fiction as possible, with the understanding that you trade higher points of contact for speed. Where the balance is best is up to personal taste.

QuoteNew players should be able to jump in and start playing without knowing the rules.

Again, agree in principle, but am willing to be a bit forgiving, especially if the system has interesting mechanical bits.

QuotePlayers should have a clear idea of what their characters are supposed to do from the time the game starts.

I think this falls more on the shoulders of the individual group than the system itself. The system should make it clear what its intended purpose and setting are, but going beyond that tends to make games too narrow, IMO.

QuoteTo facillitate the two points above, players should have a clear idea of what their character can do, just by looking at their character sheet.

With the understanding that this requires some understanding of the given system, whole-heartedly agree.

QuoteThis goes the same for Target numbers if they are used, especially if the GM is meant to assign them.

Examples and means of determining TNs from either an algorithm or common sense perspective are necessary, definitely agree.

QuoteThe players full and primary responsibility should be roleplaying their characters. The reason the GM exists is to allow players to concentrate on being in character without worrying about metagame concerns.

Yup.

QuoteThe emotions, thoughts, choices, and personality of the character should be solely the domain of the player playing them.

Nope. I like the idea of a player being able to "have a conversation" with the character, by which I mean the character having various bits of information and such that help inform how the player plays the character.

At the end of the day, the player should generally be in control of most of this... but I do like the character "having some say" in the matter. I'm using air-quotes here because I realize this is a nebulous and somewhat odd concept, and I'm probably not conveying my idea very well.

Quotethe rules should not assume any control over the GM's traditional responsibilities.

You give some idea of what this means, but I'm still not sure I follow. If you mean the rules shouldn't be capable of generating content, like random dungeons or even potentially story lines, I disagree entirely.

Ideally the system should just be able to "go" once play begins, with intervention from the GM for things like specific content generation the GM wants to include. But in theory it should be entirely possible for the GM to run the game using built-in content generation systems, and have that produce a playable experience.

Quotethe rules should not favour "mechanical balance" over the consistency of the imagined world.

Absolutely agree.

Quotethe game should be playable using only the core rulebook(s) with no need for any group to ever buy supplements unless they want to.

"Core" is a nebulous concept. But presuming you mean some sort of analogue to D&D's setup, sure, this seems reasonable.

Quotethe art of the game should be inspirational and convey the mood and themes of the game. No art is preferable to bad or even mediocre art.

Art is highly subjective. What you think is good, I may think is crap, and vice versa.

Quotethe game should justify its existence by providing something that no other system before it does. ... A new and unique/interesting setting is worth more than any new rules set.

In general, I'd agree that a new game should bring something new to the table. That just seems to be common sense, though - if a game does nothing beyond what another does, why was it designed in the first place?

Quote from: jibbajibba;644841Yes but this is very much a judgement call. Take Social mechanics, I am 100% committed to in character roleplay, I think Social mechnaics aid roleplay because they help to differentiate the characters abilities from those of the player. However, other people disagree totally and woudl remove social skills and allow the players simply to act it out.

Its a tricky one, like Intelligence stats. I prefer to err on the side of no rules whenevr possible, but I understand why some people see them as an advantage. I really draw the line at "social combat" rules of the type in Burning Wheel, though. OTOH, I can handle The Dying Earth's system.

QuoteI prefer more more complex character creation as it helps define what the character can do so that in play there is no need to ask those questions and play flows more smoothly.

That works fine for experienced players, and personally I use a mix of systems depending ont he game and the player. Generally my preferred version, however, is "describe your character to me and I'll stat him up for the game".

QuoteThere is a cut off between complexity and realism versus clarity and abstraction. That point varies from player to player. Most players find T&T combat far too abstract. Most players are happy with D&D's I roll to hit you roll to hit, but they ignore the abstraction and in their imagination it's a rapid quick exchange of blows and not a cagey 5 minutes of cut and thrust.
Some players want variations of different types of sword some don't. The best combat system woudl be one with dials that could be turned up for detail or turned down for speed of play. If a system has to many abstractions it can't cope with this sort of focus.

I agree.

QuoteI would agree with this as my prefered play style, but I can also totally understand that some players like system mastery and enjoy that side of the game so again its just a style issue.

I consider those people very boring. Doesnt mean they shouldnt play however they like, I just dont want to play with them.

Quotethis is interesting as I would say this is more for the GM to set. One of ther Strengths of D&D is that you can use it as a dungeon delve if that is your fancy or you can use it to run a political intrigue or a city exploration or whatever. So I would say if a sytem ties you to play style its a weakness, whereas if the system allows the GM to set a clear premise easily that is a strength.

Well, the GM can set it, certainly, but if one looks at the RPGs that have stood the test of time I think one finds that they all share in common a very specific implied mode of play (D&D, Call of Cthulhu, Shadwrun, Pendragon, etc). Its easy enough for a GM to veer away from that, but because a GM can do that on their own, I think the game itself is better served by aiding new players in quickly assessing what its all about.

QuoteI think hard (14) Difficult(17) etc are pretty clear guidelines. If something is hard then player can pretty quickly spot its hard for a normal person if they are super skilled at that thing it will be easier.
So not sure what you mean here.

Hard and Difficult are pretty generalized terms to me, and many games dont provide a lot of assistance beyond that. They are also terms that are relative to the person attempting the task, which I think over-confuses things. Its easy for superman to lift a car but near impossible for a bodybuilder. So do they have different TNs? What about the numbers in-between those? you'd be suprised how many games I've read that don't answer either of those questions.

QuoteGames that focus on other aspects than pure roleplay are not necessarily bad games its just a style choice.

No they're not bad games. D&D 4e is an excellent board game I thought. .  

QuoteMostly true but you need to be aware tha the GM is the only interface to the game world that the players have. The way the GM describes something will have a huge influence on the emotional responses it generates in the players and from their that they project onto their PCs. So whilst the players have the illusion of control the real control lies with the GM.

GM description would influence certainly, but the player should still have choice. I would not want a GM (and I have experienced this) saying to me: "this makes your character feel nervous" or "this makes you very angry". A good GM description will naturally evoke these emotions in the player-as-character without assigning them like a fait accompli.

QuoteThe GMs traditional responsibilites are defined by what the earliest games and their rules, so the earliest games used rules to define the role of the GM but new games can't do that because?

Because when a game redefines the role so that it bears no resemblance to the role as presented in older RPGs, you are effectivelly creating another gameplay experience and doing so misleadingly. It would be like a new game using the term Alignment to refer to a PC's posture.

QuoteCertainly rules that help GMs, like random personality generators for NPCs, or random monster builders or random tactics generators for powerful monsters are all good.

I wouldn't consider random roll tables an example of rules imposing themselves on the GM. They are aids to inspire the GM or to allow unpredictable results, because GMs like to be surprised too.  

QuoteFair enough setting consistency is paramount. However, where there is a metagame concept like level that only exists to provide some game balance it should do what it says on the tin so for me balacing classes of similar level is the only point of having levels and if you aren't going to use it for that purpose why use it at all.

I'm, well, not a fan of levels outside of D&D. And D&D already exists and does its job well. I don't think it represents the most elegant solution that an RPG can offer however and they should strive for better.

QuoteI would go one step further and say the core rules should be clear and consistent enough that in play there should be no need for an experienced GM to consult the rulebook expect to get specific effects of in game powers, spells, equipment etc.

I agree.

QuoteArt is very subjective.  

I'd say taste is subjective. Art isn't, its just there are very few people trained to actually know how to evaluate art.

QuoteSettings development should be the purview of GMs.

Well, it is, absolutely, and noi game can change that. Nor do I think its necessary to encourage it, it happens naturally to every roleplayer I've ever met. everyone tries their hand at setting creation. But I think that on the whole, setting is what an individual game offers to the pointr it eclipses the rules. Hence we have many games where the setting remains somewhat consisten while the rules change constantly.

But I am biased, as I very much prefer "culture games".

Quote from: TristramEvans;644796As a counterpint to the other thread, which mostly represents Gleichman's very idiosynchratic tastes, here's a list of things that I look for in a game system.

In most cases, I agree with all of your points. Although sometimes how much I agree varies by genre or setting. For example, I would want somewhat more detailed combat in a game about martial artists than in a game of D&D.

There is one I generally disagree with, however.

Quote13) the game should justify its existence by providing something that no other system before it does. If its just a bog-standard "generic" rules set, with no background attached, then unless it has a revolutionary mechanic that does soemthing better than any other system before it, the game is not worth much. A new and unique/interesting setting is worth more than any new rules set.

Too close a tie to a specific setting tends to turn me off. I want to run campaigns in my homebrew settings or at least where I want. If D&D had originally come as rules specific to Greyhawk or the Forgotten Realms I doubt that I would have been nearly as interested. I preferred the original printing of Traveller to the second printing as the original did not assume GDW's Third Imperium as the setting. I don't mind settings as supplements, but I prefer my rules to be fairly setting neutral.

Well, it's as good a model as any.

However, the primary responsibility of the players must be to make sure everyone is having fun, because I've seen too many problems which had blinding self-focus and "I'm just playing my character" at their core.

1. Players shouldn't feel limited to what's on the character sheet
2. The game clearly states that no single rule in the game is more important to how your table wants to play
3. Keeps players relatively involved.  I.e., a player shouldn't have to wait 10 minutes in a combat round before it's his or her turn.  That's how boredome and disassociation happen.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;6452071. Players shouldn't feel limited to what's on the character sheet
2. The game clearly states that no single rule in the game is more important to how your table wants to play
3. Keeps players relatively involved.  I.e., a player shouldn't have to wait 10 minutes in a combat round before it's his or her turn.  That's how boredome and disassociation happen.

I agree with all those as well.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;645143However, the primary responsibility of the players must be to make sure everyone is having fun, because I've seen too many problems which had blinding self-focus and "I'm just playing my character" at their core.

Being in-character isnt an excuse for being a selfish jackass, I'd agree, but I don't think any players primary responsibility is making sure the other players are having fun. If that responsibility was assigned to anyone, I'd say it should be the GM. A good GM will take into account what pushes any particular player's buttons and give everyone at the game table chances for their characters to shine. Beyond that, if a person is a self-absorbed ass, I don't think there needs to be any rules to compensate for that, just stop playing with them.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;645042I think I agree with this in principle, but am willing to be rather forgiving about it. I prefer significantly "crunchier" systems, so don't mind if the rules are a bit more in my face.

I think teh degree of crunchiness a game has isn't necessarily correspondent to how much it "fades into the background" during play, depending on the group. I know people who know GURs or Rolemaster like the back of their hand, and they have no problems whatsoever navigating the systems during play, so that there's not much discernable difference between using their preferred system or Risus on the speed of play. Personally I prefer "medium-crunch" games like D6, FASERIP, etc as opposed to light-lite systems like The Window or Neverwhere. My objection comes when the system forces oa player to be constantly aware of it.

QuoteI think this falls more on the shoulders of the individual group than the system itself. The system should make it clear what its intended purpose and setting are, but going beyond that tends to make games too narrow, IMO.

I think a good system will not only provide a standard easily-graspable mode of play for beginners and also be easily adapted to any number of othe rforms of play. TSR D&D is a good example of this. Call of Cthulhu as well, where the system itself is even offered separate from any of the specific gamelines it supports.

QuoteNope. I like the idea of a player being able to "have a conversation" with the character, by which I mean the character having various bits of information and such that help inform how the player plays the character.

At the end of the day, the player should generally be in control of most of this... but I do like the character "having some say" in the matter. I'm using air-quotes here because I realize this is a nebulous and somewhat odd concept, and I'm probably not conveying my idea very well.  

I don't exactly understand what you're saying here.

QuoteYou give some idea of what this means, but I'm still not sure I follow. If you mean the rules shouldn't be capable of generating content, like random dungeons or even potentially story lines, I disagree entirely.

I'd call random roll tables aids for the GM. I'm talking more about rules systems that either spread out the GM's responsibilities among players, or are designed to force the GM to run the game a certain way and "follow the rules" as much as a player.

I'm beginning to suspect "rules" might not even be the best term for the elements of a game system.

QuoteBut in theory it should be entirely possible for the GM to run the game using built-in content generation systems, and have that produce a playable experience.

I don't necesasarily agree, in that I understand the appeal of a game that can be run "pure simulationist"-style, but I don't think its necessary for ever RPG to cater to that, though bonus points if they do.

Quote"Core" is a nebulous concept. But presuming you mean some sort of analogue to D&D's setup, sure, this seems reasonable.

If its D&D's set-up with GM and player info divided between books, I'd consider that roughly equivalent to a single-volume gamebook like WHFRP 1st edition. Boxed sets count as wel for "core products". But at no point when reading a core rulebook do I think one should come across statements to teh following: "here's a brief overview of our fantasy game's magic system. To play a wizard, however, you'll need to get such0-and-such supplement", or a game that has a specific setting but doesn't provide enough details of the setting in the core rulebook to effectivelly run it.

QuoteArt is highly subjective. What you think is good, I may think is crap, and vice versa.

Again, I tend to think that while art is very much subject to a person's tastes, like film, music, etc., that there are still definiable standards of good and bad.

If someone happens to like Rob Liefeld's art, they aren't wrong for liking it, but they are wrong if they think that its good.

QuoteIn general, I'd agree that a new game should bring something new to the table. That just seems to be common sense, though - if a game does nothing beyond what another does, why was it designed in the first place?

I've read many many gamebooks where I asked myself the same question. And I'm relatively easy to please in comparison to some posters here.

Quote from: TristramEvans;645343I think teh degree of crunchiness a game has isn't necessarily correspondent to how much it "fades into the background" during play, depending on the group.

Mkay... so something like 4e, where it's constantly reminding you of its game structures during combat, would be something that fails to "fade into the background"?

QuoteI think a good system will not only provide a standard easily-graspable mode of play for beginners and also be easily adapted to any number of othe rforms of play.

Well, I'm thinking like... Ars Magica has a very specific world developed for it, and it's difficult to use the system outside of that setting. That's what I would avoid.

QuoteI don't exactly understand what you're saying here.

I'm not surprised, it's a weird concept and I suck at explaining it.

Like... one of the things I want to do in my system is track a character's emotional state, like "sad" or "angry." These would effectively be status effects, except the character always has one (which specific one changes, but the character always has at least one).

These emotions then impact mechanics - like being angry might make you deal more damage, or what-not - but it is also expected that the player acknowledge the character's emotional state in RP.

I also envision a system of some sort in place for determining when and how your character's emotional state changes. Forex, if a character learns their parents just died, that's going to impact their emotional state - how, I'm not sure yet, and I'm envisioning it being dependent upon the character in some manner, but it should impact the character.

So when I say a conversation between the player and the character, it's like the player "asking" the character things like "how do you feel," and such. It's not a literal conversation, but a conceptual one.

QuoteI'm talking more about rules systems that either spread out the GM's responsibilities among players, or are designed to force the GM to run the game a certain way and "follow the rules" as much as a player.

Ah. Yeah, the GM should be the GM in the traditional sense. Giving players "narrative control," or whatever, is a bad idea, IMO.

QuoteI don't necesasarily agree, in that I understand the appeal of a game that can be run "pure simulationist"-style, but I don't think its necessary for ever RPG to cater to that, though bonus points if they do.

Oh ya, it'd be boring if all RPGs did it that way. But that's the way I like it - other ways of doing it aren't right or wrong, just different, and that's fine.

QuoteTo play a wizard, however, you'll need to get such0-and-such supplement", or a game that has a specific setting but doesn't provide enough details of the setting in the core rulebook to effectivelly run it.

Ah, yeah, that's a bad idea. The "core" should always contain enough information to play the game. If you include an element - such as a particular class or race - in the core, everything you need to play it should be contained in the core.

QuoteAgain, I tend to think that while art is very much subject to a person's tastes, like film, music, etc., that there are still definiable standards of good and bad.

Hrm... alright, fair enough. I guess I personally don't know art well enough to say what is good or bad. I know what I like.

QuoteI've read many many gamebooks where I asked myself the same question. And I'm relatively easy to please in comparison to some posters here.

Heh. Fair enough.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;645374Mkay... so something like 4e, where it's constantly reminding you of its game structures during combat, would be something that fails to "fade into the background"?

Absolutely. Almost the poster child for it.

QuoteWell, I'm thinking like... Ars Magica has a very specific world developed for it, and it's difficult to use the system outside of that setting. That's what I would avoid.

I wouldn't necessarily avoid it. I'm a fan of systems designed specifically for a background. But then, I've been using variations of Ars Magica's magic system for everything from FASERIP to Shadowrun for years, so I may not be getting exactly what you're putting down here. I don't think that every game system needs to be universal, but the other side of that is that I'm not going to play a game where the system tries to corrall me into playing the game a specific way that I don't like.

QuoteLike... one of the things I want to do in my system is track a character's emotional state, like "sad" or "angry." These would effectively be status effects, except the character always has one (which specific one changes, but the character always has at least one).

These emotions then impact mechanics - like being angry might make you deal more damage, or what-not - but it is also expected that the player acknowledge the character's emotional state in RP.

I also envision a system of some sort in place for determining when and how your character's emotional state changes. Forex, if a character learns their parents just died, that's going to impact their emotional state - how, I'm not sure yet, and I'm envisioning it being dependent upon the character in some manner, but it should impact the character.

So when I say a conversation between the player and the character, it's like the player "asking" the character things like "how do you feel," and such. It's not a literal conversation, but a conceptual one.

I could see that working, as long as it was entirely in the hands of the players. In fact WHFRP 3E already includes something similar on a binary axis with the conservative/reckless dice. when I adapted the dice system for a supers game, I changed it to rage/calm.

I guess the question is, how much do emotional states have an external effect that they need to be mechanically represented? In my game I do let players "claim motivation" when they think some event has significantly effected their character's resolve or mental state, which they can then use to influence die rolls.