Comments on The Free RPG Blog: How to write a free RPG - Chapter 5: System

@Thought - knowledge isn't meta if it maps rou...

2012-01-14T14:51:07.438Z

@Thought - knowledge isn't meta if it maps roughly into something the character could think about; things like HP and mana points or spells remaining aren't a problem, as you point out, since characters could be thinking about how hurt they are or how many spells they can cast before exhausting their mojo. Purely meta things like Fate Points *are* a problem for a lot of players precisely because the character could never be aware of it. To use them at all requires taking a step back from thinking about what the character knows and what the character would do in that situation to a more "authorial" stance about what you, the player, would like to see happen and what you're willing to spend. At best this requires some extra thinking and firewalling, at worst you come up with opposed answers.

I'm not really sure why the metagame resource ...

2012-01-14T00:48:56.360Z

I'm not really sure why the metagame resource knowledge is a problem. Take the Marvel Universe RPG as an example: sure, Cyclops might not know exactly how many energy stones he has left, but chances are, he's familiar enough with his powers and their limits to recognize when he's becoming fatigued, and thus can roughly gauge how many optic blasts he has left. Same with HP: a character might not know the exact number, but they'll still have a good idea of how much something hurts and how badly injured they are themselves (especially if they get hurt often).

And if it is a completely metagame resource, like Fate Points, then the characters would never even be aware of it anyway, and so the player is no more justified in using a resource in a given instance as not using it. Is there really any metagame knowledge if there is no possibility of in-game knowledge?

@Joshua The meta game should be acknowledged but i...

2012-01-13T15:58:48.345Z

@Joshua The meta game should be acknowledged but it is not a necessarily a detriment to the game. It can be dangerous for groups but I think most can see the meta game mechanics as a bit of fun and separate that from what the character's actions are.

It's definitely worth explaining, thanks!

@evil scientist - the problem with meta stuff is o...

2012-01-13T14:48:30.116Z

@evil scientist - the problem with meta stuff is often not that it provides certainty where none should exist, but that it *requires* thinking out of character. Having to ponder whether to risk invoking luck or depleting a shared pool of resources may actually make that worse. I could see it becoming a source of inter-player conflict as well; players who might be ok with your character making clearly sub-optimal mechanical decisions because "that's what he'd do" might find it a step too far if your character is at the same time depleting party resources. That can happen anyway over things like healing potions or wishes, but a shared pool puts it front and center. With the right group I could see it being a lot of fun, but as a designer I think it's something to think about.

Great comments everyone! Lots to unpack here... le...

2012-01-13T13:31:17.162Z

Great comments everyone! Lots to unpack here... let's give it a go...

@Emmett. Making mechanics is great fun but I feel that there are enough generic systems out there. Mechanics are definitely there to support story telling. I had a quick go at writing a post-ette on probability theory (dice and stuff) but it got complex (and not useful) very quickly. I've added it to my things to blog list and will add it in.

@Thought: You can make a setting for FATE and it would be a setting. However, it would be a very thin setting. With FATE, Fudge, 5x5 and other generic systems you have to do a fair amount of mechanic tweaking before it feels like the systems hits your setting. As soon as you start adding feats or addition rules then you're building mechanics. Using FATE/Fudge as a base and then extending it with a setting and setting specific rules is making a whole game.

I like the thoughts about meta game and justification of mechanics, I'll improve the guide given those.

@Evil Scientist: Very cool mechanics ideas - get them onto 1km1kt and let's have a bigger discussion!

@Anarchist: You have indeed created a game but you've left a lot for the GM to do. I believe that those RPGs that do well online are those that make life easy for the GM. Being novel makes the game easier for the GM to sell to the players and a mechanic has to be very novel to warrant a GM convincing their group off the back of it. Normally, a GM would explain a game through its setting first and then explain the mechanics to support it.

"To speak in character, if I might: If I crea...

2012-01-13T09:56:26.680Z

"To speak in character, if I might: If I create a fun setting for FATE, then I have created a setting, not a game."

Or the reverse: If I create a novel dice mechanic then I've created a game, even though it has no setting, focus, or any reason whatsoever for anyone to want to play it.

2012-01-13T09:48:52.866Z

This comment has been removed by the author.

Oh, and a question: can you name a few RPGs that u...

2012-01-12T22:21:32.038Z

Oh, and a question:
can you name a few RPGs that use a voting system for resolution?
(The UN General Assembly doesn't count...)

Regarding the "meta-knowledge" problem o...

2012-01-12T22:20:02.729Z

Regarding the "meta-knowledge" problem of resource pools: one could always design a system where the content of the resource pool is unknown or partially unknown to the players! It can be simple, e.g. the GM has the number of resources avaible written down on a piece of paper and players have to "request" resources from him. A problem remains: how to generate the resource pool?

Another idea that just came to my mind:
Imagine a game that uses, for example, a shared pool of three dice per player (with four players = 12 and so on). The dice are put in a bag or box. When it comes to action, it gets divided between the players, they blindly reach into the box and pull out three dice.

The catch is - dices are different! For every three dice a "rotten dice" is put into the box. You can use variously coloured dices, reds are normal, blacks are rotten. A rotten dice doesn't add up to the result, or even gets subtracted from it!

Sounds like a novelty system, but might be interesting.

To play off Emmett's comments, I think one of ...

2012-01-11T22:33:32.618Z

To play off Emmett's comments, I think one of the reasons why so many game writers also craft their own system is because there is a belief that THAT is part of making a game. To speak in character, if I might: If I create a fun setting for FATE, then I have created a setting, not a game.

Of course, a lot of games end up mirroring or mangling existing systems anywho, so this isn't the sturdiest justification, but I think it is one of those underlying assumptions that influences people. It might be useful, then, if Rob were to include a Fight Club-esq line assuring would-be game writers that "Your game is not your setting. Your game is not your system. It is not the graphics it has. It is not the typeface it uses. It is not the number of downloads it has. It's the all-playing, all-socializing game of the world."

Another possible reason why so many people create their own system (although I think this is far less common) is that, ideally, the system and setting should be carefully crafted to fit each other. As extreme version of this is Rob's example of having a psychic mechanics without any actual use in game. I would propose that the difference between FATE points and Force Points centers on a similar schism between system and setting. Now, it’s been over a decade since I played either, so I may be recalling poorly. That aside, to my memory both basically make it so that a roll is more likely to be a success. Fate points, however, have no setting justification. They're a fun mechanic, but don't really mirror a concept in the world in which characters can interact (somewhat appropriately, since FATE isn't really tied to one setting). Force points, on the other hand, have the setting correlation of the Force itself. A character can use the Force, and so the player can use force points. Force Points, then, is the more elegant of the two, as it is the one that marries system and setting together. I think some writers create their own system to do the same sort of thing.

I find it interesting that RPG designers often dec...

2012-01-10T16:07:40.748Z

I find it interesting that RPG designers often decide to make their own rules (including me). There is so much that can alter how a story is told by how the mechanics influence play of the game. Sometimes a designer thinks that their mechanics explain all of the game and the implications of them are obvious. This is often not the case. Players sometimes don't understand what the purpose of a rule is even after playing for some time.

This is a huge subject for one chapter. You did a good job covering the main concepts. Maybe there could be an appendix section tied into this that discusses some number theory? The difference in the difficulty of mathematical operators for the human mind to handle and the advantages and disadvantages of larger number scales (larger numbers give more granularity while smaller numbers are simpler to handle).

@Joshua, thanks for the feedback. When I come to u...

2012-01-10T15:32:02.052Z

@Joshua, thanks for the feedback. When I come to update the page, I'll find a way to discuss the meta game and its affects on the system. Also, I'll be more explicit about roll vs roll for combat. I can't imagine why I didn't before!

@anarchist, thanks for your comment. Sadly there isn't a standard lexicon for talking about games on the internet. I define my terms so as to avoid confusion. Crunch really is a measure of the amount of rules, what constitutes too many is subjective.

Fluff as far as I am concerned are words that are not required to get your point across. Setting and background isn't fluff for me - it's required. Stating the obvious phrases such as "The Gm can ignore this rule if they want" is fluff because it's obvious.

I've always thought that 'crunch' was ...

2012-01-10T14:02:41.907Z

I've always thought that 'crunch' was rules, as opposed to 'fluff' which is setting or description, whereas you seem to define 'crunch' as 'having too many rules'.

Oh, and Roll v. Roll probably deserves a mention, ...

2012-01-10T13:55:03.585Z

Oh, and Roll v. Roll probably deserves a mention, considering how common it is. Hero Games, Runequest, T&T, TriStat, even (iirc) many of the dice pool games like VtM, StarWars rely on both offense and defense rolling. While it's roughly equivalent to Roll v. Target Number if you assume the target rolls an exactly average result before modifiers, the difference in variability can be big...particularly where you subtract one from the other for degree of success.

I'd add a couple of Cons to the mechanics list...

2012-01-10T13:45:47.474Z

I'd add a couple of Cons to the mechanics list:

Dice Pool - Cons : the probability of success is not intuitive and hard to calculate. Your players may spend a lot of time not knowing whether what they're about to attempt is hard or easy. It's easy for designers to make a mistake, particularly if there are rules for varying the success number or splitting the dice into sub-pools and arrive at very counter-intuitive results (such as more skilled characters being *more* likely to Botch, as was the case with early versions of White Wolf's Storyteller system).

Resource Pools - Cons: some players object when the Resources don't represent anything the character could know or think about. This type of "meta" knowledge of, e.g. exactly how much Luck the character has left can be a distraction when trying to figure out what the character would choose to do.

Voting - Cons: Similar objections about "meta" decisions as Resource Pools; it fosters communication between the players at the table, but downplays communication between the characters. Can lead to the most charismatic/persuasive *player* always determining the outcome, or in games where it's tied to a Resource Pool the player with the best understanding of the exact rules (the rules-lawyer).