Hi I want to make a series cositing of 7 thing you should avoit when desining a TTRPG. this is inspired in 7 dealy sins of TCG desing (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JR2tVSC-sng&list=PLphu8NE8GQc4ldfNEEFX3dOPv_ihxADvs) please be speficic. I want things that can be applied only in TTRPG. and also it dont have to be realate to the 7 dealy sins of cristianity. I only have 4
1. constant changes never finalizing a mechanic/rule
2. Trying to make an existing game with little to no changes of your own (clones)
3. Rules bloat, over complicating things just for complexity sake. Or over writing when a rules lite approach would be better for that specific system/rule/mechanic
4. making erotics games.
5. Making furry erotics game
6. Making self insert NPC in furry erotics game
7. Including your contact information in the npc stat block in furry erotics game.
1) Not playtesting.
a) Not playtesting outside your immediate circle (if you want to market it).
2) Ignoring playtest feedback when you actually get it.
3) Not testing again each time you've made significant changes to the system.
4) Not having a clear vision of what you're trying to accompli before you start.
a) "I want to make another D&D retroclone but with this one change" is NOT a clear vision.
b) "I want to make a post-apocalyptic science fantasy game based on 80's cartoon elements" is a clear vision.
5) Not including obvious things for the PCs to do in your setting. ex. the kingdom is at peace, there are no threats, and powerful heroes already guard against danger... great, so what are the PCs supposed to do?
6) Not balancing PC complexity/creation time to system lethality/campaign length. An offender example - Battletech: A Time of War. Character creation involved gaining XP to various abilities over the course of a lifepath, then totalling the XP to determine the level of each of many stats, skills, advantages, and flaws. This often took more than an hour. You can die for any single random shot at any time. This literally happened during to a PC during the first round of combat. A related flaw was the damage to Mechs generally exceeds PCs' capacity to repair it because they pull it straight from the attritional based wargame campaign rules.
7) Not balancing task resolution time to the importance/interestingness of the action. The more trivial the action, the less table time it should take.
Quote from: David Johansen on February 14, 2025, 08:20:54 AM5. Making furry erotics game
6. Making self insert NPC in furry erotics game
7. Including your contact information in the npc stat block in furry erotics game.
I have to see the relacion beetwen furry erotics games and bad games.
Quote from: Chris24601 on February 14, 2025, 08:28:31 AM1) Not playtesting.
a) Not playtesting outside your immediate circle (if you want to market it).
2) Ignoring playtest feedback when you actually get it.
3) Not testing again each time you've made significant changes to the system.
4) Not having a clear vision of what you're trying to accompli before you start.
a) "I want to make another D&D retroclone but with this one change" is NOT a clear vision.
b) "I want to make a post-apocalyptic science fantasy game based on 80's cartoon elements" is a clear vision.
5) Not including obvious things for the PCs to do in your setting. ex. the kingdom is at peace, there are no threats, and powerful heroes already guard against danger... great, so what are the PCs supposed to do?
6) Not balancing PC complexity/creation time to system lethality/campaign length. An offender example - Battletech: A Time of War. Character creation involved gaining XP to various abilities over the course of a lifepath, then totalling the XP to determine the level of each of many stats, skills, advantages, and flaws. This often took more than an hour. You can die for any single random shot at any time. This literally happened during to a PC during the first round of combat. A related flaw was the damage to Mechs generally exceeds PCs' capacity to repair it because they pull it straight from the attritional based wargame campaign rules.
7) Not balancing task resolution time to the importance/interestingness of the action. The more trivial the action, the less table time it should take.
I think 4,5 maybe, 6 and 7 are valit
Quote from: antonioGUAK on February 14, 2025, 08:32:17 AMQuote from: Chris24601 on February 14, 2025, 08:28:31 AM1) Not playtesting.
a) Not playtesting outside your immediate circle (if you want to market it).
2) Ignoring playtest feedback when you actually get it.
3) Not testing again each time you've made significant changes to the system.
4) Not having a clear vision of what you're trying to accompli before you start.
a) "I want to make another D&D retroclone but with this one change" is NOT a clear vision.
b) "I want to make a post-apocalyptic science fantasy game based on 80's cartoon elements" is a clear vision.
5) Not including obvious things for the PCs to do in your setting. ex. the kingdom is at peace, there are no threats, and powerful heroes already guard against danger... great, so what are the PCs supposed to do?
6) Not balancing PC complexity/creation time to system lethality/campaign length. An offender example - Battletech: A Time of War. Character creation involved gaining XP to various abilities over the course of a lifepath, then totalling the XP to determine the level of each of many stats, skills, advantages, and flaws. This often took more than an hour. You can die for any single random shot at any time. This literally happened during to a PC during the first round of combat. A related flaw was the damage to Mechs generally exceeds PCs' capacity to repair it because they pull it straight from the attritional based wargame campaign rules.
7) Not balancing task resolution time to the importance/interestingness of the action. The more trivial the action, the less table time it should take.
I think 4,5 maybe, 6 and 7 are valit
In my experience, 1, 2, and 3 are the difference between something that works and abject failure. Playtesting is the RPG equivalent of having a good editor. You'll never catch all the errors on your own (because many fall into experiential blind spots), so you playtest so other people can help you catch them.
Quote from: Chris24601 on February 14, 2025, 08:44:07 AMQuote from: antonioGUAK on February 14, 2025, 08:32:17 AMQuote from: Chris24601 on February 14, 2025, 08:28:31 AM1) Not playtesting.
a) Not playtesting outside your immediate circle (if you want to market it).
2) Ignoring playtest feedback when you actually get it.
3) Not testing again each time you've made significant changes to the system.
4) Not having a clear vision of what you're trying to accompli before you start.
a) "I want to make another D&D retroclone but with this one change" is NOT a clear vision.
b) "I want to make a post-apocalyptic science fantasy game based on 80's cartoon elements" is a clear vision.
5) Not including obvious things for the PCs to do in your setting. ex. the kingdom is at peace, there are no threats, and powerful heroes already guard against danger... great, so what are the PCs supposed to do?
6) Not balancing PC complexity/creation time to system lethality/campaign length. An offender example - Battletech: A Time of War. Character creation involved gaining XP to various abilities over the course of a lifepath, then totalling the XP to determine the level of each of many stats, skills, advantages, and flaws. This often took more than an hour. You can die for any single random shot at any time. This literally happened during to a PC during the first round of combat. A related flaw was the damage to Mechs generally exceeds PCs' capacity to repair it because they pull it straight from the attritional based wargame campaign rules.
7) Not balancing task resolution time to the importance/interestingness of the action. The more trivial the action, the less table time it should take.
I think 4,5 maybe, 6 and 7 are valit
In my experience, 1, 2, and 3 are the difference between something that works and abject failure. Playtesting is the RPG equivalent of having a good editor. You'll never catch all the errors on your own (because many fall into experiential blind spots), so you playtest so other people can help you catch them.
you are right but is not exclusive with TTRPG.
Quote from: antonioGUAK on February 14, 2025, 09:06:56 AMQuote from: Chris24601 on February 14, 2025, 08:44:07 AMQuote from: antonioGUAK on February 14, 2025, 08:32:17 AMQuote from: Chris24601 on February 14, 2025, 08:28:31 AM1) Not playtesting.
a) Not playtesting outside your immediate circle (if you want to market it).
2) Ignoring playtest feedback when you actually get it.
3) Not testing again each time you've made significant changes to the system.
4) Not having a clear vision of what you're trying to accompli before you start.
a) "I want to make another D&D retroclone but with this one change" is NOT a clear vision.
b) "I want to make a post-apocalyptic science fantasy game based on 80's cartoon elements" is a clear vision.
5) Not including obvious things for the PCs to do in your setting. ex. the kingdom is at peace, there are no threats, and powerful heroes already guard against danger... great, so what are the PCs supposed to do?
6) Not balancing PC complexity/creation time to system lethality/campaign length. An offender example - Battletech: A Time of War. Character creation involved gaining XP to various abilities over the course of a lifepath, then totalling the XP to determine the level of each of many stats, skills, advantages, and flaws. This often took more than an hour. You can die for any single random shot at any time. This literally happened during to a PC during the first round of combat. A related flaw was the damage to Mechs generally exceeds PCs' capacity to repair it because they pull it straight from the attritional based wargame campaign rules.
7) Not balancing task resolution time to the importance/interestingness of the action. The more trivial the action, the less table time it should take.
I think 4,5 maybe, 6 and 7 are valit
In my experience, 1, 2, and 3 are the difference between something that works and abject failure. Playtesting is the RPG equivalent of having a good editor. You'll never catch all the errors on your own (because many fall into experiential blind spots), so you playtest so other people can help you catch them.
you are right but is not exclusive with TTRPG.
Murder being a sin/crime isn't exclusive to Christianity. Doesn't make it not a deadly sin worth being discussed in series about Christian sins.
If you're doing a series on deadly design sins, failure to iteratively test is one of the biggest and, honestly, in seeing attempts by others at TTRPGs is one of the most common sins committed by designers (even by the bigger game companies who only do it as PR then ignore actual feedback).
Often it's because a designer thinks they know exactly how it's going to work in their head; so why does it need testing? Then it runs headlong into someone with a different set of base assumptions and just like that it plays for them like a janky broken mess because you didn't actually write out something that seemed so obvious to you it didn't need to be written down, but is actually critical to the game functioning (I've run into this regularly in early iterations of my systems when I start testing... usually when what I think would be an edge case a GM might occasionally need to adjudicate turns out to happen often enough it needs a codified mechanic).
It's the reason I basically broke it up into 1, 2, and 3 on my list for emphasis. It realistically would be just one item on the list, but I'd say it's among the most critical sins to avoid.
Quote from: Chris24601 on February 14, 2025, 10:38:48 AMQuote from: antonioGUAK on February 14, 2025, 09:06:56 AMQuote from: Chris24601 on February 14, 2025, 08:44:07 AMQuote from: antonioGUAK on February 14, 2025, 08:32:17 AMQuote from: Chris24601 on February 14, 2025, 08:28:31 AM1) Not playtesting.
a) Not playtesting outside your immediate circle (if you want to market it).
2) Ignoring playtest feedback when you actually get it.
3) Not testing again each time you've made significant changes to the system.
4) Not having a clear vision of what you're trying to accompli before you start.
a) "I want to make another D&D retroclone but with this one change" is NOT a clear vision.
b) "I want to make a post-apocalyptic science fantasy game based on 80's cartoon elements" is a clear vision.
5) Not including obvious things for the PCs to do in your setting. ex. the kingdom is at peace, there are no threats, and powerful heroes already guard against danger... great, so what are the PCs supposed to do?
6) Not balancing PC complexity/creation time to system lethality/campaign length. An offender example - Battletech: A Time of War. Character creation involved gaining XP to various abilities over the course of a lifepath, then totalling the XP to determine the level of each of many stats, skills, advantages, and flaws. This often took more than an hour. You can die for any single random shot at any time. This literally happened during to a PC during the first round of combat. A related flaw was the damage to Mechs generally exceeds PCs' capacity to repair it because they pull it straight from the attritional based wargame campaign rules.
7) Not balancing task resolution time to the importance/interestingness of the action. The more trivial the action, the less table time it should take.
I think 4,5 maybe, 6 and 7 are valit
In my experience, 1, 2, and 3 are the difference between something that works and abject failure. Playtesting is the RPG equivalent of having a good editor. You'll never catch all the errors on your own (because many fall into experiential blind spots), so you playtest so other people can help you catch them.
you are right but is not exclusive with TTRPG.
Murder being a sin/crime isn't exclusive to Christianity. Doesn't make it not a deadly sin worth being discussed in series about Christian sins.
If you're doing a series on deadly design sins, failure to iteratively test is one of the biggest and, honestly, in seeing attempts by others at TTRPGs is one of the most common sins committed by designers (even by the bigger game companies who only do it as PR then ignore actual feedback).
Often it's because a designer thinks they know exactly how it's going to work in their head; so why does it need testing? Then it runs headlong into someone with a different set of base assumptions and just like that it plays for them like a janky broken mess because you didn't actually write out something that seemed so obvious to you it didn't need to be written down, but is actually critical to the game functioning (I've run into this regularly in early iterations of my systems when I start testing... usually when what I think would be an edge case a GM might occasionally need to adjudicate turns out to happen often enough it needs a codified mechanic).
It's the reason I basically broke it up into 1, 2, and 3 on my list for emphasis. It realistically would be just one item on the list, but I'd say it's among the most critical sins to avoid.
ok I will include dont do playtest in the list.
Quote from: Chris24601 on February 14, 2025, 08:28:31 AM1) Not playtesting.
a) Not playtesting outside your immediate circle (if you want to market it).
2) Ignoring playtest feedback when you actually get it.
3) Not testing again each time you've made significant changes to the system.
Ah, so you've heard of the FFG game lines...
Quote from: Chris24601 on February 14, 2025, 08:28:31 AM1) Not playtesting.
a) Not playtesting outside your immediate circle (if you want to market it).
2) Ignoring playtest feedback when you actually get it.
3) Not testing again each time you've made significant changes to the system.
4) Not having a clear vision of what you're trying to accompli before you start.
a) "I want to make another D&D retroclone but with this one change" is NOT a clear vision.
b) "I want to make a post-apocalyptic science fantasy game based on 80's cartoon elements" is a clear vision.
5) Not including obvious things for the PCs to do in your setting. ex. the kingdom is at peace, there are no threats, and powerful heroes already guard against danger... great, so what are the PCs supposed to do?
6) Not balancing PC complexity/creation time to system lethality/campaign length. An offender example - Battletech: A Time of War. Character creation involved gaining XP to various abilities over the course of a lifepath, then totalling the XP to determine the level of each of many stats, skills, advantages, and flaws. This often took more than an hour. You can die for any single random shot at any time. This literally happened during to a PC during the first round of combat. A related flaw was the damage to Mechs generally exceeds PCs' capacity to repair it because they pull it straight from the attritional based wargame campaign rules.
7) Not balancing task resolution time to the importance/interestingness of the action. The more trivial the action, the less table time it should take.
ditto your list, with the one reservation on clones / retroclones, which to me have been and will likely to continue to be successful, just from historical trend.
I guess a follow up question, can a game make an infraction on this list or even multiple and still be successful? I could probably name a number of RPGs that do/did.
Quote from: Socratic-DM on February 14, 2025, 12:19:20 PMditto your list, with the one reservation on clones / retroclones, which to me have been and will likely to continue to be successful, just from historical trend.
I guess a follow up question, can a game make an infraction on this list or even multiple and still be successful? I could probably name a number of RPGs that do/did.
Regarding retro-clones; that was just part of an example that really needed to be paired with the opposite example for context. The vision is what's going to get people to look at your game.
A lot of the early retro-clones pulled it off because their vision was clear and good; "what if new players had access to these old rules?" because, at the time, if you didn't own the old books, the TSR-era editions may as well not have existed for you.
These days that's not really a problem for most systems. So you need a different type of vision to offer your target audience something they can't already find.
An important note here is that, this isn't to say your vision won't end up using retroclone mechanics to express the vision. Just that a workable vision is not going to have using those mechanics as the core of its being.
This was actually an important lesson I learned in my own game development as, my biggest project got its start as essentially trying to be a fairly generic retroclone/spiritual successor to D&D 4E because me and mine loved the hell out of it in a way no other edition of D&D could satisfy.
As the project developed though I realized it was less the specific mechanics that were what was really appealing (particularly as playtest feedback moved it ever further away from a retroclone and firmly into spiritual successor and then not even that but its own thing) and more the sort of campaigns we'd run with it; big over-the-top heroes akin to Thundarr/Masters of the Universe/Thundercats/The Herculoids, etc.
So my vision morphed to the other one I'd mentioned "Big Damned Heroes in a Post-Apocalyptic Science Fantasy" complete with all the wildness you'd expect of androids, beast-men, mutants, giant robots, lostech as magic, and some real magic in the mix while you're at it, etc.
And I'd like to say I was the one who had the vision of that from the beginning, but actually fully committing to real Science Fantasy instead of just having bits of it implied was probably the last bit of playtest feedback I fully embraced despite all the times I dipped heavier into the "this is really a lost advanced science not magic" being the things I got the most positive player feedback on.
Ultimately, I think it would be safe to say that the bulk of the list I created is just me recounting most of the sins I committed and had to 'repent' from in the process of developing my own game system. Basically, a "learn from my mistakes kids" list.
I'm not sure how to boil this down to a bullet point. Maybe it's just part of not playtesting outside of your group. Some designers seem to forget that people will have to run the game using just what is in the book. I can't think of a specific example right now but it's stuff like incomplete or vague rules that I am sure are clear to the writer but are not so clear to me the reader.
Quote from: Chris24601 on February 14, 2025, 03:41:31 PMThis was actually an important lesson I learned in my own game development as, my biggest project got its start as essentially trying to be a fairly generic retroclone/spiritual successor to D&D 4E because me and mine loved the hell out of it in a way no other edition of D&D could satisfy.
Interesting, I know later you go on to explain that this had less to do with 4th edition from a mechanical aspect and much more to do with the sort of games you ran in it being what you were designing around.
Never played it but I do think it get's a lot of crap from people it doesn't quite deserve, and it had some interesting concepts in it, lore wise especially
QuoteAnd I'd like to say I was the one who had the vision of that from the beginning, but actually fully committing to real Science Fantasy instead of just having bits of it implied was probably the last bit of playtest feedback I fully embraced despite all the times I dipped heavier into the "this is really a lost advanced science not magic" being the things I got the most positive player feedback on.
Okay that's pretty cool though, I typically see it more done in a Jack Vance sort of way where it's left a bit more subtle and in the background, but yeah I think D&D and 80s saturday morning cartoons naturally kind of go together given the overlap in time they had.
A couple years ago I had a short lived game which was set on Mars, and was a mix of John Carter of Mars and Darksun with a splash of Dune. everyone's weapons were made of obsidian and bone, armor was tanned hides and bone, and metal weapons and technology were the magic of the setting.
Quote from: Socratic-DM on February 14, 2025, 05:55:39 PMQuote from: Chris24601 on February 14, 2025, 03:41:31 PMThis was actually an important lesson I learned in my own game development as, my biggest project got its start as essentially trying to be a fairly generic retroclone/spiritual successor to D&D 4E because me and mine loved the hell out of it in a way no other edition of D&D could satisfy.
Interesting, I know later you go on to explain that this had less to do with 4th edition from a mechanical aspect and much more to do with the sort of games you ran in it being what you were designing around.
Never played it but I do think it get's a lot of crap from people it doesn't quite deserve, and it had some interesting concepts in it, lore wise especially
Oh, I'm not going to pretend 4E's influences are entirely, or even partly, excised. It was by far my favorite edition, but I'm not going to pretend it did no wrong.
The main things that fell away as my own system evolved were the exclusive focus on combat, the overuse of fiddly conditional bonuses (+1 if you're attacking a shadow creature, +2 if the target is bloodied, etc.), the inundation of "powers" you needed to keep track of (2 at-will, 4-5 encounter, 4 daily, 7+ utility powers, plus magic item and racial powers), using narrative durations ("until the end of the encounter" "once per encounter"... I much prefer real durations), and rigid wealth/magic reward math.
The things that stuck around were that every PC should have tactical choices to make when combat happens, players should have a choice to make about their character every time they level up, monsters should have interesting abilities, and the setting needs to build the concept of adventurers into it from the ground up.
In the case of 4E for the latter it was that during their Titanomacy (the Dawn War) the gods teamed up to take on the much more individually powerful primordials... so the modern adventuring party echoes the foundational myth of the setting... heroes team up to fight monsters.
For my setting it was the legend of The First Adventurers; a mythic group of heroes who defeated the Demon Empire that had enslaved the word at the dawn of history and which kept resonating down through subsequent ages such that, wherever there is strife or threat, the people naturally look for a group of adventurers to appear to face the challenge.
The present post-apocalyptic age is rife with dangers beyond the capabilities of the few remaining strongholds of civilization (who can just barely hold their strongholds) and so must rely on brave adventurers to bring an end to the dangers of the monster-haunted ruind in the wilds and allow civilization to reclaim what had been lost to the Cataclysm.
Completely orthogonal to 4E was a decision to split the class concept into an equally weighted and siloed background (all non-combat traits) and class (all combat traits) to remove the pressure to only pick combat options (due to the importance of surviving combat to keep adventuring) and a decision to extremely flatten the curve of combat bonuses* so that a mass combat system could be implemented in a way where no conversions were needed for PCs to participate directly in the outcome.
Those flattened bonuses (only hp and damage scale instead of to-hit and defenses also scaling) meant that both the weakest and significantly stronger opponents could be used across the entire campaign (you just needed more of the weaker ones at higher levels, but in the double to quadruple range instead of tens to hundreds of times as many you'd need in 4E to use a critter as a threat without completely re-statting it or a higher level threat just one-shotting you party).
The end result can play a lot like 4E at the table, but has a lot more codified non-combat systems, a lot fewer fiddly things to track, and a more linear rather than quadratic scaling (it takes until level 6 to roughly double your initial combat capabilities, and at the end game of level 15 you're about four times stronger than you were at the start).
* 4E scaled up all four of to-hit, AC, hit points, and damage with every level... resulting in a quadratic increase in performance and a narrow band in which various opponents could even be a threat to the PCs without either being trivial (indeed, one high level module for 4E included a veritable sea of ghouls... thousands of them... as being merely DIFFICULT TERRAIN for the encounter) or completely overwhelming (at +3 levels to you, your ability to drop a monster was roughly halved relative an even level one, while the monsters ability to drop a PC was roughly doubled... in a thirty level game that means maybe 10% of the existing monsters can even be used and none can really be placed randomly).
After 40+ years of playing TTRPGs, my list of design flaws would be (in order)
1. A game that is entirely self-referential in its setting and concept. If the game bears no resemblance to Earth history, mythology, etc., and exists in the mind of its creator, in some alternate reality only he can fully comprehend and appreciate (Numenera is a classic example). Players don't have time to indulge your autism --things need to make sense and be easy to absorb. I'm not going to read your 300 pages of back-story to understand the game world.
2. Complexity is perfectly fine. Confusing rules are not. D&D 5e is not a bad system because it is complex: it is bad because it is a confusing, convoluted mess (wait, how many special actions do I get? What is a creature's "legendary action"? So I have 50 skills and these intersect with my feats? And the feats change the game game rules? I just need a few hours to write up a new character ...)
3. Slow speed of adjudication. If it takes 30 minutes to get through one combat round, you have a big problem with your system. Again, D&D 5e, I am looking at you.
4. Injecting lifestyle choices and real-world politics into the game to placate and pander to identity groups.
5. Depending on derivative content and concepts that have already been explored: lack of originality.
Quote from: MerrillWeathermay on February 14, 2025, 08:29:31 PM1. A game that is entirely self-referential in its setting and concept. If the game bears no resemblance to Earth history, mythology, etc., and exists in the mind of its creator, in some alternate reality only he can fully comprehend and appreciate (Numenera is a classic example). Players don't have time to indulge your autism --things need to make sense and be easy to absorb. I'm not going to read your 300 pages of back-story to understand the game world.
You know, I might have argued with you if you hadn't cited Numenera as an example. I picked up the pdf of that, read through it, could not grasp the setting. So I went and played the CRPG for it. Disconnected with the game in a couple of hours because I couldn't engage with the setting enough to even make roleplaying decisions. Just felt like I was picking random options for the sake of moving things along. That became my classic example as well for a setting which is just too weird to be functional.
Quote from: Chris24601 on February 14, 2025, 07:46:24 PM* 4E scaled up all four of to-hit, AC, hit points, and damage with every level... resulting in a quadratic increase in performance and a narrow band in which various opponents could even be a threat to the PCs without either being trivial (indeed, one high level module for 4E included a veritable sea of ghouls... thousands of them... as being merely DIFFICULT TERRAIN for the encounter) or completely overwhelming (at +3 levels to you, your ability to drop a monster was roughly halved relative an even level one, while the monsters ability to drop a PC was roughly doubled... in a thirty level game that means maybe 10% of the existing monsters can even be used and none can really be placed randomly).
Interesting, where durability and raw-power are what are primarily scaling but combat skill plateaus much faster.
I tackled that problem from a slightly different angle, where stat scaling was an opportunity cost issue, you could have more HP, but forego better damage, or have better damage but miss out on better AC, combined with a very small level cap of 10, it meant you typically didn't have Demi-God PCs.
but quite the novel approach, I assume the main and primary felt benefit of that is even characters of different levels didn't feel that far apart? and likewise for monsters, those that were considered lower level never quite ceased to be a threat?
Quote from: Socratic-DM on February 15, 2025, 01:10:01 PMQuote from: Chris24601 on February 14, 2025, 07:46:24 PM* 4E scaled up all four of to-hit, AC, hit points, and damage with every level... resulting in a quadratic increase in performance and a narrow band in which various opponents could even be a threat to the PCs without either being trivial (indeed, one high level module for 4E included a veritable sea of ghouls... thousands of them... as being merely DIFFICULT TERRAIN for the encounter) or completely overwhelming (at +3 levels to you, your ability to drop a monster was roughly halved relative an even level one, while the monsters ability to drop a PC was roughly doubled... in a thirty level game that means maybe 10% of the existing monsters can even be used and none can really be placed randomly).
Interesting, where durability and raw-power are what are primarily scaling but combat skill plateaus much faster.
I tackled that problem from a slightly different angle, where stat scaling was an opportunity cost issue, you could have more HP, but forego better damage, or have better damage but miss out on better AC, combined with a very small level cap of 10, it meant you typically didn't have Demi-God PCs.
but quite the novel approach, I assume the main and primary felt benefit of that is even characters of different levels didn't feel that far apart? and likewise for monsters, those that were considered lower level never quite ceased to be a threat?
Mostly the latter, that even a low level monster is a potential threat if you don't act to keep it from harming you.
Regarding durability and raw power vs. skill increasing, it should be noted that my system ended up with a separate Edge (non-physical hit points; skill, luck, fatigue tolerance) and Health (actual physical damage) scores.
Only Edge and Threat (how much edge you needed to spend to avoid taking an actual hit) scaled with level.
Health and the Wounds weapons inflicted did not scale at all (Health would increase or decrease if your Endurance attribute changed, but that was it).
Essentially, your Edge and Threat capabilities represent your increasing skill once you hit proficiency with a weapon (the attack roll bonus). You have a greater capacity to turn aside killing blows using less effort and more skill at forcing opponents into leaving themselves open for a telling blow, but sometimes in a given six-second turn the opponent just doesn't give you even a chance to attempt that opening (you fail your attack check) or their efforts so off that it requires no effort at all to avoid the attack (they miss with their attack).
And that ability to turn aside blows IS finite. Even a master swordsman will tire after a long enough battle. Even they can be overwhelmed by enough opponents of basic skill through sheer weight of numbers. Eventually, through fatigue (depleting Edge) or bad luck (criticals bypass Edge to inflict wounds) the master will falter if enough is thrown against them.
Now, the master will probably take many of those weaker opponents with him... because the threat he can deal will quickly overwhelm their Edge, but unless he can stop to rest, the weight of numbers will eventually whittle through his own pool of Edge.
By contrast, with a master vs. a master, both will have high pools of Edge, but also are capable of dealing out more threat with each attack so the battles don't drag on too long.
Roughly speaking, a starting PC warrior could expect to defeat about four typical guards by himself, though he might take enough actual damage in the process to need a day or two to fully recover. By level 15 (the max for PCs) that PC warrior could probably overcome twenty or so such guards at once by himself, with a similar need to recover, but if they came at him in groups of 4 or 5 at a time he'd be able to handle significantly more (because he would likely be able to drop many of those or 4-5 men before they could even act, while he'd only be able to dispatch a fraction of the twenty before they got to act).
That's where the 'every character should have tactical choices to make' comes into play as finding ways to minimize your exposure to attacks while allowing you to efficiently dispatch enemies will often be the difference between victory and defeat.
Quote from: David Johansen on February 14, 2025, 08:20:54 AM5. Making furry erotics game
6. Making self insert NPC in furry erotics game
7. Including your contact information in the npc stat block in furry erotics game.
That seems oddly specific.
Quote from: Hague on February 15, 2025, 05:44:44 PMQuote from: David Johansen on February 14, 2025, 08:20:54 AM5. Making furry erotics game
6. Making self insert NPC in furry erotics game
7. Including your contact information in the npc stat block in furry erotics game.
That seems oddly specific.
I think it's actually just a play on an old meme about a sci-fi hierarchy of who is cooler with published authors of non-tie-in novels at the top then several branching paths that ultimately converge at the bottom with furry Star Trek fanfic with a self-insert.
Quote from: antonioGUAK on February 14, 2025, 07:51:55 AMHi I want to make a series cositing of 7 thing you should avoit when desining a TTRPG. this is inspired in 7 dealy sins of TCG desing (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JR2tVSC-sng&list=PLphu8NE8GQc4ldfNEEFX3dOPv_ihxADvs) please be speficic. I want things that can be applied only in TTRPG. and also it dont have to be realate to the 7 dealy sins of cristianity. I only have 4
2. Trying to make an existing game with little to no changes of your own (clones)
I think the success of OSE and that Warhammer clone prove otherwise. Marketing, building a name and brand are more important.
OTOH, I don't think any of the 5e clones that popped up due to the OGL kerfuffle ever really took off, even though some had branding (like the Kobold one).
It just needs to have a market whose needs weren't being met. OSE took over because LL was more or less dead, and OSRIC doesn't try to compete like a real RPG, and S&W sucks. (And other OSR games often have really crappy licenses that probably hurt widespread adoption)
Personally I would say
1) Not making odds of dice rolls obvious
Like I was reading Tiny Cthulhu, which uses the Tiny D6 system. Basically all skill tasks can be handled by either rolling 1-3d6s and if any comes up a 5 or 6, it succeeds. But what are the odds? I was trying to figure them in my head and couldn't past the 1d6. Using pencil and paper though, it's like 55% for 2d6, and 70% for 3d6. If you are going to do something like, tell the GM, so the players also know.
2) Even skilled people failing frequently
This is a common problem, like in the above, even someone good will fail 30% of the time. BRP also has a problem with this. You can sort of handwave it away, not requiring rolls for things, or doing d20's "Take 10 or Take 20"
3) Characters should be wildly different even if they have the same profession
Sherlock Holmes, Philip Marlowe, Philo Vance, and Dr. Thorndyke are all private detectives, but do things differently. You can extend it to detectives like Miss Marple or Ironsides
4) Not doing research, especially when it comes to weapons and such.
Some history people get mad at Gygax from taking his armor descriptions from a certain book and using things like chainmail and banded mail instead of "maile" and what not, but he at least picked real books and stuck with them.
But what bugs me is gun stats. I can live with abstract ones like light pistol, heavy pistol, etc. But some go into specifics and are just wrong. Like a .45 doing more damage than a .357 magnum.
But also space might be cold, but it's also a vacuum. You won't instantly freeze to death, because it's like a thermos.
5) Game rules should at least try to make sense in the setting. Or the setting should reflect the ramifications of the game rules.
The most obvious one here is demi-humans in fantasy living so much longer than humans, but not ruling the world. D&D did it originally with level limits, then just handwaved it away when 3e hit.
Conversely, Mystara decided that there would enough maximum level magic-users to have their own nation, especially since they are effectively immortal (since in B/X D&D, potions of longevity had no chance of failing)
6) Not providing enough source material for gamemaster to run the game
A random dungeon generator doesn't cut it. If you are going random table, do it like Kevin Crawford.
7) Games written with some sort of weird fetish, but not making it obvious so people without that fetish can avoid it.
I basically only feel like 3.
1) Using the time of the GM, the players, or worst of all, the entire troupe at the table poorly. All RPG gameplay is ultimately limited by the amount of time you can stick your butt to the seat. I am not saying that all mechanics need to be ultralight, but in the words of Kurt Vonnegut, you should, "use the time of a total stranger so they don't feel it was wasted."
2) A lack of creative ambition. I get not wanting to make too many changes to an established core mechanic, but half the time when I'm reading through new projects I am left wondering if the author wants to design games or if they want to have designed something popular.
3) Overdone worldbuilding. Most GMs and players are fantastic at worldbuilding if you give them the Bob Ross broad strokes. They are less good at coming up with things that reinforce game tone and genre. This means that making an RPG can be like mixing many quickbreads; don't overmix it. Add just enough worldbuilding to make the game come together and then walk away and let the players or the GM take it from there.
Top five things that will make me not play your RPG.
1. Weird or proprietary dice. We already have enough dice that cover everything. If I need a 5-sided dice with three skulls, a bullseye, and a star on the sides, I'm out.
2. Esoteric ways to roll a random number. They're just dice, man. Just roll them and do elementary math at best.
3. A page count over 150. 250, tops. This is a personal preference, but I don't need rules for sword fighting in the rain, left handed, with low morale.
4. Any game written with a specific morality pre-ordained for the players. You shouldn't have to be a squeaky clean paragon who rescues oppressed black kittens from evil trees because the trees are owned by a MAGA hat wearing NPC. I kill bad people. For money, typically. I'm flexible.
5. Useless gear. Why go into detail about scale armor vs chain mail, or a longsword vs a broadsword if all the players just want the one that has or does the most damage? Either make the generic so a short sword and a Falcata are the same, or use traits so a bit of gear is more than just one stat and a cost. A ninja sword is less damaging, but it's easy to conceal it vs a katana.
Stuff like that.
Right now there are games that break one or two of those, and I'll still play it happily. Palladium games for example. But I prefer other games that don't have these issues now.
Quote from: weirdguy564 on February 16, 2025, 08:21:52 PM3. A page count over 150. 250, tops. This is a personal preference, but I don't need rules for sword fighting in the rain, left handed, with low morale.
My caveat here would be that "page" is a near useless measurement.
The amount of material in a 300 page 6x9 book using larger font, generous margins and a full page image every other spread is almost certainly going to be less than 150 pages if the text is small (a LOT of game books seem to love 9 point for some insane reason) on an 8.5x11 page with tight margins and a quarter or half-page piece of art every third spread.
In fact, I'd pretty much guarantee that, because a quick and dirty reformat of my own project that uses the easier to read and better for an ipad/reader 6x9 with larger fonts described above into the latter format (two-column 8.5x11 with a point smaller font) ends up as just 128 pages... but with my preferred layout, it sits at 368 pages (but is a ton more readable to my tired eyes and those of my friends as we all move into our 40s and 50s).
Same information, different formatting, but if judging purely by page count, I'd be disqualified even though by actual amount of material I'd be well below your lower page count if I just used a typical RPG "cram it all in" format.
Something to think about anyway.
Quote from: weirdguy564 on February 16, 2025, 08:21:52 PM3. A page count over 150. 250, tops. This is a personal preference, but I don't need rules for sword fighting in the rain, left handed, with low morale.
ALthough I agree with the sentiment I would say that pages in the bestiary section don't count towards that page count. I love bestiaries. They should be used to define the setting.
Quote from: JeremyR on February 16, 2025, 05:34:28 AMPersonally I would say
1) Not making odds of dice rolls obvious
Like I was reading Tiny Cthulhu, which uses the Tiny D6 system. Basically all skill tasks can be handled by either rolling 1-3d6s and if any comes up a 5 or 6, it succeeds. But what are the odds? I was trying to figure them in my head and couldn't past the 1d6. Using pencil and paper though, it's like 55% for 2d6, and 70% for 3d6. If you are going to do something like, tell the GM, so the players also know.
I would really rather not have probability numbers. I navigate real life without them just fine. Knowing them makes an rpg feel more like a game and less like being there, which is the opposite of what I'm after.
Passing off storygaming as roleplaying.
Quote from: MerrillWeathermay on February 14, 2025, 08:29:31 PMAfter 40+ years of playing TTRPGs, my list of design flaws would be (in order)
1. A game that is entirely self-referential in its setting and concept. If the game bears no resemblance to Earth history, mythology, etc., and exists in the mind of its creator, in some alternate reality only he can fully comprehend and appreciate (Numenera is a classic example). Players don't have time to indulge your autism --things need to make sense and be easy to absorb. I'm not going to read your 300 pages of back-story to understand the game world.
Hard disagree.
"Players don't have time to indulge your autism"
Well they fucking better, I'm making a whole world for them to explore over 2-3 campaigns.
If you want to publish something, you need to make sure that a player who never heard of it can bring a concept into your world, and you should probably have a blurb for this offering at least two concepts on top of your page. Games like Talislanta that are entirely TTRPG-specific (meaning, new to anyone who hasn't seen it before) make sure to do this, with each race (note that the new politically correct edition avoids this term) and such generally giving you something you can pretty much just throw into a party with enough information that you'll have a sense of coming from a place and having an understandable goal.
But if you make sure that the buy-in for a brand new player is there, you should be able to go wild with your creative and alien world. As long as players have hooks to figure it out, this can and should be a big part of any roleplaying in a place that isn't like Earth.
I don't consider this a flaw at all; if anything, making things too close to Earth is something I'd consider a problem, because then people bring a bunch of preconceived notions, many of which are ahistoric.
1. Thing i dont like
2-7: other thing i dont like