We were doing a playtest of George's Project Delta BYOB fantasy minis game, and we decided to do a stress test of the rules. The term 'stress test' in Software QA means to purposefully put the system under load, and try to get the system to break. We designed a party of characters with the sole intent to exploit, min-max, and break rules.
The system held up well, except for the high-strength druid shape-shifter, combo'ed with a mana regen build backing it up. This pair output damage four times higher than an average high-DPS character, and it was a hoot to watch. Not so good for game balance, but the combo was cool, and also quite broken. This will be addressed in our latest round of bug-fixes.
The larger issue here is in play-testing pen-and-paper RPGs. You get more value from players trying to break the system, than you do the designers of the game. There is a certain love and reverence the game designer's have for the game, and they tend to shy away from obviously overpowered combos and builds. This hidden respect and love actually hinders testing; and there is a time when you need to cut things loose, invite in the min-maxers and power-gamers, and let them have at it.
A lot of games aren't put through strict play-testing, or they grow so big it becomes impossible to test every combination. Both D&D3.5 and D&D4 hit these issues, and the current build-de-jour on forums and discussion boards became the next target for balance and nerfs, and the process repeated to no end. Granted, once you limit the source content, to say the basic three books, the number of exploits drops substantially; but even then, the basic books still exhibit a couple 'favored builds' and 'maximum damage' combos.
With a few paths to max-damage, the problem becomes this limiting player choice. As veteran MMO players know, if you don't min-max for the best damage, you are looked down upon. The best path becomes the only path. I am putting aside the obvious 'player freedom do what you want' argument here, of course, in a tabletop game, you can always make less-optimal choices and still play. For a miniatures game, balance and supporting many paths to victory is very important. This can be seen in other tabletop mini games like Warhammer, with generations of 'favored combos' being the only way to win, and the rules change, a new combo rises, and the cycle repeats.
If a minis game has a couple 'killer combos' and those become the only way to win, the tactical options are limited, and the game is weaker. Making the game strong is supporting many builds and play styles, making sure the combos work and are fun, and making sure everything works together in a scissors-paper-rock style of tactical experience. If rock always won, the game wouldn't be as much fun.
If you love something, break it, make it better, and then break it some more.
Sunday, October 14, 2012
Friday, October 12, 2012
Super Massive Skill Systems
Once upon a time, game companies wrote huge, voluminous games, with skill systems covering hundreds of skills. They hid basic rules for movement, combat, and social interactions in lengthy skill descriptions. Character power was defined by how many skill points you could accumulate, and the largest portion of a character record sheet was the character's skill section. Some skills replicated ability score checks, so if you wanted to lift a boulder, your character used the Heft skill and not the Strength ability score. Character design required you to know how much a particular skill cost to raise a level, which skills you could buy, and calculating the rates at which you could raise them.
Oh wait, they still make these games.
Seriously, there is little reason nowadays to hang on to skill systems that look like phone books, and operate like tax laws. These skill systems promise the holy grail of complete character customization, but too often put such a huge burden on players for knowing how to work them and manage the record-keeping they create.
Take for instance D&D 3.5, with its collection of class skills (which you have to buy with starting skill points), cross-class skills (which are bought at half rate), and different maximum levels for each. Take for instance a bard from this game, here are the class skills, reprinted from the SRD:
To be fair, D&D 3.5 is not the most complicated skill system out there, but it is a great example. Also, they greatly simplified the skill system in D&D 4, which helped matters in some ways, and over simplified in others, but it was still a good step towards simplicity. Other good examples of large skill systems are Space Opera, Aftermath, the Star Frontiers reboot Zebulon's Guide, Palladium, and many other systems. Some of these systems don't use a skill point metric, but they do feature long skill lists with a significant record-keeping requirement.
When you design a role-playing game, think about the skill list. What purpose does it serve? Are there too many skills for what you are trying to do? Does it require a lot of record keeping? Is the way you buy skills complicated and require hefty math and reference? Does your game even require a skill system? Can you get the same customization effect through one of the systems already in your game, such as classes, feats, or specializations?
More is not always better, and a game that requires 20 ranks in Knowledge(Role Playing Game Skill Systems) isn't always one you want your players to understand just to be able to have fun and play the game with.
Oh wait, they still make these games.
Seriously, there is little reason nowadays to hang on to skill systems that look like phone books, and operate like tax laws. These skill systems promise the holy grail of complete character customization, but too often put such a huge burden on players for knowing how to work them and manage the record-keeping they create.
Take for instance D&D 3.5, with its collection of class skills (which you have to buy with starting skill points), cross-class skills (which are bought at half rate), and different maximum levels for each. Take for instance a bard from this game, here are the class skills, reprinted from the SRD:
Appraise (Int), Balance (Dex), Bluff (Cha), Climb (Str), Concentration (Con), Craft (Int), Decipher Script (Int), Diplomacy (Cha), Disguise (Cha), Escape Artist (Dex), Gather Information (Cha), Hide (Dex), Jump (Str), Knowledge (all skills, taken individually) (Int), Listen (Wis), Move Silently (Dex), Perform (Cha), Profession (Wis), Sense Motive (Wis), Sleight of Hand (Dex), Speak Language (n/a), Spellcraft (Int), Swim (Str), Tumble (Dex), and Use Magic Device (Cha)Now a typical bard gets (6 + INT mod) x 4 skill points to start, so let's assume a +2 INT mod for 32 skill points to spend on 25+ skills (plus 8 every level); and also on cross-class skills (the rest of the 3.5 skill list). All well and good, but this is an extremely complicated system to teach to new players. Many times around the table, new players would have endless questions on skills and purchasing them, asking if a skill was important, how much a purchase cost, if a skill was in their class or not, and what the maximum level was for a skill given their class. When characters got higher level, the skill lists grew exponentially, with some characters taking an entire column of a book to record their skills.
To be fair, D&D 3.5 is not the most complicated skill system out there, but it is a great example. Also, they greatly simplified the skill system in D&D 4, which helped matters in some ways, and over simplified in others, but it was still a good step towards simplicity. Other good examples of large skill systems are Space Opera, Aftermath, the Star Frontiers reboot Zebulon's Guide, Palladium, and many other systems. Some of these systems don't use a skill point metric, but they do feature long skill lists with a significant record-keeping requirement.
When you design a role-playing game, think about the skill list. What purpose does it serve? Are there too many skills for what you are trying to do? Does it require a lot of record keeping? Is the way you buy skills complicated and require hefty math and reference? Does your game even require a skill system? Can you get the same customization effect through one of the systems already in your game, such as classes, feats, or specializations?
More is not always better, and a game that requires 20 ranks in Knowledge(Role Playing Game Skill Systems) isn't always one you want your players to understand just to be able to have fun and play the game with.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Sand Houses and Class Design Documents
There is a trend with certain MMO games to 'change everything' every once and a while in order to shake things up. Specifically, class builds is what I am thinking of here, and in particular, the mage class in the new World of Warcraft expansion. The class does not play as it used to, with most area-of-effect powers gone, crowd control very limited, and a focus on player-versus-player builds and options. It probably makes sense given a renewed push for PvP combat, and the game has seen this sort of massive change to classes with every major patch.
It brings up an interesting point, how much can you keep changing things? Players expect things to work a certain way, and when that is taken away, it is a negative experience. Do this too much, and players lose interest. In many pen-and-paper games, the concept of the core classes and what they did remained the same. It took D&D4 to do any major rethink work on class roles, and this was mainly in response to the MMO world. For the most part, the core roles and abilities are what players expect to see, and you see a return to this in D&D5.
A strong class design lays out goals, and designs powers and abilities to meet those goals. If you were to define two types of mages, say a fire mage and an ice mage, you would do well to create a design document for the two of them, and clearly lay out what they can do, and what they excel at.
In our sample fire mage, let us say fire mages are experts at area-of-effect attacks and damage-over-time spells - fireballs and ignite type effects. A design document for ice mages could emphasize single-target damage abilities, blizzards, and the cold-as-slow effect. You should probably go into great detail about the specific roles of each, and make each class a solid choice in the design document. You need to answer the question, "What can this class do?" You also need to answer, "Is this class a unique and satisfying choice?"
With your design documents, you can design your classes with the rules. Keeping the concept apart from the rules is key here, if your rules change or you need to balance things, you don't have to change the concept. Also, the idea players have of the class in their heads will most likely match the design document, rather than the rules, so you can tweak things without the fear of totally changing everything for players who like the class. The goal in structured class design is to lay out the big ideas first, and then do the fiddly rules implementations later.
MMOs sometimes change things to create controversy, and keep players interested. If the class roles in an MMO were to ever settle down, people could get bored and leave. Some MMOs are more prone to this 'class churn' than others, just because of the people that run them, and their philosophy on how they keep players interested. Some MMOs have kept pretty the same over the years in regards to class roles, and others have changed everything a couple times a year. It is all the study of marketing, keeping customers interested, and making the 'store' seem fresh and exciting. A lot of these theories trickle down into MMOs, and as a result, pen-and-paper games. They don't work all the time, and many times, how pen-and-paper games work is a totally different world than MMOs.
It brings up an interesting point, how much can you keep changing things? Players expect things to work a certain way, and when that is taken away, it is a negative experience. Do this too much, and players lose interest. In many pen-and-paper games, the concept of the core classes and what they did remained the same. It took D&D4 to do any major rethink work on class roles, and this was mainly in response to the MMO world. For the most part, the core roles and abilities are what players expect to see, and you see a return to this in D&D5.
A strong class design lays out goals, and designs powers and abilities to meet those goals. If you were to define two types of mages, say a fire mage and an ice mage, you would do well to create a design document for the two of them, and clearly lay out what they can do, and what they excel at.
In our sample fire mage, let us say fire mages are experts at area-of-effect attacks and damage-over-time spells - fireballs and ignite type effects. A design document for ice mages could emphasize single-target damage abilities, blizzards, and the cold-as-slow effect. You should probably go into great detail about the specific roles of each, and make each class a solid choice in the design document. You need to answer the question, "What can this class do?" You also need to answer, "Is this class a unique and satisfying choice?"
With your design documents, you can design your classes with the rules. Keeping the concept apart from the rules is key here, if your rules change or you need to balance things, you don't have to change the concept. Also, the idea players have of the class in their heads will most likely match the design document, rather than the rules, so you can tweak things without the fear of totally changing everything for players who like the class. The goal in structured class design is to lay out the big ideas first, and then do the fiddly rules implementations later.
MMOs sometimes change things to create controversy, and keep players interested. If the class roles in an MMO were to ever settle down, people could get bored and leave. Some MMOs are more prone to this 'class churn' than others, just because of the people that run them, and their philosophy on how they keep players interested. Some MMOs have kept pretty the same over the years in regards to class roles, and others have changed everything a couple times a year. It is all the study of marketing, keeping customers interested, and making the 'store' seem fresh and exciting. A lot of these theories trickle down into MMOs, and as a result, pen-and-paper games. They don't work all the time, and many times, how pen-and-paper games work is a totally different world than MMOs.
Monday, October 8, 2012
PDF Sales: Wizard as Valve
Honestly, one of the areas Paizo has Wizards beat is PDF sales, hands down. I love my books, but it is super handy to have them as PDFs and carry them around on a tablet or e-reader. Gaming goes portable, and my rules are always at my fingertips. Why wouldn't Wizards want access to rules, modules, and other D&D material to be easier? Kids should be able to pull up a copy of D&D at recess on their phone, on their laptop in the library, or any other electronic device anywhere.
Ideally, Wizards should be like Valve, game makers in their own right, and also as the premier distribution spot for any edition of D&D and TSR game, ever; and also start pulling in their competitor's games. Wizards should go beyond being a game that makes RPGs, and be a company that owns RPG distribution and the community around them. Paizo is close to being that now, and it hurts seeing an incredible back catalog of TSR gems sitting there and unavailable for people to enjoy. Competition is great, and I'd love to see Wizards mount a serious effort to 'own' the world community of roleplaying beyond just D&D.
On the subject, limited print runs of TSR games are incredible, and I hope Wizards branches out and reprints hardcovers of Boot Hill, Gamma World, Top Secret, Star Frontiers, Gangbusters, and other great games. Sell them at a profit, doe a great job, and I will buy. Celebrate our history, support our players, and be a force which gives back to the larger community. Remember the network effect? The more people that play RPGs, the more people will play the new D&D - whichever version that is currently, 4th Ed, 5th Ed, and on and on.
Ideally, Wizards should be like Valve, game makers in their own right, and also as the premier distribution spot for any edition of D&D and TSR game, ever; and also start pulling in their competitor's games. Wizards should go beyond being a game that makes RPGs, and be a company that owns RPG distribution and the community around them. Paizo is close to being that now, and it hurts seeing an incredible back catalog of TSR gems sitting there and unavailable for people to enjoy. Competition is great, and I'd love to see Wizards mount a serious effort to 'own' the world community of roleplaying beyond just D&D.
On the subject, limited print runs of TSR games are incredible, and I hope Wizards branches out and reprints hardcovers of Boot Hill, Gamma World, Top Secret, Star Frontiers, Gangbusters, and other great games. Sell them at a profit, doe a great job, and I will buy. Celebrate our history, support our players, and be a force which gives back to the larger community. Remember the network effect? The more people that play RPGs, the more people will play the new D&D - whichever version that is currently, 4th Ed, 5th Ed, and on and on.
Saturday, October 6, 2012
Pimp My Character: Feats and Talents
Going over key differences between D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder, there is one that stands out: in Pathfinder, you get one feat every two levels; and in 3.5 you get one every three. In SBRPG, you buy semi-similar things called 'special moves' with your level-awarded character points. It is an interesting difference between the two implementations of D&D, and one that is worth exploring in a game-design sense.
Let's get our resources out of the way, and link the Pathfinder Feats and the D&D 3.5 SRD Feats here for reference. I could go over the differences in these to no end, as they are not entirely 100% compatible, and they are built along different deign goals. Also, Pathfinder's list is longer, you may want to go to the Unofficial Pathfinder SRD, and filter by the original rulebook to get a better comparison between the base games.
Pathfinder has about 50% more feats than the 3.5 SRD, and they have been reviewed and balanced a bit finer than D&D 3.5's list. Since you get feats more often, there have to be more, and also, they have to be power-balanced since you are getting more of them. At twentieth level, a Pathfinder character will have ten feats, where a D&D 3.5 character will have six. One result is an increase in complexity for Pathfinder characters, in addition to the per-level powers built into your class, you are tracking nearly twice the feats.
Power-balanced is an intentional term, since Pathfinder needs to work harder at feat-balance than D&D 3.5. It does not mean less powerful, since some Pathfinder feats are more powerful (cleave), and some are weaker (with a standard action use requirement). In general, Pathfinder feats are more specific, and 3.5 feats are more general purpose. It is a design decision possibly reflected by balance, class powers, the number of feats, and a bunch of other factors.
Feats and special moves are like the talent system used in many MMOs, and server the same purpose - to make your character different than others who have the same character class. It is interesting to see some MMOs split these into two or three specializations in the class, along with talent tree (WoW), specializations with their own talent trees (early WoW, Diablo 2), and pick-all systems like 3.5 (EQ, EQ2). Feats in Pathfinder and D&D seem to be more like rules tweaks than MMO character customizations, so it is a comparison with key differences.
Do feats need to be broadened, and allow for greater customization? Possibly so, you could imagine picking less feats (1/4 perhaps), and gaining greater powers inside the feat. Selecting an 'elemental fire warrior' that gives you extra fire damage per attack, fire immunity, and other powers would be cool, and move the feat system towards a higher-level of customization than just rules tweaks like 'improved crit range'.
It depends on your goals 100%, if your game is more focused towards tweaking rules, than feats how they exist are fine. If you see feats as being character customization, you need less of them with more power and 'punch' to them. One thing you don't want to do is lay extra systems on top of feats to accomplish the same thing, such as creating an extra class specialization system on top of your already in-place and working feat system. If the goal is to allow for customization, make one system that does it well, and avoid duplication of sub-systems.
One of the problems with D&D4 was excessive duplication. They had two multi-classing systems, a feat system, synergies within class power trees, and they also made new classes to cover variant builds. It was a nice system in the first three books (the first multi-class system was not the best), but it quickly grew unmanageable one you added expansion volumes. Needing a computer program to generate valid characters was a problem at most of out D&D4 games, many players enjoyed the convenience, but they also did not like the ability to do it themselves, and craft builds in their heads.
What is the lesson to take away? Possibly that character customization systems need to be built into the game from the ground-up, in order to avoid duplication and complexity. Building them in from the start also gives the system a feeling everything works out of the box, that this is the way classes work, and these are the ways you can customize each one. Give people clear paths, and they will be happy and walk them.
Let's get our resources out of the way, and link the Pathfinder Feats and the D&D 3.5 SRD Feats here for reference. I could go over the differences in these to no end, as they are not entirely 100% compatible, and they are built along different deign goals. Also, Pathfinder's list is longer, you may want to go to the Unofficial Pathfinder SRD, and filter by the original rulebook to get a better comparison between the base games.
Pathfinder has about 50% more feats than the 3.5 SRD, and they have been reviewed and balanced a bit finer than D&D 3.5's list. Since you get feats more often, there have to be more, and also, they have to be power-balanced since you are getting more of them. At twentieth level, a Pathfinder character will have ten feats, where a D&D 3.5 character will have six. One result is an increase in complexity for Pathfinder characters, in addition to the per-level powers built into your class, you are tracking nearly twice the feats.
Power-balanced is an intentional term, since Pathfinder needs to work harder at feat-balance than D&D 3.5. It does not mean less powerful, since some Pathfinder feats are more powerful (cleave), and some are weaker (with a standard action use requirement). In general, Pathfinder feats are more specific, and 3.5 feats are more general purpose. It is a design decision possibly reflected by balance, class powers, the number of feats, and a bunch of other factors.
Feats and special moves are like the talent system used in many MMOs, and server the same purpose - to make your character different than others who have the same character class. It is interesting to see some MMOs split these into two or three specializations in the class, along with talent tree (WoW), specializations with their own talent trees (early WoW, Diablo 2), and pick-all systems like 3.5 (EQ, EQ2). Feats in Pathfinder and D&D seem to be more like rules tweaks than MMO character customizations, so it is a comparison with key differences.
Do feats need to be broadened, and allow for greater customization? Possibly so, you could imagine picking less feats (1/4 perhaps), and gaining greater powers inside the feat. Selecting an 'elemental fire warrior' that gives you extra fire damage per attack, fire immunity, and other powers would be cool, and move the feat system towards a higher-level of customization than just rules tweaks like 'improved crit range'.
It depends on your goals 100%, if your game is more focused towards tweaking rules, than feats how they exist are fine. If you see feats as being character customization, you need less of them with more power and 'punch' to them. One thing you don't want to do is lay extra systems on top of feats to accomplish the same thing, such as creating an extra class specialization system on top of your already in-place and working feat system. If the goal is to allow for customization, make one system that does it well, and avoid duplication of sub-systems.
One of the problems with D&D4 was excessive duplication. They had two multi-classing systems, a feat system, synergies within class power trees, and they also made new classes to cover variant builds. It was a nice system in the first three books (the first multi-class system was not the best), but it quickly grew unmanageable one you added expansion volumes. Needing a computer program to generate valid characters was a problem at most of out D&D4 games, many players enjoyed the convenience, but they also did not like the ability to do it themselves, and craft builds in their heads.
What is the lesson to take away? Possibly that character customization systems need to be built into the game from the ground-up, in order to avoid duplication and complexity. Building them in from the start also gives the system a feeling everything works out of the box, that this is the way classes work, and these are the ways you can customize each one. Give people clear paths, and they will be happy and walk them.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Competitive Play: GMs vs. Players
Ouch. I hit a nerve with George the other day with the D&D 3.5 coverage. He was quick to point out he felt D&D 3.0 and 3.5 brought a lot of competitive play to the table, with players interested in creating killer builds to 'beat the game' rather than 'play a role-playing game.' We have seen this at our table, with players bragging about builds they found on forums, and their intent to play them in the game.
My response is typically to not invite those players back to our games. It is harsh, but really, I want to associate with people interested in the world we create together around the table, and respect the rules (broken parts and all). If you want to power-game, there are plenty of MMOs that fill the need better than my game will. It also shows a disrespect of the group you play with, if all you want is to beat the referee, you should question why you are playing.
I will admit there is a line between wanting to do well, and seeking out broken builds and combos to win the game. There is also a problem in all games there are bad choices and good ones, and you shouldn't penalize players for being clever and making good choices. However, exploiting a feat to get unlimited attacks during a round, or a magic item to create your own pocket universe are way over the line, and frankly unfair to everyone.
I feel like my parents when I say, "Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should."
D&D 3.0 and 3.5 also have part of the Magic: The Gathering DNA in their designs, a very highly competitive game. Players there are used to being unfair to each other with combos and rules, and Wizards has had to ban cards that were used in exploits. That competitive 'build the best class like you would a deck' spirit lives on in D&D 3.5 and its descendants, and it drives interest in the game. When it is used to 'beat the GM', it turns dark, and is a negative, at least to me.
I guess this all breaks down to playing with good players, ones experienced enough to know there are ways to break every game; and to as a group, agree to stay away from cheesy exploits and forum builds. It is an issue of maturity and respect for players, and yes, the dark side is supported by rules systems with exploits and un-thought-out parts.
The old saying is, "A referee can make any game fun."
I guess the next saying would be, "A game is only as fun as the players."
My response is typically to not invite those players back to our games. It is harsh, but really, I want to associate with people interested in the world we create together around the table, and respect the rules (broken parts and all). If you want to power-game, there are plenty of MMOs that fill the need better than my game will. It also shows a disrespect of the group you play with, if all you want is to beat the referee, you should question why you are playing.
I will admit there is a line between wanting to do well, and seeking out broken builds and combos to win the game. There is also a problem in all games there are bad choices and good ones, and you shouldn't penalize players for being clever and making good choices. However, exploiting a feat to get unlimited attacks during a round, or a magic item to create your own pocket universe are way over the line, and frankly unfair to everyone.
I feel like my parents when I say, "Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should."
D&D 3.0 and 3.5 also have part of the Magic: The Gathering DNA in their designs, a very highly competitive game. Players there are used to being unfair to each other with combos and rules, and Wizards has had to ban cards that were used in exploits. That competitive 'build the best class like you would a deck' spirit lives on in D&D 3.5 and its descendants, and it drives interest in the game. When it is used to 'beat the GM', it turns dark, and is a negative, at least to me.
I guess this all breaks down to playing with good players, ones experienced enough to know there are ways to break every game; and to as a group, agree to stay away from cheesy exploits and forum builds. It is an issue of maturity and respect for players, and yes, the dark side is supported by rules systems with exploits and un-thought-out parts.
The old saying is, "A referee can make any game fun."
I guess the next saying would be, "A game is only as fun as the players."
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
With So Many Options, Why Dungeon?
I had another fun discussion with George this morning. We were talking about the Basic D&D retro-clones, such as Labyrinth Lord and Basic Fantasy. Both are great games, simple, well supported, and very focused on dungeon crawling. If you want the original experience of exploring a spooky old crypt or dungeon, you can't do better than these games. Why?
Focus. There isn't much else in these games but the classic experience. In both games, you can make your hero, buy equipment, select spells, and get going quickly. The rules have little else in them, there are traps, monsters, treasures, and rules for a couple other things related to dungeon crawls. The games do not do much more, and that is a strength.
Now take a more generic system, but still focused on dungeon crawling, such as D&D 3.5 or Pathfinder. There are skills, crafting, travel rules, social interaction, and so much else in them. Dungeon crawling still feels supported, but there is so much more to the world, why limit yourself to dungeons? There are stories to tell, movie-like experiences to have, and worlds to explore and conquer. Since the game has rules for everything, the focus of the game changes (not for the worse, mind you), and a lot more becomes 'adventure material.' The strength of these games are their flexibility, along with retaining a focus on dungeon adventures.
Now take a 100% generic game, such as Gurps, Hero System, SBRPG, or other games. Dungeon crawling is even less supported, and the activity can even feel strange in them. They still have rules, but the focus of these games is so wide, dungeon crawling is only 1% of the things you can do. These games are better for simulating anything, TV, movies, books, or your own creations. You can simulate dungeon crawling, but with so much other stuff, why limit yourself? The strength of these games is in their adaptability to any concept or idea.
Monopoly is focused on deals and real estate trading. Chess is grid-based strategy. The OGL fantasy games are focused on dungeon crawls. Pathfinder and 3.5 have a broader focus, more along the lines of 'adventure fantasy.' RPGs are very flexible; but understanding a game's focus lets you play it in a more focused manner and experience the game fully. In the end, you play what you love; but in analyzing designs, understanding a game's focus is a key concept.
Focus. There isn't much else in these games but the classic experience. In both games, you can make your hero, buy equipment, select spells, and get going quickly. The rules have little else in them, there are traps, monsters, treasures, and rules for a couple other things related to dungeon crawls. The games do not do much more, and that is a strength.
Now take a more generic system, but still focused on dungeon crawling, such as D&D 3.5 or Pathfinder. There are skills, crafting, travel rules, social interaction, and so much else in them. Dungeon crawling still feels supported, but there is so much more to the world, why limit yourself to dungeons? There are stories to tell, movie-like experiences to have, and worlds to explore and conquer. Since the game has rules for everything, the focus of the game changes (not for the worse, mind you), and a lot more becomes 'adventure material.' The strength of these games are their flexibility, along with retaining a focus on dungeon adventures.
Now take a 100% generic game, such as Gurps, Hero System, SBRPG, or other games. Dungeon crawling is even less supported, and the activity can even feel strange in them. They still have rules, but the focus of these games is so wide, dungeon crawling is only 1% of the things you can do. These games are better for simulating anything, TV, movies, books, or your own creations. You can simulate dungeon crawling, but with so much other stuff, why limit yourself? The strength of these games is in their adaptability to any concept or idea.
Monopoly is focused on deals and real estate trading. Chess is grid-based strategy. The OGL fantasy games are focused on dungeon crawls. Pathfinder and 3.5 have a broader focus, more along the lines of 'adventure fantasy.' RPGs are very flexible; but understanding a game's focus lets you play it in a more focused manner and experience the game fully. In the end, you play what you love; but in analyzing designs, understanding a game's focus is a key concept.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)