Turn-based RPG knowledge/imagination/opinions desired

[Gomess]

Ok pals, it's no secret that I'm the resident RPG philistine, but I've managed to get myself into a situation where knowing many of the basics- and then hopefully messing around with these basics to come up with new ideas- may benefit me.

What I need is brains.

Now I'm not asking for collusion- god knows I don't expect to make much scratch off this, but I *do* expect to dip my toe into an area of creative design I know almost nothing about, and if any of youse is willing to help, I'd appreciate it.

So, here's what I mostly need to cover:
Expected and potential geographical/historical/political context
The 'rules' of party dynamics, especially balance
A whole mess of talking about 'classes,' which is the one thing I'm most fascinated by
The ratio of PlayerCustomisability:InterestingCharacter
How characters grow, particularly the role *not* played by combat
How turn-based combat can be realistic and/or exciting
Weapons that are more interesting than swords
Opportunities for development outside combat, particularly dialogue and crafting

Again, this is purely informal, and if it does go anywhere interesting then all credit where it's due. I'm not about to come waltzing back in after a couple months' absence and get you guys to do my work for me. I figure we can start off hashing out the basics in here, and if it all gets too messy, or we get into a particularly hot dialogue or I feel I need a faster exchange, we can take it to PMs/email/skype.

[Almighty Unicron]

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to do here. Are you making a video game or tabletop game? Or are you just looking for advice in being a GM for an existing tabletop game?

[Gomess]

Tell me about it, I'm not sure either, but it'll definitely be closer to the former. I just need a grounding in the phenomenon before I attempt to push my half-baked ideas on someone who *can* create games.

So, take the second point from my list- I'd like to discuss what kind of classes are typically expected from a party in an RPG, and why, and what could be a more interesting way of doing that. I once heard the old pen and paper games basically boil down to four essential character types, and they've never really been deviated from.

[Almighty Unicron]

In class based RPGs, you generally have the "holy trinity": a tank, a healer, and a damage dealer. A "tank" is a character who can take a lot of hits (either due to high armor, high health, or in some games, being able to dodge almost all attacks) and usually also has some abilities that force enemies into attacking him as opposed to others in the party. The healer is self explanatory, as are damage dealers, though they are usually divided up into "close" and "long range" fighters. The "classic four archetypes" originate in Dungeons and Dragons, with the first edition having four classes: fighter (tank, though they could also do some DPS if built well), Cleric (primarily a healer, but they could also tank if built right), wizard (almost always ranged DPS, usually with some utility abilities or in some games, they are combined with healers) and thieves (can be either close or long range and usually have utility abilities in that they can pick locks and detect traps).

[Gomess]

In class based RPGs, you generally have the "holy trinity": a tank, a healer, and a damage dealer.

This makes sense; attack, defend, heal. But it really only seems to apply to combat. Do these sorts of characters have many unique abilities outside of that? Are healers able to ply their trade whenever and wherever they like, on whoever they like? Are tanks capable of moving heavy objects in the field? I realise these are vague questions, but I'm really out in the reeds here, so bear with me. Gonna assume what I'm talking about falls under 'utilities', which from what I know are usually an afterthought compared to combat mechanics.

DPS

Am I right in thinking this stands for Damage Per Second? An RPG fan I used to knock about with once used the word "nuke" in describing black mages, which stuck with me. The idea of doing large damage over a wide area distant from the character.

Do all of these basic classes you outlined usually have different manoeuvrability? I'd assume a thief and close-range fighter would be able to cover more ground quicker than a tank or wizard.

Oh, and what's a ranger and why are they called that?

[BWprowl]

A Ranger uses ‘ranged’ weapons, generally bows and the like. They’re associated with forest-dwellers, trackers, trailblazers, and such, often elves.

Anyway, like AU described, combat classes are generally you wanting to have a solid balance of attack/defense/restoration, with ‘specialty’ classes worked in for game balance/flavor as fair as possible. For instance, you’ve got stuff like Bards, musicians whose songs can provide party-wide status buffs and other effects.

Now that’s all talking about combat, which often plays a big role in games like this because fightan is fun and all, but there often is plenty of non-combat interaction with the game world and its inhabitants, with problems to be solved that way. Characters have stats to facilitate this, often logged under ‘charisma’ or ‘fellowship’ or such, affecting your ability to talk with people, convince them of things, work information out of them, or deceive them. Remember, there’s no problem that can’t be solved with a high charisma stat, since you can just convince someone else to solve the problem for you! How the characters interact and whether they’re fighters who solve problems through violence or musicians who solve problems through violins will depend largely on the players you have participating and the characters they create and play. You’re generating the scenario and the issues and adversity and problems for them to solve, they’re the ones figuring out how they’re going to solve them.

One thing I want to stress right now after reading your earlier posts is that tabletop role-playing absolutely need not be limited to swords ‘n’ sorcery dee-and-dee-alikes. Hell, DnD and its cousin Pathfinder have that well-worn genre so well-covered that there’s arguably no need to ‘create’ a new system/game to cater to that. But there’s literally an infinite wellspring of options, given the imagination-only-limited nature of the medium. My friends and I regularly play Dark Heresy, a game set in the GrimDark Future of the Forty-First Millennium (Where there is only WAR!), the Warhammer 40k setting, all Space Marines and Imperium of Man and colony world heresy protecting and such. And just last night we started playing this new thing in beta called VeloCity, which is basically Jet Grind Radio: The Tabletop RPG! I play a gear technician named DJ.

I can post at length later about some of the other topics you requested knowlizzile on, work's busy today.

[Gomess]

This is purely a personal thing, but I wish I'd have been able to find a good RPG set outside the usual fantasy fare back when I played games a bit. Heck, I remember trying Final Fantasy Something and thinking, "it'd make more sense why they have to wait between turns if they were busy reloading their guns".

This led me to get Wild Arms 3 when I saw it in a bargain bin, but I was quickly turned off by the fact the 'wild west' characters use magic derived from Japan's four guardian gods. What is theming?

Anyway. I'm curious about everyone's personal opinions on some of these things, too- are there some class concepts, for instance, that are way underutilised or just plain unrecognised?

[Shockwave]

Movement/speed/agility are all determined by what the player rolls for the character's stats. A thief could be faster or slower than a wizard depending on what the player rolls. However, there are modifyers built into the system to account for different classes. For example, if a player choose a thief and rolls a 12, he/she might add something to that as a class modifyer. Likewise if the wizard player also rolls a 12, he/she could lose movement points for the class.

Not everything is combat based. Just this weekend I was at my friend's house and we were playing a game called Megatraveller. Think D&D Innnnnn SpAAAAAACe!! No combat occurred. The scenario is that we were returning to a planet we had visited were in the process of landing and communicating with another ship on planet. My character there is the team Doctor, although I do have some combat abilities as well. I'm also the team's scientist. When we play D&D, it's usually broken up into to "season". Our DM (Dungeon Master, the guy running the scenario) has us in a town that we return to after adventuring. There's usually adventure season and social season. When not in combat, characters advance themselves by taking the downtime to learn new skills, improve existing skills, do jobs to earn money, or even date, get married or maintain friendships.

How interesting a character is is determined by the player. This role playing, in other words, the player is playing a role. A better analogy would probably be acting. The player is essentially becoming that character for the duration of the game. How that character responds or what they say or do is again determined entirely by the player. Sometimes it's interesting, sometimes not so much.

[Onslaught Six]

Characters have stats to facilitate this, often logged under ‘charisma’ or ‘fellowship’ or such, affecting your ability to talk with people, convince them of things, work information out of them, or deceive them. Remember, there’s no problem that can’t be solved with a high charisma stat, since you can just convince someone else to solve the problem for you! How the characters interact and whether they’re fighters who solve problems through violence or musicians who solve problems through violins will depend largely on the players you have participating and the characters they create and play. You’re generating the scenario and the issues and adversity and problems for them to solve, they’re the ones figuring out how they’re going to solve them.

Keep in mind that this doesn't apply to JRPGs, which pretty much don't even have stats like that because why the hell would they need them when the entire plot is as on-rails as it is?

Heck, I remember trying Final Fantasy Something and thinking, "it'd make more sense why they have to wait between turns if they were busy reloading their guns".

A lot of this derives from D&D's turn-based combat, which exists as a hyper-slowed-down thing. The whole concept of "time between turns" is actually extremely miniscule. My DM once said something along the lines of, "Every round of combat lasts only 6 seconds of real time." (For some reference, grab a stick or something and try to swing it more than once in six seconds.)

Movement/speed/agility are all determined by what the player rolls for the character's stats. A thief could be faster or slower than a wizard depending on what the player rolls. However, there are modifyers built into the system to account for different classes. For example, if a player choose a thief and rolls a 12, he/she might add something to that as a class modifyer. Likewise if the wizard player also rolls a 12, he/she could lose movement points for the class.

I've only ever played 3.5e, but that's apparently not how it works there--speed is determined by a combination of class and race in that game. For example, the "standard" speed is listed as 30ft/turn, and that basically applies to any regular human-sized guy. Smaller dudes (gnomes) can occasionally go faster, bigger guys go slower, and some classes are faster than others--I'm a human Barbarian, so I get immediately bumped up to 40ft/turn because Barbarians go faster. (Because they're Barbarians.)

How interesting a character is is determined by the player. This role playing, in other words, the player is playing a role. A better analogy would probably be acting. The player is essentially becoming that character for the duration of the game. How that character responds or what they say or do is again determined entirely by the player. Sometimes it's interesting, sometimes not so much.

Yeah, there are a few players in our group who (no offense to them) aren't very good at the roleplaying aspect. In a lot of ways, you have to kind of work with the other players and also the DM, who's controlling all the NPCs and shit. You have to, in my opinion, kind of be good at picking up the plot hooks that a DM is going to drop and to be able to kind of roll with his shit--technically speaking, if he has a character who tells you, "Go to the mountain town," there's nothing stopping you from saying, "Fuck off," killing that NPC and doing whatever you want. But that makes the DM's job very difficult. (This is less of a pain in a world where the "DM" is a computer, such as with a video game. There, you can fuck around as much as you like, and the DM's not going to get pissed at you.)

But I have very quickly kind of become the player in our group who can be relied on to move the plot forward quickly if we need it to--my Barbarian is a fucking Barbarian with a capital B, he does whatever the hell he wants and doesn't care about the consequences. He is also really stupid. (Once, someone stepped on a moveable plate and opened up a pit in a dungeon. I tried to intimidate the pit by screaming in rage at it.) So if the plot is obviously kind of lazing along, I'll just make my character yell that he's bored and go rush the plot forward. Usually it works!


A lot of it comes down to how social you want your game to be and how computerized and mechanical you want it to be. D&D attaches stats to damn near everything. You want to lie? You have to roll against your lying skill. You want to jump across this pit? You have a jump skill for that. You want to climb a rope? There's a 'use rope' skill. Want to ride a horse? Better check it against your riding skill. Oh, you want to appraise this demon artifact? Good thing you put ranks into your appraisal skill!

In my opinion, though, it's very difficult to sit here and just go "Here are the mechanics, now we're going to do a game with these," it's a lot easier to kind of go, "What kind of game is this?" and then let the mechanics evolve from that. That's how D&D started in the first place--it originally began as an expansion from a massive miniatures wargaming game called "Chainmail" (itself an expansion of some other game, I think) and the earliest D&D games (played in Gary Gygax's basement) much more closely resembled what we now know as Warhammer 40K or something. The rules weren't structured and then they played it--they just made shit up and established rules as they were needed, which is, in my opinion, the much more organic and interesting way to do it. For example, if you put, let's say, a "Luck" skill into the game, and then you never do anything that actually requires it, why is it there?

[Gomess]

Interesting points about structure O6, I'll admit I've always found it difficult to come up with 'rules' (or whathaveyou) after the fact, or while creating something. I've never been one to create characters while already writing a story, for instance. I'll have to give that some thought.

So with all this talk of rolls and speed and turn time, I have what might be my stupidest specific question yet: in combat, does it generally matter *where* your characters are? Is it ever advantageous to surround an enemy, or somehow lead them onto terrain that works against them?

I guess what I'm really asking is... what do you guys, as RPers, think *should* matter? I'm coming from a background of near total ignorance, and hopefully that'll let me ask some questions or make some suggestions that don't normally come up in this sort of discourse. Basically, I'm asking you all to tell me what a turn-based RPG could and should be.

No pressure.