Your Ideal System

[Matt Gwinn]

There's been much mention on the Forge about game systems satisfying the needs of the players, but I haven't heard much from Forge members about their specific needs.

What would your ideal system include?  Does the system exist?  If not is it in development?

My ideal system would be a system that lets me create a character that can do what he is intended to do with little chance of failure.  If my character is a computer genious I shouldn't even have to roll for computer related stuff unless I'm being opposed by powerful software or another computer genious.  Nothing is more annoying to me in a game than being the party's sniper and mysteriouly shooting the wrong guy because I botched a roll, even though I have 10 years of training and the best rifle and scope known to man.

My favorite characters over the years have been characters that have been given free reign over their field of expertise.  I had a character for Call of Cthuluh that had a 78% Cthuluh Mythos, he was the shit.  he couldn't run, he couldn't shoot and he couldn't pick up chicks at the club, but he could take away your sanity just by looking at ya he new so much terrible shit - and that's just what I wanted.  A lot of why that character worked for me is due in part to just getting lucky with my die rolls, but a lot of it had to do with my GM facilitating my needs as a player.

Chalk Outlines is the only system that I've played that comes close to giving me what I want without risk of whiff syndrom, but it is lacking in other areas.

Another game aspect that I long for is one that really builds on the characters.  My favorite campaign I ever played was a one on one game of DC Heroes Moose and I played one summer.  Since I was the only player we were able to build up every aspect of my character.  We had sub plots flying out the ying yang, and storylines that were actually important to me AND my character.

I think, in the end, I just need a system that centers on my chartacter, which really isn't feasable unless you have a GM for each player. Hmm...

Anyway, I'd like to hear what you all have to say.

,Matt G.

[Mike Holmes]

I think, in the end, I just need a system that centers on my chartacter, which really isn't feasable unless you have a GM for each player. Hmm...

You make an interesting point. This goes to my arguments about group size, mainly. Or in other words, groups should be small. I have one campaign that I run only for two players at a time (kinda x-files-ish). I think that more than three tends to dilute the GMs efforts and player's story-share (screen-time) too much. Any more than four players I avoid like the plague these days. That many players seems only good for Gamist games where there is player competition (in which case its often the more the merrier).

As far as my perfect system, I like a lot of systems for different reasons. I'd be tempted to list what I don't like, as you did, and say I'd like something that doesn't do that. But I'd rather just design a game when an idea strikes me. Otherwise I have to put up with something else in the system that I don't like.

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Matt,

You've definitely phrased the question well in your first post, which implies that each of us does have specific needs/preferences in role-playing. In other words, you're asking about each person's Ideal System, not The Ideal System for Everyone. That works for me. However ...

I know I keep doing this to you, but I suggest that you examine your own question one more time.

Is it:

"What is my perfect system?" or is it,
"What possible system could permit me to enjoy it?"

And I know I keep doing this too, but let's take the relationship metaphor again. Is the question:

"Why doesn't Ms. Right suddenly appear?" or is it,
"What must I consider during a relationship so that it is worth being in?"

I quickly add that I am using this issue strictly as a metaphor for the role-playing issue, not as an inquiry into your romantic situation (I mean it, please don't go into a "my relationship" tangent).

What's my point? It seems to me that you are moving the search overly quickly to some aspect of the external world (ie system) when it might do better to stay with considering your own needs, as such.

Best,
Ron

[Laurel]

Actually, I think Matt's question is "what would a system need to offer to provide maximum enjoyment for me?"

For my own maximum enjoyment, a system would need to offer a couple of things.   I'll list them in order of preference.  The first would be the opportunity to play very human characters- as in complicated, complex, emotionally-driven, ambitious characters- that would not be overwhelmed or out of place in the game heirarchy.  The second would be the ability for players to flow easily between author-actor-director stances.  The third would be a single die system-- d6,d10, d12, doesn't matter.  One die to rule them all,  or at least be rolled.  No picking through a pile looking for a d6 here and a d8 there.  The fourth would be and in the darkness bind them: I'd just as soon not have to interrupt my roleplaying to make a test/dice roll unless I'm personally uncertain if my character would succeed at their action-- I'd rather the GM rolled for my character when they felt like it and didn't announce the score- rather they presented the narrative to me in such a way that told me my level of success as a descriptive statement of events.   The fifth would be that the system was popular enough that I could easily find players to roleplay with, and be able to "pick and choose" between games and players.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

Laurel made a good point about the maximum-enjoyment idea. Let's see ..

Most of the time, I like my characters to be protagonists and all that stuff. Therefore I like it when other players (a) show interest in those characters, (b) toss neat stuff my way, and (c) get me interested in their characters too, so I can do (b) for them. That's my "need." If it doesn't happen, I have a lousy time.

I put some effort into these things. For one thing, I try to get interested in others' characters from the outset, going at least halfway in part (c) above. I try not to get out of hand in taking over, although sometimes I go too far.

So for me, the ideal system is one in which these things happen easily and quickly. There are so many ways, not one True Way, but here are some handy features that work well in my experience for this goal.

1) A solid commitment to player agenda in the mechanics. If I want Joe Character to hit harder in this specific instance, he should be able to do so, due to spending a "point" or because I can bring in some psychological angle, or whatever.

2) Very, very clear rules about who gets to say what happens (outcomes), and when. I'm not talking about speaking "out of turn" or nonsense like that; I'm talking about who has final authority regarding the outcomes of conflict in the imagined situation. Ideally, I'd like that authority to be shifted around in an organized fashion.

3) Incorporated effects in the resolution system - if there's Fortune involved, let it be one Fortune-interaction that resolves conflict, not a layered combination. The classic example is the roll-to-hit plus the separate damage roll, which I dislike intensely. I prefer the single roll (interacting with whatever) to resolve the conflict at hand, not one little step in a series of Fortune-based steps.

4) A reward system with many different angles of application (e.g. in The Whispering Vault, one aspect of the reward system permits you to make the character weaker, if you'd like).

5) Most importantly, a Premise, stated up-front, making sense, and providing the primary emotional drive for play, as well as providing the underlying philosophy for all the mechanics.

Best,
Ron

[xiombarg]

I hate to be a scrooge here, but I believe just as there is no One True System for everyone, there isn't a True System for me, either.

Systems are tools. No system can do everything well. So I prefer to pick system by what I'm tying to achieve, and since my tastes are very wide, this means all sorts of different systems. If I want melodrama and very little control over my character, I'll play Wuthering Heights. If I want to simulate a particular cross-genre world in a realively realistic way, I'll play GURPS. If I want to explore issues of Humanity against pressures from outside time and space, I'll play Sorcerer. If I want to kill things and take their stuff, but still having room to roleplay, I'll play D&D. If I just want to kick ass and look cool while doing it, I'll play Feng Shui. And if I want a little wargame in with my melodrama, I'll play Mekton.

To extend the "tool" metaphor: There's no such thing as a perfect tool. Sure, there are tools that can replace a whole lot of other tools, like a swiss army knife or a leatherman, but sometimes you need a hammer.

Now, as a player, I usually perfer to be able to create a detailed, competent characters whose quirks have a real affect, mechanically speaking and story-wise. I prefer combat to be quick and intuitive. If it can be tactically rich on top of that, bonus, but I'd rather focus on politics. But not always. Depends on my mood, and what I want to do. It's notable that in my current gaming group, I'm the one who likes both Wuthering Heights and Feng Shui, as well as being an avid player of board games and wargames. (This is why I'd like to see more work done on a "Narrativist wargame"...)

[Matt Gwinn]

Once again, I have been put in my place by Ron.

Looking back at my own answer to this post I realize that system had nothing to do with why I enjoyed the above games.  Both DC heroes and Call of Cthuluh are mediocre systems at best and are not designed to do anything resembling the things about the games I liked.  

I think it says something about the psychology of gamers (or just me) that after playing DC heroes that summer I went to GENCON for the first time and was desperate to find a DC Heroes game.  Not once did it cross my mind that the system had nothing to do with the fun we had.  At least now I can give credit where credit is due.

I think (on a personal note) that finding a gaming group that better fits my needs may be more in line here than finding a system suited just for me.

Am I the only one that logs off the Forge, after talking to Ron, feeling like I just left my therapist's office?  Thanks Dr. Ron.

,Matt G.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Matt,

I dunno, I think that system plays into it too. I'm still not sure why "the people" and "the system" are often thought of as distinct entities, when actual play is clearly a matter of the first using the second (in some fashion). Was there some way the people in the games you enjoyed used the system, such that your goals in play were especially brought to light?

I like what Laurel started. I also agree totally with Kirt's point about "favored system for the goals of the moment."

Best,
Ron

[Matt Gwinn]

I the two games I sited the system played no role in the parts that I enjoyed most.  It was all story oriented.  It was stuff like the interaction between my Super Hero and his wife and her problems with me being a superhero.  The story between me and my arch nemisis was aso very entertaining.  The best parts of the game involved no dice, no system.

I think the big thing is that Moose is just a kick ass GM.

,Matt G.

[Andrew Martin]

Matt G. wrote:
> What would your ideal system include?  Does the system exist?  If not is it in development?

I've been working on it, after long dissatisfaction with commercial RPG systems.

> My ideal system would be a system that lets me create a character that can do what he is intended to do with little chance of failure.

With my Swift rules, this happens.

> If my character is a computer genious I shouldn't even have to roll for computer related stuff unless I'm being opposed by powerful software or another computer genious.

I let players roll for the first part, but the system supports low chance of failure and a single roll for success. For the second part, significant opponents will cause longer conflict, unless the PCs strike an opponent's weak points...

> Nothing is more annoying to me in a game than being the party's sniper and mysteriouly shooting the wrong guy because I botched a roll, even though I have 10 years of training and the best rifle and scope known to man.

This is directly translateable into Swift. 10 years experience (I assume after basic training as a sniper at age 21), will convert to 75% chance of automatic success, and 25% chance of 1D4 concessions to success. Reliability rating for the rifle and scope (and bullet) can be translated into the system as a slight additional chance of failure. This isn't written in my rules yet, but is easily extrapolated as a low percentage chance of failure.

> Chalk Outlines is the only system that I've played that comes close to giving me what I want without risk of whiff syndrom, but it is lacking in other areas.

My Swift rules used Chalk Outlines as inspiration, but I came up with a more simple system, that maps better and more directly to character attributes, skills and tools.

[Le Joueur]

Let me parse the questions.

[list=1][*]What would your ideal system include?
[*]Does the system exist?
[*]If not is it in development?[/list:o]

[list=1][*]Equal capacities for a lot of modes of play regardless if you follow the GNS model, Scattershot's, or any other, with the ability to Transition freely between them.
[*]Not yet....
[*]Only if you count a snail's pace, paint drying, or grass growing as development.  I never stop working on Scattershot, but rare is the occasion I get even a half an hour to write it down.[/list:o]

My ideal system would be a system that lets me create a character that can do what he is intended to do with little chance of failure.  If my character is a computer genius I shouldn't even have to roll for computer related stuff unless I'm being opposed by powerful software or another computer genius.  Nothing is more annoying to me in a game than being the party's sniper and mysteriously shooting the wrong guy because I botched a roll, even though I have 10 years of training and the best rifle and scope known to man.

I felt exactly the same way.  That's why I went to such trouble to spell out the differences between mechanical, specific, general, and even solo play in Scattershot.

Laurel seems to have this problem too:

The fourth would be and in the darkness bind them: I'd just as soon not have to interrupt my roleplaying to make a test/dice roll unless I'm personally uncertain if my character would succeed at their action

The important use of the general and specific play has to do with being careful about the shifting between them.  In general play, basically speaking; you say it, your character successfully does it.  The resolution system does not bear.  Specific play is similar, but the players use the resolution system as they see fit (for example, a gamemaster calling for a roll when the narrative needs complication only), and not in every potential instance.

Apparently, what bugs people the most is when their playing along (naively in general play) and suddenly, out of nowhere, the gamemaster calls for a roll (abruptly switching to specific play).  This disrupts because there was no explicit segue into specific play.  The disruption, to me, is the real problem, not the resolution system.

Sorry, I'm pressed for time, I can explain more later if you want.

Fang Langford

[hardcoremoose]

Hey everyone, welcome to mine and Matt's little love in.

Thanks for the praise.  The games you mention were pretty kick-ass; somehow I've managed to overlook our DC supers game every time I've filled out a Profiling thread, but truth be told, that is probably the single best game I've ever participated in.

And it relates a bit to what I look for in a game.  As a player, my main concern is that my character be recognized as someone cool - a major player, a protagonist if you will.  I mention in another thread that prior to my finding The Forge, my favorite game as a player was the Mage game that Matt ran, and the reason I cited for it was because my character worked on every level as a protagonist.  It occurs to me now that maybe, in some weird subconscious way, Matt and I have been keeping each other afloat these past ten years by giving each other what we most wanted in our games, without recognizing exactly what that was.  Ironic, as Matt and I have voiced distinctly different GNS goals in the past (he's typically Simulationist, where I lay claim to being a Narrativist).

To echo the thoughts of others, if I'm going to play in a game, I want to be more than a segment of the mult-legged invertebrate.  I want an opportunity for my character - my creation - to shine.  I want others to show interest, and to recognize his/her/its coolness.  More than that, I want to be able to see things that I think are cool happen within the story, to feel like I contributed something to the overall experience.  For that, I'm willing to take an interest in other people's characters and creations.  I like that kind of stuff.

And oh yeah, horror games kick ass.

- Scott