"Favorite "Type" Of RPG" Topic

I think RPGs can be broadly put into two categories.

1) "Old" Style RPGs.
Examples would be games like GURPS, Traveller, and D20 games (mostly, at least).
These games are often kinda "straight forward," mechanically, in the sense that they work kinda like wargames. A character is defined by the rules when it comes to succeeding in actions, and defined by the player (so, the plot, the themes, the psychology of the character, etc) in what actions are taken.

In other words, if playing a very plot- or character-driven game, the players and game master need to actively keep the game going in that direction. If a player starts just playing the "numbers" then they'll end up just going through the die rolls. On the other hand, the game usually provides more details and allows the story to be created by the situations and choices of the players as opposed to being dominated by pre-defined ideas about where the game will go.

2) "New" Style RPGs, which instead put all of the focus on plot or character while pushing aside the more logical, wargame-y type mechanics.
Examples: Apparently, Diaspora. Carry is a relatively unknown indie game that is most like this. World of Darkness is also somewhat like this, or so I hear. Burning Wheel, in some ways.
Obviously these games still have some mechanics for resolving, say, combat, but they are usually designed in a way that basically allows the winner to be pre-defined by the needs of the plot/themes/characters.
Carry, for example, basically doesn't have rules for combat. Its a Vietnam game where all characters are a few pre-defined archetypes. The goal of the game is to play one of these archetypes and, basically, either die in a dramatic way or survive until you are the last dude left and go crazy and run out into the jungle. Or something along those lines… its been awhile since I looked at it, but thats basically how it goes. Combat works like all "scenes" in the game… the GM decides on a conflict, semi-randomly determines how many squaddies die, and then has the players roleplay the grief/anger/indifference of their characters.
A less extreme example is Diaspora, which basically just gives bonuses if you can relate something to the plot or character development (AFAIK, I've never played it).
These games generally "scene-ify" things other than dialogue. Instead of rolling to hit, one rolls to see who wins the overall fight (or at least "rolling to hit" is simplified to the point where it works in this way). Who wins (and who dies as a result) is often heavily determined by plot, as well.

Now, few games nowadays are entirely one or the other. Carry is the only game I can think of that entirely is "New Style." Most "Old Style" games include "Plot Points" or similar that basically lets the game be controlled a bit more by thematic demands and not quite as much the harsh reality of (realistic or gamey) tactics and die rolls.

When it comes to complexity, the two "Styles" don't really have any benefit. Both have complex games, both have simple games. Old Style tends to involve more interaction of different numbers/rules/whatever in determining the results of any given situation… What's your shooting skill? What's your accuracy statistic? What gun are you using? Is the target in cover? Are you shooting while prone? Are you being shot at as well? Etc. New Style often is less straightforward, however, as your actions matter less than a few die rolls/plot demands.

So what do people prefer?

Personally I like games that are mostly Old Style but have a few of the ideas of New Style. Even if everyone has a good story/character idea thats been developed before play (essentially a requirement of New Style… Old Style can be played more freeform, or much more "slice of life" in style, and still be fun) nothing about Old Style should get in the way of that. So what if we already know that So and So will eventually find the Secret of the Wormholes? His actions in this combat, this conversation, etc, can still change a lot about the character, the setting, or whatever. That said I like having plot points, character shields, etc, that prevent really unlucky happenings that could ruin the plot from happening. If the most important character is killed by a stray bullet, then it is POSSIBLE to salvage the situation by introducing new characters or something… but its often more fun to just give them a character saving throw that, at the very least, changes the character from dead to "just injured" or something.

Old Style – Traveller (the original LBBs) is still my favorite!

Old style, but not D20, HATE that "system" with a passion.

I like the old style more, but was a fan of the ALternity system. Great background and support, OGL is a benefit too imo. I must be honest and say that I havent played anything modern.

Old style too. While "New style" might be fun, I couldn't FREX see running an entire campaign based on your description.

Damon.

I prefer the first style.
The second one is more like a writers' workshop or an encounter group… might be fun with the right people but doesn't feel like an RPG to me.

Plot/Fate points don't appeal to me because, based on my experience, they tend to make the challenges… less challenging. Players know they can't die so they stop being careful, stop planning and just kick in the front door with guns blazing. Wish fulfillment IMO.
That action-movie nonsense appeals to some but not to me… I like the tension of the dangerous moments and not having a 'back door' I can run out if things get scary.

World Of Darkness… the Vampire/Werewolf/Mage/etc. games are still very much the first style though. One concept they pushed, I think, is the idea of the game as a dramatic arc and PCs starting out as a detailed personas who were expected to be around for a while… vs. old style D&D where a character sheet didn't tell much at all about 'character' and PCs were often not very long-lived.
Still, they didn't go down those rabbit holes nearly as far as games like Fate and My Life With Master.

Dynaman-- I agree, I hate d20 too.
Well….
Actually, one of my favorite one off sessions of all time was Star Wars d20. But that was just due to a well done story with good RPing, etc etc. The system rarely came up in this session.

And I don't mean anything against d20 fans. I just don't personally find it to work that well because its too gamey.

Garand/Venusboys-- y'all bring up a good point. They play very different sorts of games, usually. New Style is more frequently designed for one off games (Carry, for example) or a particular type of campaign (more like a writer's workshop, as VB says). Old Style is generally more versatile.

Plot points are kinda a wild card IMO. They work in certain situations, and in fact make "realistic" sense in some games, too. If they essentially work as bonus "will power" points… a character fights harder when his best friend is injured, or when he's just had a major revelation, or something… then they can be fun.

I don't like when they are overpowering, however. An example would be "Star Power" in Two Hour Wargames (not really RPGs but some of them are played that way… ATZ, 5150, etc). They are essentially a "shield." Normally, any person hit by a bullet has a 1/6 chance of dying, inherently. A bit higher if you include knock down results and such. Star Power rolls can reduce that damage a semi-random amount (sometimes none). Every time you roll a 6 with a star power die you lose that die, so you have less star power the more you get hit in a given combat. So, much like a SF shield, you can usually take more hits but hits reduce the shield and eventually you're taking full damage. End result is that you still need to use good tactics to live but you won't usually get taken out by a lucky shot.

Serenity has straight up plot points but you don't have enough to really go outside your character's normal boundaries… if you're a sniper, you can use plot points to make sure the important assassination goes well (well, at least the shot part… the challenge usually comes in getting to/from the blind!). If you don't know how to use a computer you probably still won't be able to hack even if you use all your plot points at once.

Basically adds in a "willpower"/trying harder than usual element that is otherwise missing. But too much (or too easy challenges) does result in plot points just allowing crazy action sequences with no logic behind them.

WoD is more first style. The second style isn't really very frequent as "the entire game," its more like a concept that some games use. Plot points are a relatively minor example of the second style seeping its way into a first style game.

The reason I call it second style has more to do with the whole mechanically driven character stuff… most of the game is first style, but they add in stuff where the role playing itself is also "ruled," as opposed to being determined by the player…. I view that as a very second style idea.

Old. And when I say "old" I mean OLD! Like the White Box edition or The Fantasy Trip. The ones that started it all.

THE FANTASY TRIP!

And I thought I was the only one that remembered.
Then again, Traveller predates that…. But old Traveller and TFT are easily my most played RPGs.

Yeah, I shouldn't make it sound like I'm completely against a resource mechanic like fate/plot points.
For a long while our group played two alternating games. Deadlands and Earthdawn.
Deadlands had… 'bennies' I think… which could be spent on just about anything you wanted to do, could be used to help a skill or to avert damage/death. We seemed to just about always have more than we needed… never ran out. We got more each game.
They seemed way overpowered and subverted any 'horror' element the game might have had. No undesirable failure equaled no tension, no fear.
On one occasion I let my PC die, rather than save him with points… other times I've refused to avert damage. One player seemed to think I was playing 'wrong' by doing this though.

Earthdawn has 'karma points' and works them differently, more to my tastes.
There is a limited pool, refreshed in by a limited/random amount when the PC sleeps… and they can only be used with a small number of class specific skills and a handful of other things. They can't avert damage or death and they don't let the players tell the GM where the treasure is (as they do in some 2nd style games).
Not surprisingly I enjoyed our Earthdawn games a lot more (though it helps that they also had the better GM).

*********

The 'Stars' thing is the one aspect of the Two Hour Wargames system that really annoys me… I don't like the term or the implementation… way to much Hollywood flavor for me.
I also don't like Ed's little rant about RPGs at the front of the rules (has he ever played one?).
I've been tempted to go through my rulebooks with a black marker and delete them.
Otherwise 5150 is one of my favorite skirmish games.

My two favorite RPG's are Cyberpunk 2020 and Legend of the Five Rings. C-punk is older style while L5R is more of a hybrid style, both can be extremely lethal for kick-down-the-door characters. Those type of characters generally have the life expectancy of a tadpole in a trout hatchery.

And I don't mean anything against d20 fans. I just don't personally find it to work that well because its too gamey.

There is nothing wrong with the core mechanic; One die plus mods to hit a goal is far more common than just the D20 family. The problem comes somewhere in what turns that D20 core into a high marketing concept.

THE FANTASY TRIP!

And I thought I was the only one that remembered.
Then again, Traveller predates that

Only barely. Both were released in 1977.

As far as "system" goes, I find both WW style story teller systems and D&D systems to be worthwhile. They suit different styles of play, but I don't prefer one over the other.

On the other hand regardless of how the numbers play out, I STRONGLY prefer a game, and a gamemaster, who play with the idea that characters are more than just stats and that character death should be a big deal.

I always liked Dark Sun's character system for AD&D where players start at 3rd level. It eliminates what I believe is the overly fragile nature of low level AD&D characters.

Regardless of the system I agree that the ideal system should embrace

the idea of the game as a dramatic arc and PCs starting out as a detailed personas who were expected to be around for a while

Old but simple and generally free.

"The 'Stars' thing is the one aspect of the Two Hour Wargames system that really annoys me… I don't like the term or the implementation… way to much Hollywood flavor for me.
I also don't like Ed's little rant about RPGs at the front of the rules (has he ever played one?).
I've been tempted to go through my rulebooks with a black marker and delete them.
Otherwise 5150 is one of my favorite skirmish games."

Fair point. Sometimes Stars are a good idea, sometimes they aren't.

Personally I don't use Star Advantages (except Free Will) in the vast majority of games.

Perhaps the right balance (if you want characters to be meaningful but not overpowered) is to have the "Star" be Rep 5's with Free Will and Cheating death… but no other star advantages. This means they won't just die (unless you let them for dramatic purposes/you don't want to play a Rep 2) but they will be taken out pretty easily.

Going from the descriptions (which I feel are heavily old-style biased), option 1 sounds the best. In practice, I feel old-style games place too much emphasis on rules for the wrong things while ignoring the actual roleplay.

Venusboy: "might be fun with the right people but doesn't feel like an RPG to me" exactly describes how I feel aboud D20, Pathfinder and alternity.

After four sessions of Pathfinder, I suggested to the GM that we fast-forward past most combat encounters since they were so dull, leaving more time for the fun parts (the actual role-play). He declined saying there wouldn't much of a game left.
Well, if cutting down on the dull parts kills the game, it can't have been very fun to begin with…

I vote 2.

I've never tried D20 or Pathfinder… we played a bit of AD&D 4e but… well, I kinda hated it and implied that I wouldn't be showing up if we kept playing it (the ONLY time I've ever used that ploy).
Doesn't help that the guy running it is kind of a lame GM… in better hands I'm guessing it wouldn't have bugged me so much (I could hate the rules but like the game).

If I'm playing with good friends, people I know and trust… heck, we don't even need rules. We get along, have similar goals… no one is a jerk.
But those aren't the people I get to play with most of the time. Instead I'm playing with a group who I only know from the game and there's one guy at the table who I'd like to punch… several times… hard. So, in that situation, rules help avert arguments (and violence)… whereas 'storygames', the #2 type mentioned in the OP, require more cooperation and 'sympatico' than our group can provide.

The differences in the two types are what we refer to locally as "Friday Night games" and "Saturday Night games".

We're mostly workweek burnouts on Friday evening, so rolling dice and killing things is the order of the session. High, or even medium, role-play is generally beyond us.

Saturday (which is often also LARP night for those so inclined) is when we try to schedule thinking and/or RP heavy stuff.

Doesn't help that the guy running it is kind of a lame GM… in better hands I'm guessing it wouldn't have bugged me so much (I could hate the rules but like the game).

4e D&D run by someone with real table presence and the right experiences is just as much fun as *any* other edition. What 4e fails to do is provide any path for a DM to learn those skills.

4e D&D run by someone with real table presence and the right experiences is just as much fun as *any* other edition. What 4e fails to do is provide any path for a DM to learn those skills.

Yeah, people trump rules every time… but the farther the group moves away from 'perfect' the more the rules become the glue holding it all together… the more apparent weaknesses in those rules become.

I could play "Notoriously Bad Game" with my friends and have a great time… but with a random stranger chances are I'll find the rules do not suffice to make the game enjoyable.

Totally depends on who I'm playing with. Some groups make the first style work, some the second, and I've played with a few groups that could do both or neither well.

Generally, with the right group any game will be fun I find.

-Will

If you like "Melee", "Wizard", and "In the Labyrinth", check out..

darkcitygames.com

They have a compatible system with a ton of great adventures. They have also expanded the game to Scifi and Old West with very good results.

Joe Collins

Sci-fi and Old West for a TFT clone are not big stretches, since both were done by Metagaming. Star Leader saw print as a Microgame, while the Old West material was in their TFT magazine "Interplay".

Didn't GURPS kindasorta have The Fantasy Trip as its immediate ancestor? It's been so long since I played TFT that I can't remember what the similarities might be, if there are any.

I've only ever played "Old Style," so I can't judge between the two. But I always enjoyed the "gamey" bits of combat, though I'll admit my old group tended to take a "heroes don't die" approach, with the GMs/DMs fudging here or there to let the party come out on top and keep the adventure/campaign going. I never saw anything wrong with that, and the players never took advantage of it. We always played the game and the roles as if death were indeed a possibility; it never consciously changed our tactics (such as they were), and in every session somebody would invariably bemoan that their character was going to die, even though it almost never happened. One such case where I did a bit of fudging as DM wound up producing a very satisfying final battle in which the party's cavalier, down to his last HP, managed to hold off and defeat the orc horde and rescue all his "dying" comrades. Yeah, I fudged to make it happen, but as far as the players were concerned it was a great and glorious fight, worthy of bardic song. I daresay if I mentioned it today, those involved would brighten up and chat about the fun they had with that adventure. Personally, I think that's worth the fudging.

Didn't GURPS kindasorta have The Fantasy Trip as its immediate ancestor?

While Steve would officially deny it, yes, the two are definitely related. He wrote them both, but had to leave TFT behind at Metagaming.

While GURPS is the most direct descendent of TFT, most of the tactical combat systems to see print since then owe TFT for some portion of their structure. The most obvious for many years was Champions/Hero, but RQ mentioned TFT in early editions, and the tactical editions of D&D (3+ and the combat book of late 2e) show the blood as well.

Somewhere in the notes I have SJ openly states that GURPS is TFT expanded upon. For legal reasons he may not any longer. Still have my copies of all the TFT books. Well, many of the solo adventures got lost along theway – still have a copy of Star Leader floating around aswell. A cherised rpg memory is my character killing an uncle teeth with a one shot critical hit…

"Going from the descriptions (which I feel are heavily old-style biased), option 1 sounds the best. In practice, I feel old-style games place too much emphasis on rules for the wrong things while ignoring the actual roleplay."

I may be biased, but not in the way I think you think I'm biased. =D

I played Carry, the most (2) type game I've ever seen or heard of. It basically didn't have rules beyond character archetypes and rules for scenes. It didn't really have stats. Instead of having rules for "mechanics" and leaving RPing to players, it had rules for RPing and left the physical details to the imagination.

It was really fun. It was very interesting.

But I personally thought it didn't give me anything that type (1) games hadn't provided before (or since). And because it structures the RPing so much, it doesn't have nearly as much replayability IMO. It was a very fun one off thing, but it just wasn't something that you could keep doing over and over. Type (1) is better for that. Its better for developing organically. I think this is undeniable.

That said, if you want to do a particular thing, then Type (2) is a faster way of getting the same RP as Type (1). You'll just sacrifice the other part of Type (1) games, which is the mechanics. Sure, I like RPing, but I also like tactical combat games. Combining the two is good, not bad. Type 2 games basically suggest that it is bad, at their core, and state that RPing needs rules. That is true in certain situations, and can lead to interesting games. But in general I disagree.

That said the problem with Type 1 games is, if playing with strangers (or even friends), it can often devolve into being a fairly boring combat game (these sorts of games often sacrifice tactics for leveling up, looking at you DnD).

Type 2 can't do that. It can devolve into a "going through the motions" type RP, but at least its RP.

Narrativist games (the second type in the OP) rely heavily on player investment in the theme and being clever enough to all be able to take the story in interesting directions while being willing to give the other players as much or as little space as they need to equally contribute. IMO what you need for them is a group of very close friends who also happen to be gamers. Most gaming groups are composed of people who come together to game specifically – that;s not to say they aren't buddies but its unlikely you'll get a group of adult gamers who are all close friends first, gamers second.

My favourite RPG is Call of Cthulhu in part because it's system is almost invisible – a few percentile rolls per session usually, often you barely look at your character sheet – but is very GM driven from a plot perspective. You get the best of both worlds, IMO.

I hate the type 1 games. If I'm supposed to be playing a role then I should just play it… Not be adding "plus 1s" and "extra dice" etc. If all that is important to you then you may as well play Yahtzee: forget the characters and hope your dice roll the right numbers.

You've rolled two 18s which means you've killed two goblins. Oh, ok, yawn.

Which brings up a question, BaldLead:

Are games defined by their most detailed rules? That is, if a game has detailed combat/racing/boating/whatever rules, does it lose all the Role Play? Does a game need Role Play rules (for example, rules on personality types, rules on morality, rules on sanity, and similar) to be a Role Playing game? Will a type 1 game inevitably stop being about roleplaying and start being about fighting and XP?

The answer is obviously no… its possible to play type 1 in the same way as a type 2 game. Its even possible to mix the types together, kinda like WoD.

But then the game inevitably becomes more complex… you have more rules than you'll use by a long shot, because some people won't really use the combat rules, while others just RP from scratch without needing the RP rules.

Usually old, or simple.

Definitely 'New Style'. I agree that 'old style' games can be played with more emphasis on roleplaying. But, why buy a game with more rules than I'll ever need. And, if the rules are there, then there is the temptation for some players to try to use them to 'win' the game. (the munchkin gamer who wants to max/min their character to get the best stats).

I'm not a fan of plot points either… why should a player be limited to having a lesser impact on the story just because they've run out of their allocation of plot points ? I definitely prefer games where the main story arc is determined by the players and the GM rather than the dice.

Any role-playing game can be role-played, if the players are able or willing to do it.

The difference really isn't the style of game (the mechanics or system), it's the style (and capabilities) of the people playing.

It's like acting: If you can act, you can get better. If you can't act, you can't act. (If you're confused about that, I suggest watching the Babylon 5 series. The original lead couldn't act, and he never got better (when the brought his character back in a later season it was obvious they wrote his lines so that his wooden, bizarre delivery would be a character trait— and he still was awful). The other actors were mediocre in the first season, but got steadily better; they could act, and learn to act. Not Oscar types, but acceptable to even good.)

Some people simply can't role-play, regardless of system. Some people can, regardless of system.

LOL about B5 – we called that guy "little wooden boy". My group is not composed of actors, but they're not bad at role-playing. (So only the minimum of in-character talk, but plenty of in-character actions declared.)

BaldLea – if you don't use dice in your RPGs, how do you handle uncertainty? Vote for it? Let the GM decide if you actually hit? Are you still playing a game at all, or are you collaboratively telling a story? (IMHO, a game needs to have a chance to fail, and rules that govern what is and isn't failure. Rock/Paper/Scissors is a game. Telling someone you are mighty, and therefore can kill the enemy is not a game, unless someone can counter your point in some way.

Maybe that's a "type 2" thing, and I just don't understand. I'm not trying to put down less structured games, but I have a hard time conceiving of a game without at least some structure.

I (clearly) prefer type 1 games, but I agree that they can get boring if the players don't have much imagination in their approach to things. I admit that I probably prefer type 1 games because of my wargaming background, though too much crunch gets in the way of the plot.

In my Pathfinder game, the fighter (ostensibly the most boring of classes in D&D) is forever trying to jump over/push through/throw into/trip/etc. the foe. Why swing a sword for pure damage when you can attempt to disarm a difficult foe first? As a good-aligned fighter, he also occasionally tries to intimidate lesser opponents to diffuse deadly (for them) situations. Why kill a room full of kobolds whose only crime is to be between you and your goal, when you can cow them and make them surrender? Of course intimidation often works better if you kill their leader first.

You *can* play rules-heavy games in a role-play heavy way. Though it is pretty important for the GM to have a solid understanding of the rules of any type of game.

(Separate though, separate post)

One ironic thing about Classic Traveller is that it's almost a Type 2 game at heart. The basic system has so few skills and such an arbitrary task resolution system, that players really have to play their character's personality and not their numbers.

Of course once you start adding in Mercenaries and High Guard, that goes out the window.

Traveller also lacks a trauma-based experience system, so you are not obliged to kill things.

Lugal hdan (on Traveller)-- thats why I like it, actually. (Though I do use the more rules-heavy supplements).

Its got the mechanics of a type 1 game but the simplicity of the system means its not hard to role play while also handling your character.

1 for me, generally.

Also, it should be remembered that in most battles, when being shot, only 1 in 3, or 1 in 4 usually dies.

Given more modern protection, in current wars (better helmets, body armor, better medical care), that figure drops to 1 in 6, so perhaps those special rules for characters some games use aren't too far out there afterall.

This may be a bit of a false dillema. Still, I will solidly cast my vote for 'type 1'… game mechanics should exist to determine the outcomes of uncertain events within a story, not determine the story, which is to say that proper GMing and roleplaying eliminates the need for 'story/character' mechanics. Besides, to echo the sentiments of VenusBoys3 (I think?) those type 2 games sure do seem much like a knee jerk reaction to type 1 games by people who couldn't handle the responsibility of story telling and roleplaying in a 'type 1' (classic) game (If I wanted a soap opera, I would read a 'teen paranormal romance' novel…)

"New" Style RPGs, which instead put all of the focus on plot or character while pushing aside the more logical, wargame-y type mechanics.

A surprising number of older rules lack that most "wargame-y" of elements, a tactical combat system. At the same time, most of the RPGs with a tactical base come from a very small list of ancestors. Quite a lot of the classic RPGs, including D&D up to late 2e AD&D, are more logistics games. "Did I come properly prepared?" was the more important question than "Are my dice good enough?".

Ironically, the newer Type 2 games often go to great lengths to ensure the die rolls that you do make are *much* more important, spending a lot of effort to set up tipping points and making sure that the PCs aren't good enough to stop those tipping points from going against them, then handicapping the storyteller/referee/etc regarding options if things go completely south.

Lack of statistical trending is a trap many newer Type 2 games fall into. Heroes that are only slightly better than their opponents need to play the statistics game to beat them. Any statistician worth his salt will tell you that a smaller sample size skews final results; the fewer rolls made, the less likely a slight advantage will matter. Think of determining the winner of a game of craps on two rolls instead of the open-ended gamble it is, and you have a grasp of why this can be a problem in something like an RPG.

In the end, I think billthecat may be correct. This is a false dillema, or a false dichotomy. There are examples of pure Type 1 and Type 2 games, but they are minorities, and at both extremes are barely in the category of RPG anymore. Most published games are a blend.

"In the end, I think billthecat may be correct. This is a false dillema, or a false dichotomy. There are examples of pure Type 1 and Type 2 games, but they are minorities, and at both extremes are barely in the category of RPG anymore. Most published games are a blend."

Very true. I tried to define two ends of a spectrum, but most games lie somewhere in between. In addition, I think type 1 games are a large majority. I do think recent games have started going more towards type 2 in general but its still not black and white at all.

There is no type one or two games, only players….

i have played lots of rules and dice light systems and they generally depend on the players and the GM.

I have played lots of Rules and Dice Heavy systems and they depend on the players and the GM.

I tend to run systems with well defined rules/mechanics as they give the players expectations of what they and the GM can do.

Right now I prefer something that I call Roll Playing, it is akin 40k:RT and Necromunda and Original DnD, in that while it is a tactical sorta gaming experience the players have a broad spectrum of actions available to them. i.e. role playing single characters leading their stalwart bands of followers into adventure. For some players the tactical portion is where they shine for others the back and forth of Roll-Playing.

As mentioned, I like 1 as well, generally, but can see the merits of 2, and/or a blend of them.

What I dislike are details players shouldn't know, before making a choice, or taking an option, e.g. what the odds are, definitively, of a success, or failure of a certain task, or path chosen.

This is where I think Mythic can be a good aid, mixed in with a bit of variety, either: decided upon by the GM, to suit the needs of the scenario, throw, the players a curve, etc. Alternatively, if everyone is playing, then some sort of random die roll to decide on the final level of task difficulty.

For example, players should generally know something is easy, moderately difficult, or really difficult, but shouldn't be able to quantify exact percentages. Of course, just in the real world, bad things can happen too, totally throwing them a curve, or making the task(s) slightly easier, or difficult than expected.

That to me, makes for a fun game, since you can't really know in advance the likelihood of something happening.

For example, players should generally know something is easy, moderately difficult, or really difficult, but shouldn't be able to quantify exact percentages. Of course, just in the real world, bad things can happen too, totally throwing them a curve, or making the task(s) slightly easier, or difficult than expected.

Ideally a system can handle both declared difficulty and unknown difficulty. In practice a game with unknown (to the player) difficulty can easily handle known difficulty, while games built around declared difficulty often have trouble handling unknown difficulty.

I think any game can have unknown difficulty by not explicitly stating modifiers and/or the NPC's stats. If an enemy is limping, bleeding from multiple wounds, etc, after getting hit in combat, a player knows that he's done approximately (insert number) points of damage. But he doesn't know exactly.

Not that it matters, as rolling dice basically takes care of the "unknown" part, in my experience.

Some systems use a dice method that changes with difficulty, though. The Fantasy Trip was an early example, but there are others. In that case, you rolled 3d6 vs the appropriate stat for "normal" tasks, 2d6 for easy stuff, and 4d or even 5d for difficult tasks. Aside from the Ref rolling your extra dice himself, there is no way to conceal the difficulty of a task in this system.

I have to chip in here (again !) All of the dicussions here about 'realistic' rules, statistical chances of dying, difficulties of tasks etc highlight the exact reason why I generally dislike type 1 games. I prefer rules lite systems mainly because the issues of task numbers, statistics etc simply don't arise. The focus is on the story and the character development / interaction rather than the: 10%, medium difficulty and the "If I step 10 feet to the left and wear a blue hat I get a +1 advantage" !

I have no problem role playing using 'type 1' games, however, as soon as number crunching comes into the game then (IMHO) the atmopspehere tends to be lost. Hence I prefer the 'type 2' games. I don't care about the numbers and rules, I prefer to play my character without having to think in terms of percentages and multiple +1's. That's not to say we don't use dice and weigh up chances of success in our games. we do, but Chances of success are based on the description of the scene / activity / character knowledge and common sense rather than something generated from a rule set. Normally the players and the GM decide the outcome as a group depending on what fits the character and the story best. We OCCASIONALLY throw some dice, look at the numbers, interpret the results and describe the outcome. – But dice are usually only used when the outcome is not pivotal to the story or the character development.

What you are describing is almost off the end of the "Type 2" scale, with so much RP that the G is nearly lost. Same happens at the other extreme, where the RP is lost to the G.

Well said, Farstar.

Zardoz's type of game is very Type 2, and as befits a Type 2 game, its more about storytelling and coming up with character ideas than it is about "playing" the actions.

I find the result is that those sorta games are less immersive but are more about telling a story… so you're the narrator, not the character. Very different experience.