"RPG Rules: How Much Analysis Goes Into the Design?" Topic

Occasionally there is some discussion about various historical rules, discussing how much historical analysis was done for the basis of certain rulesets. I was just wondering if such things were ever done for RPGs. For instance, is the effectiveness of period weapons looked into by the designers? Is the way people actually learn and develop skills incorporated into the rules? Or is it pretty much all done on intuitive feel for the setting?

it depends on the rule system, and how the writers want the game to feel wile being played, the difference between d20 modern and say millenniums end is massive. But they are going for 2 different styles.
some games have postscripts ins them, some have them on associated web sites, ( old ones may have had magazine articles) and that's probably the best way of tracking them down if your interested in finding more.

As SteelPenguin say all depends on the system.

Rifts is probably the simplest. Roll a D20 anything above a 6 gets hit with whatever. called shots are more difficult. Not a lot done with anything skills other then handing them out.

GURPS has probably 10,000 skills with an incredibly difficult character creation system and writers who care about the historical accuracy.

Most just go with what feels right since very few have tried to do modern or war related games.

From what I've heard, the designer of The Price of Freedom RPG ("Roleplaying in Occupied America") from West End Games was trying to make an extremely accurate combat system. I believe there were extensive weapons stats. Didn't catch on, though.

Some of the same problems apply for RPGs as well as for miniature wargames: you need playability, and more details do not necessarily provide more accuracy.

Some old RPGs did suffer of very detailed charts, etc, and you could spend a lot of time on tiny details; it did not add anything to realism.

In my opinion, if you must spend much more time in the game to resolve an action than you would in real life, it is not realistic – even if the game system seems to be accurate.

Fortunately, most RPG makers have realized that in order to be fun, a game does not need to be realistic – quite the opposite in fact. It's better to focus on the things that are unique to RPGs like immersion and collectively telling a good story where you play the main characters.

Many of the things that were unique to RPGs twenty years ago are available in other, more accessible forms today. Don't care about the overtly talky roleplaying parts? There are excellent dungeon bashing boardgames. Happy with cliché worlds and kill/loot/level-up? World of Warcraft. Advanced tactical or man-to-man simulations? There are any number of computer games pushing those particular buttons.

What you are left with, unique for RPGs, is a collectively-created story, a shared imagination. What you will talk about after the game is probably not "Remember that time when I tried to shoot that guy, uphill in the rain, and almost hit him. That was awesome, so historically accurate!"

Yup – I'm with Lupulus. Any RPG nowadays that has rules based on extensive analysis of 'period' weapons or the way in which people learn skills etc is probably a simulator of some kind or a skirmish wargame masquerading as an RPG.

What matters is the story, not whether a specific type of SMG does +1 damage and is 23% easier to use compared to a different kind of SMG.

Ian

'Story' is what emerges during play… it's what you talk about after. I'm generally not happy with games or GMs who try to exert influence to 'tell a story'… I don't want to be stuck in someone's fan fiction.

As for research… the one that pops to mind is Phoenix Command… with it's collection of charts that sort out the vagaries of ballistics. I think I recall reading the guys that designed that were aeronautic engineers.

I do like Runequest though and its rules sprang out of observations of guys who were fighting with recreations of medieval weapons in the SCA. It's a pretty simple system, runs fast once you get the hang of it. Not nearly the crazy number of options as GURPS.

To play a bit of devil's advocate, I think players in RPGs tend to look for and want those types of details (even while complaining about complexity) more than tabletop wargames.

In an RPG, part of the "story" is players' unique identities. No one wants to be gangster 03, identical to gangsters 01-02 and 04-06. They want to be the gangster with the sawed off shotgun under his coat, or the one who can crack any safe, or the one who can shoot with pistols in both hands, or the goon who can punch through solid oak, or the explosives expert.

Now when they come to a locked door blocking their escape from the fuzz, they want something to dictate who should be the fastest in getting past it and why someone's attempt failed while someone else's didn't.

Certainly, an RPG should (and most do) give allowances to the GM to control that sort of thing. But, don't you think that psychologically (which is where fun resides, right?) players want some "logic" behind the door dilemma, even if ultimately the GM's arbitrary decision decides that this particular door is +2 to bludgeon and -3 to lockpick?

I think there's a basic underlying human behaviour in there that sees complexity that yields advantages to the self (makes my character unique) as "necessary" yet complexity that proffers advantages to others as "necessary evils".

I think the degree of details in RPG rules needs to deal with the players' need for "order" and "identity". That's what needs to be balanced against speed and complexity (which also affect enjoyment).

That said, I am an advocate for intuitive feel. I do a fair amount of casual RPG'ing (family and friend get togethers; around the campfire; roadtrips, etc.). My favourite approach to that is to have players write down six adjectives, then one sentence to clarify what they mean as character generation (people with extra time get to draw their character; I have some nice blank templates). Then throughout the adventure, when they take an action, they have to justify how well or poorly they expect to do based on their "attributes" or lack thereof.

I think there is a wide continuum of play styles and ways that players express themselves through the PC.
Some do it mostly with mechanics… having the numbers to be the strongest, fastest, best with magic.
Others derive their fun primarily through the play-acting of the PC… not really caring so much what its numbers are except as a clue to the personality.

I'm closer to the second camp… I like simple rules that don't require 'mastery' for me to play and enjoy myself.
In one of the current groups I'm in I'm odd man out on that… the others are MUCH more concerned with the math and all prefer rules that are more complex (and slower) that I like.

A designer can't really aim for 'one size fits all' so it's probably best to aim for the middle and hope people will compromise a bit because his game looks fun to them even if the rules aren't absolutely at their preferred level.
Gamers can be picky though… none of my favorite RPGs are even on the menu with the group I mentioned.

'Story' is what emerges during play… it's what you talk about after. I'm generally not happy with games or GMs who try to exert influence to 'tell a story'… I don't want to be stuck in someone's fan fiction.

Yees, it must be your own story that emerges from the events on the gaming table. However, the rules can encourage the emergence of stories, and the GM's scenario (if any) provide possibilities.

People RPG to be heroes. What you want is a system that is believable but allows you to be a hero. I've never seen HP in D&D as actual wound capacity- its the ability to be the target of a number of blows- only the last two hit dice are actual blood (aside from the cinematic 'scratch'), the rest are the hero dodging a lot of blades with the occasional 'scratch'

If I was to DM a D&D system again, this is what I would explain to the players. If they go 'Ha Ha, I have 50 HP, go ahead and stab me with a 1d4 dagger while I take it' they would be dead.

Even in 'Low' RPGs the PCs are better and harder. No one wants 50/50 you die.

People RPG to be heroes.

I think that's a bit of a generalization… or maybe a poor use of the word 'hero.' Sure they want to be the center of their story, but I'm not sure I'd call what the average D&D PC gets up to 'heroic'.
Myself, I'm much more interested in exploration than I am in 'saving the princess'. I want to see what weird stuff the setting has to offer. If the game focuses on survival, profit, building a stable base… I'm good with that. No need for heroics. I'd much rather ambush the enemy than fight them fair.

The sorts 'heroes' I do like to play are relatively normal people against overwhelming odds. Call of Cthulhu is a good example. The PCs are 'heroes' because they can't really win but they try anyway.
Having a bunch of superpowers and overwhelming armor/weapons/training doesn't make a character a 'hero'… it doesn't feel 'heroic' if there's not a good chance my PC might die in the attempt. For that reason I prefer systems that keep my PCs vulnerable… I'd never want a PC that is invulnerable to a well-placed dagger or a pack of wild dogs.

SM- I accept that, but even in Cthulu the PCs are a cut above. Yes they are squishy, but they stand between the Dark and the average Joe.

Like I said, 'relatively normal'… certainly compared to the average superman in a D&D party. They can't ignore bullets or swarms of knife-wielding mooks. Most of my CoC games have cultists and such as the primary antagonists… mythos entities are rare and the 'gods' themselves are best left as vague rumors.

Regardless of the detail, I have never gotten the impression that RPG game designers have done much 'analysis' of the mechanics they create, let alone read where they did actual research. And I'm not talking about the technical characteristics of a MPT-K9. To use etotheipi example, have they ever checked to see how long it takes someone to pick a lock? How many different locks there are and the tools available…or around to be jerry-rigged? Or how much advantage or what kind longer arms provide someone in a fight, or the protective and movement hampering characteristics of a long raincoat in a knife fight.

That doesn't count such things as the advantages and disatvantages of a broad sword vs a rapier, etc. etc.

My impression is such things are made-up whole cloth. But as been said elsewhere, the story's the thing and reality isn't all that important other than lots of neat little details that add to the impression of 'realism'. So that SMG is called a MPT-K9 instead of just a SMG even though the game mechanics are totally generic. Hey, it adds 'flavor.'

Well, I was going to clarify but McLaddie's version is better…

I'll just point out that I'm not asking about how complicated or detailed (or not) the mechanics are. It is about whether RPG designers do examine in detail the stuff that McLaddie alluded to, amongst a host of other things. I'm especially interested in whether any RPG designers have looked into how real people learn things, given that most RPGs allow for experience or character progression in some way.

Regards

I think there has been a fair bit of research into weaponry/fighting… armor. The Harn games seem to have looked into the logistics of how medieval towns worked. But beyond that I'd guess that it's mostly been left up to 'common sense' and intuition… however the designer assumes things work but not much more than that. Some game might hype its particular attention to one element, like how learning works, and just guess at the rest.

It absolutely depends on the designer, and on the game.

If you are trying to break a mould in terms of historical accuracy, then yes, you'd do that. The players might not get the nitty-gritty of it (and shouldn't, if you design your system well), but the research provides a strong foundation to the game.

If you're just trying to recreate the odds and effects of every other RPG in a new package, probably not.

Similarly, if you're making a quick-playing cinematic system, probably not.

As others have mentioned, engineering-level accuracy is not the most important thing about a good RPG session. It's about the characters, and the plot, and the way the story comes together. "Hang on, let me double check the modifiers for that" does not a thrilling story make.