Game Design Sins

[TristramEvans]

One can look to the implementation of "Bad Joss" in Outlaws of the Water Margin for a less antagonistic implementation of essentially a GM metacurrency

 

[TJS]

Because they didn't find that kind of game boring, but they did find D&D's rules lacking and so decided to write their own rules, ones that better reflected what they wanted from their games.

Wait are you suggesting that not all people find the same things boring?

 

[FreeGamer]

I don't dislike GM metacurrency on its own own, but I think they are the kind of thing that needs to be reserved for particular kinds of RPGs. Like if you are making a system where the GM is supposed to be very antagonistic towards the PCs, but you want something to help balance that out, I can see metacurrency working pretty well. If the GMs goal is to kill the party and all the GM has to do is select a Tarasque to drop on them, making that Tarasque cost something isn't a bad idea. But few games put the GM in a role this antagonistic. To me it seems like a potentially useful tool that shouldn't be thrown out over style differences

Hard agree. My interests in tabletop gaming are very broad, from the very traditional to the extremely indie. I do believe bad design exists, but that's more of a "X doesn't do what it's meant to do(or at least not as well as it's supposed to)," not "this particular type of feature doesn't appeal to me." When I read the title of this thread, I was hoping for more examples of the former, but so much of this is just "Not every game caters to exactly what I want out of my gaming, so that's bad design," which is just . . . no. That's not how it works.

I love meta mechanics, and I love a whole spectrum of games that spread the GM load around to one degree or another(fate points, alternating GM roles, voting systems, even things that make the game nearly GMless like Mythic can do). But if I didn't, that wouldn't have any bearing on how well designed they are for what they're trying to do at all. Even with my broad tastes, there are a lot of games that just don't appeal to me. They're still (usually) perfectly good, well-designed games, and I'm glad they exist for the people who enjoy them.

That said, I have no idea if WTF(Wisher, Theurge, Fatalist) is too brilliant for me to properly judge, or if it's utter garbage. All I do know after reading it is that I don't like it, which is something I never thought I'd say about something that contains donuts. But here we are.

 

[TJS]

Hard agree. My interests in tabletop gaming are very broad, from the very traditional to the extremely indie. I do believe bad design exists, but that's more of a "X doesn't do what it's meant to do(or at least not as well as it's supposed to)," not "this particular type of feature doesn't appeal to me." When I read the title of this thread, I was hoping for more examples of the former, but so much of this is just "Not every game caters to exactly what I want out of my gaming, so that's bad design," which is just . . . no. That's not how it works.

I love meta mechanics, and I love a whole spectrum of games that spread the GM load around to one degree or another(fate points, alternating GM roles, voting systems, even things that make the game nearly GMless like Mythic can do). But if I didn't, that wouldn't have any bearing on how well designed they are for what they're trying to do at all. Even with my broad tastes, there are a lot of games that just don't appeal to me. They're still (usually) perfectly good, well-designed games, and I'm glad they exist for the people who enjoy them.

That said, I have no idea if WTF(Wisher, Theurge, Fatalist) is too brilliant for me to properly judge, or if it's utter garbage. All I do know after reading it is that I don't like it, which is something I never thought I'd say about something that contains donuts. But here we are.

I think you can make the case that, at least in some cases, metacurrency (more on the player's side) can be a crutch for a system that doesn't mechanically do what it is supposed to do, or at least what players expect.

Savage Worlds might spring to mind, but it at least makes bennies so central that I feel it gets away with it. It's when they end up being more of an appendage that I think they run into this problem.

Ie, before adding a metacurrency to allow players to make rerolls on a flat die roll, the designer should probably first consider whether they should be using a mechanic that produces a bell curve instead.

The other thing is introducing a lethalish system and then having a metacurrency to allow players to negate wounds - often in practice to me this often feels like reintroducing hit points (and to my mind is especially negative when the metacurrency resets per session - now you've got hit points that you can only wear down to actually threaten the players with if you have lots of combat every session.)

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

I'll go and put the

Hard agree. My interests in tabletop gaming are very broad, from the very traditional to the extremely indie.

Can we insert my standard "indie is not a genre" grumble here please. (I should probably do a "definition of indie" thread at some point).

 

[Brock Savage]

I don't love or hate meta currency but there seems to be a vocal minority on the Pub who seems offended by their very existence. I do agree they can be implemented poorly and TJS raised some excellent objections but that's not enough of a reason for me to toss them out entirely.

For example, I saw a lot of potential for fun with 5e's Inspiration but didn't care for the way it was implemented. I changed it up to reduce the GM cognitive workload and to prevent players from "playing the GM" to earn Inspiration.

During every session, each player can award Inspiration to another player for good roleplaying, clever thinking, or simply doing something exciting in the game. Each player can award Inspiration more than once per session. The first time that a player awards Inspiration in a session is free. Whenever that player awards it later in the same session, the Dungeon Master gains Inspiration to give advantage to any foe of the player characters. There's no limit to the number of Inspirations you can gain in this way and unspent Inspiration carries over from one session to the next.

One could argue that it would be better for PCs to simply begin each session with Inspiration and be done with it but in practice we found the player interaction and risk-reward was worth it. This was tested over 24 sessions in a "gritty" game where PC death was always a possibility.

 

[FreeGamer]

I think you can make the case that, at least in some cases, metacurrency (more on the player's side) can be a crutch for a system that doesn't mechanically do what it is supposed to do, or at least what players expect.

Unless the game designers/writers misrepresented the game, how it's intended to be played, and what it's intended to do, that just sounds like a problem with people's expectations. If I go to a Child's Play movie expecting a cutesy movie about a boy and his doll, and the advertising made it perfectly clear that it wasn't going to be that, that's not the fault of the movie or its makers. They put the information out there, and I either missed it or ignored it. Unless you're psychic, I think in most cases(again, some games actually are poorly designed) you know this is more a "you" problem than an actual problem with the system.

As for a crutch, I think that's full of shit and more than a little bit offensive. I don't know why you feel the need to put down people who like something that you don't. But even if it was true . . . so what? If people want a crutch(by your definition) - and given the sales numbers on some games, apparently a significant number of people do - who are you to deny them or look down on them? There are also a vast number of ways to implement a metacurrency(or any other meta rule), and even you admit that you find the Savage Worlds implementation inoffensive, so again I think that's something you already know.

I'll go and put the

Can we insert my standard "indie is not a genre" grumble here please. (I should probably do a "definition of indie" thread at some point).

Yeah, we know. Neither is traditional. Many games are both. Some games are even neither. In technicalty, anyway. But they've become a convenient shorthand for "those that resemble the earlier games of the hobby more closely in structure and in play," and "those that don't." I've seen non-traditional used for the latter, but not as frequently. If you want to take on the sysiphean task of fighting that battle, though, good luck and godspeed.

 

[TJS]

Unless the game designers/writers misrepresented the game, how it's intended to be played, and what it's intended to do, that just sounds like a problem with people's expectations. If I go to a Child's Play movie expecting a cutesy movie about a boy and his doll, and the advertising made it perfectly clear that it wasn't going to be that, that's not the fault of the movie or its makers. They put the information out there, and I either missed it or ignored it. Unless you're psychic, I think in most cases(again, some games actually are poorly designed) you know this is more a "you" problem than an actual problem with the system.

I thought I was clear about what I meant?

As for a crutch, I think that's full of shit and more than a little bit offensive.

Maybe not? I have no idea what you could possibly find to be offended about, but I suggest before you jump to hostile misinterprations you ask a question to clarify that whatever it is you think I was saying was in fact what I was saying.

I don't know why you feel the need to put down people who like something that you don't.

Again. WTF? Who is being put down? Where? I reread my post. I remain befuddled and mystifed by this reply.

But even if it was true . . . so what? If people want a crutch(by your definition) - and given the sales numbers on some games, apparently a significant number of people do - who are you to deny them or look down on them? There are also a vast number of ways to implement a metacurrency(or any other meta rule), and even you admit that you find the Savage Worlds implementation inoffensive, so again I think that's something you already know.

If you think I'm disagreeing with myself within the one post that might be a clue you are jumping to some kind of mistaken conclusion here.

How about you tone back the unwarranted hostility a bit eh?

I thought I was explaining some reasons why metacurrencies may sometimes be poor design and may lead to people having negative reactions to them. (And I don't see any lack of hedging in my previous post either - it's right there in the first sentence.)

 

[Brock Savage]

As for a crutch, I think that's full of shit and more than a little bit offensive.

I don't think he was trying to be offensive. The OG Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay is a good example of a system where metacurrency (Fate Points) were used to shore up poor game design. The system is almost comically dangerous which is fine but character generation isn't fast and and the official adventures are epic campaigns, neither of which work well with frequent deaths. Fate Points seem to be an attempt to paper over that inconsistency.

 

[FreeGamer]

I thought I was clear about what I meant?

Maybe not? I have no idea what you could possibly find to be offended about, but I suggest before you jump to hostile misinterprations you ask a question to clarify that whatever it is you think I was saying was in fact what I was saying.


Again. WTF? Who is being put down? Where? I reread my post. I remain befuddled and mystifed by this reply.


If you think I'm disagreeing with myself within the one post that might be a clue you are jumping to some kind of mistaken conclusion here.

How about you tone back the unwarranted hostility a bit eh?

I thought I was explaining some reasons why metacurrencies may sometimes be poor design and may lead to people having negative reactions to them. (And I don't see any lack of hedging in my previous post either - it's right there in the first sentence.)

It was you calling it a crutch. At this point, am I right to assume that Brock is correct in that you meant a crutch for the game designer and not the players themselves? It seems so with what I know at this point. I took it as the latter, and I thought it was a blanket statement due to the lack of the word "sometimes," and that's why I went off. I mean obviously it didn't make me do that. I chose to, and used that as my justification. Anyway, I believe you when you say that I misinterpreted something, and I apologize. Even if I had been right, my reaction wasn't in good form. So, I'm sorry about that, too. (I won't attempt to edit the above post, even if the option is still available, because I firmly believe in owning up to my mistakes and not trying to cover them up.)

I don't think he was trying to be offensive. The OG Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay is a good example of a system where metacurrency (Fate Points) were used to shore up poor or inconsistent game design. The system is almost comically dangerous which is fine but the official adventures are epic campaigns which don't work well with frequent deaths. Fate Points seem to be an attempt to bridge that gap.

Yeah, I've read both of y'all's posts, and I think you're right. He meant it one way, and I took it another, and I reacted poorly. So, I also apologize to you and the rest of the people reading this thread for having seen that. I shouldn't have done that.

 

[AsenRG]

I don't think he was trying to be offensive. The OG Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay is a good example of a system where metacurrency (Fate Points) were used to shore up poor game design. The system is almost comically dangerous which is fine but the official adventures are epic campaigns which don't work well with frequent deaths. Fate Points seem to be an attempt to paper over that inconsistency.

..wait, are you giving WFRP as an example of "poor game design", here?

 

[SJB]

I think you can make the case that, at least in some cases, metacurrency (more on the player's side) can be a crutch for a system that doesn't mechanically do what it is supposed to do, or at least what players expect.

Savage Worlds might spring to mind, but it at least makes bennies so central that I feel it gets away with it. It's when they end up being more of an appendage that I think they run into this problem.

Ie, before adding a metacurrency to allow players to make rerolls on a flat die roll, the designer should probably first consider whether they should be using a mechanic that produces a bell curve instead.

The other thing is introducing a lethalish system and then having a metacurrency to allow players to negate wounds - often in practice to me this often feels like reintroducing hit points (and to my mind is especially negative when the metacurrency resets per session - now you've got hit points that you can only wear down to actually threaten the players with if you have lots of combat every session.)

Yep, I can confirm this from experimenting with rules that pay attention to physics, biomechanics and material science whilst trying to emulate pulp. The playtest will be very short as PCs die repeatedly. Of course, I never inflict my rules on the public.

 

[AsenRG]

Yep, I can confirm this from experimenting with rules that pay attention to physics, biomechanics and material science whilst trying to emulate pulp. The playtest will be very short as PCs die repeatedly.

My-favourite-system-that's-probably-not-going-to-be-published is one that I was playtesting. It paid attention to physics, biomechanics and material science to the extent that the authors (all of them guys working in maths or other sciences) could make it...and believe me, with those guys that's "a lot". (They actually had engaged a medical doctor to consult them on wound mechanics and 2 out of them went on to train in HEMA - in fact, the reason I don't expect it to be published is "they're too much of perfectionists").

Despite that, I have exactly zero dead PCs in it. And I have played in multiple beta-tests, not to mention a rather dark, and pulpy campaign that was run using it. It actually remains one of my favourite campaigns, too, and it lasted for about 150 sessions.

Bottom line, I'm not buying the idea that pulp games require disregarding physics and biomechanics, or that not doing so would result in stacks of dead PCs. Most of the PCs I've lost have been lost to systems that are way less than realistic (probably - at least in part - because they make it harder for me to estimate the likely outcomes of actions)!

 

[SJB]

My-favourite-system-that's-probably-not-going-to-be-published is one that I was playtesting. It paid attention to physics, biomechanics and material science to the extent that the authors (all of them guys working in maths or other sciences) could make it...and believe me, with those guys that's "a lot". (They actually had engaged a medical doctor to consult them on wound mechanics and 2 out of them went on to train in HEMA - in fact, the reason I don't expect it to be published is "they're too much of perfectionists").

Despite that, I have exactly zero dead PCs in it. And I have played in multiple beta-tests, not to mention a rather dark, and pulpy campaign that was run using it. It actually remains one of my favourite campaigns, too, and it lasted for about 150 sessions.

Bottom line, I'm not buying the idea that pulp games require disregarding physics and biomechanics, or that not doing so would result in stacks of dead PCs. Most of the PCs I've lost have been lost to systems that are way less than realistic (probably - at least in part - because they make it harder for me to estimate the likely outcomes of actions)!

Wow, that sounds great. Can you describe the underlying data, design decisions and mechanics? Were there any sins beyond perfectionism?

My starting point was that stabbing is so lethal because just 20mm of knife penetration gives a 41% chance of puncturing the lungs, over a 60% chance of liver or femoral artery rupture, and even a 6% chance of heart penetration.

Incorrect?

 

[StonesThree]

I don't think he was trying to be offensive. The OG Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay is a good example of a system where metacurrency (Fate Points) were used to shore up poor game design. The system is almost comically dangerous which is fine but the official adventures are epic campaigns which don't work well with frequent deaths. Fate Points seem to be an attempt to paper over that inconsistency.

You've put into words the paradox that lies in the heart of modern DnD... how to tell big improv theater epic stories using a rules system that can TPK the whole table at any moment.

Ned Stark gets oneshot critted by a random Gobbo on his way to Kings Landing. Campaign ends. Player goes "WTF! This game sucks. You made me spend weeks working on his backstory!" Picks up his dice and rage quits.

I would like to see RPGs mechanically support other outcomes then character death when a combat goes sideways. Something that does have consequences for the players failing, but at the same time doesn't bring the whole campaign to a juddering halt just because they had a bad run of die rolls. Something the players can get onboard with as they usually hate it when the GM has to fudge things to keep them alive.

 

[TJS]

You've put into words the paradox that lies in the heart of modern DnD... how to tell big improv theater epic stories using a rules system that can TPK the whole table at any moment.

Ned Stark gets oneshot critted by a random Gobbo on his way to Kings Landing. Campaign ends. Player goes "WTF! This game sucks. You made me spend weeks working on his backstory!" Picks up his dice and rage quits.

I would like to see RPGs mechanically support other outcomes then character death when a combat goes sideways. Something that does have consequences for the players failing, but at the same time doesn't bring the whole campaign to a juddering halt just because they had a bad run of die rolls. Something the players can get onboard with as they usually hate it when the GM has to fudge things to keep them alive.

13th Age is much more designed for this big damned hero style of play than 5e is. Seriously the popularity of 5e puzzles me. 13th Age is just a much much better game at doing the sort of game that many 5e players seem to want.*

But even there, it doesn't really do a lot for alternate mechanical consequences to death (although it does at least discuss them and give some options). Probably because any alternate consquence has to depend on the specific stakes involved in the fight.

*I mean yes, 5e has the brand name - but it puzzles me that not even a significant minority seem to have moved on to a game that is so much better suited for epic dramatic storytelling D&D.

 

[Eternal Chump]

I think a lot of people don't like learning systems that much. They know 5e, it's fine for what they want, and they're not motivated to learn another system because it's not a fun or interesting activity for them.

 

[AsenRG]

You've put into words the paradox that lies in the heart of modern DnD... how to tell big improv theater epic stories using a rules system that can TPK the whole table at any moment.

Ned Stark gets oneshot critted by a random Gobbo on his way to Kings Landing. Campaign ends. Player goes "WTF! This game sucks. You made me spend weeks working on his backstory!" Picks up his dice and rage quits.

I would like to see RPGs mechanically support other outcomes then character death when a combat goes sideways. Something that does have consequences for the players failing, but at the same time doesn't bring the whole campaign to a juddering halt just because they had a bad run of die rolls. Something the players can get onboard with as they usually hate it when the GM has to fudge things to keep them alive.

So basically, a conflict resolution system in the Forge sense.

Wow, that sounds great. Can you describe the underlying data, design decisions and mechanics? Were there any sins beyond perfectionism?

My starting point was that stabbing is so lethal because just 20mm of knife penetration gives a 41% chance of puncturing the lungs, over a 60% chance of liver or femoral artery rupture, and even a 6% chance of heart penetration.

Incorrect?

I think my NDA still holds, but hurting people with blades was often lethal, indeed.

OK, I think I can describe it to you in general terms. So, like TRoS and its ilk, it is a game where weapons have a damage code, but it's the levels of success (and additional techniques) that turn a knife wound into a lethal one. The damage system allowed you to inflict both the death of 10 000 cuts (OK, technically you'd die at around the 7th at most, IIRC), to inflict an eventually lethal but "merely incapacitating" wound, and to instakill the strongest man with a 5 cm knife. Granted, the latter would require very good skill or decent skill and surprise, or some luck and surprise...you get the idea.
But instakill with a bastard sword was way easier to achieve. Well, on unarmoured targets at least. Armour tended to be very good at what it was doing.

The only part I didn't like in retrospect is that weapons didn't modify your chance of hitting, though some techniques changed that as well. Well, that and the lack of any copies, even PDF ones: the authors just gave us printouts of the rules...
Though honestly, knowing some of the other testers, I'm not sure they were wrong. Let's leave it at that.

 

[TJS]

I think a lot of people don't like learning systems that much. They know 5e, it's fine for what they want, and they're not motivated to learn another system because it's not a fun or interesting activity for them.

Yeah I get that but...it's pretty close to being the same system too.

I think part of it is not that's D&D's fine for what people want so much as what they want they want to get out of D&D if that makes any sense. Using another system would be sort of like cheating on your partner.

 

[Eternal Chump]

Yeah, I agree. It's pretty frustrating when you have a good idea that someone would really enjoy a new system more and they're sticking with an expensive system that doesn't really do what they want.

 

[Sharrow]

I don't love or hate meta currency but there seems to be a vocal minority on the Pub who seems offended by their very existence. I do agree they can be implemented poorly and TJS raised some excellent objections but that's not enough of a reason for me to toss them out entirely.

I'm not offended by their very existence, but I do wish people wouldn't keep telling me they'll change my life. Okay, exaggerating a bit, but they are one of those things that when someone says they don't like them tends get the 'You just haven't seen the right game yet" response from their fans.

 

[Sharrow]

Wow, that sounds great. Can you describe the underlying data, design decisions and mechanics? Were there any sins beyond perfectionism?

My starting point was that stabbing is so lethal because just 20mm of knife penetration gives a 41% chance of puncturing the lungs, over a 60% chance of liver or femoral artery rupture, and even a 6% chance of heart penetration.

Incorrect?

However, most of the body's surface area does not have these things underlying it.

 

[Sharrow]

Yeah I get that but...it's pretty close to being the same system too.

I think part of it is not that's D&D's fine for what people want so much as what they want they want to get out of D&D if that makes any sense. Using another system would be sort of like cheating on your partner.

Or they may by happy enough with D&D that the effort or learning another system just doesn't appeal enough. Or the differences might be in just those places that they are happy with D&D.

 

[SJB]

However, most of the body's surface area does not have these things underlying it.

True. The torso amounts to approximately one-third of body area.

 

[zanshin]

Task resolution outcome tables.

Intuitive scaling success or failure systems please. I don't want to have to look up an outcome on a table these days.

Tables for generating ideas/items/encounters are fine.

 

[Sharrow]

Task resolution outcome tables.

Intuitive scaling success or failure systems please. I don't want to have to look up an outcome on a table these days.

So Rolemaster must be the Necronomicon of RPGs then?

 

[zanshin]

So Rolemaster must be the Necronomicon of RPGs then?

Yes, not something I want to play these days.

Mileage varies, obviously.

 

[Acmegamer]

..wait, are you giving WFRP as an example of "poor game design", here?

Yes, yes he is. Because you know, it is. It's a total mess. lol.

 

[Baulderstone]

Yes, yes he is. Because you know, it is. It's a total mess. lol.

One of the oddities of the hobby is that poorly-designed games can be more fun that the well-designed ones.

 

[AsenRG]

Yes, yes he is. Because you know, it is. It's a total mess. lol.

I'd submit that if your idea of "poor game design" results in a game that obtains cult status, maybe we should study your ideas of poor game design and strive to create what would be, according to them, another "total mess".

One of the oddities of the hobby is that poorly-designed games can be more fun that the well-designed ones.

That means that the idea of "good design" sucks, IMO, or maybe our understanding of it sucks. Design is supposed to be a practical skill: designing a game should make it better, not worse, and making a poor design should result in predictably poor games.
Otherwise you have an applied skill that's inapplicable in its own supposed area...IOW, a waste of time.

 

[Acmegamer]

AsenRG Don't misunderstand me, it's a blast to play but it is a total mess, a lot of bad design, typos, errors, bad book layout and editing. All that aside as Baulderstone pointed out its still fun! That's one of the strange things about old WFRP. It's definitely an oddity.

 

[Baulderstone]

AsenRG Don't misunderstand me, it's a blast to play but it is a total mess, a lot of bad design, typos, errors, bad book layout and editing. All that aside as Baulderstone pointed out its still fun! That's one of the strange things about old WFRP. It's definitely an oddity.

That's how I took your post. Savage Worlds and DCC are two other games that offend some people's game design principles, but I've had a very good time with those as well.

Meanwhile, some "well-designed" systems are elegant and clean, but resolve actions without adding any interesting wrinkles in play.

 

[AsenRG]

AsenRG Don't misunderstand me, it's a blast to play but it is a total mess, a lot of bad design, typos, errors, bad book layout and editing. All that aside as Baulderstone pointed out its still fun! That's one of the strange things about old WFRP. It's definitely an oddity.

Well, "typos, errors, bad book layout and editing" are irrelevant, since they have nothing to do with the design of the game.
And if the game is still fun despite the above...I'm saying it's actually good design, you're just not understanding its principles.

I mean, I'm seeing the same thing in my other hobby. Some people keep telling you that the most dangerous opponent to a trained fighter is a newbie.
I keep saying that the newbie is doing something right. And, surprise, some of the most dangerous systems out there are based on emulating that newbie without the "newbie mistakes".

That's how I took your post. Savage Worlds and DCC are two other games that offend some people's game design principles, but I've had a very good time with those as well.

Meanwhile, some "well-designed" systems are elegant and clean, but resolve actions without adding any interesting wrinkles in play.

Then those principles need an update to account for reality!

 

[SJB]

Well, "typos, errors, bad book layout and editing" are irrelevant, since they have nothing to do with the design of the game.
And if the game is still fun despite the above...I'm saying it's actually good design, you're just not understanding its principles.

I mean, I'm seeing the same thing in my other hobby. Some people keep telling you that the most dangerous opponent to a trained fighter is a newbie.
I keep saying that the newbie is doing something right. And, surprise, some of the most dangerous systems out there are based on emulating that newbie without the "newbie mistakes".


Then those principles need an update to account for reality!

Over in the “published games” thread Lofgeornost put it well:

The craft of it has many elements: clear exposition, good organization, an orientation to material that is useful at the table rather than simply descriptive, etc.

The art of it has really one: inspiration. By which I mean that a great setting inspires g.m.s or players to make it their own. It stokes their creative fires to come up with their own material.

 

[SJB]

So basically, a conflict resolution system in the Forge sense.


I think my NDA still holds, but hurting people with blades was often lethal, indeed.

OK, I think I can describe it to you in general terms. So, like TRoS and its ilk, it is a game where weapons have a damage code, but it's the levels of success (and additional techniques) that turn a knife wound into a lethal one. The damage system allowed you to inflict both the death of 10 000 cuts (OK, technically you'd die at around the 7th at most, IIRC), to inflict an eventually lethal but "merely incapacitating" wound, and to instakill the strongest man with a 5 cm knife. Granted, the latter would require very good skill or decent skill and surprise, or some luck and surprise...you get the idea.
But instakill with a bastard sword was way easier to achieve. Well, on unarmoured targets at least. Armour tended to be very good at what it was doing.

The only part I didn't like in retrospect is that weapons didn't modify your chance of hitting, though some techniques changed that as well. Well, that and the lack of any copies, even PDF ones: the authors just gave us printouts of the rules...
Though honestly, knowing some of the other testers, I'm not sure they were wrong. Let's leave it at that.

Thanks for the interesting description.

Game design sins identified: Perfectionism, Paranoia, Factionalism.

 

[Brock Savage]

I have played many sessions of both WHFRP and Savage Worlds. I am comfortable saying that both of them have some weird design decisions and in the same breath say that I have had a lot of fun playing them. Both systems generate a lot of excitement at the table which is more than I can say for the majority of games out there.

 

[Brock Savage]

AsenRG Don't misunderstand me, it's a blast to play but it is a total mess, a lot of bad design, typos, errors, bad book layout and editing. All that aside as Baulderstone pointed out its still fun! That's one of the strange things about old WFRP. It's definitely an oddity.

Yea exactly. Book is a mess, rules lack elegance, there's typos etc but we still loved it back in the day and have fond memories.

 

[TJS]

Games can be well-designed on balance, and still have some poor design decisions that shouldn't be emulated.

Although in the case of WFRP, I think elements of poor design are just overwhelmed by the genius of it's career system.

 

[AsenRG]

Thanks for the interesting description.

Game design sins identified: Perfectionism, Paranoia, Factionalism.

It's only paranoia and factionalism if it's not well-founded...and IME, it was, back at the time!

Over in the “published games” thread Lofgeornost put it well:

Sure, but that's not what game design is for me, or rather, it's a self-limiting view of it. The game should really give me parts that aren't "immediately useful at the table", for example. Because some day, when they become relevant, it is going to be an epic story to tell (to other gamers, not in the sense of "crafting a story").

 

[Tulpa Girl]

One of the oddities of the hobby is that poorly-designed games can be more fun that the well-designed ones.

By almost any metric the 3rd edition of Villains & Vigilantes is much better designed than the 2nd edition (arguably by default, as one might say that the 2nd edition wasn't so much 'designed' as 'thrown together'), but for my money 2nd edition is much more fun for me to run.