Judging RPG Systems

[Roy Focker]

This is a revisted topic of mine. I've bought or learned a few more system since the last time I started a topic like this (at another forum) and I want to get your opinions again. Of every system that you have/know how to play or GM please Give your opinion of it's

Combat System

(In general, close/melee, ranged & for mecha/vehicle purposes).

Skills or Task System

Experience/Improvement System

Character Creation System

Damage/Wound or Recovery System

Equipment/Weapon System

Feat/Advantage/Perk/Talent etc System

On anything else that you want to add

[ewilen]

All RPG systems? Or just those that handle SF? Or just those that handle mecha?

I used to be fairly heavily into RPG's but I don't think I've played anything in the last 10-15 years. At the time, GURPS seemed to have the best combat system for quick but semi-realistic resolution, provided you included/excluded the right options; Harnmaster had a realistic but somewhat clunky combat system combined with a great system for healing (which meant that infection was a serious threat in a low-magic pre-modern campaign). Runequest was showing its age but not as badly as AD&D, which was in the throes of becoming AD&D2, and template-based games (Shadowrun, Star Wars RPG) were just coming online...but I never got into them.

What I did know somewhat to moderately well included the abovementioned games as well as Rolemaster, Fantasy Hero, Dragonquest (somewhat obscure SPI fantasy RPG), Universe (really obscure SPI SF RPG), 1st ed. Traveller, The Fantasy Trip, Top Secret (1st ed.), Call of Cthulhu, FUDGE, Ysgarth...

Somehow I think that of the above, only GURPS would still be of interest to any significant audience.

[yellowlightman]

I've never really seen the fascination with rules systems, as I tend to focus more on the roleplaying part and as a GM I'll haphazardy removie rules or make decisions in the effort to maintain the story and environment in which the players are participating.

I generally prefer setting-specific rules, as generic rulesets (from my experience) tend to lack something and don't give as much flavor to the campaign setting. Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay was a slightly unusual ruleset thanks to it being derived from the wargame, but within the context of the setting I find it works quite well. I'd be hard pressed to adapt it to any setting other than fantasy, but as a fantasy game it does the job far better than ny of it's contemporaries that I've played.

The exception to my dislike of general rulesets is Dream Pod 9's Silhouette system, which I think is a really elegant system. It's definately geared towards mecha-based games, but between the scaleability and simplicity of it, I prefer it to other mecha-based rulesets. Lots of games featuring complicated stuff like robots tends to get bogged down in numbers, which really hampers the game-playing experience.

[Noyhauser]

The exception to my dislike of general rulesets is Dream Pod 9's Silhouette system, which I think is a really elegant system. It's definately geared towards mecha-based games, but between the scaleability and simplicity of it, I prefer it to other mecha-based rulesets. Lots of games featuring complicated stuff like robots tends to get bogged down in numbers, which really hampers the game-playing experience.

I was a huge fan of the Sillouette system, I was a major supporter of the system from aroung 1995 to 2003... Although I didn't contribute to it I knew several that did very well. I will say it WAS maybe the best system I have ever encountered... It was perfect for RPG AND tactical gaming. It was a simple, yet brilliantly effective system for decribing and operationalizing any phenomena for gaming purposes.

however when they tried to consolidate the line under the Silouette core line, it was a disaster of sorts. Poorly done and full of holes, it really brought the down the line. As it stands if you can find the Heavy gear 2nd edition or Jovian Chronicals books you should pick it up (rather than the newer silcore books circa 2004 and after). I think Jovian Chronicals can be easily adapted to game macross... and some work has been done on it.

[yellowlightman]

however when they tried to consolidate the line under the Silouette core line, it was a disaster of sorts. Poorly done and full of holes, it really brought the down the line. As it stands if you can find the Heavy gear 2nd edition or Jovian Chronicals books you should pick it up (rather than the newer silcore books circa 2004 and after). I think Jovian Chronicals can be easily adapted to game macross... and some work has been done on it.

I've been out of the RPG loop for years, what exactly is Silcore?

[ewilen]

I think it must be this, i.e., the genericized rules from DP9's games, which have been extracted from the various backgrounds. So now, to play Heavy Gear, you need the core rules plus a background book; to play Jovian Chronicles as well, you add a Jovian Chronicles book.

Looks like interesting stuff...

[Graham]

Haven't played an RPG in about 10 years.

Used to play a lot of Runequest, which I found to be the most realistic and easy to use system. Also enjoyed Traveller, Cthulhu and the old Games Workshop Dredd.

I absolutely hated the rules system of D&D and AD&D, very unrealistic combat rules too many modifiers and I thought the level system was unrealistic. Same applies to D20 as well. Very clumsy systems IMO.

Graham

[yellowlightman]

Used to play a lot of Runequest, which I found to be the most realistic and easy to use system. Also enjoyed Traveller, Cthulhu and the old Games Workshop Dredd.

My defining memory of Runequest were the ducks. Never played a game of it, but for various reasons I have some of the sourcebooks. I bought GW's Judge Dredd game for the comics in it, playing as a Judge always seemed kinda boring to me. Seems like they missed out on the flavor by focusing solely on that aspect of Mega City One.

Anyone ever play Cyberpunk? One of the great games from R. Talsorian, real shame they've seemed to drop off the radar aside from the Dragonball Z game. Loved their Bubblegum Crisis books as well, if only as an english-language sourcebook for the series.

[Lestat]

I prefer d20 (mostly D&D3.5, d20 Star Wars), not because it's realisitic, but because it's simplified. Realism tends to slow down the pace of a game to a standstill, and I prefer to emphasize the actual 'roleplaying' in my games. Abstract combat, especially arial combat is much lighter on the brain, which I like, and players need to use their imaginations anyway. I also like using a grid and miniatures to visualise combat.

More realistic rules can easily be added onto the d20 system without affect the system so much. The skill system, involving rolling a d20+modifiers versus a DC (Dificulty Class) is simple and works. The same is used to resolve saves, and combat attacks are rolled with a d20+modifiers verses the enemy's AC (Armor Class).

I find it to be an enjoyable system, and it's very easy to drop or pick up rules as they're needed. The Open Game Licence is also great, but of course I'd think that as a published d20 author.

I DM Ravenloft at the moment, but not much else.

Edited May 10, 2005 by Lestat

[Graham]

The same is used to resolve saves, and combat attacks are rolled with a d20+modifiers verses the enemy's AC (Armor Class).

Ah...AC, one of my long held pet peeves. Armor should resist/absorb damage, NOT make you more difficult to hit.

Graham

[j_wong00]

The same is used to resolve saves, and combat attacks are rolled with a d20+modifiers verses the enemy's AC (Armor Class).

Ah...AC, one of my long held pet peeves. Armor should resist/absorb damage, NOT make you more difficult to hit.

Graham

Which is pretty much what they did in the D20 Star Wars.

Armor is near useless in this game (much like the movies ), since it also gives you a limit to your defense.

[Penguin]

Of every system that you have/know how to play or GM...

Ye cats and dogs… every system? I’ve been GMing for 21 years and tried just about everything.

First off, I judge RPGs by one thing alone... game flow. I've learned that there's no use in trying to judge an RPG system by "realism" (whatever you may construe that to mean) or by it's ability to model the real world. My only concern is whether the rules help or hinder the roleplaying experience.

So, here's my quick list.

MY FAVOURITES

- d20: I've been running D&D games since 1st edition AD&D, and I it's still my first love. That being said, by the end of 2nd edition the rules were such a hodge-podge of systems that introducing new players was painful. We old-timers had just grown with it as the rules were added and so didn't notice. The 3rd edition rules run smoothly and players pick them up fast. d20 Modern ain't bad for character games, but its vehicle rules suck - clumsy and bothersome. Which is why I'm workin' on some faster rules of my own...

- Silhouette: My own long-running Macross campaign uses the latest SilCore with a healthy dose of 2nd Edition Jovian Chronicles (one of these days I'll get all that stuff online...). The Silhouette rules are even simpler and faster than the d20 stuff, and I love the mecha design rules. For mecha gaming, Silhouette is my top choice.

- West End Games Star Wars: Man, we played this for years. Brought the same four characters from just before "A New Hope" to five years after "Return of the Jedi". We had tons of d6s by that time, but the system was streamlined enough that adding dice up didn't slow anything down. Best chase scenes and dogfights I've ever run were in that game.

THINGS I LEARNED TO LOVE

- Shadowrun: This system violates my whole "game flow" rule, 'cause it's pretty ugly. Some friends convinced me to play, and I came to love the game world and started GMing. The rules are a real pain, especially if you get into hacking or vehicles, but the rest are seviceable if clunky. And I do like the damage modelling system (one of the few that model penetration power and damage level of an attack as separate values).

- Blood of Heroes: Evolved from the original "DC Heroes" game. I think it's one of the best superhero systems out there. Has two tables for resolving actions, which sucks, but I put up with it because you can create any superhero you'd want with any power level, and it's scaleable.

THINGS I LEARNED TO HATE

- Phoenix Command: The system Leading Edge Games touted as the most realistic combat system anywhere. And it probably is. However, any system that requires you to look up 3 tables to resolve a single attack is not my best friend. Sold all this stuff long ago, except the fairly rare "ALIENS" RPG they put out.

- Palladium: Started with Robotech, moved on to Heroes Unlimited and then to RIFTS. Now... just yuck. It had so much variety I didn't want to give up on it, but battles just got so slow (five characters, each with 7+ actions per round, and I had to put them up against small armies... yeesh) and the munchkinism of RIFTS was killer. Still got all my stash of books, 'cause they give me some decent ideas now and again.

YOU GOTTA LAUGH

- Call of Cthulhu: Never heard so much laughter in a horror RPG in my life. Going mad is fun.

- TSR's Marvel Superheroes: "Okay, so you've gained 150 karma for defeating the villain, but you lose 20 for demolishing those three cars and another 10 for not helping the little old lady across the street..." "Great, now my energy blast power can be increased from AWESOME to SHIFT X (???)". Looking back, this was just hilarious. You gotta laugh when the game designers run out of adjectives for super power levels and resort to "Shift X, Y, and Z".

[ewilen]

The same is used to resolve saves, and combat attacks are rolled with a d20+modifiers verses the enemy's AC (Armor Class).

Ah...AC, one of my long held pet peeves. Armor should resist/absorb damage, NOT make you more difficult to hit.

Graham

Man, this takes me back to a decade plus of debating over on rec.games.frp.

So many roleplaying paradigms, particularly in fantasy, were pioneered by D&D, and the following decades were largely exercises in unlearning them. Classes, levels, AC's...

[Guest Bromgrev]

Heh, this takes me back to this morning on COTI ...

Basic Role Playing System all the way. It's simple, easily adaptable to any setting or era, and as realistic as you want to make it. I've used versions of it in Traveller, time-travel games, historical settings, you name it. That's apart from the official settings like Cthulhu, Runequest and Stormbringer.

I also have to say I prioritise game-play over realism, though. It depends on the group I play with. If they're into guns and swords, extra complexity in that field is A Good Thing. If you're running a large group who are not gearheads and have limited time, realism has to go out the window in favour of cramming in as much game-time as possible!

EDIT: Oh, and AC does suck. That's probably why every other D20 setting has dumped it in favour of defence/damage reduction.

Edited May 11, 2005 by Bromgrev

[Noyhauser]

I think it must be this, i.e., the genericized rules from DP9's games, which have been extracted from the various backgrounds. So now, to play Heavy Gear, you need the core rules plus a background book; to play Jovian Chronicles as well, you add a Jovian Chronicles book.

Looks like interesting stuff...

It was a good idea in concept, but in implementation it was very poor. I mean Silcore is a good system, still better than most others... but when you compare it to the simplicity of Heavy Gear Second Ed. it doesn't hold a flame. If you wanted to run a Macross system, I'd use the old Jovian Chronicles system... and redesign it using the Companion to make a new setting. Jovian chronicles is essentially a gundamesque system (even has rules for transformations) so its not a far leap at all. And if you were keen enough you could use the lightning strike rules (a tactical derivative of the older Sillouette V2 rules) to create a massive fleet based tactical game. I'd like to create rules for Legend of Galactic Heroes Tactical game.

[Roy Focker]

- West End Games Star Wars: Man, we played this for years. Brought the same four characters from just before "A New Hope" to five years after "Return of the Jedi". We had tons of d6s by that time, but the system was streamlined enough that adding dice up didn't slow anything down. Best chase scenes and dogfights I've ever run were in that game.

I loved Star Wars under WEG D6. Easy to learn, Easy to play and fun too. Some times deadly but pretty simple overall. Even though it was a simple gain you never felt cheated. Still need to check out their latest version of D6.

Palladium, I think it's good combat system provided you using low level characters against other low level character in a fight that the doesn't involved ranged weapons. Jump into mecha or have a just more SDC and combat just becomes a matter of who has more MDC.

D20 bored and curious I bought my first D20 Game, SW RPG Revised. I wanted to know what was so great about this system that seems to be the giant hording the hobby/book store shelves. I've been reading it for a couple of days and it just seems too complex or might just have more rules, modifers or feats than is needed. Maybe it's success has more to do with the OGL.

Another OGL system is Gold Rush Game's Action! System. It's similar to Fuzion. The system is alright in skill use and combat. I find character creation to be some what of a low process. One benefit is that the company is customer service. They are rather small and it's easy to get in contact with the makers if you have any questions.

[Penguin]

D20 bored and curious I bought my first D20 Game, SW RPG Revised. I wanted to know what was so great about this system that seems to be the giant hording the hobby/book store shelves. I've been reading it for a couple of days and it just seems too complex or might just have more rules, modifers or feats than is needed. Maybe it's success has more to do with the OGL.

Well, there's no doubt that WotC has used its market presence to shove d20 all over the place, and the OGL definitely aids in its proliferation. My players enjoy it for all the variety in feats and character description it provides. Which, I have to say, I understand. While I love Silhouette, characters are limited to abilities and skills, maybe a few perks and flaws, as far as character description. d20 does have more bells and whistles on that end, which my players are enjoying as a change of pace from the simpler system. Variety being the spice of life and all that, can't say I blame them.

As for complexity, there can be a lot of modifiers to consider depending on the task being performed. Some get used often enough that you commit them to memory, others less so. At the end of the day, if I don't know the modifier off hand, I just make it up on the spot and look it up later.

[Penguin]

EDIT: Oh, and AC does suck. That's probably why every other D20 setting has dumped it in favour of defence/damage reduction.

Actually, the "Defence" score is just AC by another name. "Equipment bonus to defence" is the same as "Armour bonus" for AC. So far, only d20 Star Wars has really embraced damage reduction for armour.

[ewilen]

I've never played D20 but applied moderately, the idea of "equipment bonus to defense" isn't so wacky. Many games which use pure absorption also have problems. Some combat systems either directly or indirectly arrange things so that armor both deflects attacks and mitigates damage from successful attacks. From a realism standpoint, I think this makes the most sense, but it isn't always worth the trouble.

The problem I always had with D&D was the effect of armor wasn't moderate, and the primary mechanic for representing defensive ability was the addition of hit dice, which often didn't scale well.

Edited May 11, 2005 by ewilen

[JELEINEN]

I agree that AC and escalating hit points are absolutely unrealistic, but they've never kept D&D from being a fun game for me.

As for favorite systems, Talislanta's is my all time favorite. It's very simple and a breeze to use. Outside of that maybe Unisystem. Right now I'd really like to give The Shadows of Yesterday a try and I tried starting a play by post Macross game using FATE, but couldn't get any takers.

[Graham]

I've always prefered realism in RPGs, especially in combat, as long as it doesn't slow the gameplay down to unacceptable levels.

This is the main reason why back when I was RPGing in the mid-80s to early 90s I prefered the Runequest rules over D&D as they have features like hit locations, armour which absorbs damage and the ability to parry (block) attacks.

Graham

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

I liked the runequest armour and hit points system. Especially the parts where you can armour only certain body parts.

What I didn't like about Runequest was the separation of attack and defence. e.g. Your parry chance is always the same regardless of whether the person swinging the sword at you is the mother of all swordmasters or just a drunk bum who passed his attack d100 roll.

Using armour to determine hit rate sucks even worse. That is my main peeve with D&D. Made touch based attacks stupid.

My all time favourite fantasy rules are Dragon Warriors (yes, cheesy name!) by Dave Morris and Oliver Johnson.

For modern combat (no mecha or superheroes, just guns and mortal humans), Cyberpunk is ok. I hate those gun based games where you can take multiple 9mm hits to the chest and still run around shooting. Hard to make a 'playable' yet 'realistic' game due to the power of guns.

[Graham]

What I didn't like about Runequest was the separation of attack and defence. e.g. Your parry chance is always the same regardless of whether the person swinging the sword at you is the mother of all swordmasters or just a drunk bum who passed his attack d100 roll.

From my experience with real sword fighting, including Foil and Sabre fencing many years ago and more recently Philippine stick fighting (Arnis) and medieval European swordsmanship, I've found that occasionally a begginer or untrained person can be more dangerous than a trained and experienced fighter due to their unpredictability.

When two trained fighters fight, especially when using the same style and weapon type, each one has a good knowledge of the set attacks that the other will be using and will respond with a specific set parry and counterattack.

However, a beginner will sometimes do a completly unexpected move not included in the normal repertoire of attacks which will just sail straight through the guard of the defender. I've had that happen to me more than once when facing newbs, which is why it pays to learn multiple styles and weapon types to increase your flexibility of response.

Graham

[JELEINEN]

I've always prefered realism in RPGs, especially in combat, as long as it doesn't slow the gameplay down to unacceptable levels.

This is the main reason why back when I was RPGing in the mid-80s to early 90s I prefered the Runequest rules over D&D as they have features like hit locations, armour which absorbs damage and the ability to parry (block) attacks.

Graham

I prefer ease of play and cinematic style. The problem with Runequest was that starting characters were incredibly incompetant.

[F-ZeroOne]

Been a very long while since I played RPGs, but from I can remember...

All time favourite: West End Games Star Wars. The system probably wouldn't have worked for anything else, but it fitted the setting absolutely perfectly.

Kudos to:

Mekton Z/Mekton Z Plus. A nice attempt for a "do anything" mecha creation system. Main drawback is that it could get very bogged down in numbers and fractions of numbers, but the core system was elegant enough.

Champions: Q: how many Champions players does it take to screw in a light bulb?

A: Thats a GM call.

Another very points heavy system, and it required more D6s than just about any other system around. But it captured the feel of its subject - superheroes - incredibly well.

Call of Cthulhu: Q: How many Call of Cthulhu players does it take to change a light bulb?

A: All of them! Never split the party!

The system was a little clunky - an outgrowth of Runequest - but has there ever been a more atmospheric RPG setting than Lovecrafts Great Old One-haunted 1920s?

Paranoia: possibly the most fun game ever made. You probably wouldn't want to play it for long periods, but seeing as it was almost impossible to even get out the briefing room without someone being shot, back-stabbed, blown up, terminated, run over by a scrub-bot, propelled into another dimension, molecule-spun by some R&D

terror device, or indeed, vapourised, that was rarely a problem...

Edited May 12, 2005 by F-ZeroOne

[chrono]

I've also found that 'realism' mantra impends game flow. Some systems never had it in mind to begin with or that try'ed to cover so many realism points with rules/charts that it bogged down everything.

Of course I've aways gone by the motto "If it doesn't work, it doesn't get used."

[ewilen]

One important point about the realism issue is that realism isn't the same thing as detail. This is something that often comes up in discussion of board wargames but I'm not sure the concept has been explored as fully in RPG's. Any mechanistic model will contain abstractions both in the inputs and the outputs--the key is choosing a level of abstraction and a range of outputs which work for you.

I prefered the Runequest rules over D&D as they have features like hit locations, armour which absorbs damage and the ability to parry (block) attacks.

This is all detail, not necessarily realism. Runequest doesn't do badly in the realism department, either, but I seem to recall that the probabilities of fumbles were too high--something you could see by supposing that a cohort of swordsmen were fighting a battle--a rather large percentage of them would cut off their own arms in the first minute of combat. But by comparison with D&D, it was really no contest in terms of realism. (Or, given that D&D wasn't aiming for realism anyway, there were still scaling problems that produced weird effects, such as the difference between healing a low-level character and a high-level one.)

I liked the runequest armour and hit points system. Especially the parts where you can armour only certain body parts.

Check out Harnmaster. In many ways it's an elaboration and improvement on RQ.

Your parry chance is always the same regardless of whether the person swinging the sword at you is the mother of all swordmasters or just a drunk bum who passed his attack d100 roll.

You're looking at the mechanics too closely. The important point is that if you're facing a better fighter, you're more likely to get hit. If you have a 25% parry against someone with a 30% attack, he's going to hit you 22.5% of the time. Against someone with an 80% attack, he'll hit you 60% of the time.

I've found that occasionally a begginer or untrained person can be more dangerous than a trained and experienced fighter due to their unpredictability.

I've read this many times from people with fighting experience, and since I have none, I'm inclined to believe them. (Back when I played chess I found that the same thing applied, though the fact that it did tells me that I really had a long way to go.)

Anyway, a realistic system doesn't have to be complicated. You could have a system where each guy rolls a pair of dice, adds some modifiers, and then the difference between the modified die rolls is the damage sustained by the low roller. Give each character a certain number of hit points, and you're done. Such a system could easily be more realistic than D&D, and probably no more or less realistic than most of what's out there. The only question is whether it provides enough detail to support the narrative, and that in turn depends on what elements of the story you want to emphasize.

[F-ZeroOne]

I've read this many times from people with fighting experience, and since I have none, I'm inclined to believe them. (Back when I played chess I found that the same thing applied, though the fact that it did tells me that I really had a long way to go.)

A chess craze went through my school once. Some of the players were really, really, good, and though I played a bit I was nowhere near their level. However, I did manage to beat one of them - twice. The second time, he slipped up and didn't realise it.

The first time was much sweeter - he could see what was going to happen but couldn't get out of it.. But normally he would have absolutely killed me on a chess board...

Edited May 13, 2005 by F-ZeroOne

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

You're looking at the mechanics too closely. The important point is that if you're facing a better fighter, you're more likely to get hit. If you have a 25% parry against someone with a 30% attack, he's going to hit you 22.5% of the time. Against someone with an 80% attack, he'll hit you 60% of the time.

I still don't like it! I prefered the faster and (more realistic IMHO) Dragon Warriors mechanics where you roll under your attack-opponent's defence.

In any case, the maths in your example is true but once attack % gets over 100, there is no more differentiation.

[ewilen]

The subtraction mechanic is also perfectly valid. Faster? Depends on how good you are at subtracting and how big the numbers are. Realistic? Depends on the limits to the attack/defense numbers. I'm not familiar with DW so I'll withhold judgment.

IIRC Runequest does give advantages to attack #'s above 100%--I think they cause a reduction in the defender's defense rolls, and they certainly increase the chance of a critical hit. You could look at that as a kludge and you'd probably be right, but it does address the issue.

That issue is, I guess, that no matter how good a character is, you always want it to be possible for another character to be better in a meaningful way. However, if your goal is realism--I realize it may not be--you have to face the fact that at the upper levels of skill in competitive contests, one competitor's superiority may not be visible except over multiple trials. Or to put it another way, in many cases the nature of the activity is such that the difference between any two "masters" is minuscule compared to the difference between a "master" and a "neophyte"--to the point that the difference is too small to be represented at a given level of abstraction.

[ewilen]

Invoking my thread necromancer ability...

Been spending a fair amount of time over the last couple weeks getting up to speed on what's been happening in rpg's. Can't really give a solid opinion on anything, but I did find that there are quite a few more-or-less-developed games out there which are available as free, legal PDF's, and quite a few more where you can download Quickstart rules which give you a taste of the system. I won't mention all of them but since Star Wars d6 has been mentioned favorably a couple of times, I thought I'd mention that a number of other games have been done under the system, including some genericised rules currently being published by the "new" West End Games. Read all about it at

http://www.westendgames.com/html/plyd6.html (pay special attention to the history links at the bottom)