Was wondering if these RPGs exist. RPGs much like a fighting game, where the performance of the character is not dependent on the sheet per se, but rather, the player's ability to learn and exploit the rules and predict enemy behavior. OSR comes close, but it's no cigar. I'm thinking of a game where a beginner with a max optimized character would lose to an expert with a poorly optimized character.
Playing skill in an rpg is more about decision making skills than technical performance. An experienced player has a better sense of what to do, but their character's performance of abilities is still at the mercy of the dice. This is why systems such as OD&D showcase player skill. Avoid rolls of the dice as much as possible during play. Once the dice come out your character is subject to the whim of fate.
What you describe is actually pretty common. Good numbers only shield bad game play so much in any RPG, but I do think more story-focused games where players can drive the narrative (e.g. Fate) tend to expose this truth quicker than mechanically-focused games where the story is just a framework (e.g. OSR dungeon crawls). And before someone's hackles get raised, it's not a question of "which is better" since we're talking about subjective tastes within subjective tastes. I'm just saying that bad game play tends to blow apart some styles quicker than others, but it'll eventually break any system.
I -do- however think there's merit to the idea that bad role-playing should take a back seat to good numbers. If I dump all my points in Charisma and social skills, but lack both as a player, I'm sending a signal to the GM "I want my character to be good at -this-!" Same as a scrawny nerd dumping points into strength and combat skills. And that's where I ultimately stand: if a character is smarter/more skilled than the player, than the game should give at least some consideration to that. "You character has an IQ of 210. I won't tell you you can't run into the dragon's mouth, but your character would honestly see no reason to think it's a good idea."
I think that is one of the defining traits of the OSR vs more modern games. You don't have a skill to do this or that you've got to work it out.
Quote from: FishMeisterSupreme on March 25, 2025, 12:39:12 AMbut rather, the player's ability to learn and exploit the rules
Mage the Ascension. Probably Ars Magica as well. Awakening to a lesser degree.
"I cause blood clot on an artery in his brain" was a frequently quoted Life 2 effect to insta-kill a mortal. The true capability of a Mage wasn't their character sheet but how well the player uses their knowledge of how the world works. At least Awakening gives every supernatural use their main stat as resistance, and there is no covert casting to prevent paradoxes in 2e.
The GURPS combat system certainly rewards rules knowledge and tactics. The character creation system doesn't provide any level of balance. I guess you could look at combat related points only, but there's things like spell casting, stealth, and perception that would probably figure in somehow as well.
I've mulled this one over for a couple of days.
As far as a system that challenges the player, I've seen three types. The first is the complex PC build game where the game heavily favors min-maxing. The second is complex task resolution rules, such as in depth combat rules. The third is having some form of out of game mechanic for resolving tasks; there is a Jenga based RPG. I abhor all three of these and feel they are poor game design for RPGs.
I believe that the challenges should be in the form of adventures rather than systems. Here's a handful of examples.
Good dungeon crawling is a player skill testing experience. If done right, dungeons are multilayered puzzles from dealing with traps in a way that preserves HP and resources to following the clues to get to the treasure room/boss/exit.
Mystery adventures can really stress players. There's nothing like a good whodunnit to get the brain juices flowing.
One of my favorite ways to challenge players is by giving them complex moral issues to deal with. As a good example, I recently ran a game where the PCs had to contend with a despotic dictator that was holding together a society on the verge of collapse. If they deposed him, then the most likely outcome would be chaos and a lot of innocent lives being lost.
Quote from: BadApple on March 26, 2025, 04:46:37 AMThe second is complex task resolution rules, such as in depth combat rules.
wonder why you think the second is bad.
Quote from: FishMeisterSupreme on March 26, 2025, 08:28:17 AMQuote from: BadApple on March 26, 2025, 04:46:37 AMThe second is complex task resolution rules, such as in depth combat rules.
wonder why you think the second is bad.
If combat is so complicated that you're either spending lots of time looking up rules or arguing about them then it bogs the game down and ruins the over all experience. The level of complication that's too much will vary by table but Phoenix Command level combat isn't needed for a great game.
The problem when the combat rules are not at least somewhat complex (to what amount depends on the group) is that combat is a solved calculation with optimal actions for any participant. This is usually where simple combat systems end up giving an illusion of choice but really only presenting a single good option and numerous bad options for those with poor system mastery. Where a more complex system can if executed well give a range of options preferably giving higher reward for higher risk.
Quote from: exalted on March 26, 2025, 12:30:48 PMThe problem when the combat rules are not at least somewhat complex (to what amount depends on the group) is that combat is a solved calculation with optimal actions for any participant. This is usually where simple combat systems end up giving an illusion of choice but really only presenting a single good option and numerous bad options for those with poor system mastery. Where a more complex system can if executed well give a range of options preferably giving higher reward for higher risk.
Yeah, if it's 1d6, 4+ you win, 3- you lose, or something like that. But that's because it is too divorced from the setting and conflicts it is trying to model.
However, chasing complexity for the sake of complexity is a losing game. Furthermore, the more complex you make the model, the more likely you are to have bad options and only a few good ones. You need just enough complexity to have a few good options, then stop.
The real answer is in the situation, which not only has the huge benefit of working but also of leaning hard into what makes an RPG distinct--a human GM adjudicating how the game goes. Take it away from, for example, "missile fire does more DPS than melee attacks because [insert reasons here]" into the natural adjudicated outcomes that fit the setting, suddenly you no longer have a single answer. Of course, to do that, you have to accept that you can't make the rules for missile fire so divorced from reality that a character can effectively just keep firing a bow in melee, jumping around like a preying mantis on crack. So again,
where you choose to use your complexity is more important than even how much.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on March 26, 2025, 12:45:46 PMYeah, if it's 1d6, 4+ you win, 3- you lose, or something like that. But that's because it is too divorced from the setting and conflicts it is trying to model.
Many D&D games with classic rules frequently become I move and roll to attack with a known damage output. That's barely a game and certainly not complex enough to be an interesting game.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on March 26, 2025, 12:45:46 PMYou need just enough complexity to have a few good options, then stop.
Can agree to that as long as most players have a few good options each turn your good.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on March 26, 2025, 12:45:46 PMSo again, where you choose to use your complexity is more important than even how much.
Mostly it is a solid strategy to decide how to do complexity (or choose game) depending on what group your running the game for my group would get bored quick if the game doesn't have at least some complexity in character building and combat. Complexity that certainly can become a problem in a longer campaign as choices stack on choices and certain options prove better than others. Still that's the beauty of a human adjudicated game as you note the GM can step in and change stuff should it be necessary and it is more likely to be necessary the more complex the system.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on March 26, 2025, 12:45:46 PMHowever, chasing complexity for the sake of complexity is a losing game. Furthermore, the more complex you make the model, the more likely you are to have bad options and only a few good ones. You need just enough complexity to have a few good options, then stop.
I 100% agree. The mechanics need to be only as complex as necessary. It's like adding seasonings to food. I'm not a fan of rules lite games either, I want a good balance. IMO, the real complexity should be in the game and in the adventure and the mechanics should fade to the background.
Quote from: exalted on March 26, 2025, 01:07:38 PMMany D&D games with classic rules frequently become I move and roll to attack with a known damage output. That's barely a game and certainly not complex enough to be an interesting game.
That is bad adventure design and bad GMing. If the best thrill you can give your players is throwing another monster at them to get stabbed, then you suck.
Quote from: BadApple on March 26, 2025, 01:15:15 PMThat is bad adventure design and bad GMing. If the best thrill you can give your players is throwing another monster at them to get stabbed, then you suck.
I agree but look at how a lot of adventure modules for a lot of D&D variations are built that is pretty much how a lot of people play the game.
Complexity sometimes help people with expectations, giving a larger range of expected options to pick from.
Quote from: exalted on March 26, 2025, 01:21:20 PMI agree but look at how a lot of adventure modules for a lot of D&D variations are built that is pretty much how a lot of people play the game.
Complexity sometimes help people with expectations, giving a larger range of expected options to pick from.
Agree that some people play that way. Disagree that it should be encouraged by the rules. (If they want to do it with little to no encouragement, and are having fun, go right ahead.)
You can give players a larger range of expected options by demonstrating those options in use by NPCs, without the nasty side effect of conditioning players into button pushers.
Now I get it. Everyone's got a different tolerance for complexity. Mine's actually firmly in the moderate complexity camp. My own system is moderately complex. Some people reading it would think it too complex for the position I'm taking in this discussion. The difference is that my complexity is deliberately chosen to provide a feature that the game uses in play. Then no more. Even then, as I test, I'm gradually paring away even some of that complexity. There's features that I want in the design that I can't justify the complexity for once I see the costs in play.
Even so, the emergent options between the players, the setting, the situation, etc. absolutely swamp the complexity built into the system.
Greetings!
*Laughing* Hah! Complexity!
Rolemaster was a system that embraced complexity. There were charts and rules for everything imaginable. Any situation, any skill, just about anything, there was a chart that could handle it. Beyond that, if there wasn't an existing rule for whatever you wanted, there were special optional rules designed to help you to figure out a system, chart, and procedure to make that into a new, functional rule addition.
It was absolutely fantastic, and fun!
However, it was also not without its flaws. That very complexity comes with its own hidden flaws or drawbacks, as it were. As someone has said, maybe it was Steven Mitchell!--that every layer of detail is going to add a degree of complexity and time consumption. It is inevitable, and an iron task master. Every layer of detail is going to add complexity and time consumption and effort to make the game work. Character creation. Monster creation. Encounter design. Adventure development. Combat. Magic. Everything becomes more complex to work with, and more time consuming to complete and accomplish.
Nowadays, I really appreciate simplicity. I want simple, fast, and brutal. I want most things system-wise to be easy to understand and use at the table. BOOM. DONE.
I don't want multiple page flipping, references three different rules or rule subsections and multiple fucking formulas.
Fuck that.
Simple, quick, and brutal. My players all seem to enjoy this as well. Maybe it's an age thing. Most of my players are over 30, so *shrugs*. It seems like the older people get, the less patience or interest they have in time consuming processes, page flipping, and complexity in general. I have several players that absolutely loathe "Bookkeeping". Again, fuck that. I can understand the frustration, and have grown to really love the brutal, quick simplicity. I just don't need my RPG to be all complex and BS. Simple, quick, and brutal works. And it's fun. And you can play a simple, quick, and brutal game like ShadowDark while grilling steaks, drinking some tequila, and smoking some fine cigars. Complex, stupid fucking rule systems interfere with that kind of fun.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
It sounds like the OP is asking about high skill cap but low skill floor games, which will almost certainly involve gameplay complexity. However, I guess it's arguable whether that necessarily involves a ton of rules complexity. As noted, it could just mean a game where player creativity and problem solving is rewarded.
Also, because the specific question posed is whether a poorly optimized build can beat a well-optimized build based on player skill... I'd imagine that it would have to be a system where build optimization is minimally rewarded.
Quote from: BadApple on March 26, 2025, 11:16:58 AMQuote from: FishMeisterSupreme on March 26, 2025, 08:28:17 AMQuote from: BadApple on March 26, 2025, 04:46:37 AMThe second is complex task resolution rules, such as in depth combat rules.
wonder why you think the second is bad.
If combat is so complicated that you're either spending lots of time looking up rules or arguing about them then it bogs the game down and ruins the over all experience. The level of complication that's too much will vary by table but Phoenix Command level combat isn't needed for a great game.
IMO a good game has multiple options every round with meaningful costs and results, and the options vary depending on the situation. The simplest rules that achieve that are the best ones. Neither simplistic rules that don't give opportunity for interesting decisions nor overcomplicated rules that are too much work to resolve are optimal.
Quote from: Lythel Phany on March 25, 2025, 11:34:01 AMQuote from: FishMeisterSupreme on March 25, 2025, 12:39:12 AMbut rather, the player's ability to learn and exploit the rules
Mage the Ascension. Probably Ars Magica as well. Awakening to a lesser degree.
"I cause blood clot on an artery in his brain" was a frequently quoted Life 2 effect to insta-kill a mortal. The true capability of a Mage wasn't their character sheet but how well the player uses their knowledge of how the world works. At least Awakening gives every supernatural use their main stat as resistance, and there is no covert casting to prevent paradoxes in 2e.
The real trick, that lots of Ascension GMs just fail to do, is that the Mage doesn't just get to cause blood clots in people's brains unless their paradigm aligns with the ability to do so.
Most of the Traditions are pre-modern and wouldn't have the proper concept of a blood clot in the brain causing death... they could invoke spirits to unbalance the humours in the body, but nothing so specific as a blood clot in a specific location.
Those with a paradigm that could use a blood clot in the brain also have a requirement for devices being required to cause such a thing... a blood coagulation ray for a Sons of Ether or a nano machine injection for Iteration-X or a tailored microorganism for the Progenitors.
Basically, Mage isn't a game of "whatever you want" its a game "what can you justify with your paradigm?"
That honestly requires an even greater skill level honestly.