Introduction

Yes, you can skip this.

For a good Game Master, the rules are largely immaterial.  A good GM can host a good game with any set of rules but it is easier with a set of rules that fit the GM's vision and style.  Likewise, a poor GM can run a poor game no matter how good the rules are.  That being said, few rules systems seem to be designed to support roleplaying, rather they appear to be designed to provide controls for a GM in an adversarial relationship with their players.

I believe a good game is achieved when the GM and players work as a team to develop the story.

Rules come in two forms:
• Restrictive -or-
• Derivative

A restrictive gaming system states a rule and then lists multiple conditions where the rule does not apply.  This leads to very complex systems and supports "Tooling" which is the interpreting of rules for maximum effect while ignoring the intent.  Classic D&D is an example of a restrictive system.

A derivative system states a principle and lets the details be derived from that principle.  Derivative rule systems are harder to create than restrictive systems as some of the controls are left to the interpretation of the players and the referee.  Poker is an example of a derivative system.

I prefer derivative rules systems.

Fantasy verses Realism verses Playability verses Roleplaying

Players like the idea of being able to be Horatius at the Bridge or Robin Hood at the archery contest—they love the chance to be heroic. As Mark kronwitter once said, "If the character wasn't any good, the story wouldn't be about them."  So, a good rules system should allow a character to do heroic things—which is rarely all that realistic.

However, players like some semblance of realism, but the more realistic a system tries to be, the more complex the rules need to be to simulate the realism—which, in turn, makes the fantasy harder to achieve and reduces playability.

Every now and then, a GM will get lucky and have one or more really good role-players who can absorb complex rules and still be able to add to the story.  Most players will barely be able to remember the story from session to session and need rules they can understand quickly when they escape from real life.

Rules for roleplaying are an abstraction of the world.  The further the abstraction gets from simulated situation, the more difficult it becomes for the player to keep in the story.  As an example, hit points do a fairly good job of simulating the ability of a character to take more and more damage as their character evolves, but one has to be very creative to interpret three hit points into a physical injury and then play it.  Wounds that are given in terms such as Light, Serious, or Mortal are easy to play, but then the progression of the character must be simulated in the combat system rather than the wound system.

Not just for hack and slash

One of the most successful characters in campaigns that I have run was a bard.  Not your D&D super warrior, dripping with magic, bard, but a lute carrying singer whose only foray into combat consisted of drawing his dagger and being blasted unconscious a few seconds later. An RPG system should allow a character to be a merchant, craftsman, or entertainer and still fit into a game with more traditional characters.

Imperfect Rules

In real life, a blacksmith did not make swords, a sword maker did not make armor, the people who smelted and cast the sword blanks did not make the swords, etc.  There are some notable exceptions, such as the Japanese sword smiths who do many of the steps of making their famous swords, but even they rely on other experts to do some of the finishing steps of the process.  In this, imperfect system, the process is simplified.  A smith/metal worker does everything.  All skills related to smithing are combined into one skill set.  This is true for all fields.  There are basically four types of combat skills: Heavy Weapons, where one bashes one's opponents into the ground; Finesse Weapons [think rapier and Three Musketeers], where the skill is in being agile; ranged weapons, where eye hand coordination is important; and unarmed, which in this case includes smaller hand thrown weapons.

This is one reason I call it an Imperfect System.  The other reason is that the guidelines are kept simple with a great deal of freedom for interpretation to allow tailoring for the needs of the story.

Notes, Principals, and Questions

The progression 1+2+3+4+5+6...+10, or 1, 3, 6, 10, 15, 21, 28, 36, 45, 55 is an important part of this system.

Why have a level that mean nothing?  I try to have each improvement mean something.

Why have experience levels valued in the tens of thousands when experience is awarded in thousands?  Why not just find the lowest common denominator?  In this system experience comes one point at a time, but each point means something.

Most campaigns work best with characters of similar levels.  Further, characters in classic games become relatively unplayable around tenth level. Why not have a system where a beginning characters can contribute while playing with advanced characters?

The idea of alignments came primarily from the Michael Morcock’s "Elric of Melniboné" series (Chaos & Law) with an attempt to graft Good & Evil into the mix.  It never worked philosophically or pragmatically. I never met a "chaotic evil" character that wasn't a ploy by the player to be selfish, greedy, and annoying.  I did, once, meet a truly chaotic player, but I believe he was certifiable—my dice were more predictable (and so were his!).  There are no provisions in this system for alignments.

Intelligence, or lack thereof, alignment, moral sense, etc. are choices in role-play.  Never surrender your character's personality to a set of rules!