From the discussion “Can you think of an innovative roleplaying game rule, mechanic, or procedure that expanded your notions of what a good RPG could be?” at https://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/comments/1x25tdo/can_you_think_of_an_innovative_roleplaying_game/
“In my case, it was encountering the skill system in “Unknown Armies” 2E. You essentially make up your own, and they can be pretty descriptive. I felt cheated (“Wait, I have to come up with a skill list?”) until I saw how they were used to describe the character as well as an ability.
You could have a character with “knife,” “slice you into ribbons,” “military combatives: bladed weapon” or “prison shank” and have them all mean the same thing mechanically, but still tell you very different things about the person with the blade in their hand. It was very new to me and was rather eye-opening. What about you?”
from user ThisIsVictor
Flashbacks in Blades in the Dark. Who says we have to play RPGs in a linear fashion? It’s pretty common for the timeline to jump around in books and movies, why not do the same in RPGs.
The theorize mechanic in Brindlewood Bay. This is a mystery game where the players use their clues to answer the mystery themselves. You’re not solving the GMs puzzle, but writing the story of the mystery with the clues provided.
Saves in into the Odd and other Odd-like games. (Cairn is probably my favorite.) You don’t roll to succeed, you roll to avoid the consequences. You say what you want to do, the GM tells you the risk, then you can decide to roll or change your action. It encourages problem solving, because you’re always trying to minimize the risks involved.
from user Maervok
For me it was something as simple as resource dice. When you spend a resource, you roll and upon a low result, your die drops to a lower die indicating a chunk of resources was spent. Rolling to see if your resource was spent instead of tracking everything in detail is really freeing. It is a great simple tool in systems where resource tracking is frequent. It also nullifies weight and inventory space issues because you may only have the highest resource die and that’s it. It’s redundant for some systems yet gamechanging for others.
From user ockbald
The concept of a “Doom Pool” in Marvel heroic roleplaying means that a gamemaster was ‘tied’ to the mechanics. You would weave the narrative and situations but the gameflow would offer you tools and manners to interfere with the game. Some people hate the idea of the GM feeling limited, but it works for me on that game because limitation breeds creativity. And players could physically see and know as the Doom Pool grew in size that things would become harder and plan accordinly.
It added an entire layer of meta gaming and planning that doesn’t exist in other super hero games. Making it feel unique.
From user AtomicColaAu
Ironsworn’s “Progress” tracks. Combat is abstracted in most other ttrpgs as Enemy HP go from full to zero and for story or role playing, progress is up to the GM to decide if your actions fit their narrative; sometimes it doesn’t and that feels bad.
Ironsworn abstracting all tasks into progress tracks with variable progress amounts and weighted “ticks” felt so good. In the one game we had progress trackers for our oaths, surviving a blizzard, ending a combat encounter, convincing a council, romancing an NPC, befriending an NPC, a world-wide lore mystery, finding an outpost, and a trek across the continent. I love how progress can be finding out a secret plan, advancing 5 miles closer to your destination, or smashing a monster with an axe. It all depends on the context. Back-alley surgery scene, courtroom drama, lovecraftian lore that will horrify your PCs upon completion of the truth? Hell yeah, make a progress track for it!
Kind of like Blade’s circular pie trackers, it really opened up better ways to have player-facing progress for goals in the other more traditional ttrpgs that I run. Seeing their progress out on the table means that the things they do to achieve their goals can become a discussion rather than a debate with the GM about whether the thing they did mattered or not to the story in the GMs mind.