(Discussion) Your Personal Holy Grail

I've been munching this question the whole day and I think the appropriate way is asking through here. In terms of game design, what's your personal Holy Grail? Of course I'm talking about ttrpg here, but you can mention other kinds of game too.


Personally, I think mine is a Crafting System that's open ended, balanced but rewarding, and doesn't rely entirely on Director's Fiat.

Another one is Pet Builds. Especially, pet builds that feel satisfying, useful and that don't give me a case of Ludonarrative Dissonance when I actually put them into play.

A fantasy game structurally similar to D&D 5e, but where you always have choices of what new stuff you get when you level, where class abilities are not linked to any kind of "x times per rest" resource, and where the magic system has a list of discreet spells, but is otherwise completely non-Vancian. D&D 4e was actually in this neighborhood, but it had too many other issues.

Hmm, you might want to check my design post about Miracle, though i can't deliver fully on the "limited resource" department for several reasons.

What other issues are you talking about? Just to take notes.

Sounds like a mix of 13th Age and DCC.

A game system where a conflicts/contests/combats (anything where two entities are opposed and trying to best one another) always have meaningful counterplay, i.e. where there are always two or more meaningful choices how to react to the previous turn's enemy actions. Whether in combat, in a debate, in a cooking contest - in any sort of opposed situation.

So far I'm imagining two ways that might be possible:

Conceptual/approach-based Rock-Paper-Scissors-LASER-Lizard-Spock, where each of the six represents a different approach. The approaches should be sufficiently abstract so as to be applicable to any sort of contested activity. That seems like a rather ambitious request.

Dice replaced by a more tactical engine. I'm thinking of something where instead of like a game of craps, the contest between two comparable competence levels looks like a game of baduk/go/weiqi. Again, a lot to ask for.

And since those are tall orders, I think they fit the Holy Grail comparison.

Fate Accelerated does this.

Not really. It has a pretty rudimentary description of approaches, but no universal elemental-like RPS cycle between them.

They're absolutely horrible to use, but what you describe is really close to Burning Wheel's various zoomed in resolution systems (Fight!, Range and Cover, Duel of Wits).

But really I think the meat and potatoes of your ask is this bit:
And Burning Wheel is pretty good in this regard in general as well.

First of all, that system would have you not roll the dice if there's no meaningful counter play. If there's no meaningful choice, or no possibility of a range of outcomes.

But second, as mentioned, it's zoomed in resolution mechanics use a "scripting" approach (both sides declare actions in advance, not knowing what their opponent is doing, no initiative, revealing them at the same time, and playing out the interactions) and in that way is like RPS. And your declared actions interact in a RPS-like way as well - each declared action has some opposing actions that it's more effective against and some it's less effective against.

But again, those systems can be absolutely horrible - i.e. cumbersome - to use. And should only be reserved for the most important encounters and challenges.

Short of that kind of encounter, you would rely on it's more basic resolution mechanics process - Declare the Stakes, Task and Intent, Roll the Dice - and the dynamic you desire ("every interaction is meaningful") is very much there but in a truly collaborative story telling dynamic, rather than a mechanic.

Which isn't so much maybe what you want in practice, you want the hard coded rules and crunch for "everything"/every encounter.

But still those zoomed in systems may be something for you to look at. And at the least you'll learn if it is really as great as it sounds?