A game should have rules for what it is about and not waste word count on what it is not about. If any kind of weapons or armor are just flavor differences with no impact on what the PCs will do, then it should not be included.
this post was submitted on 18 Jun 2023
5 points (100.0% liked)
RPG
3944 readers
2 users here now
Discussion of table top roleplaying games.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Definitely agree, just wondering if it may be off-puting for some folks how are used to adventuring for that +1 sword. But I suppose wasted words and meaningless items would be worse for everyone.
Thats not a bad thing. Making an indie RPG is not the same as designing the next edition of D&D. Let a tiny percentage of your tiny potential market share have their minds blown by your game and youll achieve success far beyond what any heart breaker could ever hope for.
Thanks! That is the dream
Nothing in an RPG is a required mechanic.
Would I play a game with no combat items? Yes. I would also play a game with no rules for items at all, combat or otherwise. I would also play a game with no rules for combat, or even hit points. And I have purchased a game with no rules for advancement at all (apparently, it's good for one-shots).
I have a rather fun TTRPG on my shelf called Fiasco. It has no item mechanics, no combat mechanics, no feats, no advancements, no magic... Not even a GM. You have mechanics for character creation and scene resolution, and that's it. And since you roleplay at a table, it's a TTRPG.
Don't wonder if a game can work without a mechanic. Instead, default to it not being there, and wonder if the mechanic would improve the game if you added it.
Right on, thanks for the advice.
I guess I should be more specific. I'm working on a medium crunch game, so I imagine people who buy into that kind of game expect some mechanical advancement. I'm wondering if they expect part of the mechanical advancement to lay in the items.
I imagine your response is still the same, and I think I will go ahead and not use combat items for now.
It’s really all about context. If we’re all playing Harry Potter-esque mages, we’re not worried about swords and shields, generally. If I’m playing as Aragorn or Boromir, my expectations will be very different.
Harry Potter is a good analogy haaha. I guess the question in that case is do you expect to get to wand items? Say this is a game with at least some crunch to it. Or are you satisfied if only your character improves, but the wand itself is not mechanically specified?
So the other element is player expectations. Me— I personally might because I tend to expect those things, having played many TTRPGs. My daughter, who has no such experiential baggage, might not.
Back to HP, I’m not an expert on the lore but, generally, all the wands are interchangeable, right? Other than the three master wands or whatever they’re called. So in that case, a wand, like a mundane tool, might not need stats/mechanics.
Ultimately, it’ll be on you to set up the context and sell the players on the concept to overcome any expectations.
Yeah I'm worried that the expectation of many RPG players to find loot, especially for combat, may be problematic. I think you're right that setting the context is key to managing these expectations.
Couldn't tell you how wands actually work in Harry Potter...
I think a lot of things in HP are only half-baked but that’s just me.
Haha yup, I agree
Some of my favourite systems are light on combat rules or feature combat as some kind of fail state. If you're leveling a shotgun at an ancient void-dweller that may or may not be immune to conventional weaponry, you've messed up somewhere. Maybe the better plan is to douse the floorboards in lamp oil, smash a lit lantern, and run.
Would I play a game with no combat items? Absolutely. I'd love a game that invests as much pagespace into intrigue or stealth systems as some D&D-like systems invest into combat.
So I should have been more specific. While I like those kinds of games as well, in this case I am thinking of a medium-crunch game that does include frequent combat. The combat is magic-based, but is already complex enough that I prefer not to have items.
That said, I am also thinking about mechanical novelty for stealth and social interactions. It seems it will be less involved than combat, so there likely will be items for stealth and social aspects.
Ah. Are you aware of Mage: the Ascension and Mage: the Awakening? Both World of Darkness books; mechanically crunchy with a strong focus on magic as a solution to all situations. Looking at established systems that have already done something similar can help with ideas.
For a slightly different spin, I just picked up the Black Sword Hack yesterday. In terms of combat items, there are actual listed combat items but it's all fluff really; every weapon is d6 damage. Maybe that would be another thing that interests you: weapons are abstracted to the point of players being able to buy/find "a weapon" which gives you a basic action.
I am aware of them, but haven't read them. In the past World of Darkness has thrown me off with its lack of conciseness, but maybe I should give those a shot. I remember hearing something about a very philosophical and open-ended take on magic in one of those that did seem intriguing.
Can't say I like the idea of specifying combat items, but having them all mechanically identical. Seems simpler to just not specify them at all then.
I've played systems without any combat. So sure.
To be more specific then: in a game with medium crunch combat, would you be disappointed if there were no weapons? Your character improves, gets feats, casts new spells, but will never go on an adventure to find that rare 7-crystal wand that gives you +3 to magic shenanigans.