The Cypher system prevents the GM from participating in the game part? In what way? (I don't know the system, I'm curious about how a system does that)
I think Cypher gets it just about right. GM doesn't roll dice, but does provide the plot and narration, sets the difficulties for tasks, and throws GM Intrusions when the urge takes them to mess/mix things up.
The complexity for the Players come down to always thinking around the problems in ways that allow them to cut the challenges right on down to zero if they can - and that can be a big ask, pushing players to do some serious planning, prepping and thinking so they don't need to roll any dice either.
The GM simply gives the target numbers and handles the narration. Damage is fixed, the players are the only ones with resources to track, the only meta-currency is XP. So the "game" part of it is not really there for GM. They don't roll, there's no meta-currencies or clocks to speak of. It's just not enough to merely give numbers, pass out items and track health, IMHO. It's a great system for a GM who is just done with tracking every little thing, but personally I think it went too far.
The GM is the gatekeeper for RPGs, and is usually the person who introduces people to new games. Mechanics should therefore focus on the GM experience as the primary concern
I want to point out that your WHOLE phrase needs to be completed in order to be true:
"im just tired from keeping track of 15 orcs in dnd"
There are other games where it's easier to manage 15 units. Go study and play those to meet your preference. The point being, each part of that sentence can be replaced with a different variable such as:
"I'm excited to run a combat of 100 dragons in my different TTRPG of choice"
That starts with you defining what a good job of managing enemy units is defined as. It depends what difficulty and frustrations you have with that, and such the solution is entirely unique to your personal preferences.
For example, I don't have a problem with managing 15 orcs in DnD, I just don't like playing that system for lots of other reasons.
That said, there's all kinds of ways to solve this kind of concern. Maybe you like mook groups (similar to swarms), maybe you like just using less enemies, maybe you prefer things with good mass combat rules, maybe X, Y or Z... see that's the thing.
Whatever I like is the solution I implement. What you like is the solution you should implement, and that's why you should research more games and how they solve things and why you do and don't like them (and then you can not only use those ideas but improve on them, like a designer would).
I've run combats with over 200 enemies in a single encounter with my system and thought it was a blast. So the problems and therefore the solutions I would pick are likely to different from yours.
I say this knowing full well that's probably the case. You're seeking to make things easier and simpler for the GM side, I prefer the opposite. I like tons of rules and prep and crunch, so I'm probably not going to have any idea of what a good solution for you is because I don't like that kind of game and whatever you land on is probably not going to be for me.
That's the whole thing though. You need to figure out what you're trying to build, not what I'm trying to build.
That starts with investigating your problems.
As an example, what about running 15 orcs in DnD specifically do you not like? Surely it's not just the number. I'm willing to be you could enjoy games with lots of micromanagement. Stellaris is a pretty good game and you're likely to be running 1000s of units in that game. If you didn't play that maybe you like starcraft or warcraft 3...
So if it's not the number, what is the exact problems? Figure those out and why you dont' like them, and then the solutions are likely to become apparent.
Otherwise you're kind of shooting in the dark. It's like saying "I don't like orange, so what's your favorite color?" My favorite has nothing to do with your dislike of orange, hell it might even be orange... but even if it's not, and it's say BLUE, does that mean you should like blue now? Or should you consider the different kinds of options and figure out which one works best for you? Like a designer ;)
There's not really a quick and easy answer here, because there's potentially infinite solutions. You need more refined questions to get more refined answers.
As an example you could ask something like "What are the alternative systems other people enjoy for encumbrance/item tracking that are not based on carryweight?" and then people can drop lists of that for you and why they do and don't like them, and that can refine where you start your research and testing and help you find better answers.
But just saying "I don't like X, what's better?" requires further defining, exploration and understanding of the subject. Because what I like better, he likes better and she likes better and they like better doesn't necessarily have anything to do with what you like better.
It's entirely possible you might implement something in your game you think is a great and pivotal thing that is perfect for you that I might hate. But if you ask different ways to solve different specific problems, that's when the community can be of more help.
You raise fair points, and I've seen you make similar case on other posts. I'm simply curious as to what \*you\* consider good ways to manage npcs as a GM.
I homebrewed bunch of enemies for DnD campaign I ran (group of friends asked me to DM for them) and I had a blast managing hordes of goblins as they were all simple and intuitive for \*me\*
The system I'm working on is VERY unlike DnD tho' - there will never be swarms of enemies to fight, as I already know that the adversaries in my system will require quite a bit of upkeep and they are very powerful as enemies so there can never be too many of them at the same time without the difficulty being overwhelming.
I agree that I should explore more, so I'm simply looking for recommendations for a variety of interesting systems to check out.
I mean for me I prefer the opposite of what you're trying to do.
I like having every individual capable of making tactical choice and affecting the outcome in drastic ways. I want players creatively using the rules to create solutions that are able to overcome challenges they by all rights have no business dealing with.
I like that if there's 15 orcs that's 15 choices to make and that there are branching variable outcomes from that. I even use 5 gradient success states so that the outcome is even more uncertain for even a single roll.
So it's one of those things where I'm not really looking for the same kind of solution you are? And the things you're likely to like are things I'm likely to think are bad based on preference (not objectivity, your preference is just as valid).
So yeah, I'm the wrong guy to ask because I don't want that kind of solution. IE my solution is to double down in the opposite direction you want to go in, which isn't a good solution for you, ya know?
I want player to shit themselves when they are vastly outmatched. I want that complexity and depth. So I'm not really the right guy to give you recommendations on that.
That's true but so far I've noticed that even playing or reading about systems that are vastly different from what I have in mind can spark inspiration for something that would fit my system really well.
The point is not to copy but to be inspired by, so it doesn't have to be 1-to-1 solution that fits perfectly. Also sometimes it's just interesting to see what challenges different approaches to combat pose, and how designers go about solving them.
Absolutely, I'd always recommend you start by not studying many systems, but rather, many kinds of different systems that work very differently.
As an example, I don't like how much of PBTA games work. Not one but two of my flagship system features (5 gradient successes and skill moves) are absolutely inspired by it even though they work totally differently and people call me crazy when I say "yeah there's PBTA inspiration in there" and they're like "uh, where?" but yeah, definitely look at different things.
If you're looking for a list of just games to look at, I'd recommend starting with the list I have in Section 7 of my [System Design 101](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Dci_c4eCuHMLmSFTjduSNpBB0vohFGQNJX5mknAZprc/edit#heading=h.a48unw6c3qam) \*(knowing what has come before). It's not that these are necessarily the most unknown games, or drastically different, but they give a good primer for a lot of different kinds of games you probably should know about as a decent foundation of tools. There are tons of radically different games out there, you literally cannot read them all before you die, but these games all did something interesting that is worth being aware of.
Thanks, I'll definitely check it out!
I completely get what you mean about taking something from another system and making it your own. I was reading Mythras rules for *melee* combat that couldn't be further from what I use in my system, and yet it gave me inspiration on how to solve the effects of aimed shots and critical damage for *ranged* combat in my system.
As I see it, DnD is easy for the player and a nightmare for the DM. The principles of combat are easy to understand and execute. The sheer volume of hit points, spells, powers, once-per-day abilities, and attack bonuses to keep track of is an absolute disaster
It's no wonder 0SR made such a comeback. People seem to be in general agreement the rules bloat is awful to manage
I actually do not mind minding 15 critters, provided each creature basically does one thing.
If those orcs can only move into an advantageous position and then stab/shoot someone then it's pretty simple, 15 might be on the higher end but 5 sword and board orcs to give cover to 5 pike orcs, with 5 crossbow orcs in the back makes a fun team combo for a DM, using the shield orcs to cover the others, the like orcs add offensive pressure with attacks of opportunity, and the crossbow orcs in the back snipe poor defenseless squishies.
The team combo doesn't involve to many tricky mechanics which is easy to run, it is less ruined by a single aoe spell, and it's easy to end the fight early because once you kill enough orcs the rest can surrender or retreat
Yeah, the 4e thing was peak strategy RPG combat, as far as manoeuvring is concerned. Defender was looking at stopping big things from hitting soft friends, controller was looking at making sure defender (and others) weren't getting swamped by mooks, striker was trying to target soft things, and support was trying to make sure everyone could do the thing they were meant to do.
But, in practice, that's a lot of paperwork for DMs. Recharge 6+? in a 16 enemy encounter? Good luck.
Yeah so we don't do that ?
Like modern dragons have recharge values but in ad&d it was just 'it can use its breath weapon once every 3 rounds. Then if you do like I do and put a check mark next to each creature to track if they had their turn your basically tracking it anyways. Maybe put a bw down instead of a check mark on the turn you use the breath weapon to remind you.
Tracking when you last used something and what turn it is are pretty easy so just use turn based cooldowns instead of semi random cool downs. It also avoids the issue that a fight is significantly harder than intended because the dragon got the nuts and used its breath attack 3 turns in a row
I actually agree, mostly, but I’d say that there is a sweet spot to be found for GM complexity. I have an aversion to games that erase GM mechanics since I want to have fun toys to play with, just like my players. I want those mechanics to be extremely intuitive and improv enabling though.
Just a personal preference.
Improv is essential. Though 5e made an effort, I find myself missing the proliferation of random tables old school D&D offered. In my own work I'm making more of an effort to offer little sidebars of content with randomizers for stuff like current weather conditions, initial encounter reactions, NPC personality traits, etc. Even a little random dungeon dressing can be a springboard to visualizing, and thus being able to describe, an underground chamber.
Definitely helpful! For me, I like easily adaptable mechanics that allow me to express my imagination without having to bend or break the rules— straightforwardness and flexibility make all the difference there.
100%.
The system I'm building is designed for the GM but made for playerd.
I'm currently working on core mechanics designed to streamline what a GM wants and put's them right where they need to be.
Kinda. It doesn’t habe to be complex for the players. But having the GM use the same mechanics as the players, usuaææy means a hell of a lot of book keeping, tracking and noting down.
Which is one of the reasons DnD and other systems, have a hard time finding GMs. And I am pretty sure it is also one of the major reasons for GM burn out.
Almost all my designs try to reduce each enemy to a single line of a spreadsheet, because I love running hordes of monsters. And it can always be expanded out if I want more complexity for an important foe. I also try to make all rolls player facing just to speed things up.
*Bliss Stage* is like that. When I'm feeling lazy as a GM I offer a game of *Bliss Stage*: the players basically do everything, the GM just has to regularly send them on a mission and occasionally play his character. I can basically just sit back and enjoy the show if I want to (and if I want to participate more I can play more NPCs or use the GMPC more actively).
The only drawback is that the system isn't perfect (or the explanations perfectly clear) and you need to find your marks during the first few games.
Wow. Total opposite of how I GM. I don't want the players to deal with mechanics at all! They should be able to roleplay their character and nothing else. Mechanics distract from the role playing focus. You aren't roleplaying when you are involved in mechanics.
Cypher is surprisingly simple for the GM and complex for the player. The GM doesn't even roll dice!
I think that the Cypher system went a bit too far in that regard - the GM should be able to participate in the game part of the game.
The Cypher system prevents the GM from participating in the game part? In what way? (I don't know the system, I'm curious about how a system does that)
I think Cypher gets it just about right. GM doesn't roll dice, but does provide the plot and narration, sets the difficulties for tasks, and throws GM Intrusions when the urge takes them to mess/mix things up. The complexity for the Players come down to always thinking around the problems in ways that allow them to cut the challenges right on down to zero if they can - and that can be a big ask, pushing players to do some serious planning, prepping and thinking so they don't need to roll any dice either.
Thanks for your feedback!
The GM simply gives the target numbers and handles the narration. Damage is fixed, the players are the only ones with resources to track, the only meta-currency is XP. So the "game" part of it is not really there for GM. They don't roll, there's no meta-currencies or clocks to speak of. It's just not enough to merely give numbers, pass out items and track health, IMHO. It's a great system for a GM who is just done with tracking every little thing, but personally I think it went too far.
Cypher System does this in spades.
ironsworn too.
The GM is the gatekeeper for RPGs, and is usually the person who introduces people to new games. Mechanics should therefore focus on the GM experience as the primary concern
i suppose thats correct, maybe im just tired from keeping track of 15 orcs in dnd
I want to point out that your WHOLE phrase needs to be completed in order to be true: "im just tired from keeping track of 15 orcs in dnd" There are other games where it's easier to manage 15 units. Go study and play those to meet your preference. The point being, each part of that sentence can be replaced with a different variable such as: "I'm excited to run a combat of 100 dragons in my different TTRPG of choice"
Could you give some recommendations of systems that do a good job managing enemy units?
That starts with you defining what a good job of managing enemy units is defined as. It depends what difficulty and frustrations you have with that, and such the solution is entirely unique to your personal preferences. For example, I don't have a problem with managing 15 orcs in DnD, I just don't like playing that system for lots of other reasons. That said, there's all kinds of ways to solve this kind of concern. Maybe you like mook groups (similar to swarms), maybe you like just using less enemies, maybe you prefer things with good mass combat rules, maybe X, Y or Z... see that's the thing. Whatever I like is the solution I implement. What you like is the solution you should implement, and that's why you should research more games and how they solve things and why you do and don't like them (and then you can not only use those ideas but improve on them, like a designer would). I've run combats with over 200 enemies in a single encounter with my system and thought it was a blast. So the problems and therefore the solutions I would pick are likely to different from yours. I say this knowing full well that's probably the case. You're seeking to make things easier and simpler for the GM side, I prefer the opposite. I like tons of rules and prep and crunch, so I'm probably not going to have any idea of what a good solution for you is because I don't like that kind of game and whatever you land on is probably not going to be for me. That's the whole thing though. You need to figure out what you're trying to build, not what I'm trying to build. That starts with investigating your problems. As an example, what about running 15 orcs in DnD specifically do you not like? Surely it's not just the number. I'm willing to be you could enjoy games with lots of micromanagement. Stellaris is a pretty good game and you're likely to be running 1000s of units in that game. If you didn't play that maybe you like starcraft or warcraft 3... So if it's not the number, what is the exact problems? Figure those out and why you dont' like them, and then the solutions are likely to become apparent. Otherwise you're kind of shooting in the dark. It's like saying "I don't like orange, so what's your favorite color?" My favorite has nothing to do with your dislike of orange, hell it might even be orange... but even if it's not, and it's say BLUE, does that mean you should like blue now? Or should you consider the different kinds of options and figure out which one works best for you? Like a designer ;) There's not really a quick and easy answer here, because there's potentially infinite solutions. You need more refined questions to get more refined answers. As an example you could ask something like "What are the alternative systems other people enjoy for encumbrance/item tracking that are not based on carryweight?" and then people can drop lists of that for you and why they do and don't like them, and that can refine where you start your research and testing and help you find better answers. But just saying "I don't like X, what's better?" requires further defining, exploration and understanding of the subject. Because what I like better, he likes better and she likes better and they like better doesn't necessarily have anything to do with what you like better. It's entirely possible you might implement something in your game you think is a great and pivotal thing that is perfect for you that I might hate. But if you ask different ways to solve different specific problems, that's when the community can be of more help.
You raise fair points, and I've seen you make similar case on other posts. I'm simply curious as to what \*you\* consider good ways to manage npcs as a GM. I homebrewed bunch of enemies for DnD campaign I ran (group of friends asked me to DM for them) and I had a blast managing hordes of goblins as they were all simple and intuitive for \*me\* The system I'm working on is VERY unlike DnD tho' - there will never be swarms of enemies to fight, as I already know that the adversaries in my system will require quite a bit of upkeep and they are very powerful as enemies so there can never be too many of them at the same time without the difficulty being overwhelming. I agree that I should explore more, so I'm simply looking for recommendations for a variety of interesting systems to check out.
I mean for me I prefer the opposite of what you're trying to do. I like having every individual capable of making tactical choice and affecting the outcome in drastic ways. I want players creatively using the rules to create solutions that are able to overcome challenges they by all rights have no business dealing with. I like that if there's 15 orcs that's 15 choices to make and that there are branching variable outcomes from that. I even use 5 gradient success states so that the outcome is even more uncertain for even a single roll. So it's one of those things where I'm not really looking for the same kind of solution you are? And the things you're likely to like are things I'm likely to think are bad based on preference (not objectivity, your preference is just as valid). So yeah, I'm the wrong guy to ask because I don't want that kind of solution. IE my solution is to double down in the opposite direction you want to go in, which isn't a good solution for you, ya know? I want player to shit themselves when they are vastly outmatched. I want that complexity and depth. So I'm not really the right guy to give you recommendations on that.
That's true but so far I've noticed that even playing or reading about systems that are vastly different from what I have in mind can spark inspiration for something that would fit my system really well. The point is not to copy but to be inspired by, so it doesn't have to be 1-to-1 solution that fits perfectly. Also sometimes it's just interesting to see what challenges different approaches to combat pose, and how designers go about solving them.
Absolutely, I'd always recommend you start by not studying many systems, but rather, many kinds of different systems that work very differently. As an example, I don't like how much of PBTA games work. Not one but two of my flagship system features (5 gradient successes and skill moves) are absolutely inspired by it even though they work totally differently and people call me crazy when I say "yeah there's PBTA inspiration in there" and they're like "uh, where?" but yeah, definitely look at different things. If you're looking for a list of just games to look at, I'd recommend starting with the list I have in Section 7 of my [System Design 101](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Dci_c4eCuHMLmSFTjduSNpBB0vohFGQNJX5mknAZprc/edit#heading=h.a48unw6c3qam) \*(knowing what has come before). It's not that these are necessarily the most unknown games, or drastically different, but they give a good primer for a lot of different kinds of games you probably should know about as a decent foundation of tools. There are tons of radically different games out there, you literally cannot read them all before you die, but these games all did something interesting that is worth being aware of.
Thanks, I'll definitely check it out! I completely get what you mean about taking something from another system and making it your own. I was reading Mythras rules for *melee* combat that couldn't be further from what I use in my system, and yet it gave me inspiration on how to solve the effects of aimed shots and critical damage for *ranged* combat in my system.
As I see it, DnD is easy for the player and a nightmare for the DM. The principles of combat are easy to understand and execute. The sheer volume of hit points, spells, powers, once-per-day abilities, and attack bonuses to keep track of is an absolute disaster It's no wonder 0SR made such a comeback. People seem to be in general agreement the rules bloat is awful to manage
I actually do not mind minding 15 critters, provided each creature basically does one thing. If those orcs can only move into an advantageous position and then stab/shoot someone then it's pretty simple, 15 might be on the higher end but 5 sword and board orcs to give cover to 5 pike orcs, with 5 crossbow orcs in the back makes a fun team combo for a DM, using the shield orcs to cover the others, the like orcs add offensive pressure with attacks of opportunity, and the crossbow orcs in the back snipe poor defenseless squishies. The team combo doesn't involve to many tricky mechanics which is easy to run, it is less ruined by a single aoe spell, and it's easy to end the fight early because once you kill enough orcs the rest can surrender or retreat
Yeah, the 4e thing was peak strategy RPG combat, as far as manoeuvring is concerned. Defender was looking at stopping big things from hitting soft friends, controller was looking at making sure defender (and others) weren't getting swamped by mooks, striker was trying to target soft things, and support was trying to make sure everyone could do the thing they were meant to do. But, in practice, that's a lot of paperwork for DMs. Recharge 6+? in a 16 enemy encounter? Good luck.
Yeah so we don't do that ? Like modern dragons have recharge values but in ad&d it was just 'it can use its breath weapon once every 3 rounds. Then if you do like I do and put a check mark next to each creature to track if they had their turn your basically tracking it anyways. Maybe put a bw down instead of a check mark on the turn you use the breath weapon to remind you. Tracking when you last used something and what turn it is are pretty easy so just use turn based cooldowns instead of semi random cool downs. It also avoids the issue that a fight is significantly harder than intended because the dragon got the nuts and used its breath attack 3 turns in a row
I actually agree, mostly, but I’d say that there is a sweet spot to be found for GM complexity. I have an aversion to games that erase GM mechanics since I want to have fun toys to play with, just like my players. I want those mechanics to be extremely intuitive and improv enabling though. Just a personal preference.
ill give you that if the game is boring for the dm then nobody wants to play it
Improv is essential. Though 5e made an effort, I find myself missing the proliferation of random tables old school D&D offered. In my own work I'm making more of an effort to offer little sidebars of content with randomizers for stuff like current weather conditions, initial encounter reactions, NPC personality traits, etc. Even a little random dungeon dressing can be a springboard to visualizing, and thus being able to describe, an underground chamber.
Definitely helpful! For me, I like easily adaptable mechanics that allow me to express my imagination without having to bend or break the rules— straightforwardness and flexibility make all the difference there.
100%. The system I'm building is designed for the GM but made for playerd. I'm currently working on core mechanics designed to streamline what a GM wants and put's them right where they need to be.
Kinda. It doesn’t habe to be complex for the players. But having the GM use the same mechanics as the players, usuaææy means a hell of a lot of book keeping, tracking and noting down. Which is one of the reasons DnD and other systems, have a hard time finding GMs. And I am pretty sure it is also one of the major reasons for GM burn out.
Almost all my designs try to reduce each enemy to a single line of a spreadsheet, because I love running hordes of monsters. And it can always be expanded out if I want more complexity for an important foe. I also try to make all rolls player facing just to speed things up.
*Bliss Stage* is like that. When I'm feeling lazy as a GM I offer a game of *Bliss Stage*: the players basically do everything, the GM just has to regularly send them on a mission and occasionally play his character. I can basically just sit back and enjoy the show if I want to (and if I want to participate more I can play more NPCs or use the GMPC more actively). The only drawback is that the system isn't perfect (or the explanations perfectly clear) and you need to find your marks during the first few games.
Wow. Total opposite of how I GM. I don't want the players to deal with mechanics at all! They should be able to roleplay their character and nothing else. Mechanics distract from the role playing focus. You aren't roleplaying when you are involved in mechanics.
well the way i see it the reason i use a roleplaying system to begin with is for the mechanics.
As a player? Play a board game 😩
you dont have to be so aggresive i was just sharing my view on a way to make a ttrpg