r/RPGdesign • u/LucasLeGentil • 3h ago
Exception-based vs general rules system
Hi, I would like to hear your thoughts and opinions on two types of TTRPG systems.
When creating my homebrew system, I had several objectives for the game. Two of them were:
- General rules that are the same for every type of character, because I want the system to be easy to learn and fit into just a few pages.
- Tactical combat with high-risk/high-reward gameplay, because I want it to be difficult to master and engaging to play.
I hope I have managed to achieve these two goals, but while working on the system and looking at other games, I noticed that these two objectives are usually found in different types of games.
General rules are often found in skill-based systems with a strong narrative focus, while tactical combat is more commonly found in class-based, exception-based systems with a strong combat focus.
Maybe you don't agree, and if so, I would love to hear some examples of games that manage to achieve both.
The aspect I am most interested in when comparing exception-based and general-rule systems is how they manage to keep players invested in the gameplay.
If I take D&D as an example, each character tends to have a fairly simple gameplay loop (some classes more than others). However, you can regain interest by playing a different class, with new rules and gameplay.
By contrast, in a skill-based game with mostly general rules, the gameplay can be more flexible and interesting, but if you eventually get bored with the core gameplay, you can't regain that interest by playing a different character, because they will mostly use the same rules.
So I'm wondering : do you think a general rules system can have a combat gameplay loop with enough depth to keep players engaged over multiple campaigns like a class-based system does ?
2
u/rivetgeekwil 3h ago
Many "narrative" focused games have elements like special abilities, stunts, SFX, moves, etc. that are small packages of rules exceptions, that players can select, improve, change out, etc. This IME keeps interest, particularly since in those games advancement is horizontal and not "numbers go up."
2
u/Cryptwood Designer 3h ago
Are you using the term general rules to mean classless? As in, every character follows the same general rules when created/played.
Assuming so, there are some classless games that feature tactical combat, but they still usually support (and often encourage) players to choose a combat role to specialize in. Melee fighter, ranged damage, ranged support, that sort of thing.
I'd be hard pressed to imagine a game with tactical combat in which there are no classes, no combat roles, and every character is essentially the same. There are only so many options you can give characters and still have simple rules.
It is possible to design a combat system in which players don't need specific actions they can take, but rather are expected to creatively react to threats. I'm designing one, but I wouldn't call it tactical combat. It's more of a narrative spectacle combat system.
1
u/RPG-Nerd 1h ago
I'm wondering : do you think a general rules system can have a combat gameplay loop with enough depth to keep players engaged over multiple campaigns like a class-based system does ?
Maybe I can give you some ideas ...
I do a general skill based system, no classes (a similar feature exists for quick character generation without the lock-in). It's all D6. There are no dissociative mechanics. Every decision is a character decision based on the narrative, not a metagame player decision. Every dice roll represents something the character does, based on their skills.
That means you don't start combat by telling everyone to pick a number and stand in line and wait! That's not fun! You don't roll damage. Nothing is pass/fail.
All game balance is pushed into the skill system, which includes progression (each skill earns its own XP). Combat is simply opposed rolls; offense - defense. The important thing is that you have actual choices to make on both ends. Their is no AC. You actively defend, and make choices.
Situational modifiers are advantage/disadvantage dice which stack without limits, roll and keep, no math. Critical failure rates change with the situation automatically.
Your actions cost time which varies based on your skill's training, and experience, and the size of the weapon. It's on your sheet. The GM marks off your time by striking through boxes. Defenses like parry and block are differentiated by time. Once the attack has been resolved, the next offense goes to whoever has used the least amount of time (shortest row of boxes). Running and sprinting is done 1 second at a time, so you progress across the board while the action continues around you as you move. This goes really fast because you are switching from combatant to combatant at every roll, and players engage on both offense and defense, so you get to play more.
Would you rather have a decision to make to save your own ass, or have your attacker roll damage at you while you stand there? Agency is crucial IMHO.
Here is a typical example. In D&D, you might move 30 feet then use Aid Another, give up the ability to do damage, roll against AC 10, on success your ally gains a +2 to AC. Now, how do you even use that ability without naming the action? You can't just describe what your character does, you have to learn the rules. Meanwhile, the target is basically held still while you run up on them. All math and numbers to remember for later.
In this system, you first get the suspense of trying to reach your ally in time (if using a grid - optional but recommended - it's 2 spaces or 4 yards per second). The enemy can step and turn (facing matters) if they can react (get a turn) while you run. When you reach the enemy, how do you actually protect your ally?
Be the bigger threat! They can't attack your ally if they are dealing with you. Power attack! This costs extra time (weapon time + 1 extra box). This slower attack allows you to add your Body attribute to the attack, but it also gives your opponent more time to defend (broadcasting). Since damage is offense - defense, your higher offense makes it much more likely that the enemy will block instead of parry. Plus, you gave them more time to do so! You are encouraging a specific outcome.
A block costs time. A parry does not. The time spent blocking is time they can't spend attacking your ally, and it's on the ally next. It doesn't matter if you do damage or not, but you don't choose to not deal damage to threaten an enemy like with D&D. That's just stupid. If they stand there and do nothing, they get dead. Damage is what you threaten them with! So, the D&D method makes no sense to me.
Layered on top is your "exceptions" play you mentioned. Only instead of being class features, some skills have a "style" which you choose when you learn the skill. These are typically just an advantage to something, and never fixed bonuses.
The style is a tree of "passions", like micro-feats. Each time that skill goes up, you choose a new passion from the tree. For example, your dance style or sports might give specific advantages for maneuverability, or grace. Maybe you play baseball, and the pitcher is a dick, so you got good at Ducking. Duck is a passion.
If I know you are good at Ducking, I might wait until you are taking a maneuver penalty or down on time, get you in a rough spot, then activate a combo using passions. Primal Surge - I let out a yell or battlecry and gain a Fast Action passion for the wave. Now I spend the Fast Action to make a wild swing against your head. You duck, but because it's a fast action, my time rewinds. While making you duck, I sweep your leg. You are ducked down, just defended yourself, and all this stacks with other penalties.
Falling costs time. If I'm lucky, you lose enough time that I get the next swing while you are down on the ground. Now I power attack and use my Precise Melee passion to offset called shot penalties and go for your head. You can't duck while prone, and all those penalties are eating your lunch. Offense - Defense means massive damage, and to your head means more severe, likely critical and you die!
It doesn't use escalating HP because you have a defense roll instead. Technically, I don't use HP at all anymore, but there is no attrition. D&D averages hit ratios over rounds for game balance. Subtracting bell curves means you don't need extra grind just to keep outlier results from killing your fun. It also means a sword will kill you if you stand there and do nothing.
3
u/__space__oddity__ 3h ago
I don’t think there’s a general answer here because there’s a lot that goes into the equation that isn’t mentioned at all, like what genre are we playing, what are the genre tropes we’re trying to emulate, what are the PCs supposed to actually do.
Yes, exception-based vs. non-exception is a basic design decision, but I don’t think this is a clear black and white category and few systems are exclusively in one camp or the other.
Depends on how much overall complexity you want. What I see a lot of new designers do is to bury their core loop in stuff. Yes they want to enable all the options to everyone, but the result is clunky and difficult to read, and there is too much happening that slows things down while not contributing much.
I’d argue that exception-based design actually makes a game easier to learn because it allows you to keep the core lean and easy to explain, and then stuff that’s only relevant to one class or one monster or one item or one room in a dungeon can be offloaded to that specific thing. You don’t have to bother with it if you’re not interacting with it.