Frankenstein's game

Now that I've ranted about my misadventures in finding or making One True game engine, I feel compelled to compile game sub-systems I would want in any ideal game systems. And yes, I said 'systems' because I accept there's no such thing as One True way to play.

I'll break these down into categories and detail them, as well as talk about game systems that either inspired or embody the idea.

Now I am doing this not because I'm trying to find/construct One True system again. But to maybe look at what I really like about given games and consider how to make them add-ons to existing systems. Take what works from game B, to enhance what game A lacks when game A is otherwise the ideal system for the story I'm running.

World building is dynamic and open to input

Not all games are open to worldbuilding, but many are to a greater or lesser degree. This is about those later games. Ideally, the GM sets out with a concept and scope and the players help flesh out some details. The majority of this should happen before people start generating characters and playing but there's also often a need mid-game to invent details. I consider this an extension of the "Say Yes" principle of gaming and storytelling.

• MICROSCOPE is entirely about world-building and in theory it could be used in conjunction with another game system when the players want to deep dive into a particular Scene to see what transpires. 
• FATE supports this to a degree, but not mechanically. 
• BURNING WHEEL (and TORCHBEARERS and BURNING EMPIRES) actively endorse this and support this with it's -Wise type skills, as well as it's Circle mechanics for finding allies and assets (often at a cost). I love Circles, because it's actually a hidden vehicle for drama and side-stories and quests (more about this later).

Character creation is tied to their concept and history

Character creation should allow for concept-driven choices that assemble the character at the point play begins. While interesting characters can come out of random character creation systems (I'm looking at you, Little Black Box Traveller), it's more likely to create something you're uninterested or unable to play.

• RISK does this with it's Background choices, but you're limited to two. However, they're all fairly balanced with each other, and creating new ones is easy.
• BURNING WHEEL/EMPIRES has wonderfully fleshed out Stock/Lifepath systems, but generating new ones isn't easy. They're complex and intricate, but don't have to be 'balanced' because BW isn't that kind of game.
• STAR TREK ADVENTURES and INFINITY also have their own lifepath systems; STA is more concept- and choice- driven, while INFINITY is mostly random but gives you a fixed number of opportunities to make crucial choices (I'm not a fan of this latter example, really).

Fractal and scaleable mechanics 

By Fractal I mean the same methods of describing something (a person, a place, a thing) work the same: by a combination of Stats, Traits, Skills, Levels, etc.  Want to play an entire nation or culture? A piloted giant robot? A person? How do you qualify and quantify the items that person has? Fractal mechanics means that at all levels people, places and things fundamentally work and are detailed in the same way. Good Fractal mechanics should allow for representing something by a single value, a full spread of details, and some level in between.

By Scaleable I mean the mechanics work the same from micro to macro scale of action. When everything is Fractal, then things should easily be Scaleable as well, but the reverse doesn't necessarily have to be true.

• FATE introduced me to the concept of a fractal-style of stating things. 
• The later SHADOWRUN edition let you either describe an electronic device with a flat rating, or a full spectrum of statistics.
• FUSION (Mekton and Cyberpunk) does scaling great; giant robots and starships do battle with the same dice mechanics and options that people do with only minor differences. The MTS scaling mechanics are awesome.
• TURK had the concept of Primary, Secondary and Tertiary inputs to a dice roll: Primary sources determined the base number of dice you got to throw and keep, Secondary sources added unkept dice to the pool and Tertiary sources add a flat bonus to the result. The GM would determine what would count as Primary, Secondary and Tertiary inputs and this created a effect of diminishing returns to limit munchkinism and min-maxing.  

Story-driven / Story-driving mechanics 

This is the dividing line between simulationist-gaming and storytelling games. I won't waste more words on nitpicking about simulationist games, but I will say game mechanics should allow for elements of random effects but ultimately the decisions of how and what happens should come down to the players and GM.

This is also about crunch in gaming and by crunch I mean: overly complex, layered mechanics or rolls/test/checks that can be encapsulated in a single action. For example: "Roll to hit, roll to penetrate, roll damage, roll trauma, roll knockdown, etc..." Burning Wheel has a rule called 'Let it ride' that basically said: neither players or GM's can keep asking for additional tests when the first test answers the question of 'did they/didn't they'. If the intent of the test is "sneak into the castle" you don't demand a test to cross the moat, then another to scale the wall, then another to avoid patrols, and so on.

My favorite example simulationist games affecting 'roleplayability' are settings like BattleTech or WH40k. The rules as written are too lethal, too deterministic, to really justify investing much in any character. In BT, all it takes is a 12 on 2d6 and half the weapons in the game can decapitate your Mech and kill your pilot. Whee.

• RISK really changed my perspective on what you actually do with rolling all those funny polyhedral objects and doing maths; I love the concept of 'narrative currency' that lets players choose where and how to affect the story in discreet mechanical ways. I'll probably have to write something separately about Narrative Currency systems.
• FORGED IN THE DARK's mechanics are a framework for outlining dramatic moments while leaving the context and color of those moments entirely open to color.
• I mentioned loving BURNING WHEEL's Circles mechanics and here's why: Rather than forcing characters to buy specific 'contacts' ahead of time (and then never having the opportunity to use them in actual play), Circles allows anyone to say "I think I know a guy..." and then roll to determine how effective that statement is. Circles is one of those mechanics where failure on a Circles -test is more fun than succeeding, especially when you apply the principles of "Yes and..." or "Yes but...". Yes, you know a guy who can help, but he's currently mad as hell at you. Yes you learn that someone knows what you need to know, but they're currently imprisoned. What are you going to do to get what you need, and what are you going to owe them when all is said and done?

Mini game systems

I'm included this is a category because it's not a must-have but should be talked about. By mini-games I mean where there are subsets of game systems or mechanics for specific activities. Video games do this a lot for things like hacking, research, dialog and so on. Ideally the core mechanics should all be the same (how you roll dice, determine success/failure, etc), but build upon that framework with almost puzzle-like structures for solving conflicts or challenge.

• BURNING WHEEL is a great example of this with it's 'Duel of Wits,' 'Range and Cover' and 'Fight!' sub-systems. Burning Empires added 'Firefight' and 'Infestation' mini-games.
• Lots of game systems have mini-games for handling research, construction and other long-term activities. Too many to list here. Burning Wheel also consistently deployed a rock-paper-scissors matrix for choices characters made in conflict. Mouse Guard created the simplest version of this with only four Actions to consider: Attack, Defense, Maneuver or Feint, and let that work for arguments, combat, exploration, anything.
• FORGED IN THE DARK has 'clocks' for tracking progress on anything that can't be resolved in a single test/action/scene. Clocks tick up and down, representing progress or time running out, as needed.
• ROLL AND KEEP, original 7thSea specifically, had a structured way of learning new Fencing and Sorcery mastery abilities based on how you mastered the choice Maneuvers of that school/magic. That was a framework I wanted to keep and make part of TURK.

Character Advancement/Growth

...

• BURNING WHEEL counted tests against your stats and skills, and when you'd recorded enough marks, that skill or stat would increase automatically. It's an organic and realistic method, but also required book keeping. The Mouse Guard variant had the simplest and most streamlined way of calculating this: you needed a number of successes equal to your current rating, and a number of failures equal to one less than your rating. This encourages characters seeking to improve their abilities to strive to push their limits because you learned from failure and that's a good lesson.
• FUSION (at least in Mekton and CP2020 editions) had both marks against Skills you tested, and general IP (Improvement Points) to spend as you wish. Advancing Stats and gaining new Advantages and the like weren't addressed until FUSION came about, and then it was handled by giving more of the same points you used to create your character with to spend on what you wanted to improve.
• D20 games with Leveling systems makes for a quick and easy way to evaluate character experience and how challenging a given combat might be, but Level games always seem to break down logically when everything a character does gets better just because of a combat experience ("Wait, I killed that Orc... and now I'm better at Cooking?") Some games that have Leveling-type mechanics also separate out combat from non-combat, but really, how is that different from renaming 'classes' as 'skills'?
• FORGED IN THE DARK games track experience both for specific skills you use, and a general pool that you can spend as you wish. Skills get an XP whenever you test them under in 'desperate' tests (regardless of success or failure). General XP rewards are tied directly to character type, background and goals. Whenever a 'track' fills up, something advances.

Minimal GM overhead

Part of the reason an ideal system should be Fractal is so that the GM doesn't have to do the same level of record keeping that players do for their characters but for every other character, monster, place or thing in the game. The GM can abstract what isn't as important, and focus on what does need a high level of detail, and (hopefully) switch between the two as needed.

• CYPHER is the best example of this: The GM sets Levels for things, and players make all the rolls (roll to influence, hit, dodge, resist, etc...).
• In RISK, you can frame any Risk in terms of Consequences and Opportunities, and include things like thresholds and timing limitations. Brutes are dirt-simple, and Villains can have as little or as much detail as you like. I like how RISK lets you setup a challenge to players almost like a puzzle to solve, and it's up to them to generate the Raises and apply them to solve it.

????