RPG systems that games should use

...

fpbp desu

I really hope that someone steals Shadow of Mordor's nemesis system and puts it to use.

why dont they?

wasn't SoM a decent success? "AAA" companies should all be stealing that shit.
Focus groups and marketing probably didn't play the game completely.
>skyrims mountains and grass
>that gay hipster side haircut
>stronk black woman
>ugly females

its all in marketing but the nemesis system is too "videogamey" i bet.

The Arkham game with Damian Wayne is apparently gonna use it.

There have been worse game systems, but none that bad and complicated at the same time.

From what I've seen of it, F.A.T.A.L. is utterly inelegant, being extremely complex but yet failing to facilitate any relevant character customization or gameplay depth and is garbage at simulation to boot (negative anal circumference and other insanity). Ie. it's the worst of all worlds.

I don't know how it would translate to an RPG seeing as that it can create David vs Goliath kind of scenarios (which probably is the intent) and you don't have a fallback of it being a strategy game with possibly thousands of units being involved, but I personally really like the system in Dominions (based around open-ended 2d6 rolls) and it'd be interesting to see how it works at smaller scale.

...

Don't forget that when your anus is damaged you have to rool for how much poop comes out.

...

Tabletop systems to video games always end up shit. I'd rather play something with its own special ruleset.

Some tabletop games are just a pain in the ass to play in real life. Axis and Allies is way better on computer, especially if you have asshole cats.

>running a game from a child to adulthood
>need to put up with a negative anal circumference until I hit puberty
No wonder all kids are so full of shit.

Every bit as degenerate as FATAL (If you wish it to be), except an actual good system.
And the biggest drawback of GURPS, doing math all the time, doesn't apply when the CPU does it.

Well, adapting tabletop systems to computers as-is is one thing, but I do like the idea of tabletop-esque systems (for starters, you can get away with a lot more book-keeping when the computer does the math so you should take advantage of such a possibility). The limitations of /tg/ force designers to be creative and it tends to result in mechanics are somehow organic and natural if you know what I mean (say, beating odds of 9 with dice always having ~5% chance to occur as opposed to comparing almost arbitrary values of 374 to 472 and computer then displaying 5% chance and you just having to trust it because you can't calculate these things in your head).

but we already have Hatred for that tier of edge or Dwarves for race wankery.

>Oh noes i need calculator to do simple multiplication and subtraction.
Also we need a game that uses the Ops and Tactics system.
AP, tactics, and /k/ommando to the max.

go to bed SSB, Ops and Tactics isn't that great

What other game does firearms better that is not Phoenix Command ?

>Ogre
>21-30"
holy shit

Well, IMO, GURPS. GURPS High-Tech and GURPS Tactical Shooting help a lot.
To be honest though my problem with OaTs is that it started out at d20 modern, and I dislike class/level based games. I appreciate all the work SSB put into it but I was soured from the start.

Fair point, i just like the way he salvaged that clusterfuck and turned it into something actually decent. It's not even d20 anymore, just 3d6

The problem with this idea is that RPGs intentionally use simplified and abstracted numbers to generate their results, because they must be determined in real-time at a table. The main point of a computer is the ability to run very difficult calculations very easily. The result is that you're not really running the computer to its strengths. In fact, unless you are intentionally trying to create compatibility between the system and the computer game (which could be an interesting idea) then there isn't much point in using the system rules to handle things.

The other big problem is that most RPG systems are intentionally vague about some topics, or leave some topics unaddressed, specifically so that an active GM at the table can run their own judgements on such actions. A computer can't just make it's own judgements. As such, the programmers would need to make decisions on how rules would apply to specific situations and when they should apply, a decision which might not make sense to most players or even a GM running a game.

So the RPG system doesn't really provide much to creating a video game. What's more, a RPG system which would be good to create a video game might not be any good at creating a good RPG experience at the table. Sure, there are some very interesting settings which could translate into an interesting game, but that's not really what you are asking.

...

>there isn't much point in using the system rules to handle things
Well, it does usually mean your rules are better understood by the player, and they don't feel as cheated when things turn out differently than they expected.

Only if the player is familiar with playing the tabletop version.

And if the player is familiar with the tabletop version (meaning: they've actually played enough games to know how it works) then why aren't they just playing the actual RPG, either in person or with a group online?

Fun fact: One of the many criticisms of FATAL was using a statistic claiming that 1 of 4 women was a rape victim, people at the time found that claim incredibly demeaning and sexist, I guess FATAL was just too progressive for its time

Hasn't been d20 modern based in a few editions. It's mostly had all remnants of that scrubbed.

Underrated post.

>1 and 4 felt bad the night after partying.

FATAL assumes that 1 in 2 women were raped during the time frame the game takes place in (middle ages).

That 1 in 4 women raped statistic is bullshit. It's based off a single study (AAU study from Sept 2015), it was overly vague and broad with the definition of "rape", with a fairly small population size.

And most of the criticism towards FATAL is towards its terrible and awkward mechanics, such as rolling 1d10,000,000 to determine the chances of being born with a genetic defect. Most of the rest of the system isn't that bad, but still fairly awkward.

Not even that.

For one, they asked about "unwanted sexual contact" and included stuff like kissing or touching.

For another, they asked people if they had witnessed such contact. They weren't even asking the "victims" directly but included anyone who just assumed something was unwanted, and treated it as presumed rape.

i wish i could get funding doing shit research like that.

I think what the guy was saying (or, if he wasn't, that's how I feel) that mechanics that at least in principle could be seen in /tg/ tend to be inherently intuitive and easy to calculate in your head. I'm using Dominions as an example because while not an adaptation of any /tg/ rules, it's certainly inspired by /tg/ wargames and I think it shows what I'm thinking of very well.

Suppose you have an unit with 12 attack skill trying to hit a defender with 14 defence skill. In order to calculate the result, the system rolls 12+DRN vs 14+DRN (where DRN is open-ended 2d6 roll: every time a dice comes out as six, you substract one and roll that die again) which is simple enough. But more importantly,beating the enemy roll at -2 modifier is ALWAYS ~30%. You'll very quickly get an intuition of the probability curve so you'll always see the rough odds at first glance, even when the numbers are hypothetical and the UI simply couldn't show a tooltip of the odds. For example, the attack rolls actually aren't just comparing attack vs defence but factors like the number of hits being taken during that round and unit fatigue are taken into account. For example, if an unit with 15 attack and no fatigue is trying to hit an enemy with 21 defence and no fatigue but that has been attacked twice already, it's 15+DRN vs 21-2*2+DRN, having to win at -2 odds: ~30% like before.

The point is, the game is FAR too involved to be played as /tg/ in real practise (computationally, it'd make Campaign for North Africa look like tic-tac-toe) but because it has this sort of basis in /tg/-esque mechanics, it's really easy to make the necessary calculations in your head even when there are dozens of combat factors. In this sense, the intuitive "boardgame" mechanics like dicerolls are almost a necessity for things like simulation because otherwise low-abstraction approach of taking everything from weapon lengths to the age of an unit into account would become utterly incomprehensible.

In a tabletop game, the players are going to have near-full information (unless you hide dice rolls) and so will be able to calculate the target number they need to hit, besides figuring out their chances of hitting. So your 12+DRN character can eventually figure out that they are fighting a 14+DRN opponent, along with that they succeed in hitting around 1/3rd of the time. They can plainly see the dice on the table, their own stats, the rolls which hit and which missed, and determine that a two-point difference drops the chances from 50% down to 30%.

A computer game player, however, doesn't have access to any of that information. They aren't going to know how the randomizer works and aren't going to see any dice roll or other random numbers. The only thing that the player knows is they have a 12 STAT and they succeed with a 30% rate. To the player, it doesn't matter if you are using 12+DRN vs 14+DRN, using d20+12 vs 27, or abstracting the 12 into a percentage value and testing it against a complex to-hit formula.

This is why I say that the game mechanics aren't going to mean anything to the person playing the system; the player never sees the mechanics and so never knows what they are. And so if you are intentionally using simple dice-based mechanics which can give odd results because of that, it ends up impacting the game negatively with no apparent benefit.