Many games tend to follow either an effects-based rules system or a cause-based rules system. Effects-based (EB) systems are concerned with what happens; the rules model how the effect takes place and what impact it has in the game world. Cause-based (CB) systems deal with the causal relationships, and from this derive the effect. CB systems are concerned just as much with why something happens the way it did with what actually happens, as opposed to EB systems which don't usually care or bother with how or why an effect occurs. As examples, the old TimeLords system (including supplements like Guns! Guns! Guns! and VDS and Battletech are CB systems, while the Hero System, Tri-Stat dX or Silhouette are all EB systems.

There are design advantages to each game philosophy. EB systems have a very easy time modeling certain powers or capabilities as well as covering all sorts of chararcter concepts. By disregarding how something happens, a vast array of capabilities can be modeled. Instead of having bullet wounds and energy blasts, you simply have a ranged attack which can do energy or physical (kinetic) damage. And whatever you can imagine for your character's skills and abilities, you simply make it up. However, the disregard of the how and why an effect happens can lead to some abstractions that leave out vivid detail at best, and at worst, can lead to some loopholes to exploit. CB systems have as their primary strength a strong sense of verisimiltude due to its concern with cause-effect relationships that enhances the immersion factor. Because everything is spelled out, there is a logical reason for why things do what they do, or why things are the way the are because of what happened previously. Unfortunately, it also means that capabilities are more constrained and limited because it's much harder to try to model all causes and their corresponding effects. This tends to railroad player choices not just in actions or equipment, but even in character creation.

Let me give an example. In EB systems, there usually are no restrictions placed on the purchasing of skills other than arbitrary GM restrictions based on the campaign. For example, there's nothing stopping a player from giving his character a skill in using Heavy Weapons like Anti-Tank missles, even though his character has no military background. Another example might be a serf or peasant being literate or an 18yr old having a skill in Nuclear physics. While such things are possible, they should obviously be extraordinary and should more than likely cost more points than usual...but most EB systems don't bother with this.

On the other hand, CB systems are more like class based systems in that a character would follow a logical progression of education and training (like Mechwarrior 3rd ed.). While this makes characters much more plausible it can also constrain character flexibility for those oddball situations that are more likely to occur in protagonists of stories.

My question lay in trying to find a compromise between these two design ideologies and even if that's a good idea. Should character creation be totally freeform or would placing restraints destroy its very appeal? Conversely, should skill be determined solely by a life path (for me, there is a distinction between character classes and a life path....classes determine solely one's occupation, while a life path takes into account ones social class, wealth, and prior education as well) or would allowing some hedge room for unique circumstances (the character has an unusual background) be a loophole that destroys the plausibility?

My core system is very crunchy with a lot of bookkeeping that tries to be as plausible as possible under the given circumstances. Because I want my system to be tailored for more grim, gritty, or historical genres, I'm looking more for realism and less for dramatics.

Dauntless wrote: Should character creation be totally freeform or would placing restraints destroy its very appeal?

Conversely, should skill be determined solely by a life path or would allowing some hedge room for unique circumstances (the character has an unusual background) be a loophole that destroys the plausibility?

Dauntless wrote: My question lay in trying to find a compromise between these two design ideologies and even if that's a good idea. Should character creation be totally freeform or would placing restraints destroy its very appeal?

MikeSands-
You're absolutely right, my system as it currently stands leans way in the favor of CB, but as I've been toying with my LifePath system, it dawned on me how restrictive it could be.

I really think my dilemma lay in the fact that on the one hand, I'd like the core rules to be as generic as possible and hence universal, but on the other hand, I want the system to do more justice to a highly detailed and immersive world setting. That's why my system is better at doing more realistic backdrops, i.e. historical periods, hard sci-fi, noir, or other gritty genres in which the possibility of actions isn't seen as a limitation to fun, but rather as an obstacle to overcome.

In the end though, I'd rather my system be more suitable to these limited genres than be as universal as most EB systems can be.