You could mail me or go to my home page or my main role-playing page .
A good role-playing game is one in which it is fun to role-play. We aren't talking about anything therapeutic here (please find a professional if you're interested in that), so fun is the answer. Just remember that different people have widely varying ideas of what's fun.
The truth is that the ideal role-playing game is one that's run by the ideal game-master, regardless of rules, dice, and other nonsense. I don't want to discuss the ideal GM here, though, so let's consider the various role-playing systems available, such as AD&D and GURPS. The ideal role-playing system allows and encourages the players to take character that are different from themselves. It should support the bad role-player while not limiting the good one. It should do the same for the GM: a novice GM should find the system helpful, and the good one should not find it constraining (the superb GM will find no system constraining, since he or she will ignore the inappropriate parts). So far, most people probably agree with me.
This consensus breaks down when we consider what people want in a game. Some people like the vicarious experience of killing creatures and plundering their lairs, probably as a reaction to the peaceful lives most of us lead. Some people like a game to be a puzzle for them to figure out. Some people like to act, and welcome any chance to be emotional or expressive. Some people like to have surrogate lives, not being fond of the ones they have. Some people are brought into the game socially, since their friends are in the game, and don't really care for role-playing. Some people want games that make sense, while others don't care.
This leads to several issues in games that we may as well consider separately:
Most role-playing games have some sort of mechanics, and the mechanics will have a strong effect on play. The purpose of the mechanics is normally to provide the GM with a method of figuring out what is going on, given various actions by player characters and non-player characters. (There are exceptions. The first published version of GURPS was as a man-to-man wargame.)
Obviously, mechanics should intrude as little as possible on the game. Most players don't want to fiddle with the rules, but rather want to run a character. To this end, the rules should try to be consistent, and should reflect an underlying concept of reality. It is much easier to remember and apply rules when they relate to some sort of mental model. Compare the rules of chess or Go or bridge or poker or other, more abstract, games to almost any role- playing game.
However, in order to have any sort of effects, the rules have to intrude on the game to some extent. How much is a matter of taste. Some people prefer minimal rules, so that the GM judges almost everything subjectively. Some players are uncomfortable with that, and many GMs are. On the other side are strict rules that allow only specific player actions. Gygax, commenting on the AD&D spells, once remarked that the spells should only be used for their obvious purpose, and recommended that GMs disallow creative use (such as, say, Create Water to immerse a vampire).
Rules can be usable in a wide range of games, or specialized to one certain game. Hero and GURPS are excellent examples of generic games, while D&D is a very specialized system. Generic game advocates suggest that learning one game system should be all you need to do to play in many different sorts of games. Of course, most of us don't play in all that many different games, so that is not as important as it sounds. Specialized rules advocates suggest that the rules can be tailored to the game system, making a more seamless game. In my experience, this doesn't happen. The rules are never as polished as in a more generic system, and this nullifies the advantages. I myself prefer generic rules, partly because I think they are of higher quality, and partly because I dislike buying an interesting-looking game and finding that two-thirds of the product is rules rather than background and adventures.
The original D&D used classes and levels to describe character abilities. Knowing that a character was a seventh-level fighter told you pretty much what you needed to know. This had the advantage of simplicity, and the disadvantage of making all characters alike. When thieves were introduced in the Greyhawk supplement, they had skills listed in a table, so that one fifth-level thief would (except for dexterity bonuses and penalties) have exactly the same chance as any other of backstabbing a foe or picking a pocket or disarming a trap. One result was that a lower- level character had little to contribute to an adventuring party, since there was nothing that character could do that a higher-level character of the same class couldn't do better.
The counterpart is the skill-based system, pioneered in games like Runequest and The Fantasy Trip, in which character abilities are divided smaller, and so every character has multiple abilities. In a game like this, it is easy to design a thief who specializes in cat burglaries, or a fighter who specializes in the bow, or a rogue who can fight fairly well and pick pockets fairly well. One big advantage is that, in a skill-based system, even a new character can usually do something better than anybody else in the party, and so all the players can share the limelight.
The advantages of the skill-based systems filtered back to the old class-based systems, and they acquired skills that could be gained and specialties and such. Some also provided guidelines for characters of multiple class. Some skill-based systems tried to incorporate some aspects of classes. Hero provided the "package deal", in which a character can get a large group of skills selected by the GM. A novice can use a package deal to get a start on a character, and be sure of doing reasonably well.
I strongly prefer skill-based games, and I believe they are inherently superior. I do not consider this a matter of taste.
There are three main models of character generation.
The original was to generate certain characteristics by rolling dice. The player would then take these characteristics and do the best with what he or she had. This is in many respects realistic, since in real life we are all stuck with our abilities, inabilities, and origins. Some players find the general approach desirable, finding that the randomness inspires them to creativity.
The point-based approach is to allow the player a certain number of points, to design a character to his or her taste. This isn't realistic, but many people role-play to escape from this particular aspect of reality. It allows a player to build a character to a particular vision, rather than provoking the player to envision a character after certain die-rolls. It does tend to reduce the variety of characters, unfortunately, as most die-roll systems have some "right answers" and some "wrong answers", restricting their flexibility.
The approach that is usually not listed in rules is to come up with some idea of what the character should be like, and negotiate with the GM to draw up the character in whatever detail is desired. This is best done by players who want interesting rather than powerful characters.
This approach can obviously be combined with either of the previous two. A GM may allow a player to exchange charisma and constitution, for example, in early D&D, or may give a player extra points in a point-based system. Many games have some elements of choice and some of chance. A player may explicitly be allowed to arrange die rolls to choice, or may have to roll on an ancestry chart while designing the rest of the character with points.
It appears to be difficult to create systems that work well both randomly and with points, depending on the player's taste, although it seems easier to take a random system and assign points to it than to take a point system and come up with a random character generator. With a random system, it is also possible to work a deal with the GM to play a character of one's choosing, much more easily than randomly selecting in a point-based game. For these reasons, I consider dice-based character generation to be more flexible.
I myself strongly prefer point-based systems, and would prefer to play in an explicitly point-based game despite the loss of flexibility.
Most role-playing games use dice. Lots of them. The original D&D used all different shapes of dice, while games like Hero require only standard six-sided dice. Most role-playing games require dice to be rolled to decide many things.
Games with strict rules (see above) generally specify chances of accomplishing whatever, and require dice to decide. Looser games may or may not require dice. There is a lot of controversy over whether to use rolls to deal with things like persuasion attempts. Some people say that the player should role-play these things, while some say that players should at least have the option of rolling the dice. I am of the latter opinion. If I want to play a suave, persuasive, irresistable character, the last thing I want to do is to role-play his or her encounters in detail. I'll muck them up.
Some games do away with chance completely. Amber is a role-playing game for Roger Zelazny's famous fantasy series. In it, players have tremendous abilities, and the usual game involves the players trying to figure out what is going on and how to deal with it. Theatrix is another chance-less game, which involves the participants in something closer to improvisational theater than what I would consider role-playing games.
This is an interesting idea, but it does have problems. It forces games to be more plot-driven, as there needs to some sort of framework for the GM to decide whether something succeeds or fails. It frequently forces players to know what their characters are doing, in detail. It inhibits tongue-tied players and characters. It tends to make the characters of good role-players considerably more effective. Most importantly, it has a very real danger of making game penalties feel personal. If I have a character climbing a difficult cliff, I can try to judge whether it's worth it. In a diced game, presumably I'll have some idea what dice to roll, and if my character falls that seems reasonable. In a diceless game, it comes down to the GM's say-so. If this includes character death, or something else traumatic, it can be hard to take.
Much of role-playing games depends on illusion. I think that games should involve dice, lots of dice, because they're fun. I think the GM should use the dice to give the players the illusion of control.
The purpose of a role-playing game usually involves immersion into an imaginary world. Therefore, the rules should try to support this. They should not be too intrusive or clumsy, and should also present the world in a way that does not jar.
The rules do not have to be realistic, since the worlds are not. In real life, I cannot fly without some sort of aircraft, nor can I kill monsters at a distance without a gun or other such weapon. (In real life, I'd be very lucky to kill a monster at a distance even with a gun. I'm not a good shot.) I have played characters who could fly and cause assorted mayhem. No superhero RPG could possibly succeed without such rules. The rules do have to have verisimilitude, in that they seem to reflect the world. A game set in Tolkien's Middle-Earth will have to have rules for sunlight and trolls (except, of course, the Olog-Hai). A game set in the pulp fiction of the 30s will have to have rules for mad inventors and their amazing but unduplicatible inventions.
The rules do not have to be realistic in areas the players don't care about or don't know about. Lots of people play GURPS without realizing that the stronger version of Eidetic Memory is totally unrealistic, or that people in combat are not constantly active in real life. The combat system of "Everybody gets one useful action per second" works well, because so few of us have combat expertise.
In fact, all rules are going to be unrealistic to some extent. Real life is complicated, and a set of rules that can be handled by mere mortals is going to fail to represent it well. That doesn't matter unless it will jar the players.
The much-maligned Dungeons and Dragons hit point system works for a lot of people. In most systems, better combat characters will stand up to attacks better than weaker characters. Most newer systems reflect this by finding ways for the better fighters to take less damage. D&D reflects this by making it just as easy to hit a powerful fighter as a novice mage (ignoring armor and minor dexterity modifiers), but giving the fighter more hit points. The big problem is that this method does not adapt well to other situations. There are circumstances that will kill or injure a person regardless of their innate skill, and these are handled badly. My observation is that there tends to be two sorts of damage: ordinary damage expressed in points, and lethal damage that either kills or does nothing. I find this jarring, and when playing D&D I find that the rules do not let me role-play. Others, of course, differ.
Your character is leading the Army of Light against the forces of Darkness. The shadows fall, and the size of the Army of Darkness is revealed to all. Your warriors are trembling, and the only way you can save the army, let alone the world, is to make a stirring speech. Do you (a) make up and deliver a speech of heroism, (b) say "I'm making an inspiring speech" and roll the dice to see how inspiring it is, (c) read the part starting "Once more into the breach" from Henry V?
I've seen various arguments. One runs "Roleplay it! Are you a role-player or a turnip?" My reaction to that is that, if I have to give a speech to rally my army, it would be easier just to surrender to the enemy. Most of us are not stirring orators. Another argument is that people like me should be able to play charismatic heros. I prefer the latter. The best solution I've seen is that the player gives a short speech and rolls the dice. The GM takes the effect from the dice, except if the speech is truly inspirational.
In general, how do you allow somebody to play a character with different abilities? If I were in a something no more esoteric than a modern army, without going through training, I'd make a whole lot of mistakes that would be fatal in combat. (Well, only one if we were actually in combat.) I like the following ideas:
I believe that role-playing is largely its own reward, and that it is not necessary to give additional rewards in how effective the character is. Good role-players have a lot of fun role-playing, and bad ones need some balance. Therefore, I strongly favor games that allow me to play a character I don't know how to play.
All contents of these pages Copyright 1997 by David H. Thornley.