The eternal cycle
I've been running RPG games with my own homegrown system for many many years. I go through this regular cycle:
The two opposing forces that drive this cycle are a desire for a clean, simple, playable system and a desire for complete, realistic rules.
This time, I've really given in to the dark side. Simplicity over realism has completely won out. For example, I've re-designed my weapon system as follows: Every weapon for a character are given one of two sets of stats: proficient weapon and non-proficient weapon. What weapons are acharacter proficient with? The ones that the character prefers to use, as decided by the player. Same thing with armor. In other words, there is NO numeric systemic difference between a knight in full plate with a battle axe and a ninja with nun-chuks.
This is wonderful in that it gets away from the whole "balancing style" issue. I hate systems that basically make one choice or one small set of choices the best choice. In the old AD&D, everyone wanted full plate, longsword and shield, or something fairly close to it. Yet, they used to have write-ups for dozens of other weapons, including the dreaded Bohemian Earspoon. In fact, this allows people to use anything they want. If someone wants to be an expert with a giant boomerang ala that chick from "Inuyasha", they can.
Not to say that weapon choices don't make a difference. First of all, since my system not only allows but encourages combat tricks and maneuvers, weapon choice makes a very definite impact on the flavor of the character. Second, since all numeric aspects of combat are affected by statistics, people can adjust the impact of their fighting style with their statistics. If a player wants a character to be a big guy using a greatsword and dealing massive damage, the character should have a high Strength, etc.
Now I just need to get my act together and restart my old game or start a new one and get back around to step 2.
- Build the system.
- Play the system.
- Revise the system to plug holes or clarify parts.
- Repeat steps 2 and 3 for some time.
- Realize that the system has become too cumbersome/complicated.
- Let things stew until the creative juices burst forth.
- Throw out all the crap I don't like, and return to step 1.
The two opposing forces that drive this cycle are a desire for a clean, simple, playable system and a desire for complete, realistic rules.
This time, I've really given in to the dark side. Simplicity over realism has completely won out. For example, I've re-designed my weapon system as follows: Every weapon for a character are given one of two sets of stats: proficient weapon and non-proficient weapon. What weapons are acharacter proficient with? The ones that the character prefers to use, as decided by the player. Same thing with armor. In other words, there is NO numeric systemic difference between a knight in full plate with a battle axe and a ninja with nun-chuks.
This is wonderful in that it gets away from the whole "balancing style" issue. I hate systems that basically make one choice or one small set of choices the best choice. In the old AD&D, everyone wanted full plate, longsword and shield, or something fairly close to it. Yet, they used to have write-ups for dozens of other weapons, including the dreaded Bohemian Earspoon. In fact, this allows people to use anything they want. If someone wants to be an expert with a giant boomerang ala that chick from "Inuyasha", they can.
Not to say that weapon choices don't make a difference. First of all, since my system not only allows but encourages combat tricks and maneuvers, weapon choice makes a very definite impact on the flavor of the character. Second, since all numeric aspects of combat are affected by statistics, people can adjust the impact of their fighting style with their statistics. If a player wants a character to be a big guy using a greatsword and dealing massive damage, the character should have a high Strength, etc.
Now I just need to get my act together and restart my old game or start a new one and get back around to step 2.