TheRPGSite

Designing a game system and curious about what there is appetite for among this crowd.  Comments would be helpful.  Thanks!

I like simple to-hit & damage, with options for combat maneuvers like tripping, disarming, barging, etc. They should be very simple rules.

Roll to Hit, and Roll Damage.  Use Advantage and Disadvantage, somehow.

Well moderately crunchy. I don't want build options as much as what feels realistic to make one character stand out from another.

In my own playtesting, the general consensus was what you term "moderate crunch" with a caveat; calculations should be limited to addition, subtraction, doubling and halving at most and ideally no more than three operations (ex. hit roll compared to defense, damage roll halved by resistance, damage roll subtracted from hit points) per action.

That said, where you put those operations is something you can change up. Ex. Counted Successes vs. counted Successes with the margin subtracted from hit points of the loser is three operations too.

I like a variety, in general. I think ideally I'd like some games each of low, moderate, and high crunch. My big problem with high crunch has been with the learning curve and consequently the social aspect.

It's hard to find players who engage with the level of crunch for that, and even if it's successful, it can be awkward being on a team with different levels of skill and engagement. The learning curve takes up a lot of time and turns a number of players off.

So I tend to go with either low or moderate crunch in practice, depending on the group.

I like as much crunch as possible compatible with something that can move fast enough to not be boring. I freely admit this is a rather demanding standard.

In practice, this usually comes out as something with a core as simple as possible and lots of smoothly integrated options.

ETA: To give you some idea, I am an absolute slavish fanboy of The Riddle of Steel's combat system.

Quote from: jhkim on July 18, 2021, 04:53:56 PM
I like a variety, in general. I think ideally I'd like some games each of low, moderate, and high crunch. My big problem with high crunch has been with the learning curve and consequently the social aspect.

It's hard to find players who engage with the level of crunch for that, and even if it's successful, it can be awkward being on a team with different levels of skill and engagement. The learning curve takes up a lot of time and turns a number of players off.

So I tend to go with either low or moderate crunch in practice, depending on the group.

Rules buy in is very important for what system a GM can run at a table.

Certain game systems simply require all the players to know the system almost as well as the GM.

Especially the crunchier ones; "What do I roll again.." is frustrating to hear after weeks of play. And it gets more frustrating in direct proportion to system crunch.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on July 19, 2021, 11:03:36 AM
I like as much crunch as possible compatible with something that can move fast enough to not be boring. I freely admit this is a rather demanding standard.

In practice, this usually comes out as something with a core as simple as possible and lots of smoothly integrated options.

ETA: To give you some idea, I am an absolute slavish fanboy of The Riddle of Steel's combat system.

Ahh the game that got me back into RPG's in college!!

This is one that really deserved a chance to clean things up for a second edition. The combat did require player buy-in, everyone at the table needed to be familiar with how combat worked. But if everyone was on point that combat system was very fast at the table.

The best combat system among those I tried were Call of Cthulhu with hit location (7E is a bit more crunchy but not by much) and Cyberpunk 2020.

As much as I love GURPS, combats in 3E were the worst. I don't know who thought that 1 sec/round was realistic, but A) It wasn't (*) and B) Killed the momentum. GURPS was the first system that taught me to house-rule. I never tried 4E toh.

IMHO it should be remembered that a RPG is not a wargame (and even wargames use a lot of abstraction). Once a combat system conveys the idea of what's happening, with realistic differences between combat abilities, weapons and weapon's effects, to me it's fine. In CoC what matters is that a investigator must have clear that a single gunshot can kill him, or that a machete can cut his arm off (not to mentions weeks for healing serious wounds). Everything above this goes against the very spirit of portraying a fight as a confused melee actually lasting a bunch of minutes.

(*) The "decision cycle" as defined in warfare is 1) Analyse the situation 2) Develop a plan 3) Act 4) Analyse the results and how/if the situation changed. In a dogfight between modern fighter jets the length of this cycle is considered to be 10-12 seconds. GURPS only considered 3) - 1) 2) and 4) happened in a "non time" between players' turns. The result was that a Sorcerer chanting a quick 5-seconds spell during a firefight was actually out of the game for 5 rounds - with the average round length in real life being, with four players and some enemies to manage, about 15 minutes if you were fast. I never understood who thought that such a combat method could work. 

Quote from: Jaeger on July 19, 2021, 05:03:22 PM

Quote from: jhkim on July 18, 2021, 04:53:56 PM
I like a variety, in general. I think ideally I'd like some games each of low, moderate, and high crunch. My big problem with high crunch has been with the learning curve and consequently the social aspect.

It's hard to find players who engage with the level of crunch for that, and even if it's successful, it can be awkward being on a team with different levels of skill and engagement. The learning curve takes up a lot of time and turns a number of players off.

So I tend to go with either low or moderate crunch in practice, depending on the group.

Rules buy in is very important for what system a GM can run at a table.

Certain game systems simply require all the players to know the system almost as well as the GM.

Especially the crunchier ones; "What do I roll again.." is frustrating to hear after weeks of play. And it gets more frustrating in direct proportion to system crunch.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on July 19, 2021, 11:03:36 AM
I like as much crunch as possible compatible with something that can move fast enough to not be boring. I freely admit this is a rather demanding standard.

In practice, this usually comes out as something with a core as simple as possible and lots of smoothly integrated options.

ETA: To give you some idea, I am an absolute slavish fanboy of The Riddle of Steel's combat system.

Ahh the game that got me back into RPG's in college!!

This is one that really deserved a chance to clean things up for a second edition. The combat did require player buy-in, everyone at the table needed to be familiar with how combat worked. But if everyone was on point that combat system was very fast at the table.

   I can not tell you how much I agree with this sentiment about frustration.   But...it seems after 7 years of playing GURPS my player who seemed to always ask me this has finally got it down a bit. 

We're in a time where very simple systems like D&D 5E and Dungeon World are the prevailing trend. I'm a contrarian jerk, so I voted for crunchy systems. I haven't played a good crunchy game in years, and I really miss it. I do have time on my hands to learn a new system, dammit!

It's true that past a certain point too much crunch will alienate some of the audience.  However, to me a bigger factor is how well the complexity is selected and how it fits into the other complexity of the game.  Crunch that "fits" is easier for people to retain. 

Also, don't confuse rules complexity with complexity derived from sheer amount of details.  They are different things, and some people will accept one but not the other.

I am working on a system that tries to strike the right balance between realism and ease of play.  I know that is a tall order, but I'm giving it a shot.

I was at a work seminar where a risk professional made what seemed to me an interesting point: there is a difference between complexity and complication.

Chess and jet engines are complicated. For any given layout of the chess pieces, the fixed structure of the game rules gives a mathematically optimal move. It's complicated to work out, but it's there. Likewise, jet engines are deterministic systems. In principle you can work out exactly how they will behave in response to changes in their environment.

Poker is complex. Your optimal move depends in part on your read of the playing style and emotional state of your opponent, which are themselves partly dependent on your plays. It is non-deterministic.

Complication and complexity might even be mutually incompatible in an RPG context at least to some extent. If the rules are very complicated, everyone might be too busy trying to keep track of them to come up with complex, creative tactical plays. Or such plays might even get discouraged as too difficult to handle in the game rules. In a low-complication system, either the rules treatment is obvious or the GM can wing it without breaking or ignoring established rules.

The terms of the trade-off will be determined in part by the level of system mastery around the table. My sense is appetite to acquire system mastery is fairly limited for many players.

Personally these days I would like low to medium complicatedness, and plenty of scope for complexity.

Marchand,  I agree with the bulk of your statements.  Having played for almost 40 years now, I want simpler systems.  Thirty years ago, I wrote a very crunchy system based on d12 dice pools.  d12 is the ultimate die in my view - and you could give more subtle bonuses with a more fine number spread.  It's all we played for 4-5 years.  We loved it.

I don't know if it is a function of age or time to spend learning rules balance by family time, but I find that I don't have the patience for crunchy systems anymore.  I have a great appreciation for all the effort that goes into crafting a workable system, considering possibilities, play testing, more tweaking, etc.  As I build my rules light system, I am curious what people on this forum think.  Sometimes these ideas spark a creativity thread that might otherwise not have gotten started.

Quote from: Vic99 on July 22, 2021, 08:14:52 AM
Marchand,  I agree with the bulk of your statements.  Having played for almost 40 years now, I want simpler systems.  Thirty years ago, I wrote a very crunchy system based on d12 dice pools.  d12 is the ultimate die in my view - and you could give more subtle bonuses with a more fine number spread.  It's all we played for 4-5 years.  We loved it.

I don't know if it is a function of age or time to spend learning rules balance by family time, but I find that I don't have the patience for crunchy systems anymore.  I have a great appreciation for all the effort that goes into crafting a workable system, considering possibilities, play testing, more tweaking, etc.  As I build my rules light system, I am curious what people on this forum think.  Sometimes these ideas spark a creativity thread that might otherwise not have gotten started.

Out of curiosity, is this rules lite system you're working on for home games or something you plan on releasing professionally?

Chris24601,  I'm going to play test it with my group, then run it with my kids.  May do some more play testing and rewriting after that.  I'd like to publish it after that if it seems reasonable.

Quote from: Vic99 on July 22, 2021, 11:09:56 PM
I'm going to play test it with my group, then run it with my kids.  May do some more play testing and rewriting after that.  I'd like to publish it after that if it seems reasonable.

Good luck with it Vic99, it certainly seems like you are going about in in a very thoughtful way. Look forward to hearing more about it as you make progress.

Thanks, Marchand.  It's fun.  I've been learning about many other games and their mechanics in the process - some really creative ideas.

I initially wanted to do a you tube channel about how to GM better - but I'm too late to the party.  So, many people out there already - some of it really solid content that's already been covered.  However, this gave me some ideas about modifying the games that I already run.  I've always tinkered with systems, but have been limited in my perspective.

One thing I have noticed, is that it is tough to find videos that give really good ideas on how to write your own game.  I'm not a complete novice, but am looking for more inspiration.

When writing the system, I'm trying to create a balance between breadth & depth of rules with something that doesn't get completely out of control.  At times it's a bit daunting.  However, this is one of my favorite types of writing and I'm glad I'm back at it.  Will be posting more threads here that will try to get people's opinion.  Perhaps I'll be able to link to it when it's finished or close - depending on the forum rules.

It really does depend on what overall "feel" the designer is going for.  Generally for darker settings I like more detailed combat with nasty critical hit results.

However, getting your character's hand chopped off in the first round of combat is not always fun and overly-detailed combat can really bog things down.

Something that I really like in a combat system is dynamism.  I really like systems that have lots of options for attack and defense. It really helps take some of the pressure off of the DM having to keep "you whack the Orc with your Longsword for d8 damage" interesting after the umpteen dozenth time.

One of my favorite Fantasy combat systems in recent memory is the R. Talsorian Witcher RPG.  The various defensive options to Parry, Block, Dodge and Reposition really do add a lot to the system resulting in very dynamic combat.  Yes tracking endurance can get rather crunchy but I like it.

I am hoping to run Forbidden Lands soon.  That has a similar system with Slash and Stab attacks having different modifiers for parrying or dodging.

Quote from: Vic99 on July 18, 2021, 08:55:17 AM
Designing a game system and curious about what there is appetite for among this crowd.  Comments would be helpful.  Thanks!

I think you should aim to be authentic. Explain clearly why you do what you do and only include what you actually have used and played.  Keep it as terse as possible.

Your challenge is not the design of the system but explaining in a way that somebody else can learn it. In the first couple of draft of my Majestic Fantasy Rules, I read some section out loud as I was trying to teach it. And some of it made me wince and think "Well wording that way isn't going to work".

Even now with my published Basic Rules heavily edited, I found a handful of sections where I wasn't complete in my explanation, or omitted something* because it was so second nature to how I run my campaign.

*Like how I award XP.  :(

As for how popular it will be, as long as you are authentic, friendly and diligent, you will get a get at least a small audience. Beyond that is so random that the best you can do is to have a plan if it happens but don't count on it.

But with the cost of today technology and the way we distribute things now, you don't need a particularly large audience to do a nice project or to get a reasonable return (in downloads or sales) for your time.

What about abstracted one-roll attacks instead of separate to-hit and damage?

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on July 20, 2021, 09:15:29 AM
It's true that past a certain point too much crunch will alienate some of the audience. However, to me a bigger factor is how well the complexity is selected and how it fits into the other complexity of the game.  Crunch that "fits" is easier for people to retain. 
...

For me complexity has to justify itself in actual play at the table.

It needs to justify itself by offering something beneficial to the system so that the players will want to engage in it during play.

When adding on 'critical hits' or hit locations, or "socail combat"; the players should see the benefits of using those systems in play right away, so that they willingly want to obtain rules mastery of those bits to benefit their PC.

If after a few session the players are still having to ask the GM how things work, then that means that those system bits, are uninteresting and are only slowing down your play.

One needs to be ruthless in culling and streamlining system bits if they do not meet expectations in actual play at the table.

Quote from: Vic99 on July 23, 2021, 08:13:35 AM
...
When writing the system, I'm trying to create a balance between breadth & depth of rules with something that doesn't get completely out of control.  At times it's a bit daunting.  However, this is one of my favorite types of writing and I'm glad I'm back at it.  Will be posting more threads here that will try to get people's opinion.  Perhaps I'll be able to link to it when it's finished or close - depending on the forum rules.

If I may ask what dice system are you using?

Because the die mechanic does dictate how 'easy' some complex systems are to integrate in a game system than others.

Jaeger, right now going with a version of d20.  I have a few variations on it which I'm still playing around with and will hopefully play test soon.  As I've said, trying to minimize rules, but also don't want to minimize so much as to be too narrative either.

I voted #1 but my preference is really somewhere between #1 and #2.  I don't want to play Squad Leader, but the simplistic systems in #2 and below bore me.

I think my favorite system for general use is the one found in Stormbringer 5th ed, and also if you pick the same option in the BRP system. It has to hit percentage rolls, parry rolls, and a relatively simple critical hit table. I have to admit it's been a good while since last time I used it though.

Quote from: Mishihari on July 25, 2021, 02:24:59 AM
I voted #1 but my preference is really somewhere between #1 and #2.  I don't want to play Squad Leader, but the simplistic systems in #2 and below bore me.

Greetings!

SQUAD LEADER FOREVER, BRO! ;D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK on July 25, 2021, 10:39:06 AM

Quote from: Mishihari on July 25, 2021, 02:24:59 AM
I voted #1 but my preference is really somewhere between #1 and #2.  I don't want to play Squad Leader, but the simplistic systems in #2 and below bore me.

Greetings!

SQUAD LEADER FOREVER, BRO! ;D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Something tells me that you might like Phoenix Command :D

Quote from: Trond on July 25, 2021, 12:00:24 PM

Quote from: SHARK on July 25, 2021, 10:39:06 AM

Quote from: Mishihari on July 25, 2021, 02:24:59 AM
I voted #1 but my preference is really somewhere between #1 and #2.  I don't want to play Squad Leader, but the simplistic systems in #2 and below bore me.

Greetings!

SQUAD LEADER FOREVER, BRO! ;D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Something tells me that you might like Phoenix Command :D

Greetings!

*Laughing* Hey there, Trond!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Trond on July 25, 2021, 05:22:37 AM
I think my favorite system for general use is the one found in Stormbringer 5th ed, and also if you pick the same option in the BRP system. It has to hit percentage rolls, parry rolls, and a relatively simple critical hit table. I have to admit it's been a good while since last time I used it though.

   Mythras is the modern cleaned up and modified version of this isn't it?  It has been a long time since I cracked open by Stormbringer book, but I recognized a great deal of the nature of combat from Stormbringer.  I think strike ranks was the big thing I noticed as missing.  Other than that it seemed almost exactly the same (I do not remember all the special effects from specific combat styles being in Stormbringer though). 

    Mythras and Stormbringer were very similar to GURPS for me (different dice, but the back and forth of combat and armor, etc).  For me these sorts of systems begin to bog down with around 4 players.   Do you find that to be the case?   I find 4+ players and Savage Worlds, DCC, and similarly lighter games go a good deal faster for me when a big fight with skilled enemies breaks out.

Quote from: oggsmash on July 25, 2021, 03:50:01 PM

Quote from: Trond on July 25, 2021, 05:22:37 AM
I think my favorite system for general use is the one found in Stormbringer 5th ed, and also if you pick the same option in the BRP system. It has to hit percentage rolls, parry rolls, and a relatively simple critical hit table. I have to admit it's been a good while since last time I used it though.

   Mythras is the modern cleaned up and modified version of this isn't it?  It has been a long time since I cracked open by Stormbringer book, but I recognized a great deal of the nature of combat from Stormbringer.  I think strike ranks was the big thing I noticed as missing.  Other than that it seemed almost exactly the same (I do not remember all the special effects from specific combat styles being in Stormbringer though). 

    Mythras and Stormbringer were very similar to GURPS for me (different dice, but the back and forth of combat and armor, etc).  For me these sorts of systems begin to bog down with around 4 players.   Do you find that to be the case?   I find 4+ players and Savage Worlds, DCC, and similarly lighter games go a good deal faster for me when a big fight with skilled enemies breaks out.

I'm not Trond but I was a player in a Mythras game so I'll chime in from the peanut gallery right quick: combat didn't bog down too too bad, but I think the GM was using an Amazing Masterful Super-Automated Spreadsheet of Doom to help make it smooth. Based on what I saw, I can't imagine running Mythras combat without substantial tooling support (e.g. no electronics pen-and-paper play).

Playing Mythras was fun though, delicious crunch and also a logical and predictable ruleset.

Quote from: insubordinate polyhedral on July 25, 2021, 06:36:12 PM

Quote from: oggsmash on July 25, 2021, 03:50:01 PM

Quote from: Trond on July 25, 2021, 05:22:37 AM
I think my favorite system for general use is the one found in Stormbringer 5th ed, and also if you pick the same option in the BRP system. It has to hit percentage rolls, parry rolls, and a relatively simple critical hit table. I have to admit it's been a good while since last time I used it though.

   Mythras is the modern cleaned up and modified version of this isn't it?  It has been a long time since I cracked open by Stormbringer book, but I recognized a great deal of the nature of combat from Stormbringer.  I think strike ranks was the big thing I noticed as missing.  Other than that it seemed almost exactly the same (I do not remember all the special effects from specific combat styles being in Stormbringer though). 

    Mythras and Stormbringer were very similar to GURPS for me (different dice, but the back and forth of combat and armor, etc).  For me these sorts of systems begin to bog down with around 4 players.   Do you find that to be the case?   I find 4+ players and Savage Worlds, DCC, and similarly lighter games go a good deal faster for me when a big fight with skilled enemies breaks out.

I'm not Trond but I was a player in a Mythras game so I'll chime in from the peanut gallery right quick: combat didn't bog down too too bad, but I think the GM was using an Amazing Masterful Super-Automated Spreadsheet of Doom to help make it smooth. Based on what I saw, I can't imagine running Mythras combat without substantial tooling support (e.g. no electronics pen-and-paper play).

Playing Mythras was fun though, delicious crunch and also a logical and predictable ruleset.

How many players?   I could see if I had players who were sharp with Mythras, and I learned the system a bit better, it would go faster than we go with GURPS (which to be honest, most combat there is pretty fast, it is when they tangle with elite/boss types it slows down a bit because of good skills, armor, etc) if for no other reason, it is easier to get outright killed, or to kill/drop a tough opponent.

Quote from: oggsmash on July 25, 2021, 11:58:32 PMHow many players?   I could see if I had players who were sharp with Mythras, and I learned the system a bit better, it would go faster than we go with GURPS (which to be honest, most combat there is pretty fast, it is when they tangle with elite/boss types it slows down a bit because of good skills, armor, etc) if for no other reason, it is easier to get outright killed, or to kill/drop a tough opponent.

4 players, if I remember right - maybe 3 - one person didn't always use his webcam so I can't remember if he was still with us. I was definitely a complete Mythras n00b, not sharp at all. I think all the other players were new to the system. One player was preternaturally talented at learning/memorizing/utilizing rules though, among other things. Anyway, that's right at or below your bogged-down line. Should've included player count straight up. As for GURPS, I haven't played enough to compare the two. I'm not a very experienced GM but I think I could decently manage Mythras combat with some spreadsheets or a little script, if that helps gauge.