What's your design philosophy/approach?

[Rerun941]

Just curious what folks' thought processes are when working up house rules or mechanics design.

For me, it's:
Keep it simple, stupid
D6 is about simple, fast, cinematic action
Don't overburden the GM

What about you?

[AdAstraGames]

Keep it fast to create characters.
Keep it easy to GM; few rules that cover a multitude of circumstances with GM judgement are better than a Rule for Everything.
Roleplaying games are about rewarding the kind of play you want to see. Simulation has a place in RPGs only in so far as the lack of simulation doesn't interfere with the willing suspension of disbelief. What most people call "Simulationism" in RPGs is "Explorationism".

I prefer game mechanics to reward players for acting on their character's motives, to encourage thrilling description, and to do so with a lot of input from around the table consensus.

[Infinite Possibilities]

For me it is, what do I need to accomplish. What rules do I need to accomplish it. everything else is secondary.

Darren

[arcgaden]

My Tenets in developing Cinema6:
- Accept and remain open to change. Provide a means and method for change, for change is inevitable. Listen to your audience.
- Role Playing Games are about having fun. They are about exploring alternative personalities, and sharing a collective imagination. Make a framework for role playing that encourages these things, but provides the tools to improvise simplicity or complexity based on perference.
- Cinema6 is a framework, an empty shell with mathematics and logic, that encourages and depends on cinematic experiences, such as rewards revolving around action and adventure, as easily as rewards for thoughtful comedy and drama, and on rolling six-sided dice.
- It should be easy to learn and understand, it should not insult the gamers, rather it should effortlessly provide them with alternate logical paths to various gaming styles, accomodating individual preferences over simplicity alone.
- Do what you love, and your passion will be noticed.

Quidne Tesserae? Why Not Dice?

- J.

[Grimace]

For me it's:

Keep it easy and quick to resolve.
Provide options for those that want something different.
Fix the things that need fixing.
Make sure it remains consistant.

[Kalzazz]

Make it easy to do the baseline character as far as choice variables are concerned (derived or bookkeeping things can be complex). I dont believe chargen can ever be easy, but easyish is a goal
Provide lots and lots of ways to use characters once their made

[harmyn]

I believe it should be a deeply complex system that requires degrees in both mathematics and modern literary interpretation before you can truly develop a playable character. Err... Actually scratch all that.

I am very much in the simple and fun camp. Keep things quick to resolve and simple in implementation but still try and provide the various nifties necessary to appeal to players who like a little crunch for their characters and the ability to make them different from one another, even if they both want to be burly warrior or hardboiled gumshoe types.

As for mechanics and options, if a specific setting requires something different use it, but try and maintain level of overall consistency in developing how the rules work so if characters from different settings/genres are compared they still make some sense when compared to one another and you can get a feel for the overall power level of the settings in question.

Finally, it's a game so it should be fun. Whatever that is to your group. Hopefully whatever we design it is something that will keep a variety of groups engaged and wanting to come back and try something again.

[Rerun941]

I definitely agreed with a lot of the sentiments expressed. Now that I'm thinking clearly again, I have a couple more to add:

If you have a new problem to solve, look to the existing rules first before coming up with something new.
Keep it consistent. Follow the established standards, and if you do decide to go against them... do so at your own peril.
The law of unintended consequences applies at all times.

In a war between the rules and fun... fun always wins.

[RocketDad]

ONe of the things that made D6 my weapon of choice for so long (aside from running Star Wars, of course) was that I could make up NPC stats and keep them in my head. That kind of simple mechanics made improvizing on the spot so quick and easy that the process was virtually seamless. I think any design ethic for a game I want to make will include books so full of exciting source material that they inspire and are fun to read, coupled with a rule system simple enough that the GM will never need to crack a book (or open a PDF) wuring actual play. That's what I had with D6 Star Wars; it made me a life-long gamer. That's the kind of experience I wand my games to give others.

[Whill]

Just curious what folks' thought processes are when working up house rules or mechanics design... What about you?

1) Start with Star Wars 2E R&E as a basis.
2) Tweak from there as needed.

:)

[nodansland]

I have been thinking about this some lately. For me it is keeping the same feel of the game. Right now I am not planning on making a system setting. I prefer the space setting, and I am aware of at least 2 setting either released or in development. If everyone makes a setting and variant system, that might lead to confusion in the market. I would rather let the first few settings develop before trying to add another one. I also don't want to try to make the same types of supplements as everyone else. If everyone does a ship book
(while that would be sorta awesome, cause I love ships) there will be a glut in one area and a dearth in others. I would rather let those already working in a niche to keep doing so.

One of the primary reasons I joined the forum is because I am working on an alien supplement. I wanted to make sure that I wasn't stepping on any toes. I haven't turned up another opend6 alien supplement on the web yet, but I could have missed it.