What makes tabletop systems fun to you? [Trying to design a new one]

What in a tabletop RPG system do you find most necessary? The ability to use the system in any setting (5e)? A well detailed and thought out general metaplot for the setting and game (World of Darkness)? Ease of rules? Simple combat? I'm trying to get ideas.

>Trying to design a new one
read a lot of what has already been done
it will discourage you
next play the one you love most and just homebrew some patches to it
and if you really really want to make money, just create some handcrafted (or 3D printed) creative implements you think it's necessary for the game you like most

>What makes tabletop systems fun to you?
Hanging out with friends. A lot of activities, like cards, are really just a background activity while people hang and shoot the shit.

I like telling stories.

I like presenting problems to others and seeing how they solve them.

I like games where the players feel like they're always about to die and have everything go horribly wrong while they desperately try to keep on top of things.

I like airships.


> What in a tabletop RPG system do you find most necessary?
Stats. Some sort of entropy engine, like dice or cards. Some sort of progression for characters. And airships.

>The ability to use the system in any setting (5e)?
Eh. Nice in concept, but domain specific rules for games seems to work better.

> A well detailed and thought out general metaplot for the setting and game (World of Darkness)?
oh god no. Fuck that.... over-arcing "game-setting-plot" being doled out by the publishers. That might make a nice book or something I might enjoy, and use to make some content myself. But typically I couldn't care less.

>Ease of rules?
Yes.

> Simple combat?
Yes.

Oh, and in addition to those last two I want fully fleshed out rules I can use for any scenario that comes up and I want detailed combat as well. Notice how those are mutually exclusive? Yeah, it's a bit of a bitch.

>Simple combat?
The opposite, I like crunchy combat where players have a lot of options besides "roll to attack every round".

>What in a tabletop RPG system do you find most necessary?
That the final product feels like the the idea I was sold on, a game should have a goal.
>The ability to use the system in any setting (5e)?
Holy fuck why would you use 5e for everything? Also no, games shouln't really feel under any obligation to do EVERYTHING, focus on have a strong identity instead of diluting it.
>A well detailed and thought out general metaplot for the setting and game (World of Darkness)?
I love a good bit of worldbulding but I'm a lorenerd who will happy read a dry essay on your setting's agriculture and and anti-fraud laws so I don't really feel equipped to give generally applicable advice. All that said I think it very much depends, a strong metapolt can give many groups strong direction and really solidify a game's identity.
>Ease of rules?
Everything should have ease of rules, even complex systems should have clearly and efficiently written rules descriptions with examples to convey them to the reader. This is not a preference, this is an objective mark of quality.
>Simple combat?
I like meaningful mechanics, something that'll make me feel clever for working it out using it correctly. I don't give a fuck about minor bonus or just getting higher numbers, that's not to say some things don't just need higher numbers to convey their power but if my character progression options boil down to roll more/better dice then I'll be really disappointed. In addition leaning haevy on nubers makes your game esier to break because there will be mathematically superior options and you will miss them in QA, So value intangibles.

In my oppinon:
>The ability to build any character and take any action I want, and have the game have rules to support it.
>Simulationist instead of Narrativist. I want to interact with the setting, not the story.

>read a lot of what has already been done
>it will discourage you
>next play the one you love most and just homebrew some patches to it
This.
Pretty much no matter what awesome pretty snowflake you build. Someone else already did it before you and better.

Trying to design a new system is a lot like those bastardized F14's in the picture: A cool concept that is designed for different situations but plagued by the fundamental issues of being easy to break and hard to maintain, leading to something generally too expensive to have for long periods of time.

>Don't even try
With the greatest of respect, fuck you both.

Sell us on the base mechanic. How is your re-invention of the wheel better than everyone else's?

I understand that a system can only do so many things at once, but customization is an absolute must for me. I have never liked class-based systems that force archtypes onto a character or force a flavor for a certain class's ability. This is why I've come to love systems like MnM so much.

And yeah, I have yet to run or play a game straight from a book's universe, and hardly anyone else I know does either.

I think the most important thing to settle is why do you want to make a system in the first place. If you're making one for the sake of making one, it'll likely be garbage because there's no clear goal and no real inspiration. Instead think what specific thing you want out of it, and then see how you can go about getting that.

I feel what we lack is a narrative d16 dicepool-system with variable target numbers.

>and if you really really want to make money, just create some handcrafted (or 3D printed) creative implements you think it's necessary for the game you like most

I keep meaning to think up a version of THAC0 that's even more complicated, then release an "OSR" that's just AD&D 2e but with a slide-rule for working out THAC0.

>I feel what we lack is a narrative d16 dicepool-system with variable target numbers.
I can't tell if you're being facetious or not.

Oh I'm not OP I just take ideological offence to the idea of "Don't try there's other better people."

I hate to say it, but it's almost always true. For just about every profession. Sure, it's possible that you're a better brain surgeon after reading some pub-med articles than the guy who'd been doing it for a decade, but I wouldn't bet money on it.

Almost everyone I've ever seen try and design a game are situated atop "mount stupid". And refuse to look at more than a handful of games before crafting their magnum opus which totally isn't just DnD with a "fixed" magic system.

>I hate to say it, but it's almost always true.
Yeah which is why it's extra fucking stupid to say, if the only reason to peruse something was to be the best then there would be no reason to do anything. The logical endpoint is reprehensible.

If what you really meant all along was was play lot's games before turning your hand to one then that's slightly more reasonable isn't it? One's good advice, the other is useless apathy.

OP deserves to get shat on if he doesn't actually have anything so far. "I made some shit, how do I polish it?" is respectable and infinitely better than "I want to make thing, wat do?"

OP is irrelevant, the attitude is what offends me.

>read a lot of what has already been done
Is exactly the advice you're suggesting. And it was the first response.

kek
Go play tone police somewhere else. Harsh accurate advice is better than sugar coated lumps of shit.

>OP is irrelevant
The attitude is a response to OP's attitude. Of course no one is going to support you if show apathy yourself.

All I'm saying is "Never try because someone will always be better is a foolish attitude.", taking this on board would annihilate societal progress why is it controversial?

>And it was the first response.
The first response was to just make homebrew and peripherals for your favourite game.

Why bother being cynical? There's always someone more cynical than you.

Interesting, compelling mechanics designed with focus that properly support the intent of the game. I enjoy focused systems where I can tell that every rule was included with consideration and care to directly reinforce the themes, tone and genre they're aiming for, and it's all the better if those mechanics approach it in novel or interesting ways. Although only if they work- Originality is worth nothing if it doesn't actually function in practice.

Not even what I’m arguing. What I am in favor of, is that OP deserves no support, which you agree with since you’re more interested in protesting “offensive attitudes” than supporting OP.

>The ability to use the system in any setting (5e)?
PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFfffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffft.
Subtle. user. Subtle. Expect it isn't. Maybe try harder a little next time. Throw in some more words and concepts to mask it.

Being fair, D&D fanboys peddle the lie enough that some people might legitimately believe it by osmosis.